Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Technical Report

Experimental and numerical investigation of anisotropic yield criteria

for warm deep drawing of Ti6Al4V alloy
Nitin Kotkunde a,, Aditya D. Deole a, Amit Kumar Gupta a, Swadesh Kumar Singh b
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, AP 500078, India

Department of Mechanical Engineering, GRIET, Hyderabad, AP 500072, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 April 2014
Accepted 7 June 2014
Available online 25 June 2014

a b s t r a c t
Accuracy of the nite element simulation of sheet metal forming is signicantly dependent on the correctness of input properties and appropriate selection of material models. In this work, anisotropic yield
criteria namely, Hill 1948, Barlat 1989, Barlat 1996, Barlat 2000 and Cazacu Barlat have been implemented for Ti6Al4V alloy at 400 C. Material constants required for the yield criteria have been determined and deformation behavior in deep drawing process has been analyzed in nite element software.
Also, deep drawing experiments on Ti6Al4V alloy have been performed at 400 C to validate nite element simulation results. Further, comparison of yield criteria based on thickness distribution, earing prole, complexity in material parameter identication and computational time has shown Cazacu-Barlat to
be well suited for deep drawing of Ti6Al4V alloy.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, Ti6Al4V alloy is increasingly being used
because of their lightweight characteristic and an excellent combination of strength, corrosion resistance and fabricability [1]. The
importance of this alloy is indicated from the fact that currently
it is mostly used alloy accounting for more than 50% of all titanium
tonnage in the world [2]. Sheet metal forming is one of the major
manufacturing processes to fabricate titanium alloy components
which cannot only reduce the cost due to machining but also
enhance the performance of the products [3]. But the formability
of Ti6Al4V alloy is very poor compared with other traditional
metallic materials at room temperature. The main reasons for poor
formability are low ductility at room temperature due to its hexagonal close-packed structure and high degree of springback [4].
Hence, to overcome the difculty in forming of HCP crystal structure alloys, the best choice would be warm forming [5].
Nowadays, nite element simulations are extensively used to
reduce inaccurate and expensive tryouts in sheet metal industries
[6]. However, the trustworthiness of the numerical simulations largely depends on the input material models used and correctness of
the input material data [7]. Particularly, in warm-forming simulation, selection of an appropriate yield criterion is essential because
it provides an accurate prediction of the observed initial and subsequent yield behaviors of a material [5].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9010451444; fax: +91 40 66303998.
E-mail address: nitink@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in (N. Kotkunde).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.017
0261-3069/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Since selection of a yield model is essential in nite element

simulations, considerable effort has been made for experimental
observations of yield loci on various types of metals [8,9]. In the
last few years, several efforts have been made for the development
of anisotropic yield criteria which consider plastic anisotropy. For
example, Hill 1948 [10] proposed an extension of the von-Mises
isotropic criterion to cover plastic anisotropy. This model considered orthotropic symmetry and four anisotropy coefcients in
the plane stress condition [11]. Hill 1948 yield model is the most
popular for nite element simulations because of limited number
of parameters which are easy to determine using uniaxial tensile
test. Barlat and Lian [12] proposed an anisotropic yield criterion
which also required four parameters to describe a yield locus. Furthermore, Hill proposed a user-friendly modied yield criterion,
which is exible and suitable to represent a yield locus using ve
independent material parameters [13]. The applicability of this criterion was tested for steel and aluminum by comparing the predicted forming limit strains with experimental data [14]. Barlat
et al. [8,15] developed yield criteria for metals with an increase
in eight parameters. For determination of these parameters both
uniaxial and biaxial stress state are required. These yield criteria
considered symmetry in yielding between tension and
compression. However, the stress asymmetry in the case of HCP
crystal structure is considerable [16]. Considering the effect of
asymmetry in yielding further development in the yield criterion
is done by Cazacu et al. [9]. However, limited study has been
reported for the implementation of anisotropic yield criteria for
HCP alloys in forming applications at elevated temperatures.

