International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

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

Enhancing the information-richness of sheet metal specimens for inverse

identification of plastic anisotropy through strain fields
Y. Zhang 1, *, S. Gothivarekar 1, M. Conde 2, A. Van de Velde 1, B. Paermentier 1,
A. Andrade-Campos 2, S. Coppieters 1
1
Department of Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Ghent Technology Campus, Gebroeders de Smetstraat 1, 9000 Gent, Belgium
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

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

Keywords: Advanced anisotropic constitutive models involve a large number of model parameters requiring multiple
Heterogeneous mechanical tests conventional mechanical experiments for accurate calibration. Inverse identification through a single hetero­
Specimen design geneous experiment combined with full-field deformation fields enables to reduce the experimental effort. User-
Identifiability
dependency in design of such information-rich experiment can be eliminated via shape optimization that is
Material orientation
driven by an indicator expressing the degree of strain field heterogeneity. This approach is validated by assessing
Anisotropic yield criteria
Parameters identification the identification quality of the heterogeneous experiments through the Finite Element Model Updating (FEMU)
technique fed by synthetically generated Digital Image Correlation (DIC) data using a reference material model.
Positive correlation between the adopted heterogeneity indicator and the inverse identification quality is found
for the identification of the Hill 1948 yield criterion. It is shown that identification metrics can be used to
accurately predict the identification quality prior to the FEMU process. Moreover, it is shown that the identi­
fiability of the sought parameters can be significantly improved by considering the orientation of the principal
material axis in the specimen. The reliability and robustness of the proposed identifiability metrics are validated
using a more advanced anisotropic yield function, namely Yld2000-2D. The identification metrics can therefore
be used to enhance the design of information-rich experiments. Finally, it is recommended to treat the material
orientation as a design variable.

1. INTRODUCTION
Sheet metals typically exhibit an orthotropic plastic material
behavior related to the rolling process, causing different plastic behavior
along different directions [1]. When forming sheet metal, this plastic
anisotropy has a significant influence on the final geometry and residual
stress of the formed part. In addition, it affects the predictive accuracy of
metal forming simulations [2]. Therefore, numerous anisotropic plastic
constitutive models exist to precisely reproduce the anisotropic behavior
[3]. In general, the parameter identification quality for these models
depends on the quantity and quality of experimental test data at hand.
Two mechanical approaches exist to acquire this data: quasi-
homogeneous and heterogeneous mechanical tests. First and foremost,
several classical quasi-homogeneous mechanical tests can be performed,
such as uniaxial tension, simple shear and biaxial tension. These are
considered as conventional sheet metal material tests. In practice, every
conventional test requires a specific specimen geometry that exhibits a
certain strain state, under monotonic loading conditions. To identify the
anisotropic parameters, several standard tests must be performed that
are usually time and cost consuming. To this end, the second approach
considers heterogeneous mechanical testing, where information-rich
experimentation enables to reduce the experimental effort by calibrat­
ing the material model parameters from a single heterogeneous me­
chanical test. Such test generates multiple heterogeneous strain fields
that can be captured by Digital Image Correlation (DIC) and used in an
inverse identification strategy. The Virtual Fields Method (VFM) [4] and
Finite Element Model Updating (FEMU) [5] are currently the main
methods to inversely calibrate anisotropic yield criteria from full field
data.
Strong proof of concept is available showing that heterogeneous
mechanical tests can reduce the effort for material parameters identifi­
cation [1, 5-14]. Moreover, the parameters identification quality from
complex heterogeneous tests potentially outperforms classical homo­
geneous tests [5]. The reason for this observation comes from the fact

* Corresponding Author: Mr Y. Zhang, KU Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

E-mail address: yi.zhang@kuleuven.be (Y. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2021.106891
Received 31 May 2021; Received in revised form 18 October 2021; Accepted 22 October 2021
Available online 31 October 2021
0020-7403/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhang et al.
that heterogeneous experiments can be tailored towards a specific
application. Indeed, the stress and strain fields generated in homoge­
nous mechanical tests generally do not resemble the complex defor­
mation states that occur in sheet metal forming processes. It is
well-known that the validity of phenomenological plasticity models is
confined to situations that are comparable to the range of experiments
used for calibrating these models. In this regard, heterogeneous me­
chanical testing aims at generating stress and strain fields that mimic
those occurring during metal forming processes. In other words, a het­
erogeneous experiment can increase the parameter reliability of a
plasticity model, thereby promoting its performance in subsequent
forming simulations. Hence, the design of heterogeneous mechanical
testing could reduce the experimental effort by extracting multiple
model parameters from a single experiment.
In essence, a reduction of experimental effort is achieved when
maximizing the identifiability of the sought parameters. Therefore, the
shape of the complex specimen is designed in such a way that all rele­
vant anisotropic mechanical effects are “activated”. While shape opti­
mization is covered by a number of papers [15–19], most of them
consider the design of a complex specimen geometry to obtain a het­
erogeneous strain field. Currently, the design of heterogeneous me­
chanical tests for the identification of material parameters can be
divided into three distinct strategies [15]. The first strategy is based on
empirical experience and knowledge to design uniaxial tensile speci­
mens with varying cross-sections, perforations, internal and external
notches and other complicated shapes. These specimens are then used
for uniaxial tests [1, 3-10, 12-14], and non-standard biaxial tensile
specimens [11]. However, this intuitive approach is mainly based on
engineering judgement, where the optimal identification quality is
driven by trial and error methods as well as user-specific experience. For
example, Denys et al. [10] designed a double-perforated tensile spec­
imen to identify the anisotropic parameters of the 3D Hill48 yield cri­
terion through FEMU and full-field displacement data.
The second design strategy relies on a quantitative evaluation of a
heterogeneity indicator, enabling to rank and design mechanical tests
through shape optimization considering the level of equivalent plastic
strain and strain heterogeneity obtained via a numerical model [16–18].
For example, Aquino et al. [16] used a heterogeneity indicator along
with numerical shape optimization to obtain the so-called butterfly
specimen. Finally, the third category exploits Topology Optimization
(TO) to design heterogeneous specimens [19–20]. For example, Cha­
moin et al. [19] proposed the optimization of the specimen geometry via
TO to maximize strain-states and richness of strain fields, as well as
maximize the sensitivity of the measured displacement field with respect
to the sought parameters.
In the context of identifying plastic anisotropy of sheet metal, the
orientation of the principal material axis in the specimen plays a central
role. However, this was not considered in the currently available design
approaches for heterogeneous experiments. Cooreman et al. [5],
Lecompte et al. [6] and Wang et al. [14] argued that the material
orientation is of fundamental importance when it comes to identifying
the plastic anisotropy of steel sheet. Hence, these studies conducted a
series of perforated tensile tests under a tensile direction of 45o degrees
with respect to the rolling direction. As such, in view of calibrating
plastic anisotropy, it was found that it is relevant to include the material
orientation in the design of heterogeneous experiments.
With regard to the design driven by maximizing the strain hetero­
geneity, it can be stated that this approach inherently assumes a positive
correlation between strain heterogeneity and identifiability. It is clear
that maximizing strain heterogeneity increases the probability for
arriving at a good identification quality. However, it cannot guarantee
sufficient identifiability of all constitutive model parameters. When
dealing with a large set of unknown model parameters, the concept of
identifiability [21–26] could potentially enhance the design methodol­
ogy. Barick et al. [21] applied the identifiability index proposed by
Richard et al. [22] to design nanoindentation experiments to ensure the
2
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
Table 1
Constitutive formulations and Lankford value calculation.
Swift’s hardening law n
σeq = K(ε0 + εpl
eq ) (1)
Plane stress Hill48 yield criterion σeq = Fσ222 + H(σ11 − σ22 )2 + 2Nσ212
Gσ211
+
(2)
⎧
H H
Anisotropic parameters based on
⎪
⎪
⎪ r0 = =
Lankford values ⎪
⎪
⎪ G 1− H
⎪
⎨ 2N − F − G 2N − F + H − 1
r45 = = (3)
⎪
⎪
⎪
2(G + F) 2(1 − H + F)
⎪
⎩ r90 = H
⎪
⎪
⎪
F
robustness of the viscoelastic properties extraction. Similarity, Renner
et al. [24] used identifiabiltiy index to measure the information richness
of the indentation curve and concluded that the index could quantita­
tively assess parameters identification stability using an inverse method.
Thereby, the identifiability analysis is a potential useful methodology to
assess whether the design specimen has sufficient information for
unique and reliable gradient-based inverse identification.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the importance of material
orientation and parameter identifiability in the design of heterogeneous
experiments for the inverse identification of plastic anisotropy for sheet
metal. The starting point of the paper is an IT-based design of a notched
tensile specimen. The effectiveness of this design is investigated through
FEMU for inversely identifying the anisotropic parameters of the Hill48
yield criterion and a more advanced anisotropic yield function, namely
Yld2000-2D [27]. The assessment is based on synthetic DIC data
generated with the ground truth material behavior (also referred to as
reference material behavior) that is adopted in a FE model of the
experiment. This implies that experimental errors are excluded whilst
the metrological aspects of the DIC code are included, yielding an honest
assessment of the identification quality. In addition to the FEMU anal­
ysis, a quantitative identifiability analysis of the IT-based design is
introduced in this paper. The practical identifiability analysis enables to
measure individual parameters sensitivity, determine identifiable
parameter subsets and predict the overall identification quality.
The paper is structured as follows. First, the IT-based design meth­
odology and the adopted material model are presented. Second, the
FEMU methodology including the concept of virtual experimentation
and identifiability analysis are introduced. Third, the results of the IT-
based optimization and the parameter identification via FEMU are dis­
cussed. Finally, the sensitivity towards the material orientation is
mapped and the most reliable identifiability metric is scrutinized.
2. NUMERICAL PROCEDURE
2.1. Material model
The material investigated in this paper is a cold-rolled, low carbon
steel sheet named SPCE, with a nominal thickness of 1.2 mm. Due to the
cold-rolling process, the sheet exhibits significant anisotropic plastic
material behavior, as shown by Coppieters et al. [28]. In the case of
sheet metal, three orthotropic axes can be drawn that are mutually
orthogonal. Practically, ‘RD’ is the rolling direction is the reference to
which other orientation are defined: ‘TD’ is the transverse direction with
90◦ orientation from the RD, and ‘ND’ is the normal direction (i.e.
through the thickness of the sheet). In addition, a 45◦ (45D) orientation
can be defined as the intermediate orientation between RD and TD.
Typically, the variation of the plastic behavior with respect to the ma­
terial directions is quantified by the Lankford ratios, determined from
tensile tests along RD, TD and 45D.
In the present study, the material is assumed to be elastically
isotropic and plastically orthotropic. A Young’s modulus E of 219 GPa
and a Poisson coefficient v of 0.3 are assumed. The plane stress Hill48
yield criterion is used to model the plastic anisotropy. The stress-strain
curve obtained from a tensile test in the RD is used as a reference
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Table 2 σeq as a function of the equivalent plastic strain εpl

