0
Research Papers

A Simplified Transient Hardening Formulation for Modeling Stress–Strain Response Under Multiaxial Nonproportional Cyclic Loading

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicholas R. Gates

Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing
Engineering Department,
The University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH 43606
e-mail: ngates@eng.utoledo.edu

Ali Fatemi

Ring Companies Endowed Professor
Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Memphis,
Memphis, TN 38152
e-mail: afatemi@memphis.edu

1Present address: Cummins, Inc., Stoughton, WI 53589.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 14, 2016; final manuscript received June 28, 2018; published online August 20, 2018. Editor: Mohammed Zikry.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(1), 011009 (Aug 20, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: MATS-16-1372; doi: 10.1115/1.4040761 History: Received December 14, 2016; Revised June 28, 2018

Accurate estimation of material stress–strain response is essential to many fatigue life analyses. In cases where variable amplitude loading conditions exist, the ability to account for transient material deformation behavior can be particularly important due to the potential for periodic overloads and/or changes in the degree of nonproportional stressing. However, cyclic plasticity models capable of accounting for these complex effects often require the determination of a large number of material constants. Therefore, an Armstrong–Frederick–Chaboche style plasticity model, which was simplified in a previous study, was extended in the current study to account for the effects of both general cyclic and nonproportional hardening using a minimal number of material constants. The model was then evaluated for its ability to predict stress–strain response under complex multiaxial loading conditions by using experimental data generated for 2024-T3 aluminum alloy, including a number of cyclic incremental step tests. The model was found to predict transient material response within a fairly high overall level of accuracy for each loading history investigated.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Chaboche, J. L. , 2008, “A Review of Some Plasticity and Viscoplasticity Constitutive Theories,” Int. J. Plast., 24(10), pp. 1642–1693. [CrossRef]
Gates, N. R. , and Fatemi, A. , 2016, “A Simplified Cyclic Plasticity Model for Calculating Stress-Strain Response Under Multiaxial Non-Proportional Loadings,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 59, pp. 344–355. [CrossRef]
Döring, R. , Hoffmeyer, J. , Seeger, T. , and Vormwald, M. , 2003, “A Plasticity Model for Calculating Stress-Strain Sequences Under Multiaxial Nonproportional Cyclic Loading,” Comput. Mater. Sci., 28(3–4), pp. 587–596. [CrossRef]
Zhang, J. , and Jiang, Y. , 2008, “Constitutive Modeling of Cyclic Plasticity Deformation of a Pure Polycrystalline Copper,” Int. J. Plast., 24(10), pp. 1890–1915. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Y. , and Kurath, P. , 1997, “An Investigation of Cyclic Transient Behavior and Implications on Fatigue Life Estimates,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 119(2), pp. 161–170. [CrossRef]
Ohno, N. , and Wang, J.-D. , 1994, “Kinematic Hardening Rules for Simulation of Ratchetting Behavior,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 13(4), pp. 519–531.
Jiang, Y. , and Sehitoglu, H. , 1996, “Modeling of Cyclic Rachetting Plasticity—Part I: Development of Constitutive Relations,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 63(3), pp. 720–725. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Y. , and Kurath, P. , 1996, “Characteristics of the Armstrong-Frederick Type Plasticity Models,” Int. J. Plast., 12(3), pp. 387–415. [CrossRef]
Shamsaei, N. , Fatemi, A. , and Socie, D. F. , 2010, “Multiaxial Cyclic Deformation and Non-Proportional Hardening Employing Discriminating Load Paths,” Int. J. Plast., 26(12), pp. 1680–1701. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Y. , and Kurath, P. , 1997, “Nonproportional Cyclic Deformation: Critical Experiments and Analytical Modeling,” Int. J. Plast., 13(8–9), pp. 743–763. [CrossRef]
Jiang, Y. , and Sehitoglu, H. , 1996, “Modeling of Cyclic Rachetting Plasticity—Part II: Comparisons of Model Simulations With Experiments,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 63(3), pp. 726–733. [CrossRef]
Tanaka, E. , 1994, “A Nonproportionality Parameter and a Cyclic Viscoplastic Constitutive Model Taking Into Account Amplitude Dependences and Memory Effects of Isotropic Hardening,” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids, 13(2), pp. 155–173.
Chaboche, J. L. , Dang Van, K. , and Cordier, G. , 1979, “Modelization of the Strain Memory Effect on the Cyclic Hardening of 316 Stainless Steel,” Fifth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Berlin, Aug. 13–17, pp. 1–10.
Chaboche, J. L. , 1987, “Cyclic Plasticity Modeling and Rachetting Effects,” Second International Conference on Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials: Theory and Applications, Tuscon, AZ, Jan. 5–8, pp. 47–58.
Shamsaei, N. , and Fatemi, A. , 2010, “Effect of Microstructure and Hardness on Nonproportional Cyclic Hardening Coefficient and Predictions,” J. Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 527(12), pp. 3015–3024. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Experimental monotonic and cyclic stress–strain data and corresponding fits for the 2024-T3 aluminum alloy testing material [2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Constant amplitude block loading history in terms of (a) applied strain paths and sequence and (b) strain-time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Variable amplitude simulated service loading history in terms of (a) applied strain path and (b) strain-time history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Applied stress histories along with a comparison of experimental and predicted strain amplitude variation versus number of applied loading cycles for (a) uniaxial, (b) pure torsion, and (c) in-phase axial-torsion incremental step tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of experimental and predicted (a) axial stress amplitude and (b) shear stress amplitude versus number of applied loading blocks for the constant amplitude deformation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Percentage error between experimental and predicted (a) axial stress amplitude and (b) shear stress amplitude versus number of applied loading blocks for the constant amplitude deformation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of experimental and predicted (a) axial stress amplitude and (b) shear stress amplitude versus number of applied loading blocks for the variable amplitude simulated service loading deformation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Percentage error between experimental and predicted (a) axial stress amplitude and (b) shear stress amplitude versus number of applied loading blocks for the variable amplitude simulated service loading deformation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of experimental and predicted (a) axial mean stress and (b) mean shear stress versus number of applied loading blocks for the variable amplitude simulated service loading deformation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Percentage error between experimental and predicted (a) axial mean stress and (b) mean shear stress versus number of applied loading blocks for the variable amplitude simulated service loading deformation test. Error for mean stress predictions was calculated as (Pred. Mean–Exp. Mean) × 100/(Exp. Amp.)

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In