Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanics of Materials
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmat

Research paper

Constitutive modeling of temperature and strain rate effects on anisotropy

and strength differential properties of metallic materials
Boyu Pan, Fuhui Shen *, Sebastian Münstermann
Integrity of Materials and Structures, Steel Institute, RWTH Aachen University, Intzestraße 1, 52072, Aachen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The thermal effects on tension compression asymmetry and anisotropy of several metallic materials with a
Anisotropy hexagonal close-packed (HCP) crystal structure have been discussed in this study. The Yoon2014 asymmetric
Strength differential effects yield criterion is combined with a simple Arrhenius type temperature function and a modified Johnson-Cook
Tension and compression asymmetry
strain rate model to formulate a thermal dependent plasticity model with analytical solutions for parameter
Temperature
calibration. The temperature and strain rate effects on the strength differential (SD) effects of both isotropic and
Strain rate
anisotropic materials have been discussed. Both anisotropy and SD affect the shape of yield locus. In order to
quantitatively distinguish the thermal effects on the strength differential and anisotropic effects of metallic
materials, the evolution of yield locus and distribution of yield stress under two extreme scenarios has been
discussed based on virtual experimental results. For the general application of the thermal dependent asymmetric
plasticity model at different temperatures and strain rates, the calibration and validation of the model using
uniaxial tensile/compressive results along different directions and biaxial tensile/compressive results have been
elaborated for various metallic alloys.

1. Introduction
Some hexagonal close-packed (HCP) materials exhibit the strength
differential (SD) effect, also known as tension/compression asymmetry,
due to the fact that both dislocation slip and twinning deformation
mechanisms can be activated. Twinning, on the other hand, is active in
one direction but inert in the other because it is more sensitive to shear
directions than non-directional slip. To characterize and predict the SD
effect of HCP metals, many asymmetric plasticity models have been
proposed, including those by Spitzig et al. (1975), Spitzig and Richmond
(1984), Cazacu and Barlat (2004), Cazacu et al. (2006), Gao et al.
(2011), and Yoon et al. (2014). They either added the first stress
invariant I1 , or incorporated the effect of the third stress invariant J3 , or
incorporated both I1 and J3 to the von Mises yield criterion to model the
asymmetric yielding. By applying linear transformation or/and sum­
mation methods, the flexibility of these models has been improved by
Plunkett et al. (2008), Yoshida et al. (2013), etc. In general, most of
these models are developed and applied under room temperature and
quasi-static loading conditions.
Meanwhile, there are many phenomenological models describing the
temperature and strain rate effects on plastic deformation properties of
materials, including the BP model (Bodner and Partom, 1975), the JC
model (Johnson, 1983), the ZA model (Zerilli and Armstrong, 1987),
and the KHL model (Khan and Huang, 1992; Khan and Liang, 1999). In
addition, due to previous processing procedures such as rolling, some
metals are subjected to anisotropy, which affects mechanical properties
and plastic deformation. Models like Hill48 (Hill, 1948), Hosford79
(Hosford, 1979), Yld91 (Barlat et al., 1991), Yld 2000-2 d (Barlat et al.,
2003) and BBC 2000 (Banabic et al., 2003) have been widely used to
characterize plastic deformation of materials considering anisotropy.
There is experimental evidence that the plastic deformation prop­
erties of HCP materials, in terms of both anisotropy and SD effects, can
be affected by temperature and strain rate. Khan et al. (Khan and Yu,
2012; Khan et al., 2012) used the so-called Khan-Huang-Liang (KHL)
model to predict the plastic yield behavior of Ti–6Al–4V alloy over a
wide range of temperatures and strain rates. Ayllón et al. (2021)
incorporated the thermal effect into Barlat 1989 (Barlat and Lian, 1989)
and CPB 2006 (Cazacu et al., 2006) models to predict the plastic
behavior of Ti–6Al–4V over a wide range of temperatures and strain
rates. Though a good agreement between experimental and anticipated
results is achieved in their studies, the calibrating procedure necessitates
excessive effort since error minimization methods like least square root

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fuhui.shen@iehk.rwth-aachen.de (F. Shen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2023.104714
Received 26 July 2022; Received in revised form 2 June 2023; Accepted 5 June 2023
Available online 8 June 2023
0167-6636/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 1. Effect of the pressure sensitive parameter B (a) and third invariant parameter C (b) of the isotropic Yoon2014 yield criterion on the yield surface in the space
of principal stresses under plane stress condition with σ3 = 0 (Yoon et al., 2014).

and strain rate effects on the plasticity of HCP materials.

Table 1
Experimental results of Zircaloy-4 (Lucas and Bement, 1975).
2. Constitutive models
Temperature Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress Uniaxial Compressive Yield
[K] [MPa] Stress [MPa]
2.1. General formulation of asymmetric plasticity model
298 465 424
323 432 382 For isotropic materials, several asymmetric plasticity models have
373 372 310
423 335 304
been proposed to describe the SD effect based on the stress invariants I1 ,
473 282 279 J2 , J3 (Cazacu and Barlat, 2001, 2004; Cazacu et al., 2006; Drucker,
523 260 248 1949; Gao et al., 2011; Lou and Yoon, 2018; Yoon et al., 2014). A
573 223 211 general formulation of an asymmetric plasticity model is expressed as:
623 193 193
f = σ(A, B, C|I1 , J2 , J3 ) − σ Y ≤ 0 (1)

I1 = tr(σ ) = σ1 + σ 2 + σ3 (2a)
Table 2
Temperature related thermal softening parameters for Zircaloy-4.
1
gUT (T) = CUT J2 = sij sji = − s11 s22 − s22 s33 − s33 s11 + s212 + s223 + s213 (2b)
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + C3 gUC (T) = CUC
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + C3
UT UT UC UC
2
CUT
1 CUT
2 CUT
3 CUC
1 CUC
2 CUC
3 ( )
J3 = det sij = s11 s22 s33 + 2s12 s23 s13 − s11 s223 − s22 s213 − s33 s212 (2c)
2.238 0.003 0.057 2.285 0.004 0.280

where A, B, C are materials parameters that need to be calibrated based

(LSR) and response surface approach (RSM) will be involved to ensure
the model calibration accuracy. In addition, it remains challenging to
explicitly and quantitatively distinguish the thermal impacts on the
anisotropy and SD effects of the HCP materials when optimization ap­
proaches are used in calibrating the constitutive model parameters.
The primary goal of this research is to quantitatively determine the
temperature/strain rate impacts on SD effects and anisotropy of some
on experimental results. σ1,2,3 is the principal stress of the Cauchy stress
tensor σ . The deviatoric stress component is related to the Cauchy stress
component via sij = σ ij − I31 .
To further increase the flexibility and accuracy of the description of
asymmetric behavior in orthotropic materials, the linear transformation
method has been widely applied. The fourth-order transformation ma­
trixes L and L′′ are applied to capture the orientation dependence of
′

HCP materials by developing a thermal-dependent constitutive model, plastic properties by using the anisotropic deviatoric stress tensors s and
′

which is based on the asymmetric Yoon2014 yield criterion (Yoon et al., s . The transformation matrixes proposed by Barlat et al. (1991) and
′′

2014) with analytical solutions (Hu and Yoon, 2021). The temperature Barlat et al. (2005) are widely used in the formulation of anisotropic
and strain rate impacts on SD and anisotropy effects of several different plasticity models, which are adopted as L and L′′ respectively in this
′

materials have been determined using the developed model. The study. Several anisotropic material parameters (aij , bij , cij ) need to be
model’s applicability under two extreme scenarios has been discussed: calibrated based on more comprehensive experimental results, including
(1) temperature/strain rate only affects the SD effect, and (2) temper­ tension/compression data along different loading directions. A general
ature/strain rate only affects anisotropy. In general, temperature/strain formulation of an asymmetric plasticity model for orthotropic materials
rate affects both the anisotropy and SD effects of metallic materials. is expressed as:
However, considering the first two extreme scenarios simplifies the ⃒ ′ ′ ′)
(
calibration process and enables a better understanding of temperature f = σ aij , bij , cij ⃒I1 , J2 , J3 − σY ≤ 0 (3)

2
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 2. Temperature dependence of material constants A and C in Eq. (9a) for Zircaloy-4.

( ⃒ ′ )
(4a)
′
I1 = a1 • σ 1 + a2 • σ 2 + a3 • σ 3 (5a)
′
f = σ a, bij , cij ⃒I1 , J2 , J3 − σ T,0 ≤ 0

