Date December 16, 2001 Memo Number STI:01/11

Subject Tricks:: Plasticity Hardening Rules

Sheldon's ANSYS Tips and Tricks
Keywords Isotropic, Kinematic Hardening

1. Introduction:
ANSYS has a wide range of constitutive models and element technology available to the user. In
this memo, the basics of isotropic and kinematic hardening for plasticity will be discussed,
specifically related to proportional/non-proportional, monotonic/cyclic loading, and finite strain
applications.

This memo assumes that the user is familiar with the basics of plasticity, including:
• Selection of yield criterion (von Mises or Hill potential)
• Selection of hardening rule (isotropic, kinematic, nonlinear kinematic, combined)
• Selection of strain-rate-independent vs. rate-dependent models
Although future Tips & Tricks memos may address some of these topics, for more detailed
information, it is suggested that the reader attend the “ANSYS 6.0 Advanced Structural
Nonlinearities” training seminar, which your local ASDs and ANSYS, Inc. may hold periodically.

2. Background Discussion:
Hardening rules may best be illustrated when yield surfaces are plotted in principal stress space,
as shown below. Recall that, for the Mises yield criterion, the yield surface is a cylinder, the axis of
which lies along the value σ 1= σ 2=σ3.
For most yield criterion in ANSYS, we assume that inelastic strains are incompressible, so they
have no dependence on hydrostatic pressure. That is why we are usually concerned with deviatoric
stresses, which are stress values which deviate from the axis σ 1= σ 2=σ3. The figures represent the
view in principal stress space, when looking directly at this “hydrostatic pressure axis.”
Inside of the yield surface is the elastic domain, whereas plasticity is described by the surface
itself; no stress state can exist outside of the cylinder. Hardening rules describe how this yield
surface changes in shape as yielding occurs.
Isotropic hardening describes a dilation or isotropic
expansion of the yield surface. This is expressed by the
top figure on the right. As yielding occurs, the yield
surface expands uniformly. This means that the elastic
domain (inside the cylinder) grows, so, if loading is
reversed, yielding occurs at a value of 2σ’. The
hardening can be described as bilinear (BISO),
multilinear (MISO), or by the Voce equation (NLISO).
Kinematic hardening (bottom figure on right)
represents a translation of the yield surface. This means
that the elastic domain is always the same size, although
the yield surface moves in principal stress space. Hence,
if loading is reversed, yielding occurs in compressing at a
value of 2σy. This is an approximation of the
Bauschinger effect, a behavior seen by most metals. The
hardening can be expressed as bilinear (BKIN),
multilinear (KINH/MKIN), or nonlinear (CHAB). The
Chaboche model is actually a bit more sophisticated, as
this nonlinear kinematic hardening law can combine
the effects of up to five kinematic models with a limiting yield surface. The Chaboche model can be
combined with any isotropic hardening law to also describe combined hardening, which is a
1
translation and expansion of the yield surface.

1
For more details on nonlinear kinematic hardening and combined hardening laws, please refer to the “ANSYS 6.0 Advanced Structural
Nonlinearities” Seminar Lecture notes or the ANSYS Theory Manual, Ch. 4.1.
3. General Recommendations for Isotropic and Kinematic Hardening:
In this memo, only simple isotropic and kinematic hardening will be discussed. There has
sometimes been confusion on when these hardening rules are to be used, so some general
characteristics will be discussed.

Isotropic hardening can be used for large-strain analyses of metals (> 5-10% true strain).
Isotropic hardening is not meant for cyclic loading applications because it does not account for the
Bauschinger effect. Moreover, applicability of isotropic hardening for non-proportional loading is
2
left up to the user, although, generally speaking, it is meant for proportional loading only.
On the other hand, kinematic hardening is usually meant for non-proportional, cyclic loading
since the Bauschinger effect is approximated with this model. However, it is generally meant for
small-strain applications.
Combined hardening (and Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening), though not discussed in
detail in this memo, can be utilized to model complex, large-strain cyclic behavior such as cyclic
hardening/softening and rachetting/shakedown.

4. Bilinear and Multilinear Kinematic Hardening:

The bilinear kinematic hardening model (BKIN) usually cannot represent large-strain effects
well because of the constant tangent modulus. The true stress-strain slope of most metals usually
changes as the strains increase, but the bilinear model fails to account for this due to its simple
representation. This means that the yield surface can translate forever in principal stress space, even
3
allowing for the unrealistic possibility of passing through the origin.

There are two multilinear kinematic hardening models available in ANSYS, namely MKIN and
KINH. Both models use the sublayer model, which can be thought of as a weighted response of
multiple elasto-perfectly-plastic ‘layers.’ A simplified view of this is that, as a layer ‘yields,’ it
becomes perfectly plastic, so it provides no stiffness response; this allows for the modeling of a
piecewise linear curve.
The author recommends using KINH over MKIN due to the following reasons:
• KINH allows up to 20 points per stress-strain curve, whereas MKIN only allows up to 5
points.
• For KINH, input is done via TBPT commands, which is more consistent with other piecewise-
linear models such as MISO and MELAS, but MKIN relies on TBDATA input.
• KINH allows up to 40 temperature-dependent curves, whereas MKIN allows only 5
temperature-dependent curves. Furthermore, in the case of temperature-dependent curves,
MKIN requires each curve to have the same strain values, whereas KINH does not.
KINH is the same as MKIN with TBOPT=2, or use of Rice’s model for temperature-dependency. As a
result, KINH behaves the same as MKIN (TBOPT=2), so, due to the reasons mentioned above, the
user should consider using KINH.

5. Proportional and Non-proportional Loading:

The difference in cyclic loading behavior (inclusion of the Bauschinger effect) has been
discussed above for isotropic and kinematic hardening. For proportional and non-proportional
loading, however, the difference between isotropic and kinematic hardening may not be clear.

The author believes that for monotonic, proportional loading, MISO and KINH should provide
similar results, even for most large-strain problems. This is because the response under proportional
loading is similar, regardless of whether the yield surface expands or translates. This assumption is
dependent on the stress-strain curve not having a maximum stress greater than 1.5-2 times the yield
4
strength. This is a trivial case since, if the loading were proportional, isotropic hardening would be
preferred, anyway.

2
Proportional loading is when, under a given load, the principal stresses maintain constant ratios. Another way to view this is that,
during proportional loading, the stress state goes through a straight line through the origin in principal stress space.
3
This scenario would mean that, during unloading, the material would yield.
4
Although, in Section 3, it was mentioned that bilinear/multilinear kinematic hardening models are meant for small-strain applications,
this special case of large-strain, proportional loading is being considered.
 For non-proportional loading in large-strain applications, the choice of
isotropic or kinematic hardening is less clear. An example of this is shown
on the right, as plotted in 2D principal stress space. Two loads are applied
to a model, but they are non-proportional (load sequence 2 does not pass
through the origin of the yield surface). As noted in Section 3, isotropic
hardening is generally meant for proportional loading only, as the yield
surface expands uniformly in principal stress space, which wouldn’t
necessarily account for the change in direction of load 2. Also, kinematic
hardening is meant for small-strain applications due to the translation of the
yield surface, as one could imagine unexpected behavior occurring, if the
yield surface translated by a very large amount.
To understand better the difference between these hardening rules
under non-proportional loading, a simple tensile specimen model was used,
as shown on the right. The two specimens had the same mesh and same
stress-strain definition, as shown in the third figure on the right, although
one mesh used MISO, the other used KINH.
A torsional load was applied as load step 1, then an axial load was
imposed as load step 2. This was accomplished with rigid-deformable
contact, and the problem was displacement-controlled.
The results of the simulation are shown in the last two figures on the
right. The second-to-the-bottom figure is a plot of principal stresses at a
node in the midspan of the specimen. Under load 1 (proportional loading),
the response between MISO (blue) and KINH (red) are almost exactly the
same. However, as the second load is applied, because it is non-
proportional, the resulting stresses differ between the two models.
Likewise, if the stress-strain response is plotted for the same node
locations, the difference between MISO and KINH can be readily seen. Up
until the end of load step 1, both MISO and KINH follow the original stress-
strain curve well. During load step 2, however, both models do not fit the
original stress-strain curve exactly, although MISO follows the original
stress-strain curve more than KINH, for this particular problem. The
change in KINH stress-strain response is due to the “reshifting” of the yield
5
surface under the second load step.

6. Conclusion:
The choice of hardening law, yield criterion, and stress-strain curve
representation is dependent on the material used and expected loading
conditions. As long as the constitutive model adequately describes the
material within the strain range of interest, that constitutive model
should provide useful results in simulation.
This memo is not meant as a comparison of which hardening law is
‘better,’ as application dictates the selection of the hardening rule. Instead,
the author hopes that this memo serves as an illustration of what happens
as the yield surface expands or translates during yielding, in order to
provide a better understanding of hardening rules and their usefulness.
The more complex and powerful combined hardening laws (Chaboche and
isotropic hardening) can also be used to model a much wider range of
material behavior, although it requires a more thorough understanding of
materials’ cyclic response than can be covered in this short memo.

__________________________
Sheldon Imaoka
ANSYS, Inc.
This document is not being provided in my capacity as an ANSYS employee. I am solely responsible for the content.

5
The reader needs to consider what happens in the physical material response under non-proportional loading and how this relates to a
scalar yield criterion when determining the applicability of MISO vs. KINH for a given problem.
 Sheldon’s ANSYS Tips and Tricks
Sheldon’s ANSYS Tips and Tricks will be emailed to subscribers about once a week (or
whenever I have time to write one of these up). You can subscribe by visiting the following URL:
http://ansys.net/ansys/ansys_tips.html

Archives will be posted on that page with password access (which will be mailed with each new
issue). General ANSYS Tips and Tricks can also be found at the above URL.

ANSYS Training
ANSYS, Inc. as well as the ANSYS Support Distributors (ASDs) provide training classes in many
different areas of ANSYS, ranging from Introductory classes to CFD to Structural Nonlinearities to
Electromagnetics. Information on training classes and schedules at ANSYS, Inc. can be found at:

http://www.ansys.com/services/training/index.htm

New classes current offered include High-Frequency Electromagnetics and Advanced Structural
Nonlinearities. Please contact ANSYS, Inc. or your local ASD for their training schedules and
offerings.

XANSYS Mailing List

The XANSYS mailing list has more than 2300 subscribers (as of 9/25/01) with about 40 postings
per day. This is a forum for exchanging ideas, providing/receiving assistance from other users, and
general discussions related to ANSYS. (Note that it is recommended to contact your local ASD for
issues related to technical support) You can sign up by visiting the following URL:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xansys

Otherwise, you can also subscribe/unsubscribe by sending an email to the following address:

Post message: xansys@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe: xansys-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: xansys-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: xansys-owner@yahoogroups.com

Because the amount of emails is very large, you can also subscribe in “digest mode” or access the
postings via a web browser instead:

Digest mode: xansys-digest@yahoogroups.com

Web-based: xansys-nomail@yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xansys/messages