Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124

DOI 10.1007/s11012-008-9115-9

The Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening model:

calibration methodology and validation
Giovanni B. Broggiato Francesca Campana
Luca Cortese

Accepted: 3 December 2007 / Published online: 28 February 2008

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This work studies how a nonlinear kine-
matic model aimed for cyclic plasticity could be put
into effect and used within a FEM code. A correct
modeling of cyclic elasto-plastic behavior can be ex-
ploited in low-cycle fatigue life investigation as well as
in manufacturing problems related to springback pre-
diction. The chosen formulation has been proposed by
Chaboche, and it is implemented in most of the com-
mercial codes used for nonlinear FEM simulations. At
first, a procedure for the proper identification of un-
known material model parameters has been put for-
ward. This calibration, based on the data collected
from experimental low-cycle fatigue tests, has been
performed by means of an inverse method. Labora-
tory tests differ according to the type of material under
investigation. A classification can be operated distin-
guishing between specimens obtained from bulk ma-
terials or from sheet metals. For the former, standard
tension-compression tests have been performed, while
for the latter, a dedicated testing equipment for three-
point bend cyclic tests has been devised. Then, further
experimental tests have been run to check model trans-
ferability: different strain per cycle amplitudes, asym-
metric strain cycling and different stress triaxiality lev-
els have been investigated. For each of these tests,
G.B. Broggiato F. Campana L. Cortese ()
Department of Mechanics and Aeronautics,
University of Rome La Sapienza, via Eudossiana,
18-00184 Rome, Italy
e-mail: luca.cortese@uniroma1.it
experimental vs. FEM results have been analyzed to
show the level of agreement that has been reached.
Keywords Kinematic hardening Cyclic plasticity
Parameter identification Inverse methods
Transferability tests
1 Introduction
In all the processes where cyclic plasticity is involved
the use of a combined isotropic-kinematic hardening
model is compulsory [1, 2]. Kinematic formulation
must be used to account for the Bauschinger effect
that is exhibited, with more or less extent, by all duc-
tile metallic materials under cyclic loading. The com-
bined model is also widely used for springback related
problems [3] of sheet metal components. In fact, it has
been seen that the use of an isotropic model leads to
poorly accurate results in terms elasto-plastic local re-
sponse and of springback prediction. On the contrary,
by means of a kinematic model significant improve-
ments can be achieved. In the following, an effort has
been made to show a proper and robust way to cal-
ibrate and to check the transferability capabilities of
the well-known Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hard-
ening model. A detailed description of its formula-
tion will be provided later on. One of the challenging
problems is to retrieve enough information from ex-
perimental data for calibration purposes. Typically, to
116
identify the material constants of a combined model,
cyclic stress-strain paths are needed [1]. In this frame-
work, tests are a bit more complex and differ whether
applied to low-cycle fatigue problems or to springback
problems. In the first case thick components are in-
volved so that cylindrical specimens can be machined
to run standard tensile-compression tests. In the lat-
ter case, specimens are derived from sheet metals, the
tests are reversed three-point bending [4]; in fact, on
sheets tension-compression experiments are not feasi-
ble due to obvious specimen compressive instability.
The experimental effort is thus much greater than for
monotonic loading where the simple isotropic model
is broadly used and can be tuned using standard ten-
sile tests [5].
Getting back to calibration issues, the main troubles
are associated with the difficulty or impracticality of
a direct estimation procedure for material parameters.
Some constants, in fact, may not have a clear physi-
cal meaning or it is not possible to devise an experi-
ment for their direct evaluation. Due to these reasons,
an inverse approach [6, 7] has been followed. Through
this method, parameters can be determined exploiting
their influence on appropriate global quantities com-
ing from experimental tests. These quantities are cho-
sen so that they can be measured easily and with great
accuracy.
The method chiefly consists in a minimization of an
error function which represents the difference between
experimental global data and the same quantities ob-
tained, as a parameter-dependent response, from a fi-
nite element model simulating the experimental setup.
Obviously, the simulation has to implement the model
to be optimized and the quantities used for fitting pur-
poses should as much as possible be sensible to any
parameter variations. In general, the global quantity
choice is arbitrary, but as will be shown later, it is often
reduced to the load-displacement curves.
This inverse parameter identification procedure has
been implemented by the authors in a C++ program-
ming environment. The code is object oriented and can
handle the calibration of all models presented in this
work. Object oriented programming is aimed to get the
maximum automation possible freeing the end-user of
all unnecessary set-up efforts. Only essential input in-
formation, specific of the material to be tuned, must
be introduced in an easy and guided way, before the
calibration process begins.
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124
This procedure, though providing good results, has
nevertheless some limitations. The main is the impos-
sibility to guarantee the achievement of an absolute
minimum for the error function. Also the first guess
choice is of great importance for the accuracy of the re-
sults. So, preliminary investigations must be fulfilled,
also looking for literature values regarding material
parameters, in order to provide consistent first attempt
input data for the optimization process.
Finally, once unknown parameters have been found,
transferability to different and more complex states of
stress must be assured. That is to say, the identified sets
must fit to stress-strain paths and geometries different
from the calibrated ones.
The transferability validation phase is very impor-
tant for cyclic plasticity because it is not yet well
assessed in the literature. In this work, validation
has been intensively investigated, especially for thick
component problems where it has been easier to obtain
different stress-strain paths on standard tensile tests
rather then on bending tests. Many dedicated cyclic
tests have also been devoted to this task with the aim of
reproducing as much dissimilar load and deformation
conditions as possible: different deformation per cycle
level, asymmetric strain tests and finally cyclic tests at
different triaxiality level of stress. Anyway, also some
evidences of model transferability on sheet metals will
be detailed hereafter.
2 The nonlinear kinematic model
The adopted model consists in a combined isotropic-
kinematic hardening formulation firstly introduced by
Armstrong and Frederick [8], and subsequently mod-
ified by Chaboche [9, 10]. The general expression of
the yield surface is:
F = f ( ) () = 0 (1)
so that its evolution with plastic deformation is deter-
mined both by the back stress tensor and by a func-
tion of the hardening scalar parameter . In this case,
yield surface both translates and expands with plastic
strain as shown in Fig. 1. According to this models,
the von Mises yield criterion is adopted, so that (1)
becomes:
3
F = (ij ij )(ij ij ) s2 (eq ) = 0
p
(2)
2
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124
Fig. 1 Yield surface modification with plastic deformation in the principal stress space. Isotropic, kinematic and combined hardening
where  and  are the deviatoric stress tensor and
back stress tensor respectively, and s represents the
current yield stress.
The isotropic part of hardening is determined by the
exponential Voces formula:
p
s = s0 + A(1 ebeq ) (3)
where s0 is the initial yield stress. The kinematic part
of hardening evolves incrementally as:
C a 2 mm notch radius and minimum section diameter
dij = (ij aij )dp ij dp . (4)
s 4.2 mm wide and the other has 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm
Hence, the unknown material parameters are A, b, C,
. The first ones refer to isotropic behavior while the
last ones characterize kinematic behavior. Many other
formulations are available in the literature, for further
information see [1]. The present one, apart from be-
ing one of the most assessed, is also implemented in
almost all commercial FEM codes.
3 Investigated materials and experimental
campaign
For thick component applications, the investigated ma-
terial has been:
AISI1046 medium carbon steel, rolled and subse-
quently annealed.
For sheet metal forming applications, two high
strength steels (HSS) and a stainless steel have been
studied:
Dual phase DP600.
Transformed induced plasticity TRIP700.
AISI325 stainless steel.
117
For all these materials a complete standard mechanical
characterization has been performed prior to specific
tests intended for model calibration.
Figure 2 shows the specimen geometries used for
cyclic loading of materials intended for thick com-
ponent applications. They are smooth cylindrical bars
and round notched bars respectively. Smooth cylindri-
cal ones are for standard low-cycle fatigue tests ac-
cording to ASTM E606-04 norm. Cross section di-
ameter is 5 mm and calibrated specimen portion is
20 mm long. Regarding notched geometries, one has
as notch radius and minimum section diameter respec-
tively. Notches are significant enough to vary stress tri-
axiality substantially.
As regards smooth specimens, a small groove
(0.05 mm diameter reduction, 10 mm wide in axial
direction and centered) has been machined in order
to guarantee necking localization in the middle of the
gauge length. This does not affect material response
significantly, but it is necessary to assure the correct-
ness of clip gage response and the possibility of a com-
parison with FEM simulation. In fact necking must oc-
cur in the same specimen zone to allow the results to
be comparable.
In Fig. 3, specimens used for cyclic tests on sheet
metal components are presented. They consist in rec-
tangular thin plates derived from direct cuts on sheet
metals. Only two geometries have been investigated:
180 20 1 mm and 180 20 1.5 mm (length,
width, thickness respectively).
A 250 kN servo-hydraulic MTS material testing
machine is used for all tests (Fig. 4). Data can be ac-
quired through an axial load cell, an LVDT measuring
actuator displacement and an extensometer clipped on
the specimen. The machine is handled by a 407 MTS
controller. It provides control of displacement, force
118 Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124

Fig. 2 Test specimen details: (a) cylindrical bar, (b) and (c) round notch bars

Fig. 3 Rectangular specimens cut from a sheet metal and used for cyclic three-point bend tests

and strain as well as all transducer signal filtering and
amplification.
Cyclic tension-compression tests are quasi-static
and strain controlled performing triangular cycles at
0.1 Hz frequency and different strain amplitudes.
There have been chosen three different strain ranges
per cycle:  = 0.0125 m/m,  = 0.0250 m/m and
 = 0.0500 m/m. For each of them, material under-
goes to plastic deformation. Load, displacement and
strain data have been acquired using a sampling rate
of 50 Hz. For each given material and geometry, three
repetitions have been executed.
To perform three point bend (TPB) tests on sheet
metal specimen a dedicated equipment has been de-
signed and built (Fig. 5) inspired by the work [4].
A rectangular specimen is simply supported by roller
constraints and loaded in the middle by an electro-
mechanical linear actuator. The actuator can be dis-
placement controlled to perform reversed bending cy-
cles. This control is achieved by means of a lin-
ear guidance with recirculation ball bearing moved
by a stepper motor driven by a control unit. To re-
duce friction loads, the rollers can rotate on bear-
ings along an axis parallel to the sheet width di-
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124
Fig. 4 MTS 250 kN servo hydraulic axial testing machine
rection. By this arrangement the contact lines be-
tween specimen and rollers change during all over the
test.
The maximum punch stroke is 30 mm. A dedi-
cated acquisition software has been developed in the
LabView environment to collect punch position and
load samples during each test. Tests are run control-
ling central actuator displacement at 1 mm/s con-
stant velocity There have been executed 6 cycles for
each tests. Material is shown to be stable within this
range. For calibration purposes only one cycle and a
quarter is required so that data beyond this limit will
be omitted. It has anyway been proven that the infor-
mation provided from these data was sufficient for an
unique identification of the unknown parameters. For
each material 4 repetitions of the test have been per-
formed.
All results obtained from the experimental cam-
paign will be presented in the next paragraph along
with corresponding numerical results from the calibra-
tion procedure.
119
4 Parameter calibration results
The model has been calibrated by means of the in-
verse approach. MSC Marc v2005R2 and LSTC LS-
Dyna v970 codes have been chosen for bulk mater-
ial and sheet metal characterization respectively. The
first one is widely used for low cycle fatigue or gen-
eral plasticity analyses while the second is one among
the most popular for stamping related applications and
springback estimation problems. LS-Dyna v970 does
not have the Chaboche model built-in so that a fur-
ther effort was necessary to implement it as material
user subroutine. For the sake of conciseness, numeri-
cal models, indeed quite simple, will not be detailed
here. It only must be pointed out that a particular care
has been put to assure their utmost realistic replication
of the actual tests. For all calibration, the zero order
simplex method has been exploited by the C++ proce-
dure.
Along with the unknown material parameters A, b,
C, , also E and y have been introduced in the cal-
ibration process. Is has been noticed that, because of
poor experimental data samples and/or scatter in ma-
120 Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124

Fig. 5 Schematic representation and experimental equipment for three-point bend test on sheet metal specimens

Table 1 Bulk calibration: best fit parameter sets at cycle ampli-

tude  variation

 0.0125 0.0250 0.0500 m/m

E 172000 191000 193000 MPa

s 283.4 249.4 253.8 MPa
A 5.6 4.7 11.2 MPa
b 11.4 12.3 7.7
C 21000 27700 27300 MPa
157.9 197.2 141.6

Fig. 6 Bulk calibration: cyclic load-displacement curves fitting.

terial data, holding these parameters constant has oc-
casionally led into numerical troubles with the mini-
mization algorithm. This can be avoided putting them
into calibration and accepting fluctuations in a narrow
range around nominal values.
As already stated, experimental global data used
for fitting are load-displacement curves retrieved from
tension-compression tests and three-point bending
tests. For each of these tests an independent calibra-
tion has been performed.
Non-linear kinematic hardening model optimized at strain per
cycle amplitude  = 0.0125 m/m
The six unknown parameters have been deter-
mined for the tested materials. Results for tension-
compression tests are reported in Table 1. Figures 6, 7
and 8 show the level of agreement obtained in terms
of load-displacement match for the three calibrations
at different  per cycle. The optimized model is able
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124 121

Fig. 10 Three-point bend test. TRIP 700 calibration results:

cyclic load-displacement curves. Experimental vs. numerical
Fig. 7 Bulk calibration: cyclic load-displacement curves fit- data obtained from the optimized model vs. power law isotropic
ting. Non-linear kinematic hardening model optimized at model
 = 0.0250 m/m

Fig. 8 Bulk calibration: cyclic load-displacement curves fit- Fig. 11 Three-point bend test. AISI325 calibration results:
ting. Non-linear kinematic hardening model optimized at cyclic load-displacement curves. Experimental vs. numerical
 = 0.0500 m/m data obtained from the optimized model vs. power law isotropic
model

Table 2 Best fit parameters obtained for high strength steels

and stainless steel for sheet metal forming

 DP 600 TRiP 700 AISI 325

E 182000 195000 188800 MPa

s 349.4 483.4 371.8 MPa
A 50.1 51.4 61.3 MPa
b 27.5 24.8 33.6
C 17400 16100 18300 MPa
Fig. 9 Three-point bend test. DP600 calibration results: cyclic 125.9 129.8 39.5
load-displacement curves. Experimental vs. numerical data ob-
tained from the optimized model vs. power law isotropic model
Results of bending tests are shown in Table 2.
to reproduce the exact elasto-plastic global response. Again Figs. 9, 10 and 11 point out the good agree-
The only appreciable disagreement can be noticed in ment of the optimized model though the match is not
the first plastic loading phase. This is due to an ex- as close as the tension-compression case. These a little
tended post yielding plateau zone exhibited by the poorer results are most likely due to numerical noise
material under characterization. Anyway, the accuracy and scattering exhibited by the use of an explicit FEM
of the results for the remaining part of cycling is very code such as LS-Dyna. In all the figures it can also be
good. seen that the widely-used isotropic model (power law
122 Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124

isotropic plasticity), properly tuned from standard ten- symmetric cycles on round notched bar specimens
sile test, fails to predict the correct elasto-plastic cyclic with different notch geometries (Figs. 15, 16).
material response.
Looking at all previous pictures, it is evident how in
all cases a very good agreement level is obtained.
5 Transferability tests

As previously mentioned, transferability has been

widely assessed for tension-compression chiefly. The
transferability issue is here to check model behavior,
calibrated on symmetrical cycles, for different kind of
cycling and for different stress states induced by dif-
ferent geometries.
For this purpose, FEM runs with the model cali-
brated at  = 0.0250 m/m (symmetric cycling) have
simulated the following validation tests:
symmetric cycles at  = 0.0125 m/m (Fig. 12); Fig. 14 Bulk validation: asymmetric (from zero) cyclic
symmetric cycles at  = 0.0500 m/m (Fig. 13); stress-strain curves at  = 0.0250 m/m. Experimental vs nu-
asymmetric cycles from zero at  = 0.0250 m/m merical comparison with model calibrated at  = 0.0250 m/m
(Fig. 14);

Fig. 15 Bulk validation: round notch bar rn = 2 mm,

Fig. 12 Bulk validation: symmetric cycling stress-strain curves dmin = 4.20,  = 0.0250 m/m (mean value). Experimental vs
at  = 0.0125 m/m. Experimental vs numerical comparison numerical comparison with model calibrated at  = 0.0250
with model calibrated at  = 0.0250 m/m m/m

Fig. 13 Bulk validation: symmetric cycling stress-strain curves Fig. 16 Bulk validation: round notch bar rn = 1.5 mm,
at  = 0.0500 m/m. Experimental vs numerical compari- dmin = 3.50,  = 0.0250 m/m (mean value). Experimental vs
son with model calibrated at  = 0.0250 m/m. Results at numerical comparison with model calibrated at  = 0.0250
 = 0.05000 m/m calibration reported as well m/m
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124
Fig. 17 Unconstrained cylindrical bend test. Simulation set-up and springback investigation in terms of free edge distance measure
For springback prediction, experimental three-
point bend equipment and test control software were
not versatile enough to obtain cyclic tests with stress-
strain paths far different from the calibration condi-
tions. For this reason a simple validation has been per-
formed. The calibrated model has been used to simu-
late an unconstrained cylindrical bending (see Fig. 17)
in order to estimate the improvements introduced by
its adoption. The same rectangular plate used for three
point bend tests can be U bent by the equipment rep-
resented again in Fig. 17: the specimen is positioned
unconstrained between die and punch. The equipment
used for three-point bend has been rearranged to per-
form this experiment. This kind of test, is compliant
with the Numisheet 2002 benchmark. At punch release
after stamping, specimen recover part of previously
stored elastic deformation. The distance between free
edges, compared to theoretical shape at end of stamp-
ing phase itself, is a measure of springback. Analogous
measures have been made on the results of the FEM
analysis of the test, firstly using an isotropic hardening
model (Kruprowsky Power Law Plasticity) and then
using the non-linear kinematic model, both of course
tuned on the material used for the experiments. Then,
the difference between the measure of the experimen-
tal and numerical final specimen opening displace-
ment can quantify the accuracy of the FEM analysis.
123
Table 3 DP600, TRIP700 HSS. Unconstrained cylindrical
bend test results. Springback prediction errors using isotropic
hardening and non-linear kinematic hardening models
Power law Non-linear kinematic model
DP600 7.3% 3.1%
TRiP700 14.3% 3.8%
These results are reported in Table 3, where this differ-
ence is expressed in terms of percentage error which is
made using the two kinds of constitutive models with
respect to experimental values.
It can be noticed how FEM error reduces from
about 7% to 3% for DP600 and 14% to 4% for
TRIP700 when switching from isotropic hardening
law to the non-linear kinematic one. This apprecia-
ble improvement surely justifies the introduction of the
new model for this kind of investigation. A further val-
idation of the method has been proved on an actual
application in [11].
6 Conclusion
In cyclic plasticity assessment, the use of the Chaboche
non-linear kinematic hardening model initially re-
quires a procedure for the correct estimation of its
124
parameters. This procedure has been built using an in-
verse approach implemented and automated in a C++
environment. This code provided optimized parame-
ters in all cases and demonstrated a good robustness.
To summarize the main results obtained, it has been
showed how the model, once tuned, was capable to
provide good agreement with all experimental evi-
dences. All validations results, though performed only
at laboratory level, were rather promising. FEM sim-
ulation is now capable of following the cyclic elasto-
plastic response very closely up to large accumulated
plastic strain levels. Also consistent improvements
were found by the application of the same non-linear
kinematic model to sheet metal springback problems.
The use of a tuned Chaboche model for the elasto-
plastic material description, in fact, as an alternative to
commonly used isotropic models, has showed a reduc-
tion of FEM springback prediction error up to 70%.
References
1. Khan AS, Huang S (1995) Continuum theory of plasticity.
Wiley, New York
Meccanica (2008) 43: 115124
2. McClintock FA, Argon AS (1966) Mechanical behavior of
materials. Addison-Wesley, Reading
3. Li KP, Carden WP, Wagoner RH (2002) Simulation of
springback. Int J Mech Sci 44:103122
4. Zhao KM, Lee JK (2002) Finite element analysis of three-
point bending test for sheet metal. J Mater Process Technol
122:611
5. Ling Y (1996) Uniaxial true stress-strain after necking.
AMP J Technol 5:3748
6. Snyman JA (2005) Practical mathematical optimisation.
Springer, New York
7. Press H, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling T, Flannery P (2002) Nu-
merical recipes in C, the art of scientific computing, 2nd
edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
8. Armstrong PJ, Frederick CO (1966) A mathematical repre-
sentation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect. CEGB Re-
port, RD/B/N731, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories
9. Chaboche JL (1986) Time-independent constitutive theo-
ries for cyclic plasticity. Int J Plast 2:249
10. Chaboche JL (1989) Constitutive equations for cyclic plas-
ticity and cyclic viscoplasticity. Int J Plast 5:247
11. Campana F, Cortese L, Placidi F (2006) Finite element
analysis of high strength steel stamping process adopt-
ing a combined isotropic-kinematic hardening model: ex-
perimental investigation of the improvements achieved in
springback prevision. In: IDDRG 06, international deep
drawing research group, proceedings of the 2006 confer-
ence, Porto, Portugal, 1921 June 2006