CHAPTER 5

Plastic Deformation-State of Stress,

Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and
Hardening Rules
Hari Palaniswamy, Altair Engineering, Inc.

WHEN A MATERIAL is deformed, two types ible dislocation motions are the basis of plastic
of deformation occur: elastic and plastic. Elastic deformations. In metal forming, elastic strains
deformation is always the initial phase of load- are smaller by several orders of magnitude than
ing, in which the material will change shape as plastic strains. Yet, in case of sheet metal form-
load is applied. However, when the load is re- ing, they are still very significant since they are
moved, the material returns to its original shape. the reason for the springback.
The relationship between stress and strain in the
elastic phase is linear. In most metallic materials,
when load is increased further, the elastic defor- 5.1 General State of Stress
mation will be accompanied by plastic deforma-
tion. In this load region, the material deforms not A typical sheet forming process, deep draw-
only elastically but also permanently. The stress- ing, is shown in Fig. 5.1. Various stresses are
strain relationship in the elastic-plastic state is present at distinct points in the work piece dur-
nonlinear because phenomena such as irrevers- ing the forming operation. In general, at a mate-

Blank holder

(a) {b)

Fig. 5.1 (a) Deep drawing process. (b) Various states of stress in deep drawing
54 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

rial point, the whole internal forces can be com- a coordinate system along which the shear stress
pletely described by stress components acting is zero. The normal stresses in these planes are
on three orthogonal planes passing through this called principal stress, denoted by ol,oz, and
point (Fig. 5.2). 03.They are estimated by setting shear stress
These stresses can be described by the com- along arbitrary plane denoted by normal 2 to
ponents of the true stress (also named Cauchy zero:
stress) tensor:

where om denotes the stress along the x-axis in

the plane normal to the x-axis, commonly known
where I is the identity sensor. The resulting
as normal stress, with simplified notation as ox. characteristics equation is:
Similarly, ow = oyand ozz= oz.onvdenotes the
stress along the y-axis in the plane normal to x-
axis, commonly known as shear stress. Consid-
h 3- I l k , - I,h - I , = 0 0% 5.4)
ering moment equilibrium in the discretized ele-
ment, it can be proved that onv= oyx,oxz= om, where
and oyz= o , reducing the stress components to
"i:
six to describe the full stress state at a single
point:

The three principal stresses (ol,oz, and 03)

can be determined by findng the roots of the
5.2 Principal Stresses cubic Eq 5.4. The coefficients 4 , 4, and 4 are
independent of coordinate system and therefore
In any general stress state, there exist three are called invariants. Consequently, the princi-
mutually perpendicular planes corresponding to pal stresses for a given stress state is unique.
These invariants have physical significance in
theory of plasticity. The invariants can also be
z expressed in terms of principal stresses:

I , = o,+ o, + o,
I , = -(",", +
+0203 0301) 0% 5.5)
I , = 010203

5.3 Volumetric Stress or

Hydrostatic Pressure

The volumetric stress is the average of the

normal stresses:

Fig. 5.2 Complete stress components at a material point P

Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 55

The stress quantity omis like three equal com- where:

ponents of normal stress acting in all the three
directions. This is equivalent to the hydrostatic
pressure acting on a structure except that the
sign is reversed and can be expressed in terms
of hydrostatic pressure:

The principal deviatoric stresses (sl, s,, and

s3) can be calculated in a manner similar to
that principal stress, as root of the cubic equa-
The stress state containing only the hydro- tion:
static stress is called the hydrostatic stress
state. The important experimental observation

I
s, - h sny
is that the hydrostatic stress state does not (S-hI).n=O* sny s,-h
cause any plastic deformation. This is easily
verified by the physical fact that plastic defor- sxz syi sn -h
mation requires shearing of atomic planes, h 3- J l h 2- J,h -J , =0
which in turn requires shear stresses. Since no 0% 5.9)
shear stress is given in a hydrostatic stress
state, no plastic deformation can be induced.
The hydrostatic stress state only introduces an where
elastic volume change.
J , = S, + sYy+ S, = 0
J , = - ( s , , s ~ ~+ S ~ S ,+ s ~ s , ) + f2y + f:z +s i
5.4 Deviatoric Stress
='((ox - o y y +(o,-oJZ +(oz- o J i )
The stress state that causes plastic deforma- 6
tion is called the deviatoric stress state, so, + 0:; + o;z + 02,
which is defined as the normal stress state re-
1
=-((01-02)2+(02-03)2+(03
duced by the hydrostatic stress state (Fig. 5.3).
The tensor equation for the deviatoric stress 6
state is so = oo omtjo,
~ which can be expanded J , = det S,,.
into its components for the tensor matrix (8:
The coefficients J , & ,and J3 are the deviatoric
stress invariants. Among the invariants, the
S= second invariant, &, is widely used in theory
of plasticity to describe yielding of the mate-
rial.

i TSXX
+
+UYY + urn

Fig. 5.3 Stress state that can be decomposed to volumetric stress and deviatoric stress
56 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

5.5 Isotropic Yield Criteria

(Flow Criteria)