1 ′ ′ ( 1/3 )
(4b) ( ′ 3/2 ′ )
′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′
J2 = s s = − s11 s22 − s22 s33 − s33 s11 + s122 + s232 + s132 1 J2 + J3
2 ij ji σ= • a • I1 + (5b)
( ) 1+a 1 + 2c1
(4c)
′
J3 = det s′′ij = s′′11 s′′22 s′′33 + 2s′′12 s′′23 s′′13 − s′′11 s′′2 ′′ ′′2 ′′ ′′2
23 − s22 s13 − s33 s12
′
J2 = (σ11 − σ 33 )2 + b1 • (σ22 − σ33 )2 + (b2 − b1 − 1) • (σ 11 − σ33 )
( ) ( )
(4d) (5c)
′ ′
s = L bij σ , s′′ = L cij σ ′′
• (σ 22 − σ33 ) + (4b3 − b2 ) • σ12 2 + b4 • σ13 2 + b5 • σ23 2
⎡ ⎤ ′ [
(b22 + b33 )/3 − b33 /3 − b22 /3 0 0 0 J3 = [c1 • σ 11 + c2 • σ 22 − (c1 + c2 ) • σ 33 ] • c3 • σ 12 2 − (2 • σ 11 − σ22 − σ 33 )
⎢ − b33 /3 (b33 + b11 )/3 − b11 /3 0 0 0 ⎥ ]
⎢ ⎥ • (2 • σ22 − σ11 − σ 33 ) − c4 • (2 • σ 22 − σ11 − σ33 ) • σ13 2 − c5 • (2
′( ) ⎢ − b22 /3 − b11 /3 (b11 + b22 )/3 0 0 0 ⎥
L bij = ⎢
⎢
⎥ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎢ 0 0 0 b44 0 0 ⎥⎥ • σ 11 − σ22 − σ 33 ) • σ 23 2 + 2 • |c3 • c4 • c5 | • σ 12 • σ23 • σ13
⎣ 0 0 0 0 b55 0 ⎦ (5d)
0 0 0 0 0 b66
(4e) where σT,0 is the reference yield strength obtained from uniaxial tensile
⎡ ⎤ tests along the rolling direction (RD). a, b1− 5 , c1− 5 are material param­
(c12 + c13 )/3 (c13 − c12 )/3 (c12 − 2c13 )/3 0 0 0 eters that need to be calibrated based on experimental results. It is noted
⎢ (c23 − 2c21 )/3 (c21 + c23 )/3 (c21 − 2c23 )/3 0 0 0 ⎥
that b1− 5 , c1− 5 in Eq. (5) can be expressed by bij in L (bij ) and cij in L′′ (bij )
′
⎢ ⎥
( ) ⎢ (c32 − c31 )/3 (c21 − 2c32 )/3 (c31 + c32 )/3 0 0 0 ⎥
L′′ cij = ⎢
⎢
⎥ in Eq. (4) respectively. The formulations are attached in Appendix A,
⎢ 0 0 0 c44 0 0 ⎥⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 c55 0 ⎦ and the detailed transformation can be referred to the work of Hu and
0 0 0 0 0 c66 Yoon (2021). Under plane stress conditions, the above equations can be
(4f) simplified as:
( ( ′ 3/2 ′ )
1/3 )
σ = [σ11 σ22 σ 33 σ 23 σ13 σ12 ]T (4g) f=
1
• a • (σ 11 + σ22 ) +
J2 + J3
− σT,0 ≤ 0 (6a)
1+a 1 + 2c1
2.2. Review of Yoon2014 asymmetric model with analytical solutions ( )
(6b)
′
J2 = (σ11 − b1 • σ22 )(σ11 − σ 22 ) + b2 • σ 11 • σ22 − σ 12 2 + 4 • b3 • σ 12 2
Despite the successful development and application of several
( )
asymmetric models for various anisotropic materials, a common disad­
′
J3 = (c1 • σ 11 + c2 • σ 22 ) • 2 • σ11 2 + 2 • σ22 2 − 5 • σ11 • σ22 + c3 • σ12 2

vantage of these stress invariant based plasticity models is the complex
parameter calibration procedures, where optimization algorithms such
as LSR and RSM are typically applied. The asymmetric model proposed
by Yoon et al. (2014) has the advantage that material parameters can be
explicitly determined from several experimental results, and the
analytical solutions are provided by Hu and Yoon (2021). Therefore, the
analytical Yoon2014 model is adopted in this study. Assuming the
pressure sensitivity is isotropic for the reason of simplicity (a1 = a2 =
a3 = a in Eq. (4a)), the analytical Yoon2014 model for orthotropic
materials is expressed as:
(6c)
To explicitly determine the material parameters in the model for
plane stress conditions, the experimental results of uniaxial/biaxial
tension and compression yield strength need to be obtained under
different loading conditions. σ T,0 , σ T,45 , σ T,90 , σC,0 , σ C,45 , σ C,90 are uniaxial
tensile/compressive yield strength along 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ with respect to
the RD. σT,b and σC,b are yield strength in equi-biaxial tension and equi-
biaxial compression conditions. Taking σT,0 as the reference strength, the
corresponding normalized strength ratio is defined as:

3
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 3. Temperature dependence of yield locus of Zircaloy-4: (a) yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at corresponding temperatures; (b) yield locus
normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at room temperature; (c) comparison of predicted yield stress and the experimental ones with the evolution of SD effect; (d)
evolution of the temperature sensitivity parameter l and tension-compression asymmetry parameter n with temperature.

σ T,0 (
φT,45 = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )1/3 ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )1/3
σ T,45 β q q2 p3 q q2 p3
σT,0 (7a) a= − + − + + + − − + (8a)
φT,90 = 3α 2 4 27 2 4 27
σT,90
σT,0 ( )3 ( )3 ( )3 ( )3 ( )3
φT,b =
σT,b α = φC,0 + 1 + φC,90 + 1 + 2 φC,b + 2 − φT,90 − 1 − 2 φT,b − 2
(8b)
σ T,0
φC,0 = [
σC,0 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2
β = 3 φC,0 φC,0 + 1 + φC,90 φC,90 + 1 + 2φC,b φC,b + 2
φC,45 =
σT,0 (7b) (8c)
σ C,45 ( )2 ( )2 ]
σT,0 − φT,90 φT,90 − 1 − 2φT,b φT,b − 2
φC,90 =
σ C,90 [ ( ) ( ) ( )
σ T,0 γ = 3 φC,0 2 φC,0 + 1 + φC,90 2 φC,90 + 1 + 2φC,b 2 φC,b + 2
φC,b =
σC,b ( ) ( )] (8d)
− φT,90 2 φT,90 − 1 − 2φT,b 2 φT,b − 2
Based on these normalized strength ratios, the material parameters
(a, b1− 3 , c1− 3 ) can be directly determined according to the following δ = φC,0 3 + φC,90 3 + 2φC,b 3 − φT,90 3 − 2φT,b 3 − 1 (8e)
equations.
3 • α • γ − β2
p= (8f)
3 • α2

4
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Table 3 Table 6
Temperature sensitivity parameter l and tension-compression asymmetry Strain rate sensitivity parameter m and tension-compression asymmetry
parameter n of Zircaloy-4 at quasi-static state. parameter n of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si at 298 K.
Strain Temperature TS parameter l TS parameter l in TCA Temperature Strain SRS parameter SRS parameter m TCA
rate [K] in Uniaxial Uniaxial parameter n [K] rate [1/ m in Uniaxial in Uniaxial parameter n
Tension Compression s] Tension Compression

Quasi- 298 – – − 0.0882 298 0.001 – – 0.0811

static 323 − 0.9138 − 1.2949 − 0.1157 1 0.0251 0.0323 0.1364
373 − 0.9940 − 1.3950 − 0.1667 1000 0.0246 0.0317 0.1923
423 − 0.9361 − 0.9498 − 0.0925
473 − 1.0825 − 0.9059 − 0.0107
523 − 1.0335 − 0.9535 − 0.0462
573 − 1.1240 − 1.0674 − 0.0538
1
623 − 1.1924 − 1.0672 0 A= ( )1/3 (9b)
B+ √̅̅ 1 1
3 3− 27 C

27 • α2 • δ − 9 • α • β • γ + 2•β3 For pressure insensitive materials, the above function can be reduced
q= (8g) to the isotopic Cazacu and Barlat (2004) yield function by setting B = 0.
27 • α3
Material constants A and C can be computed as:
[ ]2/3
1 ([ ]3 [ ]3 ) √̅̅̅
b1 = (1 + 2c1 ) • (1 + a)φT,90 − a + (1 + a)φC,90 + a (8h) 3φC,0
2 A=( )1/3 (9c)
φC,0 3 − 1
1 + φC,0 3 +1
[ ]2/3
1 [ ]3
b2 = (1 + 2c1 ) • (1 + a)φT,b − 2a + (c1 + c2 ) (8i) √̅̅̅
2 3 3 φC,0 3 − 1
C= • (9d)
[ ] 2 φC,0 3 + 1
1 ([ ]3 [ ]3 ) 2/3
b3 = (1 + 2c1 ) • (1 + a)φT,45 − a + (1 + a)φC,45 + a (8j) The effects of parameters B and C on the yield surface in the space of
2
principal stresses under plane stress condition with σ3 = 0 are shown in
1 1 Fig. 1 (Yoon et al., 2014).
c1 = [ ]3 − (8k)
(1 + a)φC,0 + a +1 2
2.3. Extension to couple thermal effects in asymmetric and anisotropic
1 ([ ]3 [ ]3 ) models
c2 = (1 + 2c1 ) • (1 + a)φT,90 − a − (1 + a)φC,90 + a (8l)
4
Due to strain hardening effects, the flow resistance increases with
c3 = 4
1 + 2c1 ( [ ]3 [ ]3 )
• (1 + a)φT,45 − a − (1 + a)φC,45 + a + 1 plastic strain ε, which is affected by temperature T and strain rate ε̇. The
c1 + c2 analytical Yoon2014 model is extended to couple the influence of tem­
(8 ​ m) perature and strain rate.
The convexity proof is provided in the original work by Hu and Yoon ( ⃒ ′ ′ )
f = σ a, bij , cij ⃒I1 , J2 , J3 − σ T,0 (ε, T, ε̇) ≤ 0 (10)
(2021). It is noted that by setting φT,45 = φT,90 = 1 and φC,45 = φC,90 =
Several models are available to account for the thermal effects on the
the anisotropic model can be reduced to an isotropic one,
T,0 σ
φC,0 = σC,0
flow behavior, such as the BP model (Bodner and Partom, 1975), the JC
which is written as follows: model (Johnson, 1983), the ZA model (Zerilli and Armstrong, 1987),
[ )1/3 ]
( and the KHL model (Khan and Huang, 1992; Khan and Liang, 1999).
(9a)
3
f = A BI1 + J22 − CJ3 − σ T,0 ≤ 0 Both additive and multiplicative decomposition approaches have been
used in different constitutive models. For the reason of simplicity, the
The material constants of B and C modulate the influence of the flow resistance of the material is multiplicatively decomposed into three
pressure and third invariant on yielding of metals, respectively. Material components following the approach of Johnson-Cook (Johnson, 1983).
constant A is related to the strain hardening behavior of the material and In this study, a simple Arrhenius type function with three parameters
can be computed as: (C1− 3 ) is used to describe the thermal softening effects due to temper­
ature dependence. A modified JC function proposed by Shin and Kim
(2010) with two parameters (D1− 2 ) is used to account for the strain rate
Table 4
effects. The advantages of combining them are: (1) by using a simple
Experimental results of yield strength of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si at
different strain rates at 298 K (Zhang et al., 2014).
Arrhenius type function, the thermal softening of the material can be
physically explained by demonstrating that the thermal activation en­
Strain rate Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress
ergy of short-range barriers, which contributes to the majority of the
[1/s] [MPa] [MPa]
temperature-dependent components of the flow stress, increases with
0.001 925 1000 increasing temperature. The applicability and prediction accuracy has
1 1100 1250
1000 1300 1550
been proven successfully by Münstermann et al. (2013), Novokshanov
et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2020) and Shen et al. (2020a); (2) by taking the
strain rate part of the modified JC model proposed by Shin and Kim,
Table 5 flexibility, applicability and accuracy are increased since the original JC
Strain rate hardening parameters of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si at 298 K. model does not account for the enhanced strain rate effects at high strain
( ε̇ ) ( ε̇
) ( ε̇ ) ( ε̇
)
rates (Lin and Chen, 2011) whereas the modified model captures the
hUT (ε̇) = DUT
1 • ln + exp DUT hUC (ε̇) = DUC
1 • ln + exp DUC
ε̇0 2 •
ε̇0 ε̇0 2 •
ε̇0 steep increase (upturns rapidly) of flow stress at high strain rates
DUT DUT DUC DUC accurately with an exponential dependence on the normalized strain
1 2 1 2
rate; (3) in contrast to the original JC model and the modified JC model
0.02738 2.672e-08 0.03618 4.889e-08
proposed by Shin and Kim, material parameters of the model presented

