International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

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

Determination of Chaboche combined hardening parameters with dual T

backstress for ratcheting evaluation of AISI 52100 bearing steel
Sungyong Koo, Jungmoo Han, Karuppasamy Pandian Marimuthu, Hyungyil Lee
⁎

Sogang University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Seoul 04107, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This research proposes a method to obtain parameters of Chaboche combined hardening model for evaluating
Chaboche model ratcheting phenomenon in metallic materials when cyclic loadings are applied. Finite element (FE) model is used
Ratcheting evaluation for simulating ratcheting by changing Chaboche model parameters. Although Chaboche model with single term
Finite element analysis can describe the ratcheting characteristics, simulated stress - strain (σ-ε) relation deviates from that of metallic
Uniaxial ratcheting
materials when the applied alternative stress σa is smaller than the yield strength σo. Whereas, Chaboche model
Bearing steel
with dual backstress can simulate not only the ratcheting characteristics but also σ-ε relation even when σa is
smaller than σo. Finally, tensile and ratcheting experiments are conducted with bearing steel specimens (AISI
52100) to validate the proposed method for evaluation of ratcheting parameters and σ-ε relations.

1. Introduction
Application of cyclic loadings under working condition significantly
affects the fatigue life of most engineering structures [1,2]. Ratcheting
phenomenon, which is the accumulation of plastic strain resulting from
cyclic loading due to cyclic mechanical or thermal stress, also shortens
the fatigue life due to the plastic deformation under cyclic loading
[3,4]. Engineering structures under cyclic loading such as bearings,
rails, turbine blades, atomic reactors need to be designed with ratch-
eting in consideration, since excessive plastic deformation by ratcheting
can be one of the primary reasons for structural failures [5–11]. Over
the last decades, understanding the ratcheting phenomenon has been
the particular interest of many researchers. As a result, quantitative and
qualitative studies have been conducted with ratcheting under cyclic
uniaxial and multiaxial loadings [12–20], cyclic indentation [21,22]
including thermal ratcheting [23–25] and time dependent ratcheting
[26–29].
Numerous kinematic hardening rules have been developed to de-
scribe the cyclic behavior including ratcheting phenomenon in metals
[30–35]. Prager [34] and Ziegler [35] proposed linear kinematic
hardening models to account for the Bauschinger effect. Followed by, a
multi-surface model of Mroz [31], and a nonlinear kinematic hardening
model of Armstrong and Frederick [32] (A-F model), in which a re-
laxation term is added to the linear kinematic hardening model, were
also developed. Chaboche [30] and Ohno and Wang [33] improved the
A-F model with multiple backstresses (Chaboche model and O-W
model). These models became as most representative models for de-
scribing the cyclic behaviors of metals. Since, compared to O-W model,
Chaboche model is highly accessible as it is implemented in Abaqus
[36] and it shows a notable improvement in the ratcheting prediction,
we intensively address the Chaboche model in this paper. Reviews on
kinematic hardening models with cyclic plasticity are well documented
by Chaboche [37,38] and Kang [15].
Several researchers investigated the ratcheting phenomenon with
Chaboche model [16,22,39–41]. It is also important to predict the ac-
curate parameters of Chaboche model for realistic simulation of
ratcheting phenomenon in metallic materials. Lemaitre and Chaboche
[40] proposed a method for obtaining the parameters of Chaboche
model by using stabilized hysteresis loops under strain controlled cyclic
stress test. Using a single backstress Chaboche model without isotropic
hardening, which is the same model as A-F model [32], Xu and Yue
[22] and Goo [41] simulated the ratcheting phenomenon, however, it is
difficult to simulate entire ratcheting strain by using this model. Abaqus
User’s manual [36] also describes the method of Lemaitre and Chaboche
[40] mainly for cyclic plasticity parameter prediction; but the method is
not suitable for precise ratcheting simulation. Alternatively, trial and
error method can be used to determine the parameters by matching
simulation results with experimental ratcheting data. Bari and Hassan
[39] proposed a parameter acquisition method using a triple backstress
Chaboche model. Koo et al. [16] demonstrated that a dual backstress
Chaboche model can simulate ratcheting, and proposed a parameter
acquisition method. Bari and Hassan [39] and Koo et al. [16], albeit for

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hylee@sogang.ac.kr (H. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.01.009
Received 8 November 2018; Received in revised form 24 December 2018; Accepted 19 January 2019
Available online 22 January 2019
0142-1123/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

