Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 23 June 2014
Accepted 29 May 2015
Available online 9 June 2015
The purpose of the current work is the investigation and comparison of aspects of the material behavior
predicted by two models for anisotropic, and in particular cross, hardening in bcc sheet steels subject to
non-proportional loading. The rst model is the modied form (Wang et al., 2008) of that due to Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998). In this (modied) Teodosiu-Hu model (THM), cross hardening is assumed to
affect the yield stress and the saturation value of the back stress. The second model is due to Levkovitch
and Svendsen (2007) and Noman et al. (2010). In the Levkovitch-Svendsen model (LSM), cross hardening
is assumed to affect the ow anisotropy. As clearly demonstrated in a number of works applying the THM
(e.g., Boers et al., 2010; Bouvier et al., 2005, 2003; Hiwatashi et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al.,
2010; Wang et al., 2008) and the LSM (e.g., Clausmeyer et al., 2014, 2011b; Noman et al., 2010), both of
these are capable of predicting the effect of cross hardening on the stress-deformation behavior observed
experimentally in sheet steels. As shown in the current work, however, these two models differ
signicantly in other aspects, in particular with respect to the development of the yield stress, the back
stress, and the yield surface. For example, the THM predicts no change in the shape of the yield surface
upon change of loading path, in contrast to the LSM and crystal plasticity modeling of bcc sheet steels
(Peeters et al., 2002). On the other hand, the LSM predicts no hardening stagnation after cross hardening
as observed in experiments, in contrast to the THM. Examples are given.
2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Material modeling
Cross hardening
Yield surface
1. Introduction
Finite-element-based modeling and simulation of the material
and structural behavior of sheet metal parts in various stages of
design and manufacture is today standard. In general, one aim of
this is to benet from the predictive capability of such simulations
(Zienkiewicz et al., 2010). In this regard, Wagoner et al. (2013)
emphasize the importance of improving material models to account for the loading path-dependent behavior of metals during
sheet metal forming. When subject to complex non-proportional
loading processes such as those found in many technological applications, a number of metals exhibit hardening behavior which is
more complex than isotropic and kinematic hardening alone.
Observed effects in this regard include cross hardening and hardening stagnation during orthogonal loading (e.g., tension to shear).
Cross hardening is observed to occur for example in a number of
steels such as austenitic fcc tube steels (e.g., SUS304: Ishikawa,
1997; Wu, 2003), ferritic bcc tube steels (e.g., S355: Kowalewski
and Sliwowski, 1997), multi-phase tube steels (e.g., X100:
Shinohara et al., 2010), or ferritic bcc sheet steels (e.g., LH800:
Ghosh and Backofen, 1973; Noman et al., 2010). Systematic studies
(Bouvier et al., 2005, 2006a, 2003) of interstitial free (IF), highstrength low-alloyed (HSLA), transformation-induced plasticity
(TRIP), and dual-phase (DP), sheet steels, found signicant kinematic hardening, hardening stagnation, as well as cross hardening,
the latter especially in IF sheet steels. In these investigations, the
material was subjected to monotonic shear, reverse shear, as well as
orthogonal tension-shear, loading. Clausmeyer et al. (2012); van
Riel and van den Boogaard (2007); Wang et al. (2008) have documented these effects in the IF sheet steel DC06 with the help of
monotonic tension, reverse shear, and orthogonal tension-shear,
tests, all under plane-strain conditions. In particular, cross hardening occurs during discontinuous (e.g., tension-shear: Bouvier
et al., 2005, 2006a, 2003) and continuous (e.g., tension-shear:
Noman et al., 2010; van Riel and van den Boogaard, 2007; Wang
et al., 2008) orthogonal tension-shear tests. Similar results were
obtained by Verma et al. (2011) in a series of tension and
compression tests on ultra-low carbon IF sheet steel in which the
tension or compression direction changed from rolling to transverse. In these tests, cross hardening was correlated with a change
of the tension axis. As attested to in particular by the continuous
orthogonal tension-shear test results (Noman et al., 2010; van Riel
and van den Boogaard, 2007; Wang et al., 2008), cross hardening is
transient and strongly depends on the rate of transition. Its
occurrence and strength are strongly inuenced by the particular
path taken in stress space in changing from one loading direction to
another.