5
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 4. Strain rate dependence of material constants A and C in Eq. (9a) for Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si.

Fig. 5. Strain rate dependence of yield locus of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si: (a) yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at corresponding strain rates; (b)
the evolution of yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at the reference strain rate; (c) comparison of predicted yield stress and the experimental ones
with the evolution of SD effect; (d) evolution of strain rate sensitivity parameter m and tension-compression asymmetry parameter n with the increasing strain rates.
6
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Table 7
Experimental results of yield stress of AZ31 (Khan et al., 2011).
Temper-ature [K] Strain rate [/s] Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress [MPa] Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress [MPa] Biaxial Yield Stress [MPa]

0 ◦
45◦
90◦
0 ◦
45◦
90 ◦
Tens. Comp.

298 10− 4 170.82 177.13 191.83 96.58 94.95 103.38 179.23 97.47
10− 2 180.00 185.00 200.00 100.00 102.00 106.00 187.50 102.50
100 190.00 205.00 215.00 102.00 106.00 108.00 203.75 105.50
338 10− 4 157.18 160.93 179.18 81.15 86.39 87.36 160.01 85.32
10− 2 165.00 168.00 186.00 84.00 88.00 94.00 171.75 88.50
100 180.00 190.00 210.00 100.00 105.00 106.00 192.50 104.00
423 10− 4 100.00 101.22 113.30 63.00 68.60 72.80 103.94 68.25
10− 2 130.00 131.00 145.00 80.00 86.00 91.00 134.25 85.75
100 170.00 180.00 195.00 98.00 103.00 105.00 181.25 102.25

Table 8
Temperature related thermal softening parameters of AZ31 at strain rate of 10− 4 /s.
gTθ (T) = CTθ
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + C3
Tθ Tθ
gCθ (T) = CCθ Cθ Cθ
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + C3

CTθ
1 CTθ
2 CTθ
3 CCθ
1 CCθ
2 CCθ
3

0◦
− 0.006797 − 0.010460 1.154000 9.181000 0.009822 0.508200
45◦ − 0.017630 − 0.008539 1.225000 7.085000 0.000356 − 5.372000
90◦ − 0.001552 − 0.013650 1.091000 25.540000 0.014350 0.645200
Biaxial − 0.110500 − 0.004977 1.487000 3.966000 0.006793 0.476100

in this work are entirely determined by a restricted set of experimental of strain, strain rate and temperature.
results without introducing additional material properties like melting
temperatures, which simplifies the model formulation, implementation 3. Application to isotropic materials
and calibration.
3.1. Thermal effects on asymmetric yielding of Zircaloy-4
σ (ε, T, ε̇) = σ ref (ε) • g(T) • h(ε̇) (11a)
Zircaloy-4 is a type of zirconium alloy widely used in nuclear power
g(T) = C1 • exp(− C2 • T) + C3 (11b)
plants, where the working temperatures are around 300 ◦ C for pressure
( )
ε̇
(
ε̇
) water reactors and around 350 ◦ C for boiling water reactors. The yield
h(ε̇) = D1 • ln + exp D2 • (11c) stresses of Zircaloy-4 at elevated temperatures were determined by
ε̇0 ε̇0
Lucas and Bement (1975) using the Knoop hardness method (Knoop
σ ref (ε) is reference flow stress obtained from uniaxial tensile tests at et al., 1939). The experimental yield stresses along RD are used to
room temperature under reference strain rate ε̇0 . The lowest strain rate calibrate material parameters, as summarized in Table 1. It can be found
in experiments is taken as the reference strain rate. σ ref can be formu­ that the intensity of the SD effect decreases with increasing temperature
lated as continuous functions of strain ε, or it can be referred to the flow and finally vanishes at 623 K.
stress at specific values of strain, such as yielding point, which depends Since it was not mentioned in the original work whether the material
on the available experimental results. is pressure sensitive or insensitive, it is considered pressure insensitive
In some simplified cases, the temperature/strain rate effects can be for simplicity reasons. As a result, the material constant B in Eq. (9a)
assumed insensitive to loading conditions. The temperature related equals zero. Based on the experimental results in Table 1, the thermal
thermal softening and strain rate hardening parameters can be deter­ effect parameters can be calibrated and listed in Table 2. The evolutions
mined from the tensile test results along the RD at different temperatures of material constants A and C in Eq. (9a) against temperatures are shown
and strain rates. To determine the temperature/strain rate effects on in Fig. 2. It can be seen that within the testing temperature range from
anisotropic and asymmetric properties, material parameters in thermal 298 K to 623 K, with increasing temperatures, the A-value increases
functions need to be determined independently for each tension/ while the C-value decreases. Based on Eqs. 6–10, it can be calculated
compression loading condition. that, within the temperature range from 0 K to 1570 K, the C-value lies
[ √̅̅ √̅̅]
σ T,0 (ε, T, ε̇) = σT,0,ref (ε) • gT,0 (T) • hT,0 (ε̇) within the range − 3 4 3, 3 4 3 , guaranteeing the convexity of the yield
(12a)
σC,0 (ε, T, ε̇) = σC,0,ref (ε) • gC,0 (T) • hC,0 (ε̇) surface according to Cazacu and Barlat (2004).
The normalized yield loci at different temperatures are constructed
σ T,45 (ε, T, ε̇) = σ T,45,ref (ε) • gT,45 (T) • hT,45 (ε̇)
(12b)
σC,45 (ε, T, ε̇) = σC,45,ref (ε) • gC,45 (T) • hC,45 (ε̇)
Table 9
σ T,90 (ε, T, ε̇) = σ T,90,ref (ε) • gT,90 (T) • hT,90 (ε̇) Strain rate hardening parameters of AZ31 at 298 K.
(12c)
σC,90 (ε, T, ε̇) = σC,90,ref (ε) • gC,90 (T) • hC,90 (ε̇) ( ε̇ ) ( ( ε̇ ) (
hTθ (ε̇) = DTθ
1 • ln + exp DTθ
2 • hCθ (ε̇) = DCθ
1 • ln + exp DCθ
2 •
ε̇0 ε̇0
σ T,b (ε, T, ε̇) = σT,b,ref (ε) • gT,b (T) • hT,b (ε̇) ) )
(12d) ε̇ ε̇
σC,b (ε, T, ε̇) = σC,b,ref (ε) • gC,b (T) • hC,b (ε̇) ε̇0 ε̇0

Based on the corresponding experimental results, the normalized DTθ

1 DTθ
2 DCθ
1 DCθ
2

strength ratio can be calibrated at specific strain, temperature and strain 0◦ 0.011660 4.886e-07 0.007722 − 1.512e-06
rate. Therefore, the temperature/strain rate impacts on anisotropic and 45◦ 0.009501 6.750e-06 0.016200 − 3.334e-06
asymmetric properties can be explicitly evaluated since the material 90◦ 0.009171 3.567e-06 0.005517 − 6.139e-07
Biaxial 0.009923 4.441e-06 0.011250 2.149e-06
parameters (a(ε,T, ε̇); bij (ε,T, ε̇); cij (ε,T, ε̇)) will be described as functions −

7
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 6. Temperature dependence of yield locus of AZ31 at strain rate of 0.0001/s: (a) yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at corresponding tem­
peratures; (b) yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at room temperature; (c) comparison of predicted normalized yield stress with experimental results
at different temperatures; (d) evolution of the temperature sensitivity parameter l and tension-compression asymmetry parameter n with the increasing temperatures;
(e) comparison of predicted yield stress depending on temperature and loading angle with experimental results.

8
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Table 10
Temperature sensitivity parameter l of AZ31 at strain rate of 10− 4 /s.
Strain rate [/s] Temperature [K] TS parameter l in Uniaxial Tension TS parameter l in Uniaxial Compression TS parameter l in Biaxial Loading

0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
0◦
45 ◦
90◦
Tens. Comp.