337

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Therefore, applicability of these yield models in nite element

simulations need to be validate for Ti6Al4V alloy.
The objective of the present work is to study applicability of different anisotropic yield criteria in nite element simulation of deep
drawing of TiAl4V alloy at 400 C and validation of results based
on thickness distribution and earing phenomenon in deep drawn cup.
2. Experimental details
In this work, Ti6Al4V alloy sheet of 0.89 mm thickness is
used. The composition of the employed material is given in Table
1. The experiments were carried out on the test rig which is shown
in Fig. 1. Nickel based super alloy is used for manufacturing the die,
blank holder and punch because of its excellent dimensional stability even at elevated temperatures.
The setup temperature was controlled and prevented from
overheating by means of water circulation from cooling tower. A
noncontact type pyrometer was used to measure the operating
temperature. Circular blank specimens were machined by using
wire-cut electro-discharge machining process for high accuracy
and nish. Temperature higher than 400 C increases the oxygen
contamination in Ti6Al4V alloy and with oxygen the material
becomes more brittle due to formation of a-scale. Therefore, it is
preferred to perform warm forming of Ti6Al4V alloy in an inert
and protective environment [17]. Considering the limitations of the
experimental facility at higher temperatures with an inert environment, the experiments have been performed at 400 C. Molykote
was used as an effective lubricant for forming process at elevated
temperatures [13]. Blanks were kept at particular temperature
for certain duration (approximately 35 min) for uniform heating
of sheet. Deep drawing operation was performed when the blank
reached the required temperature. 16 bar blank holding pressure
is used for deep drawing process. The value is approximately 2%
of the yield strength. Punch speed for all the deep drawing experiments are used as 1 mm/s. Experiments are performed three time
and average thickness distribution and cup heights are taken.

Fig. 1. Experimental test rig and enlarged view of die with induction furnace.

3.1. Hill 1948 yield criterion

Hill 1948 [10] is one of the most popular yield criterion for nite
element simulation of sheet metal forming processes. The plane
stress yield function is given by Eq. (1)

Fr

r211 r222  2

2R 1
2R 1
r11 r22 2
r12
R1
R1

1=2
1

where R is normal anisotropy coefcient, r11, r22 are the principal

stresses. The material response after yielding is governed by elasticplastic constitutive relation with plastic hardening modulus
and yield stress of the material as an input. The yield locus for Hill
1948 yield criterion is as shown in Fig. 2(a).

3. Anisotropic yield models

3.2. Barlat 1989 yield criterion
Anisotropic yield criteria namely, Hill 1948, Barlat 1989, Barlat
1996, Barlat yield 2000 and Cazacu Barlat were selected for warm
deep drawing analysis of Ti6Al4V alloy. The material parameters
of yield function have been determined and yield loci are
compared.
The material properties required for determination of yield criteria parameters were obtained from uniaxial tensile test at 0, 45
and 90 orientations to rolling direction of sheet and biaxial data
was considered from previous work done by Odenberger et al.
[7]. For uniaxial tensile test, the specimen dimensions are used
as per sub-size ASTM: E8/E8M-11 standard. The detail about
experimental setup and specimen preparation were as per Kotkunde et al. [2,17]. Also, the anisotropic coefcient required for yield
criteria development and nite element simulations were calculated using ASTM: E517. The experiments were performed three
times and the average value was taken for development of the
yield criteria. In literature, Holloman equation is the most popular
and widely used to predict stress strain in plastic region. Therefore,
for present study, Holloman equation is used to calculate strain
hardening exponent (n). The calculated material properties for
Ti6Al4V alloy at 400 C are mentioned in Table 2.
Table 1
Chemical composition of as received Ti6Al4V sheet.
Element

Al

Fe

Ti

Comp (wt.%)

5.56

4.07

0.185

0.022

89.997

Anisotropic yield function developed by Barlat and Lian [12] for

modeling sheets under plane stress condition is expressed in
Eq. (2). The model computes the yielding of a material by considering anisotropy ratio in 0, 45 and 90 orientations. The material
response after yielding is governed by exponential hardening rule;
m is the material parameter which depends on the crystal structure of a material.

U ajK 1 K 2 jm ajK 1  K 2 jm cj2K 2 jm 2rm

y
where K 1

rx hry
2

; K2

r


rx hry 2
2

 p2 s2xy ; and a, c, h are functions

of anisotropy ratio and they are expressed as

s
R00 R90
a22
1 R00 1 R90
s
R00 1 R90
h
and c 2  a
R90 1 R00
where rh is anisotropy ratio measured for h orientation from rolling
direction p is found out iteratively. The following equation is used
to nd out the value of p iteratively [12].

rh 

@/
@ rx

2r m
y
@@/
ry

rh

1

338

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Table 2
Material properties for Ti6Al4V alloy.
Temperature (C)

r0 (MPa)

r45 (MPa)

r90 (MPa)

rC (MPa)

rb (MPa)

r0

r45

r90

rb

400

681.0

591.0

691.0

751.0

744.9

0.6

1.26

0.512

1.02

Here, h is taken as 45 to compare the value and to further iterate. The yield locus plotted by Barlat 1989 model is as shown in
Fig. 2(b).

 =r90 a
F /x jc3  2c1 ja /y jc3  c1 ja /z0 jc1 2c3 ja  23r

3.3. Barlat 1996 yield criterion

Other three expressions are obtained by a function expressed in

Eq. (7) considering r values directionality requirement.

Barlat et al. [18] developed a yield model for modeling anisotropic materials. The yield function is expressed in Eq. (3)
a

a
/ /1 jS2  S3 j /2 jS3  S1 j /3 jS1  S2 j 2r

 =rb a
F /x j2c1 c2 ja /y jc1 2c2 ja /z0 jc1  c2 ja  23r
6

@u
@Sx

 is equivalent stress and a is a material parameter which is

where r
considered 8 for FCC and 6 for BCC materials. Si corresponds to principal values of Cauchy stress deviator.
The equivalent stress deviator is dened as

r90 

2
6
6
where L 6
4

@u
@Sx

c2 c3 =3

c3 =3

c2 =3

c3 =3

c3 c1 =3

c1 =3

c2 =3

c1 =3

c1 c2 =3

07
7
7
05

@u
@S
y

r0

a
2r

@u
@Sx

rb 

S Lr

a
2r

r0 

@u
@S
y

a
2r
@u
@S
y

1

r90

rb

1

1

Therefore, six material constants are calculated by solving

above six non-linear equations. The material constants for Barlat
1996 yield criteria are determined and presented in Table 3 and
its yield locus is plotted as shown in Fig. 2(c).

c4

c1, c2, c3, c4 are material constants and /i1;2;3 depends upon the orientation of frame of the principal value of S and anisotropy axis [8].

3.4. Barlat 2000 yield criterion

/i /x P21i /y P22i /z P23i

Barlat et al. [8] proposed an anisotropic yield criterion which is

made of two convex functions. The equation for the yield locus is
given by Eq. (8)

For a plane stress condition when shear stress is zero the yield
function becomes

a
/ /x jSy  Sz ja /y jSz  Sx ja /z0 jSx  Sy ja 2r

/ jX 01  X 02 ja j2X 002 X 001 ja j2X 001 X 002 ja 2ray

where

Sx

fX 0 g C 0 fsg C 0 Tr L0 r

c3
c c
Sy
rx 11 3 ry
3
3

fX 00 g C 00 fsg C 00 Tr L00 r

c2
c
Sz
rx  1 ry
3
3

For instance, consider /z0 = 1. When the shear stress is not

equal to zero, other constants c6 and /z1 are used to introduce
anisotropy. Therefore, seven tests need to be performed for determining the material constants.
For uniaxial tension in rolling direction, the components of the
stress deviator are

Sz

c2
r0
3

When the matrices C and C00 are taken as identity matrix the
above criteria reduces to isotropic case. For the simplicity of calculation, anisotropy parameters and the coefcients of L0 and L00 are
related as

3
72 3
6 0 7 6
0
0 7 a1
6 L12 7 6 1=3
76 7
6 0 7 6
6L 7 6 0
1=3 0 7
74 a2 5
6 21 7 6
7
6 0 7 6
2=3 0 5 a7
4 L22 5 4 0
0
0
1
L066
2

By substituting these components into Eq. (4)

