This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

21551320 Plasticity Theory Jacob Lubliner|Views: 192|Likes: 38

Published by sorushkhaf

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/28302413/21551320-Plasticity-Theory-Jacob-Lubliner

06/22/2013

text

original

- Section 1.1 Mathematical Fundamentals
- 1.1.3. Vector and Tensor Calculus
- Section 1.2 Continuum Deformation
- 1.2.4. Compatibility Conditions
- Section 1.3 Mechanics of Continuous Bodies
- Section 1.4 Constitutive Relations: Elastic
- 1.4.1. Energy and Thermoelasticity
- Section 1.5 Constitutive Relations: Inelastic
- 1.5.1. Inelasticity
- 1.5.2. Linear Viscoelasticity
- 1.5.3. Internal Variables: General Theory
- 1.5.4. Flow Law and Flow Potential
- Section 2.1 Phenomenology of Plastic Deformation
- 2.1.1 Experimental Stress-Strain Relations
- 2.1.2 Plastic Deformation
- 2.1.3 Temperature and Rate Dependence
- Section 2.2 Crystal Plasticity
- 2.2.1 Crystals and Slip
- 2.2.2. Dislocations and Crystal Plasticity
- 2.2.3. Dislocation Models of Plastic Phenomena
- Section 2.3 Plasticity of Soils, Rocks, and Con-
- 2.3.1. Plasticity of Soil
- 2.3.2. “Plasticity” of Rock and Concrete
- Section 3.1 Viscoplasticity
- 3.1.1. Internal-Variable Theory of Viscoplasticity
- 3.1.2. Transition to Rate-Independent Plasticity
- 3.1.3. Viscoplasticity Without a Yield Surface
- Section 3.2 Rate-Independent Plasticity
- 3.2.1. Flow Rule and Work-Hardening
- 3.2.3. Strain-Space Plasticity
- Section 3.3 Yield Criteria, Flow Rules and Hard-
- 3.3.1. Introduction
- 3.3.2. Yield Criteria Independent of the Mean Stress
- 3.3.3. Yield Criteria Dependent on the Mean Stress
- 3.3.4. Yield Criteria Under Special States of Stress or De- formation
- 3.3.5. Hardening Rules
- Section 3.4 Uniqueness and Extremum Theorems
- 3.4.1. Uniqueness Theorems
- 3.4.2. Extremum and Variational Principles
- 3.4.3. Rigid–Plastic Materials
- Section 3.5 Limit-Analysis and Shakedown Theo-
- 3.5.1. Standard Limit-Analysis Theorems
- 3.5.2. Nonstandard Limit-Analysis Theorems
- 3.5.3. Shakedown Theorems
- Section 4.1 Elementary Problems
- 4.1.1. Introduction: Statically Determinate Problems
- 4.1.2. Thin-Walled Circular Tube in Torsion and Extension
- 4.1.3. Thin-Walled Cylinder Under Pressure and Axial Force
- 4.1.4. Statically Indeterminate Problems
- Section 4.2 Elastic-Plastic Torsion
- 4.2.1. The Torsion Problem
- 4.2.2. Elastic Torsion
- 4.2.3. Plastic Torsion
- Section 4.3 The Thick-Walled Hollow Sphere and
- 4.3.1. Elastic Hollow Sphere Under Internal and External Pressure
- 4.3.2. Elastic-Plastic Hollow Sphere Under Internal Pressure
- 4.3.4. Hollow Cylinder: Elastic Solution and Initial Yield Pressure
- Section 4.4 Elastic-Plastic Bending
- 4.4.1. Pure Bending of Prismatic Beams
- 4.4.2. Rectangular Beams Under Transverse Loads
- 4.4.3. Plane-Strain Pure Bending of Wide Beams or Plates
- Section 4.5 Numerical Methods
- 4.5.1. Integration of Rate Equations
- 4.5.2. The Finite-Element Method
- 4.5.3. Finite-Element Methods for Nonlinear Continua
- Introduction
- Section 5.1 Plane Problems
- 5.1.1. Slip-Line Theory
- 5.1.2. Simple Slip-Line Fields
- 5.1.3. Metal-Forming Problems
- Section 5.2 Collapse of Circular Plates
- 5.2.1. Introduction to Plate Theory
- 5.2.2. Elastic Plates
- 5.2.3. Yielding of Plates
- Section 5.3 Plastic Buckling
- 5.3.1. Introduction to Stability Theory
- 5.3.2. Theories of the Eﬀective Modulus
- 5.3.3. Plastic Buckling of Plates and Shells
- Section 6.1 Limit Analysis of Plane Problems
- 6.1.1. Blocks and Slabs with Grooves or Cutouts
- 6.1.2. Problems in Bending
- 6.1.3. Problems in Soil Mechanics
- Section 6.2 Beams Under Combined Stresses
- 6.2.1. Generalized Stress
- 6.2.2. Extension and Bending
- 6.2.3. Combined Extension, Bending and Torsion
- 6.2.4. Bending and Shear
- Section 6.3 Limit Analysis of Trusses, Beams and
- 6.3.1. Trusses
- 6.3.3. Limit Analysis of Frames
- 6.3.4. Limit Design of Frames
- Section 6.4 Limit Analysis of Plates and Shells
- 6.4.1. Limit Analysis of Plates
- 6.4.2. Limit Analysis of Shells: Theory
- 6.4.3. Limit Analysis of Shells: Examples
- Section 7.1 Dynamic Loading of Structures
- 7.1.2 Dynamic Loading of Beams
- 7.1.3 Dynamic Loading of Plates And Shells
- Section 7.2 One-Dimensional Plastic Waves
- 7.2.1 Theory of One-Dimensional Waves
- 7.2.2 Waves in Elastic-Plastic Bars
- 7.2.3 Rate Dependence
- 7.2.4 Application of the Method of Characteristics
- Section 7.3 Three-Dimensional Waves
- Section 8.1 Large-Deformation Continuum Mechan-
- Section 8.2 Large-Deformation Constitutive The-
- References
- Index