10− 4 298 – – – – – – – –
338 − 0.66 − 0.76 − 0.54 − 1.38 − 0.75 − 1.34 − 0.90 − 1.06
423 − 1.53 − 1.60 − 1.50 − 1.22 − 0.93 − 1.00 − 1.56 − 1.02

approach is a practical curve fitting procedure with functional forms

Table 11
Tension-compression asymmetry parameter n of AZ31 at strain rate of 10− 4 / s.
Strain rate Temperature 0◦ 45◦ 90◦
[/s] [K]
10− 4 298 − 0.4346 − 0.4640 − 0.4611
338 − 0.4837 − 0.4762 − 0.5124
423 − 0.3700 − 0.3222 − 0.3575
and compared with the isotropic von Mises yield locus, as shown in
Fig. 3a. Here, the normalized stress is defined as the ratio between
specific yield stress and reference yield stress. The reference yield stress
is denoted as σ T,0 , meaning the uniaxial tensile yield stress along the
rolling direction at the corresponding tested temperature, e.g., 298 K,
323 K, etc. It can be seen from Fig. 3a that with increasing temperatures,
the normalized yield locus changes towards the von Mises type, and the
SD effect finally disappears at 623 K. This is attributed to the fewer basal
pole concentration with increasing temperature (Lucas and Bement,
1975). To more precisely evaluate the thermal effect on the asymmetric
yielding of Zircaloy-4, the temperature sensitivity (TS) parameter l and
tension-compression asymmetry (TCA) parameter n can be used, which
are defined respectively as follows:
( / )
l=
ln σ Y σ0Y
(13)
ln(T/T0 )
σUC − σ UT
n=
σ UT
where σY and σ0Y are the yield stress at temperature T and T0 respec­
tively. Here T0 is the reference temperature, which equals to 298 K in
this study. σUC and σUT are the uniaxial compressive and uniaxial tensile
yield stress at the same strain rate, respectively. The value of the TS
parameter and TCA parameter along different loading conditions are
listed in Table 3, and their evolution with the increasing temperatures
are shown in Fig. 3d. No TS value is given at 298 K since it is the
reference temperature, and the logarithmic value of one is zero. This is
also the reason why no TS points corresponding to 298 K exist in Fig. 3d.
As found in the third and fourth column of Table 3, compression has a
more significant temperature sensitivity until 473 K than tension. Ten­
sion is more sensitive to temperature changes than compression when
the temperature is above 473 K. This phenomenon results in the
complicated SD changes of Zircaloy-4, shown by the changes in the TCA
values in the last column in Table 3.
The evolution of the normalized yield locus with the increasing
temperature is also constructed and compared with the von Mises yield
locus at room temperature, as shown in Fig. 3b. To consider the thermal
softening effects, the normalized stress used here is defined as the ratio
of specific yield stress at different temperatures to the uniaxial tensile
yield stress at 298 K, which is taken as the reference stress and denoted
as σT0,0 . The yield locus shrinks as temperature rises, which can be
attributed to the activation of more slip systems and the facilitation of
dislocation movement. Fig. 3c compares the predicted yield stress and
the experimental ones at different temperatures. The temperature
dependence of the SD is also shown in Fig. 3c clearly. As found in Fig. 3,
except for the prediction of σ UC at 373 K, most predictions are extremely
accurate, with errors of less than 5%. It is noted that our proposed
that allow for the interpolation of results between the experimental
points. Generally speaking, the formulated model works well in pre­
Biaxial dicting σ UT and σ UC at elevated temperatures and the general SD evo­
lution tendency for Zircaloy-4.
− 0.4562
− 0.4832
− 0.3433
3.2. Strain rate effects on asymmetric yielding of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-
0.29Si
Zhang et al. (2014) carried out a series of uniaxial tension and uni­
axial compression tests on Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si, a titanium alloy
with a strong SD effect, over a wide range of strain rates at room tem­
perature. The experimental results of yield strength of the alloy at three
different strain rates are used for model validation, as listed in Table 4.
Based on the experimental results in Table 4, the strain rate hard­
ening parameters can be calibrated and listed in Table 5. This material is
considered to be pressure insensitive for simplification. As a result, the
material constant B in Eq. (9a) equals zero. The evolutions of material
constants in Eq. (9a) A and C, against logarithmic normalized strain rate
can be plotted based on Table 6, as shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that
within the tested strain rates, which range from 0.001/s to 1000/s, both
A-value and C-value increase with increasing strain rate, and the C-value
increases abruptly when the logarithmic normalized strain rate value is
greater than around 11.5, which corresponds to 100/s. It is calculated
with Eqs. 6–10 that for isotropic case, within a very wide range of strain
[ √̅̅ √̅̅]
(14) rates, the C-value lies within the range − 3 4 3, 3 4 3 , where the yield
surface is convex, according to Cazacu and Barlat (2004).
The normalized yield loci at different strain rates are constructed and
compared with the isotropic von Mises yield locus, as shown in Fig. 5a.
The uniaxial tensile yield stress at the corresponding tested strain rate ε̇
is the reference yield stress, which is used for normalization as denoted
as σε̇0 . Corresponding to the experimental results, the SD effect increases
with increasing strain rate in Fig. 5a. To evaluate more precisely the
strain rate hardening on the asymmetric yielding of Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-
1.8Zr-0.29Si, the strain rate sensitivity (SRS) parameter m and TCA
parameter n can be used, and the SRS parameter can be defined as
follows:
( / )
m=
ln σ Y σ0Y
(15)
ln(ε̇/ε̇0 )
where σ Y and σ0Y are the yield stress under strain rate ε̇ and ε̇0 respec­
tively. Here ε̇0 is the reference strain rate equal to 0.001/s. The values of
the SRS parameter and TCA parameter along different loading condi­
tions are listed in Table 6, and their evolution with the increasing strain
rates are shown in Fig. 5d. It is noted that in Fig. 5d, the evolutions of
SRS and TCA with increasing strain rate show linear relationships due to
small amount of data, while they are not necessary to be. As found in the
third and fourth column in Table 6, compression has more pronounced
SRS than tension since the absolute values of SRS in compression are
greater than those in tension. This phenomenon results in the increasing
SD effect, as shown in the last column of Table 6 and Fig. 5a.
The evolution of the normalized yield locus with increasing strain
rate is also constructed and compared with the von Mises yield locus at
the quasi-static state, as shown in Fig. 5b. The reference yield stress used
for normalization is denoted as σε̇0,0 , meaning the uniaxial tensile yield

9
B. Pan et al.
Fig. 7. Illustration of the temperature dependence of normalized yield surface of AZ31 in the space of principal stresses: (a) at 298 K; (b) at 338 K; (c) at 423 K.
stress at 0.001/s. The normalized yield locus expands with increasing
strain rates, which is consistent with the work hardening caused by rapid
dislocation movement and generation at high strain rates. Fig. 5c com­
pares the predicted yield stress and the experimental ones. The evolution
of SD is also shown clearly. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that great accuracy
is achieved in predicting yield stress at different strain rates. Generally
speaking, the formulated model works well in predicting σ UT and σ UC at
different strain rates for Ti-6.6Al-3.3Mo-1.8Zr-0.29Si.
4. Application to anisotropic material
4.1. Temperature effects of AZ31 alloy
The AZ31 magnesium alloy has the advantages of high strength-to-
weight ratio, good biocompatibility, which has great potentials for
application in automotive field. However, its application for widespread
structural applications is still limited due to its poor formability at room
10
Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714
temperature and the asymmetric response of wrought Mg alloy under
tension and compression. Khan et al. (2011) carried out a series of tests
on a commercial-grade AZ31 alloy under uniaxial tension/compression
and multiaxial (simple shear) loading tests at elevated temperatures and
a wide range of strain rates. In this study, the uniaxial tension/com­
pression yield stress along RD, diagonal direction (DD) and transverse
direction (TD) are obtained from the results provided by Khan et al.
(2011), via graph reading, distance measuring and calculation methods.
The experimental data of the same material at room temperature and
quasi-static condition is provided in the work of Yoon et al. (2014). By
comparing the values obtained using our method with Yoon’s results,
accuracy of the data can be confirmed for later validation. The balanced
biaxial tensile yield stress is approximated by the mean values of three
uniaxial tensile yield stresses in the form of Tb = (T0 + 2 × T45 +
T90 )/4, while the balanced biaxial compressive yield stress is approxi­
mated by the mean values of three uniaxial compressive yield stresses by
Cb = (C0 + 2 × C45 + C90 )/4, according to Yoon et al. (2014). The
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 8. Strain rate dependence of yield locus of AZ31 at 298 K: (a) yield locus normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at corresponding strain rates; (b) yield locus
normalized by uniaxial tensile strength at the reference strain rate; (c) comparison of predicted normalized yield stress with experimental results at different strain
rates; (d) evolution of strain rate sensitivity parameter m and tension-compression asymmetry parameter n with the increasing strain rates; (e) comparison of
predicted yield stress depending on strain rate and loading angle with experimental results.