eq . The identified model
Swift’s hardening law fitted in a strain range from εpl
= 0.002 up to the
eq parameters, i.e., deformation resistance K, the initial strain ε0 and the
maximum uniform strain. The reported r-values are measured at εeng= 0.10 hardening exponent n can be found in Table 2. The anisotropic yield
[28]. criterion is expressed with respect to the principal material axis denoted
Hardening parameters K(MPa) ε0 n 1 (RD) and 2 (TD) with σij the components of the Cauchy stress tensor.
564 0.0059 0.275 Furthermore, the associated flow rule is adopted assuming equivalency
r-values r0 r45 r90 between the plastic potential and yield function.
1.85 1.93 2.82 F, G, H and N are the anisotropic parameters of the Hill48 yield
Anisotropic parameters F H N criterion. Given that the reference datum for work hardening is cali­
0.230 0.649 1.412
brated using tensile test data along RD, the sum of H and G is equal to 1.
The r-values are used to calibrate the anisotropic parameters and their
datum for work hardening. The hardening behavior is approximated by values can be found in Table 2. The parameter set, shown in Table 2, is
Swift’s hardening law fitted to the available pre-necking data in the RD. considered the ground truth, i.e., the reference material behavior that
The associated constitutive equations are summarized in Table 1. can be used to assess the identification quality (accuracy) via FEMU in
Swift’s hardening law describes the evolution of the equivalent stress Section 4.1.3.

Fig. 1. FE model information (a) specimen geometry, (b) design variables for shape optimization and (c) material orientations, mesh information and bound­
ary conditions.

Fig. 2. Python script structure for automatic numerical model generation, data post-processing and optimization process communicating with Abaqus.

3
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 3. The detailed flowchart of FEMU procedure.
2.2. Specimen design and FE model
The optimization problem, tackled in this paper, is relatively simple
and based on the concept of a notched tensile specimen to generate a
heterogeneous strain field. The resulting heterogeneity obviously de­
pends on the shape of the notch. Fig. 1(a) shows the basic dimensions of
specimen that are kept constant, where the red shaded area represents
the area of interest (AOI). Fig. 1(b) illustrates an enlargement of the
notch that needs to be designed. In order to optimize the shape of this
notch, it needs to be parameterized. In this work, four coordinates are
used, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The coordinates of A, B, C and D are
controlled by the corresponding length, and connected via cubic splines.
An example of the FE model is shown in Fig.1(c) including local seed
size, element formulation (S4R), boundary conditions and material
orientation. FEA is performed using ABAQUS v2017 with default im­
plicit solver settings.
For the initial material orientation, the tensile direction was assumed
to be aligned with the TD as shown in Fig. 1(c). The length vector L =
[LA, LB, LC, LD] is the design variable subjected to optimization. The goal
of the design process is to maximize the strain heterogeneity in the AOI
region.
2.3. Indicator definition and shape optimization process
The shape optimization process aims at maximizing the strain het­
erogeneity indicator IT, as defined in [16]:
p p
[Std(ε2 /ε1 )] (ε2 /ε1 )R [Std(ε )] ε Av p
IT = wr1 + wr2 + wr3 Max
+ wr4 + wr5 ε
wa1 wa2 wa3 wa4 wa5
It can be inferred from Eq. (4) that IT is a scalar computed using five
strain measures, namely the range of the strain state (ε2 /ε1 )R between
the minor (ε2) and major (ε1) principal strains, standard deviation of
strain state Std(ε2 /ε1 ) and the plastic strain Std(εp ), the mean value of
maximum equivalent plastic strain εpMax at the most relevant strain states
(tension, pure shear, uniaxial tension, plane strain tension and uniaxial
compression values), and the average deformation Avεp . Moreover, wr
and wa are the relative and absolute weighting factors, respectively. In
this paper, equal importance (50-50%) weighting factors for strain
range/heterogeneity and strain level were used. More information on
the calculation of the individual terms of IT and the values of the
weighting factors can found in Souto et al. [17].
Fig. 2 schematically shows the optimization procedure implemented
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
in a python script that communicates with Abaqus CAE. Here, autono­
mous model generation, meshing, submitting the simulation, post-
processing and shape optimization, are all executed using one python
script. The optimization process consists of three main building blocks.
The first one determines the critical displacement boundary with the aid
of a necking criterion. Once the optimization is launched, two models
are created, namely model-0 and model-1. Model-0 and Model-1 are
identical (geometry, material definition, etc.) except for the applied
displacement. This process is repeated for every new iteration.
Model-0 consistently imposes an excessive vertical displacement
(U2) to determine the maximum allowable elongation of the specimen,
according to the necking criterion [29]. This leads to large displace­
ments and deformations requiring to account for nonlinear geometric
effects in the FE model. Obviously, this critical displacement Ucrit de­
pends on the specimen geometry and must therefore be determined at
every new iteration. Additionally, the magnitude of consecutive
displacement increment intervals is around 10− 2 mm. Thus, the critical
displacement is determined in model-0 and then implemented in
model-1, where the simulation must terminate at the onset of necking.
After model-1 is completed, the second building block starts by calcu­
lating the IT value in the AOI. To update the notch radii vector L = [LA,
LB, LC, LD], a cost function is computed that reads as:
1( Target )2
C(L) = I − ITNum (L) , (5)
2 T
with L the notch radii vector of the tensile specimen. The cost function
expresses the discrepancy between the target IT value and the numeri­
(4) cally computed IT value, where ITNum (L) is associated with the current
design. Although the theoretical maximum value of IT is 1 [18], the
target IT value is arbitrarily chosen to be IT
Target
= 0.7. From experience,
this slightly lower target value helps to keep the parameters update
stable. The Gauss-Newton parallel with Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
[30–31] is used to minimize the cost function C(L). In the third building
block, an updated specimen geometry is obtained that is re-entered in
the first building block for the next iteration. Once the parameter change
is sufficiently small (convergence criterion value of 0.05%), the opti­
mized shape is considered to be found.
4
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