The extremum principles for standard rigid-plastic materials that were dis-

cussed in the preceding section can be reformulated as the theorems of

*Section 3.5 / Limit-Analysis and Shakedown Theorems
*

163

limit analysis, which give upper and lower bounds on the loads under

which a body that may be approximately modeled as elastic–perfectly plas-

tic reaches a critical state. By a critical state we mean one in which large

increases in plastic deformation — considerably greater than the elastic de-

formation — become possible with little if any increase in load. In the case of

perfectly plastic bodies this state is called* unrestricted plastic ﬂow*,1

and the

loading state at which it becomes possible is called* ultimate* or* limit loading*.

It will be shown that, in a state of unrestricted plastic ﬂow, elasticity may

be ignored, and therefore a theory based on rigid-plastic behavior is valid

for elastic-plastic bodies.

The proof of the limit-analysis theorems is based on the principle of max-

imum plastic dissipation, and consequently they are valid only for standard

materials; a limited extension to nonstandard materials is discussed in 3.5.2.

It should be noted that the “loads” in the present context include not

only the prescribed surface tractions ta

but all the surface tractions t op-

erating at points at which the displacement (or velocity) is not constrained

to be zero. In other words, the loads include* reactions that do work*; the

deﬁnition of ∂Rt is accordingly extended. The reason for the extension is

that the velocity ﬁelds used in the limit-analysis theorems are kinematically

admissible velocity ﬁelds, not virtual velocity ﬁelds. The latter is, as we

recall, the diﬀerence between two kinematically admissible velocity ﬁelds,

and must therefore vanish wherever the velocity is prescribed, whereas a

kinematically admissible velocity ﬁeld takes on the values of the prescribed

velocity.

