Experimental Investigation of The Biaxial Behaviour of An Aluminum Sheet

International Journal of Plasticity 20 (2004) 16771706
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijplas
Experimental investigation of the biaxial

behaviour of an aluminum sheet
D.E. Green a, K.W. Neale b,*, S.R. MacEwen c,
A. Makinde d, R. Perrin e
a
Industrial Research and Development Institute, Midland, Ontario, Canada L4R 4L3
b
Faculty of Engineering, University of Sherbrooke Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada J1K 2R1
c
Alcan International Limited, Kingston Research and Development Centre, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada K7L 5L9
d
GE Corporate Research and Development, Engineering Mechanics Laboratory,
Schenectady, NY 12301, USA
e
Wescast Industries Inc., Brantford, Ontario, Canada N3T 5W5
Received 8 October 2003
Available online 7 February 2004
Abstract
A biaxial testing apparatus was used to investigate the elastic-plastic behaviour of an 1145
aluminum sheet alloy. Flat cruciform specimens were deformed up to eective strains of ap-
proximately 0.15 in biaxial stretching, along seven dierent proportional strain paths. A nite
element analysis of each test was carried out using four dierent phenomenological models of
anisotropic plasticity. An iterative procedure was coupled with the numerical analyses in order
to determine the anisotropic parameters in the various yield functions and thus obtain best ts
to these functions. This method of numerically analyzing cruciform specimens leads to fairly
accurate biaxial ow curves, as well as plastic work contours. The results are also compared
with crystal plasticity simulations using a Taylor-type model.
2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Biaxial testing; Biaxial stressstrain behaviour; Aluminium sheet; Anisotropy; Cruciform
specimens
*
Corresponding author.
0749-6419/$ - see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ijplas.2003.11.012
1678 D.E. Green et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 20 (2004) 16771706
1. Introduction
Sheet metal forming is one of the most common metal processing operations. The
manufacture of auto-body parts, for example, involves bending sheet metal between
two die faces so as to give it the desired shape and curvatures. Also, light metal alloy
beverage cans are produced using forming operations such as deep drawing, ironing
and coining. In all of these examples, great precision is required relative to both the
geometry and the mechanical properties of the nal product. It has therefore become
apparent that the traditional trial-and-error method of optimizing such metal
forming operations is rather inecient.
The mathematical modelling of material behaviour is a very eective way of re-
ducing the time and costs involved in optimizing manufacturing processes. Indeed,
numerous complex forming operations have been simulated numerically in order to
predict critical parameters. When a cup is drawn from a blank for example, the
number, position and height of the ears on the upper edge of the cup can be pre-
dicted quite accurately (Becker et al., 1993; Inal et al., 2000).
Essentially two classes of models have been developed for the numerical simu-
lation of sheet metal forming operations. Polycrystal models are based on micro-
scopic deformation mechanisms such as slip on specic atomic planes. These models
are very appealing as they can predict evolving textures during the deformation
process (Asaro and Needleman, 1985; Tugcu et al., in press). However, their main
drawback is that they are very demanding in terms of computer memory and
computation time. Alternatively, other types of models are the phenomenological or
macroscopic models (Tugcu and Neale, 1999; Tugcu et al., 1999, 2002; Wu et al.,
2003). These are simpler to use and require signicantly less computer time than the
polycrystal models and, as a result, are generally being more widely used in industrial
simulations.
A survey of the literature reveals that relatively few experimental investigations
have been carried out to characterize sheet metals under biaxial tension. Some re-
searchers (Stout et al., 1983; Khan and Wang, 1993) have studied thin tubular
specimens under multiaxial loadings (tension/torsion or tension/internal pressure).
However, the data available from such experiments are not directly applicable to
rolled sheets (MacEwen et al., 1992). The hydrostatic bulging of a circular blank is
also a common way of determining the strain hardening characteristics of a given
metal sheet. Although this type of experiment leads to large biaxial strains, it is
restricted to only one particular deformation mode. The determination of the
complete initial yield surface of a sheet metal using the bulge test is clearly not
possible.
Certain researchers (Shiratori and Ikegami, 1967; Shimada et al., 1976; Lin et al.,
1993) have used at cruciform specimens to determine the initial and subsequent
yield surfaces for thin sheets. Because of the diculty of evaluating the stresses in a
cruciform specimen, these workers did not load their samples beyond the elastic
range. The stresses were therefore computed from the strains within the gauge by
using the well-known elastic stress strain relations. In his work on cruciform speci-
mens, Makinde (1986) succeeded in calculating an approximate eective area for
D.E. Green et al. / International Journal of Plasticity 20 (2004) 16771706 1679
each loading direction and thus estimated the stress from the applied load. He was
then able to determine biaxial ow curves for dierent strain paths up to reasonably
large strains. This method, however, is only valid for the particular specimen ge-
ometry used in his study.
In the present investigation, at cruciform specimens have been tested under in-
plane biaxial loading conditions with a view to obtaining both the plastic work
contours and the biaxial ow curves for an aluminum sheet alloy. In order to analyze
the stresses and strains in the sample, a nite element program was developed which
incorporates various anisotropic plasticity theories, and appropriate boundary
conditions. Each biaxial test was simulated, and an iterative procedure was imple-
mented to optimize the numerical simulations. This method of analysis leads to
reasonably accurate predictions of the biaxial stress strain behaviour. A complete
description of the experimental procedure and numerical analysis for the aluminum
alloy tested is given in Green (1995).
2. Description of experiments
2.1. Biaxial testing apparatus
The experimental part of this work was conducted using a biaxial testing appa-
ratus that was designed and constructed at the Universite de Sherbrooke. It is
comprised of a hydraulic loading system and a closed-loop control system. A de-
tailed description of the apparatus has been given in Makinde et al. (1992a).
Fig. 1 shows a sketch of the biaxial testing system. A cross-shaped steel slab 152
mm thick constitutes the main load frame; it is welded onto an I-beam structure to
ensure maximum rigidity. A load train of four linear hydraulic actuators is mounted
in a horizontal plane on this frame. Two sets of opposing actuators having a rated
capacity of 250 kN form two orthogonal loading axes. Hydraulic wedge grips with
controllable gripping pressure are installed on each actuator, thereby holding the
specimen at the centre of the loading system. Finally, a load cell is included in each
direction.
Each loading axis is controlled independently by an electrohydraulic closed-loop
channel, which is monitored from an MTS 458.20 microconsole. A function gener-
ator, capable of producing a wide range of waveforms, provides command signals
that control the operation of two opposing actuators. This closed-loop system en-
ables testing to be done in either force or strain control modes. Measurements from
load and displacement transducers are transmitted to a personal computer equipped
with a 16 bit analog/digital expansion board for data acquisition.
2.2. Biaxial extensometer
A biaxial extensometer was also designed in-house (Makinde et al., 1992b) in