3. METHODOLOGY FOR MATERIAL PARAMETERS
IDENTIFICATION AND IDENTIFIABILITY ANALYSIS
3.1. Virtual experimentation and FEMU method
The task of the FEMU procedure is discussed here by means of a
detailed flowchart in Fig. 3. FEMid is a home-made FEMU module used
for the minimization of the discrepancy between the numerically
computed and experimentally acquired strain fields by tuning the
anisotropic material parameters. In order to have a consistent strain
computation, FEMid is initially fed with displacement fields. The FE
model delivers the nodal displacement field at the surface of the spec­
imen, while the DIC code delivers the displacement field after subset-
based correlation. The strain window method is then applied to both
displacement fields to arrive at the strains in each DIC data point. The
latter approach mitigates to some extent the dependency of the DIC user
settings. The leveraged approach recently applied by Gothivarekar et al.
[32] could further improve the consistency here.
Instead of using actual experimental data, virtual or synthetic data is
used in this paper. The lower panel of Fig. 3 illustrates this process. The
Finite Element (FE) model with ground truth anisotropic parameters
(see Table 2) is used to create the virtual experiment. The FEDEF-module
[33] in MatchID [34] uses the initial mesh and displacement field(s)
from the FE model to numerically deform a speckle pattern associated
with a specific load step. The synthetic (reference and deformed) images
are then post-processed in the DIC code, yielding the experimental
displacement field. The approach enables to mimic the complete mea­
surement chain including camera calibration, image noise, speckle
pattern quality and DIC settings. In this study, however, we aim at
finding the intrinsic relations between the IT-based design and identifi­
cation quality through FEMU. Therefore, we only consider the essential
step to arrive at the displacement field, namely the DIC settings (cor­
relation algorithm, subset and step size). Future work will embark on the
where θ is the vector of unknown material parameters (F, H, N) of the
anisotropic yield function, and n the number of data points in the DIC
measurement at certain load step (only one load step is considered in
this paper). The RMSm (root mean square) value can be obtained by Eq.
(7), which was used to normalize each strain component by eliminating
the magnitude difference in Eq. (6). The subscripts “exp” and “num”
indicate experimental data and numerical response, respectively. Within
the iterative cycle of FEMU, the update of the anisotropic parameters is
performed by searching for a minimum of the objective function using
the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. FEMU is launched with an initial
set of arbitrarily chosen anisotropic parameters. Then the iterative
process starts and the optimization method generates an updated set of
anisotropic parameters. The process is repeated until the value of the
objective function reaches a value below the threshold or the parameter
change is sufficiently small (0.5 %). The derivatives of the objective
function are calculated numerically via a forward finite difference
scheme with a perturbation value of δ=0.005.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis
In this paper, the identifiability analysis [26] is applied to the Hill48
yield criterion and the Yld2000-2D yield function. For the sake of clarity,
we first introduce the methodology for the Hill48 criterion. In general, a
sensitivity analysis is defined as a method to assess the influence of an
optimization parameter variation (geometry, material, loading, etc.)
with respect to a numerical response (strain, stress, force, etc.) [25]. The
targeted FEMU approach (Section 3.1) minimizes the discrepancy be­
tween the experimentally measured and numerically predicted strain
field in the AOI of the mechanical test. Output sensitivity functions are
obtained by linearization of the parameters vector θ0:
⃒
∂εnum (θ)⃒⃒
εnum (θ0 + δθ0 ) ≈ εnum (θ0 ) + δθ0 . (8)
∂θ ⃒θ=θ0
T

assessment of the full measurement chain. In the FEMU procedure,

For the identifiability analysis, the required sensitivity matrix V is
FEMid uses the following cost function [11]:
constructed by computing the partial derivative of the strain field with
[( exp
∑ n
εXX,i − εnum
XX,i (θ)
)2 ( exp
εYY,i − εnum
YY,i (θ)
)2 respect to the vector of unknown anisotropic material parameters θ:
minimise C(θ) = + ⃒
θ∈R n
RMSXX RMSYY ∂εnum (θ)⃒⃒
(9)
i=1
)2 ] V= ,
( exp num
εXY,i − εXY,i (θ) ∂θT ⃒θ=θ0
+ , (6)
RMSXY
with εnum(θ) the generated strain field expressed as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [( ) ( num ) ( num )
1∑n ( exp )2 εnum (θ) = εnumXX (θ) 1 , εYY (θ) 1 , εXY (θ) 1 , ...,
RMSm = ε , m = XX, YY, XY, (7) ( num ) ( num ) ( num ) ]T
n i=1 m,i εXX (θ) n , εYY (θ) n , εXY (θ) n . (10)

Table 3
Methodology of identifiability analysis.
Identifiability analysis Definitions Description
Sensitivity Analysis
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Absolute sensitivity ∂εnum (θ) 1∑n
V = {vij } = | (12) i = 1, 2, ..., n j = 1, 2, 3. SCm = (εnum )2 , m = XX, YY, XY1.
∂θT θ=θ0 n i=1 m,i
Non-dimensional sensitivity Δθj ‖Sj‖ is the Euclidian norm of the sensitivity.
S = {sij}, sij = vij (13)
SCm
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Sensitivity measure, δmsqr
j msqr 1 ∑3n 2
δj = s (14)
3n i=1 ij
Normalized sensitivity ̃ = {̃sij }, ̃sij = sij (15)
S
‖ sj ‖
Identifiability Metrics

Collinearity index, γK 1 λK = eigen(H

̃ FEMU ) or eigen(̃T
γK = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (16) ̃ ̃K ).
SK WS
min ̃
(λK )
I –index, IK maxλK λK = eigen(HFEMU ) o r eigen(STK WSK ).
IK = log10 (17)
minλK
Determinant measure,ρK 1/(2k) ∏k 1/(2k)
2
ρK = det(STK WSK ) =( j=1 λj ) (18)

Note: STK SK is the same as STK ⋅SK . Bold notation represent vector or matrix for variable.
1. εnum num num
XX,i , εYY,i and εXY,i represents three strain components at point i.
2. K is a parameter (sub)set of size k from full parameters.

5
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

The vector θ = [θ1,θ2,..., θm]T (m=3) is the parameter vector of the F(θ). In the context of nonlinear least squares, F(θ) approximately
Hill48 yield criterion, namely θ = [F, H, N]T. V is thus a (3n × 3) matrix equals to HFEMU [35]. Therefore, the HFEMU can be written as F(θ) =
evaluated at the reference anisotropic parameters (see table 2) vector θ0 STK WSK , where W=diag(w1, w2, …, wn) is a diagonal matrix related to
= [0.230, 0.649, 1.412]T: measurement noise. Since no measurement noise (e.g. image noise) was
( num ) ( num ) ( num ) introduced in the creation of the synthetic DIC data, W is the identity
∂εXX (θ) ∂εXX (θ) ∂εXX (θ)
⎡ ⎤ matrix I. Thus, the F(θ) can be regarded as a summary of the output
∂F ∂H ∂N
1 1 1
sensitivity functions and the measurement accuracy (if measurement
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( )( ) ⎥
)( noise is considered), thereby summarizing the information concerning
⎢ ∂εnum ∂εnum ⎥ ∂εnum
⎢
⎢
YY (θ) YY (θ) ⎥
⎥
YY (θ) the model parameters gained from an experiment. If F(θ) is nonsingular,
⎢
⎢
∂F 1 1 ∂H 1 ⎥
⎥
∂N the approximate covariance matrix COV(θ) [26,36]is given as:
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( num ) ( num ) ( num ) ⎥
⎢ C(θ) − 1
⎢ ∂εXY (θ) ∂εXY (θ) ∂εXY (θ) ⎥ ⎥ COV(θ) = F (θ), (19)
⎢ ⎥ 3n − k
⎢ ∂F ∂ H ∂N ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ where n is total number of measurements points and k is the parameters
⎢ ⎥
V=⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥, (11) number. F− 1(θ) could be rewritten as:
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( num ) ( num ) ( num ) ⎥ 1 1
⎢
⎢ ∂εXX (θ) ∂εXX (θ) ∂εXX (θ) ⎥ ⎥ F− 1 (θ) = adj(HFEMU ) = (∏ ) adj(HFEMU ), (20)
⎢ ⎥ det(HFEMU ) K
⎢ ∂F ∂H ∂N j=1 λj
n n n ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( num ) ( num ) ( num ) ⎥
⎢ ∂εYY (θ) ∂εYY (θ) ∂εYY (θ) ⎥ where adj() represents adjugate matrix of HFEMU, det() being the
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ determinant function and λj being the eigenvalues of HFEMU, indicating
∂F ∂H ∂N
⎢
⎣
n n n ⎥
⎦ that COV(θ)is connected with λj. The variance or uncertainty of θj on the
( num ) ( num ) ( num ) evaluated parameter value could be quantified by var(θj ) =
∂εXY (θ) ∂εXY (θ) ∂εXY (θ) diag(cov(θ))jj (diag(cov(θ)) represents the diagonal elements). The
∂F ∂H ∂N
n n n above equations indicate that the F(θ)matrix relates to the uncertainty of
( ) the identified parameters, providing insight into the evaluation of an
∂εnum (θ)
where ∂θj is the partial derivative of the three strain components optimal specimen shape and ideal material orientation resulting in a
n maximum parameter identifiability.
at element n for a certain load step with respect to material parameter j
From a geometrical perspective, given that F(θ) is approximately
in the AOI region. Finite difference approximation was used to calculate
equal to the Hessian matrix HFEMU of the C(θ), a steeper ‘valley’-cur­
the sensitivities adopting the same parameter perturbation value as used
vature (Hessian matrix) of the C(θ) in the vicinity of local minimum is
in the FEMU process (δ=0.005).
desirable for the parameters identification. Specifically, a steeper ‘val­
ley’-curvature of the C(θ) has great potential to build a well-posed
3.3. Practical identifiability gradient-based inverse problem for obtaining nearly unique local or
global optimal identified parameters during the FEMU process, resulting
In general, a good identifiability has to fulfil two conditions. First, in a better identification quality. This can then be quantified by the
the model output εnum(θ) has to be sufficiently sensitive to individual eigenvalue of F(θ) or the Hessian matrix [37]. Thus, several scalar
changes of each parameter. Second, changes in the model output due to metrics based on the eigenvalue of H ̃ FEMU or HFEMU are defined to
variations in single parameter cannot be compensated by appropriate quantify the parameters identifiability:
changes in other parameters in K (K is a parameter (sub)set of size k from
full parameters). The adopted identifiability metrics and corresponding
• Metric a: Collinearity index [26] - γK, smallest eigenvalue of H
̃ FEMU ,
formulas are summarized in Table 3. The first condition is addressed by
Eq. (16) in Table 3;
the sensitivity measure δmsqr
j (Eq. (14) in Table 3) which is calculated for • Metric b: Identifiability index [21–25] - IK(I-index), logarithm be­
each parameter θj separately. The sensitivity measure δmsqr
j is used to tween largest and smallest eigenvalue of HFEMU, Eq. (17) in Table 3;
quantitatively assess the individual parameter importance (parameter • Metric c: Determinant measurement [38–39] - ρK, determinant of
sensitivity strength). The second condition is quantified by the collin­ HFEMU, Eq. (18) in Table 3.
earity index γK (Eq. (16) in Table 3), serving as a tool for the analysis of
parameter interdependencies. Moreover, IK and ρK (Eq. (17) and Eq. (18) First, a γK - design aims at maximizing the smallest eigenvalue of
in Table 3) combine the information provided by the above two condi­ ̃ FEMU , which is the common metric for measuring the collinearity
H
tions [24, 38]. The calculation of IK and ρK based on the index. The calculation of γK based on normalized matrix S
̃K avoids biases
non-dimensional pseudo-Hessian matrix -HFEMU of cost function C(θ) caused by differences in the absolute values of the individual sensitivity
containing the information-richness (e.g. strain fields) for a specific vectors [40]. According to Burn et al. [26], a typically collinearity index
specimen design. of γK is 20, indicating that a variation of parameters θj on the model
The calculation of the sensitivity is a prerequisite for the computa­ output (εnum(θ)) can be compensated up to a value of 1/γK (5%) by
tion of sensitivity measure (δmsqr
j ) and the identifiability metrics (γK , appropriate changes in another parameter in K.
IK and ρK ).For improving the conditioning of the absolute sensitivity Second, the so-called identifiability index- IK design, which is
matrix V (Eq. (11)) or Eq. (12) during the FEMU process, Δθj (j=F, H or calculated based on HFEMU, attempts to minimize the ratio of largest to
N) and SCm are applied to obtain non-dimensional sensitivity S (Eq. (13) the smallest eigenvalue. Gujarati [41] suggested a threshold value to
in Table 3). Moreover, the selection of Δθj and SCm for identifiability discriminate between poor (IK>3), moderate (2 < IK < 3) and good
metrics are identical as those adopted in the FEMU process thereby identifiability (IK < 2).
eliminating the user-dependency for Δθj and SCm. Hence, this approach Finally, another metric is the so-called determinant measure ρK.
guarantees the consistency of HFEMU for the identifiabiltiy metrics According to Brun et al. [38] and Martinez-Lopez et al. [42], ρK com­
calculation and the inverse identification via FEMU technique. bines the sensitivity provided by δmsqr
j (Eq. (14)) and γK in a useful way.
The sensitivity of εnum(θ) to changes in parameters θ could be Hence, the calculation of ρK based on the non-dimensional sensitivity
quantified by Fisher information matrix