We begin by deﬁning a state of impending plastic collapse or incipient

plastic ﬂow as one in which a nonvanishing strain rate (˙ε = 0) occurs under

constant loads (˙

f = 0, ˙t = 0). The qualiﬁcation “impending” or “incipient”

is important: we are looking at the very beginning of such a state, which

means that (1) all prior deformation has been of the same order of magnitude

as elastic deformation, so that changes of geometry can be neglected, and (2)

acceleration can be neglected and the problem can be treated as quasi-static.

*Vanishing of Elastic Strain Rates
*

In addition to the preceding assumptions, it is assumed that the equa-

tions of equilibrium and the traction boundary conditions can be diﬀerenti-

ated with respect to time with no change in form; consequently, the principle

of virtual work is valid with ˙σ, ˙

f, and ˙t replacing σ, f, and t. For a virtual

1

A rigorous formulation of the theorems in the context of convex analysis is due to

Fr´emond and Friaˆa [1982], who show that the concept of unrestricted plastic ﬂow is too

general for materials whose elastic range is unbounded in the appropriate stress space, and

must be replaced by the weaker concept of “almost unrestricted” plastic ﬂow (´ecoulement

presque libre).

164

*Chapter 3 / Constitutive Theory
*

displacement ﬁeld we take vδt, where v is the actual velocity ﬁeld and δt is

a small time increment. The virtual strain ﬁeld is, accordingly, ˙εij δt, where

˙εij = 1

2(vi,j +vj,i ). At impending collapse, then,

0 =

R

˙

f ·vdV +

∂Rt

˙t·vdS =

R

˙σij˙εij dV =

R

˙σij(˙εp

ij +C−1

ijkl ˙σkl)dV.

The positive deﬁniteness of the elastic complementary energy implies

C−1

ijkl ˙σij ˙σkl ≥0 unless ˙σ = 0. This fact, combined with Drucker’s inequality

(3.2.3), implies that at impending collapse or incipient plastic ﬂow the stress

rates vanish, so that ˙εe

= 0 and ˙ε = ˙εp

. In other words, a body experiencing

plastic collapse or ﬂow behaves as though it were rigid-plastic rather than

elastic-plastic. This result, ﬁrst noted by Drucker, Greenberg, and Prager

[1951], makes possible the rigorous application to elastic-plastic bodies of

the theorems of limit analysis that had previously been formulated for rigid-

plastic bodies. The following presentation of the theorems follows Drucker,

Greenberg and Prager.1

*Lower-Bound Theorem
*

Suppose that at collapse the actual loads are f, t and the actual stress,

velocity and strain-rate ﬁelds (in general unknown) are σ, v and ˙ε. Suppose

further that we have somehow determined a stress ﬁeld σ∗ which does not

violate the yield criterion anywhere and which is in equilibrium with the

loads f∗ = (1/s)f, t∗ = (1/s)t, where s is a numerical factor. By virtual

work, we have

R

σ∗ij˙εij dV = 1

s

∂R

t·vdS +

R

f ·vdV

= 1

s

R

σij˙εij dV = 1

s

R

Dp(˙ε)dV.

But, by the principle of maximum plastic dissipation, Dp(˙ε) ≥ σ∗ij˙εij, so

that s≥1. In other words, the factor s (the so-called “static multiplier”) is

in fact a safety factor.

*Upper-Bound Theorem
*

Let us suppose next that instead ofσ∗, we somehow determine a velocity

ﬁeld v∗ (a* collapse mechanism*), with the corresponding strain-rate ﬁeld ˙ε∗,

and loads f∗ = cf, t∗ = ct that satisfy

∂Rt

t∗·v∗dS +

R

f∗·v∗dV =

R

Dp(˙ε∗)dV,

1

See also Drucker, Prager and Greenberg [1952], Hill [1951, 1952], and Lee [1952].

*Section 3.5 / Limit-Analysis and Shakedown Theorems
*

165

provided the right-hand side (the total plastic dissipation) is positive;2

then,

again by virtual work,

R

Dp(˙ε∗)dV = c

R

σij˙ε∗ij dV,

where σ is, as before, the actual stress ﬁeld at collapse. The principle of

maximum plastic dissipation, however, also implies that Dp(˙ε∗) ≥ σij˙ε∗ij.