 =r0 a
F /x jc2  c3 ja /y j2c2 c3 ja /z0 jc2 2c3 ja  23r

3
2=3 1=3 0
6
7
where T 4 1=3 2=3 0 5

c 3 c2
Sx
r0
3
c3
r0
3

in which X 01;2 and X 001;2 are the principal values of the linearly transformed stress deviator matrices {s},

c 3 c2
c
rx  3 ry
3
3

Sy

/0 jX 01  X 02 ja ; /00 j2X 002 X 001 ja j2X 001 X 002 ja

Similarly, for uniaxial tension in 90 orientation and biaxial

stress state, the equation reduces in the form of Eq. (6)

L011

L0011

2=3

32

a3
76 7
6 00 7 6
6 L12 7 6 1 2 4 4 0 76 a4 7
76 7
6 00 7 6
6 L 7 6 4 4 4 1 0 76 a5 7
76 7
6 21 7 6
76 7
6 00 7 6
2 2 0 54 a6 5
4 L22 5 4 2 8
0
0
0
0 9
a8
L0066
2

2 0

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Fig. 2. Yield loci for Ti6Al4V alloy at 400 C (a) Hill 1948, (b) Barlat 1989, (c) Barlat 1996, (d) Barlat 2000 and (e) Cazacu Barlat.

339

340

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

a
a
rT
2=31 k 21=31  k

a
a
rC
2=31  k 21=31 k

Table 3
Barlat 1996 model material parameters for Ti6Al4V alloy.
Temperature (C)

C1

C2

C3

C4

ax

ay

az0

400

1.059

0.939

1.233

0.992

0.992

Exponent a is the same parameter as in the three parameter

Barlats criterion. When the value of a is two, the yield surface
becomes Hill yield surface, i.e. von-Misses yield surface in isotropic
case. Matrices C0 and C00 are expressed in terms of eight anisotropy
coefcients /i, for isotropic case /i is unity. The complete description of the yield model is given by Barlat et al. [8].
For determination of material parameters /1 to /8, eight tests
need to be performed. In this study, yield stresses in 0, 45 and
90 orientation and Lankford coefcients in the same direction
are obtained from experiments. In addition to that, biaxial yield
stress and biaxial anisotropy coefcient are considered from previous literature [7].
Deviatoric components are dened for loading each stress of
state as

sx cr; sy dr
The material parameters are determined by solving two equations given below for each state of stress.

Material parameter a is considered as 8 for Ti6Al4V. The

material constants in tensor Care determined by performing uniaxial yield stress in tension and compression along with balanced
biaxial test and anisotropy coefcients [9].
Consider plane stress condition for thin sheet, the non-zero
components are the (rxx, ryy, sxy). Hence the principal values of
R are:

R1

1
Rxx Ryy Rxx  Ryy 2 4R2xy
2

R2

1
Rxx Ryy  Rxx  Ryy 2 4R2xy
2

R3 Rzz
where

Rxx





2
1
1
1
2
1
C 11  C 12  C 13 rxx  C 11 C 12  C 13 ryy
3
3
3
3
3
3

Ryy





2
1
1
1
2
1
C 12  C 22  C 23 rxx  C 12 C 22  C 23 ryy
3
3
3
3
3
3

Rzz





2
1
1
1
2
1
C 13  C 23  C 33 rxx  C 13 C 23  C 33 ryy
3
3
3
3
3
3

 =ra
F j/1 c  /2 dja j/3 c  2/4 dja /z0 j2/5 c  /6 dja  2r
G qx

@/
@/
 qy
0
@sx
@sy

1=a

Rxy C 66 rxy

The parameter description of c, d, qx and qy is mentioned in

Table 4 [19]. The material constants for Barlat 2000 criterion are
presented in Table 5. The yield locus plotted by Barlat 2000 model
is as shown in Fig. 2(d).