6
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Table 4
IT value for different initial geometry parameters set and local optimal geometry parameters.
Mechanical Tests Length vector L - [LA, LB, LC, LD] Prior to necking Equal εpl
eq

LA(mm) LB(mm) LC(mm) LD(mm) IT-n IT-eq

Test A Initial L 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.01 2

Test B Initial L 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 0.23 -
Local Optimal L 2.12 3.54 3.49 2.10 0.26 0.14
Test C Initial L 3.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 0.26 -
Local Optimal L 2.87 4.81 7.23 7.23 0.34 0.15

1. Initial guess of L.
2. IT value at εpl
eq =0.03.

Fig. 4. Geometry of mechanical tests (a) Test A, (b) Test B and (c) Test C.

Fig. 5. (a) Stress states for Test B and Test C at TD material orientation using Hill48 criterion. (b) Strain states for Test B. (c) Strain states for Test C.

7
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 6. Virtual experimentation: (a) FE mesh projection, (b) synthetic image deformation and (c) synthetic strain field after DIC for Test C.
matrix SK instead of ̃
SK . Moreover, recalling to Eq. (19) and Eq. (20),
parameters covariance matrix COV(θ) could be reformulated as a
function of ρK (COV(θ) = C(θ) 1
adj(HFEMU )), which is possibly the
3n− k ρK
reason why ρK is recommended as useful metric [42]. However, ρK is
substantially dependent on the choice of Δθj, and therefore it is generally
not possible to give a threshold or critical ρK -value [38]. Consequently,
ρK is a relative measure for the quantified comparison of parameter
identifiability for different parameter subsets. In conclusion, the smaller
γK, IKand the larger ρK, the better the parameter identifiability. Hence,
the identifiability metrics can also be used to assess the effectiveness of a
heterogeneous specimen to inversely identify a set of unknown material
parameters.
Although the above three metrics are investigated in this paper, it
needs to be noted that alternative metrics or criteria can be used to
assess identifiability, e.g. (1) the correlation among parameters
expressed by off-diagonal terms of the correlation matrix [26, 37], (2)
the confidence interval for individual parameters [39] and (3) the size of
parameter cloud [43]. A well-posed problem requires that the correla­
tion between parameters remains below a certain threshold, the confi­
dence interval of parameters and the size of the parameter cloud should
remain small. For detailed information with regard to these alternative
identifiability metrics, the reader is referred to [26, 37, 39, 43].
4. Results
4.1. Determining the optimal mechanical test shape and heterogeneity
analysis
4.1.1. Shape optimization
Depending on the initial length vector L = [LA, LB, LC, LD], the shape
optimization, described in Section 2.3, yields different heterogeneous
specimens corresponding to several local maxima of IT. The optimized
vector lengths, derived from two different initial guesses (Test B and Test
C), and their corresponding IT value are shown in Table 4.
In Fig. 4, Test A represents a tensile test specimen that has the same
width and height of the AOI as the specimens used in Test B and Test C. It
must be noted that the outcome of an IT-calculation depends on the load
step at which the strain field is extracted. Indeed, the larger the plastic
deformation, the higher resulting IT value. This obviously depends on
the chosen weighting factors and adopted necking criterion. In this re­
gard, two values of IT are reported in Table 4. The column ‘Prior to
necking’ reports the IT value found before the onset of local necking
8
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
occurs and is denoted as IT-n. It can be inferred that all IT-n values are
relatively large. This is mainly driven by the large plastic equivalent
strain probed prior to local necking. The reason that Test A, in essence a
uniaxial tensile test, corresponds with an IT value of 0.25 is due to the
onset of diffuse necking. When limiting Test A at a strain level of εpl
eq =
0.03, the corresponding IT value is around 0.01. Given that less contri­
bution for strain heterogeneity provided by plastic equivalent strain and
have an honest comparison Test B and Test C, the IT value was recalcu­
lated for a load step that generated an equal equivalent plastic strain
(εpl
eq ≈ 0.5) in for both tests, denoted as IT-eq. From this analysis, it can be
inferred that Test C is slightly more heterogeneous than Test B.
4.1.2. Heterogeneity analysis for different mechanical tests
In order to better understand the heterogeneity of the above­
mentioned mechanical tests, the generated stress and strain states are
evaluated in the current section. Here, only material points in the plastic
regime are considered. Fig. 5(a) shows the stress state distribution of
Test B and Test C along with the reference Hill48 criterion. Fig. 5(b) and
(c) illustrate the strain states for Test B and Test C, respectively. To
enable a comparison between both tests, the stress components are
normalized by the equivalent stress. Furthermore, the local stresses in
Fig. 5(a), σ11 and σ22, are aligned with the RD and TD, respectively.
Here, each point (green color and red color represent Test B and Test C,
respectively) in the graph represents a stress state in the AOI.
It can be inferred that a large amount of the plastic deformation
comes with a shear stress component σ12 (all points that are not on the
projected contour of the yield surface). Compared to the stress state
distribution (Fig. 5(a)) of Test B, Test C covers a slightly larger area in
stress space, indicating that Test C is a good candidate for inverse
identification through FEMU.
Fig. 5(b) and (c) display the corresponding strain states in the AOI
region of the two mechanical tests along TD. The strain state(ε2 /ε1 ) is
defined as the ratio between of the minor ε2 and the major ε1 principal
strains. In addition, straight lines are added to the graphs that represent
a certain strain state. It can be observed that the amount of scatter is a
measure for the diversity of the strain states. For both tests, the graphs
suggest that most of the strain states are located between pure shear and
uniaxial tension. Here again, Test C exhibits a slightly higher diversity in
the data, associated with a higher strain heterogeneity. This test can thus
be advocated as the best candidate for inverse identification. The latter
can be confirmed with a quantitative calculation of the standard devi­
ation of the strain state and stain state range, respectively written as:
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Table 5 Subsequently, this comparison serves as a measure for the identifi­

Initial guesses set of anisotropic coefficients F, H and N. cation quality and can be expressed by the average relative error - A.R.E:
Parameters F H N [ ⃒ ⃒]
1∑q 1∑k ⃒⃒θj − θj ⃒⃒
ref id