Consequently c ≥ 1, that is, c (the “kinematic multiplier”) is an overload

factor.

*Alternative Formulation for One-Parameter Loading
*

Rather than using multipliers, the theorems can also be expressed in

terms of a single reference load to which all the loads on the body are propor-

tional. Let this reference load be denoted P, and let the loading (consisting

of applied loads and working reactions) be expressed as

f = P˜

f, t = P˜t,

where ˜

f and ˜t are known functions of position in R and on ∂Rt, respectively.

Let, further, PU denote the value of P at collapse. If a plastically admissible

stress ﬁeld σ∗ is in equilibrium with P˜

f and P˜t for some value of P, say

PLB∗, then this value is a lower bound, that is, PLB∗ ≤PU. An upper bound

PUB∗ can be found explicitly for a kinematically admissible velocity ﬁeld v∗:

PU ≤PUB

∗ =

RDp(˙ε∗)dV

R

˜

f ·v∗dV + ∂Rt

˜t·v∗dS

.

(3.5.1)

For loading governed by a single parameter, therefore, the two theorems may

also be expressed as follows:* The loads that are in equilibrium with a stress
ﬁeld that nowhere violates the yield criterion do not exceed the collapse loads,
while the loads that do positive work on a kinematically admissible velocity
ﬁeld at a rate equal to the total plastic dissipation are at least equal to the
collapse loads*. If the loads produced by the application of the two theorems

are equal to each other, then they equal the collapse loads.

In particular, if one has succeeded in ﬁnding both (a) a statically and

plastically admissible stress ﬁeld, and (b) a kinematically admissible velocity

ﬁeld such that the strain rate produced by it is everywhere1

associated to

the stress, then a* complete solution* is said to have been found. This solution

is not necessarily unique and hence cannot be called an exact solution, but,

as a result of the theorems of limit analysis, it predicts the correct collapse

load. Some applications of this concept are given in Chapter 5. In Chapter

2

If the total plastic dissipation is negative, v∗ can be replaced by −v∗; if it is zero, v∗

does not represent a collapse mechanism.

1

If the velocity ﬁeld involves regions that move as rigid bodies (rigid regions), then the

strain rate there is of course zero and the question of association does not arise.

166

*Chapter 3 / Constitutive Theory
*

6 the theorems are used to obtain estimates of collapse loads in problems for

which no complete solutions have been found.

*Multiparameter Loadings
*

We now consider loadings that are governed by several parameters that

can vary independently. These parameters will be called* generalized loads*;

some of them may be applied loads, and others may be reactions that do

work. Let them be denoted PI (I = 1, ..., N), so that

f =

N

I=1

PI˜

f(I)

, t =

N

I=1

PI˜t(I)

,

the ˜

f(I)

and ˜t(I)

again being known functions. For a kinematically admissible

velocity ﬁeld v, generalized velocities ˙pI can be deﬁned by

˙pI =

R

˜

f(I)

·vdR +

∂Rt

˜t(I)

·vdS,

so that, by virtual work,

R

σij˙εij dV =

N

I=1

PI ˙pI

def

= P· ˙p,

(3.5.2)

where P and ˙p are the N-dimensional vectors representing the PI and ˙pI.

Any combination of generalized loads PI thus represents a point in P-space

(a* load point*), while a ﬁxed proportion among the PI represents a direction

in this space (a* loading direction*).

A combination of PI at which unrestricted plastic ﬂow occurs represents

a* limit point* (or* ﬂow point* or* yield point* — the last designation makes sense

only in terms of a rigid-plastic material), and the set of all such points is the

*limit locus* (or* ﬂow locus* or* yield locus*), given by, say,

Φ(P) = 0.

It follows from Equation (3.5.2) and the principle of maximum plastic dis-

sipation that if P and P∗ are on or inside the limit locus, and if ˙p is a

generalized velocity vector that is possible under a load vector P, then

(P−P∗)· ˙p≥0.

