You are on page 1of 11

Lecture 17: Plastic Stress-Strain

Relations Specific Relations


Jayadeep U. B.
Dept. of Mechanical Engg., NIT Calicut.
Introduction
In this lecture, we consider various specific forms of stress-strain
relationships for elasto-plastic deformations not for specific
materials!
These relations should satisfy various general considerations
discussed in the last lecture.
Depending on the work hardening behavior, there are two
categories of material models:
Non-hardening (ideally plastic) materials
Hardening materials
Softening behavior is not shown by metallic materials.
Material models also differ on whether they consider the elastic
strains or not.
We consider materials obeying associated flow rule only.
2 ME6302 Metal Forming
Levy-Mises Relations
These are applicable to rigid perfectly plastic materials.
The relations were first suggested by Levy (1871), and
independently by von Mises (1913) later on.
d x d y d z d xy d yz d zx
= = = = = d ij = ij d
x y z xy yz zx
Since, the equations are simplified by ignoring elastic strains and
hardening, they give acceptable results only in problems with
large plastic strains, as commonly seen in many of the metal
forming problems.
It is clear that these equations cannot predict elastic recovery or
spring back, and hence should not be used if it is important.
3 ME6302 Metal Forming
Prandtle-Reuss Relations
Prandtle-Reuss relations are an improvement over the Levy-Mises
equations, by including the elastic strains.
Hence, they are more complicated, though still suitable for only
ideally (perfectly) plastic materials.
Originally proposed by Prandtle (1924) for plane strain, and
generalized by Reuss (1930) for 3D cases.
The additional effort required for using these equations is justified
in problems where predicting the elastic recovery is important.
d ij = d ijp + d ije = ij d + d ij 2

d ii =
(1 2 )
d ii
E
4 ME6302 Metal Forming
Effect of Plastic Strains on Yield Locus
Uniaxial tensile tests indicate that the yield point gets modified by
the plastic deformation the material has undergone
- The tensile yield stress corresponding to material at state P is y1.
0
y1
y

P e
Bauschinger effect says that for a uniaxial test, plastic strain
undergone in tension, reduces yield strength in compression and
5 vice versa.
Isotropic Hardening Hypothesis
2 Modified von Mises
R = y Yield Locus

von Mises Yield Locus


for initial yielding

3 1
Modification in von Mises Yield
R1 = y1 Locus due to Plastic Deformation
Effect of plastic deformation is a uniform expansion in all
directions Isotropic Hardening means that yield strength in all
directions in stress space is same (but higher than the initial value).
6 Bauschinger effect is ignored.
An Anisotropic Hardening Hypothesis
Kinematic Hardening
2 y1 Modified von Mises Yield
R = y y Locus due to tensile plastic
strain 2 direction.

Von Mises Yield Locus


for initial yielding

3 1
Modification in von Mises Yield
R1 = y Locus due to Plastic Deformation
In Kinematic Hardening hypothesis proposed by Prager (1955),
effect of plastic deformation is to shift the yield locus in the
direction of plastic strain, without changing the size or shape of it.
7 Bauschinger effect is considered.
Hardening Hypotheses
Though it does not consider Bauschinger effect, isotropic hardening
hypothesis is very commonly used, since it leads to much simpler
equations, and the results are exact if the loading is proportional.
There are other more complicated hardening rules, like Chaboche model
(1989) combining both isotropic and kinematic hardening models.
To use any hardening rule for a general state of stress/strain, it is
required to define a parameter using which, the hardening effect can be
quantified (use in computations).
In Strain Hardening Hypothesis, the parameter, on which amount of
hardening depends, is assumed to be the accumulated plastic strain.
In Work Hardening Hypothesis, the parameter, on which amount of
hardening depends, is assumed to be the plastic part of the work per unit
volume done during deformation.
Both the strain and work hardening hypotheses leads to close results.
8
Specifically, if von Mises criterion is assumed, both leads to same results.
Equivalent Plastic Strain
Considering the equivalence of work hardening and strain hardening
hypotheses (assuming von Mises yield criterion), we can express the
isotropic hardening using equivalent stress and equivalent strain:

= eq = F ( d
p
) (
=F 2
3
d ijp d ijp )
Integration is to be performed over the strain path.
The integrand in the above equation is called equivalent plastic strain, and
formulated based on second invariant of deviatoric strain tensor and
equal to axial strain in case of uniaxial loading (H.W.: verify it for
yourself; please remember to use incompressibility of plastic strains).
The function F above should be obtained from the true stress (axial)
plastic strain relation determined using uniaxial tests.
Since yield surface gets modified on continued plastic deformation,
points outside the yield surface cannot occur.
9 ME6302 Metal Forming
Kinematic Hardening Formulation
Use of kinematic hardening hypothesis requires keeping track of
the plastic strain direction; hence the equivalent plastic strain
cannot be used.
Initial yield surface: f ( ij ) = k 2

Current yield surface: f ( ij ij ) = k 2


Material becomes anisotropic as ij is not isotropic.
It depends on material behavior with plastic strains. For example,
assuming linear hardening, d ij = c d ijp
In this case it can be easily integrated to give: ij = c ij
p

And the von Mises criterion gets modified as:


( ij c p
ij )( ij c p
ij ) = 2 k 2

10 ME6302 Metal Forming


References
Chakrabarty, J., Theory of plasticity, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hill, R., The mathematical theory of plasticity, Oxford University
Press.
Johnson,W. and Mellor, P.B., Plasticity for Mechanical Engineers,
van Nostrand Company Ltd.

11 ME6302 Metal Forming