Let rT0 and rC0 is yield stress in tension and compression respectively along the 0 orientation. The proposed orthotropic yield criterion is written as

3.5. Cazacu Barlat yield criterion

rT0

Cazacu et al. [9] proposed an anisotropic yield criterion which

consists of both tension and compression asymmetry. For extending this criterion, stress deviator s is linearly transformed and the
principle values of Cauchy stress deviator in the yield function
are replaced by transformed tensor. The proposed anisotropic yield
function is given as Eq. (9)
a

jR1 j  kR1  jR2 j  kR2  jR3 j  kR3  F

R Cs
2

C 11
6C
6 12
6
6 C 13
C6
6
6
6
4

C 12
C 22

C 13
C 23

C 23

C 33

rC0

C 44
C 55

F
a
a
a
j/1 j  k/1  j/2 j  k/2  j/3 j  k/3 

F
a
a
a
j/1 j k/1  j/2 j k/2  j/3 j k/3 

1a

1a

where

/1



2
1
1
C 11  C 12  C 13
3
3
3

/2



2
1
1
C 12  C 22  C 23
3
3
3

/3



2
1
1
C 13  C 23  C 33
3
3
3

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

Similarly for transverse direction,

rT90

C 66
where C is a fourth order transformation tensor with reference to
orthotropic (x, y, z) axes and F is the size of yield locus, k is based
on yield stress in tension/compression and material parameter a
in the yield function.
Table 4
Parameter description for Barlat 2000.
Experimental test

qx

qy

0 Tension
90 Tension
Balanced biaxial tension

2/3
1/3
1/3

1/3
2/3
1/3

1  r0
2 + r90
1 + 2rb

2 + r0
1  r90
2 + rb

rC90

1a

1a

F
a
a
a
jW1 j  kw1  jw2 j  kw2  jw3 j  kw3 
F
a
a
a
jW1 j kw1  jw2 j kw2  jw3 j kw3 

where



1
2
1
w1  C 11 C 12  C 13
3
3
3


1
2
1
w2  C 12 C 22  C 23
3
3
3

341

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Table 5
Barlat 2000 model material parameters for Ti6Al4V alloy.
Temperature (C)

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

a7

a8

400

0.982

0.853

0.787

0.976

0.986

0.787

1.132

1.426

w3

rTb



1
2
1
 C 13 C 23  C 33
3
3
3


F
a
a
a
jX1 j kX1  jX2 j kX2  jX3 j kX3 

1a

where

X1



1
1
2
C 11 C 12  C 13
3
3
3

X2



1
1
2
C 12 C 22  C 23
3
3
3

X3



1
1
2
C 13 C 23  C 33
3
3
3

Let rh is Lankford coefcient under the uniaxial tension case,

according to proposed orthotropic criterion
a

rT0 

a1
a1
1  k Ua1
1 W1 1  k U2 W2 U3 W3
a

a1
a1
a
a
1  k Ua1
1 W1 U1 1  k U2 W2 U3 W3 U2 U3

r T90 

a1
a1
1  k Wa1
2 U2 1  k W1 U1 W3 U3
a

1  k W

a1
2

a1
a
a
W2 U2 1  k Wa1
1 U1 W3 U3 W1 W3

Fig. 3. Axisymmetric model of deep drawing setup.

The material constants have been calculated by solving a set of

non-linear equations using MATLAB. The material constants are
presented in Table 6. The yield locus plotted by Cazacu Barlat function is as shown in Fig. 2(e).
4. Finite element analysis
The nite element analysis in the present work is done using
Dynaform version 5.6.1 with LSDyna version 971 as solver. The
simulations are carried out on a system with the conguration:
Intel Xeon CPU E3-1270 V2, 3.50 GHz, 16 GB Ram and 64-bit Windows-7 Operating System. The deep drawing setup model used
for the simulations is as shown in Fig. 3. Setup consists of die,
punch, blank and blank holder. The model is discretized by using
Belytschko-Tsay shell elements to avoid higher computation time
required for continuum elements [6]. In order to simplify nite
element model, only quarter geometry is modeled since the
material properties, geometry and loading are considered to be
symmetric along in-plane mutually perpendicular axes. The die,
punch and blank holder are considered as rigid materials. Different material models are assigned to the blank for comparison.
Selective mass scaling is done to reduce computational time,
adaptive remeshing is used since it captures the deformation in
blank in critical regions like punch corner and wall accurately.
Further, the difculty in determining the friction coefcient is
overcome by inverse approach [6,20]. In this work, a blank is
drawn to form a cup at 400 C and punch load vs. displacement