11
B. Pan et al.
Table 12
Strain rate sensitivity parameter m of AZ31 at 298 K.
Temperature [K] Strain rate [/s] SRS parameter m in Uniaxial Tension
0◦
45 ◦
90◦
298 10− 4 /s – – – –
10− 2 /s 0.011 0.009 0.009
100 /s 0.012 0.016 0.012
Table 13
Tension-compression asymmetry parameter n of AZ31 at 298 K.
Temperature Strain rate 0◦ 45◦ 90◦
[K] [/s]
298 10− 4 − 0.4346 − 0.4640 − 0.4611
10− 2 − 0.4444 − 0.4486 − 0.4700
100 − 0.4632 − 0.4829 − 0.4977
experimental results of the AZ31 alloy used in this work are listed in
Table 7.
Based on the experimental results in Table 7, temperature related
thermal softening and strain rate hardening parameters can be cali­
brated for different loading conditions independently. They are sum­
marized in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. Based on the temperature
related thermal softening parameters listed in Table 8, the normalized
yield locus at different temperatures can be plotted and compared with
the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 6a. Similar to what has been
mentioned in Section 3.1, the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the
corresponding temperature is used as reference stress σ T,0 . To evaluate
the temperature effect on the asymmetric yielding of AZ31, the TS
parameter l and TCA parameter n are calculated and listed in Table 10
and Table 11 respectively, and their evolution with the increasing
temperatures are shown in Fig. 6d. It is noted that in Fig. 6d, the evo­
lution of TS with the increasing temperatures shows linear relationship
due to small amount of data, while it is not necessary to be.
As found in Table 10, only along DD, the initial yield behavior of
AZ31 in tension has more pronounced temperature sensitivity than in
compression since the absolute values of TS are greater in tension than in
compression, while along other loading directions the temperature
sensitivity in tension and compression can be altered. According to
Table 11, a strong SD effect exists in AZ31 since all values of the TCA
parameter n are less than − 0.3, which means at a quasi-static state, the
compressive yield stress at all temperatures is 30% less than the tensile
yield stress. This is because twinning will be activated at low stresses in
compression, whereas tensile loads cannot induce such twins (Lou et al.,
2007; Reed-Hill, 1973; Reed-Hill and Abbaschian, 1994; Reed-Hill et al.,
1973) for AZ31. The SD effect increases and subsequently decreases with
increasing temperature, which can be explained by the contribution of
other deformation mechanisms in compression, such as prismatic and
pyramidal slip (Wang and Huang, 2003), suppressing twinning, when
the temperature gets higher than 338 K. However, since model con­
struction and validation are the main targets in this work, the reason
why the SD effect of AZ31 increases thereafter it decreases again with
increasing temperature will not be further discussed here.
The evolution of the normalized yield locus with increasing tem­
peratures is plotted and compared with the experimental results in
Fig. 6b. The uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the reference
temperature 298 K is used as the referenced yield stress σ T0,0 . The
normalized yield locus shrinks with increasing temperature due to
thermal softening effects. A two-dimensional figure comparing the
predicted normalized yield stress and experimental results can be con­
structed with loading direction as the x-axis and yield stress as the y-axis,
as shown in Fig. 6c. The normalized stress defined as the ratio of certain
yield stress to the reference yield stress is used here. The reference yield
stress is the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the corresponding
Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714
SRS parameter m in Uniaxial Compression SRS parameter m in Biaxial Loading
0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
Tens. Comp.
– – – –
0.008 0.016 0.005 0.010 0.011
0.006 0.009 0.005 0.014 0.009
tested temperature. The distribution of yield stress over temperature and
loading direction is shown in Fig. 6e. The yellow surface represents the
predicted tensile yield stress distribution, while the green surface rep­
Biaxial resents the predicted compressive yield stress distribution. The colorful
symbols represent the experimental results. The predicted anisotropic
− 0.4562 yield stresses under tension and compression agree well with the
− 0.4533 experimental ones.
− 0.4822 The yield surface of AZ31 in the principal stress space is illustrated in
Fig. 7. The normalization method is also used here, in which the uniaxial
tensile yield stress along RD at the corresponding tested temperature is
taken as the reference yield stress. It can be seen that the yield surface
under three-dimensional loading has a conical shape and shrinks with
increasing temperature. The principal stress plane (σ1 = 0, σ 2 = 0, σ3 =
0) cuts through the yield surface, and the corresponding white circles in
Fig. 6 are yield locus under plane stress conditions. From Figs. 6 and 7, it
can be seen that a very high accuracy has been achieved in predicting
yield stress along different loading directions at different temperatures
by using the formulated model.
4.2. Strain rate effects of AZ31 alloy
Similarly, based on the calibrated strain rate hardening parameters
in Table 9, the normalized yield locus at different strain rates can be
plotted and compared with experimental results, as shown in Fig. 8a.
The uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the corresponding strain
rate is used as the reference yield stress σε,0
˙ . It can be seen that the shape
of the normalized yield locus does not change significantly with the
increasing strain rate. To evaluate the strain rate effects on the asym­
metric yielding of AZ31, the SRS parameter m and TCA parameter n are
calculated and listed in Table 12 and Table 13, and their evolution with
the increasing strain rates are shown in Fig. 8d. It is noted that in Fig. 8d,
the evolution of SRS with the increasing strain rate shows linear rela­
tionship due to small amount of data, while it is not necessary to be. It
can be seen from Table 12 that along RD and TD, the initial yield
behavior of AZ31 shows positive SRS both in tension and compression.
Noteworthily, tension has more pronounced SRS than compression since
SRS values in tension are greater than those in compression in general.
The exception is along DD and biaxial loading, the SRS in tension and
compression can be altered. This corresponds to the fact that twining
dominates the deformation in in-plane compression for AZ31 (Khan
et al., 2011). However, according to Table 13, the strain rate hardly
affects the asymmetric yielding of AZ31 since the TCA parameter n does
not change significantly with increasing strain rate at different loading
directions.
The evolution of the normalized yield locus with increasing strain
rates can be plotted and compared with the experimental results in
Fig. 8b. The uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the reference strain
rate (10− 4 /s) is used as the reference yield stress σ ε0,0
˙ . The normalized
yield locus expands due to strain rate hardenin. A two-dimensional
figure comparing the predicted normalized yield stress and experi­
mental results can be constructed with loading direction as the x-axis
and yield stress as the y-axis, as shown in Fig. 8c. The normalization
stress defined as the ratio of certain yield stress to the reference yield
stress is used here. The reference yield stress is the uniaxial tensile yield
stress along RD at the corresponding tested strain rates. The distribution
of yield stress over logarithmic normalized strain rate and loading
12
B. Pan et al.
Fig. 9. Illustration of the strain rate dependence of the normalized yield surface of AZ31 in the space of principal stresses: (a) at 0.0001/s; (b) at 0.01/s; (c) at 1/s.
direction is shown in Fig. 8e. The yellow surface represents the predicted
tensile yield stress distribution, while the green surface represents the
predicted compressive yield stress distribution. The colorful solid sym­
bols represent the experimental results. The predicted strain rate
dependence of anisotropic yield stresses under tension and compression
conditions agrees well with the experimental ones.
The strain rate dependence of the yield surface of AZ31 in the
principal stress space is illustrated in Fig. 9, in which the conical shape
yield surface expands with increasing strain rate. The normalization
method is also used here, where the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD
at the corresponding tested strain rates, e.g., 0.0001/s, 0.01/s and 1/s.
White circles in Fig. 9 represent the yield locus under plane stress con­
ditions (σ1 = 0, σ 2 = 0, σ 3 = 0). It can be seen a very high accuracy has
been achieved in predicting yield stress along different loading di­
rections depending on strain rates by using the formulated model.
13
Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714
4.3. Coupled temperature and strain rate effects of AZ31 alloy
With the calibrated temperature related thermal softening and strain
rate hardening parameters, the normalized yield locus of AZ31 under
other loading conditions in terms of strain rate and temperature can be
predicted. The predicted results at 423 K and strain rate of 1/s are
compared with the ones at 298 K and strain rate of 0.0001/s in Fig. 10a.
The uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD of AZ31 at 298 K and strain
rate of 0.0001/s is taken as the reference. It can be seen when increasing
temperature from 298 K to 423 K and increasing strain rate from
0.0001/s to 1/s, the SD effect of the AZ31 alloy decreases. A two-
dimensional graph comparing the predicted normalized yield stress
with experimental data under these two loading conditions is shown in
Fig. 10b. A very good accuracy has been achieved in predicting yield
stress at different temperatures and strain rates by using the formulated
model. The normalized yield surface in the space of principal stress
under these two loading conditions is compared in Fig. 10c. The shape of
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 10. Temperature and strain rate dependence of yield locus of AZ31 demonstrated under two loading conditions: (a) yield locus under plane stress conditions; (b)
prediction of yield stress; (c) yield locus in principal stress space.

taken for AZ31 along RD, DD and TD under uniaxial tensile and uniaxial
Table 14 compressive conditions at 298 K and strain rate of 0.0001/s. Around 30
Calibrated flow curve parameters according to Ludwik’s strain hardening law points have been taken for each flow curve. These huge amounts of data
along different loading directions at 298 K, strain rate of 10− 4 / s. are not listed here for simplicity reason. The experimental results of
σUT,θ = σUT,θ + EUT,θ •εp E2
UT,θ
σUC,θ = σUC,θ + EUC,θ •εp E2
UC,θ
different flow curves are fitted using the Ludwik’s strain hardening law:
0 1 0 1

σUT,θ
0 EUT,θ
1 EUT,θ
2 σUC,θ
0 EUC,θ
1 EUC,θ
2
σ = σ0 + E1 • εp E2 (16)
0◦
170.82 842.00 0.92 96.58 344.10 2.31
45◦ 177.13 482.80 0.67 94.95 326.60 2.28 Where εp is the plastic strain, σ0 is the yield stress, E1 and E2 are the
90◦ 191.83 488.10 0.71 103.38 201.50 2.07 hardening coefficients. The flow curve parameters for different loading
directions at room temperature, quasi-static loading state are summa­
rized in Table 14.
the yield surface of the AZ31 alloy is affected by temperature and strain Due to the fact that there were no biaxial flow curves in the work of
rate. Khan et al. (2011), the strain hardening parameters are not calibrated
for biaxial loading, and no biaxial flow curves will be shown in the
4.4. Flow curve prediction of AZ31 alloy considering thermal effects following graphs. However, to calibrate the plasticity model parameters,
the biaxial tension and biaxial compression flow curves are needed,
Based on the methods described in previous sections, the true stress which will be calculated according to the formulations
values corresponding to different true strain values, ranging from Tb = (T0 +2 × T45 +T90 )/4 and Cb = (C0 + 2 × C45 + C90 )/4. By using
yielding point to 0.1 (approximately the uniform elongation), have been

14
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 11. Comparisons of predicted flow curves and the experimental ones at 298 K: (a) uniaxial tension at 0.0001/s; (b) uniaxial compression at 0.0001/s; (c)
uniaxial tension at 0.01/s; (d) uniaxial compression at 0.01/s; (e) uniaxial tension at 1/s; (f) uniaxial compression at 1/s.

the formulations listed in Table 14, the calibrated temperature and
strain rate hardening parameters listed in Tables 8 and 9, the flow curves
along RD, DD, TD under uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive
conditions at two testing temperatures and with three strain rates were
predicted and compared with the experimental ones, as shown from
Figs. 11 and 12.
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that generally the predicted flow curves
match the experimental ones quite well at 298 K in all loading condi­
tions. As shown in Fig. 12, deviations between predicted flow curves and
the experimental ones at 338 K increase with increasing plastic defor­
mation at each testing strain rate, while the accuracy is still acceptable.
These deviations origin from the fact that the temperature related
thermal softening parameters in the current study are calibrated based
on the yield stress. It has been shown in several studies that considering

15
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 12. Comparisons of predicted flow curves and the experimental ones at 338 K: (a) uniaxial tension at 0.0001/s; (b) uniaxial compression at 0.0001/s; (c)
uniaxial tension at 0.01/s; (d) uniaxial compression at 0.01/s; (e) uniaxial tension at 1/s; (f) uniaxial compression at 1/s.

the evolution of material parameters during plastic deformation can
improve the description accuracy of the plasticity models (Lian et al.,
2018a, 2018b, Shen et al., 2020b, 2022, 2023). Therefore, both the
temperature related softening and strain rate hardening parameters can
be formulated as a function of plastic strain (Shen et al., 2020a) to
further improve the model accuracy. In general, the other predicted flow
curves based on the developed models match the experimental ones with
high accuracy.
5. Application to extreme scenarios using simplified functions
Both anisotropy and strength differential can affect the shape of yield

16
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Table 15
Virtual experimental data that temperature only affects the SD effect (quasi-static loading).
Temperature [K] Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress [MPa] Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress [MPa] Biaxial Yield Stress [MPa]

0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
Tens. Comp.