different reasons, argued that isotropic hardening should be excluded, '3

which is refuted in this work.
Prediction of stress - strain (σ-ε) relation along with ratcheting
initial
phenomenon is also one of the key role while applying the Chaboche
yield surface
model parameters in the structural analyses. However, previous studies
on ratcheting only approximate the ratcheting characteristics (gradual 2 succeeding
decrease of ratcheting strain as loading cycle increases, the value of o yield surface
non-zero ratcheting strain at steady state) in experiments but not the 3
stress - strain (σ-ε) relation. In that case, the parameters should be '
avoided from being applied to structural analyses regardless of how
well the ratcheting characteristics are approximated. 0
Although increasing the number of backstress can improve the si-
'
mulation of ratcheting [42], it makes the parameter decision process to 2
be complex; adding n backstress requires 2n number of variables, and '1 f '2
the evolution of each backstress affects each other [39]. Therefore, the 3
aim of this study is to present a simple but effective method to obtain Fig. 1. Evolution of yield surface in deviatoric space.
the Chaboche combined hardening model parameters with dual
backstress to evaluate both the ratcheting characteristics and the σ-ε
2.2. Ratcheting behavior of metals
relation at the same time. The importance of including isotropic hard-
ening in the Chaboche model is also addressed. By using finite element
Metals subject to stress-controlled cyclic loading exhibit dissimilar
(FE) model developed for ratcheting simulation, parametric studies are
behaviors from those under monotonic loading. During cyclic loadings,
carried out to understand the effect of each parameter on stress -strain
a median value of maximum stress σmax and minimum stress σmin is
relation and ratcheting strain. Uniaxial ratcheting experiments are
defined as mean stress σm, and a half difference between σmax and σmin is
conducted with bearing steel (AISI 52100) specimen to validate the
defined as an alternative stress σa as illustrated in Fig. 2. If σm ≠ 0 and
proposed method.
σmax < σo, entire deformation is completely restored by purely elastic
It is important to recognize that most of the engineering parts are
behavior (Fig. 3a). On the other hand, plastic deformation accumulates
subject to multiaxial stress state; however, this work is limited to uni-
as the number of cycles N increases for the condition σmax > σo; in-
axial case. Since, the ratcheting strain in uniaxial loading is larger than
crement of the plastic strain gradually decreases as N increases. The
those in multiaxial stress state [48], one of the main purposes of this
behavior in which the increment eventually converges to zero is called
research for predicting the parameters from uniaxial ratcheting test can
shakedown. Elastic shakedown occurs when σmax < elastic shakedown
be helpful to define the upper limit of ratcheting strain.
limit σel (Fig. 3b); the final shakedown behavior is purely elastic. If
σmax < plastic shakedown limit σpl, plastic shakedown occurs as shown
2. Background in Fig. 3c; whereas, for σmax > σpl, the increment does not converge to
zero, which is called as ratcheting (Fig. 3d) and the increment of plastic
2.1. Chaboche’s combined hardening model strain is called as ratcheting strain δε. Initially, the ratcheting strain is
large and then reaches a steady state, at which the ratcheting strain is
Chaboche’s multiple backstress nonlinear kinematic hardening de- denoted as δεsteady as shown in Fig. 4. The ratcheting occurs under
veloped from Ziegler’s linear kinematic hardening can be expressed as unsymmetrical cyclic loading, but the direction of ratcheting does not
follows [30]. always coincides with the mean stress direction; the ratcheting direc-
tion is also influenced by the previous loading history [47].
1 pl pl
d i = Ci ( total )d eq i i d eq
f (1)
3. Finite element analyses of ratcheting phenomenon
th
where the subscript i is used to determine the i backstress, σ is a stress
tensor, α is a backstress tensor, αtotal is the sum of all the backstress 3.1. Finite element modeling
tensors, eqpl is the equivalent plastic strain, σf is the size of subsequent
yield surface, C is the translation rate of yield surface, and γ is the Since there are a lot of similarities between low cycle fatigue and
relaxation rate of yield surface translation as plastic deformation ac- ratcheting in metals, specimen dimensions from ASTM standard E606
cumulates. Isotropic hardening can be expressed as follows are used for ratcheting simulation. A quarter axisymmetric FE model is
constructed with 11,526 nodes and 11,250 4-node bilinear axisym-
Q = Qmax [1 exp( b pl
eq )] (2) metric elements (CAX4) as shown in Fig. 5. Reduced section of the
specimen is refined with smaller elements. The large deformation in the
where Q is the size change of yield surface, Qmax is the maximum size
change of yield surface and b is the rate of change of yield surface size
as plastic deformation accumulates. Therefore, the size of the sub-
sequent yield surface σf and the initial yield surface σo can be expressed max
as follows.
a
f = o +Q (3) m

If the Eqs. (1) and (2) are used together, the size of yield surface
changes and the center of yield surface translates together in the de-
min
viatoric space as shown in Fig. 1; this is called as combined hardening.
In this paper, Chaboche model refers to Chaboche combined hardening
0 time
model; for the case without isotropic hardening, it will be additionally
specified. Fig. 2. Schematic representation of stress-controlled cyclic loading.

153
S. Koo et al.
Fig. 3. Typical cyclic behaviors of metals under cyclic loading.
FE model is accounted by using nonlinear geometric change (NLGEOM)
option in Abaqus/standard [36]. Uniformly distributed stress is im-
posed on the top of the specimen. Material behavior for the FE model is
assigned based on the Chaboche combined hardening model. For
parametric studies, the reference material constants are chosen with a
single backstress (A-F model) to analyze the relationship between ki-
nematic and isotropic hardening parameters in ratcheting simulation as
listed in Table 1; where E is the elastic modulus and ν is the Poisson’s
ratio of the specimen.
3.2. Isotropic hardening vs. Chaboche model
Most of the structural analyses use the isotropic hardening model
considering only the size change of yield surface when the structure is
under monotonic loading. However, it is inappropriate to simulate the
material behaviors under cyclic loading as it cannot explain several
cyclic plastic behaviors including the Bauschinger effect [35]. On the
other hand, Chaboche model can demonstrate the cyclic plastic beha-
viors and particularly simulate ratcheting in metals. Fig. 6 compares the
numerically obtained σ-ε curves with isotropic hardening alone and the
Chaboche model under cyclic loadings. Material shows purely elastic
behavior for isotropic hardening after the first loading, even though it
shows the same σ-ε relation up to the initial σmax. When the Chaboche
model is used, the strain accumulates in the form of open hysteresis
loop. It is also applicable for the shakedown phenomenon if the
initial
Fig. 4. Cyclic stress-strain relation and nomenclature of ratcheting behavior.
154
International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163
alternative stress σa satisfies σo < σa < σo + Qmax. The detailed de-
scriptions of these dynamic phases with Chaboche model are covered in
the subsequent Section 3.3.
3.3. Parametric study with single backstress
3.3.1. Conditions for occurrence of ratcheting strain
FE analyses confirm that the Chaboche model is essential for
ratcheting simulation; however, δε does not always occurs even with
Chaboche model. Therefore, a range of applied stress conditions is in-
vestigated by changing only σm and σa while the reference material
parameters in Table 1 are kept constant. FE analyses are performed for
three cases of (σm, σa) MPa = (150, 301), (200, 300), (250, 301)
without isotropic hardening (=w/o IH) to prevent the size change of
yield surface. As a result, δε occurs for (σm, σa) MPa = (150, 301), (250,
301) as shown in Fig. 7; a common feature of both cases is that σo
(=300 MPa) < σa (=301 MPa). In the case of (σm, σa) = (200, 300)
MPa, the cyclic behavior is fully elastic under cyclic stress since the
applied alternative stress is smaller than the size of yield surface. This
trend alone is not sufficient to reveal whether the occurrence of δε
depends on the size of the initial or subsequent yield surface. Therefore,
additional FE analyses including isotropic hardening are carried out. If
isotropic hardening is included, the δε occurs in the case of σf < σa,
and δε converges to zero as σf approaches the value of σa with in-
creasing the number of cycles N as shown in Fig. 8. Since the non-zero
steady
total
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