Fig. 4. Experimental deep drawn cup at 400 C and 54 mm blank diameter.

is recorded. Following this, simulations are run by selecting a

range of friction values. The punch load vs. displacement data

Table 6
Cazacu-Balart yield model material parameters for Ti6Al4V alloy.
Temperature (C)

C11

C22

C33

C12

C13

C23

C44

400

1.959

1.837

1.955

0.684

0.480

0.451

1.880

0.085

342

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Fig. 5. Simulated deep drawn cups (a) Hill 1948, (b) Barlat 1989, (c) Barlat 1996, (d) Barlat 2000 and (e) Cazcau Barlat.

obtained by nite element simulations is compared with that of

experimental. Thereby, the friction coefcient for which the graph
matches with a satisfactory level of accuracy is selected for simulations. The coefcient of friction value was chosen as 0.09 for
nite element (FE) simulations.

5. Results and discussion

Fig. 2(a) and (b) shows loci of Hill 1948 and Barlat 1989 yield
functions. Material constants evaluations for these anisotropic
yield criteria are comparatively simpler than that of other yield cri-

343

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

Table 9
Mechanical parameters required for yield criteria.
Yield model

Parameters

Tests required

Hill 1948
Barlat 1989
Barlat 1996
Barlat 2000
Cazacu Barlat

4
3
8
8
8

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

r0

r45

Y
Y
Y

r90

Y
Y
Y

rb

r0

r45

r90

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

rb

rc

Y
Y
Y

Y = test required.

Fig. 6. Thickness distribution 54 mm blank at 400 C.

teria [16]. But, these models are not able to show yielding behavior
in uniaxial compression and biaxial tensile stress state. Inspite of
this drawback, these criteria are frequently used in nite element
simulations due to ease in identication of material parameters
[19].
On the other hand, loci obtained by Barlat 1996 and Barlat 2000
yield function shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d) nearly approximate the
experimental data points for Ti6Al4V alloy. But, accurate determination of material response in sheet metal forming requires
more accurate yield function which takes tensioncompression
asymmetry into account. However, Ti6Al4V alloy has HCP crystal structure and Bauschinger effect is more pronounced. Since
Cazacu Barlat yield function considers stress asymmetry, it is very
well suited for Ti6Al4V alloy. It is also evident from Fig. 2(e) that
the yield locus plotted by Cazacu Barlat yield function predicts
yielding very accurately with all the states of stress. Similar results
were observed by Cazacu and Barlat [9] for Mg0.5% Th alloy
which is also a HCP crystal structure.
In order to validate the yield criteria, the experiments have
been performed at 400 C. The maximum blank diameter of
54 mm was successfully drawn hence the limiting draw ratio
(LDR) of 1.8 was achieved. It is seen that LDR of Ti6Al4V alloy
is signicantly lower than other structural alloys such as austenitic stainless steel. The experimental deep drawn cup at 400 C
and simulated cups using different anisotropic yield criteria are
as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. Thickness distribution

Fig. 7. Earing prole of experimental and simulated cup.

Table 10
Total CPU time taken for simulation.
Yield model

Time (s)

Hill 1948
Barlat 1989
Barlat 1996
Barlat 2000
Cazacu Barlat

7166
8769
82,722
76,014
37,398

Table 7
Relative error for thickness distribution.
Normalized
distance

Expt.
thickness

Hill
1948

Relative
error

Barlat
1989

Relative
error

Barlat
1996

Relative
error

Barlat
2000

Relative
error

Cazacu
Barlat

Relative
error

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0.803
0.789
0.788
0.772
0.792
0.837
0.834
0.884
0.903
0.908
0.914