order to measure and control strains independently along each loading direction. It
consists of two lightweight frames that are mounted at 90 to each other prior to
Fig. 1. Sketch of the biaxial test apparatus.
testing, on either side of a specimen. Each frame houses a pair of sliding blocks
which move with practically no friction as the specimen is deformed. Rounded points
in contact with the sample cause the sliding blocks to move, and their relative dis-
placements are measured using linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs).
2.3. Cruciform specimens
The sheet metal samples tested with this apparatus under biaxial loading are
cruciform in shape. The specimen geometry (Fig. 2) was developed with a central
section thinner than the rest of the specimen so that the maximum strains are at-
Fig. 2. Geometry of the cruciform specimen.
tained in the central portion. Four arms extend from this square gauge area, and are
held in the hydraulic grips. Seven parallel slots are machined into each arm so that
the strain elds are maintained as uniform as possible in the gauge section, even at
large strains. The absence of shear strains in the gauge area guarantees that the
stresses and strains measured at the centre of the sample are also the principal
stresses and strains. A sandwich design was adopted for this particular set of ex-
periments in which the sample sheet is bonded by an adhesive between two face
sheets, while leaving the central area exposed on both sides.
The dierent parameters that dene the geometry of the specimen were deter-
mined by performing a two-level factorial analysis (Montgomery, 1991). Each ex-
periment in this analysis consisted of numerically simulating the biaxial loading of a
sample up to large strains. Stress and strain distributions in the specimen were
computed using a nite element analysis, and strain uniformity in the gauge was
evaluated for each combination of parameters. The particular set of parameters

which yielded the greatest uniformity of strains in the gauge, even after considerable
straining, determined the geometry of the specimen used in this work (Fig. 2). A
detailed description of the optimization process is given in Makinde et al. (1992a).
2.4. Sheet metal alloy
A commercial 1145 aluminum alloy sheet was used for the experimental work. It
was rolled to a nal thickness of 1.2954 mm, and then annealed at 325 C for 2 h.
The initial texture of this alloy was measured experimentally and represented by 1568
discrete grain orientations, as depicted by the 111 pole gure shown in Fig. 3.
Uniaxial tests were done at 0, 45 and 90 to the rolling direction (Fig. 4), and the
Lankford coecients or R-values (width-to-thickness strain ratios) measured in each
case were: R0 0.67, R45 0.58 and R90 0.65. The yield stresses were determined at
a value of plastic work per unit volume of 0.025 MPa, and the averages obtained
from several tests were: r0 25:6 MPa, r45 24:4 MPa and r90 24:6 MPa,
respectively. This procedure actually led to the same yield stresses as those obtained
by back extrapolation, or at an oset plastic strain of 0.001.
Fig. 3. 111 pole gure for the annealed 1145 sheet.