800
E, , o, C, from Table 1
5 600

400

(MPa)

MPa
200

1)

1)
0)
(150, 30

(250, 30
(200, 30
a)
0

m,
(
70 -200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(%)
Fig. 7. σ-ε curves for various values of (σm, σa) w/o IH.
14
12.5

3.5
(mm)
Fig. 5. FE model for ratcheting simulation; dimensions are selected according
to ASTM E606.

Table 1
Reference material constants for parametric study.
E (GPa) ν σo (MPa) C (GPa) γ Q max (MPa) b

200 0.3 300 12 40 30 50

Fig. 8. σ-ε curves for various values of σa when σm = 150 MPa.

kinematic and isotropic hardening, the increase of dα/dε implies the

increase of dσ/dε, namely the hardening amount for the same incre-
ment of strain. As Qmax increases, dσ/dε increases. Additionally, as b
increases, the hardening rate increases. The positive and negative Qmax
can simulate the hardening and softening behaviors, respectively;
however, this is when isotropic hardening is solely used. When it is
combined with kinematic hardening, the sum appears to be hardened
when the hardening amount by kinematic hardening is larger than the
softening by isotropic hardening and vice versa. Therefore, it is desirable
to understand that the hardening and softening by isotropic hardening
are just the size increase and decrease of yield surface.

3.3.3. Effects of hardening parameter on ratcheting characteristics

Fig. 6. σ-ε curves for isotropic hardening alone and Chaboche model.
δε means the increase of eqpl , the σf increases with N as Eqs. (2) and (3).
Fig. 9 additionally represents the change of δε and σf with the number
of cycles in case of (σm, σa) MPa = (150, 320) in Fig. 8. Consequently,
the condition σf < σa should be satisfied to simulate the occurrence of
δε, and δε decreases as σa – σf decreases.
3.3.2. Effects of hardening parameter on stress-strain relation
Under the monotonic loading condition, the effect of kinematic
hardening parameters (C, γ) and isotropic hardening parameters (Qmax,
b) on the σ-ε relation can be predicted by using Eqs. (1) and (2) even
without conducting FE analyses. The increment of backstress increases
as C increases and γ decreases. Since the total hardening is sum of the
The effects of Chaboche model parameters on the ratcheting are
investigated through FE analyses with cyclic loading conditions as the
direct prediction from the equations is quite difficult. First, the effects
of kinematic hardening parameters C and γ are evaluated by excluding
isotropic hardening; while the stress condition σm = 150, σa = 350 MPa
is fixed in all conditions. FE analyses are performed for C = 10, 12,
14 GPa with fixed = 40 and for γ = 30, 40, 50 with fixed C = 12 GPa.
FE results confirm that δε increases as C decreases and γ increases and
remains identical with increasing N as shown in Fig. 10.
Similarly, the effect of isotropic hardening parameters on ratcheting
investigated by changing the values of Qmax and b. From Eqs. (2) and
(3), one can understand that the size of the final yield surface is equal to
σo±Qmax. In the previous studies, a positive Qmax is referred to cyclic
hardening and negative Qmax is referred to cyclic softening by con-
vention. Since, this research focuses on simulating both σ-ε relation and
ratcheting characteristics, we consider the positive and negative Q max

155
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

0.05 321
pl
E, , o, C, , Qmax, b Qmax 1 exp b
0.04 f o eq
from Table 1 320
0.03 ( m , a ) MPa = (150, 320)

(MPa)
(%)
0.02 319

f
0.01
318
0.00

317
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
N N

Fig. 9. The change of δε (a) and σf (b) with N under (σm, σa) MPa = (150, 320).

3.0 3.0
E, , o from Table 1 = 40 E, , o from Table 1 C = 12 GPa
2.5 = 150, = 350 MPa C (GPa) 2.5 = 150, = 350 MPa
m a m a

2.0 2.0
10 50
(%)

(%)
1.5 12 1.5 40
1.0 1.0

0.5 14 0.5 30

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
N N
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Effects of kinematic hardening parameters (a) C and (b) γ on δε -N data.

2.5 1.0
E, , o, C, , b from Table 1 Qmax (MPa) E, , C, , Qmax from Table 1
b o,
2.0 - 30 0.8 10

1.5 0.6 50
(%)

(%)

1.0 0.4 100

0.5 30 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Effects of isotropic hardening parameters (a) ± Qmax and (b) b on δε -N data.

Table 2 to increase and decrease the size of yield surface, respectively. When
Kinematic hardening parameters for dual backstress Chaboche model. ±Q max is used, conditions such as σf < σo + Qmax and σo + Qmax < σf
case C1 (GPa) C2 (GPa) γ γ can be established.
1 2

0 (single backstress) 12 – 40 – (i) For positive Qmax, if σf < σa < σo + Qmax, δε gradually decreases
1 6 6 40 40
with increasing N and converges to zero. Therefore, condition
2 11 1 40 40
3 6 6 70 10
σo + Qmax < σa should be satisfied to obtain a non-zero steady
4 6 6 80 0 state ratcheting strain (δε steady ≠ 0).
5 11 1 70 10 (ii) For negative Q max, as the condition (σf < σa) satisfies the condition
6 11 1 10 70 (σo + Q max < σa) definitely, δε never converges to zero. However,

156
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

Fig. 12. (a) σ-ε relations for various cases of Table 2 and (b) the enlargement.