Generally speaking, anisotropic hardening in sheet steels may
be inuenced by the grain and dislocation (micro)structures. In
particular, the former is related to the grain orientation distribution
(texture). The inuence of texture on the hardening behavior of IF
sheet steel was investigated by Bacroix and Hu (1995) and
Nesterova et al. (2001a,b) using two-stage loading tests (e.g., shear
to reverse shear, tension to shear). In particular, Bacroix and Hu
(1995) concluded that, at least up to moderate strains, the inuence of texture evolution on hardening in the specimens investigated was small compared to that of dislocation structure
evolution. This conclusion was substantiated by later crystal plasticity modeling (e.g., Peeters et al., 2002). Related to this are more
recent EBSD investigations on DC06 (Boers et al., 2010; Clausmeyer
et al., 2012), which imply that the rolling-induced texture in this
steel does not change considerably for strains lower than 35% in
simple tension. This may be the case in other ferritic steels (e.g.,
LH800: Clausmeyer et al., 2012; Noman et al., 2010) as well. These
results imply that it is sufcient to account for the effect of the
initial (e.g., rolling) texture on the anisotropic hardening and ow
behavior in the material model.
Although texture evolution in this sense may be secondary,
grain orientation (i.e., glide-system orientation) in relation to
loading direction certainly inuences dislocation structure development. The development of certain characteristic dislocation
structures related to cross hardening have been observed during
quasi-static loading of mild steels such as DC06 at room temperature (e.g., Rauch and Schmitt, 1989; Rauch and Thuillier, 1993;
Thuillier and Rauch, 1994). These include for example dense
dislocation wall structures. The morphology and orientation of such
walls depends for example on grain orientation, the type of loading,
and the loading direction in relation to the grain orientation (e.g.,
Clausmeyer et al., 2012; Nesterova et al., 2001a,b; Thuillier and
Rauch, 1994). A change in loading direction or type activates new
glide systems for which existing walls act initially as obstacles,
resulting in cross hardening.
One of the rst phenomenological models accounting in
particular for cross hardening is the Teodosiu-Hu model (THM: e.g.,
Hu et al., 1992; Teodosiu and Hu, 1995, 1998). In the THM, cross
hardening is assumed to affect the yield stress sY in the yield
function fY. The THM has been employed in a number of works
(e.g., Bouvier et al., 2005, 2003; Haddadi et al., 2006; Hiwatashi
et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al., 2010) to model anisotropic ow and hardening behavior in sheet metals. This has
motivated similar work on models for anisotropic hardening in the
continuum (Barlat et al., 2013; Butuc et al., 2011; Carvalho Resende
et al., 2013; Clausmeyer et al., 2014; Pietryga et al., 2012; Shi and
Mosler, 2012; Tarigopula et al., 2008, 2009) and crystal plastic
(Peeters et al., 2002; Viatkina et al., 2007) contexts. More recently,
the THM has been modied, extended and generalized to deal with
121
fY
p
M X$A M X sY
(1)
122
order tensor for all A and all B. The dyadic product C A5B of
any A and any B is a fourth-order tensor with Cartesian components
Cijkl AijBkl. The scalar product of two tensors A and B of any order
is represented by A,B AijBij via the summation convention.
The (Euclidean) norm of any A is dened by jAj:(A,A)1/2.
2.2. Relations common to both models
The formulation of both models for cross hardening and yield
surface evolution under consideration in this work is carried out in
the framework of the standard multiplicative decomposition
F FEFP
(2)
R_ E U E RE U_ E RE U E LP LRE U E
(3)
(4)
2
U 1
E Iln U E O ln U E ;
(5)
and so
U E LP U 1
E LP Ojln U E j;
_
U_ E U 1
E ln U E Ojln U E j;
(6)
_
RTE R_ E ln U E LP RTE LRE Ojln U E j:
(7)
_
Lastly, since RTE RE I implies RTE RE 2 sym RTE R_ E 0, the
symmetric and skew-symmetric parts of (7) then imply the (smallelastic-strain-based) evolution relations
_
ln U E RTE DRE DP ;
(8a)
R_ E WRE RE W P ;
(8b)
to O(jln UEj) for ln UE and the elastic rotation RE, respectively. Here,
D sym L is the continuum rate of deformation, DP sym LP its
inelastic counterpart, W skw L the continuum spin, and
WP skw LP the plastic spin. In particular, the usual associated ow
rule
DP a_ P
vfY
vM
M kI$E E I 2 m dev E E
(10)
holds for the Mandel stress to lowest order in the small elastic
strain measure EE:ln UE from (5), with k the bulk modulus, and m
the shear modulus. Likewise in the context of small elastic strain,
K RE MRTE
(11)
r_ cr sr ra_ P ;
(12a)
X_ cx sx N P Xa_ P ;
(12b)
sY sY0 r f jS j;
(13a)
(9)
1
A A 0;
(13b)
S_ cd hp ss N
hp hx S d a_ P cl jS l =ss jnl S l a_ P
(14)
P_ cp N P Pa_ P
(15)
q
sx x0 1 f jS d j2 mjS l j2
(16)
2
A 0 is often assumed to be of the type due to Hill (1948). Other choices (such as
in Cazacu and Barlat, 2004; Shi and Mosler, 2012) for the representation of the
initial ow anisotropy in non-bcc metals can be combined with the presented
approaches for anisotropic hardening.