(3.5.3)

By arguments identical with those of 3.2.2 for the maximum-plastic-

dissipation principle in terms of stresses and strain rates, it follows from

inequality (3.5.3) that the limit locus is convex, and that the generalized

velocity vector is normal to the limit locus, that is,

˙pI = ˙

λ ∂Φ

∂PI

*Section 3.5 / Limit-Analysis and Shakedown Theorems
*

167

wherever Φ(P) is regular. The appropriate generalization, following either

the Koiter or the Moreau formalism, may be formed for singular limit loci.

A ﬁxed loading direction is described by N−1 parameters, and keeping

these constant is equivalent to one-parameter loading. Consequently, along

any direction lower-bound and upper-bound load points can be found, and

since they depend on the N−1 parameters, they form parametric represen-

tations of upper-bound and lower-bound loci.

A simple illustration of multi-parameter loading is provided by an “ideal

sandwich beam,” composed of two equal, very thin ﬂanges of cross-sectional

area A, separated by a distance h that is spanned by a web of negligible area

[see Figure 3.5.1(a)]. The beam is subject to an axial force P, whose line of

(a)

*T
*

* o
*

*c
*

*
G
*

h

A

(b)

P/PU

M/MU

*d
*

*d
*

*d
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*d
*

*d
*

*d
*

1

1

Figure 3.5.1. Ideal sandwich beam: (a) cross-section; (b) ﬂow locus.

action is deﬁned as midway between the ﬂanges, and a bending moment M;

P and M may be treated as generalized loads, and the conjugate generalized

velocities are respectively the average elongation rate ˙

∆ and the rotation

rate ˙

θ. The stresses in the ﬂanges may be assumed to be purely axial, and

equilibrium requires that they be

σ = P

2A ± M

Ah.

If the yield stress is σY , then the yield inequality |σ|≤σY in each ﬂange is

equivalent to

P

PU

± M

MU

≤1,

where PU = 2σYA, MU = σYAh. The limit locus, shown in Figure 3.5.1(b),

is thus given by

Φ(M, P) = max

P

PU

+ M

MU

,

P

PU

− M

MU

−1 = 0.

Since this locus was found on the basis of a stress distribution, it is

strictly speaking a lower-bound locus. The stress distribution is, of course,

unique, and therefore the lower bound must in fact give the true limit locus.

168

*Chapter 3 / Constitutive Theory
*

It can easily be shown that the same limit locus results from an application

of the upper-bound theorem. Consider a velocity ﬁeld in which only one of

the ﬂanges elongates while the other remains rigid. In order for the mean

elongation rate of the beam to be ˙

∆, that of the deforming ﬂange must be

2 ˙

∆, and the rotation rate, to within a sign, is ˙

θ = 2 ˙

∆/h. For the sake

of deﬁniteness, let us take both ˙

∆ and ˙

θ as positive. The strain rate in

the deforming ﬂange is 2 ˙

∆/L, so that the total plastic dissipation — the

numerator on the right-hand side of (3.5.1) — is σY (2 ˙

∆/L)(AL) = PU ˙

∆.

We take P as the reference load, and pick a loading direction by letting M =

αPh/2. The denominator in (3.5.1) is thus ˙

∆ + (αh/2)(2 ˙

∆/h) = (1 +α) ˙

∆,

and the upper bound for P is PU/(1 + α). Since MU = PUh/2, the upper

bound for M is αMU/(1 + α). The upper-bound values satisfy M/MU +

P/PU = 1, an equation describing the ﬁrst quadrant of the previously found

limit locus. The remaining quadrants are found by varying the signs of ˙

∆

and ˙

θ.

A velocity ﬁeld with both ﬂanges deforming leads to an upper-bound

load point lying outside the limit locus just found, with two exceptions: one

where the elongation rates of the ﬂanges are the same, and one where they

are equal and opposite. Details are left to an exercise.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd