See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251716490

An application of Chaboche model to predict

uniaxial and multiaxial ratcheting

Article in Procedia Engineering December 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.04.319

CITATIONS READS

5 293

3 authors:

Amir H. Mahmoudi Hojjat Badnava

Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Tec
52 PUBLICATIONS 371 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 128 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mahmoud Pezeshki
Leibniz Universitt Hannover
11 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Phase-field modeling of brittle and ductile fracture View project

Sharp Indentation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hojjat Badnava on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computational Materials Science

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

Parameter determination of Chaboche kinematic hardening model using

a multi objective Genetic Algorithm
A.H. Mahmoudi , S.M. Pezeshki-Najafabadi, H. Badnava
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Chaboche model is a powerful tool to evaluate the cyclic behavior under different loading conditions
Received 19 October 2010 using kinematic hardening theory. It can also predict the ratcheting phenomenon. To predict the ratchet-
Received in revised form 3 November 2010 ing, it is required to determine the material parameters under strain control conditions. Although, these
Accepted 9 November 2010
parameters can model the hysteresis loop fairly accurately, their ratcheting prediction does not have the
Available online 8 December 2010
same quality. A set of material parameters that could accurately predict both ratcheting and hysteresis
loop is of great importance. The available models, generally for low cycle fatigue, are mostly complex
Keywords:
and nonlinear. Therefore, an optimization procedure can be used for parameter determination and con-
Chaboche model
Kinematic hardening
sequently improving the prediction of these models.
Ratcheting Genetic Algorithm is a numerical approach for optimization of nonlinear problems. Using a multi objec-
Hysteresis loop tive Genetic Algorithm for Chaboche model, a set of parameters was obtained which improved both rat-
Genetic Algorithm cheting prediction and hysteresis loop model. Two tness functions were used for this approach. The
Uniaxial and biaxial loading proposed model was veried using Hassan and Coronas experimental data conducted on CS 1026 low
carbon steel. The model indicated a very good agreement in the case of uniaxial loading with the exper-
imental data. The results of proposed model for biaxial loading histories are similar to the model by
Hassan and his co-workers.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction According to their researches, Chaboches model has been an

Design of the structural components subjected to cyclic load-
ings requires their life evaluation. It is, therefore, essential to gain
knowledge of the material behavior in cyclic loading. Such knowl-
edge can be obtained through means of experimental testing and
reliable material models. One of the phenomena in cyclic plasticity
that plays an important role in models of materials, when they are
subjected to cyclic loading, is ratcheting. Ratcheting is dened as a
strain accumulation under stress controlled cyclic loading with
non-zero mean stress. Ratcheting depends on loading conditions
and loading history. The isotropic and kinematic hardening models
are two general hardening theories that may be used for plastic
analysis of structures. Ratcheting description in terms of the
conventional equations is mainly related to kinematic hardening.
Various models have been proposed for simulating cyclic and
time-independent behavior of materials such as Prager, Mroz,
Armstrong and Frederick, Chaboche, Ohno and Wang plasticity
models. Lately, researchers such as Bari, Ohno and Wang have
compared different models of plasticity with experimental data.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 811 8257410; fax: +98 811 8257400.
E-mail address: a.h.mahmoudi@gmail.com (A.H. Mahmoudi).
appropriate model to simulate the ratcheting [14].
Armstrong and Frederick proposed a model with a nonlinear
kinematic hardening term [5]. They added a recovery term to the
linear kinematic hardening rule of Prager [6] which is one of the
simplest models available. This term incorporated the fading mem-
ory effect of the strain path. The model over-predicted the ratchet-
ing strain [1], and had a few number of material constants in order
to increase the accuracy of ratcheting prediction [7]. Having con-
sidered the nonlinear kinematic hardening rule [5], Chaboche
and his co-workers proposed a new model [8,9]. Chaboche decom-
posed a stabilized hysteresis loop to three parts, the initial high
modulus at beginning of yielding (a1), the transient nonlinear part
(a2) and the constant modulus part at a higher strain extent (a3)
[1]. They employed initial modulus for rapid stabilizing. The sec-
ond and third terms were used to model the curved part of hyster-
esis loop and the nal linear part (c3 = 0), respectively. They
suggested that by keeping other parameters the same and allocat-
ing a small value to c3 (c3 = 9), the prediction of ratcheting can be
improved [1]. Chaboche added an extra decomposed hardening
term to create a model with a threshold [10]. Although the model
was still over predicting the ratcheting behavior, it demonstrated
slightly better results than those obtained with Chaboche model
with three decomposed terms.

0927-0256/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2010.11.010
 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122 1115

Hassan and his co-workers simulated the plastic behavior of 2. Kinematic hardening rule of Chaboche
CS1026 and CS1020 carbon steels at cyclic loading. The inuences
of mean stress and stress amplitude on ratcheting were evaluated Chaboche kinematic hardening model was considered with Von
using stress controlled tests. They considered time-independent Mises yield criteria. The Von Mises yield criteria can be expressed
ratcheting under uniaxial loading [11] and biaxial loading [12]. as:
Hassan et al. also investigated the effect of cyclic hardening and p
softening on ratcheting. They conducted strain controlled and rat- f r  a; k s  a  s  a  k 0 1
cheting experiments under uniaxial [13] and multiaxial [14] cyclic where s is deviatoric stress tensor, a is deviatoric backstress tensor
loadings on CS1018 and SS304 steels. and k is the size of yield surface which is constant in the kinematic
Bari and Hassan studied several kinematic hardening models for hardening models. The plastic strain increments in the direction of
ratcheting prediction on steels [1]. They compared available mod- the gradient of the yield surface were:
els and showed that the Prager [6] and Armstrong models cannot
predict ratcheting whereas Chaboche and Ohno and Wang [15] @f
dep dk 2
models have reasonable answers for the case of uniaxial loading. @r
They demonstrated that most of the models were not able to pre- where dep is plastic strain rate, dk is the plastic multiplier and f is
dict the ratcheting behavior when multiaxial and biaxial loading is the yield function. Armstrong and Frederick [5] added a nonlinear
occurred. term to the linear hardening rule of Prager. As mentioned earlier,
Rezaiee-Pajand and Sinaie proposed a mathematical approach Prager [6] introduced the simplest kinematic hardening model.
to determine the parameters of the decomposed Chaboches model Pragers model is expressed in the following equation:
[7]. This method evaluated parameters from uniaxial ratcheting
2
data. They called this model, N3L1 because of three nonlinear da Cdep 3
and one linear component. This model provided better prediction 3
of ratcheting in comparison with the model by Hassan and Bari, The additional term to the Prager model was proportional to the
C-H4T model (Chaboche model-fourth rule with a threshold [1]). norm of plastic strain rate. The model of Armstrong is indicated in
However, the accuracy of hysteresis loop was lowered. the following equation:
Chen et al. conducted a series of tests on a stainless steel under
2
uniaxial cyclic loading with mean tensile stress. They examined the da Cdep  cadp 4
3
effects of stress amplitude, mean stress, loading history and stress
rate on the ratcheting behavior. They showed that increasing stress This model has a few constants and cannot predict the ratchet-
amplitude or mean stress caused the ratcheting strain amplitude ing accurately. Chaboche et al. [8] and Chaboche [9] then proposed
increased correspondingly [16]. a new kinematic hardening rule with more constants in order to
Kumar Paul et al. employed ArmstrongFrederick type kine- improve the results of Armstrongs model. The model was:
matic hardening and nite element based plasticity models to de- 2
scribe cyclic plastic deformation behavior of the SA333 CMn steel dai C i dep  ci ai dp 5
3
[17]. They then validated their model using experimental results.
Kumar Paul also conducted true stress controlled uniaxial asym- where Ci and ci are material parameters and dp is the accumulated
metric cycling on SA333 steel at various combinations of mean plastic strain rate which was dened as:
stress and stress amplitude [18]. They expressed that plastic strain  1
2 p 2 p 2
amplitude and hysteresis loop area decreased with increasing dp de : de 6
3 3
mean stress. Franulovic et al. investigated material behavior under
cyclic loading and occurrence and accumulation of damage [19]. Solving the Chaboche model is outlined in [7] and described
They also considered relation between damage and isotropic and briey in the next section.
kinematic hardening as well as softening.
The aim of this study is improving ratcheting prediction for 2.1. Mathematical approach
the case of uniaxial loading as well as accurate simulating of hys-
teresis loop. An optimization approach is proposed in order to Solving the Chaboches model resulted in the following rela-
predict both ratcheting and hysteresis loop. The approach deliv- tions [7]:
ered better results than those available in the literature for the  
2 Ci 2 Ci   
case of uniaxial loading. A mathematical code based on Rezaiee- aix aix0  exp ci epx  epx0 ; depx P 0
3 ci 3 ci
Pajand and Sinaie [7] equations was developed. The hysteresis   7
2C 2C   
loop data and Genetic Algorithm (GA) used to determine the aix  i aix0 i exp ci epx  epx0 ; depx < 0
decomposed parameters of kinematic hardening model of Chab- 3 ci 3 ci
oche. Ratcheting was then predicted using these parameters. This can also be expressed as [7]:
However, the prediction results were more or less the same as !
previously reported. To improve the ratcheting prediction, a multi p
aixn  2C
1 3ci
i

objective Genetic Algorithm with two tness functions was con- De  ln

x ; depx P 0
ci aixp  2C
3ci
i

sidered. The rst tness function was employed to nd parame- ! 8

ters and reached the best description of hysteresis loop, p
aixn 2C
1 3ci
i

De ln
x ; depx < 0
whereas the second one evaluated the ratcheting prediction using ci 2C
aixp 3cii
each set of these parameters. Subsequently, two tness functions
were optimized simultaneously. Therefore, the optimized param- where aip and ain are the maximum and minimum values of back-
eters could predict both ratcheting and hysteresis loop. Finally, stress components during tensile and compressive loading respec-
the proposed model was veried using Hassan and Kyriadides tively. By dividing a loading cycle to positive and negative phases
[11], Hassan et al. [12] and Corona et al. [20] experimental data with both at plastic region and include the plastic strain, depx > 0
conducted on CS 1026 steel which included both uniaxial and for positive phase and depx < 0 for negative phase, the following
biaxial experimental data. relations can be reached:
1116 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122

Table 1 3. Parameters determination and ratcheting prediction using

Mean stress and stress amplitudes used by Hassan and Kyriakides [11] for CS1026.
Genetic Algorithm
Test no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
rm (MPa) 28.8 45 63 44.8 44.8 44.8 44.8 3.1. Mathematical approach and single objective Genetic Algorithm
ra (MPa) 220.6 220.6 220.6 195.1 209.3 221.5 229.5
As mentioned earlier, Rezaiee-Pajand and Sinaie developed a
mathematical code to determine the parameters of the Chaboche
X 2 model. They used N3L1 model with three nonlinear components
axp aixp rx  r0 ; depx P 0 (N3) and one linear attachment (L1) [7]. At present work a model
3 9
X 2 with three nonlinear components (N3) with no linear component
axn aixn rx r0 ; depx < 0 (L0) were employed. The terms were named C13 and c13. Thus
3
six parameters must be determined. The input was the hysteresis
Combining Eqs. (7) and (9) will lead to: loop from experimental results and the output was the parame-
X 2 C i  2 Ci

 

ters of Chaboche kinematic hardening model. The output param-

axp aixn  exp ci Depx ; depx P 0 eters were used as the initial bound for Genetic Algorithm (GA)
3 ci 3 ci
X 2 Ci  2 Ci

 

10 optimization procedure. Using Eqs. (7) and (10) and GA optimiza-
axn  aixp exp ci Depx ; depx < 0 tion, the material constants were calculated. The tness function,
3 ci 3 ci
Eq. (11), was dened to minimize the difference between pre-
These equations can be used for determination of ain, aip and Depx . dicted values by GA and the experimental data of the hysteresis
The decomposed components, ci and Ci, were then obtained. For loop.
the case of i = 4, a nonlinear system of equation must be used [7].
" #2
1X K
rexp
i  rmodel
i
The nonlinear system requires an optimization procedure and is de- Rss1 Min 11
ned next.
K i1 rexp
i

Table 2
Material parameters of CS1026 for cyclic plasticity obtained by single and multi objective models.

Method C1 (MPa) C2 (MPa) C3 (MPa) c1 c2 c3

N3L0 S.O.GA model 65,103 39,384 1746.85 8851.4 565.35 1
N3L0 M.O.GA model 65,103 39,584 1675 7511.4 405.3 4

400 400

300
(a) (b)
300

200 200

100 100
x (MPa)

x (MPa)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 Exp. -300 Exp.

C-H4T Model N3-L1 Model
-400 -400
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x (%) x (%)

400 400

300
(c) 300
(d)
200 200

100 100
x (MPa)

x (MPa)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 Exp. -300 Exp.

N3-L0 S.O. GA Model N3-L0 M.O. GA Model
-400 -400
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x (%) x (%)

Fig. 1. Simulation of a strain controlled hysteresis loop by (a) C-H4T model [1], (b) N3L1 [7], (c) N3L0 S.O.GA model and (d) N3L0 M.O.GA model (Experimental data from [11]).
 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122 1117

where K is the number of data points, rexp i is the stress from the
experiments and rmodel
i is the predicted stress using the proposed
model.
In order to evaluate the proposed model, experimental data
from Hassan and Kyriadides [11] were used. In the experimental
data reported in [11], the rst three tests had the same stress
amplitude while the magnitude of the mean stress was altered.
In contrast, the last four tests had the same mean stress values
and the stress amplitude was changed (see Table 1). Only uniaxial
loading histories were considered for the calibration procedure.
The parameters were then obtained using this model with sin-
gle objective GA optimization and are shown in Table 2. In the ta-
ble, the phrase N3L0 S.O.GA refers to the characteristics of the
model which are three nonlinear components (N3), no linear com-
ponents (L0) and single objective Genetic Algorithm (S.O.GA.).
The hysteresis loop for CS1026 carbon steel was predicted using
three models of C-H4T [1], N3L1 [7] and N3L0 S.O.GA and is
shown in Fig. 1ac respectively. The N3L0 S.O.GA model
simulated the hysteresis loop with accuracy similar to other
models. Later the hysteresis loop was modeled using the Chaboche
kinematic hardening rule and multi objective GA. This will be
described in Section 3.2. However, the results of the new model
were illustrated here in Fig. 1d for comparison purposes of the
outcome of the new model with others.
The prediction of the ratcheting was also carried out using all
models mentioned above and is shown in Fig. 2. To avoid confu-
sion, each model is illustrated in two separate gures; one contain-
ing three sets and the other containing four sets of the
experimental data labeled experiments 17 (see Table 1). The re-
sults from C-H4T model [1], N3L1 model [7] and N3L0 S.O.GA

0.04 0.04
(a) Exp 3 (b) Exp 7

0.03 0.03
Exp 2 Exp 6

Exp 5
p

p
0.02 x 0.02
x

Exp 1

0.01 0.01 Exp 4

C-H4T Model C-H4T Model

Exp Exp
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N
0.04 0.04
(c) Exp 3
(d)
Exp 7

0.03 0.03
Exp 2 Exp 6

Exp 5
p

0.02 0.02
x

Exp 1

0.01 0.01 Exp 4

N3-L1 Model N3-L1 Model

Exp Exp
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

0.04 0.04
(e) Exp 3
(f)
N3-L0 S.O. GA Model Exp 7
Exp
0.03 0.03
Exp 6
Exp 2

Exp 5
p
p

0.02 0.02
x
x

Exp 1

Exp 4
0.01 0.01
N3-L0 S.O GA Model
Exp

0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

Fig. 2. Ratcheting prediction for different models in comparison with experimental data (a and b) CH4-T [1], (c and d) N3L1 model [7], (e and f) N3L0 S.O.GA model (All
experimental data from [11]).
1118 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122
are shown in Fig. 2af) respectively. It is clear that the N3L1
model predicted ratcheting more reliably than others. The S.O.GA
model over-predicted the ratcheting for rst three experiments
while its results for the ratcheting strain were under the desired
value for other experiments. The C-H4T model also over-predicted
the ratcheting strain for most of the experiments.
3.2. Correction of parameters using a multi objective Genetic
Algorithm
In the previous section, a tness function was dened which
calculated and minimized the difference between the predicted
and the experimental results for the prediction of ratcheting. A sec-
ond tness function was introduced and employed to minimize the
difference between the predicted and the experimental maximum
plastic strains at each cycle (Eq. (12)). Ideally, these two tness
functions could provide a closer set of hysteresis loops to the
experimental data and a better prediction of ratcheting. As GA is
a stochastic optimization method that requires suitable bounds
for the parameters, determination of the bounds was carried out
using a nonlinear system of equations as suggested in [7]. A second
method can be the try and error method. C1 and C3 (see Eq. (5))
may be estimated from the hysteresis curve slope where plastic
strain starts (minimum strain value in Fig. 1) and at or prior to
the nal plastic strain. Bari and Hassan studied the effect of c3 on
the prediction of ratcheting and discovered that a non-zero small
value of c3 improved the ratcheting prediction. However, it showed
no signicant effect on modeling of the hysteresis loop [1]. Small
values of c3 also showed little effects on a1 and a2, although it
caused extension of their bounds [1].
Therefore in present work, small bounds of c3 were assumed.
The optimization procedure to obtain accurate parameters is plot-
ted in a owchart and shown in Fig. 3. It was required to determine
six parameters for Chaboche kinematic hardening rule. This was
carried out using the inverse method and tting the model to the
experimental data. In order to minimize Euclidean distance be-
tween the experimental and prediction results, the tness function
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the optimization procedure.
in Eq. (11) was employed. Also to improve the prediction of
ratcheting, the second tness function was brought into account.
This is expressed in the following equation:
" #2
1 XN
eexp  emodel
i i
Rss2 Min 12
N i1 eexp
i
where N is the number of cycles, eexp i is the maximum plastic strain
at ith cycle and emodel
i is the related strain that the model predicted.
Six parameters were calculated and shown in Table 2. The hystere-
sis loop that the model simulated was shown earlier in Fig. 1d. The
result of N3L0 M.O GA model for the hysteresis loop was accurate
and reliable similar to N3L0 S.O GA and C-H4T models.
The predictions provided by these models are compared in
Fig. 4af. The results for C-H4T and N3L1 models are shown
in Fig. 4ad respectively. The results of the proposed model,
N3L0 M.O.GA, are also shown in Fig. 4e and f. As mentioned
earlier, C-H4T model over-predicted the ratcheting strain in most
of the conducted experiments (see Table 1 for detail of experi-
ments and Fig. 4a and b). The N3L0 M.O.GA model predicted
ratcheting strain for experiments number 1, 3, 5 and 7 better
than N3L1 model. These two models had similar results for
modeling experiments number 2, 4 and 6. Generally, the ob-
tained parameters for N3L0 M.O GA model provided a better
prediction for ratcheting.
Another test was conducted by Hassan and Kyriadides on
CS1026 steel for a negative mean stress. The proposed model
was also examined against these experimental results. Further-
more, the result of suggested model by [11] was compared with
these experimental data. The results are shown in Fig. 5. The gure
shows the maximum strain at each cycle against the number of cy-
cles. It can be seen that the proposed model indicated better results
in comparison with Hassans model [11].
Tests with load controlled condition, constant mean stress of
rm = 20.9 MPa and variable stress amplitude have been conducted
by Hassan and Kyriadides [11]. The variation of stress amplitude is
shown in Table 3. The stress amplitude was altered every ten
 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122 1119

0.04 0.04
(a) Exp 3
(b)
Exp 7

0.03 0.03
Exp 2 Exp 6

Exp 5

p
p

0.02 0.02

x
x

Exp 1

0.01 0.01 Exp 4

C-H4T Model C-H4T Model

Exp Exp
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

0.04 0.04
(c) Exp 3
(d)
Exp 7

0.03 0.03
Exp 2 Exp 6

Exp 5
p

p
0.02 0.02
x

x
Exp 1

0.01 0.01 Exp 4

N3-L1 Model N3-L1 Model

Exp Exp
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

0.04 0.04
(e) Exp 3
(f)
Exp 7
N3-L0 M.O. GA Model
0.03 0.03 Exp
Exp 2 Exp 6

Exp 5
p
p

0.02 0.02
x
x

Exp 1

0.01 0.01 Exp 4

N3-L0 M.O. GA Model

Exp

0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

Fig. 4. Ratcheting prediction using different models (a and b) CH4-T model [1], (c and d) N3L1 model [7] and (e and f) N3L0 M.O.GA model, Experimental data from [11].

cycles as indicated in the table. The experimental results of the
ratcheting and the prediction by N3L0 M.O.GA model are shown
in Fig. 6a and b respectively. The values of maximum strain versus
number of cycles are shown in Fig. 7. This gure also contains the
cycles which were modeled using the N3L0 M.O.GA. It can be ob-
served that the new model provided a better agreement with the
experimental data.
4. Evaluating of proposed model using experimental results of
biaxial ratcheting
The results of proposed approach for ratcheting prediction of
uniaxial cyclic loading were in a better agreement with the exper-
imental data. It was important to know that whether this calibra-
tion procedure could also be used for a suitable ratcheting
prediction for the case of multiaxial loading.
4.1. Biaxial loading experiments
A set of biaxial loading experiments performed by Hassan et al.
[12] on CS 1026 was used for this purpose. They subjected a thin-
walled tube to axial strain symmetric cyclic loading in the presence
of constant internal pressure. The axial and circumferential stres-
ses resulted in growth of the tubes diameter and circumferential
strain ratcheting. Hassan et al. used test specimens with the same
material (CS 1026), geometry and heat treatment as those were
used in the uniaxial experiments [11,12]. This loading history is
shown in Fig. 8a. At the rst three tests amplitude of strain cycles,
eXC, was varied and the internal pressure and so the dimensionless
circumferential stress, r  h rh =r00 , remained constant (r
 h 0:24).
At the other tests r  h was varied keeping the same axial strain
amplitude, eXC = 0.5%. Fig. 9a and b shows results of these tests.
The maximum value of circumferential strain, eph , was recorded in
every cycle and was plotted against the number of the cycle, N.
1120 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122

0.000 0.025
Hassan et al. Model Exp.
N3-L0 M.O. GA Model Hassn et al. model
-0.005 Exp . 0.020 N3-L0 M.O.GA model

-0.010 0.015

p
p

x
x

-0.015 0.010

-0.020 0.005

-0.025 0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
N N

Fig. 5. Comparison between model by [11] and N3L0 M.O.GA model for ratcheting Fig. 7. Ratcheting experiments with variable stress amplitude for CS1026 steel.
prediction of experiments with negative mean stress, experimental data from [11]. Comparison between Hassan and Kyriadides [11] and proposed N3L0 M.O.GA
models, Experimental data from [11].

Table 3
Variation of stress amplitude.

Number of cycles 010 1020 2030 3040

ra (MPa) 80.6 89.42 97.97 107.21
ra (ksi) 11.69 12.97 14.21 15.55

300
(a)
200
Fig. 8. Biaxial loading histories (a) axial strain cycling at presence of constant
100 internal pressure and (b) bow-tie loading history [1].
(MPa)

0 The second set of biaxial loading experiments was also con-

ducted on CS 1026 by Corona et al. [20]. The bow-tie loading histo-
-100 ries also resulted in circumferential ratcheting as illustrated in
Fig. 8b. Here the amplitude of strain cycles and the dimensionless
-200 circumferential stress were eXC = 0.5%, r
 ha 0:06. For r
 hm two val-
Exp. ues were considered equal to r hm 0:24; 0:36. The results of these
-300 experiments are shown in Fig. 10.
-0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
4.2. Simulating biaxial loading experiments using the proposed model

300 Two sets of biaxial loading experiments mentioned earlier were

(b) used to validate the proposed model. Calibration of parameters
200 was similar to what performed in Section 3.2. Only uniaxial cyclic
strain and uniaxial load control responses of material were used for
100 calibration procedure. Then biaxial cyclic loading experiments
were simulated using the obtained parameters. The results of the
(MPa)

0
proposed model are available in Figs. 9 and 10. Also the predictions
of C-H4T model [1] were compared in these gures. Both models
over-predicted the experimental data. It can be seen that for the
-100
case of biaxial loading the proposed model showed a small over-
prediction in comparison with C-H4T model. For the rst set of
-200 biaxial data the trends of the curves were similar to C-H4T model.
N3-L0 M.O.GA Model However, for the second set some differences between two curves
-300 revealed. For the case of eXC = 0.5%, r
 ha 0:06 and r hm 0:24 the
-0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 proposed model deviated from C-H4T model in the initial part of
response, although they converged toward the end. In the second
Fig. 6. Ratcheting experiments with variable stress amplitude in steps for CS1026
experiment of bow-tie history with r  hm 0:36 the rate of ratchet-
steel, (a) test result by [11] and (b) modeling the test using obtained parameters ing for the proposed model did not reach to C-H4T model up to
from N3L0 M.O GA model. 14 cycles.
 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122 1121

0.05 parameters obtained using this method cannot predict the ratchet-
(a) Biaxial Experiments
N3-L0 M.O. GA Model
ing accurately. A new approach was proposed which considered

0.04
= 0.24 C-H4T Model the maximum strain of each cycle for ratcheting prediction and
the hysteresis loop. A multi objective optimization procedure with
(1) XC = 0.004 (2)
two tness functions was employed that considered the hysteresis
(2) XC = 0.005
(3)
0.03 loop and the load controlled experimental results simultaneously.
(1)
One hysteresis loop and a load controlled test data was enough
p (3) XC = 0.0065
to nd the model parameters using the proposed procedure. The
0.02 results of strain controlled tests, one with the negative mean stress
(2)
(3) and one with the variable stress amplitude was used to validate the
proposed model. The ratcheting prediction using the new model
0.01 (1)
was revealed to have a better agreement with the experimental
data.
0.00 Other researchers have suggested adding extra parameters to
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 the kinematic hardening rule of Chaboche for improving ratcheting
N prediction. The proposed optimization approach at this research
resulted in a reliable ratcheting prediction with no requirement
0.05 for extra parameters.
(b) Biaxial Experiments
Appropriate denition of bounds for each parameter appeared
XC = 0.005 N3-L0 M.O. GA Model

0.04
C-H4T Model to have an important role to obtain suitable results using the GA.
(1) = 0.122 Prediction of a complicated nonlinear problem such as ratcheting
(3)
(2) = 0.178 (2)
required suitable bound limits for convergence toward accurate re-
(4)
0.03 (3) = 0.245 sults. The reported methods by other researchers assisted to nd
p the appropriate bounds to avoid a try and error approach as it
(4) = 0.357 (1) can be very time consuming.
0.02
The parameters were calibrated using the uniaxial strain and
(3)
(4) load control data without using the multiaxial data. Ratcheting
(2)
0.01 prediction of the proposed model for the case of uniaxial loading
(1)
was incrementally better in comparison with the mentioned mod-
els. Having the multiaxial responses considered, the proposed
0.00 model indicated a small amount of overprediction in comparison
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
with the C-H4T model. For improving prediction of multiaxial load-
N
ing considering a third tness function for multiaxial loading data
Fig. 9. Biaxial ratcheting experiments, circumferential strain peaks of (a) different appeared to be useful. Therefore, calibration procedure may be re-
axial strain amplitude with the same internal pressure and (b) different constant peated using three tness functions.
internal pressures with the same axial strain amplitude, experimental data from
[20].

6. Concluding remarks
0.05
XC = 0.005  Accurate hysteresis loop modeling may not result in a suitable
ratcheting prediction.
0.04 a = 0.06  In addition to the hysteresis loop data, considering the maxi-
(2)
(1) m = 0.24 mum strain of each cycle at the load controlled tests, can result
(1)
in a precise prediction of ratcheting.
0.03 (2) m = 0.36
 Prediction of ratcheting involves nonlinear equations and com-
p plicated parameter determination. Therefore it requires optimi-
0.02 (2) zation procedure and nonlinear approach such as Genetic
(1)
Algorithm.
 Each parameter has a severe inuence on response and depends
0.01 on the initial bounds. Appropriate denition of the bound limits
C-H4T Model
N3-L0 M.O. GA Model for each parameter is of great importance when using Genetic
Biaxial Experiments
0.00 Algorithm.
0 5 10 15 20 25  Determining parameters of Chaboche kinematic hardening
N model with an optimization procedure provide better results
for the case of uniaxial loading in comparison with other tech-
Fig. 10. Biaxial ratcheting experiments, circumferential strain peaks under bow-tie
niques such as adding extra components to the model.
loading history, experimental data from [20].
 One hysteresis loop and a load controlled test is enough for the
proposed technique to obtain parameters of Chaboche kine-
5. Discussion matic hardening rule.
 The obtained parameters proved the ability to model a load con-
A single objective optimization method was employed to deter- trolled test with variable stress amplitude and a load controlled
mine the material parameters of the Chaboche kinematic harden- test with negative mean stress.
ing rule. This algorithm only used the hysteresis loop similar to  Ratcheting prediction of proposed model for the case of multi-
the available methods in the literature. It was evident that the axial loading was almost the same as the C-H4T model.
1122 A.H. Mahmoudi et al. / Computational Materials Science 50 (2011) 11141122
Acknowledgment
Authors would like to thank Mr. Fallahnezhad for his help dur-
ing the completion of this work.
References
[1] S. Bari, T. Hassan, International Journal of Plasticity 16 (2000) 381409.
[2] S. Bari, T. Hassan, International Journal of Plasticity 18 (2002) 873894.
[3] S. Bari, T. Hassan, International Journal of Plasticity 17 (2001) 885905.
[4] M. Abdelkarim, N. Ohno, International Journal of Plasticity 16 (2000) 225240.
[5] P.J. Armstrong, C.O. Frederick, A Mathematical Representation of the Multiaxial
Bauschinger Effect, CEB Report No: RD/B/N, 1996, p. 731.
[6] W. Prager, Journal of Applied Physics 20 (3) (1949) 235241.
[7] M. Rezaiee-Pajand, S. Sinaie, International Journal of Solids and Structures 46
(2009) 30093017.
[8] J.L. Chaboche, K. Dang-Van, G. Cordier, Modelization of the strain memory
effect on the cyclic hardening of 316 stainless steel, in: Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on SMiRT, Div. L, Berlin, Germany, 1979.
View publication stats
[9] J.L. Chaboche, International Journal of Plasticity 2 (1986) 149188.
[10] J.L. Chaboche, International Journal of Plasticity 7 (1991) 661678.
[11] T. Hassan, S. Kyriadides, International Journal of Plasticity 8 (1992)
91116.
[12] T. Hassan, E. Corona, S. Kyriakides, International Journal of Plasticity 8 (1992)
117146.
[13] T. Hassan, S. Kyriadides, International Journal of Plasticity 10 (1994)
149184.
[14] T. Hassan, S. Kyriadides, International Journal of Plasticity 10 (1994)
185212.
[15] N. Ohno, J.D. Wang, International Journal of Plasticity 9 (1993) 375390.
[16] G. Chen, S. Shan, X. Chen, H. Yuan, Computational Materials Science 46 (3)
(2009) 572578.
[17] Surajit Kumar Paul, S. Sivaprasad, S. Dhar, M. Tarafder, S. Tarafder,
Computational Materials Science 48 (3) (2010) 662671.
[18] Surajit Kumar Paul, S. Sivaprasad, S. Dhar, S. Tarafder, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, in press (24.07.10).
[19] M. Franulovic, R. Basan, I. Prebil, Computational Materials Science 45 (2009)
505510.
[20] E. Corona, T. Hassan, S. Kyriakides, International Journal of Plasticity 12 (1996)
117145.