3.0 20
E, , from Table 1 SUJ2
o
2.5 C1, C2, 1, from Table 2
2 15
2.0 m = 150, a = 350 MPa
case

P (kN)
5 10
(%)

1.5
0, 1, 2 specimen 1
1.0 5
specimen 2
0.5 specimen 3
3 0
6 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.0 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 (mm)

N Fig. 15. P-δ data from three tensile tests.

Fig. 13. δε -N data for various cases of Table 2.

3.4. Parametric study with dual backstresses

Parametric study with single backstress suggests to use the positive

Q max and σo + Q max < σa to obtain decrease in δε with increasing N
and δε steady ≠ 0, respectively. Hence, the single backstress Chaboche
model can be used only when σo < σa is satisfied. To consider ratch-
eting in engineering structures, very diverse stress conditions are
needed to be accounted and there are many engineering structures
where σa < σo. Therefore, the single backstress Chaboche model is
insufficient to simulate the ratcheting phenomenon; increasing the
number of backstresses in the Chaboche model can improve the pre-
diction.
customized jigs In the stress space, the backstress tensor α represents the center of
yield surface. If multiple backstresses are considered, the center of yield
surface can be represented as α total, which is a sum of all the backstress
tensors. This confirms that there is still only one center of yield surface
like a single backstress.

total = i
i (4)

Hence, in the Chaboche model with dual backstresses, αtotal is defined

Fig. 14. Experimental setup for both tensile test and ratchetting experiments.
since σa – σf increases as plastic deformation accumulates, δε rather
increases with N and converges to a non-zero value. Whereas, the
parameter b just determines the convergence rate to δε steady
(Fig. 11).
by α1 + α2 and the parameters C1, γ 1 and C2, γ 2 can be used to de-
termine α1 and α2, respectively. Since αtotal can be regarded as a single
backstress, C and γ can be used to determine αtotal. Based on Eq. (1), it is
expected that the Chaboche model using single and dual backstress
have the same result for C1 = C2 = 0.5C and γ 1 = γ 2 = γ. Therefore,
relations between dual backstress parameters are established as follows
C = C1 + C2, 2 = 1 + 2 (5)

The parametric study of a dual backstress Chaboche model is

157
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

800 1000
= 659 MPa necking point
TS = 777.0 MPa necking point
800 d
600
(MPa) 600

(MPa)
400
400
e

t
200
200
d = 0.1643
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
e t

(a) (b)

20 1400
SUJ2 SUJ2 Eqn. (6) with w = 0.6
1200
15 1000

(MPa)
800
P (kN)

10
600

f
5 400
exp. 200
FEA
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
pl
(mm) eq

(d) (c)
pl
Fig. 16. (a) σe-εe and (b) σt-εt data converted from P-δ data (c) σf-εeq data from the weighted- average method (c) P-δ data from an experiment and FEA with plastic
properties.

600 0.20
( (%), (MPa)) = 300 MPa (MPa) (%)
initial max
(3.02, 560) 0.18 m a steady
500
(2.55, 550) 0.16 260 0.019
400 (2.36, 540) 0.14 250 0.014
240 0.012
(MPa)

0.12
(%)

300 0.10
0.08 (MPa)
200 a
0.06 260
100 0.04 250
0.02
0 0.00 240
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
(%) N

Fig. 17. Experimental results of (a) σ-ε data and (b) δε -N data for various values of σa.

performed for various set of C1, C2, γ 1 and γ 2, that satisfying the re-
lation of Eq. (5) as listed in Table 2.
3.4.1. Stress-strain relation and ratcheting phenomenon with dual
backstresses
The effects of dual backstress parameters on the σ-ε relation are
investigated through FE analyses of monotonic tensile test with
σmax = 500 MPa as shown Fig. 12. If γ 1 = γ 2 = γ is satisfied, σ-ε curves
for cases 0, 1 and 2 are completely identical regardless of C1 and C2
values. The σ-ε curves for cases 1, 3 and 4, in which C1 = C2 and values
of γ 1 – γ 2 varies, are located in ascending order, and the gaps among
them widen along with increasing ε. This indicates that, when C1 = C2
is satisfied, dσ/dε at the same strain increases as γ 1 – γ 2 increases. The
σ-ε relation of case 6 is located above that of case 5, and the gap be-
tween them widens with increasing ε. From the fact that γ 1 and γ 2 of
cases 5 and 6 are inverted, it can be said that dσ/dε at the same strain
increases due to interaction of larger γ i with smaller Ci (here γ 2 in-
teracts with C2 in case 6).
Similarly, effects of dual backstress parameters on ratcheting phe-
nomenon are investigated through cyclic loading FE analyses with the
stress condition σm = 150 and σa = 350 MPa as shown Fig. 13. Identical
δε -N curve for the cases 0, 1 and 2 confirms that not only the σ-ε
relations but also the ratcheting phenomenon are the same regardless of
C1 and C2 values if γ 1 = γ 2 = γ is satisfied. δε never changes with

158
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

Table 3
Result summary of parametric study on Chaboche model.
Parametric study on Chaboche model Features

