Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

www.elsevier.com/locate/finel

Finite element simulation of the simple tension test in metals

Carlos García-Garino a , Felipe Gabaldón b,∗ , José M. Goicolea b
a Laboratorio para la Producción Integrada por Computadora (LAPIC), Instituto Tecnológico Universitario, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo & CONICET,
Casilla de Correo 947, 5500 Mendoza, Argentina
b Grupo de Mecánica Computacional. E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, España

Received 4 November 2005; received in revised form 18 May 2006; accepted 28 May 2006
Available online 18 July 2006

Abstract
In this work the finite element simulation of the simple tension test in metals is discussed. Results from Bridgman as well as experimental
measurements obtained with aluminium specimens are compared with numerical simulations. The computational analyses carried out consider
several finite element technologies as the Q1/P 0 mixed formulation, and various enhanced assumed strain formulations from Simo and co-
workers. The constitutive model considered includes large strain plasticity effects via the multiplicative decomposition of deformation gradient
tensor. A key objective of this work is to perform a detailed discussion for strain and stress distribution at necking zone. The simulations
performed show good agreement with the analytical and experimental results. Analytical results due to Bridgman are confirmed by the
computational simulations. This test can be considered as an adequate benchmark in order to calibrate large strain plasticity finite element codes.
䉷 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Simple tension test; Necking; Plasticity; Finite deformation; Enhanced assumed strain elements

1. Introduction numerical results, and proposed a methodology in order to cal-

The simple tension test is a valuable tool in order to charac-
terise constitutive equations for metals in presence of plasticity
and large deformation. Bridgman [1,2] has proposed the clas-
sical analytical results for this problem taking into account the
nonuniform strain and stress distribution for the necking zone.
Another important result from this author is the factor that re-
lates the average axial stress
zz with the yield stress Y values
in the necking zone. Davidenkov and Spiridonova [3] based
on metallurgical studies supported some empirical results from
Bridgman about the strain distribution at the necking section.
In the next section of this paper the more relevant analytical
results are summarised. It is important to point out that these
results have not been validated through computational mechan-
ics studies so far.
Different works that compare numerical and experimental
results for this test can be found in the literature. Wilkins [4,5]
appears to be the first author who compared experimental and
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 913366696; fax: +34 913366702.
E-mail address: felipe@mecanica.upm.es (F. Gabaldón).
0168-874X/$ - see front matter 䉷 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.finel.2006.05.004
ibrate constitutive models. Norris et al. [6] tested a steel spec-
imen, and compared their experimental results with numerical
simulations and some disagreements with the analytical results
proposed by Bridgman were reported. Goicolea [7] performed
experimental tests using aluminium specimens that are detailed
in Section 3 and studied numerically the problem, reporting a
good agreement with Bridgman results. More recently Cabezas
and Celentano [8] have analysed the fit of constitutive equations
from experimental and numerical results, using cylindrical and
sheet steel specimens.
In the computational mechanics literature the problem has
been widely studied, in order to calibrate finite element codes
and the corresponding constitutive models. Since the initial
work of Wilkins [5], Chen [9] and Needleman [10], further
studies include those of Hallquist [11], Simo [12] and Ponthot
[13,14]. In most of these contributions the applied load and
necking ratio evolutions were compared with Norris et al. re-
sults [6], but no references to Bridgman results were reported.
Valiente [15] has studied blunt notched tension bars in order to
obtain a better insight on Bridgman’s results.
An overview of the problem can be found in an internal
report of the authors [16] and the references therein. In this
1188 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

paper Bridgman’s and finite element results are compared, and From the first hypothesis results (see Appendix A)
good agreement is found. From a numerical point of view, in
the authors’ opinion the problem can be adequately simulated Ḋ
drr = d = , (4)
using different finite elements codes with plasticity and large D
strain capabilities [17]. In this paper the study of nonuniform
stress distribution at necking zone in the simple tension test can where D is the current diameter of the specimen at necking
be considered an adequate benchmark in order to calibrate large section. From symmetry conditions follow:
strain plasticity finite element codes, using the displacement,
dr  = dz = drz = 0. (5)
strain and stress fields.
Finally, the incompressibility of plastic flow leads to
2. Analytical results
Ḋ D
In the simple tension test two well defined stages are recog- dzz = −2drr = −2 ⇒ p = zz = −2 ln . (6)
D D0
nised. The first stage takes place before the load reaches the
maximum value, and a homogeneous response is found. After Consequently, p and hence the size of the isotropic yield func-
the maximum load, the post-critical path is characterised for a tion Y (p ) may be considered uniform over the neck section.
well marked necking in the central zone of the bar.
In the first stage of the process the response is defined in 2.2. Stress distribution in the necking section
terms of the axial stress
zz , that coincides with the average
longitudinal stress
zz for the precritical load path, and the axial From the kinematics of the problem, defined in Eqs. (4)–(6),
natural strain zz : it follows that components
r  ,
rz and
z vanish at the neck-

