G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Processes

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

Technical Paper

The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its

verication in press bending and roll forming process simulations
Yu Yan, Haibo Wang , Qiang Li
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, North China University of Technology, No. 5 Jinyuanzhuang Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing 100144,
PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 June 2015
Received in revised form
13 September 2015
Accepted 13 September 2015
Available online xxx
Keyword:
Plane strain tensile test
Hill48 yield criterion
Orthogonal test
Inverse parameter identication
Finite element method
Experimental verication

a b s t r a c t
Yield criterion is an essential factor that affects the FEM simulation accuracy. In order to improve the
simulation accuracy of bending processes including press bending and roll forming which are mainly
under plane strain condition, an inverse parameter identication method to determine the parameters
of Hill48 yield criterion in a convenient manner is presented. The plane strain tensile test is performed,
and the orthogonal experiments based on FEM simulations are conducted. Then the parameters of Hill 48
yield criterion are obtained based on the load-displacement data of both the test and simulation results.
Press bending and roll forming processes are selected to verify this parameter identication method.
Final shapes of the experimental and numerical results are compared. It is shown that the numerical
results based on Hill 48 yield criterion are better than those based on Mises yield criterion in terms of the
nal shapes, which indicates that the proposed method is reliable and can well reect material behavior
in real forming processes.
2015 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
FEM has become an important way of predicting the geometry
and the mechanical properties of the nal products in sheet metal
forming process. Yield function affects the prediction capability of
the simulations signicantly especially for the rolled sheet metals
with obvious anisotropy. Many advanced yield functions have been
developed to meet the real material behavior [19]. In addition to
the capability of describing the anisotropic deformation behaviour
of sheet metals, for a yield function, the convenience of obtaining
the parameters and the convergence of the use in FE simulation
should also be considered.
For the case of an isotropic metallic material, the well-known
von Mises yield criterion is often sufcient to describe yielding.
This is, however, not true for anisotropic materials. In order to take
anisotropy into account, the classical yield criterion proposed by
von Mises should be modied by introducing additional parameters. A simple approximation for this purpose is given by the
quadratic Hill criterion in 1948 [10]. The most frequently used
anisotropic yield criterions in the FE commercial programs for
the sheet-metal-forming simulation, like ABAQUS, is Hill48 yield

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 88801821; fax: +86 10 88801821.

E-mail address: wanghaibo@ncut.edu.cn (H. Wang).

criterion [11]. Hill 48 yield function has been widely used in the
eld of sheet metal forming process [1215].
When the anisotropic yield criteria are used in plastic mechanics calculation and the FEM simulations, the parameters of the yield
criteria should be solved according to the material property data.
For example, the parameters of Hill48 yield criterion can be solved
with yield stresses or r-values in different directions, or both the
yield stresses and r-values [16,17]. But the parameters solved by
different methods might be different, and there is not a uniformed
standard of solving method specically for a certain forming process. The difference of the parameter solving method may affect the
accuracy of the yield criteria [1820]. Furthermore, the parameters
from the uniaxial or biaxial tensile tests might be far apart from
each other at the plane strain state, which is the main state in many
sheet metal bending processes. The solving method should specially consider the certain deformation condition of actual forming
processes. For example, bending process is one of the most common sheet metal forming processes, in which the material is mainly
under plane strain condition [21]. And plane strain condition needs
to be studied specically in order to have better prediction accuracy
for certain forming processes like press bending and roll forming.
Some inverse methods have been utilized to solve the parameters of important material models. Gao et al. [22] proposed a
method of solving material property parameters directly from
forming process based on the moving least-squares response surface method. The force-displacement data from the experiment

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009
1526-6125/ 2015 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

are compared with the FEM simulation, and then the constitutive
model is established with response surface optimization. Li et al.
[23] proposed an inverse method using the least square support
vector regression (LSSVR)-based metamodeling method and FEM
simulations, by which the material property parameters of the DP
600 constitutive equation in crash process are obtained. Aydin [24]
proposed an inverse calibration strategy to determine the constitutive parameters of phenomenological advanced yield criteria in a
convenient and economical manner using plane strain tension and
tensile tests. These methods solved the problem of large amount
of basic experiments, experiment errors, the deformation condition differences between the basic experiments and actual forming
processes, and can obtain relatively accurate material parameters.
In order to have high simulation accuracy of bending processes,
a reverse identication method for determining the parameters
of Hill 48 yield criterion based on the plane strain tensile test is
proposed. The FEM orthogonal test of a plane strain tensile test is
performed, and the load-gauge section displacement of the actual
test is used to obtain the best parameters. Then the FEM simulation of the press bending and roll forming processes with both
the Mises yield criterion and the Hill 48 yield criterion (with the
obtained parameters) are established, and both of the results are
compared with the experimental results.
2. Hill 48 yield criterion and their parameters solution
2.1. Hill 48 yield criterion
In sheet metal forming process, plane stress state is the main
condition. According to the Hill 48 anisotropic yield criterion under
plane stress state (Eq. (1)), assume the x and y directions as the
rolling direction and the transversal to the rolling direction, respectively.
2
2
2
f = (G + H)xx
2Hxx yy + (H + F)yy
+ 2Nxy
=  2

(2)

From Eq. (1), we may have

G+H =1

1
G=
2
H=

1
2

1
N=
2




(5a)

G=

1
(1 + r0 )

(5b)

H=

r0
(1 + r0 )

(5c)

N=

(1 + 2r45 )(r0 + r90 )

2(1 + r0 )r90

(5d)

where r0 , r45 and r90 are the r-values (strain ratios) under uniaxial
tensile test along rolling, 45 and transverse directions, respectively.
2.3. Parameters of Hill 48 yield criterion in ABAQUS FE software
In ABAQUS, anisotropic yield behavior is modeled based on
Hill48 yield function. Anisotropic plasticity potential of Hill48 yield
function is dened in Abaqus from user input consisting of a series
of specic parameters.
The parameters of Hill 48 yield function mentioned above for
plane stress state are dened as Eq. (6) [11].
F=
G=

1
2
1
2

1
H=
2





1
2
R22

1
2
R33

1
2
R11

N=

+
+
+

1
2
R33

1
2
R11

1
2
R22

1
2
R11

1
2
R22





(6)

2
R33

3
2
2R12

where R11 , R22 , R33 and R12 are specied material parameters for
using Hill48 yield function in ABAQUS FEM software.
3. Inverse analysis strategy

Two methods of solving Hill 48 yield criterion parameters can

be used:
(1) Solving method based on the yield stress under different
loading conditions (Hill48-stress)
The parameters of Hill48 yield function based on stress method
are as follows:
1
2

r0
(1 + r0 )r90

(3)

2.2. Solution of the parameters in Hill 48 yield criterion

F=

F=

(1)

where  xx and  yy are the normal stresses along the x direction

(rolling direction) and y direction (transverse direction);  xy is the
shear stress; F, G, H and N are material parameters.
Adopt the rolling direction as the reference direction, namely
adopt the yield stress  0 in rolling direction as the reference stress,
and we have
0 = 

where  0 ,  90 ,  45 and  b are the yield stresses of rolling direction,

transverse direction, 45 to the rolling direction and the balanced
biaxial tension, respectively.
(2) Solving method based on the r-value obtained from tension
test along different directions (Hill48-r)

0
90


1+



2

1+

  2
0
90

  2
0

20
45

90

2

  2 
0

b

  2 
0

b

  2 
0

b

  2 
0

b

As mentioned in Section 2.2, the parameters of yield criterion are

often solved with many experiment results, such as yield stresses
( 0 ,  45 ,  90 and  b ) and r-values (r0 , r45 and r90 ). These experiments usually take a lot of time. In addition, the experiments are
usually performed under uniaxial tensile condition and equi-biaxial
tensile tests, which is very different from plane strain loading condition. Therefore, it is essential to specially study the plane strain
state, which is the main state in metal bending process. A new
inverse analysis strategy without conventional expensive and complicated tests is proposed, as shown in Fig. 1.

(4a)
3.1. Plane strain tensile test
(4b)

(4c)

(4d)

The plane strain specimen is shown in Fig. 2 [25]. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 3. The simulation of the tensile test of
the plane strain specimen is carried out. The principle plastic strain
of the specimen center point is shown in Fig. 4, which indicates
that the material is actually under plane strain state. The forcegauge section elongation curves of the plane strain tension tests are
employed to obtain and conrm the best yield criterion parameters.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model
JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

where
a=G+H

(9a)

b=H+F

(9b)

c = 2N

(9c)

d = 2H

(9d)

From Eqs. (3), (6) and (9) we have

a=G+H =
b=
c=

3.2. Orthogonal experiment and the parameter identication

The design objectives are given as shown in Eq. (7). It must be
minimized for the determination of the unknown parameters.


 n 

 Fexperiment,i Fsimulation,i 2
e=
i=1

Fexperiment,i

(7)

where Fexperiment is the beam load of the experiment, Fsimulation is the

beam load of the simulation, n is the number of selected comparison
points.
Three kinds of loading conditions are adopted to determine the
ranges of the parameters. The ranges are selected according to the
actual material behaviors, which consider both the r-values and the
yield stresses.
From Eqs. (1) and (2) we may have
2
2
2
+ byy
+ cxy
dxx yy = 02
axx

(8)

=1

(10a)
(10b)

2
R22

(10c)

2
R12

d=1+

Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed inverse method.

1
2
R11

1
2
R22

1
2
R33

(10d)

As mentioned above, the parameters of Hill48 yield criterion can

be solved by stress anisotropy and deformation anisotropy separately, but either one has its own limits [15,19,20]. Both stress
anisotropy and deformation anisotropy will affect the actual forming process, namely they will work together. In addition, certain
errors are usually exited in basic experiment, which will further affect the yield criterion parameter calculations. The goal
of this study is to accurately predict the bending processes, the
main deformation condition of which are under plane strain state.
Considering the above mentioned factors, a reasonable range of
the parameters for the orthogonal test should be determined to
nd a set of parameters which can accurately describe plane strain
deformation behaviors. The determination of the ranges should
consider both stress anisotropy and deformation anisotropy rather
than selected randomly.
(1) Anisotropy of stress
. Uniaxial tensile test along the transversal direction
For this loading condition we have
( xx =  xy = 0 and  yy =  90 where  90 is the yield stress along the
transverse direction)
From Eq. (8) we have
b=

02
2
90

(11a)

According to the experimental properties of this material in previous studies and considering the errors of the experimental results,
and the relatively wild rang of the  90 / 0 for the FEM orthogonal
test is adopted as, 0.8 <  90 / 0 < 1.2
. Equi-biaxial tensile condition
For equi-biaxial tensile condition we have  xx =  yy =  b where
 b is the yield stress under equi-biaxial tensile condition.

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the plane strain specimen.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 1
Experimental layout of orthogonal experiment.
Factor

R22
R33
R12


R12 =

Level
1

0.816
0.898
0.913

0.877
0.962
0.953

0.953
1.043
1

1.054
1.147
1.054

1.195
1.291
1.118

3(1 + r0 )r90
=
(1 + 2r45 )(r0 + r90 )


3 1 + 1/r0


1/r0 + 1/r90

(1 + 2r45 )
(12c)

According to our previous study, considering the errors and the

stress and deformation anisotropy, and the integrated effects of
both stress anisotropy and deformation anisotropy, the relatively
wide ranges (0.753.5) of r0 , r45 and r90 are adopted to determine
the parameter optimization ranges. Then the ranges of R22 , R33 and
R12 for deformation anisotropy can also be determined with theory
of inequality.
Take the ranges decided in (1) and (2) into consideration, the
nal ranges of R22 , R33 and R12 are determined as

Fig. 3. Plane strain tensile test setup.

