International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Solids and Structures

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

Subsequent yielding of polycrystalline aluminum after cyclic

tension–compression analyzed by experiments and simulations
Guijuan Hu a,b, Shihong Huang a, Damin Lu a, Xianci Zhong c, Zhenhuan Li d, Wolfgang Brocks e,
Keshi Zhang a,⇑
a
Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
b
Guangxi Polytechnic of Construction, Nanning 530004, China
c
College of Mathematics and Information Science, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
d
Department of Mechanics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
e
Institute for Materials Science, Christian Albrecht University, Kiel, Germany

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

Article history: Subsequent yielding of polycrystalline aluminum after cyclic tension–compression is studied by both
Received 2 February 2014 experiments and finite element simulations applying crystal plasticity. The directional hardening induced
Received in revised form 14 October 2014 by pre-deformation is particularly emphasized. By means of a sub-model method, scale-bridging analyses
Available online 5 December 2014
of a specimen containing a ring-section constructed of a number of grains re-loaded in different ratios of
axial tension and torsion are carried out, after cyclic tension–compression pre-deformation. Both the
Keywords: Chaboche rate-dependent constitutive relation and the crystal plasticity theory extended by introducing
Subsequent yield surface
a back stress, which relates the mechanical behavior of polycrystalline aluminum at macroscopic scale
Sub-model method
Cyclic plasticity
and microscopic scale, are employed. The influences of different unloading loci, pre-loading directions
Polycrystalline aluminum and yield definitions on subsequent yield surfaces are investigated in detail by comparing computational
and experimental results. The results show that the shape of subsequent yield surfaces and the ‘‘sharp
corner’’ appearing at the front end of a yield surface are closely related to the tensile or compressive
pre-loading direction and different yield point definitions. The subsequent yielding by re-loading
obviously shows deformation-induced anisotropic hardening. The main characteristics of subsequent
yield surfaces observed in experiments can be satisfactorily captured by the present crystal plasticity
model with the introduction of a back stress.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction relationship can be established and accurate computational model-