298 200.00 240.00 270.00 150.00 180.00 202.50 237.50 178.13

373 175.00 210.00 236.25 140.00 168.00 189.00 207.81 166.25
473 150.00 180.00 202.50 135.00 162.00 182.25 178.13 160.31
Temperature [K] Anisotropy
σT0 σT45 σT90 σC0 σC45 σC90 σBT σBC
σT0 σT0 σT0 σC0 σC0 σC0 σT0 σC0

298 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19

373 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19
473 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19
Temperature [K] SD Effect
σC0 σC45 σC90 σBC
σT0 σT45 σT90 σBT

298 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

373 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
473 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Table 16
Virtual experimental data that strain rate only affects the SD effect (room temperature).
Strain rate [/s] Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress [MPa] Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress [MPa] Biaxial Yield Stress [MPa]

0◦ 45◦ 90◦ 0◦ 45◦ 90◦ Tens. Comp.

10 − 4 150.00 180.00 202.50 135.00 162.00 182.25 178.13 160.31

10− 2 175.00 210.00 236.25 140.00 168.00 189.00 207.81 166.25
1 200.00 240.00 270.00 150.00 180.00 202.50 237.50 178.13
Strain rate [/s] Anisotropy
σT0 σT45 σT90 σC0 σC45 σC90 σBT σBC
σT0 σT0 σT0 σC0 σC0 σC0 σT0 σC0

10− 4 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19

10− 2 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19
1 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19
Strain rate [/s] SD Effect
σC0 σC45 σC90 σBC
σT0 σT45 σT90 σBT

10− 4 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

10− 2 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Table 17 Table 18
Temperature related thermal softening parameters of virtual material that Strain rate hardening parameters of virtual material that strain rate only affects
temperature only affects the SD effect (quasi-static loading). the SD effect (room temperature).
gTθ (T) = CTθ ( ε̇ ) ( ( ε̇ ) (
1 • exp( − C2 • T) +
Tθ
gCθ (T) = CCθ Cθ
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + hTθ (ε̇) = DTθ
1 • ln + exp DTθ
2 • hCθ (ε̇) = DCθ
1 • ln + exp DCθ
2 •
CTθ
3 CCθ
3 )
ε̇0
)
ε̇0
ε̇ ε̇
CTθ
1 CTθ
2 CTθ
3 CCθ
1 CCθ
2 CCθ
3 ε̇0 ε̇0
0◦ 1.525 0.003 0.432 3.534 0.011 0.885 DTθ DTθ DCθ DCθ
1 2 1 2
45◦ 1.525 0.003 0.432 3.534 0.011 0.885
90◦ 1.525 0.003 0.432 3.534 0.011 0.885 0◦ 0.036 1.225e-16 0.008 3.708e-06
Biaxial 1.525 0.003 0.432 3.534 0.011 0.885 45◦ 0.036 1.225e-16 0.008 3.708e-06
90◦ 0.036 1.225e-16 0.008 3.708e-06
Biaxial 0.036 1.225e-16 0.008 3.708e-06
locus. Therefore, to distinguish the thermal effects on SD and anisotropy,
the application of the material model to two extreme scenarios has been
5.1. Temperature/strain rate only affects the SD
discussed. (1) Temperature/strain rate only affects the SD effects, and
(2) temperature/strain rate only affects the anisotropy effects. Since no
The virtual experimental results that temperature and strain rate
data is available in the literature regarding these two scenarios, virtual
only affect the SD effect are summarized in Table 15 and Table 16,
experimental results have been used in this study. When defining ma­
respectively. When temperature and strain rate only affects SD effect,
terial properties that temperature only affects the SD effect or anisot­
the anisotropy in tension and compression does not change. Based on
ropy, the quasi-static loading condition is assumed. Similarly, when
these data, the corresponding temperature and strain rate hardening
defining material properties that strain rate only affects the SD effect or
parameters have been calibrated and summarized in Table 17 and
anisotropy, room temperature is assumed. The detailed procedures to
Table 18, respectively. When temperature/strain rate only affects the SD
generate these virtual data are explained in Appendix B. For these two
effect, the temperature related thermal softening/strain rate hardening
extreme scenarios, the model formulations can be simplified. In most
parameters are loading direction independent but tension/compression
cases, temperature/strain rate affects both the SD and anisotropy effects.

17
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 13. When temperature only affects the SD effect: (a) yield loci at different temperatures, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the cor­
responding temperature; (b) prediction of anisotropic yield stress at different temperatures, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the corre­
sponding temperature.

Fig. 14. When strain rate only affects the SD effect: (a) the evolution of yield loci with increasing strain rate, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD
at the corresponding strain rate; (b) prediction of anisotropic yield stress at different strain rates, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the
corresponding strain rate.

dependent. Figs. 13b and 14b. Since the anisotropy is not affected by temperature, it
The evolution of yield locus (normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield can be summarized that:
stress along RD at the corresponding temperature or the corresponding
σTθ σ Tθ
strain rate respectively) with changing temperature/strain rate is shown T T
= T00 = kTθ →σ Tθ
T = k
Tθ
• σ T0 T0
T0 • g (T),
in Figs. 13a and 14a, respectively. Two-dimensional graphs comparing σ T0 σ T0
(17a)
T

predicted yield stress normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress σBT
T
σBT
T
= T00 = kBT →σBT BT
• σ T0 T0
T = k T0 • g (T)
along RD at the corresponding temperature and the corresponding strain σTT0
σ T0
rate are shown in Figs. 13b and 14b. When temperature/strain rate only
affects the SD effect, the shape of the predicted normalized tensile/ σCθ
T
σ Cθ
T
= C00 = kCθ →σ Cθ
T = k
Cθ
• σC0 C0
T0 • g (T),
compressive yield stress along different loading angles remains constant. C0
σT σ T0
(17b)
The normalized yield stress at different temperatures/strain rates are σBC σBC
T
parallel to each other, regardless of tension or compression, as shown in
T
C0
= C00 = kBC →σBCT = k
BC
• σC0 C0
T0 • g (T)
σT σ T0

18
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Table 19
Virtual experimental data that temperature only affects the anisotropy (quasi-static loading).
Temperature [K] Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress [MPa] Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress [MPa] Biaxial Yield Stress [MPa]

0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
0 ◦
45 ◦
90 ◦
Tens. Comp.

298 200.00 240.00 294.00 100.0 120.00 147.00 243.50 121.75

373 175.00 200.00 245.00 87.50 100.00 122.50 205.00 102.50
473 150.00 160.00 202.50 75.00 80.00 101.25 168.13 84.07
Temperature [K] Anisotropy
σT0 σT45 σT90 σC0 σC45 σC90 σBT σBC
σT0 σT0 σT0 σC0 σC0 σC0 σT0 σC0

298 1.00 1.20 1.47 1.00 1.20 1.47 1.22 1.22

373 1.00 1.14 1.40 1.00 1.14 1.40 1.17 1.17
473 1.00 1.07 1.35 1.00 1.07 1.35 1.12 1.12
Temperature [K] SD Effect
σC0 σC45 σC90 σBC
σT0 σT45 σT90 σBT

298 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

373 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
473 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Table 20
Virtual experimental data that strain rate only affects the anisotropy (room temperature).
Strain rate [/s] Uniaxial Tensile Yield Stress [MPa] Uniaxial Compressive Yield Stress [MPa] Biaxial Yield Stress [MPa]

0◦ 45◦ 90◦ 0◦ 45◦ 90◦ Tens. Comp.

