COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY
THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
EA de Souza Neto D Peri´ c DRJ Owen
Civil and Computational Engineering Centre, Swansea University

A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publication

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY
THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
EA de Souza Neto D Peri´ c DRJ Owen
Civil and Computational Engineering Centre, Swansea University

A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publication

This edition first published 2008 c 2008 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neto, Eduardo de Souza. Computational methods for plasticity : theory and applications / Eduardo de Souza Neto, Djordje Peric, David Owens. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-69452-7 (cloth) 1. Plasticity–Mathematical models. I. Peric, Djordje. II. Owens, David, 1948- III. Title. TA418.14.N48 2008 531’.385–dc22 2008033260 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-0-470-69452-7 Set in 10/12pt Times by Sunrise Setting Ltd, Torquay, UK. Printed in Singapore by Markono.

This book is lovingly dedicated to

Deise, Patricia and André; Mira, Nikola and Nina; Janet, Kathryn and Lisa.

CONTENTS

Preface

xx

Part One
1

Basic concepts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
3 . 3 . 4 . 4 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 13 . 14 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 28 28 29 30 30 30 30

Introduction 1.1 Aims and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Readership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 The use of boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 General scheme of notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Character fonts. General convention . . . . . 1.3.2 Some important characters . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Indicial notation, subscripts and superscripts 1.3.4 Other important symbols and operations . . .

2

Elements of tensor analysis 2.1 Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Inner product, norm and orthogonality . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Orthogonal bases and Cartesian coordinate frames 2.2 Second-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The transpose. Symmetric and skew tensors . . . . 2.2.2 Tensor products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Cartesian components and matrix representation . 2.2.4 Trace, inner product and Euclidean norm . . . . . 2.2.5 Inverse tensor. Determinant . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 Orthogonal tensors. Rotations . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Cross product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.8 Spectral decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.9 Polar decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Higher-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Fourth-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Generic-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Isotropic tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Isotropic second-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Isotropic fourth-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii 2.5 Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 The derivative map. Directional derivative . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Linearisation of a nonlinear function . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 The gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.4 Derivatives of functions of vector and tensor arguments . . 2.5.5 The chain rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.6 The product rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.7 The divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.8 Useful relations involving the gradient and the divergence Linearisation of nonlinear problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 The nonlinear problem and its linearised form . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Linearisation in infinite-dimensional functional spaces . .

CONTENTS

2.6

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

32 32 32 32 33 36 37 37 38 38 38 39 41 41 44 46 46 47 49 49 52 55 56 57 57 58 58 60 61 61 62 64 66 67 67 67 67 68 68 69 69 69 71 74

3

Elements of continuum mechanics and thermodynamics 3.1 Kinematics of deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Material and spatial fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Material and spatial gradients, divergences and time derivatives 3.1.3 The deformation gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Volume changes. The determinant of the deformation gradient . 3.1.5 Isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient . . . . . 3.1.6 Polar decomposition. Stretches and rotation . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.7 Strain measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.8 The velocity gradient. Rate of deformation and spin . . . . . . . 3.1.9 Rate of volume change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Infinitesimal deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The infinitesimal strain tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Infinitesimal rigid deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Infinitesimal isochoric and volumetric deformations . . . . . . 3.3 Forces. Stress Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Cauchy’s axiom. The Cauchy stress vector . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The axiom of momentum balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Cauchy stress tensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The First Piola–Kirchhoff stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 The Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6 The Kirchhoff stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Fundamental laws of thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Conservation of mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Momentum balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 The first principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 The second principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5 The Clausius–Duhem inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Constitutive theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Constitutive axioms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Thermodynamics with internal variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Phenomenological and micromechanical approaches . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

ix 3.5.4 The purely mechanical theory . . . . . 3.5.5 The constitutive initial value problem . Weak equilibrium. The principle of virtual work 3.6.1 The spatial version . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 The material version . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 The infinitesimal case . . . . . . . . . The quasi-static initial boundary value problem . 3.7.1 Finite deformations . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2 The infinitesimal problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 81 83 84 85 86 90 93 94 95 95 96 96 98 99 101 102 102 103 103 103 106 106 107 107 108 111 115 115 115 116 116 117 117 117 119

3.6

3.7

4

The finite element method in quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics 4.1 Displacement-based finite elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Finite element interpolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 The discretised virtual work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Some typical isoparametric elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4 Example. Linear elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Path-dependent materials. The incremental finite element procedure 4.2.1 The incremental constitutive function . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 The incremental boundary value problem . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 The nonlinear incremental finite element equation . . . . . 4.2.4 Nonlinear solution. The Newton–Raphson scheme . . . . 4.2.5 The consistent tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.6 Alternative nonlinear solution schemes . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.7 Non-incremental procedures for path-dependent materials 4.3 Large strain formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The incremental constitutive function . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The incremental boundary value problem . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 The finite element equilibrium equation . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Linearisation. The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . . 4.3.5 Material and geometric stiffnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Configuration-dependent loads. The load-stiffness matrix . 4.4 Unstable equilibrium. The arc-length method . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The arc-length method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 The combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length procedure . . 4.4.3 The predictor solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the program structure 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Remarks on program structure . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Portability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The main program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Data input and initialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The global database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Main problem-defining data. Subroutine INDATA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

x

CONTENTS

5.4

5.5 5.6

5.7

5.3.3 External loading. Subroutine INLOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Initialisation of variable data. Subroutine INITIA . . . . . . . The load incrementation loop. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Fixed increments option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Arc-length control option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Automatic increment cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 The linear solver. Subroutine FRONT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.5 Internal force calculation. Subroutine INTFOR . . . . . . . . . 5.4.6 Switching data. Subroutine SWITCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.7 Output of converged results. Subroutines OUTPUT and RSTART Material and element modularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Example. Modularisation of internal force computation . . . . Elements. Implementation and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Element properties. Element routines for data input . . . . . . 5.6.2 Element interfaces. Internal force and stiffness computation . 5.6.3 Implementing a new finite element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material models: implementation and management . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.1 Material properties. Material-specific data input . . . . . . . . 5.7.2 State variables and other Gauss point quantities. Material-specific state updating routines . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3 Material-specific switching/initialising routines . . . . . . . . 5.7.4 Material-specific tangent computation routines . . . . . . . . 5.7.5 Material-specific results output routines . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.6 Implementing a new material model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 120 120 120 120 123 124 124 124 125 125 125 128 128 129 129 131 131 132 133 134 134 135

Part Two
6

Small strains
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137
139 140 141 142 143 143 144 145 145 146 147 148 148 148 150 150 151 152

The mathematical theory of plasticity 6.1 Phenomenological aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 One-dimensional constitutive model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Elastoplastic decomposition of the axial strain . . . . 6.2.2 The elastic uniaxial constitutive law . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 The yield function and the yield criterion . . . . . . 6.2.4 The plastic flow rule. Loading/unloading conditions 6.2.5 The hardening law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.6 Summary of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.7 Determination of the plastic multiplier . . . . . . . . 6.2.8 The elastoplastic tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 General elastoplastic constitutive model . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Additive decomposition of the strain tensor . . . . . 6.3.2 The free energy potential and the elastic law . . . . . 6.3.3 The yield criterion and the yield surface . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Plastic flow rule and hardening law . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Flow rules derived from a flow potential . . . . . . . 6.3.6 The plastic multiplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

xi 6.3.7 Relation to the general continuum constitutive theory . . . . . . . 6.3.8 Rate form and the elastoplastic tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.9 Non-smooth potentials and the subdifferential . . . . . . . . . . . Classical yield criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 The Tresca yield criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 The von Mises yield criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 The Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 The Drucker–Prager yield criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic flow rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Associative and non-associative plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Associative laws and the principle of maximum plastic dissipation 6.5.3 Classical flow rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hardening laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Perfect plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 Isotropic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 Thermodynamical aspects. Associative isotropic hardening . . . . 6.6.4 Kinematic hardening. The Bauschinger effect . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.5 Mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 153 153 157 157 162 163 166 168 168 170 171 177 177 178 182 185 189

6.4

6.5

6.6

7

Finite elements in small-strain plasticity problems 7.1 Preliminary implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 General numerical integration algorithm for elastoplastic constitutive equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 The elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem . . . . . 7.2.2 Euler discretisation: the incremental constitutive problem . . 7.2.3 The elastic predictor/plastic corrector algorithm . . . . . . . 7.2.4 Solution of the return-mapping equations . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5 Closest point projection interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.6 Alternative justification: operator split method . . . . . . . 7.2.7 Other elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes . . . . . . . 7.2.8 Plasticity and differential-algebraic equations . . . . . . . . 7.2.9 Alternative mathematical programming-based algorithms . . 7.2.10 Accuracy and stability considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Application: integration algorithm for the isotropically hardening von Mises model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The implemented model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme . . . . 7.3.3 The incremental constitutive function for the stress . . . . . 7.3.4 Linear isotropic hardening and perfect plasticity: the closed-form return mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 Subroutine SUVM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 The consistent tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Consistent tangent operators in elastoplasticity . . . . . . . 7.4.2 The elastoplastic consistent tangent for the von Mises model with isotropic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Subroutine CTVM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191 . . . 192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 193 194 196 198 200 201 201 209 210 210 215 216 217 220 223 224 228 229

. . . 232 . . . 235

xii 7.4.4

CONTENTS

7.5

7.6

The general elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for implicit return mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.5 Illustration: the von Mises model with isotropic hardening . . . 7.4.6 Tangent operator symmetry: incremental potentials . . . . . . . Numerical examples with the von Mises model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Internally pressurised cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Internally pressurised spherical shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Uniformly loaded circular plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Strip-footing collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.5 Double-notched tensile specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further application: the von Mises model with nonlinear mixed hardening 7.6.1 The mixed hardening model: summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 The implicit return-mapping scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 The incremental constitutive function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.4 Linear hardening: closed-form return mapping . . . . . . . . . 7.6.5 Computational implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.6 The elastoplastic consistent tangent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

238 240 243 244 244 247 250 252 255 257 257 258 260 261 261 262 265 266 268 279 283 286 291 295 297 310 315 316 319 324 325 334 337 337 340 343 343 344 346 350 351

8

Computations with other basic plasticity models 8.1 The Tresca model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 The implicit integration algorithm in principal stresses . . 8.1.2 Subroutine SUTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Finite step accuracy: iso-error maps . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.4 The consistent tangent operator for the Tresca model . . . 8.1.5 Subroutine CTTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 The Mohr–Coulomb model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model . . . 8.2.2 Subroutine SUMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Accuracy: iso-error maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.4 Consistent tangent operator for the Mohr–Coulomb model 8.2.5 Subroutine CTMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 The Drucker–Prager model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model . . . 8.3.2 Subroutine SUDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Iso-error map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 Consistent tangent operator for the Drucker–Prager model 8.3.5 Subroutine CTDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 Bending of a V-notched Tresca bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.2 End-loaded tapered cantilever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.3 Strip-footing collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.4 Circular-footing collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.5 Slope stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

xiii 357 357 358 359 360 361 362 362 364 366 366 367 367 368 370 371 373 378 382 383 386 387 387 390 391 396 396 400 403 403 404 406 409 410 412 413 414 414 420 423 427 431

9

Plane stress plasticity 9.1 The basic plane stress plasticity problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Plane stress linear elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 The constrained elastoplastic initial value problem . . . 9.1.3 Procedures for plane stress plasticity . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Plane stress enforcement with nested iterations . . . . . 9.2.3 Plane stress von Mises with nested iterations . . . . . . 9.2.4 The consistent tangent for the nested iteration procedure 9.2.5 Consistent tangent computation for the von Mises model 9.3 Plane stress constraint at the structural level . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 The method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 The implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Plane stress-projected plasticity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 The plane stress-projected von Mises model . . . . . . . 9.4.2 The plane stress-projected integration algorithm . . . . . 9.4.3 Subroutine SUVMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.4 The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator . . . . . . 9.4.5 Subroutine CTVMPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Numerical examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.1 Collapse of an end-loaded cantilever . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.2 Infinite plate with a circular hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5.3 Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate . . . . . . . 9.5.4 Uniform loading of a concrete shear wall . . . . . . . . 9.6 Other stress-constrained states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6.1 A three-dimensional von Mises Timoshenko beam . . . 9.6.2 The beam state-projected integration algorithm . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Advanced plasticity models 10.1 A modified Cam-Clay model for soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.2 Computational implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 A capped Drucker–Prager model for geomaterials . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Capped Drucker–Prager model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 The implicit integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.3 The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator . . . . . . 10.3 Anisotropic plasticity: the Hill, Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models 10.3.1 The Hill orthotropic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 Tension–compression distinction: the Hoffman model . 10.3.3 Implementation of the Hoffman model . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.4 The Barlat–Lian model for sheet metals . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5 Implementation of the Barlat–Lian model . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 The yield function and the elastic domain .2 Alternative plastic strain rate definitions . . 11. . . . . . . . . 11. . .2. 11. . . . .2 Other theories . . . . .7. . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . .3 Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . .2 One-dimensional viscoplasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operators . 435 436 437 437 438 438 438 439 439 439 445 445 447 448 448 450 450 451 452 454 454 457 458 460 460 463 464 466 467 467 469 471 472 472 473 473 474 475 476 478 478 482 485 . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . .1 Original development: creep-damage . . . .2. . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Elastoplastic decomposition of the axial strain . . . .3 A von Mises-based multidimensional model . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . .5 Hardening law . . . . . . . 11. . . .1 Relation to the general continuum constitutive theory . . 11. . . . . . . .4 General viscoplastic constitutive model .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Summary of the model . . . . . . . . . . .3 Remarks on the nature of the damage variable 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . .6. .1 A von Mises-type viscoplastic model with isotropic strain hardening . . . . . . . . . .1 Integration algorithm . . . . 12. .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The elastic law . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Plane stress: stretching of a perforated plate . .2 Integration algorithm . . . .6. . . . . 12. .2. 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . 12. . . . . . .2 Alternative Euler-based algorithms . . . . . . . . . . .3 Consistent tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The model . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . .3. . 11. . . . . . 12.5. .4 Perzyna-type model implementation . . .7 Some simple analytical solutions . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Viscoplastic models without a yield surface . . .1 Metals . .2. . 12.2 Potential structure and dissipation inequality . . . .7 Examples . .2 Iso-error maps . . . . . . . . .xiv CONTENTS 11 Viscoplasticity 11.2 Continuum damage mechanics . 12. . . . . . . . .6 Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model 11. .3 Other isotropic and kinematic hardening laws . . 11. . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 General numerical framework . . 11. . 11. . .3. . . . . . . . . . .1 Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects . 11. . . . 11. . . 11. . .3. . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . .2. . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 12 Damage mechanics 12. . . . . .1 Double-notched tensile specimen . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . .4. .2. . .3 General consistent tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Viscoplastic flow rule . . . .2 Rubbery polymers . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects of internal damage in solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . .5. . . .3 Rate-independent plasticity as a limit case . . . . . . . . . . .1 A general implicit integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . .

. . . . 13. . . . . . . . 13. . 13. .6. . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . .5. 13.3. . . . . . .6 Part Three Large strains . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . .1 Regularised neo-Hookean model . .CONTENTS xv A simplified version of Lemaitre’s model . . .5 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . 12. . . 13. . .4 Compressible regularisation . .4.6. . . . 13. . . . 13. . . 13. . . 12.4 The Blatz–Ko material . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . .2 Subroutine CSTOGD . .3 Plane stress with nested iterations . . . . Further issues in damage modelling .6. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Tangent moduli: the elasticity tensors .3.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . .1 Crack closure effects in damaged elastic materials . . . . . . . . . . .3 Inflation of a spherical rubber balloon . . . . . . . . .6. . . .1. . . . . . . . .1 Axisymmetric extension of an annular plate . . . .3 Isotropic finite hyperelasticity in plane stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Rugby ball . . . . . . .4.1 Material objectivity: reduced form of the free-energy function 13. . . 13.4. . . .3 The Hencky material . . . . . . . 13. . .1 Subroutine SUOGD .2 Stretching of a square perforated rubber sheet . . . . . 13. . . . .2 Isotropic hyperelasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . 12. . . .3 Incompressible hyperelasticity . . . . . . . . . . .1 Hyperelasticity: basic concepts . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The model . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . 517 519 520 520 521 524 525 525 525 527 528 530 530 531 532 533 534 535 535 537 537 538 538 542 546 547 547 550 551 552 13 Finite strain hyperelasticity 13. . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 The plane stress Hencky model .2 Crack closure effects in damage evolution . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Anisotropic ductile damage . . .5 Inflation of initially flat membranes .3 Example.2.4. . .2. . . .4. . . . .4 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . 12. . . .1 The single-equation integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . 486 486 490 493 496 497 501 502 504 504 510 512 12. . . . . . . .1. . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Ogden material model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . 13. .1 The Mooney–Rivlin and the neo-Hookean models . . .2 Some particular models . . . . . . . . .4 Blatz–Ko material . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . .1. . .2 Principal stretches representation: Ogden model . . . . . .2 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . Fracturing of a cylindrical notched specimen Gurson’s void growth model . . . . . . . .5. . . . .1 The plane stress incompressible Ogden model . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . 13.5. . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . 13. . . . . . . . . .5 Application: Ogden material implementation . .6 Numerical examples . . . . . . . . . . .3 Hencky model . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Examples . . .6. . .1 The basic constitutive initial value problem . . . . . . . . . . 13. .3. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . .7 Elastomeric bead compression . 14. . .2 Tangent modulus computation . . . . .7.4. . . . .3 The yield function . . . 13. . . .8 Finite viscoplasticity . . . .3 General hyperelastic-based multiplicative plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. 13. . . . . . . .2 Computational implementation . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . .2 Exponential map backward discretisation . . . .7. . .1 Derivation of the spatial tangent modulus .1 The Gurtin–Francis uniaxial model . .5 Computational implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Principal stress space-based implementation . . . . . . . . 14.1 The multiplicative split of the axial stretch . . . . . . . . . .7. . .3 Computational implementation of the general algorithm 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . 14. . . 14.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . .6 Example: inflation/deflation of a damageable rubber balloon .9. . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Three-dimensional modelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . 14. . . . 14. . . . 14. . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . .2.9.4. . . . . . . . 14. . 555 556 557 560 562 562 565 565 569 573 574 575 575 576 576 576 577 577 578 578 582 583 586 588 590 590 591 595 597 598 599 599 600 601 601 601 604 605 606 606 606 607 611 613 614 14 Finite strain elastoplasticity 14. . . .6 Rubber cylinder pressed between two plates . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . .4 The dissipation inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A simple rate-independent three-dimensional model . . 14. . . . . . .1 Stress-updating algorithm . Hyperelasticity with damage: the Mullins effect .3 Plane strain localisation . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . .4 The general elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . 13. . . .1 Finite strain bending of a V-notched Tresca bar . . . . . . 14. 14. .5 The hardening law . . .7 Finite plasticity in plane stress . .5 The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . .3. . . . . . .6 The plastic multiplier . . . . 14. . . 14. . .2. . . . . . . . .3 A general isotropic large-strain plasticity model . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . 14. . . . . . . . . . . .7 13. . . . .7.1 Multiplicative elastoplasticity kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The plastic flow rule . .2 Logarithmic stretches and the Hencky hyperelastic law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Finite strain extension to infinitesimal theories . .9.5. . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 Stretching of a perforated plate . . .9. . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.xvi CONTENTS 13. . . . . . .1 Finite strain elastoplasticity: a brief review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Nested iteration for plane stress enforcement . . . . . . . . .4 Example: the model problem . . . . . . . . . .2 One-dimensional finite plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.2. . .1 The plane stress-projected finite von Mises model .6. . . .2 Necking of a cylindrical bar . . . .2. . . 14.1 Numerical treatment . . A brief review . . . . . . . . . .3. .9. . . . . . 14. . . . .3. . . . . . . . 14. . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .5 Thin sheet metal-forming application . . 14. . . .2 The logarithmic elastic strain measure . 14.2. . . . . . . . . .4. . . . 14. .

. . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . 14. . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 The F-bar-Patch Method for simplex elements . . 16.1 A model of finite strain kinematic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . .5 The stability of EAS elements . . . . . . . . . . 14. .1. . . . .2 The resolved Schmid shear stress . . . . . . . . . .3 Finite element equations: static condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . 15.3 Mixed u/p formulations . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . .3 Consistent linearisation: the tangent stiffness . . . . 16 Anisotropic finite plasticity: Single crystals 16. . . . . . . . . . . .3. .3 Single crystal simulation: a brief review . . . . . . . . 15. . . .2 The internal force vector .1. . . . . .4 A general continuum model of single crystals . . . . . . . . . . .1 The two-field variational principle .1. . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .8 A more general F-bar methodology . 15. . 14.3. . . . . . . .5 Computational implementation aspects . . .6 Objective algorithm for Jaumann rate-based models . . 16. . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 14. . . . . . . .1 The F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . . . .5 Integration algorithms and incremental objectivity . . . . . . . . . . 15 Finite elements for large-strain incompressibility 15.3. . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 EAS finite elements . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Solution: static condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Finite plasticity with kinematic hardening . . . . . .1 Objective stress rates . . . .2 Hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . 14. . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . .2 Plastic slip and the Schmid resolved shear stress . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Enhanced three-field variational principle . . . . . . .3 Spatial tangent operator . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Remarks on predictive capability . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . .1. . . . . . . . .1 The plastic flow equation . . 16.1 Stress computation: the F-bar deformation gradient 15. . . .7 Integration of Green–Naghdi rate-based models .1 Plastic deformation by slip: slip-systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . 15. . . 14. . . . 14. . .7 Other centroid sampling-based F-bar elements . . . . . 15.10. . . . . . . .2 Enhanced assumed strain methods . . . .4. . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. .CONTENTS xvii . .2. . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .10. . . 14. 15. . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Plane strain implementation .11. 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 619 621 622 624 625 628 632 633 633 637 642 644 644 647 648 649 651 652 655 656 656 663 663 665 669 669 671 676 678 678 683 683 685 687 689 691 692 692 693 694 694 695 696 14. . .5 Alternative descriptions .10. . . . . . . . 15.4 Hyperelastic-based models and equivalent rate forms 14. . . . . .10 Rate forms: hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . .2 Finite element equations . . .6 Numerical tests .3 The Jaumann rate-based model . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . 14. 16. . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .1 Rate-dependent formulation . . .1 The elastic modulus: compressible neo-Hookean model . . . . . . .3 Example: the model problem . .3. . . . 16. . . . . . 16. .1 A planar double-slip model . . . . . . .1 Two dimensions . . . . . . . . . . .1 Representation . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic scalar function A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 16. .4. . . .2 The exponential map-based integration algorithm . . .2 Unsymmetric localisation . . . . . 16. . .2 The derivative of an isotropic tensor function A. . . . 16. . . . . . .4 Isotropic Taylor hardening . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The spatial tangent modulus: neo-Hookean-based model 16. . . . . . . . . . .xviii 16. . . . . . .2 Computation of the function derivative . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . CONTENTS 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . .1 Isotropic scalar-valued functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus . . .9. . .6.2 The integration algorithm . .1 Function computation . . . . . . .7. . .4 The three-dimensional case . . . . . . 729 731 731 732 732 733 733 734 735 736 738 739 739 740 740 742 743 744 . . . .1 Representation . . . . . . . .6 Alternative procedures . . 16. . . 16. . . . . . . . . 696 698 698 699 703 705 705 707 710 713 713 714 716 717 720 721 723 724 725 726 Appendices A Isotropic functions of a symmetric tensor A. An algorithm for a planar double-slip model . . .9 .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . A general integration algorithm . .6. A. Numerical examples . .5 A particular class of isotropic tensor functions . . . . . . . .3 Multisurface formulation of the flow rule .2. . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . .4. .7. . . . .1 Tensor function derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . A.4 Rate-dependent crystal: model problem . . . .2 Isotropic tensor-valued functions . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . A. A. . . . .2 Three dimensions . . . . . .1 Symmetric strain localisation on a rectangular strip . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . A.9. .8 16. . . 16. . . .3 The two-dimensional case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.2 Plane strain and axisymmetric problems . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viscoplastic single crystals . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 The hyperelastic law . . . . . . The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1 The search for an active set of slip systems . . . A. .6 16. . . . .5 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D Array notation for computations with tensors 759 D. . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . .1 Infinitesimal deformations . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. .2 Spatial description . . . . . . . .2 Fourth-order tensors . . . . . .1 The tensor exponential function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Material description . . . B. . . .2. . . . . . .CONTENTS xix 747 747 748 749 750 751 751 752 753 753 755 755 756 B The tensor exponential B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C Linearisation of the virtual work C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . B. . 759 D. . .3 Exponential map integrators . . . . . .1 The generalised exponential map midpoint rule . . . . . B. . . . .1 Computer implementation . . .1. . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . .1 Second-order tensors . . . .2 The tensor exponential derivative . . . . .1 Some properties of the tensor exponential function B. . . . . . . . . .1 Operations with non-symmetric tensors . . . . . . . 763 References Index 765 783 . . . . .1. .2 Finite strains and deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Computation of the tensor exponential function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. . . . . . . . . B. . 761 D. . .2. . . . . . . .

.

we see it as an attempt to present a reasonable balance of theory and numerical procedures used in the finite element simulation of the nonlinear mechanical behaviour of solids. Attention is focused on the derivation and description of various constitutive models – based on phenomenological hyperelasticity. anisotropic plasticity and the treatment of finite strain single crystal plasticity. named HYPLAS. Also. while writing the manuscript. but we do not believe our final product to be optimal in any sense.PREFACE T HE purpose of this text is to describe in detail numerical techniques used in small and large strain finite element analysis of elastic and inelastic solids. As the manuscript began to take shape. Many of the techniques discussed in the text are incorporated in the FORTRAN program. our initial idea was to produce a rather concise book – based primarily on our own research experience – whose bulk would consist of the description of numerical algorithms required for the finite element implementation of small and large strain plasticity models. continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. which accompanies this book and can be found at www. Our initial plan was then gradually abandoned as we chose to make the text more self-contained by incorporating a considerable amount of basic theory. the finite element method in quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics and a brief description of the computer program HYPLAS. We make no pretence that the text provides a complete account of the topics considered but rather. tensor analysis. We are certainly far more satisfied with the text now than with its early versions. Part Two . we decided to add more advanced (and very exciting) topics such as damage mechanics. There remains plenty of interesting material we would like to have included but cannot due to constraints of time and space.com/go/desouzaneto. The text is arranged in three main parts. This computer program has been specially written to illustrate the practical implementation of such techniques. Following this route. it soon became clear that a book designed as such would be most appropriate to those already involved in research on computational plasticity or closely related areas. our task took at least three times as long to complete and the book grew to about twice the size as originally planned. nonlinear continuum mechanics – particularly nonlinear kinematics – finite hyperelasticity and general dissipative constitutive theory of solids. being of little use to those willing to learn computational methods in plasticity from a fundamental level.wiley. We merely offer it to fill a gap in the existing literature. When we embarked on the project of writing this text. hoping that the reader will benefit from it in some way. elastoplasticity and elasto-viscoplasticity – together with the relevant numerical procedures and the practical issues arising in their computer implementation within a quasi-static finite element scheme. A substantial amount of background reading from other sources would be required for readers unfamiliar with topics such as basic elastoplasticity theory. Part One presents some basic material of relevance to the subject matter of the book. It includes an overview of elementary tensor analysis.

This is followed by an introduction to large strain plasticity. Lobão. E. Finite element techniques for large-strain near-incompressibility are also addressed.D. Orlando for literally ‘scanning’ through key parts of the text to find inconsistencies of any kind. Feijóo and E. Hyperelastic-based theories with multiplicative elastoplastic kinematics as well as hypoelastic-based models are discussed. EA de Souza Neto D Peri´ c DRJ Owen Swansea . It introduces the mathematical theory of infinitesimal plasticity as well as the relevant numerical procedures for the implementation of plasticity models within a finite element environment. to A. The discussion on finite plasticity and its finite element implementation culminates with a description of techniques for single crystal plasticity. to P. to Y. for the numerous illuminating and passionate discussions (often held on the beach or late in the bar) on many topics addressed in the book. Finally. Speirs. including anisotropic plasticity and ductile damage are also covered. to R. M. to F. Taroco for the fruitful discussions held on many occasions over a long period of time.A. Somer. W. The theory of finite hyperelasticity is reviewed first together with details of its finite element implementation. Molina.P. in Part Three we focus on large strain problems. D. Giusti and P. We are indebted to many people for their direct or indirect contribution to this text. Partovi.D. Driemeier.xxii PREFACE deals with small strain problems.C. A. Andade Pires for his key contribution to the development of F-bar-Patch elements.C.M. Feng for helpful discussions on the arc-length method.J. for producing the related figures presented and for thoroughly reviewing early versions of the manuscript.C. but not least.T. Dutko for producing some of the numerical results reported.M. Saksono for his involvement in the production of isoerror maps. Saavedra. Dettmer. Vaz Jr. spotting hard-to-find mistakes and making several important suggestions for improvement. Blanco for carefully reviewing various parts of the manuscript. This preface would not be complete without the due acknowledgement of this fact and a record of our sincere gratitude to the following: to J. D. to M. M. Macedo for the numerous valuable suggestions during the design of the program HYPLAS at the very early stages of this project.H. S. Last. to L. together with relevant numerical procedures for their treatment.J. to our late colleague and friend Mike Crisfield. to R. Billardon for the many enlightening discussions on damage modelling. Both rate-independent (elastoplastic) and ratedependent (elasto-viscoplastic) theories are addressed and some advanced models. M.

Part One Basic concepts .

.

1. this area of solid mechanics – generally known as computational plasticity – has experienced dramatic developments. Many of the techniques discussed in the text are implemented in the FORTRAN computer program. such as stress analysis in structures. Since those days. to the simulation of manufacturing processes such as metal forming. Another important aspect to emphasise is that the performance of many of Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. user-unfriendly software that typically required highly specialized users. mining operations and biological tissue behaviour. The variety of practical problems of interest to which such techniques are currently applied with acceptable levels of predictive capability is very wide. soil and rock mechanics. these techniques were largely limited to infinitesimal deformation and strain problems with the main complexity arising from the nonlinear constitutive characterization of the underlying material by means of basic elastoplastic or elasto-viscoplastic theories. Fuelled by the steady increase in computing power at decreasing costs together with the continuous industrial demand for accurate models of solids. Many such problems are characterised by extremely large straining and material behaviour often described by means of rather complex constitutive equations. Particular emphasis is placed on the derivation and description of various constitutive models – based on phenomenological hyperelasticity.1 INTRODUCTION O VER the last four decades. Parts of its source code are included in the text and should help readers correlate the relevant numerical methods with their computer implementation in practice. Also included are much less conventional applications. They range from traditional engineering applications. elastoplasticity and elasto-viscoplasticity – as well as on the relevant numerical procedures and the practical issues arising in their computer implementation. including anisotropy. In their early days. Applications were mostly confined to the modelling of the behaviour of solids in conventional areas of engineering and analyses were carried out on crude. named HYPLAS.1. Aims and scope The main objective of this text is to describe in detail numerical techniques used in the small and large strain analysis of elastic and inelastic solids by the Finite Element Method. which accompanies this book. such as the simulation of food processing. The range covered goes from basic infinitesimal isotropic to more sophisticated finite strain theories. the use of computational techniques based on the Finite Element Method has become a firmly established practice in the numerical solution of nonlinear solid mechanics problems both in academia and industry. the evolution of computational plasticity techniques have made possible the development of refined software packages with a considerable degree of automation that are today routinely employed by an everincreasing number of engineers and scientists. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd .

we omit most proofs for standard relations. object-oriented programming) could add a further difficulty in the learning of the essential concepts the HYPLAS code is meant to convey. such as HYPLAS.1. research engineers and scientists working in the field of computational continuum mechanics. Layout In line with the above aims. This includes some material on elementary tensor analysis. viscoplasticity and hyperelasticity. we believe. to the clear understanding of the very problems the numerical techniques discussed in this book are meant to simulate. Thus. In the present case. In order to make the book more self-contained.1. finite hyperelasticity and finite element techniques in nonlinear solid mechanics. An elementary understanding of vector and tensor calculus is also very helpful. Readers wishing to follow the computer implementation of the procedures described in the text should.g. For example. Issues such as material stability and the existence and uniqueness of solutions to initial boundary value problems are generally not addressed. READERSHIP This book is intended for graduate students. in addition.2.4 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the models/techniques described in the text is documented in numerical examples. the use of more advanced programming concepts (e. an introduction to the nonlinear mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media and an overview of small and large strain elastoplasticity and viscoplasticity theory. We reiterate. The text requires a basic knowledge of solid mechanics – especially the theory of linear elasticity – as well as the Finite Element Method and numerical procedures for the approximate solution of ordinary differential equations. . within the finite element community. the volume of theory and the depth at which it is presented is kept to the minimum necessary for the above task. however. in the presentation of tensor analysis and continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. that our main focus here is computational. (b) the suitability of procedural languages for codes with relatively low level of complexity. be familiar at a fairly basic level with the FORTRAN computer programming language. 1. (c) its relative clarity in the coding of short algorithmic procedures such as those arising typically in the implementation of elastic and inelastic material models – the main subject of this book. Having a sound knowledge of such topics is essential. we have chosen to incorporate a considerable amount of basic theory within the text. It is worth remarking here that the choice of the FORTRAN language is motivated mainly by the following: (a) its widespread acceptance in engineering computing in general and. we limit ourselves mainly to presenting the constitutive models together with their most relevant properties and the essential relations needed in their formulation. 1. In plasticity. the book has been divided into three parts as follows. in particular. These should be of particular relevance to those involved in software research and development in computational plasticity.

The material presented here covers the kinematics of deformation. balance laws and constitutive theory. The material has been organised into sixteen chapters and four appendices.INTRODUCTION 5 • Part One: Basic concepts. a sound knowledge of the kinematics of finite deformations discussed in Chapter 3 (in Part One) is essential. This part focuses on finite strain hyperelasticity and elastoplasticity problems. – introductory continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. Chapter 4 shows the application of the Finite Element Method to the solution of problems in quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics. The following topics are addressed: – large strain isotropic hyperelasticity. including both rate-independent (elastoplastic) and rate-dependent (elasto-viscoplastic) theories. • Part Two: Small strains. – elastoplasticity with damage. – advanced plasticity models. The remainder of Chapter 1 discusses the general scheme of notation adopted in the book. • Part Three: Large strains. is used as the underlying material model. including anisotropy. In particular. as well as their computational implementation. Chapter 3 provides an introdution to the mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media. are obviously more complex than those of Part Two. The following material is covered: – elementary tensor analysis. The models discussed here. Chapter 2 contains an introduction to elementary tensor analysis. the theory of infinitesimal plasticity is introduced together with the relevant numerical procedures used for its implementation into a finite element environment. – viscoplasticity. – a concise description of the computer program HYPLAS. initially presented in Chapter 3. to follow Part Three. Here. – large strain plasticity. These topics are essential for an in-depth understanding of the theories discussed in later chapters. Thus. the material is presented mainly in intrinsic (or compact) tensor notation – which is heavily relied upon thoughout the book. A relatively wide range of models is presented. . – finite elements in quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics. – finite elements in infinitesimal plasticity. The following main topics are considered: – the theory of infinitesimal plasticity. A generic dissipative constitutive model. In this part we introduce concepts of fundamental relevance to the applications presented in Parts Two and Three. These will now be briefly described. Their complexity stems partly from the finite strain kinematics. – finite element techniques for large strain incompressibility. – single crystal (anisotropic) finite plasticity.

This concept is closely related to those already discussed in Chapter 12 for ductile elastoplastic damage. we introduce the essential numerical methods required in the finite element solution of initial boundary value problems with elastoplastic underlying material models. due to the inherent complexity of the models treated in this chapter. together with the most popular plastic flow rules and hardening laws. In addition. the modelling of the so-called Mullins dissipative effect by means of a hyperelasticdamage theory is addressed at the end of the chapter. Further familiarisation with the program will require the reader to follow the comments in the FORTRAN source code together with the cross-referencing of the main procedures with their description in the book. Chapter 8 focuses on the detailed description of the implementation of the basic plasticity models based on the Tresca. Chapter 6 is devoted to the mathematical theory of infinitesimal plasticity. Parts of source code are also included to illustrate some of the most important programming aspects. Here we describe the computational implementation of a modified Cam-Clay model for soils.6 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Chapter 5 describes the general structure of the program HYPLAS. The main concepts associated with phenomenological time-independent plasticity are introduced here. a capped Drucker– Prager model for geomaterials and the Hill. We remark that the program description is rather concise. In Chapter 12 we discuss continuum damage mechanics – the branch of Continuum Solid Mechanics devoted to the modelling of the progressive material deterioration that precedes the onset of macroscopic fracturing. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager are reviewed. This is probably more relevant to those wishing to use the HYPLAS program for research and development purposes. following closely the procedures applied earlier in elastoplasticity. Some elastoplastic damage models are reviewed and their implementation. the relevant subroutines of HYPLAS are listed and explained in some detail. Different options are considered and their relative merits and limitations are discussed. their actual implementation is generally more intricate than those of the basic models. . The (rate-independent) plasticity theory is then obtained as a limiting case of viscoplasticity. where many of the techniques discussed in the book are implemented. with the relevant computational issues. von Mises. is addressed in detail. The basic yield criteria of Tresca. However. The finite element implementation of the Odgen model is discussed in detail with relevant excerpts of HYPLAS source code included. The numerical methods for a generic viscoplastic model are described. In Chapter 9 we describe the numerical treatment of plasticity models under plane stress conditions. Again. Applications of the von Mises model with both isotropic and mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening are described in detail. Chapter 13 introduces finite strain hyperelasticity. In Chapter 7. The most relevant subroutines of the program HYPLAS are also listed and explained in detail. Chapter 11 begins with an introduction to elasto-viscoplasticity theory within the constitutive framework for dissipative materials described in Chapter 3. Application of the methodology to von Mises criterion-based viscoplastic models is described in detail. In Chapter 10 advanced elastoplasticity models are considered. The numerical techniques required for the implementation of such models are mere specialisations of the procedures already discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager yield criteria. The application of the concepts introduced here to other stressconstrained states is briefly outlined at the end of the chapter. The basic theory is reviewed and some of the most popular isotropic models are presented. Hoffman and Barlat–Lian anisotropic models for metals.

This implementation is incorporated in the program HYPLAS. Boxes should be of particular use to readers interested mostly in computer implementation aspects and who wish to skip the details of derivation of the models and numerical procedures. It presents some important basic properties as well as formulae that can be used in practice for the computation of function values and function derivatives. a discussion on the so-called hypoelasticbased theories is also included. Finally. and the mixed u/p formulation. without any added specific techniques.3. Chapter 15 is concerned with the treatment of large strain incompressibility within the Finite Element Method.2. The expressions derived here provide the basic formulae for the tangent operators required in the assembly of the tangent stiffness matrix in the finite element context. . Numerical algorithms listed in boxes are presented in the so-called pseudo-code format – a format that resembles the actual computer code of the procedure. This issue becomes crucial in large-scale finite strain simulations where the use of low-order elements (which. the Enhanced Assumed Strain (EAS) technique. to pages 146 and 199). The implementation of a specialisation of the general model based on a planar double-slip system is described in detail. are generally inappropriate near the incompressible limit) is highly desirable. an attempt has been made to maintain the notation as uniform as possible by assigning specific letter styles to the representation of each type of mathematical entity. for instance). four appendices are included.and tensor-valued functions of a symmetric tensor that are widely exploited throughout the text. The main discussion is focused on hyperelastic-based finite plasticity theories with multiplicative kinematics. Finally. 1.1. in Appendix D we describe the handling – including array storage and product operations – of second and fourth-order tensors in finite element computer programs. In addition to the above. for example. General scheme of notation Throughout the text. the name of the corresponding FORTRAN subprogram is often indicated at the top of the box (see page 221. 1.INTRODUCTION 7 In Chapter 14 we introduce finite strain elastoplasticity together with the numerical procedures relevant to the finite element implementation of finite plasticity models. However. The material presented is confined mostly to isotropic elastoplasticity. THE USE OF BOXES Extensive use of boxes has been made to summarise constitutive models and numerical algorithms in general (refer. For boxes describing key procedures implemented in the program HYPLAS. with anisotropy in the form of kinematic hardening added only at the end of the chapter. for completeness. Three different approaches to tackle the problem are considered: the so-called F -bar method (including its more recent F -bar-Patch variant for simplex elements). Appendix B addresses the tensor exponential function. The finite plasticity models actually implemented in the program HYPLAS belong to this class of theories. in Chapter 16 we describe a general model of large-strain single-crystal plasticity together with the relevant numerical procedures for its use within a finite element environment. The tensor exponential is of relevance for the treatment of finite plasticity presented in Chapters 14 and 16. In Appendix C we derive the linearisation of the virtual work equation both under small and large deformations. Appendix A is concerned with isotropic scalar.

. sets. .: spaces. that other exceptions. in many cases. a. . Light-face with indices pi . • Italic bold-face minuscules p.: points. .: scalars and scalar-valued functions. Bαβ . H (generalised elastoplastic hardening modulus). Important exceptions: A (set of thermodynamical forces). . Ψ. may occur in the text. tensor. • Upright bold-face majuscules. . . . . a.: the corresponding Cartesian components. . . .: coordinates (components) of the corresponding points (vectors).1. CHARACTER FONTS. Y. . Aαβγδ . however. instructions. • Greek light-face letters α.: finite element arrays (vectors and matrices) representing second or fourth-order tensors and general finite element operators. .: constitutive response functionals. • Greek bold-face minuscules β. • Italic bold-face majuscules B.: scalars and scalar-valued functions. Whenever such exceptions occur. . vector. we choose to adopt the notation that is more widely accepted instead of adhering to the use of specific fonts for specific mathematical entities. . bodies. . . .: second-order tensors or tensor-valued functions. . Important exception: Ω (region of Euclidean space occupied by a generic body). Important exception: s (stress tensor deviator).: the corresponding components. . . B. • Calligraphic majuscules X. Φ. GENERAL CONVENTION The mathematical meaning associated with specific font styles is given below. . . v.8 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS At the same time. groups.: used exclusively to denote FORTRAN procedures and variable names. . ϕ (deformation map) and η (when meaning virtual displacement fields).) • Typewriter style letters HYPLAS. . • German majuscules F.. β. . field. . • Sans-serif (upright) bold-face letters A. We emphasise. . Some important exceptions are also highlighted. a. . vectors and vector-valued functions. Important exceptions: α (generic set of internal state variables).: second-order tensors.: fourth-order tensors. . Light-face with indices σij . . τ. . . we have tried to keep the notation in line with what is generally adopted in the present subject areas. . . .: generic mathematical entity (scalar. G. . J (generalised viscoplastic hardening constitutive function).3. . . . . • Italic light-face letters A. Light-face with indices Bij .: components of the corresponding tensors. etc. not mentioned here. Unfortunately. . • Script majuscules A. SUVM. Light-face with indices Aijkl . . . 1. . . C. pα . etc. their meaning should either be clear from the context or will be explicitly mentioned the first time they appear. σαβ . minuscules and greek letters A. . these two goals often conflict so that. σ. . σ.

We remark that some of these symbols may occasionally be used with a different connotation (which should be clear from the context). SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERS The specific meaning of some important characters is listed below. elastic domain Set of plastically admissible stresses Generic base vector. A Generic set of thermodynamical forces Finite element assembly operator (note the large font) First elasticity tensor Spatial elasticity tensor Left Cauchy–Green strain tensor e A A a B B B B b ¯ b C c D D D D D D D e ep e p Elastic left Cauchy–Green strain tensor Discrete (finite element) symmetric gradient operator (strain-displacement matrix) Generic body Body force Reference body force Right Cauchy–Green strain tensor Cohesion Damage internal variable Stretching tensor Elastic stretching Plastic stretching Infinitesimal consistent tangent operator Infinitesimal elasticity tensor Infinitesimal elastoplastic consistent tangent operator Consistent tangent matrix (array representation of D) Elasticity matrix (array representation of De ) Elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix (array representation of Dep ) Young’s modulus Eigenprojection of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue Three-dimensional Euclidean space.3. unit eigenvector of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue D De Dep E Ei E ¯ E ei .2.INTRODUCTION 9 1.

shear modulus Discrete (finite element) full gradient operator Hardening modulus Generalised hardening modulus Principal invariants of a tensor Fourth-order identity tensor: Iijkl = δik δjl Fourth-order symmetric identity tensor: Iijkl = 1 (δik δjl + δil δjk ) 2 Deviatoric projection tensor: Id ≡ IS − 1 I ⊗ I 3 Second-order identity tensor Array representation of IS Array representation of I Jacobian of the deformation map: J ≡ det F Stress deviator invariants Generalised viscoplastic hardening constitutive function Bulk modulus Global tangent stiffness matrix Tangent stiffness matrix of element e Set of kinematically admissible displacements Velocity gradient e p α ext ext f(e) int int f(e) G G H H I1 .10 F F F f f e p COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Deformation gradient Elastic deformation gradient Plastic deformation gradient Global (finite element) external force vector External force vector of element e Global (finite element) internal force vector Internal force vector of element e Virtual work functional. I3 I IS Id I IS i J J2 . J3 J K KT (e) KT K L L L Elastic velocity gradient Plastic velocity gradient Unit vector normal to the slip plane α of a single crystal Plastic flow vector ¯ Unit plastic flow vector: N ≡ N/ N The orthogonal group The rotation (proper orthogonal) group m N ¯ N O O + . I2 .

INTRODUCTION 11 0 o P p p Q q R R R r s s s t ¯ t U U U u u V V V V v W W W x αp α e p e p e α e Zero tensor. . . zero array. zero generic entity Zero vector First Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor Generic material point Cauchy or Kirchhoff hydrostatic pressure Generic orthogonal or rotation (proper orthogonal) tensor von Mises (Cauchy or Kirchhoff) effective stress Rotation tensor obtained from the polar decomposition of F Elastic rotation tensor Real set Global finite element residual (out-of-balance) force vector Entropy Cauchy or Kirchhoff stress tensor deviator Unit vector in the slip direction of slip system α of a single crystal Surface traction Reference surface traction Right stretch tensor Elastic right stretch tensor Plastic right stretch tensor Space of vectors in E Generic displacement vector field Global finite element nodal displacement vector Left stretch tensor Elastic left stretch tensor Plastic left stretch tensor Space of virtual displacements Generic velocity field Spin tensor Elastic spin tensor Plastic spin tensor Generic point in space Ogden hyperelastic constants (p = 1. . . N ) for a model with N terms in the Ogden strain-energy function series Generic set of internal state variables Up .

. . load factor in proportional loading Elastic and plastic axial stretch λp i Total. respectively Axial total. elastic and plastic principal stretches One of the Lamé constants of linear elasticity Ogden hyperelastic constants (p = 1. N ) for a model with N terms in the Ogden strain-energy function series Poisson ratio Dissipation potential Isoparametric coordinates of a finite element Mass density Reference mass density Cauchy stress tensor Axial stress in one-dimensional models Principal Cauchy stress Yield stress (uniaxial yield stress for the conventional von Mises and Tresca models) Initial yield stress Array representation of σ Kirchhoff stress tensor Principal Kirchhoff stress ε. λp λi . ε e p COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Back-stress tensor Plastic multiplier Krönecker delta Strain tensor. . axial stretch. . also elastic Eulerian logarithmic strain when under large strains Plastic strain tensor Array representation of ε. εe and εp . λe . εe . elastic and plastic strain in one-dimensional models Effective (or accumulated) plastic strain Virtual displacement field. i µ µp ν Ξ ξ ρ ρ ¯ σ σ σi σy σy 0 σ τ τi . also Eulerian logarithmic strain when under large strains Elastic strain tensor. relative stress tensor in kinematic hardening plasticity models Isotropic hardening thermodynamical force One of the Lamé constants of linear elasticity. ε . εp εp ¯ η κ λ λe .12 β γ ˙ δij ε εe εp ε.

. SUBSCRIPTS AND SUPERSCRIPTS When indicial notation is used. • When an index appears twice in the same product. their range may be 1. The meaning of a particular superscript will be stated the first time it appears in the text and should be clear from the context thereafter. l. We remark that subscripts are not employed exclusively in connection with indicial notation. β. n. Superscripts Superscripts are also used extensively throughout the text.3. . . summation over the repeated index (Einstein notation) is implied unless otherwise stated. 2 and 3. • Greek subscripts α. . at the end of increments n and n + 1. 3 u i ei = i=1 u i ei . respectively. as in the Cartesian components ui . motion Plastic flow potential Helmholtz free-energy per unit mass. in the context of incremental numerical procedures. . For example. 2. . δ. or for the basis vectors ei . .. . γ. j. subscripts may indicate the relevant increment number. damage function Deformation map. INDICIAL NOTATION. the subscripts n and n + 1 refer to the values of ε. normally range over 1. Bij . .INTRODUCTION 13 τα τ Φ ϕ Ψ ψ Ω Ω(e) Resolved Schmid shear stress on slip system α Array representation of τ Yield function. strain-energy per unit mass Domain of a body in the reference configuration Domain of finite element e in the reference configuration 1. aijkl . In the expression ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . . k. .: range over 1 and 2. Different connotations are assigned to subscripts throughout the text and the actual meaning of a particular subscript should be clear from the context. the following convention is adopted for subscripts: • Italic subscripts i. For example.3. In a more general context (in an n-dimensional space).

Typically. The symbol := is often used to emphasise that a given expression is an assignment operation performed by a computational algorithm. a := a + b S : T. ∆(·) = (·)n+1 − (·)n Iterative increment of (·) Gradient of (·) Material gradient of (·) Spatial gradient of (·) Corresponding symmetric gradients of (·) Boundary of the domain (·) Subdifferential of (·) with respect to a Derivative of (·) with respect to a Material time derivative of (·) The transpose of (·) Means a is defined as b. OTHER IMPORTANT SYMBOLS AND OPERATIONS The meanings of other important symbols and operations are listed below.3. det(·) dev(·) divp (·) divx (·) exp(·) ln(·) o(·) sign(·) skew(·) sym(·) tr(·) ∆(·) δ(·) ∇(·) ∇p (·) ∇x (·) ∇ . Double contraction of tensors (internal product of second-order tensors) ∂a (·) ∂ (·) ∂a ˙ (·) (·) T a≡b a := b. The value of the right-hand side of the expression is assigned to its left-hand side. S : T.4. Assignment operation. Determinant of (·) Deviator of (·) Material divergence of (·) Spatial divergence of (·) Exponential (including tensor exponential) of (·) Natural logarithm (including tensor logarithm) of (·) A term that vanishes faster than (·) The signum function: sign(·) ≡ (·)/|(·)| Skew-symmetric part of (·) Symmetric part of (·) Trace of (·) Increment of (·). S:T .14 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. s ∇x (·) ∂(·) s s ∇p . The symbol ≡ is often used to emphasise that the expression in question is a definition.

that is. ||v|| ≡ v · v Used in the description of arguments of FORTRAN subprograms listed in the text. Analogously to → above. The single contraction symbol (the single dot) is usually omitted in single contractions between a tensor and a vector or between tensors. a double arrow followed by an argument name A means that the value of A at entry is used by the relevant subprogram and is changed during its execution. in a given context. Norm (absolute value) of the scalar (·) Euclidean norm of tensors and vectors: √ √ ||T || ≡ T : T. ||v|| →A ←A ↔A . u · v. Vector product Tensor product of tensors or vectors The appropriate product between two generic entities. X and Y. An arrow pointing to the right followed by an argument name A means that the value of A at entry is used by the relevant subprogram and is not changed during its execution. T · u. T · u and S · T are normally represented simply as Tu and ST.INTRODUCTION 15 Single contraction of vectors and tensors. u⊗v X∗Y |(·)| ||T ||. S·T u×v S ⊗ T. an arrow pointing to the left followed by an argument name A means that the value of A is calculated and returned by the relevant subprogram and its value at entry is ignored. Analogously to → and ← above.

.

3) . indicial notation is also used. Throughout this text. Readers interested in such proofs and a more in-depth treatment of the subject are referred to other textbooks such as Gurtin (1981). coordinates for indicial representation is sufficiently general for the applications considered in this book. Ltd (2. This will allow readers not yet familiar with compact notation to associate compactly written entities and operations with their indicial forms. rather than curvilinear. We note that the use of Cartesian. the use of compact notation. In the subsequent chapters. Points of E and vectors U satisfy the basic rules of vector algebra. and u is said to be a unit vector if u = 1. is the element of U that satisfies o = 0. We remark that no proofs are given to most relations presented in this chapter.1. simply. The Euclidean norm (or. Vectors Let E be an n-dimensional Euclidean space and let U be the space of n-dimensional vectors associated with E. norm) of a vector u is defined as √ (2. However. in many of the definitions introduced in this chapter. Readers who are familiar with tensor analysis and. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. NORM AND ORTHOGONALITY Let u·v denote the inner product (or scalar product) between two arbitrary vectors of U.1. 2.1. the use of indicial notation will be much less frequent. which will be expressed exclusively in terms of Cartesian coordinate systems. INNER PRODUCT. here denoted o. with which we assume the reader to be familiar. The zero vector. in particular.1) u = u · u. may comfortably skip this chapter.2 ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS T HIS chapter introduces the notation and reviews some fundamentals of vector and tensor calculus which are extensively employed in this book. preference is given to the use of intrinsic (or compact) tensor notation where no indices are used to represent mathematical entities. 2. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.2) (2.

(2. defines a Cartesian coordinate frame. i = 1.8) are the Cartesian components of u relative to the basis {ei }. where u i = u · ei .9) . . The Cartesian coordinates {xi } of x are the Cartesian components of the position vector r = x − x0 .  . denoted [u]. e2 . where δij = 1 0 if i = j if i = j (2.7) (2. . any point x of E can be represented by an array   x1  x2    [x] =  .4) is the Krönecker delta. (2.2. This allows us to represent any vector u as a single column matrix.  .12)  (2. xi = (x − x0 ) · ei . (2.11) of x relative to the origin x0 .18 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS A vector u is said to be orthogonal (or perpendicular) to a vector v if u · v = 0.5) (2. 2. xn of Cartesian coordinates of x. en } of n mutually orthogonal vectors satisfying ei · ej = δij . That is. of components  u1  u2    [u] =  . {ei }. . n (2. Any vector of U is uniquely defined by its components relative to a given basis.  . . Analogously to the representation of vectors. x0 ∈ E. .10)  . un An orthonormal basis. Any vector u ∈ U can be represented as u = u 1 e1 + u 2 e2 + · · · + u n en = u i ei .1. together with an origin point. .6) (2. . . defines an orthonormal basis for U . . . 2. ORTHOGONAL BASES AND CARTESIAN COORDINATE FRAMES A set {ei } ≡ {e1 .

16) . skew).e. a second-order tensor T:U→U maps each vector u into a vector v = T u. Second-order tensors Second-order tensors are linear transformations from U into U. I.1. the zero tensor. then T is said to be skew symmetric (or. In addition.18) (2. of a tensor T is the unique tensor that satisfies T u · v = u · T T v. (2. Any tensor T can be decomposed as the sum T = sym(T ) + skew(T ) of its symmetric part sym(T ) ≡ 1 (T + T T ) 2 and its skew part skew(T ) ≡ 1 (T − T T ). the tensors that satisfy 0u = o (2. ST = TS.21) (2. simply.19) ∀ u.15) Iu=u ∀ u ∈ U. 2 (2. THE TRANSPOSE. i.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 19 2. (2. SYMMETRIC AND SKEW TENSORS The transpose. are. 0. then S and T are said to commute. and the identity tensor. v ∈ U.2.2. In general.22) (2.23) (2.20) (2.17) (2. 2. The product of two tensors S and T is the tensor ST defined by ST u = S (T u). If T = −T T . T T . The operations of sum and scalar multiplication of tensors are defined by (S + T )u = S u + T u (α S)u = α (S u). respectively. (2.13) Any linear vector-valued function of a vector is a tensor. If T = TT.14) where α ∈ R. then T is said to be symmetric. If ST = TS.

(iv) If T is symmetric. (iii) (u ⊗ v)(s ⊗ t) = (v · s)u ⊗ t. denoted u ⊗ v.20 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Basic properties The following basic properties involving the transpose. sym(T ) = T. t. (iii) (T T ) = T. (iv) ei ⊗ ei = I. then skew(T ) = 0.2. Some properties of the tensor product The following relations hold for any vectors s. skew and symmetric parts of a tensor hold: (i) (S + T )T = ST + T T . TENSOR PRODUCTS The tensor product of two vectors u and v. (v) S (u ⊗ v) = (S u) ⊗ v. v. (ii) (u ⊗ v)T = v ⊗ u. (ii) (S T )T = T T ST . (2. The tensor product is sometimes referred to as the dyadic product. (vi) (u ⊗ v)S = (u ⊗ ST v). (v) If T is skew. then skew(T ) = T. u.24) sym(T ) = 0.2. T . w and tensor S : (i) u ⊗ (v + w) = u ⊗ v + u ⊗ w. 2. is the tensor that maps each vector w into the vector (v · w)u: (u ⊗ v) w = (v · w) u.

. .  . (2.  .30) Thus. . vn v1     T21   = .31) (2.   .26) are the Cartesian components of T. read Iij = δij ..  . . Tn2 ··· ··· .3.29) The Cartesian components of the vector v = T u are given by vi = [Tjk (ej ⊗ ek ) ul el ] · ei = Tij uj .  (2.27)  T2n   . . .   (2. . ··· 1 (2. un u1 · · · Tnn T It can be easily proved that the Cartesian components Tij of the transpose T T of a tensor T are given by T Tij = Tji . T1n  T2n   u2  . Any second tensor is uniquely defined by its Cartesian components. .         . Tn1 T11 T12 T22 .25) · · · Tnn For instance.28) (2. the array [v] of Cartesian components of v is obtained from the matrix-vector product   v2  [v ] ≡  . .32) . we may have the following matrix representation for T :    T21  [T ] =  . 0 0  ··· 0  · · · 0  . Tn2 ··· ··· . .. by arranging the components Tij in a matrix. the Cartesian components of the identity tensor.2. . .25) no summation is implied over the index n. CARTESIAN COMPONENTS AND MATRIX REPRESENTATION Any second-order tensor T can be represented as T = T11 e1 ⊗ e1 + T12 e1 ⊗ e2 + · · · + Tnn en ⊗ en = Tij ei ⊗ ej where Tij = ei · T ej (2.   . . . so that its matrix representation is given by  1 0  0 1  [I ] =  .  . Note that in (2.. T1n  (2. . . Thus. Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . I. . . . .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 21 2.  . .  . .

then S : T = S : T T = S : sym(T ). . the trace of T is the sum of the diagonal terms of the Cartesian matrix representation [T ]..35) (2. (vii) If S is symmetric. or. between two tensors S and T is defined as S : T = tr(ST T ). The Euclidean norm (or simply norm) of a tensor T is defined as √ 2 2 2 T ≡ T : T = T11 + T12 + · · · + Tnn . . .  . . The inner product. t.33) 2. T1n T2n · · · Tnn (2. (ix) If S is symmetric and T is skew. . . (vi) (u ⊗ v)ij = (u ⊗ v) : (ei ⊗ ej ) = ui vj .2.  .38) .36) (2. Basic properties The following basic properties involving the internal product of tensors hold for any tensors R.37) (2. then S : T = −S : T T = S : skew(T ). in Cartesian component form. (v) Tij = T : (ei ⊗ ej ). then S : T = 0. S.   . (2. (ii) R : (S T ) = (ST R) : T = (R T T ) : S. S : T = Sij Tij . S : T. (iv) (s ⊗ t) : (u ⊗ v) = (s · u)(t · v). (viii) If S is skew.22 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thus. T and vectors s. T T has the following Cartesian matrix representation   T11 T21 · · · Tn1    T12 T22 · · · Tn2    [T T ] =  . . INNER PRODUCT AND EUCLIDEAN NORM For any u. u. (iii) u · S v = S : (u ⊗ v).34) that is. . v: (i) I : T = tr T. (2. the trace of the tensor (u ⊗ v) is the linear map defined as tr(u ⊗ v) = u · v. TRACE. v ∈ U. T = Tij ei ⊗ ej . it then follows that tr T = Tij tr(ei ⊗ ej ) = Tij δij = Tii . For a generic tensor.4.

A tensor T is invertible if and only if det T = 0. INVERSE TENSOR. 2. ROTATIONS A tensor Q is said to be orthogonal if QT = Q−1 . = T −1 S−1 . (2. denoted T −1 . DETERMINANT A tensor T is said to be invertible if its inverse. If Q1 and Q2 are rotations. Any positive definite tensor is invertible. ORTHOGONAL TENSORS.39) (2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 23 2.40) ∀ u = o. is the determinant of the matrix [T ]. (ii) det T −1 = (det T ) (iii) (ST ) −1 T −1 (2. An orthogonal tensor Q with det Q = 1 (2. The set of all proper orthogonal (or rotation) tensors is the proper orthogonal group. Basic relations involving the determinant and the inverse tensor Relation (i) below holds for any tensors S and T and relations (ii)–(iv) hold for any invertible tensors S and T : (i) det(ST ) = det S det T.2. −1 (iv) (T −1 ) = (T T ) .41) . It will be denoted O + .6.44) . (2. denoted det T. satisfying T −1 T = T T −1 = I exists. an orthogonal tensor Q satisfies Qu · Qv = u · v. The product Q1 Q2 of any two orthogonal tensors Q1 and Q2 is an orthogonal tensor. then the product Q1 Q2 is also a rotation. The determinant of a tensor T. The determinant of any orthogonal tensor equals either +1 or −1. (2.43) is called a proper orthogonal tensor (or a rotation). For all vectors u and v. A tensor T is said to be positive definite if T u · u > 0.42) The set of all orthogonal tensors will be denoted O.5.2.

we have ∗ Tij = Rki Tkl Rlj .53) . respectively.  (2.50) 2. in component form.45) where R is a rotation. The matrix representations [T ∗ ] and [u∗ ] of T and u relative to the basis {e∗ } are given by the following products of matrices: i [T ∗ ] = [R]T [T ] [R ]. 3}  −1 if {i. i for i = 1. (2. [u ∗ ] = [R]T [u ]. e1 · e∗ n  (2. k} is an odd permutation of {1. in component form. The matrix representation of R reads [R] = cos θ sin θ −sin θ cos θ . 2. (2. . .  . we define the cross product (or vector product) between two vectors u and v as the vector w = u × v. Equivalently..51) (2.46) (2. Such bases are related by i e∗ = R ei . Let T and u be. n. denotes the alternating tensor  +1 if {i. A rotation in two dimensions In two-dimensional space. whose components are given by wi = where ijk ijk (2.49) Rij = ei · e∗ . . 2.47) The matrix [R] is given by    e2 · e∗ 1  [R] =  . .48) · · · en · e∗ n (2. j. a tensor and a vector with matrix representations [T ] and [u] with respect to the basis {ei }.  . .  . Let the tensor R be a transformation that rotates all vectors of the two-dimensional space by an (anti-clockwise positive) angle θ.7. en · e∗ 2  e2 · e∗  n  .52) uj vk . e1 · e∗ 1 e1 · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ 2 . 2. j. j Example. (2. . . In this space. en · e∗ 1 or.2.24 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Rotations and changes of basis Let {ei } and {e∗ } be two orthonormal bases of U. CROSS PRODUCT Let us now restrict ourselves to the three-dimensional vector space. . 3} ijk =   0 if at least two indices coincide. k} is an even permutation of {1. i ··· ··· . the rotation tensor has a simple Cartesian representation. u∗ = Rji uj . .

ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 25 Basic relations with the cross product Some useful relations involving the cross product are listed in the following: (i) u × v = −v × u. The matrix representation of W . called the axial vector of W . a non-zero vector u is said to be an eigenvector of T associated with the eigenvalue (or principal value) ω if T u = ω u. (u × v) · w (2. reads   [W ] =  w3 −w2 where {wi } are the components of w.58) 0 −w3 0 w1  −w1 . 0 w2  (2.56) (2.54) (v) For any skew tensor W .57) (2. such that W u = w × u. the axial vector is expressed as w = W32 e1 + W13 e2 + W21 e3 . (ii) (u × v) · w = (v × w) · u = (w × u) · v. The following properties hold: (i) The eigenvalues of a positive definite tensor are strictly positive. det T = (T u × T v) · T w . there is a unique vector w. 2.8. . v. (2. (iv) For any tensor T and a set {u.2.55) The space of all vectors u satisfying the above equation is called the characteristic space of T corresponding to ω. SPECTRAL DECOMPOSITION Given a tensor T. w} of linearly independent vectors. In terms of the Cartesian components of W . (ii) The characteristic spaces of a symmetric tensor are mutually orthogonal. (iii) u × u = o.

s denotes the eigenvalue of tensor S associated with the unit eigenvector e . . † Note that. (2. (2. whenever it is used.  0 0 ··· sn The direction of an eigenvector ei is called a principal axis or principal direction of S. . S has the following diagonal matrix representation   s1 0 · · · 0    0 s2 · · · 0    (2. . Ei are given by the expression  p 1   (S − sj I)    s i − sj j=1 Ei = j=i      I if p > 1 (2. Then S admits the representation n S= i=1 si ei ⊗ ei . . Each eigenprojection Ei is the orthogonal projection operator on the characteristic space of S associated with si . Eigenprojections Alternatively. Relative to the basis {ei }.65) if p = 1.61) where the symmetric tensors {Ei } are called the eigenprojections of S. p. with p ≤ n defined as the number of distinct eigenvalues of S. i. then Ei = ei ⊗ ei for i = 1. . if p = n (no repeated eigenvalues). . . .64) (2.. . we may write p S= i=1 si Ei . . (2. . si should not be confused with the Cartesian component of a vector. in the present context. .† The above representation is called the spectral decomposition of S. .59) where {ei } is an orthonormal basis for U consisting exclusively of eigenvectors of S and {si } are the corresponding eigenvalues. . n.62) and. (2. Also. with no summation implied on i. . . .60) [S ] =  . . . j = 1. the eigenprojections satisfy Ei : Ej = δij . The eigenprojections have the property p I= i=1 Ei .63) In closed form. . i i We remark that this notation is often employed throughout this book and.26 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Spectral theorem Let S be a symmetric tensor.

In this case. i i If S is symmetric. det(S − α I ) has the representation det(S − α I ) = −α3 + α2 I1 − α I2 + I3 . for any α ∈ R. the characteristic equation reads s2 − si I1 + I2 = 0.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 27 Characteristic equation.71) (2. Principal invariants Every eigenvalue si of a tensor S (symmetric or non-symmetric) satisfies the characteristic equation det(S − si I ) = 0. where I1 and I2 are the principal invariants of S. which are now defined by I1 (S) ≡ tr S = Sii I2 (S) ≡ 1 [(tr S)2 − tr(S2 )] = 1 (Sii Sjj − Sij Sji ) 2 2 I3 (S) ≡ det S = 1 6 ijk pqr Sip Sjq Skr .70) (2.74) .67) The eigenvalues si are the solutions to this quadratic equation. Three-dimensional space In the three-dimensional space. I2 and I3 are the principal invariants of S. then its principal invariants can be expressed in terms of its eigenvalues as I1 = s1 + s2 I2 = s1 s2 .69) (2. where I1 .73) −s3 + s2 I1 − si I2 + I3 = 0.66) Two-dimensional space In the two-dimensional space.68) (2. (2.72) The characteristic equation (now a cubic equation). (2. det(S − α I ) can be expressed as det(S − α I ) = α2 − α I1 + I2 . i (2. If S is symmetric. defined as I1 (S) ≡ tr S = Sii I2 (S) ≡ det S = S11 S22 − S12 S21 . whose solution is the set of eigenvalues of S. then we have I1 = s1 + s2 + s3 I2 = s1 s2 + s2 s3 + s1 s3 I3 = s1 s2 s3 . (2. reads (2.

Higher-order tensors So far we have seen operations involving scalars.52) can be equivalently written in compact form as w = ( v) u.2.75)–(2.82) Note that. and second-order tensors. V= F F T. the spectral decomposition of its square root.79) 2. Linear operators of higher order. we have already made use of a higher-order tensor: the third-order alternating tensor whose components are defined in expression (2. The alternating tensor is a linear operator that maps vectors into skew symmetric tensors.7. (2.81) for arbitrary vectors a. (2. The symmetric tensors U and V are given by U= F T F. reads √ T= si ei ⊗ ei . POLAR DECOMPOSITION Let F be a positive definite tensor. Note that the rotation R associated with an arbitrary F can be expressed as R = F U −1 = V −1 F . In this section we introduce some basic definitions and operations involving higher-order tensors.83) .9. (2. respectively.2. with the above definitions. (2. the eigenvalues and the basis of eigenvectors of S.76) where (·) denotes the tensor square root of (·). (2.3.53). T.77) With {si } and {ei } denoting.28 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2.76) are commonly referred to as the Polar Decomposition Theorem. c and d. that can be considered as zero-order tensors. the right and left polar decompositions of F . in the definition of the cross product in Section 2. which are linear operators on vectors.80) where the tensor product (now the tensor product of three vectors) is defined as the operator that satisfies (a ⊗ b ⊗ c) d = (c · d)(a ⊗ b). (2. which can be classed as first-order tensors. b. It can be represented as = ijk ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek . (2. In fact. are frequently employed in continuum mechanics. expression (2. (2. The square root of a symmetric tensor S is the unique tensor T that satisfies T 2 ≡ T T = S. (2.75) The decompositions R U and V R are unique and are called. respectively. vectors. The multiplication of the alternating tensor by a vector v yields the second-order tensor v = ijk vk ei ⊗ ej .78) i Assertions (2. Then there exist symmetric positive definite tensors U and V and a rotation R such that F = R U = V R. or higher-order tensors.

FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS Fourth-order tensors are of particular relevance in continuum mechanics. (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f ⊗ g ⊗ h) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b ⊗ g ⊗ h). the tensor has the properties T : S = T : ST . S : T = (S : T)T .86) (2. (2. if Tijkl = Tijlk . . b.84) Fourth-order tensors map second-order tensors into second-order tensors. They also map vectors into third-order tensors and third-order tensors into vectors. (2. (v) T : S = Tijmn Smnkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . i. (2. c.88) It should be noted that other symmetries are possible in fourth-order tensors. (2. and the double contractions (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b). If it is symmetric in the first two indices. The Cartesian components of symmetric fourth-order tensors satisfy the major symmetries Tijkl = Tklij . (vi) S : T = Tklij Skl ei ⊗ ej .89) for any S.3.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 29 2.91) (2.85) for arbitrary vectors a. A general fourthorder tensor‡ T can be represented as T = Tijkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . e and f. (2.e.1. Symmetry We shall call symmetric any fourth-order tensor that satisfies S : T : U = (T : S) : U . If symmetry occurs in the last two indices. tensors are represented in this text by bold face upright sans serif fonts. T : S = (T : S)T . (iii) T : S = Tijkl Skl ei ⊗ ej . ‡ Fourth-order (2. With the above definitions. the following relations are valid: (i) Tijkl = (ei ⊗ ej ) : T : (ek ⊗ el ). Tijkl = Tjikl .87) for any second-order tensors S and U . then. (ii) T u = Tijkl ul ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek . As a direct extension of equation (2.81) we define (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d)e = (e · d)(a ⊗ b ⊗ c). This definition is analogous to that of symmetric second-order tensors.92) S : T = ST : T. d.90) (2.

(2. (2. we have (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim )u = (u · eim )(ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim−1 ). Spherical tensors. for any rotation R. 2. i (2.4. is isotropic if [T ] = [R][T ][R]T for any rotation R. GENERIC-ORDER TENSORS Generic tensors of order m are defined as T = Ti1 i2 ···im (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim ). where.2. 2. with scalar α.98) (2. extending the previous definitions of the tensor product. Isotropic tensors A tensor is said to be isotropic if its components are invariant under any change of basis.4. T.e.97) . 2.3.30 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Change of basis transformation Again. (2.96) (2.1. The definition of contraction operations is completely analogous to that seen above for fourth-order tensors. The components T∗ of a tensor T relative to the basis defined by {e∗ } ijkl i are given by T∗ = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq . is isotropic if Tijkl = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq . tensors represented as αI. ISOTROPIC SECOND-ORDER TENSORS A second-order tensor.2. ISOTROPIC FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS A fourth-order tensor. let us consider the orthonormal basis {e∗ } defined as i e∗ = Rei .94) ijkl where Tmnpq are the components relative to {ei }.93) with R a rotation. 2.95) for all u ∈ U. T. are the only second-order isotropic tensors. i.4.

101) The tensor IT is the transposition tensor. IS : T = T : IS = sym(T ). U = α I + β IT + γ (I ⊗ I ). i. the tensor (I ⊗ I ) has components (I ⊗ I)ijkl = δij δkl . The components of IT are (IT )ijkl = δil δjk .e. Its Cartesian components are (IS )ijkl = 1 (δik δjl + δil δjk ).100) For any second-order tensor T. (2.108) . the fourth-order identity satisfies I : T = T : I = T. U.104) Another important isotropic tensor that frequently appears in continuum mechanics is the tensor defined as (2.e. can be represented as a linear combination of three basic isotropic tensors: I. (2. Obviously. for any symmetric S.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 31 Any isotropic fourth-order tensor. (2. T.103) for any S. β and γ are scalars. When multiplying any tensor T it gives (I ⊗ I ) : T = (tr T ) I. (2.105) (2. Finally. and.107) IS = 1 ( I + IT ). i.106) (2. IT : S = S : IT = ST . (2.110) 2 (2. (2. It maps any second-order tensor onto its transpose.99) where α. (2.e.102) (2. given in component form as Iijkl = δik δjl . IS : S = S. we have I : T = T : I = T. The tensor I is called the fourth-order identity. for any fourth-order tensor. i. IT and (I ⊗ I ). 2 This tensor maps any second-order tensor into its symmetric part.109) We shall refer to this tensor as the symmetric projection or symmetric identity.

112) If the linear map DY(X 0 ) exists. Differentiation 2. 2. it can be represented as DY(X 0 ) [U ] = ∇Y(X 0 ) ∗ U .5. Y(X 0 + U ) = Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] + o(U ).3.5. represented in abstract notation.5.1.111) that the function defined in (2. that is.2.32 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. Note by observing (2. THE GRADIENT Since the derivative is a linear transformation between finite-dimensional spaces.e.115) where ∇Y(X 0 ) is the gradient of Y at X 0 and the symbol ‘∗’ denotes an appropriate product operation.114) corresponds indeed to the approximation to Y that ignores all higher-order (nonlinear) terms in U . =0 (2. (2. THE DERIVATIVE MAP. LINEARISATION OF A NONLINEAR FUNCTION The function L : D ⊂ X → Y. the term DY(X 0 ) [U ] is called the directional derivative of Y (at X 0 ) in the direction of U . For a given U . where the domain D of Y is an open subset of X.111) where DY(X 0 ) [U ] denotes a linear transformation on U . (2. defined as L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] (2. i. 2. The derivative satisfies DY(X 0 ) [U ] = lim 1 →0 ∈R [Y(X 0 + U ) − Y(X 0 )] = d Y(X 0 + U ) d .114) is the called the linearisation of Y about X 0 .5. and o(U ) is a term that approaches zero faster than U . U→0 lim o(U ) = 0. DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVE Let X and Y be finite-dimensional normed vector spaces and let a function Y be defined as Y : D ⊂ X → Y. it is unique and is called the derivative of Y at X 0 . it is the linear approximation to Y at X 0 . .113) for each U ∈ X. U (2. The function Y is said to be differentiable at an argument X 0 ∈ D if there exists a linear transformation DY(X 0 ) : X → Y such that as U ∈ X approaches zero (the zero element of X ).

4. u→0 |u| |u| (2.120) Thus.122) 2. we find that the linearisation of y about x0 in the present case reads l(u) ≡ y(x0 ) + ∇y(x0 )u = x2 + 2x0 u. We will also use the notation dY dX to denote the gradient and when Y is a function of two or more arguments. indeed.1) y(x) ≡ x2 . the gradient of y can be promptly identified as ∇y(x0 ) = 2x0 . this term vanishes faster than u.115).116) u→0 In addition. (2. With the above and (2.5.119) (2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 33 We remark that throughout this text we shall use the term derivative also as a synonym for gradient.117) (2. by comparing the above expression with (2. (2. In the present case. 0 (2. DERIVATIVES OF FUNCTIONS OF VECTOR AND TENSOR ARGUMENTS Let us now consider some simple illustrative examples of derivatives of functions whose arguments and/or values may be scalar.e.118) (2.111) reads y(x0 + u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] + o(u) = x2 + 2x0 u + u2 . lim |o(u)| u2 = lim = 0.121) and the product ‘∗’ is identified with the standard product between scalars. . vectors or tensors. i.114). we may use the notation ∂Y ∂X to emphasise that the derivative is taken with respect to X having the other function arguments as parameters. we have Dy(x0 ) [u] = 2x0 u. Let us consider the function (Figure 2. Example. A scalar function The above concepts are probably better understood by applying them to the trivial case of a scalar function of a scalar argument. Note that. 0 We can then identify o(u) = u2 . (2.

(2.126) (2.34 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y y(x) = x2 linearisation of y(x) about x 0 tan--1 2x 0 x0 x Figure 2. In this case. It then follows that Dy(x) [u] = 2x · u.125) (2. We may alternatively use the notation dy = 2x.115) becomes the internal product between vectors in the present case.1. dy dx Scalar function of a tensor argument Now consider the internal product between tensors y(X) ≡ X : X = Xij Xij .128) . and the gradient ∇y can be identified as the vector ∇y(x) = 2x. in component form.129) = i (2. (2. we have y(x + u) = x · x + 2x · u + o(u) where o(u) = u · u. Function derivative and linearisation.127) dy = 2xi .124) (2. dx or.123) The generic product operation indicated in (2. dxi (2. Scalar function of vector argument We start with the scalar function of a vector argument defined by y(x) ≡ x · x = xi xi .

132) (2.136) d x x = .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 35 We have y(X + U ) = X : X + 2X : U + U : U = y(X) + Dy(X) [U ] + o(U ).135) (2. The Cartesian components of ∇Y can be easily found to be given by (∇Y )ijkl = Xik δjl + Xlj δik . (2. or.138) .131) (2.130) Tensor function of a tensor argument We now determine the derivative of the square of a tensor Y (X) ≡ X 2 = XX.133) The derivative in this case is a linear mapping between second-order tensors and can be identified as the fourth-order tensor ∇Y (X) that satisfies ∇Y (X) : U = DY (X) [U ] = XU + U X for any U . we write Y (X + U ) = XX + XU + U X + U U = Y (X) + DY (X) [U ] + o(U ). (∇y)ij = dy = 2 Xij .137) (2. To obtain its derivative. dx x (2. This tensor-value function is equivalently expressed in component form as Yij ≡ Xik Xkj . Some useful relations We list below (without proof) some basic expressions for derivatives relevant to theoretical and computational mechanics applications: (i) y(x) ≡ x .134) (2. Dy(x) [u] = x ·u x (2. in component form. dXij (2. The gradient – a second-order tensor in this case – can be immediately identified as ∇y(X) = 2X.

DY (X) [U ] = U d X = I. −1 −1 Dijkl = −Xik Xlj (2.143) (2. dX 2.5. DY (x) [u] = (a ⊗ I) · u d (a ⊗ x) = a ⊗ I. THE CHAIN RULE Let the function Y : D ⊂ X → Y be defined as the composition Y(X) = W(Z(X)) of two differentiable functions Z : D ⊂ X → Z and W : C ⊂ Z → Y. dX (iv) Y (x) ≡ a ⊗ x (with constant a). d (X −1 ) = D. DY (x) [u] = (I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I) · u d (x ⊗ x) = I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I. dx (vi) Y (X) ≡ X. Dy(X) [U ] = X :U X d X X = . dX (vii) Y (X) ≡ X −1 .5. DY (X) [U ] = −X −1 U X −1 = D : U . Dy(X) [U ] = (det X) X −T : U d det X = (det X) X −T .142) (2. The derivative of Y satisfies DY(X) [U ] = DW(Z(X)) [DZ(X) [U ]] for all U ∈ X.139) (2. dX X (iii) y(X) ≡ det X.141) (2.36 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (ii) y(X) ≡ X . dx (v) Y (x) ≡ x ⊗ x.140) (2.144) .

‘∗’ could be the double contraction operation. If W is a fourth-order tensor and Z is a second-order tensor. then so is Y and DY(X) [U ] = W(X) ∗ DZ(X) [U ] + DW(X) [U ] ∗ Z(X). THE DIVERGENCE Let v : D ⊂ E → U be a smooth vector field on D. (2. If W and Z are differentiable at an argument X. . for instance. and so on.7.146) The divergence theorem Let B ⊂ E be a closed region with piecewise smooth boundary ∂B and let α. (2. div v dv.145) ∂xi Now let T be a smooth second-order tensor field on D. The divergence of v is the scalar field defined as ∂vi div v = tr(∇v) = . In Cartesian components.5. Then. v and T be smooth scalar.147) ∀ u ∈ U.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 37 2. The divergence of T is the vector field. 2. that satisfies (div T ) · u = div(T T u). denoted div T. respectively. vector and tensor-valued fields on B. THE PRODUCT RULE Let us consider a function Y : D ⊂ X → Y defined as Y(X) = W(X) ∗ Z(X) where the symbol ‘∗’ denotes a generic product between functions W : D ⊂ X → W and Z : D ⊂ X → Z. α n da = v · n da = T n da = ∇α dv. If W and Z are vectors. where n is the field of unit outward normal vectors on ∂B.6.5.148) ∂B B ∂B B ∂B B div T dv. this product could be the internal or tensor product between vectors. (2. we have (div T )i = ∂Tij . ∂xj (2.

Linearisation of nonlinear problems The linearisation of nonlinear problems plays a crucial role in theoretical and computational mechanics.1. (vi) div(α T ) = α div T + T ∇α. (iii) ∇(u · v) = (∇v)T u + (∇u)T v. The following useful relations hold: (i) ∇(αu) = α ∇u + u ⊗ ∇α. (ii) div(αu) = α div u + u · ∇α. USEFUL RELATIONS INVOLVING THE GRADIENT AND THE DIVERGENCE Let α and T be.38 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. 2. (v) div(T u) = T T : ∇u + u · div T T . THE NONLINEAR PROBLEM AND ITS LINEARISED FORM Let Y : D ⊂ X → Y be a generic nonlinear function. Our generic nonlinear problem consists in finding X ∈ D such that Y(X) = 0. the concept of linearisation is essential in the derivation of linear approximations to general nonlinear theories. smooth scalar and tensor fields on D ⊂ E and let u and v be smooth vector fields on D. the interest in linearisation stems mostly from the fact that numerical solutions to nonlinear problems are usually obtained by algorithms which require the solution of a sequence of linearised (or approximately linearised) problems. (2. (2. on the other hand. In theoretical continuum mechanics. 2.5. In computational mechanics.149) The linearisation of the problem defined by equation (2.150) .6. where L(U ) is the linearisation of Y at X 0 .149) about an arbitrary point X 0 ∈ D at which Y is differentiable consists in finding U ∈ D such that L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] = 0. respectively. The proof of the above relations is given in Gurtin (1981). which is extensively exploited in the finite element framework described later in this book. (iv) div(u ⊗ v) = u div v + (∇u)v.6. A typical example is the well-known Newton–Raphson iterative scheme. An interesting presentation of the theory of linearisation is provided by Marsden and Hughes (1983) within a rather general mathematical framework and by Hughes and Pister (1978) within the context of solid mechanics problems.8.

0 (2.2) defined by the equation y(x) = 0. (2. . the discussion on differentiation and linearisation has been restricted to mappings between finite-dimensional vector spaces. let us again appeal to the case of a scalar function of a single scalar argument. we describe a much simpler example whose purpose is only to familiarise the reader with the concept.150) takes the form of the following scalar equation for u at an arbitrary argument x0 : l(u) ≡ y(x0 ) + ∇y(x0 ) u = x2 + 2x0 u = 0. Here.152) 2.e. § The precise definition of such spaces falls outside the scope of the present text. The scalar case To illustrate the above concept.§ Of particular interest in computational mechanics is the case when Y is a functional. Linearisation of problems involving functions of this type (such as the virtual work functional) are of paramount importance in the computational solution of nonlinear solid mechanics boundary value problems and will be discussed later in this book. It is important to emphasise that such concepts are equally applicable to the more general case where Y is a mapping between infinitedimensional functional spaces. Example.2. the generic linearised problem (2. and consider the trivial root-finding problem (refer to the graphical illustration of Figure 2.149). The more interested reader is referred to Marsden and Hughes (1983) where the concept of linearisation is introduced in the context of mappings between Banach spaces. In the present case. LINEARISATION IN INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONAL SPACES So far. a scalar-valued function of a function.6. i.151) This is obviously a particularisation of the general nonlinear problem (2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 39 nonlinear function y(x) linearisation of y(x) about x 0 y x0 solution of the nonlinear problem solution of the linearised problem x Figure 2.2. y(x) ≡ x2 . Linearisation of a nonlinear equation.

We define a functional y : X → R as y(x) ≡ Ω sin(x(p)) dp. the linearisation of the functional (2.156) ¶ To avoid a precise statement of regularity properties of functions.40 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS A simple example Let X now be a space of sufficiently smooth¶ functions x : R n → R.155) From the above. (2. Linearisation of the above functional about a given argument (function) x0 is the following generalisation of (2.153) at x0 is then established as l(u) = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Ω cos(x0 (p)) u(p) dp. .113): Dy(x0 ) [u] = d y(x0 + u) d =0 d = sin(x0 (p) + u(p)) dp d Ω = Ω =0 cos(x0 (p)) u(p) dp. (2.114): l(u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Dy(x0 ) [u]. we frequently use the term sufficiently smooth in the present text. (2. (2.153) where Ω ⊂ R n is a given integration domain. meaning that functions have a sufficient degree of regularity so that all operations in which they are involved are properly defined.154) where the directional derivative Dy(x0 ) [u] is now a linear transformation on the function u ∈ X and can be determined by direct generalisation of (2.

A deformation of B (Figure 3. 1981. Ciarlet. 1965). Gurtin. 1997. material particles of B will be identified with their positions in the reference configuration of B. 1988. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. (3. The definitions and notation introduced will be systematically employed throughout the subsequent chapters of this book. Thus. one may write x = p + u(p).3 ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS T HIS chapter reviews some basic concepts of mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media. defined by u(p) = ϕ(p) − p. 1990. The vector field u(p). Ogden. Bonet and Wood.1) where the particle is positioned in the deformed configuration of B. 1984. The material presented here is well established in the continuum mechanics literature and an effort has been made to follow the notation and nomenclature in use in standard textbooks (Billington and Tate. 1980. Lemaitre and Chaboche. 3.2) † For convenience. Spencer.1) is defined by a smooth one-to-one function ϕ:Ω→E that maps each material particle† p of B into a point x = ϕ(p) (3. Ltd . Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.3) (3. Truesdell and Noll. is the displacement of p. 1981. The region of E occupied by B in its deformed configuration will be denoted ϕ(Ω). Kinematics of deformation Let B be a body which occupies an open region Ω of the three-dimensional Euclidean space E with a regular boundary ∂Ω in its reference configuration.1.

(3.6) The deformation map above represents a rigid translation with displacement ϕ(q) − q superimposed on a rigid rotation R about point q.1. A rigid rotation is a deformation that can be expressed as ϕ(p) = q + R (p − q). A rigid translation is a deformation with constant displacement vector (u independent of p): ϕ(p) = p + u. Deformation. A rigid deformation of B is a deformation that preserves the distances between all material particles of B. .2) can be a translation. if and only if it can be expressed in the form: ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + R (p − q). or a combination of a translation and a rotation.42 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p e2 u( p) x= ( p) e1 e3 Figure 3. A rigid deformation (Figure 3. A time-dependent deformation of B is called a motion of B.2.3) is defined by a function ϕ : Ω × R → E. A deformation is rigid. including translations and/or rotations.5) (3. Rigid deformations. (3. A motion (Figure 3. rigid translation rigid rotation fixed point q x x p u p Figure 3.4) where R is a proper orthogonal tensor (a rotation) and q is the point about which B is rotated. a rotation.

defined as c(t) = ϕ(p. (3. . describes the trajectory of p during the motion of B. t). During a motion ϕ. t) will denote the region of E occupied by the body B at time t. one may define the function ˙ v(x. t) = p + u(p.11) The map ϕ−1 is called the reference map. t). t). t2 ) xt 2 Figure 3. t). Motion. t). the position x of a material particle p at time t is given by x = ϕ(p. Using the reference map. During the motion ϕ. the map ϕ(·. t) = ∂ϕ(p. so that for each time t. The parametric curve c(t). t) ≡ x(ϕ−1 (x. In terms of the displacement field the motion is expressed as ϕ(p. The deformation map at time t will be also denoted ϕt . t1 t2 u( p. t) is a deformation of B. t) . (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 43 c(t) reference configuration t1 xt p 1 ) u( p. ϕ(Ω. ∂t (3.9) (3. (3.7) Similarly. t). t) = x − u(ϕ−1 (x. material points can be expressed in terms of the place they occupy at a time t as p = ϕ−1 (x.3. t) for a fixed material point p. the velocity of a material particle p is defined by ˙ x(p. t) is one-to-one (and hence invertible) by assumption.12) The field v is called the spatial velocity and gives the velocity of the material particle positioned at x at time t.8) Since at each time t the map ϕ(·.10) (3.

This motivates the following definitions: Let a general time-dependent (scalar. t). the material description of a spatial field α(x.4.7). t). vectorial or tensorial) field α be defined over the body B. t) + w(t) × (x − y). The vector w(t) is called the angular velocity of the body. t) = v(y. t) is defined by βs (x. if its domain is ϕt (Ω) × R.16) (3. Conversely. t) is a rigid deformation. t). The rigid velocity field is schematically illustrated in Figure 3. t) and a superimposed rotation about the line that passes through y and is parallel to the axial vector associated to the skew tensor W . y ∈ ϕ(Ω. if the value of α is expressed as a function of material particles p (and time) then α is said to be a material field. t) + W (t) (x − y) (3.15) It should be noted that any field associated with a motion of B can be expressed as a function of time and material particles or spatial position.13) for all x. On the other hand. A rigid motion of B is a motion for which. the velocity field above can be re-written as v(x. t) = α(ϕ(p. 3. the arguments of v are spatial position and time. A material (spatial) field does . (3. t) = v(y. i.14) which is the standard formula for the velocity field of classical rigid-body dynamics.4. By denoting w(t) the axial vector of W (t). t) is defined by αm (p. A motion ϕ is rigid if and only if at each time t. then α is said to be a spatial field. with W (t) a skew tensor. the map ϕ(·. However. ˙ ˙ x and v have different arguments. at each time t.1. If the domain of α is Ω × R.44 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS x v(x) w x (x y ) v( y) v( y) y w Figure 3. (3.e. the spatial description of a material field β(p.1. t). MATERIAL AND SPATIAL FIELDS ˙ Both fields x and v introduced above describe the velocity of material particles. the spatial velocity v admits the representation v(x. The velocity at x is given as the sum of a uniform velocity v(y. t). Rigid velocity. t) = β(ϕ−1 (x. While x has material particle and time as arguments. Using (3.

t) = a + b p1 + c t. of the material particle whose position at time 0 is p. θm (as θs ) expresses a physical quantity associated with the configuration of time t. for instance. not necessarily represent a quantity physically associated with the reference (deformed) configuration of the body. b and c are constants. the material description of this temperature field reads θm (p.1. Example 3. the subscripts m and s employed above to denote the material and spatial descriptions of general fields will not be used throughout this book unless absolutely necessary. In view of the assumed motion ϕ.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 45 time t x time 0 tv =a+b(x tv )+c t =a+b p +c t p e2 e1 Figure 3. In experimental terms. In general. where a. Note that. . with constant velocity v. of the material particle whose position at time t is x. t) = a + b(x1 − t v1 ) + c t. t) = θm (p(x. it would be the temperature read from a thermometer held fixed in space at x. t). the spatial description of the same field is given by θs (x.5 subjected to the rigid translation: x = ϕ(p. the temperature field of the body in question is linearly distributed along its longitudinal axis and varies uniformly throughout the body at a constant rate. in spite of having p as one of its arguments. at time t. during the motion ϕ. t) ≡ p + t v. the description employed will be evident either from the context or from the argument used (p or x). Consider. The function θm gives the temperature. Material and spatial descriptions. To avoid notational complexity. the rectangular body of Figure 3. The spatial description θs gives the temperature. at time t. It would be the temperature indicated by a thermometer attached to this material particle.1. labelling material particles of the body with their position p at time 0). Assume that. Taking the initial configuration (at t = 0) as the reference configuration (and.5. therefore.

˙ (3.17) ∇p α = ∂p ∂x i. in Cartesian components. the direction of temperature isolines. Note that the extra term −b v1 added to θ is a contribution to the rate of change of temperature at x due to the motion of the body combined with its non-uniform distribution of temperature. t). ∇x α = αs (x. divx v = tr(∇x v).147)). ∂p (3. as divp v = tr(∇p v). ˙ are defined by ∂ ∂ α = αm (p. θ = −b v1 + c. ∂xj (divp T )i = ∂Tij . (3. The material time derivative in this case corresponds to the temperature rate computed from a thermometer attached to a material particle p whilst θ is the temperature rate observed in a thermometer held fixed in space at x.22) ∂xt . ˙ The spatial time derivative. It would also vanish if the temperature were uniform throughout the body (b = 0).2. α = αs (x. for a tensor field T. ∂pj (3. DIVERGENCES AND TIME DERIVATIVES The material and spatial gradients of a general field α.1. we define the spatial and material divergence of a vector field v. by (divx T )i = ∂Tij . 3. Analogously to (2.19) In addition (refer to (2. on the other hand. t) = ∇p ϕ(p. the material and spatial time derivatives of the temperature field θ are given by ˙ θ = c. respectively.5. THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT The deformation gradient of the motion ϕ is the second-order tensor F defined by F (p. the derivatives of α with respect to p and x holding t fixed. the spatial and material divergence are given. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL GRADIENTS. denoted respectively α and α .146) is also applicable to the material and spatial divergence of a tensor. respectively. (3. i. measures the rate of change of α observed at a fixed spatial position x.1. t).e. Similarly. the material and spatial time derivatives of α. t) = In view of (3. are defined as ∂ ∂ αm (p.18) ∂t ∂t The material time derivative α measures the rate of change of α at a fixed material particle p. denoted respectively ∇p α and ∇x α. t).145) (page 37).46 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3.e. they are.21) .3. This contribution vanishes if the body moves parallel to e2 (v1 = 0). t). (3.20) The compact definition (2.8) it can be written as F = I + ∇p u. In the example of Figure 3.

1.11).7). . these particles are mapped. with F a positive definite tensor. rigid translations and rotations are homogeneous deformations. VOLUME CHANGES. (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 47 reference configuration dp p p+dp t x+dx x dx=F dp t Figure 3. Clearly. t) = [∇x ϕ−1 (x. ∂pj (3. THE DETERMINANT OF THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT Consider now the infinitesimal volume dv0 defined by the infinitesimal vectors da. (3. the deformation gradient may be equivalently expressed as F (x. 3.6. db and dc emanating from the material particle p in the reference configuration (Figure 3.26) for all points p. q ∈ B.24) Consider the infinitesimal material fibre dp that connects two neighbouring material particles p and p + dp of a deforming body (Figure 3. A deformation is homogeneous if and only if it admits the representation ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + F (p − q) (3. respectively. t)]−1 = [I − ∇x u]−1 . Under the deformation ϕt .6).23) = δij + where xi denote the components of xt .4. The deformation gradient is the linear operator that relates infinitesimal material fibres dp with their deformed counterparts dx: dx = F dp. The Cartesian components of F are given by Fij = ∂xi ∂pj ∂ui .25) A deformation of B with uniform deformation gradient (F independent of p) is called a homogeneous deformation. Trivially. The deformation gradient. In terms of the reference map (3. into x and x + dx.

Thus. at the reference configuration. J satisfies J > 0. Throughout this book. Also note that. dv0 (3. this represents a physically unacceptable situation.7. the determinant of the deformation gradient represents. at some stage.48 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reference configuration dv = det[F] dv0 dv 0 t dc da db p t F dc F db x F da Figure 3. locally. consequently. it follows that det F = dv . the volume after deformation per unit reference volume (or volume change ratio). J = 0.32) . (3. a configuration with J < 0 cannot be reached from the reference configuration without having. F = I and. By making use of identity (2. F db and F dc. in any deformed configuration of a body.29) (3. so that the deformed infinitesimal volume is given by dv = (F da × F db) · F dc. one has dv0 = (da × db) · dc. J = 1. Since the body is not allowed to penetrate itself (this restriction is embodied in the assumption that the deformation map is one-to-one).28) i. then the infinitesimal volume has collapsed into a material particle. into F da. (3.31) Isochoric deformations Isochoric (or volume-preserving) deformations are deformations that do not produce changes in volume. respectively. A locally isochoric deformation is characterised by J = 1.e.54).29) it follows that if det F = 0. we will adopt the following notation J ≡ det F . The determinant of the deformation gradient. (3. Therefore.30) From (3.27) The deformation ϕt maps the infinitesimal vectors. (3.

the undeformed and deformed lengths of a material fibre.1. To see this. pure contractions/dilations) are deformations consisting purely of a uniform contraction/dilation in all directions. POLAR DECOMPOSITION. det F iso = [(det F )− 3 ]3 det F = 1.5. With l0 and l denoting. The isochoric component in turn represents a volume preserving deformation. 3.33)) and. ISOCHORIC/VOLUMETRIC SPLIT OF THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT Any deformation can be locally decomposed as a purely volumetric deformation followed by an isochoric deformation or as an isochoric deformation followed by a pure volumetric deformation. The deformation gradient of any volumetric deformation is a spherical tensor: F = α I. respectively.35) where is the volumetric component of F and F iso ≡ (det F )− 3 F 1 F v ≡ (det F ) 3 I 1 (3. The right and left stretch tensors are related by the rotation V = R U RT . (3.37) is the isochoric (volume-preserving or unimodular) component. (3. respectively. since 1 det F v = [(det F ) 3 ]3 det I = det F . by construction.34) l0 in all directions. Note that.33) where the scalar α is the corresponding contraction/dilation ratio. note that the deformation gradient can always be multiplicatively split as F = F iso F v = F v F iso .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 49 Volumetric deformations Volumetric deformations (i.1. 1 (3.36) (3.41) . one obtains: F = R U = V R.38) F v produces the same volume change as F .40) where the proper orthogonal tensor R is the local rotation tensor and the symmetric positive definite tensors U and V are. that is.6.e. the right and left stretch tensors. STRETCHES AND ROTATION By applying the polar decomposition to the deformation gradient. (3. (3. F v corresponds indeed to a purely volumetric deformation (it has the representation (3. for a locally volumetric deformation we have: l =α (3. (3.39) 3.

respectively.43) Example 3. i. Stretches and rotation.e. (3. the right and left Cauchy–Green strain tensors – are defined by C = U 2 = F TF . i2 }. i2 }. where the factors λ1 and λ2 determine how much stretching/compression occurs. a simple example consisting of a body subjected to a homogeneous deformation. is given in what follows. with F independent of p. the deformation map is defined as ϕ: x1 = p1 λ1 cos α − p2 λ2 sin α (3. The stretch tensors U and V can be expressed as √ √ U = C. along the longitudinal and transversal axes. respectively. V = B.50 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS U dp R deformed configuration U reference configuration dx=F dp F dp i2 i1 p x * i2 ii1* R R dp V Figure 3. the matrix representation of the corresponding deformation gradient is given by F= λ1 cos α λ1 sin α −λ2 sin α λ2 cos α . To illustrate the meaning of the polar decomposition of F . Consider the rectangular body of Figure 3.44) x2 = p1 λ1 sin α + p2 λ2 cos α.42) where C and B – named.8 subjected to homogeneous stretching/compression in the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (respectively.45) .1. Polar decomposition of the deformation gradient.2 (A simple plane deformation). (3.8. In the basis {i1 . the directions of i1 and i2 in the reference configuration) with a superimposed rigid rotation of angle α. (3. B = V 2 = F F T . With pi and xi denoting coordinates of p and x in the Cartesian system associated with the orthonormal basis {i1 .

the sequence is reversed: 1.47)  . 1 2 The above example has illustrated the significance of the polar decomposition of F . Note that if the basis {i∗ . (3. i∗ } is used. In this case. 2.48)  λ1 cos2 α + λ2 sin2 α V= (λ1 − λ2 ) sin α cos α Insight into the meaning of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient can be gained by focusing now on the generic infinitesimal fibre represented by dp in Figure 3. The second operation corresponds to the deformation of the fibre under pure stretching/compression of the body along its axial and transversal directions. The discussion has been restricted to a homogeneous deformation only to ease visualisation of the stretches and rotation involved in the decomposition of the deformation gradient. this mapping can be split into two sequential steps. It should be . dp is mapped into dx = F dp. is represented by cos α R= and the right and left stretch tensors by U= and λ1 0 0 λ2 (λ1 − λ2 ) sin α cos α λ1 sin α + λ2 cos α 2 2 −sin α cos α sin α (3. If the right polar decomposition F = R U is used. these directions coincide now with i∗ = R i1 and i∗ = R i2 . However. (3. obtained from the polar decomposition of F . 2.8.49) V= 0 λ2 so that the transformation (·) → V (·) indeed corresponds to stretchings along the directions of i∗ and i∗ . dp −→ U dp. In the first operation. If the left polar decomposition F = V R is employed instead. dp −→ R dp. Under deformation. the 1 2 1 2 matrix representation of V reads λ1 0 .46) (3. the two steps are: 1. R dp −→ V (R dp) = F dp. U dp −→ R (U dp) = F dp.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 51 The rotation tensor. due to the previous rotation. respectively. The second mapping is a pure rotation (of angle α) of the deformed fibre U dp and corresponds to a rigid rotation of the body. the fibre is first rigidly rotated by an angle α. With use of the polar decomposition of F . dp deforms as if the body were being purely stretched (or compressed) along the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (which at this stage coincide with i1 and i2 respectively).

1. (3. (3. i2 } and {i∗ . Spectral decomposition of the stretch tensors Since U and V are symmetric. (3.52) that is. within an infinitesimal neighbourhood of a generic material particle p. on the other hand. Substitution of (3. the distances between particles within this neighbourhood remain fixed. λ2 } are the principal stretches and the Lagrangian and Eulerian bases are. we say that the region surrounding p is unstrained.51) gives the following relationship between the eigenvectors of V and U : l i = R ei . i. In this case. the deformation behaves like a homogeneous deformation with gradient F (p). STRAIN MEASURES In the above section.8) do not exist in general. V= i=1 λi ei ⊗ ei . The spectral decomposition of the right and left stretch tensors implies that in any deformation. λ2 . e3 } form orthonormal bases for the space U of vectors in E.41) into (3.8. the Lagrangian and Eulerian triads and define the Lagrangian and Eulerian principal directions. l3 } and {e1 . They are called. Note that for any deformation ϕ. {i1 . Under the action of pure rotations. the local stretching from a material particle can always be expressed as a superposition of stretches along three mutually orthogonal directions. we have seen that in a local sense.51) where the {λ1 . 1 2 3.7. the interpretation of U and V as pure stretchings and of R as a rigid rotation remain valid in a local sense.e. pure rotations can be distinguished from pure stretching by means of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient. {λ1 . respectively. characterised by U or V. one may write: x + dx = ϕ(p + dp) = p + F (p) dp. λ3 } are the eigenvalues of U (and V ) named the principal stretches. within this infinitesimal neighbourhood of p. Thus. each vector ei differs from the corresponding li by a rotation R. The vectors li and ei are unit eigenvectors of U and V respectively. changes the . the difference between the deformed neighbourhood of p and its reference configuration is a rigid deformation. in which F is a function of p. U (p) and V (p) measure stretches from p and R(p) measures the local rigid rotation. When the distances between material particles are identical to their values in the reference configuration. Nevertheless. Pure stretching. it follows from the spectral theorem that they admit the spectral decomposition 3 3 U= i=1 λi li ⊗ li .52 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS remarked that for a generic deformation of a body. respectively. The triads {l1 . e2 . illustrated by Figure 3. i∗ }. l2 .50) that is. In the example discussed above. intermediate configurations of the body corresponding to pure stretching or pure rigid rotation (such as those illustrated in Figure 3. within an infinitesimal neighbourhood of a material point p.

the generic material fibre represented by the infinitesimal vector dp that emanates from p (Figure 3.55) and.53) where C = F T F = U 2 is the right Cauchy–Green tensor and the strain measure E(2) (the meaning of the superscript will be made clear below) is the so-called Green–Lagrange strain tensor defined as E(2) = 1 (C − I ) 2 = 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u]. From the definition of E(2) . 2 (3. i. Thus. its eigenvectors coincide with the Lagrangian triad so that it can be expressed as 3 E(2) = i=1 2 1 2 (λi − 1) li ⊗ li . in terms of its spectral decomposition.e. (3. Equivalently.54) No straining occurs. (3. ln λi (3. the definition of a strain measure is somewhat arbitrary and a specific choice is usually dictated by mathematical and physical convenience. The deformation maps dp into dx = F dp. is defined by Seth (1964). strain measures based on the Lagrangian triad.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 53 distance between material particles. if and only if E(2) = 0. to evaluate how much U (or V ) departs from I (a rigid deformation). (3. since it measures strains along the principal Lagrangian directions.54). the size of any infinitesimal material fibre emanating from p remains constant ( dx = dp . An important family of Lagrangian strain tensors. that is. It must be emphasised that the Green–Lagrange strain measure is defined by expression (3.56)  ln[U ] m=0 where m is a real number and ln[ · ] denotes the tensor logarithm of [ · ]. i. again.8 serves as an illustration).56) may be rephrased as 3 E(m) = i=1 f (λi ) li ⊗ li . This condition is equivalent to C = U = I. it is called a Lagrangian strain measure. Under stretching. ∀ dp). Hill (1978) and Ogden (1984)   1 (U m − I) m = 0 E(m) = m (3. In fact. To quantify straining. (3.e. It is by no means the unique way of quantifying straining. we say that the region surrounding p is strained.58) . some kind of strain measure needs to be defined. implying that F is an orthogonal tensor and the deformation is rigid (pure translation and/or rotation) in the neighbourhood of p. Let us consider.57) where   1 (λm − 1) m = 0 i f (λi ) = m  m = 0. the square of the deformed length of the material fibre in question reads dx 2 = F dp · F dp = C dp · dp = (I + 2 E(2) ) dp · dp.

Principal strain as a function of the principal stretch for various strain measures.59) To illustrate the relationship between the stretch and strain tensors. E(2) .61) Lagrangian and Eulerian strain tensors are related by ε(m) = R E(m) RT . (3. Analogously to the strain measures discussed above.e.62) . using the Eulerian triad. the principal strain for various strain measures is plotted in Figure 3. is a particular member of this family (with m = 2). they differ by the local rotation R.9. Strain measures. i. Eulerian strain tensors.9 as a function of the corresponding principal stretch. 3 ε(m) = i=1 f (λi ) ei ⊗ ei . or. that is. Note that for any m. (3.54 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 Green-Lagrange (m=2) 2 Biot (m=1) 1 Hencky (m=0) f (λi ) 0 Almansi (m= --2) -1 -2 0 1 λi 2 Figure 3. E(m) = 0 ⇐⇒ U =I ⇐⇒ F = R. the Eulerian counterpart of the Lagrangian family of strain measures above is defined by   1 (V m − I ) m = 0 (m) ε (3. it is also possible to define tensors that measure strain along the principal Eulerian directions or. Hencky (m = 0) and Almansi (m = −2) strain tensors. locally.60) = m  ln[V ] m = 0. (3. The Green–Lagrange strain tensor. Based on the left stretch tensor. the associated strain tensor vanishes if and only if the deformation gradient represents. simply. Other commonly used members of this family are the Biot (m = 1). a rigid deformation.

(3. the rate of deformation tensor (also referred to as the stretching tensor). the eigenvalues and an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of D. are defined by D = sym(L). t).65) To gain insight into the physical meaning of the tensors D and W . t) + vS (x. associated with the rate of deformation tensor.67) where the following definitions have been used: vR (x. due to its symmetry. (3. W = skew(L). (3. t) + L(t) (x − y).10.13). associated with the spin tensor W . (3. The only contribution to straining is then provided by the term vS . e2 . the velocity vR . (3. D. D admits the representation 3 D= i=1 di ei ⊗ ei .69) with di and {ei }. RATE OF DEFORMATION AND SPIN The spatial field L. (3. t) + W (t) (x − y). where xi and yi denote the coordinates of points x and y in a Cartesian system associated to {e1 . vS (x. For such a motion the velocity field reads v(x.63) . can be immediately identified as a rigid velocity. is named the velocity gradient. With the spectral representation above.66) If the decomposition of L into its symmetric and skew parts is introduced. Namely. THE VELOCITY GRADIENT. and the spin tensor. the velocity field vS can be decomposed as a sum of three linearly independent velocities of the form: di (ei ⊗ ei ) (x − y).68) By recalling expression (3.1.64) Two important tensors are obtained by splitting L into its symmetric and skew parts. e3 } are given by S vi = di (xi − yi ). Note that. t) = v(y. t) = vR (x. W . . (3. it is convenient to consider a body undergoing a motion with uniform (independent of x) velocity gradient. with no summation implied on i. the velocity field can be split as v(x. t) = v(y. with application of the chain rule one has L= ∂ ∂ϕ ∂t ∂p ∂p ˙ =F F ∂x −1 (3. t) = D(t) (x − y).ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 55 3.8.70) again with no summation implied. As schematically illustrated in Figure 3. so that the components of vS relative to the basis {e1 . e2 . respectively. e3 }. defined as L = ∇x v. Equivalently.

Straining velocity field. (3. in any motion. Thus.10. (3. the velocity field can be locally decomposed as a sum of a rigid velocity v(x. RATE OF VOLUME CHANGE ˙ The rate of volume change.71) so that. If a general motion (in which L is not necessarily uniform) is considered. t) + W (x.1. is related to the rate of deformation tensor through the expression ˙ J = J tr D. S each vi corresponds to a velocity field that purely stretches the body in the direction of ei . we first apply the chain rule to obtain ∂(det F ) ˙ ˙ ˙ J ≡ (det F ) = :F =J F ∂F −T : F˙ . 3. In this case. t) dx. t) dx. the rate of deformation tensor corresponds indeed to a pure stretching of the body. with the plane perpendicular to ei that passes through y fixed.56 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ei x vis ei y xi yi Figure 3.9. associated with the spin tensor W . the above decomposition of the velocity field into the sum of a rigid velocity and a straining velocity remains valid in the local sense. consider a point x and a point x + dx lying within an infinitesimal neighbourhood of x. t) + L(x. associated exclusively to the rate of deformation tensor D. J.73) . t) dx.72) To derive this expression. and a straining velocity D(x. The velocity field within this infinitesimal neighbourhood of x is given by v(x + dx. (3. t) = v(x.

80) p where we have introduced the notation ∇s (·) = sym[∇(·)] = 1 [∇(·) + ∇(·)T ]. (3.74) leading to (3. Also note that from the definition (2.82) .78) From the above expression and the definitions of the Green–Lagrange strain tensor E(2) and its Eulerian counterpart ε(2) . (3. it can be easily shown that not only E(2) and ε(2) but all Lagrangian and Eulerian strain measures defined by expressions (3. (3. E(2) ≈ ε(2) ≈ 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T ].56) and (3. to the same order of approximation. the following approximation can be made C ≈ B ≈ I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T . for any m and to within an error of second order in ∇p u.60) have the same small deformation limit.76) (3. i. It is worth pointing out here that ε is a linear functional of u.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 57 where we have made use of relation (2. For such deformations. under small deformations. so that the rate of volume change can be equivalently expressed as ˙ J = J divx v. Infinitesimal deformations Small or infinitesimal deformations are deformations with sufficiently small displacement gradient. it follows that.77) B = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + ∇p u (∇p u)T . In fact. This fact greatly simplifies the description of small deformations.36) (page 22) of the trace of a tensor and the fact that the skew symmetry of W implies tr L = tr D. THE INFINITESIMAL STRAIN TENSOR Recall definition (3.1. 2 (3. 3. (3. In terms of the displacement gradient. This. one has C = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u.43) of the Cauchy–Green tensors. If the displacement gradient is sufficiently small. the second-order terms in ∇p u of the expressions above can be neglected so that.e. (3. together with definition (2.2. (3.79) This motivates the definition of the infinitesimal strain tensor to measure strains under small deformations ε ≡ ∇s u. 2 (3.145) of the divergence of a vector field we have tr D = divx v. the description of kinematics can be substantially simplified. one has ε(m) ≈ E(m) ≈ ε.81) for the symmetric gradient of a vector field.72).75) 3. ∇p u.2.140) (page 36) for the derivative of the determinant.

equivalently.86) is called an infinitesimal rigid displacement field.89) . ∀ dp ) the tensor ε vanishes or. with a denoting the axial vector of A. The skew part of ∇p u produces no straining and is associated exclusively with local infinitesimal rigid rotations. 3. For a body under an arbitrary homogeneous deformation (∇p u independent of p).3. ∇p u is skew.2.83) with o(∇p u) a term of second order in ∇p u.85)–(3. ∇p u is skew and the field u can be written as u(p) = u(q) + A (p − q). (3. The tensor εv ≡ 1 3 (3. where ε d ≡ ε − εv (3. Alternatively.84) for all points p and q.58 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3. INFINITESIMAL RIGID DEFORMATIONS In terms of the infinitesimal strain tensor.87) εv I (3.14)).2. the square of the deformed length of a generic material fibre dp (recall the text preceding expression (3.2.5).1. which measures pure infinitesimal distortions.85) for all points p and q with A ≡ ∇p u a skew tensor. the infinitesimal strain tensor ε can also be split into a purely volumetric and a volume-preserving contribution. Note that infinitesimal rigid displacements have the same representation as rigid velocity fields (see expressions (3. For a pure local infinitesimal rigid rotation ( dx = dp . For infinitesimal rigid deformations and within an approximation of second order in the displacement gradient. The isochoric/volumetric split of the infinitesimal strain tensor is additive (in contrast to the multiplicative split of the deformation gradient in the finite strain theory) and reads ε = ε d + εv . (3. only the symmetric part ε of ∇p u is associated with local straining. the displacement field can be written as u(p) = u(q) + ∇p u (p − q).86) Any displacement that admits the representation (3. known as the strain deviator or deviatoric strain. u can be expressed as u(p) = u(q) + a × (p − q). It is clear from this expression that. to within an error of o(∇p u). (3.53)) reads dx 2 = (I + 2 ε) dp · dp + o(∇p u) (3.13) and (3.88) is the isochoric component. INFINITESIMAL ISOCHORIC AND VOLUMETRIC DEFORMATIONS Analogously to the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient in the finite strain context (refer to Section 3.

e. E(2) . εv = 1 3 (I ⊗ I ) : ε. From (3.92) It should be noted that the strain deviator is a traceless tensor. An infinitesimal deformation is volumepreserving if and only if εv = 0.93) I ⊗ I. we define the corresponding isochoric and volumetric Green–Lagrange strains Eiso ≡ 1 (Ciso − I ).2.e. It projects second-order symmetric tensors into the deviatoric subspace.95) E(2) ≡ 1 (Cv − I ). i.98) T Cv ≡ F v F v = (det F ) 3 I.e.91) The tensors εd and εv can be equivalently written in terms of linear operations on ε as εd = [IS − 1 3 I ⊗ I ] : ε. The scalar invariant of ε. i.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 59 is the infinitesimal volumetric strain tensor. The fourth-order tensor defined as Id ≡ IS − 1 3 (3.96) 2 T Ciso ≡ F iso F iso = (det F )− 3 F T F = (det F )− 3 C 2 (3. Following the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient given by (3. i. (3. Now we proceed to show that. the volumetric Green–Lagrange strain defined above leads to definition (3.96)2 and (3. defined as εv ≡ I1 (ε) = tr ε = tr ∇s u = tr ∇u (3. (3. (3.35). let us consider the Green–Lagrange strain tensor. From finite to infinitesimal isochoric and volumetric strains Analogously to Section 3. (3. 2 where and (2) (3.90).94) is referred to as the deviatoric projection tensor. tr εd = 0.97) (3. under small strain conditions (small ∇p u). the above isochoric/volumetric split can also be obtained from its finite deformation counterpart by neglecting higher order terms in ∇p u. Throughout this book we shall often use the alternative notation dev(S) to represent the deviator of a symmetric tensor S. dev(S) ≡ Id : S.99) v 2 . To show this.90) is named the infinitesimal volumetric strain.98). into the space of traceless tensors. we have 2 E(2) = 1 [(det F ) 3 − 1] I.1. v 2 2 (3. where the infinitesimal strain tensor is derived from the finite strain theory.

we obtain T T Eiso = 1 [(det F )− 3 (I + ∇p u + ∇p u + ∇p u ∇p u) − I ] 2 (2) 2 = 1 {[1 − 2 2 3 T tr ∇p u + o(∇p u)][I + ∇p u + ∇p u + o(∇p u)] − I } = ε − 1 (tr ∇p u)I + o(∇p u) 3 = εd + o(∇p u).103) (3. 1962. to within second-order terms in ∇p u.56) and (3. if higher-order terms are neglected.100) 2 3 tr ∇p u + o(∇p u). Thus. Forces. v Thus. (3. Truesdell and Noll. concepts such as the deformation gradient. It should be noted that. 3. Stress Measures The previous sections of this chapter have been limited to the mathematical description of the kinematics of deformation. we have Eiso ≈ εd . 1965).104) (3.105) The infinitesimal limits above are valid for all Lagrangian and Eulerian finite strain measures defined by expressions (3. thus far. (2) (3. . v (3. we then obtain E(2) = εv + o(∇p u). we have the following approximation E(2) ≈ εv .5 together with the definition F = I + ∇p u and the expression given in (iii) of page 36 for the derivative of the determinant. we find that det F = det(I + ∇p u) = det I + (det I) I : ∇p u + o(∇p u) = 1 + tr ∇p u + o(∇p u) and (det F ) 3 = 1 + 2 (3. In particular. 1909.60). Toupin. rotations and the different strain measures used to quantify internal straining are of utmost importance in the formulation of the mechanical and thermodynamical theory of continua. The forces associated with the mechanical description of a body can be classed into three categories:‡ ‡ Stress couples could also be considered but these are outside the scope of this book and fall within the realm of the so-called polar continuum theories (Cosserrat and Cosserrat.99).3. no reference has been made to forces and how they are transferred within continuum bodies.101) With the substitution of the above expression into (3.60 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS From the standard concepts of differentiation discussed in Section 2.102) Following a completely analogous procedure with the isochoric Green–Lagrange strain.

as internal interactions. b(x). t(x.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 61 1. the concept of stress as well as the different ways of quantifying it are introduced in this section. S t(n) da + P ρ b dv = P ˙ ρ v dv (3.1. Forces exerted on the interior of the body. Boundary forces. Body forces. boundary forces and interactions between distinct parts of a body are forces of essentially the same type and will be collectively called surface forces. Internal interactions between adjacent parts of a body.106) and the balance of angular momentum. S x × t(n) da + P x × ρ b dv = P ˙ x × ρ v dv (3.107) . THE CAUCHY STRESS VECTOR Crucial to the description of surface forces is Cauchy’s axiom stated in what follows. 3. exerted across S by the material on the side of S into which n is pointing upon the material on the other side of S depends on S only through its normal n’. The spatial field b(x) represents force per unit mass acting on the interior of B.2. If S belongs to the boundary of B.3. Gravitational and magnetic forces are typical examples of such forces. Internal interaction forces arise from the action of one part of the body upon an adjacent part and are transmitted across the surface that separate them. Forces applied to the boundary of the body such as those resulting from contact with another body. then the Cauchy stress vector represents the contact force exerted by the surrounding environment on B. The dimension of body forces is force per unit mass (or volume). Consider a body B in an arbitrarily deformed configuration (Figure 3.11). This force (per unit area) is called the Cauchy stress vector and will be denoted t(n). 2. with boundary S. 3. the surface force. THE AXIOM OF MOMENTUM BALANCE Let B now be subjected to a system of surface forces. Thus. Let S be an oriented surface of B with unit normal vector n at a point x. i. The dimension of such interactions is force per unit area.11). 3. To describe surface forces mathematically. Boundary forces represent interactions between the exterior and the interior of a body and. The dimension of boundary forces is force per unit area. The axiom of momentum balance asserts that ‘For any part P of the deformed configuration of B.3. with dependence on x and time omitted for notational convenience.e. CAUCHY’S AXIOM. are transmitted across a surface (the boundary of the body in this case). Cauchy’s axiom states that ‘At x. n). the force per unit area. and body forces. This means that identical forces are transmitted across any surfaces with normal n at x (such as surfaces S and T in Figure 3. the balance of linear momentum.

it should be emphasised that. Cauchy stress components Using an orthonormal basis {e1 . The continuum mathematical representation of such interactions by means of a stress tensor is meaningful only in an average sense and is valid only for a sufficiently large volume of material. simply.2. starting page 19) a second-order tensor field σ(x) such that the Cauchy stress vector (see Figure 3. Gurtin and Martins (1976). e2 . Marsden and Hughes (1983) and Ciarlet (1988).3. Surface forces.108) Further.e.3.106) and (3. Formal proofs to Cauchy’s theorem can be found. e3 }. in real life bodies.12) is given by t(x. 3. Gurtin (1972.107) contain the ˙ ¨ inertia terms. § The (3. with ρ = ρ(x) denoting the mass density field.11. in Wang and Truesdell (1973).110) symmetry of σ is a result of the balance of angular momentum. among others.62 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS B n t (n) x T S Figure 3. with v = u denoting the acceleration field of B. stress tensor. At this point.109) The tensor σ is called the Cauchy stress tensor and is often referred to as the true stress tensor or. the dependence of the surface force t upon the normal n is linear. i. are satisfied. forces are actually transferred by atomic interactions which are clearly discrete quantities. The right-hand sides of (3. (3. 1981). The smallest volume of material for which the continuum representation makes sense is called the representative volume element. σ is symmetric.e. This observation applies equally to quantities such as strain measures or any other continuum fields associated with the body. the mass per unit volume in the deformed configuration of B ’. (3. i. the Cauchy stress tensor is represented as σ = σij ei ⊗ ej . THE CAUCHY STRESS TENSOR One of the most fundamental results in continuum mechanics is Cauchy’s theorem which establishes that. there exists (recall Section 2. as a consequence of the axiom of momentum balance. .§ σ = σT . n) = σ(x) n.

The Cauchy stress. with summation on repeated indices implied and the components σij given by σij = (σ ei ) · ej .12. Cauchy stress tensor components and principal Cauchy stresses. σ21 . The component σij of the Cauchy stress tensor is the magnitude of the projection of σ ei in the direction of ej . σ31 and σ32 are the shear tractions acting parallel to the faces. e2 and e3 is considered.111) From (3. σ13 . σ23 .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 63 B n t x n S Figure 3. i i (3. the Cauchy stress tensor admits the spectral representation 3 σ= i=1 σi e∗ ⊗ e∗ . 22 2 1 21 12 23 32 11 13 31 e2 e1 e3 33 * e2 * e1 3 e* 3 Figure 3. The components σ11 .112) .108). σ22 and σ33 represent the tractions normal to the faces of the infinitesimal cube whereas the remaining components. (3. The schematic representation of such projections is illustrated in Figure 3.13. Principal Cauchy stresses Due to its symmetry.13 where an infinitesimal cube with faces normal to the base vectors e1 . σ12 . it follows that the vector σ ei is the force per unit area exerted across a surface whose unit normal vector is ei at the point of interest.

51)). the spectral decomposition has been used in Section 3. Note that.113) tr σ (3.118) . 3. for which all shear components of the 1 2 3 Cauchy stress tensor vanish and only the normal components may be non-zero.2. to split the stress tensor σ into the sum of a spherical and a traceless component σ = s + p I. particularly for the purpose of constitutive modelling. Deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses It is often convenient. The normal components. analogously to the representation of the stress tensor in terms of principal stresses. one has m da0 = dp1 × dp2 . Crucial to the definition of the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress is the counterpart ¯ of t that measures. where the invariant p≡ 1 3 (3. THE FIRST PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The traction vector t of expression (3.116) 3 is called the spherical stress tensor. t da0 da0 (3.4.13.114) I1 (σ) = 1 3 is the hydrostatic pressure (also referred to as hydrostatic stress. with Id defined by (3.1 to represent the stretch tensors U and V in terms of principal stretches (see expression (3. e∗ .14). The forces are exclusively normal to the faces of this cube.3. there exists an orthonormal basis {e∗ . ¯ is expressed as (Figure 3. With m denoting the unit normal to S at p.3. at the point of interest. is a traceless tensor named the deviatoric stress or stress deviator.108) measures the force exerted across a material surface per unit deformed area. The tensor p I = 1 (I ⊗ I ) : σ (3.117) Consider the surface S in the reference configuration of B (Figure 3. σi .64 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS that is. The 1 2 3 schematic representation of the forces acting on the faces of the infinitesimal cube oriented according to the principal stress directions is shown in Figure 3. With da denoting an infinitesimal element of area of a surface normal to n in the deformed configuration and with da0 being its undeformed counterpart. the force that acts across t any surface whose normal is n in the deformed configuration per unit reference area. and (3.94). e∗ . The above decomposition is analogous to the isochoric/volumetric split of the infinitesimal strain tensor discussed in Section 3. mean stress or mean normal pressure). Let dp1 and dp2 be infinitesimal (linearly independent) vectors tangent to S at the material point p and let da0 be the area element generated by dp1 and dp2 .115) s ≡ σ − p I = Id : σ. are the eigenvalues of σ and are called the principal Cauchy stresses. (3. e∗ } are named the principal stress directions. The directions defined by the basis {e∗ .14) t ¯ = da t = da σ n. e∗ }.

123) This last expression motivates the following definition P ≡J σF −T . Nemat-Nasser. P is generally unsymmetric. normal to the reference configuration of S at the point of interest. valid for any invertible tensor S and vectors u and v. S deformed configuration Under deformation. respectively. (3. Note that in contrast to the Cauchy stress. . where J ≡ det F . the tangent vectors dp1 and dp2 are mapped. (3.117). with substitution of the expression above into (3.122) Finally.121) m.120) (3. t (3.14. (3. leads to F T n da = J dp1 × dp2 = J m da0 .124) so that the force transmitted across S measured per unit reference area reads ¯ = P m. Pre-multiplication of both sides of the expression above by F T together with use of the identity Su × Sv = (det S) S −T (u × v). 1981.¶ The vector ¯ is obtained by applying the first Piola– t Kirchhoff stress to the unit vector m. ¯ may be written in terms of t the reference unit normal m as ¯ = J σ F −T m.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 65 t m reference t n F dp2 p dp1 da0 dp2 x F dp1 da S ϕ(S ) Figure 3. The first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. 1999) define the nominal stress as the transpose of the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. This is equivalent to da n=J F da0 −T (3. into F dp1 and F dp2 so that the unit normal to the deformed configuration of S reads n da = F dp1 × F dp2 . ¶ Some authors (Billington and Tate.119) where da is the corresponding deformed area element. t (3.125) The tensor P is called the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress and is often referred to as the Piola– Kirchhoff stress or nominal stress.

Let f = f e1 be the total force applied to the deformed configuration of the bar (by the experimental equipment). a In practice.3.3. after f is measured.15. t a0 3. assume that the bar is subjected to a state of uniaxial stress. are simply t = σ11 e1 = 1 f.66 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reference a0 e1 f deformed configuration f a Figure 3. Thus.15) with cross-sectional area a0 in its initial configuration (taken as reference). then the first Piola–Kirchhoff or nominal stress component is determined P11 = f . Consider a cylindrical bar (Figure 3. a0 It is obvious that. force balance requires that the Cauchy stress component σ11 be given by σ11 = f .5. the reference cross-sectional area a0 is used. Furthermore. is the tensor defined as S ≡ JF −1 −T σF . Example 3. The first Piola–Kirchhoff stress. During a uniaxial experiment this bar is stretched along its longitudinal axis (direction of e1 ) with a simultaneous reduction of its cross section. with constant σ given by σ = σ11 e1 ⊗ e1 . a ¯ = P11 e1 = 1 f. in this case. the corresponding tractions t and ¯ respectively per unit t. deformed and reference area.126) .1 (The Piola–Kirchhoff stress). Assume that the final deformed configuration of the bar corresponds to a state of homogeneous deformation with cross-sectional area a. the force f (and not the stress component) is what can actually be measured in an experiment. Under the assumption of uniform stress distribution in the crosssection of the bar. denoted S. the Cauchy stress σ11 is determined according to the expression above. Example. If instead of a. (3. THE SECOND PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor.

6. e. (3. specific entropy and the density of heat production.4. the balance of momentum for B can be expressed by the following partial differential equation with boundary condition: ¨ divx σ + b = ρ u t=σn in ϕ(Ω) (3. 3.128) Due to the symmetry of σ.4. THE KIRCHHOFF STRESS Another important measure of stress is the Kirchhoff stress tensor. the Kirchhoff stress is symmetric.129) where the principal Kirchhoff stresses. (3. respectively. we have ST = JF −1 σT F −T . Equations (3.130) Later in this book. defined by τ ≡ J σ.132) in ϕ(∂Ω). alluded to in page 62.2. Fundamental laws of thermodynamics In order to state the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. it is necessary to introduce the scalar fields θ. i i (3. 3.4.132) are also a result of Cauchy’s theorem. by τi = J σi .1. In addition. to the body force (force per unit volume in the deformed configuration) and heat flux. the temperature. respectively.127) so that the symmetry of σ implies that S is symmetric. (3. s and r defined over B which represent.131) .3. whose existence has been established in Section 3. τ. b and q will denote the vector fields corresponding.3.3. specific internal energy. τi . 3. (3. MOMENTUM BALANCE In terms of the Cauchy stress tensor. are related to the principal Cauchy stresses. ˙ 3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 67 Note that from this definition. σi . Its spectral representation reads 3 τ= i=1 τi e∗ ⊗ e∗ . CONSERVATION OF MASS The postulate of conservation of mass requires that ˙ ρ + ρ divx u = 0. frequent reference to the principal Kirchhoff stresses will be made in the formulation of various constitutive models.

Before stating this principle. ¯ is the t reference boundary traction (boundary force per unit reference area) and m is the outward normal to the boundary of B in its reference configuration.68 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS where n is the outward unit vector normal to the deformed boundary ϕ(∂Ω) of B and t is the applied boundary traction vector field on ϕ(∂Ω). is the reference body force.135) is the reference density (mass per unit volume in the reference configuration). which represents the stress power per unit volume in the deformed configuration of a body.4. ˙ (3. they may be expressed in the reference (or material) configuration of B in terms of the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor as ¯ ¯¨ divp P + b = ρ u ¯=P m t where ¯ b=J b (3.134) in Ω (3. 3. It is expressed by means of the inequality ρ s + divx ˙ ρr q − ≥ 0.3. the body force measured per unit volume in the reference configuration. The first principle of thermodynamics is mathematically expressed by the equation ρ e = σ : D + ρ r − divx q.4. Equivalently.e. local or point-wise form of equilibrium.132)1 is known as Cauchy’s equation of motion. THE SECOND PRINCIPLE The second principle of thermodynamics postulates the irreversibility of entropy production.137) .132) are often referred to as the strong. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE The first principle of thermodynamics postulates the conservation of energy. 3. it is convenient to introduce the product σ : D.133) in ∂Ω. the rate of internal energy per unit deformed volume must equal the sum of the stress power and heat production per unit deformed volume minus the spatial divergence of the heat flux. ρ = J ρ.4. ¯ (3. Equation (3. Equations (3. θ θ (3.136) In words. The above momentum balance equations are formulated in the spatial (deformed) configuration. i.

We remark that all dissipative constitutive models discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book are based on the internal variable approach. We start by stating.5. in Section 3. In this section. r(p.142) 3.5 where the fundamental constitutive initial value problems are stated. The discussion on constitutive theory ends in Section 3. the first and the second principles of thermodynamics is called a calorodynamic process of B.1.5. Equivalently.5. the Clausius–Duhem inequality can be expressed in terms of dissipation per unit reference volume as ˙ τ : D − ρ(ψ + s θ) − ¯ ˙ J q · g ≥ 0.138) The introduction of the specific free energy ψ (also known as the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass). (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 69 3. q(p. θ where we have defined g = ∇x θ.4. In order to distinguish between different types of material. a constitutive model must be introduced.5. CONSTITUTIVE AXIOMS In the present context.5.141) represents the dissipation per unit deformed volume. t).5.4 summarises a generic purely mechanical internal variable model. Before going further. .139) along with the identity 1 q 1 = divx q − 2 q · ∇x θ. t)} of fields satisfying the balance of momentum. three fundamental axioms that define a rather general class of constitutive models of continua. it is convenient to introduce the definitions of thermokinetic and calorodynamic processes (Truesdell. t). 3. θ (3. THE CLAUSIUS–DUHEM INEQUALITY By combination of the first and second principles stated above. one easily obtains the fundamental inequality ρ s + divx ˙ 1 q − (ρ e − σ : D + divx q) ≥ 0.1.5. b(p. by making use of (3. The use of internal variables to formulate constitutive models of dissipative materials is then addressed in Section 3. s(p.140) θ θ θ into the above fundamental inequality results in the Clausius–Duhem inequality 1 ˙ ˙ (3. Constitutive theory The balance principles presented so far are valid for any continuum body. t). e(p. we review the principles that form the basis of the constitutive theories discussed in later chapters of this book. the axioms stated in this section must be satisfied for any constitutive model. regardless of the material of which the body is made. The left-hand side of (3. defined by ψ = e − θ s.141) σ : D − ρ(ψ + s θ) − q · g ≥ 0. A thermokinetic process of B is a pair of fields ϕ(p. and θ(p. t).2. t) A set {σ(p. 1969). Section 3. t).135). divx (3. t). ˙ θ θ (3.

θ . θ .136) and introducing the specific free energy (3. The motion ϕ∗ is related to the motion ϕ by a change in observer if it can be expressed as ϕ∗ (p. gt ) q(t) = I (F t . This relation corresponds to a rigid relative movement between the different observers and the deformation gradient corresponding to ϕ∗ is given by F ∗ = Q F. regarding the body force b and heat supply r as delivered. ∗ (3.146) .141) holds for every thermokinetic process of B. by the linear momentum balance (3. It states that ‘the material response is independent of the observer’. t) − x0 is the position vector of ϕ(p. σ(t) = F (F t . for which the local history (history at point p only) of F . gt ) ψ(t) = G(F t . respectively.70 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thermodynamic determinism The basic axiom underlying the constitutive theory discussed here is the principle of thermodynamically compatible determinism (Truesdell.143) where y(t) is a point in space. gt ) s(t) = H(F t . The dependence on p is understood on both sides of (3. (3. θ .144) t t t t (3.139). (3. heat flux q(t) and the temperature gradient g(t) transform according to the rules σ −→ σ∗ = Q σ QT q −→ q∗ = Q q g −→ g = Q g. t) = y(t) + Q(t) [ϕ(p. In this case. θ and g such that. gt ) and the Clausius–Duhem inequality (3.143) and (·)t on the right-hand sides denotes the history of (·) at p up to time t. 1969). ψ and s) are unaffected by a change in observer but the Cauchy stress σ(t).145) Scalar fields (such as θ. for a point p. we shall be concerned with so-called simple materials.132)1 and conservation of energy (3. It postulates that ‘the history of the thermokinetic process to which a neighbourhood of a point p of B has been subjected determines a calorodynamic process for B at p’. G. Material objectivity Another fundamental axiom of the constitutive theory is the principle of material objectivity (or frame invariance). Q(t) is a rotation and ϕ(p. H and I of the histories of F . t) relative to an arbitrary origin x0 . θ and g suffices to determine the history of the thermokinetic process for constitutive purposes. the principle of thermodynamic determinism implies the existence of constitutive functionals F. t) − x0 ]. θ . In particular.

gt ) = H([F Q]t . that is. s and q) at a given ∗∗ We t t t t t (3. θ . in that format. θ . G. 3.146).148) t remark that most constitutive models discussed in this book are isotropic. gt ) = F ([F Q]t .147) for any transformation of the form (3. θ . This is especially true if one has in mind the experimental identification of the constitutive functionals and the solution of the boundary value problems of practical interest. gt ) H (F t . a set of rotations. Thus. The symmetry group of a solid material is a subset of the proper orthogonal group O + . gt∗ ) (3. θ . gt ) = I ([F Q]t . The starting point of the thermodynamics with internal variables is the hypothesis that at any instant of a thermodynamical process the thermodynamic state (defined by σ. gt ) = G([F Q]t .143). In the development of any constitutive model. ψ. Material symmetry The symmetry group of a material is the set of density preserving changes of reference configuration under which the material response functionals F. gt ) hold for any time-independent rotation Q ∈ S. θ . θ . G. gt ) I (F t .143) written in terms of functionals of the history of F . H and I satisfy σ∗ (t) = F (F ψ(t) = G(F s(t) = H(F q∗ (t) = I (F t∗ t∗ t∗ t∗ . it is imperative that simplifying assumptions are added to the general forms of the constitutive relations stated above. Therefore. This concept is expressed mathematically as follows. θ . H and I are not affected. are far too general to have practical utility in modelling real materials undergoing real thermodynamical process. θ . H and I if the relations t t F (F t .145.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 71 The principle of material objectivity places restrictions on the constitutive functionals (3. gt∗ ) t t t t . .5. θ and g. θ . gt ) G (F t . θ . G. 3. An effective alternative to the general description based on history functionals is the adoption of the so-called thermodynamics with internal variables. A subgroup S of O + is said to be the symmetry group of the material defined by the constitutive functionals F. the symmetry group of a solid material is the set of rotations of the reference configuration under which the response functionals remain unchanged. A solid is said to be isotropic∗∗ if its symmetry group is the entire proper orthogonal group. Formally.2. θ . gt∗ ) . θ . the constitutive functionals must comply with the restrictions imposed by the symmetries of the material in question. THERMODYNAMICS WITH INTERNAL VARIABLES The constitutive equations (3. it requires that F. gt∗ ) .

α).152) for the stress power. so that its rate of change is given by ∂ψ ˙ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ ˙ :F + θ+ αk . the specific free energy is assumed to have the form†† ψ = ψ(F . where F . state variable models can be obtained from the general history functionalbased description by re-defining the history of the thermokinetic process in terms of a finite number of parameters (the state variables). it will be convenient to assume that at any time t. vectorial and tensorial nature associated with dissipative mechanisms. In this case.154) †† The dependence of ψ on the temperature gradient is disregarded as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics (Coleman and Gurtin. using the connection σ:D=σF −T (3. we have P −ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ :F −ρ s+ ¯ ∂F ∂θ ˙ ¯ ∂ψ αk − J q · g ≥ 0. (3.72 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS point p can be completely determined by the knowledge of a finite number of state variables. ˙ ∂αk θ (3. α}. θ. θ. one obtains for the Clausius–Duhem inequality σF −T −ρ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ :F −ρ s+ ∂F ∂θ ∂ψ 1 ˙ θ−ρ αk − q · g ≥ 0. Stress constitutive equation Following the above hypothesis. the thermodynamic state at a point is determined by the following set of state variables: {F . ˙ ψ= ∂F ∂θ ∂αk where summation over k is implied. The state variables For the applications with which we are mostly concerned. θ−ρ ˙ ∂αk θ (3. The thermodynamic state depends only on the instantaneous value of the state variables and not on their past history.151) ˙ :F .149) is a set of internal variables containing. θ and g are the instantaneous values of deformation gradient.150) (3. 1967). In general terms. Mathematically. in terms of power per unit reference volume. state variable models can be seen as particular instances of the general history functional-based constitutive theory. g. entities of scalar.153) Equivalently. in general. The relationship between the two approaches is discussed in detail by Kestin and Bataille (1977) and Bataille and Kestin (1979). Thermodynamic potential. . temperature and the temperature gradient and α = {αk } (3.

g. must hold for any process. In what follows.156) With this definition and the identities (3. This implies the constitutive equations P =ρ ¯ ∂ψ .154) is obtained from (3. we assume that the flux variables are given functions of the state variables. θ (3. ∂F s=− ∂ψ . the Clausius–Duhem inequality. J ∂F τ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ T F . constitutive equations for the flux variables 1 ˙ θ q and α must be postulated. θ(t)}.135). The following constitutive equations are then postulated ˙ α = f (F .158) θ where we recall that the symbol ‘∗’ denotes the appropriate product operation between Ak and αk . we will adopt for convenience the notation ˙ A ≡ {Ak } (3.161) Recalling the principle of thermodynamic determinism. by simply using relation (3.153). Thus.157) 1 ∂ψ T ρ ¯ F . α).155) for the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress and entropy. ∂F (3.155)1 is equivalent to the following constitutive relations for the Cauchy and Kirchoff stress tensors: σ= Thermodynamical forces For each internal variable αk of the set α. complementary laws associated with the dissipative mechanisms are required. Evolution of the internal variables In order to completely characterise a constitutive model. g. so that (3.159) for the set of thermodynamical forces. Truesdell.154) must ˙ ˙ remain valid for any pair of functions {F (t). θ. for further details on this issue). The principle of thermodynamic determinism requires that the constitutive equations must be such that the above inequality holds for any thermokinetic process. In the general case. 1969. ∂θ (3. now expressed by (3. (3. α) 1 q = h(F . Namely.160) θ Dissipation. Equation (3. (3. θ.155). ∂αk (3. This requirement places restrictions on the possible forms of the general constitutive functions f and h in (3.158). 1967. we define the conjugate thermodynamical force ¯ Ak ≡ ρ ∂ψ .158) can be expressed in a more compact form as J ˙ −A ∗ α − q · g ≥ 0. the Clausius–Duhem inequality can be rewritten as J ˙ −Ak ∗ αk − q · g ≥ 0.161) (the reader is referred to Coleman and Gurtin. It is also . (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 73 Expression (3.

74 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS important to mention that when internal variables of vectorial or tensorial nature are present.155) and (3. F . θ ∂g (3.162) where the state variables F . the flux variables are assumed to be determined by the laws αk = − ˙ ∂Ξ . (3. rather.5.161)1 in terms of so-called objective rates rather than the standard material time derivative of α. by the processes (i. Dissipation potential. the bar exhibits a behaviour that can be accurately modelled by linear elasticity theory (generalised Hooke’s law). 0}. cyclic extension). ∂Ak ∂Ξ 1 q=− . non-negative and zero valued at the origin. Normal dissipativity An effective way of ensuring that (3. a convenient tool for formulating constitutive equations without violating thermodynamics.150). i. It should be noted.e.163) A constitutive model defined by (3. With further increase in complexity of the strain history (by introducing. {A. θ and α appear as parameters. Objective rates are insensitive to rigid-body motions and may be essential in the definition of a frame invariant evolution law for variables representing physical states associated with material directions. by considering a simple steel bar. PHENOMENOLOGICAL AND MICROMECHANICAL APPROACHES The success of a constitutive model intended to describe the behaviour of a particular material depends critically on the choice of an appropriate set of internal variables. we should have in mind that the choice of internal variables must be guided not only by the specific material in question but. (3. When subjected to a sufficiently small axial strain at room temperature. g. the range of thermokinetic processes defined by strain and temperature histories as well as the time span) under which the model is meant to describe the behaviour of the material. for instance.10 (starting page 615) in the context of the hypoelastic-based formulation of plasticity models.163) satisfies a priori the dissipation inequality. The importance of considering the possible thermokinetic processes when devising a constitutive model can be clearly illustrated. other phenomena such as internal damaging and possibly fracturing may take place and more . α). Examples of constitutive models supported by experimental evidence which do not admit representation by means of dissipation potentials are discussed by Onat and Leckie (1988). however. θ. In addition. that the constitutive description by means of convex potentials as described above is not a consequence of thermodynamics but. 3. linear elasticity may no longer capture the observed response satisfactorily. however. say. If strains become larger. Since no plausible model will be general enough to describe the response of a material under all processes.e. The potential Ξ is assumed convex with respect to each Ak and g. a plasticity theory may be more appropriate. equally importantly. In this case. it is frequently convenient to re-formulate (3. g} = {0. Objective rates are discussed in Section 14.3. the hypothesis of normal dissipativity is introduced.158) is satisfied consists in postulating the existence of a scalar-valued dissipation potential of the form Ξ = Ξ(A.

Due account of the possible temperature histories and time span to be considered is also fundamental. α). therefore. In simplistic terms. . Under such circumstances. temperature. The internal variables in this case will be directly associated with the dissipative behaviour observed at the macroscopic level in terms of continuum quantities (such as strain. The phenomenological approach. In general. the choice of the appropriate set of internal variables is somewhat subtle and tends to be biased by the preferences and background of the investigator. the inclusion of microscopic information becomes essential and a purely phenomenological methodology is unlikely to describe the behaviour of the material with sufficient accuracy.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 75 refined constitutive models. incorporating a larger number of state variables. such as classical isotropic elastoplasticity and viscoplasticity.). The micromechanical approach involves the determination of mechanisms and related variables at the atomic. have been developed on a purely phenomenological basis providing evidence of how powerful such an approach to irreversible thermodynamics can be when the major concern is the description of the essentially macroscopic behaviour. it should be expected that ‘good’ phenomenological internal variables will be somehow related to the underlying microscopic dissipation mechanisms. etc. Numerous well-established models of solids. THE PURELY MECHANICAL THEORY Thermal effects are ignored in the constitutive theories addressed in Parts Two and Three of this book. where a microscopically-based continuum model of ductile metallic crystals is described. i. the element of matter large enough to be regarded as a homogeneous continuum. convenient at this point to summarise the general internal variablebased constitutive equations in the purely mechanical case. we end up with the following set of mechanical constitutive equations:  ψ = ψ(F . will be required. Despite the macroscopic nature of theories derived on the basis of the phenomenological methodology. discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book.164) P =ρ ¯  ∂F      ˙ α = f (F . One such case is illustrated in Chapter 16. In an extreme situation. α)      ∂ψ (3. is based on the study of the response of the representative volume element. the bar will cease to be a solid. if the temperature rises above melting point. At higher temperatures. It is. In some instances. these variables are discrete quantities and their continuum (macroscopic) counterparts can be defined by means of homogenisation techniques. 3. a fluid mechanics theory will be needed to describe the behaviour of the material. In general. due to the difficulty involved in the identification of the underlying dissipative mechanisms. molecular or crystalline levels.5. The phenomenological approach to irreversible thermodynamics has been particularly successful in the field of solid mechanics. may no longer be accurately modelled by the linear elasticity theory.4. the long-term behaviour of the steel bar subjected to even a very small strain. In this case the introduction of time-dependent effects (creep/relaxation) may be essential to produce an acceptable model. By removing the thermallyrelated terms of the above theory. on the other hand.e. we may say that constitutive modelling by means of internal variables relies either on a micromechanical or on a phenomenological approach. however.

ε. In the infinitesimal case. . THE CONSTITUTIVE INITIAL VALUE PROBLEM Our basic constitutive problem is defined as follows: ‘Given the history of the deformation gradient (and the history of temperature and temperature gradient. T ]. We then have the general constitutive law  ψ = ψ(ε.76 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The infinitesimal strain case In the infinitesimal strain case. the infinitesimal constitutive initial value problem is stated in the following. α)      ∂ψ (3. α(t)) are satisfied for every t ∈ [t0 . T ]. Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the infinitesimal strain tensor. α). Problem 3. such that the constitutive equations  P (t) = ρ ∂ψ  ¯ ∂F t (3.5. in the thermomechanical case) according to the constitutive law conceptually expressed by (3. such that the constitutive equations  σ(t) = ρ ∂ψ  ¯ ∂ε t (3. for the stress tensor and the set of internal variables. If the internal variable approach is adopted in the formulation of the constitutive equations. Problem 3. T ].2 (The infinitesimal constitutive initial value problem). the generic constitutive problem reduces to the following fundamental mechanical initial value problem. t ∈ [t0 . respectively. the infinitesimal strain tensor. Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the deformation gradient.143)’. find the functions P (t) and α(t). α(t)) are satisfied for every t ∈ [t0 .167)   ˙ α(t) = f (ε(t). find the functions σ(t) and α(t).1 (The mechanical constitutive initial value problem). T ].5. for the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress and the set of internal variables. P and F are replaced with σ and ε.166)   ˙ α(t) = f (F (t).165) σ=ρ ¯  ∂ε      ˙ α = f (ε. find the free-energy and stress (plus entropy and heat flux. ε(t). replaces the deformation gradient and the stress tensor σ of the infinitesimal theory replaces the first Piola–Kirchhoff stress. For completeness. in the above initial value problem. 3. if thermal effects are considered). t ∈ [t0 . F (t).

(3.6. let us start by assuming that the field σ is sufficiently regular so that we can use the identity (v) of Section 2. Next. together with the above identity. σ. ∀ η ∈ V. To show this.171) By taking into account the symmetry of σ. 3. local or differential) forms of the momentum balance have been stated in Section 3. In this section. it follows that [divx (σ η) − (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. (3. is the starting point of displacement-based finite element procedures for the analysis of solids. THE SPATIAL VERSION The spatial version of the principle of virtual work states that the body B is in equilibrium if.133). page 37) implies the following identity divx (σ η) dv = ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) σ η · n da. Again. the virtual work equation is equivalent to the strong momentum balance equations (3. (3.5. (3.170) can be rewritten in the equivalent form (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η dv + u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) (t − σ n) · η da = 0.8 (page 38) to obtain σ : ∇x η = divx (σ η) − (divx σ) · η.132) and (3. The principle of virtual work The strong (point-wise. B occupies the region ϕ(Ω) with boundary ϕ(∂Ω) defined through the deformation map ϕ. In its deformed configuration.172) . ∀ η ∈ V. by substituting the above expression into (3. and only if. The weak equilibrium statement – the Principle of Virtual Work – is fundamental to the definition of the basic initial boundary value problem stated in Section 3.168).4 by expressions (3.7 and. the space of sufficiently regular arbitrary displacements η : ϕ(Ω) → U.148)2. its Cauchy stress field. equation (3.169) In obtaining the above identity we have used the fact that σ is symmetric. i. (3. which implies ση · n = σn · η. as we shall see in Chapter 4. The divergence theorem (expression (2.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 77 3. let us consider the body B which occupies the region Ω ⊂ E with boundary ∂Ω in its reference configuration subjected to body forces in its interior and surface tractions on its boundary.e.132).168) where b and t are the body force per unit deformed volume and boundary traction per unit deformed area and V is the space of virtual displacements of B.170) We now concentrate on the first term within the square brackets of the above equation. ∀ η ∈ V. Weak equilibrium. satisfies the equation ¨ [σ : ∇x η − (b − ρ u) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. Equivalence between strong and weak equilibrium statements When the stress field σ is sufficiently smooth. we state the momentum balance equations in their corresponding weak (global or integral) forms.1.6.

we recover the strong equilibrium equations (3. reference and deformed configurations coincide and the virtual work equation reads simply [σ : ∇η − (b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u Ω ∂Ω t · η da = 0. This can be shown in a relatively straightforward manner by applying a weighted residual method to the strong form together with use of the divergence theorem.6.6. then it follows from the fundamental theorem of variational calculus (refer. 1981) a(x) dv = ϕ(Ω) Ω J(p) a(ϕ(p)) dv. the identities σ= 1 P F T. The proof of equivalence between (3. 3. (3. Conversely.133) under conditions of sufficient regularity is then analogous to that given for the spatial version discussed in Section 3. (3.176) . 3. in its spatial counterpart. ∀ η ∈ V.2.132). The corresponding material (or reference) version of the Principle of Virtual Work states that B is in equilibrium if and only if its first Piola–Kirchhoff stress field. t ∀ η ∈ V. and making use of the standard relation (Gurtin. respectively. the strong form yields the weak form of equilibrium.173) ¯ where b and ¯ are. to Gurtin 1972.175) valid for any scalar field a. J ∇x a = ∇p a F −1 .e. since this equation holds for all virtual displacement fields η. V. P . for instance. is accordingly defined as the space of sufficiently regular arbitrary displacement fields η : Ω → U.78 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Finally.174) where the second expression holds for a generic vector field a. i. The ¯ space of virtual displacements. Oden 1979 or Reddy 1998) that each bracketed term of the above equation must vanish pointwise within their respective domains.3. (3. THE INFINITESIMAL CASE Under infinitesimal deformations. THE MATERIAL VERSION The virtual work equation can be equivalently expressed in the reference configuration of B. The material version of the virtual work equation is obtained by introducing.1 above. (3. satisfies ¯ ¯¨ [P : ∇p η − (b − ρu) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ω ¯ · η da = 0. the body force per unit reference volume and the surface t traction per unit reference area and ρ is the mass density in the reference configuration.173) and the strong form (3.6.

whose numerical solution by the finite element method is the main subject of the subsequent chapters of this book. t). is prescribed over the portion of the boundary of B that occupies the region ∂Ωt in its reference configuration.5 and the weak equilibrium statements in Section 3. We define the set of kinematically admissible displacements of B as the set of all sufficiently regular displacement functions that satisfy the kinematic constraint (the essential boundary condition) ¯ K = {u : Ω × R → U | u(p. The problems formulated here are restricted to quasi-static conditions.1 (page 76) and the internal variable field.e. This is the case on which the numerical methods discussed in this book are focused. p ∈ ∂Ωu . T ]. In addition. Problem 3. we are now in a position to state the weak form of fundamental initial boundary value problems. (ii) The essential boundary condition. T ]. (i) The natural boundary condition. ¯ where u is the corresponding prescribed boundary displacement field. T ]. dependence of b on x is implicitly assumed. the following boundary conditions are imposed. (3. t ∈ [t0 . such that. is known at the initial time t0 .1.177) The body B is assumed to be made from a generic material modelled by the internal variable-based constitutive equations associated with Problem 3. 3.16) be subjected to a prescribed history of body forces b(t). it is assumed here that ∂Ωu ∂Ωt = ∅. FINITE DEFORMATIONS Let the body B (Figure 3. t) = u(p. The history of the surface traction t(t). i. p ∈ ∂Ωu }. The quasi-static initial boundary value problem Having defined the generic constitutive initial value problems in Section 3. In the above. u ∈ K.7.6. T ] in its interior. for all t ∈ [t0 . where inertia effects are ignored. (3.3 (The spatial quasi-static initial boundary value problem).178) The fundamental quasi-static initial boundary value problem is stated in its spatial version in the following. t0 ) = α0 (p). t ∈ [t0 .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 79 3. t) t ∈ [t0 . α(p. α. the virtual work . T ]. Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. The motion is a prescribed function on the part of the boundary of B that occupies the region ∂Ωu in the reference configuration ¯ ¯ ϕ(p. with dependence on x implied.7. t ∈ [t0 . t) = p + u(p. For simplicity.

182). equation is satisfied [σ(t) : ∇x η − b(t) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω. t)} and.16.182) The problem can be equivalently formulated in the reference configuration of B in terms of the material version of the principle of virtual work (3. (3. ∀ η ∈ Vt . the Cauchy stress is given by σ(t) = P (t)F (t)T /J(t).1 with prescribed deformation gradient (3. Problem 3.173). The initial boundary value problem.181) (3. for all t ∈ [t0 . t) → U | η = 0 on ϕ(∂Ωu . such that. is the solution of initial value Problem 3.183) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3.t) t(t) · η da = 0. . t).80 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t x t t @ @ t t t b x t u t @ u t @ u Figure 3.180) where P (t) is the solution of constitutive initial value Problem 3. Schematic illustration.179) The space of virtual displacements at time t is defined by Vt = {η : ϕ(Ω. t(t) ∀ η ∈ V. For completeness. at each point of B. u ∈ K. we state the material version of the fundamental initial boundary value problem in the following. P (t).t) ϕ(∂Ωt .184) and the Piola–Kirchhoff stress. ¯ [P (t) : ∇p η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt ¯ · η da = 0.1 (page 76) with prescribed deformation gradient F (t) = ∇p ϕ(p. T ]. (3.4 (The material quasi-static initial boundary value problem). Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. (3. t) = I + ∇p u(p. (3.

5 (The infinitesimal quasi-static initial boundary value problem). at each point p. ∀ η ∈ V.187) .186) and.176). Find a kinematically admissible displacement. THE INFINITESIMAL PROBLEM Under infinitesimal deformations. for t ∈ [t0 . [σ(t) : ∇η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt t(t) · η da = 0.2 (page 76) with prescribed strain ε(t) = ∇s u(p.7. (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 81 3. such that. σ(t) is the solution of the constitutive initial value Problem 3. (3. Problem 3. the quasi-static initial boundary value problem is based on the weak form (3. It is stated in the following. T ].2.185) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3. t). u ∈ K.

.

4 THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI-STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS
N this chapter we present a summary of the application of the Finite Element Method to quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics. Our aim here is to review the main techniques involved in the finite element solution of the quasi-static initial boundary value problems stated in Section 3.7. No attempt is made to provide a comprehensive review of the subject. For a detailed account on the Finite Element Method, and related techniques we refer to standard textbooks (Bathe, 1996; Belytschko et al., 2000; Hughes, 1987; Wriggers, 2001; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000). The material presented here covers the basic procedures that form the backbone of the computer implementation provided in the finite element program HYPLAS and should be helpful to readers who wish to learn more about the code in Chapter 5. Throughout the chapter, reference is frequently made to subroutines of HYPLAS involved in the computational implementation of the procedures described. At this point, it is probably worth emphasising that two major numerical approximations (Figure 4.1) are necessary in the finite element solution of the generic initial boundary value problems stated in Section 3.7: 1. A time discretisation of the underlying constitutive initial value problem. A numerical integration scheme is introduced to solve the initial value problem defined by the constitutive equations of the model that relate stresses to the history of deformations. The general constitutive initial value problems are those stated in Section 3.5.5. Upon introduction of the numerical integration scheme, the original time-continuum constitutive equations are transformed into incremental (or time-discrete) counterparts. 2. A finite element discretisation. This comprises a standard finite element approximation of the virtual work statement where the domain of the body and the associated functional sets are replaced with finite-dimensional counterparts generated by finite element interpolation functions. With the introduction of the above approximations, the original initial boundary value problem is reduced to a set of incremental (generally nonlinear) algebraic finite element equations to be solved at each time station of the considered time interval. In addition to items 1 and 2 above, the present chapter addresses the solution of the associated algebraic system, with particular emphasis on the quadratically convergent Newton–Raphson algorithm. The arc-length technique, which becomes crucial in the solution of problems involving structural instability, is also described.
Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto, D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

I

84

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
equilibrium (principle of virtual work) constitutive initial value problem

initial boundary value problem time-discretisation of the constitutive IVP incremental constitutive law incremental boundary value problem finite element discretisation of the PVW

incremental finite element equations

Figure 4.1. Numerical approximations. Reducing the initial boundary value problem to a set of incremental finite element equations.

We start in Section 4.1 with a brief description of displacement-based finite element methods for small strain problems. Most of the basic finite element matrices and arrays are introduced here. At this stage, the underlying material is assumed elastic so that no time discretisation of the constitutive equations is required and attention can be focused on the finite element discretisation alone. The treatment of path-dependent (inelastic) materials, still within the small strain context, is introduced in Section 4.2. Here, the numerical integration of the constitutive initial value problem is briefly discussed and a generic incremental form of the original equation is introduced. Associated nonlinear solution schemes, particularly the Newton–Raphson scheme, are also discussed. In Section 4.3 we move on to the realm of finite deformations and strains and describe a general finite element strategy based on the spatial configuration (spatial version of the virtual work equation). The consistent linearisation of the field equations, required by the Newton–Raphson scheme for the solution of the nonlinear discretised equation system, is also discussed. Finally, in Section 4.4, we review the arclength technique. Before proceeding, we would like to draw the attention of the reader to the notation adopted. Finite element arrays (matrices, vectors) are represented exclusively with upright bold-faced Roman and Greek fonts: B, u, σ, . . . so that they can be distinguished from standard vector and second-order tensor quantities that are represented with italic bold-faced fonts.

4.1. Displacement-based finite elements
Let us start by considering the infinitesimal deformation case. We also assume that the underlying material is elastic; that is, the stress tensor is a (possibly nonlinear) function of

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

85

the strain tensor only (without dependence on internal variables). Since the strain tensor is in turn a functional of the displacement field, we have the following constitutive equation σ = σ(ε(u)) = σ(∇s u). (4.1) With the above constitutive equation, the infinitesimal problem of Section 3.7.2 reduces to finding a kinematically admissible displacement field u ∈ K such that [σ(∇s u) : ∇s η − b · η] dv −
Ω ∂Ωt

t · η da = 0,

∀η∈V

(4.2)

holds. 4.1.1. FINITE ELEMENT INTERPOLATION The finite element method for numerical solution of the above problem consists of replacing K the functional sets K and V with discrete subsets h and hV generated by a finite element discretisation h of the domain Ω. Let the generic finite element e be defined by nnode nodes with one shape function (e) (or interpolation function) Ni (x) associated with each node i whose coordinate is xi . Figure 4.2 illustrates a three-noded triangular element with linear shape functions. Each shape (e) function Ni (x) is defined so that its value is unity at node i, i.e. Ni (xi ) = 1, and zero at any other node of the element: Ni (xj ) = 0,
(e) (e)

(4.3)

for j = i.
e

(4.4)

Now let a(x) be a generic field defined over the domain Ω of the element. The finite element interpolation h a of the field a within element e is obtained as
nnode h

a(x) ≡
i=1

ai Ni (x),

(e)

(4.5)

where ai is the value of a at node i: ai ≡ a(xi ). (4.6) Now let a(x) be defined over the entire domain Ω. In the finite element interpolation of a we discretise Ω with a mesh of nelem finite elements. Within each element, a is interpolated as described in the above. The interpolated function, now defined over the approximate domain
nelem h

Ω=
e=1

Ω(e) ,

(4.7)

is given by
npoin h

a(x) =
i=1

ai Nig (x),

(4.8)

where Nig is a piecewise polynomial function – the global shape function – associated with the global node i and npoin is the total number of nodal points in the finite element mesh. A typical case, where a plane domain has been discretised by a mesh of triangular finite elements, is illustrated in Figure 4.3.

86

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

Ni(e) ( x ) N i(e)( x i ) = 1

xi a( x )

(e)

ha ( x )

= Σ a i Ni(e)( x )
i

a i = a( x i ) xi
Figure 4.2. Finite element interpolation. The element shape function.
Ni ( x i ) = 1
g

xi

Figure 4.3. Finite element interpolation. The global shape function.

4.1.2. THE DISCRETISED VIRTUAL WORK With the introduction of the above interpolation procedure we generate the finite-dimensional sets
npoin h

K≡

h

u(x) =
i=1

¯ ui Nig (x) | ui = u(xi ) if xi ∈ ∂Ωu
npoin

(4.9)

and
h

V≡

h

η(x) =
i=1

ηi Nig (x) | ηi = 0 if xi ∈ ∂Ωu .

(4.10)

The finite element approximation to the continuum variational equation (4.2) is then obtained by replacing the functional sets K and V with the above defined finite-dimensional subsets.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

87

Matrix notation To derive the discretised form of the virtual work equation it is convenient to introduce the standard matrix notation that follows. Let ndim be the number of spatial dimensions. Firstly, we define the global interpolation matrix:
g g Ng (x) = [diag[N1 (x)] diag[N2 (x)] g · · · diag[Nnpoin (x)]],

(4.11)

where diag[Nig ] denotes the ndim × ndim diagonal matrix defined as    0  g diag[Ni ] =     0 Nig 0 Nig ··· ··· .. 0 . 0   0   .   

(4.12)

···

Nig

We also define the global vector of nodal displacements: u = [u1 , . . . , u1 dim , . . . . . . , u1 poin , . . . , unpoin ]T , 1 n ndim
n

(4.13)

where the generic element uj is the i-component of the displacement vector at the global i node j. Any element h u ∈ h can be represented as K
h

u = Ng u,

(4.14)

where the components of u corresponding to nodal points on ∂Ωu satisfy the prescribed kinematic constraints and dependence on x has been omitted for notational convenience. Analogously, any virtual displacement h η ∈ hV has the representation
h

η = Ng η,
n

(4.15)

where

1 1 npoin η = [η1 , . . . , ηndim , . . . . . . , η1 poin , . . . , ηndim ]T

(4.16)

is the vector of virtual nodal displacements. In accordance with the definition of hV, the components of η associated with nodal points belonging to ∂Ωu must vanish. It is also convenient to introduce the global discrete symmetric gradient operator (or strain-displacement matrix) which, in two dimensions (plane stress and plane strain problems), has the format  g  g g N1,1 0 N2,1 0 · · · Nnpoin ,1 0   g g g 0 N2,2 · · · 0 Nnpoin ,2 , N1,2 Bg =  0 (4.17)   g g g g g g N1,2 N1,1 N2,2 N2,1 · · · Nnpoin ,2 Nnpoin ,1 where (·)i,j = ∂(·)i . ∂xj

(4.18)

88

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

For a generic vector field v = Ng v, we have     v1,1 (∇s v)11     Bg v =  v2,2  =  (∇s v)22 ;     s v1,2 + v2,1 2 (∇ v)12

(4.19)

that is, the multiplication of Bg by a global vector of nodal displacements gives the array of engineering strains ordered according to the convention discussed in Appendix D. Finally, the array of stress components in plane strain/stress problems is defined as† σ = [σ11 , σ22 , σ12 ]T . In axisymmetric analyses, σ is defined by σ = [σ11 , σ22 , σ12 , σ33 ]T , (4.21) (4.20)

where the hoop direction is associated with the index 3. In three-dimensional problems, we have σ = [σ11 , σ22 , σ33 , σ12 , σ23 , σ13 ]T . (4.22) The discrete boundary value problem K With the above notation at hand, the replacement of K and V respectively with h and hV in (4.2) gives the following discretised virtual work expression
hΩ

[σT Bg η − b · Ng η] dv −

∂ h Ωt

t · Ng η da = 0,

∀ η ∈ hV

(4.23)

which can be conveniently rearranged as
T
hΩ

[(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv −

(Ng )T t da
∂ h Ωt

η = 0,

∀ η ∈ hV.

(4.24)

Since the above equation is satisfied for all vectors η of the form (4.16), the term within the curly brackets on the left-hand side must vanish. Also, recall that the stress tensor components depend on the strain components which, in turn, depend on the displacement field defined by u. The finite element discrete boundary value problem is then formulated as follows. Find the global vector of nodal displacements, u, such that f int (u) − f ext = 0, where f int and f ext are, respectively, the internal and external global force vectors f int =
h Ω

(4.25)

(Bg )T σ dv (4.26) (N ) b dv +
g T

f

ext

=
h Ω

(N ) t da.
∂ hΩt

g T

† The computational array representation of tensors is described in more detail in Appendix D. The reader unfamiliar with this notation is advised to read Appendix D before proceeding.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

89

The element force vectors In actual finite element computations, the above force vectors are obtained as the assemblies f int = f of the element vectors f int = (e) f
ext (e) ext nelem e=1 nelem

A

(f int ) (e) (4.27) (f
ext (e) )

=

e=1

A

BT σ dv
Ω(e)

(4.28) =
Ω(e)

N b dv +

T

∂Ωt

(e)

N t da.

T

The finite element assembly operator, A, implies that each component of the global force associated with a particular global node is obtained as the sum of the corresponding contributions from the element force vectors of all elements that share that global node. For a generic element e, the interpolation matrix N is given by
(e) N = [diag[N1 (x)]

diag[N2 (x)] · · · diag[Nnnode (x)]],

(e)

(e)

(4.29)

and matrix B (in plane stress/strain analyses) has the standard format  (e)  (e) (e) N1,1 0 N2,1 0 · · · Nnnode ,1 0     (e) (e) (e) B= 0 0 N2,2 · · · 0 Nnnode ,2 . N1,2   (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) (e) N1,2 N1,1 N2,2 N2,1 · · · Nnnode ,2 Nnnode ,1

(4.30)

The multiplication of matrix B by an elemental vector of nodal displacements produces the array of engineering strains within the element. Numerical integration. Gaussian quadratures As a general rule, the exact integrals of (4.28) are replaced with Gaussian quadratures for numerical evaluation of the element force vectors. Let Γ be a standard integration domain. A Gaussian quadrature approximation with ngaus Gauss points to the integral of a generic function f over Γ reads
ngaus

f (ξ) dξ ≈
Γ i=1

wi f (ξi ),

(4.31)

where ξi (i = 1, . . . , ngaus ) are the positions (coordinates) of the Gauss points in the standard domain Γ and wi (i = 1, . . . , ngaus ) are the corresponding weights. Now let g be a generic function defined over the element domain, Ω(e) , and let x : Γ → (e) Ω map the standard domain Γ onto Ω(e) . By a straightforward transformation of variables

90

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

the Gaussian quadrature for approximation of the integral of g over Ω(e) is obtained as
ngaus

g(x) dx =
Ω(e) Γ

g(x(ξ)) j(ξ) dξ ≈
i=1

wi gi ji ,

(4.32)

where j(ξ) = det[∂x/∂ξ] is the determinant of the Jacobian of the transformation x and we have defined ji = j(ξi ) and gi = g(x(ξi )). (4.35) Similarly to (4.32), we define the Gaussian quadrature to approximate integrals over the boundary, ∂Ω(e) , of an element. With ∂Γ denoting the standard integration interval and the function g defined over ∂Ω(e) we have
ngausb

(4.33)

(4.34)

g(xb ) dxb =
∂Ω(e) ∂Γ

g(xb (ξb )) j b (ξb ) dξb ≈
i=1

b b wi gi ji ,

(4.36)

b b where wi are the weights at the corresponding boundary integration points ξb and ji denotes i the Jacobian of the boundary transformation xb : ∂Γ → ∂Ω(e) . By applying Gaussian quadratures with ngausp and ngausb points for integrals, respec(e) tively, over the element domain and the relevant portion of its boundary (∂Ωt ), the element int ext arrays f (e) and f (e) are evaluated as ngausp

f

int (e)

=

wi BT σi ji i
i=1 ngausp ngausb

(4.37)
b wi

f

ext (e)

=
i=1

wi NT i

bi ji +
i=1

NT i

b ti ji .

4.1.3. SOME TYPICAL ISOPARAMETRIC ELEMENTS For completeness, some commonly used two-dimensional isoparametric elements, which are coded in program HYPLAS, are reviewed in this section. Linear triangle We start by considering the simplest two-dimensional element – the three-noded linear triangle. This element is named TRI 3 in program HYPLAS. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 have already illustrated element and global shape functions associated with the linear triangle. Let the element be defined over the standard domain Γ (Figure 4.4). The element shape functions are

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

91

x3 η
3 (0,1)

x(ξ

)
Ω x1 y x2
(e)

Γ (0,0) 1 2 (1,0)

ξ

x

Figure 4.4. Linear triangle.

defined as N1 (ξ) = N1 (ξ, η) = 1 − ξ − η N2 (ξ) = N2 (ξ, η) = ξ N3 (ξ) = N3 (ξ, η) = η. The function x(ξ) that maps Γ onto Ω(e) is given by
3

(4.38)

x(ξ) =
i=1

Ni (ξ) xi ,

(4.39)

or, in component form,
3

x(ξ, η) =
i=1 3

Ni (ξ, η) xi (4.40) Ni (ξ, η) y .
i=1 i

y(ξ, η) =

In HYPLAS, the shape functions (as well as their derivatives) for the three-node triangle are coded in subroutine SFT3. This element is typically used with a one-point Gauss quadrature. The corresponding Gauss-point position and weight are ξ1 =
1 1 3, 3

,

w1 = 1 . 2

(4.41)

92

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
x4 x3 η
(−1,1) 4 3 (1,1)

x(ξ

)
x1

Ω y

(e)

x2 x

Γ
1 (-1,-1) 2 (1,−1)

ξ

bi-linear (e) shape function, N i

i

Figure 4.5. Bi-linear quadrilateral.

Bi-linear quadrilateral The bi-linear quadrilateral (named QUAD 4 in HYPLAS) has the following shape functions: N1 (ξ) = 1 (1 − ξ − η + ξη) 4 N2 (ξ) = 1 (1 − ξ + η − ξη) 4 N3 (ξ) = 1 (1 + ξ + η + ξη) 4 N4 (ξ) = 1 (1 + ξ − η − ξη). 4 The above shape functions are computed in subroutine SFQ4 of HYPLAS. The element is illustrated in Figure 4.5. The four-point (2 × 2) Gauss quadrature is usually adopted for this element. The corresponding sampling point positions and weights can be found in subroutine GAUS2D. Eight-noded quadrilateral Another important isoparametric element, which is widely used in infinitesimal elastoplastic analysis, is the eight-noded isoparametric quadrilateral (element QUAD 8 of HYPLAS). The corresponding shape functions will not be listed here. We refer to subroutine SFQ8 where the shape functions and derivatives for this element are computed. In elastoplastic analysis under plane strain and axisymmetric conditions and isochoric plastic flow, this element is almost always used with a four-Gauss point (reduced) numerical integration rule. The reduced integration is particularly helpful in avoiding the phenomenon (4.42)

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

93

of volumetric ‘locking’ observed when low-order elements are used under near incompressibility conditions (volumetric locking is discussed in Chapter 15). Under plane stress, the nine-point (3 × 3) Gauss quadrature is recommended. 4.1.4. EXAMPLE. LINEAR ELASTICITY So far we have left the stress tensor, whose components are grouped in the stress array σ, as a generic (possibly nonlinear) function of the strain tensor, ε. A simple example of application of the Finite Element Method is given in isotropic linear elasticity, where the stress tensor is a linear function of the strain tensor: σ = De : ε, and the fourth-order isotropic elasticity tensor has the classical general format De = 2G IS + A (K − 2 G) I ⊗ I, 3 (4.44) (4.43)

where G and K are, respectively, the shear and bulk moduli, I is the second-order identity and IS is the fourth-order symmetric identity tensor. In plane strain, axisymmetric and threedimensional analyses, the constant A is given by A = 1, whereas, in plane stress, A= 2G . K + 4G 3 (4.46) (4.45)

Matrix notation Let us now define the array of engineering strains.‡ Analogously to the array σ of stress components, we define for plane strain/stress, ε = [ε11 , ε22 , 2ε12 ]T . Under axisymmetric conditions, we have ε = [ε11 , ε22 , 2ε12 , ε33 ]T , and, for three-dimensional analyses, ε = [ε11 , ε22 , ε33 , 2ε12 , 2ε23 , 2ε13 ]T . The elastic law can then be written equivalently in terms of the arrays σ and ε as σ = De ε, where the elasticity matrix, De , has the general form De = 2G IS + A (K − 2 G) i iT , 3 (4.51) where IS is the array of components of IS (refer to Section D.2, starting on page 761) and i is the array representation of the second-order identity. For example, in axisymmetric problems we have T i= 1 1 0 1 . (4.52)
‡ Refer to Appendix D for further details on the computational array representation of tensors in the finite element context.

(4.47)

(4.48)

(4.49)

(4.50)

94

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

The finite element equilibrium equation From the definition of the strain-displacement matrix, it follows that ε = Bg u, so that, in view of the linear elastic constitutive law for σ, we have σ = De Bg u. (4.54) (4.53)

With the substitution of the above relation into (4.26)1, the global internal force vector reduces to the following linear function of u: f int (u) =
h Ω

(Bg )T De Bg dv

u,

(4.55)

or, equivalently, f int (u) = K u, where K is the global stiffness matrix assembled from the element stiffnesses
nelem

(4.56)

K= with K(e) =

e=1

A

K(e) ,

(4.57)

BT De B dv.
Ω(e)

(4.58)

Finally, with (4.56), the discrete boundary value problem defined by the equilibrium equation (4.25) is reduced to the solution of the following linear system of algebraic equations for the global nodal displacement vector u: K u = f ext . (4.59)

In program HYPLAS, the solution of the above system is undertaken by the classical frontal method (Hinton and Owen, 1977; Irons, 1970). The frontal linear equation solver is coded in subroutine FRONT.

4.2. Path-dependent materials. The incremental finite element procedure
Let us now assume that the constitutive equations of the underlying material model are pathdependent; that is, the stress tensor is no longer a function of the instantaneous value of the infinitesimal strain only. It is now dependent on the history of strains to which the solid has been subjected. The stress tensor now is the solution of a constitutive initial value problem whose general form is stated in Problem 3.2 (page 76). Examples of path-dependent materials are the general elastoplastic and elasto-viscoplastic models that will be dealt with in Parts Two and Three of this book.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

95

4.2.1. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION Given a generic path-dependent model, the solution of the constitutive initial value problem for a given set of initial conditions is usually not known for complex strain paths ε(t). Therefore, the use of an appropriate numerical algorithm for integration of the rate constitutive equations is an essential requirement in the finite element simulation of problems involving such models. The choice of a particular technique for integration of a constitutive law will be dependent on the characteristics of the model considered. In general, algorithms for integration of rate constitutive equations are obtained by adopting some kind of time (or pseudo-time) discretisation along with some hypothesis on the deformation path between adjacent time stations. Within the context of the purely mechanical theory, considering the time increment [tn , tn+1 ] and given the set αn of internal variables at tn , the strain tensor εn+1 at time tn+1 must determine the stress σn+1 uniquely through the integration algorithm. This requirement may be regarded as the numerical counterpart of the principle of thermodynamic determinism stated in Section 3.5.1. Such an algorithm defines an ˆ (approximate) incremental constitutive function, σ , for the stress tensor: ˆ σn+1 = σ (αn , εn+1 ), (4.60)

whose outcome, σn+1 , is expected to converge to the exact solution of the actual evolution problem as the strain increments are reduced. The numerical constitutive law is nonlinear in general and is path-independent within one increment; that is, within each increment σn+1 is a function of εn+1 alone (note that the argument αn is constant within [tn , tn+1 ]), analogous to a nonlinear elastic law. The integration algorithm also defines a similar incremental constitutive function for the internal variables of the model: ˆ αn+1 = α (αn , εn+1 ). (4.61)

In the context of elastoplasticity, procedures such as the elastic predictor/return mapping algorithms, thoroughly discussed in Part Two of this book, provide concrete examples of numerical integration schemes for path-dependent constitutive laws. 4.2.2. THE INCREMENTAL BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEM Having defined the above generic incremental constitutive law, we can state the incremental (or time-discrete) version of the initial boundary value problem of Section 3.7.2 as follows. Problem 4.1 (The infinitesimal incremental boundary value problem). Given the set αn of internal variables at time tn , find a displacement field un+1 ∈ Kn+1 such that [ˆ (αn , ∇s un+1 ) : ∇s η − bn+1 · η] dv − σ
Ω ∂Ωt

tn+1 · η da = 0

(4.62)

for any η ∈ V, where bn+1 and tn+1 are the body force and surface traction fields prescribed at time station tn+1 . The set Kn+1 is defined as ¯ Kn+1 = {u : Ω → U | u = un+1 on ∂Ωu }, ¯ where un+1 is the prescribed boundary displacement at tn+1 . (4.63)

96

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

4.2.3. THE NONLINEAR INCREMENTAL FINITE ELEMENT EQUATION After a standard finite element discretisation of (4.62) the problem is reduced to the following. Find the nodal displacement vector un+1 at time tn+1 such that the incremental finite element equilibrium equation r(un+1 ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − f ext = 0, (4.64) n+1 is satisfied, where f int (un+1 ) and f ext are assembled from the element vectors n+1 f int = (e) f ext = (e) ˆ BT σ(αn , ε(un+1 )) dv
Ω(e)

(4.65) NT bn+1 dv +
∂Ωt
(e)

NT tn+1 da.

Ω(e)

Equation (4.64) is generally nonlinear. The source of its nonlinearity is the nonlinearity of the incremental constitutive function that takes part in the definition of the element internal force vector above. The incremental finite element scheme is summarised in Box 4.1 where the particular case of proportional loading (implemented in HYPLAS) is considered. Proportional loading is characterised by body force and surface traction fields given, at an arbitrary instant tn+1 , by ˜ bn+1 = λn+1 b tn+1 = λn+1 ˜ t, (4.66)

˜ t where λn+1 is the prescribed load factor at tn+1 and b and ˜ are prescribed constant (in time) fields. In this case, the global external force vector reduces to ¯ext f ext = λn+1 f , n+1
ext

(4.67)

¯ where f is computed only once at the beginning of the incremental procedure as the assembly of element vectors ¯ ext f (e) = NT ˜ dv + b
Ω(e)

(e) ∂Ωt

NT ˜ da. t

(4.68)

4.2.4. NONLINEAR SOLUTION. THE NEWTON–RAPHSON SCHEME The Newton–Raphson algorithm is particularly attractive for the solution of the nonlinear incremental equation (4.64). Due to its quadratic rates of asymptotic convergence, this method tends to produce relatively robust and efficient incremental nonlinear finite element schemes. Each iteration of the Newton–Raphson scheme comprises the solution of the linearised version of the discretised incremental equilibrium equation (4.64)§ – or, equivalently, the discrete version of the linearised virtual work equation (C.12) (page 754). The finite element
§ The

reader is referred to Section 2.6 (from page 38) for details on linearisation of nonlinear problems.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI - STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS

97

Box 4.1. The incremental nonlinear finite element scheme. ¯ (i) Assemble global external force, f
ext

and set up the proportional loading curve, λ(t)

(ii) Initialise increment counter, i := 1 (iii) Set load factor λi := λ(ti ) at the end of the current interval [ti−1 , ti ] (iv) Solve the nonlinear equation ¯ext = 0 f int (ui ) − λi f for ui and obtain updated stresses and state variables, {αi , σi } (v) IF i < nincr (prescribed number of increments) THEN i := i + 1 and GOTO (iii) (vi) EXIT

discretisation of (C.12) reads (Bg )T D Bg dv δu · η = − [(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv (Ng )T t da · η, ∀ η ∈ hV. (4.69)

hΩ

hΩ

∂ h Ωt

By the same argument leading to (4.25), the above gives (Bg )T D Bg dv δu = − [(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv (Ng )T t da .
∂ h Ωt (k−1)

hΩ

hΩ

(4.70)

At a state defined by the global displacement vector un+1 , the typical iteration (k) of the Newton–Raphson scheme consists of solving the linear system of equations KT δu(k) = −r(k−1) , for δu(k) , where we have defined the residual (or out-of-balance force) vector r(k−1) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − f ext , n+1 and KT is the global tangent stiffness matrix: KT ≡ (Bg )T D Bg dv = ∂r ∂un+1 .
un+1
(k−1)

(4.71)

(k−1)

(4.72)

(4.73)

hΩ

With the solution δu(k) of the linear system (4.71) at hand, we apply the Newton correction to the global displacement (k) (k−1) un+1 = un+1 + δu(k) , (4.74)

98

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

or, in terms of displacement increments, un+1 = un + ∆u(k) , where ∆u(k) is the incremental displacement vector: ∆u(k) = ∆u(k−1) + δu(k) . (4.76)
(k)

(4.75)

The method is schematically illustrated in Figure 4.6. The Newton–Raphson iterations are repeated until after some iteration (m), the following convergence criterion is satisfied: |r(m) | ≤ |f ext | n+1
tol ,

(4.77)

where tol is a sufficiently small specified equilibrium convergence tolerance. The corre(m) sponding displacement vector, un+1 , is then accepted as sufficiently close to the solution of (4.64) (m) un+1 := un+1 . (4.78) To start up the Newton–Raphson iterations, we need an initial guess, un+1 . The initial guess is usually taken as the converged (equilibrium) displacement vector at the end of the previous increment, (0) (0) un+1 = un or ∆un+1 = 0. (4.79) The overall Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the nonlinear finite element equations is summarised in Box 4.2 in pseudo-code format. The procedure is implemented in program HYPLAS. To help familiarise the reader with the program, the main subroutines of HYPLAS associated with some of the items listed in Box 4.2 are named within square brackets. 4.2.5. THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS The global tangent stiffness defined by (4.73) is the assembly of the element tangent stiffness matrices (e) KT = BT D B dv, (4.80)
Ω(e) (0)

where D is the consistent tangent matrix – the matrix form of the fourth-order consistent tangent operator ˆ ∂σ . (4.81) D≡ ∂εn+1 ε(k−1) n+1 This tensor possesses the symmetries Dijkl = Djikl = Dijlk . (4.82)

The consistent tangent operator is the derivative of the incremental constitutive function ˆ σ. This generally implicit function is typically defined by some numerical algorithm for integration of the rate constitutive equations of the model. The full (exact) linearisation of the finite element equations in the context of path-dependent materials, including the exact

which in the standard method is updated in every iteration. We remark that the full Newton–Raphson scheme. is available for all material models implemented in HYPLAS. 4. . in order to achieve quadratic rates of asymptotic convergence in the iterative solution of the finite element equilibrium equations. un+1 u Figure 4.2. Traditional approaches include (Owen and Hinton (1980) and Zienkiewicz and Taylor (2000)) (i) the use of the initial tangent stiffness throughout all increments. A straightforward alternative to the above full Newton–Raphson scheme are the so-called modified Newton methods. ALTERNATIVE NONLINEAR SOLUTION SCHEMES Other iterative methods can be used to solve the nonlinear incremental finite element equations. (ii) the use of a constant stiffness within each increment. in the context of elastoplasticity and elastoviscoplasticity.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 99 f int (u) ext f n+1 KT KT r (1) r (0) ext fn u(0) = un n+1 δ u(1) u(1) n+1 δ u(2) un+1 (2) . has been first addressed by Nagtegaal (1982).6. which relies on consistent tangent operators. linearisation of the incremental constitutive function.. In particular. The stiffness is updated at the beginning of every increment.. this author has emphasised the need for linearisation of the incremental stress updating procedure. The derivation of consistent tangent operators is thoroughly discussed in Part Two of this book.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . These methods consist of replacing the tangential stiffness KT .6. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for the incremental finite element equilibrium equation. by a constant counterpart. rather than to appeal to the rate stress–strain tangential relation (commonly used at the time). This concept was later formalised by Simo and Taylor (1985) who coined the term consistent tangent to refer to the tangent operator consistent with the relevant numerical algorithm for integration of the path-dependent rate constitutive equations.

Some procedures of this type are available in the HYPLAS program. (0) ¯ext r := f int (un ) − λn+1 f (ii) Compute consistent tangent matrices [MATICT] ˆ D := ∂ σ/∂εn+1 (iii) Assemble element tangent stiffness matrices [ELEIST.100 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 4. εn+1 ) σn+1 := σ(αn . STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT Di Bi i (iv) k := k + 1. Set initial guess and residual un+1 := un . εn+1 ). the stiffness matrix does not need to be computed or factorised whenever it is reused. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the incremental nonlinear finite element equation (infinitesimal strains). (i) k := 0. (viii) Compute element internal force vectors [INTFOR. Assemble global stiffness and solve for δu(k) [FRONT] KT δu(k) = −r(k−1) (v) Apply Newton correction to displacements [UPCONF] un+1 := un+1 + δu(k) (vi) Update strains [IFSTD2] (k) (k−1) ε(k) := B u(k) n+1 n+1 (vii) Use constitutive integration algorithm to update stresses and other state variables [MATISU] (k) (k) (k) (k) ˆ ˆ αn+1 := α(αn .2. For such schemes. The convergence rates of such methods are far slower than the quadratic rates of the classical Newton algorithm and numerical experience shows that much faster solutions are obtained generally with the full Newton–Raphson scheme. IFSTD2] f int := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT σn+1 i (k) i (ix) Assemble global internal force vector and update residual [CONVER] ¯ r := f int − λn+1 f (x) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol ext THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)n+1 and EXIT (k) (iii) a variant of method (ii) where the stiffness matrix is updated after a certain number of iterations within each increment. .

whose substitution into the generic initial boundary value problem of Section 3. NON-INCREMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR PATH-DEPENDENT MATERIALS The framework discussed above for the solution of quasi-static solid mechanics problems with path-dependent material models relies crucially upon the use of numerical integration procedures whereby the numerical solution of the constitutive initial value problem is undertaken in sequential steps in time. Instead.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 101 Other alternatives include the quasi-Newton methods. Essentially. Such procedures generate approximate (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor with general form (4. of = K−1 (k−1) − vwT K−1 (k−1) vT w − K−1 wvT (k−1) vT w wT K−1 w vwT (k−1) + 1+ . Its application in the finite element context has been introduced by Matthies and Strang (1979).7.60). Its computational implementation is considerably different from that of the incremental approach explored and explained in detail throughout this book. Such methods.7. this method generates a sequence of histories {vi . 1999) is a non-incremental iterative procedure relying on a radically different approach to the treatment of the problem. when the derivation of the tangent operator (4. into a number of sufficiently small time steps and then solving sequentially. 1989.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . for each step. at a new iteration. 1990). or LATIN Method for short. σ∗ } whose stress satisfies equilibrium (over the entire time domain [t0 . The LATIN method falls outside the scope of the present text.83) ..1 (page 95). 4. T ]) and is related to the strain history resulting from v∗ through the constitutive equations of the model. An interesting alternative to the above general incremental procedure deserves special mention: the so-called Large Time Increment Method. whose roots are in the theory of optimisation (Haftka et al. T ]. the approximate inverse stiffness of the BFGS scheme is updated by the formula K−1 (k) where v = u(k−1) − u(k−2) .84) These methods can be useful. (4. The numerical solution of the initial boundary value problem in this case is obtained by splitting the considered time interval. require neither the direct computation of the tangent stiffness nor its inversion (linear system solution). originally proposed by Ladevèze (1984. σi } of velocity and stress fields over Ω × [t0 . The interested reader is referred to Ladevèze (1999) for further details. the corresponding incremental boundary value problem whose unknown is the displacement field over the domain Ω at the end of the time step (instant tn+1 in Problem 4. T ] – note that the entire time domain considered is covered by each function of the sequence – that converges to a pair {v∗ .2 (page 81) results in the incremental version stated in Problem 4. vi . Each iteration i of the LATIN method produces a new velocity history. say [t0 .2. an updated approximation of the inverse of the stiffness matrix is obtained which depends on the residual and displacement vectors at the end of the previous two iterations and the inverse stiffness approximation employed in the previous iteration of the algorithm.81) is difficult – a situation that may arise in dealing with complex material models/integration algorithms.1). At the beginning of an iteration (k). for instance. Again. the rates of convergence are much slower than those produced by the standard Newton algorithm. vT w vT w (4. w = r(k−1) − r(k−2) . The Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm (BFGS) is a particularly popular quasiNewton scheme.

1989) in elastoplastic applications.85) where gk are suitably chosen scalar-valued basis functions defined over [t0 . for instance.3.2. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION At the outset. F n+1 ). Cognard et al. p. In such cases. (4. the framework presented in this section is equally applicable to finite elasticity models. the prescribed deformation gradient F n+1 will determine the Cauchy stress tensor uniquely ˆ through the incremental constitutive function σ defined by means of some algorithm for numerical integration of the constitutive equations of the model. Analogously to (4. Further applications are found in Boucard et al. 4. The starting point here is the finite strain version of the Principle of Virtual Work and the corresponding initial boundary value problem stated at the end of Chapter 3.1. the single increment of the LATIN Method comprising the interval [t0 . given the set αn of internal variables.86) where F n+1 is the deformation gradient prescribed at the end of the standard interval [tn . by Boisse et al. (1990. (2003). Thus. It is important to note that path-independent (finite elasticity) laws can also be written in incremental form as particular cases of the above functions. (4. F n+1 ) = Jn+1 σ (αn . Cognard and Ladèveze (1993). Ladevèze and Perego (2000) and Dureisseix et al. (1997). the comments made in Section 4. Thus. Analogous approximations are used to describe the sequence of strain rate and stress rate histories.1 about the need for a numerical integration scheme to update the stresses and other state variables of the model apply equally to the present case. t) + k=1 gk (t) wk (x). T ] may contain several cycles of a cyclic load. (1999). F n+1 ).87) where Jn+1 = det[F n+1 ]. The functions wk are generated by conventional finite element interpolation and their corresponding nodal values are unknowns at each iteration of the method. no internal variables are needed and σn+1 (or τn+1 ) can usually be computed by simple function evaluation (rather than by some numerical integration algorithm). T ] and wk are vector-valued functions defined over Ω. This is illustrated. tn+1 ] and σ is now the Cauchy stress tensor. (4. of terms used to describe the iterative history differences. The overall accuracy of the history approximations depends crucially upon the choice of the total number.60) the corresponding algorithmic incremental constitutive function is defined in the following general format ˆ σn+1 = σ (αn . . An equivalent incremental function can be defined for the Kirchhoff stress ˆ ˆ τn+1 = τ (αn .3. we shall assume that the underlying material model is path-dependent. that is. t) = v i i−1 (x. 4. In contrast to the conventional incremental procedure. Large strain formulation We now focus our attention on the use of the Finite Element Method in the solution of solid mechanics problems involving finite deformations and strains. Finite strain pathdependent models (including constitutive integration algorithms) as well as hyperelastic theories are discussed in Part Three of this book.102 the form COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p v (x.

92) NT bn+1 dv + ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (e) f ext (e) = ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) NT tn+1 da. for example.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI .89) (4. THE CONSISTENT SPATIAL TANGENT MODULUS Analogously to the infinitesimal deformations case of Section 4. the internal and external force vectors are defined as f int = (e) ϕn+1 (4. where ϕn+1 is the deformation map at tn+1 xn+1 = ϕn+1 (p) = p + un+1 (p). that given by (4. The B-matrix above is the spatial discrete symmetric gradient operator. 4.3. THE INCREMENTAL BOUNDARY VALUE PROBLEM The finite strain incremental boundary value problem is obtained by introducing the above time-discrete constitutive law into the original time-continuum initial boundary value problem of Section 3.7. The problem – here considered in its spatial version – is stated in the following. that is. (4. to be used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the large deformation incremental equilibrium equation. ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (4. can be obtained by applying a finite element discretisation to the linearised form (C.91) where.3. It has the same format as that of its small strain counterpart (such as.2. F (un+1 )) dv (Ω(e) ) (4. Problem 4. F n+1 ) : ∇x η − bn+1 · η] dv − σ ϕn+1 (Ω) tn+1 · η da = 0.88) is satisfied for any η ∈ V. THE FINITE ELEMENT EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION The finite element discretisation of the above equation is completely analogous to the discretisation of its infinitesimal counterpart. The discrete problem consists in finding a kinematically admissible global displacement vector un+1 that satisfies the standard incremental equilibrium equation ext r(un+1 ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − f n+1 = 0.88).STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 103 4. and F n+1 = ∇p ϕn+1 = I + ∇p un+1 . now.1 (starting on page 79).2.90) ˆ BT σ(αn . LINEARISATION. the linearised version of (4. find a kinematically admissible configuration ϕn+1 (Ω) ∈ Kn+1 such that the virtual work equation s [ˆ (αn .3. but its shape function derivatives are spatial derivatives. .2 (The finite strain incremental boundary value problem).4. derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates of the finite element mesh (at the deformed configuration defined by un+1 ).4.3.32) (page 757) of the virtual work equation (4.91).30) for the plane stress and plane strain cases). 4. Given the field αn at time tn and given the body forces and surface traction fields at tn+1 .

93). i.2 Its multiplication by.97) G =  (e) (e) (e) N 0 N2.1   . (4.2 0    1. the generic Newton–Raphson iteration (k) here requires the solution of the standard linear system for δu: KT δu(k) = −r(k−1) .1 (starting page 763). for example.2 · · · 0 Nnpoin .2 0 · · · Nnpoin . In plane strain and plane stress analyses.96) where G is the element discrete spatial gradient operator which.1  N1. the global vector δu gives the array of components of the spatial gradient of δu ordered according to the convention of Section D. ϕ(∂ h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) − (4.1.1 0 N2. This matrix is constructed in practice by assembling the element tangent stiffness matrices defined as KT = (e) (k) ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) GT a G dv. they do not depend on the displacement u.1 · · · 0 Nnnode .2 · · · 0 Nnnode .93) where a is the matrix of components of the spatial tangent modulus (C.31) ordered according to the convention described in Section D.2 0 N1.2 0 · · · Nnnode .2. in plane stress/strain analyses.1 0 N2.95) where the global tangent stiffness matrix KT corresponds to the bracketed term on the lefthand side of (4.2 ¶ We remark that this expression is valid when the external loads b and t are configuration-independent. The matrix Gg is the global discrete spatial gradient operator.3.1  N1. say.1 0 · · · Nnpoin .2 0    1.2     (e) (e) (e) 0 N2. it is given by   g g g N1.1 · · · 0 Nnpoin .2   g g g 0 N1.1 0     (e) (e) (e)  0 0 N2.70) we obtain the discrete form of the linearised virtual work equation for large strain problems in spatial description:¶ (Gg )T a Gg dv δu = − [(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv (Ng )T t da .e.6. Similarly to the infinitesimal strain case. (4.1   .1 0   g g g  0 0 N2.2. .1 0 · · · Nnnode . has the format   (e) (e) (e) N1. (4. (4. Its extension to account for configuration-dependent loads is briefly addressed in Section 4.104 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Starting from (C.32) and following the same arguments as those resulting in (4.94) Gg =  g g g N 0 N2.2 0 N2.

∂τij ∂ˆ τ = ∂Fkm ∂F n+1 .98) On the right-hand side of the above expression.99) The overall Newton procedure in the finite strain case is completely analogous to that shown in Box 4. . αn+1 := α(αn . The derivation of explicit expressions for the above implicit function derivative may become quite intricate but involve nothing more than standard concepts of linearisation.3.2 for the infinitesimal theory. STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji GT ai Gi i (vi) Update deformation gradient [IFSTD2] Fn+1 := (I − ∇x un+1 )−1 (k) (k) (vii) Use constitutive integration algorithm to update stresses and other state variables [MATISU] (k) (k) (k) (k) ˆ ˆ σn+1 := σ(αn . the derivatives ∂τij /∂Fkm are the components of the derivative of this generally implicit incremental constitutive function. J ∂Fkm (4. that is. be derived in a relatively straightforward manner. Thus. the incremental function is usually implicit and is defined by the particular algorithm used to integrate the constitutive equations of the model. Modifications to Box 4.2: aijkl = 1 ∂τij Flm − σil δjk . The Newton–Raphson scheme for the large strain incremental nonlinear finite element equation.3. τ is an explicit function of the deformation gradient and its derivative can. Fn+1 ) The consistent spatial tangent modulus Let us recall here the expression for the Cartesian components of the consistent spatial tangent modulus derived in Section C.87). ˆ In such a case. The only necessary change is the replacement of some of the items of Box 4. (ii) Compute consistent spatial tangent modulus matrix [MATICT] aijkl := ˆ 1 ∂ τij Flm − σil δjk J ∂Fkm (iii) Assemble element tangent stiffness matrices [ELEIST. In the general case considered here. As in the infinitesimal case. the Kirchhoff stress tensor is the outcome of the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (4.2 with the finite strain counterparts listed in Box 4. Fn+1 ).2. the only terms that depend on the constitutive equations of the model are the derivatives of the Kirchhoff stress tensor components.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . ijkm (4. Finite elasticity (also addressed in Part Three) is a particular instance where τn+1 is obtained by direct function evaluation. Examples of path-dependent material implementations where τ is defined by an implicit algorithmic function are given in Part Three of this book.2. as a general rule.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 105 Box 4.

102) The material stiffness matrix (4. the tangent stiffness (4.101) GT S G dv.96). if f ext = f ext (un+1 ). under finite strains. KL . 4.103) (4.104) (4.3. the tensor c has the symmetries cijkl = cjikl = cijlk .81). in the finite strain case. defined by KM = KG = (e) (e) (k) ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (e) (e) (e) (4.5. that is.101)1 has the same format as that of the infinitesimal stiffness matrix (4. that takes part in (4.102) replaces the matrix form of the infinitesimal consistent tangent operator. however. n+1 then the tangent stiffness.96) is frequently split into the so-called material and geometric stiffnesses KT = KM + KG .6.101)2 to the material stiffness.105) . MATERIAL AND GEOMETRIC STIFFNESSES In finite element computations. where the added contribution. that is.96) is adopted instead.3. is the so-called load-correction or load-stiffness matrix. In computational terms. and S is the array representation of the tensor Sijkl = σjl δik . this allows the subroutines for computation of the infinitesimal element tangent stiffness matrix to be reused to compute the material stiffness of the finite strain case. THE LOAD-STIFFNESS MATRIX If the external load depends on the configuration of the body. The load stiffness is the derivative of the external force vector with respect to the displacement (4. is replaced by KT + KL . the full tangent stiffness under finite strains can be obtained by simply adding the geometrical term (4. (4.100) BT c B dv (4. CONFIGURATION-DEPENDENT LOADS.95). we firstly compute the matrix form of tensor a and then obtain the element stiffness by performing a single computation with (4.106 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 4. that in program HYPLAS the form (4. ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (k) where c is the array representation of the fourth-order tensor cijkl = aijkl − σjl δik .80) except that. the matrix form of the tensor defined by (4. As the infinitesimal tangent operator (4. If this approach is adopted. We remark.

The reader is referred to Schweizerhof and Ramm (1984) for details of derivation (see also Argyris and Symeonidis. Let us consider the case of proportional loading. where the displacement vector is found for a prescribed load factor. 1991. To derive the arc-length method. de Souza Neto and Feng.4.. 4.4. 1997. A typical example is given by pressure loading of rubber membranes (see some of the numerical examples of Section 13.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . 4. In such situations. 1983. 1981). A description of the arc-length method is given in this section. (4. The names of the main routines involved in the computational implementation of the most relevant procedures of Box 4. An equilibrium path is formed by the set of all load factor-displacement pairs {λ. cannot be used in general once a limit point (points A of Figure 4. Riks. u} which satisfy equilibrium. 1996. where the combined Newton–Raphson/cylindrical arc-length scheme provided in HYPLAS is summarised in pseudo-code format.108) The arc-length method consists of adding an extra constraint to the above augmented residual equation so as to limit the ‘length’ of the incremental solution. 1979. Unstable equilibrium. 1981. To trace an equilibrium path beyond limit points we need to resort to continuation techniques. The arc-length method Many finite deformation problems of practical interest are characterised by the existence of unstable equilibrium configurations. The method is implemented in program HYPLAS.106) The consideration of configuration-dependence of external loads becomes important in situations where substantial changes in direction and/or intensity of loads may result from the deformation of the loaded body.7) is reached.91) as ¯ r(un+1 . 1981.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 107 vector: KL = ∂f ext . the standard interval [tn .4 (page 109). 1997. Ramm. the standard load-controlled finite element scheme of the previous section. 1971). ∂un+1 u(k−1) n+1 (4.7. . 1995. 1972. ∆λ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − (λn + ∆λ) f ext = 0. we allow ∆λ to become a variable and redefine the residual equation (4. Typical equilibrium paths associated with snap-through and snapback behaviour are illustrated in Figure 4. tn+1 ] and let ∆λ ≡ λn+1 − λn (4. of which the arc-length method appears to be the most popular (Crisfield.6). again. Common examples appear in buckling instability and problems involving snap-through or snap-back phenomena. Wempner. Feng et al.107) be the corresponding incremental load factor. Readers who wish to skip the description of this technique are referred directly to Box 4. THE ARC-LENGTH METHOD Let us consider.1. 1999. The explicit derivation of the load stiffness will not be addressed in this book.4 are shown within square brackets.

Snap-through and snap-back behaviour. Unstable equilibrium. the constraint equation has the general format f f ∆uT ∆u + ∆λ2 ψ 2 ¯ext T ¯ext − l2 = 0.108) together with the relevant arc-length constraint.110) In this case.109) where ∆u and ∆λ are converged incremental quantities.2. the linearised system to be solved for δu(k) and δλ(k) at .4. the residual equation (4. the constraint equation requires that the Euclidean norm of the converged incremental displacement be l. for both un+1 and ∆λ. The possible intersections are denoted A and B.e. THE COMBINED NEWTON–RAPHSON/ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE In summary. 4. For the cylindrical version of the arc-length method.108) in conjunction with one of the above ‘length’ constraint equations ((4. The cylindrical arc-length method For the more widely used cylindrical arc-length method (implemented in HYPLAS).108 λ COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS λ snap-through A A snap-back 0 u 0 u Figure 4. the equilibrium solution at the end of the increment lies at an intersection between the solution path and a ball of radius l in the space of nodal displacements (a cylinder in the λ-u space) centred at the equilibrium configuration un of the beginning of the increment.109) or (4.7.8 which illustrates a system with two degrees of freedom. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 4. the scaling parameter ψ is set to zero and the constraint equation reads simply ∆uT ∆u = l2 . (4. an equilibrium solution is obtained by solving.110)). i. l is a prescribed incremental solution length and ψ is a prescribed scaling parameter. The spherical arc-length method For the so-called spherical arc-length method. The standard Newton–Raphson algorithm for iterative solution of the augmented arc-length system of nonlinear equations is derived by simply linearising (4. having specified the required l. (4.

k := 0. and set initial guess for displacement and incremental load factor un+1 := un . (4. KT := KT (un+1 ) [FRONT.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 109 Box 4. The combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme. (k) (k) (k) (k−1) (k) (k−1) 2 ∆un+1 := ∆un+1 + δu(k) ext (k) (k−1) ¯ (viii) Update residual.117) and choose root δλ(k) according to (4. ELEIST] (iii) Set k := k + 1. (iv) Find iterative load factor δλ(k) [ARCLEN] (a) If k = 1 (predictor solution) then compute δλ(1) := sign(∆uT δ¯ ) √ n u l ¯ ¯ δ uT δ u ¯ KT δ¯ = −f u ext (b) If k = 1 then solve the cylindrical arc-length constraint equation a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0 with coefficients defined by (4. δ¯ u [subroutine FRONT] KT δu∗ = −r(k−1) . (k) (0) ¯ r(0) := f int (un ) − λn f ext (ii) Assemble stiffness.  (k−1) T  δλ(k)  (k−1) T 2∆u 0 ∆u(k−1) − l2 ∆u where the subscripts n + 1 have been dropped for notational convenience. (0) λn+1 := λn . (i) Initialise iteration counter. ∆λ(k−1) )    =− .THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . CONVER] (k) THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)n+1 and EXIT the k th Newton iteration reads      f KT (u(k−1) ) −¯ext δu(k)   r(u(k−1) . Solve the linear systems for δu∗ and for the tangential solution.118) (v) Apply correction to incremental load factor [ARCLEN] λn+1 := λn+1 + δλ(k) (vi) Compute iterative displacement [ARCLEN] ¯ δu(k) := δu∗ + δλ(k) δ u (vii) Correction to total and incremental displacements [UPCONF] un+1 := un+1 + δu(k) . r(k) := f int (un+1 ) − λn+1 f (ix) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r(k) / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol [INTFOR.4.111) .

T ¯ and δ u is the so-called tangential solution defined by ¯ δ u ≡ K−1 ¯ext . Both iterative schemes lead to identical converged equilibrium solutions {∆λ.110 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS arc-length constraint λ λn B ∆uT ∆u = l equilibrium path ( λ n . From (4.113) δu(k) = δu∗ + δλ δ u. The cylindrical arc-length method. it is more convenient to adopt what is sometimes referred to as the non-consistent scheme. u}. the arc-length constraint is enforced at every iteration. in the non-consistent scheme. ∆λ(k−1) ) KT (u(k−1) ) −¯ext f δλ(k)  (4. where the original augmented system to be solved at each iteration is replaced by the following equations:   δu(k)  = −r(u(k−1) . T f (4. The non-consistent scheme In practice. In the iterations (4.112)1. un ) 0 un A u2 u1 l Figure 4.115) (4. the arc-length constraint is guaranteed to hold only at the converged solution whereas. instead of solving the above coupled system (whose coefficients matrix is nonbanded). we have ¯ (4.112) ∆u(k) ∆u(k) = l2 .111).8.114) T . where δu∗ is the iterative displacement stemming from the Newton–Raphson algorithm for the standard load controlled scheme: δu∗ ≡ −K−1 r(k−1) .

If the wrong choice is made. (4.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 111 Substitution of (4. 1991). (4. (4. is updated according to ∆λ(k) = ∆λ(k−1) + δλ(k) . 1996). THE PREDICTOR SOLUTION When k = 1 (the predictor solution). n ¯ (4.3. does not contain information about the path being currently followed by the iterative procedure.123) (4.118) The incremental load factor. followed by the enforcement of the constraint (4. results in the quadratic equation for the iterative load factor δλ(k) 2 a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0. ∆u(0) = 0. (c) Secant path (Feng et al.e.116) which gives the maximum product ∆u(k) T ∆u(k−1) : δλ(k) = arg ˆ ˆ ˆ δ λ | a δ λ2 +b δ λ+c=0 max ˆ ¯ {(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ + δ λ δ u)T ∆u(k−1) } .e. i.122) (4. Follow the sign of the predictor work increment: ¯ f sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(δ uT ¯ext ). (b) Incremental work. the above criterion cannot be used for determination of the appropriate root δγ (k) as the initial guess.113) into the relation ∆u(k) = ∆u(k−1) + δu(k) .116) with coefficients ¯ ¯ a = δ uT δ u ¯ b = 2(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ )T δ u c = (∆u (k−1) (4.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . the predictor solution will ‘track back’ on the current path (Crisfield. 2 ∗ The choice of the appropriate root The iterative load factor is normally chosen as the solution to the quadratic equation that yields the minimum angle between ∆u(k−1) and ∆u(k) (Crisfield.4. i.120) ¯ ¯ δ uT δ u and the success of the path-following technique depends crucially on the choice of the appropriate sign for the iterative load factor. Many procedures are currently used to predict the continuation direction. ∆λ(k) . δλ(k) is the solution of (4.121) (4. 1991). Follow the sign of the stiffness determinant |KT (u(0) )|: sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(|KT (u(0) )|).117) (k−1) + δu ) (∆u ∗ T + δu ) − l .119) .112)2.. The sign of δλ(1) is determined as sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(∆uT δ u). Some criteria are listed below: (a) Stiffness determinant. 1995. 4. to choose the sign of δλ(1) that carries on tracing the current solution path. The two possible values of δλ(1) for the predictor solution are l δλ(1) = ± √ .

Procedure (a) is widely used in commercial finite element codes and works well in the absence of bifurcations. In the presence of a bifurcation. (1997). In view of its definition (4. δλδ u. a key point concerning criterion (c) is the fact that ∆un carries with it information about the history of the current equilibrium path. In situations such as the ones pointed out above. where the predicted positive ‘slope’ will provoke a ‘back tracking’ load increase. where. Similarly. that is. As schematically ¯ illustrated in Figure 4. this may result in wrong direction prediction. Geometric interpretation ¯ Firstly. In essence.9) where KT is singular. . this criterion proves ineffective in the descending branch of the load-deflection curve in ‘snap-back’ problems. n ¯ (4. A schematic representation is shown in Figure 4. when sufficiently small. In other words. points S1 and S2 of Figure 4. δ u provides information on the direction (starting from the current configuration) along which the load factor increases – direction associated with the choice ¯ of positive δλ. One important feature shared by the criteria (a) and (b) is the fact that they rely exclusively on information relative to the current equilibrium point (at the beginning of the increment). the load factor is decreasing and the negative sign should be n ¯ chosen (Figure 4. As pointed out by Crisfield (1991). δλ ∆uT δ u > 0. However. ∆un approximates the history of the current equilibrium path within [tn−1 .115). on the other hand. tn ]. ∆un indicates the ‘forward’ direction of the current solution path at un .10(a)). In the presence of bifurcations. δ u is a vector tangent to the equilibrium path in the space of displacements. δ u. gives a good approximation to the solution curve within the interval [tn−1 . The decision on the sign of δλ is made without considering the history of the currently traced equilibrium path.10(b)). in particular.123).112 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Criteria (a) and (c) are implemented in program HYPLAS. unless further (usually computationally expensive) analyses are undertaken. tn ]. is secant to the equilibrium path and. let us concentrate on the meaning of the tangential solution.9. a positive product.124) The above inequality is equivalent to (4.10. In order to keep tracing the current path without returning to previously obtained points. Thus. In this case. Secant path. its ill-conditioned behaviour stems from the fact that the sign of |KT | changes either when a limit point or when a bifurcation point is passed. it is known not to be appropriate and fails in most cases. ∆uT δ u. it points in the direction of the positive ¯ gradient of λ. This property is mathematically proved by Feng et al. the predictor cannot distinguish between these two quite different situations. is ‘blind’ to bifurcations and can continue to trace an equilibrium path after passing a bifurcation point. this criterion requires that the incremental displacement of the ¯ predictor solution. n ¯ indicates that the load factor is currently increasing so that the positive sign should be chosen for the predictor δλ to carry on following the present equilibrium path (Figure 4. In contrast. instead of following the current equilibrium path. the solution will oscillate about the bifurcation point. we show by means of geometric arguments that the secant predictor can easily overcome the problems associated with criteria (a) and (b). Procedure (b). Clearly. on the other hand. however. The importance of this fact is established in the discussion that follows. Note that δ u is not defined at load-reversing points (cf. be in the ‘forward’ direction. The incremental displacement ∆un . if ∆uT δ u is negative. when sufficiently small.

A. then no further increment size restrictions are introduced by the use of the secant path predictor criterion. Vol 179. The secant path direction prediction criterion. does not show the basic deficiency associated with the criterion based on the sign of |KT |. . Also. (Reproduced with permission from On the determination of the path direction for arc-length methods in the presence of bifurcations and ‘snap-backs’.) It is important to emphasise that the secant path criterion is insensitive to the presence of bifurcations and. If the convergence radius of the Newton–Raphson scheme is smaller than the maximum size of ∆un that produces an accurate direction prediction. the secant path predictor should indicate that the load is decreasing (negative δλ). in the descending branch of ‘snap back’ curves. it is important to recall that a natural limitation on the maximum size of ∆un is already imposed by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. (a) Load factor is currently increasing: choose δλ > 0. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. provided that ∆un is sufficiently small. EA de Souza Neto and YT Feng.A. Numerical experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of the secant path criterion in situations where criteria (a) and (b) fail are shown by de Souza Neto and Feng (1999). Issue 12 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. (b) load factor is currently decreasing: choose δλ < 0. The tangential solution. numerical experience shows that the maximum increment size is usually dictated by the Newton–Raphson algorithm rather than by the direction predictor criterion. With regard to this aspect. Issue 12 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.9.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . In fact. EA de Souza Neto and YT Feng. Vol 179. overcoming the problem associated with the predictor incremental work criterion.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 113 u (λ) λ S1 descending branch second ascending branch space of nodal displacements δu first ascending branch δu S1 S2 S2 0 δu ui ¯ Figure 4. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.) (a) un u n-1 ∆u n δu S1 (b) ∆u δ u > 0 T n u n-1 u (λ) S1 T ∆u n δ u < 0 ∆u n S2 S2 u (λ) δu un Figure 4. Step-size limitation The need for sufficiently small ∆un has been stressed above as a condition for producing reliable indications of the ‘forward’ direction. δ u.10. (Reproduced with permission from On the determination of the path direction for arc-length methods in the presence of bifurcations and ‘snap-backs’.

.

It comprises: (i) a general displacement-based incremental finite element procedure. The depth at which details of the code are described here is only what the authors believe to be sufficient to help readers find their way through HYPLAS. Introduction HYPLAS is a finite element code for implicit small and large strain analysis of hyperelastic and elastoplastic solids in plane stress. Newton–Raphson) for the solution of nonlinear incremental finite element equations.5 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE N Chapter 4. (ii) iterative schemes (e. 5. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. plane strain and axisymmetric states. I 5. etc.1. Within this framework. (iii) an arc-length scheme for problems involving structural instability. In the present chapter we provide a more thorough description of the HYPLAS program. we have described a general strategy for the finite element simulation of linear and nonlinear solid mechanics problems. OBJECTIVES The main purpose of HYPLAS is to illustrate the computational implementation of numerical procedures described throughout this book. It is by no means intended to be a comprehensive guide to the code. reference has been made to the subroutines of HYPLAS where some of the most relevant computational operations associated with such numerical procedures are carried out. with emphasis on its structure. The present chapter is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to understand and/or modify the basic code by including new procedures. finite elements. Throughout their description.1. The general framework adopted is that described in Chapter 4. Ltd . Most procedures described there are incorporated in the standard version of the program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. The theory and numerical methods underlying the implementation of each Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. numerous (elastic and elastoplastic) material models have been incorporated. material models. including generic path-dependent constitutive models and finite deformations and strains.1. Those who are only interested in the theoretical and numerical aspects of nonlinear solid mechanics may skip this chapter and move on to Part Two of the book. whenever appropriate.g.

in many cases. implementation and testing of new constitutive models/algorithms as well as finite elements. the code of. The existing exceptions to the FORTRAN 77 standards are known to be accepted by most currently available compilers. the routines of HYPLAS involved in the computational implementation of procedures described in the book are also indicated in the text. programmers are frequently faced with the dilemma: clarity versus efficiency. the structure of HYPLAS has been designed so as to have element typespecific and material model-specific procedures as more or less self-contained modules which remain confined to relatively small parts of the program. We do not mean that clarity of coding and computational efficiency are opposing concepts but. the programming philosophy adopted in its development has been biased towards code clarity and modularity.116 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS material model are thoroughly discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book.3.1. PORTABILITY The code of HYPLAS is entirely written in (almost) standard FORTRAN 77 programming language (ANSI. Element and material model-related data are also self-contained to some extent. excessive optimisation of computer operations tends to result in cumbersome. In view of the educational purposes of HYPLAS. the pseudo-code and the corresponding FORTRAN source code of the relevant routines. Finite element codes are no exception. This feature is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to use HYPLAS for the development. Due to this modularity. This should allow a relatively easy cross-referencing between theory and corresponding computer implementation. Clarity of coding When developing a computer code. say. . the comments indicate where in the book the procedure being carried out is described. Cross-referencing. Frequently. REMARKS ON PROGRAM STRUCTURE In order to treat a wider range of material models and finite element types within the above general framework. a constitutive integration algorithm for a particular material model can be easily identified with the corresponding description provided in this book. the adopted program structure makes the incorporation of new material models and finite element types relatively straightforward tasks (once the associated numerical procedures have been coded by the developer). The reader will find there a detailed description of the associated procedures including. Whenever convenient. as a general rule. 5.2. difficult-to-follow source codes. Part Two focuses on the infinitesimal theory and Part Three on the finite strain range. In addition. 1978). Comment lines The reader will also find that numerous comments have been added to the source code.1. 5. This is particularly true for the numerical procedures whose theory is described in this text.

reading of input data and initialising of most global arrays.2. Under option (b). In this case (case (b)).3. Input data can be read: (a) either from an input data file only. The input data file is an ASCII format file which. At this stage all data defining the problem to be analysed are read from the relevant files and all necessary arrays are initialised. contains all information about the problem to be analysed. Data input and initialisation The first operations carried out as the execution of HYPLAS is initiated. THE GLOBAL DATABASE The global database of HYPLAS stores most arrays and program control parameters required in the finite element solution process. the finite element analysis is restarted from where the restart file was created. Output routines are called from inside the main loop over load increments. material and element properties. The procedure has been conceptually described in Boxes 4. 5. (b) or from an input restart file and an input data file.1–4. Output of converged results. 5. The only information read from the relevant (ASCII) input data file. This is the main body of the program. 2. Essentially. 3.1. where the numerical procedures discussed in Chapter 4 are implemented. The incremental finite element procedure.3. This comprises all output operations necessary to print converged finite element solutions into the results file and/or dump an image of the database into a restart output file.4 of the previous chapter. Data input and initialisation. The data input and initialisation phase is carried out at the very beginning of the execution of the program.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 117 5. is the data related to the definition of the proportional load incrementation programme. topology of the finite element mesh (nodal connectivities). These are data that do not change during the solution process such as initial nodal coordinates. The main program The main program of HYPLAS can be divided into three basic parts: 1. most of the problem definition is read from an input restart file. comprise the opening of files accessed during the execution.1. kinematic constraints and applied external loads as well as various control parameters required in the finite element analysis. The corresponding data can be classed into two basic categories: (i) Problem-defining (fixed) data. where the main routines involved are indicated. . These components are described in more detail in the following sections. in case (a). This is a binary file generated during a previous execution of HYPLAS. It contains an image of the complete database at the time of its creation. it consists of a main loop over load increments with a nested loop over equilibrium iterations. The flowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 5.

respectively. The reader is referred to the comment lines of this file for a description of the data stored in the arrays and variables of the global database. INLOAD and ININCR.1.6 and 5.INC set. File GLBDBASE.INC sets the parameters that define the maximum admissible problem size that can be analysed. Variables and arrays (or array components) containing data of type (i) are set once and for all in subroutines INDATA. f ext read most data from input restart file INLOAD RSTART initialise global arrays and control parameters INITIA read load incrementation data from input data file ININCR carry on to load incrementation loop Figure 5. arrays storing element internal forces. The array-dimensioning parameters defining the dimensions of the global database arrays are set in the include files MAXDIM. File MAXDIM.INC and ELEMENTS. If in restart mode.118 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS open data and results files FOPEN set restart logical flag RSTCHK read most data from input data file NO restart mode? YES INDATA read external load and assemble global external load vector. Data input and initialisation.INC. In the data input and initialisation phase of HYPLAS. the data otherwise read and set in INDATA and INLOAD are retrieved from the input restart file by subroutine RSTART. Flowchart. according to the input data file. These are discussed further in Sections 5. current nodal coordinates (changes in large deformation analysis only). Data that change during the solution process. stresses and state variables in general at Gauss points. MATERIAL. data . All arrays of the database have fixed dimension and are grouped in a number of COMMON blocks. (ii) Solution-related (variable) data. maximum array dimensions required by the currently implemented material models and element types. Typical solution-related data are nodal displacements.INC (refer to their comment lines).INC. etc.INC and ELEMENTS.7.INC is included in all routines that require data stored in any of the COMMON blocks of the global database. Files MATERIAL. These will be further explained in this chapter only when convenient for a better understanding of the program. The global database is defined in the include file GLBDBASE.

2. from the input data file. Assembly of element vectors ngausb ∂Ωt (e) (e) NT b t da ≈ i=1 wi j(ξi ) Nb (ξi )T t. etc. respectively. kinematic constraints.2) where ∂Ωt is the loaded edge of the boundary of element e. In this case. strain or axisymmetric) flag. INDATA also carries out a number of checks to ensure the validity of the given data. mesh topology.3.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 119 of type (ii) are initialised in subroutine INITIA. current values at the last equilibrium (converged) solution are retrieved instead from the input restart file in RSTART. The loading types implemented in INLOAD are • Point load.1) where the input data ρ. SUBROUTINE INDATA This routine reads. g and g are. . coordinates. The components of f RLOAD. If unacceptable data is detected (such as undefined or multiply defined nodal numbers. EXTERNAL LOADING.68)). The above numerical integration is carried out for each loaded edge of the element. 5. material properties. the corresponding prescribed values are assigned to their appropriate position in array RLOAD. • Distributed load at element boundaries (edges in two dimensions). the geometry of the problem. SUBROUTINE INLOAD Subroutine INLOAD reads the input data defining the external loading and assembles the global external force vector ¯ ext f ¯ext are stored in the global array (refer to expressions (4. (5. Forces defined directly at nodal points. Assembled from the element load vectors ngausp ρg Ω(e) N g dv ≈ ρ g T i=1 wi j(ξi ) N(ξi )T g. the material density. Array t is the array of nodal pressure vectors of the loaded edge. If in restart mode. • Gravity load. 5.). Nb is the boundary shape function associated with the loaded boundary and ngausb is the number of Gauss points used for numerical integration over the element boundary. MAIN PROBLEM-DEFINING DATA.3. the gravity acceleration and the unit vector defining the direction of the gravity acceleration. element properties as well as most program control parameters including: analysis type (plane stress. etc. nonlinear solution algorithm. (5. Some checks are also made in INLOAD to detect incorrect data. then an error message is printed (by routine ERRPRT) and the execution of the program is aborted.3.67) and (4.

the flow of the main program is a small variation of that followed with prescribed load increments. iterative and total) are initialised to zero. ARC-LENGTH CONTROL OPTION Under arc-length control.1. Stresses and other state variables (most arrays of COMMON block STATE).4. The pseudo-code of the overall scheme is given in Boxes 4.2. SUBROUTINE INITIA This routine initialises some arrays and problem control variables. INITIALISATION OF VARIABLE DATA. the arc-length method requires the solution of the linear system (in FRONT) for two right-hand sides (refer to item (iii) of Box 4. The essential difference is that the proportional load increment factor here is recalculated (routine ARCLEN) in each pass of the iteration loop whereas.2. an iterative procedure (typically the Newton–Raphson algorithm) is carried out to solve the nonlinear equilibrium problem.7.3) is activated. the proportional load increments are determined along the process according to the cylindrical arc-length procedure described in the previous chapter. the current incremental load factor is split into two equally sized sub-increments.4.120 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5. the loop over load increments is ended either if the load programme is successfully completed (the last prescribed increment converges) or if the number of successive increment cuts causes the sub-increment stack array DFSUB to become full. Under this option. Within each step of the loop over load increments.4). Also. the incremental load factors for each increment are fixed.4. The idea is to allow the arc length to increase when convergence is ‘easy’ and to reduce it if convergence is ‘difficult’. The main load incrementation loop carries out the proportional loading programme either with prescribed (fixed) load increments (where the incremental load factors are prescribed in the input data file) or via an arc-length method.3. as defined in the input data file. In the present implementation. the external load is incremented (in INCREM) before the iteration loop starts. 5.3 for the fixed increments option. which are defined at the Gauss point level.1–4. Overview Let us now focus on the core of the finite element analysis code: the load incrementation loop. are initialised by material-specific routines called from subroutine MATISW. the arc length. is changed at the end of every increment (after convergence) according to the number of iterations required to achieve convergence within the prescribed tolerance. FIXED INCREMENTS OPTION A flowchart illustrating the main steps of the load increment loop under the fixed increments option is shown in Figure 5. Arrays such as displacements (incremental. The convenience of using material-specific routines for state variable initialisation is discussed in Section 5. with fixed increments. l.4. If the increment cutting procedure (Section 5.3. The load incrementation loop.4. 5. The inner (equilibrium iteration) loop for the combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme is summarised in Box 4. The main routines called from the HYPLAS main program are indicated. trying to obtain . In the latter case.4. In the present arc-length implementation. 5. The corresponding flowchart is shown in Figure 5.

Fixed increments option. the number of iterations for convergence and the arc length used in the current step. nitact (5. The load incrementation loop. convergence in a desired number of iterations. respectively. With nitact and lcurr denoting. RSTART Figure 5.3) The new length is not allowed to be larger than a maximum value lmax .2. . nitdes (prescribed in the input data file). f (e) INTFOR failure in state update compute residual set convergence flag CONVER iterations diverging iteration converged? NO YES maximum number of iterations exceeded output converged results OUTPUT. the new length lnext to be used in the next step is set (in subroutine LENGTH) as lnext = lcurr nitdes .OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5.1) 121 reset converged problem variables SWITCH increment external load vector increment cutting split current increment into two and restart from previous converged solution INCREM assemble and solve linear equation system FRONT failure in system solution LOOP OVER LOAD INCREMENTS update displacements & coordinates LOOP OVER EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS UPCONF reset some variables to last converged values SWITCH compute element int internal force vectors.

the above length adjustment cannot be applied. and setting l0 = ∆λ2 δ¯T u 0 u ¯ (5.122 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. the start-up length.3. at the beginning of the first iteration of the very first load increment.4) LOOP OVER EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS . Start-up length. The load incrementation loop. ∆λ0 . is calculated (in ARCLEN) by specifying (in the input data file) an initial load increment factor. f (e) INTFOR failure in state update compute residual set convergence flag CONVER iterations diverging iteration converged? NO YES maximum number of iterations exceeded output converged results compute new arc-length for next increment OUTPUT. Obviously. l0 . update load factor and iterative displacements ARCLEN LOOP OVER LOAD INCREMENTS no roots for arc-length equation update displacements & coordinates UPCONF reset some variables to last converged values SWITCH compute element int internal force vectors. RSTART LENGTH Figure 5.1) reset converged problem variables increment cutting reduce arc-length and restart from previous converged solution SWITCH assemble and solve linear systems FRONT failure in system solution solve arc-length equation. Arc-length control. Since it is not normally easy to imagine the magnitude of l that would be reasonable for a particular problem.

This issue is addressed in Part Two of this book.5) where p is the maximum arc-length parameter (defined in the input data file). The predictor solution is computed in subroutine ARCLEN. falls outside the convergence radius of the iterative solution method. AUTOMATIC INCREMENT CUTTING An automatic increment cutting facility is available in HYPLAS (see dashed lines in the flowcharts of Figures 5. In this case the residual norm will either diverge or not converge within a reasonable number of iterations. • The linear equation system cannot be solved in FRONT due to a zero pivot in the stiffness matrix. Predictor solution.2 and 5.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 123 ¯ where u is the initial tangential solution (see item (iii) of Box 4. Certain measures can be taken to make constitutive algorithms more robust and avoid the problem. the increment cutting procedure is activated and the current step is restarted (from the last converged solution) with reduced increment size.4).3) to be made by two criteria: the stiffness determinant sign or the secant path predictor. The causes of failure to converge are • The load increment is too large. 5. (5.3. It frequently occurs that a converged equilibrium solution cannot be attained in the equilibrium iterations. A possible alternative (not available in HYPLAS) to increase the convergence radius is the incorporation of line-searches (Crisfield. The maximum length lmax is also set at this stage as lmax = p l0 . • The algorithm for numerical integration of path-dependent constitutive equations (the state update procedure) fails to produce a solution at a Gauss point.3). The present implementation allows the choice of the sign of the predictor solution (refer to Section 4. the iteration loop is broken and the program stopped if a maximum prescribed load factor has been exceeded or if a maximum prescribed number of successful (converged) load steps has been completed. Under arc-length control. un+1 (refer to Box 4. Whenever that happens. . Highly nonlinear material models can be particularly prone to this type of ill behaviour and some more complex algorithms may fail even for relatively small increments. Stopping the load incrementation loop. The total prescribed load (with fixed increments (0) option) is beyond the limit load of the structure or the initial guess. 1991) within the equilibrium iterations.4. This may occur for material models whose tangent operator may become singular under certain states of stress.4. This facility proves extremely useful in general nonlinear analysis. This is normally caused by excessively large strain increments.2).

with the appropriate contribution of individual elements to the global stiffness matrix and load vector.116). THE LINEAR SOLVER.4. 1977) and will not be discussed here. in this case) and restarting the current step with the reduced value of l. for instance. The variable KRESL controls whether or not a new stiffness is computed.5. SWITCHING DATA. solved in routine ARCLEN. If KRESL=1.5. the stiffness matrix is reduced only once. INTERNAL FORCE CALCULATION. the standard system KT δu = −r (5.6) is solved for δu. If MODE=2. In the present implementation. then the stiffness of the previous iteration is to be reused in the current iteration and only the load term will be reduced (this situation will occur. is obtained u instead by solving ¯ext KT δ¯ = −f . 5.7) If MODE=3. In this case. For each element. They are grouped in the COMMON block named FRONTA. then both solutions are obtained. 5. . This problem is also generally overcome by reducing the increment size (the arc length. The equations are assembled. The number of right-hand sides for which the solution is required is set in the local variable NRHS. then a new stiffness is required. Another local control flag used by this routine is the integer MODE.124 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS • For arc-length control only. 1970). and eliminated simultaneously. l. the linear system is solved by Gauss elimination. 5. Further details on the structure of HYPLAS regarding the evaluation of internal forces and general state updating are given in Section 5. In the frontal method. SUBROUTINE FRONT The linear system solution is carried out in subroutine FRONT which uses the classical frontal method (Hinton and Owen. SUBROUTINE INTFOR Subroutine INTFOR computes the element internal force vector of all elements of the mesh. If MODE=1. If KRESL=2. The arc-length constraint equation (4. δ¯ . u (5.4.6. when the initial stiffness method is used). KRESL is always set to 1. Irons. the tangential solution of the arc-length method. The global arrays of HYPLAS used exclusively by the frontal solver are not included in the global database (file GLBDBASE.4. Details of the technique are described elsewhere (Hinton and Owen. SUBROUTINE SWITCH Some arrays of the global database store data related to the current iteration (generally not an equilibrium state) as well as values obtained in the last converged (equilibrium) solution. Note that the solution for two right-hand sides is required by the arc-length method. may have no real roots. the equation system is solved for up to two right-hand sides. 1977. When the standard Newton–Raphson algorithm is used. it calls the internal force evaluation routine of the corresponding element class. Stresses and all other relevant variables defined at the Gauss point level are updated (at a lower layer of code) by material-specific state updating procedures during internal force computation.INC).4.

independent of finite element types and material models adopted. Output to the restart file is carried out by routine RSTART. 5. The current values (which have converged at this point) are then assigned to the corresponding array positions that store converged data. printed in the results file.4.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 125 This applies to all arrays of COMMON block STATE (see comments in file GLBDBASE. 5.or element-related. This will be addressed here in more detail.e.1. we have provided an overview of the main program with a summary description of the input phase and the main load incrementation loop. Output control. OUTPUT OF CONVERGED RESULTS. 5. The operations of output to results file are performed by subroutine OUTPUT. array COORD (in COMMON block MESH) of nodal coordinates also needs switching between current and last converged values. incremental and iterative nodal displacement vectors also require switching/resetting. MODULARISATION OF INTERNAL FORCE COMPUTATION An example where clear distinction can be made between element-specific operations.7. This is illustrated in the call tree of Figure 5. Most arrays of COMMON block STATE are switched in material-specific routines (see Section 5. Switching between current and last converged data is managed by subroutine SWITCH as follows (refer to source code). material-specific operations and the ‘rest’ of the program occurs in the computation of the element internal force vector.2. is made with the output control flags stored in arrays NOUTP and NOUTPV. Material and element modularity In the above. EXAMPLE. SUBROUTINES OUTPUT AND RSTART Once the equilibrium iteration loop has converged. this feature has been exploited to allow a relatively high degree of modularity of finite element types and constitutive models/algorithms. The basic idea consists of confining element-specific and material-specific operations to localised areas of the code and avoiding interference with general procedures that are not material.4. if required. At this point. Appropriate switching/resetting is also needed when increment cutting is activated. In designing the structure of HYPLAS. The type of switching operation carried out by SWITCH depends on the integer argument MODE. the converged values need updating. the results are. In large deformation analysis. Brief reference to the modularity of elements and material models in HYPLAS has been made in Section 5. Printed results can be nodal displacements.INC). Before a material-specific state updating procedure is called (this is required during the calculation of the internal force vector in the element class-specific routines called from ELEIIF). the previous converged values are assigned to the positions corresponding to the current values. When the iterative procedure converges. state variables at Gauss points and (extrapolated) state variables at nodes.7).5.5. when and what to output. i. These are passed on to the state-updating procedure which returns (in the same position) the updated (or current) values. an image of the complete database of the program can also be dumped into a (binary) restart file to allow HYPLAS to be restarted later from that point.1. When . The concept is illustrated in the following example. Other arrays. The basic steps executed are. to a large extent. reactions. such as the total.

Use updated stress to assemble element internal force vector element interface for internal force computation ELEIIF internal force computation elements of class standard internal force computation elements of class F-bar IFSTD2 IFFBA2 Use kinematic variables computed at element level to update stress and other state variables in materialspecific routines. it is worth recalling how the element internal force vector is computed: ngausp f int (e) := i=1 wi j(ξi ) B(ξi )T σ|ξi . element internal forces need to be computed within the equilibrium iteration loop.. they depend on the element class to which the adopted element belongs.2 and 5. Element and material modularity in internal force computation. The stress array. are carried out.. Return updated values to element level material interface for state update MATISU MATERIAL LEVEL state update linear elastic material state update Tresca model . Material and element levels At this point. f (e) compute residual. set converence flag SWITCH INTFOR CONVER ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient). INTFOR loops over all elements of the mesh and calls the element interface routine for internal force calculation ELEIIF (see call tree of 5. on the other hand. (5. are computed depend only on the particular element being used. is the outcome of a state update procedure which depends exclusively on the adopted material model and the † The definition of element class is given in Section 5.8) The Gaussian quadrature weights. Pass them on to material level to update stress. the main program calls subroutine INTFOR (refer to the flowcharts of Figures 5. . More precisely. only operations related to the general incremental procedure.4. state update Ogden model SUEL SUTR SUOGD Figure 5. B. with no distinction between different types of finite element or material.6.3). wi . and the strain-displacement matrix.4). ξi and the way in which the Jacobian. j.† The calculation of these quantities is independent of the underlying material model. Before ELEIIF is called. the Gauss points positions.126 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reset some variables to last converged values compute element int internal force vectors.

8). the internal force vector is assembled according to (5. The incremental strain (or deformation gradient) is passed on to the material level which returns the updated stress. where the function arguments are the incremental strains. formally. In finite strain analysis. tn+1 ].11) (5. all element-related quantities (wi . under infinitesimal strains.13) (5. 2. the computation of the internal force vector can be split into two well-defined levels: 1. as part of αn . (5. in computations with elastoplastic/viscoplastic models. j. It receives the incremental strain (or deformation gradient) from the element level. we shall employ the symbol σ to denote algorithmic ˆ (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor in general. The material level. ∆ε ≡ εn+1 − εn = ∇s (∆u). § As we shall see later. Here. The updated stress is returned to the element level. The element level. the state update algorithm defines an incremental constitutive function ˆ σ = σ(αn . rather than the strain εn . that. ‡ Note . and the incremental constitutive function is represented as ˆ σ = σ(αn . however. the function on the right-hand side of (5. ∆ε). (5. With the updated stress at hand. εn+1 ) (5. the corresponding argument is the incremental deformation gradient. F ∆ ).9) differs from that on the right-hand side of (5. the incremental strain is the actual argument passed into the state update interface in the infinitesimal case.12) Based on the above comments.9) within the typical interval [tn . it will be convenient to have the elastic strain of time station tn . The incremental constitutive function can be expressed in the equivalent form‡ ˆ σ = σ(αn . B) are computed together with the essential kinematic variable ∆ε (F ∆ in large strains). regardless of their list of arguments.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 127 algorithm used to integrate its constitutive equations (if the material is path-dependent). In the general path-dependent case. F ∆ ≡ I + ∇n (∆u) = [I − ∇n+1 (∆u)]−1 .10) in that it has different arguments.10). αn is the set of internal variables at the converged state at tn and εn+1 is the given strain at the end of the interval. Throughout the text. This is the lowest layer of code.10) and the set αn which now contains the converged internal state variables at time station tn and the strain εn . In the above. retrieves the relevant converged state variables αn stored in appropriate arrays and updates the stress by using the material model-specific subroutine that defines the incremental function (5.§ In HYPLAS.

Implementation and management Finite elements in HYPLAS are grouped into element classes. extrapolation matrices to extrapolate Gauss point values to nodes (used for output purposes only). for instance. etc. What differentiates element types within the same class are only trivial characteristics such as number of nodes. number of Gauss points. form one class. etc.INC). the modularity concept discussed here is applied not only to the internal force computation. ELEMENT PROPERTIES.4). The stiffness is computed in STSTD2. 5. the element level starts in subroutine ELEIIF. routine SUTR for the Tresca elastoplastic model). The element class-specific routine (e. integer and real element properties. Elements. node ordering on boundaries. It makes the program particularly suitable for the incorporation of new elements and material models and/or modification of the existing ones. that contain. The internal force computation for this class is carried out in routine IFSTD2 (see call tree of Figure 5. ELEMENT ROUTINES FOR DATA INPUT The essential data defining one element type within a class is stored in COMMON block ELEMEN (refer to file GLBDBASE. These routines are used by all element types of the class. shape functions and so on. As we shall see in the following sections. but also to the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness and some input/output operations.g. This file defines our element database.INC. The material level starts here.6. each element class and type is identified by a unique enumeration parameter set in the include file ELEMENTS. MATISU identifies the material model/algorithm in question and calls the corresponding material-specific state updating procedure (e. • Real element properties. each element class has one subroutine for computation of the internal force vector and one subroutine for stiffness evaluation. IFSTD2 for standard two-dimensional isoparametric elements). Within the program. respectively. number of boundaries. We define as an element class (this definition is by no means strict) a family of elements whose main operations for computation of internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix follow the same steps. 5. Thus.128 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS HYPLAS implementation In HYPLAS. The data is stored in the arrays IELPRP and RELPRP. MATISU. All two-dimensional isoparametric elements of HYPLAS. It also sets maximum dimensioning parameters for some arrays of the global database whose size depends on properties of the available elements. calls the material interface for state update. in turn.6. One element class may contain several element types.g. Number of nodes. This routine identifies the element class and calls the appropriate element class-specific internal force computation routine. . Typical element properties are listed below: • Integer element properties. Gauss quadrature weights and positions for domain and boundary integration. Gaussian integration rule. number of degrees of freedom.1.

5. The properties of the element type assigned to an element group IGRUP are stored in the columns IELPRP( . To read the relevant data from the input data file and assign all necessary properties to IELPRP and RELPRP. respectively. IMPLEMENTING A NEW FINITE ELEMENT In this section. each element type uses its own routine.4. we have the interface routine ELEIST (called from FRONT) whose task is to identify element classes and call the class-specific routine for computation of the element tangent stiffness. For F -bar elements (discussed in Chapter 15). the class-specific routine is IFSTD2. For standard isoparametric two-dimensional elements.IGRUP) and RELPRP( . the corresponding class-specific routine is IFFBA2. At the element level.3.5. subroutines RST3 and RSQ4 read and set data. These routines are called only once during the program execution. INTERNAL FORCE AND STIFFNESS COMPUTATION The modularisation of elements in the internal force computation has been discussed in Section 5.1. for the isoparametric three-noded triangle and four-noded bi-linear quadrilateral. The class-specific routines for standard and F -bar elements are STSTD2 and STFBA2. Element properties are also used in the evaluation of the external load vector carried out in INLOAD. we provide a summary of the basic path to be followed in order to include a new finite element into HYPLAS. The basic task of the element interface here is to identify the class of the element whose internal force is required and call the appropriate class-specific internal force evaluation routine. The evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix is also carried out in a modular structure completely analogous to that shown in Figure 5.6. Element type-specific data input routines Element properties are assigned to the arrays of COMMON block ELEMEN during the input phase of the program (refer to source code of subroutine INDATA). Such subroutines are named following the convention: RSxxxx. 5. .OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 129 Each group of elements in the structure (as defined in the input data file) is assigned one element type. 5. The corresponding call tree is shown in Figure 5.IGRUP). For instance. ELEMENT INTERFACES. Subroutine ELEIIF in this case is the element interface routine that controls the evaluation of the element internal force vector.6. respectively.2. These data are used by the corresponding element classspecific subroutines for computation of internal force and tangent stiffness matrices. of the element properties arrays.

In addition. a new element-type identification parameter has to be added to the include file ELEMENTS. Return current tangent to element level material interface to compute consistent tangent MATICT MATERIAL LEVEL tangent operator for linear elastic material tangent operator for Tresca model . . In this case.5.130 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS . They are called by SHPFUN which is used by element classes available in the program. Pass them on to material level to compute tangent operator. ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient). 2. The element data input/setting routine (RSxxxx). The implementation of the new element requires coding of the following new element type-specific procedures: 1. A new element of an existing class Assume that we want to include a new element type belonging to an existing element class. Subroutine SHPFUN is the interface for shape function/shape function derivatives computation.INC.. Modular structure. FRONT element interface for stiffness computation ELEIST stiffness computation elements of class standard stiffness computation elements of class F-bar STSTD2 STFBA2 Use kinematic variables computed at element level to compute consistent tangent operator (spatial tangent modulus if large strains). The routine for evaluation of shape functions and shape function derivatives (SFxxxx). New classes of element that do not use this structure will not require shape function routines coded in this way. basic class-related internal force and stiffness computation routines already exist and do not need to be changed.. Consistent tangent computation. It identifies the element type and calls the corresponding element type-specific shape function/derivative routine (refer to the source code of subroutine SFT3 or SFQ4)... say.. spatial tangent modulus for Ogden model CTEL CTTR CSTOGD Figure 5. These routines have not been discussed above. For the interested reader a good exercise could be to include.. Use tangent operator to assemble element stiffness matrix assemble and solve linear equation systems . the nine-noded Lagrangian isoparametric quadrilateral.

This is the most demanding part. • Integer material properties. Material types and classes are identified by identification parameters defined in the include file MATERIAL. Also. MATERIAL PROPERTIES. the actual stress updating requires the computation of a logarithmic strain measure which is obtained for all models by performing identical operations on the basic kinematic variable. 5. This file is the material database of HYPLAS.INC). Each group of elements defined by the user in the input data file is assigned one material type . number of terms in the series defining an Ogden-type finite strain hyperelasticity strain energy function. this will require more work than to include an element of an existing class.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 131 A new element class Obviously. and calls to the new routines have to be included in the element interfaces ELEIIF and ELEIST. Examples of integer and real material properties are: • Real material properties. may also contain other parameters related to the specific numerical algorithm adopted to integrate the constitutive equations of the model. for instance.INC. The situation here is analogous to the storage of element properties discussed in Section 5. Under finite strains. A typical example is the class of isotropic elastoplasticity models implemented in the program (which also includes the linear elastic model). a new elementclass identification parameter has to be added to file ELEMENTS. of COMMON block MATERL (see include file GLBDBASE. The Hencky material is discussed in Chapter 13 and the finite elastoplasticity models are described in Chapter 14. etc. for instance. In addition to the above procedures.INC). respectively. 5.1.6. Material models: implementation and management Material models (or types) are also grouped into classes. parameters defining hardening curves of elastoplastic materials. all materials of this class are logarithmic strainbased extensions of the corresponding infinitesimal models (the linear elastic model. In this case. in the arrays IPROPS and RPROPS. The identification parameter of this class is HYPEPL (see file MATERIAL.7.1. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC DATA INPUT Integer and real material properties are stored. Poisson’s ratio. Number of points defining a piecewise linear hardening curve for elastoplastic materials. turns into the Hencky material).INC. we need to code new element class-specific stiffness and internal force evaluation routines. F ∆ . The data stored in these arrays include all parameters required by the continuum constitutive model and. etc. Usual properties such as Young’s modulus.7. It then turns out conveniently – it avoids excessive repetition of code – to group all such models into a single material class and to perform the common extra kinematic operations before the actual material type-related procedure (which is unique for each model) starts. a number of models may require identical transformation of the basic kinematic variable (F ∆ ) before the essential state updating procedure can be applied. if required. Grouping materials into classes is not absolutely necessary for modularity but becomes convenient particularly in the finite strain regime when.

strain components. a flag telling us whether the material point is in elastic or elastoplastic regime. Array RSTAVA may store any state variable (other than the stress components) needed by the state updating procedure and/or required for output purposes. respectively. Simple examples of real algorithmic variables are the incremental plastic multipliers associated with elastoplastic algorithms. 5.INC). The material properties of a generic group IGRUP are stored in the columns IPROPS( . The material interface for data input Calls to all material-specific input data routines are controlled by the material interface routine MATIRD (MATerial Interface routine for Reading and setting material-specific Data). that is. the corresponding routine is RDOGD. Typical real state variables are internal variables of the model. The interface routine identifies the material type in question and calls the appropriate input routine. etc. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC STATE UPDATING ROUTINES All variables that define the state of the material at the Gauss point level are stored in the arrays of COMMON block STATE (defined in file GLBDBASE.132 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS with one set of material properties. These include the stress components (stored in array STRSG).7. . for instance. all data for the von Mises piecewise linear isotropic hardening model are read and set in subroutine RDVM. Material-specific data input routines In the program.2. real and logical algorithmic variables. general real state variables (stored in RSTAVA). The algorithmic variables stored in RALGVA and LALGVA are variables related to the constitutive integration algorithm employed to update the state of the material. each material type has its own self-contained subprogram that reads all material model/algorithm-related data and stores them in arrays IPROPS and RPROPS. For the Ogden hyperelastic model. STATE VARIABLES AND OTHER GAUSS POINT QUANTITIES. of the material properties arrays. The Gauss point thickness stored in THKGP is a variable only in large strain analysis under plane stress. For example.IGRUP). The routines that execute this task are named following the convention: RDxxxx. material-specific data are read from the input data file in material-specific subroutines. A logical algorithmic variable can be.IGRUP) and RPROPS( . the Gauss point thickness (array THKGP) as well as the arrays RALGVA and LALGVA which store.

performs extra class-specific kinematic operations (if necessary) and then calls the material type-specific routine SUxxxx. . for instance.3. each material model ˆ ˆ implementation is defined by incremental constitutive functions. the above functions are defined in terms of the incremental deformation gradient. The array positions having the last index equal to 1. The material interface for state updating The management of calls to material-specific state-updating subroutines is carried out by the material interface routine MATISU (MATerial Interface for State-Updating routine calls). such that the state {σn+1 .14) In the finite strain case. For path-dependent constitutive models. rather than ∆ε. ∆ε). Let us recall that. To keep the modularity of material models. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC SWITCHING/INITIALISING ROUTINES The nature of the variables stored in the arrays of COMMON block STATE depends on the material model and algorithm in question. the format of the incremental functions depends not only on the material model in question but also on the algorithm used to integrate its constitutive equations. Material-specific state updating procedure Here. each material model implementation has a material-specific stateˆ ˆ updating procedure that defines a pair of functions {σ. . contain the last equilibrium converged values. αn+1 } at a Gauss point is symbolically represented as ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . we described in more detail the structure of the material level layer of Figure 5.1) for the Gauss point stresses. In the HYPLAS program. ∆ε) ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . This routine identifies the material class and type. such as STRSG( .2).4. α}. (5. such as STRSG( . The state-updating procedures (subroutines) are named according to the rule SUxxxx. within the overall incremental finite element scheme. F ∆ . Positions with the last index equal to 2. .OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 133 The arrays of COMMON block STATE store both current and last converged values of the corresponding variables. σ and α.7. store the current values. 5. we have the subroutines SUVM (general case) and SUVMPS (plane stress algorithm). For the von Mises elastoplastic model.

7. . In this case. all variables other than the stress components and principal stresses (which are common to all material models) are written to the results file by materialspecific routines. The Ogden hyperelastic model uses subroutine CSTOGD. For the von Mises and Ogden models we have. the material-specific routine for the von Mises model is named CTVM.7. we describe the last material-related operation: the output of material-specific data to a results file. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC TANGENT COMPUTATION ROUTINES The call tree for computation of material-related tangent operators is illustrated in Figure 5. required in the assemblage of element tangent stiffness matrices. is also carried out in material-specific routines.5 (material level). the routines SWVM and SWOGD. the computation of the consistent tangent operators (4.98).5.4. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC RESULTS OUTPUT ROUTINES Finally. The switching/initialising subroutines are named as SWxxxx. It identifies the material and calls the appropriate tangent computation routine. The MATerial Interface for Consistent Tangent computation is named MATICT. The name convention adopted for such routines is CTxxxx for computation of infinitesimal consistent tangent operators (defined by (4. The material interface for tangent computation A material interface routine is also used to call the tangent operator computation subroutines.81) and (4. The reason for adoption of material-specific routines in the output phase is simple: variables that are important for certain material models may be meaningless for other models. and CSTxxx for consistent spatial tangent moduli (defined by (4. In line with the material modularity discussed in the above. respectively.98)) needed in finite strain analyses. 5.134 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS it is thus convenient to perform the operations of initialisation of variables as well as switching between current and previous converged values in material-specific routines. Whenever required. 5.81)). The material interface for switching/initialisation All calls to material-specific switching/initialisation routines are made from the single material interface routine MATISW (MATerial Interface for SWitching/initialisation of data).

a material interface routine is used to control calls to material-specific routines. a clean and modular structure.INC have to be increased accordingly if the new material model requires more storage space.1 and 2. Material interface for results output Again. the von Mises effective stress is important for metals but may be of no relevance for concrete failure models. 3. SUxxxx. calls to the above routines have to be added to the corresponding material interfaces: MATISU.INC). requires the following basic steps: 1. 5. The MATerial Interface to Output Results is the subroutine MATIOR. Thus.5 The routine for output of material-related results ORxxxx. Finally. Add new calls to the material interface routines. . Add a new material-type identification parameter to the materials database (include file MATERIAL.2 The routine for computation of the associated consistent tangent operator. the use of material-specific routines at this stage is convenient in order to print out only relevant results and keep.1 The state updating procedure. The output routine for the von Mises model. These routines are named in HYPLAS according to the convention ORxxxx. only if the new material belongs to a newly defined class. the incorporation of a new material model/algorithm into HYPLAS. 2. The maximum dimensioning parameters of file MATERIAL. A new material class identification parameter needs to be added too. for instance. the following auxiliary routines are required: 2.INC and in the above material interface routines. MATICT. SWxxxx. In addition. MATIRD and MATIOR. 2. is named ORVM. The crucial material-defining routines are 2. CTxxxx (CSTxxx in finite strains).6.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 135 For instance. For path-dependent materials this is a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding constitutive equations. Note that changes to the existing code are needed only in the material database file MATERIAL. The developer needs to code five material-specific routines. 2. 2. IMPLEMENTING A NEW MATERIAL MODEL Within the modular structure described above. at the same time. Most of the programming work is concentrated in items 2.4 The routine for material data input RDxxxx. MATISW.7. Write new material-specific routines. Add new entries to the materials database.2.3 The routine for switching and initialising material-related variables.

.

Part Two Small strains .

.

The origins of the theory of plasticity can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century and. this theory is restricted to the description of materials (and conditions) for which the permanent deformations do not depend on the rate of application of loads and is often referred to as rate-independent plasticity. by the formulation of a mathematical model of the uniaxial experiment. In Section 6.3. Basically. particularly in the first half of the twentieth century. Suquet (1981) and Han and Reddy (1999). A more mathematically oriented approach to the subject is presented by Halphen and Nguyen (1975). in particular. The uniaxial model. following the substantial development that took place. embodies all the essential concepts of the mathematical theory of plasticity and provides the foundation for the general multidimensional model established in Section 6. The discussion is followed. may sustain permanent (or plastic) deformations when completely unloaded. the reader is referred to Hill (1950). after being subjected to a loading programme. clays and soils in general. Ltd T . For a more comprehensive treatment of the theory of plasticity. Lubliner (1990) and Jirásek and Bažant (2002). in Section 6. though simple. This chapter is organised as follows. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager.6 THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY HE mathematical theory of plasticity provides a general framework for the continuum constitutive description of the behaviour of an important class of materials. The corresponding yield criteria are Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. The present chapter reviews the mathematical theory of plasticity. may be modelled as plastic under a wide range of circumstances of practical interest. In particular. Prager (1959). The remainder of the chapter focuses on the detailed description of the plasticity models most commonly used in engineering analysis: the models of Tresca. von Mises. Duvaut and Lions (1976). such as metals. aspects of the phenomenological behaviour of materials classed as plastic are discussed and the main properties are pointed out in the analysis of a simple uniaxial tension experiment. Matthies (1979). Materials whose behaviour can be adequately described by the theory of plasticity are called plastic (or rate-independent plastic) materials. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. A large number of engineering materials. concrete. the theory of plasticity is concerned with solids that. this theory is today established on sound mathematical foundations and is regarded as one of the most successful phenomenological constitutive models of solid materials.2. We remark that only the most important concepts and mathematical expressions are reviewed. The theory presented here is restricted to infinitesimal deformations and provides the basis for the numerical simulation of the behaviour of elastoplastic solids to be discussed in Chapter 7. Attention is focused on the description of mathematical models of elastoplastic materials and. issues such as limit analysis and slip-line field theory are not addressed. rocks.1.

The existence of an elastic domain. in Sections 6. Plastic flow rules and hardening laws are addressed. differs from the initial unstressed state. O1 . say. The new unstressed state. In the schematic diagram of Figure 6. materials as contrasting as metals and soils share some important features of their phenomenological behaviour that make them amenable to modelling by means of the theory of plasticity. a load programme has been considered in which the bar is initially subjected to a monotonic increase in axial stress from zero to a prescribed value. Accompanying the evolution of the plastic strain.1. This phenomenon is known as hardening. is plotted against the axial strain. in segment O0 Y0 the behaviour of the material is regarded as linear elastic. the initial line segment O0 Y0 is virtually straight and.e.1. To illustrate such common features. i. In this path. i. a range of stresses within which the behaviour of the material can be considered as purely elastic. Similarly to the initial elastic segment O0 Y0 . This shape change is represented in the graph by the permanent (or plastic) axial strain εp . Here. an evolution of the yield stress itself is also observed (note that the yield stresses corresponding to points Y0 and Y1 are different).e. even though some discrepancy between unloading and reloading curves (such as lines Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 ) is observed in typical experiments. it is important to emphasise that. with no further plastic straining of the bar.1.1. 3. point Z0 . The bar is then unloaded back to an unstressed state and subsequently reloaded to a higher stress level σ1 . 2. the bar returns to an unstressed state via path Z0 O1 . The stress–strain curve follows the path O0 Y0 Z0 O1 Y1 Z1 shown. . uniaxial tension tests with ductile metals produce stress–strain curves of the type shown in Figure 6. 6. If the material is further loaded at the yield stress. without evolution of permanent (plastic) strains. where the axial stress. the slope of the stress–strain curve changes dramatically and if the stress (or strain) loading is reversed at. The elastic domain is delimited by the so-called yield stress. the behaviour of the material in the segment O1 Y1 may also be regarded as linear elastic. Thus. Phenomenological aspects In spite of their qualitatively distinct mechanical responses. σ.4.6. Therefore. in that a permanent change in the shape of the bar is observed. respectively. then plastic yielding (or plastic flow). Some important phenomenological properties can be identified in the above described uniaxial test.140 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS described in Section 6. The associated yield stresses correspond to points Y0 and Y1 . evolution of plastic strains. takes place. O0 . the portion O1 Y1 is also virtually straight and unloading from Y1 (or before Y1 is reached) will bring the stress–strain state back to the unstressed configuration O1 . segments O0 Y0 and O1 Y1 define the elastic domain at two different states. it returns to the original unstressed state O0 . a uniaxial tension experiment with a metallic bar is discussed in what follows.1. Beyond Y0 . ε. Monotonic reloading of the bar to a stress level σ1 will follow the path O1 Y1 Z1 . loading beyond an elastic limit (point Y1 in this case) will cause further increase in plastic deformation. σ0 . Typically. They are enumerated below: 1. In Figure 6.5 and 6. if the bar is unloaded from point Y0 (or before it is reached). Again. the actual difference between them is in fact much smaller than that shown in the diagram of Figure 6.

according to the type of material.1) is ignored and points Z0 and Y1 . the original stress–strain curve of Figure 6. At the outset. Obviously. It is also important to note that. is approximated by the idealised version shown in Figure 6.2. soils and many others. rocks. The object of the mathematical theory of plasticity is to provide continuum constitutive models capable of describing (qualitatively and quantitavely) with sufficient accuracy the phenomenological behaviour of materials that possess the characteristics discussed in the above. In this case. that correspond respectively to . It is emphasised that the above properties can be observed not only in metals but also in a wide variety of materials such as concrete.2. uniaxial tension tests do not make physical sense. Firstly. in which the sides of the specimen are subjected to a confining hydrostatic pressure prior to the application of longitudinal compression.1. For instance. Uniaxial tension experiment with ductile metals. the difference between unloading and reloading curves (segments Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 of Figure 6. are more appropriate. One-dimensional constitutive model A simple mathematical model of the uniaxial experiment discussed in the previous section is formulated in what follows. In spite of its simplicity the one-dimensional constitutive model contains all the essential features that form the basis of the mathematical theory of plasticity. The assumptions involved in the approximation are summarised in the following.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 141 σ σ1 σ0 Y1 Y0 Z0 Z1 O0 εp O1 ε Figure 6. experiments such as triaxial shear tests.1. 6. the microscopic mechanisms that give rise to these common phenomenological characteristics can be completely distinct for different types of material. different experimental procedures may be required for the verification of such properties. that resulted from the loading programme described in the previous section. which typically cannot resist tensile stresses. in materials such as soils.

within the segment O1 Y1 . ε − εp is fully recovered without further evolution of plastic strains. εp . ε. and yield limit.1) where E denotes the Young’s modulus of the material of the bar. Under the above assumptions.142 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ Z1 σ0 Y0 Y1 Z0 slope E ep slope E σ O1 O0 εp ε Figure 6. Mathematical model. This motivates the additive decomposition of the axial strain described in the following section. (6. after being monotonically loaded from the initial unstressed state to the stress level σ0 . the behaviour of the bar between states O1 and Y1 is considered to be linear elastic. into the sum of an elastic (or reversible) component. The transition between the elastic region and the elastoplastic regime is now clearly marked by a non-smooth change of slope (points Y0 and Y1 ). 6.2. the stress–strain curve always follows the path defined by O0 Y0 Y1 Z1 . the uniaxial stress corresponding to a configuration with total strain ε is given by σ = E (ε − εp ).1. ε − εp . During plastic yielding. is fully reversible.2. ELASTOPLASTIC DECOMPOSITION OF THE AXIAL STRAIN One of the chief hypotheses underlying the small strain theory of plasticity is the decomposition of the total strain. εe . This path is normally referred to as the virgin curve and is obtained by a continuous monotonic loading from the initial unstressed state O0 . ε the beginning of unloading and the onset of plastic yielding upon subsequent reloading. upon complete unloading of the bar. σ0 . that is. with constant plastic strain. Uniaxial tension experiment. Thus. Note that the difference between the total strain and the current plastic strain. and a . are assumed to coincide.

4) The next step in the definition of the uniaxial constitutive model is to derive formulae that express mathematically the fundamental phenomenological properties enumerated in Section 6.7) (6.1 are associated with the formulation of a yield criterion and a plastic flow rule. Thus. or. it has been assumed in the above that the yield stress in compression is identical to that in tension.3.1. It should be noted that. where the elastic strain has been defined as εe = ε − εp . of the form Φ(σ.5) (6. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 143 plastic (or permanent) component. (6. equivalently. This yield criterion can be expressed by If Φ(σ. If Φ(σ. σy ) < 0}.9) . 6. the elastic domain is the set of stresses σ that satisfy |σ| < σy . whereas item 3 requires the formulation of a hardening law. The items 1 and 2 of Section 6.2) the elastic domain at a state with uniaxial yield stress σy can be defined in the onedimensional plasticity model as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ.2. Φ.e. σy ) = |σ| − σy . either elastic unloading or plastic yielding (or plastic loading) takes place.2. any admissible stress must satisfy the restriction Φ(σ.1. THE ELASTIC UNIAXIAL CONSTITUTIVE LAW Following the above definition of the elastic axial strain. for plastic loading. These are described in the following. at any stage. no stress level is allowed above the current yield stress. With the introduction of a yield function. εp . The corresponding idealised elastic domain is illustrated in Figure 6. the constitutive law for the axial stress can be expressed as σ = E εe . (6. whereas on its boundary (at the yield stress).8) For stress levels within the elastic domain. THE YIELD FUNCTION AND THE YIELD CRITERION The existence of an elastic domain delimited by a yield stress has been pointed out in item 1 of Section 6. σy ) ≤ 0. 6. only elastic straining may occur. plastically admissible stresses lie either in the elastic domain or on its boundary (the yield limit). ε = εe + εp . i. σy ) < 0 =⇒ ε˙p = 0.6) Generalising the results of the uniaxial tension test discussed.3) (6. σy ) = 0 =⇒ εp = 0 ˙ εp = 0 ˙ for elastic unloading.2. (6. (6.3.

12) and satisfies the complementarity condition Φ γ = 0.e. ˙ (6.144 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ tension elastic domain σy 0 ε compression − σy Figure 6. Elastic domain.9).10) to (6.13) imply that. By noting in Figure 6. ˙ (6. the plastic flow rule for the uniaxial model can be formally established as εp = γ sign(σ). γ ≥ 0. LOADING/UNLOADING CONDITIONS Expressions (6.14) and plastic flow (εp = 0) may occur only when the stress level σ coincides with the current ˙ yield stress |σ| = σy =⇒ Φ = 0 =⇒ γ ≥ 0. the plastic strain rate εp is positive (stretching) under tension (positive σ) and ˙ negative (compressive) under compression (negative σ). the plastic strain rate vanishes within the elastic domain. ˙ ˙ where sign is the signum function defined as sign(a) = +1 if a ≥ 0 −1 if a < 0 (6. The plastic multiplier is ˙ non-negative. i.15) .9) above have defined a criterion for plastic yielding. Φ < 0 =⇒ γ = 0 =⇒ εp = 0. as stated in the yield criterion (6.10) for any scalar a and the scalar γ is termed the plastic multiplier.3 that.3. they have set the conditions under which plastic straining may occur.e.4. ˙ (6. THE PLASTIC FLOW RULE.2.11) (6.13) The constitutive equations (6. Uniaxial model. ˙ ˙ (6. 6. upon plastic loading. i.

6.10). ¯ whereas in a monotonic compressive uniaxial test.5.1. (6. The accumulated axial plastic strain is defined as ¯ t εp ≡ ¯ 0 |εp | dt. The model is summarised in Box 6.22) (6.17) γ ≥ 0. This phenomenon. in the definition (6. ¯ 6. εp = −εp .20) (6. Clearly. known as hardening. the yield stress σy is a given function σy = σy (¯p ) ε (6. the complete characterisation of the uniaxial model is achieved with the introduction of the hardening law.19) The curve defined by the hardening function σy (¯p ) is usually referred to as the hardening ε curve (Figure 6. the constraints Φ ≤ 0. (6. in ¯ a monotonic tensile test we have εp = εp .2). (6.4). 6.2. establish when plastic flow may occur.18) thus ensuring that both tensile and compressive plastic straining contribute to εp . (6.1.4). that is. (6. THE HARDENING LAW Finally. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 145 Expressions (6. can be incorporated into the uniaxial model simply by assuming that. From the definition of εp . ˙ γΦ = 0. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional plasticity model is defined by the constitutive equations (6.16) of the accumulated axial plastic strain.2. εp . and (6. in view of the plastic flow rule.5) of Φ. is equivalent to ˙ ˙ εp = γ.17). As remarked in item 3 of Section 6. ¯ which.12) and (6.21) .5). ˙ (6. ¯ (6. ˙ (6. (6.13) define the so-called loading/unloading conditions of the elasticplastic model.16).22).8). an evolution of the yield stress accompanies the evolution of the plastic strain. it follows that its evolution law is given by ¯ ˙ ˙ εp = |εp |.

13) just tell us that γ ˙ vanishes during elastic straining but may assume any non-negative value during plastic flow. Yield function 4. 1. expressions (6. σy ) = |σ| − σy ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ σy = σy (¯p ) ε ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. γ. was left ˙ indeterminate during plastic yielding.12) and (6.1.146 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σy σy ( ε p ) hardening slope. Uniaxial elastic law 3. .7.2. In order to eliminate this indetermination. Box 6. DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER So far.4. H σA 0 εp Figure 6. the plastic multiplier. it should be noted firstly that. One-dimensional elastoplastic constitutive model. Indeed. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ 6. in the uniaxial plasticity model introduced above. γ ≥ 0. One-dimensional model. Hardening law σ = E εe Φ(σ. during plastic flow. Plastic flow rule 5. Hardening curve.

the following additional complementarity condition may be established: ˙ ˙ Φγ=0 which implies that the rate of Φ vanishes whenever plastic yielding occurs (γ = 0).31) where E ep is called the elastoplastic tangent modulus. By combining expressions (6. Φ may assume any value. the hardening modulus. ˙ H +E H +E (6.28) From the elastic law.30) the following expression is obtained for the elastoplastic tangent modulus EH E ep = .30) 6. (γ = 0).THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 147 the value of the yield function remains constant Φ = 0. ˙ (6.23) as the absolute value of the current stress always coincides with the current yield stress. equation (6. it follows that σ = E(ε − εp ).31). can be expressed in terms of the elastic modulus and the elastoplastic modulus as H= E ep . the plastic multiplier. (6. ˙ ˙ Φ = 0.10) and (6. and is defined as (refer to Figure 6.26) where H is called the hardening modulus.5).28) and (6. (6.25) (6.22).8.24) ˙ and.33) .29).2.27) d¯ ε Under plastic yielding.4) dσy H = H(¯p ) = p . ˙ ¯ (6.32) E+H Equivalently. ε (6. ˙ ¯ (6. is uniquely determined during plastic yielding as ˙ γ= ˙ E E sign(σ) ε = ˙ |ε|. THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT MODULUS Let us now return to the stress–strain curve of Figure 6.25) holds so that one has the following expression for the stress rate ˙ sign(σ) σ = H εp .25) is called the ˙ consistency condition. Equation (6. the flow rule (6.2. one obtains ˙ ˙ Φ = sign(σ) σ − H εp . or hardening slope. 1 − E ep /E (6. by combining the above expression with (6. Plastic flow at a generic yield limit produces the following tangent relation between strain and stress ˙ σ = E ep ε. (6. H.10).29) Finally. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. (6. γ. during elastic straining. (6. By taking the time derivative of the yield function (6. Therefore.

The starting point of the theories of plasticity treated in this book is the assumption that the free energy. α). Recall that the free energy potential plays a crucial role in the derivation of the model and provides the constitutive law for stress. • a yield criterion.34). ψ. the plastic strain (taken as an internal variable) and a set α of internal variables associated with the phenomenon of hardening.3.35) together with the given initial condition ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) at a (pseudo-)time t0 is equivalent to (6. into the sum of an elastic component. that is. (6. of the total strain. The generalisation of these concepts for application in two. 6. ε. It is usual to assume that the free (6.3.3. 6. respectively.35) . General elastoplastic constitutive model A mathematical model of a uniaxial tension experiment with a ductile metal has been described in the previous section.5 of Chapter 3. is a function ψ(ε. as the elastic strain tensor and the plastic strain tensor. the corresponding generalisation is obtained by splitting the strain tensor.36) (6. εp . εe . εp . and a plastic component. and • a hardening law. ADDITIVE DECOMPOSITION OF THE STRAIN TENSOR Following the decomposition of the uniaxial strain given in the previous section. THE FREE ENERGY POTENTIAL AND THE ELASTIC LAW The formulation of general dissipative models of solids within the framework of thermodynamics with an internal variable has been addressed in Section 3. • an elastic law. stated with the use of a yield function.1. the one-dimensional equations contain all basic components of a general elastoplastic constitutive model: • the elastoplastic strain decomposition.34) The tensors εe and εp are known.and three-dimensional situations is described in this section. As already mentioned. The corresponding rate form of the additive split reads ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp .2. • a plastic flow rule defining the evolution of the plastic strain. Note that (6.148 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. characterising the evolution of the yield limit. ε = εe + ε p .

α) = ψ e (ε − εp ) + ψ p (α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α) (6.40) so that the requirement of non-negative dissipation can be reduced to ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. In this case. d v (6. defined by ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.4) is given by σ = De : εe = 2G εe + K εe I.39) ∂ψ e ∂εe ˙ ˙ ˙ : εe + σ : εp − A ∗ α ≥ 0. (6. ∂εe (6. the Clausius–Duhem inequality reads σ−ρ ¯ where A ≡ ρ ∂ψ p/∂α ¯ (6.44) . where the function Υp .43) where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor and G and K are.38) is the hardening thermodynamical force and we note that −σ is the thermodynamical force associated with the plastic strain while the symbol * indicates the appropriate product ˙ between A and α. εp .41) is called the plastic dissipation function. The above inequality implies a general elastic law of the form σ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ e . The tensor εe is the deviatoric component of the elastic strain and d εe ≡ tr[εe ] is the volumetric elastic strain.37) into a sum of an elastic contribution. ψ e . the general counterpart of uniaxial elastic v law (6. εp . A. α) ≥ 0. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 149 energy can be split as ψ(ε. the elastic contribution to the free energy is given by ρ ψ e (εe ) = ¯ 1 2 εe : De : εe 1 2 = G εe : ε e + d d K (εe )2 v (6. A. respectively the shear and bulk moduli. ψ p . α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α. whose dependence upon strains and internal variables appears only through the elastic strain. εp .42) (6. and a contribution due to hardening. Following the above expression for the free energy. Thus. This chapter is focused on materials whose elastic behaviour is linear (as in the uniaxial model of the previous section) and isotropic.

49) (6. (6. In the present case. A) = 0}. This hypersurface is termed the yield surface and is defined as Y = {σ | Φ(σ.52) (6. A) is termed the flow vector and the function H = H(σ. Φ. i. A) ≤ 0}. (6.e. a yield function defines the elastic domain as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ. i. the internal variables are the plastic strain tensor and the set α of hardening variables.e. . ˙ For convenience. γ ≥ 0. (6. Any stress lying in the elastic domain or on its boundary is said to be plastically admissible.50) are complemented by the loading/unloading conditions Φ ≤ 0. A) (6. is the boundary of the elastic domain. The yield locus in this case is represented by a hypersurface in the space of stresses.2. A) = 0. The evolution equations (6.150 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. the general plasticity model resulting from the above equations is listed in Box 6. A) = 0.46) of stresses for which plastic yielding is not possible. Extension of this concept to the three-dimensional case is obtained by stating that plastic flow may occur only when Φ(σ.3.45) where the scalar yield function.51) (6.3.53) that define when evolution of plastic strains and internal variables (γ = 0) may occur.49) and (6. PLASTIC FLOW RULE AND HARDENING LAW The complete characterisation of the general plasticity model requires the definition of the evolution laws for the internal variables.50) is the generalised hardening modulus which defines the evolution of the hardening variables. the variables associated with the dissipative phenomena. where Φ(σ. Φγ = 0. The following plastic flow rule and hardening law are then postulated ˙ εp = γ N ˙ ˙ α = γ H. This principle could be expressed by means of a yield function which is negative when only elastic deformations are possible and reaches zero when plastic flow is imminent. is now a function of the stress tensor and a set A of hardening thermodynamical forces.48) 6. THE YIELD CRITERION AND THE YIELD SURFACE Recall that in the uniaxial yield criterion it was established that plastic flow may occur when the uniaxial stress attains a critical value. We then define the set of plastically admissible stresses (or plastically admissible domain) as ¯ E = {σ | Φ(σ. the set of stresses for which plastic yielding may occur. A) < 0} (6.47) The yield locus. ˙ ˙ (6. Analogously to the uniaxial case.3.4. ˙ where the tensor N = N(σ.

is obtained as N≡ ∂Ψ . A general elastoplastic constitutive model. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4. ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α 6. The starting point of such an approach is to postulate the existence of a flow potential with general form Ψ = Ψ(σ.5. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0.54) If the hardening law is assumed to be derived from the same potential. it is often convenient to define the flow rule (and possibly the hardening law) in terms of a flow (or plastic) potential. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. γ ≥ 0.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 151 Box 6. ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) ψ = ψ(εe . Ψ. Ψ(0. A) from which the flow vector. N.3. Plastic flow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = γ N(σ. ∂σ (6.57) . A) ˙ 6. 0) = 0. then we have in addition ∂Ψ H≡− . is required to be a non-negative convex function of both σ and A and zero-valued at the origin. A) 5.2. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp or 2. Yield function Φ = Φ(σ. (6. FLOW RULES DERIVED FROM A FLOW POTENTIAL In the formulation of multidimensional plasticity models. the plastic potential. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ ∂ψ . (6. 1.55) (6.56) ∂A When such an approach is adopted. Free-energy function ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp . A) ˙ ˙ α = γ H(σ.

3. have their yield function. Following ˙ the same arguments employed in Section 6.59) under plastic yielding (when γ = 0). we promptly find the obvious rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De : (ε − εp ) = De : (ε − γ N ). ˙ (6. i.2.61) equivalently as ∂ 2 ψp ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ : De : (ε − εp ) + ∗ρ ¯ ∗ α.39)) and the evolution law (6. (6.5.6. The issue of associativity will be further discussed in Section 6. = ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 (6. By differentiating the yield function with respect to time. the above expression and the consistency condition (6.41) is satisfied a priori by the evolution equations (6. Ψ ≡ Φ.62) This. THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER Here we extend to the multidimensional case the procedure for the determination of the plastic multiplier.58) Such models are called associative (or associated) plasticity models.7.60) lead to the following closed formula for the plastic multiplier γ= ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε . γ. as a flow potential. many plasticity models.64) . ˙ we obtain ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ= :σ+ ∗ A.50).49).1. together with the definition of A in terms of the free-energy potential (refer to expression (6. particularly for ductile metals. 6. which implies the consistency condition ˙ Φ=0 (6. the elastic law and the plastic flow rule (6.49) and (6. (6. described in Section 6.63) Finally.e. Φ= ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 2 p ∂ ψ ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ : De : (ε − γ N ) + γ ∗ρ ¯ ˙ ˙ ∗ H. ∂Φ/∂σ : D : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ e (6. allow us to write (6.50).61) ∂σ ∂A By taking into account the additive split of the strain tensor. Φ.152 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS These restrictions ensure that the dissipation inequality (6. Associative flow rule As we shall see later.60) (6. the starting point in the determination of γ is ˙ the consideration of the additional complementarity equation ˙ ˙ Φ γ = 0.2.7 for the one-dimensional plasticity model.

where Dep is the elastoplastic tangent modulus given by Dep = De − (De : N) ⊗ (De : ∂Φ/∂σ) .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 153 6.65) Under plastic flow. 6.3.55) and (6. RATE FORM AND THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT OPERATOR In the elastic regime. we have made use of the fact that the symmetry (refer to equation (2. For models with non-associative plastic flow. NON-SMOOTH POTENTIALS AND THE SUBDIFFERENTIAL It should be noted that expressions (6. 6. The rate equation reads ˙ ˙ σ = Dep : ε. In the computational plasticity literature. Those wishing to see now the link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive theory are referred to Section 11.8. though. Dep is generally unsymmetric. i. then the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator is symmetric. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY At this point.62). is fundamental to the demonstration. can be interpreted as a vector .1 (The symmetry of Dep ). ∂Φ/∂σ : De : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ (6. Remark 6.66) In obtaining the above expression.67) (6.68) The fourth-order tensor Dep is the multidimensional generalisation of the scalar modulus E ep associated with the slope of the uniaxial stress–strain curve under plastic flow. starting page 71.56) only make sense if the potential Ψ is differentiable. However. we should emphasise that the general rate-independent plasticity model described above can under some conditions be shown to be a particular instance of the general constitutive theory postulated in Section 3.3. (6.64) into (6.3.e. if N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ. the corresponding rate relation can be obtained by introducing expression (6. When that happens.5. since the theory of elasto-viscoplasticity is introduced only in Chapter 11.3.4.4.9.9 before moving to Section 11.2. page 29) of the elasticity tensor implies ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε = De : ∂Φ/∂σ : ε. that the concept of subdifferential.3.9.3. N. (6. the flow vector. Note that if the plastic flow rule is associative. Dep is frequently referred to as the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator. Readers not yet familiar with this concept are advised to read through Section 6. we find it convenient to carry on focusing on rate-independent plasticity and postpone the demonstration until that chapter. The link between the two theories can be clearly demonstrated when rate-independent plasticity is obtained as a limit case of rate-dependent plasticity (or viscoplasticity).7. We remark. the rate constitutive equation for stress reads simply ˙ ˙ σ = De : ε. introduced below in Section 6.87). starting on page 452.3.

normal to the iso-surfaces of function Ψ in the space of stresses (with fixed A).70) A schematic illustration of the concept of subdifferential is shown in Figure 6. H. when y is subdifferentiable (but not necessarily differentiable) at a point x. The generalised modulus. the function y is said to be subdifferentiable at x. can be interpreted in a completely analogous way. ∂y = dy . For a more comprehensive account of such theories the reader is referred to Duvaut and Lions (1976). then the subdifferential contains a unique subgradient which coincides with the derivative of y. The elements of ∂y are called subgradients of y. the function Ψ is called a pseudo-potential or generalised potential and the formulation of the evolution laws for the internal variables can be dealt with by introducing the concept of subdifferential sets. In this case. the ¯ subdifferential at that point is composed of all slopes s lying between the slopes on the right and left of x (the two one-sided derivatives of y at x). ¯ ¯ † The concept of subdifferential sets is exploited extensively in convex analysis. A schematic representation of N in this case is shown in Figure 6. Smooth potential. The requirement of differentiability of the flow potential is. too restrictive and many practical plasticity models are based on the use of a non-differentiable Ψ.† Subgradients and the subdifferential ¯ Let us consider a scalar function y : R n → R. The flow vector. In such cases.154 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS N isosurfaces of A Figure 6.5. Part V. Eve et al.69) ¯ ¯ If the set ∂y is not empty at x. The subdifferential of y at a point x is the set ¯ x ∂y(¯ ) = {s ∈ R n | y(x) − y(¯ ) ≥ s · (x − x). x (6. ∀ x ∈ R n }. which generalises the classical definition of derivative. for a detailed account of the theory of subdifferentiable functions.6 for n = 1. however. Specific examples are given later in this chapter.5. . If the function y is differentiable. The reader is referred to Rockafellar (1970). (1990) and Han and Reddy (1999). dx (6.

. is obtained as follows. An alternative definition of the plastic flow rule with non-smooth potentials. any subgradient of Ψ can be written as a linear combination c1 N1 + c2 N2 + · · · + cn Nn . The generalisation of the plastic flow rule (6. are assumed to exist. In this case. N1 and N2 . n.7 where two distinct normals. . the subdifferential of Ψ with respect to σ.55) for the flow vector with N ∈ ∂σ Ψ. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager theories to be seen later.56) by H ∈ −∂A Ψ. Therefore. (6. (6. the isosurfaces of Ψ in the space of stresses contain a singularity (corner) where the normal direction is not uniquely defined. Firstly assume that a finite number.71) i. . the flow vector N is now assumed to be a subgradient of Ψ.e. the concepts of subgradient and subdifferential sets introduced above are important in the formulation of evolution laws for εp . is the set of vectors contained in the cone defined by all linear combinations (with positive coefficients) of N1 and N2 . N2 . A typical situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6.72) At this point. Plastic flow with subdifferentiable flow potentials Assume now that the (pseudo-) potential Ψ is a subdifferentiable function of σ and A. In this case.50) for α can be generalised with the replacement of the definition (6. of distinct normals (N1 . such as the Tresca. The subdifferential of a convex function. At points where Ψ is non-differentiable in σ. Nn ) is defined at a generic singular point of an isosurface of Ψ. it should be remarked that differentiability of Ψ with respect to the stress tensor is violated for some very basic plasticity models. denoted ∂σ Ψ.6.49) is obtained by replacing expression (6. . the evolution law (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 155 the subdifferential of y at x  y(x) − y(x )  s 1   s⋅(x − x )  x x Figure 6. which incorporates a wide class of models. . Analogously.

cn . . . Non-smooth potential. . i = 1.76) and the yield surface. n yield functions (Φi .156 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the subdifferential set of at p N1 N2 isosurfaces of A Figure 6. . .7. A) < 0. . . . ˙ i = 1. n}. the flow rule (6. c2 .e. A) ≤ 0 for all other indices j = i. i = 1. (6. n. i. . .‡ Based on this observation. is the set of all stresses such that Φi (σ. The elastic domain in this case reads E = {σ | Φi (σ. In this case. the boundary of E. . ‡ It should be emphasised that this representation is not valid for certain types of singularity where the corresponding subdifferential set cannot be generated by a finite number of vectors. with non-negative coefficients c1 . A) = 0 for at least one i and Φj (σ. (6. . .49) can be generalised as n ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i . the elastic domain is bound by a set of n surfaces in the space of stresses which intersect in a non-smooth fashion. A) = 0. n) are defined so that each bounding surface is given by an equation (6. The flow vector.73) with all n plastic multipliers required to be non-negative γi ≥ 0.74) The generalisation of the plastic flow law. In a generic multisurface model. was originally proposed by Koiter (1953). .75) Φi (σ. . . Multisurface models The above concepts are particularly useful in defining evolution laws for multisurface plasticity models. ˙ (6. in this format. .

the situation discussed previously.4. the plastic flow rule can be written in the general form (6. 3 σ= i=1 σi ei ⊗ ei . ˙ ˙ (6. There.53) is replaced by the generalisation Φi ≤ 0. Classical yield criteria The general constitutive model for elastoplastic materials has been established in the previous section. namely. The Tresca yield criterion assumes that plastic yielding begins when the maximum shear stress reaches a critical value. σ2 . is given by τmax = 1 (σmax − σmin ). here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. the yield criterion has been stated in its general form. τmax . von Mises. 6.4. . α.77) Ni = ∂σ In the present case. to be defined later. the maximum and minimum principal stresses σmax = max(σ1 . Note that summation on repeated indices is not implied in the above law. n. In this section. The shear yield stress is the yield limit under a state of pure shear. THE TRESCA YIELD CRITERION This criterion was proposed by Tresca (1868) to describe plastic yielding in metals.79) where σi are the principal stresses and ei the associated unit eigenvectors. some of the most common yield criteria used in engineering practice are described in detail. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 157 Assuming associativity (Ψ ≡ Φ). Recall the spectral representation of the stress tensor. the standard loading/unloading criterion (6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager. and let σmax and σmin be.73) with the normals being defined here as ∂Φi . .78) which must hold for each i = 1.1. σ3 ). γi ≥ 0. The maximum shear stress. without reference to any particular criteria. 2 (6. Thus. where the subgradient of the flow potential is a linear combination of a finite number of normals.81) (6. 6. σmin = min(σ1 .82) where τy is the shear yield stress. σ3 ). . (6. the onset of plastic yielding is defined by the condition 1 2 (σmax − σmin ) = τy (α). is recovered.80) According to the Tresca criterion. σ2 . respectively. . the criteria of Tresca. . (6. Φi γi = 0.

Isotropy One very important aspect of the Tresca criterion is its isotropy (a property shared by the von Mises. (6. note that the superposition of an arbitrary pressure. Pressure-insensitivity Due to its definition exclusively in terms of shear stress.89) We remark that the von Mises criterion described in Section 6. The elastic domain for the Tresca criterion can be defined as (6.82).82) gives (6. the hydrostatic pressure component.86) The substitution of the above into (6. the Tresca criterion is pressure insensitive.4. it is convenient to introduce the following definition: A plastic yield criterion is said to be isotropic if it is defined in terms of an isotropic yield function of the stress tensor. .83) or (6.158 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In view of (6. it satisfies Φ(σ) = Φ(QσQT ) (6.87) E = {σ | Φ(σ. Indeed. p≡ 1 3 tr[σ] = 1 3 (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 ). Note that. when plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. σy ) < 0}. on the stress tensor does not affect the value of the Tresca yield function Φ(σ + p∗ I ) = Φ(σ). i.2 below is also pressureinsensitive. At this point. (6. page 731. that is. σmin = 0.e. the Tresca yield function is an isotropic function of the stress tensor (refer to Section A.90) for all rotations Q. for the definition of isotropic scalar functions of a symmetric tensor).85). that is.84) is defined as a function of the principal stresses.85) that is. it is the stress level at which plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. That σy is indeed the uniaxial yield stress for the Tresca theory can be established by noting that.83) Φ(σ) = 1 (σmax − σmin ) − τy (α). (6. we have σmax = σy . since Φ in (6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager criteria described in the following sections). the Tresca yield function may be defined as Φ(σ) = (σmax − σmin ) − σy (α). This property is particularly relevant in the modelling of metals as. the influence of the hydrostatic stress on yielding is usually negligible in practice.84) where σy is the uniaxial yield stress σy = 2 τy . (6. for these materials. Alternatively.88) of the stress tensor does not affect yielding.1. (6. the yield function associated with the Tresca yield criterion can be represented as (6. p∗ . rotations of the state of stress do not affect the value of the yield function. 2 with the onset of yielding characterised by Φ = 0.

9. This allows. it follows that any iso-surface (i. (a) 3 (b) 3 ti sta dro hy axis c pla ne von Mises 0 2 Tresca 1 1 2 Figure 6.e. (b) the π-plane representation of the Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces. any subset of the function domain with fixed function value) of such functions can be graphically represented as a surface in the space of principal values of the argument.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 159 Graphical representation Since any isotropic scalar function of a symmetric tensor can be described as a function of the principal values of its argument. σ3 − √3 p  Tresca von Mises σ2 σ1 Figure 6. page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a three-dimensional surface in the space of principal stresses. the yield surface (refer to expression (6. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.8. . in particular. (a) The π-plane in principal stress space and.48).

In the invariant representation. Multisurface representation Equivalently to the above representation. also referred to as the π-plane.91) Definitions (6. by its projection on the subspace of stresses with zero hydrostatic pressure component (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 0). defined by σ1 = σ2 = σ3 .93) (6. defined by J2 ≡ −I2 (s) = 1 2 (6. 6}. . where J2 = J2 (s) is the invariant of the stress deviator. It is graphically illustrated in Figure 6. This is illustrated in Figure 6. i. σy ) = σ2 − σ3 − σy Φ3 (σ.94) tr[s2 ] = 1 2 s:s= 1 2 s 2. (6. . The yield surface – the boundary of E – is defined in this case as the set of stresses for which Φi (σ. Due to the assumed insensitivity to pressure. In the multisurface representation. proposed by Nayak and Zienkiewicz (1972) (see also Owen and Hinton 1980. and Crisfield 1997).e. σy ) = 0 (6. . the yield function assumes the format Φ = 2 J2 cos θ − σy . σy ) = 0 for at least one i with Φj (σ. the Tresca yield surface.9(a).9(b) shows the π-plane projection of the Tresca yield surface.10).92) corresponds to a plane in the space of principal stresses for each i = 1. . This subspace is called the deviatoric plane. for fixed σy . 6 (Figure 6. σy ) ≤ 0 for j = i. . The elastic domain (for which Φ < 0) corresponds to the interior of the prism.87) and (6.93) are completely equivalent. . σy ) = σ1 − σ2 − σy . without loss of generality. the Tresca yield criterion can be expressed by means of the following six yield functions Φ1 (σ. so that. Invariant representation Alternatively to the representations discussed above. .160 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In principal stress space. the set of stresses for which Φ = 0. σy ) = σ3 − σ1 − σy Φ5 (σ. Figure 6. σy ) < 0. s. The Tresca yield surface may be represented. the elastic domain for a given σy can be defined as E = {σ | Φi (σ. σy ) = σ2 − σ1 − σy Φ4 (σ. σy ) = σ3 − σ2 − σy Φ6 (σ. is graphically represented by the surface of an infinite hexagonal prism with axis coinciding with the hydrostatic line (also known as the space diagonal). the equation Φi (σ. (6. it is also possible to describe the yield locus of the Tresca criterion in terms of stress invariants.8. σy ) = σ1 − σ3 − σy Φ2 (σ. .95) . a further simplification in the representation of the yield surface is possible in this case. i = 1.

96) (6. 3 and taking into account the fact that I1 (s) = 0 (s is a traceless tensor) and that tr(S )3 = i s3 for any symmetric tensor S. The Tresca criterion. (6. 2. 6 6 Despite being used often in computational plasticity. between s and the nearest pure shear line (a pure shear line is graphically represented in Figure 6. θ. θ ≡ 1 sin−1 3 3 2J22 where J3 is the third principal invariant of stress deviator§ J3 ≡ I3 (s) ≡ det s = 1 3 (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY Φ1 = 0 Φ2 = 0 σ1 Φ6 = 0 Φ5 = 0 Φ4 = 0 161 Φ3 = 0 σ3 σ2 Figure 6.98) is established by summing the characteristic equation (2. is found by the authors to provide an optimal parametrisation of the Tresca surface which results in a simpler numerical algorithm and will be adopted in the computational implementation of the model addressed in Chapter 8.10. is a function of the deviatoric stress defined as √ −3 3 J3 .11). 3 The Lode angle. This is essentially due to the high degree of nonlinearity introduced by the trigonometric function involved in the definition of the Lode angle. § The equivalence between the two rightmost terms in (6.98) The Lode angle is the angle. Recall that the stress deviator is given by s ≡ σ − 1 (trσ)I. The multisurface representation. i . It satisfies π π (6.99) − ≤θ≤ . on the other hand.97) tr(s)3 . Multisurface representation in principal stress space.73) (page 27) for i = 1. on the deviatoric plane. the above invariant representation results in rather cumbersome algorithms for integration of the evolution equations of the Tresca model.

This condition is mathematically represented by the equation (6. this criterion was proposed by von Mises (1913). the shear and bulk modulus. the von Mises criterion is also pressure-insensitive.102) 1 2 p . Thus. In a state of pure shear. 1 1 s : s = J2 . According to the von Mises criterion. In view of (6.103) K where G and K are.107) [σ] =  0 0 0. respectively. ρ ψd = ¯ e and a volumetric contribution. (6. here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. the pressure component of the stress tensor does not take part in the definition of the von Mises criterion and only the deviatoric stress can influence plastic yielding. (6.100) J2 = R(α). Since the elastic behaviour of the materials described in this chapter is assumed to be linear elastic. i. plastic yielding begins when the J2 stress deviator invariant reaches a critical value. 0 0 0 ρ ψv = ¯ e we have.4.162 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. G It should be noted that. to be defined later. a yield function for the von Mises criterion can be defined as Φ(σ) = where τy ≡ √ J2 (s(σ)) − τy .106) (6.e. THE VON MISES YIELD CRITERION Also appropriate to describe plastic yielding in metals.105) R is the shear yield stress. the von Mises criterion is equivalent to stating that plastic yielding begins when the distortional elastic strain-energy reaches a critical value. where R is the critical value. Let us now consider a state of uniaxial stress:   σ 0 0 (6. s = σ and J2 = τ 2 . a state with stress tensor   0 τ 0 (6.104) [σ] = τ 0 0.101) of a distortional contribution. 0 0 0 . The corresponding critical value of the distortional energy is 1 R. the stored elastic strain-energy at the generic state defined by the stress σ can be decomposed as the sum e e ψ e = ψd + ψv . The physical interpretation of the von Mises criterion is given in the following. Thus. as in the Tresca criterion. 2G G (6.2. α.102). (6.

the von Mises circle is tangent to the sides of the Tresca hexagon.11.155) times that given by the Tresca criterion.110) √ where σy ≡ 3R is the uniaxial yield stress and q(σ) ≡ 3 J2 (s(σ)) (6. On the other hand. A more general model. The yield surface (Φ = 0) associated with the von Mises criterion is represented. √ then. If they are set by using the yield functions (6. 3 (6.109) The above expression for the J2 -invariant suggests the following alternative definition of the von Mises yield function: Φ(σ) = q(σ) − σy . (6. allows for anisotropy of the yield surface). the von Mises criterion will predict yielding at a stress level 3/2 (≈ 0. is described in Section 10. THE MOHR–COULOMB YIELD CRITERION The criteria presented so far are pressure-insensitive and adequate to describe metals. by the surface of an infinite circular cylinder. The von Mises circle intersects the vertices of the Tresca hexagon.8 where it has been set to match the Tresca surface (shown in the same figure) under uniaxial stress. The uniaxial and shear yield stresses for the von Mises criterion are related by √ σy = 3 τy .106) with the same τy ). experimentally determined yield surfaces fall between the von Mises and Tresca surfaces. The corresponding π-plane representation is shown in Figure 6. in uniaxial stress states. for many metals. In this case.111) is termed the von Mises effective or equivalent stress. Obviously.866) times the level predicted by Tresca’s law. rocks and concrete.4. The von Mises and Tresca criteria may be set to agree with one another in either uniaxial stress or pure shear states.83) and (6.3. It is remarked that. we have 2  [s] =  0 0 and 3σ 0 −1σ 3 0  0  −1σ 3 0 J2 = 1 σ 2 . whose behaviour is generally characterised by . in addition.108) In this case.4 (starting page 427). 6. which includes both the Tresca and the von Mises yield surfaces as particular cases (and. For materials such as soils. then.110) so that both predict the same uniaxial yield stress σy . (6.84) and (6. under pure shear.9(b).112) Note that this relation differs from that of the Tresca criterion given by (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 163  (6. if both criteria are made to coincide under pure shear (expressions (6. the axis of which coincides with the hydrostatic axis. The yield surfaces for the von Mises and Tresca criteria set to coincide in shear is shown in Figure 6.85). the von Mises √ criterion will predict a yield stress 2/ 3 (≈ 1. due to its definition in terms of an invariant of the stress tensor. The von Mises surface is illustrated in Figure 6. the von Mises yield function is an isotropic function of σ. in the space of principal stresses.3.

116) . reach the critical combination τ = c − σn tan φ. i. c) = (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ. The yield locus of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the set of all stress states such that there exists a plane in which (6. and the normal stress. on a plane in the body. Generalising Coulomb’s friction law. the circle associated with the maximum and minimum principal stresses (σmax and σmin . a yield function expressed in terms of the principal stresses can be immediately defined for the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as Φ(σ. this criterion states that plastic yielding begins when.115) σmax + σmin σmax − σmin + sin φ tan φ. (6. was assumed tensile positive.164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 sh ea r Tresca 30o von Mises pu re 1 2 Figure 6.12.113) is found to be equivalent to the following form in terms of principal stresses σmax − σmin cos φ = c − 2 which. (6.e.114) In view of (6. 2 2 (6. A classical example of a pressure-sensitive law is given by the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion described in the following. appropriate description of plastic yielding requires the introduction of pressure-sensitivity.12. the yield condition (6. respectively). τ . The Mohr–Coulomb yield locus can be easily visualised in the Mohr plane representation shown in Figure 6.113) where c is the cohesion and φ is the angle of internal friction or frictional angle. rearranged. From Figure 6. is tangent to the critical line defined by τ = c − σn tanφ. σn . In the above.113) holds. gives (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ = 2 c cos φ.11. σn . It is the set of all stresses whose largest Mohr circle. essentially. the shearing stress. Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coinciding in pure shear. a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure. (6. the result of frictional sliding between material particles.115). the normal stress. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is based on the assumption that the phenomenon of macroscopic plastic yielding is. The elastic domain for the Mohr–Coulomb law is the set of stresses whose all three Mohr circles are below the critical line.

The Mohr–Coulomb surface is illustrated in Figure 6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 165 c n tan (critical line) c min int max 0 c cot n max − min Figure 6. Limited strength under tensile pressure is a typical characteristic of materials such as concrete. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion. is a consequence of the pressure-sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. to which the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is most applicable. the apex of the pyramid (point A in the figure) defines the limit of resistance of the material to tensile pressures. c) = 0 (for fixed c). c) = σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ2 (σ. i. The corresponding yield surface (Φ = 0) is a hexagonal pyramid aligned with the hydrostatic axis and whose apex is located at p = c cot φ (6. c) = σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ3 (σ.118) . Multisurface representation Analogously to the multisurface representation of the Tresca criterion. when φ = 0. rock and soils. c) = σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ.13. Φi (σ.117) on the tensile side of the hydrostatic axis. c) = σ2 − σ1 + (σ2 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ4 (σ. the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can also be expressed by means of six functions: Φ1 (σ. however. It should be noted. (6. Its pyramidal shape. Mohr plane representation.12. whose roots. that both criteria coincide in the absence of internal friction.e.13. Due to its definition in terms of principal stresses. Each plane contains one face of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid represented in Figure 6. c) = σ3 − σ2 + (σ3 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ6 (σ. c) = σ3 − σ1 + (σ3 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ5 (σ. define six planes in the principal stress space. As no stress state is allowed on the outside of the yield surface. as opposed to the prismatic shape of the Tresca surface. this yield function is an isotropic function of σ.

¯ (6.120) is satisfied.94) of the Tresca criterion. the invariant representation of the Mohr–Coulomb surface renders more complex numerical algorithms so that the multisurface representation is preferred in the computational implementation of the model described in Chapter 8.4.166 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS − σ3 Φ=0  √3 p  √3 cc ot φ A − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. The onset of plastic yielding occurs when the equation J2 (s) + η p = c. and Crisfield 1997): 1 Φ = cos θ − √ sin θ sin φ 3 J2 (s) + p(σ) sin φ − c cos φ. The definition of the elastic domain and the yield surface in the multisurface representation is completely analogous to that of the Tresca criterion. the von Mises cylinder is recovered. The Drucker–Prager criterion states that plastic yielding begins when the J2 invariant of the deviatoric stress and the hydrostatic stress. The Drucker–Prager cone is illustrated in Figure 6. As for the Tresca model. Represented in the principal stress space. . THE DRUCKER–PRAGER YIELD CRITERION This criterion has been proposed by Drucker and Prager (1952) as a smooth approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law. It consists of a modification of the von Mises criterion in which an extra term is included to introduce pressure-sensitivity. p. Invariant representation Analogously to the invariant representation (6. 6. reach a critical combination. For η = 0. where η and c are material parameters. is defined in (6.97).14. in spite of its frequent use in computational plasticity. (6. the Mohr–Coulomb yield function can be expressed as (Owen and Hinton 1980.4. The Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space.119) where the Lode angle. ¯ the yield locus of this criterion is a circular cone whose axis is the hydrostatic line. θ.13.

THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 167  √3 p − σ3 Φ=0 − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. η= √ 3 (3 + sin φ) 6 cos φ ξ= √ . respectively. The inner cone matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in uniaxial tension and biaxial compression. as the compression cone and the extension cone. (6. Note that the isotropy of the Mohr–Coulomb yield function follows from the fact that it is defined in terms of invariants of the stress tensor (J2 (s) and p). ξ= √ .7 of Chen and Mizuno (1990) for . coincidence at the inner edges is given by the choice 6 sin φ .121) where c is the cohesion and the parameters η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. Two of the most common approximations used are obtained by making the yield surfaces of the Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb criteria coincident either at the outer or inner edges of the Mohr–Coulomb surface. The π-plane section of both surfaces is shown in Figure 6. The Drucker–Prager yield surface in principal stress space. (6. In this case (the reader is referred to Section 4. Coincidence at the outer edges is obtained when 6 sin φ 6 cos φ η= √ .14.123) The outer and inner cones are known.15.122) 3 (3 − sin φ) 3 (3 − sin φ) whereas. The outer edge approximation matches the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial compression and biaxial tension. In order to approximate the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. Another popular Drucker–Prager approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is obtained by forcing both criteria to predict identical collapse loads under plane strain conditions. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c. 3 (3 + sin φ) (6. it is convenient to define the Drucker–Prager yield function as Φ(σ.

For the Mohr–Coulomb criterion to fit a given uniaxial tensile strength. For instance. particularly for high ratios fc /ft which are typical for concrete. 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . and a given uniaxial compressive strength. 2 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . according to the dominant stress state in a particular problem to be analysed. say. other approximations may be more appropriate. which can be assumed in the analysis of structures such as concrete walls. the above approximation should produce reasonable results.126) Its apex no longer coincides with the apex of the original Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. ξ= 3 9 + 12 tan2 φ . fc − ft (6. Under such a condition. failure occurs under biaxial compression instead (with stresses near point fbc of Figure 6. Chen and Mizuno (1990) and Zienkiewicz et al. 3 (6. the apex of the approximating Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the apex of the corresponding Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. ASSOCIATIVE AND NON-ASSOCIATIVE PLASTICITY It has already been said that a plasticity model is classed as associative if the yield function.168 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS derivation) the constants η and ξ read η= 3 tan φ 9 + 12 tan φ 2 . i. if for a particular problem. Ψ = Φ.5.16) that predicts the same uniaxial failure loads is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . the parameters φ and c have to be chosen as φ = sin−1 fc − ft . (1978). However. Φ.124) For all three sets of parameters above. Another useful approximation for plane stress. then the above approximation will largely overestimate the limit load. 3 (6.e. ft .1.5. (6. fc + ft c= fc ft tan φ. For problems where the failure mechanism is indeed dominated by uniaxial tension/compression. is taken as the flow potential. 6. where the Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the Mohr–Coulomb surface in biaxial tension (point fbt ) and biaxial compression (point fbc ). under plane stress. uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive stress states. fc .16).128) .127) Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion are thoroughly discussed by Chen (1982). it may be convenient to use an approximation such that both criteria match under.125) The corresponding Drucker–Prager cone (Figure 6. Plastic flow rules 6. It should be emphasised here that any of the above approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can give a poor description of the material behaviour for certain states of stress. Thus. (6. a different approximation (such as the inner cone that matches point fbc ) needs to be adopted to produce sensible predictions.

The π-plane section of the Mohr–Coulomb surface and the Drucker–Prager approximations. .15. Drucker–Prager approximation matching the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression.16. Plane stress. σ2 ft’ fc’ Mohr–Coulomb ’ fbt ft’ σ1 ’ fbc Drucker–Prager biaxial fit Drucker–Prager uniaxial fit fc’ Figure 6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 169 3 Drucker Prager (outer edges) Drucker Prager (inner edges) Mohr Coulomb 1 pu re sh ea r 2 Figure 6.

εp . εp . A) ≤ 0. ˙ N ∈ ∂σ Φ. A∗ . (6. A∗ . α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ . (6.170 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Any other choice of flow potential characterises a non-associative (or non-associated) plasticity model. α). A∗ ) ∈ A. A) ≤ 0. A) | Φ(σ.132) as the set of all admissible pairs (combinations) of stress and hardening force. A) of stress and hardening force is a solution to the following constrained optimisation problem: ˙ ˙ maximise Υp (σ∗ . In associative models. we have ˙ εp = γN . The principle of maximum plastic dissipation requires ˙ ˙ that. for given (εp . the admissible stress states are those that satisfy Φ(σ. the actual ˙ state (σ.129).130) ∂A Associativity implies that the plastic strain rate is a tensor normal to the yield surface in the space of stresses. Before stating the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. A)γ = 0. A) ≤ 0} (6. the associative hardening rule (6. (6.e.133) In other words. The principle of maximum dissipation postulates that among all admissible pairs (σ∗ . the actual state (σ. and ˙ rate α of hardening internal variables. In the generalised case of non-smooth yield surfaces. εp . 6. it makes sense to define A = {(σ. A. the evolution equations for the plastic strain and hardening variables are given by ∂Φ ˙ . ˙ (6.130) and the loading/unloading conditions Φ(σ.2. i. (6.134) The Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions (Luenberger. ˙ Φ(σ. A∗ ) ≤ 0.131) In non-associative models. A∗ ) ∈ A. ASSOCIATIVE LAWS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM PLASTIC DISSIPATION It can be shown that the associative laws are a consequence of the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. recall that for a state defined by a hardening force A. the flow vector is a subgradient of the yield function.129) εp = γ ˙ ∂σ and ∂Φ ˙ α = −γ ˙ . 1973. α). A) maximises the dissipation function (6. Thus.42) for a given plastic strain rate. εp . ∀ (σ∗ . γ ≥ 0. Chapter 10) for this optimisation problem are precisely the associative plastic flow rule (6.5. (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.135) . α) subject to Φ(σ∗ . the plastic strain rate is not normal to the yield surface in general.

simply.5. 6. The Prandtl–Reuss rule is usually employed in conjunction with the von Mises criterion and the resulting plasticity model is referred to as the von Mises associative model or. page 732. for many materials. Its multisurface-based representation reads 6 6 (6.3. The corresponding flow vector is given by N≡ and the flow rule results in ˙ εp = γ ˙ 3 2 ∂Φ ∂ = [ 3 J2 (s)] = ∂σ ∂σ s . Its principal stress representation is depicted in Figure 6. Thus (refer to Section A.140) . the principal directions of N coincide with those of σ. Nevertheless. it should be noted that the Prandtl–Reuss flow vector is the derivative of an isotropic scalar function of a symmetric tensor – the von Mises yield function.136) (6.2. Associative Tresca The associative Tresca flow rule utilises the yield function (6.84) as the flow potential.1. the Tresca associative plastic flow rule is generally expressed as ˙ εp = γN.137) Here. the plastic flow vector is deviatoric. N and σ are coaxial. are not universal. The Prandtl–Reuss flow vector is a tensor parallel to the deviatoric projection s of the stress tensor. CLASSICAL FLOW RULES The Prandtl–Reuss equations The Prandtl–Reuss plasticity law is the flow rule obtained by taking the von Mises yield function (6. particularly soils and granular materials in general. the rate of plastic strain has the same principal directions as σ. The postulate of maximum plastic dissipation.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 171 Remark 6. Based on physical considerations.110) as the flow potential. where the derivative of isotropic functions of this type is discussed).138) where N is a subgradient of the Tresca function N ∈ ∂σ Φ. ∂σ (6. ˙ (6. Hence. maximum dissipation has been shown to hold in crystal plasticity and is particularly successful when applied to the description of metals. In such cases.e. and the corresponding associative laws.139) ˙ εp = i=1 γiN i = ˙ i=1 γi ˙ ∂Φi . the von Mises model.2. Since Φ here is also an isotropic function of σ. ||s|| (6. The Tresca yield function is differentiable when the three principal stresses are distinct (σ1 = σ2 = σ3 ) and non-differentiable when two principal stresses coincide (at the edges of the Tresca hexagonal prism).17. Due to the pressure-insensitivity of the von Mises yield function. the maximum dissipation postulate is clearly not applicable and the use of non-associative laws is essential. ||s|| 3 2 s . i. associative laws frequently do not correspond to experimental evidence.

When the stress is on the side of the hexagon. only one multiplier may be non-zero and the plastic flow rule reads ˙ εp = γ N a . In deriving the last right-hand side of (6. and (c) Yielding from the left corner. ˙ (6.91). so that the discussion can be concentrated on the sextant of the π-plane illustrated in Figure 6. R (Φ1 = 0.172 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS N σ  √3 p σ3 σ2 σ1 Figure 6.142) with ei denoting the eigenvector of σ associated with the principal stress σi .18.143) .142). where two planes intersect. the plastic flow equation is ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . Firstly assume.27) of page 736 for the derivative of an eigenvalue of a symmetric tensor.141) where the flow vector is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0. At the right and left corners of the hexagon. use has been made of the expression (A. The above flow rule can be alternatively expressed as follows. given by Na ≡N1 = ∂ ∂Φ1 = (σ1 − σ3 ) ∂σ ∂σ = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 . Φ2 < 0 and Φ6 < 0). ˙ ˙ (6.17. Thus. (b) yielding from the right corner. L (Φ1 = 0. The Prandtl–Reuss flow vector. Three different possibilities have to be considered in this sextant: (a) yielding at a stress state on the side (main plane) of the Tresca hexagon (Φ1 = 0. Φ2 = 0 and Φ6 < 0). without loss of generality. (6. that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . Each vector N i is normal to the plane defined by Φi = 0. with the yield functions Φi defined by (6. two multipliers may be non-zero. Φ6 = 0 and Φ2 < 0).

N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . which requires consideration of the intersections between the yield surfaces. This is due to the pressure-insensitivity of the Tresca yield function.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY sextant with 1 2 3 173 1 Na a N R L 1 Nbb Naa p Nb b 6 Nbb 2 2 3 Figure 6. N b . in the derivation of the flow rules at faces and edges. it is convenient to assume that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 so that. is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is obtained analogously to (6. we have trivially tr N a = tr N b = 0. (6. already defined. the plastic flow predicted by the associative Tresca law is volume-preserving. it should be noted that in addition to the edge singularities.118). in the above.142) as N b ≡ N 6 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 .146) . without loss of generality. as for the Prandtl–Reuss rule. is derived in a manner analogous to the Tresca law described above.13). The flow rule. Plastic yielding may then take place from a face. The situation is identical to Tresca’s (Figure 6. the Mohr–Coulomb yield function (6. Indeed. In the right corner (repeated minimum principal stress). (6. the second vector.18. Associative and non-associative Mohr–Coulomb In the associative Mohr–Coulomb law. Its multisurface representation is based on the yield functions (6. note that. The vector N a is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.144) In the left corner (repeated maximum principal stress). Again.145) It should be noted that. from an edge or from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.18) except that (6.116) is adopted as the flow potential. the analysis can be reduced to a single sextant of a cross-section of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid as illustrated in Figure 6. However.19. is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. The associative Tresca flow rule. N b . the present surface has an extra singularity in its apex (Figure 6.

R.e.152) .147) (6. the second vector.150) whereas. Na = ∂ ∂Φ1 = [σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ] ∂σ ∂σ = (1 + sin φ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ)e3 ⊗ e3 .174 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS sextant with 1 2 3 1 (a) Na a 1 Nbb (b) 6 R L Nb b 2 2 3 Figure 6. all six planes intersect and.19 are deviatoric projections of the actual normals). For plastic yielding from the face.148) At the corners. (6. This situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6. (6. The plastic strain rate tensor lies within the pyramid defined by the six normals: 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i. (6.19(b).19. (a) faces and edges. The Mohr–Coulomb flow rule.149) At the right (extension) corner. ˙ (6. N b = (1 + sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 − (1 − sin φ) e3 ⊗ e3 . is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is given by N b = (1 + sin φ) e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 . L. at the left (compression) corner. the above flow rule is replaced by ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . ˙ where N a is normal to the plane Φ1 = 0. (6. the normal vectors N a and N b are no longer deviatoric. i. the tensor N b is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. N b . they have a non-zero component along the hydrostatic axis (the vectors shown in Figure 6. six normals are defined and up to six plastic multipliers may be non-zero.151) At the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb surface. and (b) apex. therefore. the flow rule is given by ˙ εp = γ N a .

121). one should note first that the Drucker– Prager function is singular at the apex of the yield surface and is smooth anywhere else. a Mohr–Coulomb yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a different (smaller) angle ψ. therefore.20(a)) N= 1 η s + I.156) 2 . the dilatancy predicted by the associative Mohr– Coulomb law is often excessive. the flow vector is obtained by simply differentiating (6.155) As all γ i ’s are non-negative. the associative Mohr–Coulomb rule predicts a non-zero volumetric plastic straining. The volumetric component of the plastic strain rate in the associative Mohr–Coulomb law can be obtained by expanding (6.154) εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 2 sin φ ˙v ˙ 1 ˙2 ˙3 i=1 γi.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 175 It is important to note that. The phenomenon of dilatancy during plastic flow is observed for many materials. the plastic flow becomes purely deviatoric and the flow rule reduces to the associative Tresca law. This is in contrast to the Prandtl–Reuss and associative Tresca laws. ˙ (6. and (b) plastic yielding at the apex.152) in principal stress space taking into account the definitions of Ni . Associative and non-associative Drucker–Prager The associative Drucker–Prager model employs as flow potential the yield function defined by (6. However. To overcome this problem. At the cone surface.121) which gives (Figure 6. two situations need to be considered: (a) plastic yielding at (smooth portion of) the cone surface. This gives  1 γ ˙  p   γ 2  ˙ ε1 ˙ α 0 β β 0 α  3 γ  ˙  p  ˙ (6. where the Drucker–Prager yield function is differentiable. 3 J2 (s) (6. γ  ˙ p β β 0 α α 0  5 ε3 ˙ γ  ˙ γ6 ˙ where α ≡ 1 + sin φ. the volumetric plastic strain rate is positive and. To derive the corresponding flow rule. Note that for ψ = 0. it is necessary to use a nonassociated flow rule in conjunction with the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. as flow potential. The non-associated Mohr–Coulomb law adopts. The angle ψ is called the dilatancy angle and the amount of dilation predicted is proportional to its sine. The above trivially yields 6 β ≡ −1 + sin φ. (6.153) ε2  = 0 α α 0 β β   4 . Thus. particularly geomaterials. ˙ dilatant. due to the pressure sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion.

the flow vector is an element of the subdifferential of the yield function (6. ˙v ˙ (6.e. i.161) This expression is analogous to (6.155).160) where Φd ≡ J2 (s).159) N ∈ ∂σ Φ. Expressions (6.122)1.157).121): (6. (6. Rockafellar and Wets. Nv = η. 1970. as the flow potential. Similarly to the associative Mohr–Coulomb flow rule. the often excessive dilatancy predicted by the associated rule in the present case is avoided by using a non-associated law. (6. where η is given by (6.160) result in the following rate of (dilatant) volumetric plastic strain for the associative Drucker–Prager flow rule: εp = γ η. (6. Nv = η.158) (6. The non-associative Drucker–Prager law is obtained by adopting.176 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (a) Prandtl Reuss associative Drucker Prager p (b) 3 2 1 Figure 6. 1998) it can be established that the deviatoric/volumetric split of N in this case is given by Nd ∈ ∂σ Φd . (6. according to the chosen approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb surface.158) and (6. a Drucker–Prager yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a dilatancy angle .157) At the apex singularity.20. The Drucker–Prager flow vector. ˙ The deviatoric/volumetric decomposition of the Drucker–Prager flow vector gives Nd = 1 2 J2 (s) s. It lies within the complementary cone to the Drucker–Prager yield surface. the cone whose wall is normal to the Drucker–Prager cone illustrated in Figure 6.123)1 or (6.124)1.20(b). The flow rule is then ˙ εp = γ N. (a) cone surface. From standard properties of subdifferentials (Rockafellar. and (b) apex.

A) = 0. c). These changes may. then the volumetric component. In the two. (6. Figure 6. In this case.166) If the dilatancy angle of the non-associative potential is chosen as ψ = 0. defined by Φ(σ. in general. Nv . 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . in a uniaxial test. Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb models described above. hardening is characterised by a dependence of yield stress level upon the history of plastic straining to which the body has been subjected. that is.122)1. (6.21 shows the stress– strain curve of a typical uniaxial cyclic (tension–compression) test with a perfectly plastic . (6.20(a)).1. In other words. E ep . reads ¯ Nv = η . during plastic yielding. vanishes. PERFECT PLASTICITY A material model is said to be perfectly plastic if no hardening is allowed. formulated in Section 6. 6.163) 3 (3 − sin ψ) when the outer cone approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is employed. 3 (3 + sin ψ) whereas. Hardening laws The phenomenon of hardening has been identified in the uniaxial experiment described in Section 6. Essentially. In the von Mises. the yield stress level does not depend in any way on the degree of plastification. When the inner cone approximation is used. (6. the yield surface remains fixed regardless of any deformation process the material may experience and. A.123)1 ¯ or (6. the elastoplastic modulus. shape and orientation of the yield surface. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p.162) where η is obtained by replacing φ with ψ in the definition of η given by (6. affect the size.1. 6. σy (or constant cohesion. Tresca. for the plane strain match. that is.164) The non-associated Drucker–Prager flow vector differs from its associated counterpart only in the volumetric component which. hardening is represented by changes in the hardening thermodynamical force.2. we define Ψ(σ. 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . ¯ (6.and three-dimensional situations. perfect plasticity corresponds to a constant uniaxial yield stress. In the uniaxial model.124)1.6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 177 ψ < φ. this phenomenon has been incorporated by allowing the uniaxial yield stress to vary (as a function of the axial accumulated plastic strain) during plastic flow. η= ¯ 3 tan ψ 9 + 12 tan2 ψ . for the non-associated case. vanishes and the flow rule reduces to the Prandtl–Reuss law that predicts volume-preserving plastic flow (refer to Figure 6.165) (6.6.

3) of hardening internal variables must be obviously dependent on the specific characteristics of the material considered. In the constitutive description of isotropic hardening.22. 6. These are described below. von Mises model along with the corresponding π-plane representation of the yield surface. the set α normally contains a single scalar variable. This. A typical example is the von Mises effective plastic strain. Strain hardening In this case the hardening internal state variable is some suitably chosen scalar measure of strain.178 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 -plane ET y uniaxial cyclic test E 1 2 y fixed yield surface Figure 6. Two approaches. Perfect plasticity. the elastic domain expands equally in tension and compression during plastic flow. For a multiaxial plasticity model with a von Mises yield surface.2 is a typical example of an isotropic hardening model. the hardening internal variable is intrinsically connected with the density of dislocations in the crystallographic microstructure that causes an isotropic increase in resistance to plastic flow. for instance. isotropic hardening corresponds to the increase in radius of the von Mises cylinder in principal stress space. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. also referred to as the . without translation. it corresponds to a uniform (isotropic) expansion of the initial yield surface.21.6.2. Perfectly plastic models are particularly suitable for the analysis of the stability of structures and soils and are widely employed in engineering practice for the determination of limit loads and safety factors. ISOTROPIC HARDENING A plasticity model is said to be isotropic hardening if the evolution of the yield surface is such that. The choice of a suitable set (denoted α in Section 6. The uniaxial model described in Section 6. For that model. at any state of hardening. strain hardening and work hardening. are particularly popular in the treatment of isotropic hardening and are suitable for modelling the behaviour of a wide range of materials. In metal plasticity. together with a typical stress–strain curve for a uniaxial cyclic test for an isotropic hardening von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 6. which determines the size of the yield surface.

Hence. for instance. (6. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. from a uniaxial tensile test.22. equivalently. and hardening function σy = σy (¯p ).169) Accordingly.18) (page 145) of the one-dimensional model to the multiaxially strained case. ε Clearly.2 and summarised in Box 6. a von Mises isotropic strain-hardening model is obtained by letting the uniaxial yield stress be a function of the accumulated plastic strain: σy = σy (¯p ).137).167) The above definition generalises the accumulated axial plastic strain (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 179 3 -plane uniaxial cyclic test initial surface 1 2 hardened surface Figure 6. Behaviour under uniaxial stress conditions Under uniaxial stress conditions the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening reproduces the behaviour of the one-dimensional plasticity model discussed in Section 6. This is demonstrated in the following.170) This function defines the strain-hardening curve (or strain-hardening function) that can be obtained.1 (page 146). we only need to show next that their behaviour under plastic yielding is also identical. ˙ ˙ εp = γ. defined as εp ≡ ¯ 0 t 2 3 t ˙ ˙ εp : εp dt = 0 2 3 ˙ ||εp || dt. E. (6. Isotropic hardening.168) or. . ε (6. the two models have identical uniaxial elastic behaviour and initial yield stress. Let us assume that both models share the same Young’s modulus. ¯ (6. Its rate evolution equation reads ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 3 ˙ ||εp ||. in view of the Prandtl–Reuss flow equation (6. von Mises equivalent or accumulated plastic strain.

.174) is the axial plastic strain rate.177) ¶ The term work hardening is adopted by many authors as a synonym for the phenomenon of hardening in general. under uniaxial stress conditions. the variable defining the state of hardening is the dissipated plastic work.110). ˙ E+H (6. [s] = 2 σ 0 − 1 2 3 1 0 0 −2 In this case. we obtain ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ = N : σ − H εp = 0.176) which is identical to equation (6. Materials that harden.60). which must be satisfied under plastic flow.172) (6.28) and.137) gives   1 0 0 0 . (6.175) with (6. In this text. are frequently referred to as work-hardening materials. Now. we combine (6.¶ wp .27).136).171)2 and (6.173) where N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ is the Prandtl–Reuss flow vector (6. i. then. defined by t wp ≡ 0 ˙ σ : εp dt.31) of the one-dimensional model. we recall the consistency condition (6.171) ˙ [σ] = σ 0 0 0. following the same arguments as in the one-dimensional case we find that. the Prandtl–Reuss flow equation (6. ¯ (6.e. however.170). by taking the derivatives of the von Mises yield function (6. the term work hardening is reserved for plasticity models in which the dissipated plastic work is taken as the state variable associated with hardening. (6.136) and H = H(¯p ) is the hardε ening modulus defined in (6. To conclude the demonstration. Note that the above expression coincides with the onedimensional plastic flow rule (6. 0 0 0 0 0 0 The corresponding stress deviator reads  1 0 0 0 . [σ] = σ 0 0 0. with σy defined by (6. In the present case.10). materials whose yield stress level depends on the history of strains.180 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Under a uniaxial stress state with axial stress σ and axial stress rate σ in the direction of the ˙ base vector e1 . ˙ ˙ [εp ] = εp 0 − 1 2 1 0 0 −2 where ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ (6. the isotropic strain hardening von Mises model predicts the tangential axial stress–strain relation σ= ˙ EH ε.172) to recover (6. Work hardening In work-hardening models. the matrix representations of the stress tensor and the stress rate tensor in the three-dimensional model are given by     1 0 0 1 0 0 ˙ (6.175)  (6.

181) d¯p ε As σy is strictly positive (σy > 0). therefore. for instance (Figure 6. The plastic work.182) .179) dwp = σy . ˙ ¯ or. the strain-hardening and work-hardening descriptions are equivalent. The substitution of (6.137).137) into (6. its evolution equation is given by ˙ w p = σ : εp . invertible so that ¯ ε wp = wp (¯p ) and εp = εp (wp ).23). together with the identity 3/2 s = σy valid for the von Mises model under plastic flow. is the plastic work. Equivalence between strain and work hardening Under some circumstances. ¯ ¯ (6.183) (6. the above differential relation implies that the mapping between wp and εp is one-to-one and. we .178). This defines the work-hardening curve (or work-hardening function).180) (6. This is shown in the following for the von Mises model with associative flow rule (6. From the definition of wp .23. In a uniaxial test. equivalently. ˙ (6. is stored in the form of elastic energy and is fully recovered upon elastic unloading. (6. the total work w necessary to deform the material up to point P is given by the total area under the corresponding stress–strain curve. (6. It corresponds to the energy dissipated by the plastic mechanisms and cannot be recovered.178) An isotropic work-hardening von Mises model is obtained by postulating σy = σy (wp ). wp . Part of this work. gives ˙ wp = σy εp . The remaining (shaded) area.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 181 σ w = p+ w = wp + wee P p wp w w we e ε Figure 6.

e.e. That is. The constant σy 0 is the initial yield stress. to the free energy (recall expression (6. Note that perfect plasticity (defined in Section 6. ε ¯ (6. The set of hardening thermodynamic forces in this case specialises as A ≡ {κ}. associated to isotropic hardening is defined by κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p = κ(¯p ). ASSOCIATIVE ISOTROPIC HARDENING Within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables. the above isotropic strainhardening law corresponds to the assumption that the plastic contribution.3. page 149) is a function of a single scalar argument – the accumulated plastic strain.185) Expressions (6.186).179) to be expressed as an equivalent strain-hardening function. a nonlinear hardening model).6. ε ˜ ε (6.189) (6.1) is obtained if we set H = 0 in (6. if it can be expressed as σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H εp .37). THERMODYNAMICAL ASPECTS. i. κ.187) where the scalar thermodynamic force. It should also be noted that a linear work-hardening function corresponds in general to an equivalent nonlinear strain-hardening function (i. the uniaxial yield stress at the initial (virgin) state of the material.184) and (6. i. Linear and nonlinear hardening A model is said to be linear hardening if the strain-hardening function (6. (6. ε ∂ εp ¯ (6.188) (6.6. and H is called the linear isotropic hardening modulus. ψ p .185) establish the equivalence between the strain and workhardening descriptions for the von Mises model with associative flow rule.182 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This allows any given strain-hardening function of the type (6. ˆ ε ε σy (wp ) = σy (¯p ) ≡ σy (wp (¯p )).170) to be expressed as an equivalent work-hardening function. ¯ 6.181) defines a nonlinear relation between wp and εp if σy is not a constant. the set α of hardening variables is defined as α ≡ {¯p } ε and ε ψ p = ψ p (¯p ).184) and any given work-hardening function of the type (6.190) .170) is linear. Any other hardening model is said to be nonlinear hardening.186) with constant σy 0 and H. This can be easily established by observing that (6. σy (¯p ) = σy (wp ) ≡ σy (¯p (wp )).e. (6.

78).e. ¯ ˙ ˙ The associative generalised modulus H is given by H=− ∂Φ ∂Φ ≡− = 1. p ∂ε ¯ ∂ε ¯ (6. The corresponding associative evolution equations that define the accumulated plastic strain εp are ¯ ∂Φ1 ˙ =γ ˙ (6. Multisurface models with associative hardening Analogously to the associative plastic flow rule definition (6. i. ∂κ (6. we refer to the plastic flow equations (6. initially defined in (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6.167) adopted for the von Mises model. A hardening law defined by means of the associativity hypothesis is called an associative hardening law. represents the rate of change of the hardening thermodynamic force with respect to the hardening internal variable. Note that the hardening modulus H.168) and (6.110).77) and (6.191) If the state of hardening is defined in terms of cohesion (or shear yield stress). (6. The associative evolution equation for εp in this ¯ case is a specialisation of (6.196) ˙ εp = −γ ¯ ∂κ and ∂Φ1 ∂Φ6 ˙ − γb ˙ = γa + γb.195). is being defined by evolution equa¯ tion (6. defined respectively on the side (smooth portion) and corner of the Tresca yield surface.195) is obtained for the Tresca model. associative hardening for multisurface plasticity models can be defined by postulating the following generic evolution equation for the accumulated plastic strain: n ˙ εp = − ¯ i=1 γi ˙ ∂Φi . that is. Any other hardening rule is said to be non-associative. εp .73).27). ∂A ∂κ (6. here.192) For the strain-hardening von Mises model the evolution law (6. Its actual physical meaning depends on the specific format of the functions Φi and is generally different from that of (6.195) Note that.143).169) for the internal variable. follows from the hypothesis of associativity. c (or τy ) replaces σy in (6.194) (6.197) εp = − γ a ¯ ∂κ ∂κ . Here.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 183 The hardening curve is postulated in terms of κ as ε ε σy (¯p ) ≡ σy 0 + κ(¯p ). (6. that relies on the choice of ¯ the yield function as the plastic potential. H(¯p ) ≡ ε ∂σy ∂κ = p.141) and (6.193) where Φ is the von Mises yield function (6. A simple example of associative isotropic hardening law of the type (6. we have ˙ εp = γH = γ.130). εp . the accumulated plastic strain.191).

˙ (6.205) . ε (6. where functions Φ1 and Φ6 are defined by (6.200) When flow takes place at the smooth portion of a Mohr–Coulomb pyramid face.121) with the general associative evolution law (6.167) in conjunction. (6. For Mohr–Coulomb plasticity. then similarly to (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ (6.130) for the hardening internal variable. ¯ ˙ (6. In this case. This assumption will be adopted in the computer implementation of Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models described in Chapter 8.199) and the yield function definition (6. this is reduced to ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ.203) for flow from the smooth portions of the Tresca surface.121) to be a function of the hardening internal variable: c = c(¯p ).149)).191). one of the possibilities in defining a hardening law is to assume the cohesion.141) to (6.184 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS respectively.195).199) and the internal variable εp – the accumulated plastic strain for associative Mohr–Coulomb ¯ hardening – is defined by the corresponding particularisation of general evolution law (6. the evolution equation for εp will result in ¯ ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 γ ˙ (6. The accumulated plastic strain in this case is then defined by the evolution equation ˙ ˙ εp = − γ ¯ ∂Φ = γ ξ.143).198) This type of hardening description is often used in practice in the modelling of soils – for which cohesion is a fundamental strength parameter. ε ε (6.204) for flow from a corner. we have ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ). ¯ (6. c.91) with σy related to κ through (6.116) or (6. This gives the general expression 6 ˙ εp = 2 cos φ ¯ i=1 γ i. that takes part of the yield function (6.201) At the corners (refer to the plastic flow equation (6. Drucker–Prager associative hardening Associative hardening for Drucker–Prager plasticity is obtained by combining assumption (6. say. and ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 (γ a )2 + γ a γ b + (γ b )2 .202) Note that if it is insisted to adopt the von Mises accumulated plastic strain rate definition (6.191) we define c(¯p ) = c0 + κ(¯p ). with the Tresca model with associative plastic flow. the isotropic hardening law is non-associative in spite of the associativity of the plastic flow rule. ˙ ∂κ (6. If hardening associativity is also assumed.

The function (6. for example. Mróz.208) is an isotropic function of the relative stress. in addition. It is frequently observed in experiments that.24. This phenomenon is known as the Bauschinger effect and can be modelled with the introduction of kinematic hardening. For Drucker–Prager-based models. be a function of the hardening internal variable. Analogously to expression (6. ψ. 1990). β) ≡ s(σ) − β (6. the frictional angle to be a function.6. β.209) is the relative stress tensor. after being loaded (and hardened) in one direction. 1990. This phenomenon can be accounted for in non-associative flow Mohr–Coulomb type models by letting the dilatancy angle. many materials show a decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction (Lemaitre and Chaboche. we have η = s and the yield surface defined by Φ = 0 is the isotropic von Mises yield surface with uniaxial yield stress σy .208) is not an isotropic function of the stress tensor for kinematically hardened states (β = 0).24) of the yield surface in the space of stresses. THE BAUSCHINGER EFFECT When the yield surfaces preserve their shape and size but translate in the stress space as a rigid body. The evolution of a kinematically hardening von Mises-type yield surface (in the deviatoric plane) used to model the phenomenon is shown alongside. β)) − σy . (6. kinematic hardening is said to take place. 1967. the relative stress is deviatoric. it is possible to introduce kinematic hardening in other plasticity models simply by replacing σ with a relative stress measure.208) . defined as the difference between the stress deviator and the symmetric deviatoric (stress-like) tensor. the yield function Φ defined by (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 185 Other hardening models Further refinements to capture hardening behaviour more accurately can be incorporated in Mohr–Coulomb based plasticity models by assuming. the above would correspond to having η = η(¯p ). 1993). The constant σy in (6. known as the back-stress tensor. β) = where η(σ.208) defines the radius of the yield surface. Skrzypek. by definition. It is important to observe that. in the definition of the corresponding yield function.207) (6. ε For Drucker–Prager-based models.208). The back-stress tensor is the thermodynamical force associated with kinematic hardening and represents the translation (Figure 6. of the accumulated plastic strain: φ = φ(¯p ). unlike the isotropically hardening von Mises model. ε ξ = ξ(¯p ). ¯ 6. ε (6. this can be obtained by having the parameter η as a function of the hardening variable.4.206) The direction of plastic flow is generally affected by the history of plastic straining in materials such as soils and rocks. The yield function for the kinematically hardening model is given by Φ(σ. The typical result of a uniaxial cyclic test showing the Bauschinger effect is illustrated in Figure 6. defined as the difference σ − β. Note that. When β = 0. A number of constitutive models have been proposed to describe elastoplastic behaviour under cyclic loading conditions (Lemaitre and Chaboche. 3 J2 (η(σ. η. KINEMATIC HARDENING.

Plastic flow rule with kinematic hardening The von Mises model with kinematic hardening is used in conjunction with an associative flow rule. evolution equations for β are required. (6.24. with constant σy = σy 0 .211) and (6. Kinematic hardening and the Bauschinger effect.186 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 uniaxial cyclic test hardened surface y y -plane y 1 initial surface 2 Figure 6. One of the most commonly used laws is Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule.211) This rule extends the Prandtl–Reuss equation to account for kinematic hardening. and coincides with the Prandtl–Reuss equation if β = 0. the stress–strain behaviour of the model defined by equations (6. Behaviour under monotonic uniaxial stress loading For monotonic loading under uniaxial stress conditions. Note that the plastic flow is in the direction of the (deviatoric) relative stress.212) and initial . Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. η (6.212) The material constant H is the linear kinematic hardening modulus. Prager’s linear kinematic hardening To complete the definition of the kinematic hardening plasticity model. The flow vector in this case reads N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 2 η η (6.208). η. η (6. where the rate evolution equation for β is given by ˙ ˙ β = 2 H εp = γ ˙ 3 2 3 H η .210) and we have the following plastic strain rate equation: ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ 3 2 η . Loading in one direction results in decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction.

˙ ˙ (6.61) for the present case we have that. together with the equation σ = E εe .215) (6.212) with initial condition β = 0 (i. taking into account (6. ˙ ˙ (6. the stress. with the introduction of the elastoplastic split of the axial strain rate. β.217) (6. E.218) yields σ = H εp . [β] = β 0 − 2 (6. ¯ Under the above conditions.220) Then.212) and (6.60) and specialising (6. To show that their plastic behaviour also coincides. the definition of η.213) 0 0 −1 2 where β is the axial back-stress component.214) we obtain   1 0 0 ˙ 0 . under plastic yielding.171)2 and the above ˙ expressions for β. ˙ (6. it is clear that both models have the same elastic behaviour and uniaxial yield stress. we obtain for the relative stress tensor   1 0 0 1 0 . let us consider again a uniaxial test with loading in the direction of the base vector e1 . stress rate and stress deviator tensors have the matrix representations given in (6. Now note that the integration of the rate equation (6. It is assumed in this statement that both models share the same Young’s modulus.172). the following consistency condition must be satisfied: ∂Φ ˙ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ :σ+ : β = 0. by recalling (6. In this case.218) After some straightforward tensor algebra.171) and (6.216) Now.219) . η = s) and s as in (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 187 state of hardening defined by β = 0 is identical to the behaviour of the purely isotropic hardening von Mises model with linear hardening curve (6. σy 0 . 2 η (6. With the above. (6.186) and initial state of hardening εp = 0.172) gives a back-stress tensor of the form   1 0 0 1 0 .221) 3 η .e. [β] = 2 H εp 0 − 1 ˙ 2 3 1 0 0 −2 where εp is the axial plastic strain rate given by ˙ ˙ εp = γ sign(η).214) [η] = η 0 − 2 1 0 0 −2 where η = 2σ − β 3 is the axial relative stress. From (6. Φ= ∂σ ∂β (6. and the identity ∂Φ ∂Φ =− =− ∂β ∂σ equation (6.

176) of the von Mises isotropic strainhardening model with constant H. the integration of (6. for details) with the evolution of β given by 2 ˙ ˙ β = H εp − γ b β ˙ 3 2 ∂Φ H −bβ . H. the saturation corresponds to a maximum limit value for the norm of β. Chapter 5. =γ ˙ 3 ∂σ (6.212) with a generic function of the accumulated plastic strain. d¯p ε (6. Armstrong–Frederick hardening A refinement upon the linear kinematic hardening law proposed by Armstrong and Frederick (1966) is obtained by introducing an extra term in the above expression (refer to Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990).224) defines the kinematic hardening curve. ˙ β = H(¯p ) εp = γ H(¯p ) 3 3 ∂σ In this case.e. In the case of the von Mises criterion. such that H(¯p ) = ε ¯ dβ .222) having the initial yield stress (σy 0 for both models) as the initial condition produces the same stress–strain curve as the isotropic model.220). . In this case. εp . of (6. This curve can be obtained from simple uniaxial tests in a manner analogous to the determination of the hardening curve for the purely isotropic hardening model. i. To complete the demonstration.222) which coincides with the stress rate equation (6. we obtain σ= ˙ EH ε. into (6. or Jirásek and Bažant (2002).223) where b is a material constant.226) (6. ˙ E+H (6. we have either ε > 0 or ε < 0 throughout the entire loading ˙ ˙ process. let us assume that the uniaxial loading is monotonic. ¯ 2 ∂Φ 2 ˙ ε ˙ ε .225) (6. Nonlinear extension to Prager’s rule Another possible improvement upon Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule is the introduction of nonlinearity by replacing the constant kinematic hardening modulus. The extra term −γ b β introduces the effect of saturation in the ˙ kinematic hardening rule. a scalar function ¯ ¯ε β ≡ β(¯p ). Chapter 20.188 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of the linear elastic model under uniaxial stress conditions. at which the material behaves as perfectly plastic.

230) The back-stress tensor (6. the yield surface expands/shrinks and translates simultaneously in stress space. The equivalence between the above equation and (6. (6. β – is then defined as the derivative β≡ ∂ψ p .223). we have ψ p (X) = (6.234) ∂β ∂σ 6. MIXED ISOTROPIC/KINEMATIC HARDENING Rather than purely isotropic or purely kinematic hardening. X.5.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 189 Thermodynamical aspects of kinematic hardening From the thermodynamical viewpoint. . The kinematic hardening thermodynamical force – the back-stress tensor. X ≡ −γ ˙ ∂β ∂β a (6.231) The evolution law for the internal variable X is obtained by postulating a flow potential Ψ≡Φ+ and assuming normal dissipativity b ∂Φ ∂Ψ ˙ = −γ ˙ + β . Thus.232) Obviously (since Ψ = Φ). more realistic plasticity models can be obtained by combining the above laws for isotropic and kinematic hardening. ψ p = ψ p (X).227) The variable X is related to self-equilibrated residual stresses that remain after elastic unloading. the above kinematic hardening laws follow from the assumption that the plastic contribution. we have ∂Φ ∂Φ =− . ψ p .229) where the material constant a has been defined as a≡ 2 3 H.228) is then a scalar multiple of X. 2 (6. for instance. to the free energy is a function of a second-order tensor-valued internal variable.233) b β : β.223) can be established by taking into account (6. (6. 2a (6.6.228) For the Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (6. under plastic straining. (6. this evolution law is non-associative. real-life materials show in general a combination of both.231) and the fact that. given by β = a X. These stresses may increase or decrease resistance to plastic slip according to the direction considered. that is. since Φ is obtained from a non-kinematic hardening yield function by replacing the argument σ with σ − β. (6. ∂X a X : X.

ε ¯ ¯ε β = β(¯p ). is a function of the accumulated plastic strain. If the nonlinear rule defined by (6.225) is adopted. the hardening ¯ behaviour of the model is determined by the curves σy = σy (¯p ). A more refined mixed hardening model can be devised by coupling the Armstrong– Frederick law (6.235) which can be obtained from relatively simple uniaxial tests with load reversal (see schematic ¯ illustration of Figure 6.235)1.3 (starting on page 478) in the context of damage mechanics.25. a relatively simple von Mises-based model with mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening can be devised by adopting the yield function (6. A model including mixed hardening of this type is discussed in Section 12. (6. is the ¯ kinematic contribution to overall hardening. β. the kinematic hardening stress.25).224) and (6. For example.208) and allowing σy to be a function of εp . At each point εp .223) with the von Mises-type yield function (6. as in (6.208) where σy .190 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ load reversal σy εp β σy ε Figure 6. . Uniaxial test with load reversal. Mixed hardening.

Tresca. including a complete description of the algorithms and corresponding FORTRAN subroutines of the HYPLAS program. namely. 1993). Obviously. due to the mathematical complexity of such constitutive theories. is then made to the particular case of the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. 1950. page 151) as the underlying constitutive model. Hill. Since the first reported applications of finite elements in plasticity in the mid-1960s. the Finite Element Method is by far the most commonly adopted procedure for the solution of elastoplastic problems. Application to the Tresca. the mathematical theory of plasticity has been reviewed.7 FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL-STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS N the previous chapter. an exact solution to boundary value problems of practical engineering interest can only be obtained under very simplified conditions. Further application of the theory is made at the end of the chapter to a mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening version of the von Mises model. the von Mises. have been described in detail. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. The choice of this model is motivated here by the simplicity of its computational implementation. A set of numerical examples is also presented. Ltd I . This chapter describes in detail the numerical/computational procedures necessary for the implicit finite element solution of small strain plasticity problems within the framework of Chapter 4. the approximate solution to such problems is addressed in this book within the context of the Finite Element Method. Today. the Finite Element Method is regarded as the most powerful and reliable tool for the analysis of solid mechanics problems involving elastoplastic materials and is adopted by the vast majority of commercial software packages for elastoplastic stress analysis. 1990. A general small-strain elastoplastic constitutive model has been established within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables and the most popular theories. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models is left for Chapter 8. 1959. As pointed out in Chapter 4. the methodologies presented in this chapter are initially derived taking the general plasticity model introduced in Chapter 6 (summarised in Box 6.2. The existing analytical solutions are normally restricted to perfectly plastic models and are used for the determination of limit loads and steady plastic flow of bodies with simple geometries (Chakrabarty. Lubliner. The analysis of the behaviour of elastoplastic structures and soils under more realistic conditions requires the adoption of an adequate numerical framework capable of producing approximate solutions within reasonable accuracy. Practical application of the theory and procedures introduced. Skrzypek. In fact. This model is also included in the HYPLAS program. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. For the sake of generality. a substantial development of the related numerical techniques has occurred. 1987. Prager. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.

Within a (pseudo-) time increment [tn .5) These are the primary procedures that effectively define a particular constitutive model/algorithm in the program. within the modular structure of the HYPLAS program (refer to Section 5.2) ˆ ˆ The incremental constitutive functions σ and α are defined by the integration algorithm ˆ adopted and the stress delivered by σ is used to assemble the element internal force vector ngausp f int = e i=1 ji wi BT σn+1 |i . from page 131). Each one of these routines is called by a corresponding material interface subroutine that is common to all models. The state update procedure which. Following the nomenclature established in Chapter 5 (refer to the call trees of Figures 5.3) 2.1. each material model implementation is defined by a set of five material-specific routines. i (7. .5 respectively on pages 126 and 130). i (7. in the case of elastoplastic materials. This chapter will focus precisely on the two topics listed above.192 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7.4 and 5. the state update procedure gives the stresses σn+1 and the internal variables αn+1 at the end of the increment as a function of the internal variables αn at the beginning of the increment and the strains εn+1 at the end of the increment: ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . Preliminary implementation aspects At this point. The element tangent stiffness matrix is computed as ngausp KT = i=1 (e) wi ji BT Di Bi . ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . εn+1 ). it is convenient to recall that. εn+1 ).1) (7.7. (7. specialised to the case of elastoplastic materials. requires the formulation of a scheme for numerical integration of the rate elastoplastic evolution equations. ∂εn+1 (7. the computational implementation of the state update algorithms and tangent moduli addressed in the present chapter appears at the lowest layer of the material level in the computation of the element internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix. There are two most fundamental material-specific operations: 1. The computation of the associated consistent tangent modulus D≡ ˆ ∂σ .4) to be used whenever the evaluation of a new tangent stiffness matrix is required by the selected iterative scheme for solution of the nonlinear finite element equilibrium equations. tn+1 ].

∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . This section describes a numerical procedure for integration of the general elastoplastic model of Section 6. Assume that at a given (pseudo-)time t0 the elastic strain. εe (t0 ). A(t)) ˙ ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). The strategy presented here is later specialised and applied to the von Mises model in Section 7.2 by incorporating the plastic flow equation into the additive strain rate decomposition. the updating scheme usually requires the formulation of a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding rate constitutive equations. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSTITUTIVE INITIAL VALUE PROBLEM Consider a point p of a body B with constitutive behaviour described by the general elastoplastic model of Box 6.6) as reduced in that it is obtained from the model of Box 6. A(t)) = 0 ˙ (7. This requirement stems from the fact that analytical solutions to the initial value problem defined by the elastoplastic equations are generally not known for complex strain paths. 7. the Tresca. A(t)) ≤ 0. such as elastoplastic materials. Clearly.8) Remark 7. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). ε(t). We refer to the system of differential equations (7.7) (7. at the material point of interest between instants t0 and T .2. α(t) and γ(t) for the elastic strain. i. Specialisation to the other basic plasticity models of Chapter 6. Furthermore. ∂α t (7.3. ˙ Φ(σ(t). The basic elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem at point p is stated in the following.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 193 7. and in Chapter 12. the plastic strain tensor. in the context of advanced plasticity models. let the motion of B be prescribed between t0 and a subsequent instant. and all elements of the set α(t0 ) of hardening internal variables are known at point p. General numerical integration algorithm for elastoplastic constitutive equations The importance of the state-updating procedure within the overall finite element scheme has been stressed in Chapter 4. t ∈ [t0 . Problem 7. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor.e.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. T . is presented in Chapter 8 and its plane stress implementation is addressed in Chapter 9. T ].2 (page 151). An important point that one should bear in mind regarding the formulation of state-updating procedures is that the accuracy of the overall finite element scheme depends crucially on the accuracy of the particular numerical algorithm adopted. T ].1. εp (t0 ). the prescribed motion defines the history of the strain tensor. where the numerical implementation of damage mechanics models is discussed.1 (The elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem).2. Further applications of the algorithms described in the present chapter are made in Chapter 10. hardening internal variables set and plastic ˙ multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in . In the case of path-dependent materials.1.3. find the functions εe (t). ε(t). In this way.6) for each instant t ∈ [t0 . A(t)) ˙ γ(t) ≥ 0.

For simplicity we shall choose to adopt a backward (or fully implicit) Euler scheme. when yield functions and flow rules such as the ones described in the previous chapter are adopted. n+1 (7. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . tn+1 . and given the prescribed incremental strain ∆ε for this interval.1 is stated in the following.2. tn+1 ].2 is determined.194 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the system and the only unknowns are the elastic strain.2 (The incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem).11) (7.7). ∂ψ ∂εe ∆γ Φ(σn+1 . αn+1 and ∆γ. ∂ψ ∂α (7.7. the history of the plastic strain tensor is obtained from the trivial relation εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t).2.6) and (7. An+1 ) for the unknowns εe . For complex deformation paths. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ . Note that with the solution εe (t) of Problem 7. analytical solutions are not available in general and the adoption of a numerical technique to find an approximate solution becomes absolutely essential.13) Euler-based schemes can be equally adopted. An+1 ) ≤ 0. exact solutions to Problem 7.1 at hand. which are more likely to occur in realistic engineering problems. These will be discussed later in Section 7. for integration within a generic (pseudo-)time interval [tn .12) In the above.9) so that the history of all variables involved in the definition of the elastoplastic model of Box 6. the derivation of the analytical solutions is normally cumbersome. EULER DISCRETISATION: THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE PROBLEM The starting point here is the adoption of an Euler scheme to discretise equations (7. tn+1 ]. where σn+1 = ρ ¯ Φ(σn+1 .7)–(7. 7.2. the set of hardening internal variables and the plastic multiplier. solve the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . may only be obtained for very simple prescribed strain histories. of the elastic strain and internal variables set at the beginning of the pseudo-time interval [tn . Given the values εe n and αn . Even in such cases. we have adopted the obvious notation ∆(·) ≡ (·)n+1 − (·)n . H and Φ with their values at the end of the interval.† Accordingly.1. . Problem 7. (7. † Other (7.10) . The resulting discrete version of Problem 7. subjected to the constraints n+1 ∆γ ≥ 0.6) with corresponding incremental values within the considered interval and the functions N. As already mentioned. A general framework for the numerical solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity is described below. An+1 ) = 0. we replace all rate quantities in (7.

11)2 combined with (7. the solution of the incremental elastoplastic problem (7.11).e. note that (7. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . (7.17) (7.18) . Null incremental plastic multiplier. i.7)). (7. 2. tn+1 ]. the plastic strain at tn+1 can be calculated as εp = εp + ∆ε − ∆εe . where σn+1 and An+1 are functions of εe and An+1 defined through n+1 the potential relations (7. An+1 ) ≤ 0. The constraint (7. the constraint Φ(σn+1 . in addition.11)1 allows only for the two (mutually exclusive) possibilities enumerated below: 1.14) In this case there is no plastic flow or evolution of internal variables within the considered interval [tn .19) (7. as we shall see. the step is purely elastic. Strictly positive plastic multiplier. Nevertheless. The increment ∆γ will be called the incremental plastic multiplier. ∆γ > 0.11)3 is automatically satisfied.15) (7. ∆γ = 0. (7. Note that once the solution εe has been n+1 obtained. tn+1 ].e. An+1 ) = 0. n n+1 so that all variables of the model are known at the end of the interval [tn .10)–(7. αn+1 and ∆γ satisfy n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 .11)3 result in the constraint Φ(σn+1 .12). initial value problems without equations of the type (7.20) (7. εe .16) must hold. εe and αn+1 are given by n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αn+1 = αn and. Firstly.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 195 with (·)n and (·)n+1 denoting the value of (·) respectively at tn and tn+1 . An+1 ) and (7. the solution scheme in the present case remains rather simple with the discrete complementarity condition giving rise to a two-step algorithm derived in the following.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . In this case. Solution of the incremental problem Due to the presence of the discrete complementarity condition (7.12) does not follow directly the conventional procedure for standard initial value problems (i.

If Φtrial ≡ Φ(σtrial . the elastic trial state is not plastically admissible and a solution to Problem 7.23) n+1 n+1 that is.21) trial αn+1 = αn . An+1 ) n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αtrial + ∆γ H(σn+1 . Now note that.19)–(7.16).2.18). Firstly. An+1 ) = 0.16). (7. we update (·)n+1 := (·)trial n+1 (7. will be called the elastic trial solution. An+1 ) n+1 Φ(σn+1 . we rewrite the algebraic system equivalently as εe = εe trial − ∆γ N(σn+1 . if the elastic trial state lies within the elastic domain or on the yield surface.2. Atrial ) ≤ 0. that is.2 is either given by (7.2. Otherwise.17). we assume that the step [tn . that is.2 must be obtained from the plastic corrector step described below.20).3.18).25) . (b) The Plastic Corrector Step (or Return-Mapping Algorithm).22) The above variables are collectively called the elastic trial state.17). We then proceed as follows. THE ELASTIC PREDICTOR/PLASTIC CORRECTOR ALGORITHM The nature of the above problem motivates the establishment of a (conceptually very simple) two-step algorithm in which the two possible sets of equations are employed sequentially and the final solution is selected as the only valid one. in addition. Using the elastic trial state definition above. n+1 (7. tn+1 ] is elastic. to be the actual solution. It remains now to devise a procedure whereby the correct solution can be chosen. the elastic trial state has. it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. The solution given by (7.24) and the algorithm is terminated. which is not necessarily the actual solution to Problem 7. The strategy adopted is the following: (a) The Elastic Trial Step. given by ¯ σtrial = ρ n+1 ∂ψ ∂εe trial . n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial . (7. The corresponding stress and hardening force will be called the elastic trial stress and elastic trial hardening force. only one of two possible sets of equations provides a solution to Problem 7. subjected to the constraint (7. in which case it must satisfy constraint (7. we have just seen that any solution to Problem 7. The only option left now is to solve the system (7. to satisfy (7. In this case. 7.196 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In summary.19)–(7. we assume that the first of the above two situations (∆γ = 0) occurs.2. and will be denoted εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n (7. This is next described in detail. or it is a solution of the algebraic system of equations (7.20) of algebraic equations subject to the constraint (7.

Geometric interpretation: (a) hardening plasticity. The plastic corrector stage of the algorithm then consists in finding a solution εe . neither in n+1 the elastic domain nor on the yield surface). Summary of the overall procedure In summary. ensures that the stress. tn+1 ] lies on the updated yield surface. σn+1 .25)3. αn+1 and ∆γ n+1 for (7.2 shows the main steps in the . The return mapping procedure is executed only if the elastic trial state violates plastic admissibility. (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 197 (a) trial σn+1 (b) trial σn+1 plastic corrector elastic predictor elastic predictor plastic corrector σn+1 Φ(σ. σtrial returns to a fixed surface. Due to n+1 this interpretation the procedure of item (b) is referred to as the return mapping algorithm and (7.1 – has resulted in a numerical algorithm that involves two steps: the elastic predictor. complemented with the potential relations (7. the application of an Euler difference scheme to find an approximate solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity – Problem 7. that is. the elastic trial stress returns to the yield surface so that plastic consistency is re-established in the updated state.26) Remark 7.25) are called the return mapping equations.12).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .e. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7. which are. of course. and (b) perfect plasticity. in which the evolution problem is solved as if the material were purely elastic within the interval considered. σtrial . followed by the return mapping.25) that satisfies ∆γ > 0. General return mapping schemes.1. The elastic trial stress. Upon solution of the algebraic system (7. which is commonly referred to as the plastic consistency equation. Consider the yield surface at the elastic trial state. An+1 ) = 0 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ. The procedure of item (b) above possesses an appealing geometric interpretation as illustrated in Figure 7. in this case lies outside the plastically admissible domain (i. The first algorithm of this type appears to have been the radial return method proposed in the pioneering work of Wilkins (1964). The schematic diagram of Figure 7. equation (7. which accounts for plastic flow and enforces plastic admissibility. In the case of perfect plasticity.2. at the end of the interval [tn .1.25).

26). derivation of the overall integration algorithm. From the initial value problem of elastoplasticity to the elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithm. It should be noted that the algebraic system (7.26). but all having the same elastic predictor step. then Problem 7. then it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. results in very computationally efficient return mapping procedures. i.7. termed the backward. Schematic diagram. Firstly. The procedure commonly adopted in practice is quite simple. has to be solved subjected to the constraint (7. could be used instead.2.2. This algorithm is conveniently summarised in Box 7. the algebraic system (7. We remark that different discretisation schemes may be used instead. in particular.2.e. therefore. The main argument in favour of these methods is normally based on . This choice is motivated mainly by the quadratic rates of convergence achieved by this method which. in addition. by some iterative procedure. Note that if no solution exists with strictly positive incremental plastic multiplier.198 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem (Problem 7.1) Euler pseudo-time discretisation incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7. 7. Alternative techniques. The algorithm described above has been obtained by adopting.2) solution procedure ELASTIC PREDICTOR PLASTIC CORRECTOR (RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM) Figure 7. without regard for the constraint equation (7. fully implicit or simply implicit elastic predictor/return mapping scheme.26). Alternatives to the backward Euler-based algorithm will be discussed in Section 7.25) is generally nonlinear and. the backward Euler scheme to discretise elastoplastic constitutive equations and is.2 does not have a solution. such as quasi-Newton procedures in general. as a general rule.4. SOLUTION OF THE RETURN-MAPPING EQUATIONS Let us now focus on the solution of the return mapping equations.25) is solved on its own.2. As far as the iterative procedure for the solution of the return-mapping equations is concerned. each one resulting in a different return mapping algorithm. If the found solution satisfies (7.1 in pseudo-code format. the standard Newton–Raphson scheme is often an optimal choice and will be adopted exclusively throughout this book (and in the elastoplastic implementations of the HYPLAS program).

STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 199 Box 7. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 the fact that. even for complex plasticity models. if the full Newton–Raphson scheme is adopted to solve the global finite element equilibrium equations. generally. Atrial ) ≤ 0 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 = (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping. One aspect of the return-mapping scheme deserves particular attention. Thus. with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ (iv) EXIT ∂ψ ∂ εe . the derivation and computational implementation of residual gradients may prove a tedious exercise if performed manually.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .1. the return-mapping residual derivatives are needed to compute the consistent tangent operator.3. as will be seen later. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial n+1 for εe . Added to this is the fact that the relative ease of quasiNewton procedures comes at the expense of lower rates of convergence and. However. this argument is substantially weakened by considering that currently available symbolic manipulation software packages. for complex material models. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αtrial = αn n+1 σtrial = ρ ¯ n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility IF Φ(σtrial . αn+1 and ∆γ. used to assemble the tangent stiffness matrix. in contrast to the Newton–Raphson algorithm. can handle the closed-form calculation of derivatives quite easily. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . (i) Elastic predictor. they do not require the exact gradients of the associated residual functions (defined by the left-hand side of the equations of item (iii) of Box 7. Remark 7. 1991). the return mapping residual derivatives will have to be computed anyway. Solve the system   e εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1  n+1       0     trial αn+1 − αn+1 − ∆γ Hn+1 = 0             0 Φ(σn+1 . It might happen that the corresponding nonlinear system of algebraic equations has a solution with . Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for numerical integration of general elastoplastic constitutive equations. such as MATHEMATICA R (Wolfram. An+1 ) ∂ψ ∂ εe trial . Also. making the derivation and computational implementation of residual gradients a relatively straightforward task.1) and. less efficiency in the return-mapping procedure (and poorer performance of the overall finite element scheme).

5 below) and the associated variational structure of the returnmapping equations to devise globally convergent root-finding algorithms (i. i. More recently.2. Since ∆γ is required to be positive. Fortunately. . (7. the updated stress. In such cases. 7. . obtained by the implicit return mapping (Figure 7. however. for complex constitutive models. Another important consideration is that. The use of improved initial guesses in the Newton–Raphson iterations may also prove effective in ensuring convergence for highly nonlinear models (refer to Chapter 12).25)1 can be rewritten equivalently in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . i = 1. CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION INTERPRETATION For materials with linear elastic response. Another alternative can be the use of a sub-stepping scheme (Huerta et al.e.28) n+1 In this case. a strategy must be developed to ensure that the converged incremental plastic multiplier is positive.27) with constant elasticity tensor.3) is the projection of the trial stress σtrial onto the updated yield surface along the direction of n+1 the tensor De : Nn+1 . For perfectly plastic materials with associative flow rule. 1993 and described in Chapter 10 for the Barlat– Lian anisotropic plasticity model) can be incorporated into the standard Newton–Raphson algorithm in order to expand its radius of convergence. the implicit return mapping can be interpreted as a closest point projection of the trial stress onto the set A = {σ | Φ(σ) ≤ 0} (7. equation (7. De . numerical experience shows that such a situation is not usual and. such a solution is physically meaningless and must be disregarded if the Newton–Raphson algorithm converges to it.200 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆γ < 0. for some plasticity models. It may occur. This approach consists of dividing the total strain increment ∆ε into a number m of sub-increments ∆ε = ∆ε1 + ∆ε2 + · · · + ∆εm .2. Armero and PérezFoguet (2002) and Pérez-Foguet and Armero (2002) have explored the closest point projection interpretation (Section 7. does not occur for the basic plasticity models implemented in this chapter and in Chapter 8 for the normal range of material parameters. m. Each strain sub-increment ∆εi . the degree of nonlinearity of the return-mapping equations is so high that the convergence radius of the Newton scheme becomes substantially reduced. σn+1 . .29) . and then applying the integration algorithm sequentially m times to reach the approximate state at tn+1 . procedures such as linesearches (as suggested by Dutko et al. 1999).. (7. algorithms that converge regardless of the initial guess) based on a combination of the Newton–Raphson scheme and constrained line-search procedures. In such cases. materials for which the stress is given by σ = De : εe . has to be sufficiently small to ensure convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations.5.e. This issue is discussed in Chapter 12 in the context of damage mechanics plasticity models. in particular. .

7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . the updated stress is the admissible stress that lies closest to the elastic trial stress. and the associated measure of distance between two generic stress states given by d(σa . Obviously.6. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response.3.31) (7. These authors arrive at the elastic predictor/return mapping procedure by exploiting the additive decomposition of the total strain rate of the elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem within the context of product formula or operator split numerical algorithms (the reader is referred to Chorin et al. σn+1 = arg min[d(σ.1).30) (7. 7. n+1 σ∈A The interpretation of the implicit return mapping as a closest point projection of the trial stress remains valid for linearly hardening materials provided that a suitable definition of distance in the space of stress and hardening forces is introduced (see Simo et al. σtrial )] . The fully implicit return mapping. (1978) for further details on operator split algorithms). i. 7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 trial σn+1 201 perfect plasticity ∆γ || D e : N σn+1 Φ(σ.2.e.32) n+1 || D e : Nn+1 n+1 || . the accuracy and stability (the concepts of accuracy and stability ∆γ || D e : N hardening plasticity (7. σb ) ≡ σa − σb De . With the energy norm defined by σ De ≡ σ : [De ]−1 : σ. ALTERNATIVE JUSTIFICATION: OPERATOR SPLIT METHOD An interesting alternative justification for the elastic predictor/return mapping scheme for elastoplasticity is provided by Simo and Hughes (1987). An+1 ) = 0 D e : Nn+1 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ.2. (1988b) for details). OTHER ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN-MAPPING SCHEMES It has been mentioned earlier that procedures other than the backward Euler difference scheme may be used to discretise the elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem (Problem 7. of plastically admissible stresses.

which must lie within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. expression (7. which incorporate the backward (or fully implicit) Euler approach as a particular case.202 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS are reviewed in Section 7. as previously described. remains unchanged. The elastic predictor stage.1). Individual members of this family of algorithms are defined by the prescribed parameter θ. n+1 (7.4 for materials with linear elastic response. It should be emphasised that in all cases discussed here the use of a different discretisation rule will affect only the return mapping part of the overall integration algorithm (item (iii) of Box 7. Two important families of algorithms for elastoplasticity. The choice θ = 0 corresponds to a fully explicit return mapping.1. The generalised trapezoidal return mapping A generalisation of the classical trapezoidal rule and application to the numerical approximation of the elastoplastic constitutive problem results in a family of return mapping algorithms whose general expression for the associated algebraic system of nonlinear equations is given by εe = εe trial − ∆γ [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ] n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αn + ∆γ [(1 − θ)Hn + θHn+1 ] Φ(σn+1 . where. n n+1 (7. These procedures have been proposed by Ortiz and Popov (1985). An+1 ) = 0. .34) The incremental flow vector.36) so that the updated stress can be interpreted as the projection of the trial stress onto the updated yield surface along the direction De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. It is important to note that the previously described fully implicit return mapping is recovered by choosing θ = 1 in the generalised trapezoidal rule.35) (7.10) of the overall elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm will depend on the particular strategy adopted. in the present case given by (1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 . In this case. can be derived by adopting generalised versions of the classical trapezoidal and midpoint rules in the discretisation of Problem 7. it is implicitly understood that constraint (7. The corresponding discrete plastic flow equation is εp = εp + ∆γ [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. of course.26) is satisfied. is a linear combination of the flow vectors at times tn and tn+1 .33) The geometric interpretation of the generalised trapezoidal return algorithm in the space of stresses is shown in Figure 7. Another popular scheme is the so-called cutting plane algorithm proposed by Simo and Ortiz (1985) (see also Ortiz and Simo 1986).33)1 may be equivalently written in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. These procedures are described below.2. (7.

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . An+θ ).38) (7. An ) = 0 Figure 7. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. The generalised trapezoidal return mapping. An+1 ) = 0. (7. with the generalised midpoint state defined by the variables σn+θ = (1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn An+θ = (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 . n n+1 (7. which correspond.33) for θ = 1 and θ = 0. again. to the fully implicit and fully explicit .37) The parameter θ is. a prescribed constant within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 203 θ ∆γ || D e : Nn || D e : Nn+1 (1− θ) ∆γ || D e : Nn+1 || e D : Nn σn+1 σn elastic domain Φ(σ. An+θ ) Hn+θ = H(σn+θ . respectively.40) Note that the generalised midpoint rule coincides with the generalised trapezoidal rule (7. In the present case.39) (7. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. the discrete plastic flow rule reads εp = εp + ∆γ Nn+θ . where Nn+θ = N(σn+θ . The generalised midpoint return mapping A generalisation of the midpoint rule for integration of the elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem gives the following return mapping equations εe = εe trial − ∆γ Nn+θ n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αn + ∆γ Hn+θ Φ(σn+1 .4.

42) In this case. is given by σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+θ .37)3 with the alternative Φ(σn+θ . in this case. defined respectively by (7. An ) = 0 Figure 7.37)3. the fact that in this case the symmetry of the associated consistent tangent operators‡ is ensured for fully associative models – a property not generally preserved by the family of algorithms based on (7.204 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial σn+1 ∆γ || D e : Nn+θ || D e : Nn+θ σn+1 σn+θ σn elastic domain Φ(σ.37).5. a discussion on the possible symmetry of such operators is provided in Section 7. return mappings. . as noted by Ortiz and Martin (1989).4. rather than the updated. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ.4. σtrial . This version of the generalised return mapping is discussed in detail by Simo and Govindjee (1991) who highlight. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. plastic consistency is enforced upon the generalised midpoint.4.5 for materials with linear elastic response.41) n+1 and corresponds to the projection of the elastic trial stress. As for the fully implicit return mapping. onto the updated yield n+1 surface at tn+1 along the direction of De : Nn+θ . In particular. The updated stress.6. A possible variation of the above generalised midpoint rule is obtained by replacing the consistency condition (7.33) and (7. state. in particular. both generalised trapezoidal and midpoint return-mapping algorithms. Remark 7. The geometric interpretation of the generalised midpoint return algorithm is given in Figure 7. (7. (7. require the ‡ Consistent tangent operators for return-mapping schemes will be discussed in Section 7. The generalised midpoint return mapping. An+θ ) = 0.

Therefore. εe n+1 and αn+1 become functions solely of the incremental multiplier ∆γ and so does σn+1 and An+1 . A). α) ∗ α. The cutting-plane algorithm Let us start by observing that the return-mapping equations (7. (7. ∂εe ∂α (7.2 are a backward Euler approximation to the initial value problem defined by the differential equation ˙ εe = −γN(σ.46) (7. This idea is exploited in Section 7. subject to the consistency condition (7. in general. In this case.25)1.25)3. α) ∗ α ˙ ˙ ˙ A = F(εe . the return-mapping equations can be substantially simplified.3. ˙ with initial condition εe = εe trial . α) : εe + E(εe .46)1 is the elastic modulus De (εe . ∂εe 2 (7. α) in (7.8) into the equivalent rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De (εe . which we shall describe below.43) for any elastoplastic model. The return-mapping equations in this case can then be reduced to a single scalar (generally nonlinear) equation of the form ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ Φ(σn+1 (∆γ).8). The operator E(εe . It is interesting to note that. (7. n+1 αe = αe trial . α) ∗ εe + G(εe . For certain material models. all terms. The fourth-order tensor De (εe .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 205 solution of a (generally nonlinear) system of equations for any prescribed parameter θ.48) .47) which. As before. the original system variables. The above rate constitutive equations for σ and A are obtained by a straightforward application of the chain rule to (7. defined by E(εe . is to recast the potential relation (7. an efficient scheme is normally obtained by adopting the quadratically convergent Newton–Raphson method.44) where ∗ denotes the product of the appropriate type. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .45) The implicit return-mapping scheme consists in solving the above problem. A) ˙ ˙ α = γH(σ. The cutting-plane method. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . simplifications of this type are also possible for θ = 0 and are crucially important for the computational efficiency of the associated return-mapping procedure. where the derivation of implicit return mapping for the von Mises model is described in detail. n+1 (7. with the exception of ∆γ. by means of the backward Euler scheme.37) are known values at tn .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . on the right-hand side of (7. is assumed to be a function of εe and α. α) denotes the tangent modulus associated with the hardening response. is an alternative scheme for the numerical solution of the return-mapping problem. for the fully explicit member of these families of algorithms (θ = 0). The first step to derive the cutting-plane algorithm. An+1 (∆γ)) = 0.

α) = ρ ¯ we redefine the initial value problem (7. An+1 ) = 0. An+1 }.50) ∂α2 It should be noted that De is constant for materials whose elastic behaviour is linear. A) + E(σ. the (k) (k) plastic consistency equation is linearised§ about the current (known) state.55) to Section 2.49) ∂2ψ . the return-mapping problem now comprises the initial value problem (7. A)] ˙ ˙ A = γ[−F(σ.54) Basically.52)– (7.53) (7. for models in which elasticity is coupled with dissipative phenomena. A) ∗ H(σ. By combining (7.53) in conjunction with the plastic consistency constraint Φ(σn+1 . § Refer (k+1) (k+1) (7. (7. is then obtained as the solution of the linearised equation (k) (k) (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) Φ(σn+1 . of the stress and hardening force. (7. {σn+1 .44) with (7.52) In summary. the tangent operators E and F vanish and so does the second term on the right-hand side of (7. α) = ρ ¯ and ∂2ψ ∂α∂εe (7. (7. α = α(σ. the cutting plane return-mapping algorithm is an iterative procedure for numerical solution of the return-mapping problem whereby the linear approximation to the plastic consistency equation is solved at each iteration. A)].46) and making use of complementary potential relations that give εe = εe (σ.51) G(εe .44)–(7. A). ˙ with the obvious initial condition σ = σtrial .46)2. n+1 (7. A) ∗ H(σ. Also.37) (page 149) of decoupling between elasticity and hardening. An+1 }.46)1 and the first term on the right-hand side of (7. these terms do not vanish in general. A) : N(σ. (from page 38) for the definition of the linearisation of a nonlinear problem. In a typical cutting-plane iteration. n+1 A = Atrial . such as Lemaitre’s damage theory discussed in Chapter 12. An+1 ) + N n+1 : [σn+1 − σn+1 ] (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) + H n+1 ∗ [An+1 − An+1 ] = 0.206 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In addition. A) + G(σ. (k). the tangential operators F and G are defined as F(εe . However. . A) ∗ N(σ. A new state. under the assumption (6. {σn+1 . A).45) equivalently in terms of stress and hardening force as ˙ σ = γ[−De (σ.6.

Atrial }. The interpretation here remains valid for materials with a nonlinear elastic (k+1) (k+1) response. the new stress.52) using a forward (or explicit) Euler scheme.e. {σn+1 . (k) (k) (0) (0) (7. Remark 7.An+1 (k) (k) (7. The cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm is summarised in Box 7. e (k) (k) (k) (k) .2 in pseudo-code format. An+1 } satisfies the convergence criterion Φ(σn+1 .55) defines a hyperplane in the space of stresses and hardening forces.56) ¯ ¯ Note that for fully associative plasticity (Ψ ≡ Φ). The projection is made along the direction of the tensor Dn+1 : N n+1 − En+1 ∗ H n+1 .6. the following expression is obtained for ∆γ in closed form ∆γ = Φn+1 (k) e (k) (k) (k) (k) ¯ (k) N n+1 : Dn+1 : N n+1 − En+1 ∗ H n+1 (k+1) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k+1) (k) e (k) (k) (k) (k) ¯ + H n+1 ∗ Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 − Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 (k+1) (k+1) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) .59) k = 0. An+1 }. i. An+1 }. The geometric interpretation of the cutting-plane algorithm is illustrated in Figure 7.58) and the new state {σn+1 . the iterative process is interrupted at an iteration (k) if the state {σn+1 . An+1 } = {σtrial . (7. With the substitution of the above equations into (7. (7. is obtained by projecting the (k) (k) current stress. n+1 n+1 the repeated application of the above iteration generates a sequence of states {σn+1 .55). (k) (k) σn+1 . 2.55) we proceed as follows. .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Starting (with k = 0) from the initial condition of the return-mapping problem {σn+1 .57).5. . σn+1 . An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol . 1. . We discretise the rate constitutive equations (7. An+1 } is computed by substituting the value obtained for ∆γ into (7. and H. This gives the formula σn+1 − σn+1 = ∆γ −Dn+1 : N n+1 + En+1 ∗ H n+1 (7. N.An+1 (k) (k) ∂Φ ¯ (k) H n+1 = ∂A . {σn+1 .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 207 ¯ ¯ where N n+1 and H n+1 have been defined as ∂Φ ¯ (k) N n+1 = ∂σ . respectively. with the flow vector.60) where tol is a prescribed convergence tolerance. An+1 }. onto a cutting plane defined by the linearised consistency condition¶. N and H coincide. In each iteration.57) An+1 − An+1 = ∆γ −Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 + Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 . The cutting-plane iterations continue until the value of the yield function is sufficiently close (k) (k) to zero. To solve (7. ¶ Note that the linearised consistency condition (7. .

A(k) ). An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol THEN update σn+1 = σ (k) n+1 . The iterations of the cutting-plane algorithm converge to the solution Φ = 0 at quadratic rates. This is in contrast to the previously described return-mapping schemes for which the computation of (generally more complex) residual derivatives is required in order to achieve quadratic rates of convergence. Remark 7. This makes the cutting-plane algorithm particularly attractive for more complex plasticity models. it is important to emphasise that the incremental stress–strain function ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . (i) Given the elastic trial state. Cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm for general elastoplastic models.208 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. n+1 n+1 ELSE set k := k + 1 and GO TO (ii) In the limit of the iterative process.4. n+1 n+1 n+1 εp = εn+1 − εe . . (7. εn+1 ).2. n+1 n+1 (ii) Perform cutting-plane iteration ∆γ = Φn+1 (k) A(0) = Atrial n+1 n+1 e (k) ¯ N n+1 : Dn+1 : N (k) − E(k) ∗ H (k) n+1 n+1 n+1 (k) (k) (k) (k) ¯ (k) + H n+1 ∗ Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 − Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 (k) e (k) σ(k+1) = σ(k) − ∆γ Dn+1 : N (k) − E(k) ∗ H (k) n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 A(k+1) = A(k) − ∆γ F(k) ∗ N (k) − G(k) ∗ H (k) n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 (iii) Check convergence IF Φ(σn+1 . A(k) ). (7. An+1 = A(k) . Quadratic rates of convergence are achieved here despite the fact that only relatively simple function evaluations are performed in each iteration. to which readers unfamiliar with the concept are referred. n+1 n+1 and EXIT εe = εe (σ(k) . However. n+1 αn+1 = α(σ(k) .6.61) delivered by the cutting-plane algorithm. plastic consistency is restored and the cutting plane is tangent to the actual yield surface. is not amenable to linearisation and derivation of a consistent tangent modulus ˆ ∂σ D= . set k = 0 and σ(0) = σtrial .62) ∂εn+1 The notion of a consistent tangent modulus for elastoplasticity numerical integration algorithms is introduced in Section 7.

An+1 ) = 0 (2) . in explicit codes. However. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. The identification of plasticity equations with DAEs allows the use of numerical methods (7.63)3). A(t)) = 0.2. page 98).63) .2 in the present case) complemented by a constraint in the form of algebraic equations (equation (7.6. Formally.5.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . A(t)) ˙ Φ(σ(t).8. cutting planes σn+1 σn elastic domain at tn Φ(σ. PLASTICITY AND DIFFERENTIAL-ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS Under continuous plastic loading... The cutting-plane return mapping. the lack of a consistent tangent modulus represents a serious limitation for it does not allow the use of the (quadratically convergent) Newton–Raphson algorithm in the solution of the (global) finite element equilibrium equations. A detailed account on numerical methods for DAEs is provided in the textbook by Ascher and Petzold (1998) (see also Gear (1971) for an early reference on the subject).63)1. Within the implicit finite element framework of Chapter 4 (see Section 4. An+1 ) = 0 (1) 209 (1) σn+1 (2) σn+1 Φlin (σ . A(t)) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t).1) reduces to ˙ ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t).8) can be used to express σ and A as explicit functions of εe and α. 7.. where the potential relations (7.. the system of equations that characterises the elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7.2. An ) = 0 Figure 7. which do not require the solution of a global system of equilibrium equations. such a system is classed as a system of differential-algebraic equations (DAE). Geometric interpretation.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial (0) σn+1 ≡ σn+1 Φlin (σ . These generally contain ordinary differential equations (equations (7. the use of cutting-plane algorithms could be an attractive option.

the concepts of accuracy and stability are briefly reviewed below in Section 7. In this section. Generally speaking. By exploiting the potential structure that characterises many elastoplasticity models and concepts of convex analysis.2. Reddy and Martin (1991). we refer to the work of Maier (1970). ACCURACY AND STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS Accuracy and stability are crucially important aspects of numerical algorithms for the solution of initial value problems in general. some of these methods reduce the complete initial boundary value problem to a mathematical programming problem that can be solved by means of standard numerical algorithms. as well as the corresponding methods of analysis. The use of such tools in plasticity is also discussed by Simo (1998).210 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS devised for this type of equation. Tresca) do not require special treatment and are naturally accommodated within the mathematical programming environment. in the treatment of plasticity problems. (1988. only the elastoplastic constitutive evolution problem at the Gauss point level is reduced to a mathematical programming problem.2. (1991) and Romano et al. even though singular models can be efficiently integrated within the elastic predictor/return-mapping framework (as we shall see in Chapter 8). The effectiveness of such methodologies has been demonstrated in the numerical solution of a wide range of initial boundary value problems. Caddemi and Martin (1991). 1992). Feijóo and Zouain (1988). Papadopoulos and Taylor (1994) proposed a two-step backward difference formula of second-order accuracy for von Mises type plasticity. Zouain et al. In contrast. For details on this class of methods. however. By exploiting these ideas. (1987). it appears that the relative efficiency of mathematical programming-based algorithms (as compared to elastic predictor/plastic corrector approaches) has not been assessed so far.9. 1973) has been proposed by a number of authors. For other methods of this class. accuracy and stability properties of the return-mapping schemes described above are discussed. 7. extra complexity is inevitably introduced in the presence of non-smooth corners on the yield surface. 1979. An important class of numerical procedures developed on the basis of mathematical programming concepts (Bazaraa and Shetty.10).10. In the present context. To the authors’ knowledge. the accuracy and stability of the adopted numerical scheme for integration of the elastoplastic equations at the Gauss point level is directly associated with the effectiveness and reliability of the overall finite element solution scheme.2. Luenberger. ‘accurate’ finite element solutions to initial boundary value problems involving elastoplastic materials should not be expected if ‘inaccurate’ stateupdate procedures are used at the Gauss point level. Martin et al.g. One interesting aspect of formulations such as the one proposed by Feijóo and Zouain (1988) is the fact that singularities (corners) of multisurface models (e. ALTERNATIVE MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING-BASED ALGORITHMS The class of elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms described thus far is by no means the only possible approach to the formulation of incremental elastoplastic constitutive algorithms. Results from DAE theory were used by these authors to prove the stability and accuracy order of their method (here. 7. (1993). It is emphasised that no attempt is made here to derive (usually complex) mathematical proofs of the accuracy . Comi et al.

it is convenient at this point to give a more precise definition of what accuracy and stability mean in the discussion that follows. or to have consistency of order one) (Gear. as to the actual numerical errors incurred under steps of finite size. ∆t. Rather.64)–(7. as ∆t → 0. subjected to the initial condition x(t0 ) = x0 .66) is said to be first-order accurate.68) then it is said to be second-order accurate (or to have consistency of order two). Here. the accuracy order of an algorithm provides information about its behaviour as the step size ∆t (strain increment size in the case of elastoplasticity) approaches zero. that is.66) with the superimposed dot denoting differentiation with respect to the independent variable t. the maximum difference between exact and numerical solutions (excluding machine round-off errors) within (t0 .64) (7. (7. ∆t2 . if the update formula for the approximate value xn+1 of the unknown function x at the end of the generic step [tn . finite step accuracy and stability Before proceeding. the accuracy order of an algorithm is a measure of how accurately the discretised equations approximate their differential counterparts within an infinitesimal vicinity of the initial conditions. for instance. If. tf ] satisfies d xn+1 d∆t = x(tn ). This aspect of numerical methods for ordinary differential equations is discussed. the purpose of this section is to provide the reader with some results that can be useful in helping to decide which algorithm to adopt when considering the computational implementation of a particular plasticity model. The concepts of accuracy order. however. for a given finite step size ∆t. ¨ ∆t=0 (7. Second-order accurate algorithms produce numerical errors that are proportional to the square of the step size. 1971). A numerical method for approximate solution of (7. . In summary.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 211 and stability of elastoplastic integration algorithms. tf ]. in addition to first-order accuracy. as ∆t → 0. Let us consider a typical (well-posed) initial value problem defined by an ordinary differential equation x(t) = f (x.e. the algorithm satisfies d2 xn+1 d∆t2 = x(tn ).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . by Gear (1971). tf ]. we shall address this issue in the following. produced by first-order accurate algorithms is proportional to the step size.65) (7. i. the choice of a method of higher accuracy order rather than one of lower order does not necessarily produce a more accurate numerical solution. tn+1 = tn + ∆t] ∈ [t0 . t) ˙ over the generic domain t ∈ [t0 . It gives no indication. The term accuracy will be used here in two different contexts: (a) With a mathematically precise definition. ˙ ∆t=0 (7.67) The numerical error.

It is remarked that consideration of general .2. If an algorithm is not stable or not (at least) first-order accurate. (7. to Ascher and Petzold (1998) for various definitions of stability in this context. finite step accuracy may be measured by means of numerical experiments in which the state-update algorithm is used to integrate the elastoplastic equations under a wide range of initial conditions and strain increment sizes and directions.66) relates to how perturbations to the initial condition propagate throughout the stepping procedure. for instance.64)– (7. σb ) ≡ inf λ λ σ (s) ds. An algorithm that satisfies the first-order accuracy and stability requirements is said to be convergent. σ∗ ) ≤ d(σn . the term finite step accuracy will be adopted here to describe the actual accuracy of particular algorithms under finite step sizes. may produce dramatic changes in the numerical results which completely invalidate the solution. In spite of the restriction to perfect plasticity and linear elastic law. their analysis provides a very interesting insight into the properties of the trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms described in Section 7. σb } of stresses on the yield surface.7 which allow for general elastic and hardening laws. we have d(σa . on the other hand. perturbations to the initial conditions propagate in an unbounded manner so that small changes in increment size. an elastic predictor/plastic corrector scheme (under plastic yielding) is said to be stable if given two arbitrary distinct initial stress states at tn . In the context of plasticity. Finite step accuracy measurements can give important information on the practical limitations of integration algorithms. The reader is referred. Their analysis has concentrated on perfectly plastic materials with linear elastic response and possible non-associative flow rule. σ∗ ) n+1 n (7. σn and σ∗ . or even machine round-off errors. In the case of perfectly plastic models (Ortiz and Popov. the n corresponding updated values at tn+1 are bounded by d(σn+1 . an algorithm is said to be stable if the variations in the numerical solution that result from a perturbation of the initial conditions are bounded within the domain [t0 . The property of stability together with first-order accuracy (or consistency of order one) of the numerical method. Remarks on the accuracy order and stability of elastoplastic algorithms A detailed study of the accuracy and stability characteristics of the elastic predictor/returnmapping algorithms based on the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint rules has been carried out by Ortiz and Popov (1985). are necessary and sufficient conditions for the numerical solution to converge to the exact solution as the increment size tends to zero.212 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (b) With a more practical (and less precise) definition. The property of stability of an algorithm for numerical solution of the typical problem (7. especially with regard to the permissible size of strain increments for which the error remains within reasonable bounds.70) with λ denoting arbitrary paths on the yield surface connecting σa and σb .69) where d is a measure of distance on the yield surface defined such that for any pair {σa . tf ]. Generally speaking. 1985). then it does not converge to the exact solution. For unstable algorithms.

stability does not depend on the shape of the yield surface. restricted to the case of linear elastic behaviour. The analysis was focused on materials with an associative hardening and flow rules and. Finite step accuracy aspects: the iso-error maps As mentioned previously. second-order accuracy is attained for the choice θ = 1 in both trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. all trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms satisfy the necessary condition of first-order accuracy for convergence. described in Section 7.45). therefore. the cutting-plane procedure is naturally first-order accurate. For the algorithms based on the generalised midpoint rule. again.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . With increasing curvature. Within the context of the fully . Since the sequence of states generated by the cutting-plane return mapping is obtained by fully linearising the plastic corrector evolution problem (7. 2 as for the midpoint schemes based on the fully implicit consistency (7. however. it has been shown by Ortiz and Popov (1985) that all members of the families of integration algorithms based on the generalised midpoint and trapezoidal rules are (at least) first-order accurate. The stability of the cutting-plane algorithm. The next step in the analysis of these families of algorithms is the assessment of their stability properties. therefore. In addition. such as the von Mises surface. 2 It is worth mentioning that a similar analysis of accuracy and stability has been carried out by Simo and Govindjee (1991) for the version of the generalised midpoint return-mapping scheme of Section 7.7 characterised by the midpoint plastic consistency equation (7. Their results are similar to those of Ortiz and Popov and show that the midpoint algorithms based on the midpoint consistency condition are second-order accurate for θ = 1 and first-order accurate otherwise. the only unconditionally stable algorithm is the fully implicit. is a particular (common) member of both families (for θ = 1) and. as the Backward Euler-based scheme (which also approximates this problem numerically). Essentially. on the other hand. such as the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb surfaces which have sharp corners.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 213 nonlinear elastic behaviour and hardening response introduces substantial mathematical complexity into an analysis of this type and results for such general conditions do not seem to be currently available. the 2 interval for which the generalised trapezoidal algorithms remain unconditionally stable narrows around θ = 1 (the fully implicit scheme).7. is only conditional.42). In addition. as far 2 as accuracy order is concerned. It is pointed out by Simo and Ortiz (1985) that the elastoplastic algorithm based on the cutting-plane return mapping is unconditionally stable for materials with associative flow rule. In summary. the accuracy order of an algorithm gives information about how well the discretised equations approximate the original differential equations in an infinitesimal neighbourhood of the initial conditions and.44. for surfaces with infinite curvature. In the limit. unconditional stability is obtained for 1 ≤ θ ≤ 1. For surfaces with constant curvature in the space of stresses.2.3.37)3. Recall that the integration algorithm based on the fully implicit return mapping. These algorithms are unconditionally stable for θ ≥ 1 . 2 Attention is now focused on the elastoplastic algorithm based on the cutting-plane return mapping. is also first-order accurate. should be expected to predict its behaviour only for relatively small increments. The analysis carried out by Ortiz and Popov (1985) shows that the stability of the generalised trapezoidal algorithms depends strongly on the shape of the yield surface.2. their algorithms are stable for θ ≥ 1 . it follows that.

an error field is obtained.7(b).e. Ortiz and Popov. Their assessment was based on the use of iso-error maps. i. . From this point a sequence of strain increments is applied corresponding to specified normalised elastic trial stress increments of the form ∆σtrial = ∆σN ∆σT T+ N. respectively. since the original application by Krieg and Krieg (1977). Dutko et al. Systematic finite step accuracy analyses of elastoplastic algorithms have been carried out firstly by Krieg and Krieg (1977) who investigated the behaviour of procedures for integration of the von Mises perfectly plastic model.72) By varying the prescribed increment sizes ∆σT and ∆σN . As a result of the numerical integration algorithm. first-order accurate and stable..7(b). To give a general idea of reasonable sub-increment sizes. Simo and Taylor. Calling σexact the exact solution of the stress integration problem. as analytical solutions are generally not available.7(a). an approximated stress σnum is computed for each increment. The iso-error map corresponding to the fully implicit scheme for integration of the perfectly plastic von Mises model under general stress state is shown in Figure 7. σexact is taken as the numerical solution obtained by dividing each strain increment into a sufficiently large number of subincrements∗∗. respectively associated with the tangential and normal directions to the yield surface. with the yield surface of Figure 7.7(a) represented in the deviatoric plane. Fuschi et al. q q (7. For this particular model.. it is desirable that the state-update procedures employed at the Gauss point level be sufficiently accurate for strain increments as large as possible in order to ensure that the global finite element solution remains within reasonable bounds of accuracy for large load increments. the error associated with each increment is defined as ERROR = (σexact − σnum ) : (σexact − σnum ) √ . consider an arbitrary stress state at a point P on the yield surface as shown in Figure 7. the perfectly plastic associative von Mises model is adopted for illustration. It is important to note that. 1992. 1993. it is worth mentioning that one thousand sub-increments have been used to produce the ‘exact’ solutions for the map of Figure 7. iso-error maps have proved very effective and are currently accepted as the most reliable (if not the only) tool for the assessment of the finite step accuracy of integration algorithms for elastoplasticity (de Souza Neto et al. was among the procedures assessed by these authors. It should be emphasised that the particular increment directions and error measure employed above are suitable for the von Mises perfectly plastic ∗∗ Note that this assumption is valid if the algorithm under study is convergent.. which for this particular model is termed the radial return method. the extension of the accuracy order study to the assessment of the accuracy of elastoplastic integration algorithms under finite steps becomes crucial. for the particular plasticity model considered. In order to generate a typical iso-error map. The fully implicit algorithm. It is remarked that. From this point of view. 1986). the unit (in Euclidean norm) normal and tangent vectors to the yield surface and q is the von Mises equivalent stress at P . The contour plot of this error field is the iso-error map for P .214 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS implicit Finite Element Method described in Chapter 4 and adopted in the HYPLAS program. 1994a. σexact : σexact (7.71) where N and T are. the starting point P is immaterial. 1985. Here.

STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 215 6 ∆σT N P T ∆σN 15% 2 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σ T ⁄ q (a) (b) Figure 7. Iso-error map: (a) typical increment directions.3. however. is described in this section.1 (page 199) to the von Mises model.7 and 0.7. The iso-error maps discussed by these authors were restricted to the perfectly plastic von Mises model – a model for which the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms coincide. It is remarked that the ∆σ N ⁄ q ∆σ trial σ trial 5% 10% 4 . it might be useful to include the error associated with the hardening internal variable in the definition of the error measure. gives better accuracy than the second-order algorithm.8 gives the best accuracy. the best accuracy is obtained with θ = 1 . The specialisation of the fully implicit algorithm of Box 7. the fully implicit algorithm (θ = 1). 7.3 and 7.2. let us now return to the discussion regarding the properties of the integration algorithms of Sections 7. Having described the concept of iso-error maps.2. the performance of the second-order algorithm deteriorates.7 concentrating on their finite step accuracy characteristics.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Also. which will be adopted in the numerical implementation described in the following sections of this chapter. For reasonably sized increments. but may not be so for different models. the von Mises model is the simplest type discussed in this book. and (b) a typical iso-error map. for instance. A finite step accuracy analysis of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint rule integration algorithms. based on iso-error maps. has been carried out by Ortiz and Popov (1985) in the same paper in which they presented the analysis of accuracy and stability of these algorithms. (1992) for the variant of the midpoint rule based algorithm proposed by Simo and Govindjee (1991). model. for small increments. In the case of hardening materials. Application: integration algorithm for the isotropically hardening von Mises model As far as the computer implementation of elastic predictor/return-mapping state-update procedures is concerned. With increasing increment size. featuring the standard associative law and linear elastic behaviour and including general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. likely to occur in real problems. It is worth remarking that completely analogous results have been found by Fuschi et al. This is in obvious agreement with 2 the (infinitesimal) accuracy analysis that established second-order accuracy for this particular choice of θ. a choice of θ between 0. these authors have found that. Essentially.

2 s (7.1. A linear elastic law σ = De : εe . ∂σ (7. Before going further. ensures that the resulting algorithm is convergent. and (iv) its relatively simple computational implementation. Its particularisation for the Tresca. in Chapter 8.3. σy ) = where σy = σy (¯p ) ε is the uniaxial yield stress – a function of the accumulated plastic strain.216 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS implicit algorithm is exclusively adopted throughout this book (and in the HYPLAS program) for integration of elastoplastic models.75) with the (Prandtl–Reuss) flow vector. the model comprises: 1. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models is described later. (iii) its suitability for the derivation of associated consistent tangent operators – a property (not shared by the cutting-plane algorithm) that is absolutely essential for its use in conjunction with a (quadratically convergent) global Newton–Raphson procedure. in conjunction with its first-order accuracy. where D is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor. ¯ 3.76) p e (7. A yield function of the form Φ(σ. with the evolution equation for the hardening internal variable given by ˙ ˙ εp = 2 εp = γ.78) 3 . explicitly given by N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . ¯ ˙ (7. N. ε . it is convenient at this point to list the basic equations used in the present implementation of the von Mises model.2. 2. (ii) its generally ‘good’ finite step accuracy. An associative hardening rule. A standard associative flow rule ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ ∂Φ .7. as compared to other members of the families of generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms discussed in Section 7.73) 3 J2 (s(σ)) − σy . Essentially.74) (7. The choice of the fully implicit algorithm here and in the remainder of this book is essentially motivated by: (i) its (unconditional) stability which. THE IMPLEMENTED MODEL The von Mises yield criterion as well as the corresponding associative flow rule and possible hardening laws have been thoroughly discussed in Chapter 6. (7. 7.77) 4.

• Otherwise.25) to the von Mises model gives the following set . the deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses. The trial yield stress is simply trial σy n+1 = σy (¯p ) = σy n .83) Having computed the elastic trial state. the process is elastoplastic within the interval [tn .84) is updated.2. respectively.81) (7. THE IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN-MAPPING SCHEME Given the increment of strain ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . and given the state variables {εe . εn (7.82) (7. In this case. (7. i.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 217 7. the deviatoric and volumetric components. respectively. tn+1 ] and the returnmapping procedure described below has to be applied.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .25) of nonlinear equations. Recall that the general implicit return-mapping procedure corresponds to solving the system (7.80) where s and p denote. n+1 n+1 or. n+1 then the process within the interval [tn . In the present case. εe = εe trial n+1 n+1 σn+1 = σtrial n+1 εp = εp trial = εp ¯n+1 ¯n+1 ¯n trial σy n+1 = σy n+1 = σy n (7. the next step in the algorithm is to check whether σtrial lies inside or outside of the trial yield surface: n+1 • If σtrial lies inside of the trial yield surface.3. direct specialisation of the general fully implicit return-mapping equations (7. if n+1 Φ(σtrial . ¯n+1 The corresponding trial stress is computed as σtrial = De : εe trial .e. by applying the hydrostatic/deviatoric decomposition strial = 2G εe trial . the elastic trial strain and trial accumulated plastic strain are given by n ¯n εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n ¯n εp trial = εp . the shear and bulk moduli and the subscripts d and v in the elastic trial strain denote. σy n ) ≤ 0. n+1 v n+1 (7. respectively. G and K are. tn+1 ] is purely elastic and the elastic trial state itself is the solution to the integration problem. εp } at tn . equivalently. n+1 d n+1 ptrial = K εe trial . tn+1 ].79) corresponding to a typical (pseudo-) time increment [tn .

(7.218 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of nonlinear equations: εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 n+1 εp = εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n 3 sn+1 2 sn+1 (7. Further simplification follows by noting that by rearranging the deviatoric stress update formula (7. the return mapping for the von Mises model can be reduced to a single nonlinear equation having the incremental plastic multiplier ∆γ as the unknown. It should be emphasised that this reduction in the number of equations is of extreme importance in order to make the state-update procedure more computationally efficient and. pn+1 . in terms of stresses.85)1 gives εe n+1 = εe trial v v n+1 εe n+1 = εe trial − ∆γ d d n+1 Equivalently. Upon simplification of the system (7. εp and ∆γ and where n+1 ¯n+1 sn+1 = sn+1 (εe ) = 2G dev[εe ]. 2 sn+1 (7. as shall be seen in what follows. be eliminated from the system of equations. sn+1 strial n+1 i. to improve the performance of the overall finite element scheme. the plastic strain tensor can be updated according to the following formula: 3 sn+1 εp = εp + ∆γ . This implies that . n+1 n+1 (7. εn+1 which has to be solved for εe . therefore. the return mapping affects only the deviatoric stress component.89)2 we obtain 1+ 3 ∆γ 2G sn+1 = strial n+1 2 sn+1 strial sn+1 = n+1 .88) that is. 2 sn+1 (7.87) n n+1 2 sn+1 Single-equation return mapping It is remarked here that the above system can be substantially simplified. In fact.85).e.85) 3 J2 (sn+1 ) − σy (¯p ) = 0. it should be noted firstly that the von Mises flow vector is purely deviatoric so that the deviatoric/volumetric split of (7. The hydrostatic stress. the trial and updated deviatoric stresses are co-linear.89) 3 sn+1 .86) After the solution of the above system. of course. we have pn+1 = ptrial n+1 sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G n+1 3 sn+1 . has the value computed in the elastic predictor stage and can.

respectively. Expression (7. The geometric representations of this update formula in the principal stress space and deviatoric plane are illustrated. Note that. is a (linear) n+1 function of ∆γ only in the above update formula.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 219 updated yield surface √3 p  Nn+1 σ3 σn+1 initial yield surface σn σ2 σ1 Figure 7. sn+1 . so that the flow vectors at the trial and updated states coincide.8. as the only unknown: trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. Geometric interpretation in principal stress space. the updated deviatoric stress is obtained trial by scaling down the trial deviatoric stress by the factor 1 − ∆γ 3G/qn+1 . the system (7.90) implies that.91) .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . the deviatoric stress. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. in the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model.90) trial where qn+1 ≡ 3 J2 (strial ) is the elastic trial von Mises effective stress. ∆γ.9.85) of equations of the return mapping for the von Mises model is reduced to the following scalar (generally nonlinear) equation having the incremental plastic multiplier.8 and 7.85)3. Substitution of the above identity into (7. (7.90) and (7. since n+1 strial is a constant tensor in the return mapping. in Figures 7.85)2 into the plastic consistency condition (7.89)2 leads to the following simpler update formula for the deviatoric stress: sn+1 = 1 − = 1− 3 ∆γ 2G trial sn+1 2 strial n+1 ∆γ 3G trial sn+1 . with substitution of (7. trial qn+1 (7. Finally.

220 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 sn surface at t n updated surface at t n+1 Figure 7.7.87).92)1. the state variables are updated as follows: sn+1 = 1 − ∆γ 3G trial sn+1 trial qn+1 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial : σn+1 = 2G 3 v n+1 (7. The procedure shown in these boxes is implemented in subroutine SUVM of the HYPLAS program.2 and relations (7. can be expressed in terms of εp and (∆γ 3 sn+1 G/q tr ia n+1 l ) || π -plane - tr sn+ ial 1 || Nn+1 . 7.3.5.9. The above equation is then solved by the Newton–Raphson method and. The overall elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model is summarised in Boxes 7.3.82) we establish after simple ¯n manipulations that the updated stress tensor. Geometric interpretation in the deviatoric plane. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE STRESS From the update formulae (7. σn+1 . the plastic strain tensor is updated by means of (7. ¯n+1 ¯n If required.3 and 7.92) σn+1 = sn+1 + ptrial I n+1 εe n+1 = [D ] e −1 εp = εp + ∆γ.81.3. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model.4. This routine is described in detail in Section 7. with its solution ∆γ at hand.

(7.94) (7. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .95) . Solve the equation trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0 εn for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson method – GOTO Box 7. εe trial ) ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn n+1 Id : εe trial . n+1 trial qn+1 ˆ where H is the Heaviside step function defined as ˆ H(a) ≡ 1 0 if a > 0 if a ≤ 0 .93) Id is the deviatoric projection tensor defined by (3.4 – and update the state variables ∆γ 3G pn+1 := ptrial . Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening.3.94) (page 59).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial . n+1 v n+1 trial qn+1 := 3 2 strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 strial : strial n+1 n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility trial εn+1 IF qn+1 − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping. sn+1 := 1 − trial strial n+1 n+1 qn+1 σn+1 := sn+1 + pn+1 I εe = n+1 (iv) EXIT 1 2G sn+1 + 1 3 εe trial I v n+1 εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n εe trial by means of the following incremental constitutive function: n+1 ∆γ 6G2 ˆ ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p . HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Elastic predictor. trial qn+1 = 3 2 strial = 2G n+1 3 2 εe trial d n+1 3 2 trial = qn+1 (εe trial ) ≡ 2G n+1 Id : εe trial .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 221 Box 7. n+1 (7. for any scalar a.

222 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the von Mises model. εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (εe trial ) − σy (¯p ).60) (page 95). εn n εn n (7. (7.98) For a given state at tn .7.97) and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p .91). ˆ and the text surrounding it for details. set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ (0) := 0 and corresponding residual (yield function value) trial ˜ Φ := qn+1 − σy (¯p ) εn (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dσy d¯p ε ˜ dΦ (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (new guess for ∆γ) εn +∆γ ¯ p ˜ Φ ∆γ := ∆γ − d (iii) Check for convergence d∆γ = −3G − H trial ˜ εn Φ := qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ (iv) GOTO (ii) tol THEN RETURN to Box 7.4. Clearly. The function σ defined in (7.98) express the updated stress as implicit functions. The use of incremental algorithmic constitutive functions has been first alluded to in this book in Chapter 4 in the formulation of incremental boundary value problems involving path-dependent materials. respectively. εn n+1 εn n+1 (7. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . of the elastic trial stress and the total elastic strain at tn+1 . we may write n+1 n ˆ ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p . ¯n Equivalently. HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Initialise iteration counter. εn+1 ) ≡ σn+1 (¯p . εe trial ) εn n+1 εe trial n+1 εp ¯n and defined as the solution of the consistency equais the implicit function of tion (7.93) and (7.93) is the .96) (7. the functions (7. εp .93) defines σn+1 as an implicit function of the elastic trial strain and εp . εn+1 − εp ).3 Φtrial is the value of the yield function at the elastic trial state: trial Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p . k := 0. 7. Remark 7. The reader is referred to expression (4.98.

4. for linearly hardening von Mises materials.10. d ∆γ = The explicit incremental constitutive function Under the assumption of linear hardening. 3G + H (7. (7. . the expression for ∆γ reads Φtrial .60) for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening (for which αn = {¯p .91) reads trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − [σ0 + (¯p + ∆γ) H] = 0 εn (7. 7.102) 3G The geometric interpretation of the fully implicit algorithm for the perfectly plastic von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 7. For linear ε hardening materials. (7. after a straightforward manipulation. In such cases. n+1 (7. the following incremental constitutive function for the updated stress: ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (εe trial .91) is the hardening curve.3.100) and the incremental plastic multiplier can be obtained in closed form as ∆γ = Φtrial .101) for ∆γ into (7.103) ¯ In contrast to the general case (7. the updated stress is simply the projection of the elastic trial stress onto the fixed yield surface along its radial direction. such functions are usually implicit. It is the closest point projection of the trial stress onto the yield surface.93).101) Thus. For more realistic models. we substitute the explicit formula (7. We remark. In the case of perfect plasticity (H = 0). that explicit incremental constitutive functions are obtainable in the context of implicit integration algorithms only under very special circumstances (such as linear hardening in the present case).93) and obtain. LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING AND PERFECT PLASTICITY: THE CLOSED-FORM RETURN MAPPING It should be noted that the only source of nonlinearity in the von Mises return-mapping equation (7. In this case. ε ¯ (7.99) where σ0 is the initial yield stress of the virgin material and H is the (constant) hardening modulus. defined by the given function σy = σy (¯p ). this function is linear and is expressed by σy (¯p ) = σ0 + H εp . however.4 in the return-mapping procedure.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . εp }) integrated numerically by the fully εn n implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. εp ) ¯n n+1 ˆ ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn σy (¯p ) 6G2 1 − trial 3G + H qn+1 Id : εe trial . the above closed expression replaces the Newton–Raphson algorithm of Box 7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 223 particularisation of the generic incremental function (4. σn+1 in the above definition is an explicit function.

( 3 ε p .4.3. Geometric interpretation of the implicit returnmapping scheme as the closest point projection algorithm. 2 σy ) piecewise linear approximation with n hard sampling points ( n hard ε p. n hard σ y ) ( 1 ε p .. In the HYPLAS program.5. subroutine SUVM is called by the material interface MATISU during the computation of the finite element internal force vector. 3 σy ) ( 2 ε p .3 and 7.224 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 Nn+1 sn+1 sn π -plane - fixed yield surface Figure 7. σy hardening curve . ... This procedure.11. 7. The perfectly plastic von Mises model.. summarised in Boxes 7. is carried out in subroutine SUVM (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model).10. SUBROUTINE SUVM The FORTRAN implementation of the fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model is described in detail in this section. 1 σy ) εp Figure 7. Piecewise linear hardening.

3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0013’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.NTYPE.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. with nhard sampling points.R1 .LALGVA . SUFAIL=.0D0. to a generic hardening curve is illustrated in Figure 7.RPROPS(*) .0D0.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . σy } ε with linear interpolation between adjacent pairs.AND.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .FALSE.0D0.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL IFPLAS.NE. This means that any (arbitrarily nonlinear) hardening curve can be adequately approximated by using a sufficiently large number of sampling pairs {¯p .1. εp ).R2 . ¯ Thus. The FORTRAN source code of SUVM is listed below.2. A piecewise linear approximation.IPROPS .2. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 SUBROUTINE SUVM 1( DGAMA . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.STRAT . In fact.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 225 In the present implementation. 2 RSTAVA . 2 STRAT(MSTRE) . C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.3-4).O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .3.R3 . the isotropic hardening curve defined by σy (¯p ) ε has been assumed to be piecewise linear.NE. the present implementation of the von Mises model allows for the experimental data to be used directly in the definition of the hardening curve.0. LALGVA(2).11.1.NTYPE .0D0. EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli and other necessary constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R3G=R3*GMODU C Elastic predictor: Compute elastic trial state C ---------------------------------------------C Volumetric strain and pressure stress EEV=STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)+STRAT(4) .FALSE.TOL / 2 0.5D0.RP5 . actual experimental data for hardening curves are normally obtained as a set of points (σy .RPROPS .D-06/ DATA MXITER / 50 / C*********************************************************************** C STATE UPDATE PROCEDURE FOR THE VON MISES ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL MODEL C WITH NON-LINEAR (PIECEWISE LINEAR) ISOTROPIC HARDENING: C IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM (BOXES 7.

GT.4) C ------------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.MXITER C Compute residual derivative DENOM=-R3G-DPLFUN(EPBAR.TRUE.NHARD. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0004’) ELSE C Elastic step: Update stress using linear elastic law C ---------------------------------------------------STRES(1)=R2G*EET(1)+P STRES(2)=R2G*EET(2)+P .RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DGAMA DDGAMA=-PHI/DENOM DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA C Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBAR+DDGAMA SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBAR.TOL)THEN C update accumulated plastic strain RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR C update stress components FACTOR=R2G*(R1-R3G*DGAMA/QTRIAL) STRES(1)=FACTOR*EET(1)+P STRES(2)=FACTOR*EET(2)+P STRES(3)=FACTOR*EET(3) STRES(4)=FACTOR*EET(4)+P C compute converged elastic (engineering) strain components FACTOR=FACTOR/R2G RSTAVA(1)=FACTOR*EET(1)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTOR*EET(2)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTOR*EET(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=FACTOR*EET(4)+EEVD3 GOTO 999 ENDIF 10 CONTINUE C reset failure flag and print warning message if the algorithm fails SUFAIL=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=QTRIAL-R3G*DGAMA-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.LE.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------PHI=QTRIAL-SIGMAY IF(PHI/SIGMAY.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the return mapping equation (Box 7.NHARD.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .TRUE. EPBAR=EPBARN DO 10 NRITER=1.226 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P=BULK*EEV C Elastic trial deviatoric strain EEVD3=EEV/R3 EET(1)=STRAT(1)-EEVD3 EET(2)=STRAT(2)-EEVD3 EET(4)=STRAT(4)-EEVD3 C Convert engineering shear component into physical component EET(3)=STRAT(3)/R2 C Compute trial effective stress and uniaxial yield stress VARJ2T=R2G*R2G*(EET(3)*EET(3)+RP5*(EET(1)*EET(1)+ 1 EET(2)*EET(2)+EET(4)*EET(4))) QTRIAL=SQRT(R3*VARJ2T) SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.

¯ ¯ ¯ Array RPROPS is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. and Poisson’s ratio.TRUE. The state update failure flag returns as ..FALSE. . 1 σy . i σy }. IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. 2 εp . of ¯ sampling points along the hardening curve (see illustration of Figure 7. ← LALGVA. only if the Newton scheme of the return-mapping algorithm fails to converge. Stress state type flag. updated value εp on exit). nhard εp . Array of logical algorithmic flags or variables. . it returns as 0. ν) and the pairs {i εp . The incremental plastic multiplier. For the ¯ present material model implementation. Otherwise. increment cutting is activated in the main program. . For the von Mises model it contains the plastic yielding flag. nhard . E. . IFPLAS. that is. ν..FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . . . this array contains the elastic strain (returned as the updated value εe ) and the equivalent plastic strain (last converged solution n+1 value εp on entry. . . It contains the elastic properties (Young’s modulus. nhard σy ]. Array of integer material properties. the plastic yielding flag returns as . εe . and the state update failure flag SUFAIL. If the step is elastic. . . → RPROPS.TRUE. it is obtained as the solution of the return-mapping equation (7. When the state update procedure fails (for any material model). The last converged elastic strain. and is the only integer material property required by the present subroutine. . . → NTYPE.91). the calculations for the current load increment are aborted and restarted with a smaller increment.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 102 STRES(3)=R2G*EET(3) 103 STRES(4)=R2G*EET(4)+P 104 C elastic engineering strain 105 RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) 106 RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) 107 RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) 108 RSTAVA(4)=STRAT(4) 109 ENDIF 110 999 CONTINUE 111 C Update some algorithmic variables before exit 112 LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS 113 LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL 114 RETURN 115 END 227 The arguments of SUVM ← DGAMA [∆γ]. Array of state variables other than the stress components. In this case. otherwise its return value is . i = 1. If the increment is elastic. 1 εp . Array of real material properties. NHARD. 2 σy . → IPROPS. ↔ RSTAVA [εe .11): RP ROP S = [E. the state variables are not updated in SUVM and a warning message is sent (by calling subroutine ERRPRT) to the results file and standard output. ¯n ¯n+1 n is used in subroutine MATISU to compute the elastic trial strain before the present subroutine is called. εp ]. IPROPS(3) contains the number of sampling points for the piecewise linear hardening curve.

• NRITER. • MXITER. The consistent tangent modulus Within the description of the incremental finite element framework of Chapter 4. Some local variables and arrays of SUVM • EET [εe trial ]. Piecewise linear function defined by a set of pairs (x. reference has been made in Section 4. f (x)). ∂εn+1 (7. the operations carried out in SUVM can be easily identified with those indicated in Boxes 7. It is computed n+1 as shown in item (i) of Box 7. Thus.3. This function computes the derivative of a piecewise linear function.228 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS → STRAT [εe trial ].2. Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm.2. Array of elastic trial deviatoric strain components. d n+1 • EEV [εe trial ]. The calculation of array STRAT in MATISU is common to all elastoplastic material models of the class whose identification parameter is HYPEPL.4. Equals the actual elastic volumetric strain v n+1 for the present model. 7. Iteration counter for the Newton–Raphson algorithm. . ← STRES [σn+1 ]. • TOL [ tol ]. Array containing the elastic trial (engineering) strains. Recall that the hardening curve is defined here by the NHARD pairs of sampling points stored in array RPROPS.4. H. Elastic trial volumetric strain. Array containing the updated stress tensor components. Maximum number of iterations allowed in the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation. • PLFUN. Most remaining local variables of SUVM have been named so as to resemble the corresponding notation of Section 7.3 in subroutine MATISU.5 (page 98) to the use of consistent tangent operators: D≡ ∂σn+1 . Used in SUVM as ε the hardening function σy (¯p ). Some function calls from SUVM • DPLFUN. Used in SUVM to compute the slope of the hardening curve.104) in the computation of the element tangent stiffness.3 and 7.

Expressions (7. This defines an ˆ algorithmic incremental constitutive function. . CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATORS IN ELASTOPLASTICITY As shown in Section 7.2. the consistent tangent modulus is the standard (constant) elasticity tensor D = 2G Id + K I ⊗ I. ∂ε2 (7. Basically. un+1 – change during the global Newton–Raphson equilibrium iterations (refer to Section 4.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .2.93. σ. each of the general integration procedures described in Section 7.2 will deliver the updated stress σn+1 as the result of the application of a particular numerical algorithm (see diagram of Figure 7.1. Specific examples of incremental constitutive functions have been obtained earlier in this chapter for the fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping implementation of the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening. the internal variable set αn given as argument of σ is fixed. the stress σn+1 delivered by the integration ˆ algorithm is a function of the total strain tensor only. The consistent tangent modulus in this case is precisely the derivative of this equivalent nonlinear elastic law: D≡ ˆ dσn+1 ∂σ = dεn+1 ∂εn+1 . within each global load increment. for the stress tensor with general form ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . Only the guesses for the total strain. from page 94 for details on the global Newton–Raphson procedure). εn+1 ). (7.98) show the corresponding (implicit) incremental constitutive function for the model with nonlinear hardening and expression (7. equivalent to a (nonlinear) elastic law. the stress is an explicit function of the strain tensor σ = σ(ε) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ(ε) .1 (page 95).105) so that the tangent modulus can be explicitly derived as D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψ(ε) . elastoplastic materials require in general some kind of numerical integration algorithm to update the stress tensor.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 229 Elastic materials In the case of purely elastic materials. in the formulation of incremental boundary value problems with general path-dependent material models. tn+1 ]. 7. ˆ Within a load increment [tn .e. αn (7. εn+1 ) with fixed αn – defines a path-independent stress/strain relation within the interval [tn .103) shows the particular (explicit) format obtained under linear hardening. (7. it is the derivative of the algorithmic function σ with respect to εn+1 with αn held constant.107) 7.109) ˆ i.4.12). given the known internal variable set αn and the new prescribed total strain εn+1 as input. ∂ε (7. This function – σ(αn .108) Algorithmic functions of this type have been first referred to in Section 4.2.106) For linear elastic materials. In other words. εn+1 – associated with the guesses for the displacement field. tn+1 ].

‡‡ The elastic and elastoplastic tangents Before going into further details.93). At this point.98).98) of the incremental constitutive law for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. we have conveniently chosen the elastic trial strain. εn+1 ) input state update procedure elastic predictor/ return-mapping algorithm ⇔ output α n . ‡‡ Also †† This . we shall adopt in what follows the rightmost term of (7. in the context of the multiplicative finite strain plasticity framework discussed in Chapter 14. εe trial ) ≡ σ(αn .e.111) as the definition of consistent tangent operator. For states lying within the elastic domain. it is worth remarking at this point that the algorithmic ˆ function σ is non-differentiable in general. and we also have the trivial identity ˆ ¯ ∂σ ∂σ D= = e trial (7.110) in terms of the elastic trial strain and the internal variable set at tn . no measure of total nonlinear strain analogous to εn+1 is used (or needed) in the definition of elastoplastic constitutive models.230 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS algorithmic stress constitutive function ^ σn+1 = σ (α n . Clearly.12. rather than the total n+1 strain εn+1 . note that. however. listed on page 227. εe trial . the incremental constitutive function for σn+1 n+1 n can always be expressed equivalently as†† ¯ ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . (7. The algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor. i. in order to maximise the number of routines shared by small and large-strain isotropic plasticity models in the HYPLAS program. it is worth remarking that. as the actual input argument to the elastoplastic integration procedures for models of the present type (see routine SUVM. This is clearly seen by noting the presence of the Heaviside step function – a non-differentiable function – in definition (7. σn+1 Figure 7. εn+1 α n+1. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . An elastic trial strain measure (analogous to the infinitesimal tensor εe trial ). εe trial + εp ). for instance). does n+1 appear naturally in the formulation of the corresponding elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes. To make the material presented here formally valid also for the large-strain case addressed in Chapter 14 (where a total strain tensor is not defined). states corresponding obvious equivalence has already been used in (7.111) ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 for the consistent tangent operator. n+1 n+1 n (7.

Even though σ is non-differentiable its two one-sided derivatives – the elastic and the elastoplastic tangents – are well defined. However. Clearly. The elastic tangent is associated with the elastic predictor procedure whereas the elastoplastic tangent is related to the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure.93. these are generalised respectively as the elastic tangent modulus. the appropriate choice of tangent operator must be made.112) .93).13. (7.13. any infinitesimal change of total strain can only be elastic.εn 1 ) loading σn 1 σn 1 unloading εn 1 εn 1 Figure 7. In the multidimensional case. defined for elastic unloading. At states with ˆ Φtrial > 0. when assembling the tangent stiffness matrix required by the Newton– Raphson iterative procedure for the global incremental equilibrium problem. and the elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. the tangent modulus D consistent with any of the integration algorithms previously discussed is simply given by D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . The elastic tangent If the stress is inside the elastic domain (Φtrial < 0) or if it is on the yield surface (Φtrial = 0) and elastic unloading is assumed to occur. ∂εe 2 (7. to Φtrial < 0 in (7. 7. and an elastoplastic tangent relation.εn 1 ) Elastic unloading D is the elasticity tensor: D = De Plastic loading D is the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: D = Dep σ(αn . Infinitesimal changes of εn+1 will move the stress along the elastoplastic part of the incremental stress– strain curve.98) – where the Heaviside step function is non-differentiable – either elastic unloading or plastic straining may occur in the incremental constitutive law. defined for plastic loading. The incremental constitutive function is obviously nondifferentiable in this case. The tangent modulus D is not uniquely defined and two tangent stress–strain relations exist: an elastic tangent relation. De .13). the function σ is also differentiable if the hardening curve is smooth. with the stress σn+1 evolving along the (smooth) elastic curve (see graphical representation of the ˆ uniaxial stress case in Figure 7.98). Dep . The tangent moduli consistent with elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithms.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . at states with Φtrial = 0 in (7. Consider the one-dimensional case ˆ illustrated in Figure 7. In this case the function σ is differentiable.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 231 Φn 1 < 0 trial NO σ is non-differentiable and there are 2 possibilities: YE σ is differentiable and D is the elasticity tensor: D = De σ(αn .

In this section. The derivation of elastoplastic tangent operators consistent with the implicit return mapping for general plasticity models is addressed later. the outcome σn+1 of any member of the families of generalised midpoint and trapezoidal integration algorithms is the solution of a nonlinear system of algebraic equations in the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure. Note.4. it was remarked that from the computational point of view the implementation of the von Mises model is the simplest described in this book. page 208) so that the discussion that follows is restricted to the families of elastic predictor/return-mapping procedures based on the generalised midpoint and trapezoidal algorithms. in this case. it is clear that σn+1 is defined implicitly through the corresponding nonlinear system. 7. i.93) is an implicit function of εe trial (or εn+1 ) defined as the solution n+1 of an algebraic nonlinear equation. Thus. the updated stress σn+1 is an implicit function of the elastic trial strain εe trial in this case.6. For elastoplastic materials whose elastic response is linear.2. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT FOR THE VON MISES MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC HARDENING The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model has been described in detail in Section 7. In this case.4. In other words. that the term ∆γ in (7.232 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS i.4. There.3. which employs only the elastic constitutive law. it is the standard elastic modulus. Note that. then the tangent operator is called the elastoplastic consistent tangent and is denoted Dep . Crucial to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent moduli is the observation that under plastic yielding. the elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the von Mises implicit return mapping is derived step by step.2. This procedure is common to all algorithms described in Section 7. The system solved in the return mapping depends on the particular algorithm adopted. the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model is derived below. The simplicity of this particular return-mapping scheme avoids the complications associated with more complex models/algorithms. for example. The application of the generic . The idea is to use this algorithm as an example to provide the reader with a clear picture of the procedure for the derivation of elastoplastic consistent tangent operators. the elastic consistent tangent is the standard elasticity operator (7.e. Φtrial > 0 or Φtrial = 0 and it is assumed that further plastic loading is going to occur. the consistent tangent operator n+1 Dep = ˆ ∂σ ∂εe trial n+1 is simply the derivative of the implicit function defined by the return-mapping equations and is derived by following the standard procedure for differentiation of implicit functions. It is important to emphasise here that elastoplastic consistent tangent operators cannot be derived for the cutting-plane algorithm (refer to Remark 7. such as the von Mises model and all other models described in Chapter 6.107). As an illustration of the above concepts. in Section 7. the stress σn+1 is the outcome of the elastic predictor. The elastoplastic tangent: the derivative of an implicit function If the stress is on the yield surface.e.

STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 233 procedure to the isotropically hardening von Mises model.119) εp +∆γ ¯n Finally.118) where H is the slope of the hardening curve: H≡ dσy d¯p ε .117) and we have made use of the trivial identity: εe trial : Id = εe trial . by substituting (7. i. we obtain. A straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules to (7.118) into (7.95) and relation (2.115).116) and (7. Further. the following expression for the . the update formula for σn+1 reads σn+1 = De − ∆γ 6G2 Id : εe trial .113). is the function of the elastic trial strain defined by (7. we obtain trial ∂qn+1 = 2G e trial ∂εn+1 3 2 ¯ N n+1 . The incremental algorithmic constitutive function for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening is given by (7.116) where we have conveniently defined the unit flow vector ¯ Nn+1 ≡ 2 3 Nn+1 = εe trial strial n+1 n+1 = d trial strial εe n+1 n+1 d (7.116) into account gives trial ∂qn+1 ∂∆γ 1 = e trial e trial 3G + H ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 2G 3 ¯ = Nn+1 .139) (page 36). trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.113) gives ∂σn+1 ∆γ 6G2 6G2 ∂∆γ = De − trial Id − trial εe trial ⊗ e trial e trial ∂εn+1 qn+1 qn+1 d n+1 ∂εn+1 + ∂q trial ∆γ 6G2 e trial εd n+1 ⊗ en+1 .115) From (7. qn+1 .5.113) where ∆γ is the solution of the return-mapping equation of the algorithm (Box 7. which offers an alternative route to the derivation presented below. the differentiation of the implicit equation (7. the elastic trial von Mises effective stress. Under plastic flow.114) for ∆γ. (7. after a straightforward manipulation making use of (7.95). n+1 trial qn+1 (7. trial trial (qn+1 )2 ∂εn+1 (7. is described in Section 7. for the tensor norm derivative. (7.4. The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus for the present model/algorithm combination is obtained by differentiating (7. (7. when applying the chain d n+1 d n+1 rule.95) and definition (7. taking (7.e.93). when the return-mapping procedure is used.114) trial In the above.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .3). 3G + H 2 (7.117).

using (6.136) for the von Mises model. Within the global (equilibrium) Newton–Raphson scheme. respectively) in the time-continuum setting. The continuum tangent operator The concept of tangent operators in plasticity has been initially discussed in Sections 6.3.67).120) are those obtained for the Gauss point of interest in the return-mapping procedure of the previous global iteration. 2 ∂α ∂ε ¯ ∂ εp 2 ¯ (7.122) where we have used the subscript ‘c’ to emphasise that the above operator is the continuum tangent modulus.187)–(6. and taking into consideration the fact that for the von Mises model N is a deviatoric tensor.8. i.8 (from pages 147 and 153. In addition.120) ¯ ¯ Nn+1 ⊗ N n+1 = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 1 − trial 3G + H qn+1 It should be noted that the operator Dep in the present case. Remark 7.121) With the above.67) particularises in the following format: Dep = De − c (De : N ) ⊗ (De : N ) . the value of ∆γ. For the first iteration of any global load increment. (7. we have De : N = 2G N. The symmetry of consistent elastoplastic tangent operators will be further commented upon in Section 7.8. together with (6. (7. Let us now particularise this formula for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening. In the HYPLAS program.e.234 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the implicit return-mapping scheme for the isotropically hardening von Mises model: Dep = De − ∆γ ∆γ 6G2 1 Id + 6G2 trial − trial 3G + H qn+1 qn+1 ∆γ 3G trial qn+1 Id ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 + K I ⊗ I.3. the corresponding elastoplastic continuum tangent operator has been derived for the generic multi-dimensional plasticity model.2.192). ∆γ is zero. we find that expression (6. the above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVM.6.123) . ¯ q trial and H. In Section 6.194) and the associative flow vector definition (6. With De defined by (7.3. for this particular model and numerical integration algorithm is symmetric. N n+1 . it follows that N : De : N = 3G. Its closed form is given by expression (6. In this case we have ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψp ∂ 2 ψp ∂κ =ρ ¯ = p = H.124) (7.136).8 and 6. Firstly we consider (6. Its implementation is described in detail in Section 7.4. that take part in (7.107). N : De : N + H (7. as well as the incremental unit flow vector.4.

or the elastoplastic tangent operator. this routine is called by the material interface MATICT at each Gauss point during the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix.125) ¯ where N is the unit flow vector at the current state. 1989) is a mere consequence of the consistency of the numerical method (backward Euler-based in the present case) adopted in the discretisation of the time-continuum elastoplasticity equations. De .EPFLAG 2 RPROPS .4.3. The use of the consistent tangent operator in this context was introduced by Simo and Taylor (1985). given by expression (7. when the value of ∆γ is large. 3G + H (7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUBROUTINE CTVM 1( DGAMA . then the global iterative procedure is not the Newton–Raphson algorithm.9. The algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVM.122). SUBROUTINE CTVM This section describes subroutine CTVM (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model) in detail. It computes either the elastic tangent. the global iterations are a form of approximation to the Newton–Raphson scheme. the use of the continuum tangent in the assemblage of the stiffness matrix results in a dramatic degradation of the convergence rate of the global iterative procedure.RSTAVA . trial qn+1 (7.120). In such cases.120). Early implicit elastoplastic implementations (Owen and Hinton.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION .IPROPS ) .107). The elastoplastic operator is consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening.NTYPE . . For large steps. Clearly. The difference between the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator and its continuum counterpart above lies only in the terms that contain ∆γ in expression (7. In this case.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . we obtain the following explicit expression for the continuum tangent operator for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening: Dep = De − c 6G2 ¯ ¯ N ⊗ N. the difference between the continuum and the consistent operator can be substantial. In the HYPLAS program. given by (7.IPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 235 By introducing these results into (7.126) If ∆γ is set to zero (as in the first iteration of any load increment). 1980) relied exclusively on the use of the continuum tangent operator.MSTRE). The FORTRAN source code of CTVM is listed below. .DMATX . Dep .STRES IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. Remark 7.RPROPS(*) . Note that we may write Dep = Dep − c ∆γ 6G2 ¯ ¯ [ Id − N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 ]. if the continuum tangent is used in conjunction with the return-mapping scheme. the continuum tangent is recovered. 7. This fact (Ortiz and Martin.

0.0. 2 SOID(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.1.NE.1.SOID(4) / 2 1.AND.FOID(4.0D0 .1).FOID(1.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0030’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 C Set deviatoric projection tensor IF(NTYPE.4)/ 8 0.FOID(1.3).FOID(2.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 .5D0 .0.FOID(MSTRE.0D0 .0D0.FOID(2.0D0 .FOID(3.2).FOID(1.0D0.S(MSTRE) .4)/ 2 1.3).236 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1 DEVPRJ(MSTRE.FOID(3.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0D0 .1.R2 .EQ.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.0D0 .0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .0D0 .R3 .0D0 .0D0 . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.2.3).NTYPE.0.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ENDIF DO 20 I=1.SOID(2) .1).1).NSTRE DEVPRJ(I.3.0D0 / 7 FOID(4.0.0D0 .4)/ 4 0.3). C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.FOID(4.MSTRE) .2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.0.R6 / 2 1.2).SOID(3) .EQ.J)=FOID(I.0D0 .2).0D0 .1.MSTRE).0D0 .FOID(2.0.FOID(3.0.FOID(4.0D0 / DATA 1 R1 .6.0.NE.0.2.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.2).0D0 .4)/ 6 0.0D0.1).0.J)-SOID(I)*SOID(J)*R1D3 10 CONTINUE 20 CONTINUE IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ---------------------------------------R3G=R3*GMODU ROO3D2=SQRT(R3/R2) C Hydrostatic pressure P=(STRES(1)+STRES(2)+STRES(4))*R1D3 C Deviatoric stress components S(1)=STRES(1)-P S(2)=STRES(2)-P S(3)=STRES(3) S(4)=STRES(4)-P C Recover last elastic trial von Mises effective stress SNORM=SQRT(S(1)*S(1)+S(2)*S(2)+R2*S(3)*S(3)+S(4)*S(4)) Q=ROO3D2*SNORM .

NSTRE DMATX(I.3.NSTRE-1 DO 70 I=J+1. Elastoplastic tangent logical flag.FALSE.J)+BULK*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 50 CONTINUE 60 CONTINUE ENDIF Assemble lower triangle ----------------------DO 80 J=1. Array of real material properties (see description on page 227). The associated elastoplastic consistent tangent.I) 70 CONTINUE 80 CONTINUE RETURN END The arguments of CTVM → DGAMA [∆γ].NSTRE DO 30 J=I. If .J)+BFACT*S(I)*S(J)+ 1 BULK*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 30 CONTINUE 40 CONTINUE ELSE Compute elasticity matrix (upper triangle only) ----------------------------------------------DO 60 I=1.J)=DMATX(J. → RPROPS. It is set to zero (before being passed into CTVM) for the first iteration of every load increment.RPROPS(IPHARD))))/ 2 (SNORM*SNORM) DO 40 I=1..4. → IPROPS.NSTRE DO 50 J=I. The incremental plastic multiplier obtained from the return mapping of SUVM in the previous global (equilibrium) iteration. DMATX returns as the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator. ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. Stress state type flag.TRUE. Dep . Dep . The implicit algorithm has been described in Section 7. Array of integer material properties (see description on page 227). . was derived in Section 7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .NSTRE DMATX(I. → EPFLAG.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 72 QTRIAL=Q+R3G*DGAMA 73 C Assemble elastoplastic tangent (upper triangle only) 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 237 C C C C AFACT=R2G*(R1-R3G*DGAMA/QTRIAL) BFACT=R6*GMODU*GMODU*(DGAMA/QTRIAL1 R1/(R3G+DPLFUN(EPBAR.J)=AFACT*DEVPRJ(I.NHARD.NSTRE DMATX(I.J)=R2G*DEVPRJ(I.2. The procedure for setting EPFLAG in MATICT is common to all elastoplastic models of the material class HYPEPL. Tangent operator (stored in matrix form) consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model.2 above and is given by expression (7. DMATX returns as the elastic matrix. NTYPE=2 for plane strain and NTYPE=3 for axisymmetric problems. If .. → NTYPE. De .120). The value of EPFLAG is set in subroutine MATICT.

An+1 ) The basic unknowns of the above system of algebraic equations are: the updated elastic strain. Called to compute the slope. Fourth-order symmetric identity tensor stored in array form according to the convention shown in (D.3. αn+1 . The general implicit algorithm for plasticity was derived in Section 7. Array containing the updated stress tensor components (output of SUVM). εe . where the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator has been derived.2. the algebraic system of equations define an implicit function for .2.1 [item (iii)]. Function calls from CTVM • DPLFUN.4. • FOID [IS ]. n+1 Clearly. εe trial . εp ]. summarised in Box 7. and the incremental plastic multiplier. ∆γ} will change accordingly and so will the updated n+1 stress σn+1 .4. THE GENERAL ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR IMPLICIT RETURN MAPPINGS A symbolic expression for the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the implicit returnmapping algorithm for the general plasticity model is derived in this section. the updated set of internal variables. In this way. that takes part in the return map n+1 equations. are repeated below for convenience:  e    εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1  0 n+1         αn+1 − αn − ∆γ Hn+1 = 0 . by changing the elastic trial strain. of the piecewise linear hardening curve (see details on page 228). n+1 The corresponding updated stress tensor delivered by the above return mapping is evaluated from the standard potential form σn+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂εe . Fourth-order deviatoric projection tensor stored in array form. The corresponding returnmapping equations. Some local arrays of CTVM • DEVPRJ [Id ]. the solution {εe . ∆γ.             0 Φ(σn+1 . αn+1 . The names of most local variables and arrays of CTVM follow closely the notation of Section 7. Array of updated state variables other than the stress components ¯ (output of SUVM) (see page 227 for complete description). Refer to Appendix D for rules of array conversion. → STRES [σn+1 ].238 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS → RSTAVA [εe . 7.4. Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. H. • SOID [I].16) (page 762).

A and J are suitably defined linear operators.129) where C. Inversion of this relation gives the following general expression dεe = C : dσ + B ∗ dA dα = A ∗ dσ + J ∗ dA.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 239 the stress tensor at tn+1 . ∂εn+1 i. for the differentials dσ and dA. (7. under the classical assumption of decoupling between elasticity and plastic hardening: ψ(εe .128) The linear operators E.127) 0 dα − ∆γ ∗ dσ − ∆γ ∗ dA − d∆γ H =     ∂σ ∂A                                 ∂Φ ∂Φ     0 : dσ + ∗ dA ∂σ ∂A where the subscripts n + 1 have been suppressed for convenience. Note that. In this case we end up with the following relation: dεe = C : dσ .130) the tangent moduli E and F vanish and so do B and A.52) on page 206): dσ = De : dεe + E ∗ dα dA = F ∗ dεe + G ∗ dα.48)–(7. F and G are defined in (7. (7. gives the linear tangent relationship between εe trial and σn+1 . (7. the first step in its derivation is to linearise the returnn+1 mapping equations (having the elastic trial strain – the system input – also as a variable). (7. As discussed in the preceding sections. (7.50). the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator ∂σn+1 Dep ≡ e trial .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . we have the following relations (refer to the rate elastoplasticity equations (7.131) dα = J ∗ dA. Recall that. B. where C = [De ]−1 and J = G−1 . α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α). Thus. Straightforward differentiation of the general return-mapping equations yields the following linearised form:    dεe + ∆γ ∂N : dσ + ∆γ ∂N ∗ dA + d∆γ N  dεe trial            ∂σ ∂A                             ∂H ∂H . the derivative of the implicit function for stress.e. .

of internal state variables.134) dεn+1 The operator D21 = dAn+1 . This symbolic matrix notation will be used frequently in this book to represent linearised systems. dσn+1 D11 = e trial ≡ Dep . As far as finite element computations are concerned.135) which gives the tangent relation between increments of elastic trial strain and thermodynamical force set An+1 . are the corresponding appropriate products.240 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS By substituting (7. and d∆γ D31 = e trial . by inverting the above linear relation.132) is a generic tensor (or set containing scalars. D23        0 (7. (7. of associated forces. we obtain  dσ             dA  =  D21          d∆γ D31 D11 D12 D22 D32 D13   e trial  dε         0 . Note that the dimension and order of the linear operator D21 depends on the definition of set A. The generalised operators are: The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. 7. dεe trial n+1 (7. no assumptions have been made about the nature of the sets α.127). .4. the linearised return-mapping equations can be rewritten in the following symbolic matrix representation:†     e trial   ∂N ∂N dε N  dσ  C + ∆γ ∂σ B + ∆γ ∂A                     ∂H ∂H   dA  =  0 . etc.136) dεn+1 which is the tangent operator (a second-order tensor in this case) relating increments of elastic trial strain and incremental plastic multiplier. only the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator is of relevance.129) into (7. (7. ILLUSTRATION: THE VON MISES MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC HARDENING For the sake of generality.) of appropriate order. † Note that each element of the symbolic matrix of expression (7.5. in the above symbolic derivation. we obtain the generalised tangent operators consistent with the implicit return-mapping algorithm.133) D33 From the above. etc. tensors.  A − ∆γ (7. The product operations between the elements of the matrix and the elements of the ‘vector’ containing the differentials dσ. and A.132) J − ∆γ −H       ∂σ ∂A                  ∂Φ ∂Φ d∆γ 0 0 ∂σ ∂A Finally.

With such a high degree of generality.194) into (7.117). ∂σ (7. ∂A ∂κ Substitution of the above expressions linearised form:  ∂N [De ]−1 + ∆γ  ∂σ      0    N (7. vector or tensor of any order.132) results in the following  e trial  dε                   dσy  =  0 . Firstly.141) is equivalent to dσ = P : (dεe trial − d∆γ N ). the general procedure described above is here particularised for the implicit return mapping for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening.187–6. The tangential relation (7. 2 ∂σ ∂σ 2q (7. We start by observing that the first row of (7.141) can be inverted trivially as follows. as pointed out in the discussion following expression (7. In order to provide the reader with a better view of the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 241 As discussed in Chapter 6.137) In addition.136) into account. H (7. Depending on the particular model. it may not be easy to have a clear picture of what operations are involved in the above derivation.136) of the associative flow vector for the von Mises model. the flow vector derivative is easily obtained as ∂N ∂ 2 Φ 3 ¯ ¯ = = (Id − N ⊗ N).194) (page 182) for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. (7.    −1              d∆γ 0 0 N dσ   0 1 H −1 (7. From the definition (6.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .140) and (6. these sets may contain as many variables as necessary for the appropriate description of the material behaviour. The remaining (non-vanishing) operators are C = [De ]−1 and ¯ J = G−1 = ρ ∂2ψ ∂ εp 2 ¯ −1 (7.129). as elasticity and plastic hardening are decoupled in the von Mises model. each element of these sets may be a scalar. it also follows that ∂N ∂N ≡ = 0.141) where by taking (6.142) ¯ where N is the unit flow vector (7. we recall the discussion around expressions (6. ∂A ∂κ ∂H = 0. the operators B and A vanish.143) .139) where H is the hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve).138) ∂σy ∂ εp ¯ −1 = = 1 . We then have ∂H ∂H ≡ = 0.

in turn. As expected (refer to Remark 7. is sometimes used in computational applications. (7. in view of (7.242 where COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ −1 : De . 1 N : P : dεe trial . . This.142).122).146) into the first row of (7. Alternative formula Yet another representation.146) or.149) or. The corresponding expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent reads Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ 1 ∂N + N⊗N ∂σ H −1 . combined with the third row and (7. we obtain the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator d∆γ = Dep = P − 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ) N:P:N+H 1 ¯ ¯ =P− ¯ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). after rearranging. Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ ¯ 3∆γ 3 1 ¯ Id + − N⊗N 2q 2 H q −1 .120) and could be used as an alternative in the computational implementation of the model.147) into (7. ¯ N : P : N + 2H 3 (7. results in d∆γ = 1 N : dσ H 1 = (N : P : dεe trial − d∆γ N : P : N ). and making use of the unit flow vector definition. Also note the similarity between (7.143). (1993) in the context of anisotropic plasticity.141). alternative to (7.145) (7.147) N:P:N+H Finally. The presence of the hardening modulus in the denominator in the above formula does not allow its use in practical computations if H = 0 (perfect plasticity). the above formula recovers (7.122) if ∆γ = 0. by substituting (7. H (7. gives dσy = H d∆γ. (7.148).144) The second row of (7.143). The alternative formula is obtained simply by replacing the first right-hand side of (7. for instance. Remark 7.10. (7.150) The use of an analogous formula is reported.148) and the continuum tangent operator (7.148) The above expression for Dep is an equivalent representation to (7. (7. by Dutko et al.141) and then inverting the resulting differential relation.9. page 235).

This property is not transferred in general to its time-discrete (or consistent) counterpart. Simo and Govindjee (1991) show that for the variant of the family of midpoint algorithms with consistency equation (7. in the presence of hardening.1. εp .4. 1]. These authors show. many important properties associated with the regularity and stability of the solution of (time-continuum) elastoplasticity problems .42).152) Analogously to (7.4.e. ¯ ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 (7.151) analogous to the free-energy function.37).6. the incremental equilibrium boundary value problem is endowed with a potential structure analogous to that of hyperelasticity boundary value problems. even though the continuum tangent is symmetric. An interesting discussion on this topic is provided by Ortiz and Martin (1989). is symmetric. the corresponding (symmetric) consistent tangent operator in such cases obeys the potential relations Dep ≡ ˜ ¯ ∂σn+1 ∂ 2 ψn ∂σn+1 ∂ 2 ψn =ρ 2 ¯ = e trial = ρ ¯ 2.4. delivered by the integration algorithm is given by σn+1 = ρ ¯ ˜ ¯ ∂ ψn ∂ ψn = ρ e trial .106). (7. that for the family of generalised midpoint algorithms based on the returnmapping equations (7. σn+1 . then. its implicit consistent counterpart is not. Incremental potentials The symmetry of the consistent tangent operator implies that at any state {εn .148) or (7. For elastoplastic model/algorithm combinations that preserve the consistent tangent operator symmetry.120).130).67) is symmetric for models with associative plastic flow rule. for fully associative models. TANGENT OPERATOR SYMMETRY: INCREMENTAL POTENTIALS It has been emphasised in Chapter 6 (refer to Remark 6. page 153) that the time-continuum elastoplastic tangent modulus with general expression (6.11. for instance.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 243 7. whose general symbolic expression was derived in Section 7. ψ.150). operator symmetry is preserved only for the fully implicit member (θ = 0). If the plastic flow rule is associative but the hardening rule does not derive from the associative relation (6. ˜ ¯ ψn = ψn (εn+1 ) = ψn (εe trial ) n+1 (7. when applied to perfectly plastic associative flow models or. For models with associative flow but non-associative hardening. In a further discussion on this issue. Note that the von Mises model with isotropic hardening discussed in the preceding sections is fully associative so that its elastoplastic tangent consistent with the fully implicit algorithm given by the equivalent formulae (7. models with associative flow and hardening rules). to fully associative models (i. such that the updated stress.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εe trial n+1 (7. Also. again only for perfectly plastic associative flow models or. the symmetry of the corresponding consistent tangents is guaranteed for any θ ∈ [0.153) Remark 7. αn } there n exists an incremental potential. in the presence of hardening. the consistent tangents for this family of algorithms are generally unsymmetric. This allows methods conventionally used in hyperelasticity to be adopted in the study of elastoplastic incremental boundary value problems.

All finite element analyses have been carried out in the HYPLAS program. Most results are compared with existing analytical solutions.4.152) with the above potential can be established by a straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules taking expression (2.14.139) (page 36). In all examples.4. The analysis . 7. resulting from the use of the consistent tangent operator described in Sections 7. many such properties can be transferred to the discretised problem. into account together with the identity εe trial = Id : εe trial .2 and 7. INTERNALLY PRESSURISED CYLINDER This example considers the simulation of the behaviour of a long metallic thick-walled cylinder subjected to internal pressure. (7. this chapter has presented a general framework for the numerical treatment of elastoplasticity within the context of implicit incremental finite element procedures.244 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS depend crucially on the symmetry of the continuum tangent operator. Example: the von Mises model with linear strain hardening Let us now focus on the fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model with linear isotropic strain hardening. The examples presented here are restricted to the von Mises model with isotropic hardening. Numerical examples with the von Mises model So far. the concept of consistent tangent operators in elastoplasticity has been introduced and also specialised. These issues fall outside the scope of this book. a general theory of elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithms for elastoplasticity has been presented followed by its specialisation (including a detailed description of the numerical implementation) to the fully implicit scheme for the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. n+1 d n+1 7.3.103) is indeed obtained from the potential relation (7.154) That the incremental constitutive function (7. with four (2 × 2) Gauss integration points is adopted. The practical application of these numerical procedures is illustrated in this section by a comprehensive set of benchmark numerical examples.5. Firstly.5. whose details of numerical implementation have been given in the previous sections. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm. the material properties and the adopted finite element mesh is illustrated in Figure 7. Subsequently. Interested readers are referred to Martin (1975) and Rice (1976) for further details. When symmetry is preserved in the consistent tangent operator. The geometry of the problem. for the same model. has been adopted. The standard eight-noded quadrilateral element. This particular combination of elastoplasticity model and constitutive integration algorithm has the following incremental (pseudo-) potential: ρψn = ¯ 1 e e trial (D : εn+1 ) : εe trial n+1 2 1 e trial 6G2 ˆ ε − H(Φtrial ) n+1 3G + H 2 d n+1 2 − σy 2G 3/2 εe trial d n+1 . with a complete description of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit algorithm.1.

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS

245

Material properties – von Mises model Young’s modulus: E = 210 GPa Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0.3 Uniaxial yield stress: σ y = 0.24 GPa (perfectly plastic)

b = 200mm

y

P
30 o

x

P

a = 100 mm

Figure 7.14. Internally pressurised cylinder. Geometry, material properties and finite element mesh.

is carried out assuming plane strain conditions. Due to symmetry, only a 30o segment of the whole cylinder cross-section is discretised with the appropriate symmetry displacement constraints imposed on the edge nodes. The pressure, P , prescribed on the inner surface, is increased gradually until a collapse (limit) load is reached. For the present problem (see Figure 7.15), plastic yielding starts at the inner surface (with radial coordinate r = a) and develops gradually, in the form of a cylindrical plastic front (with radius c), toward the outer face of the cylinder (r = b). Collapse occurs when the plastic front reaches the outer face (c = b) and the entire cylinder becomes plastified. At the limit load, the cylinder can expand indefinitely without further increase in the applied pressure. A closed-form solution to this problem has been derived by Hill (1950). It relates the applied pressure to the radius c of the plastic front by means of the expression P c = ln Y a + 1 c2 1− 2 , 2 b (7.155)

√ where, for the von Mises model, Y = σy / 3. Plastic yielding begins when c = a, which corresponds to the yielding pressure P0 = Y 2 1− a2 . b2 (7.156)

Before plastic yielding starts (P < P0 ), the radial displacement, ub , of the outer surface is a linear function of P , given by ub = 2P b (1 − ν 2 ), E(b2 /a2 − 1) P < P0 . (7.157)

246

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
plastic region plastic front

b P a c

elastic region

Figure 7.15. Internally pressurised cylinder. Partly plastified cross-section.

0.20 internal pressure, P (GPa)

0.15

0.10

closed solution (Hill, 1950) present results

0.05

0.00 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

radial displacement at outer face (mm)

Figure 7.16. Internally pressurised cylinder. Pressure versus displacement diagram.

Under plastic yielding (P ≥ P0 ), the radial displacement, ub , is given by the formula ub = Y c2 (1 − ν 2 ), Eb P ≥ P0 , (7.158)

where c can be evaluated as an implicit function of P through (7.155). A diagram showing the applied pressure versus the radial displacement at the outer face of the cylinder obtained in the finite element simulation is plotted in Figure 7.16 together with Hill’s closed-form solution. The high accuracy of the finite element results is clear. The limit load is reached when c = b. It then follows from (7.155) that the limit pressure is 2σy Plim = √ ln(b/a), 3 which for the present dimensions and material parameters gives Plim ≈ 0.19209GPa. (7.160) (7.159)

In the finite element solution, the limit load is assumed to have been reached when equilibrium can no longer be obtained (global iterations do not converge) with a reasonably small

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS
0.26 0 0.22 hoop stress (GPa) 0.18 0.14 P=0.1 GPa 0.10 0.06 100 120 140 160 180 200 P=0.18 GPa radial stress (GPa) -0.02 -0.06 P=0.18 GPa -0.10 -0.14 -0.18 100 120 140 160 180 P=0.1 GPa

247

analytical solution (Hill, 1950) present results

200

radial coordinate (mm)

radial coordinate (mm)

Figure 7.17. Internally pressurised cylinder. Hoop and radial stress distributions at different levels of applied internal pressure. Finite element results are computed at Gauss integration points.

load increment. The limit pressure obtained in the present simulation is about 0.19209 GPa, which is virtually identical to Hill’s closed-form solution. The hoop and radial stresses obtained at the Gauss points are plotted in Figure 7.17 together with Hill’s solution for P = 0.1 GPa and P = 0.18 GPa. In the plastic region, where the radial coordinate r satisfies a ≤ r ≤ c, the radial and hoop stresses obtained by Hill are given, respectively, by c 1 σr = Y − − ln 2 r + c2 , 2b2 σθ = Y c 1 − ln 2 r + c2 . 2b2 (7.161)

In the elastic region, c ≤ r ≤ b, the stresses are σr = − Y c2 2b2 b2 −1 , r2 σθ = Y c2 2b2 b2 +1 . r2 (7.162)

The finite element results at the Gauss points are also in very close agreement with Hill’s solution. It is worth mentioning that at the pressure level P = 0.1 GPa the entire cylinder is still elastic. At the level P = 0.18 GPa the plastic front has already progressed considerably and c ≈ 159.79. The transition between the elastic and plastic zones is clearly marked by the drastic change in the slope of the curve for the hoop stress shown in Figure 7.17. 7.5.2. INTERNALLY PRESSURISED SPHERICAL SHELL An axisymmetric finite element analysis of an internally pressurised thick-walled spherical shell is carried out in this example. The geometry of the problem is illustrated in Figure 7.18. The material parameters and the finite element mesh adopted are identical to those of Example 7.5.1. As in the previous example, plastic yielding starts at the inner surface and propagates through the shell as the internal pressure is increased. Collapse takes place when the (spherical) plastic front reaches the outer boundary and the entire shell is under plastic flow. An analytical solution to this problem has also been derived by Hill (1950). Adopting the notation of Example 7.5.1, the analytical radial displacement of the outer face of the shell under plastic yielding (P ≥ P0 ) is ub = σy c3 (1 − ν), Eb2 P ≥ P0 , (7.163)

248

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

where the radius of the plastic front, c, is associated with the applied pressure, P , through the expression 2σy c3 c + 1− 3 , P = 2σy ln (7.164) a 3 b and the yielding pressure, P0 , is P0 = a3 2σy 1− 3 . 3 b (7.165)

When the whole shell is elastic, i.e. when P < P0 , the displacement ub is given by ub = 3P b 2E(b3 /a3 − 1) (1 − ν), P < P0 . (7.166)

The displacement ub obtained in the finite element solution is plotted against the applied pressure in Figure 7.18. The analytical curve is also plotted for comparison. The analytical limit load, corresponding to c = b, is obtained as Plim = 2σy ln(b/a), which, for the present problem gives Plim ≈ 0.33271 GPa. (7.168) (7.167)

Again, in the numerical solution, it is assumed that the limit load has been achieved when convergence for sufficiently small load increments cannot be obtained. The limit pressure obtained in the present analysis is approximately 0.33769 GPa, which is nearly identical to the exact value. The hoop and radial stresses obtained at the Gauss points in the finite element simulation are plotted in Figure 7.19 together with the corresponding analytical solution. The agreement between numerical and exact results is excellent. The analytical expressions for the hoop and radial stresses are σr = −2Y ln c r + 1 c3 1− 3 3 2b , σθ = 2Y c 1 − ln 2 r − 1 c3 1− 3 3 2b , (7.169) in the plastic region (a ≤ r ≤ c). In the elastic region (c ≤ r ≤ b), the stresses are σr = − 2σy c3 3b3 b3 −1 , r3 σθ = 2σy c3 3b3 b3 +1 . 2r3 (7.170)

Residual stresses After complete unloading from a partly plastic state, the shell will be subjected to a field of (self-equilibrated) residual stresses. The residual stress field produces an increase in the yield pressure so that pre-loading can be applied to strengthen the shell. For a shell that has been monotonically loaded to a pressure level P and then completely unloaded without the occurrence of reverse plastic flow (i.e. the unloading process is purely elastic), the analytical

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS
0.4

249

b = 200 mm
internal pressure, P (GPa) 0.3

0.2

P

0.1

analytical solution (Hill, 1950) present results

a = 100 mm

0.0 0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

radial displacement at outer face (mm)

Figure 7.18. Internally pressurised spherical shell. Geometry and pressure versus displacement curve.
0.2 0.0 P=0.30 GPa 0.1 P=0.15 GPa 0.0 radial stress (GPa) hoop stress (GPa) -0.1 P=0.15 GPa -0.2 analytical solution (Hill, 1950) present results P=0.30 GPa

-0.3 -0.1 100 120 140 160 180 200 100

120

140

160

180

200

radial coordinate (mm)

radial coordinate (mm)

Figure 7.19. Internally pressurised spherical shell. Hoop and radial stress distributions at different levels of applied internal pressure. Finite element results are computed at Gauss integration points.

distribution of residual hoop and radial stresses along the sphere radius are given by   a3 2σy c3 P a3   R σr = − − − 3   3 3 3 a P0 r b , for c ≤ r ≤ b, (7.171)  a3 2σy c3 P a3   R  − + 3  σθ = 3 a3 P0 2r3 b and a3 2σy P R σr = − 1− 3 3 P0 r
R σθ

r − 3 ln a r + 3 ln a

           ,

P a3 2σy 3 − 1+ 3 =− 3 2 P0 2r

for a ≤ r ≤ c.

(7.172)

In the above expressions, c is the radius of the plastic region at the maximum pressure level attained before unloading. The maximum pressure that can be applied without the occurrence

250

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
0.1 hoop stress residual stresses (GPa) 0.0 radial stress -0.1 analytical solution (Hill, 1950) present results

-0.2

-0.3 100

120

140

160

180

200

radial coordinate (mm)

Figure 7.20. Internally pressurised spherical shell. Residual hoop and radial stress distributions resulting from pre-loading to P = 0.28 GPa.

of reverse plastic flow during unloading is P = 2P0 , which for the present dimensions and material constants is P = 0.28 GPa. (7.173) For thinner shells, with b/a < 1.701, the maximum pressure that can be applied in pre-loading is P = Plim . Here, the finite element simulation of a pre-loading operation (with maximum load P = 0.28 GPa) has also been carried out. The resulting residual stresses are shown in Figure 7.20 where the above analytical solution is also plotted for comparison. Again, the high accuracy of the finite element solution is evident. 7.5.3. UNIFORMLY LOADED CIRCULAR PLATE A simply supported uniformly loaded circular plate is analysed in this example. The plate, of radius R and thickness h, is simply supported on its edge and is subjected to a uniform pressure P on its top surface. The dimensions of the problem, the material parameters and the finite element mesh adopted are shown in Figure 7.21. The plate is discretised by ten eight-noded axisymmetric quadrilaterals with four Gauss integration points. The elements are distributed in two layers across the thickness. As in the previous two examples, the material model adopted is elastic-perfectly plastic with a von Mises yield criterion and the purpose of the analysis is to determine the limit load for the plate. The limit load for the present problem (to any desired accuracy) can be obtained by using methods of limit analysis combined with the finite difference method. The procedure is described by Skrzypek (1993) and the corresponding limit load is Plim ≈ where My ≡ σy h2 /4 is the yield bending moment. For the present dimensions and yield stress, we have Plim ≈ 260.8. (7.176) (7.175) 6.52 My , R2 (7.174)

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS
300
Material properties – von Mises model

251

distributed load intensity, P

Young’s modulus: E = 10 7 Poisson’s ratio: ν = 0.24 Uniaxial yield stress: σ y = 16 000 (perfectly plastic)

200

P

100 finite element results Skrzypek’s limit load - 260.8 0 0.0

h = 10 w
(central deflection)

R = 10

0.4

0.8 central deflection, w

1.2

1.6

Figure 7.21. Uniformly loaded circular plate. Geometry and load versus deflection diagram.
0.0 normalised deflection, w/h P=100 0.2 P=200

0.4

P=250

0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 normalised radial coordinate, r/R

Figure 7.22. Uniformly loaded circular plate. Deflection profiles at different levels of load obtained in the finite element analysis.

In the finite element analysis, starting from the unloaded state, the pressure P is increased gradually, in ten increments, until collapse occurs. The deflection at the centre of the plate obtained in the numerical simulation is plotted against the applied pressure in the diagram of Figure 7.21. The accuracy of the finite element procedure in capturing the collapse is evident. The limit load obtained in the finite element analysis (taken as the load above which equilibrium iterations can no longer converge for a sufficiently small load increment) is
fe Plim ≈ 259.8.

(7.177)

The relative error is about 0.4%. Note that such a high accuracy has been obtained despite the use of a relatively coarse mesh. Deflection profiles obtained at different stages of the loading process are shown in Figure 7.22. In the present problem, plastic yielding starts at the top and bottom surfaces of the plate around its centre and propagates toward the neutral plane with increasing load until collapse occurs. The propagation of the plastic zones is illustrated in Figure 7.23. The plastic and elastic regions, represented respectively by the shaded and white areas, are shown at different stages of the loading process. At P = 100 the plate is still purely elastic. At P = 200 plastic yield has already taken place at the bottom and top surfaces

252

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
P = 100
5x10 element mesh

P = 200
Please Wait..

P = 259.5
Please Wait..

Figure 7.23. Uniformly loaded circular plate. Evolution of the plastic region.
B =1m

P
Material properties
L=5m

- Soil: von Mises perfectly plastic E = 107 kPa ν = 0.48 σy = 848.7 kPa ( τ y = 490 kPa)

footing

soil

Figure 7.24. Strip footing. Problem definition.

around the plate centre and at P = 259.5 only a narrow layer surrounding the neutral plane remains elastic and collapse is imminent. In order to obtain a more accurate definition of the plastic zones, a finer mesh of 5 × 10 elements has been used. It is remarked that the limit load obtained with the finer mesh is virtually identical to the one obtained with the previous coarser mesh. 7.5.4. STRIP-FOOTING COLLAPSE This example shows the application of the finite element method to the determination of the bearing capacity (limit load) of a strip footing. The problem consists of a long rectangular footing, of width B = 1 m and length L = 5 m, lying on soil (assumed as an infinite medium). The geometry of the problem is illustrated in Figure 7.24. The footing is subjected to a vertical pressure P and the purpose of the present analysis is to determine the collapse pressure Plim . The soil is assumed to be weightless and is modelled as a von Mises perfectly plastic material with the material constants shown in Figure 7.24. Due to the long length of the footing, the present problem is solved by assuming a plane strain state. The adopted finite element model is shown in Figure 7.25. Due to obvious symmetry, only one half of the crosssection is discretised. A mesh of 135 eight-noded quadrilaterals (with four-point quadrature) is used with a total of 446 nodes. In order to emulate the infinite medium assumption, the finite element mesh discretises a sufficiently large domain of soil with a depth and halfwidth of 5 m. The footing is assumed to be rigid and smooth (no friction at the footing/soil

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS
B/2 = 0.5 m

253

footing

u
Please Wait..

Please Wait..

5m

Figure 7.25. Strip footing. Finite element model.
6

normalised pressure, P/c

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.001 0.002 finite element results slip-line theory limit load: 5.14

normalised settlement, u/B

Figure 7.26. Strip footing. Load-displacement curve.

interface). This corresponds to prescribing the vertical displacement (the settlement), u, of the nodes under the footing and allowing their horizontal displacement to be unconstrained. A total displacement of u = 0.002 m is applied in 14 increments. The corresponding (average) pressure P supported by the footing is computed as the total reaction on the footing divided by the width B. Solutions to this problem, based on slip-line theory, have been derived by Prandtl and Hill (Hill, 1950). They give the following limit pressure: Plim = (2 + π)c ≈ 5.14 c ≈ 2.97 σy , (7.178)

5m

mesh refinement around footing edge

254

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

u/B = 0.00015 (incr. 2)

u/B = 0.00025 (incr. 4)

Please Wait..

Please Wait..

u/B = 0.00065 (incr. 8)

u/B = 0.0011 (incr. 12)

Please Wait..

Please Wait..

Figure 7.27. Strip footing. Evolution of the plastic zone.

√ where the cohesion or shear strength, c, for the von Mises model is given by c = σy / 3. The normalised average pressure obtained in the finite element simulation is plotted in Figure 7.26 versus the normalised settlement. The limit pressure obtained is in excellent agreement with the slip-line solution, with a relative error of approximately 0.9%. It is remarked that the accuracy can be increased by refining the finite element mesh. The evolution of the plastic zone during the process of loading is shown in Figure 7.27. The plastic zones correspond to the shaded area in the plot. At the 12th increment, the collapse load has already been reached. The incremental nodal displacement field corresponding to increment 12 is shown in Figure 7.28. The sizes of the nodal displacement vectors plotted in Figure 7.28 have been greatly exaggerated and are not to the same scale as the underlying finite element mesh. At the collapse load, the nodes located sufficiently far from the footing are virtually fixed and only the nodes surrounding the footing move. Note that the mechanism depicted in Figure 7.28 is in agreement with Hill’s slip-line solution (Hill, 1950) which, as pointed out by Hill, is valid when the footing is assumed to be smooth (unconstrained horizontal displacements under the footing). It is important to emphasise here that, except under undrained conditions, the plastic flow in soils is strongly affected by the hydrostatic stress. Thus, pressure insensitive plasticity models, such as the von Mises material adopted in the present example, give in general a rather poor representation of the actual behaviour. The simulation of the collapse of

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS
footing

255

Please Wait..

Please Wait..

Figure 7.28. Strip footing. Incremental nodal displacement field at collapse (increment 12).

the strip footing using more appropriate pressure-sensitive plasticity models is carried out in Chapter 8. 7.5.5. DOUBLE-NOTCHED TENSILE SPECIMEN In this example, the plane strain analysis of a deep double-edge-notched tensile specimen is carried out. As in all examples of this chapter, the von Mises elastoplastic model is adopted. Here, two situations are considered: 1. The material is assumed elastic-perfectly plastic. 2. Linear isotropic hardening is assumed. Under the hypothesis of perfect plasticity, the present problem is simply the tensile version of the strip footing problem described above and is often adopted as a benchmark test for the convergence properties of finite elements in incompressible plasticity (Nagtegaal et al., 1974; Simo and Rifai, 1990). The geometry, material properties and the finite element mesh used are shown in Figure 7.29. The specimen, of width w = 10 and length l = 30, contains two deep notches and its two halves are connected only by a ligament of width b = 1. Only one symmetric quarter of the specimen, discretised by the 153-element mesh shown in Figure 7.29, is used in the finite element computations. Again, the standard eight-noded quadrilateral element with four Gauss integration points is adopted. The total number of nodes is 506. The specimen is stretched by prescribing the vertical displacement u on the top nodes of the mesh. A total displacement u = 0.17 is applied incrementally. With R denoting the total reaction on the restrained edge, the net axial stress, σ , on the ligament is given by ¯ R . (7.179) b In terms of the net stress on the ligament, the limit load obtained by Prandtl for the present problem (under the hypothesis of perfect plasticity) is given by σ= ¯ σlim = ¯ (2 + π) √ σy ≈ 2.97 σy . 3 (7.180)

256

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

u

Please Wait..

Material properties - von Mises model Young’s modulus: E=206.9 Poisson’s ratio: ν=0.29 Uniaxial yield stress:

l=30

b=1

- Perfectly plastic: σy = 0.45 - Linear hardening: σy (¯p ) = 0.45 + 0.2 εp ε ¯

w=10

u
Figure 7.29. Double-notched tensile specimen. Geometry, material properties and finite element mesh.

(a)
normalised net stress, σ /σy ¯ normalised net stress, σ/σy ¯

(b)

3

3

2 finite element results Prandtl limit load: 2.97 1

2

1

0 0 4 8 12 16

0 0 4 8 12 16

normalised edge deflection, 2uE/σy w

normalised edge deflection, 2uE/σy w

Figure 7.30. Double-notched specimen. Load-deflection curves: (a) perfect plasticity; and (b) linear hardening.

In Figure 7.30(a), the normalised axial net stress, σ /σy , obtained in the perfectly plastic finite ¯ element analysis is plotted against the normalised deflection of the top edge, 2uE/σy w. The limit load obtained with the present mesh is only approximately 0.8% higher than the Prandtl solution. The load-deflection curve obtained for the linearly hardening model is shown in Figure 7.30(b). In this case, no limit load exists.

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS

257

7.6. Further application: the von Mises model with nonlinear mixed hardening
Having used the simple set-up of the von Mises model with isotropic hardening, we hope to have provided the reader with a clear picture of the basic components of the finite element implementation of plasticity models. In this section we move one step forward and apply the same concepts to derive an implicit integration algorithm (together with its associated consistent tangent operator) for a version of the von Mises model that combines general nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardening. The mixed hardening rule considered here is the one described in Section 6.6.5 (page 189). It is worth remarking that consideration of kinematic hardening may become crucial in applications involving cyclic loads – situations where the Bauschinger effect may not be disregarded without significant loss of accuracy. The algorithm/tangent operator derived here are also incorporated into HYPLAS. As we shall see, the structure of these routines is very similar to those of the isotropic hardening-only counterparts. The computational implementation of these procedures is a straightforward extension of routines SUVM (for the integration algorithm) and CTVM (for the consistent tangent). The corresponding routines for the mixed hardening model are named, respectively, SUVMMX and CTVMX. Their source code is not included in the text. Readers wishing to skip the details of the present derivations are referred directly to Box 7.5 (page 260) for the integration algorithm and formula (7.213) for the corresponding elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. 7.6.1. THE MIXED HARDENING MODEL: SUMMARY Let us start by summarising the equations of the model to be used in what follows. In addition to the standard linear elastic law, we have: 1. The kinematically hardening von Mises yield function Φ(σ, β, σy ) ≡ = 3 J2 (s(σ) − β) − σy
3 2

η − σy

(7.181)

where β is the backstress tensor which defines the translation of the centre of the (kinematically hardened) von Mises circle in the deviatoric plane, η is the relative stress η ≡ s − β, (7.182) and σy defines now only the radius of the yield surface and not necessarily the uniaxial yield stress as in the isotropic hardening-only model. 2. Associative law for the plastic flow: ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 η . 2 η (7.183)

3. General isotropic strain hardening defined by the isotropic hardening curve σy = σy (¯p ). ε (7.184)

258

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

4. Nonlinear kinematic hardening defined by the following evolution law for the backstress: 2 k p η 2 ˙ H (¯ ) , (7.185) β = H k(¯p ) εp = γ ε ˙ ˙ ε 3 3 η with ¯ dβ d¯p ε denoting the slope of the given kinematic hardening curve: H k (¯p ) ≡ ε ¯ ¯ε β = β(¯p ). (7.186)

(7.187)

¯ Recall that the kinematic hardening stress, β, is the kinematic contribution to overall hardening that can be obtained from uniaxial tests with load reversal. 7.6.2. THE IMPLICIT RETURN-MAPPING SCHEME Particularisation of the general implicit return-mapping equations (7.25) to the present case, where α ≡ {¯p , β}, gives ε εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 n+1 βn+1 = βn + ∆γ εp = εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n 3 η − σy (¯p ) = 0. εn+1 2 n+1 As in the isotropic hardening-only case, the above system can be reduced to the solution of a single scalar equation for the plastic multiplier ∆γ. To achieve this, firstly note that equation (7.188)1, together with the elastic law, gives the following incremental update for the stress deviator 3 ηn+1 . (7.189) sn+1 = strial − 2G ∆γ n+1 2 ηn+1 By subtracting (7.188)2 from (7.189), we obtain ηn+1 = ηtrial − ∆γ n+1 3 2 2G + H k (¯p ) εn+1 2 3 ηn+1 , ηn+1 (7.190) 3 ηn+1 2 ηn+1 η 2 k p H (¯n+1 ) n+1 ε 3 ηn+1 (7.188)

where we have defined the elastic trial relative stress as ηtrial ≡ strial − βn . n+1 n+1 (7.191)

Note that (7.190) implies that ηn+1 and ηtrial are colinear, i.e. ηn+1 is a scalar multiple of n+1 ηtrial . This gives the identity n+1 ηtrial ηn+1 = n+1 , (7.192) ηn+1 ηtrial n+1

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL - STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS

259

which, substituted into (7.190), renders the simpler update formula for the relative stress ηn+1 = 1 − ∆γ [3G + H k (¯p )] ηtrial , εn+1 n+1 qn+1 ¯trial (7.193)

where qn+1 is the elastic trial relative effective stress, defined by ¯trial qn+1 ≡ ¯trial
3 2

ηtrial . n+1

(7.194)

Then, by substituting (7.193), together with (7.188)3, into (7.188)4, the return mapping reduces to the following generally nonlinear scalar equation for ∆γ: ˜ εn εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − ∆γ[3G + H k (¯p + ∆γ)] − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. ¯trial Note that, also consistently with the backward Euler approximation, we have ¯ ¯ ∆γ H k (¯p ) ≈ βn+1 − βn , εn+1 (7.196) (7.195)

¯ ¯ε ¯ε where βk ≡ β(¯p ). Since the curve β(¯p ) (in the form of discrete sampling points) rather than k ε the slope H k (¯p ) is what is normally available from uniaxial experiments, it is convenient to use the above approximation and work only with the kinematic hardening stress in the returnmapping equations. With the adoption of this approach, we replace (7.188)2 and (7.193), respectively, with βn+1 = βn + and ηn+1 = 1 − ¯ ¯ 3G∆γ + βn+1 − βn ηtrial . n+1 qn+1 ¯trial (7.198) η 2 ¯ ¯ (βn+1 − βn ) n+1 3 ηn+1 (7.197)

Correspondingly, the return equation (7.195) is replaced by ¯ε ¯ ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G∆γ − β(¯p + ∆γ) + βn − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. ¯trial εn n (7.199)

The mth Newton–Raphson iterative correction to ∆γ in the solution of the above equation reads ˜ Φ(∆γ (m−1) ) , (7.200) ∆γ (m) := ∆γ (m−1) − d where d = −3G − H k (¯p + ∆γ (m−1) ) − H i (¯p + ∆γ (m−1) ) εn εn and H i ≡ σy is the slope of the isotropic hardening curve. The overall integration algorithm is listed in Box 7.5 in pseudo-code format. (7.201)

260

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS

Box 7.5. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with mixed nonlinear hardening. HYPLAS procedure: SUVMMX

(i) Elastic predictor. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn , evaluate the elastic trial state

εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n
εp trial := εp ; ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := Kεe trial ; n+1 v n+1

βtrial := βn n+1 strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1
qn+1 := ¯trial
3 2

ηtrial := strial − βn ; n+1 n+1
(ii) Check plastic admissibility

ηtrial n+1

εn+1 IF qn+1 − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 ¯trial THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping. Solve the equation for ∆γ ¯ εn ¯ qn+1 − 3G∆γ − β(¯p + ∆γ) + βn − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0 ¯trial εn ¯ ¯ εn where βn = β(¯p ) and update εp := εp + ∆γ; ¯n+1 ¯n ¯ ¯ε βn+1 := β(¯p ) n+1

βn+1 := βn +
pn+1 := ptrial ; n+1

ηtrial 2 ¯ ¯ (βn+1 − βn ) n+1 3 ηtrial n+1

sn+1 := strial − 2G∆γ n+1

σn+1 := sn+1 + pn+1 I;
(iv) EXIT

trial 3 ηn+1 2 ηtrial n+1 1 1 e εn+1 = sn+1 + εe trial I 2G 3 v n+1

7.6.3. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION

By means of straightforward tensor manipulations, we can easily establish that the incremental constitutive function, analogous to (7.93), for the present stress updating procedure reads ¯ εn σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p , βn , εe trial ) n+1 ∆γ 6G2 ∆γ 3G ˆ ˆ ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) Id : εe trial + H(Φtrial ) trial βn , n+1 trial qn+1 ¯ qn+1 ¯ (7.202)

εe trial n+1 and the internal variables {¯p . LINEAR HARDENING: CLOSED-FORM RETURN MAPPING If the kinematic and isotropic hardening are linear.3 and 7. The main modifications comprise the redefinition of the return-mapping equation and the incorporation of new state variables – the components of the backstress tensor. εn (7. defined by the same number of (user supplied) sampling pairs as the isotropic hardening curve {¯p . ε ¯ The extra properties are read and stored in array RPROPS (real material properties) during the data input phase of HYPLAS.5). εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (βn . These components are stored in array RSTAVA of real-state variables. then the present return mapping equation has the following closed form solution: Φtrial ∆γ = . . Also note that. the kinematic hardening curve. is assumed to be piecewise linear.3. qn+1 = ¯trial 3 2 strial − βn = n+1 3 2 3 2 2Gεe trial − βn d n+1 2G Id : εe trial − βn . (7. two hardening curves (rather than one in the isotropic hardening-only case) are required: one for σy (already implemented in SUVM) ¯ and a second one for β. β}.204) (7. βn .e.207) 3G + H k + H i 7. εe trial ) ≡ ¯trial n+1 Φtrial is the function Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p . the algorithm of Box 7. if σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H i εp .203) = qn+1 (βn . i. n+1 (7. εe trial ) εn n+1 is the implicit function of consistency equation (7.6. As for the isotropic hardening curve. εn ¯trial εn n+1 n+1 and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p . ε ¯ ¯ε β(¯p ) = H k εp . βn .5 is a straightforward extension of the algorithm for the isotropic hardening-only model listed in Boxes 7.4.4.94).205) βn } defined by the 7. ¯ (7.6.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . The present mixed hardening algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMMX (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening). H i and H k .. εe trial ) − σy (¯p ). β. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS As anticipated at the beginning of Section 7.199). ¯ε β(¯p ).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 261 ˆ where H is the Heaviside step function (7.6. This routine is a simple modification of routine SUVM (listed in Section 7.5.206) with constant σy 0 . here.

THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT Under plastic flow (Φtrial > 0).212) into (7.194) and (7.2 (from page 232) for the isotropic hardening-only model. The derivation follows closely that presented in Section 7.4. after a straightforward algebra taking (7.202) gives ∆γ 6G2 ∆γ 3G σn+1 = De − trial Id : εe trial + trial βn .6. ∂ qn+1 ¯trial = 2G ∂εe trial n+1 with the unit flow vector here defined as ηtrial ¯ N n+1 ≡ n+1 .199) with respect to εe trial .116).e. the following closed-form expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep = De − ∆γ ∆γ 6G2 1 Id + 6G2 trial − 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯trial qn+1 ¯ ∆γ 3G qn+1 ¯trial Id ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 + K I ⊗ I.208) gives ∆γ 6G2 3G ∂∆γ ∂σn+1 = De − trial Id − trial ηtrial ⊗ e trial ∂εe trial qn+1 ¯ qn+1 n+1 ∂εn+1 ¯ n+1 + ∂ q trial ¯ ∆γ 3G trial ηn+1 ⊗ en+1 .210) The incremental plastic multiplier derivative is obtained by differentiating the return-mapping equation (7. 2 (7. ηtrial n+1 (7. The corresponding expression in the present case has the same format as (7. i.6. 3 (7. the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (7. with the substitution of (7.209) where we have made use of the connection ηtrial = 2G Id : εe trial − βn . (7. This gives n+1 ∂ qn+1 ¯trial ∂∆γ 1 = 3G + H k + H i ∂εe trial ∂εe trial n+1 n+1 = 2G 3G + H k + H i 3 ¯ N n+1 . trial )2 trial (¯n+1 q ∂εn+1 (7.262 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7.213) ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 1 − trial 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯ .212) Then. The derivative of the n+1 n+1 trial relative effective stress is obtained analogously to (7.210) and (7.211) 2 ¯ N n+1 .209) we obtain. The differentiation of (7.211) into account.208) n+1 qn+1 ¯ qn+1 ¯ The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the present case is obtained by differentiating the above relation. (7.116).

3. the incremental flow vector and the scalar factors multiplying the fourth-order tensors are redefined according to the above formulae. The basic difference is that.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 263 Implementation The above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVMMX (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening) of HYPLAS.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . As the reader may ¯ verify CTVMMX is a straightforward variation of routine CTVM (refer to Section 7. . from page 235) coded for the isotropic hardening-only model.4. in CTVMMX.

.

We remark that the only new concept introduced in this chapter concerns the computational treatment of singularities (corners) in the yield surface.3.5. To illustrate such concepts.3. including a step-by-step derivation and FORTRAN coding of the necessary procedures. is described in detail. The complete FORTRAN implementation of the related computational procedures within the finite element environment of program HYPLAS has also been presented for the isotropic hardening version of the model. The associated consistent tangent moduli are also derived in detail and an error analysis based on iso-error maps is presented for each model considered.3 of Chapter 6 are considered.1. some general schemes for numerical integration of elastoplastic constitutive equations have been reviewed together with related issues such as the computation of consistent tangent operators and error analysis. These sections describe. • the Mohr–Coulomb model. the von Mises model – the simplest of the models discussed in this book – has been used as an example and the corresponding implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. all featuring linear elastic behaviour and generally a nonlinear isotropic hardening law. and • the Drucker–Prager model. the complete computational implementation of other basic plasticity models discussed in Chapter 6. In the present chapter. The associative plastic flow rule is adopted for the Tresca model whereas. pseudo-code and FORTRAN source code of the relevant computational procedures as well as iso-error maps for the particular material model of Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. respectively. 8. Note that all three models addressed here feature such singularities where.2.2 and 8. have been derived in detail for the isotropic and mixed hardening cases. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. in particular. the models discussed here are • the Tresca model. a table has been added indicating the location of flowcharts. for the Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. discussed in Section 7. the generally non-associated laws discussed in Section 6. Ltd . the implementation of the Tresca. the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb criteria admit a multisurface representation with corresponding multivector flow rules. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models. together with the associated consistent tangent. The main sections of this chapter are three: Sections 8. At the beginning of each of the main sections. The algorithms for integration of the corresponding elastoplastic constitutive equations derived here are specialisations of the elastic predictor/return mapping scheme based on the fully implicit discretisation of the plastic corrector equations.8 COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS I N Chapter 7. Namely.

a summary of the constitutive equations of the model concerned is presented.1. The Tresca model This section describes the specialisation of the implicit algorithm of Section 7. The multisurface representation of the Tresca model is defined by means of the six yield functions. This layout makes the main sections self-contained to a certain extent and has been chosen in order to avoid readers having to refer back to Chapter 6. flowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. .4 by means a comprehensive set of benchmarking numerical examples. Φ6 .266 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS interest.2.5) iso-error maps consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – The model All ingredients of the Tresca plasticity model implemented here have been fully described in Chapter 6.2) . Φ1 . Also at the beginning of each main section. the location of the main results is summarised below. In the following we summarise for convenience only its main equations.1) where Ni ≡ ∂Φi .3 subroutine SUTR (Section 8. ∂σ (8.1–8. by means of iso-error maps. These summarise the most important results and the tables should be particularly helpful to readers who wish to skip the details of derivation and concentrate only on the practical aspects of computational implementation. . 8. Applications of the numerical procedures derived in the main sections are illustrated in Section 8. The corresponding consistent tangent operator is also derived and an accuracy assessment of the integration algorithm.7 subroutine CTTR (Section 8. where a more detailed description of the constitutive equations adopted here is given.1. given in (6. .3 Boxes 8.3 to the Tresca model with general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening.6 and 8.91) (page 160). For the reader who is interested only in the practical implementation aspects of the material presented in this section. The corresponding associative plastic flow rule is defined by the rate equation 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i. is presented. ˙ (8.2) Figures 8.1. .

which are given respectively by ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ for plastic flow from the main plane (item 1 above). γ i ≥ 0. the accumulated plastic strain for this model is defined by means of its evolution equations. The flow rule reads ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b .6) 2. (8. Plastic flow from the left corner.9) Under the assumption of associative hardening (for further details. as in the von Mises model implementation discussed in Chapter 7.3) with no summation on the repeated index. the model can be completely defined with reference to a single sextant of the principal stress space. L. refer to the text surrounding equation (6. as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (refer to Figure 6.5) where the flow vector N a is the normal to the corresponding plane defined by Φ1 = 0: N a ≡ N 1 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 . ˙ (8. R. is the same as the one above.10) . respectively). in this case. Isotropic strain hardening is incorporated. (8.196).7) where N a is the normal to the main plane. where the Tresca yielding function is differentiable. page 183).18.8) 3. The flow rule. and ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a + γ b ¯ for plastic flow from the right and left corners (items 2 and 3. ˙ Φi γ i = 0 ˙ (8. by assuming the uniaxial yield stress σy that takes part in the yield functions Φi to be a given (generally nonlinear) function of the accumulated plastic strain: ε σy = σy (¯p ). defined by (8. The rate of plastic strain in this case is a linear combination with non-negative coefficients of the normals to the two intersecting planes at this point. In this case. Plastic flow from the flat portion (main plane). but with N b being the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane (defined by Φ2 = 0): N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . and N b is the normal to the plane on the right of the main plane defined by Φ6 = 0: N b ≡ N 6 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 . without loss of generality. ˙ ˙ (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 267 together with the loading/unloading conditions Φi ≤ 0.6). page 173). only three possibilities are identified for the associative plastic flow: 1. In this case. (8. (8.11) (8. ˙ εp = γN a . (8. Plastic flow from the right corner.4) With the principal stresses ordered.

with an extra degree of complexity introduced due to the existence of singularities (corners) on the yield surface. 1980). The principal elastic trial stresses.25) are . THE IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM IN PRINCIPAL STRESSES The derivation of the implicit elastic predictor/plastic corrector integration algorithm for the Tresca model follows much the same path as the derivation of algorithm for the von Mises model. n+1 • Otherwise. Simo et al. the consistency check follows as: trial trial • If Φtrial ≡ σ1 − σ3 − σy (¯p ) ≤ εn tol .80)–(7. given the incremental strain ∆ε. The elastic predictor stage here is identical to the one in the von Mises model implementation so that. the subscript n + 1 is omitted from the trial and updated principal stresses). however. substantial simplification is possible when the general implicit return mapping equations (7. the updated state at tn+1 is obtained by the return-mapping procedure described in what follows. With trial trial trial the principal trial stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (for notational convenience. formulations based on the multisurface-based description of the plastic flow have been shown to avoid such instabilities providing an effective solution to the integration of elastoplastic models with non-smooth yield surfaces (Crisfield. 2. 1989. At this point. Pramono and Willam. Due to the principal stress approach adopted here.. 1987. The principal stress-based algorithm results in a simpler computational implementation of this particular model.94). 1987. 3). are computed in closed form by means of the formulae described in Appendix A. It is emphasised here that. σi ei . the elastic trial state is computed as in (7. and the corresponding eigenvectors.1. For instance. then the process is elastic and (8. note that the Tresca surface can be represented by means of a set of linear functions of the principal stresses. page 160). trial (i = 1.83). In such approaches. Early numerical implementations of singular-surface models have resorted to the smoothing of corners leading to singularity-free formulations (Nayak and Zienkiewicz. and the state variables at tn . de Borst. the algorithm for the Tresca model becomes substantially different from the previously described von Mises algorithm.12) (·)n+1 := (·)trial . Owen and Hinton. An alternative c c approach based on a semi-analytical integration algorithm is described by Sloan and Booker (1992). The main drawback of such a representation lies in the fact that the Tresca yield function is a highly nonlinear function of the stress invariants and its use results in rather intricate expressions for the corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. numerical instabilities frequently arise in connection with the high curvature of the smoothed corners. It is worth remarking that in most of the computational plasticity literature – especially in the derivation of return-mapping-type schemes – the numerical treatment of the Tresca model is based on the representation of the Tresca yield function in terms of stress invariants (refer to expression (6. The algorithm described in what follows was proposed by Peri´ and de Souza Neto (1999) and differs from the invariant-based procedures c in that it relies entirely on the principal stress representation of the Tresca criterion. 1989. More recently. the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress is required prior to the consistency check. The next step is to verify whether the trial state violates the plastic consistency constraint.268 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8. 1988b). 1972. Pankaj and Bi´ ani´ .1. as in the algorithm for the von Mises model.

15) i i where Nj denotes the eigenvalues of Nn+1 . The three possible return mappings Crucial to the derivation of the return-mapping algorithm is the observation that the plastic flow rule (8. This substituted in (8. (j = 1.9) results in the three following possibilities for the return-mapping algorithm: 1. (8.9) has three different explicit forms. the update formula for the accumulated plastic strain is given by the implicit discrete counterpart of (8. Nn+1 and sn+1 share the same principal directions. (8. Thus.5)–(8.17) † The update formula in terms of principal deviatoric stresses is equally valid for the von Mises model. 3). (8.1): 6 εe = εe trial − n+1 n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 . the return-mapping algorithm (described in the previous section) turns out to be more efficient when the standard formulation in terms of the deviatoric stress tensor components (rather than its eigenvalues) is adopted.5)–(8. ¯n+1 ¯n (8. .15) gives the following update formula for the principal deviatoric stresses: s1 = strial − 2G ∆γ 1 s2 = strial 2 s3 = strial 3 + 2G ∆γ. 2. for the von Mises model. consider the implicit update formula for the elastic strain obtained as a result of the discretisation of (8.6). The discretisation of (8.14) i Note that by definition of the flow vectors. The updated stress lies on the main plane. as in the von Mises model.16) On the main plane. However. (8. this expression is equivalent. there is only one possible nonzero multiplier and the flow vector is given by (8. to independent update formulae for the hydrostatic and the deviatoric stress: pn+1 = ptrial n+1 6 sn+1 = strial − 2G n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 .14)2 implies that these principal directions are also shared by strial so that the update formula for the deviatoric stress can be equivalently expressed in n+1 terms of principal stresses as† 6 sj = strial j − 2G i=1 i ∆γ i Nj .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 269 particularized for the Tresca model. To derive the simplified equations.13) Due to the isotropic linear elastic law and the fact that the Tresca flow vector is purely deviatoric. The actual form to be used in discretised form to update the stress depends on the location of the (unknown) updated stress on the (unknown) updated yield surface.10): εp = εp + ∆γ. In this case. expression (8.

6) and (8. is obtained with the introduction of (8. here. the two-vector return-mapping equation is obtained here by introducing (8.24) 3.270 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The return mapping. ¯n+1 ¯n (8. in the present case. ∆γ b ) ≡ σy (¯p + ∆γ a + ∆γ b ).9).21) Analogously to the one-vector return mapping of item 1.20) The incremental law for εp in this case is the discrete counterpart of (8. The situation now is completely analogous to item 2 above with the difference that. σy (¯p )) = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . This results in the following explicit expression for the update of the principal deviatoric stresses: s1 = strial − 2G (∆γ a + ∆γ b ) 1 s2 = strial + 2G ∆γ b 2 s3 = strial 3 + 2G ∆γ . ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . the normals to the main plane and to the plane on its right side given by (8. two plastic multipliers may be nonzero and the incremental plastic strain is obtained from the discretisation of (8. The deviatoric principal stress update formula in the present case reads s1 = strial − 2G ∆γ a 1 s2 = strial − 2G ∆γ b 2 s3 = strial 3 + 2G (∆γ + ∆γ ). εn+1 n+1 (8. The updated stress lies on the left corner.20) and (8. respectively. N b is the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane. given by (8. This εn+1 results in the following scalar (generally nonlinear) equation in ∆γ: ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ strial − strial − 4G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.22) This yields the following set of two algebraic equations for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ˜ ˜ Φa (∆γ a . Here.23) where σy has been defined as ˜ εn σy (∆γ a .8). n+1 Φb ≡ Φ6 (σn+1 . ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a .11): ¯ εp = εp + ∆γ a + ∆γ b . ˜ 1 2 (8. ˜ (8. σy (¯p )) = 0.7) as a b ∆εp = ∆γ a Nn+1 + ∆γ b Nn+1 .17) into the discrete consistency condition Φ1 (σn+1 .21) into the discrete consistency condition resulting from (8. The updated stress lies on the right corner. σy (¯p )) = 0.18) 2. (8.25) . ∆γ b ) = 0. a (8.16) and (8. 1 3 (8. a b (8.3): εn+1 Φa ≡ Φ1 (σn+1 .19) where N a and N b denote.

and the accumulated plastic strain. The geometric interpretation is illustrated in Figure 8. then they are in the main sextant (Figure 8. they lie on the updated yield surface.28) Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having described the possible return procedures. satisfy the consistency condition. and. formulated in principal deviatoric stresses.25).1. With the plastic multiplier(s) at hand. consider the application of the return algorithm to the main plane (item 1 above) for an arbitrary trial stress. similarly to the von Mises return mapping. εp .1(a)). si . are updated by the formulae corresponding ¯ to the particular case considered (main plane. the question now is: as the final location of the updated stress on the (updated) yield surface is not known in advance. required in the finite element computations. ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisfies the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. described below. clearly. lies necessarily on the plane s1 − s3 − σy (¯p ) = 0. sn+1 .30) represented by the shaded areas in Figure 8. (8.27) In summary. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . ∆γ b ) = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a . i. an equation (or system of two equations for the corners) is solved firstly for the plastic multiplier ∆γ (∆γ a and ∆γ b for the corners). (8. a rather simple and effective algorithm to select the appropriate return mapping can be derived based on the geometric characteristics of the Tresca surface. how can one decide which return mapping to apply in the actual computational implementation of the model? In the present case. In any case. the updated deviatoric stress. It is remarked that the selection algorithm. εn+1 (8.26) The last of the above equations enforces Φ2 (σn+1 . If the updated stress falls outside the main sextant .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 271 The update formula for εp is the same as for the return map to the right corner and the ¯ final equations to be solved in the return-mapping algorithm are ˜ ˜ Φa (∆γ a . The updated stress tensor components. If the updated principal stresses satisfy the above relation. and the result of the return mapping to the main plane is valid. the final stress can end up either inside or outside the main sextant: s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 . are then obtained simply by assembling 3 σn+1 := i=1 (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei . it has been shown above that the essential return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model. In this case. ˜ 2 3 (8.1. right or left corner). the principal deviatoric stresses.e.29) Upon application of the main plane return algorithm. may have three different explicit forms. σy (¯p )) = 0. Firstly. The particular form to be employed depends on the position of the updated stress on the yield surface. εn+1 (8.

D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.) trial S n+1 T: trial S n+1 > 0 ⇒ right γ G∆ −2 trial S n+1 a a T: trial S n+1 < 0 ⇒ left N −2G∆γ b N b Na T S n+1 Nb S n+1 Na T σ1 σ1 yield surface at t n σ2 σ3 N b σ2 σ3 Figure 8. Computer Methods in Applied c Mechanics and Engineering. and (b) invalid return to main plane – converged stress outside the original sextant.A.) .272 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial S n+1 main plane Φ ≡ s1 −s 3 −σ y = 0 trial S n+1 S n+1 N a updated yield surface at t n+1 S n+1 σ1 yield surface at t n main plane σ1 σ2 σ3 updated surface σ2 σ3 yield surface at t n (a) (b) Figure 8. Selection of the appropriate return mapping to corner. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. D Peri´ c and EA de Souza Neto.2. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses: (a) valid return to main plane.A. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space.1.

∆γ b and σi (i=1.2.3) check validity of one-vector return: σ 1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 YES ? NO apply two-vector return map to appropriate corner (right or left) – obtain: ∆γ a.3) trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ3 check consistency: _p trial trial σ1 − σ3 − σy( ε n ) > ∈tol ? process is elastic – update: NO and exit ( ⋅ )n+1 := ( ⋅ ) n+1 trial YES apply one-vector return mapping to main plane – obtain: ∆γ and σi (i=1.2. .3) assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and other state variables.2.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 273 spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.3. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUTR of program HYPLAS. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses. and exit Figure 8.

It is very simple to determine. again. the updated stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model is completely defined. in actual computations. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the return mapping to the main plane and the two-vector return mappings to the corners. In this case. the result of the return to the main plane is obviously not valid and the correct algorithm to be applied must be either the return to the left or to right corner. Using the same argument. In this case.1 shows the main algorithm and Boxes 8. violates the consistency condition. in items 2 and 3 above. T has the same eigenvectors as strial and its eigenvalues may be chosen as n+1 T1 = 1. i 1 3 2 (8.274 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (Figure 8. With the appropriate choice of return mappings based on the above. If the product is negative. i.e. then the appropriate return is to the left corner. The flowchart of the procedure is illustrated in Figure 8. represented by the dotted line in Figure 8.1–8. then strial is on the right side of the dotted line and the n+1 n+1 return mapping to the right corner is applied. then the trial stress is on the left side and the return mapping to the left corner is applied. in spite of being on the main plane. which is unacceptable. implemented in subroutine SUTR (State Update procedure for the TResca model). described. respectively. considering the geometric properties of the Tresca yield surface: if strial lies on the right side of the line that passes through the n+1 origin of stresses and is orthogonal to the main plane (the pure shear line).3 show.32) between T and strial . respectively. If the scalar product 3 T2 = −2.1(b)). Let T be a tangent vector to the main plane as illustrated in Figure 8. one concludes that if the trial deviatoric stress is on the left side of the dotted line. The algorithm. then it can be easily visualized that strial could only return to the n+1 left corner if ∆γ b were negative. T3 = 1.2. (8. is positive. is described in detail in Boxes 8.3. the only possible return is to the right corner.3.31) T: strial n+1 = i=1 Ti strial = strial + strial − 2 strial .2. if relation (8. The appropriate algorithm to be applied (right or left) can be easily determined by. therefore. whether strial lies on the right or left of the n+1 dotted line.2 and 8.30) is not satisfied. Clearly. . then. Box 8.

3 ELSE apply return to left corner – GOTO Box 8. 3) (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial I v n+1 2G 3 .2 (iv. n+1 n ptrial := K εe trial .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 275 Box 8. n+1 v n+1 εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 (ii) Spectral decomposition of strial (routine SPDEC2). evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε. HYPLAS procedure: SUTR (i) Elastic predictor. Compute strial ≥ strial ≥ strial 1 2 3 (iii) Check plastic admissibility εn+1 IF strial − strial − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 1 3 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iv) Return mapping (iv.1.c) Return to corner IF strial + strial − 2 strial > 0 1 3 2 THEN apply return to right corner – GOTO Box 8.b) Check validity of main plane return IF s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.3 (v) Assemble updated stress pn+1 := ptrial n+1 σn+1 := and update elastic strain 3 i=1 and ei (i = 1.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 2. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model.

276 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.2. The Tresca model.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) . One-vector return mapping to main plane. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 and corresponding residual (yield function value) ˜ Φ := strial − strial − σy (¯p ) εn 1 3 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dσy d¯p ε ˜ dΦ (hardening slope) (residual derivative) SUTR εn +∆γ ¯ p ˜ Φ (new guess for ∆γ) ∆γ := ∆γ − d (iii) Check for convergence ˜ Φ := strial − strial − 4G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) εn 1 3 ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ tol d∆γ = −4G − H THEN update s1 := strial 1 − 2G ∆γ s2 := strial 2 s3 := strial + 2G ∆γ 3 εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n and RETURN to Box 8.

1 2 strial 2 − strial . ¯ 1 3 sb = ¯ := sa − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn sb − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn strial − strial .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 277 Box 8. The Tresca model.3. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b ∆γ a := 0 and corresponding residual ˜ Φa ˜ Φb where sa = strial − strial . Two-vector return mappings to corners. 3 for right corner for left corner ∆γ b := 0 SUTR (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration ∆γ := ∆γ a + ∆γ b εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n H := (update εp ) ¯ dσy (hardening slope) d¯p εp ε ¯ n+1 residual derivative:  ˜a ˜  dΦ dΦa −4G − H  d∆γ a d∆γ b  = d :=   dΦb b  ˜ ˜ dΦ −2G − H d∆γ a d∆γ b new guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ∆γ a ∆γ b := ∆γ a ∆γ b − d−1 ˜ Φa ˜ Φb −2G − H −4G − H continued on page 278 .

3 (contd.1 (iv) GOTO (ii)        for left corner . from page 277). The Tresca model. (iii) Check for convergence ˜ Φa ˜ Φb := sa − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn+1 sb − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn+1 tol ˜ ˜ IF |Φa | + |Φb | ≤ THEN update  s1 := strial − 2G(∆γ a + ∆γ b ) 1   trial b for right corner s2 := s2 + 2G∆γ    s3 := strial + 2G∆γ a 3 s1 := strial − 2G∆γ a 1 s2 := strial − 2G∆γ b 2 s3 := strial + 2G(∆γ a + ∆γ b ) 3 and RETURN to Box 8.278 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. Two-vector return mappings to corners (implemented in subroutine SUTR).

0D0.4.1.5 for details of implementation of the piecewise linear hardening law.LALGVA .R3 .NTYPE .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 279 8.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(4) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .FALSE.SMALL . IFPLAS. SUFAIL=. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.0D0.0D0.IPROPS . piecewise linear isotropic hardening is assumed in the present implementation of the implicit integration algorithm for the Tresca model.2.AND. This hardening rule is adopted due to its flexibility in fitting experimental data.5.2.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 SUBROUTINE SUTR 1( DGAM .RPROPS 2 RSTAVA .2) .STREST(3) DATA 1 2 . The FORTRAN source code of SUTR is listed below.D-10. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.STRAT(MSTRE) .NE.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .0D0.FALSE.1.STRAT . EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Set some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 C Compute elastic trial state C --------------------------C Volumetric strain and pressure stress EEV=STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)+STRAT(4) P=BULK*EEV .R4 . RIGHT.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL 1 DUMMY.1-3). SUBROUTINE SUTR As in the von Mises state update procedure implemented in subroutine SUVM (Section 7.2.PSTRS(3) .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.IPROPS(*) .D-10/ DATA MXITER / 50 / C*********************************************************************** C STRESS UPDATE PROCEDURE FOR TRESCA TYPE ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH C PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING: C IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM (Boxes 8. starting page 224).R1 .0D0.3.TOL / 0.1.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0029’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=.3. The reader is referred to Section 7.3. .R2 . SUFAIL.1. TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE. R0 .NE.NTYPE.

NE.TRUE.TOL)THEN C Check validity of one-vector return S1=PSTRS1-R2G*DGAMA .RPROPS(IPHARD)) SHMAX=SHMAXT-R4G*DGAMA PHIA=SHMAX-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DGAMA DDGAMA=-PHIA/DENOM DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA C Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+DGAMA SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBAR.DUMMY.AND.NHARD.FALSE.GE.AND. ENDIF C Apply one-vector return mapping first (return to main plane) C -----------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.PSTRS3)THEN JJ=I PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.2.NHARD.PSTRS1)THEN II=I PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRS(I).NE.AND.R0)THEN RIGHT=.JJ.1.NE.LT. C Start Newton-Raphson iterations DO 20 NRITER=1.MXITER C Compute residual derivative DENOM=-R4G-DPLFUN(EPBAR.GE.JJ.PSTRS.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping C ================================== IFPLAS=. ELSE RIGHT=.NE.LE.NHARD.280 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C Spectral decomposition of the elastic trial deviatoric stress EEVD3=EEV*R1D3 STREST(1)=R2G*(STRAT(1)-EEVD3) STREST(2)=R2G*(STRAT(2)-EEVD3) STREST(3)=GMODU*STRAT(3) CALL SPDEC2(EIGPRJ.1)MM=1 IF(II.FALSE.GT.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SHMAXT-SIGMAY IF(PHIA/SIGMAY.NE.2)MM=2 IF(II. C identify possible two-vector return: right or left of main plane SCAPRD=PSTRS1+PSTRS3-PSTRS2*R2 IF(SCAPRD.NE.TRUE.3)MM=3 PSTRS2=PSTRS(MM) C Compute trial yield function and check for plastic consistency C -------------------------------------------------------------SHMAXT=PSTRS1-PSTRS3 SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.JJ.3.STREST) PSTRS(3)=R2G*(STRAT(4)-EEVD3) C Identify maximum (PSTRS1) and minimum (PSTRS3) principal stresses II=1 JJ=1 PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) DO 10 I=2.3 IF(PSTRS(I).

AND.S2.LE.S2+DELTA.GE.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SHMXTA=PSTRS1-PSTRS3 IF(RIGHT)THEN SHMXTB=PSTRS1-PSTRS2 ELSE SHMXTB=PSTRS2-PSTRS3 ENDIF PHIA=SHMXTA-SIGMAY PHIB=SHMXTB-SIGMAY Start Newton-Raphson iterations DO 40 NRITER=1.right or left) -----------------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SHMXTA-R2G*(R2*DGAMA+DGAMB)-SIGMAY PHIB=SHMXTB-R2G*(DGAMA+R2*DGAMB)-SIGMAY Check convergence RESNOR=(ABS(PHIA)+ABS(PHIB))/SIGMAY IF(RESNOR.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 281 C C C C C C C C C C C C S2=PSTRS2 S3=PSTRS3+R2G*DGAMA DELTA=DMAX1(ABS(S1).TOL)THEN Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR IF(RIGHT)THEN PSTRS1=PSTRS1-R2G*(DGAMA+DGAMB) PSTRS3=PSTRS3+R2G*DGAMA .ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping (return to corner .S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.MXITER Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.ABS(S2).go to two-vector procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-R4G-HSLOPE DRVAB=-R2G-HSLOPE DRVBA=-R2G-HSLOPE DRVBB=-R4G-HSLOPE Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variables DGAMA and DGAMB R1DDET=R1/(DRVAA*DRVBB-DRVAB*DRVBA) DDGAMA=(-DRVBB*PHIA+DRVAB*PHIB)*R1DDET DDGAMB=(DRVBA*PHIA-DRVAA*PHIB)*R1DDET DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA DGAMB=DGAMB+DDGAMB Compute new residual DGABAR=DGAMA+DGAMB EPBAR=EPBARN+DGABAR SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBAR.TRUE. DGAMA=R0 DGABAR=R1 EPBAR=EPBARN SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.GE.NHARD.NHARD. Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS1=S1 PSTRS3=S3 GOTO 50 ELSE 1-vector return is not valid .TRUE.

1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 50 CONTINUE update stress components -----------------------PSTRS(II)=PSTRS1 PSTRS(JJ)=PSTRS3 PSTRS(MM)=PSTRS2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.TRUE. except for the following: .2)+P STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.2) STRES(4)=PSTRS(3)+P and elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=(STRES(1)-P)/R2G+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=(STRES(2)-P)/R2G+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=STRES(3)/GMODU RSTAVA(4)=PSTRS(3)/R2G+EEVD3 ELSE Elastic step: update stress using linear elastic law ==================================================== STRES(1)=STREST(1)+P STRES(2)=STREST(2)+P STRES(3)=STREST(3) STRES(4)=PSTRS(3)+P elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) RSTAVA(4)=STRAT(4) ENDIF 999 CONTINUE Update algorithmic variables before exit ======================================== DGAM(1)=DGAMA DGAM(2)=DGAMB LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL LALGVA(3)=TWOVEC LALGVA(4)=RIGHT RETURN END The arguments of SUTR The arguments of this subroutine are identical to those of SUVM for the von Mises model implementation (see list starting on page 227).1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.282 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C C C C 202 203 204 205 206 207 C 208 C 209 210 211 212 213 C 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 C 221 C 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 PSTRS2=PSTRS2+R2G*DGAMB ELSE PSTRS1=PSTRS1-R2G*DGAMA PSTRS3=PSTRS3+R2G*(DGAMA+DGAMB) PSTRS2=PSTRS2-R2G*DGAMB ENDIF GOTO 50 ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.2)+P STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.

both multipliers are set to 0. IPROPS(3) and array RPROPS are. This argument now is an array that stores up to two incremental plastic multipliers. Recall that for the von Mises model (given as example in Section 7.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 283 ← DGAM [∆γ a .FALSE. if one of the two possible two-vector return mappings (right or left corner) is used. If the increment is elastic. FINITE STEP ACCURACY: ISO-ERROR MAPS The use of iso-error maps to assess the accuracy of numerical integration algorithms for elastoplasticity under realistic finite steps has been discussed in Section 7.10. • PSTRS [σi • STREST [σtrial ].TRUE.2. otherwise. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial stress. the multiplier(s) are obtained as the solution of one of the three possible return mapping equation sets (main plane. This procedure is adopted here to assess the accuracy of the implicit elastic predictor/returnmapping algorithm for the Tresca model described above. Array of principal trial stresses or principal updated stresses. trial or σi ]. right or left corner return mapping). The flags TWOVEC and RIGHT are required by subroutine CTTR to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with main plane. if to the left corner. set in subroutine RDTR during the data input phase of HYPLAS. In addition to the plastic yielding flag IFPLAS and the state update failure flag SUFAIL used also in SUVM. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of σtrial . i = 1. It is set to . ← LALGVA.10) the starting point for the map is immaterial due to the . Used in SUTR as the piecewise linear hardening function σy (¯p ). Array of components of the trial stress tensor. Function calls from SUTR • DPLFUN.FALSE.2. Otherwise.RUN. 2]. Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm used to solve the return-mapping equations.1. for the present material model implementation.TRUE. Some local variables and arrays of SUTR • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei . • PLFUN. Used to evaluate the slope of the piecewise linear hardening curve. the array LALGVA of logical algorithnmic flags now stores the two-vector return flag TWOVEC and the right corner return flag RIGHT. right or left corner). Also. n+1 • TOL [ tol ]. The two-vector return flag is set to . ε • SPDEC2. The right corner return flag is set to . ∆γ b ]. • ERRPRT. Called to send warning message to results file and standard output in case of failure of the return-mapping algorithm. n+1 8.3. if the possible two-vector return is to the right corner to . Corresponding message is in file ERROR.

two starting points.4. the starting point has to be taken into consideration. Here. Point A is on the singularity of the Tresca hexagon and point B corresponds to a state of pure shear. The reason for such relatively high errors can be easily explained by graphically performing the projection of σtrial onto the (fixed) yield surface and comparing the resulting stress with the (exact) one obtained when the increment ∆σtrial is divided into two substeps of suitably . Note that for both starting points. at the singularity (point A). Iso-error maps for the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. (8. Note that. lying on the deviatoric plane are considered. For the Tresca model. r≡ 2 3 σy .284 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT ∆σN N B T T N A σ1 r σ3 σ2 Figure 8. symmetry of the yield surface. the error plotted is the (Euclidean) norm of the relative difference between the numerical and ‘exact’ updated stresses. This is obviously a very desirable feature. With isotropic hardening. the hardening curve adopted is shown in Figure 8. In both cases. the tensors N and T are not orthogonal to each other. The increments ∆σtrial are of the form ∆σT ∆σN N+ T.33) ∆σtrial = r r where N and T are unit (in Euclidean norm) tensors defining the increment directions and the scaling factor.5. A total of 16 sampling points have been used to define the curve. However. however. within a narrow band of increments the relative error can be as high as 40% for the increment range considered in the present assessment. there is a large area within which the integration error vanishes.4. These points are shown in Figure 8. A and B.6. Increment directions.34) is the size of the sides of the Tresca hexagon (same as the radius of the von Mises cylinder matching the Tresca prism on the edges). (8. The error maps obtained for the perfectly plastic case are shown in Figure 8. Two cases are considered in the iso-error maps constructed in this section: • perfect plasticity. • nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening.

∆σN /r . Perfectly plastic Tresca model: (a) point A.4 0. Figure 8.12 εp ¯ 0. for practical purposes.5. In this case (perfect plasticity). Again. The error maps obtained with isotropic hardening are shown in Figure 8.04 0.8 uniaxial yield stress. Isotropic hardening curve. chosen sizes.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 285 0. σy 0.08 0.6 0. A comparison of the maps obtained with and without hardening suggests that.6. Iso-error maps. and (b) point B. the integration error is reduced to zero for any increment if the substepping procedure is included in the return-mapping algorithm. the accuracy expected from the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model is not influenced by hardening.2 0 0 0. 6 6 0% 4 0% 4 ∆σN /r 40% 2 2 20% 0% 5% 0 2 4 6 20% 0% 0 0 0% 5% 0% 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /r ∆σT /r (a) (b) Figure 8.7. Iso-error maps for the Tresca model. the areas in which the error is reasonably small are quite large.16 accumulated plastic strain. but errors are high within a narrow band of increments.

1. (iv) and (v) of Box 8. illustrating the application of the concept of consistent tangent operators. this concept is applied in the derivation of the tangent modulus consistent with the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. Tresca model with hardening: (a) point A.4. recall from Section 7.1. and (b) point B. for the Tresca model. in what follows. For the return mapping for the Tresca model presented in Section 8.4. there are three possible sets of equations to be solved: (i) return to main plane. 8. (8.4. the implicit constitutive function for the stress tensor is defined by the procedures of items (ii). attention will be focused on the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent modulus – the elastoplastic tangent – consistent with the return mapping for the Tresca model. ∆σN /r .36) where σn+1 is the outcome of the implicit function defined by the corresponding returnmapping equations. Iso-error maps.7. To start with. the tangent operator consistent with the implicit algorithm for the von Mises model – the simplest of all elastoplastic algorithms discussed in this book – has been derived in detail.1.1 that the elastoplastic tangent modulus associated with a particular return-mapping scheme is the derivative Dep ≡ dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 (8.286 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 6 0% 4 0% 4 ∆σN /r 40% 20% 0% 0 2 2 20% 2 5% 0% 0 0 0 2 4 6 5% 4 6 ∆σT /r ∆σT /r (a) (b) Figure 8.1. In the present section.35) 3 so that. THE CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE TRESCA MODEL The derivation of tangent moduli consistent with elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes for plasticity models has been thoroughly explained in Section 7. It is important to note that. There. Recall that the elastic tangent (the elasticity tensor) is the same for all basic elastoplastic models: De = 2G [IS − 1 I ⊗ I] + K I ⊗ I.

the Tresca return-mapping equations define implicit functions for the principal stresses.3 and A.37). (8. the tangent operator used to assemble the stiffness matrix will be the derivative of one of the three possible implicit functions. εe trial ). ei ⊗ ei . ∂σi /∂εe trial . The particular derivative adopted is chosen as the one consistent with the previous application of the return-mapping algorithm for the Gauss point in question. In summary. σi . defined in (8. derived below. Thus. and (iii) return to left corner. as an isotropic tensor function of a single tensor‡ – the elastic trial strain.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 287 (ii) return to right corner.3. In this case. each one defining a different implicit function for σn+1 . if the return to the right (left) corner was used in previous stress update. In other words. of the principal stresses with respect to the j principal elastic trial strains associated with the algorithmic functions (8. can be identified as a particular case of the class of tensorvalued functions of a single tensor discussed in Appendix A. Its derivative – the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator – can be computed by means of the general procedure presented in Sections A. due to the isotropy of the model. εe trial . σi . if the return to the main plane was used in the previous equilibrium iteration of the current load increment (or the last iteration of the previous converged load increment if the present iteration is the first of the current increment) the tangent modulus will be the derivative of the function associated with the return mapping to the main plane. are the result of the consistent j linearisation of the (principal stress-based) return-mapping algorithm. εe trial . The principal stresses derivatives.37). the algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor is isotropic. right or left corner). and the corresponding unit eigenvectors. depend on the particular algorithm used (main plane. ∂σi /∂εe trial . . at tn+1 of the form ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . the tangent modulus will be consistent with the implicit function defined by the right (left) corner return-mapping equations.37) where the eigenprojection tensors. and i • the partial derivatives. The procedure for computation of derivatives of this type of function is implemented in subroutine DGISO2. 3. the main arguments required by this routine are • the principal stresses. In n+1 addition. • the principal elastic trial strains. the tangent operator Dep is assembled as described in Box A. 2 3 i = 1. the elastic trial strains and the associated eigenvectors are computed in a trivial manner. The elastoplastic tangent: the derivative of an isotropic tensor function Before deriving the elastoplastic tangent moduli for the Tresca model it is crucial to observe that the corresponding return mappings are effectively carried out in principal stresses. Their explicit forms. The tangent moduli consistent with the three possible sets of equations are derived below. 2. n+1 This function. The principal stresses. σn+1 . Similarly. ‡ This property is also valid for the von Mises integration algorithm discussed in Chapter 7 as well as for the other algorithms discussed later in the present chapter.4. of σn+1 coincide with those of εe trial . With these values at hand. εe trial . the integration algorithm for the Tresca model defines the stress tensor. In order to compute Dep .

4G + H (8. So far. When the return to the main plane is applied.2). By using the elastic deviatoric relation. In order to obtain the complete derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial .41) where the factor f has been defined as f≡ The complete derivatives.16).18) the linearised form of the consistency condition is obtained as ˜ dΦ = 2G(dεe trial − dεe trial − 2 d∆γ) − H d∆γ = 0. dj arranged in matrix format.42) . From the above expression. and differentiating the principal stress update formula (8.40) (dεe trial − dεe trial ).38) where H ≡ dσy /d¯p is the slope of the hardening curve. the principal deviatoric stresses are updated according to expressions (8. d3 With the differentiation of the return-mapping equation (8.16–8. d1 d3 4G + H With the substitution of (8. strial = 2G εe trial .40) into (8.18) (item (iii) of Box 8.38) it follows that the partial derivatives ∂si /∂εe trial . are given by   ∂si ∂εe trial dj 2Gf  2G(1 − f ) 0      = 0 2G 0       2Gf 0 2G(1 − f ) (8. only the expressions for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives have been derived. required in the assemblage of the j elastoplastic tangent (these derivatives must be passed as arguments to the general routine 2G . we i di obtain ds1 = 2G(dεe trial − d∆γ) d1 ds2 = 2Gdεe trial d2 ds3 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ).39) (8. ∂εe trial dj of the principal deviatoric stresses with respect to the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains.288 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Principal stress derivatives for the one-vector return Since the return mapping for the Tresca model affects only the deviatoric component of the stress tensor. it is convenient to derive first the derivatives ∂si . d1 d3 (8. we ε obtain 2G d∆γ = (8.

also used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the returnmapping equation in Box 8. εe trial .3. d3 The differentials of the incremental plastic multipliers are obtained by linearising the consistency condition (return-mapping equations) as follows.         b b e trial e trial 0 dΦ d∆γ dεd 1 − dεd 2 (8.48) (8. The principal deviatoric trial strains are given by εe trial = εe trial − di i where εe trial = εe trial + εe trial + εe trial . v (8. Differentiation of (8.23) (see also item (iii) of Box 8.46) 3 ∂εe trial ∂εd k j with summation on repeated indices implied. Differentiation of the stress update formulae followed by the use of the deviatoric elastic law gives ds1 = 2G(dεe trial − d∆γ a − d∆γ b ) d1 ds2 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ b ) d2 ds3 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ a ).23) and use of the elastic law yields the linearised equation         dΦa  d∆γ a  dεe trial − dεe trial  0 d3  =d   + 2G  d 1 = .e.20) where the incremental plastic multipliers are the solution to the return-mapping equations (8.49) . the principal deviatoric stresses are functions solely of the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains and the hydrostatic stress is a function of the volumetric elastic trial strain only.43) i. note that for the present algorithm we have σi (εe trial .43) followed by a straightforward application of the chain rule leads to the following expression for the principal stress derivatives: ∂σi ∂si = e trial (δkj − 1 ) + K. Here. (8.44) where the matrix d. K is the bulk modulus and δkj denotes the Krönecker delta. εe trial ) + p(εe trial ).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 289 DGISO2). the substitution of these expressions into (8.3). ˜ 1 ˜ d1 2 3 d2 d3 v (8. the principal deviatoric stresses are updated by (8. is defined as   daa d=  dba dab  . In this case. εe trial . v 1 2 3 (8. εe trial ) = si (εe trial .47) 1 3 εe trial . Principal stress derivatives for the right corner return Now consider the return mapping to the right corner of the Tresca hexagon.45) Finally.  dbb (8.

46).51) (8. again. the principal stress derivatives. dba = −2G − H. are obtained by applying formula (8. dbb = −4G − H. dab = −2G − H. ∂σi /∂εe trial . (8. Arranged in matrix format. j Derivatives consistent with the left corner return The principal stress derivatives consistent with the return mapping to the left corner are obtained by following exactly the same steps as in the above derivation for the right corner return.50) −dab  dεe trial − dεe trial  d3  d1 . to the expressions for the derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses consistent with the return mapping to the right corner. j .290 with COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS daa = −4G − H. Solution of the linearised equation for d∆γ a and d∆γ b gives     d∆γ a   dbb   = − 2G    det d  d∆γ b −dba  (8.52) 2G 1 + − dba e trial   ∂εd j det d det d det d     3 2  8G 4G 2G dbb  − dab 2G 1 + det d det d det d With the above deviatoric principal stresses derivatives at hand. after a straightforward manipulation.46).53) = −  dba 2G 1 +   ∂εe trial det d det d det d dj      4G2 4G2 8G2  (dba − dbb ) (dab − daa ) 2G 1 − det d det d det d where. The final expression for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives is given by   2 3 4G 8G  2G 1 + 2G dbb − dab   det d det d det d     ∂si   8G3 2G daa 4G2 (8.47) leads. the resulting derivatives are   8G2 4G2 4G2 2G 1 − (dab − daa ) (dba − dbb )    det d det d det d     ∂si   2G daa 4G2 8G3 =  .   daa dεe trial − dεe trial d1 d2 which substituted into (8. the derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial are obtained by applying (8.

0D0 .0D0 .0D0.1. The FORTRAN source code of CTTR is listed below. MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG.FOID(1.4)/ 8 0.0D0 . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.2.MDIM) .FOID(3.SOID(2) . OUTOFP.EIGPRJ(MSTRE.0D0 . right or left corner) are evaluated according to the expressions derived in the above. Firstly.RPROPS(*) .1).0.0.0D0 .R3 .0D0.RP5 .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 291 8.NTYPE .0D0 .NE.FOID(4.0. (in matrix form) is then assembled in subroutine DGISO2 (Derivative of General ISOtropic tensor functions of a single tensor in 2-D and axisymmetric conditions). C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.0.0.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .4. SUBROUTINE CTTR The computation of the (either elastic or elastoplastic) tangent operator consistent with the Tresca integration algorithm is implemented in subroutine CTTR (Consistent Tangent operator for the TResca model) of program HYPLAS.FOID(4.4)/ 4 0.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0.3). The tangent operator.NTYPE.0D0. LALGVA(4).2) .1.0D0 .3).FOID(1.0D0 .LALGVA .3.FOID(3.2).FOID(2.SOID(4) / 2 1.4)/ 2 1.1. 2 FOID(MSTRE.FOID(2.0.0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 SUBROUTINE CTTR 1( DMATX . 2 RPROPS .FOID(4.0. The elastic tangent is evaluated here in a trivial manner.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.FOID(2.2).2). This routine is called by CTTR which passes the principal stress derivatives (as well as other necessary variables) as arguments.0D0 .0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR TRESCA TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.EPFLAG .3).IPROPS(*) . 3 SOID(MSTRE) .FOID(1. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .5D0 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.PSTRA(MDIM) .STRAT .R1 .0D0.4)/ 6 0.FOID(3.NE. The computation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent comprises the following basic steps: 1.DPSTRE(MDIM.0D0 .STRES(*) DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM. The integration algorithm is coded in subroutine SUTR.R4 / 2 0.0D0 .1).MDIM) .0.0. RIGHT.R2 .MSTRE) .3).1.1. 2.MDIM=3.PSTRS(MDIM) .IPROPS .0. Dep .0D0 .0D0 .STRAT(*) .MSTRE) .1).SOID(3) .5.0D0 . the principal stresses derivatives consistent with the appropriate return mapping (main plane.2). TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. REPEAT.1).2.RSTAVA .AND.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0028’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0D0 / DATA 1 R0 .0D0 / 7 FOID(4.5D0.1.

NHARD.NE.2..GE.3 IF(PSTRA(I).STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) C and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1)MM=1 IF(II.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.AND.AND.3)MM=3 IF(TWOVEC)THEN C Tangent consistent with two-vector return algorithm HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.LT.2) PSTRS(3)=STRES(4) C Identify directions of maximum and minimum principal trial stresses II=1 JJ=1 PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) DO 10 I=2.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*R4G) DPSTRS(II..1.JJ.NE.3.NE.NE.REPEAT.NE.returned to right corner DPSTRS(II.2)MM=2 IF(II.PSTRA.JJ.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.AND.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DAA=R4G+HSLOPE DAB=R2G+HSLOPE DBA=R2G+HSLOPE DBB=R4G+HSLOPE DET=DAA*DBB-DAB*DBA R2GDD=R2G/DET R4G2DD=R2G*R2GDD IF(RIGHT)THEN C .MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) .1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.JJ.NE.292 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Set needed algorithmic variables TWOVEC=LALGVA(3) RIGHT=LALGVA(4) C Set some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 R2D3=R2*R1D3 IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ---------------------------------------C Spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain STRAC(1)=STRAT(1) STRAC(2)=STRAT(2) STRAC(3)=STRAT(3)*RP5 CALL SPDEC2(EIGPRJ.

3)=-DPSTRS(3.3)=-DPSTRS(1.3)*R1D3+ 140 1 BULK 141 DPSTRE(3.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.EIGPRJ . 151 ELSEIF(NTYPE.3)*R1D3+ 134 1 BULK 135 DPSTRE(3.1)=+DPSTRS(3.3)*R2D3+ 144 1 BULK 145 DPSTRE(2.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 99 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 111 DPSTRS(MM. 153 ENDIF 154 CALL DGISO2 155 1( DPSTRE .MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 105 DPSTRS(JJ.PSTRA .2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.2)=-DPSTRS(3.JJ)=DPSTRS(II.3)*R2D3+ 148 1 BULK 149 IF(NTYPE.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.II)=DPSTRS(II.PSTRS .2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.II)=R4G2DD*R2G 101 DPSTRS(MM.3)*R1D3+ 132 1 BULK 133 DPSTRE(2.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.JJ)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*R4G) 117 ENDIF 118 ELSE 119 C Tangent consistent with one-vector return algorithm 120 FACTOR=R2G/(R4G+DPLFUN(EPBAR.II)=R4G2DD*R2G 104 DPSTRS(JJ.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3.DMATX .MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 110 DPSTRS(II.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3.JJ)=R2G*FACTOR 124 DPSTRS(MM.2)=-DPSTRS(1.JJ)=R4G2DD*DBA 103 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 115 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 109 DPSTRS(II.RPROPS(IPHARD))) 121 DPSTRS(II.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1.3)*R2D3+ 146 1 BULK 147 DPSTRE(3.JJ)=R0 127 DPSTRS(JJ.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1. 156 2 OUTOFP .3)*R1D3+ 142 1 BULK 143 DPSTRE(1.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.JJ)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 106 ELSE 107 C .JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 114 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ) 128 DPSTRS(JJ.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3.JJ) 129 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=R4G2DD*DBA 112 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) 116 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=DPSTRS(MM.3)=-DPSTRS(2.1)=+DPSTRS(2.EQ.returned to left corner 108 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 100 DPSTRS(MM.FALSE.II)=DPSTRS(II.1)=+DPSTRS(1.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.2)THEN 150 OUTOFP=.MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 113 DPSTRS(MM.MM) 125 DPSTRS(MM..1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.MM)=R2G 126 DPSTRS(MM..3)THEN 152 OUTOFP=.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.2)=-DPSTRS(2.II) 130 ENDIF 131 DPSTRE(1.NHARD.MM)=R0 123 DPSTRS(II.REPEAT ) 157 ELSE 158 C Compute elasticity matrix 293 .3)*R1D3+ 136 1 BULK 137 DPSTRE(1.EQ.TRUE.3)*R1D3+ 138 1 BULK 139 DPSTRE(2.MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 102 DPSTRS(MM.II)=R2G*(R1-FACTOR) 122 DPSTRS(II.

As in the von Mises implementation (refer to page 237). right or left return algorithm).NSTRE 174 DMATX(I.1. whose output values are taken as input values for (and are not changed by) CTTR.EQ. i The names of most local variables defined in CTTR resemble resemble the notation of Section 8.2]. Matrix of derivatives of the principal stresses.2)THEN 161 NSTRE=3 162 ELSEIF(NTYPE.J)=R2G*FOID(I. • SOID [I]. Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. dj • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei . . set in subroutine SUTR.NSTRE-1 173 DO 60 I=J+1.NSTRE 168 DO 40 J=I.294 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 159 C ------------------------160 IF(NTYPE. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial strain. Matrix of derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses. Array containing the principal elastic trial strains.I) 175 60 CONTINUE 176 70 CONTINUE 177 ENDIF 178 RETURN 179 END The arguments of CTTR In addition to the arguments of SUTR (see list on page 282). page 762. Some local arrays of CTTR • DPSTRE [∂σi /∂εe trial ]. • FOID [IS ]. i=1.EQ.4.16). The elements of the array LALGVA of logical algorithmic flags. indicate which elastoplastic tangent is to be computed here (consistent with main plane.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 170 40 CONTINUE 171 50 CONTINUE 172 DO 70 J=1. Fourth-order identity tensor stored in array form according to (D.NSTRE 169 DMATX(I. j • DPSTRS [∂si /∂εe trial ].J)=DMATX(J. the present routine requires the following: ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. • STRAT [εe trial ].3)THEN 163 NSTRE=4 164 ENDIF 165 C 166 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 167 DO 50 I=1. → EPFLAG. Elastoplastic tangent logical flag (refer to page 237 for a description).

(8. Here. The Mohr–Coulomb model This section is devoted to the computational implementation of a classical (generally nonassociative) Mohr–Coulomb model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. an extra return-mapping procedure – the return to the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface – is required in the numerical integration scheme. • SPDEC2. however.2) Figure 8. In the generally non-associative case. the flow rule may be formulated within the sextant of the principal stress space depicted in Figure 6.10 Boxes 8.2.12 subroutine CTMC (Section 8. In what follows.2. the flow vectors are re-defined as ∂Ψi Ni ≡ . The implemented Mohr–Coulomb model The Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion as well as the corresponding flow rules and possible hardening laws have been thoroughly discussed in Chapter 6. the algorithm described here is entirely based on the ideas that underly the numerical integration scheme for the Tresca model of the previous section. .5) iso-error maps consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – As far as yield surface singularities are concerned. 8. Called to assemble the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator as a particular case of the general derivatives of isotropic tensor function discussed in Section A.3 of Appendix A. For quick reference. whose implementation is described here.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 295 Important function calls from CTTR • DGISO2. we summarised the actual equations adopted in the present computational implementation of the Mohr– Coulomb model.118) (page 165).3) in the associative case with the yield functions Φi defined by (6.7 subroutine SUMC (Section 8.4–8. With the principal stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .19(a) (page 174). flowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. except that the frictional angle φ is replaced with the dilatancy angle ψ ≤ φ (assumed constant) in the definition of Ψi . The multisurface description of the Mohr–Coulomb plastic flow rule has the representation (8.1)–(8.54) ∂σ where each Ψi has the same format as the corresponding Φi . Called to perform the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain. the following table shows where the main results of this section can be found. There are four distinct possibilities for the plastic flow definition.2.

61) Hardening associativity is assumed. ε (8.200) is reduced to ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ. only two plastic multipliers can be non-zero and the flow rule is explicitly defined as ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . the following general relation ˙ εp = ¯ cos φ p ε . The plastic flow is defined as above but with N b being the flow vector of the plane on the left of the main plane N b ≡ N 2 = (1 + sin ψ)e2 ⊗ e2 − (1 − sin ψ)e3 ⊗ e3 . Plastic flow from the smooth (flat) portion of the main plane. N b is the flow vector of the plane on the right of the main plane N b ≡ N 6 = (1 + sin ψ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin ψ)e2 ⊗ e2 .58) 3. ˙ (8. up to six multipliers may be non-zero. The generally non-associative flow vector in this case is reduced to N a ≡ N 1 = (1 + sin ψ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin ψ)e3 ⊗ e3 .64) .200) on page 184. In this case. The plastic strain rate equation in this case is left in its general format 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γ iN i. the general equation (6. ¯ (8. The general equation for the evolution of εp in this case ¯ is given by (6. as the plastic rate tensor lies within the pyramid formed by the six vectors of the Mohr–Coulomb model (refer to Figure 6.59) 4. only one multiplier may be non-zero and (6. and ˙ εp = γN a .19. the evolution of εp reads ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ). Here. In this case. ˙ sin ψ v (8.62) For plastic flow from an edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. Plastic flow from the right edge.296 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. Plastic flow from the left edge.55) where N a is the same as in the above.63) At the apex. isotropic strain hardening is included by letting the cohesion c that takes part in the definition of the yield functions Φi be a generic nonlinear function of the accumulated plastic strain: c = c(¯p ).57) (8.200) applies. where only one multiplier may be non-zero.(b) which illustrates the associative flow case). (8. Plastic flow from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. (8. For flow from the main plane as discussed above. ¯ (8.56) 2.60) In the present implementation. (8. (8.

i i ∆γ i (2G [Nd ]j − K Nv ).65) 8.200). after the computation of the elastic trial state. this gives 6 σn+1 = σtrial − De : n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 297 between the rate of accumulated plastic strain and the volumetric plastic strain rate. Nv ≡ tr[Ni ] is the volumetric component of the flow i i vector N at the updated state and [Nd ]j denotes the j th eigenvalue of its deviatoric projection.60). the spectral decomposition of the trial stress. a return-mapping procedure is carried out. is performed. will be crucial in the computational implementation of the model.67) Due to the isotropy of the model. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM FOR THE MOHR–COULOMB MODEL As for the algorithm for the Tresca model. = 2 sin ψ i=1 γ i. Recall that the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor is given by σn+1 = σtrial − De : ∆εp .155) (page 175) under non-associative plastic flow: 6 εp ˙v and (6. (8. 2. (8.1. This relation can be obtained by combining the counterpart of (6. With the principal trial stresses arranged trial trial trial as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . then the step is elastic and all state variables are updated as (·)n+1 := (·)trial .68) . the plastic consistency check proceeds as follows: • If trial trial trial trial εn Φtrial ≡ σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ≤ 0. In the above formula. ˙ (8. n+1 (8. Hence. σtrial .66) With the discretisation of the non-associated Mohr–Coulomb flow rule (8.2. the stress update formula can be written equivalently in terms of principal stresses as 6 trial σj = σj − i=1 i for j = 1. n+1 • Otherwise. 3. the essential stress-updating is carried out here in the principal stress space.

71) where ∆¯p is the (linear) function of ∆γ defined by (8. The corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain reads ∆¯p = 2 cos φ ∆γ. ε (8.69) trial σ2 = σ2 + ∆γ ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + ∆γ [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]. Introduction of this expression in (8. 3 (8. The equations for each of the four possible return mappings are derived below: 1. The updated stress lies on the right edge of the pyramid.70) and a is the constant ε a = 4G(1 + 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ.68): trial σ1 = σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ](∆γ a + ∆γ b ) 1 3 trial σ2 = σ2 + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ a + [2G(1 − 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]∆γ b sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]∆γ a + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ b .75) .70) The incremental plastic multiplier. the corresponding backward Euler-based return-mapping algorithm has four distinct explicit forms. (8. on the yield surface. ∆γ.68) gives the following principal stress updating formulae: trial σ1 = σ1 − ∆γ [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] (8. The updated stress lies on the main plane (smooth portion). is in this case given by the two-vector formula ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b .298 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The four possible return mappings Following the four possible descriptions of the Mohr–Coulomb flow rule.72) Equation (8. is obtained by solving the return-mapping equation trial trial trial trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ (σ1 − σ3 ) + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ p p ε − 2 c(¯n + ∆¯ ) cos φ − a∆γ = 0. ε (8.55). The incremental plastic strain. σn+1 . obtained from the backward Euler discretisation of (8. which depend on the location of the updated stress.73) The corresponding principal stress update formulae follow from the substitution of the above expression into (8.69) into the main plane equation Φ1 = 0. The flow vector in this case is defined by (8.63): ∆¯p = 2 cos φ (∆γ a + ∆γ b ).71) is obtained by introducing the update formulae (8. ε (8. (8.57). 2.74) The increment of accumulated plastic strain is the discrete form of (8.

and the plane on its right. The apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid is the point along the hydrostatic axis for which p = c cot φ.76) ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − b ∆γ a − a ∆γ b = 0. the updated principal stresses are such that the equations of the main plane. are simultaneously satisfied.81) . ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − a ∆γ a − b ∆γ b = 0 εn trial trial trial trial ˜ Φb (∆γ a . Φ1 = 0. Φ1 = 0. The updated stress lies on the left edge.79) ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − b ∆γ a − a ∆γ b = 0 εn where the constant b has been redefined as b = 2G(1 − sin φ − sin ψ − 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ. (8. Φ6 = 0. Φ2 = 0. (8. This condition gives the following set of two return-mapping equations to be solved for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : trial trial trial trial ˜ Φa (∆γ a . ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ (8. appearing in the above equations is ε the linear function of ∆γ a and ∆γ b previously defined and the constant b is defined by b = 2G(1 + sin φ + sin ψ − 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ. The return mapping to the left edge is completely analogous to the return to the right edge derived in the above. The updated stress lies on the apex. (8.77) 3. (8. εn The incremental accumulated plastic strain.59).78) and the corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain is also given by (8. The incremental plastic multipliers are the solution of the following return-mapping equations: trial trial trial trial ˜ Φa (∆γ a . ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − a ∆γ a − b ∆γ b = 0 εn trial trial trial trial ˜ Φb (∆γ a .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 299 At the right edge. ∆¯p . The essential difference is that the tensor N b is now defined by (8.75). ∆γ b ) ≡ σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ (8.80) The above equations represent the intersection of the main plane. 4. with the plane on its left. The resulting principal stress updating formulae are trial σ1 = σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ a + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ b 3 1 3 trial σ2 = σ2 + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ a − [2G(1 + 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ b sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ](∆γ a + ∆γ b ).

n+1 v (8.82) The updated hydrostatic stress in the present case must lie on the apex of the updated Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. Remark 8. Once the solution is found. into the apex equation (8. Strategy for selection of the appropriate return mapping The strategy for selection of the appropriate return mapping to be used is a direct extension of the procedure adopted in the return algorithm for the Tresca model. We then have (Figure 8. Firstly apply the return mapping to the main plane. (8.82).85) v n+1 v for the unknown ∆εp .84) (8. In this case. Note that under zero dilatancy (ψ = 0).2. therefore. we update v εp := εp + α∆εp . In essence.1. ε v α≡ cos φ . with pn+1 given by (8. the strategy comprises the following steps. When φ = ψ = 0 all equations of the one-vector return mapping to the main plane and the two-vector return mappings to the right and left edge reduce to those of the Tresca model implementation. can be solved in closed form. together with the hardening curve and the discretised evolution equation for εp . whose description starts on page 271. εn (8. sin ψ (8. 1. the return to apex does not make sense as the purely deviatoric flow vector (combination of deviatoric flow vectors) does not produce volumetric plastic flow. with c = c0 + H εp .1.86) . εn n+1 v Now consider the discrete version of (8. all four sets of ¯ return-mapping equations are linear and. ¯n+1 ¯n v σn+1 := pn+1 I. α → ∞.83) The substitution of this expression into (8. Under the assumption of linear hardening. As in the Tresca algorithm.8) ¯ ε c(¯p + ∆¯p ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.25).83) yields the final apex return-mapping equation: c(¯p + α∆εp ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. the present strategy is simple and ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisfies the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. regardless of the prescribed hardening/softening curve.82).300 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Now recall the general hydrostatic pressure-updating equation for a return mapping with an underlying linear description of the elastic behaviour: pn+1 = ptrial − K ∆εp .81). Remark 8. This condition is enforced by introducing the update formula (8. derived in Section 8.1.64): ∆¯p = α∆εp .

e. This can be easily verified by simple geometrical considerations analogous to those of the Tresca model given in Figure 8. .8. apply the return algorithm to the apex. therefore. The result obtained now is necessarily valid and does not require further checks. not admissible. try either the return mapping to the right or to the left edge (the procedure to select which one to try at this stage is described later). i. (8. if σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . Otherwise. The reader should note that any returned stress that fails to pass the validity check of items 2 and 4 lies necessarily outside the updated elastic domain (which is fixed in the perfectly plastic case) and is. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stress. 5. 3. 2. then the return mapping carried out in item 3 is valid and the updated state is accepted.1.K ∆εv pntrial +1 Figure 8. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stresses.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 301 updated yield surface yield surface at t n σntrial +1 σn +1= pn +1 I p . Return mapping to apex. 4. Otherwise. Mohr–Coulomb model.87) then the return to the main plane is valid and the corresponding updated state is accepted.

88) a b where Nd and Nd are the deviatoric components of N a and N b .9. pointing to the right.9): a b sn+1 = strial − 2G(∆γ a Nd + ∆γ b Nd ). The determination of which return mapping is to be tried in item 3 above is based purely on geometrical arguments and is also analogous to the procedure schematically illustrated in Figure 8. T2 = −2. Selection of appropriate return mapping to edge. Here T is chosen with the following eigenvalues: T1 = 1 − sin ψ. n+1 (8. if strial lies on the left of the dotted line. If σtrial lies on the right side of this plane (strial lies on the right of n+1 n+1 the dotted line) the only possible way to return to the left edge consistently with the above formula is to have negative ∆γ b – an unacceptable solution. s2 = s3 corresponds to a point on the right edge and s1 = s2 to a point on the left edge. Clearly. According to the present convention. it can only be the right edge. T3 = 1 + sin ψ. In this case. sj } with i = j. Consider now the deviatoric part to the two-vector edge return algorithms (Figure 8. (8. Let T be a deviatoric tensor orthogonal to the deviatoric a projection Nd . it should be noted that at any edge of the Mohr– Coulomb pyramid we have si = sj for at least one pair {si . The dotted line of Figure 8. Selection of right or left edge return.89) .302 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS right trial σ n+1 : T < 0 trial σ n+1 : T > 0 left strial n+1 − 2G ∆γ a Nd a strial n+1 Nd a Nd b a Nd − 2G ∆γ b T b Nd Nd b sn+1 sn+1 yield surface at t n b Nd b Nd σ1 σ2 σ3 updated surface Figure 8. if σtrial returns to n+1 an edge. the n+1 only possibly valid edge return algorithm is the return to the left edge. these points correspond to corners of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid cross section (irregular hexagon). respectively. Similarly. On the deviatoric plane. the procedure for selection of the appropriate edge return is extremely simple. b N in the above is normal to the right (left) plane if sn+1 lies on the right (left) edge. Based on the above considerations.9 is the deviatoric projection of the plane parallel to N a that contains the hydrostatic line. Firstly.2 for the Tresca model. Mohr–Coulomb model.

Its FORTRAN code and details of its computational implementation are explained in Section 8.4–8.90) is computed first. it is the return mapping to the left edge.2 below.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 303 Its eigenvectors coincide with those of σtrial . If S > 0 the possible edge return is to the right. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model is completely defined.7. The flowchart of the overall integration algorithm is shown in Figure 8. . Otherwise. The corresponding pseudo-code is conveniently summarised in Boxes 8. The overall integration algorithm Having described the four possible return mappings together with a simple and robust strategy to select the valid return mapping. the scalar n+1 product S ≡ T : σtrial n+1 trial trial trial = T1 σ1 + T2 σ2 + T3 σ3 trial trial trial = (1 − sin ψ) σ1 − 2 σ2 + (1 + sin ψ) σ3 .10. (8. To select the appropriate edge return. The procedure is implemented in subroutine SUMC (State Update procedure for the Mohr–Coulomb model) of program HYPLAS.2.

2.304 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.2. ∆γ b and σi (i=1. ∆γ b assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and σi (i=1. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUMC of program HYPLAS.2.3) check validity of two-vector return: σ 1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 YES ? NO apply 2vector mapping to apex apply return return map to apex obtain: – obtain: p ∆ε v ∆γ a.3) trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ3 check consistency: trial σ1 − process is elastic – update: φ −2 trial trial trial σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin _p c ( ε n ) cos φ > ∈tol NO and exit ? ( ⋅ )n+1 := ( ⋅ ) n+1 trial YES apply one-vector return mapping to main plane – obtain: ∆γ and σi (i=1.10.2. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model in principal stresses. and exit Figure 8. .3) and other state variables.3) check validity of one-vector return: σ 1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 YES ? NO apply two-vector return map to appropriate edge (right or left) – obtain: ∆γ a.

6 (iv. n+1 n σtrial := 2G εe trial + K εe trial I n+1 v n+1 d n+1 εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n (ii) Spectral decomposition of σ trial (routine SPDEC2). HYPLAS procedure: SUMC (i) Elastic predictor.d) Check validity of edge return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv. Implicit elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm for the Mohr– Coulomb model.e) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8.5 (iv.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 305 Box 8.4.6 ELSE apply return to left edge – GOTO Box 8. Compute trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 and ei (i = 1. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 3) (iii) Check plastic admissibility trial trial trial trial εn+1 IF σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c(¯p trial ) cos φ ≤ 0 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iv) Return mapping (iv.c) Return to edge trial trial trial IF (1 − sin ψ)σ1 − 2σ3 + (1 + sin ψ)σ2 > 0 THEN apply return to right edge – GOTO Box 8. 2.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8.b) Check validity of main plane return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.7 (v) Assemble updated stress tensor 3 σn+1 := i=1 σ i ei ⊗ ei and update elastic strain εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K .

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . The Mohr–Coulomb model.5. SUMC ¯n εp := εp ¯n+1 and corresponding residual (yield function value) trial trial trial trial ˜ Φ := σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ εn (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆γ H := d := dc d¯p ε p (hardening slope) εn+1 ¯ ˜ dΦ = −4G(1 + 1 sin ψ sin φ) 3 d∆γ − 4K sin ψ sin φ − 4H cos2 φ (residual derivative) (update ∆γ) ˜ ∆γ := ∆γ − Φ/d (iii) Check for convergence ¯n εp := εp + 2 cos φ ∆γ ¯n+1 trial trial trial trial ˜ := σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ Φ − [4G(1 + 1 sin ψ sin φ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ]∆γ 3 − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ εn+1 ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ tol THEN update trial σ1 := σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]∆γ trial σ2 := σ2 + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ 3 trial σ3 := σ3 + [2G(1 − 1 3 and RETURN to Box 8. One-vector return mapping to main plane.306 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.

and corresponding residual ˜ Φa ˜ Φb where := σ a − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn σ b − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn ∆γ b := 0. Two-vector return mappings to edges.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 307 Box 8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b ∆γ a := 0.6. The Mohr–Coulomb model. εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n SUMC trial trial trial trial σ a = σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ ¯ trial trial trial trial σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ right edge trial trial trial trial σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ left edge σb = ¯ (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆γ a and ∆γ b H := dc d¯p ε p a := 4G(1 b := εn+1 ¯ + 1 sin 3 φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ 1 3 1 3 2G(1 + sinφ + sinψ − 2G(1 − sinφ − sinψ − sinφ sinψ) + 4K sinφ sinψ right edge sinφ sinψ) + 4K sinφ sinψ left edge residual derivative matrix:   ˜ ˜ ∂ Φa ∂ Φa −a − 4H cos2 φ  ∂∆γ a ∂∆γ b   d :=  ˜ b b =  ∂Φ ˜ ∂Φ −b − 4H cos2 φ ∂∆γ a ∂∆γ b new guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ˜ ∆γ a ∆γ a Φa −1 b := b −d ˜ ∆γ ∆γ Φb −b − 4H cos2 φ −a − 4H cos2 φ contd on page 308 .

4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . from page 307).6 (contd.308 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. Two-vector return mappings to edges (implemented in subroutine SUMC) (iii) Compute new residual and check for convergence ¯n εp := εp + 2 cos φ (∆γ a + ∆γ b ) ¯n+1 ˜ Φa ˜ Φb := σ a − a ∆γ a − b ∆γ b − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn+1 σ b − b ∆γ a − a ∆γ b − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn+1 tol ˜ ˜ IF |Φa | + |Φb | ≤ for right edge: THEN update trial σ1 := σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sinψ) + 2K sinψ](∆γ a + ∆γ b ) 1 3 σ2 := trial σ2 + ( 4G 3 − 2K) sinψ ∆γ a + [2G(1 − 1 3 sinψ) − 2K sinψ]∆γ b trial σ3 := σ3 + [2G(1 − sinψ) − 2K sinψ]∆γ a + ( 4G − 2K) sinψ ∆γ b 3 for left edge: trial σ1 := σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sinψ) + 2K sinψ]∆γ b + ( 4G − 2K) sinψ ∆γ b 3 sinψ) − 2K sinψ](∆γ + ∆γ b ) 1 3 a σ2 := trial σ2 + ( 4G 3 − 2K) sinψ ∆γ a − [2G(1 + 1 3 sinψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ b trial σ3 := σ3 + [2G(1 − and RETURN to Box 8. The Mohr–Coulomb model.

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUMC ∆εp := 0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 309 Box 8.85)) r := c(¯p ) cot φ − ptrial εn n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dc d¯p ε (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (update ∆εp ) v εn+1 ¯ p H cos φ cot φ +K sin ψ ∆εp := ∆εp − r/d v v (iii) Compute new residual and check for convergence ¯n εp := εp + ¯n+1 cos φ ∆εp v sin ψ pn+1 := ptrial − K ∆εp n+1 v r := c(¯p ) cot φ − pn+1 εn+1 IF |r| ≤ tol THEN update σ1 := σ2 := σ3 := pn+1 and RETURN to Box 8.7. v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8. The Mohr–Coulomb model. Return mapping to apex.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .

For the hardening law adopted in the present implementation. SUFAIL=.2. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .R1 .NE.STRAT(MSTRE) .FALSE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 SUBROUTINE SUMC 1( DGAM .R3 . It is pointed out that perfect plasticity – the most common assumption accompanying the use of the Mohr– Coulomb model – is obtained by simply defining two sampling points with identical cohesion. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor plane stress state IF(NTYPE.D-06.NTYPE.0D0.1.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(5) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) . As in the algorithms for the von Mises and Tresca models (subroutines SUVM and SUTR.AND. RIGHT. i c} ¯ defined by the accumulated plastic strain and the corresponding cohesion.PSTRS(3) . The FORTRAN source code of subroutine SUMC is listed below.IPROPS(*) .D-10/ DATA MXITER / 50 / C*********************************************************************** C STATE UPDATE PROCEDURE FOR MOHR-COULOMB TYPE ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL C WITH ASSOCIATIVE/NON-ASSOCIATIVE FLOW RULE AND PIECE-WISE LINEAR C ISOTROPIC HARDENING: C IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM (BOXES 8.1.1.2) .4-7).RPROPS . respectively).0D0. each sampling point i is a pair {i εp .SMALL .2.0D0.2.TOL / 2 0.STREST(3) DATA 1 R0 .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .NTYPE .RPROPS(*) . APEX=.0D0.FALSE.310 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.LALGVA . IFPLAS.R2 .FALSE.2.STRAT . EDGE=. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.3.0D0.FALSE.STRES(MSTRE) C Local variables and arrays LOGICAL 1 APEX.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0027’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=. the hardening curve is here defined by a user-specified number of sampling points.NE. DUMMY.IPROPS . EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) . 2 RSTAVA . SUBROUTINE SUMC The present implementation of the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model incorporates a piecewise linear isotropic hardening curve in order to approximate general nonlinear hardening.R4 . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLMENTATIONS.4. EDGE.

1.PSTRS1)THEN II=I PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRS(I).PSTRS3)THEN JJ=I PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.1)MM=1 IF(II.JJ.TRUE.AND.AND.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 311 C C C C C C C C C C C C C COSPHI=RPROPS(5) SINPSI=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) Set some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R2BULK=R2*BULK R2CPHI=R2*COSPHI R1D3=R1/R3 Compute elastic trial state --------------------------Elastic trial volumetric strain and pressure stress EETV=STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)+STRAT(4) PT=BULK*EETV Spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress EETVD3=EETV*R1D3 STREST(1)=R2G*(STRAT(1)-EETVD3)+PT STREST(2)=R2G*(STRAT(2)-EETVD3)+PT STREST(3)=GMODU*STRAT(3) CALL SPDEC2(EIGPRJ.3.3)MM=3 PSTRS2=PSTRS(MM) Compute trial yield function and check for plastic consistency -------------------------------------------------------------COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.AND.NE.NE.GT.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SMCT=PSTRS1-PSTRS3+(PSTRS1+PSTRS3)*SINPHI PHIA=SMCT-R2CPHI*COHE RES=PHIA IF(COHE.LT. ELSE RIGHT=.STREST) PSTRS(3)=R2G*(STRAT(4)-EETVD3)+PT Identify maximum (PSTRS1) and minimum (PSTRS3) principal stresses II=1 JJ=1 PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) DO 10 I=2.GE.PSTRS.FALSE. identify possible edge return: either right or left of main plane SCAPRD=PSTRS1*(R1-SINPSI)+PSTRS2*(-R2)+PSTRS3*(R1+SINPSI) IF(SCAPRD.JJ.2.NHARD.R0)RES=RES/ABS(COHE) IF(RES.JJ.GE.NE.NE.DUMMY.R0)THEN RIGHT=.2)MM=2 IF(II.TRUE.3 IF(PSTRS(I). ENDIF Apply one-vector return mapping first (return to MAIN PLANE) -----------------------------------------------------------SPHSPS=SINPHI*SINPSI .NE.NE.NE.TOL)THEN Plastic step: Apply return mapping ================================== IFPLAS=.

LE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SMCTA=PSTRS1-PSTRS3+(PSTRS1+PSTRS3)*SINPHI IF(RIGHT)THEN SMCTB=PSTRS1-PSTRS2+(PSTRS1+PSTRS2)*SINPHI ELSE SMCTB=PSTRS2-PSTRS3+(PSTRS2+PSTRS3)*SINPHI ENDIF PHIA=SMCTA-R2CPHI*COHE PHIB=SMCTB-R2CPHI*COHE IF(RIGHT)THEN CONSTB=R2G*(R1+SINPHI+SINPSI-R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS ELSE CONSTB=R2G*(R1-SINPHI-SINPSI-R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS ENDIF Start Newton-Raphson iterations for DGAMA and DGAMB DO 40 NRITER=1.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.NHARD.GE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DGAMA DDGAMA=-PHIA/DENOM DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+R2CPHI*DGAMA COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.S2+DELTA. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping to appropriate EDGE --------------------------------------------------DGAMA=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 1-vector result is not valid.AND.312 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CONSTA=R4G*(R1+R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS R4C2PH=R2CPHI*R2CPHI Start Newton-Raphson iterations for DGAMA DO 20 NRITER=1.S2.TOL)THEN Check validity of 1-vector return (check sextant of converged stress) S1=PSTRS1-(R2G*(R1+R1D3*SINPSI)+R2BULK*SINPSI)*DGAMA S2=PSTRS2+(R4G*R1D3-R2BULK)*SINPSI*DGAMA S3=PSTRS3+(R2G*(R1-R1D3*SINPSI)-R2BULK*SINPSI)*DGAMA DELTA=DMAX1(ABS(S1).NHARD.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-CONSTA-FACTA .R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(SMCT) IF(RESNOR.NE.TRUE.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.MXITER Compute residual derivative DENOM=-CONSTA-R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.GE.MXITER Compute residual derivative matrix FACTA=R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.ABS(S2).NHARD. Go to two-vector return map to edge GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCT-CONSTA*DGAMA-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA) IF(SMCT.

GE.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 313 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C DRVAB=-CONSTB-FACTA DRVBA=-CONSTB-FACTA DRVBB=-CONSTA-FACTA Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variables DGAMA and DGAMB R1DDET=R1/(DRVAA*DRVBB-DRVAB*DRVBA) DDGAMA=(-DRVBB*PHIA+DRVAB*PHIB)*R1DDET DDGAMB=(DRVBA*PHIA-DRVAA*PHIB)*R1DDET DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA DGAMB=DGAMB+DDGAMB Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+R2CPHI*(DGAMA+DGAMB) COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.ABS(S2).S2+DELTA.RPROPS(IPHARD)) COTPHI=COSPHI/SINPHI RES=COTPHI*COHE-PT Newton-Raphson iterations for DEPV .EQ. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 50 CONTINUE Apply multi-vector return mapping to APEX --------------------------------------Check conditions for which return to apex does not make sense IF(SINPHI. Go to two-vector return map to APEX GOTO 50 ENDIF ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.TRUE.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0010’) Set initial guess for volumetric plastic strain increment DEPV DEPV=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.GE.S2.EQ.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0009’) IF(SINPSI.NHARD.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/FACTOR IF(RESNOR.NHARD.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 2-vector return to edge is valid.LE.AND. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 2-vector return to edge is not valid.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCTA-CONSTA*DGAMA-CONSTB*DGAMB-R2CPHI*COHE PHIB=SMCTB-CONSTB*DGAMA-CONSTA*DGAMB-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=(ABS(PHIA)+ABS(PHIB)) FACTOR=(ABS(SMCTA)+ABS(SMCTB)) IF(FACTOR. EDGE=.TRUE.TOL)THEN Check validity of 2-vector return to edge AUX1=R2G*(R1+R1D3*SINPSI)+R2BULK*SINPSI AUX2=(R4G*R1D3-R2BULK)*SINPSI AUX3=R2G*(R1-R1D3*SINPSI)-R2BULK*SINPSI IF(RIGHT)THEN S1=PSTRS1-AUX1*(DGAMA+DGAMB) S2=PSTRS2+AUX2*DGAMA+AUX3*DGAMB S3=PSTRS3+AUX3*DGAMA+AUX2*DGAMB ELSE S1=PSTRS1-AUX1*DGAMA+AUX2*DGAMB S2=PSTRS2+AUX2*DGAMA-AUX1*DGAMB S3=PSTRS3+AUX3*(DGAMA+DGAMB) ENDIF DELTA=DMAX1(ABS(S1).NE.

2) STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=COTPHI*COHE-P check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(PT.NHARD.LE.TOL)THEN APEX=.2) STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 70 CONTINUE update internal variable EPBAR and stress components ----------------------------------------------------RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS(II)=S1 PSTRS(JJ)=S3 PSTRS(MM)=S2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.RPROPS(IPHARD))+ 1 BULK DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV EPBAR=EPBARN+COSPHI/SINPSI*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.TRUE.2) STRES(4)=PSTRS(3) and elastic engineering strain EEVD3=P/BULK*R1D3 RSTAVA(1)=(STRES(1)-P)/R2G+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=(STRES(2)-P)/R2G+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=STRES(3)/GMODU RSTAVA(4)=(STRES(4)-P)/R2G+EEVD3 ELSE Elastic step: update stress using linear elastic law ==================================================== STRES(1)=STREST(1) STRES(2)=STREST(2) STRES(3)=STREST(3) STRES(4)=PSTRS(3) elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) RSTAVA(4)=STRAT(4) ENDIF 999 CONTINUE Update algorithmic variables before exit ======================================== DGAM(1)=DGAMA DGAM(2)=DGAMB LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS .NE.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(PT) IF(RESNOR.MXITER DENOM=COSPHI*COTPHI/SINPSI*DPLFUN(EPBAR.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.314 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C C C C C C C C C C DO 60 NRITER=1.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NHARD. DGAMA=DEPV DGAMB=R0 update principal stresses S1=P S2=P S3=P GOTO 70 ENDIF 60 CONTINUE SUFAIL=.TRUE.

TRUE. . Local variables and arrays and function calls Subroutine SUMC calls the same functions as and has a very similar structure to its counterpart SUTR for the Tresca model. Note. .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 293 294 295 296 297 298 315 LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL LALGVA(3)=EDGE LALGVA(4)=RIGHT LALGVA(5)=APEX RETURN END The arguments of SUMC This subroutine has the same list of arguments as SUTR (for the Tresca model implementation – see page 282). left edge or apex return mapping). if the possible edge return is to the right edge and is set to . sin φ. . . ¯ ¯ ¯ where i c denote the cohesion at the different points supplied along the (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening curve. Refer to page 283 for a description of important local variables and arrays. At points B and C. 8. The flags EDGE. however. It is set to . These are shown in Figure 8. right. the right edge return flag RIGHT and the apex return flag APEX.3. For the Mohr–Coulomb model this array contains the plastic yielding flag. iso-error maps could be plotted for points B and C . The edge return flag is set to . N is chosen as the mean normal between the corresponding adjacent planes.FALSE.FALSE. .TRUE. only if the return mapping to the apex is applied. IFPLAS. 2 c. if one of the two possible edge return mappings (right or left edge) is used.11 together with the corresponding increment directions. Three starting points lying on the deviatoric plane are considered. sin ψ. we have: ← LALGVA. ACCURACY: ISO-ERROR MAPS The finite step accuracy of the integration algorithm coded in SUMC is assessed in this section by means of iso-error maps. The right edge return flag is set to . otherwise. The flag APEX is set to . 1 εp . that here IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDMC. the edge return flag EDGE. For instance. nhard εp . The vector N at point A is normal to the Mohr–Coulomb surface. 2 εp . Here.TRUE. 1 c. The maps constructed here are restricted to the perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb model and associative flow rule with φ = 20o . The array LALGVA of logical algorithmic values also differs from that of the Tresca model implementation. the state update failure flag SUFAIL. otherwise. Note that. RIGHT and APEX are required by subroutine CTMC to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with main plane. Array RPROPS of real material properties stores the following in the present case: RPROPS = [E. Flags IFPLAS and SUFAIL are set in the same way as in the other material model implementations already described. in view of the pressure sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb model. . ν. The increment direction vectors T on all three points are deviatoric. nhard c]. .2. cos φ. a more comprehensive accuracy assessment would have to include increments in other directions with more significant hydrostatic components.

2. we need only to derive expressions for the partial derivatives ∂ σi ˜ . The maps obtained are shown in Figure 8. Iso-error maps for the Mohr–Coulomb model. Firstly. 2 3 (8.3).1. that is. 8. it is remarked that the consistent elastoplastic tangent for the Mohr–Coulomb model is derived here following the same basic ideas that underly the computation of Dep in the Tresca model implementation. however. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE MOHR–COULOMB MODEL The next step for the incorporation of the Mohr–Coulomb model into program HYPLAS is the derivation of the tangent operator consistent with the integration algorithm of Section 8. in order to compute the elastoplastic tangent operator.1. The reason for the observed relatively high errors can be verified by performing the projections graphically in a single step and comparing with the result obtained when the increment is divided into substeps. having the vector T parallel to the corresponding edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.91) . that the results presented in this section give a very good insight into the accuracy properties of the present algorithm. only the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent is addressed. 3 where σi are the implicit functions for the principal updated stresses ˜ ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . Essentially. in the absence of hardening.11. Within some narrow bands. however. Similarly to the integration algorithm for the Tresca model (Section 8. It is remarked. εe trial . In what follows.2.4. the integration error can be high. the present integration algorithm simply projects the trial stress onto the yield surface along a suitable direction.1 (coded in SUMC).4 for details of this approach). the tangent modulus in the present case is also computed as the derivative of an isotropic tensor function of a single tensor defined in terms of principal values (refer to Section 8. εe trial ). Recall that. Starting points and increment directions. 2. large areas in which the integration error vanishes are observed in the present case for all starting points. j = 1.12. e trial ∂εj i.316 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT σ trial ∆σN T C N T N A B σ1 N T σ2 σ3 Figure 8.

the matrix form of Dep is assembled in subroutine DGISO2). (c) point C.3 of Appendix A (in the program. the tangent operator dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 Dep ≡ (8. defined by the Mohr–Coulomb integration algorithm. ∆σN /c 50% ∆σN /c 5 .92) can then be assembled as described in Section A.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 10 317 0% 20% 5% 5 0% 5% 0% 0 -10 -5 0 5 10 ∆σT /c (a) 10 10 0% 0% 5 ∆σN /c 0% 20% 5% 0% 0 5 10% 5% 0 10 0 5 10 0 ∆σT /c ∆σT /c (b) (c) Figure 8. Iso-error maps.12. (b) point B. and. Associative Mohr–Coulomb model: (a) point A. Having computed the principal stress consistent derivatives.

In this last expression.72). the computed principal stress derivatives are stored in matrix DPSTRS. . The final results can be easily identified in subroutine CTMC. (8. whose main steps involve the differentiation of the expressions given in (8.95) εp ¯n+1 and the constant a is defined by (8. In the finite element program. In CTMC.76). Principal stress derivatives for the edge return mappings To obtain the principal stress derivatives consistent with the right edge return.74) and then substitute the differentials d∆γ a and d∆γ b obtained by linearising the consistency equations (8.318 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Recall that the present model admits four distinct return-mapping sets of equations: return to main plane. The derivation of the principal stresses derivatives consistent with each of the four possible return mappings is addressed in what follows. the actual form adopted in the assemblage of the tangent stiffness matrix is the one consistent with the previous application of the return-mapping procedure at the Gauss point in question.78) and (8.96) renders the final expressions for the derivatives of the principal stresses. The same comments apply to the derivation of the derivatives for the left edge return mapping. H is the isotropic hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve): H≡ dc d¯p ε . we need first to differentiate the update formulae (8.79). The derivation is lengthier than the previous one and will not be shown here. This gives trial dσ1 = dσ1 − [2G(1 + trial dσ2 = dσ2 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] d∆γ (8.2.5.§ For each one there is a different explicit form for the principal stress derivatives and for Dep .94) which is obtained by differentiating (8. Combination of the two differential forms above. together with the use of the linear elastic relation σtrial = De : εe trial . Principal stress derivatives for the main plane return The first step in the derivation is to differentiate the main plane return principal stress update formulae (8. 3 The differential of ∆γ is derived by enforcing the linearised consistency condition trial trial trial trial ˜ dΦ = dσ1 − dσ3 + (dσ1 + dσ3 ) sin φ − (4H cos2 φ + a) d∆γ = 0.71).93) 4G − 2K sin ψ d∆γ 3 trial dσ3 = dσ3 + [2G(1 − 1 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ] d∆γ. (8.69). left edge and apex. § The situation here is completely analogous to the Tresca model implementation where three return map equation sets exist. right. n+1 n+1 (8. The resulting expressions – not explicitly written in the present text – are implemented in subroutine CTMC and can be easily identified from the FORTRAN source code listed in Section 8.

MDIM=3.IPROPS . It returns either the elastic tangent or the elastoplastic tangent depending on the entry value of the logical flag EPFLAG (one of its arguments). 3.86)2 yields dσi = dptrial − K d∆εp n+1 v = K (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial − d∆εp ) 1 2 3 v (8. The source code of CTMC is listed in the following. the following linearised consistency condition is obtained: H cos φ cot φ d∆εp − K (dεe trial + dεe trial + dεe trial − d∆εp ) = 0. When the elastoplastic tangent is required.82) and (8. v 1 2 3 v sin ψ which rearranged gives d∆εp = v K K+ cos φ cot φ sin ψ (8. .O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .LALGVA .2. as in this case the apex remains fixed in stress space. j = 1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 319 Principal stress derivatives for the apex return Differentiation of the apex return stress update formulae (8. . 2. consistency with the appropriate return algorithm (main plane.97) for i = 1.STRAT . 8.97) yields the principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return mapping: ∂σi =K 1− ∂εe trial K+ j for i. Clearly.5. By differentiating (8.LALGVA(5) 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE. we have trivially Dep = 0.STRES ) 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. Remark 8. SUBROUTINE CTMC The computation of the tangent moduli consistent with the integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model is implemented in subroutine CTMC (Consistent Tangent for the Mohr–Coulomb model).NTYPE 3 2 RPROPS . left edge or apex) is defined by the list of logical algorithmic variables passed as arguments in array LALGVA whose values are set in routine SUMC. 1 2 3 (8.IPROPS(*) . In the absence of hardening (H = 0) all principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return vanish. 3. This routine is consistent with the algorithm coded in SUMC.RSTAVA .85). 2.EPFLAG .3.MSTRE) .99) The substitution of this expression into (8. MSTRE=4) 6 C Arguments 7 LOGICAL EPFLAG . right. 1 SUBROUTINE CTMC 2 1( DMATX .98) H (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial ).100) .RPROPS(*) K cos φ cot φ sin ψ H . (8.

FOID(1.0D0 .1.FOID(3.0.0D0 .FOID(2.FOID(4.3).1).R3 .EIGPRJ(MSTRE.1.FOID(4.FOID(1.0.4)/ 4 0.FOID(4.0D0.3.RIGHT .0D0 .EDGE .2). 3 STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.2).0D0 .FOID(1.4)/ 2 1.FOID(3.0D0 .0.0.1).1.3).0D0 .0.2).NTYPE.STRAT(MSTRE) .2).NE.FOID(2.OUTOFP .1.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .2.MDIM) .R2 .0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR MOHR-COULOMB TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH ASSOCIATIVE/NON-ASSOCIATIVE FLOW RULE AND C PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .0D0.SOID(4) / 2 1.SOID(2) .0.R1 .5D0.1).0.R4 / 2 0.SOID(3) .NE.3).0D0 / 7 FOID(4.5D0 .0D0 .4)/ 6 0.AND.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL APEX .0.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.REPEAT DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.4)/ 8 0.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0026’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) COSPHI=RPROPS(5) SINPSI=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Set needed algorithmic variables EDGE=LALGVA(3) RIGHT=LALGVA(4) APEX=LALGVA(5) C Set some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R2BULK=R2*BULK R2CPHI=R2*COSPHI R4C2PH=R2CPHI*R2CPHI R1D3=R1/R3 R2D3=R2*R1D3 R2GD3=R2G*R1D3 R4GD3=R4G*R1D3 IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ---------------------------------------C Spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain STRAC(1)=STRAT(1) STRAC(2)=STRAT(2) .0.0.1).0D0 .MSTRE) .0.3).0D0 .0D0 .PSTRA(MDIM) .FOID(3.4. 2 PSTRS(MDIM) .0D0 / 3 FOID(2.2.SOID(MSTRE) .FOID(2.0D0.1.0D0 .0D0 .320 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0D0 .0D0 .FOID(MSTRE.2) .

NE.REPEAT.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.2.returned to right edge DPSTRS(II.GE.LT.NE.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.3 IF(PSTRA(I)..1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NE.II)=BULK+R4GD3+AUX1*(-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)* 1 (R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.2)MM=2 IF(II..1)MM=1 IF(II.AND.3.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 321 C C C C STRAC(3)=STRAT(3)*RP5 CALL SPDEC2(EIGPRJ.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVBA-DRVBB)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.NE.JJ.2) PSTRS(3)=STRES(4) Identify directions of maximum and minimum principal trial stresses II=1 JJ=1 PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) DO 10 I=2.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NE.NHARD.NE.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+AUX3*(DRVBA1 DRVAA))*(R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.JJ.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-CONSTA-FACTA DRVAB=-CONSTB-FACTA DRVBA=-CONSTB-FACTA DRVBB=-CONSTA-FACTA AUX1=R2G*(R1+R1D3*SINPSI)+R2BULK*SINPSI AUX2=(R4GD3-R2BULK)*SINPSI AUX3=R2G*(R1-R1D3*SINPSI)-R2BULK*SINPSI R1DDET=R1/(DRVAA*DRVBB-DRVAB*DRVBA) IF(RIGHT)THEN .AND.1.3)MM=3 IF(EDGE)THEN Tangent consistent with 2-vector return to edge SPHSPS=SINPHI*SINPSI CONSTA=R4G*(R1+R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS IF(RIGHT)THEN CONSTB=R2G*(R1+SINPHI+SINPSI-R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS ELSE CONSTB=R2G*(R1-SINPHI-SINPSI-R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS ENDIF FACTA=R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.JJ.PSTRA.MM)=BULK+R4GD3+(AUX2*((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+ 1 (DRVAB*R2GD3+DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI-DRVAB*R2G)+ 2 AUX3*(DRVAA*R2G+(R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)3 (DRVAA*R2GD3+DRVBA*R4GD3))*SINPHI))*R1DDET .AND.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVAB-DRVAA)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVBA-DRVBB)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.

322 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 132 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=BULK+R4GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVAA-DRVBA)+ 163 1 (DRVAA*R2GD3+DRVBA*R4GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAA*R2G)+ 164 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+(DRVAB*R2GD3+ 165 3 DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAB*R2G))*R1DDET 166 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=DSIDEJ 185 DPSTRS(II.MM)=DSIDEJ .JJ)=BULK+R4GD3+(AUX3*(DRVAB-DRVBB-DRVAA+DRVBA)* 175 1 (((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 176 ENDIF 177 ELSEIF(APEX)THEN 178 C Tangent consistent with multi-vector return to apex 179 COTPHI=COSPHI/SINPHI 180 DSIDEJ=BULK*(R1-(BULK/(BULK+ 181 1 DPLFUN(EPBAR.II)=DSIDEJ 187 DPSTRS(MM.II)=DSIDEJ 184 DPSTRS(II.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB-DRVAA+ 172 1 DRVBA)+(DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2GD3+(DRVBB-DRVBA)* 173 2 R4GD3)*SINPHI)+(DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G))*R1DDET 174 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ)=DSIDEJ 186 DPSTRS(MM.RPROPS(IPHARD))*COTPHI*COSPHI/ 182 2 SINPSI))) 183 DPSTRS(II.II)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX2*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+AUX3*(DRVAB137 1 DRVBB))*((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI+R2G))*R1DDET 138 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB-DRVAA+ 169 1 DRVBA)+(DRVAA-DRVAB)*R4GD3+(DRVBA-DRVBB)* 170 2 R2GD3)*SINPHI)+(DRVBA-DRVBB)*R2G))*R1DDET 171 DPSTRS(JJ.returned to left edge 148 DPSTRS(II.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVAA-DRVBA)159 1 (DRVAA*R4GD3+DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVBA*R2G)+ 160 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)-(DRVAB*R4GD3+ 161 3 DRVBB*R2GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVBB*R2G))*R1DDET 162 DPSTRS(MM.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX1*(DRVBB-DRVAB)+AUX2*(DRVBA157 1 DRVAA))*(((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 158 DPSTRS(MM.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX1*(DRVAA-DRVBA)+AUX2*(DRVAB167 1 DRVBB))*(((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 168 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ)=BULK+R4GD3+(AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+ 143 1 (DRVAA*R4GD3+DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVBA*R2G)+ 144 2 AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)-(DRVAB*R4GD3+ 145 3 DRVBB*R2GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVBB*R2G))*R1DDET 146 ELSE 147 C .JJ)=DSIDEJ 189 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVBB-DRVAB)153 1 (DRVAB*R2GD3+DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVAB*R2G)+ 154 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)-(DRVAA*R2GD3+ 155 3 DRVBA*R4GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVAA*R2G))*R1DDET 156 DPSTRS(II.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)139 1 (DRVBA*R4GD3+DRVAA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAA*R2G)+ 140 2 AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+(DRVAB*R2GD3+ 141 3 DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVAB*R2G))*R1DDET 142 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=DSIDEJ 188 DPSTRS(MM.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)133 1 (DRVBB*R2GD3+DRVAB*R4GD3))*SINPHI+DRVBB*R2G)+ 134 2 AUX3*((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+(DRVAA*R4GD3+ 135 3 DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI-DRVBA*R2G))*R1DDET 136 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=BULK+R4GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVBB-DRVAB)+ 149 1 (DRVAB*R4GD3+DRVBB*R2GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVBB*R2G)+ 150 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+(DRVAA*R4GD3+ 151 3 DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVBA*R2G))*R1DDET 152 DPSTRS(II..NHARD.II)=DSIDEJ 190 DPSTRS(JJ..

JJ)=R2G*(-R1D3+B2*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.EQ.NSTRE-1 DO 60 I=J+1. 219 ELSEIF(NTYPE.II)=R2G*(R2D3+B1*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(II.I) 60 CONTINUE 70 CONTINUE ENDIF RETURN END 40 50 .DMATX 224 2 OUTOFP .JJ)=DSIDEJ 192 ELSE 193 C Tangent consistent with 1-vector return to main active plane 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 323 1 1 1 1 1 214 1 215 216 C 217 IF(NTYPE.PSTRS .JJ)=R2G*(-R1D3-B1*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.EQ.J)=R2G*FOID(I.REPEAT 225 ELSE 226 C Compute elasticity matrix 227 C ------------------------228 IF(NTYPE.TRUE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) B1=(R2G*(R1+R1D3*SINPSI)+R2BULK*SINPSI)/DENOM B2=(R4G*R1D3-R2BULK)*SINPSI/DENOM B3=(R2G*(R1-R1D3*SINPSI)-R2BULK*SINPSI)/DENOM DPSTRS(II.FALSE. DMATX(I.II)=R2G*(-R1D3-B3*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.NSTRE DMATX(I.3)THEN 231 NSTRE=4 232 ENDIF 233 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 234 DO 50 I=1.2)THEN 218 OUTOFP=.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) CONTINUE CONTINUE DO 70 J=1.EQ. 221 ENDIF 222 CALL DGISO2 223 1( DPSTRS .EIGPRJ ) .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 191 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=R4G*R1D3*(R1+B2*SINPHI)+BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.NHARD.JJ)=R2G*(R2D3+B3*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) ENDIF .II)=R2G*(-R1D3-B2*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.2)THEN 229 NSTRE=3 230 ELSEIF(NTYPE.NSTRE 235 DO 40 J=I.3)THEN 220 OUTOFP=.EQ.PSTRA .NSTRE 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 SPHSPS=SINPHI*SINPSI CONSTA=R4G*(R1+R1D3*SPHSPS)+R4*BULK*SPHSPS DENOM=-CONSTA-R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.MM)=R1D3*(R3*BULK-R2G)*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(II.J)=DMATX(J.MM)=R1D3*(R3*BULK-R2G)*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.

inner edge.3. plane strain.10 subroutine SUDP (Section 8. (8. The most important results of this section can be found as indicated in the table below.102) p = 1/3 tr[σ] is the hydrostatic pressure and c is the cohesion.5) iso-error map consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – Following the format of the previous sections.122). 8. a brief summary of the constitutive equations adopted in the present implementation is presented below. Their formulae for outer edge.3. uniaxial tension/compression and biaxial tension/compression matching are given.16 subroutine CTDP (Section 8. The implemented Drucker–Prager constitutive equations The Drucker–Prager yield surface is defined by means of the yield function Φ(σ. (8. The constants η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The output values of the arguments of SUMC are taken as input values by CTMC.324 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The arguments of CTMC The arguments here are those of SUMC (exept for the array DGAM) plus DMATX and EPFLAG which carry. flowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. Function calls from CTMC Function calls here are the same as from subroutine CTTR (for the Tresca model implementation). Here we focus on a Drucker–Prager model with piecewise linear isotropic strain hardening. The Drucker–Prager model We now move on to the last model implementation discussed in this chapter.123) and (6. the tangent operator and the elastoplastic flag that indicates whether the elastic or elastoplastic operator is to be computed in CTMC. (6. c) = where J2 = 1 s : s. 2 s = σ − p(σ) I. respectively.127).101) .3.126) and (6.8–8. J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c.15 Boxes 8.2) Figure 8. Refer to page 295. respectively.124). by expressions (6. (6.

1. Secondly. as well as the flow vector field resulting from the generally non-associative flow potential.161) with the evolution law (8. (6.103) where the constant η depends on the dilatancy angle. The flow rule reads ˙ ˙ εp = γ N. Firstly. Consider the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor for materials with linear elastic law: σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . ¯ Analogously to the Mohr–Coulomb implementation. inner edge and plane strain match. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM FOR THE DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL The integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model is simpler than its counterparts presented earlier in this chapter for the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models. This is in contrast with the two and three possible singularities identified.6.106) εp = γ ξ. page 176). ψ. the flow vector is a subgradient of Ψ.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 325 The generally non-associative flow rule is adopted in the present implementation of the Drucker–Prager model. This relation is obtained by combining the non-associative version of (6. The corresponding flow potential is Ψ(σ. N is a vector contained in the complementary cone (refer to the schematic illustration of Figure 6.107) η v ¯ will be needed in the derivation of the return-mapping equation for the apex of the Drucker– Prager cone. respectively.104) At the cone apex.106).108) n+1 where −∆γ De : Nn+1 is the return vector.164) or (6. This relative simplicity stems from two main features of the present material model. the Drucker–Prager yield surface. where. ¯ (8. page 176). c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ).61).105) (8. As for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of the previous section. on the smooth portion of the yield surface. ¯ (8. (8. in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models.3: ˙ ˙ (8. the flow vector is given by N= ∂Ψ = ∂σ 2 1 J2 (s) η ¯ s + I. the Drucker–Prager counterpart of relation (8.20(b). where the potential is singular. 3 (8. and according to the adopted ¯ Drucker–Prager approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law may be given by (6. only one singularity exists in the Drucker–Prager yield surface – its apex.64): ξ ˙ ˙ εp = ε p . 8. together with the associative evolution equation for the accumulated plastic strain derived for Drucker–Prager plasticity in Section 6. associative isotropic strain hardening is adopted here. that is.3. are fully symmetric about the hydrostatic axis. whenever the above formula is applied (regardless .163). As a consequence of the symmetry about the pressure axis (see Figure 6.20. The hardening law is defined by (8.165) respectively for the outer.

Thus. the return vector is always parallel to the plane that contains σtrial and the hydrostatic axis (see Figure 8. 3 (8. the flow vector is defined by (8. in terms of deviatoric and hydrostatic components reads sn+1 = 1 − pn+1 = ptrial n+1 G ∆γ J2 (strial ) n+1 − K η ∆γ. The corresponding algorithms are derived in what follows. J2 (sn+1 ) J2 (strial ) n+1 Its substitution into the stress update formula gives σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ n+1 G J2 (strial ) strial + n+1 Kη ¯ I . by a factor that depends on ∆γ. These are treated separately below. The consistency condition in the present case is given by Φn+1 ≡ J2 (sn+1 ) + η pn+1 − ξ c(¯p ) = 0. Note that. 3 (8. Recall that in the von Mises n+1 implicit return mapping derived in Chapter 7 the updated deviatoric stress is also obtained by scaling its elastic trial counterpart. The corresponding increment of plastic strain then reads ∆εp = ∆γ Nn+1 = ∆γ The corresponding stress update formula is σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ[2G (Nd )n+1 + K (Nv )n+1 ] n+1 = σtrial − ∆γ n+1 G J2 (s) sn+1 + Kη ¯ I . two possible explicit forms exist for the return-mapping algorithm.105).109) Simplification of the above expression can be obtained by noting that. equivalently. strial . Return to the smooth portion of the cone On the smooth portion of the cone. εn+1 (8. without loss of generality. 3 (8.326 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of whether σn+1 lies on the smooth portion of the cone or on its apex).113) It should be noted that the deviatoric updated stress. n+1 page 329). the following identity holds strial sn+1 n+1 = .112) (8.110) 1 2 J2 (s) sn+1 + η ¯ I . due to the definition of J2 . sn+1 . ¯ strial n+1 (8.14.111) which. is obtained by simply scaling down the trial deviatoric stress.114) . the return-mapping algorithm can be completely formulated in such a plane of the stress space. since the definition of the flow vector Nn+1 in the smooth portion of the cone differs from that at the apex singularity.

ε ¯ In such cases.116) The substitution of the above expression and (8. the return-mapping equations (8. with the introduction of the discretised form of (8.119) for ∆εp .107) in the above equation.86) for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation apply. ¯n+1 v σn+1 := (ptrial − K ∆εp ) I.113).114) is reduced to c(¯p + ∆¯p ) εn ε ξ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. η ¯ (8. the return vector must be contained in the complementary cone schematically illustrated in Figure 6. Return to the apex At the apex. we obtain the final return-mapping equation for the Drucker–Prager apex: r(∆εp ) ≡ c(¯p + α∆εp ) β − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.13.119) (8. Its geometrical representation is shown in Figure 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 327 where the update accumulated plastic strain is obtained from the discrete version of (8. the stress is updated by (8.106): ε εp = εp + ∆¯p ¯n+1 ¯n with ∆¯p = ξ ∆γ. the return to apex does not make sense in the present η context and the comments made immediately after expression (8. . After the solution of (8. where H denotes the hardening modulus.85) of the Mohr–Coulomb implementation. c is constant and. n+1 v (8.117) (8.113) into the consistency condition results in the following (generally nonlinear) equation for ∆γ: ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ + η (ptrial − K η ∆γ) ¯ n+1 n+1 − ξ c(¯p + ξ ∆γ) = 0. the hardening function reads c(¯p ) = c0 + H εp .119) respectively for the smooth portion and apex of the Drucker–Prager cone are linear and ∆γ is computed in closed form. For perfectly plastic materials.117) and (8. The consistency condition (8. for linearly hardening models.4.118) (8.115) Further. η β≡ ξ .121) Note that for non-dilatant flow (¯ = 0).20(b) of page 176. ε (8. εn After solution of the above equation. n+1 v η ¯ (8. The derivation of the return-mapping procedure in this case is completely analogous to that of the Mohr–Coulomb apex return described in item 4 of page 299. εn v v n+1 v where ξ α≡ .120) This equation is analogous to the return-mapping equation (8. we update v ¯n εp := εp + α∆εp . Remark 8.

if the application of one of them generates a contradiction.113)1. Thus.13. A possible selection strategy is summarised in the following steps (refer to Figure 8. • Otherwise. after determination of ∆γ from the related consistency condition. either the return to the smooth wall or the return to the apex – rigorously satisfies the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. the returned stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and is not admissible. The results obtained by the apex return are then necessarily valid. the following is satisfied acone ≡ J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ ≥ 0. Recall that the purpose of the selection procedure is to ensure that the validated return mapping – in the present case. . The selection strategy for the Drucker–Prager model is simple.123) then the returned stress indeed lies on the Drucker–Prager cone and the return mapping is validated. The above selection procedure ensures the consistency of the selected return algorithm regardless of any prescribed hardening/softening law.328 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS J2( s ) complementary cone trial σn+1 updated Drucker–Prager cone p -K ∆εv I σn+1= pn+1 I trial pn+1 p Figure 8. Drucker–Prager model. From the corresponding deviatoric stress update formula (8. Return mapping to apex. then the other one must be valid. There are only two possible return mappings.14 for a graphical representation): • Firstly. a strategy for selection of the appropriate one is necessary for the complete definition of the integration algorithm.25).122) If. Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having derived the two possible forms of return mapping for the Drucker–Prager model. n+1 (8. In this case. derived in Chapter 7. apply the return algorithm to the smooth part of the Drucker–Prager cone. it follows that J2 (sn+1 ) = J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ. the return mapping to the apex must be applied. n+1 (8.

The overall integration algorithm Essentially. The integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model has been implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS and is explained in detail below. . The corresponding pseudo-code is summarised in Boxes 8. A flowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 8. with the associated selection strategy. Selection of appropriate return mapping.15.8–8. the overall integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model comprises the elastic predictor stage – which is common to all models addressed in this chapter – followed by the two return mappings described above.14.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 329 trial σ n +1 J2( s ) 1 η J2( s trial ) .G ∆γ < 0 n +1 Figure 8.10.G ∆γ > 0 n +1 σ n +1 updated elastic domain trial σ n +1 ξ c(ε n +1 ) p apex p σ n +1 J2( s trial ) . Drucker–Prager model.

. ∆γ and σ n+1 update other state variables. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS.15.330 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS compute elastic trial stress: trial σ n+1 := D e : εen+1 trial check consistency: process is elastic update: √  trial J2( sn+1 ) trial + η pn+1 _p − ξ c ( ε n) > NO ∈tol ? and exit ( ⋅ )n+1 := ( ⋅ ) n+1 trial YES apply one-vector return mapping to smooth part of cone – obtain: ∆γ and σn+1 check validity of one-vector return: trial √J2( sn+1 )  − G ∆γ ≥ 0 ? YES NO apply 2vector mapping to apex apply return return map to apex obtain: – obtain: a p ∆γ ∆εv b . Flowchart of the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the Drucker–Prager model. and exit Figure 8.

10 (iv) Update elastic strain εe := n+1 (v) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K .9 (b) Check validity IF J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ ≥ 0 n+1 THEN return is valid – GOTO (iv) (c) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8. HYPLAS procedure: SUDP (i) Elastic predictor. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .8. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Drucker– Prager model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 331 Box 8. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility IF εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial n+1 v n+1 J2 (strial ) + η ptrial − ξ c(¯p trial ) ≤ 0 εn+1 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping (a) Return to smooth portion of cone – GOTO Box 8.

8 (iv) GOTO (ii) .332 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. The Drucker–Prager model. Return mapping to smooth portion of cone. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0. SUDP ¯n εp := εp ¯n+1 and corresponding residual (yield function value) ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) + η ptrial − ξ c(¯p ) εn n+1 n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆γ H := d := dc d¯p ε ˜ dΦ p (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (new guess for ∆γ) εn+1 ¯ = −G − K η η − ξ 2 H ¯ d∆γ ˜ ∆γ := ∆γ − Φ/d (iii) Check convergence ¯n εp := εp + ξ ∆γ ¯n+1 ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) − G∆γ + η (ptrial − K η ∆γ) − ξ c(¯p ) ¯ εn+1 n+1 tol ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ THEN sn+1 := 1 − update G ∆γ J2 (s trial n+1 ) strial n+1 pn+1 := ptrial − K η ∆γ ¯ n+1 and RETURN to Box 8.9.

4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 333 Box 8. The Drucker–Prager model. Return mapping to apex. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUDP ∆εp := 0. v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8.119)) r := c(¯p ) β − ptrial εn n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆εp v H := dc d¯p ε p (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (update ∆εp ) v εn+1 ¯ d := αβH + K ∆εp v := ∆εp v − r/d (iii) Compute new residual and check convergence ¯n εp := εp + α∆εp ¯n+1 v pn+1 := ptrial − K ∆εp n+1 v r := β c(¯p ) − pn+1 εn+1 IF |r| ≤ tol THEN update σn+1 := pn+1 I and RETURN to Box 8.10.

0D0. 2 RSTAVA .D-08/ DATA MAXRT / 50 / C*********************************************************************** C STRESS UPDATE PROCEDURE FOR DRUCKER PRAGER TYPE ELASTO-PLASTIC C MATERIAL WITH ASSOCIATIVE/NON-ASSOCIATIVE FLOW RULE AND PIECE_WISE C LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING: C IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM (Boxes 8. EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) ETA=RPROPS(4) XI=RPROPS(5) ETABAR=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C and some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 C Compute elastic trial state C --------------------------C Elastic trial volumetric strain and pressure stress EETV=STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)+STRAT(4) PT=BULK*EETV C Elastic trial deviatoric stress EEVD3=EETV*R1D3 .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0016’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.STRAT .3.IPROPS .NTYPE.0.1.2.R3 .8-10) C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric IF(NTYPE.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.R1 .0D0.TOL / 2 0.RP5 .2.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX. SUBROUTINE SUDP The above integration algorithm has been implemented in subroutine SUDP (State Update procedure for the Drucker–Prager model) of program HYPLAS. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .FALSE. SUFAIL=.3.0D0.5D0.0D0. i c}.1.2.2).FALSE.R2 . a general piecewise isotropic hardening law is assumed with the (user-supplied) hardening curve defined by a set of pairs: {i εp . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 SUBROUTINE SUDP 1( DGAM .NE.NTYPE .334 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .2.AND. ¯ The source code of SUDP is listed below. IFPLAS.RPROPS . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) . As in the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of subroutine SUMC (Section 8.LALGVA .NE. LALGVA(3).RPROPS(*) .STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 STRIAL(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .

10 --------------------------------------perform checks and set some variables .R0)RES=RES/ABS(COHE) IF(RES.TRUE. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0002’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply return mapping to APEX .go to apex return procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.MAXRT Compute residual derivative DENOM=-GMODU-BULK*ETABAR*ETA1 XI*XI*DPLFUN(EPBAR.TOL)THEN Check validity of return to smooth portion IF(SQRJ2.TRUE.Box 8. update stress components and other variables IF(SQRJ2T.FALSE.NE.GE.NE.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) Check for plastic consistency ----------------------------SQRJ2T=SQRT(VARJ2T) PHI=SQRJ2T+ETA*PT-XI*COHE RES=PHI IF(COHE. APEX=.TOL)THEN Plastic step: Use return mapping ================================ IFPLAS=.R0)THEN results are valid.NHARD. Apply return mapping to smooth portion of cone .R0)THEN FACTOR=R0 ELSE FACTOR=R1-GMODU*DGAMA/SQRJ2T ENDIF GOTO 50 ELSE smooth wall return not valid .Box 8.LE.GT.9 -------------------------------------------------------DO 20 IPTER1=1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 335 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C STRIAL(1)=R2G*(STRAT(1)-EEVD3) STRIAL(2)=R2G*(STRAT(2)-EEVD3) STRIAL(4)=R2G*(STRAT(4)-EEVD3) shear component STRIAL(3)=R2G*(STRAT(3)*RP5) Compute elastic trial stress J2 invariant and cohesion VARJ2T=STRIAL(3)*STRIAL(3)+RP5*(STRIAL(1)*STRIAL(1)+ 1 STRIAL(2)*STRIAL(2)+STRIAL(4)*STRIAL(4)) COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DGAMA DDGAMA=-PHI/DENOM DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+XI*DGAMA COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.EQ.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(COHE) IF(RESNOR.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SQRJ2=SQRJ2T-GMODU*DGAMA P=PT-BULK*ETABAR*DGAMA PHI=SQRJ2+ETA*P-XI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI) IF(COHE.

TRUE.TOL)THEN update stress components and other variables DGAMA=DEPV/ETABAR FACTOR=R0 GOTO 50 ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.EQ.MAXRT DENOM=ALPHA*BETA*DPLFUN(EPBAR.336 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C C C C C C C C C C C C C APEX=.LE.EQ.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(COHE) IF(RESNOR.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0011’) IF(ETABAR.TRUE. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0002’) GOTO 999 Store converged stress components and other state variables ----------------------------------------------------------50 CONTINUE STRES(1)=FACTOR*STRIAL(1)+P STRES(2)=FACTOR*STRIAL(2)+P STRES(3)=FACTOR*STRIAL(3) STRES(4)=FACTOR*STRIAL(4)+P update EPBAR RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR compute converged elastic (engineering) strain components FACTOR=FACTOR/R2G EEVD3=P/(BULK*R3) RSTAVA(1)=FACTOR*STRIAL(1)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTOR*STRIAL(2)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTOR*STRIAL(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=FACTOR*STRIAL(4)+EEVD3 ELSE Elastic step: update stress using linear elastic law ==================================================== STRES(1)=STRIAL(1)+PT STRES(2)=STRIAL(2)+PT STRES(3)=STRIAL(3) STRES(4)=STRIAL(4)+PT elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) .NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD))+BULK Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DEPV DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+ALPHA*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.NE.NHARD.NHARD.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0012’) ALPHA=XI/ETABAR BETA=XI/ETA Set initial guess for unknown DEPV and start iterations DEPV=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.RPROPS(IPHARD)) RES=BETA*COHE-PT DO 40 IPTER2=1.RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=BETA*COHE-P Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(COHE. IF(ETA.

8. 8. that in the present case IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDDP. Note. ISO-ERROR MAP An iso-error map for the integration algorithm described above for the Drucker–Prager model is presented in this section. with non-deviatoric tangents to the yield surface as well. however.TRUE. 1 c. The increment normalising factor q is the von Mises effective stress at the starting point. It is set to . .3. Flags IFPLAS and SUFAIL are set in the same way as in the previous implementations discussed. 2 c. the elastic tangent is the standard elasticity matrix so that the derivation below is focused only on the elastoplastic tangents associated with the integration algorithm described . i. η .4.3. the state update failure flag SUFAIL and the apex return flag APEX. otherwise. nhard εp . The unit tensors N and T defining the increment directions are.16. The tangent tensor here is deviatoric. . . Due to the symmetry of the Drucker–Prager yield surface about the hydrostatic axis. . The Drucker–Prager parameters adopted in the test are chosen so as to match the outer edges of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion with frictional angle φ = 20o .FALSE. The analysis is restricted to the perfectly plastic case with associative flow rule. Due to the pressure-sensitivity of the model (as for the Mohr–Coulomb case). . 2 εp . .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 172 RSTAVA(4)=STRAT(4) 173 ENDIF 174 999 CONTINUE 175 C Update some algorithmic variables before exit 176 C ============================================= 177 LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS 178 LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL 179 LALGVA(3)=APEX 180 DGAM=DGAMA 181 RETURN 182 END 337 The arguments of SUDP The arguments of SUDP are the same as those of SUMC (refer to list on page 315) for the Mohr– Coulomb model implementation. ξ. the error maps obtained from all points within the same cross-section of the Drucker–Prager cone are identical. IFPLAS. For the Drucker–Prager model this array contains the plastic yielding flag. 1 εp . if the return mapping to the apex is selected. The logical flag APEX is required by subroutine CTDP to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with the return to either the smooth part or apex of the Drucker–Prager cone). The apex return flag is set to . a more comprehensive accuracy assessment would require increments in other directions. normal and tangent to the yield surface.e. η. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ and array LALGVA is defined as ← LALGVA. array RPROPS stores the following: RPROPS = [E.3. The resulting error map is plotted in Figure 8. for the Drucker–Prager model. Here the error map is constructed having a generic point of the deviatoric plane as the starting point. . CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL Again. ν. nhard c]. Also. respectively.

the actual elastoplastic tangents used to assemble the stiffness matrix are the ones consistent with the last application of the return-mapping procedure at each Gauss point.5 7.5 4 10 10.125) ∆γ 1 D ⊗ D : dεe trial − √ d∆γ D .0 7. Drucker–Prager model with associative flow.0 2 0. let us consider the deviatoric stress update formula of the return mapping to the smooth part of the cone: sn+1 = 1 − G ∆γ J2 (strial ) ∆γ strial = 2G 1 − √ n+1 2 εe trial d n+1 εe trial .16. above for the Drucker–Prager model.0 0 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /q Figure 8. n+1 v n+1 (8. +√ d n+1 e trial 2 εd n+1 2 where the second-order tensor D is the unit tensor parallel to εe trial : d n+1 D≡ εe trial d n+1 .5 5 5. Tangent consistent with the smooth portion return Firstly.126) Similarly.338 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 2. Iso-error map. respectively.127) .124) Straightforward differentiation of the above expression yields dsn+1 = 2G ∆γ 1− √ 2 εe trial d n+1 dεe trial d n+1 (8. there are two possible elastoplastic tangents: one consistent with the return to the smooth portion of the cone and the other consistent with the return to the apex. d n+1 (8.5 2. the differentiation of the hydrostatic pressure update formula ¯ ¯ pn+1 = ptrial − K η ∆γ = K(εe trial − η ∆γ). For this model. three and four elastoplastic explicit forms of tangent exist. Following the procedure adopted in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models where. εe trial d n+1 ∆σN /q (8.

128) The expression relating d∆γ and the differentials of trial strain is obtained by linearising the consistency condition (8. gives the following equation: √ ˜ dΦ = 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial d n+1 v n+1 − (G + Kη η + ξ 2 H) d∆γ = 0. the associated elastoplastic tangent modulus is given by Dep ≡ dσn+1 dpn+1 = I ⊗ e trial . n+1 v Its differentiation gives dpn+1 = K I : dεe trial − K d∆εp .125) and (8. where Id is the deviatoric projection tensor and A is defined as A= 1 .129) Finally.134) Now.135) (8. with the substitution of (8.130) (8.137) (8. the differential of the updated stress consistent with the application of the apex return is simply dσn+1 = dpn+1 I. dεe trial dεn+1 dεn+1 n+1 (8.117).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 339 gives ¯ dpn+1 = K (dεe trial − η d∆γ). d n+1 v n+1 2H G + Kη η + ξ ¯ (8.117).136) .131) the explicit expression for the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the one-vector return is obtained after some straightforward manipulations as ∆γ ∆γ Dep = 2G 1 − √ Id + 2G √ e trial − GA D ⊗ D e trial 2 εd n+1 2 εd n+1 √ ¯ ¯ − 2 GAK (η D ⊗ I + η I ⊗ D) + K (1 − Kη η A) I ⊗ I. vanishes at the apex. Accordingly. and use of the identity Dep ≡ dσn+1 dsn+1 dpn+1 = e trial + I ⊗ e trial .128). G + Kη η + ξ 2 H ¯ (8. v n+1 (8. sn+1 . ¯ which results in the identity d∆γ = √ 1 ( 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial ).130) into (8. The linearisation of (8. in conjunction with the use of the elastic relation.132) Tangent consistent with the return mapping to the apex Since the stress deviator. n+1 v (8. recall the hydrostatic pressure update formula: pn+1 = ptrial − K ∆εp . dεe trial dεn+1 n+1 (8.133) (8.

Note that.132) and (8. The implicit algorithm with which the present tangent computation is consistent is coded in subroutine SUDP.1).340 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The explicit expression for the d∆εp in terms of the elastic trial strain differential is obtained v by differentiating the residual equation (8.119). given by (8.DMATX .5. This routine returns either the standard elastic tangent or the consistent elastoplastic tangent operator depending on the entry value of the logical argument EPFLAG. K + αβH (8.FOID(MSTRE. .STRAT(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EETD(MSTRE) .3).RPROPS . 8.FOID(1. This gives dr = (K + αβH) d∆εp − K I : dεe trial = 0 v n+1 and yields the expression d∆εp = v K I : dεe trial .135) we obtain the expression for the tangent operator consistent with the apex return mapping: Dep = K 1 − K I ⊗ I.EPFLAG .3 are equally valid for the Drucker–Prager model. The elastoplastic tangents computed in CTDP are those given by expressions (8.STRAT ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.100) in terms of principal stress derivatives.5.4)/ .2). the decision on whether to compute the tangent consistent with the return mapping to the smooth part of the cone or the return mapping to the apex is made based on the entry value of the logical algorithmic variable APEX stored in array LALGVA. n+1 K + αβH (8.RSTAVA .IPROPS(*) . .FOID(1. The actual tangent computed is consistent with the last application of the return mapping (in the Gauss integration point of interest) carried out in SUDP.140) This formula is in complete analogy with that of the apex return for the Mohr–Coulomb model.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . SUBROUTINE CTDP The computation of the tangent modulus consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/returnmapping scheme for the Drucker–Prager model is performed in subroutine CTDP (Consistent Tangent modulus for the Drucker–Prager model).MSTRE) . The source code of CTDP is listed below.FOID(1. in the absence of hardening (H = 0) the above tangent operator vanishes.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .SOID(MSTRE) 2 UNIDEV(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.LALGVA 2 NTYPE . The comments made in Remark 8. If the elastoplastic tangent is requested.MSTRE).139) (8. .138) Finally. LALGVA(3) DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.3.140).MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SUBROUTINE CTDP 1( DGAM . with the substitution of the above formula into (8. Remark 8. EPFLAG.137) and use of (8.IPROPS .

FOID(3.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR DRUCKER-PRAGER TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH ASSOCIATIVE/NON-ASSOCIATIVE FLOW RULE AND C PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING C*********************************************************************** IF(NTYPE.0D0 / / DATA 1 R0 .2).0D0 / FOID(4.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ELSE CALL ERRPRT(’EI0017’) ENDIF C Retrieve accumulated plastic strain.R2 .0D0 .4)/ 0.0.0.RPROPS(IPHARD)) IF(APEX)THEN C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with apex return C ------------------------------------------------ALPHA=XI/ETABAR BETA=XI/ETA AFACT=BULK*(R1-BULK/(BULK+ALPHA*BETA*HSLOPE)) DO 20 I=1.1.FOID(2.0D0 / FOID(3.0.4)/ 0.FOID(3.FOID(4.0D0 .R1 .0D0 .FOID(2.0.0.FOID(4.0D0 .SOID(2) .1.0D0 .2).3).1.0D0 .FOID(4.0D0 .3).NSTRE DMATX(I.1.0D0 .0D0 / SOID(1) 1.EQ.1).NHARD.4)/ 0.3.0D0 .2.5D0 .0D0 .0D0.3).1).0D0.0.R3 / 2 0.5D0.0.0D0 .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 341 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATA 1 2 1.FOID(2.0.EQ.1).SOID(4) .0.1.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.0.0D0 / FOID(2.J)=AFACT*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 10 CONTINUE 20 CONTINUE ELSE C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with smooth cone wall return .2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.0.0D0 .2).FOID(3.SOID(3) .0D0 .RP5 .0D0 .0D0.0. DGAMA and APEX algorithm flag EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) DGAMA=DGAM APEX=LALGVA(3) C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) ETA=RPROPS(4) XI=RPROPS(5) ETABAR=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C and some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 ROOT2=SQRT(R2) C IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ======================================== C Hardening slope HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.

NSTRE-1 120 DO 80 I=J+1.J)+BFACT*UNIDEV(I)*UNIDEV(J)+ 104 1 CFACT*(ETA*UNIDEV(I)*SOID(J)+ 105 2 ETABAR*SOID(I)*UNIDEV(J))+ 106 3 (DFACT-AFACD3)*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 107 40 CONTINUE 108 50 CONTINUE 109 ENDIF 110 ELSE 111 C Compute elasticity matrix 112 C ========================= 113 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 114 DO 70 I=1.NSTRE 92 UNIDEV(I)=EETD(I)*EDNINV 93 30 CONTINUE 94 C Assemble tangent 95 AUX=R1/(GMODU+BULK*ETA*ETABAR+XI*XI*HSLOPE) 96 AFACT=R2G*(R1-DGAMA/(ROOT2*ETDNOR)) 97 AFACD3=AFACT*R1D3 98 BFACT=R2G*(DGAMA/(ROOT2*ETDNOR)-GMODU*AUX) 99 CFACT=-ROOT2*GMODU*BULK*AUX 100 DFACT=BULK*(R1-BULK*ETA*ETABAR*AUX) 101 DO 50 I=1. .NSTRE 103 DMATX(I.NSTRE 116 DMATX(I.I) 122 80 CONTINUE 123 90 CONTINUE 124 ENDIF 125 RETURN 126 END The arguments of CTDP The situation here is completely analogous to that of subroutine CTMC (refer to page 324). with state update related arguments coming in the present case from subroutine SUDP.J)=R2G*FOID(I.J)=DMATX(J.NSTRE 102 DO 40 J=1.342 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 76 C ------------------------------------------------------------77 C Elastic trial deviatoric (physical) strain 78 EEVD3=(STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)+STRAT(4))*R1D3 79 EETD(1)=STRAT(1)-EEVD3 80 EETD(2)=STRAT(2)-EEVD3 81 EETD(3)=STRAT(3)*RP5 82 EETD(4)=STRAT(4)-EEVD3 83 ETDNOR=SQRT(EETD(1)*EETD(1)+EETD(2)*EETD(2)+ 84 1 R2*EETD(3)*EETD(3)+EETD(4)*EETD(4)) 85 C Unit deviatoric flow vector 86 IF(ETDNOR.NE.NSTRE 115 DO 60 J=I.R0)THEN 87 EDNINV=R1/ETDNOR 88 ELSE 89 EDNINV=R0 90 ENDIF 91 DO 30 I=1.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 117 60 CONTINUE 118 70 CONTINUE 119 DO 90 J=1.NSTRE 121 DMATX(I.J)=AFACT*FOID(I.

It is noted that all results presented here have been obtained with the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 343 Some local variables and arrays of CTDP • ETDNOR [ εe trial ]. The reader is referred to Chakrabarty (1987) for details of the solution. Whenever available. Array of components of the unit tensor parallel to the deviatoric elastic trial strain. the collapse of a wide rectangular metal bar containing a deep 90o V-shaped notch and subjected to pure bending is analysed.141) where a is the thickness of the bar in the neck and the cohesion or shear strength. n+1 • UNIDEV [D]. An analytical upper bound to the limit load for this problem has been obtained by Green (1953) based on the theory of slip-line fields. The geometry and material parameters are shown in Figure 8. D ≡ εe trial / εe trial . A total number of 13 load increments is applied in the finite element analysis. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm has been adopted in the iterative solution of the global finite element equilibrium equations. d n+1 d n+1 8. The material is modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic with the Tresca yield criterion. for the Tresca model is given as c = σy /2. The moment M is applied by means of two opposite nodal forces of equal intensity F prescribed on the nodes indicated in Figure 8. The finite element model adopted in the present analysis is shown in Figure 8.1.869 Nm (8. A mesh of 312 eight-noded elements (with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature) is adopted with a total of 1001 nodes.18.17. Examples This section presents a set of benchmark numerical examples involving all material model implementations described in the previous sections of this chapter. The vertical deflection obtained for the nodes where the forces are applied is plotted in Figure 8. Due to the distance between the neck and the points where the forces are applied. a condition close to pure bending is obtained near the neck. For a notch angle of 90o the associated upper bound moment per unit width of the bar is Mu ≈ 0. c.4.18. theoretical solutions are presented and compared with the results obtained in order to illustrate the accuracy of the numerical procedures described in the preceding sections. For the present material parameters and geometry. it gives Mu ≈ 1. BENDING OF A V-NOTCHED TRESCA BAR In this example. For symmetry reasons. 8.142) per millimetre width of the bar.19 against the normalised .623 c a2 (8. The bar is wide enough so that the analysis can be carried out under the assumption of plane strain conditions. Without exception. Norm of the deviatoric component of the elastic trial strain tensor.4. only half of the bar is discretised with symmetry kinematical constraints imposed on the nodes across the neck. The examples presented comprise metal plasticity (with the Tresca model) as well as some typical soil mechanics applications with pressure-sensitive models (Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager).

Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.20(b). Bending of a V-notched bar. M/ca2 . Bending of a V-notched bar. The slipline field proposed by Green (1953) for the present dimensions is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.344 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties – Tresca model 90o M Young’s modulus: Poisson ratio: Uniaxial yield stress: E = 210 GPa ν = 0.e. Alongside.636.143) This result is in very close agreement (about 2% higher) with Green’s upper bound.) bending moment per unit width. The contour plot of ∆¯p shows the area where the plastic process is concentrated and clearly illustrates ε the collapse mechanism. Note that the collapse mechanism predicted by the finite element simulation is in agreement with Green’s slip-line field. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.. Finite element model. M = Fh F h Figure 8.20(a). The limit load determined by the present analysis is fe Mlim ≈ 0. Problem definition. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. the contour plot of the incremental accumulated plastic strain. 8. c a2 (8.4.A. In this increment the bar is effectively collapsing.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) a = 5 mm h = 8 mm M l = 40 mm Figure 8. ∆¯p .18. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. in Figure 8. a small increment of applied load results in extremely large incremental deflections.3 σ y = 0. END-LOADED TAPERED CANTILEVER The collapse of a wide end-loaded tapered cantilever is analysed in this example. The geometry of the cantilever as well as the mesh adopted in the finite element analysis are . (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. i. corresponding to load increment 12 of the finite element computation ε is shown for comparison.A.) F Please Wait.2.17. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering.

contour levels: 0. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. (b) finite element result under collapse (increment 12): incremental accumulated plastic strain.20.A.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.¶ For the present geometry. M/ca2 0. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. His solution for θ > 75o . of intensity S.117 0. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.623 0. the normalised upper bound for the shear traction ¶ Green’s limit loads are exact for taper angles θ ≤ 75o .5 2 edge deflection (mm) Figure 8. The width of the cantilever is assumed sufficiently large so that a plane strain analysis is carried out.004 0. due to experimental confirmation of the proposed slip-line fields.050 0. ε (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at finite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. acting on the opposite edge. Upper bound limit loads for tapered cantilevers have been obtained analytically by Green (1954) by means of slip-line field theory. Moment-deflection diagram.2 0 0 0.6 0. The cantilever is assumed to be made of a Tresca elastic-perfectly plastic material with the same constants as in the previous example.) p ∆ε .010 0.8 345 bending moment. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. Green argues that it is unlikely that his upper-bound solutions will be above the exact theoretical limit load. Computer c Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 0. such as in the present example.19.000 M M (a) (b) Figure 8. ∆¯p .21. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. are only upper bounds.) illustrated in Figure 8.5 1 1. Nevertheless. The cantilever is firmly supported (clamped) on one edge and the applied load is a uniformly distributed shearing traction. Bending of a V-notched bar. .A. Bending of a V-notched bar: (a) slip-line field of the upper bound solution by Green (1953).

144) c where c is the shear strength given. obtained in the ε same load increment is illustrated in Figure 8. (8.4 (page 252) of Chapter 7. at collapse.22.145) which is about 1. In this plot.3 Please Wait. However. The slip-line field proposed by Green (1954) is schematically illustrated in Figure 8. It can be seen that the finite element solution has captured Green’s collapse mechanism quite accurately.4. the sizes of the vectors have been largely exaggerated and do not correspond to the norms of the actual nodal displacements. The corresponding collapse load (i.21. Problem definition and finite element mesh. At collapse. S. by c = σy /2.24 GPa S h = 100 mm Figure 8. of the mid-node of the free edge versus the applied force. ∆¯p . the load is applied incrementally until collapse occurs.775 (8. the plastic process predicted by the finite element analysis is confined to an area which is in very close agreement with Green’s slip-line field. when the cantilever is effectively collapsing.. A diagram showing the vertical deflection. for the Tresca model. In the finite element analysis. the analysis performed in that example was restricted to the use of the von Mises material model.346 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS L = 150 mm θ = 80 o Material properties – Tresca model Young’s modulus: Poisson ratio: Uniaxial yield stress: (perfectly plastic) E = 210 GPa ν = 0.23(a). u. The present limit load has been reached in eight increments. 8.3.786. The contour plot shows that. STRIP-FOOTING COLLAPSE The plane strain analysis of a strip footing has been carried out in detail in Example 7.5. found by Green is Su ≈ 0. where the suitability of the finite element framework of program HYPLAS for the determination of collapse loads has been made evident.e. Figure 8.23(c). the load above which convergence of equilibrium iterations cannot be attained for sufficiently small increments) is fe Slim ≈ 0. End-loaded tapered cantilever. the portion to the right of the slip-line field rotates by sliding over the circular arc BC.23(b) shows the incremental nodal displacements obtained in the last increment (increment 8). obtained in the finite element analysis is plotted in Figure 8.4% above Green’s upper bound. σ y = 0. In the . The increment of accumulated plastic strain. The associated collapse mechanism is of the plastic hinge type.

page 253). The resulting loadsettlement curve is plotted in Figure 8. only half of the problem is discretised.4 (plotted in Figure 7.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 347 0.5.24. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager material.03 0. The adopted common material parameters are Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Cohesion E = 107 kPa ν = 0.22. Thus. where the same material parameters have been used.24).02 0.775 0.002 is applied in 14 increments.2 0 0 0. The objective is to illustrate the performance of the algorithms described earlier in the present chapter for these models. of the nodes under the footing as shown in Figure 7.19. u.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.5. The corresponding uniaxial yield stress (required by the input data procedure for the Tresca material in HYPLAS) is σy = 2c = 980 kPa.146) are practically identical to those obtained with the von Mises model in Example 7.24. The soil is assumed to be weightless.4 (see Figure 7. the same strip-footing problem is analysed but the soil is now modelled as a Tresca. End-loaded tapered cantilever. The mesh contains 135 eightnoded quadrilaterals (four Gauss point quadrature) and a total of 446 nodes. S/c 0.26. This curve and the corresponding limit load fe Plim ≈ 5.01 0. c (8. the loading consists of the prescribed vertical displacement.6 0. Force-deflection diagram. The horizontal displacement of these nodes is unconstrained. A final settlement u/B = 0. u/h Figure 8. The footing is assumed to be rigid and perfectly smooth (no friction). Note that due to symmetry.8 normalised load. present example.48 c = 490 kPa The dimensions. boundary conditions and the finite element mesh adopted are identical to those of Example 7.04 normalised edge deflection. The . the analysis is carried out using the Tresca model. Tresca Firstly.

148) .14.28.004 0.120 0. End-loaded tapered cantilever.147) The failure mechanism captured in the finite element analysis with the Tresca model is in agreement with that proposed by Hill (1950) for perfectly smooth footings (unconstrained horizontal displacements under the footing). finite element results under collapse (increment 8): (b) incremental nodal displacements. 0.contour levels: Please Wait. c (8. (8..000 (b) (c) Figure 8. Analytical solution: (a) slip-line field proposed by Green (1954). is illustrated in Figure 7.. ∆¯p . ε numerically determined limit pressure is less than 1% above the slip-line theory solution Plim ≈ 5.23. as obtained in the simulation with the von Mises model carried out in the previous chapter. Please Wait.348 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Green’s slip-line field A B C D (a) p ∆ε . Mohr–Coulomb The analysis of the strip-footing problem with the Mohr–Coulomb material model is carried out assuming a frictional angle φ = 20o . This mechanism. (c) incremental accumulated plastic strain.167 0.040 0.

25.001 normalised settlement. c (8.4 (and implemented in program HYPLAS) are used here in the analysis of the footing: • the outer (or extension) cone. and . Strip footing with Tresca model.002 Figure 8. for the associative and non-associative laws.0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 349 6 5 normalised pressure. c (8.8.4% higher) with Prandtl’s solution Plim ≈ 14.4. The limit loads obtained with the associative and non-associative law are virtually identical fe Plim ≈ 15. • the inner (or compression) cone.149) This value is in excellent agreement (about 1. respectively. Load–displacement curve. The corresponding load–settlement curves obtained in the analyses are plotted in Figure 8. Two flow rules are considered: • associative (φ = ψ = 20o ). • non-associative with dilatancy angle ψ = 10o .0025 is applied in six and seven increments. P/c 4 3 TRESCA: 2 1 0 0 0. u/B finite element results slip-line theory limit load: 5.24.14 0.150) Drucker–Prager Three of the Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion discussed in Section 6. The prescribed final settlement u/B = 0.

the results are in excellent agreement with Prandtl’s solution. It consists of a circular footing of diameter B = 1 m (assumed rigid and smooth) lying on soil.4. The normalised limit pressure predicted by the inner cone is around 17.24. The load consists of the prescribed vertical displacements (settlement) of the nodes under the foot.151) which is practically identical to the limit loads obtained with the Mohr–Coulomb model.004 is imposed gradually in 10 increments. For the plane strain match on the other hand.8 4 0 0 0. A complete solution to the circular (rigid smooth) footing problem has been obtained by Cox et al.003 normalised settlement.001 0. • the plane strain match to the Mohr–Coulomb model. Load-displacement curves. (1961). The load-settlement diagrams obtained are shown in Figure 8. The mesh.26.3 (about 17% above Prandtl’s solution). The collapse load fe Plim /c ≈ 20. (8. loading and boundary conditions are the same as in the previous example (these are illustrated in Figure 7. Strip footing with Mohr–Coulomb model. Only the associative law (φ = ψ = 20o ) is considered. u/B Figure 8. The normalised limit pressure in this case is approximately 35.152) is effectively attained in seven increments.350 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16 normalised pressure. CIRCULAR-FOOTING COLLAPSE This section considers the axisymmetric analogue of the footing collapse problem described in the previous section. 8. In the present analysis. For all approximations.002 is reached in nine increments.5. The geometry is shown in Figure 8. The corresponding load-displacement diagram obtained is depicted in Figure 8. The corresponding limit loads are . a total settlement u/B = 0.28. the predicted limit pressure is fe Plim /c ≈ 15.4. The limit load predicted by the outer cone approximation is well above Prandtl’s solution. (8. a total settlement u/B = 0.25.7 (about 140% above Prandtl’s solution).0. page 252). In this case.002 0. P/c 12 MOHR–COULOMB: 8 associative non-associative Prandtl solution: 14.27.

8 20 10 0 0 0.4. The limit load obtained in the finite element analysis is in close agreement with (8.154) c . φ.153).003 0.002 0. Limit analysis solution The limit analysis of slopes under gravity load is described by Chen (1975).005 normalised settlement. u/B Figure 8. The incremental nodal displacement vectors near the footing obtained in increment 8 (where the collapse load has effectively been reached) are plotted in Figure 8.004 0.30. SLOPE STABILITY In this example. the plane strain analysis of an inclined earth embankment subjected to self-weight is carried out.001 0.30.153) The corresponding slip-line net is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.1. The failure mechanism captured in the finite element analysis is in agreement with the slip-line field of Cox et al. (8.26. is greater than the internal friction angle. The relative error is less than 2%. The objective is to assess the safety of the slope illustrated in Figure 8. For the present frictional angle (φ = 20o ) the limit average pressure on the footing is Plim /c ≈ 20. P/c 30 DRUCKER–PRAGER: outer cone inner cone plane strain match Prandtl solution: 14. the slope will collapse when the ratio γ N =h (8. The vector sizes have been amplified to ease visualisation. determined (to any desired accuracy) by the finite difference method (the limit loads for several frictional angles are tabulated in Chen. Load-displacement curves. (1961). The soil is modelled as a (perfectly plastic) Mohr–Coulomb material with the constants shown in Figure 8. β.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 40 351 normalised pressure. 8.5. Strip footing with Drucker–Prager model. as in the present problem.29. If the slope angle. 1975).27.

Figure 8.48 c = 490 kPa 7 φ soil = 20 o 20 o (associative flow) ψ= Figure 8. Circular footing.001 0. Geometry.352 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS B =1m Material properties P footing Soil: Mohr–Coulomb perfectly plastic slip-line field E = 10 kPa ν = 0.28. 1961: 20.27. 25 normalised pressure. .002 normalised settlement. P/c 20 15 10 CIRCULAR FOOTING: finite element results Cox et al. Circular footing.1 5 0 0 0.. Incremental nodal displacement vectors at increment 8. u/B Figure 8. Circular footing. Load-displacement curve.29.

Slope stability. reaches a critical limit. Mohr–Coulomb model h = 10 m Young’s modulus: C Poisson’s ratio: Cohesion: E = 20 000 kPa ν = 0. 75 m Figure 8. (8..31.49 c = 50 kPa discontinuity surface Internal friction angle: φ = 20o soil Dilatancy angle: Specific weight: ψ = 20o (associative flow) γ = 20 kN/m3 Figure 8. is called the stability factor.156) The critical value of N . (8. Here. The stability factor tabulated by Chen (1975) for the angles β = 45o and φ = 20o .30. h denotes the slope height. is Ns ≈ 16. Slope stability. 35 m 40 m Please Wait.155) with ρ being the mass density and g the gravitational acceleration. adopted in the present example. c is the cohesion and γ is the specific weight of the soil γ = ρ g.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS β = 45 o 353 B A Soil properties.18. denoted Ns . Geometry and material properties. Finite element mesh. 30 m . For the present geometry and material constants. the ratio N is N = 4.

..6525 0.32.33.9788 0.3263 0. incremental nodal displacements Please Wait. Please Wait.045 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 settlement at point A (m) Figure 8.contour levels: 1.0000 Figure 8.354 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5 4 gravity load factor. Increment of accumulated plastic strain and displacement at collapse (increment 6)..3050 0. Slope stability. Load-settlement diagram. α 3 2 finite element results limit analysis upper bound: 4. ∆ε p . Slope stability.

For the present dimensions and material properties it gives αlim ≈ 4.158) (8. With g=αg ¯ (8. The contour plot of incremental accumulated plastic strain. i.30) in which the portion ABC of the embankment slides along a logarithmic spiral discontinuity line (the dotted line) that passes through the toe (point C). as well as the incremental nodal displacements obtained at increment ε 6 are depicted in Figure 8.32 against the load factor α.045. the loading process starts from α = 0 (completely unloaded).30) is plotted in Figure 8. a total of seven load increments are applied. found in the incremental finite element analysis is αfe ≈ 4.31. In the finite element analysis. The limit value of α.159) lim It is about 3. A safety factor based on limit analysis can be defined as αlim = Ns /N . is then increased gradually until collapse occurs.e.2. The adopted mesh. the safety factor.33. The load factor. (8. The slope is effectively collapsing during this increment.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 355 This value corresponds to a collapse mechanism (Figure 8.8% above the limit analysis solution.157) denoting the applied gravity acceleration. consists of 221 eight-noded quadrilaterals (2 × 2 integration quadrature) with a total of 718 nodes. α. The value of α at collapse is the safety factor. The failure mechanism captured by the finite element simulation is in good agreement with the logarithmic spiral slide line referred to above. The settlement at the top corner of the slope (point A of Figure 8. Finite element analysis The determination of the safety factor by means of the Finite Element Method with program HYPLAS is carried out by using the gravity load option. ∆¯p . The discretised domain is made large enough to avoid interference of the collapse mechanism with the boundaries of the finite element mesh. shown in Figure 8. .

.

we are concerned with plane stress problems in which certain components of stress. The basic plane stress plasticity problem The plane stress assumption is typically introduced in the analysis of bodies in which one of the dimensions – the thickness – is much smaller than the others and is subjected to loads that generate dominant stresses perpendicular to the thickness direction (Figure 9. the three-dimensional numerical integration algorithms of Chapters 7 and 8. Clearly. then it will be determined naturally as an outcome of the numerical integration algorithm.1.1. With indices 1 and 2 associated with the in-plane directions and index 3 corresponding to the normal (transverse or thickness) direction. if the corresponding stress component is generally non-vanishing (such as the normal out-of-plane stress in plane strain problems).9 PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY I N the numerical solution of elastoplastic initial value problems addressed in the previous two chapters. The main difficulty lies in the fact that as some components of the stress tensor are now prescribed. the classes of problem with such constraints on the possible strains are those in which certain components of the strain tensor vanish during the given history of strains in the general elastoplastic initial value problem – stated in Problem 7. In spite of its triviality within the realm of linear elasticity. In spite of the generality of the algorithmic formulations presented in Chapters 7 and 8.1 (page 193). From the theoretical point of view. particularisation for states of constrained strain (used in the HYPLAS subroutines presented) is trivially obtained simply by eliminating the relevant strain components from the formulation. the treatment of the plane stress constraint in elastoplastic problems requires further consideration and justifies a chapter of its own. rather than strain.1). having formulated the generic three-dimensional integration algorithms (as we did in Chapters 7 and 8). As a result. are constrained to be zero. Note that. which have been developed specifically to solve Problem 7.1. The conditions addressed in the present chapter are quite different from those discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. where all stress components are unknown – no longer applies and needs to be reformulated. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. page 193. the original statement of the elastoplastic initial value problem – Problem 7. Here. attention has been focused on generic three-dimensional states of stress and strain – conditions under which the elastoplastic models were formulated in Chapter 6. Typical situations of engineering interest where the plane stress assumption is applicable are found in the analysis of plates subjected to in-plane loads and thin membranes with negligible stiffness in bending and transverse shear. a generic plane Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. the actual computational implementation of the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms shown in the corresponding subroutines of program HYPLAS has been restricted to states of plane strain and axisymmetric deformation. cannot be used in general without modifications. Ltd . 9.

0 (9. σ22 = 2G  α    1  0 0 σ12 2ε12 2 where α= 3K − 2G . (9. The relationship between the non-zero stress components and the in-plane strains is given by the well-known expression    1 σ11  E ν σ22 =    1 − ν2 σ12 0 ν 1 0   0  ε11  0  ε .5) .3) which.1. PLANE STRESS LINEAR ELASTICITY Before going further.1.4) (9. in terms of the shear and bulk moduli reads      1+α α 0  ε11  σ11  1 + α 0  ε22 . let us now review the simple case of linear isotropic plane stress elasticity.  1 − ν  22  2ε12 2 (9. 3K + 4G (9. equivalently.1.1) The corresponding subspace of plane stress states can be defined as Spl ≡ {σ | σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0}. The plane stress state.358 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ12 e3 σ22 σ12 σ11 e2 e1 t Figure 9.2) 9. stress state is defined by a stress tensor σ11 [σ] = σ12 0  σ12 σ22 0  0 0.

as a result. ε22 and ε12 together with the (zero) outof-plane stress components. (9. 0  2ε12          0  2ε23    2ε13 G 0  (9. THE CONSTRAINED ELASTOPLASTIC INITIAL VALUE PROBLEM The concept of constraining the original three-dimensional constitutive equation in order to obtain its plane stress counterpart can be extended to the elastoplastic case.7) ∗ σ12   0 0 0 G 0 0  2ε12      ∗            0    ∗    0 0 0 0 G 0  2ε23      0 2ε13 0 0 0 0 0 G where the star superscript has been used to point out the unknown quantities. σ33 . of the elastic strain tensor and internal variable set.6) we prescribe the in-plane strain components. T ].2. .1. This gives the system    ∗   K + 4G K − 2G K − 2G 0 0 0  3 3 3 σ11     ∗   2 4 2   ε11    K − 3 G K + 3 G K − 3 G 0 0 0     σ22       ∗      ε22    K − 2 G K − 2 G K + 4 G 0 0 0    0 ε33 3 3 3  = . The underlying idea is the same: we prescribe only the in-plane strains in the three-dimensional equation and use the plane stress constraint as an additional condition so as to determine the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. the constitutive equations of plane stress elasticity are obtained by prescribing the in-plane strains and enforcing the plane stress constraint on the three-dimensional law. ε23 = 0. t ∈ [t0 . ε11 .1 (The plane stress elastoplastic initial value problem). in the three-dimensional law    K + 4G K − 2G 3 3 σ11       K − 2 G K + 4 G σ22  3 3        K − 2 G K − 2 G σ33 3 3 = σ12   0 0      σ23        0 0   σ13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 G 0 0      ε11    0  ε       22   0  ε33   . Solution of the above system yields the plane stress elastic law together with the well-known expressions for the out-of-plane strains ε13 = 0. and given the history of the in-plane components of the strain tensor {ε11 (t). The original three-dimensional elastoplastic initial value problem (Problem 7. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 359 the three-dimensional elastic law as follows.1. K − 2G 3 K− K+ 0 0 0 2 3G 4 3G This relationship is derived directly from Firstly. σ23 and σ13 .8) 3K − 2G ν (ε11 + ε22 ) = − (ε11 + ε22 ). page 193) is accordingly redefined in constrained form as follows. ε33 = − 3K + 4G 1−ν In summary. (9. ε22 (t). the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. and then obtaining. 9. Problem 9. ε12 (t)}.

3. to which the present chapter is restricted. in addition. similarly to the procedure of item (a). Issues related to the explicit implementation of plane stress models are addressed by Marques (1984). PROCEDURES FOR PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY In order to find a numerical approximation to the solution of the above plane stress elastoplastic evolution problem. ˙ (9. 9.360 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS find the functions εe (t).21). A(t)) ˙ and γ(t) ≥ 0. A(t)) ≤ 0. the plane stress constraint is enforced at the Gauss point level. This strategy has been implemented in program HYPLAS for the von Mises isotropically hardening model.12) imposed upon the three-dimensional model is enforced.11) Φ(σ(t). (b) and (c) are equivalent in that. for the elastic strain. A(t)) ˙ (9. The essential difference between distinct approaches in this case lies in the way that the plane stress constraint (9. some modification is required in the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. three main general approaches may be adopted to deal with the problem (these have been reviewed and compared by Millard 1995): (a) direct inclusion of the plane stress constraint into the three-dimensional elastic predictor and plastic corrector algorithm equations (7.12) . internal variable set and ˙ plastic multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic three-dimensional constitutive equations ˙ ˙ ε(t) = εe (t) − γ(t) N(σ(t).22) and (7. For the implicit scheme.1.25) (refer to page 196) applied at the Gauss point level. This approach can also be implemented by means of a nested Newton return-mapping iteration for plane stress enforcement. The nested iteration procedure is implemented in program HYPLAS for the Drucker–Prager model. (b) use of the standard three-dimensional return mapping at the Gauss point level with the plane stress condition added as a structural constraint at the global structural level. Approaches (a).9) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). the three methodologies produce identical incremental plane stress constitutive equations. α(t) and γ(t). γ(t) Φ(σ(t). ˙ with ∂ψ ∂ψ . (9. A(t)) = 0. .10) (9. satisfy the plane stress constraint σ(t) = ρ ¯ σ(t) ∈ Spl for each instant t ∈ [t0 . (7. provided the same numerical scheme is used in the discretisation of the elastoplastic evolution equations.1. A(t) = ρ ¯ e ∂ε ∂α and. Remark 9. (c) use of plane stress-projected constitutive equations where. T ].

In Section 9.1.3.14) then the return-mapping procedure has to be applied. For the fully implicit algorithm. 9. the solution of the above system can be undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. it consists of simply adding the extra equations σ13 (εe . i.† plastic consistency is checked in the usual way. ∆γ and the elastic trial components n+1 εe trial . αn+1 . respectively. The third strategy is described in Section 9. 23 εe trial .4. An ) > 0. and 9. . If plastic admissibility is violated. n+1 αn+1 ) = 0 (9.2. The complete description of the computational implementation. Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level Approach (a) is a direct extension of the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms discussed in Chapter 7 in order to solve the plane stress elastoplastic evolution problem stated in Problem 9. 33 (9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe .13) to the general system of return-mapping equations (7.2. approaches (a) and (b) are discussed below in Sections 9.e. This procedure appears to have been suggested firstly by Aravas (1987) in the context of pressure-dependent plasticity.3 as the underlying model/algorithm. if Φ(σtrial . αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . is also given in Section 9. including the FORTRAN code.2.1 above. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 for the variables εe . αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe . The return mapping now requires the solution of the augmented algebraic system εe = εe trial − ∆γ Nn+1 n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αn + ∆γ Hn+1 Φ(σn+1 .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 361 Having the general three-dimensional plasticity model of Chapter 6 and the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme of Section 7. An+1 ) = 0 σ13 (εe . 13 εe trial . n+1 (9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe .2. the plane stress-constrained elastic equations may not be obtained as trivially as in the linear case reviewed in Section 9. After performing a plane stress-constrained elastic trial state evaluation. † Note that if the elastic behaviour is nonlinear.4 where the von Mises model is used as an example for completeness.25) (page 196) and letting the out-ofplane components of the elastic trial strain tensor become unknowns of the new system.15) As in the standard non-constrained case. an outline of the FORTRAN code of the von Mises model implementation with nested iterations is shown.

we define some initial guess for the unknown (εe )trial . We note that such simplifications have reduced the return mapping for the von Mises model to a single nonlinear equation (Section 7. In order to describe the procedure. let us consider the isotropic case where stress and strain transverse shear components vanish identically as discussed above. is described in the following. One possible guess can be the previously 33 n+1 (equilibrium) converged out-of-plane elastic strain. Next. § Axisymmetric implementations of the general integration algorithm have been included in the corresponding routines for all material models discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. 23 23 (9. In this case the only extra equation to be added to the general three-dimensional return mapping is‡ σ33 (εe . we can set εe trial := (εe )n .16) which ensures that σ13 and σ23 vanish. IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS The above procedure can be implemented even for very complex plasticity models.2. (9. as for the three-dimensional case.19) Here the subscript n + 1 has been dropped for notational convenience.§ Note that an out-of-plane strain component must be prescribed for the axisymmetric algorithm. i. 13 13 ε23 = εe = εp = 0.362 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9. that.5. it is convenient to employ the matrix notation σ = [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . It should be emphasised. considerable simplification of the return-mapping algebraic system may be achieved by exploiting particular properties of the material model in question. For simplicity. Firstly.2. ‡ The original algorithm proposed by Aravas (1987) was derived under such isotropy conditions. αn+1 ) = 0. n+1 with the associated extra unknown εe trial . ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . however. the in-plane displacements are prescribed and so is the in-plane strain array εn+1 . Instead of giving εn+1 (or εe trial ) as the input of an augmented n+1 algebraic system (as described in the above).1. Under elastoplastic isotropy. the plane stress condition implies that ε13 = εe = εp = 0. from page 496) as the underlying material.17) During a typical equilibrium iteration. It should be noted that the number of unknowns of the system is increased (as compared to the standard three-dimensional algorithm) which makes this approach computationally more expensive. we proceed as follows.e.3.18) (9. having Gurson’s void growth model (described in Section 12. 33 9. . page 215). introduced by Dodds (1987) within the implicit implementation of the von Mises model. This approach.2. 33 33 (9. PLANE STRESS ENFORCEMENT WITH NESTED ITERATIONS It is also possible to deal with the plane stress problem by using the original three-dimensional algorithm (without modification) within a Newton–Raphson loop for the enforcement of the plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level. for instance. we use the augmented strain array T [εe trial εe trial ]T 33 as the input of the integration algorithm for the axisymmetric case.

|σ33 | ≤ tol ) then the guess εe trial indeed solves the 33 plane stress problem. Its main advantage over the augmented system procedure lies in its simplicity.¶ We repeat this process until we find the elastic trial thickness strain εe trial that. the relative cost of the Gauss point computations decreases considerably as the problem size increases and the present procedure can be used efficiently in large problems. Essentially. The resulting overall algorithm is shown in Box 9. for each global equilibrium loop. in computational terms. The solution obtained by the nested iteration is identical to that obtained by the previously discussed strategy based on the augmented return-mapping system. An outline of its specialisation to the von Mises model is presented in the next section. together with the in-plane strain kinematically 33 prescribed by the global equilibrium iteration. The associated subroutine (not listed in this text) is named SUDPPN (State Update procedure for the Drucker–Prager model in Plane stress with Nested iterations).3. Remark 9. results in zero (or sufficiently small) transverse stress upon application of the axisymmetric algorithm. that the cost of the calculations carried out at the Gauss point level increases approximately linearly with the problem size. It is important to remember. .1 in pseudo-code format. however. In other words.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 363 After application of the axisymmetric elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure. n+1 If σ33 = 0 (or. Its complete computational implementation for the Drucker–Prager model is included in program HYPLAS.2. the present procedure is computationally expensive. for any ¶ The implementation of the axisymmetric consistent tangent for the material models of Chapters 7 and 8 is also included in the corresponding routines of HYPLAS. Since the axisymmetric integration algorithm is applied in each iteration of the inner loop. D22 (9. we apply a Newton–Raphson correction to obtain another guess εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 σ33 .20) where D22 is the component of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix      e trial  dε11 dσ11      e trial  dσ22    D11 D12   dε22       =   dσ12    2dεe trial . Thus.21) that relates the transverse stress and strain components.      12       dσ33 D21 D22 dεe trial 33 (9. The above methodology involves two nested Newton–Raphson iteration loops: one (outer) global equilibrium loop having a nested (inner) iteration loop to enforce the plane stress constraint with εe trial as the unknown. Remark 9. whereas the cost of the solution of the global linearised problem increases at a much higher nonlinear rate. and the solution obtained by the axisymmetric algorithm is the one we are looking for. a 33 number of iterations will be required in each Gauss point to ensure that the final stress is plane (to within a prescribed numerical tolerance). Otherwise. the corresponding routine will return the augmented stress array [σT σ33 ]T .

3. Remark 9. 9. This is what happens before plastic yielding in analyses involving linear elasticplastic materials such as the von Mises model.3. for instance. Basically the implementation of the von Mises model within the present methodology requires the use of the generic elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm together with the corresponding consistent tangent calculation procedure. 9. the von Mises model is used as an example and a possible FORTRAN implementation is outlined in this section. the nested iteration loop produces the solution that satisfies the standard plane equilibrium together with the trivial plane stress linear elastic law (9. SUVM.364 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. (i) Set initial guess for the elastic trial thickness strain εe trial := (εe )n 33 33 The in-plane elastic trial strain εe trial is prescribed n+1 (ii) Apply the axisymmetric integration algorithm and obtain the augmented stress array [σT σ33 ]T (iii) Check plane stress convergence IF |σ33 | < tol THEN EXIT (iv) Compute component D22 of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix (see expression (9. an outline of the FORTRAN implementation of the von Mises model in plane stress is given by . whose complete description is given in Section 7. described in Section 7.3 (page 235).1.4.5 (page 224). The present strategy is compatible with material models other than elastoplastic. Note that for a linear elastic model. and CTVM. such as generic nonlinear elastic materials.4).4. the nested iteration approach allows a straightforward adaptation of existing general procedures (which include the three-dimensional or axisymmetric implementations) to cope with the plane stress problem.2. PLANE STRESS VON MISES WITH NESTED ITERATIONS To illustrate the above concepts. The generic (plane strain/axisymmetric) procedures are included in program HYPLAS. The corresponding subroutines are.1.21)) (v) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to the thickness trial strain εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 (vi) GOTO (ii) σ33 D22 material model. without the need for modification of the original integration algorithms.3. Following the steps of Box 9. respectively. Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level with nested iterations.

Note that when CTVM is called.MSTRE+1 RSTAVA(I)=RSTAUX(I) 40 CONTINUE 999 CONTINUE RETURN The incorporation of the procedure into HYPLAS is a straightforward programming exercise.3 .DMATX . all components of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix are computed.RSTAUX .RPROPS .MSTRE+1 RSTAUX(I)=RSTAVA(I) 10 CONTINUE C Use axisymmetric integration algorithm to compute stresses STRAT(4)=E33TRL CALL SUVM 1( DGAMA .TRUE. .LALGVA . This is the only component of the consistent tangent required in the plane stress enforcement loop.IPROPS .EPFLAG . is updated only if the plane stress enforcement loop converges.STRAT .MXITER C Set state variables to values at beginning of increment DO 10 I=1.TOL)THEN C.1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Set initial guess for elastic trial thickness strain. The purpose of the above code is solely to illustrate the simplicity of the nested iteration approach in the plane stress implementation of models whose generic implementation already exists. we have created the local array RSTAUX to store the state variables temporarily. In the above. 2 RPROPS . The actual array of state variables. LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE C Set state variables to current updated values DO 40 I=1.4) E33TRL=E33TRL-STRES(4)/D22 20 CONTINUE WRITE(*.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 365 C C C C Newton-Raphson iteration loop for plane stress enforcement (Box 9.IPROPS ..and break N-R loop in case of convergence GOTO 30 ENDIF C Compute axisymmetric consistent tangent components EPFLAG=IFPLAS CALL CTVM 1( DGAMA .STRES ) C Apply Newton-Raphson correction to normal elastic trial strain D22=DMATX(4. It should be emphasised that no effort has been made to optimise the FORTRAN code suggested above. E33TRL=RSTAVA(4) C Start N-R loop DO 20 ITER=1. 2 RSTAUX . Use previously converged elastic thickness strain.*)’Plane stress enforcement loop failed to converge’ SUFAIL=.. RSTAVA.3 .STRES ) IFPLAS=LALGVA(1) SUFAIL=LALGVA(2) IF(SUFAIL)GOTO 999 C Check plane stress convergence IF(ABS(STRES(4)). The procedure can be made more efficient if a new subroutine that computes only the scalar D22 is used instead.LE.

page 235).DMATX . we first differentiate the residual equation σ33 = 0 of the plane stress enforcement loop.4) 9 D21(1)=DMATX(4.EPFLAG .3) 12 D22=DMATX(4.5. D22 dεe trial n+1 (9.3. .3 16 DMATX(I. together with (9. Using the (existing) generic consistent tangent calculation routine for the von Mises model.4) 8 D12(3)=DMATX(3.2.J)-D12(I)*D21(J)/D22 17 10 CONTINUE 18 20 CONTINUE .2) 11 D21(3)=DMATX(4.21) results in the following consistent tangent relation between the in-plane stress and strain components 1 dσn+1 = D11 − D12 D21 .1) 10 D21(2)=DMATX(4.STRES ) 5 C Decompose into submatrices 6 D12(1)=DMATX(1. This. the corresponding plane stress consistent tangent matrix can be computed by the following FORTRAN code: 1 C Compute the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix 2 CALL CTVM 3 1( DGAMA .22) (9.4) 13 C Assemble plane stress consistent tangent matrix 14 DO 20 I=1.24) 9. CTVM (Section 7. n+1 33 which renders dεe trial = 33 −1 D21 dεe trial . we outline below the implementation of the above expressions for the von Mises model. THE CONSISTENT TANGENT FOR THE NESTED ITERATION PROCEDURE To obtain the tangent operator consistent with the above nested iteration algorithm.3 15 DO 10 J=1. D22 (9.21) gives dσ33 = D21 dεe trial + D22 dεe trial = 0.J)=DMATX(I.23) Substitution of the above expression into (9.3 . Its incorporation into HYPLAS can be left as an exercise.4) 7 D12(2)=DMATX(2.4.2.4. We remark that the full implementation of a tangent matrix consistent with the nested iteration approach is already available in HYPLAS for the Drucker–Prager model. CONSISTENT TANGENT COMPUTATION FOR THE VON MISES MODEL For completeness.366 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9.IPROPS 4 2 RPROPS . The associated FORTRAN subroutine (not listed here) is named CTDPPN (Consistent Tangent for the Drucker–Prager model in Plane stress with Nested iterations).RSTAVA .

26). elastic. (9. it does not require the modification of the three-dimensional elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm. and plastic) strain vanish identically ε13 = ε23 = 0. rather than in the constitutive integration algorithm applied at the Gauss point level. εe trial .3.28) (9. we have r≡ Ω ext BT σn+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0. tn+1 . THE METHOD Again. εe trial .3. (9.25) where B is the in-plane symmetric gradient operator (with only the three rows associated with ext the in-plane strain components ε11 . σij (with the superimposed hat) denote the algorithmic constitutive ˆ functionals for the stress components defined by the three-dimensional elastoplastic integration algorithm. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 where εe trial ≡ εe + B ∆u = [ εe trial εe trial εe trial ]T . σ13 = σ23 = 0. εe trial . elastic trial. the plane stress constraint is satisfied only at converged (equilibrium) configurations. ∆u = un+1 − un . n+1 n 11 22 12 with ∆u denoting the array of incremental nodal displacements. the three-dimensional algorithm is used with zero prescribed out-of-plane strains. εe trial . which contains only in-plane forces. let us write the general finite element equilibrium residual equation for plane problems (plane stress/strain). for simplicity. the dependence of the in-plane stress components on the transverse shear strain components is removed from (9. At the Gauss point level.26) n+1 13 23 33 σ22 (εe trial . (9. and σ is the array of in-plane stress components   σ11 (εe trial .27) Here and in what follows. we shall restrict ourselves in what follows to the more usual situation of elastoplastic isotropy where the transverse shear components of stress and (total. This approach has been proposed by de Borst (1991). Its main advantage is the fact that. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33   ˆ σn+1 ≡ σ12 (εe trial . 9. The method is described in the following. The basic idea of the method is to use the standard three-dimensional algorithm (without modification) at the Gauss points and to introduce the plane stress constraint in the global finite element equations. Firstly. as the above described nested iteration approach. the present strategy consists For notational convenience. Note that in the plane strain case. εe trial ). ε22 and ε12 ). εe trial . εe trial . fn+1 is the applied external force vector at tn+1 . Under such a condition.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 367 9.1. Plane stress constraint at the structural level One interesting alternative to the above procedure consists in enforcing the plane stress constraint at the structural level. In this case. At the generic (pseudo-) time station. the functional dependence of the stress components on the state variables at tn is not explicitly indicated. .

where the unknowns are the iterative changes of nodal displacement and thickness strain (or elastic trial strain) at Gauss points. n+1 33 In the above.32) BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ. THE IMPLEMENTATION In the finite element procedure. The resulting residual equations are accordingly redefined as   BT σ ext  n+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0 Ω (9.30)2 can be solved explicitly for δε33 . where the modified tangent stiffness matrix. i of each elem. D22 (9.34) . D22 (9. εe trial ) = 0 ˆ n+1 33 where the unknowns are the nodal incremental displacements ∆u (which enter the equations through the dependence of εe trial upon it) and the thickness strain εe trial in each Gauss point.21)). The linearised version of (9. σ33 (εe trial .p. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the new residual equation is obtained by linearising (9. With the substitution of this result into (9. e A where D11 . 9. Firstly.2.25). reads  ngausp  nelem T (i) (i) (i)   w(i) B(i) {D11 B(i) δu(e) + D12 δε33 } = −r   e=1 i=1 (9.31) where the superscript i has been omitted. This gives δε33 = − 1 1 [D21 B δu(e) + σ33 ] = − [D21 δε + σ33 ]. both the equilibrium and plane stress conditions are solved simultaneously.30)     (i)  (i) (i) (i) D21 B(i) δu(e) + D22 δε33 = −σ33 for each g. σ33 is the algorithmic constitutive function for the transverse stress component ˆ resulting from the three-dimensional integration algorithm. The linearised residual equation can be simplified as follows. D12 .3.368 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS simply in adding the zero transverse stress constraint to the finite element equilibrium equation (9.29).29). D21 and D22 are submatrices of the matrix form of the consistent tangent operator associated with the axisymmetric integration algorithm (see expression (9. D22 D22 (9.30)1 we obtain the linearised equation for the iterative nodal displacement array K∗ δu = −r∗ .33) and the modified residual vector is defined by r∗ ≡ r − Ω BT T = Ω B σ33 D12 dΩ D22 σ33 σ− D12 dΩ − f ext . K∗ . equation (9. is defined as K∗ ≡ Ω (9.29)   in each Gauss point.

εe trial := εe trial + δε n+1 n+1 u := u + δu (iv) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to thickness elastic trial strain δε33 := − 1 [D21 δε + σ33 ] D22 εe trial := εe trial + δε33 33 33 (v) Update stresses ˆ n+1 σn+1 := σ(εe trial . the plane stress . (iii) Update in-plane elastic trial strain δε := B δu(e) .5. after computation of the iterative displacement δu. The modified global equilibrium iteration loop.2. Thus. Remark 9. It is clear from the above that the global Newton–Raphson procedure now searches for both nodal displacements and Gauss point transverse strains that satisfy equilibrium and the plane stress constraint simultaneously.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 369 Box 9. (i) Compute modified tangent stiffness K∗ := Ω BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ D22 (ii) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to nodal displacements δu := −[K∗ ]−1 r∗ . The main modification consists in replacing the standard linearised equilibrium equation with (9. the present procedure requires only a relatively simple modification of the global equilibrium Newton–Raphson iteration loop. εe trial ) n+1 33 using the three-dimensional elastoplastic algorithm (vi) Compute modified residual vector r∗ := Ω BT σn+1 − σ33 D12 dΩ D22 (vii) Modified convergence check IF ||r∗ || < tol AND |σ33 | < the structure. THEN EXIT ELSE GOTO (i) tol for all Gauss points of In summary. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 9. δε33 . where the modified Newton–Raphson global equilibrium iteration loop is shown in standard pseudo-code format. εe trial ) 33 ˆ σ33 := σ33 (εe trial .31) to determine the corresponding iterative change of thickness strain (or thickness elastic trial strain). in general. the explicit expression (9. Plane stress constraint at the structural level.32) and using.2.

at the same time.4) define the plane stress-projected elastic constitutive equation and the out-of-plane strains are given in closed form by (9. The use of plane-stress projected equations leads in general to more efficient computational procedures. it is convenient to define precisely the meaning of plane stress-projected model. The model adopted by Simo and Taylor . Remark 9.3) or (9. For complex models. we recommend the use of the methods discussed in Sections 9.2. The out-of-plane strains are dependent variables which can be calculated ‘a posteriori’ as functions of the in-plane variables that solve the equations of the plane stress-projected model.2 and the use of plane stressprojected evolution equations (addressed in Section 9. 9. σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0.1. Remark 9. However. The enforcement of the plane stress constraint at the structural level is compatible only with the implicit finite element scheme – the only scheme discussed in this book. in Section 9. incorporating general nonlinear isotropic hardening. A plane stress-projected plasticity model is defined by a set of evolution equations that (a) involve only in-plane stress and strain components and. plane stress-projected equations can only be formulated if the underlying three-dimensional model is sufficiently simple to allow closedform relationships between in-plane and out-of-plane variables to be derived from the plane stress constraint. where the plane stress constraint is always enforced at each Gauss point. (b) are equivalent to the three-dimensional model with the added plane stress constraint defined in Problem 9.8).4).370 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS condition will be attained only at (converged) equilibrium configurations.6. In such cases. Plane stress-projected equations for the von Mises model have been originally derived and used in a computational context by Simo and Taylor (1986) and Jetteur (1986). Unlike the procedures discussed in Section 9. the present strategy cannot be used in conjunction with explicit transient dynamic finite element schemes. we address the methodology of item (c) on page 360: the use of plane stress-projected plasticity models.4. The methodology for derivation and implementation of plane stress-projected elastoplastic models is made clear in the next section where the plane stress-projected von Mises model. Explicit schemes do not incorporate equilibrium iterations.3. Plane stress-projected plasticity models Finally. it may not be easy or feasible to derive such relations. This is at variance with the procedures presented previously. Before proceeding. the in-plane stress/strain components are the primary variables which have to be determined directly by solving the rate evolution equations. is derived in detail together with the corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator.7. In this case. This is due to the use of a reduced set of equations involving only the relevant in-plane components. whether or not the global equilibrium convergence criterion is satisfied.2 and 9. The situation here is completely analogous to plane stress linear elasticity where expressions (9.

it also follows from (9.36) In addition. which become important in the analysis of thick shells.37) σ23 (εe ) = 0. 22 1 − ν 11 (9. The equations and algorithms derived by these authors are analogous to those presented here but account for transverse shear stresses and strains.39) (9.35) Under plane stress. ˙ 3J2 (s) − σy (¯p ) ε ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 s 2 s (9.3 (page 374) where the corresponding final equations are summarised. the above equations are complemented with the constraints σ13 (εe ) = 0. 13 εe = 0.35)4 that εp = εp = 0. 23 εe = − 33 ν (εe + εe ). Another application of the projected equations concept is reported by Ramm and Matzenmiller (1987) in the context of large deformation shell analysis. γ Φ = 0. the plastic incompressibility that follows from (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 371 includes combined isotropic and Prager’s linear kinematic hardening whereas the derivation presented by Jetteur is restricted to purely isotropic hardening. The plane stress-projected equations To obtain the plane stress-projected von Mises equations. The (three-dimensional) von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening is defined by the following set of equations ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp σ = De : εe Φ= ˙ εp = γ ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ ¯ γ ≥ 0. Thus. We start by observing that. the history of the out-of-plane strain components is . we firstly need to derive explicit expressions relating the elastic and plastic out-of-plane strain components to the in-plane components.36) is equivalent to the well-known relations εe = 0.35)4 gives εp = −(εp + εp ). σ33 (εe ) = 0.4. as the elastic behaviour is linear and isotropic.38) The above relations completely define the out-of-plane strain components as functions of the in-plane values.1. THE PLANE STRESS-PROJECTED VON MISES MODEL The reader who wishes to skip the details of the derivation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model is referred directly to Box 9. under plane stress. ˙ Φ ≤ 0. 9. 33 11 22 As s13 = s23 = 0 under a plane stress state. 13 23 (9. (9. (9.

41)2. εp = [εp εp 2εp ]T . we can now eliminate them from the original set of equations (9.44) .42) (9. with the history of the out-of-plane (elastic and plastic) strain components completely prescribed. the array s of plane deviator components can be s = [s11 s22 s12 ]T εe = [εe εe 2εe ]T 11 22 12 (9. in component form. is given by  ˙e ˙p εαβ = εαβ + εαβ ˙     ¯e  σαβ = Dαβγδ εe γδ       Φ = 3 [σαβ σαβ − 1 (σαα )2 ] − σy (¯p )  ε  2 3 (9. Dαβγδ denote the components of the plane stress elasticity tensor – the fourth-order counterpart of the matrix taking part in expressions (9. γ Φ = 0.43) 3 Matrix notation A conveniently compact representation of the plane stress-projected von Mises equations can be obtained by making use of the matrix notation σ = [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T .41)  p sαβ ε = γ 3  ˙αβ ˙   2 σ σ − 1 (σ )2   γδ γδ γγ  3   ˙p ε = γ ¯ ˙      γ ≥ 0.4).3. 3 (9. In equation (9. Φ ≤ 0. This results in the plane stress-projected set of equations which. From the definition of the deviatoric stress tensor. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . ˙ ˙ where summation on repeated indices is implied with Greek subscripts ranging between 1 ¯e and 2.41)3. s ≡ σ − 1 tr[σ] I. In deriving (9. (9. ε33 (t) = − 22 11 22 1 − ν 11 Finally.372 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS automatically prescribed as ε13 (t) = εe (t) + εp (t) ≡ 0 13 13 ε23 (t) = εe (t) + εp (t) ≡ 0 23 23 ν (εe (t) + εe (t)) + εp (t) + εp (t) .35). 11 22 12 Note that upright bold-face characters are used to denote the matrix representation.40) which holds under plane stress condition. 9.4 we have made use of the identity s = σαβ σαβ − 1 (σαα )2 . This identity is obtained by introducing the plane stress constraint into the definition √ s ≡ s : s.

in the set (9. For the derivation of the integration algorithm to be described in the next section.3.3. Then.47)5. THE PLANE STRESS-PROJECTED INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The implicit integration algorithm for the plane stress-projected von Mises model is completely analogous to that derived in Section 7. can be handled more easily. tn+1 ] as the underlying (pseudo-)time interval. The corresponding implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is derived subsequently. and having [tn .47)3.47) of the evolution equations.2.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 373 expressed as s = Pσ. we replace (9. 9.41) can be equivalently written in compact form as  ˙ ˙e ˙p ε = ε + ε     σ = De εe         Φ = 3 σT Pσ − σy (¯p ) ε  2  p  ε = γ ∂Φ = γ 3 √ Pσ ˙ ˙ ˙   ∂σ 2 σT Pσ    p ε = γ ˙  ˙ ¯     γ ≥ 0. (9. Within the framework of general elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes discussed in Chapter 7. the plane stress-projected von Mises equations (9. Φ ≤ 0. in the present case.46)  0. (9. ˙ ˙ (9.  6 (9. respectively.45) With the above matrix/vector notation at hand. γ Φ = 0. it is more convenient to use the squared form of the yield function which.48) The complete set of equations of the plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening is conveniently grouped in Box 9. with 2 ε Φ = 1 σT Pσ − 1 σy (¯p ) 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp = γ ˙ ˙ εp = γ ¯ ∂Φ = γ Pσ ˙ ∂σ 2 T 3 σ Pσ. we start by computing the elastic . where P is the matrix defined by  P≡ 1 −1 3 0 2 −1 0 2 0  (9.47) where De is the plane stress elasticity matrix.4.2 (from page 217).47)4 and (9.

374 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. γΦ=0 ˙ predictor state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n σtrial = De εe trial n+1 n+1 εp trial ¯n+1 = εp .49) where ∆ε is the given (in-plane) strain increment associated with the interval [tn .50) The next step is to check for plastic admissibility of the elastic trial state. ε 2 3 2 −1 0 −1 2 0 4. ˙ 2 T σ Pσ 3 Φ ≤ 0. tn+1 ] ∆ε = εe − εe . i. Plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening. 2. (9.   0 0  1−ν 2  0 0 6 εe ≡ [εe εe 2εe ]T . Elastic law σ = De εe σ ≡ [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T .52) . Hardening variable evolution ∂Φ = γ Pσ ˙ ∂σ ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. Plastic flow rule ˙ ˙ εp = γ 5. 11 22 12 εp ≡ [εp εp 2εp ]T 11 22 12 1 E ν De ≡  1 − ν2 0  P≡ 1 3 ν 1 0 3.e.51) If the elastic trial state is admissible. We then compute (9. Elastoplastic strain split ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp ε ≡ [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . if Φtrial ≤ 0. 1.3. n+1 n 2 εn+1 Φtrial = 1 (σtrial )T Pσtrial − 1 σy (¯p trial ). n+1 n+1 2 3 (9. ¯n (9. Loading/unloading criterion γ ≥ 0. Yield function definition 2 Φ = 1 σT Pσ − 1 σy (¯p ).

54) can be reduced to a single scalar nonlinear equation having the incremental plastic multiplier as the unknown. (9.55) 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 − 1 2 3 σy εp ¯n + ∆γ 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 = 0.55)1 into the consistency condition (9. and C is the inverse of the elastic matrix C ≡ (De )−1 .58) (9. The plane stress-projected return mapping The implicit return mapping in the present case consists in solving the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe trial − ∆γ Pσn+1 n+1 n+1 εp = εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 (9.54)3 and rearrange (9. n+1 ¯n+1 n+1 As in the three-dimensional case discussed in Section 7. (9. we solve the consistency equation (9. where the unknowns now are the stress array. by substituting (9.53) Otherwise.3. ∆γ. The five-variable return-mapping system (9.54)1 using the inverse elastic law. tn+1 ] and we update (·)n+1 = (·)trial . With .54)2 into (9. σn+1 . and the plastic multiplier. n+1 n+1 with A(∆γ) ≡ [C + ∆γ P]−1 C.56) Finally.55)2. To this end.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 375 then the process is elastic within [tn . εn+1 3 for εe . we substitute (9.54) 2 − 1 σy (¯p ) = 0. the return mapping for the plane stress von Mises model is carried out as follows. the return mapping for the plane stress von Mises model is reduced to the following scalar nonlinear equation having ∆γ as the only unknown 2 ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ 1 ξ(∆γ) − 1 σy εp + ∆γ ¯n 2 3 2 3 ξ(∆γ) = 0.57) using the Newton–Raphson algorithm. the return-mapping algorithm needs to be applied as described in the following. (9.59) Thus. Firstly. εp and ∆γ where σn+1 is a function of εe defined by the elastic law. it is also possible to reduce the number of unknowns of the plane stress-projected return-mapping equations for the von Mises model.57) Here we have conveniently defined ξ(∆γ) ≡ (σtrial )T AT (∆γ) P A(∆γ)σtrial . n+1 (9.2 (page 217). The original return-mapping system reduces to σn+1 = [C + ∆γ P]−1 C σtrial n+1 (9.

8.57) can be significantly simplified.3.3. in turn. regardless of the prescribed hardening function σy .91). This is because the scalar function ξ defined in (9.5 in pseudo-code format. In program HYPLAS. the in-plane plastic strains are updated by εp = εp + ∆γ Pσn+1 . By applying the orthogonal transformation  1 √  2  1 Q = − √   2 0 1 √ 2 1 √ 2 0  0    0  1 (9. Newton–Raphson return-mapping solution The reader might have realised already that the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the consistency equation (9. This is in contrast with its threedimensional counterpart (see equation (7. the explicit expression for (9.59) involves the sum. is a function whose definition (9. The Newton–Raphson procedure is shown in Box 9.57) is potentially cumbersome.62) . Its implementation follows the simplification obtained below by exploiting the properties of matrices P and De . we update the other variables σn+1 = A(∆γ) σtrial n+1 εe = C σn+1 n+1 εp = εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n 2 3 ξ(∆γ). The key point to be observed is the fact that matrices P and De share the same eigenvectors so that they both have diagonal representation on the same basis (as do C and A).5.4 and 9. (9. The plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with isotropic hardening is summarised in Boxes 9.4. whose FORTRAN code is shown in Section 9. page 223) whose only source of nonlinearity is the hardening curve and which becomes linear for perfectly plastic and linearly hardening models. and the comments made at the beginning of Section 7. in the present case where the elastic behaviour is isotropic.4.57) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. inversion and multiplication of other matrices.58) depends on a matrix A(∆γ) which. the procedure is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). page 219. Fortunately.60) If required.57) is always nonlinear in ∆γ.61) Remark 9. The plane stress-projected return-mapping equation (9. The solution of the plane stress-projected consistency equation (9. n n+1 (9.376 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the solution ∆γ at hand.

evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n ¯n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 σtrial := De εe trial n+1 n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility trial trial trial trial trial a1 := (σ11 + σ22 )2 .4. HYPLAS procedure: SUVMPS (i) Elastic predictor.5 – and update the state variables σn+1 := A(∆γ) σtrial n+1 εe := C σn+1 n+1 εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n (iv) EXIT 2 ξ(∆γ) 3 where C ≡ [De ]−1 and matrix A(∆γ) is given in (9. Plane stressprojected von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening.64) . Given the in-plane incremental strains. we obtain the diagonal representations 1  P∗ ≡ QPQT =  0 0 and  3  0 0  1 0 0 2  0  2G 0 . a3 := (σ12 )2 ξ trial := 1 a1 + 1 a2 + 2a3 6 2 2 IF Φtrial := 1 ξ trial − 1 σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 εn+1 2 3 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping. ∆ε.63) E 1 − ν  De∗ ≡ QDe QT =  0  0 (9. Solve the nonlinear equation ˜ Φ(∆γ) = 0 for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson method – GOTO Box 9. a2 := (σ22 − σ11 )2 .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 377 Box 9. and the state variables at tn .  0 G 0 (9. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm.69) to P and De .

57). n+1 n+1   trial σ12 With the above transformed variables. in view of (9. SUBROUTINE SUVMPS The above plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS of HYPLAS.69) (9. (9.3.5.62) and (9.4.70) 9.5 (page 224).60)1. We refer to that section for the description of the arguments. using the above expression for ξ.   (9. is shown in Box 9.68) Thus. 1 + 2G ∆γ A∗ = A∗ . 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ A∗ = 22 1 .67) The pseudo-code of the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation (9. Note that matrix A(∆γ). the matrix A(∆γ) has the diagonal representation A∗ (∆γ) ≡ [C∗ + ∆γP∗ ]−1 C∗  3(1 − ν) 0  3(1 − ν) + E∆γ  1  = 0  1 + 2G ∆γ  0 0  0 0 1 1 + 2G ∆γ    . which takes part in the stress update formula (9.65).378 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS On the same basis.66) σtrial ≡ Q σtrial =  √2 (σ22 − σ11 ). Note that the same approach to . (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 6 1+ E ∆γ 2 3(1−ν) + (9. expression (9. can be written as A(∆γ) = QT A∗ (∆γ) Q.58) can be written in the simpler form ξ(∆γ) ≡ (σtrial )T AT (∆γ) P A(∆γ)σtrial n+1 n+1 = (σtrial )T [A∗ (∆γ)]2 P∗ σtrial n+1 n+1 = trial trial (σ11 + σ22 )2 ∗ ∗ 1 trial 2 (σ22 trial trial − σ11 )2 + 2(σ12 )2 . 33 22 (9. The corresponding representation of the elastic trial stress array reads  1 trial trial  √ (σ 11 + σ22 ) 2  1 trial  ∗ trial (9. it can be expressed in the simple explicit form 1 ∗  1 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 2 (A11 + A22 ) 2 (A11 − A22 )   0  A(∆γ) =  1 (A∗ − A∗ ) 1 (A∗ + A∗ ) 22 11 22 2  2 11  0 0 A∗ 33 with A∗ = 11 3(1 − ν) .65) where C∗ = [De ∗ ]−1 .3. The list of arguments of SUVMPS is identical to that of its general (plane strain/axisymmetric) counterpart described in Section 7.

This should allow readers easily to correlate the FORTRAN instructions with the corresponding expressions of Boxes 9. Again. The complete list of the FORTRAN source code of SUVMPS is given below. Φ trial trial trial trial trial ξ := 1 (σ11 + σ22 )2 + 1 (σ22 − σ11 )2 + 2(σ12 )2 6 2 1 1 2 p ˜ Φ := ξ − σy (¯n ) ε 2 3 SUVMPS (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := dσy d¯p ε √ (hardening slope) 2ξ/3 εn +∆γ ¯ p ξ := − trial trial (σ11 + σ22 )2 9 1+ E E ∆γ 3 (1−ν) 3(1−ν) − 2G trial trial trial (σ22 − σ11 )2 + 4(σ12 )2 3 (1 + 2G ∆γ) ¯ H := 2 σy εp + ∆γ ¯n ¯ ˜ Φ := 1 ξ − 1 H 2 3 ∆γ := ∆γ − ˜ Φ ˜ Φ 2 ξ 3 H 2 √ ∆γ ξ ξ+ √ 3 2 ξ (residual derivative) (new guess for ∆γ) (iii) Check for convergence ξ := trial trial (σ11 + σ22 )2 6 1+ E ∆γ 2 3(1−ν) + trial 1 (σ22 2 trial trial − σ11 )2 + 2(σ12 )2 (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 2 ˜ ¯n Φ := 1 ξ − 1 σy εp + ∆γ 2 3 2 ξ 3 ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ (iv) GOTO (ii) tol THEN RETURN to Box 9. which uses a piecewise linear hardening curve. . is adopted here.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 379 Box 9. the symbolic names of most variables resemble those of the corresponding name given in the text.5.4 the description of nonlinear isotropic hardening. where the plane stress integration algorithm is summarised. Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 ˜ and corresponding residual.4 and 9.5.

FALSE.4.0.RPROPS .1.R1 .380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS SUBROUTINE SUVMPS 1( DGAMA .TOL / 2 0.R2 .1.2.LALGVA . 2 RSTAVA .IPROPS .set previously (equilibrium) converged accumulated plastic strain EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli and other necessary constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 R1D6=R1/R6 R2D3=R2*R1D3 SQR2D3=SQRT(R2D3) R4GD3=R4G*R1D3 C Elastic predictor: Compute elastic trial state C ---------------------------------------------C Volumetric strain FACTOR=R2G/(BULK+R4GD3) EEV=(STRAT(1)+STRAT(2))*FACTOR C Elastic trial deviatoric strain EEVD3=EEV/R3 EET(1)=STRAT(1)-EEVD3 EET(2)=STRAT(2)-EEVD3 C Convert engineering shear component into physical component EET(3)=STRAT(3)*RP5 C Elastic trial stress components PT=BULK*EEV STREST(1)=R2G*EET(1)+PT STREST(2)=R2G*EET(2)+PT STREST(3)=R2G*EET(3) C Compute yield function value at trial state A1=(STREST(1)+STREST(2))*(STREST(1)+STREST(2)) .. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .R3 .R4 .0D0.6.NE..RP5 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .0D0.0D0.FALSE.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) .O-Z) PARAMETER( IPHARD=4 .3.5D0.NTYPE .R6 .0D0.1)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0031’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.4-5). C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE. LALGVA(2).STREST(NSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .MSTRE=4 .0D0.D-08/ DATA MXITER / 50 / C*********************************************************************** C STATE UPDATE PROCEDURE FOR THE VON MISES ELASTO-PLASTIC MODEL WITH C NON-LINEAR (PIECEWISE LINEAR) ISOTROPIC HARDENING IN PLANE STRESS: C IMPLICIT PLANE STRESS-PROJECTED ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN MAPPING C ALGORITHM (BOXES 9. SUFAIL=.RPROPS(*) .0D0.STRAT . C.NSTRE=3 ) LOGICAL IFPLAS.

RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.TOL)THEN C update accumulated plastic strain RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR C update stress components: sigma := A sigma^trial ASTAR1=R3*(R1-POISS)/(R3*(R1-POISS)+YOUNG*DGAMA) ASTAR2=R1/(R1+R2G*DGAMA) A11=RP5*(ASTAR1+ASTAR2) A22=A11 A12=RP5*(ASTAR1-ASTAR2) A21=A12 A33=ASTAR2 STRES(1)=A11*STREST(1)+A12*STREST(2) STRES(2)=A21*STREST(1)+A22*STREST(2) STRES(3)=A33*STREST(3) C compute corresponding elastic (engineering) strain components FACTG=R1/R2G P=R1D3*(STRES(1)+STRES(2)) EEV=P/BULK EEVD3=R1D3*EEV RSTAVA(1)=FACTG*(R2D3*STRES(1)-R1D3*STRES(2))+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTG*(R2D3*STRES(2)-R1D3*STRES(1))+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTG*STRES(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=-POISS/(R1-POISS)*(RSTAVA(1)+RSTAVA(2)) GOTO 999 .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 381 A2=(STREST(2)-STREST(1))*(STREST(2)-STREST(1)) A3=STREST(3)*STREST(3) XI=R1D6*A1+RP5*A2+R2*A3 SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.LE.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the plane stress-projected return mapping C equation for the plastic multiplier (Box 9..GT.5) C ----------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .RPROPS(IPHARD)) C. EPBAR=EPBARN SQRTXI=SQRT(XI) B1=R1 B2=R1 FMODU=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-POISS)) DO 10 NRITER=1..NHARD.yield function PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------IF(PHI/SIGMAY.NHARD.NHARD.TRUE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DXI=-A1*FMODU/(R3*B1*B1*B1)-R2G*(A2+R4*A3)/(B2*B2*B2) HBAR=R2*SIGMAY*HSLOPE*SQR2D3*(SQRTXI+DGAMA*DXI/(R2*SQRTXI)) DPHI=RP5*DXI-R1D3*HBAR C Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update equation variable DGAMA DGAMA=DGAMA-PHI/DPHI C Compute new residual (yield function value) B1=R1+FMODU*DGAMA B2=R1+R2G*DGAMA XI=R1D6*A1/(B1*B1)+(RP5*A2+R2*A3)/(B2*B2) SQRTXI=SQRT(XI) EPBAR=EPBARN+DGAMA*SQR2D3*SQRTXI SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBAR.MXITER C Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.

it immediately follows that d∆γ = which holds under plastic flow.71) where σn+1 is the outcome of the plane stress-projected return-mapping algorithm. together with the elastic law. (9.4. (9.72) (9.54)1 which. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0013’) ELSE C Elastic step: Update stress using linear elastic law C ---------------------------------------------------STRES(1)=STREST(1) STRES(2)=STREST(2) STRES(3)=STREST(3) C elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) RSTAVA(4)=-POISS/(R1-POISS)*(STRAT(1)+STRAT(2)) ENDIF 999 CONTINUE C Update some algorithmic variables before exit LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL RETURN END 9. the elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix is defined as Dep ≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 = trial .75) .TRUE. we have used the identity σy = above equation. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR With the matrix notation adopted throughout the preceding sections.382 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ENDIF 10 CONTINUE C reset failure flag and print warning message if N-R algorithm fails SUFAIL=.74) In the above. 2 σy H 3 2 ξ.73) Differentiation of the plastic consistency (9. From the 3 (1 − 4Hξ 2 3 H ∆γ) dξ.2 (page 232).4. 2 d∆γ 3 (9. n+1 where we have defined E ≡ [C + ∆γP]−1 .57) yields the equation ˜ dΦ = = 1 2 1 2 dξ − dξ − 2 3 2 3 ∆γ ξ + √ dξ 2 ξ H (ξ d∆γ + 1 ∆γ dξ) = 0. The explicit expression for Dep is derived analogously to its three-dimensional counterpart discussed in Section 7.4. gives dσn+1 = E[dεtrial − d∆γ Pσn+1 ]. dεn+1 dεn+1 (9. We start by differentiating (9.

4. together with the use of the chain rule in (9.80) The step-by-step procedure for evaluation of the above elastoplastic tangent is summarised in Box 9.3. Its computation in program HYPLAS is carried out in subroutine CTVMPS (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). the present routine returns either the elastic or the elastoplastic tangent operator.5.80) and its evaluation follows the flow of Box 9. ∗∗ In deriving (9.72) and straightforward algebraic manipulations gives dσn+1 = [E − α (EPσn+1 ) ⊗ (EPσn+1 )] dεtrial . the scalar ξ defined by (9. n+1 where the scalar α is defined as α= 1 σT PEPσn+1 + n+1 2ξH 3−2H ∆γ (9.58) can be equivalently written as ξ = (εtrial )T E P E εtrial . n+1 n+1 n+1 (9. The reader is therefore referred to Section 7. yields the identity dE = −E P E d∆γ.77) we have made use of the standard relation for the differential of the inverse of a matrix d(M−1 ) = −M−1 dM M−1 .76) Substitution of the above formula into (9.3 for a complete description of the arguments of CTVMPS. .4. n+1 n+1 Straightforward differentiation of the above expression gives:∗∗ dξ = 2(εtrial )T E P E dεtrial + 2(εtrial )T dE P E εtrial n+1 n+1 n+1 n+1 = 2(σT P E dεtrial − σT P E P σn+1 d∆γ).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 383 By using the elastic law and the above definition of matrix E.78) .6. 9. page 235). The argument list of CTVMPS is identical to that of its general counterpart CTVM. valid for any invertible M. (9. As in the standard implementation (plane strain/axisymmetric) of routine CTVM (see Section 7. (9. The elastic tangent is the standard plane stress linear elasticity matrix. This subroutine is described in the next section.75) followed by the substitution of the resulting expression into (9. The elastoplastic tangent is that given by expression (9.77) (9. SUBROUTINE CTVMPS The FORTRAN implementation of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit plane stress-projected integration algorithm for the von Mises model is described in this section.79) The explicit expression for the matrix form of the elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the von Mises plane stress-projected return mapping is then given by Dep = E − α (EPσn+1 ) ⊗ (EPσn+1 ).73).4. This relation.6 in pseudo-code format.

MSTRE). .IPROPS(*) 10 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .6. 1 + 2G ∆γ ∗ E33 = ∗ E22 . . HYPLAS procedure: CTVMPS (i) Given σn+1 .6 can be represented as 1 ∗  1 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 2 (E11 + E22 ) 2 (E11 − E22 )   ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (9. Computation of the elastoplastic tangent operator for the plane stressprojected von Mises model.DMATX .82) A similar expression is obtained for the product EP. This representation is exploited in subroutine CTVMPS.IPROPS ) .SOID(MSTRE) . whose FORTRAN source code is listed below.MSTRE) . matrix E appearing in the procedure of Box 9. 2 (9.VECN(3) . εp and ∆γ (outcome of the return mapping of Box 9.384 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9.O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .STRES(MSTRE) 11 C Local arrays 12 DIMENSION 13 1 FOID(MSTRE.RPROPS(*) . compute ¯n+1 ξ := σT Pσn+1 n+1 H := dσy d¯p ε p (hardening slope) εn+1 ¯ E := [C + ∆γ P]−1 n := EPσn+1 α := 1 σT Pn + n+1 2ξH 3−2H ∆γ (ii) Assemble the elastoplastic tangent Dep := E − α n ⊗ n Note that analogously to matrix A expressed in (9.EPFLAG 3 2 RPROPS .4).81) E(∆γ) =  1 (E11 − E22 ) 1 (E11 + E22 ) 0  2 2  ∗ 0 0 E33 with ∗ E11 = 3E .RSTAVA .STRES 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.MSTRE=4) 6 LOGICAL EPFLAG 7 C Array arguments 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE.69). 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ ∗ E22 = 2G .NTYPE . 1 SUBROUTINE CTVMPS 2 1( DGAMA .

1.0.R2 .FOID(2.R4 / 2 0.0D0.SOID(2) .0.4)/ 1. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.5D0 .1).4.FOID(4.FOID(3.6) C ================================================== C Item (i): C --------C Compute XI XI=R2D3*(STRES(1)*STRES(1)+STRES(2)*STRES(2)-STRES(1)*STRES(2))+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*STRES(3) C Hardening slope HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.SOID(3) .4)/ 0.0.0D0 / / FOID(1.3).0.3).0D0 .0D0 .FOID(2.0.FOID(3.0D0.0D0 .FOID(2.FOID(1.3).0.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.2).3).R3 .FOID(4.4)/ 0.2.1).0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .0D0 .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 385 DATA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATA 1 2 SOID(1) 1.0D0 .1.0D0 .0D0 / FOID(4.0.0.0D0 .RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Matrix E components ESTAR1=R3*YOUNG/(R3*(R1-POISS)+YOUNG*DGAMA) ESTAR2=R2G/(R1+R2G*DGAMA) ESTAR3=GMODU/(R1+R2G*DGAMA) E11=RP5*(ESTAR1+ESTAR2) E22=E11 E12=RP5*(ESTAR1-ESTAR2) E33=ESTAR3 C Components of the matrix product EP EPSTA1=R1D3*ESTAR1 EPSTA2=ESTAR2 EPSTA3=EPSTA2 EP11=RP5*(EPSTA1+EPSTA2) EP22=EP11 EP12=RP5*(EPSTA1-EPSTA2) EP21=EP12 EP33=EPSTA3 .0D0 .R1 .FOID(4.5D0.1)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0032’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 R2D3=R2*R1D3 IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent (Box 9.0D0.1).1.0D0 / FOID(3.0.NHARD.0D0 .0.1.0.FOID(1.SOID(4) . C PLANE STRESS IMPLEMENTATION ONLY.0D0 .0D0 .2).0D0 .4)/ 0.FOID(1.0D0 / FOID(2.0D0 .2).2).1.0D0 .FOID(3.1).NE.3.

3) 95 DMATX(3.3) 94 DMATX(3. The results have been obtained with program HYPLAS with the full Newton– Raphson scheme selected for the equilibrium iterations. .3)=-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(3) 90 DMATX(2.3)=E33-ALPHA*VECN(3)*VECN(3) 96 ELSE 97 C Compute plane stress elasticity matrix 98 C ====================================== 99 NSTRE=3 100 R4GD3=R4*GMODU/R3 101 FACTOR=(BULK-R2G/R3)*(R2G/(BULK+R4GD3)) 102 DO 20 I=1.1)=E11-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(1) DMATX(1.NSTRE 103 DO 10 J=I.1)=DMATX(1.5.NSTRE 110 DMATX(I. In all examples.1)=DMATX(1.NSTRE 104 DMATX(I. It is important to remark that such a small convergence tolerance is used essentially to emphasise the quadratic rates of convergence obtained by adopting the tangent modulus consistent with the relevant integration algorithm.I) 111 30 CONTINUE 112 40 CONTINUE 113 ENDIF 114 RETURN 115 END 89 88 9.2) 91 DMATX(2. we present a selected set of benchmarking numerical examples involving plane stress plasticity.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 105 10 CONTINUE 106 20 CONTINUE 107 C lower triangle 108 DO 40 J=1. Numerical examples In this section.2)=E22-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(2) 92 DMATX(2.NSTRE-1 109 DO 30 I=J+1.J)=DMATX(J.2)=DMATX(2. The numerical results obtained in the first two examples is compared with existing analytical solutions.J)=R2G*FOID(I.2)=E12-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(2) DMATX(1.386 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 75 C Vector n 76 VECN(1)=EP11*STRES(1)+EP12*STRES(2) 77 VECN(2)=EP21*STRES(1)+EP22*STRES(2) 78 VECN(3)=EP33*STRES(3) 79 C Scalar alpha 80 DENOM1=STRES(1)*(R2D3*VECN(1)-R1D3*VECN(2))+ 81 1 STRES(2)*(R2D3*VECN(2)-R1D3*VECN(1))+ 82 2 STRES(3)*R2*VECN(3) 83 DENOM2=R2*XI*HSLOPE/(R3-R2*HSLOPE*DGAMA) 84 ALPHA=R1/(DENOM1+DENOM2) 85 C Item (ii): Assemble elasto-plastic tangent 86 C -----------------------------------------87 DMATX(1. the equilibrium convergence tolerance for the relative residual norm was set to 10−7 %.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(3) 93 DMATX(3.

Finally. h are.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 387 9. The above solution is derived in detail in section 4.5. boundary conditions. Note that for increment 6 (the last load increment) the cantilever is effectively collapsing (see the load-deflection diagram of Figure 9. COLLAPSE OF AN END-LOADED CANTILEVER In this example. which follows the plane-stress projected approach.3.1 for increments 2.2 of Lubliner (1990).5. 4 and 6. The load level at the end of the last increment is F = 30. has been fully described in Sections 9. The relative error is approximately 1. eight-noded quadrilaterals are usually employed in conjunction with the nine-point Gaussian quadrature. A total number of 11 eight-noded quadrilaterals (element type QUAD 8 of HYPLAS) with five-point quadrature are used (the quadrature points are indicated by crosses within a typical element in Figure 9. 9. The analytical solution to this problem. to emphasise the quadratic rates of equilibrium convergence attained as a result of the consistent linearisation of the algorithmic constitutive rule. The cantilever is modelled with 2 × 50 eight-noded quadrilaterals (element type QUAD 8 of HYPLAS) with 2×2-point (reduced) Gauss quadrature.3594 KN. A perfectly plastic von Mises material model in plane stress is assumed. At that stage. . The resulting vertical deflection of the loaded node is plotted against the applied force for each increment in Figure 9. The geometry.2%.3). For the present geometry and material properties.2 and 9.2.2. INFINITE PLATE WITH A CIRCULAR HOLE The problem considered in this numerical example consists of a large flat plate containing a circular hole which is expanded by the action of a gradually increasing uniform radial pressure applied on its edge. The numerical solution is obtained here by applying six load increments to the loaded node shown in Figure 9. At this point. Here.1. Under plane stress conditions. the problem is solved by using the mesh shown in Figure 9. the plate has a large radius (as compared to the radius of the hole) in order to emulate the infinite planar medium.4.4. the analytical limit load is Flim = 30 KN.4. The plate is made from a von Mises perfectly plastic material. The analytical limit load for this problem is given by σy bh2 . the cantilever is effectively collapsing and equilibrium can no longer be found for reasonably sized load increments. Flim = 4L where b.4. the evolution of the residuals (out-of-balance forces) during the global Newton–Raphson iterations is shown in Table 9. Due to the symmetry of the problem around the centre of the hole only a 10o slice of the geometry is discretised. The plane stress implementation of the von Mises model. where the plate is considered to be an infinite medium in plane stress state.7 of Chakrabarty (1987).4). we study the problem of the plastic collapse of an end-loaded cantilever beam with a rectangular cross-section. In the finite element model. is found in Section 5. the breadth and width of the cross-section and L is the length of the cantilever.2. It should be noted that the numerically obtained collapse load is in excellent agreement with the theoretical limit.2. substantial diagonal decay (with consequent round-off errors) is found in the linearised finite element system of equations requiring a larger number of iterations for convergence. respectively. finite element model and material properties are illustrated in Figure 9.

p/σy .2853 – the numerical pressure limit at which global convergence cannot be obtained for any significant load increment. 30 applied load.2. End-loaded cantilever.5 against the normalised applied pressure.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) F b = 50 mm h = 100 mm L = 1000 mm Figure 9. Load-deflection diagram. In the finite element simulation.388 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties: E = 210 GPa ν = 0.3 σy = 0. F (KN) 20 present results analytical limit load (30 KN) 10 0 0 40 80 120 160 vertical deflection at loaded node (mm) Figure 9. Problem definition and finite element model. the pressure p is increased gradually until a limit load is attained. The analytical . underintegration is not required here.3. The resulting normalised radial expansion – u/a. The choice of the five-point integration rule in the present example. as locking is not an issue in plane stress problems. where u is the radial displacement of the mid-side node of the loaded edge – is plotted in Figure 9. Seven load increments are used to reach p = 0. with less computational effort. is informed by the fact that it produces. results virtually identical to those obtained by the nine-point Gauss quadrature. As opposed to plane strain applications. End-loaded cantilever.

3 r2 Within the plastic region of the plate – where a ≥ r ≥ c – the analytical stress distributions are given by π 2σy σr = − √ sin +φ 6 3 π 2σy and σθ = √ sin −φ .162250 E − 06 0.751. The numerical results shown on the graph are those obtained at the central integration point of each of the first five elements on the left side of the mesh. by σy c2 σr = − √ 3 r2 σy c2 and σθ = √ .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 389 Table 9.015625 KN 0. 2 r . The hoop and radial stress distribution along the radial direction obtained at different stages of loading is shown in Figure 9. the radius of the plastic zone has the limit value √ clim π = eπ/ 3 cos ≈ 1. In the present problem. when the above limit pressure is reached.139026 E − 03 0.6.533184 E + 00 0. a 3 In the elastic region – where the radial coordinate r satisfies r ≥ c – the radial and hoop stresses are given.634491 E + 00 0. plastification here starts at the edge of the hole and progresses as a cylindrical plastic front whose radius c increases as the load is increased. 6 3 where.128691 E + 01 0.248066 E + 01 0.629249 E − 01 0.205624 E + 01 0.1.414654 E − 08 0.5.295108 E − 01 0. The corresponding analytical solution is also plotted for comparison. Convergence table. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Increment 2 ∆F = 10 KN Increment 4 ∆F = 0.526293 E − 10 0.0625 KN Increment 6 ∆F = 0.549382 E − 09 normalised limit pressure is plim 2 = √ ≈ 1. Similarly to the problem studied in Section 7.380886 E + 01 0. for a given c ≤ clim . σy 3 The limit pressure obtained in the simulation is about 3% higher than the analytical value.717926 E − 01 0.895831 E + 01 0. respectively.486441 E − 04 0.464825 E + 00 0.155.1 (page 244). φ is the implicit function of r defined by √ c2 = e 3φ cos φ. End-loaded cantilever.104585 E − 02 0.

Problem definition and finite element model.390 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties (von Mises model): E = 210 GPa ν = 0.7.5. 9. The geometry. A linearly hardening von Mises law is adopted.5. 1992..8 numerical result analytical limit (1. p/σy 0. The finite element mesh used contains 576 three-noded constant strain triangles (element type TRI 3 of HYPLAS) with a total number of 325 nodes.02 radial expansion at edge.3 σ y = 0.155) 0. Pressure-expansion diagram. u/a Figure 9. This classical example is frequently used as a benchmark for the plane stress implementation of plasticity models (Fuschi et al. 1986). For symmetry reasons.4 0 0 0. Infinite plate with a hole. Infinite plate with a hole. STRETCHING OF A PERFORATED RECTANGULAR PLATE This example presents the numerical simulation of a thin perforated plate under plane stress subjected to stretching along its longitudinal axis. only one quarter of the complete domain is discretised with the appropriate kinematic constraints being imposed along the symmetry edges. Simo and Taylor.3. boundary conditions and material properties are shown in Figure 9.14 mm is imposed on the constrained edge in seven .4. 1.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) p 10 o a =10 mm 100 mm Figure 9.01 0. A total vertical displacement u = 0.2 normalised pressure.

9. We remark that.25 -0. Analytical and finite element results for different applied pressures (indicated pressures levels in GPa).8 2 analytical (hoop) analytical (radial) FE results radial position.10) are its uniaxial compression and tensile strengths. The evolution of the plastic front is depicted in Figure 9.02 mm.2. boundary conditions and the finite element mesh adopted are shown in Figure 9.1 stresses.6. r/a Figure 9.15 -0.8 versus the prescribed displacement. plastic yielding starts at the intersection between the bottom symmetry line and the edge of the hole and spreads in an oblique front until the entire cross-section becomes plastic. increments ∆u = 0.3 1 1. The given material properties for the concrete (also shown in Figure 9.20 p=0. The reaction force obtained over the complete edge is plotted in Figure 9. respectively. Two different sets of material parameters are adopted with the plane stress section of the Drucker–Prager surface matching: .15 0.2 p=0.4 1. 9. Infinite plate with a hole. Here.2 1.10. The top edge nodes (except that on the symmetry line) are free to move horizontally.4.5. The mesh used to discretise the symmetric half of the problem contains 12 × 24 equally sized eight-noded quadrilaterals with four-point Gauss quadrature.25 0 p=0. in contrast to the plane stress-projected approach of the von Mises implementation used in the previous examples.2. UNIFORM LOADING OF A CONCRETE SHEAR WALL A plain concrete shear wall subjected to uniformly distributed load on its upper edge is analysed in this example. The geometry. the concrete is modelled as an associative perfectly plastic Drucker–Prager material in plane stress.20 -0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 391 0. Stress distribution in the radial direction (r denotes the radial coordinate). denoted fc and ft . σr and σθ (GPa) p=0.2 p=0.6 1.1 p=0. In this problem. the HYPLAS implementation of the plane stress Drucker–Prager model follows the nested iteration methodology described in Section 9. which shows contour plots of accumulated plastic strain at different stages of the loading process.

12 0.0 1.08 0.0 edge reaction (KN) 2.392 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS prescribed displacement u Geometry: l = 36 mm w = 20 mm d = 10 mm thickness = 1 mm Please Wait. Geometry. u (mm) Figure 9. boundary conditions and finite element mesh. sym l /2 Material properties (von Mises) : E = 70 GPa ν = 0.7. .16 edge displacement.2 linear hardening: _ _ σy ( ε p ) = 0.243 + 0.8.0 0 0 0.04 0. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.. 3. Reaction–deflection diagram.2 ε p [GPa] d/ 2 sym w/2 Figure 9. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.

The frictional angle..07 0.02 mm 0.06 0...57o.08 0. and the cohesion. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate. for the above are given by (refer to expressions (6.9.02 0.01 0. (b) the biaxial tension and compression limits of the Mohr–Coulomb surface that matches the given uniaxial data. εp .06 mm Please Wait.125–6.16 (page 169). ¯ (a) the given uniaxial data.05 0. c. φ. Please Wait.. c = 4.10 mm u = 0.11 0. Contour plots of accumulated plastic strain.04 0. u = 0.127)) φ = 56. Please Wait.14 mm Figure 9.10 0. u = 0. .58 MPa.09 0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 393 Please Wait.03 0.00 u = 0. A schematic representation of the corresponding yield surfaces is given in Figure 6.

Thus. respectively. Within the finite element environment of HYPLAS. This is particularly true in the present case where the ratio fc /ft is high.653716 E − 04 0.102911 E + 02 0.495802 E + 00 0. 2539 KN/m and 276 KN/m. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 Increment 2 0.541467 E − 10 Increment 9 0.2 shows the evolution of the normalised residuals (out-of-balance forces) during typical global Newton iterations at sample load increments.557241 E + 01 0. effects of reinforcement could be accounted for by adding steel elements (the reinforcement) on top of an appropriately designed background plain concrete mesh. shear walls are made from reinforced rather than plain concrete.132435 E − 10 The Drucker–Prager parameters η and ξ for cases (a) and (b) are automatically set to the correct values by selecting the flag for the appropriate Drucker–Prager match of the Mohr– Coulomb surface in the input data file for HYPLAS. until collapse occurs. Shear wall.394 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Table 9. It should be emphasised that. becoming worse towards the biaxial compression state. the present example is not meant to be a practical engineering application. A total of 16 and 10 increments are used. Other predictions can be obtained by using the outer or inner edge Drucker– Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb surface (refer to Section 6. The failure mechanism is illustrated in Figure 9. in cases (a) and (b) to reach a numerical limit load. The limit load obtained with the uniaxial match is about nine times that obtained with the biaxial match. respectively. in practice. the load is applied incrementally. The biaxial match on the other hand produces a conservative prediction.12 where the direction of the incremental nodal displacements at failure are plotted for the biaxial match case.447672 E − 08 Increment 6 0.4. In the present example.822378 E − 03 0.198868 E − 00 0. failure occurs by crushing of the material near the support under a combination of shear and compressive stresses.101283 E + 02 0. As pointed out in Section 6. . from page 166) corresponding to the given uniaxial data.904595 E − 02 0. Table 9. with arc-length control. Instead. In the numerical simulation. Convergence table.2.4.4. limit loads can be significantly overestimated when the uniaxial match is used under such conditions.5 KN/m.11. To emphasise the quadratic (equilibrium) convergence rates resulting from the consistent linearisation of the nested iteration-based integration algorithm.134854 E + 01 0. In these cases (not shown on the load-deflection graphs) the predicted limit loads are. it serves to illustrate the performance of the (nested iteration) plane stress Drucker–Prager model.4. The applied load versus vertical deflection of the midpoint of the lower edge (point A of Figure 9. The most conservative one is that produced by the inner match approximation.282426 E − 05 0. This example illustrates the huge discrepancy that may exist between results obtained with different types of Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The numerical limit load in the uniaxial match case is 3045 KN/m whereas with the biaxial match the limit load is 335.10) is shown in Figure 9.567046 E + 01 0.

75 MPa h A l/8 l Figure 9.2 1.2 fc’ = 30.75 x 104 MPa ν = 0.8 1.10. t = 0. (b) biaxial match. P (KN/m) 0 1.0 applied load.4 0.0 3. Shear wall.11.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 395 Uniformly distributed load.1 m Material properties: E = 2.5 MPa ft ’ = 2.0 2. P (KN/m) 3000 300 2000 200 1000 100 0 vertical deflection at node A (mm) 0 0 0. Geometry and finite element model. P Geometry: l = 1.20 m thickness. . Shear wall.18 m h = 1. Load versus vertical deflection at point A: (a) uniaxial match. 400 applied load.6 vertical deflection at node A (mm) (a) (b) Figure 9.

plates and shells can. Following the standard kinematic hypotheses that characterise two-dimensional Timoshenko beams. the classical Bernoulli and Timoshenko beam theories as well as plates and shells theories such as the Mindlin– Reissner and Kirchhoff–Love models are clear examples where certain components of the stress tensor are assumed to vanish. To illustrate further applications of those concepts. Shear wall. η2 .12. Other stress-constrained states Plane stress is certainly not the only stress-constrained state of practical interest in engineering analysis and design.83) .6. 9. ζ) ε13 = 1 [γ1 (ζ) − η2 κ3 (ζ) − ω2 (ζ)] 2 ε23 = 1 [γ2 (ζ) + η1 κ3 (ζ) + ω1 (ζ)] 2 ε33 = γ3 (ζ) + η2 κ1 (ζ) − η1 κ2 (ζ) (9. which have the same format as those of the plane stress-projected model. we derive in the following a set of stress-constrained elastoplastic constitutive equations suitable for implementation with threedimensional Timoshenko beam finite elements. Within the context of linear elasticity. States of stress arising typically in structures such as beams. In the present case we will end up with a beam state-projected set of evolution equations for von Mises plasticity. The extension of such theories to the elastoplastic range can be derived by means of the concepts reviewed in the previous sections of this chapter.396 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS failure region Figure 9. A THREE-DIMENSIONAL VON MISES TIMOSHENKO BEAM Let us consider here a three-dimensional beam with plane cross-sections C orthogonal to the centroidal axis (Figure 9. be approximated by constraining appropriate components of the stress tensor. The corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. ε23 and ε33 at any point with local coordinates (η1 . 9. under many practical conditions. are also derived.6. This assumption results in the following representation for the strain components ε13 . it is assumed that upon a generic three-dimensional deformation the cross-sections remain plane. Incremental displacements at failure. The equations derived here are completely analogous to the plane-stress projected equations discussed earlier.13).1.

The constraint on the stress tensor In addition.84) ¯ with u(ζ) and ω(ζ) denoting. the resultant force. Components κ1 and κ2 correspond to the beam curvature deformation whereas κ3 is the torsional strain. These are obtained by . denoted m.85) 0 σ= 0 σ13 0 0 σ23 (9. Three-dimensional Timoshenko beam state. where γi and κi are the components of the generalised strain arrays γ≡ ¯ ∂u . respectively. respectively. ∂ζ κ≡ ∂ω ∂ζ (9. and the resultant moment. Resultant forces The generalised forces associated with the generalised strain vectors γ and κ are.86) with σ13 . the displacement of the centroidal axis and the three-dimensional rotation of the cross-section. denoted n. σ23 and σ33 being the only possible non-vanishing components. a three-dimensional Timoshenko beam stress state is characterised by the following constraints on the stress tensor components σ11 = σ22 = σ12 = 0 so that a generic stress state is given by   σ13 σ23  σ33 (9. The components γ1 and γ2 are associated with transverse shear and γ3 is the longitudinal strain at the centroidal axis.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 397 σ13 σ13 σ33 σ23 σ23 η1 e1 e2 η2 e3 ζ m n Figure 9.13.

the constitutive relationship between the history of the generalised strains and the resultant forces is obtained as follows. The beam state-projected von Mises model Analogously to what has been done in the derivation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model.87) C m2 = − m3 = C C (η1 σ23 − η2 σ13 ) dA. Having done so. a Gauss quadrature. At the element level.   2    σ33 s33 σ33 3 where sij denote components of the deviatoric stress tensor. With the prescribed strain components. the only step that depends on the material model is the integration of the elastoplastic evolution problem. Note that the generally nonvanishing components s11 and s22 . Resultant forces/generalised strains constitutive relation In the present context. are dependent on s33 1 1 s11 = s22 = − 2 s33 = − 3 σ33 . s ≡ 2s23 = 2σ23 . ε23 and ε33 is automatically prescribed by (9. it is convenient here to introduce the matrix notation       2s13   2σ13  σ13  (9. missing in the above representation of the stress deviator.88) C C C σ13 dA σ23 dA σ33 dA (9. we need to integrate the elastoplastic evolution equations so as to produce the corresponding stress σ. Given the history of γ and κ (directly ¯ obtained from the history of generalised displacements. ε22 and ε12 which can be calculated a posteriori. Clearly. The dependent variables are the strain components ε11 . we concentrate on the definition of the von Mises elastoplastic evolution problem subjected to the present stress constraint. u and ω) the history of the strain components ε13 .89) σ ≡ σ23 . (9.90) .85) has to be satisfied. The resultant force has the local components n1 = n2 = n3 = whereas the resultant moment is defined by m1 = η2 σ33 dA η1 σ33 dA (9. ε23 and ε33 is prescribed and the constraint (9. the cross-section integration can be performed numerically by means of. the resultant forces n and m are then obtained by integration of the stresses over the cross-section according to their definition.398 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS integration of the non-vanishing stress components over the beam cross-section. In what follows. In the present case only the history of strain components ε13 . say.83).

De . σ(t) and εp (t) such that the following constrained plasticity equations are ¯ satisfied ˙ ˙ ˙ εe = ε − εp σ = De εe ˙ εp = γ ˙ ˙ ε =γ ¯ where Φ(σ. where the projection matrix P is here given by  2 0 P ≡ 0 2 0 0  0 0 .91) (9. ¯ γ ≥ 0. εp ) ≥ 0. εp ) > 0. the beam state-projected von Mises evolution equations are defined as follows. ¯ ε (9. ε23 (t). it is also convenient to define the following notation for the independent (engineering) strain components  e   p    2ε13  2ε13  2ε13  . and ε33 (t) – the history of the strain arrays ε – the basic initial value problem now consists of finding the functions εp (t). εe ≡ 2εe  e23   p23    ε33 ε33 ε33 The yield function. the projected version of the von Mises yield function can be defined as Φ(σ.94) 2 The projected yield function has values identical to those of the three-dimensional von Mises function for stress states satisfying the three-dimensional Timoshenko beam constraint (9. ˙ ¯ (9. εe (t). for the three-dimensional Timoshenko beam is given simply by   G 0 0 (9. (9. The beam state-projected von Mises equations. 2 3 (9. Finally.86) and has only the relevant non-vanishing stress components as arguments. 0 0 E ˙p ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 2 √ Pσ σT Pσ (9. ε13 (t).93) ε ≡ 2ε23 . εp ) ≡ 3 σT P σ − σy (¯p ). ˙ γ Φ(σ. With the above notation. εp ≡ 2εp . Given the history of the total independent strain components.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 399 The stress and stress deviator arrays are related by s = P σ.97) De =  0 G 0 .96) The elastic matrix.95) .92) In order to formulate the constrained evolution equations.

whereas. ε22 and ε12 .400 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The above set of evolution equations is analogous to that of the plane stress-projected von Mises model of Box 9. THE BEAM STATE-PROJECTED INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The derivation of the implicit integration algorithm for the beam state-projected von Mises model follows the same steps as the derivation of the plane stress-projected algorithm described in Section 9. Having determined the history of the independent strains by integrating the constrained elastoplastic evolution equations.92) and matrix A(∆γ) now given by the simpler diagonal form 1  1 + 2G ∆γ   0 A(∆γ) =     0   0 1 1 + 2G ∆γ 0 0 0 1 2 1 + 3 E ∆γ    . Evolution of the dependent strain components. 1 we have εp = εp = − 2 εp . the rates εp . so that the components εp and εp are promptly found to be ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 11 22 given by (9.58). The final return-mapping equation for the plastic multiplier can be cast in the same format as equations (9. 11 22 2 33 Finally.4. 2(G + K) 33 (9. εp = 0 for constrained ˙12 stress states.102) . ε12 and ε22 .6. (9. these components are dependent variables whose evolution is a consequence of the constraint on the stress state. ε11 .98) 12 12 The three-dimensional Timoshenko beam constraint on stresses also imply that εe = εe = 11 22 −K εe . it follows that. implies that 12 ε12 = εe = εp = 0. in the constrained case.101) ε11 = ε22 = εe + εp . The main difference between the two formulations is the fact that. Under stress states that satisfy the constraint (9.    (9. for constrained stress states.57. the elastoplastic additive strain decomposition together with the elastic relation. 11 11 9. As σ12 = 0 and. ε11 .99) From the three-dimensional von Mises equations.2. in the three-dimensional case.2.86). the history of the total strain components. the history of the dependent strain components.3. is obtained as follows. εp and εp resulting from the original three-dimensional elastoplastic equations are ˙13 ˙23 ˙33 identical to the rates resulting from the above constrained equations. 9. with matrix P redefined by (9. the total strain components ε11 and ε22 are obtained from the additive elastoplastic split of the total strain tensor (9. consequently.100) εp = εp = − 1 εp . σ12 = 2G εe . is prescribed in the underlying initial value problem.

5.4. (1 + 2G ∆γ)3 9(1 + 2 E ∆γ)3 3 (9. the derivation of the corresponding elastoplastic consistent tangent.4 and 9.6. 0 0 (9. . The final expression has the same format as (9. 3 (9. the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be computed as in Box 9. As in the return mapping described above.103) 2 (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 3(1 + 3 E ∆γ)2 The overall elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is identical to that shown in Boxes 9.5 except that A and ξ (as well as De and the stress and strain arrays) have now the above new definitions and trial trial trial ξ trial := 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] + 2 (σ33 )2 . the function ξ(∆γ) defined in (9. Dep .80) where the matrix E is here redefined as   G 0 0  1 + 2G ∆γ      G .104) In the Newton algorithm of Box 9. (9.58) has the following explicit expression trial trial trial 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 2(σ33 )2 ξ(∆γ) ≡ + . is analogous to that of the plane stress-projected model addressed in Section 9.105) The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus.106) E(∆γ) =    1 + 2G ∆γ     E 0 0 2 1 + 3 E ∆γ With the appropriate redefinition of the relevant terms. the computation of the derivative ξ is replaced by ξ := trial trial trial −8G[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 8E (σ33 )2 − .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 401 With the above matrix.4.

.

the Hill model (Hill. in Chapters 7– 9. the treatment of a modified Cam-Clay model and a capped Drucker–Prager model – both mainly applicable to the description of geomaterials. that the computational implementation of elastoplastic models possessing such new features reduces to mere specialisations of the general framework discussed in the preceding chapters. the modelling of plastic compaction – a phenomenon of particular relevance in the behaviour of geomaterials – and the modelling of plastic anisotropy. In soil mechanics applications.1 and 10. In this context. together with the computational treatment of the Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models with isotropic strain hardening. all examples of numerical implementation of plasticity models have been limited to basic theories. a model based on the Hoffman anisotropic criterion (Hoffman. we move one step further and apply the same underlying concepts to more advanced models.2 describe. Cam-Clay-type models can be used within a multiphase environment with coupling between solid behaviour and flow through porous media. Here. essentially. Models of this type are frequently used in the finite element modelling of soil mechanics problems. A modified Cam-Clay model for soils The modified Cam-Clay model was originally proposed by Roscoe and Burland (1968) to model the plastic behaviour of soils. to Naylor et al. These models are characterised by plastic compressibility. when dealing with soil consolidation problems. however. 1967) – here referred to as the Hoffman model – and the Barlat–Lian model for sheet metals (Barlat and Lian. The new theoretical concepts introduced in this chapter are. 1989) are discussed in detail.1. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 1950). and Muir Wood 1990).10 ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS HIS chapter is devoted to more advanced plasticity models. Such problems are outside the scope of this book and we shall describe in this section a version of the modified Cam-Clay plasticity model featuring a linear elasticity law and a standard volumetric plastic strain-dependent isotropic hardening rule. In many cases. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. hardening (softening) associated with compressive (dilatant) plastic flow and a possibly nonlinear elasticity law to model the hydrostatic pressure/volumetric elastic strain relation (refer. Recall that. Note.3 introduces the modelling of anisotropic plasticity. Sections 10. Ltd . the use of a linear elastic law can be justified whenever the considered range of hydrostatic pressures is sufficiently narrow. Section 10. for instance. respectively. 1981. T 10.

This parameter modifies the radius of the second half of the ellipse on the compressive side of the hydrostatic axis. THE MODEL Let p and q denote. The parameter b takes the values 1 if p ≥ pt − a (10. Note that. respectively.404 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS q 1 M yield surface Φ=0 0 p βa pc a pt Figure 10. M a). Yield surface.1) where the constant M is the ratio between the two radii of the Cam-Clay ellipse.1. the yield locus becomes an ellipse with radii a and M a.2) b= β if p < pt − a. (10. a) = 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + 2 b M 2 − a2 . The portion of the p–q plane on the right of the intersection between the critical state line and the Cam-Clay ellipse is named the supercritical region and the portion on its left is the subcritical region. respectively. q) = (pt − a.1) is defined by a yield function of the form Φ(σ. the hydrostatic stress and the von Mises effective stress. the two horizontal halves of the surface intersect in a smooth fashion at (p. we will focus on a version of the modified Cam-Clay model whose yield surface (refer to Figure 10. Modified Cam-Clay model. along directions p and q. for any β > 0. . a is the radius of the ellipse along the pressure axis and pt is the tensile yield hydrostatic stress.1. The elastic domain of the modified Cam-Clay model is delimited by an elliptic yield surface in the p–q space. The dashed line in Figure 10. 10.1. The parameter M is the slope of the critical state line. Here. where β is a material constant.1 is named the critical state line. If β = 1.

respectively denoted Nd and Nv : Nd = 3 s. soils will be predominantly subjected to compressive strains. ‡ In a more general setting. εp = γ Nv . the hardening variable. ˙v ˙ (10. N = ∂Φ/∂σ. where compressive volumetric strains and hydrostatic pressures are assumed positive. having the intersection of the yield surface with the p-axis at p = pt (the tensile yield pressure) fixed. † Consistently with the continuum mechanics sign convention adopted throughout this book. (10. ˙ ˙ ∂σ (10.4) The deviatoric and volumetric plastic strain rates then read ˙d ˙ εp = γ N d . It should be noted that the opposite sign convention is commonly adopted in soil mechanics texts. the evolution of the volumetric plastic strain will change the size of the modified Cam-Clay yield surface while maintaining its shape. other yield surface parameters such as M or β could also be functions of hardening variables. and for soils in particular. v (10. (10. M2 Nv = 2 (p − pt + a). compressive volumetric strains and hydrostatic pressures have a negative sign here.‡ α. εp ≡ tr[εp ]. pc (also assumed compressive-positive) hardening can be defined by pc (α) ≡ (1 + β) a(α) − pt . in terms of the compressive yield pressure (or compaction pressure). α. dilatant (εp > 0) if p > pt − a (supercritical states) and isochoric (εp = 0) ˙v ˙v at p = pt − a (critical state). the state of hardening is largely dependent upon the volumetric plastic strain (or plastic compaction).7) and the hardening behaviour will be defined by means of the experimentally determined hardening function a = a(α).6) Because in actual applications.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 405 Flow rule The plastic flow equation can be defined by postulating associativity.5) The plastic flow defined by the above associative rule is compressive† (εp < 0) if p < pt − a ˙v (subcritical states). will be chosen as the compressive-positive volumetric plastic strain: α ≡ −εp v (10. Hardening law A simple way of incorporating hardening into the model consists in letting the yield surface parameter a be a function of a hardening internal variable.3) where we have conveniently split the flow vector. into deviatoric and volumetric components. Hardening in this case is characterised by a change in compressive yield pressure. For many plastically compressible materials. b2 (10. which gives ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ = γ N = γ (Nd + Nv I ). .8) Equivalently.9) Under this assumption.

25) (page 196) for the present model results in the system of equations comprising (10. In this case. having αn+1 . the linearly independent components of sn+1 and the incremental plastic multiplier.5). i.   M2 (10. Firstly. a increases with increasing plastic compression. 10. pn+1 . following the comments on the volumetric plastic strain rate made immediately after expression (10. by Simo and Meschke (1993) and Owen et al. for instance.11)–(10.1 (Hardening behaviour).13). v (10. The implementation of Cam-Clay-type models with nonlinear elastic laws is described. by observing the deviatoric/volumetric split (10. as the unknowns. ∆γ. hardening (expansion of the elastic domain) occurs only in the subcritical region. Particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7.13) where qn+1 is the von Mises effective stress associated with sn+1 . The hardening function a(α) (or pc (α)) is usually expected to be monotonically increasing in its argument.406 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Remark 10.4) of the plastic flow and the elastic relations. d ptrial = K εe trial . We remark. b2 where the updated hardening variable is given by the equation α n+1 = α n − ∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )].11)   pn+1 = ptrial − K∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )].2. . however. (10.10) The return-mapping algorithm is derived as follows. the discrete consistency equation here reads Φn+1 = qn+1 1 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]2 + 2 b M 2 − [a(αn+1 )]2 = 0. that is. For pressures p > pt − a (supercritical states) plastic flow will cause softening (contraction of the elastic domain) and at p = pt − a (the critical state) the model behaves as perfectly plastic (fixed yield surface). the following stress update equations consistent with the implicit discretisation of the plastic flow rule are obtained:  sn+1 = strial − 2G∆γ 3 sn+1 . COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Here we shall adopt a linear elasticity law to model the reversible behaviour of the modified Cam-Clay model. (1998). b2 (10. under hydrostatic pressures p < pt − a.1.12) In addition. that it is sometimes convenient to adopt nonlinear elasticity laws with models of this type. The return-mapping algorithm The elastic trial state computation follows the usual format: strial = 2G εe trial .e.

18) It is worth commenting here that system (10. the stress-updating procedure is completed with the computation of sn+1 by means of (10. however. after a simple rearrangement in (10.12) and (10.15) and (10.16) Finally. the substitution of (10. For completeness.14). sn+1 .19) and then replacing this result into the first equation. by combining (10. + 6G ∆γ (10.17) = ≡             2 R    0  α − α n + ∆γ [p(α) − pt + a(α)]  2 b2 where the subscript n + 1 of αn+1 has been omitted for notational convenience. for qn+1 .11)2 and (10.14) M2 In addition.17) could in principle be further reduced to a single scalar equation having αn+1 as the only unknown by trivially solving the second equation of (10. M 2 + 6G ∆γ (10.17) for ∆γ: ∆γ = ∆γ(αn+1 ) ≡ b2 (αn − αn+1 ) . 2[p(αn+1 ) − pt + a(αn+1 )] (10.16) in (10. we start by noting that (10. similarly. that is. is a function of ∆γ only.12) we can write pn+1 = p(αn+1 ) ≡ ptrial + K (αn+1 − αn ).13) leads to the following reduced system of two scalar equations with unknowns ∆γ and αn+1 :       2     1 [p(α) − p + a(α)]2 + q(∆γ) − [a(α)]2  0  R1         2    t b M . Newton–Raphson solution The solution of (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 407 Reduced equation system In order to obtain an equivalent reduced system of equations for the return mapping. followed by the calculation of the updated stress tensor through the standard relation σn+1 = sn+1 + pn+1 I. an explicit expression for the linear system to be solved for the iterative . (10. qn+1 = q(∆γ) ≡ M2 q trial .11)1 we obtain sn+1 = s(∆γ) ≡ and. (10.15) M2 strial . (10.11)1 implies that for a given strial the updated stress deviator. Once the solution to the above return-mapping equations is obtained. that the above expression cannot be used in practice at p = pt − a.17) can be undertaken as usual by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. It should be noted.

The elastoplastic consistent tangent To derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the modified Cam-Clay model.26) Here we should note that tangential relation (10. we start by differentiating the full system of return-mapping equations which.4. we write ∂N ∂Nd ∂Nv = +I ⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ with ∂Nd 3 = 2 Id .22) and all terms of the derivative matrix on the right-hand side are evaluated at (∆γ. we resort to the general procedure of Section 7.408 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS corrections δ∆γ (k) and δα(k) at the typical k th Newton iteration is shown below:   2   (k−1)   −12 G 2¯ p q  (K + H) − 2aH  δ∆γ (k)  R1    2 2 b  M + 6G∆γ M  .4 (from page 238).141) which was obtained for the implicit implementation of the isotropically hardening von Mises . dα (10.21) (10. ∂σ M In addition. (10. The differentiation.3). α) = (k−1) (∆γ (k−1) . comprises (10.13) we obtain 2 ∂Nv = 2 I.13) together with the trivial update formula (10.5 (page 240) as an alternative to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent for the implicit integration of the von Mises model. following the deviatoric/volumetric split of (10. αn+1 ). in which the elastic trial strain tensor is also treated as a variable. in the present case. Accordingly. which was also applied in Section 7.20) (10. ∂σ 3b (10.23) has a similar format to that of (7.18). ¯ ¯ da .11)–(10.25) ∂Φ 2 = 2 (p − pt + a)H − 2aH = (Nv − 2a)H.4. =     (k−1)      2¯ p 2∆γ δα(k) R2 1 + 2 (K + H) b2 b where H is the hardening modulus (the slope of the hardening curve): H = H(α) ≡ the scalar p is defined as ¯ p = p(α) ≡ p(α) − pt + a(α). yields the tangential relationship  e −1  [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 N dσn+1  dεe trial           2H∆γ   dαn+1 = .23) 0 ∆γ ∂Nv /∂σ 1+ Nv       b2     0 d∆γ N ∂Φ/∂α 0 where. from (10. ∂α b (10.24) (10.

27) is generally unsymmetric. if H = 0. A capped Drucker–Prager model for geomaterials The standard Drucker–Prager model has been described in detail in Chapter 6 and its computational implementation has been addressed in Section 8. from page 243. The p–q plane representation of the yield surface so obtained is illustrated in Figure 10. that is. its inversion follows completely analogous steps to those leading to (7. and 2H∆γ ∂Nv ˜ + 1+ N N ≡ −∆γ(Nv − 2a)H ∂σ b2 2H∆γ −2∆γ(Nv − 2a)H N. is presented below.24).4. In circumstances where plastic compaction is relevant. however. Another alternative for modelling such a phenomenon consists in bounding the standard Drucker–Prager yield surface with a cap on the compressive side of the hydrostatic axis. I+ 1+ = 2 3b b2 (10. the application of an arbitrary compressive hydrostatic pressure alone does not cause plastic flow. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the non-associativity of the adopted hardening law. The modified Cam-Clay model discussed in the previous section already incorporates the possibility of plastic compaction. ˜ Also note that in the absence of hardening. The equations of the resulting multisurface (twosurface) model. For that model (as well as for the Mohr–Coulomb model). The reader is referred to the discussion at the beginning of Section 7. compressive plastic flow (compaction) under (possibly pure) compressive hydrostatic stresses can be an important feature of the overall behaviour. ˜ N : P : N + (Nv − 2a)Nv H −1 =P− where (10. A particularly simple choice is the adoption of an elliptical cap as the compressive bounding surface. the elastoplastic tangent operator (10.2. For many geomaterials.3 (from page 324). Plastic flow under compressive hydrostatic pressure may only be triggered with the superposition of shearing stresses.29) ˜ Since in general N = N. 10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 409 model.28) with flow vector derivative given by (10.27) P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ : De (10. . (1988a). followed by an outline of its numerical treatment.6. the standard Drucker–Prager or Mohr– Coulomb plasticity models are not able to capture the actual material behaviour. Accordingly. The implementation of a Cap-type model similar to that described here is presented by Simo et al.148) and yields the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep ≡ ∂σn+1 ∂εe trial 1 ˜ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). N coincides with N and symmetry is recovered.2.

the plastic strain rate equation is given by (6. 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + β2 M 2 (10.30)1. the standard generally non-associative Drucker–Prager flow rule is adopted. where Φa is an equivalent representation of the Drucker–Prager yield function obtained from its original expression (6. Yield surface.30) − a2 . On the smooth part of the cone. η= 2/3 M. ξ (10.31) and Φb = 0 defines the elliptical cap – the modified Cam-Clay yield surface for subcritical states discussed in the previous section of this chapter.32) For a fixed a. 10. Φb (σ. a) = J2 (s(σ)) + η [p(σ) − pt ].157) (10.1.121) (page 167) by using the trivial relation c= η pt . CAPPED DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL The yield functions of the model are Φa (σ) ≡ Φb (σ.2.2. Plastic flow rule On the cone. the set of plastically admissible stress states is defined by A = {σ | Φa (σ) ≤ 0.410 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1 M Drucker–Prager cone q Φa = 0 modified Cam-Clay yield surface Φb = 0 0 βa pc a pt p Figure 10.33) . a) ≤ 0}. (10. In (10. Capped Drucker–Prager model.

77) and (6. equivalently. cone flow vector Na εp .4) is a deviatoric tensor: b N b = Nd = 3 s. The flow vector N a has the standard form Na = 1 η ¯ s + I.78).3.166). (page 176).160)1 and (6. the (associative) flow rule is that of the modified Cam-Clay model.166). (6. where p = pt − a.3) and (10. (6.36) A general p-q plane illustration of the plastic flow directions for the resulting model is given in Figure 10. Hardening As for the previously discussed modified Cam-Clay model (refer to expressions (10.4).34) where N a and N b are.158)1 and (6. the normal to the cap with general expression (10.8)) isotropic strain hardening is incorporated by letting the compaction pressure pc (or. Flow vectors. respectively. respectively. the plastic strain rate at the intersection between the Drucker–Prager cone and the elliptical cap reads ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . given by (10. p Figure 10. Capped Drucker–Prager model. 3 2 J2 (s) (10. the yield surface parameter a) be a function of the compressive-positive . At the cone apex. M2 (10.35) At the cap/cone intersection. On the cap.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 411 εp cap normal Nb .3. the non-associative Drucker–Prager flow vector at the smooth portion of the cone and the associative modified Cam-Clay flow vector referred to above.73) (page 156).9) and (10. the flow vector has deviatoric and volumetric components (6. Following the general representation of associative plastic flow rules for multisurface plasticity models given by (6. ˙ ˙ (10.

41) The derivation of the final equations for the unknown multipliers ∆γ a and ∆γ b is straightforward and will be left as an exercise for the interested reader.3 (from page 324). in turn. The return mapping to the cap surface. the cap moves in the compression (tensile) direction along the hydrostatic line. ¯ (10.1. In this case (refer to Remark 8.1 (from page 325) and 10. The Drucker–Prager cone remains fixed and is independent of the hardening variable. respectively. return to the cone apex.36): ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . together with (10.4. the returnmapping equations can be solved in closed form. ¯ v (10. THE IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm for the present model is a combination of the elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes derived in Sections 8. The plastic corrector algorithm for the cone/cap intersection is a two-vector return mapping where the incremental plastic strain is given by the discrete form of (10. 3. with the added simplicity of perfect plasticity.1.412 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS volumetric plastic strain. n+1 d pn+1 = ptrial − K∆εp .34)–(10.2 for the Drucker–Prager and modified Cam-Clay models. .2.40) (10. return to the elliptic cap. return to the smooth portion of the Drucker–Prager cone. α.2. expanding (shrinking) the elastic domain. Its volumetric component reads εp = η ∆γ a . The return mappings to the smooth portion and apex of the Drucker–Prager cone are a particular instance of the procedure described in Section 8.39) The return-mapping equation for the cone/cap intersection is derived by introducing (10. 10. 4.37) into the general stress update formula sn+1 = strial − 2G∆εp . (10. 2. return to the cone/cap intersection.38) so that the update formula for the hardening internal variable at the cone/cap intersection is given by αn+1 = αn − η ∆γ a . is that of the modified Cam-Clay model discussed in Section 10. n+1 v (10. As pc increases (decreases).37) and then substituting the resulting expression.39) into the cone/cap intersection consistency equation Φa ≡ n+1 Φb ≡ n+1 J2 (sn+1 ) + η[pn+1 − pt ] = 0 1 q(sn+1 ) [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]2 + β2 M 2 − [a(αn+1 )]2 = 0. defined in (10.2. The two-surface model admits four possible return mappings: 1.7). page 327).3.

G∆γa< 0 Y (invalid return) APPLY RETURN TO D-P CONE APEX ELASTIC STEP N APPLY RETURN TO CAP Y (invalid return) AND Φn+1 > 0 b N p n+1 < -an+1 p n+1 > -an+1 N Y (invalid return) RETURN TO CONE/CAP INTERSECTION END Figure 10. Capped Drucker–Prager model. for a given elastic trial state. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The elastoplastic consistent tangent will be dependent on the particular return mapping considered. that is.15 (page 330). and so on. If the cone–cap intersection was the last return mapping used.4. as four distinct return procedures are possible for the present model. Selection of the appropriate return mapping As discussed in detail in Chapter 8. Algorithm for selection of the correct return-mapping procedure. then the current tangent will be consistent with the cone–cap intersection return. if the return to the main Drucker–Prager cone was used in the last stress update for that point. This will be left as an exercise for the reader. The basic rule for selection of the elastoplastic tangent to be used is the same: the tangent operator must be consistent with the last return-mapping procedure used in the material point (Gauss point of the finite element mesh) considered. Its validity can also be established on the basis of geometrical arguments. 10.4. an appropriate algorithm has to be devised to select. the return mapping that fully satisfies plastic consistency. The situation here is an extension of that studied in Chapter 8 for the standard Drucker–Prager model. .3. The summary of a possible selection algorithm is shown in the flowchart of Figure 10. when dealing with multivector implementations of multisurface plasticity models.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS START 413 Φ OR atrial trial >0 >0 Y Φb Φ atrial >0 Y APPLY RETURN TO D-P CONE N N 1/2 trial [J 2(s n+1 )] . The selection algorithm in the present case is an extension of that of the conventional Drucker– Prager model represented in the flowchart of Figure 8.2. then the current elastoplastic tangent will be consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone return.

must be particularised for the perfectly plastic case.3. the yield function associated with the Hill criterion .42) For the cap return. the tangent operator is that of (10. that is.29). we have Dep = 0. Another class of materials whose anisotropy can be of particular relevance are composites in general. elastic properties (Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) as well as plastic properties such as yield stress and hardening behaviour have been assumed independent of material orientation.4 (from page 337) which.414 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The tangent operator consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone and cone apex return algorithms are those derived in Section 8. 10. when such materials undergo manufacturing processes characterised by extreme straining along preferential directions (rolling is a typical example). e2 . for the present model.27) with b = β in (10. Note that. Hoffman (1967) and Barlat and Lian (1989). (10.1. Attention is focused on the orthotropic models proposed by Hill (1948. in many circumstances of practical interest. In such cases. The derivation of an explicit form for the tangent for the cone/cap intersection return follows an analogous procedure to those of the two-vector return mappings discussed in Chapter 8 and will be left as an exercise for the reader.3. the development of texturing (reorientation of crystals according to the direction of straining) results in a final crystallographic arrangement whose macroscopic behaviour is clearly anisotropic. THE HILL ORTHOTROPIC MODEL The Hill criterion has been introduced as an orthotropic extension of the standard von Mises criterion in order to model the anisotropy often found in formed steel.3. Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models The elastoplasticity theories discussed so far in this book have been limited by the assumption of elastoplastic isotropy. e3 } whose vectors coincide with the principal axes of plastic orthotropy. 10. Polycrystalline aggregates with sufficiently random crystal orientation distribution present an effectively isotropic macroscopic behaviour and can be modelled by conventional isotropic plasticity theories. An important instance of anisotropic behaviour arises in polycrystalline metals. in this case. at the cone apex. In this section. With σij denoting the stress tensor components on an orthonormal basis {e1 . the isotropy assumption may lead to a poor representation of the actual behaviour and the formulation and use of appropriate anisotropic plasticity models becomes crucial to ensure reasonable accuracy in finite element predictions. we address the modelling and computational implementation of anisotropic phenomenological plasticity models. However. Anisotropic plasticity: the Hill. However. Such metals are aggregates of single crystals whose individual plastic behaviour is highly anisotropic (physical aspects and the numerical treatment of single crystal plasticity are addressed in Chapter 16). material behaviour is truly anisotropic with substantial discrepancy among phenomenological properties observed in different material directions. This property is known as strain-induced plastic anisotropy and is often present in formed metal components. 1950). Many such materials (fibre-reinforced polymers are typical examples) are designed so as to produce optimal strength/performance along predefined directions.

43) where σ is the relative yield stress (a non-dimensional scalar) which defines the size (state ¯ of hardening) of the yield surface in the six-dimensional space of stress components. σ ) = F1 (s11 − s22 )2 + F2 (s22 − s33 )2 + F3 (s11 − s33 )2 ¯ + F4 s2 + F5 s2 + F6 s2 − σ 2 . By recalling the trivial identities σii − σjj = sii − sjj .49) (10. σ ) = 0 ⇐⇒ σij = σ σij . The constants F1 . e2 and e3 when σ = 1 (here assumed to be the initial state of the material). ¯ 0 (10.48) (10. ¯ 12 23 13 (10.43) that Φ(σ.50) .45) 0 ¯ where σij are the three (generally distinct) initial (when σ = 1) yield stresses in pure shear along the corresponding planes orthogonal to the principal directions of orthotropy. 0 (σ23 )2 F6 = 1 . 0 (σ12 )2 F5 = 1 . for i = j. F5 and F6 are defined as F4 = 1 . 2 (σ11 22 33 1 1 1 1 − 0 2+ 0 2 . 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) 1 −1 1 1 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 . σ ) = F1 (σ11 − σ22 )2 + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )2 + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )2 ¯ 2 2 2 + F4 σ12 + F5 σ23 + F6 σ13 − σ 2 . ¯ ¯ 0 Pressure insensitivity One important feature of the Hill criterion is the fact that. it is pressure insensitive. 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) (10. For a generic state of hardening (i. This allows us to express its yield function in terms of the components of the stress deviator. note that under such a stress state it follows from (10. and σij = sij .e. as for the von Mises and Tresca criteria. the (generally distinct) uniaxial yield stresses in the directions of e1 .46) Indeed. not necessarily unity σ ). ¯ (10. respectively. only. ¯ The constants F4 . the yield stress under a stress state ¯ with a single non-zero stress component σij is y σij = σ σij .44) 0 0 0 where σ11 . s.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 415 can be cast in the following form: Φ(σ. 0 (σ13 )2 (10. (10. F2 and F3 are defined as F1 = F2 = F3 = 1 1 1 1 + 0 2− 0 2 . with no summation on repeated indices.47) the Hill yield function can be equivalently written as Φ(σ. σ22 and σ33 are.

Anisotropic yield surfaces are truly six-dimensional hypersurfaces in the space of stress components.52) (10.55) . Before proceeding to the graphical representation. the Hill yield surface is defined by 2 2 2 ¯ (F1 + F3 ) σ11 + (F1 + F2 ) σ22 − 2F1 σ11 σ22 + F4 σ12 − σ 2 = 0. we will plot here the corresponding yield surfaces under states of plane stress. the yield surface defined by the Hill criterion (with material constants within the ‘usable’ range of the Hill model) in the three-dimensional σ11 -σ22 -σ33 space is a (generally elliptic) cylinder whose axis is the hydrostatic line (σ11 = σ22 = σ33 ).51) 0 To see this. (10. In general.416 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Von Mises criterion as a particular case Another important feature of the Hill criterion is that it recovers the standard von Mises criterion if √ 0 √ 0 √ 0 0 0 0 σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = 3 σ12 = 3 σ23 = 3 σ13 . The size of the cylinder cross-section (and its intersection with the plane stress space) depends upon the state of shear stress. Two. For plane stress states (on plane {e1 . where we make use of the trivial relation s11 + s22 + s33 = 0. Nevertheless. σ ) = ¯ 3 2 [s + s2 + s2 + 2(s2 + s2 + s2 )] − 1 22 33 12 23 13 2 2σy 11 3 = 2 J2 (s) − 1.53) The corresponding yield surface is that of the von Mises model with uniaxial yield stress σy : 3 J2 (s) = σy . an appropriate visual study of anisotropic yield criteria requires plotting such projections with different combinations of fixed stress values. (10.or three-dimensional subsets of the six-dimensional stress space is possible and can provide a very good insight into the properties of the anisotropic model. Geometric representation Unlike isotropic models. four and three stress components and then plotting the corresponding yield locus on the subset of the two or three free stress components. visualisation of projections of such hypersurfaces on two. ¯ After a straightforward algebraic manipulation. respectively. whose yield functions can always be expressed in terms of principal stresses and the corresponding yield surfaces can be visualised in the three-dimensional principal stress space.50). it is worth remarking that at any given state of shear stress (defined by the components σ12 . Thus. yield surfaces for anisotropic models cannot be easily represented graphically. In order to give the reader some visual insight into properties of the Hill criterion. we assume that the above relation holds and set σ11 = σy and σ = 1 in (10. the two.54) (10.and threedimensional projections are obtained by fixing. σ23 and σ13 relative to the axes of material orthotropy). e2 }). σy (10.or three-dimensional yield locus will change if the fixed stress components are changed. we obtain Φ(σ.

For such materials. as opposed to the usual representation in principal stress space.6) the ellipse is compressed in the biaxial state direction and stretched in a pure shear (σ11 = −σ22 ) direction. the Hill criterion can provide reasonable approximations to the actual yield surfaces.57) Firstly. the ellipse degenerates into two straight lines and becomes a hyperbola for a33 < 0. if σ12 = σ σ12 (the ¯ 0 shear stress has reached its yield limit) the σ11 -σ22 space surface degenerates to a point at (0. when a22 = 0. Thus.5. The surface with a22 = 1 corresponds to that of the von Mises model. the surface is represented in the space of direct stresses along fixed axes). in Figure 10. different values of a22 ). with uniaxial yield stress σ11 is recovered if we set a22 = a33 = a12 = a23 = a13 = 1. When a33 = 0. the maximum variation of yield strength between the different orthotropy directions is typically less than about 5 to 10%.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). the yield locus produced by Hill’s function is a set of two hyperbolic (non-convex) surfaces in stress space.7).e. the original ellipse degenerates into two parallel straight lines (two hyperplanes in the six-dimensional stress space). 3 a23 0 0 σ23 = √ σ11 .3). 3 (10. the Hill surface is always an ellipse intersecting the horizontal and vertical axis 0 at ±1. Under such conditions. the Hill criterion is to be used only within certain limits of yield strength variation among the orthotropy directions.6.5). In the next representation of the Hill surface shown in Figure 10. 0 Note that the von Mises surface. For a33 > 0.5). we conveniently assume the following relations: 0 0 σ22 = a22 σ11 .5. in such cases. the ellipse is compressed in the vertical direction but substantially stretched along its longer radius. 0). 0 0 σ33 = a33 σ11 . If a22 increases (see surface plotted for a22 = 1. it is important to emphasise that the Hill criterion was originally proposed to model anisotropy of formed steel components.5.5. In Figure 10. At this point. the elastic domain becomes unbounded in some directions and does not correspond to physical behaviour.7 we illustrate the effect of shear stresses on the Hill yield surface. we illustrate the effect of the variation of the direct yield 0 0 0 stress σ33 (variation of a33 ) in the absence of shear stresses and with σ22 = σ11 (a22 = 1). Essentially. (10. If a22 decreases (refer to the surface with a22 = 0. Obviously. any increase in shear stress will shrink the yield surface isotropically (this effect is also present in the von Mises criterion and can only be seen if.7 and 0. a12 0 0 σ12 = √ σ11 . This effect is illustrated in Figures 10.5 and 10. 3 a13 0 0 σ13 = √ σ11 . the von Mises ellipse is stretched in the σ22 direction. Clearly. For a22 > 0.6. the ellipse stretches in the biaxial state 0 direction.5 (see surface with a22 = 0. When σ33 decreases (see surfaces with a33 = 0. Finally.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). (10.56) 0 where aij are parameters defining all initial yield stresses of the model as a function of σ11 . In the limit. let us focus on the effect of the variation of direct yield stresses on the Hill yield surface.58) In this case (absence of shear stresses).ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 417 In order to study the effect of the material constants (the yield stresses) on the yield surface. the Hill surface is an ellipse intersecting the horizontal axis at ±1 and the vertical axis at ±a22 . As σ33 increases (see surface with a33 = 1. the Hill yield 0 surface on the σ11 -σ22 space is plotted for different values of direct yield stress σ22 (i. . For a22 < 0. a23 and a13 have no effect on the Hill yield function. the parameters a12 . assuming no shear stresses and a33 = 1.

Surface plot for various values of a22 with no shear stresses and a33 = 1 (σ33 = σ11 ).5 -1 -0. Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ22 on the yield 0 0 surface.5 1 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -1. .5 0 Figure 10.0 a 22 = 0. y σ22 /σ11 a 33 =1.5 a 22 =1.7 y σ11 /σ11 -1 1 -1 a 33 = 0.5 0.4 0 Figure 10.5 a 22 =1.6.5.3 a 22 = 0.418 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y σ22 /σ11 1. Surface plot for various values of a33 with no shear stresses and 0 0 a22 = 1 (σ22 = σ11 ). Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ33 (the transversal yield stress) on the yield surface. The Hill orthotropic criterion.0 1 a 33 =0.7 1 a 22 = 0.5 a 33 = 0. The Hill orthotropic criterion.6 a 33 =1.5 a 33 =0.

The Hill orthotropic criterion.5 σ12 1 y σ12 =0. all six yield stresses of the Hill criterion will change in strict proportion (isotropically) as the accumulated plastic strain increases. undoubtedly.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS y σ22 /σ11 1. that is. in view of (10. Surface plot for various values of σ12 with σ23 = σ13 = 0. The approximation provided by simple laws of the above type can be very useful in the finite element analysis of plastically orthotropic materials and. . that the phenomenological modelling of hardening in plastically anisotropic materials is a complex issue which remains open at present. represents a substantial gain in predictive capability (as compared to the use of isotropic plasticity models) in situations where plastic anisotropy is an important feature of the material behaviour.5 Figure 10. isotropic strain hardening can be easily incorporated into the Hill model by assuming the relative yield stress σ in (10. we postulate ¯ σ = σ (¯p ).7.5 and a12 = a33 = 1. εp . 7 and 9. Remark 10. a22 = 1. the model resulting from the above assumptions provides only a first approximation to the phenomenon of hardening.46). Effect of shear stress on the yield surface. Hardening law Analogously to the standard strain-hardening von Mises model thoroughly discussed in Chapters 6.43) to be a given function of the von Mises ¯ accumulated plastic strain. or even lead to loss of orthotropy.8 σ12 0.5 1 -0. however.5 0. We remark.5 -1 -1. In addition.2.5 419 σ12 =0 y σ12 =0.5 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -0. ¯ ¯ ε (10.59) The material in this case is assumed to remain orthotropic with constant axes of orthotropy. Since general straining of an initially orthotropic material is usually expected to change the yield stresses in different directions by different amounts.

σij (i = j). ¯ (10.66) § This function was in fact proposed by Hoffman (1967) originally to define a fracture criterion for brittle materials.66). the above associative law is volume-preserving. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ 2[F1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )].420 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Hill’s associative flow rule The flow rule adopted by Hill (1950) in conjunction with the above orthotropic criterion is associative. Hill’s associative flow rule is found to be given by εp = γ 2[F1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ11 − σ33 )].63) With the above considerations. TENSION–COMPRESSION DISTINCTION: THE HOFFMAN MODEL For many materials. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ 2[F2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )]. owing to the pressure-insensitivity of the Hill criterion. (10.64) implies ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 0. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in some composite materials and is also commonly observed in worked metals. that is. What we refer to as the Hoffman model here.62) The actual contributions to Φ from the independent shear components. compact tensorial representation is not particularly convenient and the plastic flow rule is best presented in its equivalent component-wise format εp = γ ˙ij ˙ ∂Φ . i = j. Indeed. ˙33 ˙ εp = γ F4 σ12 . (10.2. (10. In order to model such effects in orthotropic materials. a marked difference is observed between yield stress levels in tension and compression (the Bauschinger effect).3.43) take into account the trivial identity σij = σji .60) Here. of the stress tensor read 2 1 2 [F4 (σ12 2 2 2 2 2 + σ21 ) + F5 (σ23 + σ32 ) + F6 (σ13 + σ31 )]. the plastic flow is given by the standard equation ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ . ˙13 ˙ (10. ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 10. ∂σij (10. it is important to note that the shear stress contributions to (10. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ F5 σ23 .65) (10. σ ) = C1 (σ11 − σ22 )2 + C2 (σ22 − σ33 )2 + C3 (σ33 − σ11 )2 ¯ 2 2 2 + C4 σ12 + C5 σ23 + C6 σ13 + C7 σ11 + C8 σ22 + C9 σ33 − σ 2 . ∂σ (10. is an extension of the Hill elastoplastic model with yield criterion and plastic flow rule based on Hoffman’s function (10.61) Before presenting the final expressions.64) As expected. . Hoffman (1967) proposed an extension to the Hill criterion described by the following yield function:§ Φ(σ. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ F6 σ13 . with no reference to plastic flow modelling.

the Hoffman criterion is (unlike the Hill criterion) pressure-sensitive. it should be noted that.71) This contribution – a linear function of the hydrostatic pressure – is identical to that of the Drucker–Prager criterion (refer to expression (6. . C6 coincide with the constants F1 .70) then C7 = C8 = C9 = 0 and the constants C1 . in the absence of shear stresses. σ23 and σ13 have the same meaning as in the Hill criterion. . under a state of pure hydrostatic pressure (σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = p). t c − σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 (10. only the intersection of the yield surface with the σ11 -σ22 plane. Again. c t 0 σ33 = σ33 = σ33 . A graphical representation of the Hoffman criterion is shown in Figure 10.43). c t σ22 σ22 C9 = c t σ33 − σ33 . The cone intersects the σ11 . (10. However. in general. . if we set c t 0 σ11 = σ11 = σ11 . In this case. i. C5 = 0 2 . . (10. . the contribution of the linear terms on the direct stresses to Φ in (10.72) is the necessary and sufficient condition for the Hoffman criterion to be pressure-insensitive.e. C6 = 0 2 . c t 0 σ22 = σ22 = σ22 . c t σ33 σ33 (10.66) will be (C7 + C8 + C9 )p.68) (σ12 ) (σ23 ) (σ13 ) and C7 = c t σ11 − σ11 .121). the Hill criterion is recovered. and 1 1 1 C4 = 0 2 . is . page 167). σ22 and σ33 axes at the corresponding prescribed values of (tensile and compressive) direct yield stresses. Indeed. If for each principal direction of orthotropy the direct yield stress in tension coincides with the direct yield stress in compression. Remark 10.67) t c with σii and σii (no summation on repeated indices) denoting the initial (i. c t σ11 σ11 C8 = c t σ22 − σ22 . .e. they denote the initial yield stresses in states of pure shear on the planes of orthotropy. when σ = 1) ¯ direct yield stresses along the orthotropy direction i. the Hoffman yield surface is an elliptic cone in the σ11 -σ22 -σ33 space. . . .e. t σc + σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 11 22 22 33 33 1 1 1 1 . i.3 (Hill criterion as a particular case). .8. respectively in tension and compression. In its general form (within the range of applicability of the criterion).69) 0 0 0 The constants σ12 . C9 are material constants defined as C1 = C2 = C3 = 1 1 1 1 . F6 of (10. The constraint C7 + C8 + C9 = 0 (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 421 where σ is the non-dimensional relative yield stress (analogous to that of the Hill criterion) ¯ and C1 . t c + σt σc − σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 1 −1 1 1 . . (10. C2 . .

an associative flow rule is also postulated. The Hoffman orthotropic criterion. plotted.5 -1.5 0. the following relations have been chosen: c t σ11 = 1.8.64). (10. For illustration purposes only. t t σ33 = σ11 .5 1 t σ11 /σ σ11 -0.9 σ11 .8 σ11 . Excessive variations of direct (tensile or compressive) yield stress can cause the originally elliptic surface to degenerate into a hyperbola that does not model the actual behaviour of solids. The effect of (isotropic) hardening can also be incorporated into the Hoffman criterion by assuming σ to be a function of the accumulated plastic strain. The volumetric plastic strain rate for the present model is ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = γ (C7 + C8 + C9 ).75) . ˙13 ˙ (10. ¯ Again. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ C5 σ23 .4 (Non-isochoric plastic flow). ˙22 ˙ εp = γ [C9 + 2C2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ33 − σ11 )].72) holds. the above associative flow rule is not volume-preserving in general.2 σ11 . the Hoffman surface shrinks isotropically with an increase in shear stresses. it is important to observe that (as for the Hill criterion) the Hoffman model can only be used within certain limits of yield strength variation among the directions of orthotropy.7). ˙33 ˙ εp = γ C4 σ12 . ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 ˙ and the plastic flow is isochoric if and only if constraint (10. Analogously to (10. Flow rule Here. (10. c t σ22 = 0. t t σ22 = 0. the associative component-wise plastic flow equations for the Hoffman model are given by εp = γ [C7 + 2C1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ11 − σ33 )]. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ [C8 + 2C1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + 2C2 (σ22 − σ33 )].73) As for the Hill criterion (refer to Figure 10. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ C6 σ13 .422 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t σ22 /σ σ11 1 0. As a result of the pressure-sensitivity of the Hoffman criterion.5 -1 Figure 10.74) Remark 10. c c σ33 = σ11 .5 -1 -0.

the shear moduli. ν23 and ν31 .80) 1 − νjk νkj for i = j and. 23 and 31 and satisfying Gij = Gji . (1995). no summation on the repeated index.77) and D denotes the orthotropic elasticity matrix given by   D11 D12 0 D13   D12 D22 0 D23  . For simplicity. νji + νjk νki Dij = Dii (10. Using the finite element array notation. in this case it makes sense to consider an elastic law whose planes of symmetry coincide with the planes of symmetry of the Hoffman criterion. with planes 12. 11 22 12 33 (10. . 2. k) denoting cyclic permutations of (1. respectively. associated with directions 1. The extension to the full three-dimensional situation is trivial. 3 (no summation on the repeated index) and (i.81) The total number of independent elastic constants is nine (in the full three-dimensional case). E1 .ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 423 10. (10.82) and three Poisson’s ratios.76) where σe = [σ11 σ22 σ12 σ33 ]T . by de Borst and Feenstra (1990) and Schellekens and de Borst (1990). IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOFFMAN MODEL The computational implementation of the Hoffman model is described in what follows. 2 and 3 of orthotropy respectively.79) for i = 1. respectively. the stress–elastic strain relation then reads σ = D εe . where νij is defined as the ratio between the contraction in direction j and extension in direction i under a uniaxial stress state along i. we shall assume here an orthotropic elasticity law. the discussion will be limited to the plane strain and axisymmetric cases. Clearly. ν12 . 3). Early implementations of the Hill and Hoffman anisotropic models are described. G12 .78) (10. (10.3. εe = [εe εe 2εe εe ]T . These are: the Young’s moduli. again.3. E2 and E3 . 2. j. and D44 = G12 . A plane stress implementation of the Hoffman model in the context of explicit dynamics finite element analysis is given by Koh et al. (10. The orthotropic elastic law As plastically orthotropic composites usually also present a marked elastic orthotropy. G23 and G31 associated. D=  0 0 D44 0    D13 D23 0 D33 with Dii = Ei (1 − νjk νkj ) (1 − νki νik )(1 − νjk νkj ) − (νij + νik νkj )(νji + νjk νki ) (10.

Ei (10. we compute σtrial = D εe trial .84) where. . the flow rule (10. Return-mapping algorithm For computer implementation purposes.78). That is. can be represented as ˙ εp ≡ ¯ =γ ˙ 2 3 (10. clearly. it is convenient to write the Hoffman yield function (10. with the elasticity operator represented in (10. the D matrix here is the orthotropic operator (10. ˙ The rate of accumulated plastic strain. ¯ ¯n (10.89) ˙ ˙ εp : εp = γ ˙ 2 3 2 3 ˙ ˙ (εp )T Z εp (10. the return mapping described below is applied. Elastic trial state The computation of the elastic trial state proceeds as usual. in turn. (10.83) In the plane strain/axisymmetric case.90) (Pσ + q)T Z (Pσ + q). ¯ −C1 C2 + C1 0 −C2 0 0 C4 0 −C3  (10. The trial accumulated plastic strain (isotropic hardening state variable) is εp trial = εp .87) and q = [ C7 C8 0 C9 ]T .78). (10.424 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The following relation applies: νji = νij Ej . σ ) = ¯ where  C1 + C3   −C1  P=2 0   −C3 1 2 σT Pσ + qT σ − σ 2 .66) in the following equivalent form in terms of the array of stress components: Φ(σ.88) With the above notation.66). the transverse shear moduli G23 and G31 are not required.74) can be equivalently expressed in terms of the engineering plastic strain rate array as ˙ εp = γ (Pσ + q).85) If the trial state is outside the elastic domain defined by the yield function (10.86)  −C2    0   C3 + C2 (10.

94).93) that is. 0 1 where we have used the definition 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (10.95) In summary.95). respectively.92) gives εp = εp (∆γ) ≡ εp + ∆γ{ 2 [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T Z [Pσ(∆γ) + q]} 2 . with the substitution of the last two expressions in the third equation of (10.92) can be expressed. Newton–Raphson solution In the Newton–Raphson iterative scheme to solve (10. as σn+1 = σ(∆γ) ≡ (I + ∆γ DP)−1 (σtrial − ∆γ Dq). σ ε (10.97) . introduction of the above function in the second equation of (10.95). Further.96) where δ∆γ (k) = − ˜ Φ(∆γ) ˜ dΦ/d∆γ (k−1) .94) Finally. (10. To obtain the reduced equation.92) = 0 . by using the linear elastic law. exclusively. (10. the return mapping here can also be reduced to the solution of a single equation for the plastic multiplier. a direct particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. (10.91) With the above relations at hand.93) and (10. σn+1 is a function of ∆γ. after a straightforward manipulation. ∆γ. the stress-updating procedure for the Hoffman model comprises the solution of (10. the k th guess for the solution ∆γ is obtained as ∆γ (k) = ∆γ (k−1) + δ∆γ (k) . εn+1 − εn − ∆γ[ 3 (Pσn+1 + q) Z (Pσn+1 + q)] ¯ ¯             p 1 T T 2 0 σ ε 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 + q σn+1 − [¯ (¯n+1 )] Single-equation return mapping Analogously to the implementation of the von Mises model.25) (page 196) is obtained as     εe − εe trial + ∆γ (Pσn+1 + q)   0 n+1         1 p 2 p T 2 (10. followed by the update of stress and accumulated plastic strain according to (10.92) – the discretised plastic consistency – the original return-mapping system is reduced to the following nonlinear scalar equation for ∆γ: ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ 1 2 [σ(∆γ)]T Pσ(∆γ) + qT σ(∆γ) − [¯ (¯p (∆γ))]2 = 0.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 425  1 0 Z= 0 0  0 0 . we start by noting that. the first equation of system (10. the updated stress. ¯n+1 ¯ ¯n 3 1 (10.

(10. which together with the elastic law.100) we obtain Dep ≡ dσn+1 1 2∆γ T T = D−1 + ∆γ P + e trial ¯ NN − 3η 2 N NZP dε 2¯ Hη σ −1 . d¯ ε also evaluated at εp . d∆γ (10.426 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ˜ The derivative of Φ is given by ˜ dΦ dσ εp ¯ d¯ . with the inversion of (10. the derivation of a complete explicit formula for the ˜ derivative of Φ is a rather simple exercise which we shall leave for the interested reader. gives the following linearised system in finite element array notation:  −1     D + ∆γP 0 N dσn+1  dεe trial             2∆γ  p   −  d¯ T εn+1 = 0 .98) ¯ where H ≡ d¯ /d¯p is the slope of the (non-dimensional) hardening curve. (10. we shall follow the general procedure of Section 7.102) N. A straightforward manipulation then gives dσ = −(I + ∆γ DP)−1 D [P σ(∆γ) + q]. we start by differentiating the system (10.99) With the above expressions at hand. Here. page 408).104) The above operator is clearly unsymmetric.100) N ZP 1 −η           3η          d∆γ 0 −2 σ H 0 ¯¯ NT ¯ where σ = σ (¯p ) and H is the non-dimensional hardening modulus ¯ ¯ εn+1 d¯ σ ¯ H = p. to derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the Hoffman model.4.23).93).4 (from page 238).92). The elastoplastic consistent tangent As in the modified Cam-Clay implementation presented earlier in this chapter (refer to the text preceding equation (10.103) Finally. = [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T − 2 σ (∆γ) H ¯ d∆γ d∆γ d∆γ (10. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the fact that the adopted hardening rule is non-associative (despite the associativity of the plastic . To obtain an σ ε explicit expression for the derivative of function σ defined by (10.101) (10. and the scalar η is defined as η= 2 T 3N Z (10. (10. we need to use formula (vii) of page 36. The flow vector N is given by ¯n+1 N = Pσn+1 + q.

that is. We remark that the criterion becomes isotropic when a = b = h = 1. b = 1.24. The corresponding yield function. written at the outset exclusively in terms of in-plane components of the stress tensor.148). Its use. 1989) has been proposed to model the behaviour of orthotropic metallic sheets (typically rolled materials) under plane stress. This can be seen in Figure 10. b and h are material constants and σ11 is the uniaxial yield stress in the principal orthotropy direction 1. a = 1. page 243. with K1 = σ11 + h σ22 .105) is convex (Barlat and Lian.4. 1989) if M > 1. Unlike the other plasticity models discussed in this book. b. The effect of constant a is shown in Figure 10. σ22 . (10. the standard von Mises locus is recovered when M = 2 and the Tresca yield locus is recovered for M = 1 and M → ∞.6. 10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 427 flow rule). a < 2. For use under the assumption of perfect plasticity (H = 0). the following have been determined by Lege et al. h = 1.107) y where M . Refer to the comments made in Section 7. Under such a condition.02.9 where the projection of the Barlat–Lian yield surface on the σ11 -σ22 plane is shown (in the absence of shear stresses) for different values of M and a = h = 1 (note that the value of b is immaterial in the absence of shear).10(b).10(a). σy y σ22 = 11 . (10.108) To give the reader an idea of realistic values for these constants.149) for the von Mises isotropically hardening ¯ model. Note that the above formula is analogous to that given by (7. in the principal orthotropy direction 2 with that of direction 1. Similarly to the previously discussed . (10. σ11 ) = f (σ) − 2 (σ11 )M . reads y y Φ(σ. (1989) for an aluminium alloy: M = 8. h > 0. the Barlat–Lian criterion was originally defined in plane stress format.106) where f (σ) ≡ a|K1 + K2 |M + a|K1 − K2 |M + (2 − a)|2 K2 |M .4. The parameter h relates the y uniaxial yield strength. whose equations are firstly formulated in the sixdimensional stress space and corresponding plane stress versions are subsequently addressed within the framework of Chapter 9. a.3. (10. 2 K2 = σ11 − h σ22 2 2 2 + b2 σ12 . in this format. THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL FOR SHEET METALS The Barlat–Lian criterion (Barlat and Lian.15.110) h The effect of the choice of h on the Barlat–Lian yield surface is illustrated in Figure 10. is restricted strictly to hardening models (H = 0) owing to the presence of the hardening modulus in the denominator of the third summand of the term within square brackets. The yield function (10. (10.109) The constant M defines the curvature of the yield surface. a. an alternative representation can be obtained following completely analogous steps to those leading to expression (7.105) (10. This will be left as an exercise for the interested reader.

σ11 ) = g(σ) − σ11 .5 M = 1.428 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS M =2 M =2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M = 1.9. isotropic hardening can be incorporated into y the present model by letting σ11 be a prescribed function of a scalar strain-like hardening internal variable.11) an increase (decrease) in constant b will increase (decrease) the rate at which the surface shrinks with increasing shear stress.105). We remark that (not shown in Figure 10.111) as the plastic potential and assume the evolution of the isotropic hardening variable to be governed by the standard relation α = −γ ˙ ˙ ∂Φ ˙ y = γ.11. (10.113) σ11 = σ11 (α). The Barlat–Lian criterion. 2 Note that the yield function now has dimension of stress.2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M =8 M = 40 M =1 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 -1 Figure 10. ∂σ11 (10. In the original definition (10. where we plot yield surfaces obtained with M = 8. the yield function has dimension of stress to the power M .114) . This effect is illustrated in Figure 10. it turns out to be more convenient to describe the yield criterion for the Barlat–Lian model equivalently in terms of the following alternative definition of the yield function: y y Φ(σ. Hardening law Analogously to the Hill and Hoffman criteria. Yield surfaces on σ11 -σ22 plane (in the absence of shear stress) for various values of M with a = h = 1.111) (10. a = b = 1 and h = 2/3 at different levels of shear stress. For the purposes of computational implementation of the model. α: y y (10. Hill and Hoffman criteria. which may produce computationally intractable numbers for large values of material constant M . the presence of shear stresses will shrink the Barlat–Lian yield surface.112) where g(σ) ≡ [ 1 f (σ)]1/M . Here we take the yield function (10.

h = 2/3 and b = 1. .5 σ11 y 0. Yield surfaces in the absence of shear for M = 8: (a) effect of parameter h with a = 1.5 y σ12 =0 σ12 =0.5 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0. The Barlat–Lian criterion.5 0.11.10.0 a=1.5 (a) (b) Figure 10.5 0. The Barlat–Lian criterion. (b) effect of parameter a with h = 2/3.5 Figure 10. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface for M = 8.5 -1 -1.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0. σ22 / σ11 1.8 1.5 y 429 y σ22 / σ11 h = 2/3 a=0. a = 1.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS σ22 / σ11 1.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -1 -0.5 -1.3 σ11 y 1 σ12 =0.5 -0.5 a=1.5 -1 -1 -1.5 h= 1 1 1 h= 2 0.

111) is represented analogously to the plane stressprojected von Mises yield function given in (9.121) Finally. we assume the material to be elastically isotropic.115) where N≡ ∂g 1 ∂Φ = = ∂σ ∂σ 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f . page 372.118) (10.120) together with the out-of plane rates εp = − ε p − ε p .63)).41)3. in deriving (10.120). β = 1. − 2M (2 − a)K2 2K2 M b2 σ12 ∂f = {a(K1 + K2 ) |K1 + K2 |M−2 ∂σ12 2K2 − a(K1 − K2 ) |K1 − K2 |M−2 + 2(2 − a)(2K2 )M−1 }. following the procedure applied to the plane stress-projected von Mises model. (10.116) Equivalently. 2. ∂σ (10. Then. ˙13 ˙23 (10.120) Note that. + 2M (2 − a)K2 2K2 ∂f σ11 − hσ22 Mh a(K1 − K2 ) |K1 + K2 |M−2 1 − = ∂σ22 2 2K2 σ11 − hσ22 + a(K1 + K2 ) |K1 − K2 |M−2 1 − 2K2 M−1 σ11 − hσ22 . in component form. all out-of-plane strain components can be recovered a posteriori as functions of the in-plane elastic and plastic strains according to relations (9.105) (refer to the comments surrounding expression (10. we have taken into account the tensorial nature of the shear stress contribution in (10.119) (10. The in-plane associative plastic strain rate is given simply by ˙ εp = γ N. ∂σαβ α.117)–(10. Thus. . the complete set of plastic flow equations comprises (10.430 Flow rule COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The Barlat–Lian yield function (10. ˙ (10. to complete the definition of the model. ˙33 ˙11 ˙22 εp = εp = 0.40) (refer to page 371).117) The corresponding explicit formulae for the derivatives of f are σ11 − hσ22 M ∂f a(K1 − K2 ) |K1 − K2 |M−2 1 − = ∂σ11 2 2K2 σ11 − hσ22 + a(K1 + K2 ) |K1 + K2 |M−2 1 − 2K2 M−1 σ11 − hσ22 .37)–(9. we have εp = γ ˙αβ ˙ 1 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f . (10. The thickness plastic strain rate is obtained by imposing plastic incompressibility and the transversal plastic shear strain rates are assumed to vanish.

the notation y κ ≡ σ11 . The return-mapping equations The elastic predictor stage of the algorithm in the present case is clearly identical to that of the plane stress-projected von Mises model as described in Subsection 9. (10.             0 Φ(σn+1 . page 199. requires no further consideration.4. requiring the solution of the algebraic system of equations  e    εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1  0         αn+1 − αn − ∆γ (10. κn+1 ) where De here denotes the isotropic (plane stress) elasticity operator and the unknowns are σn+1 . We remark that only the in-plane components of the elastic strain take part in the above equation. Note that. The corresponding algorithm and associated consistent tangent operator are described in the following. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL The implicit elastic predictor/plastic corrector computational implementation of the (isotropically strain hardening) Barlat–Lian model. in the discrete setting. page 377) and. we shall assume linear hardening. including the corresponding consistent tangent operator. (10.125) With this relation and taking into account the linear elasticity law. for a discussion on the possible need for strategies of this nature). requires the inclusion of an extra procedure – a line-search algorithm – to expand the radius of convergence of the Newton–Raphson scheme used to solve the return mapping equations (refer to Remark 7.116) evaluated at n+1 the updated state.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 431 10.123) In the derivation of the return mapping presented below.126) R≡ = 0 . For convenience in the description of the return-mapping algorithm we have adopted.124) where H is the hardening modulus. The return mapping is a specialisation of (7. the return-mapping equation system in the present case cannot be reduced to a single scalar equation. αn+1 and ∆γ. therefore. Then. the return-mapping equation set can be written as  e −1    [D ] : (σn+1 − σtrial ) + ∆γ Nn+1  0         ¯ H −1 (κn+1 − κn ) − ∆γ (10. where Nn+1 is the flow vector (10.25) (page 196). κ = κ0 + H α. The implementation is a particular case of the general methodology adopted throughout this book but. . (1993). here and in what follows.2 (refer to Box 9.3.122) = 0             e 0 Φ(σ(εn+1 ). κn+1 and ∆γ. (10. i. was originally proposed by Dutko et al. as we shall see. unlike previously described implementations such as those of the von Mises and even the orthotropic Hoffman model. κ(αn+1 )) for the unknowns εe .4.5.e. the evolution of κ reads κn+1 = κn + H ∆γ.3.

130) δσ(k) δκ(k) = −A(k−1) R(k−1) + δ∆γ (k) .127) Accordingly.132) With the above solution at hand. we update the Newton guess for the unknowns according to Σn+1 = Σn+1 + δΣ(k) . (10.116).128) for the iterative increments of σn+1 .432 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Newton–Raphson iteration As usual. Following (10.128) gives the following solution (iterative increments) in symbolic form: δ∆γ (k) = Φ(k−1) − [N(k−1) − 1 ] A(k−1) R(k−1) [N(k−1) − 1 ] A(k−1) and N(k−1) −1 N(k−1) −1 (10. δκ(k)       δ∆γ (k) (k) (k−1) (10.129) Straightforward manipulation of system (10. where we have used the notation  (k)   σn+1      (k) .134) . ∂σ ∂σ (10. it is convenient to split the residual vector R as ¯ R= R Φ . Σn+1 ≡ κ(k)  n+1    (k)   ∆γ    δσ(k)      δΣ(k) ≡ . κn+1 and ∆γ.133) (10. R≡ [De ]−1 : (σn+1 − σtrial ) + ∆γ Nn+1 H −1 (κn+1 − κn ) − ∆γ . (10. To do this. the flow vector derivative can be expressed as ∂N ∂ 2 Φ 1 = = ∂σ ∂σ 2M f 2 1−M M ∂2f 1−M + ∂σ2 4M 2 f 2 1−2M M ∂f ∂f ⊗ . (10.126) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson iterative ¯ scheme. the typical k th Newton iteration comprises the solution of the linear system  e −1 0 [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ  0 1/H  N −1   (k−1)  (k)   (k−1)   δσ  R     −1 =− δκ(k)     (k−1)     0 Φ δ∆γ (k) N (10. the solution of equation (10.131) where we have defined A≡ [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 −1 0 H .

page 243).141). the above operator is symmetric. we obtain n+1  e −1 0 [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ  0 1/H  N −1   e trial   dσn+1  dε       −1 dκn+1 = 0 .136) Note that this differential relation has the same symbolic format as expression (7. obtained for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. (1993) for a complete description of the algorithm. The interested reader is referred to Dutko et al. and Crisfield 1991). Line-search procedures are discussed in detail by Fletcher (1980) (see also Matthies and Strang 1979.4.         0 0 d∆γ N (10. that is.126) with respect to its unknowns σn+1 . κn+1 and ∆γ as well as to its input.6. (1993) observed that the convergence bowl of the above Newton–Raphson scheme can be dramatically reduced for larger values of material constant M . an expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be easily obtained by means of a specialisation of the general procedure of Section 7. the elastoplastic tangent for the Barlat–Lian model with implicit return mapping is a complete analogy to (7. the relation ¯ ¯ |δΣ(k) · R(k) | ≥ |δΣ(k) · R(k−1) | (10. . The line-search in the present case is activated whenever the rate of convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations falls below a prescribed minimum. Then. small changes in stress on the yield surface result in large changes in flow vector direction.135) is satisfied. Under such conditions.148) and can be expressed as Dep ≡ where P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ ∂σn+1 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ).4. then the line-search algorithm is carried out. by differentiating the return-mapping system (10. if for a Newton iteration k ≥ 2 and a prescribed tolerance . (10. To tackle the problem. Accordingly. Such an illconditioned behaviour stems from the high curvature present in the Barlat–Lian model for large M in the neighbourhood of points in stress space corresponding to the corners of the Tresca yield surface. Consistent tangent operator Again. εe trial = [De ]−1 : σtrial . =P− e trial ∂ε N:P:N+H −1 (10. Dutko et al. characterising a set of stiff evolution equations.138) As a result of the associative nature of the plastic flow rule and hardening law (refer to Section 7. (1993) adopted a line-search procedure which has effectively stabilised the Newton–Raphson scheme for the range of strain increments expected to be present in practical finite element computations with values of constant M as high as 40.137) : De .4.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 433 Line-search procedure Dutko et al.

.

1993). Then. Section 11. an error assessment of the numerical integration procedure is presented by means of iso-error maps.11 VISCOPLASTICITY T HE elastoplastic constitutive theories presented so far in Part Two of this book are classed as rate independent or time independent. pseudo-time) is used merely to describe the sequence of events that defines the history of the loading process. rateindependent elastoplasticity models can provide good descriptions of the material behaviour (Lemaitre and Chaboche. Here. Ltd . In addition.6. Rate-dependence effects are described by means of so-called viscoplasticity (or rate-dependent plasticity) models. the general numerical framework is specialised to a von Mises-based model presented in Section 11. This chapter is organised as follows. However. that is. the observed behaviour of real materials is generally time dependent. the material response is regarded as independent of the rate of application of loads and/or the timescale of the problems considered.1 presents a brief introduction to phenomenological aspects of viscoplasticity.5 proceeds to introduce a numerical framework to treat the general viscoplasticity model within the finite element environment of Chapter 4. The integration algorithm and the associated consistent tangent operator are derived step by step. under some circumstances.2. from page 71). then accurate predictions can only be obtained if rate dependence is adequately accounted for by the constitutive model. to which the present chapter is devoted. some simple analytical solutions are presented to demonstrate the ability of the one-dimensional model in capturing the fundamental phenomenological features of viscoplastic behaviour. If such conditions are not met. 1990. a limit case of the general viscoplasticity model. Section 11. This includes the numerical integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic constitutive equations as well as a symbolic form of the associated consistent tangent modulus. Lubliner.3 the onedimensional viscoplastic theory is generalised to the multidimensional case within the context of von Mises plasticity.3. Time (or. The general model can be rigorously described within the constitutive framework of internal variable theories initially referred to in Chapter 3 (Section 3. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. Rateindependent plasticity is shown to be.4. A more general multidimensional model is presented in Section 11. For such theories. identical solutions are produced when a given load (or sequence of loads) is applied at different rates. It motivates the establishment of a one-dimensional mathematical model of viscoplasticity in Section 11.5. more precisely. Skrzypek. In situations where the rates of loading and/or the timescale of the analysis remain within a range where the time-dependent phenomena can be neglected.2. In Section 11. This establishes a formal link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive framework of Chapter 3. 1990. The extent of such dependence may or may not be significant according to the physical conditions of the problem. that is. the stress response always depends on the rate of loading and/or the timescale considered. in Section 11.

in metal-forming operations such as hot forging and may have to be taken into consideration in the design of the process.1. .1(b). in the design of pre-stressed load-carrying components. The high strain rates shown towards the end of the schematic curves for high and moderate stresses is the phenomenon known as tertiary creep. We remark that the strain rate dependence of the stress response as well as the phenomena of creep and stress relaxation illustrated above for metals can also be observed for other materials by means of appropriate experiments. the strain at which the specimen breaks. the elasticity modulus is largely independent of the rate of loading but. This rate-dependence is also observed at low temperatures. Prediction of creep behaviour is important. but usually becomes significant only at higher temperatures. Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects Many of the microscopic phenomena underlying the inelastic deformation of solids depend on time.6 are used. Figure 11. To illustrate this fact. Tertiary creep leads to the final rupture of the material and is associated with the evolution of internal damage. for instance. geomaterials in general. clearly. The graph of Figure 11. rubbers. although not shown in Figure 11. is the phenomenon of stress relaxation. in situations where load-carrying metallic components are subjected to long duration loads at high temperatures. the rupture limit. The time-dependent response in this case is characterised by the continuous decay of stress in time. The curves of Figure 11. illustrated in Figure 11. 11. the procedures of Section 11. The relaxation test consists of stretching the specimen (virtually instantaneously) to a prescribed axial strain and maintaining it strained (at constant strain) over a long period of time. Strain-rate dependence may be of crucial importance.1(a) shows stress–strain curves obtained in uniaxial tensile tests carried out under different prescribed strain rates. the phenomenological effects of time-dependent mechanisms become apparent typically at absolute temperatures higher than around one third of the melting point and can be clearly identified by a number of experimental procedures. typical results of simple uniaxial tension tests with metallic bars at higher temperatures are schematically represented in Figure 11. It is also important to emphasise that. In general.436 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS We remark that Section 11.6 is essential for the reader interested in the computational implementation of viscoplasticity.1(a). The third aspect of rate dependence. for instance. Internal damage will be discussed in Chapter 12. Another aspect of time dependence is the phenomenon of creep. In metals.1(c) shows the typical evolution of stress in a relaxation test. Materials such as metals. the initial yield limit as well as the hardening curve depend strongly on the rate of straining. In the reported examples. The prediction of stress relaxation can be vital.1.7. The chapter ends with finite element examples being shown in Section 11.1. can also be strongly dependent on the rate of straining. that is. The material experiences a continuous plastic flow that is accelerated for higher stress levels. for instance. This is illustrated in Figure 11.1(b) show the evolution of plastic strains over time in experiments where tensile specimens have been loaded to different stress levels and left at constant stress during long periods of time. The need for consideration of creep response arises typically in the design and analysis of nuclear reactor and jet turbine engine components. for instance. concrete and composites may all present substantially time-dependent mechanical behaviour under many practical circumstances.

in spite of its simplicity. from page 141). we find it convenient to introduce viscoplasticity by focusing first on a simple one-dimensional theory.1) . Uniaxial tests at different strain rates. ε = εe + εp . the model is able to capture many of the main features of the viscoplastic behaviour depicted in Figure 11.1.2. 11. we devote this section to the description of a simple uniaxial viscoplastic constitutive model.VISCOPLASTICITY 437 σ ε3 ε2 ε1 ε1 < ε2 < ε3 ε (a) ε high stress moderate stress σ constant strain low stress time time (b) (c) Figure 11. In particular. ELASTOPLASTIC DECOMPOSITION OF THE AXIAL STRAIN As for the rate-independent case. (b) Creep. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model Similarly to what has been done in Chapter 6 for rate-independent plasticity (refer to Section 6. Thus.1. the uniaxial model possesses all the basic ingredients of the multidimensional models discussed in the remainder of this chapter. Viscoplasticity.2. the decomposition of the total axial strain into a sum of an elastic (recoverable) and a plastic (permanent) component is introduced. (11. Phenomenological aspects: uniaxial tensile tests at high temperature.1. 11. (a) Strain rate dependence.2. Plastic flow at constant stress. Stress decay at constant strain. As we shall see. (c) Relaxation.

it needs to be emphasised that in the rateindependent model the plastic strain rate is in fact a pseudo-time rate.4. the above constitutive equation for εp differs fundamentally from (6. 11. . THE ELASTIC LAW The axial stress is again assumed to be related to the elastic component of the axial strain by means of the standard linear elastic constitutive relation σ = E εe . σy ) < 0}. In spite of its similarity to the rate-independent flow rule. In contrast. some models of viscoplasticity do not have an elastic domain.4) (11. Essentially. σy ) = µ ˙ (11. the actual timescale is irrelevant.2. γ – named the plastic multiplier and determined by the procedure of ˙ Section 6. In addition to this conceptual difference. the explicit function for γ should model how the rate of plastic straining ˙ varies with the level of stress.438 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. THE YIELD FUNCTION AND THE ELASTIC DOMAIN Here.5) is the actual time derivative of εp . In that case.3. The elastic domain is defined as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ.2. † As we shall see later in this chapter.11). that is.6)    0 if Φ(σ. so that the behaviour is purely elastic whenever |σ| < σy .2. page 144) εp = γ(σ.2 and the viscoplasticity model introduced here lies in the definition of the flow rule. analogously to the rateindependent model of Section 6. the plastic strain rate in (11.2) where sign is the signum function defined by (6. we will define the one-dimensional viscoplasticity model by adopting the following particular definition  1/ 1 |σ|   −1 if Φ(σ. Here. Such models do not require the definition of a yield function. σy ) = |σ| − σy . the existence of an elastic domain for the stress within which the material behaviour is purely elastic is also experimentally observed in many cases.2. εp in the rate˙ independent theory is the derivative of the plastic strain in respect to a pseudo-time parameter used solely to describe the sequence of events. the elastic domain can be conveniently defined by means of a yield function Φ(σ.3) where σy is the yield stress. The viscoplastic flow rule can be postulated with a format similar to that of the rate-independent case (see equation (6.10). σy ) sign(σ). which describes the evolution of εp . Firstly.3. (11. σy ) ≥ 0 σy γ(σ.2.2. ˙ ˙ (11.5) (11. Many forms are possible for γ and a discussion on this issue ˙ will be left for Section 11.7 (page 146) in the rate-independent theory – is here a given explicit function of σ and σy .† Thus. σy ) < 0. VISCOPLASTIC FLOW RULE The crucial difference between the uniaxial elastoplastic model of Section 6.10). 11.

remains constant in time. and the non-dimensional rate-sensitivity parameter.2. If σy is a constant. as temperature increases (decreases) µ and increase (decrease). One important aspect to be emphasised here is that. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional viscoplasticity model is defined by the constinutive equations (11. be a given (experimentally determined) function σy = σy (¯p ) ε of the accumulated plastic strain t (11.1)–(11. As in the elastoplastic case. For convenience we summarise the model in Box 11. µ.1.1. Both parameters are strictly positive. It is important to emphasise that the material parameters µ and are temperature dependent. SOME SIMPLE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS Section 11. Creeping at constant stress Let us consider the case of a bar subjected to an axial load that produces a uniform stress σ > σy over its cross-section.2. an increase (decrease) in σy will produce a decrease (increase) in the plastic strain rate εp .6. In the viscoplastic model. The fact that the model behaviour is elastic under .8) Note that (11. .8). hardening can be incorporated in the same manner as in the elastoplastic case by letting the yield stress. ˙ an increase of σy will be referred to as hardening whereas its reduction will be described as softening. To illustrate this and give the reader a better insight into the theory.1 discussed some of the phenomenological aspects of viscoplastic behaviour. whose dimension is time. we derive in this section analytical solutions for three simple problems where the basic properties of creep at constant stress. when the material behaviour may be assumed rate-independent. This particular form has been introduced by Peri´ (1993) similarly to the power law form of c the viscoplastic potential proposed by Perzyna (1963). With the instantaneous loading (at time t = 0).2. after being applied.7) εp = ¯ 0 |εp | dt. As a general rule.6) implies that at a given constant applied stress σ.VISCOPLASTICITY 439 where the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter µ. the bar will initially deform (also instantaneously) in a purely elastic manner. 11. 11. the phenomenon of hardening describes the changes in yield stress that result from plastic straining. For many metals. in spite of its simplicity. strain rate dependence of the stress response and stress relaxation under constant strain are reproduced by the one-dimensional model. The load is applied instantaneously and.7. → 0 for sufficiently low temperatures. the above-defined one-dimensional model can capture the key phenomenological features of rate-dependent plasticity shown in Figure 11.5. HARDENING LAW In the rate-independent case. the model is referred to as perfectly viscoplastic. σy . 11. ˙ (11.

(11. (11. (11. However. immediately after the instantaneous application of load. Hardening law σy = σy (¯p ) ε ˙ ˙ εp = γ ¯ instantaneous loading is formally demonstrated in the next example when the strain rate dependence of the stress response is discussed. Uniaxial elastic law 3.9) 0 E where the zero subscript denotes quantities at t = 0.440 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. gives the following solution for the straining of the bar ε(t) = σ 1 + E µ σ σy 1/ − 1 t.6). the elastic law implies that the elastic strain will also remain constant. σy ) < 0 5. From this moment on. we then have εp = ˙ 1 µ σ σy 1/ −1 . as there is no time for plastic strains to develop over an (idealised) instantaneous loading event.9). even without a formal proof.11) . the integration of the above equation. Yield function 4. Plastic flow rule εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ ˙  1  γ= ˙ µ  0 |σ| σy 1/ σ = E εe Φ(σ.10) For a perfectly viscoplastic material (constant σy ). the straining of the bar after the instantaneous loading will be due purely to viscoplastic flow and will be modelled by constitutive equations (11. Assuming zero initial plastic strain. Thus. Assuming that σ is positive (tensile). σy ) = |σ| − σy −1 if Φ(σ. it follows from the elastoplastic split of the total strain together with the elastic law that the total strain in the bar at t = 0. One-dimensional viscoplastic constitutive model. in conjunction with the elastoplastic decomposition of the total strain and the initial condition (11.5). (11. will be σ ε0 = εe = . the bar is kept under a constant stress above the yield limit. 1.1. it makes sense to accept that. the behaviour must be purely elastic under such a condition. σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ. Under constant stress. Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2.

equivalently. we will assume that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and.15) where the total strain is the prescribed function ε(t) = α t + ε∗ = α t + σy . our initial value problem will be defined only over the portion of the loading process where σ ≥ σy (or ε ≥ ε∗ ). Then. as our purpose is to illustrate the rate dependence predicted by the model. when ε ≥ ε∗ . µ σy µ σy µ ε∗ (11. in addition. The material constants (µ and ) could be calibrated. the stress response does not depend on the rate of stretching. so as to capture the initial branches of the creep curves of the material (refer to Figure 11. for instance. The initial branches describe the phenomenon of primary creep.12) (11. E (11. σ=Eε ∗ if σ < σy .10). A hardening law could be incorporated to include the follow-up of the curves to their second straight branch that describes secondary creep.16) . the associated initial value problem consists of finding a function εp (t) such that εp (t) = ˙ 1 σ(t) 1 E [ε(t) − εp (t)] 1 ε(t) − εp (t) −1 = −1 = −1 .13) where ε is the strain at which the yield stress is reached ε∗ = σy . Before stating the associated initial value problem.1(a). The stress–strain response during this phase is expressed simply as σ=Eε or. so that an analytical solution to the initial value problem can be easily found. (11. Under the above assumptions. To simplify the problem.1(b)). let us first recall that the material response within the elastic domain (σ < σy ) is purely elastic. Thus. the rate sensitivity parameter will be set to = 1.14) Viscoplastic flow (and rate-dependent behaviour) may only take place when σ ≥ σy or. E (11. Strain-rate dependence of the stress response Here we analyse the monotonic stretching of an initially unstrained (and unstressed) bar at constant strain rates. The objective here is to show that the one-dimensional model is capable of predicting the strain-rate dependence of the stress response as generally illustrated in Figure 11. in terms of the applied strain.VISCOPLASTICITY 441 The creep rate in this case is constant and proportional to (σ/σy )1/ − 1. The evolution of the plastic strain for the present model is defined by equation (11. The initial value problem. These are the conditions typically encountered in conventional tensile tests. at the initial stages of the monotonic stretching process. if ε < ε∗ .

16) into the elastic law.22) is always negative. ˜ (11. (11. By substituting (11.15).17) . The strain rate dependence of the stress response can be more clearly illustrated by expressing the stress as a function of strain for an arbitrary (but constant in time) strain rate. after a straightforward manipulation.21) With the introduction of this relation into (11. Indeed. α (11.442 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS corresponding to monotonic stretching with arbitrary (constant) strain rate α ≥ 0. Note that t = 0 corresponds to the onset of viscoplastic flow (σ = σy ⇔ ε = ε∗ ). (11. so that curves such as those depicted in Figure 11. In addition.16). we obtain. The analytical solution. The initial condition for εp (the plastic strain at the onset of viscoplastic flow) is obviously εp (0) = 0. In the present case. such a function can be obtained by means of a simple variable transformation in (11. µ and α are positive so that the last term on the right-hand side of (11.19) By placing the above solution together with (11. In order to obtain the limit for infinitely slow rates. The limit is then easily obtained as lim σ (ε) = σy . the following solution for the stress as a function of time −t σ(t) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ ε∗ . εp (0) = 0. the curves obtained at infinitely slow rates (α → 0) and infinitely fast processes (α → ∞).1(a) can be produced.22) is the exponential of a negative number.23) α→0 . Insight into the problem can be gained by looking into the limit stress–strain curves. in the present monotonic loading process.20).16) into the differential equation (11. (11.20) The stress–strain response. σ = E(ε − εp ).22) which gives the stress–strain curve for an arbitrary strain rate α.e. (11.20).18) µ ε∗ The analytical solution can then be promptly obtained by standard methods for first-order ordinary linear differential equations as εp (t) = α t − µ ε∗ 1 − e µ ε∗ −t (11. the term 1 − ε/ε∗ in (11. i. we first observe that. we have t = t(ε) = ε − ε∗ . we obtain σ (ε) = σ(t(ε)) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ α (1− ε∗ ) ˜ 1 ε . note that by inverting the function defined by (11. the initial value problem can be written as 1 εp (t) = ˙ [α t − εp (t)].

The limits µα → 0 (infinitely slow rates or nonviscous material) and µα → ∞ (infinitely fast rates or infinitely viscous material) are also included. at infinitely slow rates the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the behaviour of the rate-independent plasticity model with yield stress σy .0 non-dimensional stress. that is. In fact. The rate-independent model was described in Section 6. αµ = 0. For any other rate (or viscosity parameter). the above limits remain valid for any hardening curve and any rate sensitivity parameter . E) of the elastic curve. where the non-dimensional stress.1 1 rate-independent limit: αµ lope 0 0 0 1 5 10 elas tic s relative strain. the analytical solution (11. ε / ε∗ Figure 11. Also note that the identical limit is found for µ → ∞ (infinitely viscous material). the corresponding stress–strain curve will lie between these two limits with higher stress obtained at higher strain rates (or higher viscosity).2. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.5 αµ = 0. regardless of the given hardening curve and rate-sensitivity parameter. when µ → 0. To illustrate better the behaviour of the model under the present conditions.e. i.e. at infinitely fast rates (or when µ → ∞).22) is shown in the graph of Figure 11.0 σ / σy 2 αµ oo αµ = 1. ˜ (11.2 (page 141). even though it is not formally shown here. the limit is derived by a standard limiting procedure which gives α→∞ lim σ (ε) = E ε. Clearly. Analytical solution showing the dependence of the stress response on the applied strain rate/viscosity parameter. at infinitely slow strain rates. that is.1. At infinitely fast rates. In addition (again not formally shown in this section). σ/σy . the model recovers the rate-independent behaviour of the plasticity model of Section 6. ε/ε∗ . It is also very important to note that the same limit is obtained for the vanishing viscosity parameter.2 (this limit is also obtained for µ → 0) and.24) i. Remark 11.VISCOPLASTICITY 443 αµ = 2. is plotted against the relative strain.1(a). the process is purely elastic and the stress–strain curve after the yield limit is the continuation (with the same slope. the model behaves in a purely elastic manner.2. for various normalised strain rates µα. the . the model is able to capture the experimentally observed rate-dependence phenomenon illustrated in Figure 11.

31) (11. µ σy c2 = E .4. ˙ (11. Over the instantaneous stretching (at time t = 0). Here the model should be able to capture the phenomenon of stress relaxation alluded to in Figure 11. Stress relaxation at constant strain In this final example. In this case. the corresponding stress is given by σ0 = E εe = E ε. The instantaneous stretching to ε is assumed to produce a stress above the yield limit of the material. c2 (11.10) which. in view of the elastic law. the bar will deform purely elastically (refer to the limit expression (11.26) (11. µ σy (11.444 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS rate-independent behaviour is also recovered with vanishing rate-sensitivity. This last property will be demonstrated in Section 11. that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and = 1. in view of the above expression can be equivalently written as εp = ˙ 1 µ σ0 − E εp σy 1/ −1 .1(c). (11. we have εe = ε. 0 From this point on.29) with initial condition εp (0) = 0. the stress in the bar will be governed by the law σ = E(ε − εp ) = σ0 − E εp . i. assuming that the plastic strain is zero at t = 0 (immediately after the instantaneous stretching). Thus.30) The analytical solution to (11.3 in the context of the general multidimensional theory.27) (11.24) and the text surrounding it). when → 0. we consider the case of a bar which is instantaneously stretched (stretched at an infinitely fast strain rate) to a total strain ε and then kept stretched indefinitely at that constant strain.30) can be trivially obtained as εp (t) = c1 (1 − e−c2 t ).e. where the constants c1 and c2 are defined as c1 = 1 σ0 −1 . as in the previous example.28) To simplify the problem. 0 and. the initial value problem is to find a function εp (t) such that εp (t) = c1 − c2 εp (t).32) . (11.29–11.25) where εp evolves in time according to the differential equation (11. we will assume.

3 (page 148) where a general multidimensional extension of the onedimensional rate-independent plasticity model of Section 6. will be left for Section 11. A von Mises-based multidimensional model This section introduces a multidimensional extension of the one-dimensional model discussed above (and summarised in Box 11. including its potential structure and its relation to timeindependent plasticity as a limit case.2 (page 141) was presented). One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.1.3 for the rate-independent theory.VISCOPLASTICITY 445 σ0 stress σy 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 non-dimensional time.4. Finally. . we obtain the stress as a function of time σ(t) = σ0 − (σ0 − σy )(1 − e − µE y t σ ). we chose here to focus first on a von Mises-based generalisation of the uniaxial theory. (11. 11.3. by placing the above solution into (11.33) Clearly. Analytical solution to the stress relaxation problem. the above function describes the stress relaxation process of the bar. 11.1(c). and taking into account the definition of c1 and c2 .1).3.27). E t / µσ y Figure 11. The analytical solution with the present one-dimensional model clearly captures the experimentally observed behaviour referred to in Figure 11.3 where a graph of the analytical function σ(t) (with σ0 = 2 σy ) is plotted. This is illustrated in Figure 11. A VON MISES-TYPE VISCOPLASTIC MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC STRAIN HARDENING The multidimensional generalisation of the uniaxial viscoplastic model follows the same basic steps as the generalisation presented in Section 6.3. with the stress taking the value σ = σ0 > σy at t = 0 and subsequently relaxing asymptotically to σy as t → ∞. A discussion of a more generic model. Rather than define a generic extension at the outset (as in Section 6.

Plastic flow rule ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ q σy 1/ σ = De : εe q= 3 2 s:s E = {σ | Φ(σ. The usual concept of an elastic domain bounded by a yield surface in the rate-independent theory will remain valid in the viscoplastic case. under uniaxial stress conditions.2. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .3. Remark 11. The yield function is also redefined as a function of variables of appropriate tensorial order. σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ.1. and elastic domain 4. σy ) < 0} 3 2 s s if Φ(σ. 1. σy ) < 0  1  γ= µ ˙   0 5. The constitutive equations of the von Mises-based extension are listed in Box 11. the model of Box 11.2 reduces exactly to the one-dimensional theory of Box 11. Analogously to its rate-independent counterpart.1 (from page 216). A von Mises-type viscoplastic constitutive model. 6.2. elastic and plastic strain tensors. Evolution of accumulated plastic strain εp = ¯ 0 t ˙ εp dt ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ that is.446 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. as our multidimensional extension is von Mises-based.2. Yield function Φ(σ. the elastoplastic split of the total strain. The resulting model is a viscoplastic version of the rate-independent isotropically hardening von Mises model summarised in Section 7. the linear elasticity law. Linear elastic law 3. the flow rule and yield function are recast in terms of the corresponding tensor quantities (total. Here. stress relaxation and strain-rate dependence of the stress response (including the behaviour at limits) as demonstrated for the . the yield function and the plastic flow rule (including the hardening internal variable) will have the same format as that of the standard rate-independent von Mises model with (associative) Prandtl–Reuss flow vector. Isotropic strain hardening law −1 ε σy = σy (¯p ). stress tensor and flow vector). Elastoplastic split of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. It is also important to emphasise that the basic properties of creep.

σy ) ≥ 0  Φ(σ.1 and 11.36) ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . with more material constants.37)    0 if Φ(σ.6) and item 4 of Boxes 11.7 are reproduced by the multidimensional theory under any state of stress. ˙ (11.34) . As mentioned in Section 11. 11. many forms for γ c ˙ have been proposed and. σy ) < 0. Clearly. within the framework of von Mises ˙ viscoplasticity. the linear approximation may give good results. µ = .4. σy ) = η η γ(σ.VISCOPLASTICITY 447 uniaxial model in Section 11. (11. in many cases. over a relatively narrow range of stresses.38) σy In the uniaxial case.3. ALTERNATIVE PLASTIC STRAIN RATE DEFINITIONS So far.2) has been assumed to be of the form proposed by Peri´ (1993). have. The multiplier γ in this case is ˙ defined as  q(σ) − σy 1  if Φ(σ.35) (11. ˙ with associative flow vector N defined by N= and yield function Φ(σ. However. In this section. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy . the observed strain rate may be a markedly nonlinear function of the stress. 2 s (11.2. the explicit function for γ that takes part in the definition of the plastic flow equation ˙ (see expression (11. ˙ Bingham model The Bingham model is the simplest model of viscoplasticity. However.2. Note that this law is obtained from Peri´ ’s model given in item 4 of Box 11. Other models. in general. in practice. each form of γ defines a different model of viscoplasticity. a particular choice should be dictated by its ability to model the dependence of the plastic strain rate on the state of stress for the material under consideration. will remain unchanged for any definition of γ.2. σy ) = ˙ (11.2 (and also from the c Perzyna model described below) by setting η = 1. we list some of the most widely used forms. the plastic strain rate for the Bingham model is a linear function of the axial stress: 1 εp = (|σ| − σy ) sign(σ).39) η This may severely limit the ability of the model to fit experimental data as. (11. the format of the flow rule ˙ εp = γ N. better flexibility to allow a wider range of experimental data to be fitted. The only material constant in this case is the (temperature-dependent) viscosity parameter η and the strain rate is modelled as a linear function of the von Mises effective stress.

particularly at higher temperatures.3. ¯ (11. As shown by Peri´ (1993). the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter. that is.4. such an assumption is by no means required. in spite of its similarity to Peri´ ’s definition. Other hardening laws. However.41) σy = σy (wp ).1 on page 443). the yield stress is effectively zero. such as isotropic work hardening (where the plastic work is taken as the internal variable) as well as kinematic hardening and more general mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening rules can be considered in a manner completely analogous to that of the rate-independent theory as described in Section 6. σy ) ≥ 0 γ(σ. σy ) = µ σy ˙ (11. For example. . µ.6.42) 2 where η is the relative stress η = s − β.6 (page 177). such as Prager’s rule and the Armstrong– Frederick kinematic hardening law. q. the response of both Perzyna and Peri´ models c coincide with the standard rate-independent model with yield stress σy . VISCOPLASTIC MODELS WITHOUT A YIELD SURFACE The assumption of the existence of an elastic domain bounded by a yield surface is essential in the formulation of rate-independent plasticity models. only isotropic strain hardening has been taken into account. Kinematic hardening is introduced by simply replacing the von Mises effective stress. many metals at high temperatures will flow at virtually any stress state with a non-zero deviatoric component. a yield surface and a corresponding elastic domain do not need to be introduced in the formulation of the .3.43) and β is the backstress tensor. with the relative effective stress q = 3 η : η. in c this limit. the Perzyna model produces a curve with σ = 2 σy instead. For viscoplasticity models.40)   0 if Φ(σ. 11. We remark here that. In fact. for vanishing viscosity (µ → 0) or vanishing strain rates. 1971) and is widely used in computational applications of viscoplasticity. as the ratec independent limit is approached with vanishing rate-sensitivity → 0 (refer to Remark 11. 11. defined by expression (6. It is defined by  1/  1 q(σ)  −1 if Φ(σ.3. OTHER ISOTROPIC AND KINEMATIC HARDENING LAWS In the viscoplasticity model of Box 11.2. Evolution laws for β. the Perzyna model does not reproduce the uniaxial stress–strain curve of the corresponding rate-independent model with yield stress σy . however. can be defined as in Section 6. and the rate c sensitivity. many materials can be modelled as flowing whenever under stress. wp . In such cases. that is. isotropic work hardening is obtained by having σy as a given function of the plastic work.448 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Perzyna model This model was introduced by Perzyna (1966. (11. As in Peri´ ’s model.177) (11. σy ) < 0.

ft and fT are experimentally defined functions. (11. Clearly.VISCOPLASTICITY 449 theory. plastic flow is assumed to occur whenever σ = 0. fσ could be Norton’s law or the Lemaitre–Chaboche relation above. T ) = fσ (σ) ft (t) fT (T ).37) the Bingham model recovers the Norton law with N = 1 and λ = η. The function γ in this case reads ˙ γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N exp[α q(σ)N +1 ]. t. 1990).2 with the following γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N . to which the interested reader is referred.44) where N and λ are temperature-dependent material constants. by setting σy = 0 in (11.47) where t and T denote. Other creep laws A rather general class of viscoplastic laws can be obtained by assuming that γ is a function ˙ of the stress. It is used mainly in the description of secondary creep.45) Here. Its multidimensional generalisation. In its original (uniaxial) version. the flow rule is given by εp = ˙ |σ| λ N sign(σ). Lemaitre–Chaboche law A modification of Norton’s law in order to improve its ability to model secondary creep over a wider range of stresses and strain rates is provided by the Lemaitre–Chaboche law (Lemaitre and Chaboche. the time and absolute temperature and fσ . especially in the analysis of creep and hot metal forming operations. such models can be defined simply by postulating the explicit function for γ accordingly. ˙ Norton’s creep law The classical Norton creep law has been employed extensively in the analysis of creep of metals. A comprehensive list of proposed empirical functions is given by Skrzypek (1993). Viscoplasticity models without a yield surface have been used widely. Within the present framework. plastic flow takes place for any stress with non-zero deviator. with the following multiplicative format γ = γ(σ. ˙ ˙ (11. The temperature function fT is . (11. the present model has a third (also temperature-dependent) parameter α. time and temperature. is obtained by simply replacing the definition of the function for γ in item ˙ 4 of Box 11. sometimes referred to as Odqvist’s law. Note that.46) In addition to the material parameters N and λ required by Norton’s law. respectively. For instance. (11.

4. It follows the same considerations as Sections 6. A typical example of an empirical relation of the above format is given by the law (Boyle and Spence. note that we will use here the notation of Section 6. At this point.1 to 6.50) that is.3. is advised to review them before proceeding further.3. 1983) γ = C exp ˙ −Q RT tM q N . A) ˙ α = J(σ. Note that the von Mises-based model of Box 11.48) where C is a constant.2 (which incorporates an elastic domain) is trivially recovered by defining the functions G and J as well as the free-energy potential ψ and the internal variable set α accordingly. The formulation of the viscoplastic model is analogous to that of its rate-independent counterpart. Another interesting viscoplastic model used primarily in the description of the behaviour of metallic alloys at high temperatures is the Bodner–Partom model (Bodner and Partom.3. A). (11.2 (page 151). RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY The above viscoplasticity model fits within the generic internal variable-based constitutive framework discussed in Section 3. except that the flow rule and hardening law are defined as ˙ εp = G(σ. the plastic strain rate and the evolution law for the set α of hardening internal variables are defined by means of the explicit constitutive functions G and J of σ and the set A of hardening thermodynamic forces. 1975). 11.1. or concepts used in that section.4. The same applies to all other models (with or without an elastic domain) described in Section 11. 11. (11. The reader who is not familiar with that notation. a yield function is not necessarily present in the viscoplastic formulation. as we have seen above.3. R is the gas constant 8. it can be trivially established .4.31 J mol−1 K −1 .3 (from page 148) and summarised in Box 6. we proceed here to formulate a more general constitutive theory of viscoplasticity. Indeed. Q is the activation energy usually independent of the temperature. The theory presented here is a viscoplastic version of the general rate-independent model described in Section 6. The constitutive equations of the general viscoplasticity model are listed in Box 11. In addition. Thus. an elastic domain may not exist.450 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS normally defined by the Arrhenius law fT (T ) = C exp −Q RT (11.5.2 (from page 71). An implicit computational implementation of the Bodner–Partom model has been recently described by Anderson (2003). General viscoplastic constitutive model Having described in the previous section some of the most commonly used viscoplasticity models.49) with M and N being material parameters.3.

α=− ∂A At this point.3. A). A general viscoplastic constitutive model. In this case.162) on page 74). through the hypothesis of normal dissipativity.2) ˙ ˙ σ : εp − A ∗ α. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4.2) and then introducing the explicit constitutive functions for the rates of plastic strain and hardening variables listed in item 4 of Box 11. Plastic flow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = G(σ.3.52) ∂Ξ ˙ . (11. refer to Section 6.3. we define a dissipation potential Ξ = Ξ(σ. . POTENTIAL STRUCTURE AND DISSIPATION INEQUALITY A specialisation of the general theory of Box 11.3 is a particular case of the general purely mechanical infinitesimal constitutive law defined by (3. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. it is important to recall that the plastic dissipation in the present case is given by (again. A) ˙ α = J(σ. Free-energy function ψ = ψ(εe . A) ∂ψ ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α that the model of Box 11. the evolution of the internal variables of the problem are derived as ˙ εp = ∂Ξ ∂σ (11.4.165) on page 76. 1.3.2.3 can be obtained by endowing the model with a potential structure (refer to the discussion surrounding expression (3.51) from which.165) as composed of the plastic strain tensor and the set of hardening internal variables (as described in Section 6. 11.VISCOPLASTICITY 451 Box 11. The general viscoplasticity model is obtained by simply defining the set α of (3. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2.

RATE-INDEPENDENT PLASTICITY AS A LIMIT CASE In this section we show that rate-independent plasticity can be recovered as a limit case of the above general viscoplastic theory with a potential structure.7. A) =  ∞ if (σ.57) ‡ Readers not familiar with convex analysis are referred to Rockafellar (1970).2. The set A is convex. ΨA . let us consider the closure. Thus. A) | Φ(σ. of the convex set A as the scalar-valued function defined by  0 if (σ.‡ Crucial to the proof to be shown is the concept of indicator function of a convex set. A) ∈ A (11. as anticipated in Section 6.2. that is. the elastoplastic model of Box 6. A is the set of all admissible states (σ. where ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.5. The indicator function of a convex set The demonstration presented here is based on arguments of convex analysis. A} = {0. A. A. A) ∈ A.3 (page 151) can be rigorously described.3. α) ≥ 0.55) (11. (11. we now introduce the indicator function. By defining Ξ such that it is convex with respect to both variables. As emphasised above. εp .54) is the dissipation function.5. the demonstration that follows here shows effectively that. / The indicator function is clearly non-differentiable. 0} it is ensured that the dissipation inequality is satisfied a priori by the model. A) ≤ 0}. In this context. . the general viscoplastic model is a particular instance of the internal variable-based constitutive framework of Section 3. (11.e. i.53) In rate-independent plasticity. Following the above considerations. A. we shall see that an associative rate-independent plasticity model is obtained by adopting ΨA as the dissipation potential in the general viscoplastic theory. non-negative and zerovalued at {σ. under some circumstances. it defines a convex region in the space of stresses and hardening forces. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α (11. we choose Ξ(σ.56) ΨA (σ. A) ≡ ΨA (σ. A). as a particular case of the general continuum constitutive theory of Section 3. εp .452 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS so that the dissipation inequality reads ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. of the elastic domain defined by means of a yield function Φ: A = {(σ.3.4. A) of stress and hardening thermodynamical forces. The rate-independent limit In what follows. 11.

A) ≤ 0. εp . it has been shown above that the classical rate-independent associative plasticity equations are rigorously recovered from the general viscoplasticity model when the indicator function of the set A is taken as the dissipation potential.2 and.59) or. the constitutive equations (11. (11. (11.60) This last inequality states that. (11. . among all states (σ∗ . A∗ .5. in such limits. assume that the model is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ). A.VISCOPLASTICITY 453 At this point we need to make use of the concept of subdifferential.52). discussed in Section 6. which follow from normal dissipativity.56) it can easily be established that (11. § Refer to Section 6. ∀ (σ∗ .62) In summary.69) together with (11. A∗ ) ∈ A. This is known as the principle of maximum plastic dissipation.61) ∂Φ ˙ . α). Thus. respectively. A∗ ) ∈ A. εp . are replaced with the subdifferential relations ˙ εp ∈ ∂σ ΨA ˙ α ∈ −∂A ΨA . the actual stress and hardening force (σ. α = −γ ˙ ∂A together with the loading/unloading conditions of rate-independent plasticity Φ(σ. ˙ Φ(σ.54) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.58) is equivalent to the inequality ˙ ˙ εp : (σ − σ∗ ) + α ∗ (A − A∗ ) ≥ 0. A∗ ) ∈ ΨA . the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the classical perfectly elastoplastic von Mises model. Example: von Mises-based model Let us now consider the von Mises-based model of Box 11.3. From the subdifferential definition (6.2 (page 170) to which the reader is referred for details. α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ .58) where ∂σ ΨA and ∂A ΨA are the subdifferentials of ΨA with respect to σ and A.9 (from page 153) for the definition of subdifferential. The solution to the maximisation problem associated with the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is the classical associative laws ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ ∂σ (11. ˙ (11. A) maximise the dissipation function. ∀ (σ∗ . Our purpose here is to illustrate the above ideas by demonstrating that the viscoplastic model can be defined in terms of a dissipation potential whose limit when → 0 or µ → 0 is the indicator function of the set of admissible stresses of the perfectly plastic von Mises model. for simplicity.§ In view of the nondifferentiability of the indicator function. γ ≥ 0. A)γ = 0. equivalently. in terms of the dissipation function (11.

that is. stated on page 193.5.63) where σ is the only variable. →0 µ→0 (11. Simo and Hughes (1998).2. (11. 11. the limit of the potential Ξ of (11. . by simple inspection.64) is found through a straightforward differentiation to be that of item 4 of Box 11. The schematic illustration of Figure 11. Chaboche and Cailletaud c (1996). ∂σ (11.2 when hardening is not considered. Clearly. for the sake of clarity. Runesson and Mahler (1999).5. we refer to Simo and Govindjee (1991). The problem here is analogous to its rate-independent counterpart. 11.454 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS We start by defining the dissipation potential as  1+  σy 1 q(σ) q(σ)   + − µ 1+ 1+ σy σy Ξ(σ) =    0 if q/σy ≥ 1 if q/σy < 1. Finally. as → 0.65) where A = {σ | q(σ) − σy ≤ 0}. (11. to start by stating the underlying initial value problem we wish to solve. The basic requirements are: (i) an algorithm for numerical integration of the viscoplastic constitutive equations. we can easily see that. the above potential indeed defines the von Mises-based viscoplasticity model of Box 11. A GENERAL IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM Before proceeding to the derivation of an integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic model. For further discussions and analysis of various aspects of the numerical treatment of viscoplasticity.1. Ξ tends to the indicator function of A. the flow rule ˙ εp = ∂Ξ . and Alfano and Rosati (2001).66) This completes the demonstration. it seems convenient. to be used in the assemblage of the finite element stiffness matrix. (ii) the associated consistent tangent modulus.1.4 shows the potential Ξ for various choices of the rate-sensitivity parameter . Peri´ (1993). when → 0 or µ → 0. Simo (1998). General numerical framework This section describes the basic ingredients needed to incorporate the general viscoplasticity model of Box 11.3 into the finite element framework of Chapter 4. Problem 7. With the above definition.63) is the indicator function of the set of admissible stresses defined by the von Mises yield function: lim Ξ(σ) = lim Ξ(σ) = ΨA (σ). to be used to update stresses and other state variables of the model.

T ]. (11. Problem 11. The time and strain increments are defined in the usual way as ∆t = tn+1 − tn . ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . find the functions εe (t) and α(t). with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ .67) of ordinary differential equations has been obtained by incorporating the viscoplastic flow equation (11. ε(t). for each instant t ∈ [t0 . for the elastic strain tensor and hardening internal variable set that satisfy the reduced general viscoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − G(σ(t). the reduced system (11. (11.69) The fully implicit algorithm for the numerical solution of the above problem is derived by simply applying a standard backward Euler time discretisation of the rate equations. once the history of elastic strain is determined in the solution to the above problem. where a typical step over the time interval [tn . Viscoplastic potential Ξ for various rate-sensitivity parameters .70) ∋ ∋ . t ∈ [t0 . tn+1 ] is considered. ∂α t (11. ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ .VISCOPLASTICITY 455 ∋ 1 elastic domain Ξ 0 small large 0 q (σ) σ y Figure 11.50)1 into the elastoplastic split of the total strain rate so that the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in the initial value problem.67) As in the definition of the rate-independent problem. A(t)) (11. A(t)). T ].68) ˙ α(t) = J(σ(t).1 (The viscoplastic constitutive initial value problem). Clearly.4. The resulting incremental problem is presented in Box 11. the history of the plastic strain is promptly obtained as εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t).4. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor.

tn+1 ] and the state variables at tn . Φn+1 = 0. If the trial state is within the elastic domain or on the yield surface. the updated stress state at tn+1 generally lies on the outside of the yield surface. ˙ where. the specialisation of the algorithm of Box 11. The viscoplastic return mapping differs from its elastoplastic (rateindependent) counterpart (refer to Box 7. N is the flow vector and H is the generalised hardening modulus. compute the updated state by solving the nonlinear system of equations  e    e εn+1 − εn − ∆ε + ∆t G(σn+1 . To see this. Given the strain and time increment. A) N(σ. i. A) = γ(σ. let us first consider that for a general model with a yield surface. i. Clearly. An+1 ) > 0. A). n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 Models with a yield surface Note that in the algorithm of Box 11. tn+1 ]. If a yield surface is present. A) H(σ. however. A) ˙ (11. Otherwise. the constitutive functions G and J can be defined with the following form G(σ. with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ εe . Φ(σn+1 . it makes sense to first compute an elastic trial state by assuming that the material behaviour is purely elastic within the interval [tn . An+1 ) 0 for εe and αn+1 . ∆ε and ∆t. A) > 0. then no viscoplastic flow takes place within the considered time step and the trial state is the actual state at the end of the step. The algorithm is valid for models with or without a yield surface. An+1 ) 0 =     αn+1 − αn − ∆t J(σn+1 . states lying neither in the elastic domain nor on the yield surface. as in the rate-independent case.456 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. Remark 11. over [tn . forces the updated state to be on the yield surface when there is plastic flow over .3. Then. the evolution of εp and α is computed by means of the standard backward Euler method.e.e.4. A) = γ(σ.5.71) J(σ. The scalar γ is zero within the elastic domain or on the ˙ yield surface and may only be non-zero outside the elastic domain.1. which we shall refer to as the elastic predictor/viscoplastic corrector or elastic predictor/viscoplastic return mapping algorithm. page 199) in that. here. This is in contrast with the rate-independent case in which the consistency equation. following the terminology of the rate-independent theory.4 no assumption is made on the existence of an elastic domain. Fully implicit algorithm for numerical integration of general viscoplastic constitutive equations. is listed in Box 11.4 takes a twostage format completely analogous to the elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure of the rate-independent case. evolution of εp and α may only occur here at states with Φ(σ. The resulting algorithm.

the updated stress is obtained by moving (or returning) the trial stress towards the yield surface. Solve the system  e  e trial εn+1 − εn+1 + ∆γ N(σn+1 . Fully implicit elastic predictor/viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm for numerical integration of general viscoplastic constitutive equations with a yield surface over a generic time interval [tn . An+1 ) ˙ and σn+1 = ρ ¯ (iv) EXIT ∂ψ ∂ εe . Hughes and Taylor (1978). 11. tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn . An+1 ) = ∆t γ(σn+1 . Nevertheless.7. c . n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial n+1 αn+1 − αtrial − ∆γ H(σn+1 .2. different numerical integration algorithms can be employed in the stress updating procedure. Zienkiewicz and Cormeau (1974). An+1 )    0 =   0 ∂ψ ∂ εe trial . An+1 ) n+1  for εe . For further details on alternative integration algorithms we refer to Cormeau (1975). n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 the considered interval. the terminology viscoplastic return mapping remains justifiable in the present case since. Atrial ) ≤ 0 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 = (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Viscoplastic return mapping. Marques and Owen (1983).2. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αtrial = αn n+1 σtrial = ρ ¯ n+1 (ii) Check for viscoplastic flow IF Φ(σtrial . ALTERNATIVE EULER-BASED ALGORITHMS Similarly to the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7.VISCOPLASTICITY 457 Box 11. Peirce et al. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .5. In what follows we list the basic equations of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. (1984) and Koji´ and Bathe (1987). (i) Elastic predictor.5. and αn+1 with n+1 ∆γ = ∆γ(σn+1 . page 201). upon application of the procedure.

4 are replaced with the following system εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t [(1 − θ) Gn + θ Gn+1 ] n n+1 (11. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ). Given all variables of the problem at tn and a prescribed time increment ∆t.75) (11.72) αn+1 = αn + ∆t [(1 − θ) Jn + θ Jn+1 ].4. The linearised system reads     dεe + ∆t ∂G : dσ + ∆t ∂G ∗ dA d∆ε           ∂σ ∂A . = dεn+1 d∆ε (11. the implicit algorithm of Box 11. (11.458 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The generalised trapezoidal algorithm Here.4 is recovered and θ = 0 corresponds to the explicit algorithm.3.4.4 is recovered and θ = 0 defines the explicit algorithm.73) For the choice θ = 1.77) =              dα − ∆t ∂J ∗ dσ − ∆t ∂J ∗ dA  0 ∂σ ∂A .76) consistent with the stress updating procedure defined by the backward Euler algorithm of Box 11.74) Again.4. from page 238). for θ = 1. the backward Euler discrete equations of Box 11.4. 11. the discrete system of equations reads εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t Gn+θ n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆t Jn+θ . we start by linearising the system of time-discrete equations of Box 11. Let us then consider the algorithm of Box 11. the task here is to find the exact tangent operator D≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 .5. Analogously to the general procedure for the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7. 1] and Gn+θ = G((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn . where θ is a prescribed parameter 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. also lies within the interval [0. the implicit algorithm of Box 11. the tangent modulus consistent with the general algorithm is needed. The generalised midpoint algorithm For the generalised midpoint rule. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ) Jn+θ = J((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn . GENERAL CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR To complete the requirements for the implementation of the model within an implicit finite element environment. (11. where the prescribed parameter. θ.4. (11.

71).83) . the stress is the result from the solution of the equation system of item (iii) of Box 11. ∂A ∂A ∂A (11. ∂εe 2 (11. An+1 ) ≤ 0.80) where the functions G and J taking part in the symbolic matrix (11.78) are defined by (11. The derivatives of G then specialise as ∂N ∂γ ˙ ∂G =γ ˙ +N⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂G ∂N ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +N∗ . The consistent tangent operator we are looking for is the fourth-order tensor D≡ Models with a yield surface For models with a yield surface. dA D21 D22 0 where Dij are tensors of appropriate order resulting from the inversion of (11. i.82) (11. An+1 ) > 0. the tangent modulus is elastic if the state is within the elastic domain.78) By inverting the linearised system above.129) (page 239). when Φ(σn+1 . that is.78). as in rate-independent plasticity. the linearised system is equivalently written as  ∂G C + ∆t  ∂σ    ∂J A − ∆t ∂σ B + ∆t  ∂G     dσ d∆ε ∂A         .  =   ∂J dA 0 J − ∆t ∂A (11.79)  =  . when Φ(σn+1 . the derivatives of J specialise as ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ . In this case. we finally obtain a tangent relation which can be written symbolically as      D11 D12 dσ d∆ε      (11. ∂A ∂A ∂A Similarly. With the introduction of the differential relations (7. the tangent operator is a specialisation of the general tangent modulus (11.81) dσn+1 = D11 .80) Under viscoplastic flow.5. d∆ε (11. we have D = De = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .e.VISCOPLASTICITY 459 where the symbol * denotes the product of the appropriate type and the subscripts n + 1 have been omitted for notational convenience.

tn+1 ].6. In addition to the detailed description of the associated integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. The algorithm comprises the standard elastic predictor and the viscoplastic return mapping which.5 to the model whose constitutive equations are summarised in Box 11. 2. n+1 εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . Otherwise. we apply the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm described in the following. this section describes in detail the basic ingredients of the computational implementation of the von Mises-based model with isotropic strain hardening given in Box 11.5 which. Viscoplastic return mapping.85) −1 . by taking the linear elastic law into consideration. for the present model.2. ¯n+1 ¯n where the incremental multiplier. we present an accuracy analysis of the algorithm based on iso-error maps. is given by ∆γ = ∆t µ q(σn+1 ) σy (¯p ) εn+1 1/ (11. n+1 (11. σy (¯p trial )) ≤ 0. for the present model. has the following format.87) .84) ∂Φ ∂σ n+1 (11. If Φ(σtrial . are specialised as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : εp = εp + ∆γ.86) with ∆t denoting the time increment within the considered interval. then the process is indeed elastic within the interval and ε the variables at tn+1 are assigned the values of the trial variables. Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model To illustrate the application of the above numerical framework. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm described here is a specialisation of the generic algorithm described in Section 11. ∆γ. The elastic trial state is then computed as εe trial = εe + ∆ε n εp trial = εp n εp trial = εp ¯ ¯n σtrial = De : εe trial . (11.2. 1. At this stage. The material is assumed to behave purely elastically within the time interval [tn .460 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11.1. After solving (11. Elastic predictor. we solve the system of discretised equations of item (iii) of Box 11. We remark that the procedures presented here are not incorporated in the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book.6. we can update εp = εp + ∆γ n n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . 11.85).

93) or (11.89)1 as sn+1 = 1 − 3 ∆γ 2G trial ∆γ 3G s = 1 − trial strial trial 2 s q (11. with the substitution of the above formula together with (11. εn (11. (11. the steps leading to the system reduction are repeated here. . as usual.90) sn+1 s which allows us to rewrite (11.89)1 shows that sn+1 is a scalar multiple of strial so that. εe according to the relevant ¯ formulae. (11. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 11. εp .88) is deviatoric so that the hydrostatic stress is independent of the viscoplastic flow. The situation here is completely analogous to that of the implementation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) von Mises model described in Section 7.3.86) we obtain the following scalar algebraic equation for the multiplier ∆γ ∆γ − ∆t µ q trial − 3G ∆γ σy (¯p + ∆γ) εn 1/ − 1 = 0. we observe that the plastic flow vector ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s 2 s (11. The stress update equation (11.85)2 into (11.VISCOPLASTICITY 461 Single-equation corrector The viscoplastic corrector can be more efficiently implemented by reducing (11.94) The single-equation viscoplastic corrector comprises the solution of (11. Application of the definition of the von Mises equivalent stress to the above equation gives the update formula qn+1 = q trial − 3G ∆γ.85)1 can then be split as sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G pn+1 = p trial 3 sn+1 2 sn+1 (11. For convenience.2 (page 217). Further. equivalently. simple inspection of (11.85) to a single scalar equation. after a straightforward rearrangement.94) for the unknown ∆γ followed by the straightforward update of σ.89) . we have the identity strial sn+1 = trial . undertaken by the Newton– Raphson iterative scheme. trivially. (11.6 in pseudo-code format.93) or. Firstly. The solution of the equation for ∆γ is. (q trial − 3G ∆γ) ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.91) where q trial is the elastic trial von Mises equivalent stress.92) Finally. εp .

on the other hand. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial . In equation (11. Clearly. as expected. it is more convenient to solve (11. equation (11. Given ∆ε. n+1 v n+1 trial qn+1 := 3 2 strial := 2G εe trial d n+1 strial n+1 (ii) Check for viscoplastic flow IF trial εn+1 qn+1 − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 (elastic step) and EXIT THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial n+1 (iii) Viscoplastic flow. The reduction of the convergence bowl stems from the fact that large exponents 1/ can easily produce numbers which are computationally intractable. tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn ). → 0 (no rate-sensitivity) or ∆t → ∞ (infinitely slow straining).91) (refer to page 219) when µ → 0 (no viscosity). i. and the state variables at tn . Remark 11. Then update pn+1 := ptrial . Note that. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of (11. . The reason for this lies in the fact that. (i) Elastic predictor. the algorithm of Box 11.5 (Computational implementation aspects). small values of . Solve the return-mapping equation trial R(∆γ) ≡ (qn+1 − 3G ∆γ) ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0 εn for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson scheme.93) in the viscoplastic corrector stage of the algorithm.462 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11.94) rigorously recovers its elastoplastic (rate-independent) counterpart (7.4 (Rate-independent limit).93) becomes unstable as its convergence bowl is sharply reduced with decreasing .e.6. Integration algorithm for von Mises-type viscoplastic model (over a generic time interval [tn . for low rate-sensitivity. in such cases. n+1 sn+1 := 1 − σn+1 := sn+1 + pn+1 I εe := n+1 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial I v n+1 2G 3 p p εn+1 := εn + ∆γ ¯ ¯ ∆γ 3G trial sn+1 trial qn+1 (iv) EXIT Remark 11.94).6).6 reproduces the rate-independent elastoplastic numerical solution.94) rather than (11. In the computer implementation of the model (as shown in Box 11. This fact has been recognised by Peri´ (1993) c in the context of a more general viscoplastic algorithm.

Using the three-dimensional implementation of the model. we can easily verify that R(q trial /3G) < 0. q trial /3G) is unique for non-softening materials. For each non-dimensional rate.7.e. Recall that for = 0 the algorithm reproduces the rate-independent solution. εn where H is the derivative of the isotropic hardening function σy .5 and 11. The largest errors are expected in the rate-independent limit. In addition. produced with material constants covering a range of high rate-sensitivity to rate-independence.7(b) and is shown here only to emphasise the effect of rate-dependence on the integration error. with σn lying on the yield surface. and apply a sequence of strain increments (at constant strain rate within the interval [tn . The continuity of R then implies that (11. R (∆γ) = − 3G + µ q trial − 3G∆γ µ ∆γ + ∆t ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − H(¯p + ∆γ). this section presents some iso-error maps. taking into account the strict positiveness of the hardening function σy .94). Figures 11. The material is assumed perfectly viscoplastic (no hardening). if H is non-negative for any value of accumulated plastic strain. corresponding to linear combinations of trial stress increments in the direction normal and tangential (directions of the unit tensors N and T of Figure 7. The main conclusion drawn from the iso-error maps is that. Upon simple inspection. The maps have been generated in the standard fashion as described in Section 7. respectively) to the von Mises circle in the deviatoric plane.6 show iso-error maps obtained at low and high strain rates with the non-dimensional rate ˙ µ ε set respectively to 1 and 1000. increasing (decreasing) rate-sensitivity and/or increasing (decreasing) strain rates tend to produce decreasing (increasing) integration errors. . Let R(∆γ) be the function defined by the right-hand side of (11. Remark 11.7. i. q trial /3G).10 (refer to Figure 7. we have ε εn q trial > σy (¯p trial ) = σy (¯p ). have been used: 100 .2. 10−1 and 0. 11. 1] and causes no numerical problems within practical ranges of material constants.6. Within a viscoplastic step.94) has a root within the interval (0. we start from a stress point at time tn . three values of rate-sensitivity parameter. tn+1 ]). The above inequality clearly implies that R(0) > 0. ISO-ERROR MAPS To illustrate the accuracy of the above integration algorithm in practical situations. . we can easily establish that the derivative R is strictly negative for ∆γ ∈ (0.2. Let us now consider the derivative of R. in general. page 215). The strict negativeness of R in conjunction with the existence of a root for R established in the above implies that the root of R (the solution of the viscoplastic corrector equation) within the interval (0.VISCOPLASTICITY 463 the term to the power on the left-hand side can only assume values within the interval [0.6 (Solution existence and uniqueness). The resulting map in this case is obviously identical to the rate-independent map of Figure 7. q trial /3G) if the viscoplastic model is non-softening.

113) under plastic flow – but the incremental plastic multiplier ∆γ here is the solution of viscoplastic return-mapping equation (11. De . we simply replace the derivative of the incremental plastic ∆σN / q ∆σN / q . the tangent operator is the elastic tangent.3.464 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 6 5% 4 10% 4 10% 2 ∆σN / q 15% 2 15% 5% 0 0 2 4 6 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT / q ∆σT / q (a) 6 (b) 5% 10% 4 15% 2 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT / q (c) ˙ Figure 11. The incremental constitutive function for the stress tensor in the present case has identical format to that of the rate-independent implementation given by (7. Its closed-form expression can be obtained by following the same steps of the derivation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) tangent presented in Section 7.5.94). CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The consistent tangent operator here is a particular case of the general tangent operator derived in Section 11.6. 11. (c) = 0 (rate-independent). Under viscoplastic flow.2 (from page 232). Thus.4.5.3. is derived by consistently linearising the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm referred to in item (iii) of Box 11. the tangent operator which (as in the rate-independent case) will be denoted Dep . to obtain the viscoplastic consistent tangent. Iso-error maps with µ ε = 1. (a) = 100 .6. when the stress state lies within the elastic domain and no viscoplastic flow is possible.93) – which reduces to (7. Clearly. (b) = 10−1 .

the final ∆σN / q .94).1% 7% 7% 5% 1% 0 9% 9% 10% 0 0 0 2 4 6 2 4 6 ∆σT / q ∆σT / q (a) 6 (b) 5% 10% 4 15% 2 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT / q (c) ˙ Figure 11.94). (a) = 100 . (b) = 10−1 .118) with the expression ∂∆γ = ∂εe trial 3G + n+1 2G − ∆t µ ∆γ+∆t 3 2 ∆σN / q H+ µ qn+1 µ ∆γ+∆t ¯ N n+1 .2% 2 5% 2 0.95) which is consistent with (11. With the above differential relation.VISCOPLASTICITY 6 6 465 0. having ∆γ trial and qn+1 as variables. (c) = 0 (rate-independent). multiplier (7.3% 4 4 ∆σN / q 0. Iso-error maps with µ ε = 103 . Analogously to the elastoplastic case. this expression is obtained by taking the differential of the viscoplastic corrector equation (11.6. (11.4% 0. and equating it to zero.

6. This is. → 0. in agreement with the theoretical limits of the Perzyna model discussed in the text immediately following equation (11.98) . we have assumed isotropic strain hardening.40) follows exactly the same procedure as described in the above except that. εn (11.120). For vanishing rate sensitivity parameter. as µ → ∞ (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (infinitely slow process) equation (11.7 (Rate-independent limit). µ → 0 (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (infinitely slow straining).4.96) Note that the tangent operator is symmetric. Remark 11.40). By simple inspection we find that in the limits → 0 (vanishing rate-sensitivity parameter).96) rigorously recovers the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator of the isotropically hardening rate-independent von Mises model with implicit return mapping given by expression (7. consistently with the backward Euler time discretization of (11. (11.466 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elasto-viscoplastic consistent tangent operator is obtained in closed form as Dep = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 3G trial qn+1 Id 1 − ∆t µ ∆γ+∆t ∆γ − trial qn+1 3G + H+ µ qn+1 µ ∆γ+∆t ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 + K I ⊗ I.97) reads ∂∆γ = ∂εe trial 3G + 1 + n+1 2G µ ∆γ ∆t 3 2 H+ µ µ ∆γ ∆t ∆t −1 σy ¯ Nn+1 . as one should expect. Note that. the return-mapping equation (11. Elasto-viscoplastic consistent tangent operator The differential relation between the incremental plastic multiplier and εe trial consistent with n+1 the return-mapping equation (11. 11. (11. PERZYNA-TYPE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the von Mises-based model with Perzyna’s viscoplastic law (11. (11.6) is replaced with q trial − 3G ∆γ − 1 + µ ∆γ ∆t σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.97) Here.97) reduces to that of the elastoplastic rateindependent von Mises model with yield stress σy .94) (or item (iii) of Box 11.40). expression (11.97) reduces to a von Mises elastoplastic return-mapping equation with yield stress 2σy .

E+00 1.VISCOPLASTICITY 4 16 normalised net stress 3 467 12 normalised stretching rates: 8 1. we define the normalised stretching rate µv v∗ = l/2 . Examples The finite element examples presented in this section illustrate applications of the computational treatment of viscoplasticity described above. Double-notched specimen. The geometry of the specimen and the finite element mesh used are shown in Figure 7.95) ¯n+1 ¯n for the present implementation of Perzyna’s viscoplasticity law.E+04 1. The underlying viscoplastic material model is the one shown in Box 11. the simulation consists of stretching the specimen by prescribing a constant (in time) vertical velocity v on the top nodes of the mesh.29).E-04 rate independent 4 1 0 0 4 8 12 normalised edge deflection 16 0 0 4 8 12 normalised edge deflection 16 (a) (b) Figure 11.29 (page 256). which includes isotropic strain hardening.96).7.E+00 1.E-04 rate independent normalised net stress 2 normalised stretching rates: 1.2.5 (from page 255). DOUBLE-NOTCHED TENSILE SPECIMEN The rate-independent version of this problem has been studied in Section 7. Reaction–deflection diagrams: (a) = 100 .7.E+04 1. Its format is completely analogous to that of (11. 11. The problem consists of the plane strain analysis of a deep double-notched tensile specimen. 11. (b) = 10−2 . Analogously to the prescription of edge displacement u (refer to Figure 7.99) + K I ⊗ I. For convenience.1.7. where σy is evaluated at εp = εp + ∆γ. This expression is the counterpart of (11.5. The corresponding elastoviscoplastic consistent tangent operator is obtained following the usual procedure as Dep = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 3G trial qn+1 Id 1 µ ∆γ ∆t −1 ∆γ − trial qn+1 3G + 1 + H+ µ µ ∆γ ∆t ∆t σy ¯ ¯ Nn+1 ⊗ N n+1 (11.

2 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (c) Figure 11. (b) = .6 edge displacement (mm) (a) 14 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.555E-00 0.555E-04 rate independent 6 4 2 0 0.5 0.4 0. (a) 10−1 .555E-01 0.555E-02 0.555E+01 0.2 0. Stretching of a perforated plate.555E+02 0.468 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 14 12 10 edge reaction (KN) Deformation rates (1/s): 8 0.555E-03 0.555E-02 0.555E-04 rate independent 12 10 edge reaction (KN) 8 6 4 2 0 0.5 0. Displacement-reaction diagrams.1 0.555E+02 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (b) 3 edge reaction (KN) 2 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.1 0.555E+01 0.3 0.555E-01 0.555E-02 0.555E-00 0.4 0.3 0.555E-03 0.4 0.8.555E-03 0.1 0.2 0. = 100 .5 0. (c) = 10−2 .555E-04 rate independent 1 0 0.3 0.

The plane stress implementation adopted follows the nested iteration approach described in Section 9.7.VISCOPLASTICITY 469 and the simulation is carried out for three different values of v ∗ v ∗ = 10−4 . ν = 0. The problem consists of the axial stretching at constant rate of a perforated rectangular plate whose geometry is shown in Figure 9. several simulations are carried out with various stretching rates. a plane stress c version of the numerical integration algorithm discussed in Section 11. We remark that the rate-independent solution shown in the graphs for comparison can be obtained with the present model/algorithm simply by setting = 0 or µ = 0. 11. They illustrate the expected higher reactions and limit loads for higher rates of stretching.2. σy = 0. The results of the finite element simulations are presented in Figure 11. The results for = 100 and 10−2 are shown. 10−2 ) being considered. in order to illustrate the response predicted by the viscoplastic model over a wide range of conditions. For the lowest nondimensional rate of 10−4 . PLANE STRESS: STRETCHING OF A PERFORATED PLATE This section describes the viscoplastic version of the plane stress problem of Section 9.5. .3 (from page 390).5.7(a) and (b). respectively.5. the results are plotted in terms of the normalised net stress and the normalised edge deflection defined in Section 7. the rate-independent solution is recovered for any rate-sensitivity parameter. in Figures 11. two values of are considered = 100 and 10−2 . Note that linear strain hardening is assumed. The following material parameters are adopted E = 206.2 (page 362) in the context of rate-independent plasticity. Similarly to the previous example.7 whose diagrams show the evolution of the reaction forces on the constrained edge against the corresponding edge deflection. 104 . Here. This example has been analysed by Peri´ (1993). with three values of rate sensitivity coefficients ( = 1.6.2.7 (page 392). In order to show the effect of the rate-sensitivity parameter on the behaviour of the model.8 where the reaction on the constrained edge of the plate is plotted against the prescribed edge displacement for the various conditions considered.45 GPa (constant). The stretching rate in the present case is defined as 2v/l. The viscosity parameter adopted (required for the viscoplastic model) is µ = 500 s. The results obtained in the simulations are shown in Figure 11. The mesh.29 is not considered here. 10−1 .1 is employed. 100 .29.7. As in the rate-independent case. boundary conditions and the material parameters that are common to both plastic and viscoplastic models are also shown in Figure 9. This choice covers very slow to very fast strain rates and is meant to demonstrate the robustness of the integration algorithm over a wide range of strain rates.9 GPa. The linearly hardening case listed in Figure 7.

. At higher (lower) values of .8 show the effect of stretching rates on the response of the plate. The effects of the rate sensitivity parameter are also clearly illustrated. with higher reactions obtained at high rates and the rate-independent solution being approached as the stretching rate vanishes.470 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS where v is the stretching velocity imposed on the nodes of the upper edge. The three graphs of Figure 11. a greater (smaller) variation of reaction as a function of the stretching rate is produced.

In the design of manufacturing processes. such as in certain types of industrial machinery. particularly those where mechanical/structural components are subjected to severe service conditions. In safety-critical applications. However.2 a brief historical account of CDM together with a discussion on the continuum modelling of damage phenomena. In many engineering applications. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. frequently encountered in the aeronautical and nuclear industries. The material presented in this chapter is summarised as follows. allied to the fast development of computational mechanics techniques. the useful life of components is a crucial item of information which has to be carefully considered during the design process. we give in Section 12. failure prediction is achieved by the systematic (and expensive) testing of real models under laboratoryreproduced service conditions.3. Note that the simplified version of Lemaitre’s model discussed in Section 12.5. respectively. This fact. describe.12 DAMAGE MECHANICS I NTERNAL damage can be defined as the presence and evolution of cracks and cavities at the microscopic level which may. 12.4 is fully incorporated into program HYPLAS.4 and 12. has made the use of computational tools to carry out life/failure prediction a realistic alternative that can be successfully adopted in many design and damage assessment situations. eventually. Further issues. a simplified version of Lemaitre’s model where kinematic hardening is not considered and Gurson’s void growth model (Gurson. with the growing knowledge of the mechanisms of progressive internal damage that cause failure in a wide range of materials. Sections 12. the ability of the designer to predict mechanical failure becomes an important factor. non-scheduled stops for maintenance owing to unpredicted failure may incur serious economic consequences. In some applications. the computational implementation of the corresponding constitutive models within an implicit finite element environment is described in detail. In each of these sections. In some cases. the prediction of useful life/failure of materials is based on mostly empirical experience accumulated over long periods of time. Lemaitre’s ductile damage model (Lemaitre. 1977). Traditionally.6. lead to failure – a complete loss of loadcarrying capability of the material. This relatively new branch of continuum solid mechanics is known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM). After providing a brief review of some basic mechanisms that characterise the presence and evolution of damage in Section 12. The present chapter is devoted to computational continuum damage mechanics. In such cases. such as metalforming operations. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. Ltd . unpredicted failure may have catastrophic effects with consequences far beyond purely economical issues. including crack closure effects and damage anisotropy are addressed in Section 12.1. it is becoming possible to formulate continuum constitutive models capable of accounting for the evolution of internal deterioration. Our intention here is to provide the reader with an introduction to this new and promising ramification of computational solid mechanics that has been gaining widespread acceptance over the last two decades. 1985b). prediction of failure is also a crucial issue.

At high temperatures.1. In addition. Further evolution of local plastic deformation may cause the cavities to coalesce.1.1. precipitates and particles of alloy elements leading to the formation of microscopic cracks and cavities. for the same material.1. This behaviour is observed for many polycrystalline metals. METALS In metals. the decohesion of interatomic bonds is concentrated at grain boundaries. on the other hand. rather than the material alone. 12. At low stresses they are accompanied by relatively small strains.472 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS virgin material nucleation of microscopic cracks and voids growth. Schematic illustration. brittle damage can also be observed associated with creep processes. Brittle damaging occurs mainly in the form of cleavage of crystallographic planes in the presence of negligible inelastic deformations. etc. 12. Therefore. For most metallic materials. dependent on the temperature. Physical aspects of internal damage in solids The characterisation of internal damage as well as the scale at which it occurs in common engineering materials depend crucially upon the specific type of material considered. to a significant extent. is normally associated with the presence of large plastic deformations in the neighbourhood of crystalline defects. damage evolution may take place triggered by very different physical mechanisms which depend fundamentally on the type. resulting in final rupture. the primary mechanisms that characterise the phenomenon of mechanical degradation may be divided into two distinct classes: brittle and ductile damage. In this case. usually at low temperatures. It is normally observed in mechanical components subjected to a large number of load and/or . This mechanism is schematically illustrated in Figure 12. some basic physical mechanisms underlying damage evolution in metals and rubbery polymers are outlined below. temperature as well as environmental factors such as exposure to corrosive substances or radiation. coalescence and macroscopic fracturing Figure 12. the damage behaviour is a combination of brittle and ductile response and the contribution of each mode is. Another important mode of material deterioration in metals is fatigue damage. To illustrate the diversity of phenomena that may be involved in the process of internal degradation of solids. the material-process-environment triad must be considered in the study of internal damage. rate of loading. loading rate. Ductile damage. Ductile damage in metals. The decohesion of interatomic bonds is initiated at the boundary interface of inclusions.1.

damage can occur in the form of progressive breakage of shorter polymer chains attached between filler particles. may be regarded as purely elastic. Although fatigue damage occurs at overall stress levels below the macroscopic plastic yield limit. This phenomenon. In this case. 12. the nucleation of microcracks is attributed to the accumulation of dislocations observed in connection with cyclic plastic deformation due to stress concentration near microscopic defects. Some of the most important mechanisms of material damage are described by Engel and Klingele (1981). Those materials are obtained by addition of a filler in order to enhance the strength properties of the original rubber.DAMAGE MECHANICS straining 473 polymer chains attached to adjacent filler particles rupture of shortest polymer chain Figure 12. a considerable body of the literature on applied mechanics has been devoted to the formulation of constitutive models to describe internal degradation of solids within the framework of continuum mechanics. the damage response of such materials is predominantly brittle (in the sense that permanent deformations are small).2.2. Continuum damage mechanics Since the pioneering work by Kachanov (1958). as described by Bueche (1960). The internal degradation in this case is mainly characterised by the rupture of molecular bonds concentrated in regions containing impurities and defects. under a variety of circumstances. Although rubbery polymers exhibit a behaviour which. and the understanding of fatigue degradation processes in metals remains a challenging issue in the field of materials science. Essentially. In general. for further details). even at very small overall straining. Lemaitre and Chaboche. temperature cycles. 1996. A large number of complex interactive physical mechanisms take place from the nucleation of cracks to the complete failure of the material. these materials are made of long cross-linked molecular chains which differ radically from the structure of crystalline metals (refer to Arridge (1985). damaging does take place due to straining and/or thermal activation. Damage in filled rubbery polymers. After over two decades of uninterrupted development.1.2.2. 12. The concepts underlying the development of c c . RUBBERY POLYMERS Rubbery polymers are widely employed in engineering applications. is schematically illustrated in Figure 12. significant progress has been achieved and such theories have merged into what is currently known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (Krajˇ inovi´ . Filled rubbers are particularly susceptible to internal damaging. Schematic representation. 1990).

Kachanov replaced the observed uniaxial stress σ with the effective stress σeff = σ 1−D (12.† In order to describe the strain rate increase which characterises tertiary creep. it should be expected that in order to describe the internal degradation of solids within the framework of the continuum mechanics theory. the damage variable D was introduced as D= A − A0 .1(b) and the discussion in Section 11. new variables intrinsically connected with the internal damage process will have to be introduced in addition to the standard variables (such as the strain tensor. directly or indirectly. A (12. In this context. † Kachanov in fact used the material continuity or integrity. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT: CREEP-DAMAGE The first continuum damage mechanics model was proposed by Kachanov (1958). It is clear that the underlying phenomena which characterise damage are essentially different from those characterising deformation. While damage manifests itself in the form of the irreversible rupture of atomic bonds. In this context. Without a clear physical meaning for damage. (12. the density and/or distribution of the microscopic defects that characterise damage. denoting respectively by A and A0 the effective load bearing areas of the virgin and damaged materials.1).1) with D = 0 corresponding to the virgin material and D = 1 representing a total loss of loadbearing capacity.44) (page 449) for the plastic strain rate is replaced with εp = ˙ |σ| λ (1 − D) N sign(σ).2) in the standard Norton’s Law for creep.474 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS CDM models along with a brief historical review of this new branch of continuum mechanics are presented below. ω = 1 − D. In this case. . as the variable associated with the internal deterioration process. deformation can be associated with reversible variations of interatomic spacing (in purely elastic processes) and movement and accumulation of dislocations (in permanent deformations of metals). the uniaxial constitutive equation (11. some basic microscopic mechanisms associated with internal damage evolution in solids have been reviewed. 12.) employed in the description of deformation. we shall refer to Continuum Damage Mechanics Model as any continuum constitutive model which features special internal variables representing. A physical significance for the damage variable was given later by Rabotnov (1963) who proposed the reduction of the crosssectional area due to microcracking as a suitable measure of the state of internal damage. Kachanov introduced a scalar internal variable to model the creep failure of metals under uniaxial loads.2.1. plastic strain. In the previous section. Therefore.3) so that the phenomenon of damaging (increase in D) may produce the marked acceleration of the plastic strain rate observed during tertiary creep (refer to Figure 11. etc.

equivalently. the damage variable appears as a fourth-order non-symmetric tensor in the most general anisotropic case. Leckie and Hayhurst (1974) exploited the idea of the effective load-bearing area reduction as a scalar measure of material deterioration to define a model for creeprupture under multiaxial stresses.5) (12.2. Within the theory of elastoplasticity. A scalar damage variable was also considered by Lemaitre (1983) in the definition of a purely phenomenological model for ductile isotropic damage in metals. in which. 1988). it did not take long before the concept of internal damage variable was generalised to three-dimensional situations by a number of authors. Gurson’s void growth theory has been shown to be particularly suitable for the representation of the behaviour of porous metals. In the theory derived by Murakami and Ohno. In this case. the anisotropic damage variable is represented by a second-rank symmetric tensor. Continuum Damage Mechanics has been shown to provide an effective tool to describe the phenomenon of internal degradation in other areas of solid mechanics.2. Still within the context of creep-rupture. 1981. The theories derived later by Chaboche (1978.4) or.1) is then redefined as E − E0 D= . 12. this author postulates the following elastic constitutive law for a damaged material: σeff = E0 ε. which states that ‘the deformation behaviour of the damaged material is represented by the constitutive laws of the virgin material with the true stress replaced by the effective stress’. 1984) and Murakami and Ohno (1981) deserve special mention. respectively. (12. The damage variable (12. the standard definition of damage in terms of reduction of the (neither welldefined nor easily measurable) load-carrying area is replaced in Lemaitre’s model by the reduction of the Young’s modulus in the ideally isotropic case. OTHER THEORIES Despite its origin in the description of creep rupture.DAMAGE MECHANICS 475 Since Kachanov–Rabotnov’s original developments. σ = E ε. Saanouni et al. where E0 and E = (1 − D)E0 (12. (12. Gurson (1977) proposed a model for ductile damage where the (scalar) damage variable is obtained from the consideration of microscopic spherical voids embedded in an elastoplastic matrix. (1989) used a non-local formulation to predict the nucleation and growth of cracks. By appealing to the hypothesis of strain equivalence. Chaboche proposed a phenomenological theory for creep-damage based on rigorous thermodynamic foundations.7) E . As a consequence. as a consequence of the hypothesis of strain equivalence.6) are the Young’s moduli of the virgin (undamaged) and damaged materials. Murakami’s fictitious undamaged configuration concept was later extended to describe general anisotropic states of internal damage in solids with particular reference to the analysis of elastic-brittle materials (Murakami. the definition of the damage variable follows from the extension of the effective stress concept to three dimensions by means of the hypothesis of the existence of a mechanically equivalent fictitious undamaged configuration.

Continuum damage mechanics has also been applied to the description of fatigue processes. loss of stiffness.476 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This theory was further elaborated on by Lemaitre (1985a. A somewhat different approach was followed by Krajˇ inovi´ and Fonseka (1981) (see also c c Fonseka and Krajˇ inovi´ 1981). in the formulation of models in stress and strain spaces. a vectorial variable was p