Fig. 4. Uniaxial ow curves for the 1145 alloy at 0, 45 and 90 to the rolling direction.
2.5. Experimental program
The tests were conducted in the strain control mode using the biaxial extensom-
eter. Strains were imposed in both directions at the centre of the specimen, within the
region of uniform strains. The initial gauge length (i.e., the distance between contact
points) was set at 25.4 mm, and the strains were taken to be the average strain over
this distance. Because each loading axis is controlled independently, an unlimited
number of strain ratios and loading paths may be applied to the gauge area of the
sample. Biaxial tests were conducted at seven dierent strain ratios: q 0, 0.5, 0.25,
1, 2, 4, 1 where q is the ratio of the principal strain in the transverse direction (TD)
to that in the rolling direction (RD): q eTD =eRD . The forces in the arms of the
specimen were also measured continuously in both directions throughout the tests.
An important aspect of this work was to determine experimental yield functions
for the 1145 sheet in principal stress space. However, the way in which yield stresses
are determined varies from author to author. Hecker (1976) has conducted a com-
prehensive review of the experimental work on yielding and has presented six dif-
ferent denitions of yield. Generally, when yield is dened by a small plastic oset
(ep < 106 ), materials appear to exhibit anisotropic hardening, whereas they appear
to behave more isotropically when yield is determined after a certain amount of
plastic ow. Throughout this study, yield has been dened as a constant amount
of total plastic work per unit volume. From each biaxial test conducted at a given
strain ratio, one yield point was obtained in the principal stress space and a constant
plastic work contour was then determined.
3. Analysis of experiments
The uniaxial tensile test is obviously the simplest way of characterizing material
behaviour. The stress is readily obtained by dividing the measured force by the cross-
section area and thus the ow curve is easily determined. However, the stressstrain
behaviour is not so easily obtained from biaxial tests with at cruciform specimens.
Considering the geometry of the specimen, it is dicult to know precisely what the
load-bearing areas are in each direction, and the experimental values of stress cannot
be simply deduced from the forces in the arms. Therefore one of the objectives of this
work was to establish a technique to determine the stresses in the cruciform samples.
The experimental work described earlier was also carried out with a view to ob-
taining the yield surface of thin aluminum sheets. However, this was not the primary
purpose of our investigation. If the determination of yield surfaces was the only
objective of the study, the stresses in the cruciform sample might be calculated using
the eective area method described by Makinde (1986). The ultimate objective of
this work was actually to identify yield criteria that can be used to accurately predict
the biaxial behaviour of aluminum sheets during complex forming operations.
Therefore a nite element analysis was the only eective technique to both calculate
the stresses in the cruciform sample, as well as describe the biaxial behaviour of the
sheet material up to large strains.
3.1. Finite element analysis
A nite element analysis of each biaxial test was carried out in order to obtain the
stresses in the sample. The analysis was based on a rigorous Lagrangian elastic
plastic nite strain formulation. Because of the orthotropy of the aluminum sheet
and the symmetry of the cruciform sample, only one quarter of the sample was
analyzed. Simulations using more or less rened discretizations were compared, and
a mesh comprised of 1891 three-node plane stress elements was adopted (Fig. 5).
The boundary conditions imposed in the nite element model are such that they
exactly reproduce the mechanical constraints on the specimen during a test. In the
experiments the extremity of each arm is locked in the hydraulic grips; thus, the
nodes corresponding to this boundary condition are constrained to have equal dis-
placements. Moreover, the width of the arms at the level where they are gripped is
imposed to remain constant. In the experimental set-up, the tips of the extensometer
are in contact with the specimen at the centre of the gauge area on the symmetry axis
on either side of the sample. The relative displacement of these two sets of material
points is controlled continuously throughout loading, thus imposing the principal
strains at this location. In the nite element discretization of the specimen, the dis-
placement of the two nodes that correspond geometrically to the location of the
extensometer tips is considered to be known. Therefore at each increment during the
nite element simulation, the nodal displacements at the extremity of the arms are
imposed so that the two nodes on the symmetry axes follow the prescribed dis-
placements. In this way the principal strains and strain ratio are actually imposed at
the centre of the gauge area, just as they are experimentally.
Fig. 5. Finite element mesh of one quarter of the cruciform specimen.
In the design of the cruciform specimen, the arms are comprised of three sheets
bonded together, whereas the central sheet alone constitutes the gauge section. This
composite conguration is also modelled in the numerical simulations. The behav-
iour of the central sheet was characterized by uniaxial tensile tests, but additional
tensile samples, machined from the sandwich structure of the arms, were tested in
order to determine the behaviour in this area. The elastic modulus, yield stress and
hardening were extracted from these tests, and the numerical program ascribed the
appropriate properties to elements in both the arms, as well as in the central gauge
section.
The nite element analysis provides the computed stresses and strains in the
cruciform sample, as well as the forces applied in each arm. The computed forces at
the grips can be compared with those obtained experimentally to verify the accuracy
of the numerical model. If and when the computed forces coincide with the forces
actually measured in the arms, then the computed stresses in the gauge area are
considered to be good estimates of the actual stresses. That is, when the computed
force (in the arms) vs. strain (in the centre of the sample) curves coincide with the
corresponding experimental force vs. strain curves, then the computed stress vs.
strain curves (for the central gauge area) are considered to reect the actual work
hardening behaviour of the material.
3.2. Anisotropic yield criteria
As in classical plasticity theory, the plastic strain increments were derived from a
plastic potential which was assumed to be the yield surface (Hill, 1950), and the
plastic strain increments depij are normal to the yield locus /rij (normality rule); i.e.,
@/
depij dk 1
@rij
where dk is a scalar depending on material hardening and rij are the components of
the Cauchy stress tensor. Various yield criteria have been proposed since von Mises
work for isotropic materials. However, because of the inherent anisotropy of cold
rolled metal alloys, the only criteria that were implemented in the nite element
program were those that account for planar anisotropy.
In 1948, Hill formulated the rst yield criterion for anisotropic materials (Hill,
1948). In the case of orthotropic sheets this function can be written as:

/ rij g hr2x 2hrx ry f hr2y 2ns2xy 2
where f, g, h and n are anisotropic parameters, and rx , ry and sxy are the stress
components in the plane of the sheet. This quadratic form has been widely used by
engineers in spite of inherent limitations for alloys having an average R-value less
than one (Pearce, 1968; Woodthorpe and Pearce, 1970).
In 1989, Barlat and Lian proposed a non-quadratic tricomponent criterion for
rolled sheets in the following form:
m m m
/rij ajK1 K2 j aj K 1 K2 j cj2K2 j 3
s

2
rx hry rx hry
with K1 ; K2 p2 s2xy 4
2 2
where a, c, h, p and m are parameters which characterize the material anisotropy.
Hill (1979) also proposed a non-quadratic yield function for planar isotropic
sheets, but later modied this to incorporate in-plane anisotropy (Hill, 1990). This
criterion is given by the following function:
m m
m rb

/rij rx ry 2
rx ry 4s2xy
sy
m1 h i
2
r2x r2y 2s2xy 2ar2x r2y brx ry 2 5
Here rb is the yield stress in balanced biaxial tension, sy is the yield stress in simple
shear, and a and b are anisotropic parameters.
The last yield criterion that was incorporated into the present numerical analysis
was that proposed by Montheillet et al. (1991):
m
/rij ca1 rx a2 ry j hrx ry j 2nsxy j
m m
6
where a1 , a2 , c, h and n are anisotropic parameters dened from experimental data.

3.3. Stress analysis procedure
It has already been pointed out that determining the stresses in a cruciform
sample is not a straightforward matter. In this section, an iterative procedure will be
described that leads to the determination of the stresses in the cruciform samples
throughout each of the biaxial tests. This in turn will lead to the determination of
biaxial ow curves and the work hardening behaviour of this sheet material.
The yield functions presented in the previous section are dened by a number of
parameters that attempt to describe the anisotropy of cold rolled sheets. Although
these parameters can mostly be determined from standard tensile tests, certain pa-
rameters can only be obtained from more complex biaxial tests. For instance, the
value of the exponent m in the non-quadratic yield functions and the experimental
value of the yield stress in balanced biaxial tension are obtained from biaxial tests.
However, these parameters cannot be determined directly from the present experi-
mental program. Without knowing a priori the initial shape of the yield surface, and
without being able to completely determine the parameters in the yield criteria, it is
not possible to carry out reliable simulations of the biaxial tests.
The rst step in the stress analysis procedure, therefore, is to determine all the
parameters in the yield criteria. Barlat and Lians 1989 function was selected (be-
cause of its simplicity and exibility) and the value of rb was initially estimated such
that
r0 r90
rb 7
2
and m was chosen within the range of values found in the literature (Barlat and Lian,
1989; Lege et al., 1989). Having estimated the undetermined parameters in the yield
criterion, a nite element analysis was carried out for each of the seven biaxial
tension tests. Because certain parameters in the yield function were simply estimated,
this rst series of numerical simulations was not expected to provide accurate stresses
in the sample. As a result, further steps in the iterative process were required.
The rst series of numerical simulations (using estimated parameters when they
could not be determined directly from uniaxial tensile tests) provided a rst esti-
mation of the stresses in the cruciform samples, and led to ow curves in both the
RD and the TD. These results are only accurate to the extent to which the computed
forces in the arms of the sample approach the forces measured experimentally. These
ow curves were then modied with the assumption that, if the forces calculated at
the grips did indeed coincide with the actual forces recorded during the tests, then the
stresses calculated at the centre of the gauge area would be good estimates of the
actual stresses. The stressstrain curves, as well as their corresponding forcestrain
curves, were therefore scaled point-by-point (the strains were not modied) by ex-
actly the amount required to make the computed forces coincide exactly with the
experimental ones.
For each dierent biaxial strain path, the computed ow curves can be used to
determine a yield point in principal stress space. In this study, yield was dened as a
predetermined value of total accumulated plastic work. Accordingly, a point on the
yield surface, or more precisely the constant work contour, can be found for each
biaxial strain path. If, however, the scaled ow curves are used to determine these
yield points rather than the ow curves initially computed, then the resulting yield
locus will be closer to the experimental yield locus (or plastic work contour). Al-
though this procedure is not truly rigorous, it does provide a good estimate of the
shape of the experimental yield surface. Furthermore, it was found that, regardless of
the yield function or the value of the estimated parameters used in the rst series of
numerical simulations, the yield points obtained from the scaled ow curves re-
mained virtually identical, when they were dened at a given level of total plastic
work. This estimate of the experimental yield surface was then used to improve the
estimation of the unknown parameters in the yield function. The equibiaxial yield
stress (rb ) and the yield function exponent (m) can be easily determined graphically
from the seven biaxial yield points previously obtained. The value of the exponent m
is generally calibrated against the plane strain ow stress (rp ) for tests in both the
RD and the TD. Adjustments were made to the values of rb and m until the ana-
lytical yield locus provided a best-t to the yield points.
The rst step in this iterative stress analysis led to a good estimate of the shape of
the experimental yield surface. The second step consisted of carrying out another
series of simulations of all the biaxial tests with the set of biaxial parameters (rb and
m) that most closely represented the shape of the experimental yield surface (the
parameters that were dened from uniaxial tensile tests remained unchanged). This
time, the overall accuracy of the simulated ow curves was improved compared to
the rst series of simulations; this was evidenced by a better agreement between the
computed and the experimental forces in the arms of the cruciform sample. Once
again, the computed ow curves were scaled as was described earlier, the yield points
in principal stress space were determined, and the values of the biaxial parameters
(rb and m) were evaluated. It was found that this iterative procedure converged in
two or, at the most, three steps. Thus, all the anisotropic parameters required in the
phenomenological yield functions could be determined either with uniaxial tests or
by the procedure described above.
The accuracy of the stresses computed by nite element analysis is not only de-
pendent on adequately determining the parameters in the yield function, but also on
appropriately describing the work hardening behaviour of the sheet material. An
eective stress (re ) is generally dened from the yield function so that a complex state
of stress can be reduced to one scalar. An eective plastic strain can also be dened
by considering the principle of the equivalence of plastic work,
dW p rij depij re depe 8
p
where dW is the increment of plastic work per unit volume. A unique eective
stress-eective strain curve can therefore be deduced from an actual experiment, thus
providing a description of material hardening. In the nite element program used in
the course of this work, a piecewise linear representation of this reference curve was
used to describe material hardening.
The eective stresseective strain relation is generally dened from a uniaxial
tensile test for the sake of simplicity. However, it might also be obtained from
other tests such as plane-strain tension or equibiaxial tension (Hill, 1990, 1991).
The uniaxial test in the RD was initially used to dene the hardening of this
alloy, but the relative dierence between the calculated and the measured forces,
averaged for all the strain paths, was found to be somewhat high. (Had an ex-
perimental biaxial ow curve been available, this would no doubt have proven
more accurate in determining material hardening for the simulation of these bi-
axial tests.) This initial reference curve was therefore adjusted (after all the pa-
rameters in the yield function were fully determined) until the average relative
dierence between the calculated and measured forces was reduced to zero over
the entire range of strains.
To summarize, this stress analysis procedure consisted of carrying out simu-
lations of all the biaxial tests in an iterative way until the unknown biaxial pa-
rameters in the yield criteria are adequately determined and a unique ow curve
which describes material hardening is dened. The stress analysis method was
carried out for each of the yield criteria considered in this paper. Once the op-
timization procedure was completed, each of the seven experimental biaxial tests
was simulated using the nite element analysis one last time. The actual pa-
rameters for the various models are presented in the Appendix. In the absence of
a technique capable of directly measuring the stresses in the cruciform sample,
this nal series of simulations provided computed stresses and biaxial ow curves
that can be considered to be fairly accurate.
4. Crystal plasticity simulations
As mentioned previously, polycrystalline models have attracted considerable at-

tention because of their ability to account for microstructural eects such as texture
evolution. A numerical program has been developed in which one material point is
considered to be a polycrystal comprised of N grains, and may be subjected to a
variety of homogeneous deformation modes such as uniaxial tension or biaxial
stretching. This numerical program was used to simulate the same biaxial strain
paths as those investigated experimentally. The 1145 aluminum sheet was considered
virtually rate-insensitive (m 0:002) and the slip system hardening was assumed to
behave according to the following power-law relationship:
n
h0 c
sc s0 1 9
n s0
The parameters in this hardening law were obtained by adjusting their values until
the ow curve predicted by the crystal plasticity program gave a best t to the ex-
perimental plane strain ow curve in the RD (see Fig. 16a). The values obtained for
this aluminum alloy were s0 7 MPa, h0 =s0 520, n 0:2. The results of these
simulations are presented and discussed in the following sections. A full description
of the crystal plasticity formulation can be found in Asaro and Needleman (1985);
Wu et al. (1996) and Inal et al. (2000).
5. Results
Having optimized the yield surface shape and hardening curve, nite element
simulations of the biaxial tests were performed to obtain the stresses and strains in
the entire specimen. The ow curves were extracted from the gauge area for both the
RD and the TD. The forces measured experimentally in the arms of the sample were
plotted against the strains imposed at the centre of the specimen and compared with
the forcestrain curves calculated numerically. Fig. 6 represents the stressstrain
curves predicted by each plasticity theory (including the crystal plasticity model),
Fig. 6. Simulated ow curves for the q 0:25 strain path in: (a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
while Fig. 7 represents the corresponding force-strain curves for the test done at
q 0:25. Figs. 8 and 9 present the same types of curves for the strain ratio q 0:5,
and Figs. 1017 give the results for each of the other imposed strain ratios.
The stress analysis procedure dened in Section 3 leads to the determination of
contours of equivalent total plastic work. Two principal stress values are determined
for each biaxial test by calculating the accumulated area under the stress vs. plastic
strain curves (i.e., the total plastic work) in both loading directions at the same point
Fig. 7. Comparison of the experimental and simulated forcestrain curves for the q 0.25 strain path in:
(a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
Fig. 8. Simulated ow curves for the q 0.5 strain path in: (a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
in time. Fig. 18 represents the equivalent work contours for which the total amount
of plastic work per unit volume is W p 0:05 MPa (which is equivalent to
epe 0:002). The work contours presented in Fig. 19 correspond to an accumulated
plastic work per unit volume W p 0:15 MPa (or epe 0:005). The experimental
yield points are dened from both the scaled biaxial ow curves, and from the ow
curves obtained from actual uniaxial tests. Yield points were also determined, in the
same manner, from the ow curves predicted by the crystal plasticity model (Taylor
model). For the sake of comparison, the anisotropic yield functions used in the nite
element simulations are also plotted in these gures. Finally, the biaxial material
Fig. 9. Comparison of the experimental and simulated forcestrain curves for the q 0.5 strain path in:
(a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
parameter rb has been extracted, whereas it could not have been determined directly
from any simple experiment. A ratio of rb =r0 0:945 was found for this alloy.
6. Discussion
In the earlier work of MacEwen et al. (1992), the experimental equipment em-
ployed in this investigation was used for the biaxial tension testing of a thin
Fig. 10. Simulated ow curves for the q 1 strain path in: (a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
can-stock aluminum alloy (3104-H19). An elastic analysis was carried out to extract
the eective biaxial load-bearing area, and the stresses were initially obtained by di-
viding the forces measured in the arms of the specimen by the eective area. However,
the nite element analysis revealed that, while this eective area is constant before
yielding, it is actually a function of both strain and strain path during plastic de-
formation. The initial yield surfaces were obtained by accounting for these variations
in eective area. The complete biaxial ow curves were not presented in that work.
Fig. 11. Comparison of the experimental and simulated forcestrain curves for the q 1 strain path in: (a)
the RD, and (b) the TD.
MacEwen et al. (1992) have shown that the particular geometry of the specimens
used for the biaxial tests requires that a numerical analysis be employed to extract
the stresses in the gauge area. The work presented in this paper is an extension of
that previous study. The present stress analysis has focused on accurately modelling
the initial yield function and, as a result, the simulations of the biaxial tests have
furnished very good results. The dierences between the simulations and the ex-
periments are very small.
In Montheillet et al.s (1991) criterion, rb and the yield function exponent m are
not independent. This means that if m is calibrated against the yield stresses in plane
strain tension, the value of rb cannot be adjusted. In the case of this alloy, the value
of rb is obtained when the value of the yield function exponent is m 1:83, even
though the yield stresses in plane strain tension are overestimated. With Hills 1990
function, the anisotropic parameter rb and the exponent m are also intrinsically
related as follows:
ln2 R45
m 10
ln2rb =r45
It was found that, when rb is calibrated against the yield points in stress space and
the value of m is deduced from (10) and experimentally determined values of R45 and
r45 , the Hill 1990 criterion predicts yield stresses in plane strain that are too high.
However, by modifying the exponent to m 1:5, the yield stresses in plane strain
tension are obtained with much greater accuracy. This implicitly leads to an R-value
at 45 that does not agree very well with the experimental value (if the experimental
value of r45 is maintained).
Barlat and Lians (1989) theory has the advantage that rb and the exponent m are
completely independent. The value of m can therefore be adjusted until the yield
surface shape ts the experimental data for plane strain tension. A value of m 8
was found for this alloy. Barlat and Lians yield function is the most versatile of
those considered in this study. Furthermore, assuming that the yield stress in simple
shear is the same as that in pure shear, four anisotropic parameters are sucient to
fully determine the yield surface.
A careful examination of the dierent gures where the computed and the ex-
perimental force vs. strain curves are compared indicates that, of the four models
considered in this investigation, the Barlat and Lian (1989) model and the Hill (1990)
model gave the best correlation with experimental data. It can also be seen from
Fig. 19 that the experimental yield data lie closest to the Barlat and Lian (1989) yield
Fig. 16. Simulated ow curves for the plane-strain tests path in: (a) the RD, and (b) the TD.
locus. It appears that the Hill (1948) quadratic model provides less accurate pre-
dictions of the biaxial ow curves for this aluminum alloy sheet. This is not sur-
prising as the non-quadratic models have more parameters with which to more
accurately capture the shape of the yield surface.
As mentioned earlier, initial simulations were carried out using an eective stress-
eective strain curve obtained from the uniaxial ow curve in the RD. In this case the
calculated force-strain curves generally lie above the experimental curves for all of
the plasticity theories considered. It would therefore appear that the uniaxial curve is
not the most accurate for describing material hardening for the biaxial tension case.
Fig. 17. Comparison of the experimental and simulated forcestrain curves for the plane-strain tests in: (a)
It would perhaps be more appropriate to dene the eective stresseective strain

curve from a test in biaxial tension, such as the plane strain tension of a very wide
sheet specimen. The experimental work by Wagoner (1980) on 2036-T4 sheets also
indicated that the work hardening rate in uniaxial tension is higher than that in plane
strain tension. Such a ow curve not being available at the time of writing, the initial
reference curve was slightly lowered so that the simulated force-strain curves
would lie on the experimental curves. This adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, but
Fig. 18. Anisotropic work contours at a value of plastic work of 0.05 MPa.
nevertheless leads to a more accurate computation of the stresses in the specimen,

even up to eective plastic strains of 0.15.
The ow curves obtained from the crystal plasticity simulations compare quite
well with the experimental results obtained from our nite element analysis.
Considering the shape of the predicted plastic work contours, it appears that the
Taylor model does not describe the planar anisotropy of the sheet as well as
the phenomenological models. The initial texture is the only parameter dening the
shape of the yield surface with this theory, whereas at least four parameters are used
in the phenomenological theories. The crystal plasticity model predicts a yield stress
in uniaxial tension in the TD equal to that in the RD, whereas experimental results
yield the ratio r90 =r0 0:96. Consequently the ow curves in the TD tend to be too
high for the biaxial strain paths.
7. Conclusion
In this investigation we have used at cruciform specimens to obtain stressstrain

data for an 1145 aluminum sheet metal under in-plane biaxial stretching conditions.
Fig. 19. Anisotropic work contours at a value of plastic work of 0.15 MPa.
The equipment enables any strain path to be imposed in the gauge portion of the
sample. A numerical analysis of each test has led to the determination of biaxial ow
curves as well as constant plastic work contours. Some of the phenomenological
yield functions considered, such as that of Barlat and Lian (1989) and Hill (1990),
have proven to accurately describe the behaviour of this alloy. Crystal plasticity
predictions of the biaxial behaviour of this alloy were also carried out and were
found to be reasonably accurate.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) and by a grant from Alcan International Ltd. The
invaluable assistance of Mr. L. Thibodeau of the Universite de Sherbrooke during
the experimental part of the project is gratefully acknowledged. K.W.N. is Canada
Research Chair in Advanced Engineered Material Systems, and the support of this
program is greatly appreciated.
Appendix
The parameters for each of the models investigated in this work are presented below.
The balanced biaxial yield stress for this material was found to be rb 24.2 MPa.
Hill (1948):

1 1 1 1
h
2 r20 r290 r2b
1
f h
r290
1
g h
r20
!
1
n R45 1 R0 =R90 g
2
Barlat and Lian (1989):

2r0 =rb m 2j1 hjm
a
1 hm j1 hjm
c2a
r0
h
r90
1=m 1=m
r0 2 2rm0
p with s y m
sy 2a 2m c a1 hm c1 h
m was adjusted to m 8.
Hill (1990):
m
rb m
2rb =r45 1
sy
1 m m
a 2rb =r90 2rb =r0
4
1
b 2rb =r0 m 2rb =r90 m 2rb =r45 m
4
m was adjusted to m 1.5.
Montheillet et al. (1991):
An average R-value and an average yield stress are dened as:
R0 R90 r0 r90
R and ru
2 2
leading to the following parameters:

m
r0 =ru
c
2 R 1

h c 2R 1
m
r0
n 2m1 c
r45
1=m
1h
a1
c
m 1=m
r0 =r90 h
a2
c
m was adjusted so that rb c1=m ra0 a and found to be m 1:83.
1 2
References
Asaro, R.J., Needleman, A., 1985. Texture development and strain hardening in rate dependent
polycrystals. Acta Metallurgica 33, 923953.
Barlat, F., Lian, J., 1989. Plastic behaviour and stretchability of sheet metals. Part 1: A yield function for
orthotropic sheets under plane stress conditions. International Journal of Plasticity 5, 5166.
Becker, R., Smelser, R.E., Panchanadeeswaran, S., 1993. Simulations of earing in aluminum single crystals
and polycrystals. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 1, 203224.