10 − 4 150.00 160.00 220.00 75.00 80.00 110.00 172.50 86.25

10− 2 175.00 200.00 245.00 87.50 100.00 122.50 205.00 102.50
1 200.00 240.00 270.00 100.0 120.00 135.00 237.50 118.75
Strain rate [/s] Anisotropy
σT0 σT45 σT90 σC0 σC45 σC90 σBT σBC
σT0 σT0 σT0 σC0 σC0 σC0 σT0 σC0

10− 4 1.07 1.47 1.00 1.07 1.47 1.15 1.15 1.07

10− 2 1.00 1.14 1.40 1.00 1.14 1.40 1.17 1.17
1 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.00 1.20 1.35 1.19 1.19
Strain rate [/s] SD Effect
σC0 σC45 σC90 σBC
σT0 σT45 σT90 σBT

10− 4 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

10− 2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

With increasing temperature, the tensile or compressive yield stress at a

Table 21
Temperature related thermal softening parameters of virtual material that random loading direction normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress
temperature only affects the anisotropy (quasi-static loading). along RD at 298 K evolves by a factor gT0 (T) or gC0 (T), which corre­
sponds to the observation that the temperature related thermal softening
gTθ (T) = CTθ Tθ
1 • exp( − C2 • T) + gCθ (T) = CCθ Cθ
1 • exp( − C2 • T) +
CTθ CCθ
parameters are loading direction independent but tension/compression
3 3
dependent. To complete the calibration of the material parameters, only
CTθ CTθ CTθ CCθ CCθ CCθ
1 2 3 1 2 3 σ T0 , σC0 at different temperatures (T0 , T1 , T2 ), and σ T45,T0 , σ T90,T0 , σC45,T0 ,
0 1.525 0.003 0.432 1.525 0.003 0.432 σ C90,T0 , σBT,T0 , σBC,T0 at the reference temperature are needed. Then yield
◦

45◦ 2.033 0.003 0.242 2.033 0.003 0.242

90◦ 2.354 0.005 0.464 2.354 0.005 0.464 stress at random loading angle θ at any temperature can be predicted.
Biaxial 1.996 0.004 0.379 1.996 0.004 0.379 Similarly, when strain rate only affects the SD effect, the shape of the
predicted tensile/compressive yield stress normalized by the uniaxial
tensile yield stress along RD at 10− 4 /s keeps the same. Since the
Table 22 anisotropy is not affected by strain rate, it can be summarized that:
Strain rate hardening parameters of virtual material that strain rate only affects
σTθ σ Tθ
the anisotropy (room temperature). ε̇ ε̇
= T00 = kTθ →σ Tθ Tθ T0 T0
ε̇ = k • σ ε̇0 • h (ε̇),
T0
σ ε̇ σε̇0
( ε̇ ) ( ( ε̇ ) ( (18a)
hTθ (ε̇) = DTθ
1 • ln + exp DTθ
2 • hCθ (ε̇) = DCθ
1 • ln + exp DCθ
2 • σBT σBTε̇
ε̇0 ε̇0 ε̇
= T00 = kBT →σBT BT
• σ T0 T0
) ) T0 ε̇ = k ε̇0 • h (ε̇)
ε̇ ε̇ σε̇ σε̇0
ε̇0 ε̇0

DTθ
1 DTθ
2 DCθ
1 DCθ
2
σCθ
ε̇
σ Cθ
ε̇
C0
= C00 = kCθ →σ Cθ
ε̇ = k
Cθ
• σC0 C0
ε̇0 • h (ε̇),
0◦ 0.036 1.225e-16 0.036 1.225e-16
σ ε̇ σ ε̇0
(18b)
45◦ 0.054 1.914e-20 0.054 1.914e-20 σBC
ε̇
σBCε̇0
90◦ 0.025 3.821e-18 0.025 3.821e-18 C0
= C0 = kBC →σBCε̇ = k
BC
• σC0 C0
ε̇0 • h (ε̇)
σε̇ σε̇0
Biaxial 0.041 5.595e-21 0.041 5.595e-21

19
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

Fig. 15. When temperature only affects the anisotropy: (a) the evolution of yield loci with increasing temperature, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress
along RD at the corresponding temperature; (b) prediction of anisotropic yield stress at different temperatures, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along
RD at the corresponding temperature.

Fig. 16. When the strain rate only affects the anisotropy: (a) yield loci at different strain rates, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the
corresponding strain rate; (b) prediction of anisotropic yield stress at different temperatures, normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at the cor­
responding strain rate.

With increasing strain rate, the tensile or compressive yield stress at
random loading direction normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress
along RD at 10− 4 /s evolves by a factor hT0 (ε̇) or hC0 (ε̇), which corre­
sponds to the observation that the strain rate hardening parameters are
loading direction independent but tension/compression dependent. To
complete the calibration of the material parameters, only σ T0 , σ C0 at
different strain rates (ε̇0 , ε̇1 ), and σ T45,ε̇0 , σ T90,ε̇0 , σ C45,ε̇0 , σ C90,ε̇0 , σBT,ε̇0 , σ BC,ε̇0 at
the reference strain rate are needed. Then yield stress at random loading
angle θ at any strain rate can be predicted.
5.2. Temperature/strain rate only affects the anisotropy
The other extreme scenario is when the temperature/strain rate only
affects the anisotropy. The virtual experimental results that temperature
and strain rate only affect the anisotropy are summarized in Table 19
and Table 20, respectively. The corresponding temperature related
thermal softening and strain rate hardening parameters have been
calibrated and summarized in Table 21 and Table 22, respectively. In
this case, the temperature related thermal softening/strain rate hard­
ening parameters are tension/compression independent but loading
direction dependent.
When temperature only affects the anisotropy, it can be summarized
that:

20
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

σCθ σ Cθ
T
effects of several metallic materials have been discussed. Based on the
T
Tθ
= Tθ0 = sθ →σ Cθ θ Tθ Tθ
T = s • σ T0 • g (T), summarized experimental and modeling results, several conclusions can
σT σ T0
(19) be drawn.
σBC σBC
T
T
BT
= BT0 = sB →σ BC B BT BT
T = s • σ T0 • g (T)
σT σ T0
• By coupling a simple Arrhenius type model for temperature effects
With increasing temperature, the normalized tensile and compressive and a modified Johnson-Cook model for strain rate effects into the
analytical Yoon2014 asymmetric yield criterion, very good accuracy
yield stress both evolve by a factor gTθ (T) (for biaxial loading, the factor
has been achieved in describing the thermal effects on asymmetric
is gBT (T)), which corresponds to the observation that the thermal effect
yielding behavior of both isotropic and anisotropic HCP materials.
parameters are tension/compression independent but loading direction
• Temperature/strain rate can affect either the strength differential
dependent. The corresponding change of yield locus and prediction of
effects or the anisotropy of metallic materials. The applicability of
normalized yield stress at different temperatures is shown in Fig. 15. For
the thermal dependent model to two extreme scenarios has been
the complete calibration of model parameters, only σT0 , σ T45 , σ T90 , σ Bt at
discussed.
different temperatures (T0 , T1 , T2 ), and σC0,T0 , σC45,T0 , σ C90,T0 , σ BC,T0 at the • In general loading conditions, temperature/strain rate can affect
reference temperature are required. both the strength differential effects and the anisotropy of metallic
Similarly, when strain rate only affects the anisotropy, it can be materials. The calibration and validation of the thermal dependent
summarized that: model for general applications have been elaborated.
σCθ
ε̇
σ Cθ
ε̇
Tθ
= Tθ0 = sθ →σ Cθ θ Tθ Tθ
ε̇ = s • σ ε̇0 • h (ε̇), Credit author statement
σ ε̇ σε̇0
(20)
σBC σBC
Boyu Pan: Investigation, Data curation, Validation, Writing – orig­
ε̇ ε̇
BT
= BT0 = sB →σ BC B BT BT
ε̇ = s • σ ε̇0 • h (ε̇)
σ ε̇ σ ε̇0
inal draft, Visualization. Fuhui Shen: Conceptualization, Methodology,
With increasing strain rate, the tensile and compressive yield stress Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Sebastian
normalized by the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at 10− 4 /s both Münstermann: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Funding
evolve by a factor hTθ (ε̇) (for biaxial loading, the factor is hBT (ε̇)), which acquisition.
corresponds to the observation that the strain rate hardening parameters
are tension/compression independent but loading direction dependent.
The corresponding change of yield locus and prediction of normalized Declaration of competing interest
yield stress at different strain rates is shown in Fig. 16. For the complete
calibration of model parameters, only σT0 , σ T45 , σ T90 , σ Bt at different strain The authors declare no conflict of interest for the publication of this
rates (ε̇0 , ε̇1 ), and σC0,ε̇0 , σC45,ε̇0 , σC90,ε̇0 , σBC,ε̇0 at the reference strain rate are paper.
needed. This part is a parametric study of our proposed model, with
which we try to simplify the model by reducing the number of param­ Data availability
eters to be determined. The simplification can be seen directly from the
predicted yield locus and yield surface. By calibrating fewer parameters Data will be made available on request.
compared with the complete model, yield stress at any temperature and
at any strain rates can be easily obtained. Acknowledgments

6. Conclusions The authors gratefully acknowledge the Federal Ministry for Eco­
nomic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) [grant number: 100513703] for the
The temperature and strain rate effects on strength differential financial funding and the GRS funding agency for the support.

Appendix A. Calculation of b1− 5 , c1− in Eq. (5) from bij in L (bij ) and cij in L′′ (bij ) in Eq. (4)
′
5

( )/
1 = b22 2 + b22 b33 + b33 2 9 (A1a)
( )/
b1 = b11 2 + b11 b33 + b33 2 9 (A1b)
( )/
b2 = b11 2 + b11 b22 + b22 2
9 (A1c)

b3 = (b66 + b2 ) / 4 (A1d)

b4 = b55 , b5 = b44 (A1e)

c31 = (c23 − c21 ) + c13 (A2a)

c32 = (c13 − c12 ) + c23 (A2b)

c31 = c13 , c32 = c23 (A2c)

c1 = c12 c23 (2c12 − c23 ) / 27 (A2d)

c2 = c12 c23 (2c23 − c12 ) / 27 (A2e)

/
c3 = 9c66 2
(c12 c23 ) (A2f)

21
B. Pan et al. Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714

c4 = c5 = c3 (c1 + c2 ) / 2 (A2g)

Appendix B. Strategy for defining virtual material properties

To define virtual material properties of extreme scenarios that temperature only affects the SD effect, the following steps are taken.

(1) Select three different temperatures (298 K, 373 K and 473 K are selected here).
σ tθ
(2) Assign uniaxial tensile yield stresses along RD, DD and TD at 298 K to show the certain effects of anisotropy. Keep the anisotropy ratio σt0
constant for different temperatures.
(3) Define the thermal softening factor and determine the uniaxial tensile yield stress along RD at different temperatures. Based on the pre-defined
σtθ
anisotropy ratio σt0 , calculate the uniaxial tensile yield stress along DD and TD at different temperatures.
σc
(4) Define a tension compression ratio σθt at different temperatures for RD, DD and TD, respectively. Calculate the uniaxial compressive yield stress
θ

along RD, DD and TD at different temperatures.