ing section, and
rr =
 .
P l dl l

zz =
zz = , zz = = ln , (1) After some geometrical assumptions due to Bridgman [1,2]
A l0 l l0 (see Appendix A for details), the distribution of radial and cir-
cumferential stress
rr and
 results
where l, l0 are the current and original lengths of the bar, re- 
spectively. In this stage
zz and zz are coincident with the Von   1 r2


rr =
 = Y ln 1 + zz − 0.1 −2 2 . (7)
Mises stress and effective plastic strain, respectively: 2 D

def From the Von Mises criterion the yield stress Y results

zz =
eq = 3
2s : s, p = zz (2)
Y =
zz −
rr . (8)
def
being s =
− tr(
)1 the deviatoric stress. The effective
1
3
plastic strain is defined from the rate of deformation ten- The distribution of axial stress
zz can be found replacing Eq.
def (7) in the Von Mises criterion (8)
sor d = sym jẋ/jx and from its additive decomposition into
elastic and plastic components
   1  
r2


zz = Y 1 + ln 1 + zz − 0.1 −2 2 . (9)
2 D
d = d e + dp , p = 2 p
3d : dp dt. (3)
The expression of the axial stress
zz in (9) can be interpreted
as a uniform axial tension Y plus a superposed variable tension
In the second stage of the process after the maximum load is

rr =
 that is maximum at r = 0 and vanishes at the outer
reached, necking occurs at central zone where a nonuniform
surface. The mean value of longitudinal stress
zz is
distribution of strains and stresses is found.

zz = Y +
rr > Y . (10)
2.1. Strain distribution in the necking section
From Eq. (10) it follows that the yield stress Y no longer can
Bridgman [1,2] and Davidenkov and Spiridonova [3] have be obtained directly from the test measurements via the aver-
proposed an expression for the strain field, derived from the age axial stress
zz . Based on experimental results, Bridgman
following assumptions: [1,2] proposed a correction factor that relates
zz with the yield
(1) The radial strains are uniform along the necked section. stress Y:
This assumption is based on metallographic studies of grain ⎧
   √ 
2 zz − 0.1
⎪ zz
size due to Davidenkov and Spiridonova [3]. ⎪ Y = 1 + √zz − 0.1 ln 1 +
⎪
⎪ 2
(2) Incompressibility of plastic flow: drr +d +dzz =0, where ⎨
(zz > 0.1), (11)
(·)rr , (·) and (·)zz account for the radial, circumferential ⎪
⎪
zz
⎪
⎪ = 1
and axial components, respectively. ⎩ Y
(3) Symmetry conditions about the r = 0 and z = 0 axes. (zz
0.1).
 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197 1189

1.5 30
CT1
50 13.2 37.5 37.5 13.2 50 CT2
18.5 25 CT4
15 16.2 15.9 15.9 CT5
20 CT6

P (kN)
15
12.9
10
Fig. 1. Geometry of the specimens. Measurements in mm.
5

Table 1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Annealing time for the tension test specimens
zz
Specimen Annealing time (h)
Fig. 2. Experimental results. Axial load versus logarithmic strain.
CT1 5
CT2 7
CT4 3
CT1
CT5 5 250 CT2
CT6 5 CT4
CT5
200 CT6

zz (MPa)
3. Experimental tests of aluminium specimens 150

We shall consider here the experimental data obtained in [7] 100

for necking of annealed aluminium bars.
The material used in the tests was HE30 (BS1474) extruded 50

aluminium. The mechanical properties of the material provided

0
by the manufacturers were elastic modulus: E = 67 000 MPa, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

zz
Poisson’s ratio:  = 0.3, 0.1% proof stress: 239–270 MPa and
ultimate tensile stress: 278–293 MPa for ultimate elongation
Fig. 3. Experimental results. Average axial stress versus natural strain.
7%.10%.
The material was machined for obtaining the specimens
whose geometry is shown in Fig. 1. A slight taper was given
in order to control the necking position, with the smallest
diameter being located at the mid section.
Five tension tests were carried out for specimens exposed
to an annealing process at 350 ◦ C. The time of this thermal
treatment is shown in Table 1.
The tests were carried out applying the load with stroke con-
trol, at cross-head velocities 0.5–10 mm/min, up to specimen
fracture. Frequent measurements of the neck diameter were
taken with a calliper of precision ±0.05 mm. Further details
about the test procedure can be found in [7].
The results of the tests are summarised in Figs. 2 and 3.
Fig. 2 shows the applied axial load P versus natural strain
zz at the minimum neck section. A peak value of the load is
reached when the necking instability arises, varying between
22 and 25 kN. Onset of necking occurs within a range between
zz =0.15 and 0.20, and maximum strains values before fracture
are zz = 1.15.1.25. These results seem independent of the
annealing time. In Fig. 3 the average axial stress at necking
section (
zz = P /A) is plotted versus the axial strain. Although Fig. 4. Tensile specimens after fracture.
the applied load decreases after the onset of necking due to the
area reduction, at local level the material hardens all along the
test. polished in order to perform microhardness measurements.
After the cup and cone fracture of the specimens (Fig. 4) After polishing, microhardness indentations were performed
the nearest intact zone to the failure section was cut and then at several locations along two normal radii. Details of the
1190 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

Table 2
Microhardness tests results

Point Indentation Microhardness

diameter (
m) Hm (MPa)

1 53 640

2 53 640

3 54 630

4 52 660

5 52 660

6 53 640

7 53 650

microhardness testing procedure are described in [7]. The re- Table 3

sults are presented in Table 2, showing no significant variation Results of power-law fits to tension test results
of the hardness across the section. Specimen A (MPa) n
From simple considerations of plasticity theory [18], the
CT1 169.1 0.190
hardness H can be related linearly to the material strength Y,
CT2 172.5 0.177
itself a function of the effective plastic strain CT4 184.7 0.196
CT5 191.5 0.170
H = C Y (p ), (12) CT6 190.6 0.178

where C is a constant whose value for aluminium is between Average 181.7 0.182
2.5 and 3.0 [7]. This expression and the results shown in
Table 2 support the Bridgman assumption of uniformity of Y
and p across the minimum neck section. is one of the assumptions in plasticity of metals. Therefore, in
In order to model the behaviour of aluminium a power law order to obtain a better fit for low strains the exponent was
is considered: corrected adopting the final value of n = 0.159.

= An , (13)
4. Finite element formulation

being the uniaxial Cauchy stress,  the uniaxial natural strain
and A, n material constants. Taking into account the equiva- The kinematics of the constitutive model used is based on
lence between the uniaxial stress and the equivalent stress Y, a the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient
convenient form of expressing the hardening law is [19–21]
 
Y n F = F e Fp . (15)
Y = Anzz = A p + ≈ A(p )n , (14)
E
The constitutive law is developed in the framework of irre-
where Y /E is the elastic part of the strains that can be neglected versible thermodynamics of solids via an uncoupled free energy
when compared to the plastic part. function [22]
The average axial stress
zz plotted in Fig. 3 were corrected
following Eq. (11) to obtain the values of Y. Introducing each  = e (ee ) + p (), (16)
one of these values and the corresponding zz in (14), the pa-
ee being the elastic part of the Almansi strain tensor, and  a set
rameters A and n were adjusted following a linear regression in
of internal variables. The Cauchy stress tensor can be obtained
the logarithmic values for all the tests. In Table 3, the computed
from elastic free energy as
values are shown, yielding mean values of A = 181.7 MPa. and
n = 0.182. je (ee )
Although the average power law obtained represents a good
= . (17)
jee
overall fit, some discrepancies do exist in the region of low
strains (z < 0.2), due to the simplification assumptions of the For the case of metals the elastic strains are negligible and
Bridgman adjustment [1,2]. In this range of deformation elastic in this case the distinction between intermediate and current
strains are not negligible with respect to plastic ones, which configurations have no meaning and elastic strains are small.
 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197
Then it is possible to write the elastic component of free en-
ergy function as a quadratic function of elastic component of
Almansi strain tensor ee and material constants  and :
e = 21  tr 2 (ee ) + (ee : ee ).
From Eqs. (17) and (18) the Cauchy stress tensor results

=  tr(ee )1 + 2ee .
An associated plasticity model based on the Von Mises yield
criterion is used
Y (p ) =
eq ,
where
eq is the equivalent stress defined previously in (2),
and Y is the yield stress. An isotropic hardening is considered
verifying the potential law (13), with the values A = 181.7 and
n = 0.159.
The numerical integration of the model is based on the
predictor–corrector algorithm detailed in [22,23]. The trial in-
termediate configuration is defined in terms of the elastic part
of the Finger tensor be−1 = Fe−T Fe−1 .
The elastic predictor is computed in the deformed configu-
ration, in terms of the incremental deformation gradient
t+t jt+t x
f=
jt x
resulting in
t+t
(be )−1 |(trial) = f−T t (be )−1 f−1 .
The plastic corrector is obtained via a backward Euler integra-
tion scheme, both for Q1/P 0 as well as EAS elements, leading
to
t+t
(be )−1 = t+t (be )−1 |(trial) + 2t+t n,
where the corrector term t+t n is computed using a radial
return mapping algorithm [20,21]. From the value of the elastic
Finger tensor computed in (23), the elastic Almansi strain tensor
is obtained
t+t e
e = 21 [1 − t+t (be )−1 ].
Substituting (23) in (24), the Almansi strain is expressed via the
additive contribution of a predictor term and a corrector term
t+t e e −1 (trial)
e = 21 [1 − t+t (b ) | ] − t+t n.
Using Eq. (25) in (19) the expression of the Cauchy stress
in the context of the classical theory of plasticity is recovered,
with the additive decomposition of an elastic predictor and a
plastic corrector
t+t

=  tr(t+t ee )1 + [1 − (t+t be )−1 |trial ] − 2t+t n
= t+t
|(trial) − 2t+t n.
In order to carry out the computational simulation of the ten-
sion test, two finite element formulations have been considered:
the well known mixed pressure–displacement Q1/P 0 element
1191
proposed in [24] and the enhanced assumed strain (EAS) for-
mulation for finite deformation problems [25,26].
The key ingredient for the Q1/P 0 element formulation is
the smoothing of the pressure field averaging its value at the
(18) element level. This element has been implemented in the fi-
nite element code SOGDE [22] following the details discussed
in [27].
(19) The key ingredient of EAS formulations is to enrich the solu-
tion as compared to a purely displacement-based formulation,
using additional assumed strain modes. For finite deformation
problems the starting point is an additive decomposition of the
deformation gradient into a compatible part and an enhanced
(20)
part [25]:

F = ∇X  + 
F . (27)
  
comp. enh.
The enhanced part of the deformation gradient is expressed,
at the element level, as a linear combination of the enhanced
modes FI :
n
e
enh.
F = eI FI , (28)
I =1
nenh. being the number of enhanced modes, eI internal de-
grees of freedom of element e, and FI the basic enhanced
(21)
modes of the deformation gradient. Several expressions of FI
may be employed to define different formulations of enhanced
elements [25].
(22) In this paper the enhanced elements named Q1/E5, Q1/ES5
and Q1/ET 5 from previous work of Armero and Glaser [28]
are considered. These elements have five enhanced modes and
axisymmetric formulation. They have been implemented by the
authors in the finite element code FEAP [29].
For the EAS elements the enhanced component of deforma-
(23) tion gradient tensor Fenh. is computed in the reference configu-
ration. Consequently the trial elastic component Fe is obtained
from Eq. (15):
t+t e (trial)
 −1
F| = t+t F t Fp . (29)
Then, the trial elastic part of the Finger tensor is computed as
(24)
t+t
(be )−1 |(trial) = (t+t Fe |(trial) )−T (t+t Fe |(trial) )−1 . (30)
Plastic corrector step for EAS elements is exactly the same
one discussed for Q1/P 0 element.
(25)
5. Computational simulation of simple tension test
In this section the computational simulation of simple tension
test of a circular cylindrical bar is described. The finite element
codes used in the analysis are SOGDE [22] and FEAP [29].
The constitutive model and the finite element approximations
have been discussed in Section 4. The experimental data as well
(26)
as the adjustment of the non-linear hardening law are due to
Goicolea [7] and have been discussed in Section 3.
The radius and the height of the specimen are r = 8.1 mm
and H =75.0 mm, respectively. The mesh covers only a quarter
1192 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

Fig. 5. Finite element mesh, transition and refined zones used.

Fig. 6. Deformed mesh.

of the bar due to symmetry conditions, and it is discretised are fixed (ur = 0) and at the central section (z = 0) longitudi-
with 360 quadrilateral axisymmetric elements and 412 nodes. nal displacements are fixed (uz = 0). The deformed bar after a
Fig. 5 shows the mesh as well as a larger picture of central longitudinal displacement of 10 mm, applied at the end of the
zone in order to show the mesh refinement adopted. In order to bar, is shown in Fig. 6.
ensure location of necking at the central part of the specimen,
the radius at z=0 is 1.85% lower than the end ones, considering
5.1. Evolution of necking
a linear variation along the height of the specimen.
The mesh sensitivity for this problem has been analysed in
The evolution of necking is shown in Fig. 7 where the ratio
detail in [30] and Ref. [16, Chapter 6]. Different structured
D/D0 is plotted in terms of engineering strain l/ l0 . The nu-
meshes, ranging from 50 to 1600 elements, adequately refined
merical results obtained with EAS elements using five integra-
in the necking zone were tested for all the element formulations
tion points are identical and slightly larger than that obtained
considered in this paper. All the meshes provided reasonably
with Q1/P 0 element.
good agreement with experimental results. Meshes with 200
elements seem to be adequate for the objectives of the work.
The sensitivity of the results with respect to the mesh refinement 5.2. Evolution of axial load P
is small.
Boundary conditions are imposed in order to satisfy symme- Fig. 8 shows the evolution of axial load P in terms of
try conditions: at the symmetry axis (r =0) radial displacements logarithmic strain zz for the finite element formulations
 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197 1193

1 CT1
Q1/E5 250 CT2
Q1/ES5
0.9 CT4
Q1/ET5
CT5
Q1/P0 200 CT6
0.8 Q1/P0

zz (MPa)
150 Q1/E5
Q1/ES5
D/D0

0.7 Q1/ET5
100
0.6
50
0.5

0
0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
zz
∆l/l0
Fig. 9. Evolution of
zz versus zz . Comparison of experimental and numerical
Fig. 7. Necking versus engineering strain. Q1/E5, Q1/ES5, Q1/ET 5 and results.
Q1/P 0 elements.

2

rr /Y
30
rr,FEM /Y
CT1
rr /Y
CT2 1.5
25
zz,FEM /Y
CT4
CT5
rr /Y,
zz /Y
20 CT6 1
Q1/P0
P (kN)

Q1/E5
15 Q1/ES5
Q1/ET5 0.5
10
0
5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
r
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Fig. 10. Stress distribution at necking zone. Comparison of analytical and

zz numerical results.

Fig. 8. Evolution of P versus zz . Comparison of experimental and numerical

results.
strain zz (Pmax ), as well as the computational fracture load Pfrac
computed for a logarithmic strain zz = 1.15.
Table 4
Results included in Table 4 lead to the following remarks:
Evolution of Applied load P in terms of logarithmic strain zz , using quadra-
tures with five and nine Gauss points • Element Q1/P 0 behaves slightly stiffer than EAS elements.
Pmax (kN) zz (Pmax ) Pfrac (kN) • All the EAS elements show practically the same response.
Before the peak load is reached the behaviour is identical for
Q1/P 0 23.21 0.172 14.87 all the elements studied.
Q1/E5 (5 G.P.) 23.15 0.176 14.71
Q1/E5 (9 G.P.) 23.15 0.176 14.71
• A mesh sensitivity analysis [16,30] reports a small variation
Q1/ES5 (5 G.P.) 23.15 0.176 14.71 of the results for meshes with a number of elements between
Q1/ES5 (9 G.P.) 23.16 0.179 14.72 200 and 1600 and an adequate mesh design.
Q1/ET 5 (5 G.P.) 23.15 0.176 14.72
Q1/ET 5 (9 G.P.) 23.15 0.176 14.71 5.3. Evolution of mean axial stress
zz

In Fig. 9 the evolution of
zz in terms of logarithmic strain

considered in this work, and a good agreement with the exper-
imental results is obtained.
As explained before in Section 3, experimental peak loads
range between 21 and 25 kN, onset of necking between zz =
0.15 and 0.20, and maximum strains before fracture between
zz = 1.15 and 1.25 being the applied load Pfrac = 14.85 ±
0.84 kN.
In order to provide a better insight on the evolution of applied
load P, Table 4 lists the values corresponding to the maximum
load level Pmax and its companion values of the logarithmic
zz is shown, and numerical results obtained for Q1/P 0 and
EAS elements are compared with the experimental results ob-
tained with all the specimens. As can be seen experimental and
numerical results adjust adequately.
5.4. Stress distribution at the necking section
The numerical simulation of stress distribution at necking
section has been studied in detail by the authors in [16]. Fig. 10
shows a comparison of analytical results due to Bridgman [1]
1194 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

Fig. 11. Effective plastic strain contours at the necking zone.

2
FEM
FEM 240 Bridgman
Bridgman

1.5 220
Y (MPa)

200

p

180
0.5
160

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 r
r

Fig. 13. Yield stress profile at necking section. Comparison of numerical

Fig. 12. Effective plastic strain profile at necking section. Comparison of
results (FEM) with Bridgman’s ones.
numerical results (FEM) with the ones due to Bridgman.

puted from finite element analyses, and from Bridgman ex-

with the numerical ones obtained using the Q1/ET 5 element
with a 9 point Gauss quadrature.
In order to compare the finite element results with the Bridg-
man ones, the current diameter D computed via finite element
method is replaced in Eqs. (6), (7) and (9).
pressions. As follows from Eqs. (6) and (14), Bridgman pro-
posed a uniform distribution for both effective plastic strain
and yield stress at necking zone, that are quite well adjusted
by finite element results as it is shown in the aforementioned
figures.

5.5. Yield stress and effective plastic strain distribution at
necking section
The values of yield stress Y and effective plastic strain p at
necking zone are required in order to calibrate the constitutive
equation. Fig. 11 shows the effective plastic strain contours su-
perimposed on the deformed mesh for EAS and Q1/P 0 ele-
ments.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the profile of effective plastic strain
p and yield stress Y, respectively. These values are both com-
5.6. Yield stress Y versus mean axial stress
zz
In order to obtain a better insight about the correction factor
that relates the yield stress Y with the mean axial stress
zz
due to Bridgman [1], the theoretical values given in Eq. (11)
are compared with the numerical ones obtained in this work.
In Fig. 14 it can be seen that the numerical values of
zz /Y
are lower than the values obtained from Eq. (11) for zz < 0.8.
Computational and Bridgman values match quite well for the
interval 0.8 < zz < 1.2. The numerical values of
zz are greater
 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197 1195

1.6 ferent FEM technologies. Both the displacement field and its
FEM
1.5 Bridgman derivatives (stress and strain) can be contrasted with experi-
mental and analytical results.
1.4
• The numerical codes used in this paper reproduce well avail-
1.3 able results and can be a valuable tool in order to calibrate

zz / Y

1.2
constitutive equations for metals under large strain plasticity.

1.1 Acknowledgements
1
The financial support granted from the argentinian Agencia
0.9
Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Projects PICT
0.8 12-03268 and PICTR 184 is gratefully acknowledged.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

z
Appendix A. Strain and stress distribution at the necking
Fig. 14.
zz /Y versus zz . Comparison of computational (FEM) and Bridgman zone
results.
A.1. Strain distribution at necking section
than Bridgman’s ones for zz > 1.2. However, the last situation
The deformation rates for a revolution solid can be written
is out of practical interest because the specimen is fractured
in cylindrical coordinates r,  and z [31] as
before zz reaches the value 1.2. In a recent work Cabezas and
Celentano [8] have found similar results about the discussed ju̇ u̇ jẇ
˙rr = , ˙ = , ˙zz = , (A.1)
correction factor comparing numerical and experimental results jr r jz
of a SAE 1045 steel specimen.
ju̇ jẇ
˙r  = ˙z = 0, ˙rz = + , (A.2)
jz jr
5.7. Discussion of results
u̇ and ẇ being the radial and axial components of velocity,
From the results showed in previous sections it can be pointed respectively.
out: From symmetry considerations at z = 0, results
˙rz = 0. (A.3)
• The evolution of applied load P and average axial stress

zz show good agreement with experimental results (Figs. 8 The hypothesis of uniformity of radial strains has been validated
and 9). via metallographic analyses of grain size [3] and microhardness
• Effective plastic strain and yield stress profiles at necking tests [7], resulting
(Figs. 12 and 13) are in good agreement with results due to
Bridgman from Eqs. (6) and (14). ju̇ u̇ ṙ Ḋ
= = = , (A.4)
• Stress distribution at necking zone obtained from finite ele- jr r r D
ment analyses agree with the distribution reported by Bridg- where D is the current diameter at necking section. Substitut-
man (Fig. 10). ing (A.4) in (A.1) the strain distribution at necking section is
• Correcting factor in Eq. (11) proposed by Bridgman must obtained:
be further discussed because it is not in agreement with the
finite element results. Ḋ jẇ
˙rr = ˙ = , ˙zz = . (A.5)
D jz
6. Conclusions
A.2. Stress distribution at necking section
A computational simulation of tension test with aluminium
cylindrical bars has been carried out using several element tech- Taking into account the strain distribution at necking section,
nologies, and the numerical results obtained have been com- the Cauchy stress tensor can be written as
 
pared with experimental tests. From these analyses the follow-
rr 0 0
ing conclusions can be remarked:
= 0
rr 0 . (A.6)
0 0
zz
• Finite element technologies and large strain elastoplastic con-
The equilibrium equations in terms of cylindrical coordinates
stitutive models available from the state of the art are able
[31] are considered in order to compute the stress distribution
to simulate properly the simple tension test. In particular,
at necking section
Bridgman’s results are confirmed using FEM simulations.
• Simple tension test appears to be an adequate benchmark in j
rr j
rz
rr −

+ + = 0, (A.7)
order to calibrate large strain plasticity codes as well as dif- jr jz r
1196 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197

isostatic line The curvature radius  is not easy to measure and Bridgman [1]
proposed to express it as a function of the radial coordinate r:
 

3 1 D2
= + DR − r 2 , (A.18)
2r 4
z

R being the curvature radius of the outer isostatic line (which

1 is the contour of the specimen). Other expressions of  are

reported in [15].
Substituting (A.18) in (A.17), and integrating results
r   
r2 D

rr = Y ln 1 − + . (A.19)
Fig. A1. Principal stresses diagram. DR 4R
In order to avoid the measurement of R, Bridgman [1] suggested
j
rz j
zz
rz the simplification
+ + = 0. (A.8)
jr jz r
D 
Substituting the components of (A.6) in Eqs. (A.7) and (A.8) = 2 zz − 0.1 (zz > 0.1). (A.20)
R
j
rr j
rz Then, replacing (A.20) in (A.19) the distribution of
rr and
+ = 0, (A.9)
jr jz
zz at necking section can be obtained using the neck diameter
j
zz value D:
= 0. (A.10)   
jz  1 2r 2

rr = Y ln 1 + zz − 0.1 − 2 , (A.21)
Being
the angle of the isostatic lines with the axial direction 2 D
(see Fig. A1), the tangential stress
rz is written in terms of
   
 1 2r 2
principal stresses:
zz = Y 1 + ln 1 + zz − 0.1 − 2 . (A.22)
2 D

rz = (
3 −
1 ) sin
cos
. (A.11)
References
Nearing to necking section (z ≈ 0) the angle
is very small
and
1 =
rr ,
3 =
zz . Therefore,
rz can be rewritten as [1] P. Bridgman, The stress distribution at the neck of a tensile specimen,
Trans. Am. Soc. Met. 32 (1944) 553–574.

rz = (
zz −
rr )
. (A.12) [2] P. Bridgman, Studies in Large Plastic and Fracture, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1952.
Substituting (8) in (A.12) [3] N. Davidenkov, N. Spiridonova, Analysis of the state of stress in the
neck of a tension test specimen, in: Proceedings of American Society

rz = Y
. (A.13) of Testing Materials, vol. 46, 1946, pp. 1147–1158.
[4] M. Wilkins, Mechanics of penetration and perforation, Int. J. Eng. Sci.
Then, the partial derivative of
rz with respect z at z = 0 is 16 (1978) 793–807.
  [5] M. Wilkins, Third progress report of light armor program, Technical
j
rz  j
 Y
= Y = , (A.14) Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of
jz z=0 jz z=0  California, rept. UCRL-50460, 1968.
[6] D. Norris, B. Moran, J. Scudder, D. Quiñones, A computer simulation
 being the curvature radius of the isostatic line at z = 0. The of the tension test, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 26 (1978) 1–19.
equilibrium Eq. (A.9) results [7] J. Goicolea, Numerical modelling in large strain plasticity with
application to tube collapse analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of London,
j
rr Y 1985.
+ = 0. (A.15)
jr  [8] E. Cabezas, D. Celentano, Experimental and numerical analysis of the
tensile test using sheet specimens, Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 40 (2004)
This differential equation can be integrated in order to obtain 555–575.
the radial stress at necking zone, considering that
rr = 0 at [9] W. Chen, Necking of a bar, Int. J. Solids Struc. 7 (1971) 685.
[10] A. Needleman, A numerical study of necking in circular cylindrical bars,
r = D/2
J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20 (1972) 111–127.

D/2 [11] J. Hallquist, User’s Manual for DYNA2D—an explicit two-dimensional
dr

rr = Y . (A.16) hydrodynamic finite element code with interactive rezoning, Lawrence
r  Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Technical
Report UCID-18756, Revision 1, 1982.
From Eqs. (8) and (A.16), a similar expression is obtained for [12] J. Simó, S. Rifai, A class of mixed assumed methods and the method of
the distribution of axial stress at necking zone: incompatible modes, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 29 (1990) 1595–1638.

D/2  [13] J. Ponthot, Traitment unifie de la mecanique des milieux continus solides
dr en grandes transformations par le methode des elements finis, Ph.D.

zz = Y 1 + . (A.17)
r  Thesis, Universidad de Lieja, Bélgica, 1994.
 C. García-Garino et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 42 (2006) 1187 – 1197
[14] J. Ponthot, Unified stress update algorithms for the numerical simulation
of large deformation elasto-plastic and elasto-viscoplastic processes, J.
Plasticity 18 (1) (2002) 91–126.
[15] A. Valiente, On bridgman’s stress solution for a tensile neck applied to
axisymmetrical blunt notched tension bars, J. Appl. Mech. 68 (2001)
412–419.
[16] C. García-Garino, F. Gabaldón, J. Goicolea, A. Mirasso, S. Raichman,
Simulación computacional del ensayo de tracción simple con estricción
(in Spanish). http://w3.mecanica.upm.es/papers/infor
me-hyper.pdf, Proyecto PICT-12-03268, FONCYT, ANPCyT, 2004.
[17] J. Goicolea, F. Gabaldón, C. García-Garino, Interpretación de la
estricción en el ensayo de tracción empleando modelos hipoelásticos e
hiperelásticos, in: M. Doblaré, J. Correas, E. Alarcón, L. Gavete, M.
Pastor (Eds.), Memorias del III Congreso de Métodos Numéricos en
Ingeniería, SEMNI, Zaragoza, 1996.
[18] R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1950.
[19] E. Lee, Elastic–plastic deformation at finite strains, J. Appl. Mech. 36
(1969) 1–6.
[20] J. Simó, A framework for finite strains elastoplasticity based on maximum
plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decomposition, part i: continuum
formulation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 66 (1988) 199–219.
[21] J. Simó, A framework for finite strains elastoplasticity based on
maximum plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decomposition, part
ii: computational aspects, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 68 (1988)
1–31.
1197
[22] C. García-Garino, Un modélo numérico para el análisis de sólidos
elastoplásticos sometidos a grandes deformaciones, Ph.D. Thesis, E.T.S.
Ingenieros de Caminos, Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona,
1993.
[23] F. Gabaldón, Métodos de elementos finitos mixtos con deformaciones
supuestas en elastoplasticidad, Ph.D. Thesis, E.T.S. Ingenieros de
Caminos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, 1999.
[24] J. Nagtegaal, D. Parks, J. Rice, On numerically accurate finite element
solutions in the fully plastic range, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
4 (1974) 153–177.
[25] J. Simó, F. Armero, Geometrically nonlinear enhanced strain mixed
methods and the method of incompatible modes, Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. 110 (1993) 359–386.
[26] J. Simó, F. Armero, R. Taylor, Improved versions of assumed enhanced
strain tri-linear elements for 3d finite deformation problems, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 110 (1993) 359–386.
[27] J. Simó, T. Hughes, Computational Inelasticity, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[28] F. Armero, S. Glaser, On the formulation of enhanced strain finite
elements in finite deformations, Eng. Comput. 14 (1997) 759–791.
[29] R. Taylor, http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/∼rlt, 2005.
[30] C. García-Garino, F. Gabaldón, J. Goicolea, A. Mirasso, Simulación
numérica del problema de la estricción de una probeta cilíndrica circular.
sensibilidad de los resultados frente a la malla de elementos finitos,
in: M. Rosales, V. Cortínez, D. Bambill (Eds.), Mecánica Computacional,
vol. XXII, AMCA, Santa Fé, Argentina, 2003, iSSN 1666-6070.
[31] S. Timoshenko, J. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, third ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1970.