Role of plastic anisotropy and its evolution on springback

Springback angles and anticlastic curvatures reported for a series of draw-bend tests have been analyzed in detail using a new anisotropic hardening model, four common sheet metal yield functions, and finite element procedures developed for this problem. A common lot of 6022-T4 aluminum alloy was used for all testing in order to reduce material variation. The new anisotropic hardening model extends existing mixed kinematic/isotropic and nonlinear kinematic formulations. It replicates three principal characteristics observed in uniaxial tension/compression test reversals: a transient region with low yield stress and high strain hardening, and a permanent offset of the flow stress at large subsequent strains. This hardening model was implemented in ABAQUS in conjunction with four yield functions: von Mises, Hill quadratic, Barlat three-parameter, and Barlat 1996. The simulated springback angle depended intimately on both hardening law after the strain reversal and on the plastic anisotropy. The springback angle at low back forces was controlled by the hardening law, while at higher back forces the anticlastic curvature, which depends principally on yield surface shape, controlled the springback angle. Simulations utilizing Barlatʹs 1996 yield function showed remarkable agreement with all measurements, in contrast to simulations with the other three yield functions.