The adoption of a yield surface is a basic concept in the theory of
plasticity and hence is of long-term interest within the mechanics
community. The initial yield surface depends on the material’s ini-
tial microstructure, while the subsequent yield surfaces strongly
depend on the pre-deformation path, in addition. Generally speak-
ing, due to the deformation-induced microstructural changes, the
subsequent yield surfaces evolve and show a complex shape under
different pre-deformation paths, such as expansion and contrac-
tion (i.e. isotropic hardening or softening), translation (i.e. kine-
matic hardening due to the evolution of back-stress), distortion
(i.e. anisotropic hardening). Obviously, it is important to rationally
describe the evolution of subsequent yield surfaces under different
pre-deformation paths. On this basis, a rational constitutive
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangks@gxu.edu.cn (K. Zhang).
ing can be performed.
Since the shape of a yield surface strongly depends on the pre-
loading direction, the orientation of a ‘‘sharp corner’’ changes with
accumulated plastic strain when the applied load changes from
tension to compression in the process of cyclic loading and unload-
ing (Zhang et al., 2011). Therefore, it is essential to any constitutive
theory of cyclic plasticity how to exactly characterize the aniso-
tropic evolution of subsequent yield surfaces under cyclic loading.
In the past decades, a series of studies on the evolution of
subsequent yield surfaces has been performed. Most of them paid
their attention to monotonous proportional and non-proportional
pre-loading paths (Helling et al., 1986; Phillips and Lu, 1984; Wu
and Yeh, 1991; Khan et al., 2009; Khan et al., 2010a,b; Sung
et al., 2011), some also considering arbitrarily textured solids with
varied lattice structure (Graff et al., 2007), while only a few focused
on cyclic pre-loading paths. For example, Kowalewski and
Sliwowski (1997) studied the evolution of the yield surface of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.11.022
0020-7683/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153
18G2A steel under cyclic loading with different strain amplitudes.
They showed that the subsequent yield surfaces shrank compared
to the initial yield surface due to cyclic softening. Ishikawa and
Sasaki (1988) and Ishikawa (1997) studied the yield surfaces of
304 stainless steel being initially anisotropic. Their results
exhibited that for proportional loading paths, the shapes of subse-
quent yield surfaces were ellipses; however, for non-proportional
cyclic pre-loading, the evolution of subsequent yield surfaces
became very complicated, including translation, distortion and
rotation. Besides, under cyclic pre-loading, it was repeatedly
observed in experiments that the shapes of subsequent yield
surfaces were strongly affected by several factors, such as cyclic
hardening and softening, loading amplitudes, Bauschinger effect,
creep, ratcheting and so on. To the best of our knowledge, deep
understanding and rational description of the evolution of subse-
quent yield surfaces under complex pre-loading paths are still
lacking in the literature.
In the earlier investigations of subsequent yield surfaces, sev-
eral models were proposed to describe anisotropic deformation
(Phillips and Tang, 1972; Eisenberg and Yen, 1984; Kurtyka,
1988; Kurtyka and Zyczkowski, 1996; Francois, 2001). These mod-
els can depict yield surface distortion by geometric considerations,
but their evolution equations lack definite physical meaning.
Moreover, these models usually include a group of material param-
eters very difficult to be determined, especially when the material
is subjected to complex loading or deformation paths. Generally
speaking, the evolutions of the yield surface under complex pre-
loading paths are very complicated, and it seems to be impossible
to describe them rationally unless the details of material micro-
structure evolution are fully captured. Therefore, micromechanical
models, which are particularly suited for describing the material
microstructure evolution, have become increasingly important in
modeling the material deformation under complex loading paths.
As is well-known, the crystal plasticity models are based on aniso-
tropic crystal slip and thus can fully capture the microstructural
evolution. In other words, the crystal plasticity theory provides a
promising approach for accurately characterizing anisotropic evo-
lution of yield surfaces.
In the present contribution, the evolution of subsequent yield
surfaces of polycrystalline aluminum after cyclic tension–com-
pression is studied in detail by means of experiments and FEM
modeling. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the
methods to determine the subsequent yield surfaces under cyclic
strain controlled loading experimentally by multiple identical
specimens and numerically by crystal plasticity simulations of
various sub-models of a polycrystalline ring section containing
different numbers of grains are introduced. In Section 3, the influ-
ences of the value of offsetting strain applied to define the mate-
rial yield on the yield surface shape and its evolution are
discussed by using experiment and simulation. The crystal plas-
ticity model, which takes a back-stress based nonlinear kinematic
hardening into account, is identified and validated with the
experimental results. Finally, Section 4 ends the paper with some
main conclusions.
2. Experiment and modeling
2.1. Experiments
In order to study the subsequent yield surfaces of metals, a
polycrystalline aluminum with purity 99.89% is used here. Its
chemical composition and mechanical properties are given in
Table 1. Approximately, the material has an equiaxed grain struc-
ture. Its micrograph is shown in Fig. 1. Thin-walled tube specimens
are adopted in our tests. In order to ensure reliable clamping, both
143
ends of each tubular specimen are filled with additional steel
inserts, as shown Fig. 2.
All experiments are performed using an MTS809 axial-torsion
servo hydraulic fatigue testing machine. Axial and torsional dis-
placements are measured by an axial–torsional extensometer of
gauge length 25 mm. The measurement ranges for axial strain,
E, and torsional strain (or shear angle), C, are ±0.1° and ±5°, respec-
tively. Here, the uppercase Greek letters stand for the macroscopic
strain measures.
A multiple specimen technique has been applied to determine
subsequent yield surfaces. First, all specimens are subjected to
strain controlled symmetrical tension–compression with an ampli-
tude of 0.3% and 30 cycles. Then the specimen is unloaded at differ-
ent specified positions, A, B, C or D, of the final hysteresis loop until
the end points, OA1, OA2, OB, OC or OD, as shown in Fig. 3(a) under
stress control. The two unloading end points OA1 and OA2 corre-
spond to the unloading starting point A, where OA1 is within the
elastic domain and OA2 is the tensile-compressive turning point.
Besides, all unloading end points except OA2 must be located in
the elastic region; otherwise, local reverse loading may change
the yield point due to additional plastic strain. In order to obtain
the subsequent yield surfaces corresponding to OA1, OA2, OB, OC
and OD points, the specimens are reloaded from OA1, OA2, OB, OC
and OD by combined tension–torsion. If the proportion of the ten-
sion and torsion components keeps constant, the reloading paths
are in the radial direction in the tension–torsion stress space with
OA1, OA2, OB, OC and OD points being the origins, as shown in
Fig. 3(b). The respective effective stress–strain curves,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
Reff ¼ R2 þ 3T 2 , Epeff ¼ ðEp Þ þ ðCp Þ =3, (here T is macroscopic
torsional stress) for two reloading paths are plotted in Fig. 3(c),
where K and K0 are initial and unloading stiffness, respectively,
which can be used to calculate the incremental residual strain.
Again, uppercase Greek letters stand for macroscopic stress and
strain measures, respectively. For the polycrystalline sub-model
described below, they represent homogenized values of stresses
and strains resulting from the crystal plasticity calculations. The
stress at a given (plastic) offset strain is defined as the subsequent
yield stress. The choice of the offset strain has a great influence on
the experimentally determined yield stress. For a strain hardening
material, the greater the target strain is specified the higher is the
measured subsequent yield stress.
The procedure to determine the yield point related to the offset
strain is as follows. Assume that the cumulative effective plastic
strain at the unloading point is Epeff . After reloading beyond the
yield point, a residual plastic strain increment, DEpeff ¼
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
ðDEp Þ þ ðDCp Þ =3, emerges with DEp being an axial strain incre-
ment and DCp a shear angle increment. Specifying an offset value
of DEpoffset ¼ DEpeff ¼ 2  104 , for instance, allows for determining
the initiation of subsequent yielding.
Finally, the subsequent yield stress of the material, Ry , by reload-
ing from the unloading point, Runload
eff ¼ Runload , can be expressed as
Ry ¼ Runload þ f ðDEpoffset ; hÞ ð1Þ
where h stands for the loading direction angle in Fig. 3(b). The mate-
rial will re-yield when the macroscopic effective plastic strain incre-
ment due to reloading reaches the offset strain. The subsequent
yield stress is dependent on the loading path angle, h.
2.2. Modeling
The macroscopic mechanical properties of polycrystalline mate-
rial are governed by their micro-structures and their evolution with
deformation, including the grain size, grain orientation, anisotropy
and heterogeneity of deformation within grains. Obviously, the
144 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153

Table 1
Chemical composition in weight % and mechanical properties of commercially pure aluminum.

Chemical composition Mechanical properties

Al/% Cu/% Mg/% Si/% Mn/% Zn/% E/GPa G/GPa r0:2 /MPa ru /MPa ef
99.89 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 60 25 20 81 24%

60 (a)
A
40 OA1

20

/MPa
OB OA2
0 OC

Stress
-20
OD
B
-40
C
D
-60

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Strain E(%)
Fig. 1. Metallographic photo of the polycrystalline aluminum.
(b)
1/2 Reloading for searching
3 Subsequent yield surface
165 o
45 50 4 90
5 3
16

6
10.5

7 2
o o
180 Unloading
1
R25

8 10 Σ
O
Fig. 2. Specimen geometry. OA1,OA2,OB,OC,OD A,B,C,D
Cyclic pre-loading
micro-structure of a material significantly influences its subsequent
yield behavior. In order to reveal the underlying microscopic mech-
anisms, the crystal plasticity theory, which treats well the deforma-
tion at the grain level, is employed here.
To reduce the total computing time and simulate precisely the
micro-inhomogeneity of deformation, a sub-model method is
(c)
developed, which considers a global test specimen and polycrystal- Reloading path 1
K'
line aggregate model. The global specimen is analyzed by the mac-
A,B,C,D
roscopic Chaboche model, and then the displacement boundary
conditions are applied to the sub-model consisting of a polycrystal- Reloading path 2
Effective stress