0.807
0.795
0.808
0.808
0.801
0.792
0.897
0.943
0.922
0.921
0.932

0.006
0.008
0.026
0.047
0.012
0.054
0.076
0.067
0.021
0.014
0.019

0.816
0.797
0.817
0.777
0.761
0.763
0.799
0.812
0.844
0.896
0.923

0.017
0.010
0.036
0.007
0.039
0.089
0.042
0.082
0.065
0.014
0.010

0.829
0.828
0.829
0.796
0.784
0.783
0.799
0.836
0.875
0.890
0.895

0.032
0.049
0.053
0.031
0.010
0.065
0.042
0.054
0.031
0.020
0.020

0.799
0.800
0.809
0.803
0.790
0.785
0.818
0.849
0.900
0.956
0.980

0.005
0.014
0.026
0.040
0.003
0.062
0.019
0.040
0.003
0.053
0.072

0.803
0.803
0.806
0.781
0.781
0.822
0.835
0.856
0.882
0.904
0.947

0.000
0.018
0.023
0.012
0.014
0.018
0.001
0.032
0.024
0.005
0.036

Table 8
Comparison of percentage relative error in thickness distribution.
Material model

Hill 1948

Barlat 1989

Barlat 1996

Barlat 2000

Cazacu -Barlat

Average relative error (%)

Standard deviation of error

3.1
0.0236

3.7
0.0283

3.6
0.0161

3.0
0.0232

1.6
0.0112

344

N. Kotkunde et al. / Materials and Design 63 (2014) 336344

and earing prole are taken as quantiable measures to validate

the simulation results with experimental results. Experiments
were performed three times and the average thickness and cup
height values were taken for further analysis. Thickness distribution for the 54 mm blank diameter is as shown in Fig. 6. The calculation of relative error of thickness along deep drawn cup is
presented in Table 7. Average percentage error of thickness distribution and its standard deviation are chosen as statistical measures for comparing anisotropic yield criteria. It is clear from
Table 8 that Cazacu Barlat yield has the least error in prediction
compared to other models.
It should be noticed that earing is a pronounced phenomenon in
deep drawing for anisotropic metals which is also evident from
Fig. 4. This necessitates comparison of yield models based on earing prediction in deep drawing. Fig. 7 shows earing prole of
experimental and simulated cups. Earing is poorly predicted by Hill
1948, Barlat 1996 and Barlat 2000 yield models. Therefore, these
models are less preferred for deep drawing of Ti6Al4V alloy.
On the other hand, Barlat 1989 predicts the earing prole but not
as precise as the earing predicted by Cazacu Barlat yield model
which is evident from Fig. 7. Therefore, considering these qualitative parameters of deep drawn cups, Cazacu Barlat yield model is
well suited for deep drawing of Ti6Al4V alloy.
For the simplicity in implementation of yield criteria, it is
important to consider a number of required material parameters
and experimental tests to be carried out for their evaluation. Table
9 shows different yield models and mechanical tests required for
their determination. Hill 1948 has only four material parameters
which are determined by performing simple uniaxial tension tests.
Also, the simulation time taken for these models is relatively lesser
than that of other models. Table 10 shows comparison of simulation time required for different anisotropic yield criteria. On the
other hand, advanced yield models like Barlat 1996 and Barlat
2000 and Cazacu Barlat yield models need different mechanical
tests to be carried out like biaxial tensile test, compression test
etc. which makes them complicated for their application in nite
element simulation. Moreover, the simulation time required for
these models are very large compared to Hill 1948 and Barlat
1989 yield models.
It should be noticed that the simulation time for Cazacu Barlat
yield model is less as compared to Barlat 1996 and Barlat 2000
with adequate accuracy along with prediction of thickness
distribution and earing prole in the deep drawn cup. Hence
Cazacu Barlat yield model is most suitable for deep drawing simulation of Ti6Al4V alloy.
5. Conclusions
This work involves nite element simulations of deep drawing
using different yield criteria implemented for Ti6Al4V alloy
and their validation with experimental results. Based on results,
the important ndings are:
(1) Cazacu Barlat criterion is the most suited for Ti6Al4V
alloy among other anisotropic yield criteria since anisotropy in yielding and stress asymmetry resulted in excellent
validation of yield function with experimental thickness
distribution and earing prole.

(2) Although similar complexity is involved in the material

parameter identication of Barlat 1996, Barlat 2000 and
Cazacu Barlat yield model, considering the computational
time, Cazacu Barlat is more efcient in nite element analysis for deep drawing of Ti6Al4V alloy.
Future scope involves implementation of constitutive models
with advanced anisotropic yield criteria for nite element simulations of warm deep drawing processes.
Acknowledgement
The nancial support received for this research work from
Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India,
SERB-DST, SR/FTP/ETA-0056/2011 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Poondla N, Srivatsan TS, Patnaik a, Petraroli M. A study of the microstructure
and hardness of two titanium alloys: commercially pure and Ti6Al4V. J Alloy
Compd 2009;486:1627.
[2] Kotkunde Nitin, Krishnamurthy Hansoge Nitin, Puranik Pavan, Gupta Amit Kumar,
Singh Swadesh Kumar. Microstructure study and constitutive modeling of Ti
6Al4V alloy at elevated temperatures. Mater Des 2014;54:96103.
[3] Chen F, Chiu K. Stamping formability of pure titanium sheets. J Mater Process
Technol 2005;170:1816.
[4] Li Xiaoqiang, Guo Guiqiang, Xiao Junjie, Song Nan, Li Dongsheng. Constitutive
modeling and the effects of strain-rate and temperature on the formability of
Ti6Al4V alloy sheet. Mater Des 2014;55:32534.
[5] Naka Tetsuo, Uemori Takeshi, Hino Ryutaro, Kohzu Masahide, Higashi Kenji,
Yoshida Fusahito. Effects of strain rate, temperature and sheet thickness on yield
locus of AZ31 magnesium alloy sheet. J Mater Process Technol 2008;201:395400.
[6] Singh SK, Mahesh K, Kumar A, Swathi M. Understanding formability of extradeep drawing steel at elevated temperature using nite element simulation. J
Mater Des 2010;31:447884.
[7] Odenberger E-L, Schill M, Oldenburg M. Thermo-mechanical sheet metal
forming of aero engine components in Ti6Al4VPART 2: Constitutive
modelling and validation. Int J Mater Form 2013;6:40316.
[8] Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon JW, Chung K, Dick RE, et al. Plane stress yield function
for aluminium alloy sheet. Part 1. Theory. Int J Plast 2003;19:1297319.
[9] Cazacu O, Plunkett B, Barlat F. Orthotropic yield criterion for hexagonal closed
packed metals. Int J Plast 2006;22:117194.
[10] Hill R. The mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford: Clarendon; 1950.
[11] Jansson Mikael, Nilsson Larsgunnar, Simonsson Kjell. On constitutive modeling
of aluminum alloys for tube hydroforming applications. Int J Plast
2005;21:104158.
[12] Barlat F, Lian J. Plastic behaviour and strechability of sheet metals Part I: a
yield function for orthotropic sheets under plane stress condition. Int J Plast
1989;5:516.
[13] Hill R. A user-friendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. Int J
Mech Sci 1993;35:1925.
[14] Xu S, Weinmann KJ. Prediction of forming limit curves of sheet metals using
Hills 1993 user-friendly yield criterion of anisotropic materials. Int J Mech Sci
1998;40:91325.
[15] Yoon Jeong-Whan, Barlat Frederic. Plane stress yield function for aluminum
alloy sheetsPart II: FE formulation and its implementation. Int J Plast
2004;20. 495-22.
[16] Hosford WF, Allen TJ. Twining and directional slip as a cause for strength
differential effect. Met Trans 1973;4:14245.
[17] Kotkunde Nitin, Deole Aditya D, Gupta Amit Kumar, Singh Swadesh Kumar.
Comparative study of constitutive modeling for Ti6Al4V alloy at low strain
rates and elevated temperatures. Mater Des 2014;55:9991005.
[18] Barlat F, Maeda Y, Hayashida Y, Murtha SJ, Hattori S, et al. Yield function
development for aluminum alloy sheets. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45(1112):172763.
[19] Banabic D. Sheet metal forming processes. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer;
2010.
[20] Chandra Mohan Reddy G, Ravindra Reddy PVR, Janardhan Reddy TA. Finite
element analysis of the effect of coefcient of friction on the drawability. J
Tribol Int 2010;43:11327.