Initial guess 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 A.R.E = 100 ∗ ⃒ ⃒ , k = 3, q = 3, (23)

q p=1 k j=1 ⃒ θref ⃒
Initial guess 2 0.3 0.4 1 j

Initial guess 3 0.4 0.7 1.3

with θr e f (θ = [F, H, N]T, number of parameters k = 3, number of initial
guesses q=3) the vector of reference anisotropic parameters and θid the
vector of inversely identified anisotropic parameters.
Table 6
Comparison of reference parameters values and identified parameters values for Similarity, individual parameter identification quality could be
Test A, Test B and Test C, respectively. expressed via the individual relative error -I.R.E:
⃒ ⃒
Parameters F H N A.R.E ⃒θref − θid ⃒
⃒ j j ⃒
I.R.E = 100 ∗ ⃒ ⃒. (24)
Reference values 0.2302 0.6492 1.4120 ⃒ θref ⃒
j
Identified values Test A 0.2274 0.6176 1.3419 (5.0%) 1 3.68%
Test B 0.2210 0.6342 1.3679 3.13% The reported A.R.E values in Table 6 represent the average A.R.E
Test C 0.2192 0.6340 1.3936 2.49%
obtained with the different initial guesses stated in Table 5. It can be
1. The data in the parenthesis represents I.R.E (individual identified parameters inferred from Table 6 that Test A (A.R.E = 3.68%), yields the worst
relative error). identification quality, yet unexpectedly good for a uniaxial tensile test.
For a tensile test along the principal material direction, the shear strain
( ) ( ) ( )
ε2 ε2 ε2 should be negligibly small, hence leading to a poor identification quality
= − , (21) for the anisotropic parameter N. Table 6 shows that for Test A, the
ε1 R ε1 max ε1 min
parameter N is indeed poorly identified, compared to the other tests (I.R.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑ [ ]2 E of N = 5.0%). In general, the successful identification should satisfy at
( ) √ n (ε /ε ) − μ
ε2 √ i 2 1 i ε2 /ε1 least two conditions. First, the model output εnum(θ) has to be suffi­
Std = . (22)
ε1 n− 1 ciently sensitive to individual changes for each parameter and the
( ) ( ) collinearity of the sensitivity matrix ̃
S should be sufficiently low. The
Compared to Test B ( εε21 =1.14, Std εε21 =0.12), it is clear that the second condition is confirmed through analyzing the identifiability
R
( ) ( ) metric γK for Test A (γK=4.96, more details can be found in [44]),
standard deviations of Test C ( εε21 =1.43, Std εε21 =0.13) are higher, indicating good correlation between γK and the identification quality.
R From FEA, it can be stated that, the shear strain present in the AOI
implying a stronger diversity and strain heterogeneity.
originates for the sharp shoulders of the tensile specimen. Nevertheless,
the magnitude of the shear strains can be expected to be small. As such, a
4.1.3. Validation via FEMU
crucial condition for a successful identification is related to the accuracy
The main purpose in this section is to validate whether the IT -based
(strain resolution) of the DIC experiment. Indeed, in the case of Test A,
designs (Test B and Test C) exhibit a positive correlation with the iden­
the DIC measurement should be accurate enough to capture the small
tification quality through FEMU. As shown in Table 4 (column “Equal
shear strains. To this end, experimentally measured and numerically
εpl
eq ”) in Section 4.1.1, the IT-eq value of Test A (IT-eq = 0.01) is the computed strain fields are compared in Fig. 7. The strain field obtained
smallest, while that of Test C is the largest (IT-eq = 0.15), yet very close to via the virtual experiment is shown in the first column in Fig. 7. The
Test B (IT-eq= 0.14). The validation of the IT-based design is pursued by numerical “ground truth” strain field is shown in the second column. The
virtual experimentation and the targeted identification method, i.e. third column shows the discrepancy between the experimental and
FEMU, as introduced in Section 3.1. The virtual experiment is generated numerical strain field, represented by Δ and defined as:
with the reference material behavior, shown in Table 2. ⃒( )exp ( )num ⃒
⃒ ⃒
Fig. 6 schematically shows the process of generating virtual DIC data Δ = ⃒ εlnEA
ij − εlnEA
ij ⃒, (25)
for Test C. First, the FE mesh is aligned with an arbitrary experimental
speckle pattern (Fig. 6(a)). The node displacements, extracted at cor­ with(εlnEA
exp
) the experimental strain field and (εlnEA )
num
the numerical
ij ij
responding strain field for calculating the IT-eq value, are then used to
strain field. In this case, Δ represents the intrinsic error of the DIC al­
numerically deform the reference image (Fig. 6(b)). Finally, the gener­
gorithm, as experimental noise was not imposed.
ated images are correlated using MatchID-2D to arrive at the synthetic
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the experimental and numerical strain
strain field shown in Fig. 6(c). In this way, all metrological aspects of the
fields show a qualitative and quantitative accordance. It can also be
DIC algorithm are included in the optimization [33]. Given the large
inferred that, in general, the AOI is not perfectly subjected to uniaxial
strain gradients and near-edge strain localizations in the IT-based design,
tension. Although the numerical shear strain εlnEA is very small
the approach enables to scrutinize the importance of DIC settings in the − 4
XY

identification process. However, in this study, default DIC settings were
adopted, yielding a Virtual Strain Gauge (VSG) of 45 px with an image
resolution of 0.039 mm/px. It is important to note this feasibility study is
confined to 2D DIC which is justified by the planar test specimen and
in-plane loading conditions.
From literature [8, 18] it is well-known that gradient-based optimi­
zation depends on the initial guess. To mitigate this dependency in the
FEMU process, three initial guesses were arbitrarily selected for the
material parameters F, H and N, as shown in Table 5. The plasticity
model, used to create the synthetic data, was calibrated in previous
research [28] and the reference parameters can be found in Table 2.
These values allow for a direct comparison with the identified aniso­
tropic parameters for Test A, B and C shown in Table 6.
(maximum numerical strain εlnEA XY =1.8 × 10 ), some heterogeneity can
be observed.
More importantly, it can be seen that 2D-DIC enables to reconstruct
this shear strain heterogeneity (first column, last row). The fact that Test
A exhibits a sufficient identifiability with respect to the sought aniso­
tropic parameters and that the strain field is accurately reconstructed are
the main reasons why a relatively low A.R.E and unexpectedly high
identification quality were found. This shows the mutual importance of
identifiability and metrological aspects of the DIC algorithm. Never­
theless, it must be noted that the virtual experiment did not account for
noise inevitably present in an actual experiment.
The strain resolution for the shear strain in Test A has been measured
by printing the virtual experiment on a blank paper and taking still

9
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Fig. 7. Comparison of strain fields for experimentally measured (first column), the numerically computed strain fields (second column) and the discrepancy between
the plots (third column) for Test A.

Fig. 8. Material orientation optimization and validation procedures.

10
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Table 7
The potential identified accuracy rank comparison of IT and three identifiability metrics for different material orientation tests.
Material Orientation IT IT − Rank γK1 γK − Rank IK2 IK − Rank ρK ρK − Rank
RD 0.145 7 1.53 2 2.36 6 32.21 7
R15 0.150 3 1.89 4 2.37 7 38.15 5
R30 0.156 1 1.77 3 1.67 2 54.02 3
R45 0.152 2 1.27 1 1.06 1 66.18 1
R60 0.148 4 2.45 5 1.83 4 59.89 2
R75 0.146 6 4.45 7 2.04 5 40.50 4
TD 0.147 5 3.84 6 1.71 3 33.67 6

1. A typical threshold is 20.

2. A typical threshold is 3.

images with a typical 2D-DIC set up (5MPx camera and a 12.5 mm lens).
Table 8
Here, a strain resolution of εlnEA
XY = 2.66 × 10
− 4
was found. Conse­
Initial guesses set of anisotropic coefficients H, F and N.
quently, an actual experiment the parameter N would be non-
Parameters F H N
identifiable due to the noise floor. Ultimately, a positive correlation
between the IT-value and the identification quality can be inferred from Initial guess 1 0.5 0.5 1.5
the A.R.E of Test B (A.R.E=3.13% and IT-eq=0.14) and Test C (A.R.E= Initial guesses 2 0.3 0.4 1
Initial guesses 3 0.4 0.7 1.3
2.49% and IT-eq=0.15). Initial guesses 4 0.1 0.55 1.6

4.2. Determining the optimal material orientation via identifiability

analysis Table 9
Comparison of reference parameters, identified parameters values and corre­
4.2.1. Optimal material orientation sponding accuracy rank for different material orientation tests.
From previous analyses, it is clear that a positive correlation exists
Parameters F H N A.R.E A.R.E
between the IT value and the identification quality (A.R.E). However, it Rank 1
worth noting that a lower IT value does not necessarily lead to an inferior
Reference 0.2302 0.6492 1.4120 - -
identification quality. Indeed, recall that Test A in Section 4.1.3 has very values
low equivalent IT-eq value, while an acceptable identification quality was Different RD 0.2421 0.6526 1.4015 2.14% 7
found, provided that the strain field can be accurately reconstructed. Material (5.51%) 2