Yield criteria define the condition for the

limit of elastic behavior or the onset of plastic
deformation in a material under multiaxial
+ OXX
D;

states of stress. A criterion used for determining

the condition of continuing plastic flow is also
called t h e j o w criterion. In the uniaxial com-
pression or tensile test, the metal starts to flow
plastically when the stress in the material
reaches the material’s yield stress:

F
rJ-=rJ
-
A

where F is the instantaneous force, A is the in-

stantaneous area of the test specimen, and 0 is Fig. 5.4 Schematic of Mohr’s circle for in-plane stresses
the yield stress of the material. In multiaxial
states of stress, the determination of plastic flow
is not trivial and depends on a combination of scripts are arbitrary, only indicating that o1 2
all the stresses in the stress tensor. oz2 03.As shown in Fig. 5.4, the maximum
The most popular yield criteria for isotropic shear stress is given by the radius of Mohr’s
material and anisotropic material used in nu- circle. Hence, the maximum shear stress can be
merical modeling of sheet metal forming pro- expressed in terms of principal stress as,,z, =
cesses are described in this chapter: (ol 03)/2. The Tresca yield criterion in terms
~

Isotropic yield criteria (Sections 5.6-5.8) of principal stress can be written as:
Tresca or shear stress yield criterion
Von Mises or distortion energy criterion (Eq 5.10)
Anisotropic yield criteria (Section 5.9):
Hill’s 1947 yield criterion Fig. 5.5 shows Mohr’s circle in the tensile
Hill’s 1990 yield criterion test (no necking) and compression test (no bulg-
Barlat and Lian yield criterion ing), respectively. In both cases, the deforma-
Barlat 1996 yield criterion tion is uniaxial; that is, oz= 0, o3= 0. The plas-
tic deformation begins as:
5.6 Tresca Yield Criterion

The Tresca yield criterion indicates that the

plastic flow begins or the material starts to yield
where F i s the tensile or compressive force, A is
when the maximum shear stress reaches the
the instantaneous cross-sectional area of the
critical value K o r when II,,z, = K, where K i s
sample, and 0 is the flow stress (or instanta-
the shear flow stress of the material, which is a
neous yield stress) in the uniaxial stress state.
function of strain, strain rate, temperature, mi-
If the principal stresses are arranged as o12
crostructure, and so on.
oz2 0 3 ,then the Tresca criterion in terms of
The Tresca yield criterion can be easily de-
principal stress can be written as:
scribed by the aid of Mohr’s circle. Fig. 5.4
shows the Mohr’s circle representation for in-
plane stresses whose coordinate axes are shear 0=o1-o3 (Eq 5.12)
stress, z (ordinate), and normal stress, o (ab-
scissa). The principal stress, ol,0 3 defines
, the Fig. 5.5 also shows that the position of Mohr’s
maximum and minimum principal Stress along circle does not affect the yielding, indicating
the direction where the shear stress vanishes that the hydrostatic pressure does not affect the
and defines limits of Mohr’s circle. The sub- yielding.
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 57

(a) Tensile test

Fig. 5.5
(b)Compression test

Schematic of Mohr’s circle in uniaxial tensile and compression tests (Ref 5.1)
t
In the general case, the Tresca yield criterion
can be expressed in terms of principal stresses:

where 0 is the flow stress (or instantaneous

yield stress) in uniaxial stress state.
In three-dimensional stress space, the Tresca
criterion results in a hexagonal surface, as
shown in Fig. 5.6(a). In sheet metal forming,
most analysis is done assuming the plane stress
condition along the thickness direction (03= 0).
{a)
The yield surface reduces to a hexagon (Fig.
5.6b).

5.7 Von Mises Yield Criterion

In contrast to the Tresca flow condition, the

von Mises flow condition considers all the prin-
cipal shear stresses. Accordingly, plastic flow
starts if:

Fig. 5.6 Schematic of Tresca yield criterion in (a) three-

dimensional and (b) two-dimensional stress space

where c‘ is a material constant. Again, tuning th ~ s

equation by the simple tension test supplies:
0= - o J 2 +(o,- o 3 ) 2 + ( 0 3- 0 1 ) 2 ]
(Eq 5.16)

The von Mises criterion can also be expressed

in terms of deviatoric stress invariant using Eq
or, in terms of principal stresses: 5.9:
58 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

3J, = 0’ (Eq 5.17) and von Mises yield criteria exhibit the same
value for yielding.
In three-dimensional stress space, the von Mises In pure shear (point Dl the ex-
criterion results in a cylindrical surface, as hibit different yield stresses. In pure shear,
shown in Fig. 5.7(a). For the plane stress condi- the stress state is o,= -oz, o3= 0.
tion commonly used in sheet metal forming The von Mises yield criterion reduces to:
analysis, the von Mises yield locus takes the 1
form of an elliptical curve, as shown in Fig. 2 =&,
0=~-{(01+01)’+(-01)’+(-01)’)
5.7(b) (Ref 5.2).
-
0
,
T =0, =-
5.8 Comparison of Tresca and von
&
Mises Criteria The Tresca yield criterion gives:
-
The Tresca and von Mises yield criteria can O = 20, and T,,,~
0
= o ,= -
be compared by superimposing the plane stress 2
versions of the yield criteria, as shown in Fig.
5.8. The shaded areas show the difference be- In the plane strain (point E), the two yield
tween the two yield criteria (Ref 5.1), and points criteria exhibit different yield stresses. With
A , B, C, D, and E are used to describe the simi- the Tresca yield criterion, the stress required
larities and differences of the two yield sur- for plastic deformation is 0,.With the von
faces: Mises yield criterion, the stress required for
plastic deformation is 1.150,
In uniaxial tension or compression loading
(points A and B, respectively), both von
Mises and Tresca yield criteria exhibit the 5.9 Anisotropic Yield Criteria
same values for yielding. That is, when oz=
0, o3 0, the von Mises yield criterion gives Sheet metals exhibit anisotropic characteris-
o,= o,and the same is true for the Tresca tics due to the rolling process used to manufac-
yield criterion using Eq 5.11. ture sheet metal coil. The rolling process aligns
At point C, corresponding to balanced biax- the grains along the rolling direction and packs
ial state (0, = oz= o,o3= 0), both Tresca the grains along the thickness direction. This