σ-ε relation Ratcheting characteristics

σa > σo (w/o IH), σa > σf (w/IH) – δε occurs

single backstress C↑ dσ/dε ↑ δε ↓
C, γ γ↓ dδε/d N = 0
σo + Q max < σa Q max >0 dσ/dε ↑ dδε/d N < 0
δε steady ≠ 0
Q max <0 dσ/dε ↓ dδε/d N > 0
δε steady ≠ 0
dual backstress γ 1=γ 2 regardless of C1, C2 identical dδε/d N = 0
C1 + C 2 = C identical δε
γ 1 + γ 2 = 2γ γ 1≠γ 2 γ 1 = 0 or γ 2 = 0 – dδε/d N < 0
δε steady = 0
γ 1≠0 γ1–γ2↑ dσ/dε ↑ dδε/d N < 0
and when C1 = C δε steady ↓
γ 2≠0 C1 – C2 ↑ dσ/dε ↓ dδε/d N < 0
when C1 ≠ C2, γ 1 >γ 2 δε steady ↑

increasing N, and the δε values themselves are equal. The δε-N curve of
case 4 shows the δεsteady becomes zero if any γ i is equal to zero. In vice
versa, δε decreases with increasing N and eventually converges to a non-
zero δε steady for the cases 3, 5 and 6 in which γ 1 and γ 2 both are not
equal to zero and different. This is a typical ratcheting behavior. The δε
-N data of cases 5 and 6 show that δε steady decreases when larger γ i
interacts with smaller Ci (here γ 2 interacts with C2 in case 6). The
plastic strain at the same stress level is inversely proportional to dσ/dε
(Fig. 12); as a result, except for case 4 (γ 2 = 0) where δε steady does not
occur, the δε steady in all cases tends to be inversely proportional to dσ/
dε.
4. Experiments
For both tensile test and ratchetting experiments, the most com-
monly used bearing steel AISI 52100 specimens were fabricated ac-
cording to the standards (i) ASTM E8 [43] for tensile tests and (ii)
ASTM E606 [44] for ratcheting tests. As round specimens are suitable
for cyclic loading tests especially with compressive loads inherent in a
risk of buckling, the round specimens were selected and then tested in
Instron universal testing machine (3367). Customized jigs were manu-
factured to conduct both the tests in Instron 3367 as shown Fig. 14. The
load data was obtained with Instron load cell, which can measure the
load up to ± 30 kN. The deformation within the specimen’s gauge
length was measured with the extensometer (base distance = 25 mm,
maximum displacement = ±5 mm). For tensile test, the round speci-
mens with gauge length of 24 mm and the displacement rate of 2 mm/
min were considered. The calculated strain rate is about 1 × 10−3 s−1.
Whereas for ratcheting experiments, the round specimens with gauge
length of 25 mm and the loading rate of 5 kN/min were considered. The
calculated stress rate is about 2.12 MPa/s. It is beneficial to understand
that this low loading rate level is more related to thermal cyclic loading
rather than actual rotating rate of bearing steel.
strength σTS and elongation e of AISI 52100 steel are identified as
659 MPa and 35%, respectively. To obtain the σt - εt data after diffusion
necking point, the weighted-average method referred by Hyun et al.
(2014) [45] is used to calculate the true stress-strain data at the dif-
fusion necking, where stress σd and strain εd are 777 MPa and 0.1643,
respectively. Based on these values, σt - εt data after the necking point is
obtained by varying the weight w from 0 to 1 as follows
d
t = d w (1 + t d) + (1 w) t
d
d (6)
The obtained σt -εt data for w = 0.6, are then converted to σf- eqpl data
as shown in Fig. 16c to input as the plastic properties of AISI 52,100
steel in the FE analyses. Numerical P-δ curve up to fracture are in good
agreement with the experimental results as shown in Fig. 16d.
4.2. Ratcheting experiments
With occurrence of Lüders band in AISI 52100 steel, a large de-
formation occurs at the same load as shown in Fig. 15. If the ratcheting
test is performed with load-control, it may cause fatal damages to the
experimental instruments. Therefore, the specimen is stretched until the
stress level increases above the Lüders band under the displacement-
control, and then ratcheting experiments are carried out by changing to
the load-control. Experimental results for σa = 240, 250, 260 MPa with
constant σm = 300 MPa are shown in Fig. 17. As the initial σ-ε curves up
to σmax are the same for all three cases, only the σ-ε data of σ
max = 560 MPa is drawn, and the (εinitial, σmax) for three cases are in-
dicated by gray circles (Fig. 17a). The δεsteady is displayed on the δε-N
data (Fig. 17b).
5. Results
5.1. Parametric study results

Suitably varying the Chaboche model parameters, the parametric

4.1. Tensile test
studies reveal the effect of each parameter on the σ-ε relation and the
ratcheting phenomenon as summarized in Table 3. dδε/dN in the table
Fig. 15 shows almost identical experimental load-displacement
represents the variation of the ratcheting strain with N. If this value is
curves from three tensile specimens; in confirms the reproducibility of
negative and positive, δε decreases and increases with N, respectively.
experimental results. Therefore, a single representative P-δ data is
The parametric conditions of Chaboche model for ratcheting simulation
converted into engineering stress-strain (σe-εe) and true stress - strain (σt
can be found in the Table 3:
- εt) curves as shown in Fig. 16a and b, respectively, by using the
mathematical definition of stress and strain [45]. Since, for AISI 52100
(i) single backstress Chaboche model without isotropic hardening (w/o
steel, Lüders band exists in the stress-strain curves, an average between
IH): it is possible to simulate ratcheting only when σo < σa is sa-
upper yield point (402 MPa) and lower yield point (386 MPa) is con-
tisfied; however, rather rough ratcheting simulations are possible
sidered as the yield strength (σo = 394 MPa) of the material. The tensile

159
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

identification of material parameters

(E, , o) and stress conditions ( m, o)

is a < o ?

Yes No

set Qmax satisfying o + Q max < a Qmax can be ignored,

and b satisfying Q Q max at initial| FEA set b satisfying Q Qmax at initial| FEA

find C and satisfying initial| FEA initial| Exp.

set the initial values of C1, C2, 1 and 2

satisfying C1 = C2 = 0.5C, 1 = 2 =
(Eq. (5) should be satisfied from this point on)

increase 1 – 2 to decrease steady | FEA

( initial| FEA automatically decreases)

increase C1 – C2 to increase initial| FEA

( steady | FEA automatically decreases)

are
= initial| Exp.,
initial| FEA No
steady | FEA = steady | Exp.
satisfied?

Yes

output C1, C2, 1, 2, Q max and b

Fig. 18. Procedure for obtaining the parameters of the Chaboche model.

asδε never varies with increasing N. ratcheting.

(ii) single backstress Chaboche model with isotropic hardening (w/IH): the
variation of δε with increasing N can be simulated, therefore, de-
tailed ratcheting simulation is possible. A non-zero δε steady and
reduction in δε with increasing N can be achieved with positive Q
max and, however, not with the condition σa < σo. If ratcheting
characteristics are focused with smaller σo than σa, the gap be-
tween the σ-ε curves of FEA and experiments becomes quite larger.
On the other hand, for a negative Q max, the gap between σ-ε curves
becomes smaller even when σa < σo; however, δε increases with
increasing N. For these reasons, it is concluded that the Chaboche
model with a single backstress is insufficient to fully simulate
(iii) dual backstress Chaboche model without isotropic hardening (w /o IH):
the non-zero δε steady and reduction in δε with increasing N can be
achieved. However, when σa < σo, the simulated σ-ε curve has a
large difference from experiments. It shows that including isotropic
hardening is essential to reduce the difference of σ-ε relations be-
tween FEA and experiments. In conclusion, the dual backstress
Chaboche model with isotropic hardening (w/IH) is best suited to
simulate ratcheting behavior by satisfying both the σ-ε relation and
the ratcheting characteristics.

160
S. Koo et al. International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163

250 0.05
Exp. by Portier et al. (2000)
200 0.04
FE results by
Exp. by Portier et al. (2000) Portier et al. (2000)
(MPa) 150 0.03
Koo et al. (2017)

(%)
FE results by present work
100 0.02
Portier et al. (2000)
Koo et al. (2017)
50 0.01
present work
0 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 20 40 60 80 100
(%) N
(a) (b)
Fig. 19. Comparison of simulation results of Portier et al. [46], Koo et al. [16] and present work.

600 0.35
steady|FEA = steady|Exp. = 0.014 %
500 Exp. 0.30
FEA 0.25
400
(MPa)

C1 = 62.1 GPa (%) 0.20

300 E = 200 GPa FEA
= 0.3 C2 = 8.1 GPa 0.15
200
o = 400 MPa 1 = 398.68 0.10
100 Qmax = - 200 MPa = 1.32
2 0.05 Exp.
b = 120
0 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 20 40 60 80 100
(%) N
(a) (b)
Fig. 20. Experimental and FE results of (a) σ-ε data and (b) δε-N data for σm = 300, σa = 250 MPa.

600 0.30
steady|FEA = 0.011 %
500 Exp. 0.25
steady|Exp. = 0.012 %
FEA
400 0.20 error = 8.3 %
(MPa)

(%)

300 E = 200 GPa C1 = 62.1 GPa 0.15 FEA

= 0.3 C2 = 8.1 GPa
200 = 400 MPa 0.10
o 1 = 398.68
Qmax = - 200 MPa
100 2 = 1.32 0.05 Exp.
b = 120
0 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
(%) N
(a) (b)
Fig. 21. Experimental and FE results of (a) σ-ε data and (b) δε-N data for σm = 300, σa = 240 MPa using the same parameters as Fig. 20.

5.2. Proposed method of parameter acquisition
Based on the results of parametric analyses, a simple but effective
method to obtain the parameters of the Chaboche model for ratcheting
simulation is suggested as follows (Fig. 18).
Portier et al. [46] conducted ratcheting tests with 316 austenitic
steel (AISI 316L) and approximated the results with the Chaboche
model. Koo et al. [16] also approximated experimental results of Portier
et al. [46] with the Chaboche model. Therefore, the validity of the
acquisition method presented in this paper can be verified by com-
paring with literature. Since the work of Portier et al. [46] contains no
δε-N data, δε-N data are extracted from εtotal-N data. The σ-ε curve up to
σmax = 240 MPa and the δεN data up to N = 100 are compared between
all the classes as shown in Fig. 19. The simulation results of Portier et al.
[46] are very far from the experimental results in both the σ-ε relation
and the ratcheting characteristics; whereas, the simulation results of
Koo et al. [16] show that the σ-ε relation is largely different, but the
ratcheting characteristics are very consistent with the experimental
result. Contrary to these previous researches, FE analyses based on the
proposed acquisition method give the σ-ε relation and the ratcheting
characteristics are very close to the experimental results. Hence, the
parameter acquisition method proposed in this research enables more

161
S. Koo et al.
600
500 Exp.
FEA
400
(MPa)
300 E = 200 GPa C1 = 62.1 GPa
= 0.3 C2 = 8.1 GPa
200
o = 400 MPa 1 = 398.68
Qmax = - 200 MPa
100 2 = 1.32
b = 120
0 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
(%)
(a)
Fig. 22. Experimental and FE results of (a) σ-ε data and (b) δε-N data for σm = 300, σa = 260 MPa using the same parameters as Fig. 20.
precise ratcheting simulation with the combined hardening Chaboche
model.
5.3. Experimental verification of the proposed method
By using the experimental results for the case of σm = 300 and
σa = 250 MPa, the Chaboche model parameters for AISI 52100 steel are
obtained by the proposed method. The simulated σ-ε relation and δε-N
data are then compared with experimental results as shown in Fig. 20.
Similarly, σ-ε relation and δε-N data for σa = 240, 260 MPa are com-
pared with the experimental results (Fig. 21 and Fig. 22) by using the
same Chaboche model parameters. Although a wavy curve appears in
the σ-ε relations when σf converges to σo + Q max, σ-ε curves after 1%
strain are well approximated and the error of δεsteady is about only 10%
or less for all three cases. It should be emphasized that, in cyclic plas-
ticity, the negative Qmax does not mean the cyclic softening in nature
[47]. In this work, Qmax is mainly used to improve the prediction of σ-ε
curves. The comparison results confirm that the Chaboche model
parameters obtained from the proposed method using dual backstress
can even simulate the cases of σa values slightly different from the σa
values used in the parameter acquisition.
Since the ratcheting strain of initial cycles is greater than the steady
state value, it can be an important factor in early structural integrity. In
this study, the initial ratcheting strain are overestimated as it focuses on
the ratcheting strain in steady state. Therefore, the prediction of overall
ratcheting strain will be discussed in the future investigation.
6. Conclusions
In this work, we investigated the effect of combined hardening
Chaboche model parameters on stress-strain relation and ratcheting
phenomenon in metals. Tensile test and ratcheting experiments were
conducted with the bearing steel material AISI 52100. An effective
parameter acquisition method was then proposed and verified through
the comparison with the work from literature. Based on the proposed
method, the obtained parameters were Qmax = −200 MPa, b = 120,
(C1, C2) GPa = (62.1, 8.1) and (γ 1,γ 2,) = (398.68, 1.32). With these
values, the σ-ε curve after 1% strain was well approximated and
ratcheting strain in steady state (δε steady) of the FE result was equal to
the experimental result in case of (σm, σa) MPa = (300, 250). Similarly,
under the other two conditions of (σm, σa) MPa = (300, 240) and (300,
260), the differences of δε steady between FE and experimental results
were 8.3% and 10.5%, respectively. Therefore, these results sufficiently
demonstrate the validity of the proposed method for effectively pre-
dicting both σ-ε relation and ratcheting characteristics of metals by
using only two backstress. Although it is not possible to deal with the
entire alternative stress range with one parametric case, the proposed
International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163
0.35
steady|FEA = 0.017 %
0.30
= 0.019 %
0.25
steady|Exp.
error = 10.5 %
0.20
(%)
FEA
0.15
0.10
0.05 Exp.
3.5 0 20 40 60 80 100
N
(b)
method is highly applicable as it can handle the nearby alternative
stresses. Therefore, it is simple but effective method for suggesting
acceptable approximations of ratcheting behavior.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by the Basic Scien ce Research Program
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-
2017R1A2B3009706).
References
[1] Wu H. An empirical non-proportional cyclic plasticity approach under multiaxial
low-cycle fatigue loading. Int J Mech Sci 2018;142–143:66–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJMECSCI.2018.04.031.
[2] Zhu Y, Kang G, Yu C. A finite cyclic elasto-plastic constitutive model to improve the
description of cyclic stress-strain hysteresis loops. Int J Plast 2017;95:191–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2017.04.009.
[3] Agius D, Kajtaz M, Kourousis KI, Wallbrink C, Wang CH, Hu W, et al. Sensitivity and
optimisation of the Chaboche plasticity model parameters in strain-life fatigue
predictions. Mater Des 2017;118:107–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.
2017.01.027.
[4] Holopainen S, Barriere T, Cheng G, Kouhia R. Continuum approach for modeling
fatigue in amorphous glassy polymers. applications to the investigation of damage-
ratcheting interaction in polycarbonate. Int J Plast 2017;91:109–33. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2016.12.001.
[5] Donzella G, Petrogalli C. A failure assessment diagram for components subjected to
rolling contact loading. Int J Fatigue 2010;32:256–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2009.06.016.
[6] Hassan T, Taleb L, Krishna S. Influence of non-proportional loading on ratcheting
responses and simulations by two recent cyclic plasticity models. Int J Plast
2008;24:1863–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2008.04.008.
[7] Kang G, Liu Y, Ding J. Multiaxial ratchetting–fatigue interactions of annealed and
tempered 42CrMo steels: Experimental observations. Int J Fatigue
2008;30:2104–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2008.06.002.
[8] Kim HS, Kim KS. Multiaxial ratcheting behavior of Inconel 718 at elevated tem-
perature. Proc KSME 2008:344–9.
[9] Lee HY, Kim JB, Lee JH. Test and analysis of thermal ratcheting deformation for
316L stainless steel cylindrical structure. Trans Korean Soc Mech Eng A
2002;26:479–86.
[10] Olver AV. The mechanism of rolling contact fatigue: an update. Proc Inst Mech Eng
Part J J Eng Tribol 2005;219:313–30. https://doi.org/10.1243/135065005X9808.
[11] Zhu Y, Kang G, Kan Q, Bruhns OT, Liu Y. Thermo-mechanically coupled cyclic
elasto-viscoplastic constitutive model of metals: theory and application. Int J Plast
2016;79:111–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2015.12.005.
[12] Abdel-Karim M. An evaluation for several kinematic hardening rules on prediction
of multiaxial stress-controlled ratchetting. Int J Plast 2010;26:711–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2009.10.002.
[13] Dafalias YF, Feigenbaum HP. Biaxial ratchetting with novel variations of kinematic
hardening. Int J Plast 2011;27:479–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2010.06.
002.
[14] Hamidinejad SM, Varvani-Farahani A. Ratcheting assessment of steel samples under
various non-proportional loading paths by means of kinematic hardening rules.