Moreover, the positive correlation cannot guarantee maximum identi­ Orientations

R15 0.2314 0.6508 1.4098 0.61% 3
fiability of the sought parameters. In this section, it is scrutinized
R30 0.2291 0.6482 1.4198 0.84% 5
whether an IT-based design (Test C in the remainder of this work) can be R45 0.2306 0.6527 1.4184 0.39% 1
further improved by considering the orientation of the principal mate­ R60 0.2244 0.6472 1.4003 1.22% 6
rial axis. The goal is to enhance the identification quality of the sought R75 0.2293 0.6484 1.4020 0.40% 2
anisotropic parameters by changing the material orientation with TD 0.2279 0.6471 1.4033 0.64% 4

respect to the tensile direction. In addition, three identifiability metrics
(Section 3.3) are adopted to assess the influence of the orientation on the
identifiability.
To this end, the orientation is varied with steps of 15o as shown in the
left panel of Fig. 8 yielding seven material tests. Both sensitivity and
identifiability analysis are based on solution variables that are expressed
in a local co-rotational coordinate system. In view of an honest assess­
ment, the identifiability of each test is evaluated at the same amount of
plastic work. As shown in the right panel of Fig. 8, the strain hetero­
geneity indicator IT and the three identifiabiltiy metrics (γK, IK and ρK)
are derived for each material orientation test.
The results are shown in Table 7. Small values of γK and IK, and large
values for IT and ρK correspond to a potential better identification
quality (low A.R.E). Table 7 also shows the rank of the heterogeneity-
indicator and three identifiability metrics, whereby rank-1 corre­
sponds to the best material orientation for Test C. It can be inferred from
Table 7 that the variation of the IT value is small, indicating that the
influence of the material orientation on the strain heterogeneity is
moderate. The IT rank shows that the material orientation R30 is most
favorable, yet very close to R45. The metric γK and IK both suggest (γK
less than 20 and IKless than 3) that the full parameter set (F, H and N) can
be accurately identified for all considered material orientations. Looking
at the rank of γK and IK, it can be concluded that R45 is the most
adequate material orientation. Moreover, the metric ρK also indicates
that R45 is the most suitable material orientation and RD is the worst
one. From this analysis, it can be concluded that all identifiability
metrics point towards a material orientation of R45, which is 45o with
respect to the rolling direction (RD). The effectiveness of this orientation
will be validated in the next section by assessing the identification
1. Accuracy rank: best-1, worst-7.
2. Individual identified relative error (I.R.E).
quality through FEMU.
4.2.2. Parameters identification for different material orientations
The aim of this section is to validate the findings concerning the
optimal material orientation reported in the previous section. In a more
general sense, however, it is also important to determine the most reli­
able identifiability metric for assessing the identification quality. The
impact of different material orientations is then assessed through the
FEMU procedure. In order to focus on the intrinsic performance of the
identifiability metrics, it is opted here to exclude any experimental bias
in the analysis. To this end, the virtual experiment consists of numerical
strain fields generated by the FE model using the reference material
behavior. To mitigate the influence of the initial guess for the sought
anisotropic material parameters, one additional initial guess set was
arbitrarily chosen and added in Table 8.
The average identified parameters resulting from the four initial
guesses are reported in Table 9. The relative error (A.R.E) and the
associated accuracy rank are also reported in Table 9. First, it is clear
that all material orientations yield a small A.R.E, which is not surprising
as FEMid is fed with numerical strain fields. Moreover, the identifiability
metric γK and IKas presented in Table 7 indicate that the full parameters
set can be accurately identified for all considered material orientations.
The latter is confirmed by the small A.R.E for all material orientation
tests shown in Table 9. It can be seen from Table 9 that R45 is optimal
with an A.R.E of 0.39% (rank-1), while RD shows the worst accuracy

11
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 9. Importance rank of Hill48 yield criterion parameters for Test RD.
Fig. 10. Strain states (a) for Test C RD, Test C TD and Test C R45 in a single graph, (b) for Test C RD, (c) for Test C TD and (d) for Test C R45.
with an A.R.E of 2.14% (rank-7). It can be stated that all intermediate
material orientations, except for R60, yield a similar A.R.E., and, as a
consequence, a general relation between identification quality and
material orientation cannot be derived.
Nevertheless, it is clear that testing in the RD is not beneficial with
regard to the identifiability. A further analysis reveals that this finds its
roots in the identification quality of the parameter F (I.R.E error around
5.15%). Intuitively, when conducting the experiment in the RD direc­
tion, the sensitivity with regard to F is less because this parameter only
depends on σ22 (i.e. the transverse stress component). Consequently, the
anisotropic parameter F is indeed less activated when the tensile di­
rection is aligned with the RD. The latter is confirmed by looking at the
importance ranking for the Test C RD shown in Fig. 9. The importance
ranking is calculated based on Eq. (14) in Table 3 and represents the
parameter sensitivity strength during FEMU.
In order to improve the understanding with regard to the most
12
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
adequate material orientation associated with Test C R45, the strain and
stress states are analyzed for Test C RD, Test CTD and Test CR45. Fig. 10
(a) presents the principal strain states for the three material orientations.
The individual plots (Fig. 10(b), (c), (d)) show that the strain state dis­
tribution in the principal strain space is virtually identical for the three
material orientations. This indeed explains why IT is virtually identical
for Test C RD, Test C R45 and Test C TD (see Table 7).
Fig. 11 shows the stress distribution where the stress components σ11
and σ22 are normalized by the equivalent stress. Again, it must be noted
that σ11 and σ22 are aligned with the RD and the TD, respectively. For the
material test along the RD and the TD shown in Fig. 11(a) and Fig. 11(b),
respectively, the stress distributions are identical, yet almost mirrored
according the dotted diagonal. Compared to stress distribution of Test C
RD and Test C TD, the stress states generated by Test C R45 (Fig. 11(c)) is
much more dispersed, covering a larger area. Hence, the probability of
activating the anisotropic parameters increases significantly. This
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

Fig. 11. Stress states for (a) Test C RD, (b) Test C TD and (c) Test C R45 using Hill48 criterion.

Table 11
Table 10
Reference parameters, initial guess, identified parameters and identification
Comparison of identified parameters accuracy rank, IT and identifiability metrics
quality for Test C TD and Test C R45.
rank for seven material orientations tests.
Parameters Reference Initial Test C TD Test C R45
Material Accuracy IT − γK − IK − ρK −
lists values guess
Orientation Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
1
θ Ref θ Identified Identified
RD 7 7 2 6 7
parameters parameters
R15 3 3 4 7 5
α1 0.9394 1.0 1.1565 0.9650
R30 5 1 3 2 3
(23.11%) 2 (2.72%)
R45 1 2 1 1 1
α2 1.1841 1.0 1.2065 1.2271
R60 6 4 5 4 2
(1.92%) (3.63%)
R75 2 6 7 5 4
α3 0.8872 1.0 1.3291 0.9176
TD 4 5 6 3 6
(49.81%) (3.4297%)
Sum of least square for rank 38 60 40 32
α4 0.8765 1.0 0.9416 0.8998
order difference w.r.t Accuracy
(7.43%) (2.66%)
Rank
α5 0.9333 1.0 0.2491 0.9575
(73.31%) (2.59%)
α6 0.802 1.0 -0.2315 0.8083
potentially explains why R45 exhibits the best identification quality (128.9%) (0.78%)
when applying FEMU. α7 1.0462 1.0 1.0917 1.0742
(4.35%) (2.68%)
1.0227 1.0 1.2484 1.0538
4.2.3. Optimal identifiability criterion α8
(22.07%) (3.04%)
Finally, this section aims to determine the most reliable identifi­ M 5.90 6.0 3.7085 5.8895
ability metric for predicting the identification quality. Table 10 com­ (37.14%) (0.1776%)
pares the accuracy rank based on the A.R.E (table 9), the ranking of A.R.E 38.37% 2.41%
indicator IT and the identifiability metrics for the seven material Metric a: γk 83.70 23.97
Metric b: IK 5.90 3.96
orientation tests.
Metric c: ρK 9.58 36.02
The last row in Table 10 is the sum of least squares, expressing the Parameter subset (Full parameters) {α1 , α2 , α3 , α4 , α5 , {α1 , α2 , α3 , α4 , α5 ,
difference between the accuracy rank (second column) and the different α6 , α7 , α8 , M} α6 , α7 , α8 , M}
metrics. It can be inferred from Table 10 that ρK yields the smallest
1. Reference anisotropic parameters for Yld2000-2D.
difference with the accuracy rank and is therefore deemed the most
2. The data in the parenthesis represents I.R.E.
suited criterion to assess identification quality. This metric also enables
the correct prediction of the best and worst material orientation.
Although it is not possible to assign an absolute threshold to ρK, it can be γK for predicting the accuracy rank. Most importantly, the three iden­
used to evaluate the influence of the material orientation on the pa­ tifiability metrics both successfully predict that R45 is the optimal ma­
rameters identifiability. The IT rank also shows a good match with the terial orientation ( as shown in Table 10).
accuracy rank. However, IT cannot provide a threshold value for good It is important to understand that the sensitivity of anisotropic pa­
identifiability. Moreover, a larger IT does not guarantee a good param­ rameters depends on the selected orientation of the principal material
eters identifiability. Compared to γK, it can be stated that IK is better than axis with respect to the loading direction. To find the most adequate
material orientation, the determinant measure ρK is a more suited

13
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 12. (a), (c) are comparisons of the reference Yld2000-2D yield loci (red dash line) with identified yield locus, stress states distribution and corresponding density
contour plot for Test C TD and Test C R45.respectivity; (b), (d) are reference yield loci with identified yield loci for Test C TD and Test C R45 at different levels of σ12
/σ0 , respectively.
metric. Indeed, the γK and IKare effective measures to verify whether the
mechanical test can be used for to properly identify unknown aniso­
tropic parameters. The metric ρK can be used as comparable tool to find
the optimal material orientation. As a consequence, in the context of this
work on identifiability of anisotropic parameters, it is deemed appro­
priate to combine γK or IK and ρK as joint diagnostic tool to evaluate the
parameters identifiability.
4.3. Validation for an advanced anisotropic yield function: Yld2000-2D
4.3.1. Parameters identifiabiltiy and identification
The above research findings are based on a relatively simple aniso­
tropic yield criterion. Indeed, the plane stress Hill48 yield criterion in­
volves only three anisotropic parameters. This raises the question
whether the findings hold for a more complex anisotropic yield function
having multiple anisotropic parameters.With the purpose of validating
the specimen design methodology (importance of material orientation
and parameter identifiability) for a more complex material model, the
identifiability analysis is applied in this section to the Yld2000-2D yield
function (see Appendix A for more details). Yld2000-2D yield criterion
involves nine parameters (αi(i = 1, ..., 8) and exponent M). Here, two
material orientations (TD and R45) are considered for the mechanical
14
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
tests based on Test C, denoted as Test C TD and Test C R45, respectively. It
must be emphasized that, except for the material orientation, all other
conditions (FE model, etc.) and procedures (virtual experiment and
parameters identification, etc.) are kept identical to Test C reported in
Section 4.2. The full parameter set of Yld2000-2D yield criterion is
considered as unknown in the FEMU process.
Table 11 shows the reference anisotropic parameters of the Yld2000-
2D yield function that were calibrated by standard experiments (more
details can be found in Coppieters et al. [28]). In addition, Table 11
shows the initial guess values, the inversely identified anisotropic pa­
rameters, the average identification quality (A.R.E), the individual
identification quality (I.R.E) and the three identifiability metrics for Test
C RD and Test C R45, respectively.
As shown in Table 11, γk for Test C TD is significantly larger (83.7)
than the threshold value (20). Similarity, IK(5.90) for Test C TD is also
over the threshold value (3). This indicates a poor identification quality,
which is indeed reflected by its large A.R.E (38.67%). Thus, this dem­
onstrates that Test C TD is not sufficiently rich to uniquely identify the
full parameters set of the Yld2000-2D yield function. Conversely, the full
parameters set can be remarkably be well identified for Test C R45 (A.R.
E -2.41%). In addition, γk (23.97) and IK(3.96) for Test C R45 are close to
the threshold values γk (20) and IK(3). This suggests that the threshold
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 13. Evolution of (a) r − valueand (b) normalized yield stress according to tension axis angle from rolling direction for identified parameters and reference
parameters for Test C TD and Test C R45.
values for γk and IKmight need to be slightly tailored for a particular
constitutive model and the targeted identification quality. The latter will
be investigated in a forthcoming paper. Moreover, γk and IKfor Test C
R45 are notably lower than observed for Test C TD. In Section 4.2.3, we
concluded that a higherρKcorresponds with a better parameters identi­
fiability. The latter conclusion is also valid for the Yld2000-2D yield
function since ρK (36.02) for Test C R45 is almost four times larger than
ρK (9.58) for Test C TD. The results shown in Table 11 confirm that the A.
R.E shows good correlation with γk, IKand ρK for the Yld2000-2D yield
function. As a consequence, this validates the proposed identifiability
analysis via the simultaneous use of three identifiability metrics, namely
γk, IKand ρK. Finally, the results in Table 11 clearly show the importance
of the material orientation for improving the parameter identifiability.
4.3.2. Yield stress and plastic anisotropy prediction using the identified
parameters
The previous section was based on a direct comparison between the
identified and the reference parameters. Such a direct comparison is
somewhat questionable since small parameter deviations can have a
strong influence on the predictive accuracy of the model. Therefore, it
advised to use the identified parameters to plot the normalized locus and
compare it with the reference yield locus. Moreover, the identified
model parameters can be used to predict yield stress and the r − values
as a function of the angle from the RD. The latter predictions can then
again be compared with the reference material behaviour. This
approach gives a more profound understanding of the identification
quality. Fig. 12(a)-(b) and Fig. 12(c)-(d) shows the comparison between
the identified yield loci and the reference yield locus (at different values
of σ12 /σ0 ) for Test C TD and Test C R45, respectively. In addition, the
stress states (labelled reference data) generated in the AOI for Test TD and
Test R45 are shown. The density of the stress states is indicated with a
color legend normalized to 1. For Test C TD, see Fig. 12(a), it can be
inferred that the stress states are clustered around uniaxial tension in the
TD, yet are moderately dispersed in the first quadrant of stress space.
The identified yield locus is shown for σ 12 /σ 0 = 0 in Fig. 12(a) and for
different values of σ12 /σ 0 in Fig. 12(b). It can be inferred that the
identified locus is only accurate in the densely populated region of the
probed stress states. Clearly, significant deviations occur elsewhere. This
means that the inversely identified anisotropic parameters enable to
reproduce the material behavior in Test C TD, however, the FEMU
15
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
process could not retrieve the reference yield locus due to a lack of in­
formation. The inversely identified anisotropic parameters found
through Test C TD are used in Fig. 13(a) and Fig. 13(b) to predict the r-
values and normalized yield stresses along different orientations with
respect to the RD. It can be inferred that both predictions are very poor,
except for the r-values calculated in the vicinity of TD. Indeed, in this
region, the direction of the plastic strain rate is correctly predicted (see
Fig. 12(a)). Given that the strain hardening is assumed to be known in
the FEMU process, it is not surprising that the yield stress in the RD is
correctly predicted (see Fig. 13(b)).
It can be inferred from Fig.12(c) that Test C R45 enables to have more
dispersed stress states than Test C TD. This leads to a much better
identification of the yield locus as shown in Fig. 12(c)-(d). In addition,
the parameters found through Test C R45 enable to accurately predict
the r-values and yield stresses shown in Fig. 13(a)-(b).
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper scrutinizes the effectiveness of an IT-based design (i.e. a
notched tensile specimen) to inversely identify the plastic anisotropy of
sheet metal using heterogeneous strain fields. To this end, virtual DIC
data was generated using reference material behavior and fed to a FEMU
(Finite Element Model Updating) process to assess the identification
quality of three IT-based designs. For a relatively simple model such as
the plane stress Hill48 yield criterion, a positive correlation between the
strain heterogeneity indicator-IT and the inverse identification quality is
observed. Despite this positive correlation, however, IT-based designs
cannot guarantee maximum and sufficient identifiability of the sought
anisotropic parameters. In this regard, it is shown that a set of identifi­
ability metrics enables to accurately predict the identification quality
found through FEMU. The following results are validated for an
advanced anisotropic yield function (i.e., Yld2000-2D):
• It is recommended to combine the γK or IK and ρK as joint diagnostic
tool to rank and assess the effectiveness of heterogeneous specimen.
With regard to the optimization of the material orientation, the
determinant measure ρK is found to be the most reliable identifi­
ability metric.
• The identifiability of the IT-based design can be significantly
improved by considering the orientation of the principal material
Y. Zhang et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891

axis within the specimen. Therefore, the material orientation should Declaration of Competing Interest
be considered as a design variable for increasing identifiability of
anisotropic parameters. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

The above findings can be used to enhance the design strategy for
heterogeneous specimen. The presented identifiability analysis fully
relies on numerical strain fields generated with a FE model. In other
words, it is assumed that the actual strain fields can be measured with
sufficient accuracy. Future work will embark on integrating metrolog­
ical aspects and measurement noise within the framework of
identifiability.
Acknowledgements
Yi Zhang acknowledges the financial support from the program of
China Scholarships Council (No.201806460097). Yi Zhang and S. Cop­
pieters acknowledge MatchID for the use of the MatchID software. S.
Coppieters and A. Andrade-Campos gratefully acknowledge the support
from the Research Fund for Coal and Steel under grant agreement No
888153 (EU-RFCS 2019 project No. 888153 | vForm-xSteels).