(5) Determine the biaxial tensile/compressive yield stresses at different temperatures based on the formulation: Tb = (T0 + 2 × T45 + T90 )/ 4,
Cb = (C0 + 2 × C45 + C90 )/4.

To define virtual material properties that temperature only affects anisotropy, the following steps are taken.

(1) Select three different temperatures (298 K, 373 K and 473 K are selected here).
(2) Assign uniaxial tensile yield stresses along RD, DD and TD at 298 K to show the certain effects of anisotropy.
σtθ
(3) Define the thermal softening factor σt0 for different temperatures, calculate the uniaxial tensile yield stress along DD and TD at different
temperatures.
σcθ
(4) Define a tension compression ratio σtθ for RD, DD and TD, respectively. Make the tension compression ratio temperature independent, and
calculate the uniaxial compressive yield stress along RD, DD and TD at different temperatures.
(5) Determine the biaxial tensile/compressive yield stresses at different temperatures based on the formulation: Tb = (T0 + 2 × T45 + T90 )/ 4,
Cb = (C0 + 2 × C45 + C90 )/4.

The same strategies are used to define virtual material parameters that strain rate only affects the SD effect or the anisotropy.

References Johnson, G.R., 1983. A constitutive model and data for materials subjected to large
strains, high strain rates, and high temperatures. Proc. 7th Inf. Sympo. Ballistics
541–547.
Ayllón, J., Miguel, V., Martínez-Martínez, A., 2021. Extended anisotropy yield criteria
Khan, A.S., Huang, S., 1992. Experimental and theoretical study of mechanical behavior
applied to Ti6Al4V at a high range of temperatures and considerations on
of 1100 aluminum in the strain rate range 10− 5− 104s− 1. Int. J. Plast. 8, 397–424.
asymmetric behavior. Mater. Des. 208, 109933.
Khan, A.S., Liang, R., 1999. Behaviors of three BCC metal over a wide range of strain
Banabic, D., Kuwabara, T., Balan, T., Comsa, D., Julean, D., 2003. Non-quadratic yield
rates and temperatures: experiments and modeling. Int. J. Plast. 15, 1089–1109.
criterion for orthotropic sheet metals under plane-stress conditions. Int. J. Mech. Sci.
Khan, A.S., Pandey, A., Gnäupel-Herold, T., Mishra, R.K., 2011. Mechanical response and
45, 797–811.
texture evolution of AZ31 alloy at large strains for different strain rates and
Barlat, F., Aretz, H., Yoon, J.W., Karabin, M.E., Brem, J.C., Dick, R.E., 2005. Linear
temperatures. Int. J. Plast. 27, 688–706.
transfomation-based anisotropic yield functions. Int. J. Plast. 21, 1009–1039.
Khan, A.S., Yu, S., 2012. Deformation induced anisotropic responses of Ti–6Al–4V alloy.
Barlat, F., Brem, J., Yoon, J.W., Chung, K., Dick, R., Lege, D., Pourboghrat, F., Choi, S.-H.,
Part I: experiments. Int. J. Plast. 38, 1–13.
Chu, E., 2003. Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy sheets—part 1: theory.
Khan, A.S., Yu, S., Liu, H., 2012. Deformation induced anisotropic responses of
Int. J. Plast. 19, 1297–1319.
Ti–6Al–4V alloy Part II: a strain rate and temperature dependent anisotropic yield
Barlat, F., Lege, D.J., Brem, J.C., 1991. A six-component yield function for anisotropic
criterion. Int. J. Plast. 38, 14–26.
materials. Int. J. Plast. 7, 693–712.
Knoop, F., Peters, C.G., Emerson, W.B., 1939. A sensitive pyramidal-diamond tool for
Barlat, F., Lian, K., 1989. Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Part I: a
indentation measurements. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 23, 39.
yield function for orthotropic sheets under plane stress conditions. Int. J. Plast. 5,
Lian, J., Shen, F., Jia, X., Ahn, D.-C., Chae, D.-C., Münstermann, S., Bleck, W., 2018a. An
51–66.
evolving non-associated Hill48 plasticity model accounting for anisotropic
Bodner, S., Partom, Y., 1975. Constitutive Equations for Elastic-Viscoplastic Strain-
hardening and r-value evolution and its application to forming limit prediction. Int.
Hardening Materials.
J. Solid Struct. 151, 20–44.
Cazacu, O., Barlat, F., 2001. Generalization of Drucker’s yield criterion to orthotropy.
Lian, J., Shen, F., Münstermann, S., 2018b. Evolution of plastic anisotropy and strain rate
Math. Mech. Solid 6, 613–630.
sensitivity. J. Phys. Conf. 1063.
Cazacu, O., Barlat, F., 2004. A criterion for description of anisotropy and yield
Lin, Y., Chen, X.-M., 2011. A critical review of experimental results and constitutive
differential effects in pressure-insensitive metals. Int. J. Plast. 20, 2027–2045.
descriptions for metals and alloys in hot working. Mater. Des. 32, 1733–1759.
Cazacu, O., Plunkett, B., Barlat, F., 2006. Orthotropic yield criterion for hexagonal closed
Liu, W., Lian, J., Münstermann, S., Zeng, C., Fang, X., 2020. Prediction of crack
packed metals. Int. J. Plast. 22, 1171–1194.
formation in the progressive folding of square tubes during dynamic axial crushing.
Drucker, D.C., 1949. Relation of Experiments to Mathematical Theories of Plasticity.
Int. J. Mech. Sci. 176, 105534.
Gao, X., Zhang, T., Zhou, J., Graham, S.M., Hayden, M., Roe, C., 2011. On stress-state
Lou, X., Li, M., Boger, R., Agnew, S., Wagoner, R., 2007. Hardening evolution of AZ31B
dependent plasticity modeling: significance of the hydrostatic stress, the third
Mg sheet. Int. J. Plast. 23, 44–86.
invariant of stress deviator and the non-associated flow rule. Int. J. Plast. 27,
Lou, Y., Yoon, J.W., 2018. Anisotropic yield function based on stress invariants for BCC
217–231.
and FCC metals and its extension to ductile fracture criterion. Int. J. Plast. 101,
Hill, R., 1948. A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc. Roy.
125–155.
Soc. Lond. Math. Phys. Sci. 193, 281–297.
Lucas, G., Bement, A., 1975. Temperature dependence of the zircaloy-4 strength-
Hosford, W., 1979. On yield loci of anisotropic cubic metals. In: Proceedings of the
differential. J. Nucl. Mater. 58, 163–170.
Seventh North American Metal Working Conference SME,, pp. 191–197.
Münstermann, S., Schruff, C., Lian, J., Döbereiner, B., Brinnel, V., Wu, B., 2013.
Hu, Q., Yoon, J.W., 2021. Analytical description of an asymmetric yield function
Predicting lower bound damage curves for high-strength low-alloy steels. Fatig.
(Yoon2014) by considering anisotropic hardening under non-associated flow rule.
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 36, 779–794.
Int. J. Plast. 140, 102978.

22
B. Pan et al.
Novokshanov, D., Döbereiner, B., Sharaf, M., Münstermann, S., Lian, J., 2015. A new
model for upper shelf impact toughness assessment with a computationally efficient
parameter identification algorithm. Eng. Fract. Mech. 148, 281–303.
Plunkett, B., Cazacu, O., Barlat, F., 2008. Orthotropic yield criteria for description of the
anisotropy in tension and compression of sheet metals. Int. J. Plast. 24, 847–866.
Reed-Hill, R., 1973. Role of Deformation Twinning in Determining the Mechanical
Properties of Metals (Ch 11), Inhomogeneity of Plastic Deformation. AMS Metals
Park, OH.
Reed-Hill, R., Abbaschian, R., 1994. Physical Metallurgy Principles. PWS Publ. Comp,
Boston, p. 853.
Reed-Hill, R.E., Abbaschian, R., Abbaschian, R., 1973. Physical Metallurgy Principles.
Van Nostrand, New York.
Shen, F., Münstermann, S., Lian, J., 2020a. An evolving plasticity model considering
anisotropy, thermal softening and dynamic strain aging. Int. J. Plast. 132, 102747.
Shen, F., Münstermann, S., Lian, J., 2020b. Investigation on the ductile fracture of high-
strength pipeline steels using a partial anisotropic damage mechanics model. Eng.
Fract. Mech. 227, 106900.
Shen, F., Münstermann, S., Lian, J., 2022. A unified fracture criterion considering stress
state dependent transition of failure mechanisms in bcc steels at –196 ◦ C. Int. J.
Plast. 156.
23
Mechanics of Materials 184 (2023) 104714
Shen, F., Münstermann, S., Lian, J., 2023. Cryogenic ductile and cleavage fracture of bcc
metallic structures – influence of anisotropy and stress states. J. Mech. Phys. Solid.,
105299
Shin, H., Kim, J.-B., 2010. A Phenomenological Constitutive Equation to Describe
Various Flow Stress Behaviors of Materials in Wide Strain Rate and Temperature
Regimes.
Spitzig, W., Richmond, O., 1984. The effect of pressure on the flow stress of metals. Acta
Metall. 32, 457–463.
Spitzig, W.A., Sober, R.J., Richmond, O., 1975. Pressure dependence of yielding and
associated volume expansion in tempered martensite. Acta Metall. 23, 885–893.
Wang, Y., Huang, J., 2003. Texture analysis in hexagonal materials. Mater. Chem. Phys.
81, 11–26.
Yoon, J.W., Lou, Y., Yoon, J., Glazoff, M.V., 2014. Asymmetric yield function based on
the stress invariants for pressure sensitive metals. Int. J. Plast. 56, 184–202.
Yoshida, F., Hamasaki, H., Uemori, T., 2013. A user-friendly 3D yield function to
describe anisotropy of steel sheets. Int. J. Plast. 45, 119–139.
Zerilli, F.J., Armstrong, R.W., 1987. Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations
for material dynamics calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 61, 1816–1825.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., 2014. Effect of strain rate on the tension–compression
asymmetric responses of Ti–6.6 Al–3.3 Mo–1.8 Zr–0.29 Si. Mater. Des. 61, 281–285.