Fig. 1. Geometries of the simple shear specimen.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the corresponding locations of the yield stresses measured by the uniaxial tensile and compressive tests, simple shear tests, and biaxial tensile tests using cruciform specimens on the (a) NP-PWC and (b) DP-PWC.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of (a) NP-DPSR and (b) DP-DPSR measured by uniaxial tensile tests and biaxial tensile tests using cruciform specimens.

Fig. 4. Experimental NP-PWCs and normalized NP-PWCs of (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel.

Fig. 5. Experimental DP-PWCs and normalized DP-PWCs of (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the NP-PWCs calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental NP-PWCs.

Fig. 7. Comparison of the DP-PWCs calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental DP-PWCs.

Fig. 8. Prediction errors of the NP-PWCs ($\Delta_{\mathrm{PWC}}^{\mathrm{NP}}$), DP-PWCs ($\Delta_{\mathrm{PWC}}^{\mathrm{DP}}$), and overall plastic work contours ($\Delta_{\mathrm{PWC}}^{\mathrm{ALL}}$) for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models.

Fig. 9. Comparison of the σTα calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel with the experimental results.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the σCα calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel with the experimental results.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the NP-DPSRs calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental results.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the DP-DPSRs calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental results.

Fig. 13. Prediction errors in the NP-DPSRs ($\Delta_{\mathrm{DPSR}}^{\mathrm{NP}}$), DP-DPSRs ($\Delta_{\mathrm{DPSR}}^{\mathrm{DP}}$), and overall DPSRs ($\Delta_{\mathrm{DPSR}}^{\mathrm{ALL}}$) for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models.

Fig. 14. Comparison of the rTα-values calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel with the experimental data.

Fig. 15. Comparison of the rCα-values calculated by several AFR and non-AFR models for (a) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (b) DP490 steel with the experimental data.

Fig. 16. Comparison of the NP-PWCs and DP-PWCs calculated by the PSY2019 YSF with the IH and AH models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental results.

Fig. 17. Comparison of the σTα and σCα calculated by the PSY2019 YSF with the IH and AH models for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental data.

Fig. 18. Plastic potential surfaces calculated by Hou et al. 2020 PPF with constant and variable parameters for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel.

Fig. 19. Comparison of the rα-values calculated by the Hou et al. 2020 PPF with constant and variable parameters for (a, b) 6016-T4 aluminum alloy and (c, d) DP490 steel with the experimental data.