Appendix A. : Yld2000-2D

The Yld2000-2D [27] yield function is defined as:

[ ]
1 ( ⃒⃒ ′ ′ ⃒M ⃒ ⃒M ⃒ ⃒M ) 1/M
σ Yld
eq = X1 − X2 ⃒ + ⃒2X2′′ + X1′′ ⃒ + ⃒2X1′′ + X2′′ ⃒ , (A.1)
2

where exponent “M” is a material coefficient and based on the metal micro-structure(M= 8 for FCC and M= 6 for BCC) and Xi , Xi′′ are the principal
′

values of two stress tensors X , X , which are obtained by employing linear transformations on Cauchy stress deviators in plane stress, σ =
′ ′′

[σxx σ yy σxy ]T
{ ′ ′
X =Lσ
, (A.2)
X = L′′ σ
′′

where Rolling Direction (RD) and the Transverse Direction (TD) are aligned with x and y axis, respectively, The two tensors L and L are function of
′ ′′

eight independent parameters αi, which are given as:

⎛ ⎞
2α − α1 0
1⎝ 1
(A.3)
′
L = − α2 2α2 0 ⎠ ,
3
0 0 3a7
⎛ ⎞
( − 2α3 + 2α4 + 8α5 − 2α6 ) (α3 − 4α4 − 4α5 + 4α6 ) 0
1⎝
′′
L = (4α3 − 4α4 − 4α5 + α6 ) ( − 2α3 + 8α4 + 2α5 − 2α6 ) 0 ⎠ . (A.4)
9
0 0 9a8

The principal values X and X′′ are:

′

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅)
1( ′ ( )2
(A.5)
′ ′
X xx − X yy + 4X ′xy 2 ,
′ ′
Xi = Xxx + Xyy ±
2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅)
1 ( ′′ ( )2
Xi′′ = Xxx + Xyy′′
± X ′′xx − X ′′yy + 4X ′′xy 2 . (A.6)
2

References [7] Zhang H, Coppieters S, Jimenez-Pena C, et al. Inverse identification of the post-
necking work hardening behavior of thick HSS through full-field strain
measurements during diffuse necking. Mechanics of Materials [J] 2019;129:
[1] Kim J H, Barlat F, Pierron F, et al. Determination of Anisotropic Plastic Constitutive
361–74.
Parameters Using the Virtual Fields Method. Experimental Mechanics [J] 2014;54
[8] Cooreman S, Lecompte D, Sol H, et al. Identification of mechanical material
(7):1189–204.
behavior through inverse modeling and DIC. Experimental Mechanics [J] 2008;48
[2] Ha J, Coppieters S, Korkolis YP. On the expansion of a circular hole in an
(4):421–33.
orthotropic elastoplastic thin sheet. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
[9] Pottier T, Toussaint F, Vacher P. Contribution of heterogeneous strain field
[J] 2020;182:105706.
measurements and boundary conditions modelling in inverse identification of
[3] Banabic D, Carleer B, Comsa D S, et al. Sheet metal forming processes: Constitutive
material parameters. European Journal of Mechanics A-Solids [J] 2011;30(3):
modelling and numerical simulation [M]. 2010.
373–82.
[4] Lattanzi A, Barlat F, Pierron F, et al. Inverse identification strategies for the
[10] Denys K, Coppieters S, Seefeldt M, et al. Multi-DIC setup for the identification of a
characterization of transformation-based anisotropic plasticity models with the
3D anisotropic yield surface of thick high strength steel using a double perforated
non-linear VFM. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences [J] 2020;173:
specimen. Mechanics of Materials [J] 2016:96–108.
105422.
[11] Coppieters S, Hakoyama T, Debruyne D, et al. Inverse Yield Locus Identification
[5] Cooreman S. Identification of the plastic material behavior through full-field
using a biaxial tension apparatus with link mechanism and displacement fields.
displacement measurements and inverse methods. Belgium: Free University of
Journal of Physics Conference [J] 2018;1063:012039.
Brussels; 2008. PhD thesis.
[12] Güner A, Soyarslan C, Brosius A, et al. Characterization of anisotropy of sheet
[6] Lecompte D, Cooreman S, Coppieters S, et al. Parameter identification for
metals employing inhomogeneous strain fields for Yld2000-2D yield function.
anisotropic plasticity model using digital image correlation: Comparison between
International Journal of Solids and Structures [J] 2012;49(25):3517–27.
uni-axial and bi-axial tensile testing. European Journal of Computational
Mechanics [J] 2009;18(3-4):393–418.

16
Y. Zhang et al.
[13] Prates P A, Oliveira M C, Fernandes J V. A new strategy for the simultaneous
identification of constitutive laws parameters of metal sheets using a single test.
Computational Materials Science [J] 2014;85:102–20.
[14] Wang Yueqi, et al. Anisotropic yield surface identification of sheet metal through
stereo finite element model updating. The Journal of Strain Analysis for
Engineering Design [J] 2016;51(8):598–611.
[15] Pierron F, Grédiac M. A review of test design for identification of constitutive
parameters from full-field measurements. Strain [J] 2020.
[16] Aquino J, Andrade-Campos A, Martins JM, et al. Design of heterogeneous
mechanical tests: Numerical methodology and experimental validation. Strain [J],
2019;55(1):e12313.
[17] Souto N, Thuillier S, Andrade-Campos A. Design of an indicator to characterize and
classify mechanical tests for sheet metals. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences [J] 2015:252–71. 101-102.
[18] Souto N. Computational design of a technological mechanical test for material
characterization by inverse analysis, 2015, PhD thesis, University of Aveiro.
[19] Chamoin L, Jailin C, Diaz M, et al. Coupling between topology optimization and
digital image correlation for the design of specimen dedicated to selected material
parameters identification. International Journal of Solids and Structures [J] 2020:
193–4.
[20] Barroqueiro B, Andrade-Campos A, Dias-de-Oliveira João, et al. Design of
mechanical heterogeneous specimens using topology optimization. International
Journal of Mechanical Sciences [J] 2020:105764.
[21] Barick MC, Gaillard Y, Lejeune A, et al. On the uniqueness of intrinsic viscoelastic
properties of materials extracted from nanoindentation using FEMU. International
Journal of Solids and Structures [J] 2020;202(1):929–46.
[22] Richard F, Villars M, Thibaud S. Viscoelastic modeling and quantitative
experimental characterization of normal and osteoarthritic human articular
cartilage using indentation. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical
materials [J] 2013;24:41–52.
[23] Pac MJ, Giljean S, Rousselot C, et al. Microstructural and elasto-plastic material
parameters identification by inverse finite elements method of Ti sputtered thin
films from Berkovich nano-indentation experiments. Thin Solid Films [J] 2014;
569:81–92.
[24] Renner E, Bourceret A, Gaillard Y, et al. Identifiability of single crystal plasticity
parameters from residual topographies in Berkovich nanoindentation on FCC
nickel. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids [J] 2020;138:103916.
[25] Hapsari G, Richard F, Hmida RB, et al. Instrumented Incremental Sheet Testing for
material behavior extraction under very large strain: Information richness of
continuous force measurement. Materials & Design [J] 2018;140:317–31.
[26] Brun R, Reichert P, Künsch HR. Practical identifiability analysis of large
environmental simulation models. Water Resources Research [J] 2001;37(4):
1015–30.
[27] Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon. Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy
sheets—part 1: theory. International Journal of Plasticity [J] 2003;19(9):
1297–319.
17
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 214 (2022) 106891
[28] Coppieters S, Hakoyama T, Eyckens P, et al. On the synergy between physical and
virtual sheet metal testing: calibration of anisotropic yield functions using a
microstructure-based plasticity model. International Journal of Material Forming
[J] 2018:741–59.
[29] Hill R. On discontinuous plastic states, with special reference to localized necking
in thin sheets. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solid [J] 1952;1:19–30.
[30] Levenberg K. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems by least
squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics [J] 1944;2(2):164–8.
[31] Marquardt DW. An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear
Parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics [J]
1963;11(2):431–41.
[32] Gothivarekar S, Coppieters S, Van de Velde, et al. Advanced FE model validation of
cold-forming process using DIC: Air bending of high strength steel. International
Journal of Material Forming [J] 2020;13(3):409–21.
[33] Lava P, Cooreman S, Coppieters S, et al. Assessment of Measuring Errors in DIC
Using Deformation Fields Generated by Plastic FEA. Optics and Lasers in
Engineering [J] 2009;47(7):747–53.
[34] MatchID. 2021. Available online: https://www.matchid.eu/Software.html
(accessed on 4 February 2021).
[35] Machta BB, Chachra R, Transtrum MK, et al. Parameter space compression
underlies emergent theories and predictive models. Science [J] 2013;342(6158):
604–7.
[36] Sin G, Meyer AS, Gernaey KV. Assessing reliability of cellulose hydrolysis models to
support biofuel process design-identifiability and uncertainty analysis. Computers
& Chemical Engineering [J] 2010;34(9):1385–92.
[37] Hartmann S, Gilbert RR. Material parameter identification using finite elements
with time-adaptive higher-order time integration and experimental full-field strain
information. Computational Mechanics [J] 2021:1–18.
[38] Brun R, Kühni M, Siegrist H, et al. Practical identifiability of ASM2d parameters-
systematic selection and tuning of parameter subsets. Water research [J] 2002;36
(16):4113–27.
[39] Babarenda Gamage, T. Constitutive parameter identifiability and the design of
experiments for applications in breast biomechanics. 2016. PhD thesis, University
of Auckland.
[40] Gábor A, Villaverde Alejandro F, et al. Parameter identifiability analysis and
visualization in large-scale kinetic models of biosystems. BMC systems biology [J]
2017;11(1):1–16.
[41] Gujarati D. Basic Econometrics. Fourth edition, McGraw-Hill, Irwin. 2004.
[42] Martinez-Lopez B, Peyron S, Gontard N, et al. Practical identifiability analysis for
the characterization of mass transport properties in migration tests. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research [J] 2015;54(17):4725–36.
[43] Shutov AV, Kaygorodtseva AA. Parameter identification in elasto-plasticity:
distance between parameters and impact of measurement errors. Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics [J] 2019;8(99). 2019, 201800340.
[44] Zhang Y, Coppieters S, Gothivarekar S, et al. Independent Validation of Generic
Specimen Design for Inverse Identification of Plastic Anisotropy. International
Conference on Material Forming, Esaform 2021.