Fig. 4. Principle plastic strain of the center point of the plane strain specimen.

From Eq. (8) have

b
1
=
0
1+bd

(11b)

According to the actual material properties in our previous

study and experimental errors, the range of  b / 0 is given as:
0.8 <  b / 0 < 1.2.
. Pure shear condition
Under pure shear condition, we have  xx =  yy = 0 and  xy =  0
where  0 is shear yield stress. From Eq. (8) we have
c=

02

(11c)

02

For isotropic materials we have 0 /0 = 1/ 3

For the anisotropic sheet metal in this study, consider the previous experimental study and the integrated effects of both the stress
anisotropy
anisotropy,

and


deformation
 the relatively wide range
of  0 is 1.2/ 3 < 0 /0 < 0.8/ 3
From the above ranges of  90 / 0 ,  b / 0 ,  0 / 0 , and Eqs. (10)
and (11), the ranges of R22 , R33 and R12 for stress anisotropy can be
determined.
(2) Anisotropy of deformation
From Eqs. (5a)(5d) and (6) we have


R22 =


R33 =

(1 + r0 )r90
=
r0 (1 + r90 )

1 + 1/r0

(12a)

1 + 1/r90

(1 + r0 )r90
=
r0 + r90

1 + 1/r0

1/r0 + 1/r90

(12b)

0.816 R22 1.195

(13a)

0.913 R12 1.118

(13b)

0.898 R33 1.291

(13c)

As mentioned above, different conditions are considered when

determining the ranges of R22 , R33 and R12 for the orthogonal test.
Then the optimization according to plane strain condition within
this range is performed in order to determine the property parameters which are suitable for describing the material behavior under
plane strain condition. If the ranges are taken randomly without
the consideration of the above ranges, the nal optimized parameters may be away from the reasonable deformation range of the
material.
The orthogonal test matrix L25 (56 ) is adopted to carry out the
FEM experimental design. The factors and levels of the orthogonal
experiment are shown in Table 1. Then the orthogonal tests are carried out using 25 FEM simulations. The results of the 25 calculations
are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that when R22 , R33 , and R12 , are
0.816, 1.043, and 1, respectively, the dened error is the smallest.
So these parameters are adopted in further FEM simulations and
will be veried by the press bending and roll forming experiments.
4. Verication with typical sheet metal forming processes
4.1. Verication with press bending experiment
The experiment of wide sheet press bending is carried out by the
press machine. The blank sheet is 100 mm long, 50 mm wide and
0.92 mm thick. The sheet material is low carbon steel, the properties of which are obtained from standard uniaxial tensile tests. The
Youngs modulus is 210 GPa, the Poissons ratio is 0.33, the yield
strength is 293.3 MPa, and the tensile strength is 397 MPa. The dies
and the nal formed part are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
The FEM models of press bending are established in ABAQUS/
Standard with Mises and Hill 48 yield criterions, respectively. Since
the thickness of the sheet is signicantly smaller than the other
dimensions and the stresses in the thickness direction are negligible, the specimen is modeled with 3D shell element: S4R. The
dies are modeled with rigid shell element: R3D4. The penalty
method and the Coulomb friction model are adopted. The penalty
method approximates hard pressure-overclosure behavior. With

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 5. Dimensions of the press bending dies.

Table 2
Orthogonal experiment results.
Test no.

R22

R33

R12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

0.816
0.816
0.816
0.816
0.816
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.877
0.953
0.953
0.953
0.953
0.953
1.054
1.054
1.054
1.054
1.054
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195
1.195

0.898
0.962
1.043
1.147
1.291
0.898
0.962
1.043
1.147
1.291
0.898
0.962
1.043
1.147
1.291
0.898
0.962
1.043
1.147
1.291
0.898
0.962
1.043
1.147
1.291

0.913
0.953
1
1.054
1.118
1
1.054
1.118
0.913
0.953
1.118
0.913
0.953
1
1.054
0.953
1
1.054
1.118
0.913
1.054
1.118
0.913
0.953
1

0.25629
0.14024
0.02155
0.164
0.33552
0.31908
0.3878
0.06179
0.03611
0.1178
0.42444
0.32267
0.21457
0.08238
0.08344
0.48408
0.38762
0.275
0.14107
0.10422
0.59441
0.48877
0.39126
0.28558
0.15647

this method, the contact force is proportional to the penetration

distance. The basic concept of the Coulomb friction model is to
relate the maximum allowable frictional (shear) stress across an
interface to the contact pressure between the contacting bodies.
The friction coefcient is assumed to be 0.1.
The equivalent plastic strain of the bend formed part is shown
in Fig. 7. The principle plastic strains of point A (shown in Fig. 7) are

Fig. 6. Press bending experiment.

Fig. 7. Equivalent plastic strain of the press bend formed part.

shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the material of the main forming
region is under plane strain state.
The cross sections of the experiment and two FEM results are
compared in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the FEM results agree well
with the experiment in general, and Hill 48 yield criterion works
better than Mises yield criterion. The springback amount calculated
with Hill 48 criterion is larger, because the stress calculated with it
under plane strain state is larger than Mises criterion. But the yield
stress of carbon steel is small, and the Youngs modulus is large,
so the total springback amount is small. Therefore the difference
between the two yield criteria is not tremendous.

Fig. 8. Principle plastic strain of point A.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model
JMP-375; No. of Pages 8
6

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 9. Cross sections of press bending process.

4.2. Verication with roll forming experiment

4.2.1. Roll forming experiment
The roll forming machine and the formed part are shown in
Fig. 10. The blank sheet is 750 mm in length, 100 mm in width, and
0.92 mm in thickness. The cross section of the objective shape is
shown in Fig. 11(a), and the shapes at the four passes are shown
in Fig. 12(b). The roller stand distance is 200 mm and the roll gap
is 0.9 mm. The sheet forward speed is 20 mm/s. The center lines of
the width direction and the longitudinal direction are drawn before
the experiment.
4.2.2. FEM simulation of roll forming process with two yield
criteria
4.2.2.1. Forming and Springback steps and their boundary conditions.
The assembly in ABAQUS is shown in Fig. 12. At the beginning of
the simulation, the bottom roller of the rst pair of rollers is placed
40 mm below the sheet.
The explicit dynamic FEM method is adopted in roll forming
simulation, because it has proven valuable in solving quasi-static
problems such as metal forming. The roll forming simulation is realized in two steps: In the rst step, the bottom roller of the rst pair
of rollers moves up and generates initial bending deformation. In
the second step, the sheet is pulled through all the rollers by the
leading edge.
In the FEM simulation of the roll forming, when the sheet is
out of one pair of rollers and moving towards next pair of rollers,
it experiences springback. And when the rear of the sheet comes
out of the last pair of rollers, the material has experienced springback to some extent, and the residual stress has been released
partially. While it is possible to perform springback analyses within

Fig. 11. Dimensions of the cross sections.

Abaqus/Explicit, Abaqus/Standard is much more efcient at solving

springback analyses. Since springback analyses are simply static
simulations without external loading or contact, Abaqus/Standard
can obtain a springback solution in just a few increments. Conversely, Abaqus/Explicit must obtain a dynamic solution over a time
period that is long enough for the solution to reach a steady state.
Therefore, the simulation of the springback is performed with the
implicit algorithm.
The springback analysis is performed with Abaqus/Standard
using the *IMPORT option. The results from the forming simulation in Abaqus/Explicit are imported into Abaqus/Standard, and a
static analysis calculates the springback. During this step an articial stress state that equilibrates the imported stress state is applied
automatically by Abaqus/Standard and gradually removed during
the step. The displacement obtained at the end of the step is the
springback.
4.2.2.2. Elements. The sheet is modeled with 3D shell element: S4R.
The rollers are modeled with rigid shell element: R3D4. Since the
roller radius is rather small, the smallest length of the element
is 0.4 mm in order to avoid the rigid body penetration. The total
number of the elements is 40840.
4.2.2.3. Interaction. The penalty method and the Coulomb friction
model are adopted. The friction coefcient is also assumed to be
0.1.

Fig. 10. Roll forming machine and the roll formed part.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model
JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 12. Assembly of the roll forming line in ABAQUS.

Fig. 14. Cross sections in width direction of the experiment and simulation.

Fig. 13. Longitudinal cross sections of the experiment and simulation.

Fig. 15. Widths of the opening at 251 positions.

4.2.3. Comparisons of the experiment and two FEM simulation

results
4.2.3.1. Cross section in longitudinal direction. The longitudinal
cross-section line of the formed part is measured with a dial indicator. The experimental and numerical results (after springback
calculation) calculated with different yield criteria are compared
in Fig. 13. It is shown that the simulation results based on Hill 48
agree well with the experimental results, which indicates that the
proposed inverse method is reliable and necessary.
4.2.3.2. Cross section in width direction. The cross-section line
in width direction of the formed part is also measured. The
experimental and numerical results (after springback calculation)
calculated with different yield criteria are compared in Fig. 14.
Because the springback amount in the width direction is small,

the two simulation results are very close and they are both close
to the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 14. The springback
amounts of the experiment and the simulation are 5.01 and 3.99
(the two simulation results are almost coincident), respectively.
One cause of the small springback amount in the width direction
is that the release of the residual stress is constrained by the longitudinal bending. Another cause is that the bending deformation of
the material in the longitudinal direction is quite non uniform, the
material cannot springback freely.
4.2.3.3. Width comparisons at different positions. The widths of the
opening at 251 positions along the longitudinal direction from one
end to the other end of the part are shown in Fig. 15. The two simulation results are also close and Hill yield criterion works a little

Fig. 16. Plastic strain of roll formed part.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009

G Model
JMP-375; No. of Pages 8

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Yan et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Processes xxx (2015) xxxxxx

better. Because the blank sheet is short instead of long strip like
in the production line and the special feature of roll forming process [26], one end is wider than the other, which can be seen from
Figs. 15 and 16.
5. Conclusions
(1) An inverse strategy of solving the parameters of Hill48 yield criterion based on plane strain tensile test is proposed. Two typical
bending processes, press bending and roll forming, are adopted
to verify the prediction capability of the solved parameters of
Hill 48 yield criterion. By comparing the nal cross section proles of the two experiments and the simulated results, it is
found that Hill 48 yield criterion with the obtained parameters
works better than Mises criterion. This proves the reliability of
this reverse method.
(2) With this method, the number of experiments is greatly
reduced compared with the common parameter solving methods. What is more, this method is specially aiming at the plane
strain condition, which is more close to the actual forming process, instead of using only uniaxial tensile or biaxial tensile
tests.
(3) As to the forming processes which are under other deformation
conditions, this method can also be used. That is to say, with
other simple test like pure shear test to optimize the parameters
and nd the most suitable parameters of the Hill 48 criterion
for certain forming processes, and to improve the simulation
accuracy.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 51205004 and 51475003), Beijing
Natural Science Foundation (Grant no. 3152010), and Beijing Education Committee Science and Technology Program (Grant no.
KM201510009004).
References
[1] Hill R. Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates. Math Proc Camb Philos Soc
1979;85:179.
[2] Hill R. Constitutive modeling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. J Mech
Phys Solids 1990;38(3):40517.

[3] Hill R. A user-friendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. Int J Mech
Sci 1993;35(1):1925.
[4] Barlat F, Lian J. Plastic behavior and stretch ability of sheet metals, Part I: A
yield function for orthotropic sheet under plane stress conditions. Int J Plast
1989;5(1):5166.
[5] Barlat F, Lege DJ, Brem JC. A six-component yield function for anisotropic materials. Int J Plast 1991;7(7):693712.
[6] Barlat F, Becker RC, Hayashida Y, et al. Yielding description for solution
strengthened aluminum alloys. Int J Plast 1997;13:385401.
[7] Barlat F, Maeda Y, Chung K, et al. Yield function development for aluminum
alloy sheets. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45(11/12):172763.
[8] Barlat F, Brem JC, Yoon JW, et al. Plane stress yield function for aluminum alloy
sheetsPart I: Theory. Int J Plast 2003;19:1297319.
[9] Barlat F, Aretz H, Yoon JW, et al. Linear transformation-based anisotropic yield
functions. Int J Plast 2005;21:100939.
[10] Hill R. The mathematical theory of plasticity. London: Oxford University Press;
1950.
[11] Dassault Systmes. ABAQUS 6.11 analysis users manual, volume III. Dassault
Systmes; 2011.
[12] Bagherzadeh S, Mirnia MJ, Dariani BM. Numerical and experimental investigations of hydro-mechanical deep drawing process of laminated aluminum/steel
sheets. J Manuf Processes 2015;18:13140.
[13] Hu W. A novel quadratic yield model to describe the feature of multi-yieldsurface of rolled sheet metals. Int J Plast 2007;23:200428.
[14] Hussaini SM, Krishna G, Gupta AK, Singh SK. Development of experimental and
theoretical forming limit diagrams for warm forming of austenitic stainless
steel 316. J Manuf Processes 2015;18:1518.
[15] Ahmadi S, Eivani AR, Akbarzadeh. Experimental and analytical studies on the
prediction of forming limit diagrams. Comput Mater Sci 2009;44:12527.
[16] Mises R. Mechanics of solids in plastic state. Gttinger Nachrichten Math Phys
Kl 1913;1:582 (in German).
[17] Banabic D, Huntter W. Modeling the material behavior of magnesium alloy
AZ31 using different yield criteria. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2009;44:96976.
[18] Wang H, Wan M, Yan Y, Wu XD. Effect of the solving method of parameters on
the description ability of the yield criterion about the anisotropic behavior. J
Mech Eng 2013;49(24):4553 (In Chinese).
[19] Taejoon P, Kwansoo C. Non-associated ow rule with symmetric stiffness modulus for isotropic-kinematic hardening and its application for earring in circular
cup drawing. Int J Solids Struct 2012;49(25):358293.
[20] Wang H, Yan Y, Wan M, Wu X. Experimental investigation and constitutive
modeling for the hardening behavior of 5754O aluminum alloy sheet under
two-stage loading. Int J Solids Struct 2012;49(26):3693710.
[21] Yan Y, Wang H, Li Q, Qian B. Simulation and experiment verication of exible
roll forming of steel sheets. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2014;72:20920.
[22] Gao H, Zheng G, Li G. Identication of material parameters based on response
surface method. J Mech Eng 2008;44(8):1025 (In Chinese).
[23] Li E, Wang B, Li G. Material parameter inverse technique based on support
vector regression. J Mech Eng 2012;48(6):905 (In Chinese).
[24] Aydin MS, Gerlach J, Kessler L, Tekkaya AE. Yield locus evolution and constitutive parameter identication using plane strain tension and tensile tests. J
Mater Process Technol 2011;211:195764.
[25] Bjrklund O, Nilsson L. Failure characteristics of a dual-phase steel sheet. J
Mater Process Technol 2014;214(6):1190204.
[26] Halmos GT. Roll forming handbook. Canada: CRC Press; 2005.

Please cite this article in press as: Yan Y, et al. The inverse parameter identication of Hill 48 yield criterion and its verication in press
bending and roll forming process simulations. J Manuf Process (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2015.09.009