3
In the original form of the THM due to Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998), S is not
modeled as such a variable. To this end, and for the purpose of modeling continuous
loading path changes, the model was reformulated by Wang et al. (2008), resulting
in (14) for S_ .
123
sY sY0 r;
A A
(17a)
H;
(17b)
H_ cd hd N
(18)
4
For example,
Tiefziehstaehle.pdf.
see
http://incar.thyssenkrupp.com/download/Broschueren/
124
were carried out using the biaxial testing facility at the Faculty of
Engineering Technology, University Twente, The Netherlands. Details of the mechanical testing procedure are given elsewhere (e.g.,
Clausmeyer et al., 2011b; Noman et al., 2010; van Riel and van den
Boogaard, 2007). The region of the specimen subject to deformation is initially 45.0 mm wide and 3.0 mm high. The strain eld is
homogeneous in the range of deformation investigated. As an unambiguous and transparent measure of the state of deformation,
the deformation gradient F is used here; let Fij ii,Fij represent its
Cartesian components. For the tests, the tension/rolling direction is
oriented in the i2 direction, and the shear/transverse direction in
the i1 direction. Consequently, in the case of plane-strain testing,
F22 is the deformation component for tension, and F12 the deformation component for shear. Given plastic incompressibility and
small elastic strain, the Cauchy stress T K/detF is wellapproximated by the Kirchhoff stress K; let Kij ii,Kij represent
its Cartesian components in what follows.
Among the material parameters, note that k, m, sY0, F, G, H, L, M,
N, cr, sr, cx, and x0 are common to both models. The Hill parameters
F, G, H, L, M, N are computed from average r-values (see Clausmeyer
et al., 2011b). The r-values are obtained from uniaxial tension tests
performed at 0 , 45 and 90 with respect to the rolling direction. In
particular, for DC06 at room temperature, we have k151 GPa,
m69.6 GPa, sY0 132 MPa, F 0.252, G 0.302, H 0.698,
N 1.36, L 1.5, and M 1.5. The remaining parameters values
identied for all models are shown in Table 1. The hardening parameters cr, sr, cx, and x0 are identied from uniaxial tension, planestrain tension, shear-reverse shear, and plane-strain tension to
simple shear, tests (Haddadi et al., 2006; Noman et al., 2010; Wang
et al., 2008). Since for example the modeling of kinematic hardening is different in the two models, note that the corresponding
material parameter values in Table 1 are different. In particular, sx is
constant in the LSM and variable in the THM.
The identied models for DC06 are compared with experimental data for the case of plane-strain tension to simple shear
loading in Fig. 1 (left). To document the applicability of the THM and
the LSM to steels other than DC06, and for comparison, analogous
results for the ferritic-pearlitic steel LH800 (thickness 0.7 mm)
from Noman et al. (2010) and Noman (2010) are also shown in Fig. 1
(right). Clearly, for both DC06 and LH800, cross hardening is
captured well by both models; this hardening is particularly pronounced in the former material (i.e., more than 50 MPa; Fig. 1, left).
