Anda di halaman 1dari 10

European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering

Barcelona, 11-14 September 2000


Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund
Helsinki University of Technology
Laboratory of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
P.O.Box 1100, FIN-02015 HUT
web page:

Key words. Constitutive parameters, deep drawing, inverse problems, material model,
Mathematica, metal forming, metal plasticity, optimization.
Abstract. In this paper, the use of a symbolic and numerical calculation package to the
problems of elasto-plasticity is considered. The goal of the present code under development is
on one hand educational and on the other hand to provide a test environment for small scale
problems arising in metal forming plasticity. Especially, the aim has been to form a
systematic practice for the determination of constitutive parameters for deep drawing
analysis. An iterative finite element scheme and an optimization module are programmed
using the Mathematica 3.0 programming language. As an example, the planar anisotropy
parameter of deep drawing material is optimized using numerical simulation of a strip in

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

Deep drawing is a metal forming process used to manufacture auto-body components,
sinks and other similar products by stamping rolled metal sheets into their final geometric
forms. If the parameters of the forming process are not properly arranged, there is a potential
for various defects such as bottom tearing, flange wrinkling, or earing of the flange. For
example, the earing may take place due to the anisotropy of the material. The anisotropy arises
in the rolling process due to the changes in microstructure. Hills quadratic yield function1 is a
widely used anisotropic yield surface, although many disadvantages of this theory have been
pointed out.2,3 Some other yield conditions are presented for example in references.4,5,6,7,8
In this study, an appropriate material model for deep drawing analysis is searched for and
an attempt is made to systematically determine the material parameters. The principal idea is
to minimize the least-squares deviation between the computed and measured variables with
respect to the constitutive parameters. The least-squares expression may contain any
observable quantities such as forces, strains, geometrical shape, or microstructural variables.
In practice, the so-called sensitivity matrix, whose elements are the derivatives of the
observable variables with respect to the material parameters, is used in the minimization. This
kind of approach has recently been applied to metal forming analysis9 and in a slightly
modified form to structural analysis10. The numerical method used to solve the plasticity
problem is based on general plane stress algorithm.11,12
Both the finite element and the optimization modules are programmed using the
Mathematica 3.0 programming language13. In computational plasticity the load is often
applied incrementally and after every load increment the overall equilibrium and consistency
are achieved iteratively. This is a time consuming procedure and therefore an interpretable
computer code can not compete in efficiency with a compiled one, e.g. a Fortran code.
However, the recent development of computer capacity makes it possible to use interpretable
codes in tasks where the number of degrees of freedom is relatively small. The benefit is that
one can use in addition to high level programming language, integrated graphics and other
ready-to-use packages. This makes it possible to use the code as test environment for new
ideas and also for educational purposes. As an example, the anisotropy parameter of deep
drawing material is optimized.
Instead of high computational efficiency, our goal has been to make access to individual
parts of the code and an implementatation that shows how the algorithm works. The data
representation of the code is based on nested lists, and the high level functions supported by
Mathematica make the code quite short. As an example, the Jacobian can simply be evaluated
by using the definition
jacobian[f_List, x_List] := Outer[D, f, x];

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

in which D stands for derivative, and f is a list of functions of variables given in x. As a

result we get the Jacobian matrix containing the gradient of the ith function at the ith row.
More examples can be found for example in references13,14.
2.1 Incremental equations for isotropic hardening material under plane stress
Although specific incremental algorithms for plane stress plasticity exist15,16, we use a
more general incremental approach presented for example in11,12. This is motivated by
educational aspects of the code. We consider next the Lagrangian form of the problem and
assume that the displacements are small. Then there is no need to make difference between
the Cauchy and Piola-Kirchhoff stresses and the corresponding small displacement and
Green-Lagrange strain measures. We start with the yield function defined in the stress space
f = F (e p ) 0 ,


where F is the effective stress, and the hardening parameter , depending on the equivalent
plastic strain e p , determines the size of elastic domain. The increment of the plastic strain is
given by the Prandtl-Reuss flow rule
p =

= a ,


where is the plastic strain multiplier, and a the plastic flow vector. The stress changes are
related to the strain changes by
= C ( p ) = C ( a ) .


Above, is the increment of total strain vector, which consists of elastic and plastic parts
= e + p . Assuming isotropic elasticity and the plane stress conditions, the tangent
modulus matrix is


1 2
0 0 (1 ) / 2

where E is Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. For plastic flow, the stresses must remain
on the yield surface and hence we get the consistency condition

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

f =
e p = a T k e p = 0 ,


where k = / e p is the plastic strain hardening modulus. By using (2), we obtain the
connection between the plastic strain multiplier and the increment of equivalent plastic strain
e p = B ( ) .


For von Mises yield criterion the stress parameter B ( ) = 1 . By substituting (6) into equation
(5) we get
f = aT kB = aT A = 0 ,


where A = kB is the hardening parameter.

2.2 Elastic predictor

The variational formulation reads: find the increment of the displacement field ,u so that

V (@

: DI )dV = ( -@
: I + @ u f )dV + (@Du t )dA

@ ( ,u) .


The right hand side of the equation represents the out-of balance forces r = f ext - f int . After
substituting expression (3) and the strain increment definition
1 Du Du T
) ]
DA = [
2 x


one may solve ,u , calculate the increment of the strain ,AA , and stress , . The
displacement field calculation based on (8) is performed by keeping the plastic multiplier of
stress expression (3) fixed. Although the solution thus obtained satisfies the equilibrium, the
stress may not be located inside the yield surface and, therefore, a correction stage is needed.
2.3 Newton return

We start from the elastic predictor e = C e and apply Newtons method to return the
stress on the yield surface. The return mapping is based on the stress and yield surface

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

r C e a = 0,

f =0


which are considered as non-linear functions of stress I and the plastic multiplier .
Keeping the trial elastic stress fixed, Taylor expansion of equation (10) at the current values of
the variables give
r + + 2 Ca + C

= 0,


f + a - A = 0.

By eliminating we get
2 =

f aT Q 1r
aT Q 1Ca + A


in which Q = I + ( a / ) . After these calculations, the iterative change in the equivalent

plastic strain can be obtained from equation (6).
For the implementation of equations (10) - (12), we apply a Mathematica module
newtonPS[...] which is called recursively until the value of the yield function is
acceptable, i.e. close enough to the value zero.
2.4 Consistent tangent modulus
The consistent tangent modular matrix11

aaT Q 1C
= Q 1C I T 1

a Q Ca + A


follows when is eliminated from the stress and consistency equations

= C a +

a A = 0.


The elimination can be performed, for example, by solving first from the first equation,
substituting the result into the second equation, solving for , and substituting the result
back into the first equation. The rate form follows when both sides of (13) are divided by t
and then by considering the limit t 0 .

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

In the current implementation, a Mathematica module femPlaneStress[...] is

employed in order to calculate the new state corresponding to a load increment. The input of
the module is the finite element model (nodes, coordinates, material properties), current state
of stress and strain, and load increment. The module returns the updated equilibrium

In this study, our goal is to systematically determine the material parameters for deep
drawing analysis. The principal idea is to minimize the least-squares deviation between the
computed and measured variables with respect to the constitutive parameters. Generally, the
least-squares expression may contain any observable quantities such as forces, strains,
geometrical shape, or microstructural variables. We assume, however, that the number of
independent quantities (nv) used in the fit is larger than that of the design variables (nm). The
observable and the corresponding calculated variables are collected into the vectors v o and
v c , respectively. The constitutive parameters are collected into the vector m . As all the
calculated variables are functions of material parameters, i.e.,

vc = vc (m )


v c v c

m m


we can determine the sensitivities

by solving the problem first with the current values of the design parameters and the giving a
small increment to each parameter at a time. The new values of the calculated parameters can
then be approximated as

v cn = v c + Sm .


To get the increments of the constitutive parameters m , we form a least-squares expression

p ( m ) =

1 cn o
v v


using the new values (17) for the variables and minimize the expression with respect to the
increments. The new material parameters to be used at the next stage are then

m n = m + m .


Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

The increments of the constitutive parameters are determined with a Mathematica module
optimizeMaterParams[nm,nv,s,m,vo,vc] in which nm and nv are the numbers of
material parameters and observed variables, matrix s contains the sensitivities, list m the
current values for material parameters, vo and vc are lists of values for observed and
calculated variables, respectively. The kernel of this module is the standard Mathematica
FindMinimum[p, {m[1],m1,m1lo,m1up}, {....}];

which minimizes the function (18) with respect the increments of material parameters m
and returns the list of increments of the material parameters, and the new value of the function
p. The minimization process uses as a default the conjugate gradient method, but the Newton
and quasi-Newton techniques can also be used. Variables m1, m1lo, and m1up define the
starting (current) value for the material parameter, and the limits for the parameter. New
sensitivities are calculated using the new values (19) for the constitutive parameters, and the
optimization process can be repeated.
Remark 1. Since function p to be optimized generally contains variables with different
dimensions, it may be reasonable to use a dimensionless representation.

As our numerical example, appropriate material model for the deep drawing analysis is
searched using numerical simulation of a strip in tension. Length of the specimen is 2l and
width 2b (Figure 1). Although the example is elementary and a rather academic one, it
demonstrates well the process described above.

Figure 1. A quarter of tensile specimen.

In general, material anisotropy of the sheet follows as a consequence of the rolling process.
A natural set of material axes related to the rolling process are the rolling direction (x-axis in
our example, say), the transverse direction (y-axis), and the normal of the sheet plane
(thickness direction). In the present example, we use Hills quadratic yield function in the

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

f = 12 + 22

( )

1 2 e p = 0 .
1+ r


Above, r is the plastic anisotropy parameter which expresses the ratio of transverse to
through-thickness plastic strain increments, and 1 , 2 are the principal stresses. The
principal directions of these are assumed to coincide with the principal axes of anisotropy of
the material. Setting the anisotropy parameter r = 1 in (20) gives the widely used von Mises
yield condition.
Isotropic hardening parameter determines the size of the elastic domain. In this study we
use the linear hardening material model

( )

e p = 0 + ke p ,


where 0 is the initial yield strength. Using a nonlinear isotropic hardening model with a
saturation hardening term of the exponential type, i.e. Voces material model, would lead to a
more realistic behaviour16. In the case of anisotropic Hills yield condition relation (6) must
be rewritten as e p = B (, r ) . Simple tensile test follows if we use the boundary
u x = 0, 12 = 0, x = 0,
u x = U , 12 = 0, x = l ,
u y = 0, 12 = 0, y = 0,


2 = 0, 12 = 0, y = b.
Plane tensile test, i.e., biaxial stress field and plane-strain conditions, follows by using the
boundary conditions
u x = 0, 12 = 0, x = 0,
u x = U , 12 = 0, x = l ,
u y = 0, 12 = 0, y = 0,


u y = 0, 12 = 0, y = b.
Our task is now to optimize the anisotropy parameter r so that the calculated stress-strain
relation is as close as possible with the observed stress-strain curve. Here, we use a quite
simple example.17 The observed stress-strain relation for boundary conditions (22) in the
plastic region is

1 = 50010.25 [MPa]


Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

and for boundary conditions (23) the observed relation is

1 = 60010.25 [MPa].


Youngs modulus is E = 52.5 GPa , Poissons ratio = 0.30 , initial yield strength
0 = 0.0021E , and plastic hardening modulus k = 0.050 E . For the linear hardening material
model, we consider the range 0 1 10 0 ( 0 = 0.002 is the yield strain) for the strain in
the x-direction. In actual deep drawing process the strain may be 0.4 or even larger. Next, the
plastic anisotropy parameter is optimized using boundary conditions (23). We start the
optimization process from the value r = 1. The problem is solved using prescribed horizontal
increments of displacement of 0.0005 l in the plastic region on the right boundary at x = l.
The function to be optimized is formed using discrete values of the simulated and observed
stress-strain relation
1 n
p = cn ( k ) o ( k )
2 k =1


where n is the number of stress-strain points in the range under consideration.




0.01 0.015

Figure 2. Tension under plane-strain conditions

The optimization process proceeds as follows: p ( r = 1) = 3059 , p ( r = 1.27 ) = 2220 ,

p ( r = 1.26 ) = 2219 , p ( r = 1.26 ) = 2219 . The value r = 1.26 can be considered as the final
one. Figure 2 shows the observed stress-strain curve (gray line), the stress-strain relations with
the values r = 1.00 (black line) and r = 1.26 (dashed line).

In this study, a program for symbolic calculations has been used for systematic derivation
of material parameters. It was found that a relatively small amount of programming effort is
needed to analyze complicated physical phenomena of metal plasticity. Also, integrated

Mika Reivinen, Jouni Freund

graphics makes it possible to visualize the state of computation, e.g., the status of plastic
internal variables, stress and strain fields, at every stage. As the ideas of computational
inelasticity appear clearly, the code serves well for educational purposes. Let us note that there
exist other software packages which may be suitable for this purpose as well. For example, the
Maple program has been used for the finite element derivation.18 However, as simulation of
the material undergoing large plastic deformation can be a time consuming task, the approach
fits best in small-scale problems. The present study is still on its early stage. In the future we
try to extend the suggested way to determine the material parameters in the case of more
complicated strain and stress measures suitable for studies in finite plastic deformations. Also,
other topics closely related to the analysis of metal forming processes, such as contact and
friction models, will be included.



R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Clarendon Press, (1950).

M. Gotoh, Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 19, pp. 505-512, (1977).
M. Gotoh, Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 19, pp. 513-520, (1977).
A. Parmar, P.B. Mellor, Int. J. Mech. Sci, Vol. 20, pp. 385-391, (1978).
A. Parmar and P.B. Mellor, Int. J. Mech. Sci, Vol. 20, pp. 707-720, (1978).
R. W. Logan and W. F. Hosford, Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 22, pp. 419-430, (1980).
J.L. Bassani, Int. J. mech. Sci., Vol. 19, pp. 651-660, (1977).
Y.M. Gupta, Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 25, pp. 1509-1513, Pergamon Press, (1977).
A. Gavrus and E. Massoni, Improvement of material behaviour analysis using a general
parameter identification model based on the inverse method, 2nd ESAFORM
Conference on Material Forming, Guimares, Portugal (1999).
M. Reivinen, Modelling the monolithic joints of plane frames, Licentiates Thesis, (in
Finnish), (1996).
M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Volume 1:
Essentials, Wiley, (1991).
M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Volume 2:
Advanced Topics, Wiley, (1997).
S. Wolfram, The Mathematica book, Wolfram Media/Cambridge University Press, 3rd
ed., 1996.
H. Ruskeep, Mathematica Navigator, Academic Press, (1999).
Simo, J.C. and R.L. Taylor, A return mapping algorithm for plane stress
elastoplasticity, Int. J. Numer. Math. Engrg. 22 (1986) 649-670.
J.C. Simo, T.J.R Hughes, Computational inelasticity, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
Wagoner R.H., Chenot J-L., Fundamentals of metal forming, Wiley, (1997).
Yunhua Luo, Anders Eriksson and Costin Pacoste, An attempt to standardize finite
element derivation with Maple, Proc. of the 12th Nordic Seminar on Computational
Mechanics, Espoo, Finland (1999).