Mater Des 2015;85:367–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2015.06.153.
[15] Kang G. Ratchetting: recent progresses in phenomenon observation, constitutive
modeling and application. Int J Fatigue 2008;30:1448–72. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2007.10.002.
[16] Koo S, Marimuthu KP, Lee H. A parametric study on Chaboche model to simulate
162
S. Koo et al.
metal ratcheting. Proc KSME 2017:1339–44.
[17] Lee CH, Van Do VN, Chang KH. Analysis of uniaxial ratcheting behavior and cyclic
mean stress relaxation of a duplex stainless steel. Int J Plast 2014;62:17–33.
[18] Song D, Kang G, Kan Q, Yu C, Zhang C. Non-proportional multiaxial transformation
ratchetting of super-elastic NiTi shape memory alloy: Experimental observations.
Mech Mater 2014;70:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MECHMAT.2013.12.003.
[19] Song D, Kang G, Kan Q, Yu C, Zhang C. Effects of peak stress and stress amplitude on
multiaxial transformation ratchetting and fatigue life of superelastic NiTi SMA
micro-tubes: experiments and life-prediction model. Int J Fatigue 2017;96:252–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2016.12.006.
[20] Yu D, Chen G, Yu W, Li D, Chen X. Visco-plastic constitutive modeling on Ohno-
Wang kinematic hardening rule for uniaxial ratcheting behavior of Z2CND18.12N
steel. Int J Plast 2012;28:88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2011.06.001.
[21] Song Z, Komvopoulos K. An elastic-plastic analysis of spherical indentation: con-
stitutive equations for single-indentation unloading and development of plasticity
due to repeated indentation. Mech Mater 2014;76:93–101. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.MECHMAT.2014.05.005.
[22] Xu BX, Yue ZF. Study of ratcheting by the indentation fatigue method with a flat
cylindrical indenter Part II. finite element simulation. J Mater Res 2007;22:186–92.
[23] Angiolini ME, Aiello G, Matheron P, Pilloni L, Giannuzzi GM. Thermal ratcheting of
a P91 steel cylinder under an axial moving temperature distribution. J Nucl Mater
2016;472:215–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNUCMAT.2016.01.028.
[24] Mishra A, Chellapandi P, Kumar, Sasikala G. Effect of frequency of free level fluc-
tuations and hold time on the thermal ratcheting behavior. Int J Press Vessel Pip
2015;129–130:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPVP.2015.03.004.
[25] Nakane K, Ohno N, Tsuda M, Yagi Y, Nakagawa I, Atsumi T. Thermal ratcheting of
solder-bonded elastic and elastoplastic layers. Int J Plast 2008;24:1819–36. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2007.12.008.
[26] Ding J, Kang G, Kan Q, Liu Y. Constitutive model for uniaxial time-dependent
ratcheting of 6061–T6 aluminum alloy. Comput Mater Sci 2012;57:67–72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.COMMATSCI.2011.06.015.
[27] Guo S, Kang G, Zhang J. A cyclic visco-plastic constitutive model for time-depen-
dent ratchetting of particle-reinforced metal matrix composites. Int J Plast
2013;40:101–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2012.07.006.
[28] Kang G, Kan Q. Constitutive modeling for uniaxial time-dependent ratcheting of
SS304 stainless steel. Mech Mater 2007;39:488–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MECHMAT.2006.08.004.
[29] Kang G, Kan Q, Zhang J, Sun Y. Time-dependent ratchetting experiments of SS304
stainless steel. Int J Plast 2006;22:858–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPLAS.2005.
05.006.
[30] Chaboche JL. Constitutive equations for cyclic plasticity and cyclic viscoplasticity.
Int J Plast 1989;5:247–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-6419(89)90015-6.
[31] Mroz Z. On the description of anisotropic work-hardening. J Mech Phys Solids
163
International Journal of Fatigue 122 (2019) 152–163
1967;15:163–75.
[32] Frederick CO, Armstrong PJ. A mathematical representation of the multiaxial
Bauschinger effect. Mater High Temp 2007;24:1–26. https://doi.org/10.3184/
096034007X207589.
[33] Ohno N, Wang JD. Kinematic hardening rules with critical state of dynamic re-
covery, Parts I and II. Int J Plast 1993;9:375–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
6419(93)90042-O, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-6419(93)90043-P.
[34] Prager W. The theory of plasticity: a survey of recent achievements. Proc Inst Mech
Eng 1955;169:41–57.
[35] Ziegler H. A modification of Prager’s hardening rule. Quart Appl Math
1959;17:55–65.
[36] Abaqus 6.13. Analysis User’s Manual, Dassault Systèmes. Simulia Corp, Providence,
RI, USA 2013.
[37] Chaboche JL. A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive theories.
Int J Plast 2008;24:1642–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2008.03.009.
[38] Chaboche JL, Kanoute P, Azzouz F. Cyclic inelastic constitutive equations and their
impact on the fatigue life predictions. Int J Plast 2012;35:44–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijplas.2012.01.010.
[39] Bari S, Hassan T. Anatomy of coupled constitutive models for ratcheting simulation.
Int J Plast 2000;16:381–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-6419(99)00059-5.
[40] Lemaitre J, Chaboche JL. Mechanics of solid materials. New York, USA: Cambridge
University Press; 1993.
[41] Goo BC. Simulation of ratcheting in wheel-rail contact. J Korean Soc Railw
2008;11:311–6.
[42] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Sinaie S. On the calibration of the Chaboche hardening model
and a modified hardening rule for uniaxial ratcheting prediction. Int J Solids Struct
2009;46:3009–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2009.04.002.
[43] ASTM E8/E8M-09. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2009.
[44] ASTM E606/E606M-12. Standard Test Method for Strain-Controlled Fatigue
Testing. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 2012.
[45] Hyun HC, Kim M, Bang S, Lee H. On acquiring true stress-strain curves for sheet
specimens using tensile test and FE analysis based on a local necking criterion. J
Mater Res 2014;29:695–707.
[46] Portier L, Calloch S, Marquis D, Geyer P. Ratchetting under tension-torsion load-
ings: experiments and modelling. Int J Plast 2000;16:303–35. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0749-6419(99)00056-X.
[47] Jiang Y, Zhang J. Benchmark experiments and characteristic cyclic plasticity de-
formation. Int J Plast 2008;24:1481–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.10.
003.
[48] Chaboche JL, Nouailhas D. A unified constitutive model for cyclic viscoplasticity
and its application to various stainless steels. J Eng Mater Technol
1989;111:424–30.