Also more pronounced in DC06 than in LH800 is hardening stagnation after cross hardening and change of loading direction (e.g.,
from tension to shear). Such stagnation is accounted for in the THM
(via (15) and (16)) but not in the LSM. This is the reason why, after
loading path change and cross hardening, the THM-based result
(red dashed curve, in the web version) in Fig. 1 (left) lies below the
LSM-based one (green dashed curve, in the web version) and closer
to the data (crosses). In any case, this difference between the two
Table 1
Material parameter values for DC06 determined for the THM (above) and the LSM (below) from room-temperature uniaxial tension, monotonic shear, cyclic shear, and
orthogonal tension-shear, test data (Clausmeyer et al., 2011b). See text for details.
THM
parameter
cr
sr
units
value
cx
MPa
20.1
x0
cd
ss
MPa
20.8
499.0
8.1
cl
nl
cp
np
4.1
1.0
4.0
90.0
0.2
1.6
MPa
8.4
221.0
LSM
parameter
cr
sr
6.64
192.0
units
value
cx
sx
33.1
56.0
MPa
cd
hd
cl
hl
23.9
0.0
87.3
-0.447
MPa
125
Fig. 1. Comparison of model and experimental results for shear stress as a function of deformation in DC06 (left) and LH800 (right: Noman et al., 2010; Noman, 2010). Both
materials were subject to plane-strain tension in the rolling direction (up to 10% in DC06 and 13% in LH800) followed by an orthogonal loading path change to simple shear in the
transverse direction. See text for discussion and web version for color.
Fig. 2. Development of aP (left) and isotropic hardening (right) predicted by the THM and the LSM during discontinuous tension-shear loading. This loading path consists of (i)
loading in tension to F22 1 0.1, (ii) unloading, and (iii) reloading in shear to F22 1 F12 0.5. See text for details.
Fig. 3. Back stress evolution predicted by the THM (left) and the LSM (right) during discontinuous tension-shear loading. Here, the material is (i) loaded in tension to F22 1 0.1,
(ii) unloaded, and (iii) reloaded in shear to F22 1 F12 0.5. See text for details and web version for color.
b in
of cx for the THM in Table 1 results in much faster growth of X
12
the THM (Fig. 3, left) than in the LSM (Fig. 3, right). Note the simb in Fig. 3 (left) and K12 in Fig. 1 (left).
ilarity of X
12
5. Comparison of yield surface modeling
In this section, the THM and the LSM identied for DC06 via the
model parameter values in Table 1 are used to model yield surface
126
K ij : Kij sY0 i j;
K ij :
p .
3Kij sY0 isj;
(19)
Fig. 4. Yield surface evolution during discontinuous tension-shear loading predicted by the THM (left) and by the LSM (right). The surfaces THM1 and LSM1 are those at the end of
the tension stage at F22 1 0.1. THM2 and LSM2 represent the mixed state at F22 1 F12 0.14, while THM3 and LSM3 are at the end of shear loading at F22 1 F12 0.5.
127
Fig. 5. Comparison of yield surface development in K 12 ; K 11 space predicted by the THM and the LSM for DC06, and by the PM for IF steel, after uniaxial tension in the rolling
direction (left) and simple shear in the rolling direction (right), up to 10% von Mises equivalent strain. As done for the results from the THM and the LSM via (19), those for K from
the PM were normalized using the initial yield stress of the material as determined by Peeters et al. (2002). See text for details and web version for color.
Fig. 6. Development of K11 in DC06 during loading in plane-strain tension (in the rolling direction) to 5% (left) and 10% (right) deformation followed by unloading and reloading in
uniaxial tension (again in the rolling direction) predicted by the THM and the LSM. For comparison, experimental and model results are also shown for monotonic uniaxial tension
(Clausmeyer et al., 2011a) and web version for color.
128
Fig. 7. Yield surface development in the K 11 ; K 22 plane from the THM (left) and the LSM (right) due to plane-strain tension in the rolling direction to different levels of deformation.
The symbols x, and * mark stress states on the yield surface at F11 1 0.05, F11 1 0.10, and F11 1 0.15, respectively.
edge is xed. The sheet is bent until a bending angle of 90 is obtained. Bending moment-angle results are shown in Fig. 10; the
deformed sheet and nal spatial stress distribution are displayed in
Fig. 11.
As evident in Fig. 10, bending-moment results based on the THM
and the LSM are qualitatively similar for both loading cases.
Consideration of hardening stagnation in the THM results in faster
saturation of the bending moment after about 60 in particular for
the equibiaxial (pre)tension. The expected trend in stress state and
Fig. 8. Development of r and X11 predicted by the THM (left) and the LSM (right) during loading in plane-strain tension (in the rolling direction to 10%) to uniaxial tension (Fig. 6).