Green, D.E., 1995. Etude experimentale et numerique du comportement biaxial des t^ oles minces. Ph.D
Thesis, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Hecker, S.S., 1976. Experimental studies of yield phenomena in biaxially loaded metals. In: Stricklin, J.A.,
Saczalski, K.J. (Eds.), Constitutive Equations in Viscoplasticity: Computational and Engineering
Aspects. ASME, New York, pp. 133.
Hill, R., 1948. A theory of the yielding and plastic ow of anisotropic metals. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London A193, 281297.
Hill, R., 1950. The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hill, R., 1979. Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society 85, 179191.
Hill, R., 1990. Constitutive modelling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 38, 405417.
Hill, R., 1991. A theoretical perspective on in-plane forming of sheet metal. Journal of the Mechanics and
Physics of Solids 39, 295307.
Inal, K., Wu, P.D., Neale, K.W., 2000. Simulation of earing in textured aluminum sheets. International
Journal of Plasticity 16, 635648.
Khan, A.S., Wang, X., 1993. An experimental study on subsequent yield surfaces after nite shear
prestraining. International Journal of Plasticity 9, 889905.
Lege, D.J., Barlat, F., Brem, J.C., 1989. Characterization and modeling of the mechanical behavior and
formability of a 2008-T4 sheet sample. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 31, 549563.
Lin, S.B., Ding, J.L., Zbib, H.M., Aifantis, E.C., 1993. Characterization of yield surfaces using balanced
biaxial tests of cruciform plate specimens. Scripta Metallurgica et Materiala 28, 617622.
MacEwen, S.R., Perrin, R., Green, D., Makinde, A., Neale, K.W., 1992. An evaluation of planar biaxial
deformation in H19 can-stock sheet. Proceedings of the 13th Ris International Symposium on
Materials Science. In: Andersen, S. et al. (Eds.), Modelling of plastic deformation and its engineering
applications. Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 539545.
Makinde, A. 1986. Mise au point dun dispositif original de traction biaxiale: application a letude
experimentale de lecrouissage des metaux sous dierents chemins de deformation. PhD Thesis,
Universite de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Makinde, A., Thibodeau, L., Neale, K.W., 1992a. Development of an apparatus for biaxial testing using
cruciform specimens. Experimental Mechanics 32, 138144.
Makinde, A., Thibodeau, L., Neale, K.W., Lefebvre, D., 1992b. Design of a biaxial extensometer for
measuring strains in cruciform specimens. Experimental Mechanics 32, 132137.
Montgomery, D.C., 1991. Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Montheillet, F., Jonas, J.J., Benferrah, M., 1991. Development of anisotropy during the cold rolling of
aluminum sheet. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 33, 197209.
Pearce, R., 1968. Some aspects of anisotropic plasticity in sheet metals. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 10, 9951005.
Shimada, H., Shimizu, K., Obata, M., Chikugo, K., Chiba, M., 1976. A new biaxial testing machine for
the at specimen and a fundamental study on the shape of specimen. Technology Reports, Tohoku
University 41, 351369.
Shiratori, E., Ikegami, K., 1967. A new biaxial tensile testing machine with at specimen. Bulletin of the
Tokyo Institute of Technology 82, 105118.
Stout, M.G., Hecker, S., Bourcier, R., 1983. An evaluation of anisotropic eective stress strain criteria for
the biaxial yield and ow of 2024 aluminum tubes. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology
105, 242249.
Tugcu, P., Neale, K.W., 1999. On the implementation of anisotropic yield functions into nite strain
problems of sheet metal forming. International Journal of Plasticity 15, 10211040.
Tugcu, P., Neale, K.W., Wu, P.D., Inal, K. Crystal plasticity simulation of the hydrostatic bulge test.
International Journal of Plasticity (in press).
Tugcu, P., Wu, P.D., Neale, K.W., 1999. Finite strain analysis of simple shear using recent anisotropic
yield criteria. International Journal of Plasticity 15, 939962.
Tugcu, P., Wu, P.D., Neale, K.W., 2002. On the predictive capabilities of anisotropic yield criteria for
metals undergoing shearing deformations. International Journal of Plasticity 18, 12191236.
Wagoner, R.H., 1980. Measurement and analysis of plane-strain work hardening. Metallurgical
Transactions 11A, 165175.
Woodthorpe, J., Pearce, R., 1970. The anomalous behaviour of aluminum sheet under balanced biaxial
tension. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 12, 341347.
Wu, P.D., Jain, M., Savoie, J., MacEwen, S.R., Tugcu, P., Neale, K.W., 2003. Evaluation of anisotropic
yield functions for aluminum sheets. International Journal of Plasticity 19, 121138.
Wu, P.D., Neale, K.W., Van der Giessen, E., 1996. Simulation of the behaviour of FCC polycrystals
during reversed torsion. International Journal of Plasticity 12, 11991219.

Experimental Investigation of The Biaxial Behaviour of An Aluminum Sheet

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Experimental Investigation of The Biaxial Behaviour of An Aluminum Sheet

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Plasticity 20 (2004) 16771706

Experimental investigation of the biaxial

0749-6419/$ - see front matter 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2.1. Biaxial testing apparatus

2.2. Biaxial extensometer

A biaxial extensometer was also designed in-house (Makinde et al., 1992b) in

Fig. 1. Sketch of the biaxial test apparatus.

2.3. Cruciform specimens

Fig. 2. Geometry of the cruciform specimen.

evaluated for each combination of parameters. The particular set of parameters

2.4. Sheet metal alloy

Fig. 3. 111 pole gure for the annealed 1145 sheet.

2.5. Experimental program

3.1. Finite element analysis

Fig. 5. Finite element mesh of one quarter of the cruciform specimen.

3.2. Anisotropic yield criteria

where a1 , a2 , c, h and n are anisotropic parameters dened from experimental data.

3.3. Stress analysis procedure

4. Crystal plasticity simulations

As mentioned previously, polycrystalline models have attracted considerable at-

It would perhaps be more appropriate to dene the eective stresseective strain

nevertheless leads to a more accurate computation of the stresses in the specimen,

In this investigation we have used at cruciform specimens to obtain stressstrain

Barlat and Lian (1989):

leading to the following parameters:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen