Modeling Yield Surface Evolution with Distortional Hardening

Heidi Feigenbaum ECI 285 June 15, 2004

I. Introduction A complete elastic-plastic material model will identify the elastic constants, the yield surface, hardening laws, and a flow rule. It is postulated that plastic flow will occur for stress points on the yield surface and inside the yield surface the material will behave elastically. The yield surface is a function of the stress field and a set of internal variables. Hardening laws define the evolution of these internal variables. The incremental stress-strain relationship is described by a flow rule. In general, plastic deformation induces anisotropy in the material even if the material is initially isotropic. This anisotropy will be reflected in constitutive model by the translation, rotation, and/or distortion of the yield surface. The translation of the yield surface has been well defined through kinematic hardening. Often the distortion of the yield surface is accomplished through an internal fourth-order state tensor and the evolution of this fourth-order tensor represents distortional hardening. This paper will describe a material model for metal plasticity with kinematic and distortional hardening. The model will be derived such that the hardening laws are thermodynamically consistent. The yield surface will be plotted for stress controlled paths. Finally, this paper will discuss an outline for future research into distortional hardening. II. A Simple Model for Describing Yield Surface Evolution during Plastic Flow The model described in this section was developed by Y.F. Dafalias, D. Schick, and C. Tsakmakis and published in 2002. The model is based on a von Mises type yield surface, with the addition of distortional and kinematic hardening. Because it is von Mises based, the model is most applicable to metal plasticity. Hardening rules in this model are established with sufficient conditions to meet thermodynamic requirements. For the purposes of this paper, the following definitions and notation will hold: Vectors and second-order tensors are bold-faced letters Fourth-order tensors are bold-faced italicized letters A.B is the inner product between two tensors (this corresponds to summation over all indices in standard index notation) || A || = (A.A)1/2 is the norm of A E is the linearized strain tensor T is the Cauchy stress tensor is the mass density C is the elastic modulus. A. Constitutive Model It is assumed that the strain decomposes into elastic and plastic parts, i.e. E = Ee + Ep, where Ee and Ep are elastic and plastic parts of strain, respectively. An existence of specific free energy, , is also assumed with a similar decomposition in to elastic and

plastic parts. The elastic free energy is taken to be only a function of elastic strain. The relationship between stress and elastic strain is derived from this elastic free energy such that,
T= e = C [E e ] . E e

With these definitions and assumptions, the second law of thermodynamics states, Dd = T Ep p 0 , where D d is the energy dissipated. B. Yield Function and Flow Rule The yield function, F, is assumed to be dependent on T, , and H, where is the back-stress tensor that models kinematic hardening and H models distortional hardening. F takes the form, F = f k0 f=

(T )D H [(T )D ]
D

where the ( X) signifies the deviator of X. The fourth-order tenor H is broken into two parts,
H = H0 + A ,

where H0 is the fourth-order identity tensor and has been determined empirically. Consequently, A alone models distortion. It should be noted that A exhibits both major and minor symmetries, and Aiikl = 0, so that there are only 15 independent components of H. It is common in the framework of visco-plasticity (rate-dependent plasticity), to postulate that plastic flow occurs if an overstress function applies. This overstress function is analogous to the loading index in the general framework of rate independent plasticity. Therefore the flow rule can be stated as follows:

s f Ep = , T

where : =

2 f , 3 T

s is the overstress function .

C. Hardening Rules The hardening rules are derived on a thermodynamically consistent basis. It is assumed that kinematic and distortional hardening are fundamentally uncoupled. This is expressed by decomposing the plastic free energy into kinematic and distortional parts, i.e.
p = (pkin ) + (pdist ) .

These kinematic and distortional parts of plastic free energy represent the energy stored in the material due to kinematic and distortional hardening, respectively. The existence of an internal strain tensor, Yi, which is thermodynamically conjugate to the internal back-stress is assumed such that, i = (pkin ) Yi = c i Yi . (no sum on i) ,

where : = i
i

A similar approach is taken with the distortional hardening such that Dj is assumed to be an internal symmetric fourth-order tensor that is thermodynamically conjugate to A, i.e.,
Aj = (pdist ) Dj = j Dj (no sum on j) ,

where : A = A j .
j

Substituting these assumptions and the flow rule in the second law of thermodynamics, the dissipation inequality becomes,

D d = D (0 ) + D (kin ) + D (dist ) 0 ,

s D D where : D (0 ) = (T ) H 0 (T ) , f
D (kin ) = i E p Y i , i s D D (dist ) = D A j (T ) (T ) D j . f j

Since H0 is positive definite for all deviatoric second-order tensors, D(0) is positive definite. Thus to satisfy the dissipation inequality, D(kin) and D(dist) must be greater than or equal to zero. The following are sufficient conditions to satisfy this requirement:
Ep Y i = s bi i ,
D D D j = s (T ) (T ) B j A j , f where bi and Bj are non - negative parameters.

Thus the kinematic and distortional hardening rules are

i = ci Ep s bi i ,
j (T )D (T )D j B j A j . A j = s f

D. Comparison with Experiments Dafalias, et al. compared their model with experiments done by Ishikawa. The specimens used in the experiments were drawing tubes of type SUS304 stainless steel subjected to heat treatment. The tubes were loaded axially and torsionally with constant stress rate of 4.3 MPa/s. Yield surfaces were determined by unloading the specimen from the actual stress state to the assumed center of the yield surface. The experimental yield surfaces were compared to the predicted yield surfaces for numerous loading paths. Material parameters in the constitutive model were chosen based on trial and error. Figure 1 shows a typical comparison of the model and the experiments for a given stress-loading path. Notice the predicted yield surface begins as a circle and evolves into a distorted into an ellipse. The figure shows reasonable predictive nature of the model.

Figure 1. Comparison of predicted responses and experimental data. (Dafalias et al., 2002)

E. Plotting of the Yield Surface The yield surface described above has been plotted independently and is shown in Figure 2. To make these plots, increments of stress were prescribed, i.e. T was known. As common in rate-independent plasticity a loading index, L, was defined, such that,

E p =< L >

f , T

=< L > , A =< L > A , where < L > = 0 if L < 0, and < L >= L if L 0 . Using the consistency condition, F (T + T, + , A + A) = 0, one can solve for the loading index. This reduces to solving the following equation for L either numerically or exactly:
2 F T + T , + L , A+ L A = T + T L H + A T + T L k 0 = 0 .

) (

)(

)( [

)]

In the case of the plots in Figure 2, was taken to be constant and the loading index was solved for exactly using the cubic equation. Once the loading index was known, internal variables were updated accordingly and the process was repeated following the desired load path. III. Future Research While the Dafalias, Schick, and Tsakmakis model fits the Ishikawa experiments well and is thermodynamically consistent, it fails to model a number of the experiments that show sharpening of the yield surface in the direction of preloading and flattening on the opposite side. Such distortion of the yield surface is called directional distortion and is shown in Figure 3. In 1986, Helling, Miller, and Stout presented findings from experiments on 11000 aluminum, 70:30 brass, and 2024-T7 aluminum alloy. All three metals were tested in combinations of tension and torsion. Even though the metals experience different types of slip, they all showed directional distortion as shown in Figure 3. Other experiments have also shown this directional distortion. Naghdi, Essenburg, and Koff reported on an experimental study of aluminum tubular specimens loaded in pure torsion. They found a region of high curvature in the direction of positive shear stress and a flattening in the opposite direction. Shiratory et al. reported a similar directionality to the distortion of the yield surface for thin walled brass tubes subjected to axial tension, internal or external pressure, and torsion. Experiments by Mair and Pugh on copper tubes in torsion and extension showed this directional distortion along with translation and expansion of the yield surface. (Ortiz and Popov, 1983)
6

Figure 2. Distortion of yield surface when loaded with the shown stress paths.

Previous attempts at modeling this directional distortion were made by Voyiadjis and Foroozesh in 1990, and Ortiz and Popov in 1983. Voyiadjis and Foroozesh use a von Mises type model with the addition of a fourth-order tensor. Their model does not specify whether this directional distortion occurs in the direction of pre-stress or pre-strain and does not account for unload and reload cycles. Ortiz and Popov also use a von Mises (a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Measured yield loci of 1100-0 aluminum after shear pre-stress. (b) Measured yield loci of 70:30 brass after shear pre-stress. (Helling et al., 1986) type model with the addition of a Fourier series expansion involving the angle between the stress measured from the center of the yield surface and back-stress measured from the origin. By retaining only the first expansion of the Fourier series the von Mises yield function is obtained and by retaining the first three expansions of the series the directional distortion is modeled. While this yield function captures the geometry seen in experiments, it is rather complex for practical use and does not incorporate the thermodynamics. It is hoped that future research will result in a simple model that demonstrates directional distortion and is thermodynamically consistent. IV. Conclusion The Dafalias, Schick and Tsakmakis model uses a relatively simple yield surface definition to model distortion. Their model includes a derivation of hardening rules on a thermodynamically consistent basis. While their model represents some experimental data well, it fails to represent findings by Helling and others that show directional distortion, i.e. a region of high curvature in the direction of loading with a flattening on the opposite side of the yield surface. In the future, it is hoped that the technique of thermodynamically derived hardening laws can be applied to a model that shows directional distortion.

References 1. Dafalias, Y. F., Schick, D., and Tsakmakis, C. (2002). A Simple Model for Describing Yield Surface During Plastic Flow. Deformation and Failure in Metallic Materials, Kolumban Hutter and Herert Baaser (Eds.), p. 169-201. 2. Helling, D. E., Miller, A. K., and Stout, M. G. (1986). An Experiemental Investigation of the Yield Loci of 1100-0 Aluminum, 70:30 Brass, and an Overaged 2024 Aluminum Alloy After Various Prestrains. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, v. 108, p. 313-320. 3. Ortiz, M. and Popov, E. P. (1983). Distortional Hardening Rules for Metal Plasticity. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, v. 109, p. 1042-1057. 4. Voyiadjis, G. Z., and Foroozesh, M. (1990). Anisotropic Distortional Yield Model. Journal of Applied Mechanics, v. 57, p. 537-547.