line aggregate. By applying this method, the ‘‘scale-bridging’’ anal- Unloading

ysis from the macro-specimen scale to the micro-grain scale is Yield definition
implemented.
Pre-loading Offset strain
2.2.1. The rate-dependent Chaboche constitutive model
The standard equations of the Chaboche model (Chaboche, OA1,OA2,OB,OC,OD
1989) as adopted in this study are briefly summarized. The strain K
rate e_ can be partitioned into e_ ¼ e_ e þ e_ p . According to normality
assumption, the plastic strain rate, e_ p , can be written as
rffiffiffi  n rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  k0
3 3 Fy r0  x0 2 p p F
e_ p ¼ _ ¼
pn ; p_ ¼ e_ : e_ ¼ y ð2Þ Effective strain
2 2 K J 2 ðr0  x0 Þ 3 K
Fig. 3. Reloading paths at different unloading points after reaching a stable
where, p_ is the effective plastic strain rate, r0 and x0 are the devia- tension–compression cycle. (a) Schematic of unloading at different strain positions,
tors of stress and back-stress tensors respectively, J 2 is defined by (b) reloading paths for searching subsequent yield points, (c) unloading points and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi reloading positions.
J2 ðyÞ ¼ 32 y : y, k0 is rate-sensitivity parameter, K is a material
parameter reflecting the viscosity of the material, F y is a yield func- where, r0 ðpÞ
_ is used to describe the initial yield surface and R
tion which define the elasticity domain, and it is expressed as describes the isotropic surface expansion,
F y ¼ J 2 ðr0  x0 Þ  r0 ðpÞ
_ R¼0 ð3Þ R ¼ Q ½1  expðb  pÞ ð4Þ
 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153
The shift of the yield surface, i.e. the kinematic hardening, is
described by evolution equations of the deviatoric back stress,
x_ ðkÞ ¼ C k ðak e_ p  xðkÞ pÞ
_ ð5Þ
X
M
x¼ xðkÞ
k¼1
Here, xðkÞ is the component of the back-stress x; x_ ðkÞ is the corre-
sponding rate; ak and C k are material parameters for describing
the material hardening characteristics. M is the number of compo-
nents of the back stress, where M equals 2 in this paper.
In order to solve the model calculation of the incremental stress
and strain, the constitutive rate relation, assuming that the elastic
deformation is small, can be expressed as:
<4> <4>
r_ J ¼ C : e_ e ¼ C : ðe_  e_ p Þ
<4>
where r_ J is the Jaumann stress rate, C is the fourth-order tensor of
the tangent elasticity of the material which consists of two indepen-
dent elastic constants for isotropic material: E and v, Young’s mod-
ulus and Poisson’s ratio. This equation is also suitable for an
anisotropic material, but its components of the tensor of the tan-
gent elasticity are different and the orientation of the material’s axis
should be considered.
Although above model is rate-dependent, it can describe the
rate-independent behavior approximately if the value of parameter
k0 is set large enough. This model can be adopted by using the soft-
ware ABAQUS. Chaboche’s model is applied in the present paper to
simulate the macroscopic deformation of the specimen under axial
and rotational loading, and the results are applied to the sub-mod-
el’s calculation.
2.2.2. A model of crystal plasticity considering the Bauschinger effect
In the present tests, the specimens have been frequently
unloaded and re-loaded. Therefore, a strong Bauschinger effect is
observed. In this situation, the material hardening is neither simply
isotropic nor simply kinematic. The conventional model of crystal
plasticity, however, is established on the basis of isotropic harden-
ing, which is described by considering critical resolved shear stress
and slip resistance. The slip resistances under tension and com-
pression are assumed to be the same, so this hardening model can-
not predict the Bauschinger effect. In order to capture the
Bauschinger effect under cyclic loading, the conventional crystal-
line plastic theory has been improved by Zhang et al. (2011) as is
briefly outlined here. Different from the model proposed by
Hutchinson (1976), a back-stress xðaÞ is introduced in the viscoplas-
tic constitutive relation as follows:
 
sðaÞ  xðaÞ k
c_ ðaÞ ¼ c_ 0 sgnðsðaÞ  xðaÞ Þ ðaÞ

 ð8Þ
g
where c_ 0 is a reference shear strain rate on slip system, k is the rate-
sensitivity parameter, sðaÞ is the resolved shear stress on the ath slip
system of the single crystal, g ðaÞ is the threshold value at which the
slip system a is activated, the back-stress, xðaÞ , characterizes the
nonlinear kinematic hardening on the a-th slip system.
The evolution of g(a) is described as follows (Pan and Rice,
1983):
X
n
RX
n
g_ ðaÞ ðcÞ ¼ hab ðcÞjc_ ðbÞ j; c ¼ jdcðbÞ j
b b
where hab ðcÞ are the slip-plane hardening moduli, n is the number
of crystal slip systems. Moreover, Hutchinson (1970) suggested
hab ðcÞ ¼ hðcÞ½q þ ð1  qÞdab ;
145
where q is a constant, whose value can be chosen in the range from
0 to 1; and Chang and Asaro (1981) suggested
 
2 h0 c
hðcÞ ¼ h0 sec h ; ð11Þ
ss  s0
ð6Þ where h0 is the initial hardening rate, s0 is the critical resolved shear
stress and ss is the saturation value, which can be determined
according to the experimental data.
Following Walker (1981) and Chaboche (1991), the evolution of
x(a) is expressed as (Zhang et al., 2011, 2013):
ðaÞ
x_ ðaÞ ¼ ac_ ðaÞ  c ½1  e1 ð1  expðe2 cÞÞxðaÞ jc_ ðaÞ j  dx ð12Þ
where a is a linear hardening parameter, c and d are nonlinear hard-
ening parameters, respectively, e1 and e2 are used to describe the
saturation of the cyclic hardening. The above material parameters
are determined by the cyclic test data.
ð7Þ
In the above crystal plasticity model, the material hardening on
each a-slip system is divided into two parts. One is the isotropic
hardening represented by g(a) and its evolution. Any slipping no
matter if in positive or opposite direction always leads to an
increase of g(a), which means that the elastic domain will expand
until it saturates. The other is the directional hardening repre-
sented by the back stress, xðaÞ , of the a-slip system and its evolu-
tion. For the evolution of the back stress in positive direction, the
initial threshold value of the slip system is increased in the same
direction but reduced in opposite direction, and vice versa. There-
fore, the directional hardening of the back stress at the slip system
results in the Bauschinger effect, and the response to stretching is
directional dependent for the pre-deformed material. Thus, aniso-
tropic hardening of the material will be represented by the evolu-
tion of back stresses at the slip systems of many grains.
According to the geometric analysis (cf. Hill and Rice (1972),
Asaro and Rice (1977), Needleman et al. (1985)), the plastic strain
rate, e_ p can be expressed as:
n
e_ p ¼ R PðaÞ c_ ðaÞ ð13Þ
a¼1
where PðaÞ is the Schmid tensor. Thus, the constitutive rate relation
<4> <4>
has a similar type as Eq. (7), r_ J ¼ C : e_ e ¼ C : ðe_  e_ p Þ, and it can
be used to solve the incremental stress and strain calculation. The
difference to isotropic material is that the calculation must consider
the orientation of the material’s axis and its rotation, the strain rate
is related to the slipping of the crystal lattice, furthermore the
tensor of tangent elasticity is different. For pure Al, the tensor of
θ
ð9Þ
ð10Þ
Fig. 4. The ring shaped sub-model from the center section of the specimen.
146 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153

tangent elasticity is determined by three independent parameters:
C 11 ; C 12 ; and C 44 .
The above constitutive relation for the model of plasticity has
been implemented as user-supplied subroutine UMAT for the ABA-
QUS/Standard module (Zhang et al., 2011, 2013), the details for the
model and the integral algorithm can be referred for readers.
2.2.3. Procedure of calculation
Due to heavy computational costs, it is not a good choice to
model a macroscopic test specimen at grain scale. Therefore, a rea-
sonable ring section element which is constructed of a number of
grains is adopted as a sub-model. The sub-model method provided
by the ABAQUS software can connect the ring section element,
which can depict the microstructure properties of the polycrystal-
line material such as local anisotropy and plastic slipping, with the
global specimen model that depicts the overall response of materi-
als at the specimen scale.
Assuming that the stress and deformation of the thin-walled
tubular specimen are uniform and homogenous over the gauge
length, a ring with 1.0 mm radial thickness and 0.5 mm longitudi-
nal thickness is cut out from the center region of the specimen and
is regarded as a substructure, as shown in Fig. 4. Using this

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. The ring section sub-model as a 3D polycrystalline aggregate. (a) Grain core random distribution, (b) grain distribution in sub-model.

Experiment Experiment
60 60
Chaboche Simulation Crystal Plasticity Simulation

40 40

20 20
/MPa
/MPa

0 0
Stress
Stress

-20 -20

-40 -40

-60 Strain amplitude 0.3%

-60 Strain amplitude 0.3%

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain E(%) Strain E(%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Simulated stress–strain curves under cyclic tension–compression loading in comparison to experimental results.

Table 2
Material parameters of Chaboche model for pure Al.
0
E/MPa m b Q/MPa a1 /MPa C1/MPa a2/MPa C2/MPa r0 /MPa K/MPa k
56334 0.33 1.0 10 14 2500 20 50 15 10 200

Table 3
The material constants of single crystal aluminum.

C11/GPa C12/GPa C44/GPa s0/MPa ss/MPa h0/MPa a/GPa c/GPa e1 e2 d c_ 0 /s1 k

83.37 41.06 27 8.0 9.0 85 25 3.0 0.1 1.0 0 0.001 200

 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153 147

sub-model the macroscopic axial strain increment, DE, and the 1X 1X

DE ¼ V ie Dezz ; DC ¼ V ie ð2Dezh Þ ð14Þ
shear increment, DC, of the sub-model can be calculated from V V
homogenization
where, V is the volume of the sub-model, Vie is the ieth element vol-
ume. In the same way, the axial stress increment, DR, and the shear
increment, DT, of the sub-model can be calculated by
Crystal Plasticity Simulation
60
Experiment
1X 1X
DR ¼ V ie Drzz ; DT ¼ V ie ðDrzh Þ ð15Þ
40 V V
/MPa

20 Thus, the response of DRij  DEij of the sub-model reflecting the

polycrystal behavior can be obtained. Furthermore, the axial plastic
0 strain increment, DEp , and the shear increment, DCp , for the speci-
Stress

men can also be calculated. The macroscopic strain increments

-20 can also be determined directly from the global FE model instead
by the homogenization calculation, which come up to be almost
-40 the same, numerically.
Therefore, the procedure of the scale-bridging calculation can
Strain amplitude
-60 be presented as following. First, the classic Chaboche constitutive
0.1%-0.3%-0.5%-0.8%
model is employed to simulate the macroscopic response of the
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 specimen. Then, the deformation field in the specimen is applied
Strain E(%)
as boundary condition to the ring-section sub-model. Finally, the
Fig. 7. Comparisons of steady hysteresis loops of cyclic tension–compression crystal plasticity theory is adopted to calculate the internal stresses
loading with different strain amplitude. and deformations of the material in the sub-model.
Considering that grains are randomly distributed in the sub-
model, the Voronoi method is adopted to generate polycrystalline
60 aggregates. First, the finite element mesh of the sub-model is com-
piled, which contains the information of nodes and elements. Then,
50 the coordinates of the grain cores in the sub-model are randomly
generated as shown in Fig. 5(a). Each element in the sub-model
is assigned to the nearest grain core by calculating the distance
40
/MPa

between the centroid of the element and the grain core, for the
50 grains
300 grains grain number is set previously the grain cores can randomly
30 200 grains arranged in the sub-model, by this way every element can find
Stress

500 grains the grain it belongs to, as shown in Fig. 5(b). In order to capture
1500 grains inhomogeneous deformation in grains, FE meshes should be
20
1000 grains refined so that each grain contains a sufficient number of finite
800 grains elements.
10 Finally, the orientation of each grain is described by an orthog-
onal crystallographic coordinate system, which is defined by a ran-
0 0.00 domly generated base vector and a second perpendicular vector.
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
For real materials, a certain texture will develop during processing
Strain E(%) and forming. The material considered in this study has approxi-
mately equiaxed grains (cf. Fig. 1). As a first step, this effect of
Fig. 8. Comparison of stress–strain curves under uniaxial tensile loading simulated
by the sub-model with varying number of grains. the initial texture on the shape and the orientation of the grains
has not been taken into account.

60 60
(a) (b)
Tresca surface Mises surface
40 50
/MPa

20 40
Τ /MPa

Axial tension
Effective stress

0 30 Pure torsion
1/2
3

-20 20

-40 -5
10
ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-3
ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-4 ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-60 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
/MPa Effective Strain Eeq(%)

Fig. 9. Crystal plasticity simulations of monotonic loading; (a) initial yield surfaces in the stress space; (b) effective stress–strain curve.
148 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153

2.2.4. The determination of the parameters of the Chaboche and the
crystal plasticity models
The constitutive parameters of the Chaboche model are deter-
mined from the cyclic tension–compression test with an axial
strain amplitude of 0.3%. As shown in Fig. 6(a), the experimentally
measured cyclic stress–strain curves rapidly reach the saturated
state within 30 tension–compression cycles. In addition, the max-
imum peak stress during each tension–compression cycle changes
only slightly with the number of cycles. In other words, the cyclic
hardening/softening behavior of the polycrystalline aluminum is
insignificant, and exhibits cyclic stable property. For this reason,
the parameters of the Chaboche model can be determined by
matching the stress–strain saturation loop predicted by the model
with the experimentally measured cyclic saturation loop. The
value of the viscosity exponent is set as k0 = 200, so that the mate-
rial behavior is approximately rate-independent. All parameters

60
(a) Crystal-plasticity model A-O A1

40 -5
ΔΕ poffset=2x10
-5
A ΔΕ poffset=5x10
20

Τ /MPa
O A1 ΔΕ poffset=1x10
-4
unload-point p -4
Ε 0
OA1 ΔΕ offset=2x10
Symmetric points -4
1/2 ΔΕ poffset=6x10
3
-3
-20 ΔΕ poffset=1x10

-40

-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa

60
(b) Crystal-plasticity model A-OA2

40

A ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-5
20 -5
ΔΕpoffset=5x10
3 1/2 Τ /MPa

O A2 Ε Unload-point ΔΕpoffset=1x10
-4

0 -4
Symmetric points OA2 ΔΕpoffset=2x10
p -4
ΔΕoffset=6x10
-20 -3
ΔΕpoffset=1x10

-40

-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa
60
(c) Crystal-plasticity model B-OB

40

-5
ΔΕpoffset=2x10
20
3 1/2 Τ /MPa

p -5
ΔΕoffset=5x10
Unload-point -4
OB Ε 0
ΔΕpoffset=1x10
OB ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-4

-4
B -20 ΔΕpoffset=6x10
-3
ΔΕpoffset=1x10

-40 Symmetric points

-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa
Fig. 10. Subsequent yield surfaces in transition from tension to compression after reaching a stable cycle of tension–compression loading as obtained by crystal plasticity
simulations. (a) Unloading at point A to OA1; (b) unloading at point A to OA2; (c) unloading at point B to OB; (d) unloading at point C to OC; (e) unloading at point D to OD.
 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153 149

are listed in Table 2. In Fig. 6(a), the stable hysteresis loops
obtained from the simulation and the experiment are plotted for
comparison. It is obvious that the macroscopic mechanical
response predicted by the Chaboche model with the parameters
listed in Table 2 is in good agreement with experimental results.
In order to determine the model parameters of crystal plasticity
theory, a representative volume element containing 4248 elements
and 50 grains is first computed. By fitting the computationally
obtained cyclic stress–strain curve to the experimentally measured
one, the parameters of the crystal plasticity model are incipiently
estimated. Then, by performing a further refined modeling of the
submodel, now containing 35,256 elements and 200 grains and
fine-tuning the initially estimated values, more accurate parame-
ters are obtained as listed in Table 3. In order to validate the pre-
cision of the model parameters, the computationally obtained
cyclic stress–strain curves and experimentally measured ones are
plotted in Fig. 6(b) for the applied cyclic strain amplitude of 0.3%.
The computed cyclic stress–strain loops cover the experimentally
measured ones, indicating that the model parameters of crystal
plasticity theory in Table 3 are sufficiently accurate. Crystal plastic-
ity simulations for cyclic amplitudes of 0.1%, 0.3%, 0.5% and 0.8%,
respectively, are shown in Fig. 7.
2.2.5. The effect of the grain numbers of the sub-model on the
macroscopic response
As mentioned above, the sub-model is cut out from the center
region of the specimen. The number of grains in this ring should
be large enough to achieve a convergent homogeneous solution
of the stress and strain fields. However, as the computational costs
increase heavily with increasing number of grains, a proper grain
number should be adopted in all simulations. Sub-models which
contain 50, 200, 300, 500, 800, 1000 and 1500 grains, respectively,
have been computed by crystal plasticity FEM. The computation-
ally obtained stress–strain curves of sub-models under uniaxial
tension are given in Fig. 8. It is seen that the computational results
become insensitive to the grain number once it is larger than 200.
This convergence behavior of the homogenized mechanical
response of the sub-model is attributed to the randomness of the
grain orientation and the grain size. Therefore, a sub-model which
contains 200 grains, a total of 35,256 elements and 44,296 nodes is
adopted in the following computations.
If the microstructural characterization of the material in the
polycrystal sub-model is required to match with the real grain size,
the centroid positions of all crystal nuclei of the polycrystalline
aggregate needs to be calculated from the spatial distribution of
the real grains. Due to the limited capacity of the computer, any
analysis using the real grain size is impossible. The study of yield
surfaces in this article is mainly concerned on the overall macro-
scopic response of materials, which can be conducted by homogeni-
zation of a ‘‘mesoscopically’’ heterogeneous material. The attention
is paid mainly to the question whether the macroscopic plastic
behavior of the material can be reflected compared to the experi-
mental observation or not. Thus, it is not relevant if the average grain
size of model differs from the real size of the grains in the material.

60
(d) Crystal-plasticity model C-OC

40
-5
ΔΕpoffset=2x10
20 ΔΕpoffset=5x10
-5
3 1/2 Τ /MPa

-4
OC Ε Unload-point ΔΕpoffset=1x10
0 -4
OC ΔΕpoffset=2x10
-4
ΔΕpoffset=6x10
-20
-3
C ΔΕpoffset=1x10

-40 Symmetric points

-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa

60
(e) Crystal-plasticity model D-OD

40
-5
ΔΕpoffset=2x10
20 -5
ΔΕpoffset=5x10
3 1/2 Τ /MPa

Ε unload-point ΔΕpoffset=1x10
-4
0
-4
OD ΔΕpoffset=2x10
OD -4
-20 ΔΕpoffset=6x10
-3
D ΔΕpoffset=1x10
-40 Symmetric points

-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa
Fig. 10 (continued)
150 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153

p -4
60 (a) ΔΕoffset=1x10 Crystal-plasticity model

40

20 A-OA1

3 1/2 Τ /MPa
A-OA2
B-OB
0
C-OC
D-OD
-20
Symmetric points
-40
A
O A1
-60

OB O A2 Ε -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

OC /MPa

ΔΕpoffset=10
-4
OD B 60 (b) Test
C
D 40

A-OA1
20
A-OA2
3 1/2 Τ /MPa

B-OB
0 C-OC
D-OD
Symmetric points
-20

-40

-60

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

/MPa

Fig. 11. Subsequent yield surfaces after reaching a stable tension–compression cycle in transition from tension to compression as obtained (a) by crystal plasticity
simulations and (b) by tests.

3. Results and discussions
Using the above-mentioned model, through exerting different
combined proportional axial and torsional loading, the different
initial yield surfaces have been determined with the specified off-
set strains as shown in Fig. 9(a). They represent the material’s ini-
tial state, that is without residual stresses or strains, with equiaxed
crystal structure and a random orientation of grains. The surfaces
are elliptic and their sizes depend on the specified offset strain.
Mises’ and Tresca’s descriptions are equal when the material is
uniaxially loaded, but differ in pure shear. The initial yield surfaces
obtained from crystal plasticity calculations are found to be very
close to Tresca’s description. The corresponding effective stress–
strain curves for tension and the torsion are plotted in Fig. 9(b).
They differ because the definition of the effective stress is based
on the Mises description whereas the real yield surface is similar
to Tresca’s description.
Initial and subsequent yield surfaces differ. After plastic pre-
deformation by tensile deformation, for example, conspicuous
anisotropic hardening can be observed.
Adopting the same loading paths as in the experiments (Fig. 3)
reloading the material in different ratios of tension (or compres-
sion) and torsion starting from the unloading point, a series of crys-
tal plasticity analyses have been performed to obtain the
subsequent yield surfaces of polycrystalline aluminum. They are
plotted for five different cases in Fig. 10, where Fig. 10(a) and (b)
correspond to the same unloading point A but different unloading
end points OA1 and OA2, respectively, and Fig. 10(c)–(e) correspond
to the unloading points B, C and D, respectively. All subsequent
yield surfaces in Fig. 10 differ noticeably from the initial yield sur-
face. The largest deviations are found at the sharp corner in pre-
deformation direction and the relatively flat bottom at its opposite
direction (Bauschinger effect). A comparison between Fig. 10(a)
and (b) shows that the subsequent yield surface after unloading
to the end point OA2 is slightly different from that after unloading
to OA1 due to the reverse loading at OA2. Moreover, it can be clearly
seen from Fig. 10 that the shape of a subsequent yield surface is
closely related to the direction of plastic deformation induced by
cyclic preloading, and the curvature of the subsequent yield sur-
faces in the loading direction is larger than that in the opposite
direction. In the cyclic loading process, tensile and compressive
stress state changes alternately, then the ‘‘sharp corner’’ of yield
surface should change with it. As shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b), the
‘‘sharp corners’’ of the yield surfaces point to the tensile direction
for tensile pre-deformation, while Fig. 10(c)–(e) show that the
‘‘sharp corner’’ of the yield surface a point to the compressive
direction for the compressive pre-deformation. Obviously, if the
material undergoes plastic pre-deformation in a certain direction,
the strain hardening properties at other loading directions strongly
depend on the direction of accumulated plastic strain, resulting in
hardening anisotropy and visible change of the subsequent yield
surfaces. As mentioned above, the shape of subsequent yield sur-
face is closely related to the offset strain. In addition, it can be seen
in Fig. 10 that the subsequent yield surfaces are severely distorted
for small offset strains. With increasing the offset strain, the subse-
quent yield surfaces tend to become elliptic.
 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153 151

60
(a) Subsequent yield surface A-O A1

40
A
OA1
20

Τ /MPa
OB OA2 Ε 0
OC Symmetric points

1/2
3
-20 initial
OD B
C -40 ΔΕ p ΔΕ poffset= 1x10
-4 -3
D offset= 1x10
Test Test
-60 Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
/MPa

60 60
(b) Subsequent yield surface A-OA2 (c) Subsequent yield surface B-OB

40 40

20 20
31/2 Τ /MPa

Τ /MPa

0 0
Symmetric points Symmetric points
1/2

initial
3

-20 -20
initial

-40 ΔΕp ΔΕpoffset=1x10

-4 -3
-40 ΔΕp =1x10-4
offset
ΔΕ poffset=1x10-3 offset=1x10
Test Test Test Test
Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity
-60 -60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
෤/MPa /MPa
60 60
Subsequent yield surface
(d) Subsequent yield surface C-OC (e) D-OD

40 40

20 20
31/2 Τ /MPa

Τ /MPa

0 0
Symmetric points Symmetric points
1/2
3

-20 -20
initial initial

-40 -40 ΔΕp -4

ΔΕpoffset=1x10-4 ΔΕ poffset=1x10-3 offset=1x10 ΔΕpoffset=1x10
-3

Test Test Test Test

Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity -60
Crystal-plasticity Crystal-plasticity
-60
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

෤ /MPa /MPa
Fig. 12. Subsequent yield surfaces after reaching a stable tension–compression cycle as obtained from tests and simulations. (a) Unloading at point A to OA1; (b) unloading at
point A to OA2; (c) unloading at point B to OB; (d) unloading at point C to OC; (e) unloading at point D to OD.

When the subsequent yield surface is determined with a smal- elements is different and random for different loading path. The
ler offset strain, the new plastic deformation is produced only in yield point determined by some specified loading path with smal-
very few elements or grains of the sub-model, and the number of ler offset strain may deviate abnormally. It may lead to scatter and
152 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153
concavity of the local yield surface. This phenomenon was also
observed and described by Graff et al. (2007). As shown in
Fig. 10, the subsequent yield defined by offset strains less or equal
to 1  104 does noticeably deviate when re-loading from the
unloading point along the 120° direction. In classical plasticity the-
ory of homogeneous materials, the yield surfaces are postulated as
convex based on Drucker postulate. If the offset strain is chosen
higher than 1  104 , for example 2  104, 6  104 or 104 plas-
tic deformation occurs in much more elements or grains of the sub-
model, leading to a plastic behavior close to a homogeneous mate-
rial, and the phenomenon of concavity does no longer appear.
For the present preloading and unloading cases, the subsequent
yield surfaces computationally obtained by CPFEM and experimen-
tally measured are plotted together in Fig. 11(a) and (b) for com-
parison, where the same offset strain of DEpoffset ¼ 104 is chosen.
The subsequent yield surfaces computationally obtained by CPFEM
are close to those experimentally measured, although there are
slight differences in shape. In particular, with the change of the
preloading directions from tension to compression, the ‘‘sharp cor-
ner’’ direction of the subsequent yield surfaces changes simulta-
neously. Obviously, the crystal plasticity model incorporating the
description of the slip deformation, nonlinear hardening and
Fig. 13. The stress and strain contours of a 3D Voronoi polycrystalline aggregate after 30 tension–compression pre-cycles tension up to point A. (a) Mises effective stress; (b)
effective plastic strain (c) tensile stress; (d) tensile strain.
microstructure transformation satisfactorily characterizes the
anisotropic hardening properties of materials.
Subsequent yield surfaces for different unloading points A, B, C,
D and the end points OA1, OA2, OB, OC,OD are plotted in Fig. 12(a)–
(e), and the effects of two offset strains DEpoffset ¼ 104 and
DEpoffset ¼ 103 are considered. It is obvious that there are some dif-
ferences in the sizes of computationally obtained and experimen-
tally measured subsequent yield surfaces, although their shapes
are close to each other. For the smaller offset strain
DEpoffset ¼ 104 , the yield surfaces have a greater curvature in the
preloading direction, showing marked anisotropic hardening char-
acteristics. However, for the larger offset strain DEpoffset ¼ 103 , the
differences due to directional hardening have significantly
decreased, and the shape and the size of subsequent yield surfaces
predicted by the crystal plasticity model are in agreement with the
results measured by experiments.
For the classical J2-type plasticity theory, the shape of the yield
surface is circular. it can move (kinematic hardening) and similarly
expand (isotropic hardening) in stress space with the increasing
accumulation of plastic strain. Obviously, these classical combined
hardening models cannot depict the complicated evolution of
 G. Hu et al. / International Journal of Solids and Structures 56–57 (2015) 142–153
subsequent yield surfaces as exhibited in the present experiments.
However, the crystal plasticity model, which inherently considers
the anisotropy caused by the crystalline microstructure and crystal
plastic slip, can give a reasonable description to the directional
hardening of the subsequent yield surfaces induced by preloading.
The above-mentioned analysis demonstrates that the choice of
the offset strain has a significant effect on the size and shape of the
subsequent yield surface. In fact, similar conclusions from previous
experimental researches were reported (Phillips and Tang, 1972;
Moon, 1976). In addition, the calculated non-convexity of yield sur-
face may arise from an improper specified offset strain (Graff et al.,
2007), which is very serious in plasticity theory. When the subse-
quent yield surfaces are determined by means of a very small offset
strain, they might produce abnormal deformation patterns for some
special loading paths because very few elements or grains of the sub-
model sustain new plastic deformation. Then the respective yield
point may significantly deviate, leading to local concavity. This phe-
nomenon is possible in the sub-model of heterogeneous material.
But in the classical plasticity theory for homogeneous material, the
subsequent yield surface certainly has to be convex based on Druc-
ker’s postulate. For a real heterogeneous material, the stress and
strain fields are inhomogeneous, which can be realized by simula-
tions using the crystal plasticity model. As an example, the contours
of Mises effective stress, accumulated effective plasticity strain,
axial tensile stress and axial tensile strain in the sub-model after
30 tension–compression cycles are displayed in Fig. 13. Stresses
and strains in a heterogeneous material are very non-uniform.
4. Conclusions
A crystal plasticity model with an especial consideration of non-
linear kinematic hardening is applied to study the subsequent yield
surfaces of polycrystalline aluminum under cyclic tension–com-
pression preloading. To describe the subsequent directional hard-
ening, the back-stress is especially introduced. A careful
comparison between the experimentally measured subsequent
yield surfaces and computationally obtained ones by CPFEM is
made. Main conclusions are as follows:
(1) When the strain at the unloading point changes from ten-
sion to compression, the direction of ‘‘sharp corner’’ of
subsequent yield surface is changed. In this process, the
size of the subsequent yield surface is slightly changed
but the shape of the subsequent yield surface is distorted
severely and its position in stress space is also translated
observably.
(2) A scale-bridging modeling method, which crosses the mac-
roscopic specimen scale to the approximate grain scale in
which the material’s local anisotropy and plastic slipping
can be represented, is proposed. The Chaboche rate-depen-
dent constitutive relation is employed to model the mechan-
ical behavior of the specimen and the crystal plasticity
theory extended by introducing a back stress is adopted to
capture the grain level deformation behavior of the sub-
model. A comparison between the experimental and compu-
tational results shows that the present cross-scale modeling
method can successfully capture the cyclic characteristics,
the Bauschinger effect and other cyclic hysteresis phenom-
ena observed in the present experiments.
(3) For different unloading starting and end points after reach-
ing a stable tension–compression cycle, the shape, size and
position of subsequent yield surfaces in the stress space dis-
play obvious deformation-induced anisotropic hardening.
The subsequent yield surfaces are significantly affected by
the offset strain used to define the material yield. Although
153
the evolution of subsequent yield surfaces under different
pre-loading paths is very complicated, the main characteris-
tics can be satisfactorily captured by the present model.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support rendered by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11072064, 11272094
and 11472085) and Key Project of Guangxi Science and Technology
Lab Center (No. LGZX201101) and Project supported by Guangxi
Education Department (No. 2013YB312). These financial supports
are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Asaro, R.J., Rice, J.R., 1977. Strain localization in ductile single crystals. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids. 25, 309–338.
Chaboche, J.L., 1989. Constitutive equations for cyclic plasticity and cyclic
viscoplasticity. Int. J. Plast. 5 (3), 247–302.
Chaboche, J.L., 1991. On some modifications of kinematic hardening to improve the
description of ratchetting effects. Int. J. Plast. 7, 661–678.
Chang, Y.W., Asaro, R.J., 1981. An experimental study of shear localization in
aluminum–copper single crystals. Acta Metall. 29, 241–257.
Eisenberg, M.A., Yen, C.F., 1984. The anisotropic deformation of yield surfaces. ASME
J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 106, 355–360.
Francois, M., 2001. A plasticity model with yield surface distortion for non
proportional loading. Int. J. Plast. 17 (5), 703–717.
Graff, S., Brocks, W., Steglich, D., 2007. Yielding of magnesium: from single crystal to
polycrystalline aggregates. Int. J. Plast. 23 (12), 1957–1978.
Helling, D.E., Miller, A.K., Stout, M.G., 1986. An experimental investigation of the
yield loci of 1100-0 aluminum, 70:30 brass, and an overaged 2024 aluminum
alloy after various prestrains. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 108, 313–320.
Hill, R., Rice, J.R., 1972. Constitutive analysis of elastic-plastic crystal at arbitrary
strain. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20, 401–413.
Hutchinson, J.W., 1970. Elastic–plastic behaviour of polycrystalline metals and
composites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 319, 247–272.
Hutchinson, J.W., 1976. Bounds and self-consistent estimates for creep of
polycrystalline materials. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A348, 101–127.
Ishikawa, H., 1997. Subsequent yield surface probed from its current center. Int. J.
Plast. 13, 533–549.
Ishikawa, H., Sasaki, K., 1988. Yield surfaces of SUS 304 under cyclic loading. J. Eng.
Mater. Technol. 110, 364–371.
Khan, A.S., Kazmi, R., Pande, A., Stoughton, T., 2009. Evolution of subsequent yield
surfaces and elastic constants with finite plastic deformation. Part-I: a very low
work hardening aluminum alloy (Al6061-T6511). Int. J. Plast. 25 (9), 1611–
1625.
Khan, A.S., Pandey, A., Stoughton, T., 2010a. Evolution of subsequent yield surfaces
and elastic constants with finite plastic deformation. Part II: a very high work
hardening aluminum alloy (annealed 1100 Al). Int. J. Plast. 26 (10), 1421–1431.
Khan, A.S., Pandey, A., Stoughton, T., 2010b. Evolution of subsequent yield surfaces
and elastic constants with finite plastic deformation. Part III: yield surface in
tension–tension stress space (Al 6061-T 6511 and annealed 1100 Al). Int. J.
Plast. 26 (10), 1432–1441.
Kowalewski, Z.L., Sliwowski, M., 1997. Effect of cyclic loading on the yield surface
evolution of 18G2A low-alloy steel. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 39, 51–68.
Kurtyka, T., 1988. Parameter identification of a distortional model of subsequent
yield surfaces. Arch. Mech. 40, 433–454.
Kurtyka, T., Zyczkowski, M., 1996. Evolution equations for distortional plastic
hardening. Int. J. Plast. 12 (2), 191–213.
Moon, H., 1976. An experimental study of the outer yield surfaces for annealed
polycrystalline aluminium. Acta Mech. 24, 191–208.
Needleman, A., Asaro, R.J., Lemonds, J., Peirce, D., 1985. Finite element analysis of
crystalline solids. Comput. Method. Appl. M. 52, 689–708.
Pan, J., Rice, J.R., 1983. Rate sensitivity of plastic flow and implications for yield-
surface vertices. Int. J. Solids Struct. 19, 973–987.
Phillips, A., Lu, W.Y., 1984. An experimental investigation yield surfaces and loading
of surfaces of pure aluminum with stress-controlled and strain-controlled paths
of loading. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 106, 349–354.
Phillips, A., Tang, J.L., 1972. The effect of loading path on the yield surface at
elevated temperature. Int. J. Solids Struct. 8, 464–474.
Sung, S.J., Liu, L.W., Hong, H.K., Wu, H.C., 2011. Evolution of yield surface in the 2D
and 3D stress spaces. Int. J. Solids Struct. 48, 1054–1069.
Walker, K.P., 1981. Research and development program for non-linear structural
modeling with advanced time-temperature dependent constitutive
relationships. Report PWA-5700-50, NASA CR-165533.
Wu, H.C., Yeh, W.C., 1991. On the experimental determination of yield surfaces and
some results of annealed 304 stainless steel. Int. J. Plast. 7 (8), 803–826.
Zhang, K.S., Shi, Y.K., Xu, L.B., Wei, D.K., 2011. Anisotropy of yielding/hardening and
micro-inhomogeneity of deforming/rotating for a polycrystalline metal under
cyclic tension–compression. Acta Metall. Sin. 10 (47), 1292–1300 (in Chinese).
Zhang, K.S., Shi, Y.K., Ju, J.W., 2013. Grain-level statistical plasticity analysis on
strain cycle fatigue of a FCC metal. Mech. Mater. 64, 76–90.