129
Fig. 10. Bending moment as a function of bending angle during tension-bending of DC06 predicted by FE simulations based on the THM and the LSM. Left: plane-strain (pre)tension
to F11 1.2. Right: equibiaxial (pre)tension to F11 F22 1.1. See text for details.
Fig. 11. Deformed sheet geometry (bending angle 90 ) after equibiaxial-tension-bending and spatial distribution of the rst principle component KI of the Kirchhoff stress predicted
by the THM (left) and the LSM (right). Refer to the web version for color.
loading have been compared with each other in detail. The rst
model is the modied form (Wang et al., 2008) of that due to
Teodosiu and Hu (1995, 1998). In this (modied) Teodosiu-Hu
model (THM), cross hardening is assumed to affect (i) the yield
stress and (ii) the saturation value of the back stress. The second
model is due to Levkovitch and Svendsen (2007) and Noman et al.
(2010). In this Levkovitch-Svendsen model (LSM), cross hardening
is assumed to affect the ow anisotropy. As attested to by numerous
applications of the THM (e.g., Boers et al., 2010; Bouvier et al., 2005,
2003; Hiwatashi et al., 1997; Li et al., 2003; Thuillier et al., 2010;
Wang et al., 2008) and the LSM (e.g., Barthel et al., 2013;
Clausmeyer et al., 2014, 2011b; Noman et al., 2010), both models
are able to account for the observed effect of cross hardening on
experimental stress-deformation data. As investigated and documented in the current work, there are otherwise a number of differences between the two. For example, in contrast to the THM, the
LSM predicts no hardening stagnation after cross hardening as
observed in experiments. On the other hand, in contrast to the LSM,
the THM predicts no change in yield surface shape during nonproportional loading. As documented in the current work, this is
in contrast to experimental results (for ferritic tube steel:
Kowalewski and Sliwowski, 1997) as well as to predictions of more
sophisticated micromechanical models (e.g., Holmedal et al., 2008;
Peeters et al., 2002).
As discussed in many previous works as well as here, in the
context of a yield function fY of the form (1), the (ow) anisotropy
tensor A determines the shape of the yield surface. In the THM, this
shape is attributed to the effect of an (initial) rolling texture, i.e., the
grain (orientation) structure, on the ow behavior. On the other
hand, in the LSM, A is associated with both the grain orientation
and dislocation structures, i.e., A A gra H . In the yield surface
context and model form (1) for fY, then, (13) and (17) imply the
correspondence
130
q
p
S$ A gra H S S$A gra S f S
(20)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the reviewers of the rst version of this work
for their constructive criticism and comments which have lead to
major improvement. The authors would like to thank Ton van den
Boogaard from the Faculty of Engineering Technology, University
Twente, The Netherlands, for providing the opportunity to use the
biaxial tester, and Alper Gner from the Institute of Forming Technology and Lightweight Construction, TU Dortmund University,
Dortmund, Germany, for providing the uniaxial tension test data.
Partial nancial support from the German Research Foundation
(DFG) under contract PAK 250 Identikation und Modellierung der
Werkstoffcharakteristik fr die Finite-Element-Analyse von Blechumformprozessen - TP4 is gratefully acknowledged. The material
investigated was provided by ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG.
References
Bacroix, B., Hu, Z., 1995. Texture evolution induced by strain path changes in low
carbon steel sheets. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 26 (3), 601e613.
Baltov, A., Sawczuk, A., 1965. A rule of anisotropic hardening. Acta Mech. I (2),
81e92.
cio, J.J., Lee, M.-G., Rauch, E.F., Vincze, G., 2013. Extension of
Barlat, F., Ha, J., Gra
homogeneous anisotropic hardening model to cross-loading with latent effects.
Int. J. Plast. 46, 130e142.
Barthel, C., Klusemann, B., Denzer, R., Svendsen, B., 2013. Modeling of a thermomechanical process chain for sheet steels. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 74, 46e54.
Boers, S.H.A., Schreurs, P.J.G., Geers, M.G.D., Levkovitch, V., Wang, J., Svendsen, B.,
2010. Experimental characterization and model identication of directional
hardening effects in metals for complex strain path changes. Int. J. Solids Struct.
47 (10), 1361e1374.
Bouvier, S., Alves, J., Oliveira, M., Menezes, L., 2005. Modelling of anisotropic workhardening behaviour of metallic materials subjected to strain-path changes.
Comput. Mater. Sci. 32, 301e315.
Bouvier, S., Gardey, B., Haddadi, H., Teodosiu, C., 2006a. Characterization of the
strain-induced plastic anisotropy of rolled sheets by using sequences of simple
shear and uniaxial tensile tests. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 174 (1e3), 115e126.
e, P., Teodosiu, C., 2006b. Simple shear tests: experiBouvier, S., Haddadi, H., Leve
mental techniques and characterization of the plastic anisotropy of rolled
sheets at large strains. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 172, 96e103.
Bouvier, S., Teodosiu, C., Haddadi, H., Tabacaru, V., 2003. Anisotropic workhardening behaviour of structural steels and aluminium alloys at large
strains. J. Phys. IV Fr. 105, 215e222.
Butuc, M.C., Teodosiu, C., Barlat, F., Gracio, J.J., 2011. Analysis of sheet metal formability through isotropic and kinematic hardening models. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids
30 (4), 532e546.
Carvalho Resende, T., Bouvier, S., Abed-Meraim, F., Balan, T., Sablin, S.S., 2013.
Dislocation-based model for the prediction of the behavior of b.c.c. materials e
grain size and strain path effects. Int. J. Plast. 47, 29e48.
Cazacu, O., Barlat, F., 2004. A criterion for description of anisotropy and yield differential effects in pressure-insensitive metals. Int. J. Plast. 20 (11), 2027e2045.
Clausmeyer, T., Bargmann, B., Gershteyn, G., Schaper, M., Svendsen, B., 2011a. Finiteelement Simulation of the Evolution of Plastic Anisotropy. Steel Research International ICTP 2011 Special Issue, pp. 836e841.
Clausmeyer, T., Gerstein, G., Bargmann, S., Svendsen, B., van den Boogaard, A.,
Zillmann, B., 2012. Experimental characterization of microstructure development during loading path changes in bcc sheet steels. J. Mater. Sci. 48 (2),
674e689.
Clausmeyer, T., Gner, A., Tekkaya, A.E., Levkovitch, V., Svendsen, B., 2014. Modeling
and nite element simulation of loading-path-dependent hardening in sheet
metals during forming. Int. J. Plast. 63, 64e93.
Clausmeyer, T., van den Boogaard, A.H., Noman, M., Gershteyn, G., Schaper, M.,
Svendsen, B., Bargmann, S., 2011b. Phenomenological modeling of anisotropy
induced by evolution of the dislocation structure on the macroscopic and
microscopic scale. Int. J. Mater. Form. 4 (2), 141e154.
Ghosh, A.K., Backofen, W.A., 1973. Strain-hardening and instability in biaxially
stretched sheets. Metall. Trans. 4, 1113e1123.
Haddadi, H., Bouvier, S., Banu, M., Maier, C., Teodosiu, C., 2006. Towards an accurate
description of the anisotropic behaviour of sheet metals under large plastic
deformations: modelling, numerical analysis and identication. Int. J. Plast. 22
(12), 2226e2271.
Haddag, B., Balan, T., Abed-Meraim, F., 2007. Investigation of advanced strain-path
dependent material models for sheet metal forming simulations. Int. J. Plast. 23
(6), 951e979.
Hill, R., 1948. A theory of the yielding and plastic ow of anisotropic metals. Proc. R.
Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 193 (1033), 281e297.
Hiwatashi, S., van Bael, A., van Houtte, P., Teodosiu, C., 1997. Modelling of plastic
anisotropy based on texture and dislocation structure. Comput. Mater. Sci. 9,
274e284.
Holmedal, B., van Houtte, P., An, Y., 2008. A crystal plasticity model for strain-path
changes in metals. Int. J. Plast. 24 (8), 1360e1379.
Hu, Z., Rauch, E.F., Teodosiu, C., 1992. Work-hardening behavior of mild steel under
stress reversal at large strains. Int. J. Plast. 8 (7), 839e856.
Ishikawa, H., 1997. Subsequent yield surface probed from its current center. Int. J.
Plast. 13 (6e7), 533e549.
Klepaczko, J.R., Nguyen, H.V., Nowacki, W.K., 1999. Quasi-static and dynamic
shearing of sheet metals. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 18 (2), 271e289.
Kowalewski, Z.L., Sliwowski, M., 1997. Effect of cyclic loading on the yield surface
evolution of 18G2A low-alloy steel. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 39 (1), 51e68.
Kuwabara, T., 2007. Advances in experiments on metal sheets and tubes in support
of constitutive modeling and forming simulations. Int. J. Plast. 23 (3), 385e419.
Kuwabara, T., Kuroda, M., Tvergaard, V., Nomura, K., 2000. Use of abrupt strain path
change for determining subsequent yield surface: experimental study with
metal sheets. Acta Mater. 48 (9), 2071e2079.
Lee, E., 1969. Elastic-plastic deformation at nite strains. J. Appl. Mech. 36, 1e6.
Levkovitch, V., Svendsen, B., 2007. Accurate hardening modeling as basis for the
realistic simulation of sheet forming processes with complex strain-path
change. In: Cesar de Sa, J.M.A. (Ed.), 9th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes (NUMIFORM 2007), AIP Conference Proceedings, Porto, Portugal, vol. 2, pp. 1331e1336.
131
Shi, B., Mosler, J., 2012. On the macroscopic description of yield surface evolution by
means of distortional hardening models: application to magnesium. Int. J. Plast. 44,
1e22.
Shinohara, Y., Madi, Y., Besson, J., 2010. A combined phenomenological model for
the representation of anisotropic hardening behavior in high strength steel line
pipes. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 29 (6), 917e927.
Svendsen, B., 2001. On the modeling of anisotropic elastic and inelastic material
behaviour at large deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct. 38, 9579e9599.
Tarigopula, V., Hopperstad, O.S., Langseth, M., Clausen, A.H., 2008. Elastic-plastic
behaviour of dual-phase, high-strength steel under strain-path changes. Eur. J.
Mech. A/Solids 27 (5), 764e782.
Tarigopula, V., Hopperstad, O.S., Langseth, M., Clausen, A.H., 2009. An evaluation of a
combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model for representation of complex
strain-path changes in dual-phase steel. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 28 (4), 792e805.
Teodosiu, C., Hu, Z., 1995. Evolution of the intragranular microstructure at moderate
and large strains: modelling and computational signicance. In: Shen, S.F.,
Dawson, P.R. (Eds.), Simulation of Materials Processing: Theory, Methods and
Applications. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 173e182.
Teodosiu, C., Hu, Z., 1998. Microstructure in the continuum modelling of plastic
anisotropy. In: Proceedings of 19th Ris International Symposium on Material's
Science: Modelling of Structure and Mechanics of Materials from Microscale to
Product. Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 149e168.
Thuillier, S., Manach, P.Y., Menezes, L.F., 2010. Occurrence of strain path changes in a
two-stage deep drawing process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2), 226e232.
Thuillier, S., Rauch, E.F., 1994. Development of microbands in mild steel during cross
loading. Acta Metall. Mater. 42, 1973e1983.
van Riel, M., van den Boogaard, A.H., 2007. Stress-strain responses for continuous
orthogonal strain path changes with increasing sharpness. Scr. Mater. 57 (5),
381e384.
Verma, R.K., Kuwabara, T., Chung, K., Haldar, A., 2011. Experimental evaluation and
constitutive modeling of non-proportional deformation for asymmetric steels.
Int. J. Plast. 27 (1), 82e101.
Viatkina, E.M., Brekelmans, W.A.M., Geers, M.G.D., 2007. Modelling of the internal
stress in dislocation cell structures. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 26 (6), 982e998.
Wagoner, R.H., Lim, H., Lee, M.-G., 2013. Advanced issues in springback. Int. J. Plast.
45, 3e20.
tink, J., van Riel, M., 2008. On
Wang, J., Levkovitch, V., Reusch, F., Svendsen, B., Hue
the modeling of hardening in metals during non-proportional loading. Int. J.
Plast. 24 (6), 1039e1070.
Wu, H.-C., 2003. Effect of loading-path on the evolution of yield surface for
anisotropic metals subjected to large pre-strain. Int. J. Plast. 19 (10), 1773e1800.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., Zhu, J.Z., 2010. The Finite Element Method e its Basis
& Fundamentals, sixth ed. Elsevier e Butterworth Heinemann, Amsterdam.