T-‘ ,cr, = cr* = cr3

Yield surface

Fig. 5.7 Schematic of von Mises yield criterion in (a) three-dimensional and (b) two-dimensional stress space
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 59

- Von Mses critenon

Fig. 5.8 Comparison of von Mises and Tresca yield criteria (Ref 5.1)

causes the sheet material to behave differently Let X, Z b e the yield stress along the ortho-
along the three orthotropic directions: the roll- tropic axis; then Hill’s yield criterion can be re-
ing, transverse, and thickness directions. To duced to:
model the orthotropic behavior of sheet metals,
several orthotropic yield criteria have been pro-
posed. Among those, the ones commonly used H + G = -,1 H + F = 1,1 F +G = 1 (Eq 5.19)
X2 Y Z
in numerical methods for analysis of sheet metal
forming process are described in this section.
From these equations, constants F, G, H c a n be
expressed as a function of yield stress in three
Hill’s 1948 Yield Criterion orthotropic axes.
In 1948 Hill proposed a yield criterion based Similarly, let R, S, T be the shear yield
on the von Mises yield criterion for orthotropic stresses in orthotropic directions; then Hill’s
material: yield criterion can be reduced to:

2 f ( o y )= H ( o x -oY)’ + G ( o z-ox)’ i

F ( o y-oZ)’ +2N7; +2M7:. +2L7h =1 (Eq 5.18)

The coefficients L, M, N can be estimated di-

where ox, oy, ozare the normal stress in x,y,x- rectly from shear yield stresses. In three-dimen-
orthotropic axis, znv,zxz,zyz are the shear stress, sional space, the yield criterion is represented
and F, G, H, L, N are the anisotropy con- by a surface. Inside the yield surface, the mate-
stants in the yield criterion. rial is in an elastic state, and outside of the yield
In the case of sheet material, the x,y,x-ortho- surface it is in a plastic state.
tropic axes are rolling, transverse, and thickness In analysis of sheet materials, the state of the
directions. The constants F, G, H c a n be deter- stress is assumed to be plane stress along the
mined from the uniaxial test along the ortho- thickness direction (oz= ,z = zyz = 0). There-
tropic axes. fore, Hill’s yield criterion reduces to:
60 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

Combining Eq 5.24 and 5.26, we get Hill’s

yield criterion in terms of constants that can be
measured from experiments:

After introducing the yield stress from uni- 5; =

axial test along the three directions and shear
r0r9,(oY-ox)’ +r,,o: +roo: +(2r4,+ l > ( r o+r9,>7;
yield stress the Eq 5.21 can be reduced to:
r90 (rO + ’)
(Eq 5.27)
1 0 2 - -+-l+,
2f(og)=Fx x2 [ l
Y2
,
zj Y
oxo
Therefore, either Eq 5.24 or 5.27 can be used
1 1 (Eq 5.22) to describe the behavior of sheet material in the
+,o2+-72 =1
Y ’ T Z v finite element (FE) simulations by Hill’s 1948
yield criterion.
The constants can also be more easily ob- In the case of principal directions of stress
tained from the plastic strain ratio (ro,rgoand tensors coinciding with the orthotropic axes
r4Jobtained from the tensile test along rolling (ox = ol, oy= oz, znv = 0), Eq 5.26 can be ex-
and transverse directions and 45” to the rolling pressed in terms of principal stress:
direction.
The relationship between the plastic strain ra-
tio in the tensile test and constants in Hill’s
plane stress yield criterion can be obtained us-
ing the flow rule and the yield function:
Hill’s 1948 yield criterion is very similar to
von Mises yield criterion. In three-dimensional
stress space, it is represented by an ellipsoid; in
two-dimensional space it is an ellipse. The in-
fluence of anisotropy values ro and rgoon the
shape of the yield surface is schematically
From Eq 5.21 and 5.23 we get: shown in Fig. 5.9.
2 f ( 0 9 ) = H ( o Y - o x ) 2 +H- o : + - H
o: In case of material exhibiting normal aniso-
tropy (roo=rgo r45 r), Eq 5.27 can be further
o= o=
rO r90
reduced to:

0: + 0 ; - 2 0 1 0 2r =
5; (Eq 5.29)
l+r
Consider a tensile test (before necking) or
compression test (before bulging), where the
In the case of isotropic material (ro rgo o= o=
deformation is uniaxial along the rolling direc-
r45 1). Eq 5.29 reduces to the von Mises yield
o=
tion (i.e. oz= 0, o3= 0), so the plastic deforma-
criterion in plane stress condition:
tion begins when:
F - (Eq 5.30)
(Eq 5.25)
O1 =A=oo
where F i s the tensile or compressive force, A is Hill’s yield criterion requires, at a minimum,
the instantaneous cross-sectional area of the the plastic strain ratio (ro,rgo, r4Jtest parame-
sample, and Eo is the flow stress (or instanta- ters from the tensile test along three directions
neous yield stress) in uniaxial stress state along to describe this criterion in plane stress condi-
the rolling direction. tions. Thus, it is commonly used to describe the
Hill’s yield function at the start of plastic de- behavior of sheet metals. The criterion has few
formation in uniaxial loading along rolling di- drawbacks, which are described as anomalous
rection can be obtained from Eq 5.24 as: behaviors of the materials (Ref 5.3).
First Anomalous Behavior. Consider a bal-
anced biaxial test o1= oz= o,,; then Eq 5.27 of
2f =H
(09) (1 + (Eq 5.26)
Hill’s yield criterion reduces to:
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 61

(a} Influence rJf r,, (b) Influence 5: I . , ~

Fig. 5.9 Effect of anisotropy constants on the shape of Hill’s 1948 yield criterion in the plane stress condition

Hill’s 1990 Yield Criterion

Hill’s 1990 yield criterion overcomes the lim-
itations of Hill 1948 and Hill 1979. In a general-
This indicates that the yield stress in the bal- ized orthotropic coordinate system for plane
anced biaxial test (bulge test) is proportional to stress condition, it is given by:
r. If r > 1, then ob> ?To; if r < 1, then ob<?To.
However, aluminum alloys have r < 1, but the
yield stress in the balanced biaxial (bulge test)
is greater than the yield stress from the tensile
test. Hence, Hill’s yield criterion cannot be used
for such alloys that exhibit this behavior (Ref
=(2oJ (Eq 5.34)
5.2).
Second Anomalous Behavior. Consider a
tensile test (before necking) or compression test Here x,y a r e the orthotropic directions, obis the
(before bulging) where the deformation is uni- yield stress in balanced biaxial state (ox = oJ , z
axial along the transverse direction; that is, ox= is the yield stress in pure shear (ox= -oJ, and a,
0, znv= 0. The plastic deformation begins when: b, and m are constants.
The constants a and b can be estimated from
(Eq 5.32) the yield stress due to uniaxial loading along the
rolling and transverse directions and 45” to the
rolling direction. Let oo,ago, and 045be the
where F i s the tensile or compressive force, A is yield stresses along the rolling, transverse, and
the instantaneous cross-sectional area of the 45” to rolling directions, respectively, in the
sample, and is the flow stress (or instanta- uniaxial tensile test. Then, constants a and b are
neous yield stress) in the uniaxial stress state in obtained as:
the transverse direction. Then Eq 5.27 of Hill’s
yield criterion reduces to:
(Eq 5.35)

(Eq 5.33)

> 1, then ~ o / ~ <

This indicates that if ro/rgo 9 01,
and vice versa. However, some materials do not
exhibit this behavior. Hence, Hill’s yield criterion (Eq 5.37)
cannot be used for such alloys (Ref 5.2, 5.3).
62 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

Using the flow rule, the plastic strain ratio r45 where S,, S,, and S, are the principal deviatoric
in tensile test can be related to m as: stresses, 0 is the yield stress in the uniaxial ten-
sile test, and m is the material constant. This is
(Eq 5.38) a generalized form of the yield criterion: when
m = 2, Eq 5.42 reduces to the von Mises yield
criterion. Also, when m = 1 or co, Eq 5.42 re-
Combining Eq 5.40 in Eq 5.41: duces to the Tresca yield criterion, as shown in
Fig. 5.10. Hosford and Hill found that the pro-
(Eq 5.39) posed yield criterion represents the yield sur-
face of bcc and fcc sheet material calculated by
the Bishop Hill model when m = 6 and 8, re-
The constants can also be obtained from the spectively (Ref 5.2).
plastic strain ratio in the tensile tests that is used The yield criterion in the generalized refer-
to characterize anisotropy in sheet metals: ence frame x,y,z (orthotropic axis) for plane
stress condition is:

a=
(yo - '90)p q] - y4,

0' "90 -(m-2)'0'90 '

K , =-ox + O y
b = m[2'o'90 2

/%
-'45('0 +'90)]
(Eq 5.40)
0' + '90 - ( - 2, '0'90
K, = (Eq 5.43)

where r, and rgoare the plastic strain ratios in

the rolling and transverse direction obtained where ox, ov,and onvare the normal stress and
from the tensile test. shear stress in plane.
Using Mohr's circle, the yield stress can be Barlat and Lian extended the Hosford formu-
expressed in terms of principal stress: lation to orthotropic materials for plane stress
condition by introducing anisotropy constants
a, c, h, and p as

f = a l K , +K,I" +alK, -K,I" +c12K,Im = 2 5 " ,

-2a(o: -o:)+b(ox- 0 y ) 2 c 0 s 2 a ]

cos2a = (20,)" (Eq 5.41)

where o1and o,are the principal stresses and a

is the angle between the principal axis corre-
sponding to the rolling direction.
Hill's 1990 yield criterion requires estimation
of five constants: ob,z, a, b, and m. obmust be
estimated from the balanced biaxial test; the
other four parameters can be estimated from the
tensile test results, o,,ago, 045,and r45or r,, rgo, -0.5
r45,and 045, as explained above (Ref 5.2, 5.4).

Barlat and Lian Yield Criterion (Ref 5.5)

Logan and Hosford proposed a generalized
yield criterion in terms of the principal devia-
toric stress condition considering plastic yield-
ing to be independent of mean stress, om:
in = 2

f = ~ S , - S , ~ " + ~ S , - S , ~ " + ~ S , - S=25"

,~"
Fig. 5.1 0 Influence of parameter m on the shape of the
(Eq 5.42) Logan and Hosford yield surface (Ref 5.2)
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 63

o x+ ho, Influence of the plastic strain ratio on the

K , =- shape of the yield surface is shown in Fig. 5.11
2 $
(Ref 5.5). The Barlat and Lian yield criterion
(Eq 5.44)
could overcome the anomalous behavior exhib-
ited by Hill's 1948 yield criterion. However, it
is limited to plane stress condition, and it could
The material constants a, c, h, p , can be ob- not exactly capture the variation of plastic strain
tained from the yield stress in the tensile test and yield stress along different in-plane direc-
along the rolling direction (oo),from yield stress tions in aluminum alloys obtained from the ten-
along the rolling transverse direction (ago), and sile test (Ref 5.5-5.7). Barlat and colleagues
from yield stress in the shear test (ox
= -oy = zS1, (Ref 5.8) proposed yield criteria to better de-
onv= 0, and ox= oy= 0, onv = zs2): scribe the behavior of aluminum alloys that are
commonly used in numerical analysis of sheet
metal forming using aluminum alloys, described
in the following section.

Barlat 1996 Yield Criterion

A more generalized anisotropy yield criterion
that applies to aluminum alloys was proposed
by Barlat and colleagues (Ref 5.8). The material
constants necessary to describe this criterion are
obtained from: (a) the yield stress and plastic
(Eq 5.45)
strain ratio measured in a tensile test, along roll-
ing and transverse directions, and (b) the yield
Also, the parameters a, c, and h can be ob- stress measured in a balanced biaxial test.
tained from the plastic strain ratio ro,q5,and rgo. It has been shown that the Barlat 1996 yield
The relationship between plastic strain ratio and criterion captures the variation of the yield
the constant is obtained using the associated stress and plastic strain ration across different
flow rule: angles to the rolling direction in an aluminum
alloy, as shown in Fig. 5.12.

5.10 Flow Rules

(Eq 5.46) When the stress at any point in the metal
reaches the level specified by the yield criterion,
150 150

100 100

50 50

0% 0 0% 0

-50 -50

-1 00 -1 00

-1 50 -1 50 I I I I I

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

ox ox

(a) Influence of ro (b) Influence of rgo

Fig. 5.1 1 Influence of the plastic strain ratio ro and rg0on the shape of the Barlat and Lian yield surface
64 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

further loading will result in plastic deforma-

tion. Hooke's law describes the stress-strain re- (Eq 5.49)
lationships in the elastic range. Analysis of plas-
tic deformation requires a similar relationship.
In the case of the plane stress condition, the
The flow rule describes such a relationship be-
flow rule can be demonstrated schematically for
tween the principal stress and the plastic strain
different stress conditions (Fig. 5.13). The slope
increments. Based on the experimental observa-
of strain increments is normal to the yield sur-
tions, the hypothesis postulates that the ratio of
face at the yield stress. This normality rule is
plastic strain increment is the same as the ratio
commonly used in estimating the material pa-
of the principal deviatoric stress. This is com-
rameters of the yield functions based on the
monly known as the Levy-Mises flow rule. In plastic strain ratios in different directions ob-
other words, the axis of principal deviatoric
tained from uniaxial tensile tests (Ref 5.9, 5.10).
stress coincides with the principal strain incre-
In the case of the von Mises yield function
ments. It can be expressed as:
under proportional loading, the constant d?L can
be determined as:

or (Eq 5.50)

(Eq 5.47) The expression of plastic strain increment can

also be given as
where d?Lis the constant. 3 dZ
In the case of the von Mises yield criterion, d r y =--S, (Eq 5.51)
2 0
where the yield function is given by second in-
variant of deviatoric stress Jz (Eq 5.17), the de-
viatoric stress can be expressed as: 5.1 1 Power and Energy of Deformation

(Eq 5.48) The plastic deformation process is irrevers-

ible. The mechanical energy consumed during
deformation is largely released as heat. When
Therefore, Eq 5.47 reduces to: we consider a homogeneous block (original

\
1 1.1
f 6022-T4 Hi11'48

0.8
Von Mises
lgi-*
J Barlat YLD89
1.05
Barlat YLD89
+F
0.6 9
a, ._
- x
0 1
3c
-N
.-

t I
0.4
2
Barlat YLD96 b
2
0.95
0.2
I
6022-T4
0 0.9
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Angle from the rolling direction (degree) Angle from the rolling direction (degree)

(a) (b)

Fig. 5.1 2 (a) Plastic strain ratio and (b) yield stress along the different directions calculated from von Mises, Hill 1948, Barlat
YLD89, and Barlat 1996 yield criterion (BarlatYLD96) and from experiments (Exp.) for aluminum alloy 6022.74 (Ref 5.8)
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 65

01, dti

Uniaxial dE2= 0 (plane stress)

dE2 = -d~112 4

(pure shear) 2-r

Fig. 5.1 3 Strain increments based on the Levy-Mises flow rule at different stress states for the in-plane von Mises yield criterion
(Ref 5.9)

height, h,; original width, W,; original length,

I,) deformed at velocities V,, V,, and I/; (Fig.
5.14), the principal strains are given by:

h . V,
I, =In--;&, =-,
h, h
1
w .
, =In--;&, =-,
v,
wo W

1 .
&,=In--.&
v, (Eq 5.52)
I,’ l - 1

Following Fig. 5.14, the instantaneous power of

deformation (force times velocity) is given by:
Fig. 5.1 4 Homogeneous deformation of a block (Ref 5.1)

P = olwlvh+ o,hlv, + 03whv,

= o,wlhi ,+ o,wlhi ,+ o3wlhi 5.1 2 Effective Strain and Effective
=(o,&,+o,b,+03b3)V (Eq 5.53) Strain Rate

where Vis the volume of the deforming block. The flows stress 0 is determined from tests
The energy of deformation, E, is given by: such as tensile or compression under uniaxial
deformation condition. However, in sheet metal
f
forming the stress are multiaxial. The yield cri-
+03i3)dt
E=l/J(o,&,+o;ty (Eq 5.54) terion discussed previously relates the multiax-
ial stress states to the uniaxial conditions to pre-
With Sdt = &, Eq 5.54 also can be written as:
dict the onset of plastic deformation. The stress
calculated using the yield criterion under multi-
axial stress conditions is equivalent to stress
under the uniaxial condition and is commonly
referred as equivalent or effective stress. The
66 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

corresponding effective strain and effective Effective strain is obtained by integrating

strain rate can be estimated by equating the strain over time as:
power and energy of deformation in multiaxial
stress state to uniaxial stress state (Ref 5.1). -
f

I = jgdt (Eq 5.64)

The deformation energy in multiaxial state
f.
over time At is:

dW = V ( o l d r l+o,d&, + o , d & , ) (Eq 5.56)

5.13 Hardening Laws

or, divided by dt, the deformation power, P, is: The yield surface defines the criterion that
specifies the start of the plastic deformation. As
p = -dW
=v( explained in Chapter 4 of this volume, after the
Isl&, +o,&,+Is,&,) (Eq 5.57) start of plastic deformation and further loading
dt
in the tensile or balanced biaxial tests, the ma-
Let E be the effective strain, and let E' be the terial deforms plastically and shows increase in
effective strain rate; then the deformation en- strength with further increased plastic strain
ergy and power in the uniaxial condition are until failure. This phenomenon is commonly
given by: referred to as strain-hardening behavior of
the materials. In the case of multiaxial load-
ing as in sheet metal forming, which also
dW = 0 d U , or P = 0 e V (Eq 5.58) involves loading and unloading, the strain-
hardening behavior can be expressed using
the yield criterion described in previous sec-
Equating multiaxial power Eq 5.57 and uniaxial
power Eq 5.58: tions and the hardening laws that are explained
below.
Isotropic Hardening Law. With the isotro-
0 r = o l b 1 + o , & ,+o,&, (Eq 5.59) pic hardening law, the metal continues to yield
plastically with further loading when the equiv-
alent stress calculated using the yield criterion
For volume constancy it can be shown that:
exceeds the flow stress at the current plastic
&l+&,+&,=O (Eq 5.60) strain. It can be expressed as:
or,
(Eq 5.65)
om(&l+&2+&3)=0

Combining Eq 5.59 and 5.60, we obtain: where fyis the expression for yielding proposed
by different yield criteria discussed in preceding
.
- (ol - o m ) & l -om)&,
+(ol +(ol-om)&, sections, and ??Asp)is the expression of flow
I = -
o stress as a function of plastic strain obtained
(Eq 5.61) from tensile or biaxial tests. In describing the
strain-hardening behavior, the isotropic harden-
For the von Mises yield criterion, using flow ing rule results in the initial yield surface pro-
rule Eq 5.51, the strain increment is given by: posed by various yield criteria to expand uni-
formly without any change to the location or
3 e 3 e shape, as shown in Fig. 5.15 for von Mises yield
&l =--sl =--(ol-om) (Eq 5.62)
criterion (Ref 5.10).
20 20
Although the isotropic hardening rule is very
Substituting Eq 5.62 into Eq 5.61, the effective simple to represent, it does not model the Baus-
strain rate in terms of strain rates in principal chinger effect commonly observed in the metals
direction for the von Mises yield criterion can during reverse loading. During reverse loading,
be obtained as: isotropic yielding predicts higher stress for
yielding compared to experimental observations
e=J?(&: (Fig. 5.16). Capturing this behavior is essential
+&; +&:> (Eq 5.63)
3 in sheet metal forming, especially for spring-
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 67

A
c
2
Yield surface at
ultimate stress

Yield surface at

-
“1 I E

Fig. 5.1 5 Isotropic hardening for the von Mises yield criterion

strain-hardening behavior in the multiaxial

stress state. This can be expressed as:
Loading

f=f& -“p (Eq 5.66)

where fyis the expression for yielding proposed

by different yield criteria discussed for Eq 5.65,
k is the constant equal to initial yield stress, and
aijrepresents the translation in the stress space,
-
commonly referred as back stress.
E
Prager ’s kinematic hardening rule states that
Behavior in
experiment
the direction of the yield surface translation is
proportional to the plastic strain increments:
--
d a y = Cdrc (Eq 5.67)
Yielding during reverse
loading predicted by
isotropic hardening where C is a material constant. Prager’s kine-
matic hardening rule results in the initial yield
Fig. 5.1 6 The Bauschinger effect in metals and the yielding surface moving along the direction of the plastic
predicted during reverse loading by isotropic strain increment, as shown in Fig. 5.17.
hardening
Ziegler’s kinematic hardening rule states that
the direction of the yield surface translation is
proportional to the line joining the center of the
back prediction as the sheet material undergoes
yield surface to the current stress point on the
reverse loading during bending and unbending
yield surface. It can be expressed as:
when it flows over a radius and eventually
springs back after forming.
Kinematic Hardening Law. The kinematic d a y =(oy- a y ) d P (Eq 5.68)
hardening law states that the initial yield surface
translates in the stress space with further load- where d p is a positive scalar that can be ob-
ing without changing its size to model the tained from the condition that the stress point
68 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

remains on the yield surface after translation.

The translation of the yield surface based on
f =f 'I) - i3
Y ( 0'I - 0. Y(I ) (Eq 5.69)

Ziegler 's kinematic condition is shown in Fig. where fyis the expression for yielding proposed
5.18. by different yield criteria discussed in preceding
Both Ziegler 's and Prager 's kinematic hard- sections, O(EP) is the stress strain relationship
ening laws result in yielding at very low stress from uniaxial or biaxial test, and a , represents
during reverse loading compared with that ob- the translation in the stress space. It is com-
served in experiments, as shown in Fig. 5.19. monly referred as back stress.
Therefore, kinematic hardening is not sufficient The plastic strain is represented in two parts,
enough to model the materials behavior during isotropic and kinematic contribution:
reverse loading (Ref 5.10).
Mixed Hardening Law. The mixed harden-
ing law combines the isotropic and Prager's ki- d r P = d r P ' + d i P k=Add&' + ( l - M ) d r P (Eq 5.70)
nematic hardening laws to better address the
Bauschinger effect. With the mixed hardening where &a is the plastic strain increment for iso-
law, the yield surface expands in shape uni- tropic hardening part, &pk is the plastic strain
formly and translates in the stress space. It is increment for kinematic hardening part, and M
expressed as: is the constant, where M = 1 corresponds to iso-

Current yield surfac

Yield surface at

Fig. 5.1 7 Prager's kinematic hardening for the von Mises yield criterion

Fig. 5.1 8 Ziegler's kinematic hardening for the von Mises yield criterion
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 69

tropic hardening and M = 0 corresponds to kine- where M i s a constant: M = 1 corresponds to

matic hardening. isotropic hardening, and M = 0 corresponds to
The back-stress increment for kinematic hard- kinematic hardening (Ref 5.11).
ening part is given by Prager's kinematic model Nonlinear Hardening Models. Mixed hard-
as: ening models can predict the Bauschinger ef-
fect. However, they cannot model exactly the
d a y=C(l-M)d&; (Eq 5.71) nonlinear transient behavior at the start of plas-
tic deformation during reversal loading. Fred-
The rate of expansion of the yield surface is rick and Armstrong introduced a nonlinear
given by: hardening model based on Prager 's kinematic
hardening model with a nonlinear term to ex-
do press the back stress. Chauboche further refined
do, = -'MdZP (Eq 5.72) this model, which can be expressed as:
dZP'

where dEyld+ is the tangent modulus at the (Eq 5.76)

equivalent isotropic plastic strain of Epj.
The constant C can be estimated using con-
sistency condition that yield stress lie on the where C and y are constants and dFp is the ef-
yield surface as: fective plastic strain increment expressed by Eq
5.63. This kinematic hardening model can be
do, do, used in mixed hardening models to model the
~- M-
c =?d Z P dZP' translation of the yield surfaces (Ref 5.12).
(Eq 5.73) Yoshida-Uemori Model. Material behavior
3 1-M
during cyclic loading and unloading is quite
where dEyldEp is the tangent modulus at the complex, as shown in Fig. 5.20. During unload-
equivalent isotropic plastic strain of EP. ing, the path is not linear, and there is an early
Alternatively, the rate of translation of yield plastification, followed by a transient Bausch-
surface and rate of expansion can also be inger effect, where the material starts to yield
obtained: during reverse loading, followed by work-
hardening stagnation, where the yield stress re-
2do mains constant with increased strain, followed
dw, = - L ( l - M ) d & c (Eq 5.74)
3 dZP by strain hardening (Ref 5.14).
Yoshida and Uemori proposed a nonlinear
(Eq 5.75) hardening model based on two surface models

"t
I Loading

2BY= 2k

Yielding during reverse

Work
stagnation
h a r d e n Y 4Transient
Bauschinger
loading predicted by
kinematic hardening >

____._----
- - -+$ Permanent softeni.rq - *Pure isotropic
Behavior in experiment _..- hardening

Fig. 5.1 9 The Bauschinger effect in metals and the yielding

predicted during reverse loading by kinematic Fig. 5-20 Hardening behavior during unloading and re-
hardening verse loading observed in experiments (Ref 5.1 3)
70 / Sheet Metal Forming-Fundamentals

to better capture the unloading and reverse load- REFERENCES

ing behavior. This model involves two surfaces:
the yield surface and the bounding surface. 5.1 T. Altan, G. Ngaile, and G. Shen, Cold
Yield surface f of size Y translates within the and Hot Forging: Fundamentals and Ap-
bounding surface with back stress a, while plications, ASM International, 2005
bounding surface Ftranslates with back stress 5.2 D. Banabic, H.J. Bunge, K. Pohlandt,
and expands uniformly in shape by R, as shown and A.E. Tekkaya, Formabilify ofMetal-
in Fig. 5.21. lie Materials-Plastic Anisotropj Form-
In high-strength steels, during unloading the abilify Esting, Forming Limits, Springer,
unloading modulus is observed to change with 2000.
the plastic strain. This plays a significant role in 5.3 R. Hill, Mathematical Theory of Plastic-
springback predictions. In the Yoshida-Uemori i&Oxford University Press, 1956
model this variation of unloading modulus is 5.4 R. Hill, Constitutive Modelling of Ortho-
represented using the exponential function: tropic Plasticity in Sheet Metals, Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
Vol38, 1990, p 405-417
E = E , - ( E , - E$- exp( - ; . p ) ) (Eq 5.77) 5.5 F. Barlat and J . Lian, Plastic Behavior
and Stretchability of Sheet Metals. Part I:
c
where E,, E,, and are material constants to be A Yield Function for Orthotropic Sheets
under Plane Stress Conditions, Interna-
estimated from the material test, and Fp is the
plastic strain. tional Journal of Plastici& Vol 5, 1989,
To model sheet materials using the Yoshida- p 51-66
Uemori model, the constants B, m, b, R,,,, C, 5.6 F. Barlat, D.J. Lege, and J.C. Brem, A
c
h, E,, Ea,and need to be estimated from tests Six-Component Yield Function for Anis-
otropic Materials , International Journal
(Ref 5.15). Ghaei and colleagues (Ref 5.13)
compared the springback predicted using isotro- ofPlastici& Vol 7, 1991, p 693-712
pic hardening, mixed hardening, and the Yo- 5.7 F. Barlat, R.C. Becker, Y. Hayashida, Y.
shida-Uemori model for U-channel parts with Maeda, M. Yanagawa, K. Chung, J.C.
experiments for DP600 material and found that Brem, D.J. Lege, K. Matsui, S.J. Murtha,
the Yoshida-Uemori model predictions were and S. Hattori, Yielding Description of
close to the experimental measurements. Solution Strengthened Aluminum Al-
loys, International Journal of Plastici&
Vol 13, 1997, p 385-401
5.8 F. Barlat, Y. Maeda, K. Chung, M.
Yanagawa, J.C. Brem, Y. Hayashida, D.J.
Lege, K. Matsui, S.J. Murtha, S. Hattori,
R.C. Becker, and S. Makosey, Yield
Function Development for Aluminum
Alloy Sheets, Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids, Vol 45, 1997, p
172 7- 1763
5.9 Z. Marciniak, J.L. Duncan, and S.J. Hu,
The Mechanics of Sheet Metal Forming,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002
5.10 A.S. Khan, and S. Huang, Continuum
Theory of Plastici& John Wiley and
Sons, 1995
5.11 K.J. Bathe, and F.J. Montans, On Model-
ing Mixed Hardening in Computational
Plasticity, Computers and Structures,Vol
F= $(q-p,) - (B + R )= O 1 82, 2004, p 535-539
Bounding surface
5.12 J. Lemaitre and J.-L. Chaboche, Mechan-
ics of Solid Materials, Cambridge Uni-
Fig. 5-21 TheYoshida-Uemori model illustratingthe bound-
ing surface and yield surface (Ref 5.14, 5.15) versity Press, 1990
Chapter 5: Plastic Deformation-State of Stress, Yield Criteria Flow Rule, and Hardening Rules / 71

5.13 A. Ghaei, D.E. Green, and A. Taheriza- the Bauschinger Effect and Work Hard-
deh, Semi-implicit Numerical Integra- ening Stagnation, International Journal
tion of Yoshida-Uemori Two Surface ofPlastici& Vol 18, 2002, p 661-686
Plasticity Model, International Journal 5.15 F. Yoshida and T. Uemori, A Model of
of Mechanical Sciences, Vol 52, 20 10, p Large-Strain Cyclic Plasticity and Its Ap-
531-540 plication to Springback Simulation, In-
5.14 F. Yoshida and T. Uemori, A Model of ternational Journal of Mechanical Sci-
Large Strain Cyclic Plasticity Describing ences, Vol45, 2003, p 1687-1702