**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. . . . . . . . . 11. .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . .xiv CONTENTS 11 Viscoplasticity 11. . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Iso-error maps . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . .2. . . . . . . . . . 11. .3 The yield function and the elastic domain .1 Metals . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Continuum damage mechanics . . . . . . . . . .3 Remarks on the nature of the damage variable 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Other isotropic and kinematic hardening laws . . . . . . . . . .6 Summary of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Other theories . . . . . . . .2. . . . .4. . . . .6 Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . .2 The elastic law . .6. . .2 Potential structure and dissipation inequality . . . . . .6. . 11.4 Perzyna-type model implementation . . . . .4. .4 Viscoplastic ﬂow rule . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. 11. . . 11. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 General consistent tangent operator . . . . . .1 Elastoplastic decomposition of the axial strain . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Alternative Euler-based algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Hardening law . . . . . . .4 General viscoplastic constitutive model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A general implicit integration algorithm . 11. . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . .2. .3. . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Alternative plastic strain rate deﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . .5. . . . . .6. .2. . . . .3 Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory . . .6. . . . . . 11. .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . .1 The model . . .2 One-dimensional viscoplasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . .1 Relation to the general continuum constitutive theory . . . . . . . .2. . . .2.3 Rate-independent plasticity as a limit case . .7. . . . 11. . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operators .1 Original development: creep-damage .7 Examples . .3. .1 Integration algorithm . . . . . . 11. 11. . . 12. . . . . .5 General numerical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.1 A von Mises-type viscoplastic model with isotropic strain hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . 11. . . 12. .1 Double-notched tensile specimen . . . . . . . . .7 Some simple analytical solutions .1 Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects . . . . . 11. . . . . .2 Rubbery polymers . . .3 Consistent tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . 11. . . . . .4. . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects of internal damage in solids . .2. . .2. . . . . .4 Viscoplastic models without a yield surface . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 11. . . 12 Damage mechanics 12. . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A von Mises-based multidimensional model . . . .2 Plane stress: stretching of a perforated plate . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .4 Compressible regularisation . . 13. . 12. .3 Inﬂation of a spherical rubber balloon . . . . . .6 Numerical examples . . . . 12. . . 13. . . . . . . . . . .5 Application: Ogden material implementation . . . . . .2 The plane stress Hencky model .3 Example. . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . 486 486 490 493 496 497 501 502 504 504 510 512 12. . . . . .1. . . . . . .2. . .1 The plane stress incompressible Ogden model . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 13. .6. . . .2 Principal stretches representation: Ogden model . . . . . . .CONTENTS xv A simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . .2 The tangent operator . .1 The model . . . . 13. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . .1 The Mooney–Rivlin and the neo-Hookean models . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 12. .2 Some particular models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Hyperelasticity: basic concepts . . . . . . . .3 Hencky model . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Rugby ball . . . . . . . . .1 Axisymmetric extension of an annular plate . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Ogden material model . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Crack closure effects in damage evolution . .1 Regularised neo-Hookean model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . 13.1. 13.1 Subroutine SUOGD . . .4 Tangent moduli: the elasticity tensors . . 13. . . 13. .5. . .6. . . 13. 12. . .3 Isotropic ﬁnite hyperelasticity in plane stress . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . 13. . .4 12. . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The Blatz–Ko material . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . 13.1 Crack closure effects in damaged elastic materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 12. . . . . . .1. . . . . . 13. . . .3 Anisotropic ductile damage . . . . Further issues in damage modelling . .5. . . . . Fracturing of a cylindrical notched specimen Gurson’s void growth model . . . . . . 12. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Isotropic hyperelasticity . .3 The Hencky material . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . .4. . . .1 The single-equation integration algorithm .5. . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . .6. .2 Subroutine CSTOGD . . . . . . . . . . .6 Part Three Large strains .5 Inﬂation of initially ﬂat membranes . . . . 13. 13. . .6. . . . . . . . 13.3. . . . . . 13. . . . 13. . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Blatz–Ko material . .2 Stretching of a square perforated rubber sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Incompressible hyperelasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . .3 Plane stress with nested iterations . . .1 Material objectivity: reduced form of the free-energy function 13. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . 13. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . Hyperelasticity with damage: the Mullins effect . . . . . . . .2. .7. . . . .9. . . . . 13.3 A general isotropic large-strain plasticity model . . . . . . .5 Thin sheet metal-forming application . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The basic constitutive initial value problem . . . 13. 13. . . 14. . . . . . . . .7 Elastomeric bead compression .5 Computational implementation .4. . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . 14.1 Finite strain bending of a V-notched Tresca bar . . . . . . . . .3 Plane strain localisation . . . 14.3. . .9. . . . . . 14. . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The plastic ﬂow rule . . . . . . . . . .2 Tangent modulus computation . 13. . . . . . . . .2 The logarithmic elastic strain measure . .9. . . . . . .4 The dissipation inequality . . . 14. .3 A simple rate-independent three-dimensional model . . . .4 Example: the model problem . . . . . . . . . . 14. .2 One-dimensional ﬁnite plasticity model . . . . . . . . . .1 The multiplicative split of the axial stretch . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 The plane stress-projected ﬁnite von Mises model . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . .3. 14. .6 Rubber cylinder pressed between two plates . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . .2 Three-dimensional modelling. . . . . . .7.1 Finite strain elastoplasticity: a brief review . . . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . .7 Finite plasticity in plane stress . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . 14. . .6. .5 The hardening law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The yield function . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .4 The general elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm . . . 13. .5. . . . .7 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Computational implementation . . 13. . A brief review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Gurtin–Francis uniaxial model . . .6 Principal stress space-based implementation . 14. . . . . . . . .2. . .7. .3 General hyperelastic-based multiplicative plasticity model . . . . . . .6 The plastic multiplier . . . . . . . . . .2. .5. . . .3 Computational implementation of the general algorithm 14. . .xvi CONTENTS 13. . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . 14. . . 14. .2. . . . .3. .4 Stretching of a perforated plate . . .5 Finite strain extension to inﬁnitesimal theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . .2 Exponential map backward discretisation . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . .1 Numerical treatment .1 Stress-updating algorithm . . . . .1 Derivation of the spatial tangent modulus . . 14. . . . . . . 14. . . .6. . . . . . . . .2. . .1 Multiplicative elastoplasticity kinematics . . 14. . . . . . . . .9 Examples . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . 13.2 Necking of a cylindrical bar . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . .5 The consistent spatial tangent modulus .2 Logarithmic stretches and the Hencky hyperelastic law . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . 14. . .9. . 14. . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . .7. . . 14. . . 14. . . . . . . . . .6 Example: inﬂation/deﬂation of a damageable rubber balloon .4. . . . .2 Nested iteration for plane stress enforcement . . .8 Finite viscoplasticity . . . . . 14.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . .CONTENTS xvii . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. .11.1 Objective stress rates . . 15. . . . . . .11. . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 The F-bar-Patch Method for simplex elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . 14. . . .3 Finite element equations: static condensation . .5 The stability of EAS elements . .7 Integration of Green–Naghdi rate-based models .2 The resolved Schmid shear stress . . 14. . . . . .4 A general continuum model of single crystals . . . . . . . . . .2. 16. .1 The plastic ﬂow equation . . . .1.2. . 16 Anisotropic finite plasticity: Single crystals 16. . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . .6 Objective algorithm for Jaumann rate-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . 15 Finite elements for large-strain incompressibility 15. . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . .1 The F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects . . . . 16. . . . . . . . .1 The two-ﬁeld variational principle . . . 15.4 Plane strain implementation . . . . . .10. . . . . .6 Numerical tests . . . . . . . .2 Finite element equations . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Other centroid sampling-based F-bar elements .3. . . 15. . . .2 EAS ﬁnite elements . . .2 The internal force vector . . . . . . . .3 Mixed u/p formulations . . . . . . . .3 Consistent linearisation: the tangent stiffness . .4. 15. . . . . . 15. . . . . . 14. . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . .1 Plastic deformation by slip: slip-systems . . . . .10. . . . . . . .5 Integration algorithms and incremental objectivity . .2. . . . . . . .3 Single crystal simulation: a brief review . . . . . .10. 15. . . . . . . 14. .2. . . . . . . .3 Spatial tangent operator . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Stress computation: the F-bar deformation gradient 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.4 Remarks on predictive capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Enhanced three-ﬁeld variational principle .10 Rate forms: hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Alternative descriptions . . . . . . .1 A model of ﬁnite strain kinematic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. .2 Enhanced assumed strain methods . . . . . . .11. .3 The Jaumann rate-based model . . . .8 A more general F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . .1. .11.4 Hyperelastic-based models and equivalent rate forms 14. . . . . 15. . . . .3. . . . . . . .3.4. . . . . . 16. . . 14. .1. . . . .1. . .3 Solution: static condensation . 15. . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. .2. . . 15. . .11 Finite plasticity with kinematic hardening . . . . . . 16. . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . 15. .1.2 Plastic slip and the Schmid resolved shear stress . . . . . . . .1. . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Computational implementation aspects .

. . .5 16. . .8.7. . .2 Computation of the function derivative . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . .3.9. . . . . . .9.7 16. . . .2 The integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An algorithm for a planar double-slip model . . . .1 The search for an active set of slip systems . . . . . .5. . . . .9 . . . . . .2 Unsymmetric localisation . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Example: the model problem . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Two dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viscoplastic single crystals . . . . .1 Isotropic scalar-valued functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Alternative procedures . . . The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . . 16. .6. . . . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .8 16. . . . . . . . A. . . . . . .3 The two-dimensional case . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 The hyperelastic law . . . . . . . . .2 The exponential map-based integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONTENTS 16. . . . . . . A general integration algorithm .1 Tensor function derivative . A. A. . . A. Numerical examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . .4 The three-dimensional case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic tensor function A. .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic scalar function A. . . . .9. . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . .1 A planar double-slip model . . .1. 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . 16. . . . . . .3 Multisurface formulation of the ﬂow rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. .2 Isotropic tensor-valued functions . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . A. . . . A. . . . . . . .6 16.4. . . . . . . . . . .4 Isotropic Taylor hardening . . . . . . . . . .6. . . 729 731 731 732 732 733 733 734 735 736 738 739 739 740 740 742 743 744 .1 Function computation . . . . . . . . .1 Rate-dependent formulation . . . . . .1 The elastic modulus: compressible neo-Hookean model . . . . .1 Representation . . . .5. . .3 The spatial tangent modulus: neo-Hookean-based model 16. . . . .2 Plane strain and axisymmetric problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . .xviii 16. . .5. . . . . . . A. .2 Three dimensions . . .1 Representation . 16. . . . .4 Rate-dependent crystal: model problem .1 Symmetric strain localisation on a rectangular strip . . . . .4. . . . .1. . . . . . . .4. . 16. .4.5 A particular class of isotropic tensor functions . . .

. . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Inﬁnitesimal deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. .1 The generalised exponential map midpoint rule . . . . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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. . . . . . .2 The tensor exponential derivative . . . . . . . . . . .2 Fourth-order tensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. D Array notation for computations with tensors 759 D. . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Computation of the tensor exponential function . . . . . . B. . . . . . .3. . . . . .2 Finite strains and deformations . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The tensor exponential function . . .1 Operations with non-symmetric tensors .3 Exponential map integrators . . . . . . . . . . .1 Second-order tensors . C.1 Material description . . . 763 References Index 765 783 . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .2 Spatial description . . .1 Some properties of the tensor exponential function B. . .1 Computer implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761 D. . B. . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . C. 759 D. . .

.

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. while writing the manuscript. being of little use to those willing to learn computational methods in plasticity from a fundamental level. we decided to add more advanced (and very exciting) topics such as damage mechanics. Many of the techniques discussed in the text are incorporated in the FORTRAN program.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.wiley. 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. the ﬁnite element method in quasi-static nonlinear solid mechanics and a brief description of the computer program HYPLAS. 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.com/go/desouzaneto. We are certainly far more satisﬁed with the text now than with its early versions. We make no pretence that the text provides a complete account of the topics considered but rather. As the manuscript began to take shape. tensor analysis. The text is arranged in three main parts. Attention is focused on the derivation and description of various constitutive models – based on phenomenological hyperelasticity. When we embarked on the project of writing this text. This computer program has been specially written to illustrate the practical implementation of such techniques. nonlinear continuum mechanics – particularly nonlinear kinematics – ﬁnite hyperelasticity and general dissipative constitutive theory of solids. Also. 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. hoping that the reader will beneﬁt from it in some way. Part One presents some basic material of relevance to the subject matter of the book. There remains plenty of interesting material we would like to have included but cannot due to constraints of time and space. It includes an overview of elementary tensor analysis. named HYPLAS. Following this route. 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. anisotropic plasticity and the treatment of ﬁnite strain single crystal plasticity. continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. Part Two . A substantial amount of background reading from other sources would be required for readers unfamiliar with topics such as basic elastoplasticity theory. We merely offer it to ﬁll a gap in the existing literature. but we do not believe our ﬁnal product to be optimal in any sense.

This is followed by an introduction to large strain plasticity. D. Feijóo and E. M.T. Macedo for the numerous valuable suggestions during the design of the program HYPLAS at the very early stages of this project. Driemeier. Saavedra.A. Dutko for producing some of the numerical results reported. M.J.C. M. to Y. spotting hard-to-ﬁnd mistakes and making several important suggestions for improvement. Taroco for the fruitful discussions held on many occasions over a long period of time. together with relevant numerical procedures for their treatment. but not least. Dettmer. for producing the related ﬁgures presented and for thoroughly reviewing early versions of the manuscript. Blanco for carefully reviewing various parts of the manuscript. Lobão.M. D.P.C. to R. 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. Hyperelastic-based theories with multiplicative elastoplastic kinematics as well as hypoelastic-based models are discussed. The discussion on ﬁnite plasticity and its ﬁnite element implementation culminates with a description of techniques for single crystal plasticity.D. in Part Three we focus on large strain problems. to our late colleague and friend Mike Crisﬁeld. Speirs. S. to M. to R.H. Partovi. Both rate-independent (elastoplastic) and ratedependent (elasto-viscoplastic) theories are addressed and some advanced models. Andade Pires for his key contribution to the development of F-bar-Patch elements. E. for the numerous illuminating and passionate discussions (often held on the beach or late in the bar) on many topics addressed in the book.J.D. 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. W. The theory of ﬁnite hyperelasticity is reviewed ﬁrst together with details of its ﬁnite element implementation. Vaz Jr. Finite element techniques for large-strain near-incompressibility are also addressed.C. Saksono for his involvement in the production of isoerror maps. to A. to F. Somer. to L. including anisotropic plasticity and ductile damage are also covered. Last. A. Feng for helpful discussions on the arc-length method. to P. We are indebted to many people for their direct or indirect contribution to this text. Finally. Giusti and P.xxii PREFACE deals with small strain problems. Billardon for the many enlightening discussions on damage modelling. Orlando for literally ‘scanning’ through key parts of the text to ﬁnd inconsistencies of any kind. Molina. EA de Souza Neto D Peri´ c DRJ Owen Swansea .M.

Part One Basic concepts .

.

Also included are much less conventional applications. The variety of practical problems of interest to which such techniques are currently applied with acceptable levels of predictive capability is very wide. Fuelled by the steady increase in computing power at decreasing costs together with the continuous industrial demand for accurate models of solids. Particular emphasis is placed on the derivation and description of various constitutive models – based on phenomenological hyperelasticity. such as stress analysis in structures. this area of solid mechanics – generally known as computational plasticity – has experienced dramatic developments. user-unfriendly software that typically required highly specialized users. 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. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. mining operations and biological tissue behaviour. Another important aspect to emphasise is that the performance of many of Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. which accompanies this book. soil and rock mechanics. elastoplasticity and elasto-viscoplasticity – as well as on the relevant numerical procedures and the practical issues arising in their computer implementation. Applications were mostly conﬁned to the modelling of the behaviour of solids in conventional areas of engineering and analyses were carried out on crude. such as the simulation of food processing. 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. They range from traditional engineering applications. The range covered goes from basic inﬁnitesimal isotropic to more sophisticated ﬁnite strain theories. named HYPLAS. 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. In their early days. including anisotropy. 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. Many such problems are characterised by extremely large straining and material behaviour often described by means of rather complex constitutive equations.1 INTRODUCTION O VER the last four decades. Many of the techniques discussed in the text are implemented in the FORTRAN computer program. Ltd . 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. to the simulation of manufacturing processes such as metal forming.1. 1. Since those days.

we believe. object-oriented programming) could add a further difﬁculty in the learning of the essential concepts the HYPLAS code is meant to convey. we omit most proofs for standard relations. an introduction to the nonlinear mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media and an overview of small and large strain elastoplasticity and viscoplasticity theory. in the presentation of tensor analysis and continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. however. . In order to make the book more self-contained. We reiterate.1. we have chosen to incorporate a considerable amount of basic theory within the text. In the present case.1. in particular. (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. such as HYPLAS. 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. READERSHIP This book is intended for graduate students. in addition. that our main focus here is computational. Having a sound knowledge of such topics is essential. These should be of particular relevance to those involved in software research and development in computational plasticity. ﬁnite hyperelasticity and ﬁnite element techniques in nonlinear solid mechanics. the volume of theory and the depth at which it is presented is kept to the minimum necessary for the above task. viscoplasticity and hyperelasticity.g. 1. For example. 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. (b) the suitability of procedural languages for codes with relatively low level of complexity. to the clear understanding of the very problems the numerical techniques discussed in this book are meant to simulate. Layout In line with the above aims. we limit ourselves mainly to presenting the constitutive models together with their most relevant properties and the essential relations needed in their formulation. Issues such as material stability and the existence and uniqueness of solutions to initial boundary value problems are generally not addressed. the book has been divided into three parts as follows.2. This includes some material on elementary tensor analysis. 1. the use of more advanced programming concepts (e. Thus.4 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the models/techniques described in the text is documented in numerical examples. In plasticity. within the ﬁnite element community. research engineers and scientists working in the ﬁeld of computational continuum 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. be familiar at a fairly basic level with the FORTRAN computer programming language.

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

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

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. 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). and the mixed u/p formulation. The material presented is conﬁned mostly to isotropic elastoplasticity. Finally. without any added speciﬁc techniques. for completeness. The tensor exponential is of relevance for the treatment of ﬁnite plasticity presented in Chapters 14 and 16. In addition to the above. The implementation of a specialisation of the general model based on a planar double-slip system is described in detail. 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. the Enhanced Assumed Strain (EAS) technique. 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. However. 1. In Appendix C we derive the linearisation of the virtual work equation both under small and large deformations. a discussion on the so-called hypoelasticbased theories is also included. This implementation is incorporated in the program HYPLAS. The main discussion is focused on hyperelastic-based ﬁnite plasticity theories with multiplicative kinematics. Appendix B addresses the tensor exponential function. for instance). Finally. four appendices are included. 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. with anisotropy in the form of kinematic hardening added only at the end of the chapter. the name of the corresponding FORTRAN subprogram is often indicated at the top of the box (see page 221. to pages 146 and 199).3. THE USE OF BOXES Extensive use of boxes has been made to summarise constitutive models and numerical algorithms in general (refer.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. Chapter 15 is concerned with the treatment of large strain incompressibility within the Finite Element Method. for example. For boxes describing key procedures implemented in the program HYPLAS. Appendix A is concerned with isotropic scalar. in Appendix D we describe the handling – including array storage and product operations – of second and fourth-order tensors in ﬁnite element computer programs. General scheme of notation Throughout the text. This issue becomes crucial in large-scale ﬁnite strain simulations where the use of low-order elements (which. 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. 1.2.1. 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. The ﬁnite plasticity models actually implemented in the program HYPLAS belong to this class of theories.and tensor-valued functions of a symmetric tensor that are widely exploited throughout the text. . are generally inappropriate near the incompressible limit) is highly desirable.

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

unit eigenvector of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue D De Dep E Ei E ¯ E ei . SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERS The speciﬁc meaning of some important characters is listed below.3. elastic domain Set of plastically admissible stresses Generic base vector.INTRODUCTION 9 1. We remark that some of these symbols may occasionally be used with a different connotation (which should be clear from the context). 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.2.

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 . 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.

. 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. .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. . . N ) for a model with N terms in the Ogden strain-energy function series Generic set of internal state variables Up .

εp εp ¯ η κ λ λe . also elastic Eulerian logarithmic strain when under large strains Plastic strain tensor Array representation of ε. . axial stretch. relative stress tensor in kinematic hardening plasticity models Isotropic hardening thermodynamical force One of the Lamé constants of linear elasticity. . i µ µp ν Ξ ξ ρ ρ ¯ σ σ σi σy σy 0 σ τ τi . 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. elastic and plastic principal stretches One of the Lamé constants of linear elasticity Ogden hyperelastic constants (p = 1. εe . εe and εp . λp λi . also Eulerian logarithmic strain when under large strains Elastic strain tensor. ε e p COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Back-stress tensor Plastic multiplier Krönecker delta Strain tensor. λe . respectively Axial total. load factor in proportional loading Elastic and plastic axial stretch λp i Total.12 β γ ˙ δij ε εe εp ε. ε . . elastic and plastic strain in one-dimensional models Effective (or accumulated) plastic strain Virtual displacement ﬁeld. .

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. summation over the repeated index (Einstein notation) is implied unless otherwise stated. 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. . j. In a more general context (in an n-dimensional space). respectively. . INDICIAL NOTATION.3. γ. subscripts may indicate the relevant increment number. • When an index appears twice in the same product. normally range over 1. β. . their range may be 1. SUBSCRIPTS AND SUPERSCRIPTS When indicial notation is used. . . in the context of incremental numerical procedures. . aijkl . at the end of increments n and n + 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. 3 u i ei = i=1 u i ei .: range over 1 and 2. motion Plastic ﬂow potential Helmholtz free-energy per unit mass. Superscripts Superscripts are also used extensively throughout the text. l. We remark that subscripts are not employed exclusively in connection with indicial notation. For example. In the expression ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . or for the basis vectors ei . δ. . as in the Cartesian components ui . Bij . .3. 2 and 3.. n. the subscripts n and n + 1 refer to the values of ε. . . • Greek subscripts α. For example. strain-energy per unit mass Domain of a body in the reference conﬁguration Domain of ﬁnite element e in the reference conﬁguration 1. damage function Deformation map. k. 2. .

Double contraction of tensors (internal product of second-order tensors) ∂a (·) ∂ (·) ∂a ˙ (·) (·) T a≡b a := b. ∆(·) = (·)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. The symbol := is often used to emphasise that a given expression is an assignment operation performed by a computational algorithm.3.4. The symbol ≡ is often used to emphasise that the expression in question is a deﬁnition. S:T . s ∇x (·) ∂(·) s s ∇p . 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 (·). OTHER IMPORTANT SYMBOLS AND OPERATIONS The meanings of other important symbols and operations are listed below. Assignment operation. det(·) dev(·) divp (·) divx (·) exp(·) ln(·) o(·) sign(·) skew(·) sym(·) tr(·) ∆(·) δ(·) ∇(·) ∇p (·) ∇x (·) ∇ . The value of the right-hand side of the expression is assigned to its left-hand side. S : T.14 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. a := a + b S : T. Typically.

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. T · u and S · T are normally represented simply as Tu and ST. S·T u×v S ⊗ T. u · v. u⊗v X∗Y |(·)| ||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. in a given context. Vector product Tensor product of tensors or vectors The appropriate product between two generic entities. T · u. The single contraction symbol (the single dot) is usually omitted in single contractions between a tensor and a vector or between tensors. Analogously to → above.INTRODUCTION 15 Single contraction of vectors and tensors. ||v|| →A ←A ↔A . 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. Analogously to → and ← above. that is. Norm (absolute value) of the scalar (·) Euclidean norm of tensors and vectors: √ √ ||T || ≡ T : T. ||v|| ≡ v · v Used in the description of arguments of FORTRAN subprograms listed in the text.

.

Readers who are familiar with tensor analysis and. with which we assume the reader to be familiar. However.3) . Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.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. coordinates for indicial representation is sufﬁciently general for the applications considered in this book. indicial notation is also used. and u is said to be a unit vector if u = 1. Points of E and vectors U satisfy the basic rules of vector algebra. This will allow readers not yet familiar with compact notation to associate compactly written entities and operations with their indicial forms.1) u = u · u. The zero vector. The Euclidean norm (or. norm) of a vector u is deﬁned as √ (2.2) (2.1. is the element of U that satisﬁes o = 0. in particular. INNER PRODUCT. NORM AND ORTHOGONALITY Let u·v denote the inner product (or scalar product) between two arbitrary vectors of U. Readers interested in such proofs and a more in-depth treatment of the subject are referred to other textbooks such as Gurtin (1981).1. which will be expressed exclusively in terms of Cartesian coordinate systems. We note that the use of Cartesian. in many of the deﬁnitions introduced in this chapter. Vectors Let E be an n-dimensional Euclidean space and let U be the space of n-dimensional vectors associated with E.1. here denoted o. Ltd (2. We remark that no proofs are given to most relations presented in this chapter. In the subsequent chapters. the use of indicial notation will be much less frequent. rather than curvilinear. preference is given to the use of intrinsic (or compact) tensor notation where no indices are used to represent mathematical entities. may comfortably skip this chapter. Throughout this text. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 2. simply. the use of compact notation. 2.

. (2. of components u1 u2 [u] = . . . 2.5) (2. . ORTHOGONAL BASES AND CARTESIAN COORDINATE FRAMES A set {ei } ≡ {e1 . n (2. where δij = 1 0 if i = j if i = j (2. The Cartesian coordinates {xi } of x are the Cartesian components of the position vector r = x − x0 .2. e2 . That is. (2. xn of Cartesian coordinates of x. .9) .7) (2. . x0 ∈ E.10) . together with an origin point. Any vector of U is uniquely deﬁned by its components relative to a given basis.11) of x relative to the origin x0 . . 2. xi = (x − x0 ) · ei .4) is the Krönecker delta. . This allows us to represent any vector u as a single column matrix.1. en } of n mutually orthogonal vectors satisfying ei · ej = δij . any point x of E can be represented by an array x1 x2 [x] = .8) are the Cartesian components of u relative to the basis {ei }. {ei }. where u i = u · ei . deﬁnes an orthonormal basis for U . . . deﬁnes a Cartesian coordinate frame. . un An orthonormal basis. . Analogously to the representation of vectors. denoted [u]. . (2. i = 1.12) (2. Any vector u ∈ U can be represented as u = u 1 e1 + u 2 e2 + · · · + u n en = u i ei .6) (2.18 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.

18) (2. 0. then T is said to be symmetric.21) (2. 2 (2.1. (2. In general. 2. the tensors that satisfy 0u = o (2. If T = −T T . Second-order tensors Second-order tensors are linear transformations from U into U. i.20) (2. If ST = TS. ST = TS.15) Iu=u ∀ u ∈ U.17) (2. a second-order tensor T:U→U maps each vector u into a vector v = T u. v ∈ U.23) (2.e. If T = TT. and the identity tensor.22) (2. simply. (2. the zero tensor. then T is said to be skew symmetric (or. then S and T are said to commute. I.2. 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). of a tensor T is the unique tensor that satisﬁes T u · v = u · T T v. respectively.14) where α ∈ R. (2. skew).16) . 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 ). T T .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 19 2.13) Any linear vector-valued function of a vector is a tensor.19) ∀ u. THE TRANSPOSE. are.2. In addition. SYMMETRIC AND SKEW TENSORS The transpose. The product of two tensors S and T is the tensor ST deﬁned by ST u = S (T u).

20 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Basic properties The following basic properties involving the transpose. Some properties of the tensor product The following relations hold for any vectors s. 2. t. (ii) (S T )T = T T ST . w and tensor S : (i) u ⊗ (v + w) = u ⊗ v + u ⊗ w. TENSOR PRODUCTS The tensor product of two vectors u and v. is the tensor that maps each vector w into the vector (v · w)u: (u ⊗ v) w = (v · w) u. (v) S (u ⊗ v) = (S u) ⊗ v. then skew(T ) = 0. (vi) (u ⊗ v)S = (u ⊗ ST v). (iii) (u ⊗ v)(s ⊗ t) = (v · s)u ⊗ t. The tensor product is sometimes referred to as the dyadic product. then skew(T ) = T.24) sym(T ) = 0. denoted u ⊗ v. (ii) (u ⊗ v)T = v ⊗ u. (iii) (T T ) = T.2. (2. v. u. skew and symmetric parts of a tensor hold: (i) (S + T )T = ST + T T .2. (iv) If T is symmetric. sym(T ) = T. T . (iv) ei ⊗ ei = I. (v) If T is skew.

. Note that in (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 . . 0 0 ··· 0 · · · 0 . . . the array [v] of Cartesian components of v is obtained from the matrix-vector product v2 [v ] ≡ .. so that its matrix representation is given by 1 0 0 1 [I ] = .25) · · · Tnn For instance. . 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. the Cartesian components of the identity tensor. . .3. . Tn2 ··· ··· . Thus.32) . . ··· 1 (2.30) Thus. . vn v1 T21 = .31) (2. I. . . . (2. we may have the following matrix representation for T : T21 [T ] = . . by arranging the components Tij in a matrix. (2.28) (2. . T1n (2. . .2. Tn2 ··· ··· .26) are the Cartesian components of T. . .25) no summation is implied over the index n.. . read Iij = δij .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 21 2.29) The Cartesian components of the vector v = T u are given by vi = [Tjk (ej ⊗ ek ) ul el ] · ei = Tij uj . . . . . Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . . . Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . . (2. . T1n T2n u2 . . .. .27) T2n . Any second tensor is uniquely deﬁned by its Cartesian components.

it then follows that tr T = Tij tr(ei ⊗ ej ) = Tij δij = Tii . TRACE. (vi) (u ⊗ v)ij = (u ⊗ v) : (ei ⊗ ej ) = ui vj . . Basic properties The following basic properties involving the internal product of tensors hold for any tensors R. For a generic tensor. v ∈ U. then S : T = S : T T = S : sym(T ).22 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thus. . in Cartesian component form.37) (2. .33) 2. the trace of the tensor (u ⊗ v) is the linear map deﬁned as tr(u ⊗ v) = u · v. t. The inner product. T and vectors s.4. v: (i) I : T = tr T. (iii) u · S v = S : (u ⊗ v). . S : T. T T has the following Cartesian matrix representation T11 T21 · · · Tn1 T12 T22 · · · Tn2 [T T ] = .38) . . (viii) If S is skew. . (iv) (s ⊗ t) : (u ⊗ v) = (s · u)(t · v). . then S : T = 0. then S : T = −S : T T = S : skew(T ). (2.. INNER PRODUCT AND EUCLIDEAN NORM For any u. or. (vii) If S is symmetric. .36) (2. the trace of T is the sum of the diagonal terms of the Cartesian matrix representation [T ].2. The Euclidean norm (or simply norm) of a tensor T is deﬁned as √ 2 2 2 T ≡ T : T = T11 + T12 + · · · + Tnn . S. . T = Tij ei ⊗ ej . S : T = Sij Tij . (ix) If S is symmetric and T is skew.34) that is. T1n T2n · · · Tnn (2.35) (2. between two tensors S and T is deﬁned as S : T = tr(ST T ). . u. . (2. (v) Tij = T : (ei ⊗ ej ). (ii) R : (S T ) = (ST R) : T = (R T T ) : S.

(2. The determinant of any orthogonal tensor equals either +1 or −1. An orthogonal tensor Q with det Q = 1 (2. an orthogonal tensor Q satisﬁes Qu · Qv = u · v.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 23 2. The determinant of a tensor T. satisfying T −1 T = T T −1 = I exists. denoted T −1 . The product Q1 Q2 of any two orthogonal tensors Q1 and Q2 is an orthogonal tensor.41) . DETERMINANT A tensor T is said to be invertible if its inverse.6. (2.44) . is the determinant of the matrix [T ]. A tensor T is said to be positive deﬁnite if T u · u > 0.39) (2. denoted det T. If Q1 and Q2 are rotations. −1 (iv) (T −1 ) = (T T ) . 2.43) is called a proper orthogonal tensor (or a rotation). (2. A tensor T is invertible if and only if det T = 0.42) The set of all orthogonal tensors will be denoted O. ROTATIONS A tensor Q is said to be orthogonal if QT = Q−1 . INVERSE TENSOR.5.40) ∀ u = o. ORTHOGONAL TENSORS. then the product Q1 Q2 is also a rotation.2. It will be denoted O + . 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. The set of all proper orthogonal (or rotation) tensors is the proper orthogonal group. Any positive deﬁnite tensor is invertible. (ii) det T −1 = (det T ) (iii) (ST ) −1 T −1 (2. For all vectors u and v. = T −1 S−1 .2.

In this space.24 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Rotations and changes of basis Let {ei } and {e∗ } be two orthonormal bases of U. . 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 ]. 2. CROSS PRODUCT Let us now restrict ourselves to the three-dimensional vector space. . the rotation tensor has a simple Cartesian representation.48) · · · en · e∗ n (2. in component form.45) where R is a rotation. (2. en · e∗ 1 or.53) . j. . . 2. (2. we deﬁne the cross product (or vector product) between two vectors u and v as the vector w = u × v.51) (2. j. . .. en · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ n . i for i = 1. (2. The matrix representation of R reads [R] = cos θ sin θ −sin θ cos θ . 3} ijk = 0 if at least two indices coincide. [u ∗ ] = [R]T [u ]. . e1 · e∗ n (2. a tensor and a vector with matrix representations [T ] and [u] with respect to the basis {ei }. A rotation in two dimensions In two-dimensional space. n.2.7. (2. . .52) uj vk . whose components are given by wi = where ijk ijk (2. k} is an even permutation of {1.50) 2.46) (2.49) Rij = ei · e∗ . i ··· ··· . we have ∗ Tij = Rki Tkl Rlj . j Example. denotes the alternating tensor +1 if {i. respectively. 2. e1 · e∗ 1 e1 · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ 2 . Such bases are related by i e∗ = R ei . 3} −1 if {i. Let the tensor R be a transformation that rotates all vectors of the two-dimensional space by an (anti-clockwise positive) angle θ. k} is an odd permutation of {1. . Equivalently. . . in component form.47) The matrix [R] is given by e2 · e∗ 1 [R] = . Let T and u be. u∗ = Rji uj .

(u × v) · w (2. the axial vector is expressed as w = W32 e1 + W13 e2 + W21 e3 .2. . SPECTRAL DECOMPOSITION Given a tensor T. there is a unique vector w.54) (v) For any skew tensor W . (ii) (u × v) · w = (v × w) · u = (w × u) · v. (2. (ii) The characteristic spaces of a symmetric tensor are mutually orthogonal. reads [W ] = w3 −w2 where {wi } are the components of w. In terms of the Cartesian components of W . 2. such that W u = w × u.58) 0 −w3 0 w1 −w1 . called the axial vector of W .55) The space of all vectors u satisfying the above equation is called the characteristic space of T corresponding to ω. The following properties hold: (i) The eigenvalues of a positive deﬁnite tensor are strictly positive.56) (2. 0 w2 (2. The matrix representation of W .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. det T = (T u × T v) · T w . (iii) u × u = o. v.8. w} of linearly independent vectors.57) (2. (iv) For any tensor T and a set {u. 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.

61) where the symmetric tensors {Ei } are called the eigenprojections of S. the eigenprojections satisfy Ei : Ej = δij . . n. .64) (2. . (2. in the present context. Eigenprojections Alternatively. si should not be confused with the Cartesian component of a vector. . with no summation implied on i.62) and. p. we may write p S= i=1 si Ei . (2. then Ei = ei ⊗ ei for i = 1. . Each eigenprojection Ei is the orthogonal projection operator on the characteristic space of S associated with si . j = 1. Relative to the basis {ei }. . . S has the following diagonal matrix representation s1 0 · · · 0 0 s2 · · · 0 (2. . with p ≤ n deﬁned as the number of distinct eigenvalues of S.. . . . s denotes the eigenvalue of tensor S associated with the unit eigenvector e . . 0 0 ··· sn The direction of an eigenvector ei is called a principal axis or principal direction of S. . if p = n (no repeated eigenvalues). . i.60) [S ] = . † Note that. .65) if p = 1.† The above representation is called the spectral decomposition of S. The eigenprojections have the property p I= i=1 Ei . . (2. i i We remark that this notation is often employed throughout this book and. . (2.26 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Spectral theorem Let S be a symmetric tensor.59) where {ei } is an orthonormal basis for U consisting exclusively of eigenvectors of S and {si } are the corresponding eigenvalues. Ei are given by the expression p 1 (S − sj I) s i − sj j=1 Ei = j=i I if p > 1 (2. Also. whenever it is used. .63) In closed form. . . Then S admits the representation n S= i=1 si ei ⊗ ei .

73) −s3 + s2 I1 − si I2 + I3 = 0.74) . I2 and I3 are the principal invariants of S. Three-dimensional space In the three-dimensional space. for any α ∈ R.69) (2. det(S − α I ) has the representation det(S − α I ) = −α3 + α2 I1 − α I2 + I3 . In this case.67) The eigenvalues si are the solutions to this quadratic equation. i i If S is symmetric. Principal invariants Every eigenvalue si of a tensor S (symmetric or non-symmetric) satisﬁes the characteristic equation det(S − si I ) = 0. (2. 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 .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 27 Characteristic equation.70) (2. where I1 and I2 are the principal invariants of S. reads (2. (2.71) (2. deﬁned as I1 (S) ≡ tr S = Sii I2 (S) ≡ det S = S11 S22 − S12 S21 .72) The characteristic equation (now a cubic equation). det(S − α I ) can be expressed as det(S − α I ) = α2 − α I1 + I2 .68) (2. then its principal invariants can be expressed in terms of its eigenvalues as I1 = s1 + s2 I2 = s1 s2 . 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 . i (2. (2. where I1 . If S is symmetric. the characteristic equation reads s2 − si I1 + I2 = 0.66) Two-dimensional space In the two-dimensional space.

which can be classed as ﬁrst-order tensors. POLAR DECOMPOSITION Let F be a positive deﬁnite tensor. Higher-order tensors So far we have seen operations involving scalars. we have already made use of a higher-order tensor: the third-order alternating tensor whose components are deﬁned in expression (2. Note that the rotation R associated with an arbitrary F can be expressed as R = F U −1 = V −1 F . V= F F T. T.81) for arbitrary vectors a. or higher-order tensors. (2. (2.75) The decompositions R U and V R are unique and are called. and second-order tensors.52) can be equivalently written in compact form as w = ( v) u. (2.7. The multiplication of the alternating tensor by a vector v yields the second-order tensor v = ijk vk ei ⊗ ej . c and d.82) Note that. the right and left polar decompositions of F . reads √ T= si ei ⊗ ei . (2. It can be represented as = ijk ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek . (2.83) . In this section we introduce some basic deﬁnitions and operations involving higher-order tensors. respectively. b.79) 2. expression (2. The square root of a symmetric tensor S is the unique tensor T that satisﬁes T 2 ≡ T T = S. The alternating tensor is a linear operator that maps vectors into skew symmetric tensors.78) i Assertions (2.53). (2. (2.2. respectively. the eigenvalues and the basis of eigenvectors of S. Then there exist symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V and a rotation R such that F = R U = V R. in the deﬁnition of the cross product in Section 2.76) are commonly referred to as the Polar Decomposition Theorem. vectors. (2. In fact. with the above deﬁnitions. that can be considered as zero-order tensors. Linear operators of higher order.76) where (·) denotes the tensor square root of (·).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). the spectral decomposition of its square root.28 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. The symmetric tensors U and V are given by U= F T F.75)–(2. are frequently employed in continuum mechanics. which are linear operators on vectors.2. (2.9.77) With {si } and {ei } denoting.3.

Symmetry We shall call symmetric any fourth-order tensor that satisﬁes S : T : U = (T : S) : U . (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f ⊗ g ⊗ h) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b ⊗ g ⊗ h). the following relations are valid: (i) Tijkl = (ei ⊗ ej ) : T : (ek ⊗ el ). (vi) S : T = Tklij Skl ei ⊗ ej . e and f.84) Fourth-order tensors map second-order tensors into second-order tensors.e. As a direct extension of equation (2. i. (ii) T u = Tijkl ul ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek .89) for any S. With the above deﬁnitions.92) S : T = ST : T.90) (2. d. The Cartesian components of symmetric fourth-order tensors satisfy the major symmetries Tijkl = Tklij . ‡ Fourth-order (2. .3.91) (2. (2. if Tijkl = Tijlk .87) for any second-order tensors S and U . S : T = (S : T)T .86) (2. (2. (v) T : S = Tijmn Smnkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . (2. Tijkl = Tjikl . 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.81) we deﬁne (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d)e = (e · d)(a ⊗ b ⊗ c). FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS Fourth-order tensors are of particular relevance in continuum mechanics. b. the tensor has the properties T : S = T : ST . tensors are represented in this text by bold face upright sans serif fonts. (2. then.1. (iii) T : S = Tijkl Skl ei ⊗ ej . This deﬁnition is analogous to that of symmetric second-order tensors.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 29 2. They also map vectors into third-order tensors and third-order tensors into vectors. A general fourthorder tensor‡ T can be represented as T = Tijkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el .85) for arbitrary vectors a. (2. T : S = (T : S)T . If symmetry occurs in the last two indices.88) It should be noted that other symmetries are possible in fourth-order tensors. c.

where. are the only second-order isotropic tensors. The deﬁnition of contraction operations is completely analogous to that seen above for fourth-order tensors.2. (2. 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 . (2.93) with R a rotation. 2.1. i (2. with scalar α. 2. is isotropic if Tijkl = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq .e. tensors represented as αI.2.3. ISOTROPIC SECOND-ORDER TENSORS A second-order tensor. for any rotation R.30 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Change of basis transformation Again.4. 2. i. we have (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim )u = (u · eim )(ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim−1 ).98) (2. let us consider the orthonormal basis {e∗ } deﬁned as i e∗ = Rei . Spherical tensors. (2.94) ijkl where Tmnpq are the components relative to {ei }. T. ISOTROPIC FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS A fourth-order tensor.96) (2. extending the previous deﬁnitions of the tensor product.4.4. is isotropic if [T ] = [R][T ][R]T for any rotation R. Isotropic tensors A tensor is said to be isotropic if its components are invariant under any change of basis. GENERIC-ORDER TENSORS Generic tensors of order m are deﬁned as T = Ti1 i2 ···im (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim ). 2.97) .95) for all u ∈ U. T.

The components of IT are (IT )ijkl = δil δjk .102) (2.100) For any second-order tensor T. 2 This tensor maps any second-order tensor into its symmetric part.110) 2 (2. can be represented as a linear combination of three basic isotropic tensors: I. (2. i.108) . for any symmetric S. β and γ are scalars. IS : S = S. When multiplying any tensor T it gives (I ⊗ I ) : T = (tr T ) I. the fourth-order identity satisﬁes I : T = T : I = T. U = α I + β IT + γ (I ⊗ I ).99) where α.101) The tensor IT is the transposition tensor. and. i.e. (2. U.103) for any S. The tensor I is called the fourth-order identity. given in component form as Iijkl = δik δjl . we have I : T = T : I = T. Obviously. Its Cartesian components are (IS )ijkl = 1 (δik δjl + δil δjk ).109) We shall refer to this tensor as the symmetric projection or symmetric identity.105) (2.e. IT and (I ⊗ I ). It maps any second-order tensor onto its transpose. T. (2. for any fourth-order tensor. (2. i. IT : S = S : IT = ST . the tensor (I ⊗ I ) has components (I ⊗ I)ijkl = δij δkl .107) IS = 1 ( I + IT ).ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 31 Any isotropic fourth-order tensor. (2.106) (2.104) Another important isotropic tensor that frequently appears in continuum mechanics is the tensor deﬁned as (2.e. (2. IS : T = T : IS = sym(T ). Finally. (2.

that is.114) is the called the linearisation of Y about X 0 . deﬁned as L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] (2. (2. Y(X 0 + U ) = Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] + o(U ). . it is the linear approximation to Y at X 0 .114) corresponds indeed to the approximation to Y that ignores all higher-order (nonlinear) terms in U . the term DY(X 0 ) [U ] is called the directional derivative of Y (at X 0 ) in the direction of U . Differentiation 2. i. The derivative satisﬁes DY(X 0 ) [U ] = lim 1 →0 ∈R [Y(X 0 + U ) − Y(X 0 )] = d Y(X 0 + U ) d . LINEARISATION OF A NONLINEAR FUNCTION The function L : D ⊂ X → Y.5.e.5. Note by observing (2.2. THE GRADIENT Since the derivative is a linear transformation between ﬁnite-dimensional spaces. and o(U ) is a term that approaches zero faster than U . 2.113) for each U ∈ X.115) where ∇Y(X 0 ) is the gradient of Y at X 0 and the symbol ‘∗’ denotes an appropriate product operation. (2. For a given U . THE DERIVATIVE MAP.111) that the function deﬁned in (2. 2.111) where DY(X 0 ) [U ] denotes a linear transformation on U .5. represented in abstract notation.32 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2.3. it can be represented as DY(X 0 ) [U ] = ∇Y(X 0 ) ∗ U .1. DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVE Let X and Y be ﬁnite-dimensional normed vector spaces and let a function Y be deﬁned as Y : D ⊂ X → Y.5. 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 ). U→0 lim o(U ) = 0. it is unique and is called the derivative of Y at X 0 .112) If the linear map DY(X 0 ) exists. where the domain D of Y is an open subset of X. U (2. =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.117) (2.1) y(x) ≡ x2 .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 33 We remark that throughout this text we shall use the term derivative also as a synonym for gradient. indeed. 0 (2.111) reads y(x0 + u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] + o(u) = x2 + 2x0 u + u2 . 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 will also use the notation dY dX to denote the gradient and when Y is a function of two or more arguments.116) u→0 In addition. Example. (2. Note that.118) (2.e. Let us consider the function (Figure 2.121) and the product ‘∗’ is identiﬁed with the standard product between scalars. (2.122) 2. (2.114). vectors or tensors. this term vanishes faster than u.115).119) (2. the gradient of y can be promptly identiﬁed as ∇y(x0 ) = 2x0 . 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. 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 have Dy(x0 ) [u] = 2x0 u. by comparing the above expression with (2. lim |o(u)| u2 = lim = 0. 0 We can then identify o(u) = u2 .5. With the above and (2. In the present case. .4. i. u→0 |u| |u| (2.120) Thus.

we have y(x + u) = x · x + 2x · u + o(u) where o(u) = u · u.1. It then follows that Dy(x) [u] = 2x · u. Function derivative and linearisation.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 component form.129) = i (2.126) (2.115) becomes the internal product between vectors in the present case.123) The generic product operation indicated in (2. dx or. Scalar function of vector argument We start with the scalar function of a vector argument deﬁned by y(x) ≡ x · x = xi xi . dy dx Scalar function of a tensor argument Now consider the internal product between tensors y(X) ≡ X : X = Xij Xij . (2. (2.124) (2. dxi (2. In this case. We may alternatively use the notation dy = 2x.127) dy = 2xi . and the gradient ∇y can be identiﬁed as the vector ∇y(x) = 2x.125) (2.128) .

dXij (2. The gradient – a second-order tensor in this case – can be immediately identiﬁed as ∇y(X) = 2X.137) (2.134) (2.138) . we write Y (X + U ) = XX + XU + U X + U U = Y (X) + DY (X) [U ] + o(U ).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 . or.135) (2. Some useful relations We list below (without proof) some basic expressions for derivatives relevant to theoretical and computational mechanics applications: (i) y(x) ≡ x .132) (2. The Cartesian components of ∇Y can be easily found to be given by (∇Y )ijkl = Xik δjl + Xlj δik . Dy(x) [u] = x ·u x (2. in component form.131) (2. dx x (2. (2.136) d x x = . (∇y)ij = dy = 2 Xij .130) Tensor function of a tensor argument We now determine the derivative of the square of a tensor Y (X) ≡ X 2 = XX. This tensor-value function is equivalently expressed in component form as Yij ≡ Xik Xkj .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 35 We have y(X + U ) = X : X + 2X : U + U : U = y(X) + Dy(X) [U ] + o(U ). To obtain its derivative.

Dy(X) [U ] = X :U X d X X = .144) . DY (X) [U ] = U d X = I. DY (X) [U ] = −X −1 U X −1 = D : U . dX 2. 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.5. Dy(X) [U ] = (det X) X −T : U d det X = (det X) X −T . d (X −1 ) = D. dx (v) Y (x) ≡ x ⊗ x.139) (2.36 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (ii) y(X) ≡ X . dX (vii) Y (X) ≡ X −1 . dx (vi) Y (X) ≡ X. −1 −1 Dijkl = −Xik Xlj (2. DY (x) [u] = (I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I) · u d (x ⊗ x) = I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I. dX (iv) Y (x) ≡ a ⊗ x (with constant a).5. DY (x) [u] = (a ⊗ I) · u d (a ⊗ x) = a ⊗ I. The derivative of Y satisﬁes DY(X) [U ] = DW(Z(X)) [DZ(X) [U ]] for all U ∈ X.141) (2. dX X (iii) y(X) ≡ det X.140) (2.142) (2.143) (2.

α n da = v · n da = T n da = ∇α dv. If W and Z are differentiable at an argument X. vector and tensor-valued ﬁelds on B.145) ∂xi Now let T be a smooth second-order tensor ﬁeld on D.5. ∂xj (2. that satisﬁes (div T ) · u = div(T T u). this product could be the internal or tensor product between vectors. 2.6. div v dv.146) The divergence theorem Let B ⊂ E be a closed region with piecewise smooth boundary ∂B and let α. then so is Y and DY(X) [U ] = W(X) ∗ DZ(X) [U ] + DW(X) [U ] ∗ Z(X).7. If W is a fourth-order tensor and Z is a second-order tensor. we have (div T )i = ∂Tij . Then.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 37 2. ‘∗’ could be the double contraction operation. where n is the ﬁeld of unit outward normal vectors on ∂B.147) ∀ u ∈ U.148) ∂B B ∂B B ∂B B div T dv. respectively. If W and Z are vectors. The divergence of v is the scalar ﬁeld deﬁned as ∂vi div v = tr(∇v) = .5. (2. (2. In Cartesian components. THE DIVERGENCE Let v : D ⊂ E → U be a smooth vector ﬁeld on D. (2. 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. denoted div T. The divergence of T is the vector ﬁeld. v and T be smooth scalar. and so on. for instance. .

2. Linearisation of nonlinear problems The linearisation of nonlinear problems plays a crucial role in theoretical and computational mechanics. In computational mechanics. which is extensively exploited in the ﬁnite element framework described later in this book. (ii) div(αu) = α div u + u · ∇α.8. The proof of the above relations is given in Gurtin (1981). on the other hand.38 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2.1. (iv) div(u ⊗ v) = u div v + (∇u)v.150) . USEFUL RELATIONS INVOLVING THE GRADIENT AND THE DIVERGENCE Let α and T be. A typical example is the well-known Newton–Raphson iterative scheme. (2. Our generic nonlinear problem consists in ﬁnding X ∈ D such that Y(X) = 0.6. THE NONLINEAR PROBLEM AND ITS LINEARISED FORM Let Y : D ⊂ X → Y be a generic nonlinear function. 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. (vi) div(α T ) = α div T + T ∇α.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. In theoretical continuum mechanics.5. the concept of linearisation is essential in the derivation of linear approximations to general nonlinear theories. 2. The following useful relations hold: (i) ∇(αu) = α ∇u + u ⊗ ∇α. (v) div(T u) = T T : ∇u + u · div T T . respectively.149) The linearisation of the problem deﬁned by equation (2. smooth scalar and tensor ﬁelds on D ⊂ E and let u and v be smooth vector ﬁelds on D. 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. where L(U ) is the linearisation of Y at X 0 .6. (iii) ∇(u · v) = (∇v)T u + (∇u)T v.

a scalar-valued function of a function. Here. 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.152) 2. The scalar case To illustrate the above concept.2.150) 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. Linearisation of a nonlinear equation. § The precise deﬁnition of such spaces falls outside the scope of the present text.149).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. Example. 0 (2. let us again appeal to the case of a scalar function of a single scalar argument. 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. LINEARISATION IN INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONAL SPACES So far. and consider the trivial root-ﬁnding problem (refer to the graphical illustration of Figure 2.e. the discussion on differentiation and linearisation has been restricted to mappings between ﬁnite-dimensional vector spaces. 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. we describe a much simpler example whose purpose is only to familiarise the reader with the concept.2) deﬁned by the equation y(x) = 0.151) This is obviously a particularisation of the general nonlinear problem (2. .6. i. (2. y(x) ≡ x2 .2.§ Of particular interest in computational mechanics is the case when Y is a functional. In the present case. the generic linearised problem (2.

(2.114): l(u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Dy(x0 ) [u]. (2. . (2.155) From the above. (2.154) 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 (2.40 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS A simple example Let X now be a space of sufﬁciently smooth¶ functions x : R n → R.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. We deﬁne a functional y : X → R as y(x) ≡ Ω sin(x(p)) dp. meaning that functions have a sufﬁcient degree of regularity so that all operations in which they are involved are properly deﬁned.153) where Ω ⊂ R n is a given integration domain. 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. the linearisation of the functional (2. we frequently use the term sufﬁciently smooth in the present text.156) ¶ To avoid a precise statement of regularity properties of functions.

Ltd . D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 3. material particles of B will be identiﬁed with their positions in the reference conﬁguration of B. Truesdell and Noll. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. The deﬁnitions and notation introduced will be systematically employed throughout the subsequent chapters of this book. 1988. Thus. one may write x = p + u(p). is the displacement of p.1. 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. 1984. Ogden. 1997. Lemaitre and Chaboche. 1965). Ciarlet.3) (3.1) where the particle is positioned in the deformed conﬁguration of B.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. Spencer. 1990. deﬁned by u(p) = ϕ(p) − p. 1981. 1980. Bonet and Wood.2) † For convenience.3 ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS T HIS chapter reviews some basic concepts of mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media. (3. 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. Gurtin. The region of E occupied by B in its deformed conﬁguration will be denoted ϕ(Ω). 1981. The vector ﬁeld u(p). A deformation of B (Figure 3.

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 motion (Figure 3. A rigid rotation is a deformation that can be expressed as ϕ(p) = q + R (p − q). A deformation is rigid.3) is deﬁned by a function ϕ : Ω × R → E. A rigid deformation (Figure 3. Deformation. (3.1.6) The deformation map above represents a rigid translation with displacement ϕ(q) − q superimposed on a rigid rotation R about point q. A time-dependent deformation of B is called a motion of B. a rotation. A rigid deformation of B is a deformation that preserves the distances between all material particles of B. rigid translation rigid rotation fixed point q x x p u p Figure 3.5) (3.2) can be a translation. (3.2. A rigid translation is a deformation with constant displacement vector (u independent of p): ϕ(p) = p + u.4) where R is a proper orthogonal tensor (a rotation) and q is the point about which B is rotated. if and only if it can be expressed in the form: ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + R (p − q). . Rigid deformations. including translations and/or rotations.

t). 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. (3.3. t2 ) xt 2 Figure 3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 43 c(t) reference configuration t1 xt p 1 ) u( p. t). material points can be expressed in terms of the place they occupy at a time t as p = ϕ−1 (x. The deformation map at time t will be also denoted ϕt . one may deﬁne the function ˙ v(x. t) . t). the map ϕ(·. ϕ(Ω.8) Since at each time t the map ϕ(·. t). describes the trajectory of p during the motion of B. In terms of the displacement ﬁeld the motion is expressed as ϕ(p. t) for a ﬁxed material point p. During a motion ϕ. the velocity of a material particle p is deﬁned by ˙ x(p. ∂t (3. Using the reference map. (3. the position x of a material particle p at time t is given by x = ϕ(p.9) (3.10) (3. t). t) is a deformation of B. Motion. t) = ∂ϕ(p. t) = x − u(ϕ−1 (x. t) will denote the region of E occupied by the body B at time t. (3. deﬁned as c(t) = ϕ(p. t) ≡ x(ϕ−1 (x. t).11) The map ϕ−1 is called the reference map. t1 t2 u( p. The parametric curve c(t). During the motion ϕ. so that for each time t. t) = p + u(p.7) Similarly.

t) + W (t) (x − y) (3. A motion ϕ is rigid if and only if at each time t. i. if its domain is ϕt (Ω) × R.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. 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. A material (spatial) ﬁeld does . with W (t) a skew tensor. t) is deﬁned by αm (p. the spatial description of a material ﬁeld β(p. t) = β(ϕ−1 (x. t). t). t) = α(ϕ(p. the velocity ﬁeld above can be re-written as v(x. If the domain of α is Ω × R. While x has material particle and time as arguments. the map ϕ(·. Conversely.4. 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. By denoting w(t) the axial vector of W (t). t). at each time t. 3. t) is a rigid deformation. t).1. t) is deﬁned by βs (x. (3. the material description of a spatial ﬁeld α(x. Using (3. The velocity at x is given as the sum of a uniform velocity v(y. ˙ ˙ x and v have different arguments. t) = v(y. On the other hand. The rigid velocity ﬁeld is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.16) (3.13) for all x.4.1. A rigid motion of B is a motion for which. the arguments of v are spatial position and time. t) + w(t) × (x − y).44 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS x v(x) w x (x y ) v( y) v( y) y w Figure 3. t) = v(y. vectorial or tensorial) ﬁeld α be deﬁned over the body B. the spatial velocity v admits the representation v(x. The vector w(t) is called the angular velocity of the body. then α is said to be a spatial ﬁeld. t).14) which is the standard formula for the velocity ﬁeld of classical rigid-body dynamics. Rigid velocity.7). This motivates the following deﬁnitions: Let a general time-dependent (scalar.e. (3. However. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL FIELDS ˙ Both ﬁelds x and v introduced above describe the velocity of material particles.

during the motion ϕ. To avoid notational complexity. In view of the assumed motion ϕ. The function θm gives the temperature. the rectangular body of Figure 3. Material and spatial descriptions. the material description of this temperature ﬁeld reads θm (p. for instance. Example 3. the spatial description of the same ﬁeld is given by θs (x. at time t. labelling material particles of the body with their position p at time 0). where a. 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. the description employed will be evident either from the context or from the argument used (p or x). not necessarily represent a quantity physically associated with the reference (deformed) conﬁguration of the body. Assume that. t).5 subjected to the rigid translation: x = ϕ(p. The spatial description θs gives the temperature. t) = a + b p1 + c t. t) ≡ p + t v. t) = θm (p(x.1. It would be the temperature indicated by a thermometer attached to this material particle. t) = a + b(x1 − t v1 ) + c t. Note that.5. In general. . θm (as θs ) expresses a physical quantity associated with the conﬁguration of time t. at time t. therefore. 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. with constant velocity v. Taking the initial conﬁguration (at t = 0) as the reference conﬁguration (and. b and c are constants. Consider. In experimental terms. of the material particle whose position at time 0 is p. of the material particle whose position at time t is x.1. it would be the temperature read from a thermometer held ﬁxed in space at x.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 the example of Figure 3.46 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3. t). divx v = tr(∇x v). for a tensor ﬁeld T. (3. the material and spatial time derivatives of α.e. the derivatives of α with respect to p and x holding t ﬁxed. ∂xj (divp T )i = ∂Tij .8) it can be written as F = I + ∇p u. ˙ (3. we deﬁne the spatial and material divergence of a vector ﬁeld v.e. as divp v = tr(∇p v). t).18) ∂t ∂t The material time derivative α measures the rate of change of α at a ﬁxed material particle p. t) = In view of (3. (3. θ = −b v1 + c.3. α = αs (x.19) In addition (refer to (2. Analogously to (2.1.147)). This contribution vanishes if the body moves parallel to e2 (v1 = 0). DIVERGENCES AND TIME DERIVATIVES The material and spatial gradients of a general ﬁeld α. denoted respectively ∇p α and ∇x α. respectively. by (divx T )i = ∂Tij .145) (page 37). respectively. 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.146) is also applicable to the material and spatial divergence of a tensor.5. THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT The deformation gradient of the motion ϕ is the second-order tensor F deﬁned by F (p. are deﬁned as ∂ ∂ αm (p. t). It would also vanish if the temperature were uniform throughout the body (b = 0).17) ∇p α = ∂p ∂x i. t).22) ∂xt . 3. ∂p (3. ˙ The spatial time derivative. denoted respectively α and α . 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. the material and spatial time derivatives of the temperature ﬁeld θ are given by ˙ θ = c. in Cartesian components.2.21) .1. (3. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL GRADIENTS. the spatial and material divergence are given. ∂pj (3. ∇x α = αs (x. on the other hand. i.20) The compact deﬁnition (2. the direction of temperature isolines. ˙ are deﬁned by ∂ ∂ α = αm (p. measures the rate of change of α observed at a ﬁxed spatial position x. t) = ∇p ϕ(p. Similarly. they are.

the deformation gradient may be equivalently expressed as F (x. t)]−1 = [I − ∇x u]−1 .6.7). The Cartesian components of F are given by Fij = ∂xi ∂pj ∂ui . In terms of the reference map (3. t) = [∇x ϕ−1 (x. .24) Consider the inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre dp that connects two neighbouring material particles p and p + dp of a deforming body (Figure 3.1. into x and x + dx. (3. 3. respectively. Trivially. ∂pj (3. VOLUME CHANGES.23) = δij + where xi denote the components of xt .26) for all points p.11).4. (3. Clearly. db and dc emanating from the material particle p in the reference conﬁguration (Figure 3.6).25) A deformation of B with uniform deformation gradient (F independent of p) is called a homogeneous deformation. The deformation gradient. these particles are mapped. A deformation is homogeneous if and only if it admits the representation ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + F (p − q) (3. Under the deformation ϕt .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 47 reference configuration dp p p+dp t x+dx x dx=F dp t Figure 3. q ∈ B. with F a positive deﬁnite tensor. The deformation gradient is the linear operator that relates inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbres dp with their deformed counterparts dx: dx = F dp. THE DETERMINANT OF THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT Consider now the inﬁnitesimal volume dv0 deﬁned by the inﬁnitesimal vectors da. rigid translations and rotations are homogeneous deformations.

so that the deformed inﬁnitesimal volume is given by dv = (F da × F db) · F dc. J = 0.27) The deformation ϕt maps the inﬁnitesimal vectors. one has dv0 = (da × db) · dc. Throughout this book. at the reference conﬁguration. dv0 (3.32) .e. Also note that. respectively.29) (3. (3. (3. this represents a physically unacceptable situation. Since the body is not allowed to penetrate itself (this restriction is embodied in the assumption that the deformation map is one-to-one). Therefore. consequently. F = I and.29) it follows that if det F = 0. locally. Thus. J = 1. a conﬁguration with J < 0 cannot be reached from the reference conﬁguration without having. The determinant of the deformation gradient. into F da.31) Isochoric deformations Isochoric (or volume-preserving) deformations are deformations that do not produce changes in volume. then the inﬁnitesimal volume has collapsed into a material particle.28) i. we will adopt the following notation J ≡ det F . (3. at some stage. it follows that det F = dv . the volume after deformation per unit reference volume (or volume change ratio).30) From (3.7.54). J satisﬁes J > 0.48 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. the determinant of the deformation gradient represents. By making use of identity (2. in any deformed conﬁguration of a body. F db and F dc. A locally isochoric deformation is characterised by J = 1. (3.

To see this. 1 (3. The right and left stretch tensors are related by the rotation V = R U RT . pure contractions/dilations) are deformations consisting purely of a uniform contraction/dilation in all directions. the undeformed and deformed lengths of a material ﬁbre. Note that. respectively. the right and left stretch tensors.39) 3.1. With l0 and l denoting.33) where the scalar α is the corresponding contraction/dilation ratio. 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.36) (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 49 Volumetric deformations Volumetric deformations (i. (3. The isochoric component in turn represents a volume preserving deformation. note that the deformation gradient can always be multiplicatively split as F = F iso F v = F v F iso .6.33)) and. (3. 3. since 1 det F v = [(det F ) 3 ]3 det I = det F . POLAR DECOMPOSITION. by construction.41) .5. for a locally volumetric deformation we have: l =α (3. that is. F v corresponds indeed to a purely volumetric deformation (it has the representation (3. respectively. STRETCHES AND ROTATION By applying the polar decomposition to the deformation gradient. (3.35) where is the volumetric component of F and F iso ≡ (det F )− 3 F 1 F v ≡ (det F ) 3 I 1 (3.1.40) where the proper orthogonal tensor R is the local rotation tensor and the symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V are. one obtains: F = R U = V R. (3. (3.37) is the isochoric (volume-preserving or unimodular) component.e. det F iso = [(det F )− 3 ]3 det F = 1.34) l0 in all directions.38) F v produces the same volume change as F .

45) .8. the directions of i1 and i2 in the reference conﬁguration) with a superimposed rigid rotation of angle α. i. (3. with F independent of p.e. The stretch tensors U and V can be expressed as √ √ U = C. With pi and xi denoting coordinates of p and x in the Cartesian system associated with the orthonormal basis {i1 . B = V 2 = F F T .43) Example 3.42) where C and B – named. along the longitudinal and transversal axes.1.50 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. (3.8 subjected to homogeneous stretching/compression in the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (respectively. In the basis {i1 . the deformation map is deﬁned as ϕ: x1 = p1 λ1 cos α − p2 λ2 sin α (3. Polar decomposition of the deformation gradient.44) x2 = p1 λ1 sin α + p2 λ2 cos α. V = B. respectively. i2 }. where the factors λ1 and λ2 determine how much stretching/compression occurs. the right and left Cauchy–Green strain tensors – are deﬁned by C = U 2 = F TF . To illustrate the meaning of the polar decomposition of F . Consider the rectangular body of 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 . i2 }. Stretches and rotation. (3. is given in what follows. a simple example consisting of a body subjected to a homogeneous deformation. respectively.2 (A simple plane deformation).

49) V= 0 λ2 so that the transformation (·) → V (·) indeed corresponds to stretchings along the directions of i∗ and i∗ . the ﬁbre is ﬁrst rigidly rotated by an angle α. 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 (3.8.46) (3. the 1 2 1 2 matrix representation of V reads λ1 0 . the sequence is reversed: 1. dp is mapped into dx = F dp. It should be . 2.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 51 The rotation tensor. 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. In this case.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. 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). 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. dp −→ R dp. 1 2 The above example has illustrated the signiﬁcance of the polar decomposition of F . these directions coincide now with i∗ = R i1 and i∗ = R i2 . dp −→ U dp. With use of the polar decomposition of F . (3. obtained from the polar decomposition of F . (3. i∗ } is used. U dp −→ R (U dp) = F dp. If the left polar decomposition F = V R is employed instead. In the ﬁrst operation. The second operation corresponds to the deformation of the ﬁbre under pure stretching/compression of the body along its axial and transversal directions. Note that if the basis {i∗ .47) . 2. If the right polar decomposition F = R U is used. Under deformation. respectively. due to the previous rotation. this mapping can be split into two sequential steps. However. R dp −→ V (R dp) = F dp. the two steps are: 1.

They are called. the deformation behaves like a homogeneous deformation with gradient F (p). The vectors li and ei are unit eigenvectors of U and V respectively. respectively. Spectral decomposition of the stretch tensors Since U and V are symmetric. e2 . e3 } form orthonormal bases for the space U of vectors in E. the Lagrangian and Eulerian triads and deﬁne the Lagrangian and Eulerian principal directions.e. characterised by U or V. Thus. the distances between particles within this neighbourhood remain ﬁxed.41) into (3.1. Pure stretching. The triads {l1 .51) gives the following relationship between the eigenvectors of V and U : l i = R ei . within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of a material point p. (3. Substitution of (3.51) where the {λ1 .7. in which F is a function of p.50) that is. In this case. within this inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of p. {λ1 . i2 } and {i∗ . each vector ei differs from the corresponding li by a rotation R. within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of a generic material particle p. λ3 } are the eigenvalues of U (and V ) named the principal stretches. we say that the region surrounding p is unstrained. respectively. U (p) and V (p) measure stretches from p and R(p) measures the local rigid rotation. intermediate conﬁgurations of the body corresponding to pure stretching or pure rigid rotation (such as those illustrated in Figure 3. on the other hand. the interpretation of U and V as pure stretchings and of R as a rigid rotation remain valid in a local sense. Under the action of pure rotations.52 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS remarked that for a generic deformation of a body. l3 } and {e1 . i. (3. {i1 . In the example discussed above. i∗ }. the local stretching from a material particle can always be expressed as a superposition of stretches along three mutually orthogonal directions. it follows from the spectral theorem that they admit the spectral decomposition 3 3 U= i=1 λi li ⊗ li . illustrated by Figure 3. λ2 } are the principal stretches and the Lagrangian and Eulerian bases are. Nevertheless. l2 . the difference between the deformed neighbourhood of p and its reference conﬁguration is a rigid deformation. we have seen that in a local sense.8. The spectral decomposition of the right and left stretch tensors implies that in any deformation. pure rotations can be distinguished from pure stretching by means of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient. 1 2 3. λ2 . (3.52) that is. changes the .8) do not exist in general. STRAIN MEASURES In the above section. When the distances between material particles are identical to their values in the reference conﬁguration. Note that for any deformation ϕ. V= i=1 λi ei ⊗ ei . one may write: x + dx = ϕ(p + dp) = p + F (p) dp.

2 (3. in terms of its spectral decomposition. again. i. To quantify straining.55) and. (3. Equivalently. it is called a Lagrangian strain measure. Let us consider. the generic material ﬁbre represented by the inﬁnitesimal vector dp that emanates from p (Figure 3. ∀ dp). the size of any inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre emanating from p remains constant ( dx = dp . It is by no means the unique way of quantifying straining. that is. This condition is equivalent to C = U = I. since it measures strains along the principal Lagrangian directions. to evaluate how much U (or V ) departs from I (a rigid deformation). Hill (1978) and Ogden (1984) 1 (U m − I) m = 0 E(m) = m (3. ln λi (3. some kind of strain measure needs to be deﬁned. (3.e. Under stretching. In fact.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]. Thus. strain measures based on the Lagrangian triad.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 53 distance between material particles.56) ln[U ] m=0 where m is a real number and ln[ · ] denotes the tensor logarithm of [ · ]. The deformation maps dp into dx = F dp. the deﬁnition of a strain measure is somewhat arbitrary and a speciﬁc choice is usually dictated by mathematical and physical convenience. An important family of Lagrangian strain tensors. 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 . From the deﬁnition of E(2) . i. It must be emphasised that the Green–Lagrange strain measure is deﬁned by expression (3. if and only if E(2) = 0.56) may be rephrased as 3 E(m) = i=1 f (λi ) li ⊗ li .e.8 serves as an illustration). (3. implying that F is an orthogonal tensor and the deformation is rigid (pure translation and/or rotation) in the neighbourhood of p.57) where 1 (λm − 1) m = 0 i f (λi ) = m m = 0. is deﬁned by Seth (1964). (3. we say that the region surrounding p is strained. 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.54).58) .54) No straining occurs.

that is. the principal strain for various strain measures is plotted in Figure 3. is a particular member of this family (with m = 2). simply. they differ by the local rotation R. Based on the left stretch tensor. The Green–Lagrange strain tensor. Note that for any m. the Eulerian counterpart of the Lagrangian family of strain measures above is deﬁned by 1 (V m − I ) m = 0 (m) ε (3. (3.9 as a function of the corresponding principal stretch. E(2) . Hencky (m = 0) and Almansi (m = −2) strain tensors.59) To illustrate the relationship between the stretch and strain tensors.e. (3. i. (3. Principal strain as a function of the principal stretch for various strain measures. or.60) = m ln[V ] m = 0.9. using the Eulerian triad. 3 ε(m) = i=1 f (λi ) ei ⊗ ei . Other commonly used members of this family are the Biot (m = 1). Eulerian strain tensors. a rigid deformation.62) .61) Lagrangian and Eulerian strain tensors are related by ε(m) = R E(m) RT . Analogously to the strain measures discussed above. it is also possible to deﬁne tensors that measure strain along the principal Eulerian directions or.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. the associated strain tensor vanishes if and only if the deformation gradient represents. E(m) = 0 ⇐⇒ U =I ⇐⇒ F = R. locally. Strain measures.

68) By recalling expression (3. it is convenient to consider a body undergoing a motion with uniform (independent of x) velocity gradient. t) = D(t) (x − y).67) where the following deﬁnitions have been used: vR (x. e3 } are given by S vi = di (xi − yi ). t) = v(y. associated with the spin tensor W . t) + vS (x. Note that. RATE OF DEFORMATION AND SPIN The spatial ﬁeld L. can be immediately identiﬁed as a rigid velocity. due to its symmetry.64) Two important tensors are obtained by splitting L into its symmetric and skew parts. e3 }.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 55 3. the rate of deformation tensor (also referred to as the stretching tensor). where xi and yi denote the coordinates of points x and y in a Cartesian system associated to {e1 . with application of the chain rule one has L= ∂ ∂ϕ ∂t ∂p ∂p ˙ =F F ∂x −1 (3. Namely.10.66) If the decomposition of L into its symmetric and skew parts is introduced. associated with the rate of deformation tensor. (3. so that the components of vS relative to the basis {e1 . W = skew(L). respectively.13). is named the velocity gradient. . vS (x.65) To gain insight into the physical meaning of the tensors D and W . (3. (3.1. D. (3. t) + L(t) (x − y). the velocity vR . with no summation implied on i. the velocity ﬁeld vS can be decomposed as a sum of three linearly independent velocities of the form: di (ei ⊗ ei ) (x − y). (3. (3. Equivalently.8. With the spectral representation above. t) + W (t) (x − y).63) . (3. t). the velocity ﬁeld can be split as v(x. the eigenvalues and an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of D.69) with di and {ei }. W . e2 . t) = v(y. D admits the representation 3 D= i=1 di ei ⊗ ei . THE VELOCITY GRADIENT. For such a motion the velocity ﬁeld reads v(x. and the spin tensor. As schematically illustrated in Figure 3. e2 . deﬁned as L = ∇x v. t) = vR (x. are deﬁned by D = sym(L).70) again with no summation implied. The only contribution to straining is then provided by the term vS .

t) dx. t) + L(x. (3. in any motion. t) = v(x.1. associated with the spin tensor W . Thus. J. the rate of deformation tensor corresponds indeed to a pure stretching of the body.56 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ei x vis ei y xi yi Figure 3.73) . (3. the velocity ﬁeld can be locally decomposed as a sum of a rigid velocity v(x. S each vi corresponds to a velocity ﬁeld that purely stretches the body in the direction of ei . with the plane perpendicular to ei that passes through y ﬁxed. associated exclusively to the rate of deformation tensor D. the above decomposition of the velocity ﬁeld into the sum of a rigid velocity and a straining velocity remains valid in the local sense. we ﬁrst apply the chain rule to obtain ∂(det F ) ˙ ˙ ˙ J ≡ (det F ) = :F =J F ∂F −T : F˙ . 3. Straining velocity ﬁeld.9. is related to the rate of deformation tensor through the expression ˙ J = J tr D. In this case.72) To derive this expression. The velocity ﬁeld within this inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x is given by v(x + dx. If a general motion (in which L is not necessarily uniform) is considered.71) so that. RATE OF VOLUME CHANGE ˙ The rate of volume change. (3. consider a point x and a point x + dx lying within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x. t) dx. t) dx. and a straining velocity D(x. t) + W (x.10.

to the same order of approximation.81) for the symmetric gradient of a vector ﬁeld. It is worth pointing out here that ε is a linear functional of u.43) of the Cauchy–Green tensors. (3. This fact greatly simpliﬁes the description of small deformations. In fact. (3. under small deformations. (3. Also note that from the deﬁnition (2. 2 (3.77) B = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + ∇p u (∇p u)T .140) (page 36) for the derivative of the determinant. i.36) (page 22) of the trace of a tensor and the fact that the skew symmetry of W implies tr L = tr D.60) have the same small deformation limit.74) leading to (3.e.2. so that the rate of volume change can be equivalently expressed as ˙ J = J divx v.79) This motivates the deﬁnition of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor to measure strains under small deformations ε ≡ ∇s u. ∇p u. 2 (3. THE INFINITESIMAL STRAIN TENSOR Recall deﬁnition (3.2. it follows that.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 57 where we have made use of relation (2.82) .1. Inﬁnitesimal deformations Small or inﬁnitesimal deformations are deformations with sufﬁciently small displacement gradient. the description of kinematics can be substantially simpliﬁed.80) p where we have introduced the notation ∇s (·) = sym[∇(·)] = 1 [∇(·) + ∇(·)T ]. For such deformations. one has C = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u. together with deﬁnition (2. 3.145) of the divergence of a vector ﬁeld we have tr D = divx v. one has ε(m) ≈ E(m) ≈ ε.72). If the displacement gradient is sufﬁciently small. (3. the second-order terms in ∇p u of the expressions above can be neglected so that. (3. This.75) 3.76) (3.78) From the above expression and the deﬁnitions of the Green–Lagrange strain tensor E(2) and its Eulerian counterpart ε(2) . the following approximation can be made C ≈ B ≈ I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T . E(2) ≈ ε(2) ≈ 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T ]. (3. In terms of the displacement gradient. it can be easily shown that not only E(2) and ε(2) but all Lagrangian and Eulerian strain measures deﬁned by expressions (3. for any m and to within an error of second order in ∇p u.56) and (3.

For a body under an arbitrary homogeneous deformation (∇p u independent of p). The skew part of ∇p u produces no straining and is associated exclusively with local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotations.89) . known as the strain deviator or deviatoric strain. (3.85) for all points p and q with A ≡ ∇p u a skew tensor.58 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3. which measures pure inﬁnitesimal distortions.85)–(3.86) Any displacement that admits the representation (3.86) is called an inﬁnitesimal rigid displacement ﬁeld. The tensor εv ≡ 1 3 (3. to within an error of o(∇p u).5). u can be expressed as u(p) = u(q) + a × (p − q). ∀ dp ) the tensor ε vanishes or. Alternatively. INFINITESIMAL ISOCHORIC AND VOLUMETRIC DEFORMATIONS Analogously to the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient in the ﬁnite strain context (refer to Section 3.3. ∇p u is skew. (3. equivalently.87) εv I (3. the displacement ﬁeld can be written as u(p) = u(q) + ∇p u (p − q).83) with o(∇p u) a term of second order in ∇p u.13) and (3.53)) reads dx 2 = (I + 2 ε) dp · dp + o(∇p u) (3. For a pure local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotation ( dx = dp . 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 . It is clear from this expression that.2. 3.2. the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor ε can also be split into a purely volumetric and a volume-preserving contribution.88) is the isochoric component. where ε d ≡ ε − εv (3. Note that inﬁnitesimal rigid displacements have the same representation as rigid velocity ﬁelds (see expressions (3. with a denoting the axial vector of A.1. (3.14)). For inﬁnitesimal rigid deformations and within an approximation of second order in the displacement gradient. INFINITESIMAL RIGID DEFORMATIONS In terms of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor.84) for all points p and q. only the symmetric part ε of ∇p u is associated with local straining.2. the square of the deformed length of a generic material ﬁbre dp (recall the text preceding expression (3. ∇p u is skew and the ﬁeld u can be written as u(p) = u(q) + A (p − q).

Now we proceed to show that. Throughout this book we shall often use the alternative notation dev(S) to represent the deviator of a symmetric tensor S. To show this.35).e.97) (3. we have 2 E(2) = 1 [(det F ) 3 − 1] I.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. tr εd = 0.95) E(2) ≡ 1 (Cv − I ). E(2) .93) I ⊗ I. where the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor is derived from the ﬁnite strain theory.98). The fourth-order tensor deﬁned as Id ≡ IS − 1 3 (3. i. the volumetric Green–Lagrange strain deﬁned above leads to deﬁnition (3. It projects second-order symmetric tensors into the deviatoric subspace. From ﬁnite to inﬁnitesimal isochoric and volumetric strains Analogously to Section 3. (3.94) is referred to as the deviatoric projection tensor.99) v 2 .1.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 59 is the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain tensor. Following the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient given by (3. i. the above isochoric/volumetric split can also be obtained from its ﬁnite deformation counterpart by neglecting higher order terms in ∇p u. 2 where and (2) (3. under small strain conditions (small ∇p u).96) 2 T Ciso ≡ F iso F iso = (det F )− 3 F T F = (det F )− 3 C 2 (3.e. v 2 2 (3. into the space of traceless tensors. (3. (3. The scalar invariant of ε. we deﬁne the corresponding isochoric and volumetric Green–Lagrange strains Eiso ≡ 1 (Ciso − I ).90) is named the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain. (3. An inﬁnitesimal deformation is volumepreserving if and only if εv = 0.92) It should be noted that the strain deviator is a traceless tensor.90). let us consider the Green–Lagrange strain tensor. i. dev(S) ≡ Id : S. From (3.98) T Cv ≡ F v F v = (det F ) 3 I.96)2 and (3. deﬁned as εv ≡ I1 (ε) = tr ε = tr ∇s u = tr ∇u (3.2. εv = 1 3 (I ⊗ I ) : ε.e.

Stress Measures The previous sections of this chapter have been limited to the mathematical description of the kinematics of deformation. Truesdell and Noll. v Thus.60).56) and (3. we have the following approximation E(2) ≈ εv .103) (3. 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). to within second-order terms in ∇p u.5 together with the deﬁnition F = I + ∇p u and the expression given in (iii) of page 36 for the derivative of the determinant. Toupin. 1909. 1965). we then obtain E(2) = εv + o(∇p u). 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.105) The inﬁnitesimal limits above are valid for all Lagrangian and Eulerian ﬁnite strain measures deﬁned by expressions (3. 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. no reference has been made to forces and how they are transferred within continuum bodies. Forces. (2) (3.100) 2 3 tr ∇p u + o(∇p u). . 1962.101) With the substitution of the above expression into (3.3. Thus.104) (3.99). thus far. if higher-order terms are neglected.102) Following a completely analogous procedure with the isochoric Green–Lagrange strain. 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. we have Eiso ≈ εd .60 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS From the standard concepts of differentiation discussed in Section 2. 3. v (3. (3. concepts such as the deformation gradient. It should be noted that.

The dimension of boundary forces is force per unit area. Forces applied to the boundary of the body such as those resulting from contact with another body. are transmitted across a surface (the boundary of the body in this case).3.11). This means that identical forces are transmitted across any surfaces with normal n at x (such as surfaces S and T in Figure 3. then the Cauchy stress vector represents the contact force exerted by the surrounding environment on B. The spatial ﬁeld b(x) represents force per unit mass acting on the interior of B. the concept of stress as well as the different ways of quantifying it are introduced in this section.1. Internal interactions between adjacent parts of a body. i. boundary forces and interactions between distinct parts of a body are forces of essentially the same type and will be collectively called surface forces.107) . 3. Cauchy’s axiom states that ‘At x. The dimension of body forces is force per unit mass (or volume). To describe surface forces mathematically. the force per unit area. n). with dependence on x and time omitted for notational convenience. The dimension of such interactions is force per unit area. S x × t(n) da + P x × ρ b dv = P ˙ x × ρ v dv (3. CAUCHY’S AXIOM. the surface force. 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’.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 61 1. Gravitational and magnetic forces are typical examples of such forces. with boundary S. This force (per unit area) is called the Cauchy stress vector and will be denoted t(n). If S belongs to the boundary of B.3. as internal interactions. THE AXIOM OF MOMENTUM BALANCE Let B now be subjected to a system of surface forces. 3. The axiom of momentum balance asserts that ‘For any part P of the deformed conﬁguration of B. the balance of linear momentum.e. THE CAUCHY STRESS VECTOR Crucial to the description of surface forces is Cauchy’s axiom stated in what follows. 3. 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. and body forces. Boundary forces represent interactions between the exterior and the interior of a body and.2. Forces exerted on the interior of the body. 2. b(x). Let S be an oriented surface of B with unit normal vector n at a point x.106) and the balance of angular momentum. Thus. t(x.11). Body forces. Consider a body B in an arbitrarily deformed conﬁguration (Figure 3. S t(n) da + P ρ b dv = P ˙ ρ v dv (3. Boundary forces.

The right-hand sides of (3.108) Further. in real life bodies.§ σ = σT . the dependence of the surface force t upon the normal n is linear. in Wang and Truesdell (1973).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. At this point. starting page 19) a second-order tensor ﬁeld σ(x) such that the Cauchy stress vector (see Figure 3. simply. e3 }. (3.11.3. i. Gurtin (1972. Surface forces. THE CAUCHY STRESS TENSOR One of the most fundamental results in continuum mechanics is Cauchy’s theorem which establishes that. Formal proofs to Cauchy’s theorem can be found. § The (3. forces are actually transferred by atomic interactions which are clearly discrete quantities.e.e. The smallest volume of material for which the continuum representation makes sense is called the representative volume element. among others. 1981). 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.107) contain the ˙ ¨ inertia terms. 3.109) The tensor σ is called the Cauchy stress tensor and is often referred to as the true stress tensor or.106) and (3. as a consequence of the axiom of momentum balance. Gurtin and Martins (1976). there exists (recall Section 2. it should be emphasised that. n) = σ(x) n. with ρ = ρ(x) denoting the mass density ﬁeld. the mass per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of B ’. i.2. e2 .110) symmetry of σ is a result of the balance of angular momentum. the Cauchy stress tensor is represented as σ = σij ei ⊗ ej . stress tensor.12) is given by t(x. . Marsden and Hughes (1983) and Ciarlet (1988). σ is symmetric. Cauchy stress components Using an orthonormal basis {e1 .3. (3. are satisﬁed. This observation applies equally to quantities such as strain measures or any other continuum ﬁelds associated with the body.

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

The tensor p I = 1 (I ⊗ I ) : σ (3. the force that acts across t any surface whose normal is n in the deformed conﬁguration per unit reference area. The above decomposition is analogous to the isochoric/volumetric split of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor discussed in Section 3.94). mean stress or mean normal pressure).114) I1 (σ) = 1 3 is the hydrostatic pressure (also referred to as hydrostatic stress. where the invariant p≡ 1 3 (3. σi . the spectral decomposition has been used in Section 3.115) s ≡ σ − p I = Id : σ. 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. e∗ } are named the principal stress directions. 3. one has m da0 = dp1 × dp2 . ¯ is expressed as (Figure 3. are the eigenvalues of σ and are called the principal Cauchy stresses. With m denoting the unit normal to S at p. to split the stress tensor σ into the sum of a spherical and a traceless component σ = s + p I. and (3.2. e∗ .14).108) measures the force exerted across a material surface per unit deformed area. (3. The normal components. for which all shear components of the 1 2 3 Cauchy stress tensor vanish and only the normal components may be non-zero. Deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses It is often convenient.3.1 to represent the stretch tensors U and V in terms of principal stretches (see expression (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. analogously to the representation of the stress tensor in terms of principal stresses.3.64 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS that is. at the point of interest.117) Consider the surface S in the reference conﬁguration of B (Figure 3.51)).14) t ¯ = da t = da σ n.13.4. Note that. e∗ . 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 .116) 3 is called the spherical stress tensor. The directions deﬁned by the basis {e∗ . particularly for the purpose of constitutive modelling. t da0 da0 (3. e∗ }.113) tr σ (3. Crucial to the deﬁnition of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress is the counterpart ¯ of t that measures. The forces are exclusively normal to the faces of this cube. with Id deﬁned by (3. THE FIRST PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The traction vector t of expression (3. there exists an orthonormal basis {e∗ .118) . is a traceless tensor named the deviatoric stress or stress deviator.

124) so that the force transmitted across S measured per unit reference area reads ¯ = P m. ¯ may be written in terms of t the reference unit normal m as ¯ = J σ F −T m. t (3. normal to the reference conﬁguration of S at the point of interest. ¶ Some authors (Billington and Tate. Note that in contrast to the Cauchy stress. leads to F T n da = J dp1 × dp2 = J m da0 . (3.122) Finally. t (3. with substitution of the expression above into (3. The ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor.¶ The vector ¯ is obtained by applying the ﬁrst Piola– t Kirchhoff stress to the unit vector m. P is generally unsymmetric. (3.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. 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).123) This last expression motivates the following deﬁnition P ≡J σF −T . This is equivalent to da n=J F da0 −T (3. respectively. 1981. S deformed configuration Under deformation. 1999) deﬁne the nominal stress as the transpose of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. Nemat-Nasser.117). (3.14. the tangent vectors dp1 and dp2 are mapped.119) where da is the corresponding deformed area element.120) (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.121) m. into F dp1 and F dp2 so that the unit normal to the deformed conﬁguration of S reads n da = F dp1 × F dp2 . valid for any invertible tensor S and vectors u and v. where J ≡ det F .

is the tensor deﬁned as S ≡ JF −1 −T σF . Example. after f is measured. Example 3. Assume that the ﬁnal deformed conﬁguration of the bar corresponds to a state of homogeneous deformation with cross-sectional area a. t a0 3.3. Thus. Let f = f e1 be the total force applied to the deformed conﬁguration of the bar (by the experimental equipment). (3. a In practice. If instead of a.1 (The Piola–Kirchhoff stress). denoted S.5. with constant σ given by σ = σ11 e1 ⊗ e1 . a ¯ = P11 e1 = 1 f.15. Consider a cylindrical bar (Figure 3. force balance requires that the Cauchy stress component σ11 be given by σ11 = f . Furthermore. deformed and reference area.3. the Cauchy stress σ11 is determined according to the expression above. the corresponding tractions t and ¯ respectively per unit t. assume that the bar is subjected to a state of uniaxial stress. then the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff or nominal stress component is determined P11 = f . a0 It is obvious that. the reference cross-sectional area a0 is used. THE SECOND PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor.15) with cross-sectional area a0 in its initial conﬁguration (taken as reference). During a uniaxial experiment this bar is stretched along its longitudinal axis (direction of e1 ) with a simultaneous reduction of its cross section.126) . are simply t = σ11 e1 = 1 f. in this case. The ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress.66 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reference a0 e1 f deformed configuration f a Figure 3. 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.

respectively.131) . alluded to in page 62. we have ST = JF −1 σT F −T . speciﬁc entropy and the density of heat production.2.4. the temperature.6. respectively. to the body force (force per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration) and heat ﬂux. (3.130) Later in this book. ˙ 3. τi . 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) (3.132) are also a result of Cauchy’s theorem. CONSERVATION OF MASS The postulate of conservation of mass requires that ˙ ρ + ρ divx u = 0. In addition.3.4. 3. e. b and q will denote the vector ﬁelds corresponding. 3.132) in ϕ(∂Ω). Equations (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 67 Note that from this deﬁnition. are related to the principal Cauchy stresses.127) so that the symmetry of σ implies that S is symmetric.3. the Kirchhoff stress is symmetric. deﬁned by τ ≡ J σ. Fundamental laws of thermodynamics In order to state the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. (3.3. i i (3. MOMENTUM BALANCE In terms of the Cauchy stress tensor. THE KIRCHHOFF STRESS Another important measure of stress is the Kirchhoff stress tensor. speciﬁc internal energy. frequent reference to the principal Kirchhoff stresses will be made in the formulation of various constitutive models. it is necessary to introduce the scalar ﬁelds θ.1. τ. whose existence has been established in Section 3. σi .128) Due to the symmetry of σ. 3. by τi = J σi . (3.129) where the principal Kirchhoff stresses.4. (3. s and r deﬁned over B which represent. Its spectral representation reads 3 τ= i=1 τi e∗ ⊗ e∗ .

¯ (3. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics postulates the conservation of energy.134) in Ω (3. which represents the stress power per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of a body.132)1 is known as Cauchy’s equation of motion.136) In words. Equivalently.4. is the reference body force. ¯ 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. It is expressed by means of the inequality ρ s + divx ˙ ρr q − ≥ 0. ρ = J ρ.4. θ θ (3. the body force measured per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration. 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.4. 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. Before stating this principle. 3. ˙ (3. it is convenient to introduce the product σ : D.e. 3. local or point-wise form of equilibrium. Equation (3.133) in ∂Ω. Equations (3.68 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). i.3.135) is the reference density (mass per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration).137) .132) are often referred to as the strong. The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics is mathematically expressed by the equation ρ e = σ : D + ρ r − divx q. THE SECOND PRINCIPLE The second principle of thermodynamics postulates the irreversibility of entropy production. The above momentum balance equations are formulated in the spatial (deformed) conﬁguration.

q(p. it is convenient to introduce the deﬁnitions of thermokinetic and calorodynamic processes (Truesdell. e(p. t). divx (3. Equivalently. 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 ≥ 0.135). A thermokinetic process of B is a pair of ﬁelds ϕ(p. In this section. t) A set {σ(p. Constitutive theory The balance principles presented so far are valid for any continuum body. ˙ θ θ (3.142) 3.141) σ : D − ρ(ψ + s θ) − q · g ≥ 0.138) The introduction of the speciﬁc free energy ψ (also known as the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass). We remark that all dissipative constitutive models discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book are based on the internal variable approach.4 summarises a generic purely mechanical internal variable model.5. CONSTITUTIVE AXIOMS In the present context. t)} of ﬁelds satisfying the balance of momentum. θ where we have deﬁned g = ∇x θ. one easily obtains the fundamental inequality ρ s + divx ˙ 1 q − (ρ e − σ : D + divx q) ≥ 0.2. t). t). b(p. .1.1. by making use of (3.5.5. The left-hand side of (3.140) θ θ θ into the above fundamental inequality results in the Clausius–Duhem inequality 1 ˙ ˙ (3. and θ(p. r(p. in Section 3. the axioms stated in this section must be satisﬁed for any constitutive model. In order to distinguish between different types of material. s(p. we review the principles that form the basis of the constitutive theories discussed in later chapters of this book.5. The discussion on constitutive theory ends in Section 3. 3. Before going further. the ﬁrst and the second principles of thermodynamics is called a calorodynamic process of B.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 69 3. a constitutive model must be introduced. t). THE CLAUSIUS–DUHEM INEQUALITY By combination of the ﬁrst and second principles stated above. regardless of the material of which the body is made. deﬁned by ψ = e − θ s.141) represents the dissipation per unit deformed volume.4. The use of internal variables to formulate constitutive models of dissipative materials is then addressed in Section 3.5. (3. t). 1969).5.5 where the fundamental constitutive initial value problems are stated.139) along with the identity 1 q 1 = divx q − 2 q · ∇x θ. t). We start by stating. θ (3.5. three fundamental axioms that deﬁne a rather general class of constitutive models of continua. Section 3.

Q(t) is a rotation and ϕ(p. we shall be concerned with so-called simple materials.143) where y(t) is a point in space. In particular. regarding the body force b and heat supply r as delivered. In this case.144) t t t t (3. ∗ (3. θ and g sufﬁces to determine the history of the thermokinetic process for constitutive purposes.139). The motion ϕ∗ is related to the motion ϕ by a change in observer if it can be expressed as ϕ∗ (p. H and I of the histories of F . gt ) and the Clausius–Duhem inequality (3.141) holds for every thermokinetic process of B. respectively.132)1 and conservation of energy (3. It states that ‘the material response is independent of the observer’.143) and (·)t on the right-hand sides denotes the history of (·) at p up to time t. θ . t) relative to an arbitrary origin x0 . gt ) q(t) = I (F t .145) Scalar ﬁelds (such as θ. t) = y(t) + Q(t) [ϕ(p. t) − x0 ]. σ(t) = F (F t . for a point p. ψ and s) are unaffected by a change in observer but the Cauchy stress σ(t). The dependence on p is understood on both sides of (3. 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.136) and introducing the speciﬁc free energy (3. θ and g such that. 1969). 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’. t) − x0 is the position vector of ϕ(p. by the linear momentum balance (3. G. θ . 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. θ . (3. θ .146) . for which the local history (history at point p only) of F .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. gt ) ψ(t) = G(F t . the principle of thermodynamic determinism implies the existence of constitutive functionals F. Material objectivity Another fundamental axiom of the constitutive theory is the principle of material objectivity (or frame invariance). (3. gt ) s(t) = H(F t .

θ . gt ) = F ([F Q]t . 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. that is. θ . gt ) I (F t . Therefore. This concept is expressed mathematically as follows. H and I if the relations t t F (F t . gt∗ ) (3. An effective alternative to the general description based on history functionals is the adoption of the so-called thermodynamics with internal variables. θ . it is imperative that simplifying assumptions are added to the general forms of the constitutive relations stated above. s and q) at a given ∗∗ We t t t t t (3.147) for any transformation of the form (3.143) written in terms of functionals of the history of F . THERMODYNAMICS WITH INTERNAL VARIABLES The constitutive equations (3. G. gt ) hold for any time-independent rotation Q ∈ S. 3. gt ) = G([F Q]t . θ . G. in that format.145. are far too general to have practical utility in modelling real materials undergoing real thermodynamical process. Formally. the constitutive functionals must comply with the restrictions imposed by the symmetries of the material in question.148) t remark that most constitutive models discussed in this book are isotropic. A subgroup S of O + is said to be the symmetry group of the material deﬁned by the constitutive functionals F. gt∗ ) . θ .146). A solid is said to be isotropic∗∗ if its symmetry group is the entire proper orthogonal group.143). it requires that F.5. G. a set of rotations. gt ) H (F t . gt ) = H([F Q]t .2. Thus. θ . gt∗ ) t t t t . θ . gt∗ ) . 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. the symmetry group of a solid material is the set of rotations of the reference conﬁguration under which the response functionals remain unchanged. θ . gt ) = I ([F Q]t . The symmetry group of a solid material is a subset of the proper orthogonal group O + . In the development of any constitutive model. H and I are not affected.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 71 The principle of material objectivity places restrictions on the constitutive functionals (3. ψ. θ . θ and g. θ . θ . H and I satisfy σ∗ (t) = F (F ψ(t) = G(F s(t) = H(F q∗ (t) = I (F t∗ t∗ t∗ t∗ . 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. 3. θ . gt ) G (F t . .

151) ˙ :F . in general. (3. in terms of power per unit reference volume. In general terms. θ. θ and g are the instantaneous values of deformation gradient. ˙ ψ= ∂F ∂θ ∂αk where summation over k is implied. θ. ˙ ∂αk θ (3. α}.150) (3. where F .152) for the stress power. the thermodynamic state at a point is determined by the following set of state variables: {F . Thermodynamic potential. so that its rate of change is given by ∂ψ ˙ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ ˙ :F + θ+ αk . 1967).154) †† The dependence of ψ on the temperature gradient is disregarded as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics (Coleman and Gurtin. it will be convenient to assume that at any time t.153) Equivalently. In this case. temperature and the temperature gradient and α = {αk } (3. vectorial and tensorial nature associated with dissipative mechanisms. . 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. θ−ρ ˙ ∂αk θ (3. α). 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. The thermodynamic state depends only on the instantaneous value of the state variables and not on their past history. state variable models can be seen as particular instances of the general history functional-based constitutive theory. entities of scalar. the speciﬁc free energy is assumed to have the form†† ψ = ψ(F . Mathematically. The state variables For the applications with which we are mostly concerned.72 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS point p can be completely determined by the knowledge of a ﬁnite number of state variables. 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). The relationship between the two approaches is discussed in detail by Kestin and Bataille (1977) and Bataille and Kestin (1979). g. Stress constitutive equation Following the above hypothesis.149) is a set of internal variables containing.

θ (3. Namely. It is also .161) Recalling the principle of thermodynamic determinism. ∂θ (3. Evolution of the internal variables In order to completely characterise a constitutive model. θ.154) must ˙ ˙ remain valid for any pair of functions {F (t). J ∂F τ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ T F . In what follows.135). 1967. ∂αk (3. g.159) for the set of thermodynamical forces. (3. complementary laws associated with the dissipative mechanisms are required. we deﬁne the conjugate thermodynamical force ¯ Ak ≡ ρ ∂ψ . In the general case. we will adopt for convenience the notation ˙ A ≡ {Ak } (3. we assume that the ﬂux variables are given functions of the state variables. This implies the constitutive equations P =ρ ¯ ∂ψ .155) for the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and entropy.158) can be expressed in a more compact form as J ˙ −A ∗ α − q · g ≥ 0.156) With this deﬁnition and the identities (3. must hold for any process. (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. ∂F s=− ∂ψ . g. so that (3. Thus. 1969. θ(t)}. by simply using relation (3. The following constitutive equations are then postulated ˙ α = f (F . α) 1 q = h(F . constitutive equations for the ﬂux variables 1 ˙ θ q and α must be postulated. Equation (3. θ.155).160) θ Dissipation.157) 1 ∂ψ T ρ ¯ F . (3. the Clausius–Duhem inequality can be rewritten as J ˙ −Ak ∗ αk − q · g ≥ 0. α). This requirement places restrictions on the possible forms of the general constitutive functions f and h in (3.158) θ where we recall that the symbol ‘∗’ denotes the appropriate product operation between Ak and αk . Truesdell.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 73 Expression (3. 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. now expressed by (3.158). ∂F (3.161) (the reader is referred to Coleman and Gurtin. the Clausius–Duhem inequality.153).154) is obtained from (3.

In addition. by the processes (i. Since no plausible model will be general enough to describe the response of a material under all processes. Objective rates are discussed in Section 14. by considering a simple steel bar. 3. g.155) and (3.74 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS important to mention that when internal variables of vectorial or tensorial nature are present. θ and α appear as parameters. that the constitutive description by means of convex potentials as described above is not a consequence of thermodynamics but. however.163) A constitutive model deﬁned by (3. F . α). a plasticity theory may be more appropriate. 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. ∂Ak ∂Ξ 1 q=− . however. θ. If strains become larger. (3. When subjected to a sufﬁciently small axial strain at room temperature. rather. the ﬂux variables are assumed to be determined by the laws αk = − ˙ ∂Ξ . The importance of considering the possible thermokinetic processes when devising a constitutive model can be clearly illustrated. i. it is frequently convenient to re-formulate (3.158) is satisﬁed consists in postulating the existence of a scalar-valued dissipation potential of the form Ξ = Ξ(A. 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). The potential Ξ is assumed convex with respect to each Ak and g.162) where the state variables F . (3. With further increase in complexity of the strain history (by introducing. equally importantly.3.10 (starting page 615) in the context of the hypoelastic-based formulation of plasticity models. 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. Normal dissipativity An effective way of ensuring that (3. 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.5. say.161)1 in terms of so-called objective rates rather than the standard material time derivative of α. non-negative and zero valued at the origin.150).e. θ ∂g (3. the bar exhibits a behaviour that can be accurately modelled by linear elasticity theory (generalised Hooke’s law). a convenient tool for formulating constitutive equations without violating thermodynamics. other phenomena such as internal damaging and possibly fracturing may take place and more . for instance. In this case. {A. linear elasticity may no longer capture the observed response satisfactorily. g} = {0. cyclic extension).163) satisﬁes a priori the dissipation inequality. It should be noted.e. Dissipation potential. 0}. the hypothesis of normal dissipativity is introduced. we should have in mind that the choice of internal variables must be guided not only by the speciﬁc material in question but.

these variables are discrete quantities and their continuum (macroscopic) counterparts can be deﬁned by means of homogenisation techniques. where a microscopically-based continuum model of ductile metallic crystals is described. such as classical isotropic elastoplasticity and viscoplasticity. In simplistic terms.e. α). it should be expected that ‘good’ phenomenological internal variables will be somehow related to the underlying microscopic dissipation mechanisms. Despite the macroscopic nature of theories derived on the basis of the phenomenological methodology. temperature. In some instances. the element of matter large enough to be regarded as a homogeneous continuum. will be required. incorporating a larger number of state variables. i. if the temperature rises above melting point. At higher temperatures. The phenomenological approach to irreversible thermodynamics has been particularly successful in the ﬁeld of solid mechanics. 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. By removing the thermallyrelated terms of the above theory. In general. due to the difﬁculty involved in the identiﬁcation of the underlying dissipative mechanisms. In general. we may say that constitutive modelling by means of internal variables relies either on a micromechanical or on a phenomenological approach. may no longer be accurately modelled by the linear elasticity theory. α) ∂ψ (3. however. 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 micromechanical approach involves the determination of mechanisms and related variables at the atomic. molecular or crystalline levels. 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. In an extreme situation. on the other hand.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 75 reﬁned constitutive models. the long-term behaviour of the steel bar subjected to even a very small strain. we end up with the following set of mechanical constitutive equations: ψ = ψ(F . a ﬂuid mechanics theory will be needed to describe the behaviour of the material.). . Due account of the possible temperature histories and time span to be considered is also fundamental. etc. It is. discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book. therefore. 3. the inclusion of microscopic information becomes essential and a purely phenomenological methodology is unlikely to describe the behaviour of the material with sufﬁcient accuracy.5.164) P =ρ ¯ ∂F ˙ α = f (F . The phenomenological approach. the bar will cease to be a solid. Under such circumstances. In this case the introduction of time-dependent effects (creep/relaxation) may be essential to produce an acceptable model.4. THE PURELY MECHANICAL THEORY Thermal effects are ignored in the constitutive theories addressed in Parts Two and Three of this book. One such case is illustrated in Chapter 16. convenient at this point to summarise the general internal variablebased constitutive equations in the purely mechanical case. is based on the study of the response of the representative volume element. Numerous well-established models of solids.

P and F are replaced with σ and ε.166) ˙ α(t) = f (F (t). t ∈ [t0 . T ]. the inﬁnitesimal constitutive initial value problem is stated in the following. replaces the deformation gradient and the stress tensor σ of the inﬁnitesimal theory replaces the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress. if thermal effects are considered). for the stress tensor and the set of internal variables.167) ˙ α(t) = f (ε(t). For completeness. such that the constitutive equations σ(t) = ρ ∂ψ ¯ ∂ε t (3. α(t)) are satisﬁed for every t ∈ [t0 . ε(t). We then have the general constitutive law ψ = ψ(ε. α) ∂ψ (3. the generic constitutive problem reduces to the following fundamental mechanical initial value problem. Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. α(t)) are satisﬁed for every t ∈ [t0 . In the inﬁnitesimal case. Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the deformation gradient.165) σ=ρ ¯ ∂ε ˙ α = f (ε.5. Problem 3.1 (The mechanical constitutive initial value problem). such that the constitutive equations P (t) = ρ ∂ψ ¯ ∂F t (3. T ]. F (t). . T ]. in the above initial value problem. Problem 3. If the internal variable approach is adopted in the formulation of the constitutive equations. α).76 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The inﬁnitesimal strain case In the inﬁnitesimal strain case. ε. 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. ﬁnd the free-energy and stress (plus entropy and heat ﬂux.143)’. respectively. 3. for the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and the set of internal variables. in the thermomechanical case) according to the constitutive law conceptually expressed by (3. ﬁnd the functions σ(t) and α(t).5. t ∈ [t0 . T ]. the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. ﬁnd the functions P (t) and α(t).2 (The inﬁnitesimal constitutive initial value problem).

170) We now concentrate on the ﬁrst term within the square brackets of the above equation. the virtual work equation is equivalent to the strong momentum balance equations (3. i.1. the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacements η : ϕ(Ω) → U. together with the above identity.171) By taking into account the symmetry of σ. ∀ η ∈ V. and only if. (3.132). which implies ση · n = σn · η. ∀ η ∈ V.172) .6. (3. we state the momentum balance equations in their corresponding weak (global or integral) forms. (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. page 37) implies the following identity divx (σ η) dv = ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) σ η · n da.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 77 3.6.5.169) In obtaining the above identity we have used the fact that σ is symmetric. (3. ∀ η ∈ V.4 by expressions (3. by substituting the above expression into (3. is the starting point of displacement-based ﬁnite element procedures for the analysis of solids. The weak equilibrium statement – the Principle of Virtual Work – is fundamental to the deﬁnition of the basic initial boundary value problem stated in Section 3.7 and. In this section. Weak equilibrium. its Cauchy stress ﬁeld.132) and (3. The divergence theorem (expression (2. Again. 3.168). Equivalence between strong and weak equilibrium statements When the stress ﬁeld σ is sufﬁciently smooth.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. satisﬁes the equation ¨ [σ : ∇x η − (b − ρ u) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0.133). σ. local or differential) forms of the momentum balance have been stated in Section 3. To show this. The principle of virtual work The strong (point-wise. it follows that [divx (σ η) − (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. let us start by assuming that the ﬁeld σ is sufﬁciently regular so that we can use the identity (v) of Section 2. as we shall see in Chapter 4. In its deformed conﬁguration.8 (page 38) to obtain σ : ∇x η = divx (σ η) − (divx σ) · η. B occupies the region ϕ(Ω) with boundary ϕ(∂Ω) deﬁned through the deformation map ϕ.e. equation (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. (3.148)2. Next. THE SPATIAL VERSION The spatial version of the principle of virtual work states that the body B is in equilibrium if.

the identities σ= 1 P F T. in its spatial counterpart. then it follows from the fundamental theorem of variational calculus (refer. J ∇x a = ∇p a F −1 . i. respectively.6. since this equation holds for all virtual displacement ﬁelds η. t ∀ η ∈ V. we recover the strong equilibrium equations (3.78 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Finally. 1981) a(x) dv = ϕ(Ω) Ω J(p) a(ϕ(p)) dv. 3.133) under conditions of sufﬁcient regularity is then analogous to that given for the spatial version discussed in Section 3.176) . THE MATERIAL VERSION The virtual work equation can be equivalently expressed in the reference conﬁguration of B.132). Oden 1979 or Reddy 1998) that each bracketed term of the above equation must vanish pointwise within their respective domains.3. The ¯ space of virtual displacements. is accordingly deﬁned as the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacement ﬁelds η : Ω → U. reference and deformed conﬁgurations coincide and the virtual work equation reads simply [σ : ∇η − (b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u Ω ∂Ω t · η da = 0.1 above.173) and the strong form (3. for instance. to Gurtin 1972.2. (3.173) ¯ where b and ¯ are. Conversely. 3. 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.e. V.175) valid for any scalar ﬁeld a. (3.6. and making use of the standard relation (Gurtin. 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. (3. The material version of the virtual work equation is obtained by introducing.6. the strong form yields the weak form of equilibrium.174) where the second expression holds for a generic vector ﬁeld a. THE INFINITESIMAL CASE Under inﬁnitesimal deformations. (3. P . The proof of equivalence between (3. ∀ η ∈ V. 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.

t ∈ [t0 . (3. The quasi-static initial boundary value problem Having deﬁned the generic constitutive initial value problems in Section 3. the virtual work . is known at the initial time t0 .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. 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.7. (i) The natural boundary condition.1 (page 76) and the internal variable ﬁeld. T ]. the following boundary conditions are imposed. T ] in its interior.6. such that. we are now in a position to state the weak form of fundamental initial boundary value problems. For simplicity. The history of the surface traction t(t). it is assumed here that ∂Ωu ∂Ωt = ∅. FINITE DEFORMATIONS Let the body B (Figure 3.5 and the weak equilibrium statements in Section 3. is prescribed over the portion of the boundary of B that occupies the region ∂Ωt in its reference conﬁguration. with dependence on x implied. T ]. This is the case on which the numerical methods discussed in this book are focused. α(p. (ii) The essential boundary condition.16) be subjected to a prescribed history of body forces b(t). p ∈ ∂Ωu . t0 ) = α0 (p).3 (The spatial quasi-static initial boundary value problem). dependence of b on x is implicitly assumed.e. where inertia effects are ignored. The problems formulated here are restricted to quasi-static conditions. 3. In addition. t) = u(p. T ]. t).ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 79 3. p ∈ ∂Ωu }. Problem 3. (3. u ∈ K. for all t ∈ [t0 . whose numerical solution by the ﬁnite element method is the main subject of the subsequent chapters of this book.178) The fundamental quasi-static initial boundary value problem is stated in its spatial version in the following. t ∈ [t0 . t) t ∈ [t0 . α. In the above. 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. t) = p + u(p. t ∈ [t0 . i. ¯ where u is the corresponding prescribed boundary displacement ﬁeld. T ].7. Find a kinematically admissible displacement function.1.

t)} and.183) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3. (3. such that. Problem 3.182).4 (The material quasi-static initial boundary value problem).181) (3. The initial boundary value problem.173). .16. (3. is the solution of initial value Problem 3. the Cauchy stress is given by σ(t) = P (t)F (t)T /J(t). t) → U | η = 0 on ϕ(∂Ωu .180) where P (t) is the solution of constitutive initial value Problem 3. For completeness. ¯ [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.1 with prescribed deformation gradient (3. t) = I + ∇p u(p. T ]. Schematic illustration. we state the material version of the fundamental initial boundary value problem in the following. Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. P (t).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. t(t) ∀ η ∈ V.t) t(t) · η da = 0.t) ϕ(∂Ωt .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. ∀ η ∈ Vt . (3. (3.184) and the Piola–Kirchhoff stress. equation is satisﬁed [σ(t) : ∇x η − b(t) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω.179) The space of virtual displacements at time t is deﬁned by Vt = {η : ϕ(Ω. for all t ∈ [t0 . u ∈ K. at each point of B. t).

2 (page 76) with prescribed strain ε(t) = ∇s u(p.185) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3. u ∈ K. the quasi-static initial boundary value problem is based on the weak form (3. (3.186) and. for t ∈ [t0 .187) .2.5 (The inﬁnitesimal quasi-static initial boundary value problem). T ]. σ(t) is the solution of the constitutive initial value Problem 3. at each point p. Find a kinematically admissible displacement.176). THE INFINITESIMAL PROBLEM Under inﬁnitesimal deformations. t). such that.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 81 3.7. ∀ η ∈ V. It is stated in the following. Problem 3. [σ(t) : ∇η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt t(t) · η da = 0. (3.

.

**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 )

Ω

(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

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). ALTERNATIVE NONLINEAR SOLUTION SCHEMES Other iterative methods can be used to solve the nonlinear incremental ﬁnite element equations. 4.6.2. which relies on consistent tangent operators. 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.6. In particular. . in order to achieve quadratic rates of asymptotic convergence in the iterative solution of the ﬁnite element equilibrium equations. These methods consist of replacing the tangential stiffness KT . is available for all material models implemented in HYPLAS.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . The stiffness is updated at the beginning of every increment. linearisation of the incremental constitutive function.. rather than to appeal to the rate stress–strain tangential relation (commonly used at the time). The derivation of consistent tangent operators is thoroughly discussed in Part Two of this book. Traditional approaches include (Owen and Hinton (1980) and Zienkiewicz and Taylor (2000)) (i) the use of the initial tangent stiffness throughout all increments. this author has emphasised the need for linearisation of the incremental stress updating procedure. un+1 u Figure 4. We remark that the full Newton–Raphson scheme. by a constant counterpart. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for the incremental ﬁnite element equilibrium equation. A straightforward alternative to the above full Newton–Raphson scheme are the so-called modiﬁed Newton methods. in the context of elastoplasticity and elastoviscoplasticity. which in the standard method is updated in every iteration. (ii) the use of a constant stiffness within each increment..

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 . the stiffness matrix does not need to be computed or factorised whenever it is reused. (viii) Compute element internal force vectors [INTFOR. . Some procedures of this type are available in the HYPLAS program. For such schemes.2. εn+1 ) σn+1 := σ(αn . Set initial guess and residual un+1 := un . (i) k := 0. 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. (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. STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT Di Bi i (iv) k := k + 1. 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. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation (inﬁnitesimal strains). εn+1 ).

into a number of sufﬁciently small time steps and then solving sequentially. whose roots are in the theory of optimisation (Haftka et al.1). for instance. σ∗ } whose stress satisﬁes equilibrium (over the entire time domain [t0 . for each step. vT w vT w (4. at a new iteration. the approximate inverse stiffness of the BFGS scheme is updated by the formula K−1 (k) where v = u(k−1) − u(k−2) . the rates of convergence are much slower than those produced by the standard Newton algorithm. whose substitution into the generic initial boundary value problem of Section 3. 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+ . vi . σi } of velocity and stress ﬁelds over Ω × [t0 .1 (page 95). Essentially.2 (page 81) results in the incremental version stated in Problem 4.84) These methods can be useful. 1989. 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.83) . T ]) and is related to the strain history resulting from v∗ through the constitutive equations of the model. At the beginning of an iteration (k). T ]. Such procedures generate approximate (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor with general form (4. The interested reader is referred to Ladevèze (1999) for further details..2. Each iteration i of the LATIN method produces a new velocity history.7.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 101 Other alternatives include the quasi-Newton methods. (4. w = r(k−1) − r(k−2) . The numerical solution of the initial boundary value problem in this case is obtained by splitting the considered time interval. The LATIN method falls outside the scope of the present text. 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. The Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm (BFGS) is a particularly popular quasiNewton scheme.60). Its application in the ﬁnite element context has been introduced by Matthies and Strang (1979). or LATIN Method for short. An interesting alternative to the above general incremental procedure deserves special mention: the so-called Large Time Increment Method.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . require neither the direct computation of the tangent stiffness nor its inversion (linear system solution).81) is difﬁcult – a situation that may arise in dealing with complex material models/integration algorithms. 1999) is a non-incremental iterative procedure relying on a radically different approach to the treatment of the problem. Such methods. Instead. 1990). 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. say [t0 . Its computational implementation is considerably different from that of the incremental approach explored and explained in detail throughout this book.7. Again. originally proposed by Ladevèze (1984. when the derivation of the tangent operator (4. this method generates a sequence of histories {vi . T ] – note that the entire time domain considered is covered by each function of the sequence – that converges to a pair {v∗ . 4.

t) + k=1 gk (t) wk (x). In contrast to the conventional incremental procedure. (4. Analogous approximations are used to describe the sequence of strain rate and stress rate histories.85) where gk are suitably chosen scalar-valued basis functions deﬁned over [t0 . F n+1 ). tn+1 ] and σ is now the Cauchy stress tensor. (1997). Ladevèze and Perego (2000) and Dureisseix et al. the framework presented in this section is equally applicable to ﬁnite elasticity models.3. given the set αn of internal variables. 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. Thus. This is illustrated. 4.87) where Jn+1 = det[F n+1 ]. the comments made in Section 4.102 the form COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p v (x. T ] may contain several cycles of a cyclic load. (4. Finite strain pathdependent models (including constitutive integration algorithms) as well as hyperelastic theories are discussed in Part Three of this book. (2003). the single increment of the LATIN Method comprising the interval [t0 . Cognard and Ladèveze (1993). 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). (1999). 1989) in elastoplastic applications. of terms used to describe the iterative history differences.2. (4. Cognard et al. 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. we shall assume that the underlying material model is path-dependent. The overall accuracy of the history approximations depends crucially upon the choice of the total number. 4. Thus. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION At the outset. for instance. F n+1 ) = Jn+1 σ (αn . An equivalent incremental function can be deﬁned for the Kirchhoff stress ˆ ˆ τn+1 = τ (αn . that is. T ] and wk are vector-valued functions deﬁned over Ω.3. by Boisse et al. In such cases. t) = v i i−1 (x. p. (1990. 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.1. F n+1 ).60) the corresponding algorithmic incremental constitutive function is deﬁned in the following general format ˆ σn+1 = σ (αn . . Analogously to (4. The functions wk are generated by conventional ﬁnite element interpolation and their corresponding nodal values are unknowns at each iteration of the method. 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.86) where F n+1 is the deformation gradient prescribed at the end of the standard interval [tn . Further applications are found in Boucard et al.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.

derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates of the ﬁnite element mesh (at the deformed conﬁguration deﬁned by un+1 ).3. .3. 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 = 0.4.91) where. THE FINITE ELEMENT EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION The ﬁnite element discretisation of the above equation is completely analogous to the discretisation of its inﬁnitesimal counterpart. ﬁnd a kinematically admissible conﬁguration ϕn+1 (Ω) ∈ Kn+1 such that the virtual work equation s [ˆ (αn . (4. The problem – here considered in its spatial version – is stated in the following. for example.90) ˆ BT σ(αn . It has the same format as that of its small strain counterpart (such as. to be used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the large deformation incremental equilibrium equation. 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. F (un+1 )) dv (Ω(e) ) (4. 4.89) (4. LINEARISATION. 4. now. 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. that is.4. the linearised version of (4. Problem 4. The B-matrix above is the spatial discrete symmetric gradient operator. where ϕn+1 is the deformation map at tn+1 xn+1 = ϕn+1 (p) = p + un+1 (p).1 (starting on page 79).88) is satisﬁed for any η ∈ V.92) NT bn+1 dv + ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (e) f ext (e) = ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) NT tn+1 da.2 (The ﬁnite strain incremental boundary value problem). ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (4.3.30) for the plane stress and plane strain cases).91).32) (page 757) of the virtual work equation (4. F n+1 ) : ∇x η − bn+1 · η] dv − σ ϕn+1 (Ω) tn+1 · η da = 0. Given the ﬁeld αn at time tn and given the body forces and surface traction ﬁelds at tn+1 .2. can be obtained by applying a ﬁnite element discretisation to the linearised form (C. and F n+1 = ∇p ϕn+1 = I + ∇p un+1 .7.88). that given by (4.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI .2.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 103 4.3. but its shape function derivatives are spatial derivatives.

(4.1 (starting page 763).2 Its multiplication by.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 . has the format (e) (e) (e) N1.31) ordered according to the convention described in Section D. the generic Newton–Raphson iteration (k) here requires the solution of the standard linear system for δu: KT δu(k) = −r(k−1) .96) where G is the element discrete spatial gradient operator which.2 0 1. say.104 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Starting from (C.1 0 · · · Nnpoin . 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.2 0 N1.95) where the global tangent stiffness matrix KT corresponds to the bracketed term on the lefthand side of (4. .1 · · · 0 Nnnode .2 · · · 0 Nnpoin .2 g g g 0 N1.94) Gg = g g g N 0 N2.93) where a is the matrix of components of the spatial tangent modulus (C. Similarly to the inﬁnitesimal strain case. (4. Its extension to account for conﬁguration-dependent loads is brieﬂy addressed in Section 4.2 0 · · · Nnpoin .1 0 N2.e. The matrix Gg is the global discrete spatial gradient operator.6.1 0 N2.2 0 N2. for example.2 0 · · · Nnnode .2. In plane strain and plane stress analyses.93).1 N1. it is given by g g g N1.2 ¶ We remark that this expression is valid when the external loads b and t are conﬁguration-independent.2. (4.2 (e) (e) (e) 0 N2.1 0 g g g 0 0 N2.1 · · · 0 Nnpoin . in plane stress/strain analyses.1.32) and following the same arguments as those resulting in (4.1 0 (e) (e) (e) 0 0 N2. ϕ(∂ h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) − (4.97) G = (e) (e) (e) N 0 N2.2 · · · 0 Nnnode . they do not depend on the displacement u.1 .1 0 · · · Nnnode . the global vector δu gives the array of components of the spatial gradient of δu ordered according to the convention of Section D.2 0 1. i.1 N1.3.1 . (4.

Examples of path-dependent material implementations where τ is deﬁned by an implicit algorithmic function are given in Part Three of this book. (ii) Compute consistent spatial tangent modulus matrix [MATICT] aijkl := ˆ 1 ∂ τij Flm − σil δjk J ∂Fkm (iii) Assemble element tangent stiffness matrices [ELEIST. the only terms that depend on the constitutive equations of the model are the derivatives of the Kirchhoff stress tensor components. In the general case considered here.2 with the ﬁnite strain counterparts listed in Box 4. the derivatives ∂τij /∂Fkm are the components of the derivative of this generally implicit incremental constitutive function. The only necessary change is the replacement of some of the items of Box 4. Fn+1 ). Finite elasticity (also addressed in Part Three) is a particular instance where τn+1 is obtained by direct function evaluation.2. the incremental function is usually implicit and is deﬁned by the particular algorithm used to integrate the constitutive equations of the model. that is.2 for the inﬁnitesimal theory. ∂τij ∂ˆ τ = ∂Fkm ∂F n+1 . As in the inﬁnitesimal case.87). . Modiﬁcations to Box 4. αn+1 := α(αn .THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . τ is an explicit function of the deformation gradient and its derivative can.2: aijkl = 1 ∂τij Flm − σil δjk .3.98) On the right-hand side of the above expression. 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 .STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 105 Box 4. ijkm (4.2.3. be derived in a relatively straightforward manner. as a general rule. 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. ˆ In such a case. J ∂Fkm (4. the Kirchhoff stress tensor is the outcome of the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (4. The Newton–Raphson scheme for the large strain incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation. The derivation of explicit expressions for the above implicit function derivative may become quite intricate but involve nothing more than standard concepts of linearisation. Thus.99) The overall Newton procedure in the ﬁnite strain case is completely analogous to that shown in Box 4.

that is.104) (4.100) BT c B dv (4. MATERIAL AND GEOMETRIC STIFFNESSES In ﬁnite element computations. is replaced by KT + KL .80) except that. CONFIGURATION-DEPENDENT LOADS.3. KL . ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (k) where c is the array representation of the fourth-order tensor cijkl = aijkl − σjl δik . n+1 then the tangent stiffness. that in program HYPLAS the form (4.96). deﬁned by KM = KG = (e) (e) (k) ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (e) (e) (e) (4. however. the matrix form of the tensor deﬁned by (4.96) is adopted instead. that is. the tangent stiffness (4. in the ﬁnite strain case.102) replaces the matrix form of the inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operator. where the added contribution. The load stiffness is the derivative of the external force vector with respect to the displacement (4.96) is frequently split into the so-called material and geometric stiffnesses KT = KM + KG .81).102) The material stiffness matrix (4.101) GT S G dv. that takes part in (4.95). We remark. under ﬁnite strains. 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. is the so-called load-correction or load-stiffness matrix.5. if f ext = f ext (un+1 ). 4. the tensor c has the symmetries cijkl = cjikl = cijlk .106 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 4. If this approach is adopted.6. (4.103) (4. and S is the array representation of the tensor Sijkl = σjl δik .3.101)1 has the same format as that of the inﬁnitesimal stiffness matrix (4. the full tangent stiffness under ﬁnite strains can be obtained by simply adding the geometrical term (4.105) . As the inﬁnitesimal tangent operator (4. we ﬁrstly compute the matrix form of tensor a and then obtain the element stiffness by performing a single computation with (4. THE LOAD-STIFFNESS MATRIX If the external load depends on the conﬁguration of the body.101)2 to the material stiffness. In computational terms.

Riks. Common examples appear in buckling instability and problems involving snap-through or snap-back phenomena. 1972. The arc-length method Many ﬁnite deformation problems of practical interest are characterised by the existence of unstable equilibrium conﬁgurations. 1981.6). The reader is referred to Schweizerhof and Ramm (1984) for details of derivation (see also Argyris and Symeonidis. Unstable equilibrium.107) be the corresponding incremental load factor.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 107 vector: KL = ∂f ext .91) as ¯ r(un+1 . The method is implemented in program HYPLAS. . The explicit derivation of the load stiffness will not be addressed in this book. Feng et al.. 1979. ∆λ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − (λn + ∆λ) f ext = 0.7. the standard load-controlled ﬁnite element scheme of the previous section. cannot be used in general once a limit point (points A of Figure 4. Typical equilibrium paths associated with snap-through and snapback behaviour are illustrated in Figure 4. Wempner. Ramm. de Souza Neto and Feng. 1997.4. An equilibrium path is formed by the set of all load factor-displacement pairs {λ.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI .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. 1981). In such situations. again. 1995. To trace an equilibrium path beyond limit points we need to resort to continuation techniques.1. tn+1 ] and let ∆λ ≡ λn+1 − λn (4. 1991. of which the arc-length method appears to be the most popular (Crisﬁeld. where the combined Newton–Raphson/cylindrical arc-length scheme provided in HYPLAS is summarised in pseudo-code format.7) is reached. To derive the arc-length method. A description of the arc-length method is given in this section. we allow ∆λ to become a variable and redeﬁne the residual equation (4.4 (page 109). 4. (4. 1999. The names of the main routines involved in the computational implementation of the most relevant procedures of Box 4. the standard interval [tn . A typical example is given by pressure loading of rubber membranes (see some of the numerical examples of Section 13. u} which satisfy equilibrium. 1983. 1971). THE ARC-LENGTH METHOD Let us consider. 1996.4 are shown within square brackets. 1997. Let us consider the case of proportional loading. Readers who wish to skip the description of this technique are referred directly to Box 4.4. 1981. where the displacement vector is found for a prescribed load factor. ∂un+1 u(k−1) n+1 (4. 4.108) 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.

having speciﬁed the required l. The spherical arc-length method For the so-called spherical arc-length method. For the cylindrical version of the arc-length method.108) in conjunction with one of the above ‘length’ constraint equations ((4.109) or (4.110) In this case. The possible intersections are denoted A and B. 4. the constraint equation requires that the Euclidean norm of the converged incremental displacement be l. the constraint equation has the general format f f ∆uT ∆u + ∆λ2 ψ 2 ¯ext T ¯ext − l2 = 0. The standard Newton–Raphson algorithm for iterative solution of the augmented arc-length system of nonlinear equations is derived by simply linearising (4. Unstable equilibrium. the scaling parameter ψ is set to zero and the constraint equation reads simply ∆uT ∆u = l2 . 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) where ∆u and ∆λ are converged incremental quantities. Snap-through and snap-back behaviour. The cylindrical arc-length method For the more widely used cylindrical arc-length method (implemented in HYPLAS). the residual equation (4. for both un+1 and ∆λ.108 λ COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS λ snap-through A A snap-back 0 u 0 u Figure 4. (4. (4. i.110)).4. THE COMBINED NEWTON–RAPHSON/ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE In summary.2. l is a prescribed incremental solution length and ψ is a prescribed scaling parameter.8 which illustrates a system with two degrees of freedom. an equilibrium solution is obtained by solving.108) together with the relevant arc-length constraint. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 4.e. the linearised system to be solved for δu(k) and δλ(k) at .7.

(i) Initialise iteration counter.117) and choose root δλ(k) according to (4. ELEIST] (iii) Set k := k + 1. Solve the linear systems for δu∗ and for the tangential solution. (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. (k) (k) (k) (k−1) (k) (k−1) 2 ∆un+1 := ∆un+1 + δu(k) ext (k) (k−1) ¯ (viii) Update residual.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 109 Box 4. (0) λn+1 := λn . δ¯ u [subroutine FRONT] KT δu∗ = −r(k−1) . k := 0.4.111) . ∆λ(k−1) ) =− . 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) .THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . r(k) := f int (un+1 ) − λn+1 f (ix) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r(k) / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol [INTFOR.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) . (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. and set initial guess for displacement and incremental load factor un+1 := un . The combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme. KT := KT (un+1 ) [FRONT. (k) (0) ¯ r(0) := f int (un ) − λn f ext (ii) Assemble stiffness. (4.

the arc-length constraint is enforced at every iteration. un ) 0 un A u2 u1 l Figure 4. instead of solving the above coupled system (whose coefﬁcients matrix is nonbanded). we have ¯ (4.8.112) ∆u(k) ∆u(k) = l2 . ∆λ(k−1) ) KT (u(k−1) ) −¯ext f δλ(k) (4. The non-consistent scheme In practice.114) T . T f (4. The cylindrical arc-length method. In the iterations (4. where δu∗ is the iterative displacement stemming from the Newton–Raphson algorithm for the standard load controlled scheme: δu∗ ≡ −K−1 r(k−1) . it is more convenient to adopt what is sometimes referred to as the non-consistent scheme. where the original augmented system to be solved at each iteration is replaced by the following equations: δu(k) = −r(u(k−1) .115) (4.112)1. in the non-consistent scheme.111).110 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS arc-length constraint λ λn B ∆uT ∆u = l equilibrium path ( λ n .113) δu(k) = δu∗ + δλ δ u. u}. the arc-length constraint is guaranteed to hold only at the converged solution whereas. From (4. 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.

i. Some criteria are listed below: (a) Stiffness determinant.. (b) Incremental work. Follow the sign of the predictor work increment: ¯ f sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(δ uT ¯ext ).4. the above criterion cannot be used for determination of the appropriate root δγ (k) as the initial guess.117) (k−1) + δu ) (∆u ∗ T + δu ) − l .112)2. to choose the sign of δλ(1) that carries on tracing the current solution path.119) . If the wrong choice is made. followed by the enforcement of the constraint (4. ∆u(0) = 0. THE PREDICTOR SOLUTION When k = 1 (the predictor solution). δλ(k) is the solution of (4. ∆λ(k) .121) (4.e.122) (4.120) ¯ ¯ 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. the predictor solution will ‘track back’ on the current path (Crisﬁeld.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) } . i.e. Many procedures are currently used to predict the continuation direction. (4. 1991). 1991). 1996).113) into the relation ∆u(k) = ∆u(k−1) + δu(k) . (c) Secant path (Feng et al. results in the quadratic equation for the iterative load factor δλ(k) 2 a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0. does not contain information about the path being currently followed by the iterative procedure. (4. 4. is updated according to ∆λ(k) = ∆λ(k−1) + δλ(k) .3.123) (4.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . 1995.118) The incremental load factor.116) with coefﬁcients ¯ ¯ a = δ uT δ u ¯ b = 2(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ )T δ u c = (∆u (k−1) (4. Follow the sign of the stiffness determinant |KT (u(0) )|: sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(|KT (u(0) )|).STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 111 Substitution of (4. 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. The sign of δλ(1) is determined as sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(∆uT δ u). (4. n ¯ (4. The two possible values of δλ(1) for the predictor solution are l δλ(1) = ± √ .

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

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

.

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

1978). Cross-referencing. 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). This should allow a relatively easy cross-referencing between theory and corresponding computer implementation. difﬁcult-to-follow source codes. Element and material model-related data are also self-contained to some extent. say. PORTABILITY The code of HYPLAS is entirely written in (almost) standard FORTRAN 77 programming language (ANSI. We do not mean that clarity of coding and computational efﬁciency are opposing concepts but. the comments indicate where in the book the procedure being carried out is described.1. the routines of HYPLAS involved in the computational implementation of procedures described in the book are also indicated in the text. the code of. the pseudo-code and the corresponding FORTRAN source code of the relevant routines. In addition. Finite element codes are no exception. The existing exceptions to the FORTRAN 77 standards are known to be accepted by most currently available compilers. as a general rule. the programming philosophy adopted in its development has been biased towards code clarity and modularity. Whenever convenient. Clarity of coding When developing a computer code. a constitutive integration algorithm for a particular material model can be easily identiﬁed with the corresponding description provided in this book. 5.3.2.1.116 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS material model are thoroughly discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book. Due to this modularity. . in many cases. The reader will ﬁnd there a detailed description of the associated procedures including. excessive optimisation of computer operations tends to result in cumbersome. programmers are frequently faced with the dilemma: clarity versus efﬁciency. This feature is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to use HYPLAS for the development. Comment lines The reader will also ﬁnd that numerous comments have been added to the source code. 5. 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. This is particularly true for the numerical procedures whose theory is described in this text. REMARKS ON PROGRAM STRUCTURE In order to treat a wider range of material models and ﬁnite element types within the above general framework. In view of the educational purposes of HYPLAS. Frequently. implementation and testing of new constitutive models/algorithms as well as ﬁnite elements. Part Two focuses on the inﬁnitesimal theory and Part Three on the ﬁnite strain range.

Under option (b). reading of input data and initialising of most global arrays.3. (b) or from an input restart ﬁle and an input data ﬁle. Input data can be read: (a) either from an input data ﬁle only.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 117 5.1. . where the main routines involved are indicated. material and element properties. The main program The main program of HYPLAS can be divided into three basic parts: 1. where the numerical procedures discussed in Chapter 4 are implemented.4 of the previous chapter. The incremental ﬁnite element procedure. This is the main body of the program. 3. Data input and initialisation. THE GLOBAL DATABASE The global database of HYPLAS stores most arrays and program control parameters required in the ﬁnite element solution process. 5. comprise the opening of ﬁles accessed during the execution. the ﬁnite element analysis is restarted from where the restart ﬁle was created. kinematic constraints and applied external loads as well as various control parameters required in the ﬁnite element analysis. topology of the ﬁnite element mesh (nodal connectivities). Output routines are called from inside the main loop over load increments. Data input and initialisation The ﬁrst operations carried out as the execution of HYPLAS is initiated. The data input and initialisation phase is carried out at the very beginning of the execution of the program. it consists of a main loop over load increments with a nested loop over equilibrium iterations. These are data that do not change during the solution process such as initial nodal coordinates.3. In this case (case (b)). contains all information about the problem to be analysed. Essentially. The procedure has been conceptually described in Boxes 4. 5. The only information read from the relevant (ASCII) input data ﬁle.2. The corresponding data can be classed into two basic categories: (i) Problem-deﬁning (ﬁxed) data. It contains an image of the complete database at the time of its creation. The input data ﬁle is an ASCII format ﬁle which.1–4. most of the problem deﬁnition is read from an input restart ﬁle. is the data related to the deﬁnition of the proportional load incrementation programme. These components are described in more detail in the following sections. 2. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 5. in case (a). At this stage all data deﬁning the problem to be analysed are read from the relevant ﬁles and all necessary arrays are initialised. Output of converged results.1. 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. This is a binary ﬁle generated during a previous execution of HYPLAS.

The global database is deﬁned in the include ﬁle GLBDBASE. the data otherwise read and set in INDATA and INLOAD are retrieved from the input restart ﬁle by subroutine RSTART.INC set. The array-dimensioning parameters deﬁning the dimensions of the global database arrays are set in the include ﬁles MAXDIM. maximum array dimensions required by the currently implemented material models and element types. Data that change during the solution process. etc. data .INC is included in all routines that require data stored in any of the COMMON blocks of the global database. File GLBDBASE. These are discussed further in Sections 5. File MAXDIM. All arrays of the database have ﬁxed dimension and are grouped in a number of COMMON blocks.1. respectively.7. Flowchart.6 and 5. 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.INC. 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. These will be further explained in this chapter only when convenient for a better understanding of the program.INC and ELEMENTS. current nodal coordinates (changes in large deformation analysis only). arrays storing element internal forces. Typical solution-related data are nodal displacements.INC and ELEMENTS. according to the input data ﬁle. Variables and arrays (or array components) containing data of type (i) are set once and for all in subroutines INDATA. stresses and state variables in general at Gauss points. (ii) Solution-related (variable) data. INLOAD and ININCR.INC sets the parameters that deﬁne the maximum admissible problem size that can be analysed. If in restart mode.INC. Data input and initialisation.INC (refer to their comment lines). Files MATERIAL.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. In the data input and initialisation phase of HYPLAS. MATERIAL.

3. the material density. . The loading types implemented in INLOAD are • Point load. the geometry of the problem. The above numerical integration is carried out for each loaded edge of the element. 5. etc. element properties as well as most program control parameters including: analysis type (plane stress. kinematic constraints. the gravity acceleration and the unit vector deﬁning the direction of the gravity acceleration. 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. strain or axisymmetric) ﬂag. INDATA also carries out a number of checks to ensure the validity of the given data. g and g are.2. (5. coordinates. then an error message is printed (by routine ERRPRT) and the execution of the program is aborted. EXTERNAL LOADING. the corresponding prescribed values are assigned to their appropriate position in array RLOAD.2) where ∂Ωt is the loaded edge of the boundary of element e. current values at the last equilibrium (converged) solution are retrieved instead from the input restart ﬁle in RSTART.3. If in restart mode. • Distributed load at element boundaries (edges in two dimensions). (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. respectively. The components of f RLOAD.3. from the input data ﬁle. 5. Forces deﬁned directly at nodal points. SUBROUTINE INDATA This routine reads. nonlinear solution algorithm. • Gravity load. mesh topology. Some checks are also made in INLOAD to detect incorrect data.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 119 of type (ii) are initialised in subroutine INITIA. 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 (4.67) and (4.68)). Array t is the array of nodal pressure vectors of the loaded edge.). etc. material properties. Assembly of element vectors ngausb ∂Ωt (e) (e) NT b t da ≈ i=1 wi j(ξi ) Nb (ξi )T t. MAIN PROBLEM-DEFINING DATA.1) where the input data ρ. If unacceptable data is detected (such as undeﬁned or multiply deﬁned nodal numbers. In this case.

Also. Within each step of the loop over load increments.3. The idea is to allow the arc length to increase when convergence is ‘easy’ and to reduce it if convergence is ‘difﬁcult’.2.120 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5. which are deﬁned at the Gauss point level. iterative and total) are initialised to zero. 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 incremental load factors for each increment are ﬁxed.2.4. FIXED INCREMENTS OPTION A ﬂowchart illustrating the main steps of the load increment loop under the ﬁxed increments option is shown in Figure 5. The essential difference is that the proportional load increment factor here is recalculated (routine ARCLEN) in each pass of the iteration loop whereas. If the increment cutting procedure (Section 5.4. In the present arc-length implementation. trying to obtain .3. as deﬁned in the input data ﬁle. The main routines called from the HYPLAS main program are indicated. 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. SUBROUTINE INITIA This routine initialises some arrays and problem control variables. The pseudo-code of the overall scheme is given in Boxes 4. Arrays such as displacements (incremental.3 for the ﬁxed increments option. are initialised by material-speciﬁc routines called from subroutine MATISW. an iterative procedure (typically the Newton–Raphson algorithm) is carried out to solve the nonlinear equilibrium problem.7. 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. The inner (equilibrium iteration) loop for the combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme is summarised in Box 4.4). Stresses and other state variables (most arrays of COMMON block STATE).4. the arc length. The corresponding ﬂowchart is shown in Figure 5. The convenience of using material-speciﬁc routines for state variable initialisation is discussed in Section 5. Overview Let us now focus on the core of the ﬁnite element analysis code: the load incrementation loop. with ﬁxed increments.1–4. is changed at the end of every increment (after convergence) according to the number of iterations required to achieve convergence within the prescribed tolerance. the ﬂow of the main program is a small variation of that followed with prescribed load increments. In the latter case. In the present implementation. the external load is incremented (in INCREM) before the iteration loop starts. the proportional load increments are determined along the process according to the cylindrical arc-length procedure described in the previous chapter. 5.4. The load incrementation loop.1. INITIALISATION OF VARIABLE DATA. Under this option.3) is activated. 5. ARC-LENGTH CONTROL OPTION Under arc-length control. l.4. 5.4. the current incremental load factor is split into two equally sized sub-increments.

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.2. convergence in a desired number of iterations. nitact (5. the new length lnext to be used in the next step is set (in subroutine LENGTH) as lnext = lcurr nitdes . respectively.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. Fixed increments option.3) The new length is not allowed to be larger than a maximum value lmax . the number of iterations for convergence and the arc length used in the current step. The load incrementation loop. With nitact and lcurr denoting. . nitdes (prescribed in the input data ﬁle). RSTART Figure 5. 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.

Arc-length control. is calculated (in ARCLEN) by specifying (in the input data ﬁle) an initial load increment factor. Since it is not normally easy to imagine the magnitude of l that would be reasonable for a particular problem. The load incrementation loop. the start-up length. Start-up length. RSTART LENGTH Figure 5. and setting l0 = ∆λ2 δ¯T u 0 u ¯ (5. Obviously.122 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. at the beginning of the ﬁrst iteration of the very ﬁrst load increment. l0 .3.1) 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. 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. the above length adjustment cannot be applied. ∆λ0 .4) LOOP OVER EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS . 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.

4. 1991) within the equilibrium iterations. This is normally caused by excessively large strain increments. This facility proves extremely useful in general nonlinear analysis.2 and 5. • The linear equation system cannot be solved in FRONT due to a zero pivot in the stiffness matrix.4). 5. (5. A possible alternative (not available in HYPLAS) to increase the convergence radius is the incorporation of line-searches (Crisﬁeld.5) where p is the maximum arc-length parameter (deﬁned in the input data ﬁle).3.2). the increment cutting procedure is activated and the current step is restarted (from the last converged solution) with reduced increment size. Certain measures can be taken to make constitutive algorithms more robust and avoid the problem. . The total prescribed load (with ﬁxed increments (0) option) is beyond the limit load of the structure or the initial guess. This may occur for material models whose tangent operator may become singular under certain states of stress. The causes of failure to converge are • The load increment is too large. Whenever that happens. AUTOMATIC INCREMENT CUTTING An automatic increment cutting facility is available in HYPLAS (see dashed lines in the ﬂowcharts of Figures 5. The predictor solution is computed in subroutine ARCLEN.3). This issue is addressed in Part Two of this book. It frequently occurs that a converged equilibrium solution cannot be attained in the equilibrium iterations.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 123 ¯ where u is the initial tangential solution (see item (iii) of Box 4. In this case the residual norm will either diverge or not converge within a reasonable number of iterations. 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.4. Predictor solution. 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. falls outside the convergence radius of the iterative solution method. un+1 (refer to Box 4. The maximum length lmax is also set at this stage as lmax = p l0 . The present implementation allows the choice of the sign of the predictor solution (refer to Section 4. • The algorithm for numerical integration of path-dependent constitutive equations (the state update procedure) fails to produce a solution at a Gauss point. Stopping the load incrementation loop. Under arc-length control.3) to be made by two criteria: the stiffness determinant sign or the secant path predictor.

SUBROUTINE INTFOR Subroutine INTFOR computes the element internal force vector of all elements of the mesh. the equation system is solved for up to two right-hand sides. 1977) and will not be discussed here. it calls the internal force evaluation routine of the corresponding element class. Further details on the structure of HYPLAS regarding the evaluation of internal forces and general state updating are given in Section 5. u (5. 5. KRESL is always set to 1. This problem is also generally overcome by reducing the increment size (the arc length. Details of the technique are described elsewhere (Hinton and Owen. when the initial stiffness method is used).7) If MODE=3. 5. They are grouped in the COMMON block named FRONTA. In this case. 1977. the linear system is solved by Gauss elimination. δ¯ . the standard system KT δu = −r (5. may have no real roots. INTERNAL FORCE CALCULATION. SUBROUTINE FRONT The linear system solution is carried out in subroutine FRONT which uses the classical frontal method (Hinton and Owen. THE LINEAR SOLVER. 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. For each element. Note that the solution for two right-hand sides is required by the arc-length method. If KRESL=2. In the frontal method. l. 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. Irons.5. in this case) and restarting the current step with the reduced value of l. If KRESL=1.4. for instance. The global arrays of HYPLAS used exclusively by the frontal solver are not included in the global database (ﬁle GLBDBASE. The arc-length constraint equation (4. If MODE=1.6) is solved for δu. solved in routine ARCLEN.116).4. 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.5. SWITCHING DATA. When the standard Newton–Raphson algorithm is used. then a new stiffness is required. The number of right-hand sides for which the solution is required is set in the local variable NRHS.124 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS • For arc-length control only.4.INC). and eliminated simultaneously. If MODE=2. . 1970). the tangential solution of the arc-length method. with the appropriate contribution of individual elements to the global stiffness matrix and load vector. then both solutions are obtained. the stiffness matrix is reduced only once.4. In the present implementation. Another local control ﬂag used by this routine is the integer MODE.6. The variable KRESL controls whether or not a new stiffness is computed. is obtained u instead by solving ¯ext KT δ¯ = −f . The equations are assembled. 5.

independent of ﬁnite element types and material models adopted. printed in the results ﬁle. SUBROUTINES OUTPUT AND RSTART Once the equilibrium iteration loop has converged. the previous converged values are assigned to the positions corresponding to the current values. such as the total.5. when and what to output. is made with the output control ﬂags stored in arrays NOUTP and NOUTPV. Most arrays of COMMON block STATE are switched in material-speciﬁc routines (see Section 5. Other arrays. Brief reference to the modularity of elements and material models in HYPLAS has been made in Section 5. material-speciﬁc operations and the ‘rest’ of the program occurs in the computation of the element internal force vector. This is illustrated in the call tree of Figure 5. to a large extent.or element-related. The concept is illustrated in the following example.1. When the iterative procedure converges. the converged values need updating. if required.1. 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. the results are. 5. 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). These are passed on to the state-updating procedure which returns (in the same position) the updated (or current) values.INC). This will be addressed here in more detail.2. When . The operations of output to results ﬁle are performed by subroutine OUTPUT.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 125 This applies to all arrays of COMMON block STATE (see comments in ﬁle GLBDBASE. Printed results can be nodal displacements. MODULARISATION OF INTERNAL FORCE COMPUTATION An example where clear distinction can be made between element-speciﬁc operations.7. array COORD (in COMMON block MESH) of nodal coordinates also needs switching between current and last converged values. state variables at Gauss points and (extrapolated) state variables at nodes. this feature has been exploited to allow a relatively high degree of modularity of ﬁnite element types and constitutive models/algorithms. At this point. Material and element modularity In the above. Appropriate switching/resetting is also needed when increment cutting is activated. Output control.4. The type of switching operation carried out by SWITCH depends on the integer argument MODE. OUTPUT OF CONVERGED RESULTS.5.7). Output to the restart ﬁle is carried out by routine RSTART. The current values (which have converged at this point) are then assigned to the corresponding array positions that store converged data. EXAMPLE. incremental and iterative nodal displacement vectors also require switching/resetting. 5. The basic steps executed are.4. 5. In large deformation analysis.e. In designing the structure of HYPLAS. 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. we have provided an overview of the main program with a summary description of the input phase and the main load incrementation loop. i. Switching between current and last converged data is managed by subroutine SWITCH as follows (refer to source code). reactions.

6. set converence flag SWITCH INTFOR CONVER ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient). 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 . on the other hand. INTFOR loops over all elements of the mesh and calls the element interface routine for internal force calculation ELEIIF (see call tree of 5.8) The Gaussian quadrature weights.4. only operations related to the general incremental procedure. Before ELEIIF is called..4). . and the strain-displacement matrix. More precisely. the Gauss points positions. element internal forces need to be computed within the equilibrium iteration loop. Element and material modularity in internal force computation. j. are computed depend only on the particular element being used. B..2 and 5. state update Ogden model SUEL SUTR SUOGD Figure 5. ξi and the way in which the Jacobian. 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. (5. wi . Return updated values to element level material interface for state update MATISU MATERIAL LEVEL state update linear elastic material state update Tresca model . with no distinction between different types of ﬁnite element or material. are carried out. the main program calls subroutine INTFOR (refer to the ﬂowcharts of Figures 5.126 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reset some variables to last converged values compute element int internal force vectors. The stress array. they depend on the element class to which the adopted element belongs.† The calculation of these quantities is independent of the underlying material model. Pass them on to material level to update stress. Material and element levels At this point. f (e) compute residual.3). 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.

‡ Note . (5. under inﬁnitesimal strains. F ∆ ). as part of αn . With the updated stress at hand. rather than the strain εn . the incremental strain is the actual argument passed into the state update interface in the inﬁnitesimal case. 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). where the function arguments are the incremental strains. all element-related quantities (wi . B) are computed together with the essential kinematic variable ∆ε (F ∆ in large strains). we shall employ the symbol σ to denote algorithmic ˆ (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor in general. In the above. The material level.13) (5. the internal force vector is assembled according to (5.12) Based on the above comments.11) (5.10) and the set αn which now contains the converged internal state variables at time station tn and the strain εn . Throughout the text. however. the state update algorithm deﬁnes an incremental constitutive function ˆ σ = σ(αn .10). the function on the right-hand side of (5. In ﬁnite strain analysis. εn+1 ) (5. in computations with elastoplastic/viscoplastic models. § As we shall see later.8). 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. formally. In the general path-dependent case. It receives the incremental strain (or deformation gradient) from the element level.9) differs from that on the right-hand side of (5. that.9) within the typical interval [tn . and the incremental constitutive function is represented as ˆ σ = σ(αn . The incremental constitutive function can be expressed in the equivalent form‡ ˆ σ = σ(αn . The incremental strain (or deformation gradient) is passed on to the material level which returns the updated stress. The updated stress is returned to the element level. ∆ε ≡ εn+1 − εn = ∇s (∆u). The element level.§ In HYPLAS. the computation of the internal force vector can be split into two well-deﬁned levels: 1. (5. it will be convenient to have the elastic strain of time station tn . tn+1 ]. This is the lowest layer of code. Here. ∆ε). F ∆ ≡ I + ∇n (∆u) = [I − ∇n+1 (∆u)]−1 .10) in that it has different arguments. 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. j. the corresponding argument is the incremental deformation gradient. 2.

The element class-speciﬁc routine (e. As we shall see in the following sections. These routines are used by all element types of the class. The internal force computation for this class is carried out in routine IFSTD2 (see call tree of Figure 5. form one class. that contain. for instance. in turn. This ﬁle deﬁnes our element database. Within the program. etc.g. The material level starts here.g. extrapolation matrices to extrapolate Gauss point values to nodes (used for output purposes only). the element level starts in subroutine ELEIIF. number of boundaries. This routine identiﬁes the element class and calls the appropriate element class-speciﬁc internal force computation routine. It also sets maximum dimensioning parameters for some arrays of the global database whose size depends on properties of the available elements. integer and real element properties. Gauss quadrature weights and positions for domain and boundary integration. the modularity concept discussed here is applied not only to the internal force computation. What differentiates element types within the same class are only trivial characteristics such as number of nodes. .1. The data is stored in the arrays IELPRP and RELPRP. Thus.INC. Implementation and management Finite elements in HYPLAS are grouped into element classes. The stiffness is computed in STSTD2. but also to the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness and some input/output operations. 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. routine SUTR for the Tresca elastoplastic model). One element class may contain several element types. each element class and type is identiﬁed by a unique enumeration parameter set in the include ﬁle ELEMENTS. each element class has one subroutine for computation of the internal force vector and one subroutine for stiffness evaluation.6. IFSTD2 for standard two-dimensional isoparametric elements). Typical element properties are listed below: • Integer element properties. Number of nodes.INC).4).128 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS HYPLAS implementation In HYPLAS. etc. Elements. shape functions and so on. • Real element properties. It makes the program particularly suitable for the incorporation of new elements and material models and/or modiﬁcation of the existing ones. Gaussian integration rule. All two-dimensional isoparametric elements of HYPLAS.6. 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. ELEMENT PROPERTIES. respectively. MATISU. node ordering on boundaries. 5. number of Gauss points. MATISU identiﬁes the material model/algorithm in question and calls the corresponding material-speciﬁc state updating procedure (e. number of degrees of freedom. calls the material interface for state update. 5.

IMPLEMENTING A NEW FINITE ELEMENT In this section. subroutines RST3 and RSQ4 read and set data. These data are used by the corresponding element classspeciﬁc subroutines for computation of internal force and tangent stiffness matrices. the corresponding class-speciﬁc routine is IFFBA2. we provide a summary of the basic path to be followed in order to include a new ﬁnite element into HYPLAS.2. For F -bar elements (discussed in Chapter 15). 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.3. ELEMENT INTERFACES. respectively. of the element properties arrays. The properties of the element type assigned to an element group IGRUP are stored in the columns IELPRP( . . 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. At the element level. Such subroutines are named following the convention: RSxxxx. The class-speciﬁc routines for standard and F -bar elements are STSTD2 and STFBA2. for the isoparametric three-noded triangle and four-noded bi-linear quadrilateral. 5. INTERNAL FORCE AND STIFFNESS COMPUTATION The modularisation of elements in the internal force computation has been discussed in Section 5.5.6. For standard isoparametric two-dimensional elements.6.IGRUP). Element properties are also used in the evaluation of the external load vector carried out in INLOAD.IGRUP) and RELPRP( . The corresponding call tree is shown in Figure 5. The evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix is also carried out in a modular structure completely analogous to that shown in Figure 5. the class-speciﬁc routine is IFSTD2. These routines are called only once during the program execution.1.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. To read the relevant data from the input data ﬁle and assign all necessary properties to IELPRP and RELPRP.4. Subroutine ELEIIF in this case is the element interface routine that controls the evaluation of the element internal force vector. For instance.5. 5. 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). each element type uses its own routine. respectively.

a new element-type identiﬁcation parameter has to be added to the include ﬁle ELEMENTS. Consistent tangent computation. A new element of an existing class Assume that we want to include a new element type belonging to an existing element class. 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 . The implementation of the new element requires coding of the following new element type-speciﬁc procedures: 1.INC. ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient).. 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). say.. In addition. These routines have not been discussed above. The element data input/setting routine (RSxxxx). New classes of element that do not use this structure will not require shape function routines coded in this way. . The routine for evaluation of shape functions and shape function derivatives (SFxxxx).130 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS . For the interested reader a good exercise could be to include. 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).5. 2... 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. basic class-related internal force and stiffness computation routines already exist and do not need to be changed. In this case. spatial tangent modulus for Ogden model CTEL CTTR CSTOGD Figure 5... Use tangent operator to assemble element stiffness matrix assemble and solve linear equation systems . the nine-noded Lagrangian isoparametric quadrilateral. Subroutine SHPFUN is the interface for shape function/shape function derivatives computation.

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. Under ﬁnite strains. • Integer material properties.INC.1. we need to code new element class-speciﬁc stiffness and internal force evaluation routines. Material types and classes are identiﬁed by identiﬁcation parameters deﬁned in the include ﬁle MATERIAL. and calls to the new routines have to be included in the element interfaces ELEIIF and ELEIST.INC). 5.INC. This ﬁle is the material database of HYPLAS. if required.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 131 A new element class Obviously. In addition to the above procedures. for instance. 5. The situation here is analogous to the storage of element properties discussed in Section 5. turns into the Hencky material). MATERIAL PROPERTIES. for instance.7. in the arrays IPROPS and RPROPS. etc. a new elementclass identiﬁcation parameter has to be added to ﬁle ELEMENTS.INC). Grouping materials into classes is not absolutely necessary for modularity but becomes convenient particularly in the ﬁnite strain regime when. Number of points deﬁning a piecewise linear hardening curve for elastoplastic materials.1. This is the most demanding part. number of terms in the series deﬁning an Ogden-type ﬁnite strain hyperelasticity strain energy function. all materials of this class are logarithmic strainbased extensions of the corresponding inﬁnitesimal models (the linear elastic model. Poisson’s ratio. The data stored in these arrays include all parameters required by the continuum constitutive model and. Material models: implementation and management Material models (or types) are also grouped into classes. The Hencky material is discussed in Chapter 13 and the ﬁnite elastoplasticity models are described in Chapter 14. etc. Examples of integer and real material properties are: • Real material properties. F ∆ . Usual properties such as Young’s modulus. A typical example is the class of isotropic elastoplasticity models implemented in the program (which also includes the linear elastic model). Each group of elements deﬁned by the user in the input data ﬁle is assigned one material type . MATERIAL-SPECIFIC DATA INPUT Integer and real material properties are stored. a number of models may require identical transformation of the basic kinematic variable (F ∆ ) before the essential state updating procedure can be applied. In this case. parameters deﬁning hardening curves of elastoplastic materials. of COMMON block MATERL (see include ﬁle GLBDBASE. this will require more work than to include an element of an existing class.7.6. Also. respectively. The identiﬁcation parameter of this class is HYPEPL (see ﬁle MATERIAL. may also contain other parameters related to the speciﬁc numerical algorithm adopted to integrate the constitutive equations of the model. 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.

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

This routine identiﬁes the material class and type. each material model implementation has a material-speciﬁc stateˆ ˆ updating procedure that deﬁnes a pair of functions {σ. . such that the state {σn+1 . The state-updating procedures (subroutines) are named according to the rule SUxxxx. Positions with the last index equal to 2. . for instance.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 133 The arrays of COMMON block STATE store both current and last converged values of the corresponding variables. ∆ε).14) In the ﬁnite strain case.3. For the von Mises elastoplastic model. The array positions having the last index equal to 1. each material model ˆ ˆ implementation is deﬁned by incremental constitutive functions. 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 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. such as STRSG( . Let us recall that.4. α}. σ and α. we have the subroutines SUVM (general case) and SUVMPS (plane stress algorithm).1) for the Gauss point stresses. rather than ∆ε. such as STRSG( . Material-speciﬁc state updating procedure Here. the above functions are deﬁned in terms of the incremental deformation gradient. 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). contain the last equilibrium converged values. we described in more detail the structure of the material level layer of Figure 5. . within the overall incremental ﬁnite element scheme.2). In the HYPLAS program. ∆ε) ˆ αn+1 = α(αn .7. For path-dependent constitutive models. performs extra class-speciﬁc kinematic operations (if necessary) and then calls the material type-speciﬁc routine SUxxxx. αn+1 } at a Gauss point is symbolically represented as ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . store the current values. (5. To keep the modularity of material models. 5. F ∆ .

. 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.7.134 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. 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.4. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC RESULTS OUTPUT ROUTINES Finally. the material-speciﬁc routine for the von Mises model is named CTVM. 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). In this case. and CSTxxx for consistent spatial tangent moduli (deﬁned by (4. we describe the last material-related operation: the output of material-speciﬁc data to a results ﬁle. It identiﬁes the material and calls the appropriate tangent computation routine. the computation of the consistent tangent operators (4. is also carried out in material-speciﬁc routines. The MATerial Interface for Consistent Tangent computation is named MATICT. For the von Mises and Ogden models we have. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC TANGENT COMPUTATION ROUTINES The call tree for computation of material-related tangent operators is illustrated in Figure 5.7.98). 5. The Ogden hyperelastic model uses subroutine CSTOGD.5.98)) needed in ﬁnite strain analyses. the routines SWVM and SWOGD. 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. 5. required in the assemblage of element tangent stiffness matrices.81) and (4.81)). respectively. The switching/initialising subroutines are named as SWxxxx. In line with the material modularity discussed in the above. Whenever required.5 (material level).

only if the new material belongs to a newly deﬁned class. These routines are named in HYPLAS according to the convention ORxxxx.4 The routine for material data input RDxxxx. for instance. SUxxxx. 2.2. . Add a new material-type identiﬁcation parameter to the materials database (include ﬁle MATERIAL. 5.1 and 2. MATISW.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 135 For instance. A new material class identiﬁcation parameter needs to be added too.1 The state updating procedure. MATIRD and MATIOR.INC).INC have to be increased accordingly if the new material model requires more storage space. Note that changes to the existing code are needed only in the material database ﬁle MATERIAL. The output routine for the von Mises model.5 The routine for output of material-related results ORxxxx. Add new entries to the materials database.6. 3.7. Thus. The maximum dimensioning parameters of ﬁle MATERIAL. a clean and modular structure. the von Mises effective stress is important for metals but may be of no relevance for concrete failure models. The developer needs to code ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines. the use of material-speciﬁc routines at this stage is convenient in order to print out only relevant results and keep.2 The routine for computation of the associated consistent tangent operator. at the same time. Finally. CTxxxx (CSTxxx in ﬁnite strains). the incorporation of a new material model/algorithm into HYPLAS. For path-dependent materials this is a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding constitutive equations.INC and in the above material interface routines. 2. requires the following basic steps: 1. SWxxxx. The crucial material-deﬁning routines are 2. 2. 2. Most of the programming work is concentrated in items 2. Write new material-speciﬁc routines. In addition. Add new calls to the material interface routines. calls to the above routines have to be added to the corresponding material interfaces: MATISU. Material interface for results output Again. IMPLEMENTING A NEW MATERIAL MODEL Within the modular structure described above. MATICT. is named ORVM. The MATerial Interface to Output Results is the subroutine MATIOR. the following auxiliary routines are required: 2. a material interface routine is used to control calls to material-speciﬁc routines.3 The routine for switching and initialising material-related variables.

.

Part Two Small strains .

.

embodies all the essential concepts of the mathematical theory of plasticity and provides the foundation for the general multidimensional model established in Section 6. concrete. We remark that only the most important concepts and mathematical expressions are reviewed. rocks.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. Suquet (1981) and Han and Reddy (1999). Prager (1959).2. though simple. Materials whose behaviour can be adequately described by the theory of plasticity are called plastic (or rate-independent plastic) materials. Attention is focused on the description of mathematical models of elastoplastic materials and. The present chapter reviews the mathematical theory of plasticity. For a more comprehensive treatment of the theory of plasticity. A more mathematically oriented approach to the subject is presented by Halphen and Nguyen (1975). 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. may sustain permanent (or plastic) deformations when completely unloaded. Duvaut and Lions (1976). after being subjected to a loading programme. such as metals. The remainder of the chapter focuses on the detailed description of the plasticity models most commonly used in engineering analysis: the models of Tresca. A large number of engineering materials. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 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. Lubliner (1990) and Jirásek and Bažant (2002). The corresponding yield criteria are Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. clays and soils in general. This chapter is organised as follows. 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. issues such as limit analysis and slip-line ﬁeld theory are not addressed. The discussion is followed. Ltd T . by the formulation of a mathematical model of the uniaxial experiment. particularly in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century. in particular.1. Matthies (1979). Basically. In Section 6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager. following the substantial development that took place. The uniaxial model. may be modelled as plastic under a wide range of circumstances of practical interest. The origins of the theory of plasticity can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century and. in Section 6. the theory of plasticity is concerned with solids that. In particular. this theory is today established on sound mathematical foundations and is regarded as one of the most successful phenomenological constitutive models of solid materials. von Mises.3. the reader is referred to Hill (1950).

Monotonic reloading of the bar to a stress level σ1 will follow the path O1 Y1 Z1 . it returns to the original unstressed state O0 . segments O0 Y0 and O1 Y1 deﬁne the elastic domain at two different states. Here. In this path. The new unstressed state.e.1. The bar is then unloaded back to an unstressed state and subsequently reloaded to a higher stress level σ1 . a range of stresses within which the behaviour of the material can be considered as purely elastic. . a uniaxial tension experiment with a metallic bar is discussed in what follows. if the bar is unloaded from point Y0 (or before it is reached). in that a permanent change in the shape of the bar is observed. The stress–strain curve follows the path O0 Y0 Z0 O1 Y1 Z1 shown. Beyond Y0 . in segment O0 Y0 the behaviour of the material is regarded as linear elastic. loading beyond an elastic limit (point Y1 in this case) will cause further increase in plastic deformation. uniaxial tension tests with ductile metals produce stress–strain curves of the type shown in Figure 6. say. Thus. To illustrate such common features. the initial line segment O0 Y0 is virtually straight and. Therefore.1. ε. is plotted against the axial strain. Similarly to the initial elastic segment O0 Y0 . 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 . differs from the initial unstressed state. the actual difference between them is in fact much smaller than that shown in the diagram of Figure 6. They are enumerated below: 1. In Figure 6. Phenomenological aspects In spite of their qualitatively distinct mechanical responses. takes place. in Sections 6. The existence of an elastic domain. In the schematic diagram of Figure 6. Plastic ﬂow rules and hardening laws are addressed. 2.140 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS described in Section 6. where the axial stress. This phenomenon is known as hardening. Again.e. respectively.5 and 6. evolution of plastic strains.1.4. Typically. Accompanying the evolution of the plastic strain. Some important phenomenological properties can be identiﬁed in the above described uniaxial test. the slope of the stress–strain curve changes dramatically and if the stress (or strain) loading is reversed at. i. O0 . without evolution of permanent (plastic) strains.1.6. If the material is further loaded at the yield stress. σ0 . This shape change is represented in the graph by the permanent (or plastic) axial strain εp . The associated yield stresses correspond to points Y0 and Y1 . the behaviour of the material in the segment O1 Y1 may also be regarded as linear elastic. 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. then plastic yielding (or plastic ﬂow). 6. the bar returns to an unstressed state via path Z0 O1 . an evolution of the yield stress itself is also observed (note that the yield stresses corresponding to points Y0 and Y1 are different). even though some discrepancy between unloading and reloading curves (such as lines Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 ) is observed in typical experiments. point Z0 . i. O1 . it is important to emphasise that. 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. The elastic domain is delimited by the so-called yield stress. σ. 3.1. with no further plastic straining of the bar.

1. Firstly. 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. Uniaxial tension experiment with ductile metals. It is also important to note that. For instance. 6. that resulted from the loading programme described in the previous section.1) is ignored and points Z0 and Y1 . the difference between unloading and reloading curves (segments Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 of Figure 6. 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. the original stress–strain curve of Figure 6. 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. in materials such as soils.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 141 σ σ1 σ0 Y1 Y0 Z0 Z1 O0 εp O1 ε Figure 6. One-dimensional constitutive model A simple mathematical model of the uniaxial experiment discussed in the previous section is formulated in what follows. is approximated by the idealised version shown in Figure 6.1.2. which typically cannot resist tensile stresses. rocks. are more appropriate. uniaxial tension tests do not make physical sense. in which the sides of the specimen are subjected to a conﬁning hydrostatic pressure prior to the application of longitudinal compression. At the outset. different experimental procedures may be required for the veriﬁcation of such properties. In this case. experiments such as triaxial shear tests. that correspond respectively to . soils and many others. The assumptions involved in the approximation are summarised in the following. Obviously. according to the type of material.2. the microscopic mechanisms that give rise to these common phenomenological characteristics can be completely distinct for different types of material.

6. Note that the difference between the total strain and the current plastic strain.1) where E denotes the Young’s modulus of the material of the bar. the uniaxial stress corresponding to a conﬁguration with total strain ε is given by σ = E (ε − εp ). are assumed to coincide. the stress–strain curve always follows the path deﬁned by O0 Y0 Y1 Z1 . During plastic yielding.2. the behaviour of the bar between states O1 and Y1 is considered to be linear elastic. This motivates the additive decomposition of the axial strain described in the following section. Under the above assumptions. (6. This path is normally referred to as the virgin curve and is obtained by a continuous monotonic loading from the initial unstressed state O0 . εp . and yield limit. ε the beginning of unloading and the onset of plastic yielding upon subsequent reloading. ε − εp .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 6.1.2. Uniaxial tension experiment. within the segment O1 Y1 . εe . into the sum of an elastic (or reversible) component. σ0 . after being monotonically loaded from the initial unstressed state to the stress level σ0 . Mathematical model. ε − εp is fully recovered without further evolution of plastic strains. and a . that is. 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. Thus. upon complete unloading of the bar. ε. with constant plastic strain. is fully reversible. 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) Generalising the results of the uniaxial tension test discussed. either elastic unloading or plastic yielding (or plastic loading) takes place. σy ) = 0 =⇒ εp = 0 ˙ εp = 0 ˙ for elastic unloading. for plastic loading.2. no stress level is allowed above the current yield stress.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 143 plastic (or permanent) component. only elastic straining may occur. where the elastic strain has been deﬁned as εe = ε − εp . (6. at any stage. whereas on its boundary (at the yield stress).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.1. σy ) < 0}.2. The corresponding idealised elastic domain is illustrated in Figure 6. (6.e.7) (6.8) For stress levels within the elastic domain.3) (6. Φ. This yield criterion can be expressed by If Φ(σ. equivalently.3. These are described in the following. it has been assumed in the above that the yield stress in compression is identical to that in tension. σy ) < 0 =⇒ ε˙p = 0. the elastic domain is the set of stresses σ that satisfy |σ| < σy .1 are associated with the formulation of a yield criterion and a plastic ﬂow rule. With the introduction of a yield function.9) . (6. 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. whereas item 3 requires the formulation of a hardening law.5) (6. or. ε = εe + εp . plastically admissible stresses lie either in the elastic domain or on its boundary (the yield limit). 6.4) 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 6.3. any admissible stress must satisfy the restriction Φ(σ. It should be noted that. the constitutive law for the axial stress can be expressed as σ = E εe . The items 1 and 2 of Section 6. (6. σy ) = |σ| − σy .2. 6.1. (6. THE ELASTIC UNIAXIAL CONSTITUTIVE LAW Following the above deﬁnition of the elastic axial strain. If Φ(σ. i. εp . Thus. of the form Φ(σ. σy ) ≤ 0.

e.11) (6.9) above have deﬁned a criterion for plastic yielding. LOADING/UNLOADING CONDITIONS Expressions (6. Uniaxial model. the plastic strain rate εp is positive (stretching) under tension (positive σ) and ˙ negative (compressive) under compression (negative σ). i. upon plastic loading. the plastic strain rate vanishes within the elastic domain. i.9).13) The constitutive equations (6.2. Elastic domain.3 that. ˙ ˙ (6. as stated in the yield criterion (6. ˙ (6.10) for any scalar a and the scalar γ is termed the plastic multiplier. γ ≥ 0.12) and satisﬁes the complementarity condition Φ γ = 0.e. The plastic multiplier is ˙ non-negative.15) . ˙ (6. the plastic ﬂow rule for the uniaxial model can be formally established as εp = γ sign(σ). they have set the conditions under which plastic straining may occur. Φ < 0 =⇒ γ = 0 =⇒ εp = 0. THE PLASTIC FLOW RULE.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. 6.4. ˙ (6. By noting in Figure 6.10) to (6.3. ˙ ˙ where sign is the signum function deﬁned as sign(a) = +1 if a ≥ 0 −1 if a < 0 (6.144 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ tension elastic domain σy 0 ε compression − σy Figure 6.13) imply that.

5) of Φ. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional plasticity model is deﬁned by the constitutive equations (6. (6. in ¯ a monotonic tensile test we have εp = εp . it follows that its evolution law is given by ¯ ˙ ˙ εp = |εp |. and (6. ˙ (6. (6. the constraints Φ ≤ 0.18) thus ensuring that both tensile and compressive plastic straining contribute to εp .17) γ ≥ 0. is equivalent to ˙ ˙ εp = γ.22) (6. in view of the plastic ﬂow rule. can be incorporated into the uniaxial model simply by assuming that.1.22). ˙ (6.19) The curve deﬁned by the hardening function σy (¯p ) is usually referred to as the hardening ε curve (Figure 6. establish when plastic ﬂow may occur. 6. Clearly.2).8).21) .5. in the deﬁnition (6. ˙ γΦ = 0. the yield stress σy is a given function σy = σy (¯p ) ε (6. ¯ 6. The model is summarised in Box 6. the complete characterisation of the uniaxial model is achieved with the introduction of the hardening law.2.13) deﬁne the so-called loading/unloading conditions of the elasticplastic model. (6. εp = −εp .6. εp .12) and (6.16) of the accumulated axial plastic strain.20) (6. From the deﬁnition of εp .16). The accumulated axial plastic strain is deﬁned as ¯ t εp ≡ ¯ 0 |εp | dt.4). (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 145 Expressions (6.5). ¯ whereas in a monotonic compressive uniaxial test. (6. (6. that is. an evolution of the yield stress accompanies the evolution of the plastic strain. This phenomenon.4). THE HARDENING LAW Finally. known as hardening. ¯ which. (6.17).10). ¯ (6. As remarked in item 3 of Section 6.2.1.

it should be noted ﬁrstly that. In order to eliminate this indetermination. during plastic ﬂow. Plastic ﬂow rule 5. Yield function 4.2.12) and (6.13) just tell us that γ ˙ vanishes during elastic straining but may assume any non-negative value during plastic ﬂow. γ. σy ) = |σ| − σy ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ σy = σy (¯p ) ε ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. Uniaxial elastic law 3. H σA 0 εp Figure 6.146 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σy σy ( ε p ) hardening slope. . Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. Hardening law σ = E εe Φ(σ. One-dimensional model. Hardening curve. expressions (6. One-dimensional elastoplastic constitutive model. was left ˙ indeterminate during plastic yielding.7. 1. γ ≥ 0. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ 6. in the uniaxial plasticity model introduced above. Indeed. the plastic multiplier.1. DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER So far.4. Box 6.

24) ˙ and.2. THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT MODULUS Let us now return to the stress–strain curve of Figure 6. ˙ H +E H +E (6.26) where H is called the hardening modulus. by combining the above expression with (6.31) where E ep is called the elastoplastic tangent modulus. (γ = 0).8. H. ˙ (6.31). it follows that σ = E(ε − εp ). during elastic straining. the following additional complementarity condition may be established: ˙ ˙ Φγ=0 which implies that the rate of Φ vanishes whenever plastic yielding occurs (γ = 0). Therefore. (6.22). (6. Equation (6.25) holds so that one has the following expression for the stress rate ˙ sign(σ) σ = H εp .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 147 the value of the yield function remains constant Φ = 0. Plastic ﬂow at a generic yield limit produces the following tangent relation between strain and stress ˙ σ = E ep ε. ˙ ¯ (6.27) d¯ ε Under plastic yielding.30) 6. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. By combining expressions (6. ˙ ˙ Φ = 0. γ. 1 − E ep /E (6.10) and (6. Φ may assume any value.2. one obtains ˙ ˙ Φ = sign(σ) σ − H εp . the ﬂow rule (6.28) and (6. or hardening slope. ˙ ¯ (6. (6.29) Finally.28) From the elastic law.29).32) E+H Equivalently. ε (6. equation (6.4) dσy H = H(¯p ) = p . is uniquely determined during plastic yielding as ˙ γ= ˙ E E sign(σ) ε = ˙ |ε|.25) (6.5). (6.23) as the absolute value of the current stress always coincides with the current yield stress. (6. By taking the time derivative of the yield function (6. can be expressed in terms of the elastic modulus and the elastoplastic modulus as H= E ep .25) is called the ˙ consistency condition.10).30) the following expression is obtained for the elastoplastic tangent modulus EH E ep = . the plastic multiplier.33) . and is deﬁned as (refer to Figure 6. the hardening modulus.

1. (6.148 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. the plastic strain (taken as an internal variable) and a set α of internal variables associated with the phenomenon of hardening. εe . 6. respectively. the one-dimensional equations contain all basic components of a general elastoplastic constitutive model: • the elastoplastic strain decomposition. The starting point of the theories of plasticity treated in this book is the assumption that the free energy. stated with the use of a yield function. εp . As already mentioned. ε = εe + ε p . and a plastic component. ADDITIVE DECOMPOSITION OF THE STRAIN TENSOR Following the decomposition of the uniaxial strain given in the previous section. The generalisation of these concepts for application in two.34). εp . is a function ψ(ε.35) together with the given initial condition ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) at a (pseudo-)time t0 is equivalent to (6. 6. Note that (6.3. α). • an elastic law. and • a hardening law. 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.and three-dimensional situations is described in this section. ε. ψ.34) The tensors εe and εp are known. that is.2. It is usual to assume that the free (6. into the sum of an elastic component. as the elastic strain tensor and the plastic strain tensor. The corresponding rate form of the additive split reads ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp .35) . • a plastic ﬂow rule deﬁning the evolution of the plastic strain. General elastoplastic constitutive model A mathematical model of a uniaxial tension experiment with a ductile metal has been described in the previous section. characterising the evolution of the yield limit.3. Recall that the free energy potential plays a crucial role in the derivation of the model and provides the constitutive law for stress.3. the corresponding generalisation is obtained by splitting the strain tensor. • a yield criterion. of the total strain.5 of Chapter 3.36) (6.

(6. εp . where the function Υp . Thus.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 149 energy can be split as ψ(ε. deﬁned by ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.37) into a sum of an elastic contribution. respectively the shear and bulk moduli.39) ∂ψ e ∂εe ˙ ˙ ˙ : εe + σ : εp − A ∗ α ≥ 0.38) 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. Following the above expression for the free energy. In this case. the general counterpart of uniaxial elastic v law (6. 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. α) ≥ 0. εp . ψ e . A. A. ψ p . The above inequality implies a general elastic law of the form σ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ e .41) is called the plastic dissipation function. d v (6. α) = ψ e (ε − εp ) + ψ p (α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α) (6. and a contribution due to hardening.43) where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor and G and K are. This chapter is focused on materials whose elastic behaviour is linear (as in the uniaxial model of the previous section) and isotropic. whose dependence upon strains and internal variables appears only through the elastic strain. (6. εp .44) . The tensor εe is the deviatoric component of the elastic strain and d εe ≡ tr[εe ] is the volumetric elastic strain. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α.4) is given by σ = De : εe = 2G εe + K εe I. ∂εe (6. the Clausius–Duhem inequality reads σ−ρ ¯ where A ≡ ρ ∂ψ p/∂α ¯ (6.40) so that the requirement of non-negative dissipation can be reduced to ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.42) (6.

γ ≥ 0.49) (6. i.50) are complemented by the loading/unloading conditions Φ ≤ 0.e. Φγ = 0. is now a function of the stress tensor and a set A of hardening thermodynamical forces. Any stress lying in the elastic domain or on its boundary is said to be plastically admissible. A) < 0} (6. The evolution equations (6. A) = 0. the set of stresses for which plastic yielding may occur. A) = 0}. a yield function deﬁnes the elastic domain as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ. A) is termed the ﬂow vector and the function H = H(σ.53) that deﬁne when evolution of plastic strains and internal variables (γ = 0) may occur. the internal variables are the plastic strain tensor and the set α of hardening variables. 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. 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.3.46) of stresses for which plastic yielding is not possible. This hypersurface is termed the yield surface and is deﬁned as Y = {σ | Φ(σ. In the present case. A) (6. Analogously to the uniaxial case. Φ. (6. ˙ For convenience.2.50) is the generalised hardening modulus which deﬁnes the evolution of the hardening variables. (6.e. 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.52) (6. ˙ ˙ (6.49) and (6. Extension of this concept to the three-dimensional case is obtained by stating that plastic ﬂow may occur only when Φ(σ.4. ˙ where the tensor N = N(σ.45) where the scalar yield function. The following plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law are then postulated ˙ εp = γ N ˙ ˙ α = γ H.3. i.51) (6. the variables associated with the dissipative phenomena.47) The yield locus. . A) = 0. is the boundary of the elastic domain. where Φ(σ. A) ≤ 0}.150 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. We then deﬁne the set of plastically admissible stresses (or plastically admissible domain) as ¯ E = {σ | Φ(σ. The yield locus in this case is represented by a hypersurface in the space of stresses.3. the general plasticity model resulting from the above equations is listed in Box 6. (6.48) 6.

55) (6. A) ˙ ˙ α = γ H(σ. N. is required to be a non-negative convex function of both σ and A and zero-valued at the origin.5. A) from which the ﬂow vector. A) 5. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ ∂ψ . then we have in addition ∂Ψ H≡− .54) If the hardening law is assumed to be derived from the same potential. ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) ψ = ψ(εe . FLOW RULES DERIVED FROM A FLOW POTENTIAL In the formulation of multidimensional plasticity models. A) ˙ 6. A general elastoplastic constitutive model. Ψ(0. ∂σ (6. it is often convenient to deﬁne the ﬂow rule (and possibly the hardening law) in terms of a ﬂow (or plastic) potential. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp or 2. 0) = 0. (6. γ ≥ 0. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. (6. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = γ N(σ. Yield function Φ = Φ(σ. is obtained as N≡ ∂Ψ .2. ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α 6.3.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 151 Box 6. the plastic potential. The starting point of such an approach is to postulate the existence of a ﬂow potential with general form Ψ = Ψ(σ. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. Ψ.56) ∂A When such an approach is adopted. Free-energy function ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp .57) . 1.

Φ.49) and (6.60) (6.63) Finally.50). together with the deﬁnition of A in terms of the free-energy potential (refer to expression (6.7. Associative ﬂow rule As we shall see later.50).59) under plastic yielding (when γ = 0). allow us to write (6. ∂Φ/∂σ : D : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ e (6. Following ˙ the same arguments employed in Section 6.41) is satisﬁed a priori by the evolution equations (6. we promptly ﬁnd the obvious rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De : (ε − εp ) = De : (ε − γ N ). THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER Here we extend to the multidimensional case the procedure for the determination of the plastic multiplier.5.58) Such models are called associative (or associated) plasticity models.2. = ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 (6. as a ﬂow potential.62) This. particularly for ductile metals.60) lead to the following closed formula for the plastic multiplier γ= ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε .e.152 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS These restrictions ensure that the dissipation inequality (6.39)) and the evolution law (6. many plasticity models.1. The issue of associativity will be further discussed in Section 6.7 for the one-dimensional plasticity model.2. the starting point in the determination of γ is ˙ the consideration of the additional complementarity equation ˙ ˙ Φ γ = 0. ˙ (6.64) .6. Φ= ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 2 p ∂ ψ ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ : De : (ε − γ N ) + γ ∗ρ ¯ ˙ ˙ ∗ H. the above expression and the consistency condition (6. which implies the consistency condition ˙ Φ=0 (6. i.3. 6.61) equivalently as ∂ 2 ψp ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ : De : (ε − εp ) + ∗ρ ¯ ∗ α. γ. (6. By differentiating the yield function with respect to time.61) ∂σ ∂A By taking into account the additive split of the strain tensor. described in Section 6. the elastic law and the plastic ﬂow rule (6.49). have their yield function. ˙ we obtain ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ= :σ+ ∗ A. (6. Ψ ≡ Φ.

However.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 153 6.9. Remark 6. Readers not yet familiar with this concept are advised to read through Section 6. since the theory of elasto-viscoplasticity is introduced only in Chapter 11.3. where Dep is the elastoplastic tangent modulus given by Dep = De − (De : N) ⊗ (De : ∂Φ/∂σ) . introduced below in Section 6.9.87).67) (6.65) Under plastic ﬂow.7.9 before moving to Section 11. In the computational plasticity literature. starting page 71.5. is fundamental to the demonstration. the rate constitutive equation for stress reads simply ˙ ˙ σ = De : ε.3. that the concept of subdifferential. the ﬂow vector.3.64) into (6. NON-SMOOTH POTENTIALS AND THE SUBDIFFERENTIAL It should be noted that expressions (6. though.4. 6. (6.3. can be interpreted as a vector .3. page 29) of the elasticity tensor implies ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε = De : ∂Φ/∂σ : ε. For models with non-associative plastic ﬂow. i.1 (The symmetry of Dep ). then the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator is symmetric.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. Dep is frequently referred to as the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator. (6. we ﬁnd it convenient to carry on focusing on rate-independent plasticity and postpone the demonstration until that chapter.2.56) only make sense if the potential Ψ is differentiable.8. starting on page 452. When that happens.62).55) and (6. 6. Note that if the plastic ﬂow rule is associative. Dep is generally unsymmetric.3. We remark. Those wishing to see now the link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive theory are referred to Section 11. if N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ. The rate equation reads ˙ ˙ σ = Dep : ε. RATE FORM AND THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT OPERATOR In the elastic regime. the corresponding rate relation can be obtained by introducing expression (6. N. 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).e.3.4.66) In obtaining the above expression. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY At this point. ∂Φ/∂σ : De : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ (6. we have made use of the fact that the symmetry (refer to equation (2. 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.

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

. N2 . the isosurfaces of Ψ in the space of stresses contain a singularity (corner) where the normal direction is not uniquely deﬁned. are assumed to exist. (6. denoted ∂σ Ψ. it should be remarked that differentiability of Ψ with respect to the stress tensor is violated for some very basic plasticity models. Therefore. any subgradient of Ψ can be written as a linear combination c1 N1 + c2 N2 + · · · + cn Nn . Plastic ﬂow with subdifferentiable ﬂow potentials Assume now that the (pseudo-) potential Ψ is a subdifferentiable function of σ and A. A typical situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6.e. . The subdifferential of a convex function.71) i. Analogously.72) At this point. 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. the ﬂow vector N is now assumed to be a subgradient of Ψ. is obtained as follows. n. . The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow rule (6. is the set of vectors contained in the cone deﬁned by all linear combinations (with positive coefﬁcients) of N1 and N2 . N1 and N2 . such as the Tresca. of distinct normals (N1 .6. Firstly assume that a ﬁnite number. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager theories to be seen later. Nn ) is deﬁned at a generic singular point of an isosurface of Ψ.55) for the ﬂow vector with N ∈ ∂σ Ψ.56) by H ∈ −∂A Ψ. the subdifferential of Ψ with respect to σ. (6.50) for α can be generalised with the replacement of the deﬁnition (6. which incorporates a wide class of models. In this case. the concepts of subgradient and subdifferential sets introduced above are important in the formulation of evolution laws for εp . . . At points where Ψ is non-differentiable in σ. An alternative deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow rule with non-smooth potentials.49) is obtained by replacing expression (6.7 where two distinct normals. In this case.

cn . . . ‡ 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 . c2 . .73) with all n plastic multipliers required to be non-negative γi ≥ 0. i = 1.156 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the subdifferential set of at p N1 N2 isosurfaces of A Figure 6. In a generic multisurface model.74) The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow law. A) = 0 for at least one i and Φj (σ. i = 1. was originally proposed by Koiter (1953). A) < 0.‡ Based on this observation. is the set of all stresses such that Φi (σ.49) can be generalised as n ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i . n yield functions (Φi . . the boundary of E. in this format. Multisurface models The above concepts are particularly useful in deﬁning evolution laws for multisurface plasticity models. . . . . .7. . . n}.e.76) and the yield surface. (6. . Non-smooth potential. . In this case. A) ≤ 0 for all other indices j = i. . . The elastic domain in this case reads E = {σ | Φi (σ. n) are deﬁned so that each bounding surface is given by an equation (6.75) Φi (σ. The ﬂow vector. (6. n. ˙ i = 1. ˙ (6. i. . A) = 0. the ﬂow rule (6. the elastic domain is bound by a set of n surfaces in the space of stresses which intersect in a non-smooth fashion.

σ2 . There. . namely. the plastic ﬂow rule can be written in the general form (6. 6. σmin = min(σ1 .79) where σi are the principal stresses and ei the associated unit eigenvectors. . respectively. Φi γi = 0.4. without reference to any particular criteria. τmax .81) (6. 3 σ= i=1 σi ei ⊗ ei . σ2 . γi ≥ 0.1. is recovered. ˙ ˙ (6.4.73) with the normals being deﬁned here as ∂Φi . the standard loading/unloading criterion (6. The maximum shear stress. α.77) Ni = ∂σ In the present case. the yield criterion has been stated in its general form. where the subgradient of the ﬂow potential is a linear combination of a ﬁnite number of normals. von Mises. The shear yield stress is the yield limit under a state of pure shear.82) where τy is the shear yield stress. the situation discussed previously.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 157 Assuming associativity (Ψ ≡ Φ). . and let σmax and σmin be. 6. here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. .80) According to the Tresca criterion. σ3 ). n. (6. Recall the spectral representation of the stress tensor.78) which must hold for each i = 1. In this section. the maximum and minimum principal stresses σmax = max(σ1 . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager. Thus. (6.53) is replaced by the generalisation Φi ≤ 0. Classical yield criteria The general constitutive model for elastoplastic materials has been established in the previous section. the onset of plastic yielding is deﬁned by the condition 1 2 (σmax − σmin ) = τy (α). . 2 (6. the criteria of Tresca. (6. σ3 ). is given by τmax = 1 (σmax − σmin ). some of the most common yield criteria used in engineering practice are described in detail. THE TRESCA YIELD CRITERION This criterion was proposed by Tresca (1868) to describe plastic yielding in metals. The Tresca yield criterion assumes that plastic yielding begins when the maximum shear stress reaches a critical value. to be deﬁned later. Note that summation on repeated indices is not implied in the above law.

Isotropy One very important aspect of the Tresca criterion is its isotropy (a property shared by the von Mises.88) of the stress tensor does not affect yielding.1. The elastic domain for the Tresca criterion can be deﬁned as (6. σmin = 0. for these materials. p∗ . . the inﬂuence of the hydrostatic stress on yielding is usually negligible in practice. that is.4.84) where σy is the uniaxial yield stress σy = 2 τy . for the deﬁnition of isotropic scalar functions of a symmetric tensor). σy ) < 0}.87) E = {σ | Φ(σ. (6. 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. This property is particularly relevant in the modelling of metals as.85).83) Φ(σ) = 1 (σmax − σmin ) − τy (α).82). Alternatively. At this point. it is the stress level at which plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. the Tresca yield function may be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = (σmax − σmin ) − σy (α). the Tresca yield function is an isotropic function of the stress tensor (refer to Section A.89) We remark that the von Mises criterion described in Section 6. the hydrostatic pressure component.85) that is. rotations of the state of stress do not affect the value of the yield function. note that the superposition of an arbitrary pressure. (6.158 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In view of (6.82) gives (6. Note that. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager criteria described in the following sections).84) is deﬁned as a function of the principal stresses. p≡ 1 3 tr[σ] = 1 3 (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 ). on the stress tensor does not affect the value of the Tresca yield function Φ(σ + p∗ I ) = Φ(σ). page 731. Indeed.2 below is also pressureinsensitive. (6. Pressure-insensitivity Due to its deﬁnition exclusively in terms of shear stress. (6. 2 with the onset of yielding characterised by Φ = 0. that is.e. i. it satisﬁes Φ(σ) = Φ(QσQT ) (6.86) The substitution of the above into (6.90) for all rotations Q.83) or (6. the Tresca criterion is pressure insensitive. the yield function associated with the Tresca yield criterion can be represented as (6. (6. we have σmax = σy . since Φ in (6. That σy is indeed the uniaxial yield stress for the Tresca theory can be established by noting that. when plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions.

This allows. it follows that any iso-surface (i. 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. (a) The π-plane in principal stress space and.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. . (a) 3 (b) 3 ti sta dro hy axis c pla ne von Mises 0 2 Tresca 1 1 2 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.9. (b) the π-plane representation of the Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces. σ3 − √3 p Tresca von Mises σ2 σ1 Figure 6. the yield surface (refer to expression (6. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.8.e. in particular.48).

the set of stresses for which Φ = 0. the Tresca yield surface. deﬁned by J2 ≡ −I2 (s) = 1 2 (6. It is graphically illustrated in Figure 6. σy ) = σ3 − σ2 − σy Φ6 (σ. The yield surface – the boundary of E – is deﬁned in this case as the set of stresses for which Φi (σ.91) Deﬁnitions (6.10). .160 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In principal stress space.8. Due to the assumed insensitivity to pressure. In the multisurface representation. where J2 = J2 (s) is the invariant of the stress deviator. proposed by Nayak and Zienkiewicz (1972) (see also Owen and Hinton 1980. σy ) = 0 for at least one i with Φj (σ. so that.87) and (6. σy ) = σ1 − σ2 − σy . (6. Figure 6.95) . deﬁned by σ1 = σ2 = σ3 . 6 (Figure 6.92) corresponds to a plane in the space of principal stresses for each i = 1. Invariant representation Alternatively to the representations discussed above. it is also possible to describe the yield locus of the Tresca criterion in terms of stress invariants. σy ) = σ2 − σ3 − σy Φ3 (σ. Multisurface representation Equivalently to the above representation.e. The Tresca yield surface may be represented. σy ) ≤ 0 for j = i. the elastic domain for a given σy can be deﬁned as E = {σ | Φi (σ. and Crisﬁeld 1997). . σy ) = 0 (6. i = 1. the yield function assumes the format Φ = 2 J2 cos θ − σy . is graphically represented by the surface of an inﬁnite hexagonal prism with axis coinciding with the hydrostatic line (also known as the space diagonal). i. . σy ) < 0.9(a). σy ) = σ2 − σ1 − σy Φ4 (σ. .93) are completely equivalent. This subspace is called the deviatoric plane. the equation Φi (σ. s.94) tr[s2 ] = 1 2 s:s= 1 2 s 2. 6}. . also referred to as the π-plane. σy ) = σ3 − σ1 − σy Φ5 (σ. by its projection on the subspace of stresses with zero hydrostatic pressure component (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 0). for ﬁxed σy . In the invariant representation. a further simpliﬁcation in the representation of the yield surface is possible in this case.9(b) shows the π-plane projection of the Tresca yield surface. . The elastic domain (for which Φ < 0) corresponds to the interior of the prism. . the Tresca yield criterion can be expressed by means of the following six yield functions Φ1 (σ. σy ) = σ1 − σ3 − σy Φ2 (σ. (6. This is illustrated in Figure 6.93) (6. . without loss of generality.

Recall that the stress deviator is given by s ≡ σ − 1 (trσ)I. 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 8.96) (6. (6. The Tresca criterion.73) (page 27) for i = 1. between s and the nearest pure shear line (a pure shear line is graphically represented in Figure 6. Multisurface representation in principal stress space.98) The Lode angle is the angle.11). is a function of the deviatoric stress deﬁned as √ −3 3 J3 . 3 The Lode angle. It satisﬁes π π (6. on the other hand. θ ≡ 1 sin−1 3 3 2J22 where J3 is the third principal invariant of stress deviator§ J3 ≡ I3 (s) ≡ det s = 1 3 (6.10.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY Φ1 = 0 Φ2 = 0 σ1 Φ6 = 0 Φ5 = 0 Φ4 = 0 161 Φ3 = 0 σ3 σ2 Figure 6. § The equivalence between the two rightmost terms in (6. i . The multisurface representation. the above invariant representation results in rather cumbersome algorithms for integration of the evolution equations of the Tresca model. This is essentially due to the high degree of nonlinearity introduced by the trigonometric function involved in the deﬁnition of the Lode angle.99) − ≤θ≤ . 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.98) is established by summing the characteristic equation (2. on the deviatoric plane. 2. 6 6 Despite being used often in computational plasticity.97) tr(s)3 . θ.

This condition is mathematically represented by the equation (6.107) [σ] = 0 0 0. G It should be noted that. the von Mises criterion is also pressure-insensitive. The physical interpretation of the von Mises criterion is given in the following. i.e. this criterion was proposed by von Mises (1913).105) R is the shear yield stress. Since the elastic behaviour of the materials described in this chapter is assumed to be linear elastic. to be deﬁned later. a state with stress tensor 0 τ 0 (6.2. 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 VON MISES YIELD CRITERION Also appropriate to describe plastic yielding in metals.103) K where G and K are. Thus. According to the von Mises criterion. a yield function for the von Mises criterion can be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = where τy ≡ √ J2 (s(σ)) − τy . where R is the critical value. as in the Tresca criterion. 2G G (6.102). (6. here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. ρ ψd = ¯ e and a volumetric contribution. 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. the von Mises criterion is equivalent to stating that plastic yielding begins when the distortional elastic strain-energy reaches a critical value. The corresponding critical value of the distortional energy is 1 R. respectively. Thus. 0 0 0 . the shear and bulk modulus.106) (6. α.4. (6.100) J2 = R(α). Let us now consider a state of uniaxial stress: σ 0 0 (6. 0 0 0 ρ ψv = ¯ e we have. s = σ and J2 = τ 2 .162 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6.102) 1 2 p .104) [σ] = τ 0 0. plastic yielding begins when the J2 stress deviator invariant reaches a critical value. In view of (6.101) of a distortional contribution. 1 1 s : s = J2 . In a state of pure shear.

in the space of principal stresses. experimentally determined yield surfaces fall between the von Mises and Tresca surfaces. The yield surfaces for the von Mises and Tresca criteria set to coincide in shear is shown in Figure 6. √ then. for many metals. under pure shear. 6. In this case. The corresponding π-plane representation is shown in Figure 6. 3 (6.110) so that both predict the same uniaxial yield stress σy . in addition.8 where it has been set to match the Tresca surface (shown in the same ﬁgure) under uniaxial stress. The yield surface (Φ = 0) associated with the von Mises criterion is represented. if both criteria are made to coincide under pure shear (expressions (6.106) with the same τy ). by the surface of an inﬁnite circular cylinder. For materials such as soils.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 163 (6. (6. The von Mises and Tresca criteria may be set to agree with one another in either uniaxial stress or pure shear states.108) In this case. the von Mises criterion will predict yielding at a stress level 3/2 (≈ 0.4.84) and (6.155) times that given by the Tresca criterion. then. we have 2 [s] = 0 0 and 3σ 0 −1σ 3 0 0 −1σ 3 0 J2 = 1 σ 2 . If they are set by using the yield functions (6. (6. the axis of which coincides with the hydrostatic axis. Obviously.11. THE MOHR–COULOMB YIELD CRITERION The criteria presented so far are pressure-insensitive and adequate to describe metals.110) √ where σy ≡ 3R is the uniaxial yield stress and q(σ) ≡ 3 J2 (s(σ)) (6. whose behaviour is generally characterised by .112) Note that this relation differs from that of the Tresca criterion given by (6. rocks and concrete. A more general model. the von Mises circle is tangent to the sides of the Tresca hexagon.83) and (6.85). which includes both the Tresca and the von Mises yield surfaces as particular cases (and.9(b).3. The uniaxial and shear yield stresses for the von Mises criterion are related by √ σy = 3 τy . The von Mises surface is illustrated in Figure 6. The von Mises circle intersects the vertices of the Tresca hexagon.3. the von Mises √ criterion will predict a yield stress 2/ 3 (≈ 1. It is remarked that. due to its deﬁnition in terms of an invariant of the stress tensor. On the other hand. is described in Section 10. allows for anisotropy of the yield surface).109) The above expression for the J2 -invariant suggests the following alternative deﬁnition of the von Mises yield function: Φ(σ) = q(σ) − σy .4 (starting page 427). in uniaxial stress states. the von Mises yield function is an isotropic function of σ.111) is termed the von Mises effective or equivalent stress.866) times the level predicted by Tresca’s law.

essentially.113) where c is the cohesion and φ is the angle of internal friction or frictional angle. The elastic domain for the Mohr–Coulomb law is the set of stresses whose all three Mohr circles are below the critical line.114) In view of (6. i. (6. rearranged. (6. 2 2 (6. Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coinciding in pure shear. It is the set of all stresses whose largest Mohr circle. The yield locus of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the set of all stress states such that there exists a plane in which (6. respectively). the circle associated with the maximum and minimum principal stresses (σmax and σmin .e. gives (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ = 2 c cos φ. reach the critical combination τ = c − σn tan φ. is tangent to the critical line deﬁned by τ = c − σn tanφ. was assumed tensile positive. the result of frictional sliding between material particles. σn . the normal stress. In the above. appropriate description of plastic yielding requires the introduction of pressure-sensitivity. a yield function expressed in terms of the principal stresses can be immediately deﬁned for the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as Φ(σ.12. A classical example of a pressure-sensitive law is given by the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion described in the following. The Mohr–Coulomb yield locus can be easily visualised in the Mohr plane representation shown in Figure 6. c) = (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ. this criterion states that plastic yielding begins when. (6. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is based on the assumption that the phenomenon of macroscopic plastic yielding is.12.113) holds.11.116) . From Figure 6.115) σmax + σmin σmax − σmin + sin φ tan φ. on a plane in the body. the yield condition (6. Generalising Coulomb’s friction law. σn .115).113) is found to be equivalent to the following form in terms of principal stresses σmax − σmin cos φ = c − 2 which. the shearing stress.164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 sh ea r Tresca 30o von Mises pu re 1 2 Figure 6. τ . and the normal stress. a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure.

whose roots. c) = σ3 − σ1 + (σ3 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ5 (σ. Multisurface representation Analogously to the multisurface representation of the Tresca criterion. Φi (σ. It should be noted. c) = σ3 − σ2 + (σ3 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ6 (σ. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion. Mohr plane representation. Due to its deﬁnition in terms of principal stresses. c) = σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ3 (σ.118) . c) = σ2 − σ1 + (σ2 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ4 (σ. c) = σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ2 (σ.13.13. Each plane contains one face of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid represented in Figure 6.e. the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can also be expressed by means of six functions: Φ1 (σ. c) = 0 (for ﬁxed c). Limited strength under tensile pressure is a typical characteristic of materials such as concrete. i. however.12. Its pyramidal shape. As no stress state is allowed on the outside of the yield surface. rock and soils. the apex of the pyramid (point A in the ﬁgure) deﬁnes the limit of resistance of the material to tensile pressures. The Mohr–Coulomb surface is illustrated in Figure 6. 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. when φ = 0.117) on the tensile side of the hydrostatic axis. to which the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is most applicable. is a consequence of the pressure-sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. c) = σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 165 c n tan (critical line) c min int max 0 c cot n max − min Figure 6. deﬁne six planes in the principal stress space. that both criteria coincide in the absence of internal friction. as opposed to the prismatic shape of the Tresca surface. this yield function is an isotropic function of σ.

The Drucker–Prager cone is illustrated in Figure 6.166 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS − σ3 Φ=0 √3 p √3 cc ot φ A − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. 6. THE DRUCKER–PRAGER YIELD CRITERION This criterion has been proposed by Drucker and Prager (1952) as a smooth approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law.97). is deﬁned in (6. Represented in the principal stress space.94) of the Tresca criterion. The Drucker–Prager criterion states that plastic yielding begins when the J2 invariant of the deviatoric stress and the hydrostatic stress. The deﬁnition of the elastic domain and the yield surface in the multisurface representation is completely analogous to that of the Tresca criterion. and Crisﬁeld 1997): 1 Φ = cos θ − √ sin θ sin φ 3 J2 (s) + p(σ) sin φ − c cos φ. in spite of its frequent use in computational plasticity.119) where the Lode angle. reach a critical combination. As for the Tresca model. where η and c are material parameters. θ. (6. The Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space. 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. ¯ (6.4.4. It consists of a modiﬁcation of the von Mises criterion in which an extra term is included to introduce pressure-sensitivity. . the Mohr–Coulomb yield function can be expressed as (Owen and Hinton 1980. For η = 0. ¯ the yield locus of this criterion is a circular cone whose axis is the hydrostatic line. Invariant representation Analogously to the invariant representation (6. p.13. The onset of plastic yielding occurs when the equation J2 (s) + η p = c.120) is satisﬁed.14. the von Mises cylinder is recovered.

ξ= √ . c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c. (6. The outer edge approximation matches the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial compression and biaxial tension. respectively. η= √ 3 (3 + sin φ) 6 cos φ ξ= √ . Coincidence at the outer edges is obtained when 6 sin φ 6 cos φ η= √ . 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). (6. In this case (the reader is referred to Section 4.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 167 √3 p − σ3 Φ=0 − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. The inner cone matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in uniaxial tension and biaxial compression. The Drucker–Prager yield surface in principal stress space. as the compression cone and the extension cone.15. The π-plane section of both surfaces is shown in Figure 6.122) 3 (3 − sin φ) 3 (3 − sin φ) whereas. 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.14. 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. 3 (3 + sin φ) (6. it is convenient to deﬁne the Drucker–Prager yield function as Φ(σ. In order to approximate the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface.123) The outer and inner cones are known. 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.7 of Chen and Mizuno (1990) for .

Chen and Mizuno (1990) and Zienkiewicz et al. (6.124) For all three sets of parameters above. fc . which can be assumed in the analysis of structures such as concrete walls. is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . Under such a condition. then the above approximation will largely overestimate the limit load. ASSOCIATIVE AND NON-ASSOCIATIVE PLASTICITY It has already been said that a plasticity model is classed as associative if the yield function. where the Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the Mohr–Coulomb surface in biaxial tension (point fbt ) and biaxial compression (point fbc ). 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. (1978).5. For the Mohr–Coulomb criterion to ﬁt a given uniaxial tensile strength. However. 3 (6. Ψ = Φ. uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive stress states. fc − ft (6.126) Its apex no longer coincides with the apex of the original Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. (6.127) Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion are thoroughly discussed by Chen (1982).128) .125) The corresponding Drucker–Prager cone (Figure 6. if for a particular problem. it may be convenient to use an approximation such that both criteria match under. the parameters φ and c have to be chosen as φ = sin−1 fc − ft . Thus. according to the dominant stress state in a particular problem to be analysed. other approximations may be more appropriate.5. failure occurs under biaxial compression instead (with stresses near point fbc of Figure 6. is taken as the ﬂow potential.1. under plane stress. a different approximation (such as the inner cone that matches point fbc ) needs to be adopted to produce sensible predictions. say. particularly for high ratios fc /ft which are typical for concrete. the above approximation should produce reasonable results. 3 (6.16) that predicts the same uniaxial failure loads is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . ft . Φ. ξ= 3 9 + 12 tan2 φ . 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . Plastic ﬂow rules 6. the apex of the approximating Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the apex of the corresponding Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. Another useful approximation for plane stress. i.168 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS derivation) the constants η and ξ read η= 3 tan φ 9 + 12 tan φ 2 .e. and a given uniaxial compressive strength. For instance. 6. fc + ft c= fc ft tan φ. 2 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ .16). For problems where the failure mechanism is indeed dominated by uniaxial tension/compression.

Plane stress.15.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. Drucker–Prager approximation matching the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression. .16. σ2 ft’ fc’ Mohr–Coulomb ’ fbt ft’ σ1 ’ fbc Drucker–Prager biaxial fit Drucker–Prager uniaxial fit fc’ Figure 6. The π-plane section of the Mohr–Coulomb surface and the Drucker–Prager approximations.

(6.134) The Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions (Luenberger. α).130) and the loading/unloading conditions Φ(σ. A)γ = 0.170 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Any other choice of ﬂow potential characterises a non-associative (or non-associated) plasticity model. A. i. the evolution equations for the plastic strain and hardening variables are given by ∂Φ ˙ . The principle of maximum plastic dissipation requires ˙ ˙ that. for given (εp . the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of the yield function. A) ≤ 0. A∗ ) ∈ A. A) ≤ 0} (6.133) In other words. the admissible stress states are those that satisfy Φ(σ. A) of stress and hardening force is a solution to the following constrained optimisation problem: ˙ ˙ maximise Υp (σ∗ . (6. the actual state (σ.5. A∗ ) ≤ 0. γ ≥ 0. we have ˙ εp = γN . The principle of maximum dissipation postulates that among all admissible pairs (σ∗ .131) In non-associative models.2. εp . the plastic strain rate is not normal to the yield surface in general. the associative hardening rule (6. 1973. εp .e. εp . recall that for a state deﬁned by a hardening force A. In the generalised case of non-smooth yield surfaces. α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ . (6. 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.130) ∂A Associativity implies that the plastic strain rate is a tensor normal to the yield surface in the space of stresses. In associative models.129). (6. A∗ ) ∈ A. A∗ . the actual ˙ state (σ. A) ≤ 0. ˙ (6. Chapter 10) for this optimisation problem are precisely the associative plastic ﬂow rule (6. (6.129) εp = γ ˙ ∂σ and ∂Φ ˙ α = −γ ˙ . α). A) maximises the dissipation function (6.132) as the set of all admissible pairs (combinations) of stress and hardening force. Before stating the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. Thus. A) | Φ(σ. it makes sense to deﬁne A = {(σ. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. 6. A∗ .135) . ˙ Φ(σ. ∀ (σ∗ . α) subject to Φ(σ∗ . εp . and ˙ rate α of hardening internal variables. ˙ N ∈ ∂σ Φ.42) for a given plastic strain rate.

84) as the ﬂow potential. are not universal. 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). Since Φ here is also an isotropic function of σ. and the corresponding associative laws. simply. Associative Tresca The associative Tresca ﬂow rule utilises the yield function (6. 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.138) where N is a subgradient of the Tresca function N ∈ ∂σ Φ. the plastic ﬂow vector is deviatoric. Its principal stress representation is depicted in Figure 6.2. Based on physical considerations. for many materials. ||s|| 3 2 s . the Tresca associative plastic ﬂow rule is generally expressed as ˙ εp = γN. 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.136) (6. In such cases. ˙ (6. the von Mises model. 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. associative laws frequently do not correspond to experimental evidence.5. page 732.110) as the ﬂow potential. Thus (refer to Section A.140) .17. the maximum dissipation postulate is clearly not applicable and the use of non-associative laws is essential.e. Nevertheless. the rate of plastic strain has the same principal directions as σ. Hence.137) Here.139) ˙ εp = i=1 γiN i = ˙ i=1 γi ˙ ∂Φi . ||s|| (6. Due to the pressure-insensitivity of the von Mises yield function. Its multisurface-based representation reads 6 6 (6. i. the principal directions of N coincide with those of σ.3. 6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 171 Remark 6.1. maximum dissipation has been shown to hold in crystal plasticity and is particularly successful when applied to the description of metals.2. ∂σ (6. The postulate of maximum plastic dissipation. 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 . N and σ are coaxial. where the derivative of isotropic functions of this type is discussed). particularly soils and granular materials in general.

Thus. only one multiplier may be non-zero and the plastic ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ N a . with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6. two multipliers may be non-zero. 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. L (Φ1 = 0. Φ2 < 0 and Φ6 < 0).141) where the ﬂow vector is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0. Each vector N i is normal to the plane deﬁned by Φi = 0.18.27) of page 736 for the derivative of an eigenvalue of a symmetric tensor. given by Na ≡N1 = ∂ ∂Φ1 = (σ1 − σ3 ) ∂σ ∂σ = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 .142). The above ﬂow rule can be alternatively expressed as follows. Φ6 = 0 and Φ2 < 0). where two planes intersect. use has been made of the expression (A. so that the discussion can be concentrated on the sextant of the π-plane illustrated in Figure 6. without loss of generality. the plastic ﬂow equation is ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . Firstly assume. When the stress is on the side of the hexagon. Φ2 = 0 and Φ6 < 0). (b) yielding from the right corner.142) with ei denoting the eigenvector of σ associated with the principal stress σi . ˙ (6. (6.17.143) . that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . At the right and left corners of the hexagon.91). and (c) Yielding from the left corner. R (Φ1 = 0.172 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS N σ √3 p σ3 σ2 σ1 Figure 6. In deriving the last right-hand side of (6. ˙ ˙ (6.

The situation is identical to Tresca’s (Figure 6. is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . note that. Plastic yielding may then take place from a face. (6. as for the Prandtl–Reuss rule.142) as N b ≡ N 6 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 . Indeed. without loss of generality.146) . is derived in a manner analogous to the Tresca law described above.18. Its multisurface representation is based on the yield functions (6. The associative Tresca ﬂow rule.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 6.116) 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 6.145) It should be noted that.19.18) except that (6. The vector N a is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0. already deﬁned. N b . However.13). it is convenient to assume that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 so that. the plastic ﬂow predicted by the associative Tresca law is volume-preserving. In the right corner (repeated minimum principal stress). N b . it should be noted that in addition to the edge singularities. The ﬂow rule.118). from an edge or from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is obtained analogously to (6. which requires consideration of the intersections between the yield surfaces. in the above. in the derivation of the ﬂow rules at faces and edges. we have trivially tr N a = tr N b = 0. the Mohr–Coulomb yield function (6. the present surface has an extra singularity in its apex (Figure 6. Associative and non-associative Mohr–Coulomb In the associative Mohr–Coulomb law. This is due to the pressure-insensitivity of the Tresca yield function. Again.144) In the left corner (repeated maximum principal stress). (6. the second vector.

˙ where N a is normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.174 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. N b . For plastic yielding from the face. and (b) apex. the tensor N b is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. therefore.148) At the corners. six normals are deﬁned and up to six plastic multipliers may be non-zero.147) (6.152) .19(b).151) At the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb surface.150) whereas. the ﬂow rule is given by ˙ εp = γ N a . (6. Na = ∂ ∂Φ1 = [σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ] ∂σ ∂σ = (1 + sin φ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ)e3 ⊗ e3 . (6. (a) faces and edges. at the left (compression) corner. L.e. the normal vectors N a and N b are no longer deviatoric. N b = (1 + sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 − (1 − sin φ) e3 ⊗ e3 . This situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6. is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is given by N b = (1 + sin φ) e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 .19.19 are deviatoric projections of the actual normals). The Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. R. they have a non-zero component along the hydrostatic axis (the vectors shown 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. the above ﬂow rule is replaced by ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . all six planes intersect and. i. (6. ˙ (6.149) At the right (extension) corner. the second vector.

one should note ﬁrst that the Drucker– Prager function is singular at the apex of the yield surface and is smooth anywhere else. Associative and non-associative Drucker–Prager The associative Drucker–Prager model employs as ﬂow potential the yield function deﬁned by (6. the ﬂow vector is obtained by simply differentiating (6. and (b) plastic yielding at the apex.121) which gives (Figure 6. To overcome this problem.154) εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 2 sin φ ˙v ˙ 1 ˙2 ˙3 i=1 γi. therefore.155) As all γ i ’s are non-negative. the plastic ﬂow becomes purely deviatoric and the ﬂow rule reduces to the associative Tresca law. This gives 1 γ ˙ p γ 2 ˙ ε1 ˙ α 0 β β 0 α 3 γ ˙ p ˙ (6. The phenomenon of dilatancy during plastic ﬂow is observed for many materials. the volumetric plastic strain rate is positive and.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 175 It is important to note that.152) in principal stress space taking into account the deﬁnitions of Ni . it is necessary to use a nonassociated ﬂow rule in conjunction with the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. 3 J2 (s) (6. (6. particularly geomaterials. a Mohr–Coulomb yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a different (smaller) angle ψ. due to the pressure sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. where the Drucker–Prager yield function is differentiable.20(a)) N= 1 η s + I. To derive the corresponding ﬂow rule. However. At the cone surface. as ﬂow potential. The non-associated Mohr–Coulomb law adopts. two situations need to be considered: (a) plastic yielding at (smooth portion of) the cone surface. ˙ dilatant. This is in contrast to the Prandtl–Reuss and associative Tresca laws.121). The volumetric component of the plastic strain rate in the associative Mohr–Coulomb law can be obtained by expanding (6. Note that for ψ = 0. γ ˙ p β β 0 α α 0 5 ε3 ˙ γ ˙ γ6 ˙ where α ≡ 1 + sin φ. the associative Mohr–Coulomb rule predicts a non-zero volumetric plastic straining.153) ε2 = 0 α α 0 β β 4 . the dilatancy predicted by the associative Mohr– Coulomb law is often excessive. ˙ (6. 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.156) 2 . Thus.

(6.176 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (a) Prandtl Reuss associative Drucker Prager p (b) 3 2 1 Figure 6.20(b).160) result in the following rate of (dilatant) volumetric plastic strain for the associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule: εp = γ η. (a) cone surface. and (b) apex.157) At the apex singularity.161) This expression is analogous to (6. Expressions (6. 1998) it can be established that the deviatoric/volumetric split of N in this case is given by Nd ∈ ∂σ Φd . (6.157). Nv = η.122)1.123)1 or (6.124)1.121): (6. a Drucker–Prager yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a dilatancy angle .158) (6. It lies within the complementary cone to the Drucker–Prager yield surface. Similarly to the associative Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule.160) where Φd ≡ J2 (s). 1970. ˙ The deviatoric/volumetric decomposition of the Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector gives Nd = 1 2 J2 (s) s.158) and (6. i. as the ﬂow potential. Nv = η. according to the chosen approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb surface. The ﬂow rule is then ˙ εp = γ N. the cone whose wall is normal to the Drucker–Prager cone illustrated in Figure 6.155). (6. From standard properties of subdifferentials (Rockafellar. the ﬂow vector is an element of the subdifferential of the yield function (6.159) N ∈ ∂σ Φ. Rockafellar and Wets. where η is given by (6. (6. The Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector.e. the often excessive dilatancy predicted by the associated rule in the present case is avoided by using a non-associated law. The non-associative Drucker–Prager law is obtained by adopting.20. ˙v ˙ (6.

124)1. for the plane strain match.164) The non-associated Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector differs from its associated counterpart only in the volumetric component which. E ep . the yield stress level does not depend in any way on the degree of plastiﬁcation. for the non-associated case.6.163) 3 (3 − sin ψ) when the outer cone approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is employed.166) If the dilatancy angle of the non-associative potential is chosen as ψ = 0. the yield surface remains ﬁxed regardless of any deformation process the material may experience and. 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. Tresca.123)1 ¯ or (6.1. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p. hardening is characterised by a dependence of yield stress level upon the history of plastic straining to which the body has been subjected. These changes may.122)1. 3 (3 + sin ψ) whereas.2.1. Essentially.6. (6. perfect plasticity corresponds to a constant uniaxial yield stress. η= ¯ 3 tan ψ 9 + 12 tan2 ψ . Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb models described above. 6.165) (6.21 shows the stress– strain curve of a typical uniaxial cyclic (tension–compression) test with a perfectly plastic . In other words. (6. that is. during plastic yielding. (6. 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . 6. PERFECT PLASTICITY A material model is said to be perfectly plastic if no hardening is allowed. vanishes. In the two. hardening is represented by changes in the hardening thermodynamical force. we deﬁne Ψ(σ. A) = 0. ¯ (6.and three-dimensional situations. In this case. Figure 6. deﬁned by Φ(σ. 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . in general. formulated in Section 6. that is. then the volumetric component.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 177 ψ < φ. In the von Mises.20(a)). c). Nv . reads ¯ Nv = η .162) where η is obtained by replacing φ with ψ in the deﬁnition of η given by (6. σy (or constant cohesion. vanishes and the ﬂow rule reduces to the Prandtl–Reuss law that predicts volume-preserving plastic ﬂow (refer to Figure 6. A. in a uniaxial test. Hardening laws The phenomenon of hardening has been identiﬁed in the uniaxial experiment described in Section 6. affect the size. When the inner cone approximation is used. In the uniaxial model. the elastoplastic modulus. (6. shape and orientation of the yield surface.

For that model. ISOTROPIC HARDENING A plasticity model is said to be isotropic hardening if the evolution of the yield surface is such that. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. Two approaches.178 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 -plane ET y uniaxial cyclic test E 1 2 y fixed yield surface Figure 6. it corresponds to a uniform (isotropic) expansion of the initial yield surface. The uniaxial model described in Section 6. are particularly popular in the treatment of isotropic hardening and are suitable for modelling the behaviour of a wide range of materials. Strain hardening In this case the hardening internal state variable is some suitably chosen scalar measure of strain. at any state of hardening. the elastic domain expands equally in tension and compression during plastic ﬂow. the set α normally contains a single scalar variable. isotropic hardening corresponds to the increase in radius of the von Mises cylinder in principal stress space. 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. In metal plasticity. strain hardening and work hardening.2 is a typical example of an isotropic hardening model. This.21. In the constitutive description of isotropic hardening. 6. These are described below. also referred to as the . for instance. which determines the size of the yield surface.3) of hardening internal variables must be obviously dependent on the speciﬁc characteristics of the material considered.22.2. without translation. 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. The choice of a suitable set (denoted α in Section 6. von Mises model along with the corresponding π-plane representation of the yield surface. Perfect plasticity.6. together with a typical stress–strain curve for a uniaxial cyclic test for an isotropic hardening von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 6. A typical example is the von Mises effective plastic strain. For a multiaxial plasticity model with a von Mises yield surface.

E.167) The above deﬁnition generalises the accumulated axial plastic strain (6. (6. Its rate evolution equation reads ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 3 ˙ ||εp ||. (6.18) (page 145) of the one-dimensional model to the multiaxially strained case.2 and summarised in Box 6.170) This function deﬁnes the strain-hardening curve (or strain-hardening function) that can be obtained.1 (page 146).137). ¯ (6.169) Accordingly. equivalently. ˙ ˙ εp = γ. von Mises equivalent or accumulated plastic strain. 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. from a uniaxial tensile test. and hardening function σy = σy (¯p ). ε Clearly. Hence. in view of the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6. Isotropic hardening. ε (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 179 3 -plane uniaxial cyclic test initial surface 1 2 hardened surface Figure 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 ).22. we only need to show next that their behaviour under plastic yielding is also identical. the two models have identical uniaxial elastic behaviour and initial yield stress. This is demonstrated in the following. Let us assume that both models share the same Young’s modulus. for instance. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. . deﬁned as εp ≡ ¯ 0 t 2 3 t ˙ ˙ εp : εp dt = 0 2 3 ˙ ||εp || dt.168) or.

In the present case. ¯ (6. by taking the derivatives of the von Mises yield function (6.175) (6. [s] = 2 σ 0 − 1 2 3 1 0 0 −2 In this case. the variable deﬁning the state of hardening is the dissipated plastic work.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 . the term work hardening is reserved for plasticity models in which the dissipated plastic work is taken as the state variable associated with hardening.174) is the axial plastic strain rate. i. following the same arguments as in the one-dimensional case we ﬁnd that. In this text. Note that the above expression coincides with the onedimensional plastic ﬂow rule (6.170). Materials that harden. To conclude the demonstration. (6. are frequently referred to as work-hardening materials. . which must be satisﬁed under plastic ﬂow.177) ¶ The term work hardening is adopted by many authors as a synonym for the phenomenon of hardening in general.28) and. however. we combine (6.136) and H = H(¯p ) is the hardε ening modulus deﬁned in (6.10).172) to recover (6. we recall the consistency condition (6. 0 0 0 0 0 0 The corresponding stress deviator reads 1 0 0 0 . we obtain ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ = N : σ − H εp = 0. with σy deﬁned by (6. materials whose yield stress level depends on the history of strains.31) of the one-dimensional model. 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. (6.172) (6. under uniaxial stress conditions. the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6.110).e.176) which is identical to equation (6. then.136).60).137) gives 1 0 0 0 . Work hardening In work-hardening models.173) where N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ is the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector (6.171) ˙ [σ] = σ 0 0 0. deﬁned by t wp ≡ 0 ˙ σ : εp dt. the isotropic strain hardening von Mises model predicts the tangential axial stress–strain relation σ= ˙ EH ε. [σ] = σ 0 0 0. ˙ ˙ [εp ] = εp 0 − 1 2 1 0 0 −2 where ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ (6.27). ˙ E+H (6. Now.171)2 and (6.175) with (6.¶ wp .

(6.178).179) dwp = σy . ¯ ¯ (6. The remaining (shaded) area. is stored in the form of elastic energy and is fully recovered upon elastic unloading. In a uniaxial test.23). Part of this work. The plastic work.178) An isotropic work-hardening von Mises model is obtained by postulating σy = σy (wp ). for instance (Figure 6. together with the identity 3/2 s = σy valid for the von Mises model under plastic ﬂow. ˙ ¯ or. Equivalence between strain and work hardening Under some circumstances. ˙ (6. This is shown in the following for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule (6. its evolution equation is given by ˙ w p = σ : εp . the strain-hardening and work-hardening descriptions are equivalent. 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. wp . therefore.137). (6. invertible so that ¯ ε wp = wp (¯p ) and εp = εp (wp ).183) (6. This deﬁnes the work-hardening curve (or work-hardening function). we .181) d¯p ε As σy is strictly positive (σy > 0). is the plastic work.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 181 σ w = p+ w = wp + wee P p wp w w we e ε Figure 6. gives ˙ wp = σy εp .180) (6. The substitution of (6.137) into (6. From the deﬁnition of wp . It corresponds to the energy dissipated by the plastic mechanisms and cannot be recovered.23.182) . equivalently. the above differential relation implies that the mapping between wp and εp is one-to-one and.

That is. ψ p . (6. σy (¯p ) = σy (wp ) ≡ σy (¯p (wp )). a nonlinear hardening model). and H is called the linear isotropic hardening modulus.e.181) deﬁnes a nonlinear relation between wp and εp if σy is not a constant. if it can be expressed as σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H εp .3. the uniaxial yield stress at the initial (virgin) state of the material. This can be easily established by observing that (6. ε ∂ εp ¯ (6. ε ¯ (6.179) to be expressed as an equivalent strain-hardening function. ASSOCIATIVE ISOTROPIC HARDENING Within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables. ε ˜ ε (6. Any other hardening model is said to be nonlinear hardening.186) with constant σy 0 and H. the set α of hardening variables is deﬁned as α ≡ {¯p } ε and ε ψ p = ψ p (¯p ). κ. (6.184) and any given work-hardening function of the type (6.1) is obtained if we set H = 0 in (6.182 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This allows any given strain-hardening function of the type (6. ¯ 6. page 149) is a function of a single scalar argument – the accumulated plastic strain.184) and (6. ˆ ε ε σy (wp ) = σy (¯p ) ≡ σy (wp (¯p )). THERMODYNAMICAL ASPECTS.37).e.188) (6. The set of hardening thermodynamic forces in this case specialises as A ≡ {κ}.170) to be expressed as an equivalent work-hardening function. Linear and nonlinear hardening A model is said to be linear hardening if the strain-hardening function (6. i. Note that perfect plasticity (deﬁned in Section 6. The constant σy 0 is the initial yield stress.185) Expressions (6. to the free energy (recall expression (6.190) .189) (6.170) is linear.6.185) establish the equivalence between the strain and workhardening descriptions for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule. i. associated to isotropic hardening is deﬁned by κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p = κ(¯p ). the above isotropic strainhardening law corresponds to the assumption that the plastic contribution.187) where the scalar thermodynamic force.e. It should also be noted that a linear work-hardening function corresponds in general to an equivalent nonlinear strain-hardening function (i.186).6.

deﬁned respectively on the side (smooth portion) and corner of the Tresca yield surface. i. εp .197) εp = − γ a ¯ ∂κ ∂κ .169) for the internal variable. (6. Any other hardening rule is said to be non-associative. ¯ ˙ ˙ The associative generalised modulus H is given by H=− ∂Φ ∂Φ ≡− = 1.191).27). that relies on the choice of ¯ the yield function as the plastic potential. H(¯p ) ≡ ε ∂σy ∂κ = p. we have ˙ εp = γH = γ. ∂κ (6. p ∂ε ¯ ∂ε ¯ (6. The corresponding associative evolution equations that deﬁne the accumulated plastic strain εp are ¯ ∂Φ1 ˙ =γ ˙ (6.110).141) and (6.192) For the strain-hardening von Mises model the evolution law (6. The associative evolution equation for εp in this ¯ case is a specialisation of (6. represents the rate of change of the hardening thermodynamic force with respect to the hardening internal variable.196) ˙ εp = −γ ¯ ∂κ and ∂Φ1 ∂Φ6 ˙ − γb ˙ = γa + γb. is being deﬁned by evolution equa¯ tion (6.143).191) If the state of hardening is deﬁned in terms of cohesion (or shear yield stress).77) and (6. that is. Its actual physical meaning depends on the speciﬁc format of the functions Φi and is generally different from that of (6. c (or τy ) replaces σy in (6. Multisurface models with associative hardening Analogously to the associative plastic ﬂow rule deﬁnition (6.130).168) and (6.e. εp . A simple example of associative isotropic hardening law of the type (6. the accumulated plastic strain.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. Here.73). Note that the hardening modulus H. A hardening law deﬁned by means of the associativity hypothesis is called an associative hardening law. we refer to the plastic ﬂow equations (6. here.78).193) where Φ is the von Mises yield function (6.195).167) adopted for the von Mises model.195) Note that. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. ∂A ∂κ (6. initially deﬁned in (6.195) is obtained for the Tresca model. follows from the hypothesis of associativity.194) (6. 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 .

Drucker–Prager associative hardening Associative hardening for Drucker–Prager plasticity is obtained by combining assumption (6. then similarly to (6.200) When ﬂow takes place at the smooth portion of a Mohr–Coulomb pyramid face. where functions Φ1 and Φ6 are deﬁned by (6.203) for ﬂow from the smooth portions of the Tresca surface. For Mohr–Coulomb plasticity.201) At the corners (refer to the plastic ﬂow equation (6.204) for ﬂow from a corner.167) in conjunction. say. (6. In this case. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. the evolution equation for εp will result in ¯ ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 γ ˙ (6. ¯ (6. that takes part of the yield function (6. ¯ ˙ (6.202) Note that if it is insisted to adopt the von Mises accumulated plastic strain rate deﬁnition (6.141) to (6.91) with σy related to κ through (6.199) and the yield function deﬁnition (6.121) with the general associative evolution law (6. ε ε (6.199) and the internal variable εp – the accumulated plastic strain for associative Mohr–Coulomb ¯ hardening – is deﬁned by the corresponding particularisation of general evolution law (6.205) . This gives the general expression 6 ˙ εp = 2 cos φ ¯ i=1 γ i. the isotropic hardening law is non-associative in spite of the associativity of the plastic ﬂow rule.130) for the hardening internal variable. we have ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ).116) or (6.184 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS respectively.191). with the Tresca model with associative plastic ﬂow. This assumption will be adopted in the computer implementation of Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models described in Chapter 8. ε (6. this is reduced to ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ.149)). ˙ ∂κ (6.143).195). one of the possibilities in deﬁning a hardening law is to assume the cohesion.121) to be a function of the hardening internal variable: c = c(¯p ). If hardening associativity is also assumed.191) we deﬁne c(¯p ) = c0 + κ(¯p ).198) This type of hardening description is often used in practice in the modelling of soils – for which cohesion is a fundamental strength parameter. The accumulated plastic strain in this case is then deﬁned by the evolution equation ˙ ˙ εp = − γ ¯ ∂Φ = γ ξ. and ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 (γ a )2 + γ a γ b + (γ b )2 . ˙ (6. c.

after being loaded (and hardened) in one direction. It is important to observe that. η. β. kinematic hardening is said to take place. (6. this can be obtained by having the parameter η as a function of the hardening variable. 3 J2 (η(σ. ψ.208) is not an isotropic function of the stress tensor for kinematically hardened states (β = 0). The evolution of a kinematically hardening von Mises-type yield surface (in the deviatoric plane) used to model the phenomenon is shown alongside. the above would correspond to having η = η(¯p ). The typical result of a uniaxial cyclic test showing the Bauschinger effect is illustrated in Figure 6. This phenomenon is known as the Bauschinger effect and can be modelled with the introduction of kinematic hardening.4. 1990).6. ¯ 6. the frictional angle to be a function. for example. 1993).207) (6. ε For Drucker–Prager-based models. Analogously to expression (6. be a function of the hardening internal variable.208) . KINEMATIC HARDENING.208) deﬁnes the radius of the yield surface.206) The direction of plastic ﬂow is generally affected by the history of plastic straining in materials such as soils and rocks. For Drucker–Prager-based models. When β = 0. many materials show a decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction (Lemaitre and Chaboche. Note that. we have η = s and the yield surface deﬁned by Φ = 0 is the isotropic von Mises yield surface with uniaxial yield stress σy . The back-stress tensor is the thermodynamical force associated with kinematic hardening and represents the translation (Figure 6. it is possible to introduce kinematic hardening in other plasticity models simply by replacing σ with a relative stress measure. A number of constitutive models have been proposed to describe elastoplastic behaviour under cyclic loading conditions (Lemaitre and Chaboche. in the deﬁnition of the corresponding yield function.208) is an isotropic function of the relative stress. 1967. ε ξ = ξ(¯p ). 1990. Skrzypek. ε (6. The yield function for the kinematically hardening model is given by Φ(σ.24) of the yield surface in the space of stresses. deﬁned as the difference between the stress deviator and the symmetric deviatoric (stress-like) tensor. β) ≡ s(σ) − β (6.24.209) is the relative stress tensor. THE BAUSCHINGER EFFECT When the yield surfaces preserve their shape and size but translate in the stress space as a rigid body. It is frequently observed in experiments that. Mróz. β)) − σy . The constant σy in (6. of the accumulated plastic strain: φ = φ(¯p ). in addition. by deﬁnition. known as the back-stress tensor. β) = where η(σ. the relative stress is deviatoric. This phenomenon can be accounted for in non-associative ﬂow Mohr–Coulomb type models by letting the dilatancy angle.208).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 yield function Φ deﬁned by (6. unlike the isotropically hardening von Mises model. deﬁned as the difference σ − β. The function (6.

η (6. One of the most commonly used laws is Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule. where the rate evolution equation for β is given by ˙ ˙ β = 2 H εp = γ ˙ 3 2 3 H η . η (6.208). Prager’s linear kinematic hardening To complete the deﬁnition of the kinematic hardening plasticity model. the stress–strain behaviour of the model deﬁned by equations (6.211) and (6.211) This rule extends the Prandtl–Reuss equation to account for kinematic hardening. The ﬂow vector in this case reads N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 2 η η (6. and coincides with the Prandtl–Reuss equation if β = 0. Behaviour under monotonic uniaxial stress loading For monotonic loading under uniaxial stress conditions.186 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 uniaxial cyclic test hardened surface y y -plane y 1 initial surface 2 Figure 6. Note that the plastic ﬂow is in the direction of the (deviatoric) relative stress.212) The material constant H is the linear kinematic hardening modulus.24. η. (6. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. with constant σy = σy 0 . Loading in one direction results in decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction.212) and initial . evolution equations for β are required. Kinematic hardening and the Bauschinger effect. Plastic ﬂow rule with kinematic hardening The von Mises model with kinematic hardening is used in conjunction with an associative ﬂow rule.210) and we have the following plastic strain rate equation: ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ 3 2 η .

E.212) with initial condition β = 0 (i. taking into account (6. and the identity ∂Φ ∂Φ =− =− ∂β ∂σ equation (6. ˙ ˙ (6. [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).171)2 and the above ˙ expressions for β. Φ= ∂σ ∂β (6. the stress. under plastic yielding. 2 η (6.214) we obtain 1 0 0 ˙ 0 . we obtain for the relative stress tensor 1 0 0 1 0 .60) and specialising (6. let us consider again a uniaxial test with loading in the direction of the base vector e1 . From (6. To show that their plastic behaviour also coincides. With the above.212) and (6. stress rate and stress deviator tensors have the matrix representations given in (6. It is assumed in this statement that both models share the same Young’s modulus. In this case.217) (6. (6.172) gives a back-stress tensor of the form 1 0 0 1 0 .213) 0 0 −1 2 where β is the axial back-stress component. [β] = β 0 − 2 (6.215) (6. σy 0 .221) 3 η . Now note that the integration of the rate equation (6. ¯ Under the above conditions.219) .172). the deﬁnition of η.218) yields σ = H εp . ˙ (6.214) [η] = η 0 − 2 1 0 0 −2 where η = 2σ − β 3 is the axial relative stress.220) Then.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. together with the equation σ = E εe . it is clear that both models have the same elastic behaviour and uniaxial yield stress. the following consistency condition must be satisﬁed: ∂Φ ˙ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ :σ+ : β = 0. β.e. with the introduction of the elastoplastic split of the axial strain rate.171) and (6. ˙ ˙ (6.218) After some straightforward tensor algebra.61) for the present case we have that. η = s) and s as in (6.216) Now.186) and initial state of hardening εp = 0. by recalling (6.

i.176) of the von Mises isotropic strainhardening model with constant H. 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. εp .220). ˙ E+H (6. we have either ε > 0 or ε < 0 throughout the entire loading ˙ ˙ process. the saturation corresponds to a maximum limit value for the norm of β.222) which coincides with the stress rate equation (6. d¯p ε (6. To complete the demonstration. for details) with the evolution of β given by 2 ˙ ˙ β = H εp − γ b β ˙ 3 2 ∂Φ H −bβ . . 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. or Jirásek and Bažant (2002).224) deﬁnes the kinematic hardening curve. at which the material behaves as perfectly plastic. we obtain σ= ˙ EH ε. Chapter 20.222) having the initial yield stress (σy 0 for both models) as the initial condition produces the same stress–strain curve as the isotropic model.223) where b is a material constant. In this case.226) (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). of (6. into (6. such that H(¯p ) = ε ¯ dβ . The extra term −γ b β introduces the effect of saturation in the ˙ kinematic hardening rule.225) (6. the integration of (6. =γ ˙ 3 ∂σ (6. Chapter 5. a scalar function ¯ ¯ε β ≡ β(¯p ). ˙ β = H(¯p ) εp = γ H(¯p ) 3 3 ∂σ In this case. H.212) with a generic function of the accumulated plastic strain. In the case of the von Mises criterion. let us assume that the uniaxial loading is monotonic. ¯ 2 ∂Φ 2 ˙ ε ˙ ε .188 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of the linear elastic model under uniaxial stress conditions.e.

2a (6. (6. Thus.230) The back-stress tensor (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 189 Thermodynamical aspects of kinematic hardening From the thermodynamical viewpoint.6. . MIXED ISOTROPIC/KINEMATIC HARDENING Rather than purely isotropic or purely kinematic hardening.228) is then a scalar multiple of X. (6.228) For the Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (6. (6.5.229) where the material constant a has been deﬁned as a≡ 2 3 H.234) ∂β ∂σ 6. the yield surface expands/shrinks and translates simultaneously in stress space. we have ψ p (X) = (6. for instance. more realistic plasticity models can be obtained by combining the above laws for isotropic and kinematic hardening. that is.231) and the fact that. X. under plastic straining.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 .227) The variable X is related to self-equilibrated residual stresses that remain after elastic unloading. β – is then deﬁned as the derivative β≡ ∂ψ p . we have ∂Φ ∂Φ =− . X ≡ −γ ˙ ∂β ∂β a (6. since Φ is obtained from a non-kinematic hardening yield function by replacing the argument σ with σ − β. The kinematic hardening thermodynamical force – the back-stress tensor. 2 (6. These stresses may increase or decrease resistance to plastic slip according to the direction considered.232) Obviously (since Ψ = Φ). ψ p = ψ p (X). The equivalence between the above equation and (6. the above kinematic hardening laws follow from the assumption that the plastic contribution. ∂X a X : X.233) b β : β.223). this evolution law is non-associative. given by β = a X. (6.223) can be established by taking into account (6. ψ p . real-life materials show in general a combination of both. to the free energy is a function of a second-order tensor-valued internal variable.

A model including mixed hardening of this type is discussed in Section 12.25).235) which can be obtained from relatively simple uniaxial tests with load reversal (see schematic ¯ illustration of Figure 6. (6. For example. ε ¯ ¯ε β = β(¯p ).3 (starting on page 478) in the context of damage mechanics. β.223) with the von Mises-type yield function (6.190 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ load reversal σy εp β σy ε Figure 6. is a function of the accumulated plastic strain.235)1. Mixed hardening.208) and allowing σy to be a function of εp .224) and (6. the hardening ¯ behaviour of the model is determined by the curves σy = σy (¯p ). as in (6. is the ¯ kinematic contribution to overall hardening.225) is adopted. A more reﬁned mixed hardening model can be devised by coupling the Armstrong– Frederick law (6.208) where σy . At each point εp . the kinematic hardening stress. If the nonlinear rule deﬁned by (6.25. Uniaxial test with load reversal. a relatively simple von Mises-based model with mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening can be devised by adopting the yield function (6. .

Tresca. 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. 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 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. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 1950. A set of numerical examples is also presented. Hill.2. This model is also included in the HYPLAS program. 1990. The choice of this model is motivated here by the simplicity of its computational implementation. Application to the Tresca. an exact solution to boundary value problems of practical engineering interest can only be obtained under very simpliﬁed conditions. the approximate solution to such problems is addressed in this book within the context of the Finite Element Method. the mathematical theory of plasticity has been reviewed. a substantial development of the related numerical techniques has occurred. A general small-strain elastoplastic constitutive model has been established within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables and the most popular theories. Today. the von Mises.7 FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL-STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS N the previous chapter. Skrzypek. Obviously. due to the mathematical complexity of such constitutive theories. the Finite Element Method is by far the most commonly adopted procedure for the solution of elastoplastic problems. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models is left for Chapter 8. is then made to the particular case of the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. For the sake of generality. Ltd I . Prager. including a complete description of the algorithms and corresponding FORTRAN subroutines of the HYPLAS program. 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. the methodologies presented in this chapter are initially derived taking the general plasticity model introduced in Chapter 6 (summarised in Box 6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. page 151) as the underlying constitutive model. 1993). Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. namely. Since the ﬁrst reported applications of ﬁnite elements in plasticity in the mid-1960s. In fact. As pointed out in Chapter 4. have been described in detail. 1959. 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. 1987. Lubliner.

Within a (pseudo-) time increment [tn .3) 2. 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.1. The element tangent stiffness matrix is computed as ngausp KT = i=1 (e) wi ji BT Di Bi . i (7. ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . each material model implementation is deﬁned by a set of ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines. ∂εn+1 (7.5 respectively on pages 126 and 130). εn+1 ). This chapter will focus precisely on the two topics listed above. from page 131). εn+1 ).1) (7. i (7. There are two most fundamental material-speciﬁc operations: 1.2) 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 . within the modular structure of the HYPLAS program (refer to Section 5. Following the nomenclature established in Chapter 5 (refer to the call trees of Figures 5. requires the formulation of a scheme for numerical integration of the rate elastoplastic evolution equations. 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. specialised to the case of elastoplastic materials. in the case of elastoplastic materials.7. 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 . (7.5) These are the primary procedures that effectively deﬁne a particular constitutive model/algorithm in the program. tn+1 ]. Preliminary implementation aspects At this point. Each one of these routines is called by a corresponding material interface subroutine that is common to all models. .4 and 5.192 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7. it is convenient to recall that. The state update procedure which.

e. A(t)) = 0 ˙ (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 193 7.2. 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. in the context of advanced plasticity models.1.2.1. T ]. A(t)) ˙ ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). εe (t0 ). ˙ Φ(σ(t). Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor.6) for each instant t ∈ [t0 .2 by incorporating the plastic ﬂow equation into the additive strain rate decomposition. at the material point of interest between instants t0 and T . and in Chapter 12. In the case of path-dependent materials. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. In this way.6) as reduced in that it is obtained from the model of Box 6.2 (page 151). Assume that at a given (pseudo-)time t0 the elastic strain. Specialisation to the other basic plasticity models of Chapter 6. A(t)) ˙ γ(t) ≥ 0. t ∈ [t0 . such as elastoplastic materials. the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in . This section describes a numerical procedure for integration of the general elastoplastic model of Section 6. 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. 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. Problem 7. let the motion of B be prescribed between t0 and a subsequent instant.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Further applications of the algorithms described in the present chapter are made in Chapter 10.1 (The elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem). We refer to the system of differential equations (7. T . Furthermore. the prescribed motion deﬁnes the history of the strain tensor. εp (t0 ). 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.7) (7. A(t)) ≤ 0. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). the updating scheme usually requires the formulation of a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding rate constitutive equations.3. The basic elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem at point p is stated in the following. ∂α t (7. The strategy presented here is later specialised and applied to the von Mises model in Section 7. ﬁnd the functions εe (t). ε(t).8) Remark 7. Clearly. i.3. the Tresca. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . and all elements of the set α(t0 ) of hardening internal variables are known at point p. 7. ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . is presented in Chapter 8 and its plane stress implementation is addressed in Chapter 9. hardening internal variables set and plastic ˙ multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). T ]. α(t) and γ(t) for the elastic strain. where the numerical implementation of damage mechanics models is discussed. the plastic strain tensor. ε(t).

7).13) Euler-based schemes can be equally adopted.2. 7. the derivation of the analytical solutions is normally cumbersome.† Accordingly. . An+1 ) ≤ 0. Note that with the solution εe (t) of Problem 7. tn+1 ].10) . An+1 ) for the unknowns εe . For complex deformation paths. exact solutions to Problem 7. EULER DISCRETISATION: THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE PROBLEM The starting point here is the adoption of an Euler scheme to discretise equations (7. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ . † Other (7. when yield functions and ﬂow rules such as the ones described in the previous chapter are adopted. As already mentioned. Problem 7.9) so that the history of all variables involved in the deﬁnition of the elastoplastic model of Box 6. (7. ∂ψ ∂εe ∆γ Φ(σn+1 .194 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the system and the only unknowns are the elastic strain. ∂ψ ∂α (7. tn+1 ].6) and (7. the history of the plastic strain tensor is obtained from the trivial relation εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t).2 is determined. An+1 ) = 0. Given the values εe n and αn . the set of hardening internal variables and the plastic multiplier. αn+1 and ∆γ.2.2 (The incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem).1. The resulting discrete version of Problem 7. Even in such cases. we have adopted the obvious notation ∆(·) ≡ (·)n+1 − (·)n .7)–(7.11) (7. we replace all rate quantities in (7. H and Φ with their values at the end of the interval.2. A general framework for the numerical solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity is described below. may only be obtained for very simple prescribed strain histories. solve the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . for integration within a generic (pseudo-)time interval [tn . subjected to the constraints n+1 ∆γ ≥ 0. These will be discussed later in Section 7.12) In the above.7. of the elastic strain and internal variables set at the beginning of the pseudo-time interval [tn .1 at hand. and given the prescribed incremental strain ∆ε for this interval. n+1 (7.6) with corresponding incremental values within the considered interval and the functions N. which are more likely to occur in realistic engineering problems. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 .1 is stated in the following. For simplicity we shall choose to adopt a backward (or fully implicit) Euler scheme. tn+1 . analytical solutions are not available in general and the adoption of a numerical technique to ﬁnd an approximate solution becomes absolutely essential. where σn+1 = ρ ¯ Φ(σn+1 .

εe .12) does not follow directly the conventional procedure for standard initial value problems (i.17) (7.15) (7. An+1 ) = 0. Null incremental plastic multiplier. i.18) .7)).14) In this case there is no plastic ﬂow or evolution of internal variables within the considered interval [tn .11)3 result in the constraint Φ(σn+1 . In this case. (7. An+1 ) ≤ 0. the plastic strain at tn+1 can be calculated as εp = εp + ∆ε − ∆εe . Firstly.11)2 combined with (7. as we shall see. εe and αn+1 are given by n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αn+1 = αn and.e. note that (7.11)1 allows only for the two (mutually exclusive) possibilities enumerated below: 1. The increment ∆γ will be called the incremental plastic multiplier. where σn+1 and An+1 are functions of εe and An+1 deﬁned through n+1 the potential relations (7. (7. tn+1 ]. n n+1 so that all variables of the model are known at the end of the interval [tn .11). Solution of the incremental problem Due to the presence of the discrete complementarity condition (7.16) must hold. ∆γ = 0. An+1 ) and (7.e. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . Strictly positive plastic multiplier.11)3 is automatically satisﬁed. Note that once the solution εe has been n+1 obtained. 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. The constraint (7.20) (7. αn+1 and ∆γ satisfy n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . 2. ∆γ > 0.10)–(7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 195 with (·)n and (·)n+1 denoting the value of (·) respectively at tn and tn+1 . in addition. (7.12). Nevertheless. the constraint Φ(σn+1 .19) (7. initial value problems without equations of the type (7. the step is purely elastic. the solution of the incremental elastoplastic problem (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . tn+1 ].

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. Atrial ) ≤ 0.2. Firstly.16). we assume that the ﬁrst of the above two situations (∆γ = 0) occurs.2. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial .19)–(7.2 is either given by (7. The solution given by (7. The strategy adopted is the following: (a) The Elastic Trial Step. the elastic trial state has.17). we have just seen that any solution to Problem 7.18). we assume that the step [tn . which is not necessarily the actual solution to Problem 7.2. An+1 ) n+1 Φ(σn+1 . Otherwise.21) trial αn+1 = αn .25) .23) n+1 n+1 that is. we update (·)n+1 := (·)trial n+1 (7. or it is a solution of the algebraic system of equations (7. Now note that.20). The only option left now is to solve the system (7. (b) The Plastic Corrector Step (or Return-Mapping Algorithm). in addition. to be the actual solution. An+1 ) = 0. It remains now to devise a procedure whereby the correct solution can be chosen. (7. to satisfy (7. n+1 (7. In this case. This is next described in detail. If Φtrial ≡ Φ(σtrial .17).2 must be obtained from the plastic corrector step described below. that is. given by ¯ σtrial = ρ n+1 ∂ψ ∂εe trial . if the elastic trial state lies within the elastic domain or on the yield surface. We then proceed as follows. only one of two possible sets of equations provides a solution to Problem 7. The corresponding stress and hardening force will be called the elastic trial stress and elastic trial hardening force.18).24) and the algorithm is terminated. Using the elastic trial state deﬁnition above. that is. we rewrite the algebraic system equivalently as εe = εe trial − ∆γ N(σn+1 .19)–(7. (7.16). tn+1 ] is elastic. it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. in which case it must satisfy constraint (7.22) The above variables are collectively called the elastic trial state. will be called the elastic trial solution. 7. and will be denoted εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n (7. subjected to the constraint (7. the elastic trial state is not plastically admissible and a solution to Problem 7. An+1 ) n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αtrial + ∆γ H(σn+1 .2.196 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In summary.20) of algebraic equations subject to the constraint (7.3.

(7. the elastic trial stress returns to the yield surface so that plastic consistency is re-established in the updated state. neither in n+1 the elastic domain nor on the yield surface).25) are called the return mapping equations.25)3.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . of course. σn+1 . equation (7. at the end of the interval [tn . Consider the yield surface at the elastic trial state. which are. which accounts for plastic ﬂow and enforces plastic admissibility.25). complemented with the potential relations (7. ensures that the stress.2.2 shows the main steps in the . The elastic trial stress. Upon solution of the algebraic system (7. The plastic corrector stage of the algorithm then consists in ﬁnding a solution εe .12). σtrial returns to a ﬁxed surface. The return mapping procedure is executed only if the elastic trial state violates plastic admissibility. Geometric interpretation: (a) hardening plasticity. in this case lies outside the plastically admissible domain (i. The procedure of item (b) above possesses an appealing geometric interpretation as illustrated in Figure 7. αn+1 and ∆γ n+1 for (7. followed by the return mapping.26) Remark 7. that is. tn+1 ] lies on the updated yield surface. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7.25) that satisﬁes ∆γ > 0. 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. σtrial .1. in which the evolution problem is solved as if the material were purely elastic within the interval considered. Due to n+1 this interpretation the procedure of item (b) is referred to as the return mapping algorithm and (7. An+1 ) = 0 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ. which is commonly referred to as the plastic consistency equation.e.1. the application of an Euler difference scheme to ﬁnd an approximate solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity – Problem 7. General return mapping schemes. and (b) perfect plasticity. Summary of the overall procedure In summary.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 197 (a) trial σn+1 (b) trial σn+1 plastic corrector elastic predictor elastic predictor plastic corrector σn+1 Φ(σ. In the case of perfect plasticity.1 – has resulted in a numerical algorithm that involves two steps: the elastic predictor.

This algorithm is conveniently summarised in Box 7. The algorithm described above has been obtained by adopting. as a general rule. SOLUTION OF THE RETURN-MAPPING EQUATIONS Let us now focus on the solution of the return mapping equations. results in very computationally efﬁcient return mapping procedures. therefore. the backward Euler scheme to discretise elastoplastic constitutive equations and is. by some iterative procedure. Note that if no solution exists with strictly positive incremental plastic multiplier. Schematic diagram.2. has to be solved subjected to the constraint (7. then it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. in particular. 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).26).2 does not have a solution. This choice is motivated mainly by the quadratic rates of convergence achieved by this method which.26). Firstly. without regard for the constraint equation (7.25) is solved on its own.e.26).7. i. It should be noted that the algebraic system (7. We remark that different discretisation schemes may be used instead. then Problem 7. 7. derivation of the overall integration algorithm. From the initial value problem of elastoplasticity to the elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithm.4.2. could be used instead.2. such as quasi-Newton procedures in general. termed the backward. the algebraic system (7.1 in pseudo-code format. but all having the same elastic predictor step. Alternatives to the backward Euler-based algorithm will be discussed in Section 7.2) solution procedure ELASTIC PREDICTOR PLASTIC CORRECTOR (RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM) Figure 7. The procedure commonly adopted in practice is quite simple. As far as the iterative procedure for the solution of the return-mapping equations is concerned.25) is generally nonlinear and. fully implicit or simply implicit elastic predictor/return mapping scheme.2. Alternative techniques. The main argument in favour of these methods is normally based on .198 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem (Problem 7. in addition.1) Euler pseudo-time discretisation incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7. each one resulting in a different return mapping algorithm. If the found solution satisﬁes (7.

An+1 ) ∂ψ ∂ εe trial . n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial n+1 for εe . n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 the fact that. this argument is substantially weakened by considering that currently available symbolic manipulation software packages. (i) Elastic predictor. the return-mapping residual derivatives are needed to compute the consistent tangent operator. Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for numerical integration of general elastoplastic constitutive equations.3. in contrast to the Newton–Raphson algorithm. the return mapping residual derivatives will have to be computed anyway. 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. It might happen that the corresponding nonlinear system of algebraic equations has a solution with . Also. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . even for complex plasticity models. generally. used to assemble the tangent stiffness matrix. 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 . One aspect of the return-mapping scheme deserves particular attention.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . 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 . Remark 7. as will be seen later. making the derivation and computational implementation of residual gradients a relatively straightforward task. Thus. for complex material models. 1991). can handle the closed-form calculation of derivatives quite easily.1.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 199 Box 7. the derivation and computational implementation of residual gradients may prove a tedious exercise if performed manually. with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ (iv) EXIT ∂ψ ∂ εe .1) and. Added to this is the fact that the relative ease of quasiNewton procedures comes at the expense of lower rates of convergence and. less efﬁciency in the return-mapping procedure (and poorer performance of the overall ﬁnite element scheme). such as MATHEMATICA R (Wolfram. Atrial ) ≤ 0 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 = (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping. However. if the full Newton–Raphson scheme is adopted to solve the global ﬁnite element equilibrium equations. αn+1 and ∆γ.

2. This approach consists of dividing the total strain increment ∆ε into a number m of sub-increments ∆ε = ∆ε1 + ∆ε2 + · · · + ∆εm . 1999).27) with constant elasticity tensor. equation (7.2. Since ∆γ is required to be positive. .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 complex constitutive models. .29) . materials for which the stress is given by σ = De : εe .200 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆γ < 0. and then applying the integration algorithm sequentially m times to reach the approximate state at tn+1 . (7. numerical experience shows that such a situation is not usual and. More recently.. however.e. algorithms that converge regardless of the initial guess) based on a combination of the Newton–Raphson scheme and constrained line-search procedures. CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION INTERPRETATION For materials with linear elastic response. 7.25)1 can be rewritten equivalently in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . obtained by the implicit return mapping (Figure 7. (7. . Each strain sub-increment ∆εi . Armero and PérezFoguet (2002) and Pérez-Foguet and Armero (2002) have explored the closest point projection interpretation (Section 7. This issue is discussed in Chapter 12 in the context of damage mechanics plasticity models. in particular.5.e. Another alternative can be the use of a sub-stepping scheme (Huerta et al. a strategy must be developed to ensure that the converged incremental plastic multiplier is positive.28) n+1 In this case. has to be sufﬁciently small to ensure convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations. for some plasticity models. i = 1. Fortunately. In such cases. In such cases. Another important consideration is that. . 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.5 below) and the associated variational structure of the returnmapping equations to devise globally convergent root-ﬁnding algorithms (i. the updated stress. σn+1 . such a solution is physically meaningless and must be disregarded if the Newton–Raphson algorithm converges to it. 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. It may occur. m. does not occur for the basic plasticity models implemented in this chapter and in Chapter 8 for the normal range of material parameters. For perfectly plastic materials with associative ﬂow rule. procedures such as linesearches (as suggested by Dutko et al. 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). i. De . the degree of nonlinearity of the return-mapping equations is so high that the convergence radius of the Newton scheme becomes substantially reduced.

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).2.2. 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. 7.31) (7. the accuracy and stability (the concepts of accuracy and stability ∆γ || D e : N hardening plasticity (7.3. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. σtrial )] .30) (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 trial σn+1 201 perfect plasticity ∆γ || D e : N σn+1 Φ(σ. 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 7.6. the updated stress is the admissible stress that lies closest to the elastic trial stress.32) n+1 || D e : Nn+1 n+1 || . of plastically admissible stresses. σb ) ≡ σa − σb De . With the energy norm deﬁned by σ De ≡ σ : [De ]−1 : σ. and the associated measure of distance between two generic stress states given by d(σa . σn+1 = arg min[d(σ. The fully implicit return mapping.1).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . An+1 ) = 0 D e : Nn+1 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ. Obviously. i.7. (1978) for further details on operator split algorithms).e. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 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. (1988b) for details). 7.

35) (7. It is important to note that the previously described fully implicit return mapping is recovered by choosing θ = 1 in the generalised trapezoidal rule. The corresponding discrete plastic ﬂow equation is εp = εp + ∆γ [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ].33)1 may be equivalently written in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. Another popular scheme is the so-called cutting plane algorithm proposed by Simo and Ortiz (1985) (see also Ortiz and Simo 1986). where.33) The geometric interpretation of the generalised trapezoidal return algorithm in the space of stresses is shown in Figure 7. (7.1). The elastic predictor stage. Individual members of this family of algorithms are deﬁned by the prescribed parameter θ.4 for materials with linear elastic response. remains unchanged.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 ]. can be derived by adopting generalised versions of the classical trapezoidal and midpoint rules in the discretisation of Problem 7. The choice θ = 0 corresponds to a fully explicit return mapping. Two important families of algorithms for elastoplasticity.202 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS are reviewed in Section 7. 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. These procedures have been proposed by Ortiz and Popov (1985). expression (7.10) of the overall elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm will depend on the particular strategy adopted. An+1 ) = 0. n n+1 (7. These procedures are described below.34) The incremental ﬂow vector. is a linear combination of the ﬂow vectors at times tn and tn+1 . as previously described. of course.2. which must lie within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. n+1 (7. 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 .1. it is implicitly understood that constraint (7. in the present case given by (1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 . which incorporate the backward (or fully implicit) Euler approach as a particular case. .26) is satisﬁed. In this case.

Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response.33) for θ = 1 and θ = 0.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. The generalised trapezoidal return mapping. (7. An+θ ). where Nn+θ = N(σn+θ . a prescribed constant within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. the discrete plastic ﬂow rule reads εp = εp + ∆γ Nn+θ . An+1 ) = 0.37) The parameter θ is. An ) = 0 Figure 7. An+θ ) Hn+θ = H(σn+θ . In the present case. to the fully implicit and fully explicit . 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 .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . n n+1 (7. 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 . respectively.40) Note that the generalised midpoint rule coincides with the generalised trapezoidal rule (7. again.39) (7. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. which correspond.4.38) (7.

(7. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. An+θ ) = 0.4. 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. plastic consistency is enforced upon the generalised midpoint. as noted by Ortiz and Martin (1989). The geometric interpretation of the generalised midpoint return algorithm is given in Figure 7. rather than the updated. The generalised midpoint return mapping. . Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response.37)3. 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 this case. In particular.5 for materials with linear elastic response.37)3 with the alternative Φ(σn+θ . Remark 7. The updated stress.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). return mappings. deﬁned respectively by (7. state.4.41) n+1 and corresponds to the projection of the elastic trial stress. in particular. An ) = 0 Figure 7. This version of the generalised return mapping is discussed in detail by Simo and Govindjee (1991) who highlight.4. A possible variation of the above generalised midpoint rule is obtained by replacing the consistency condition (7. (7. both generalised trapezoidal and midpoint return-mapping algorithms. is given by σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+θ .42) In this case. a discussion on the possible symmetry of such operators is provided in Section 7.33) and (7.5.6. require the ‡ Consistent tangent operators for return-mapping schemes will be discussed in Section 7. σtrial .

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) into the equivalent rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De (εe . α) in (7. As before. α) denotes the tangent modulus associated with the hardening response. α) ∗ εe + G(εe . n+1 αe = αe trial . on the right-hand side of (7. for the fully explicit member of these families of algorithms (θ = 0). is assumed to be a function of εe and α. The cutting-plane method. It is interesting to note that. the return-mapping equations can be substantially simpliﬁed. in general. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .44) where ∗ denotes the product of the appropriate type. by means of the backward Euler scheme. α) ∗ α.2 are a backward Euler approximation to the initial value problem deﬁned by the differential equation ˙ εe = −γN(σ. (7. A). where the derivation of implicit return mapping for the von Mises model is described in detail. (7. α) ∗ α ˙ ˙ ˙ A = F(εe . is to recast the potential relation (7. For certain material models. all terms. The operator E(εe . The fourth-order tensor De (εe .25)3. In this case. Therefore. simpliﬁcations of this type are also possible for θ = 0 and are crucially important for the computational efﬁciency of the associated return-mapping procedure.48) . The cutting-plane algorithm Let us start by observing that the return-mapping equations (7. εe n+1 and αn+1 become functions solely of the incremental multiplier ∆γ and so does σn+1 and An+1 . is an alternative scheme for the numerical solution of the return-mapping problem. A) ˙ ˙ α = γH(σ. which we shall describe below. ∂εe 2 (7. an efﬁcient scheme is normally obtained by adopting the quadratically convergent Newton–Raphson method. subject to the consistency condition (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . ∂εe ∂α (7.43) for any elastoplastic model. The ﬁrst step to derive the cutting-plane algorithm.37) are known values at tn .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 205 solution of a (generally nonlinear) system of equations for any prescribed parameter θ. deﬁned by E(εe . α) : εe + E(εe .8).46)1 is the elastic modulus De (εe .25)1. n+1 (7.3. An+1 (∆γ)) = 0.45) The implicit return-mapping scheme consists in solving the above problem. The above rate constitutive equations for σ and A are obtained by a straightforward application of the chain rule to (7. the original system variables. with the exception of ∆γ. ˙ with initial condition εe = εe trial . This idea is exploited in Section 7.47) which. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .46) (7.

n+1 A = Atrial . A) + E(σ. An+1 }. α = α(σ. . ˙ with the obvious initial condition σ = σtrial . A) ∗ H(σ. By combining (7.44)–(7. under the assumption (6. 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) : N(σ. A) ∗ H(σ.52)– (7. A). A) + G(σ. of the stress and hardening force.46)2.45) equivalently in terms of stress and hardening force as ˙ σ = γ[−De (σ. (from page 38) for the deﬁnition of the linearisation of a nonlinear problem. A).53) in conjunction with the plastic consistency constraint Φ(σn+1 . is then obtained as the solution of the linearised equation (k) (k) (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) Φ(σn+1 .206 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In addition. the (k) (k) plastic consistency equation is linearised§ about the current (known) state.6. A)] ˙ ˙ A = γ[−F(σ. An+1 }.49) ∂2ψ . n+1 (7. However. An+1 ) = 0.53) (7.54) Basically. α) = ρ ¯ and ∂2ψ ∂α∂εe (7. (7.46) and making use of complementary potential relations that give εe = εe (σ. α) = ρ ¯ we redeﬁne the initial value problem (7. A)].46)1 and the ﬁrst term on the right-hand side of (7. these terms do not vanish in general.50) ∂α2 It should be noted that De is constant for materials whose elastic behaviour is linear. (k). A new state. (7. such as Lemaitre’s damage theory discussed in Chapter 12. (7. A) ∗ N(σ.44) with (7. An+1 ) + N n+1 : [σn+1 − σn+1 ] (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) + H n+1 ∗ [An+1 − An+1 ] = 0. for models in which elasticity is coupled with dissipative phenomena.37) (page 149) of decoupling between elasticity and hardening.51) G(εe . {σn+1 .55) to Section 2.52) In summary. {σn+1 . § Refer (k+1) (k+1) (7. In a typical cutting-plane iteration. Also. the tangential operators F and G are deﬁned as F(εe . the return-mapping problem now comprises the initial value problem (7. the tangent operators E and F vanish and so does the second term on the right-hand side of (7.

55) we proceed as follows.55). . 2. ¶ Note that the linearised consistency condition (7.56) ¯ ¯ Note that for fully associative plasticity (Ψ ≡ Φ).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 207 ¯ ¯ where N n+1 and H n+1 have been deﬁned as ∂Φ ¯ (k) N n+1 = ∂σ .e. e (k) (k) (k) (k) . The interpretation here remains valid for materials with a nonlinear elastic (k+1) (k+1) response. To solve (7.6.60) where tol is a prescribed convergence tolerance.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . {σn+1 . This gives the formula σn+1 − σn+1 = ∆γ −Dn+1 : N n+1 + En+1 ∗ H n+1 (7. 1. The geometric interpretation of the cutting-plane algorithm is illustrated in Figure 7. Remark 7. The cutting-plane iterations continue until the value of the yield function is sufﬁciently close (k) (k) to zero. Atrial }. onto a cutting plane deﬁned by the linearised consistency condition¶. The projection is made along the direction of the tensor Dn+1 : N n+1 − En+1 ∗ H n+1 .57) An+1 − An+1 = ∆γ −Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 + Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 . We discretise the rate constitutive equations (7. N. 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) .57). An+1 } is computed by substituting the value obtained for ∆γ into (7. is obtained by projecting the (k) (k) current stress.An+1 (k) (k) (7. and H.55) deﬁnes a hyperplane in the space of stresses and hardening forces. Starting (with k = 0) from the initial condition of the return-mapping problem {σn+1 .An+1 (k) (k) ∂Φ ¯ (k) H n+1 = ∂A . The cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm is summarised in Box 7. (7.5. {σn+1 . σn+1 . i.2 in pseudo-code format. . An+1 }. n+1 n+1 the repeated application of the above iteration generates a sequence of states {σn+1 . An+1 } = {σtrial . An+1 } satisﬁes the convergence criterion Φ(σn+1 . .59) k = 0. the iterative process is interrupted at an iteration (k) if the state {σn+1 . (k) (k) σn+1 . An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol . respectively. (7. the new stress. With the substitution of the above equations into (7. with the ﬂow vector. An+1 }. (k) (k) (0) (0) (7.52) using a forward (or explicit) Euler scheme. An+1 }.58) and the new state {σn+1 . . N and H coincide. In each iteration.

62) ∂εn+1 The notion of a consistent tangent modulus for elastoplasticity numerical integration algorithms is introduced in Section 7. plastic consistency is restored and the cutting plane is tangent to the actual yield surface.61) delivered by the cutting-plane algorithm. Remark 7. (7. it is important to emphasise that the incremental stress–strain function ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . 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 .208 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. Cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm for general elastoplastic models. to which readers unfamiliar with the concept are referred. set k = 0 and σ(0) = σtrial . 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. n+1 αn+1 = α(σ(k) . An+1 = A(k) . A(k) ). εn+1 ).2. is not amenable to linearisation and derivation of a consistent tangent modulus ˆ ∂σ D= . An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol THEN update σn+1 = σ (k) n+1 . This makes the cutting-plane algorithm particularly attractive for more complex plasticity models. . Quadratic rates of convergence are achieved here despite the fact that only relatively simple function evaluations are performed in each iteration.4. (7. n+1 n+1 n+1 εp = εn+1 − εe . However. n+1 n+1 ELSE set k := k + 1 and GO TO (ii) In the limit of the iterative process. A(k) ). n+1 n+1 and EXIT εe = εe (σ(k) . (i) Given the elastic trial state. The iterations of the cutting-plane algorithm converge to the solution Φ = 0 at quadratic rates.6.

such a system is classed as a system of differential-algebraic equations (DAE). An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ.63)3).1) reduces to ˙ ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). Formally. 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.2.2.. A(t)) = 0.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .63) .. These generally contain ordinary differential equations (equations (7. The cutting-plane return mapping.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial (0) σn+1 ≡ σn+1 Φlin (σ .. page 98). A(t)) ˙ Φ(σ(t). Within the implicit ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4 (see Section 4. where the potential relations (7. An+1 ) = 0 (2) . the use of cutting-plane algorithms could be an attractive option. Geometric interpretation.8) can be used to express σ and A as explicit functions of εe and α. A(t)) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). which do not require the solution of a global system of equilibrium equations. PLASTICITY AND DIFFERENTIAL-ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS Under continuous plastic loading.8. An+1 ) = 0 (1) 209 (1) σn+1 (2) σn+1 Φlin (σ . An ) = 0 Figure 7.6.5.2 in the present case) complemented by a constraint in the form of algebraic equations (equation (7. 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). in explicit codes. However. The identiﬁcation of plasticity equations with DAEs allows the use of numerical methods (7. the system of equations that characterises the elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7. cutting planes σn+1 σn elastic domain at tn Φ(σ.63)1. 7..

To the authors’ knowledge. For details on this class of methods.2.10). Caddemi and Martin (1991). In the present context. 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. 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. Comi et al. The effectiveness of such methodologies has been demonstrated in the numerical solution of a wide range of initial boundary value problems. Feijóo and Zouain (1988).g. By exploiting the potential structure that characterises many elastoplasticity models and concepts of convex analysis. 7. Reddy and Martin (1991). 1973) has been proposed by a number of authors. 1979.10. Generally speaking. (1993).9. only the elastoplastic constitutive evolution problem at the Gauss point level is reduced to a mathematical programming problem. as well as the corresponding methods of analysis. It is emphasised that no attempt is made here to derive (usually complex) mathematical proofs of the accuracy . extra complexity is inevitably introduced in the presence of non-smooth corners on the yield surface. By exploiting these ideas. 7. even though singular models can be efﬁciently integrated within the elastic predictor/return-mapping framework (as we shall see in Chapter 8). Results from DAE theory were used by these authors to prove the stability and accuracy order of their method (here. An important class of numerical procedures developed on the basis of mathematical programming concepts (Bazaraa and Shetty. we refer to the work of Maier (1970). (1991) and Romano et al. the concepts of accuracy and stability are brieﬂy reviewed below in Section 7. The use of such tools in plasticity is also discussed by Simo (1998). For other methods of this class. however. (1987). Martin et al. ACCURACY AND STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS Accuracy and stability are crucially important aspects of numerical algorithms for the solution of initial value problems in general.2. 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. Zouain et al.2. Papadopoulos and Taylor (1994) proposed a two-step backward difference formula of second-order accuracy for von Mises type plasticity. Tresca) do not require special treatment and are naturally accommodated within the mathematical programming environment. (1988. ‘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.210 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS devised for this type of equation. 1992). 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. Luenberger. In contrast. 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. accuracy and stability properties of the return-mapping schemes described above are discussed. In this section. in the treatment of plasticity problems.

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

66) relates to how perturbations to the initial condition propagate throughout the stepping procedure. to Ascher and Petzold (1998) for various deﬁnitions of stability in this context. σ∗ ) n+1 n (7. The property of stability of an algorithm for numerical solution of the typical problem (7. Finite step accuracy measurements can give important information on the practical limitations of integration algorithms. 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 . 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). σn and σ∗ .7 which allow for general elastic and hardening laws. The reader is referred. are necessary and sufﬁcient conditions for the numerical solution to converge to the exact solution as the increment size tends to zero. The property of stability together with ﬁrst-order accuracy (or consistency of order one) of the numerical method. In the case of perfectly plastic models (Ortiz and Popov. For unstable algorithms.69) where d is a measure of distance on the yield surface deﬁned such that for any pair {σa . tf ]. for instance. an elastic predictor/plastic corrector scheme (under plastic yielding) is said to be stable if given two arbitrary distinct initial stress states at tn . Their analysis has concentrated on perfectly plastic materials with linear elastic response and possible non-associative ﬂow rule. In spite of the restriction to perfect plasticity and linear elastic law. σ∗ ) ≤ d(σn . Generally speaking. 1985). perturbations to the initial conditions propagate in an unbounded manner so that small changes in increment size.2. If an algorithm is not stable or not (at least) ﬁrst-order accurate. their analysis provides a very interesting insight into the properties of the trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms described in Section 7. the n corresponding updated values at tn+1 are bounded by d(σn+1 . on the other hand. may produce dramatic changes in the numerical results which completely invalidate the solution. especially with regard to the permissible size of strain increments for which the error remains within reasonable bounds. σb ) ≡ inf λ λ σ (s) ds. 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.70) with λ denoting arbitrary paths on the yield surface connecting σa and σb . or even machine round-off errors.64)– (7.212 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (b) With a more practical (and less precise) deﬁnition. then it does not converge to the exact solution. An algorithm that satisﬁes the ﬁrst-order accuracy and stability requirements is said to be convergent. we have d(σa . It is remarked that consideration of general . σb } of stresses on the yield surface. In the context of plasticity. the term ﬁnite step accuracy will be adopted here to describe the actual accuracy of particular algorithms under ﬁnite step sizes. (7.

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. all trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms satisfy the necessary condition of ﬁrst-order accuracy for convergence. 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. 2 as for the midpoint schemes based on the fully implicit consistency (7. restricted to the case of linear elastic behaviour.3. such as the von Mises surface. is also ﬁrst-order accurate. In addition. 2 Attention is now focused on the elastoplastic algorithm based on the cutting-plane return mapping.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . therefore. With increasing curvature. 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. is only conditional. should be expected to predict its behaviour only for relatively small increments.37)3.45). therefore. on the other hand. the only unconditionally stable algorithm is the fully implicit. The next step in the analysis of these families of algorithms is the assessment of their stability properties. 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.7 characterised by the midpoint plastic consistency equation (7. Finite step accuracy aspects: the iso-error maps As mentioned previously. Recall that the integration algorithm based on the fully implicit return mapping. as the Backward Euler-based scheme (which also approximates this problem numerically). stability does not depend on the shape of the yield surface. the 2 interval for which the generalised trapezoidal algorithms remain unconditionally stable narrows around θ = 1 (the fully implicit scheme). For surfaces with constant curvature in the space of stresses. Within the context of the fully . again. is a particular (common) member of both families (for θ = 1) and. second-order accuracy is attained for the choice θ = 1 in both trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. however.42). 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 addition. Since the sequence of states generated by the cutting-plane return mapping is obtained by fully linearising the plastic corrector evolution problem (7.2. These algorithms are unconditionally stable for θ ≥ 1 .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 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. The analysis was focused on materials with an associative hardening and ﬂow rules and. For the algorithms based on the generalised midpoint rule.7. as far 2 as accuracy order is concerned. for surfaces with inﬁnite curvature. the cutting-plane procedure is naturally ﬁrst-order accurate. such as the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb surfaces which have sharp corners.2. unconditional stability is obtained for 1 ≤ θ ≤ 1.44. it follows that. described in Section 7. In the limit. The stability of the cutting-plane algorithm. In summary. their algorithms are stable for θ ≥ 1 . Essentially.

Their assessment was based on the use of iso-error maps. respectively associated with the tangential and normal directions to the yield surface. σexact : σexact (7. Fuschi et al. as analytical solutions are generally not available.7(b). 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 . Here. since the original application by Krieg and Krieg (1977). 1994a. consider an arbitrary stress state at a point P on the yield surface as shown in Figure 7. 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. the extension of the accuracy order study to the assessment of the accuracy of elastoplastic integration algorithms under ﬁnite steps becomes crucial.. 1985. In order to generate a typical iso-error map. Calling σexact the exact solution of the stress integration problem. with the yield surface of Figure 7. Simo and Taylor. the error associated with each increment is deﬁned as ERROR = (σexact − σnum ) : (σexact − σnum ) √ . Dutko et al.7(a). Ortiz and Popov.7(b). . σexact is taken as the numerical solution obtained by dividing each strain increment into a sufﬁciently large number of subincrements∗∗. q q (7. 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. ﬁrst-order accurate and stable. 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. was among the procedures assessed by these authors.7(a) represented in the deviatoric plane. i.e. the perfectly plastic associative von Mises model is adopted for illustration. which for this particular model is termed the radial return method. To give a general idea of reasonable sub-increment sizes. for the particular plasticity model considered.214 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS implicit Finite Element Method described in Chapter 4 and adopted in the HYPLAS program. As a result of the numerical integration algorithm. It is important to note that. it is worth mentioning that one thousand sub-increments have been used to produce the ‘exact’ solutions for the map of Figure 7. 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. 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. For this particular model. 1993. the starting point P is immaterial.71) where N and T are.. From this point of view. 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. an approximated stress σnum is computed for each increment. The fully implicit algorithm. It is remarked that. 1986). 1992. an error ﬁeld is obtained.. respectively.72) By varying the prescribed increment sizes ∆σT and ∆σN .

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.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. 7. Iso-error map: (a) typical increment directions. the best accuracy is obtained with θ = 1 . and (b) a typical iso-error map.7 concentrating on their ﬁnite step accuracy characteristics.7.3. the von Mises model is the simplest type discussed in this book.2. It is worth remarking that completely analogous results have been found by Fuschi et al.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . 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. however. (1992) for the variant of the midpoint rule based algorithm proposed by Simo and Govindjee (1991).8 gives the best accuracy. for small increments. A ﬁnite step accuracy analysis of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint rule integration algorithms. the fully implicit algorithm (θ = 1). gives better accuracy than the second-order algorithm. Essentially. likely to occur in real problems. Having described the concept of iso-error maps. With increasing increment size. 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 . model.3 and 7. which will be adopted in the numerical implementation described in the following sections of this chapter. the performance of the second-order algorithm deteriorates. is described in this section. featuring the standard associative law and linear elastic behaviour and including general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening.1 (page 199) to the von Mises model. This is in obvious agreement with 2 the (inﬁnitesimal) accuracy analysis that established second-order accuracy for this particular choice of θ.2.7 and 0. based on iso-error maps. Also. In the case of hardening materials. a choice of θ between 0. it might be useful to include the error associated with the hardening internal variable in the deﬁnition of the error measure. The specialisation of the fully implicit algorithm of Box 7. let us now return to the discussion regarding the properties of the integration algorithms of Sections 7. these authors have found that. for instance. but may not be so for different models. For reasonably sized increments.

the model comprises: 1. 7. A standard associative ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ ∂Φ .77) 4. (7. ¯ ˙ (7.7. N. ε . (ii) its generally ‘good’ ﬁnite step accuracy. A yield function of the form Φ(σ.78) 3 . A linear elastic law σ = De : εe . in conjunction with its ﬁrst-order accuracy. 2 s (7. 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. An associative hardening rule. Essentially. Its particularisation for the Tresca. ensures that the resulting algorithm is convergent. and (iv) its relatively simple computational implementation. (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. where D is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor. Before going further. The choice of the fully implicit algorithm here and in the remainder of this book is essentially motivated by: (i) its (unconditional) stability which.3.216 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. as compared to other members of the families of generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms discussed in Section 7. in Chapter 8.76) p e (7. explicitly given by N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s .75) with the (Prandtl–Reuss) ﬂow vector. 2.1.74) (7. ¯ 3. ∂σ (7. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models is described later.2. σy ) = where σy = σy (¯p ) ε is the uniaxial yield stress – a function of the accumulated plastic strain.73) 3 J2 (s(σ)) − σy . it is convenient at this point to list the basic equations used in the present implementation of the von Mises model. with the evolution equation for the hardening internal variable given by ˙ ˙ εp = 2 εp = γ.

the deviatoric and volumetric components.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . 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.25) of nonlinear equations. the deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses.80) where s and p denote. In the present case. • Otherwise.79) corresponding to a typical (pseudo-) time increment [tn . G and K are.3. tn+1 ].83) Having computed the elastic trial state. σy n ) ≤ 0. n+1 n+1 or. respectively. respectively. the process is elastoplastic within the interval [tn .2. 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 . (7. n+1 d n+1 ptrial = K εe trial .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 217 7. respectively. εp } at tn . i. n+1 v n+1 (7. if n+1 Φ(σtrial . by applying the hydrostatic/deviatoric decomposition strial = 2G εe trial . εn (7.84) is updated. Recall that the general implicit return-mapping procedure corresponds to solving the system (7. direct specialisation of the general fully implicit return-mapping equations (7.82) (7. ¯n+1 The corresponding trial stress is computed as σtrial = De : εe trial .25) to the von Mises model gives the following set . and given the state variables {εe . the shear and bulk moduli and the subscripts d and v in the elastic trial strain denote. The trial yield stress is simply trial σy n+1 = σy (¯p ) = σy n . THE IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN-MAPPING SCHEME Given the increment of strain ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . n+1 then the process within the interval [tn . equivalently.e. In this case. tn+1 ] is purely elastic and the elastic trial state itself is the solution to the integration problem.81) (7. tn+1 ] and the returnmapping procedure described below has to be applied. 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 return mapping affects only the deviatoric stress component. it should be noted ﬁrstly that the von Mises ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric so that the deviatoric/volumetric split of (7. 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.85)1 gives εe n+1 = εe trial v v n+1 εe n+1 = εe trial − ∆γ d d n+1 Equivalently. as shall be seen in what follows. has the value computed in the elastic predictor stage and can. This implies that . to improve the performance of the overall ﬁnite element scheme. The hydrostatic stress. 2 sn+1 (7. the trial and updated deviatoric stresses are co-linear. sn+1 strial n+1 i. pn+1 .85).87) n n+1 2 sn+1 Single-equation return mapping It is remarked here that the above system can be substantially simpliﬁed. εp and ∆γ and where n+1 ¯n+1 sn+1 = sn+1 (εe ) = 2G dev[εe ]. n+1 n+1 (7.e. (7. of course.89)2 we obtain 1+ 3 ∆γ 2G sn+1 = strial n+1 2 sn+1 strial sn+1 = n+1 . we have pn+1 = ptrial n+1 sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G n+1 3 sn+1 .88) that is. the plastic strain tensor can be updated according to the following formula: 3 sn+1 εp = εp + ∆γ . Upon simpliﬁcation of the system (7.86) After the solution of the above system.85) 3 J2 (sn+1 ) − σy (¯p ) = 0. 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. 2 sn+1 (7. In fact.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. therefore. in terms of stresses. εn+1 which has to be solved for εe .89) 3 sn+1 . be eliminated from the system of equations.

since n+1 strial is a constant tensor in the return mapping. Finally.90) trial where qn+1 ≡ 3 J2 (strial ) is the elastic trial von Mises effective stress.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. The geometric representations of this update formula in the principal stress space and deviatoric plane are illustrated. so that the ﬂow vectors at the trial and updated states coincide. trial qn+1 (7.85)3.9.91) . ∆γ.90) and (7.85)2 into the plastic consistency condition (7. the system (7. Expression (7.8 and 7. in the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model.8. the deviatoric stress.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .90) implies that. with substitution of (7. Geometric interpretation in principal stress space. (7. respectively. Note that. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. Substitution of the above identity into (7.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. is a (linear) n+1 function of ∆γ only in the above update formula. the updated deviatoric stress is obtained trial by scaling down the trial deviatoric stress by the factor 1 − ∆γ 3G/qn+1 . as the only unknown: trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.89)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 . in Figures 7. sn+1 .

with its solution ∆γ at hand. ¯n+1 ¯n If required. 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. This routine is described in detail in Section 7.2 and relations (7.87). The above equation is then solved by the Newton–Raphson method and.3 and 7.7.92) σn+1 = sn+1 + ptrial I n+1 εe n+1 = [D ] e −1 εp = εp + ∆γ. 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 . The overall elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model is summarised in Boxes 7. the plastic strain tensor is updated by means of (7.3.3. Geometric interpretation in the deviatoric plane.5.81.3. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE STRESS From the update formulae (7.4.220 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 sn surface at t n updated surface at t n+1 Figure 7.9.92)1.82) we establish after simple ¯n manipulations that the updated stress tensor. σn+1 . 7. The procedure shown in these boxes is implemented in subroutine SUVM of the HYPLAS program.

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 .95) .4 – and update the state variables ∆γ 3G pn+1 := ptrial .93) Id is the deviatoric projection tensor deﬁned by (3.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . (7.94) (7. HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Elastic predictor. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. 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.3. 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 . εe trial ) ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn n+1 Id : εe trial .94) (page 59). for any scalar a. n+1 (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 221 Box 7. 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 . 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. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial .

The reader is referred to expression (4.4. the functions (7. k := 0.60) (page 95). Clearly.97) and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p . εp . ˆ and the text surrounding it for details.93) is the . εn+1 ) ≡ σn+1 (¯p . 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. εn n+1 εn n+1 (7. Remark 7. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the von Mises model. HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Initialise iteration counter.93) deﬁnes σn+1 as an implicit function of the elastic trial strain and εp . εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (εe trial ) − σy (¯p ). 7.3 Φtrial is the value of the yield function at the elastic trial state: trial Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p .98) express the updated stress as implicit functions.98.91). εn n εn n (7.222 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. 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.96) (7. The function σ deﬁned in (7. 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 (7.98) For a given state at tn .7. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . we may write n+1 n ˆ ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p . ¯n Equivalently. of the elastic trial stress and the total elastic strain at tn+1 . respectively.93) and (7. εn+1 − εp ). (7.

this function is linear and is expressed by σy (¯p ) = σ0 + H εp . the expression for ∆γ reads Φtrial . It is the closest point projection of the trial stress onto the yield surface. In the case of perfect plasticity (H = 0). For more realistic models. 3G + H (7. deﬁned by the given function σy = σy (¯p ). the above closed expression replaces the Newton–Raphson algorithm of Box 7. after a straightforward manipulation. In such cases.101) Thus.100) and the incremental plastic multiplier can be obtained in closed form as ∆γ = Φtrial . for linearly hardening von Mises materials. the updated stress is simply the projection of the elastic trial stress onto the ﬁxed yield surface along its radial direction.99) where σ0 is the initial yield stress of the virgin material and H is the (constant) hardening modulus.3. (7. We remark. . σn+1 in the above deﬁnition is an explicit function. n+1 (7.91) reads trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − [σ0 + (¯p + ∆γ) H] = 0 εn (7. 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). the following incremental constitutive function for the updated stress: ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (εe trial . ε ¯ (7.93). d ∆γ = The explicit incremental constitutive function Under the assumption of linear hardening.60) for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening (for which αn = {¯p . εp }) integrated numerically by the fully εn n implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. For linear ε hardening materials.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 223 particularisation of the generic incremental function (4.102) 3G The geometric interpretation of the fully implicit algorithm for the perfectly plastic von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 7. such functions are usually implicit.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. εp ) ¯n n+1 ˆ ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn σy (¯p ) 6G2 1 − trial 3G + H qn+1 Id : εe trial .4 in the return-mapping procedure. 7.10.91) is the hardening curve.103) ¯ In contrast to the general case (7. (7.101) for ∆γ into (7. we substitute the explicit formula (7.4.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . however.

Piecewise linear hardening... 1 σy ) εp Figure 7. 3 σy ) ( 2 ε p . . The perfectly plastic von Mises model. 2 σy ) piecewise linear approximation with n hard sampling points ( n hard ε p. σy hardening curve . In the HYPLAS program.3 and 7. summarised in Boxes 7.10. is carried out in subroutine SUVM (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model).3.4.. Geometric interpretation of the implicit returnmapping scheme as the closest point projection algorithm. subroutine SUVM is called by the material interface MATISU during the computation of the ﬁnite element internal force vector. n hard σ y ) ( 1 ε p .. 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. ( 3 ε p .224 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 Nn+1 sn+1 sn π -plane - fixed yield surface Figure 7. This procedure.11. 7.5.

A piecewise linear approximation. C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.NE.1.RP5 . actual experimental data for hardening curves are normally obtained as a set of points (σy .R2 .0D0. the isotropic hardening curve deﬁned by σy (¯p ) ε has been assumed to be piecewise linear. εp ). LALGVA(2).0.0D0.0D0. the present implementation of the von Mises model allows for the experimental data to be used directly in the deﬁnition of the hardening curve. SUFAIL=. In fact. with nhard sampling points. σy } ε with linear interpolation between adjacent pairs.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .NTYPE .11.3-4).2.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 225 In the present implementation.LALGVA .AND.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) . 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) .IPROPS . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.2. 2 RSTAVA . to a generic hardening curve is illustrated in Figure 7.0D0.R3 .R1 .STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .TOL / 2 0.FALSE.NE.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.NTYPE.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL IFPLAS.5D0.STRAT . 2 STRAT(MSTRE) . This means that any (arbitrarily nonlinear) hardening curve can be adequately approximated by using a sufﬁciently large number of sampling pairs {¯p .RPROPS(*) . 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 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. The FORTRAN source code of SUVM is listed below.1.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .RPROPS .FALSE.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0013’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.3. ¯ Thus.

4) C ------------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.TRUE.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .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.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the return mapping equation (Box 7.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)) C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------PHI=QTRIAL-SIGMAY IF(PHI/SIGMAY.GT. EPBAR=EPBARN DO 10 NRITER=1.LE.NHARD.NHARD.TRUE.MXITER C Compute residual derivative DENOM=-R3G-DPLFUN(EPBAR. 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 .NHARD.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.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=QTRIAL-R3G*DGAMA-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.

Array of state variables other than the stress components. → NTYPE. ← LALGVA. εe . NHARD.. Otherwise. i = 1. . of ¯ sampling points along the hardening curve (see illustration of Figure 7. . The incremental plastic multiplier. only if the Newton scheme of the return-mapping algorithm fails to converge. the calculations for the current load increment are aborted and restarted with a smaller increment. 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. → RPROPS. updated value εp on exit).FALSE. . 2 εp . IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. Stress state type ﬂag.TRUE. It contains the elastic properties (Young’s modulus. 2 σy . The state update failure ﬂag returns as . nhard . For the von Mises model it contains the plastic yielding ﬂag. . . Array of integer material properties. → IPROPS. nhard εp . ¯n ¯n+1 n is used in subroutine MATISU to compute the elastic trial strain before the present subroutine is called.TRUE. it is obtained as the solution of the return-mapping equation (7.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 logical algorithmic ﬂags or variables. εp ]. When the state update procedure fails (for any material model). . IFPLAS. Array of real material properties. . that is. ν. In this case. If the step is elastic. .. and is the only integer material property required by the present subroutine. and the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL. .91). otherwise its return value is . 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. E. For the ¯ present material model implementation. the plastic yielding ﬂag returns as .11): RP ROP S = [E. 1 σy . 1 εp . ↔ RSTAVA [εe . If the increment is elastic. ν) and the pairs {i εp . The last converged elastic strain.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . nhard σy ]. and Poisson’s ratio. it returns as 0. . i σy }. IPROPS(3) contains the number of sampling points for the piecewise linear hardening curve. ¯ ¯ ¯ Array RPROPS is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. increment cutting is activated in the main program.

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

tn+1 ].e. Only the guesses for the total strain.106) For linear elastic materials. un+1 – change during the global Newton–Raphson equilibrium iterations (refer to Section 4. within each global load increment. ∂ε (7. from page 94 for details on the global Newton–Raphson procedure). for the stress tensor with general form ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn .107) 7. elastoplastic materials require in general some kind of numerical integration algorithm to update the stress tensor.2 will deliver the updated stress σn+1 as the result of the application of a particular numerical algorithm (see diagram of Figure 7. equivalent to a (nonlinear) elastic law.2. This deﬁnes an ˆ algorithmic incremental constitutive function. 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.98) show the corresponding (implicit) incremental constitutive function for the model with nonlinear hardening and expression (7.2. the stress σn+1 delivered by the integration ˆ algorithm is a function of the total strain tensor only. αn (7. (7. Basically. the consistent tangent modulus is the standard (constant) elasticity tensor D = 2G Id + K I ⊗ I. (7.105) so that the tangent modulus can be explicitly derived as D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψ(ε) . This function – σ(αn .1 (page 95). σ. the internal variable set αn given as argument of σ is ﬁxed. each of the general integration procedures described in Section 7. Expressions (7. εn+1 – associated with the guesses for the displacement ﬁeld.109) ˆ i. ∂ε2 (7.4. εn+1 ).2.12).103) shows the particular (explicit) format obtained under linear hardening. 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 . in the formulation of incremental boundary value problems with general path-dependent material models.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 229 Elastic materials In the case of purely elastic materials. tn+1 ]. given the known internal variable set αn and the new prescribed total strain εn+1 as input. In other words. it is the derivative of the algorithmic function σ with respect to εn+1 with αn held constant. εn+1 ) with ﬁxed αn – deﬁnes a path-independent stress/strain relation within the interval [tn . . 7.1. ˆ Within a load increment [tn .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATORS IN ELASTOPLASTICITY As shown in Section 7.108) Algorithmic functions of this type have been ﬁrst referred to in Section 4.93. the stress is an explicit function of the strain tensor σ = σ(ε) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ(ε) .

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). no measure of total nonlinear strain analogous to εn+1 is used (or needed) in the deﬁnition of elastoplastic constitutive models. it is worth remarking that. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . we shall adopt in what follows the rightmost term of (7. and we also have the trivial identity ˆ ¯ ∂σ ∂σ D= = e trial (7. in the context of the multiplicative ﬁnite strain plasticity framework discussed in Chapter 14. however. This is clearly seen by noting the presence of the Heaviside step function – a non-differentiable function – in deﬁnition (7.12. i.98) of the incremental constitutive law for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. the incremental constitutive function for σn+1 n+1 n can always be expressed equivalently as†† ¯ ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . does n+1 appear naturally in the formulation of the corresponding elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes. rather than the total n+1 strain εn+1 . An elastic trial strain measure (analogous to the inﬁnitesimal tensor εe trial ).93). for instance). At this point. ‡‡ Also †† This .230 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS algorithmic stress constitutive function ^ σn+1 = σ (α n . σn+1 Figure 7. (7. in order to maximise the number of routines shared by small and large-strain isotropic plasticity models in the HYPLAS program.98). as the actual input argument to the elastoplastic integration procedures for models of the present type (see routine SUVM. εn+1 α n+1. listed on page 227.111) as the deﬁnition of consistent tangent operator. note that.110) in terms of the elastic trial strain and the internal variable set at tn . n+1 n+1 n (7. εe trial ) ≡ σ(αn . εe trial + εp ). Clearly.111) ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 for the consistent tangent operator. For states lying within the elastic domain. The algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor.e.‡‡ The elastic and elastoplastic tangents Before going into further details. εn+1 ) input state update procedure elastic predictor/ return-mapping algorithm ⇔ output α n . it is worth remarking at this point that the algorithmic ˆ function σ is non-differentiable in general. εe trial . we have conveniently chosen the elastic trial strain. states corresponding obvious equivalence has already been used in (7.

Dep . deﬁned for plastic loading. (7. De . However.98) – where the Heaviside step function is non-differentiable – either elastic unloading or plastic straining may occur in the incremental constitutive law. Consider the one-dimensional case ˆ illustrated in Figure 7. the tangent modulus D consistent with any of the integration algorithms previously discussed is simply given by D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . The incremental constitutive function is obviously nondifferentiable in this case. these are generalised respectively as the elastic tangent modulus. Clearly. 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.13).112) .εn 1 ) Elastic unloading D is the elasticity tensor: D = De Plastic loading D is the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: D = Dep σ(αn . The tangent moduli consistent with elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithms. The elastic tangent is associated with the elastic predictor procedure whereas the elastoplastic tangent is related to the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure. Even though σ is non-differentiable its two one-sided derivatives – the elastic and the elastoplastic tangents – are well deﬁned. with the stress σn+1 evolving along the (smooth) elastic curve (see graphical representation of the ˆ uniaxial stress case in Figure 7. at states with Φtrial = 0 in (7. In this case the function σ is differentiable.13.93. any inﬁnitesimal change of total strain can only be elastic.98). the appropriate choice of tangent operator must be made. 7. and the elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. At states with ˆ Φtrial > 0. and an elastoplastic tangent relation. when assembling the tangent stiffness matrix required by the Newton– Raphson iterative procedure for the global incremental equilibrium problem.εn 1 ) loading σn 1 σn 1 unloading εn 1 εn 1 Figure 7.13. Inﬁnitesimal changes of εn+1 will move the stress along the elastoplastic part of the incremental stress– strain curve. to Φtrial < 0 in (7. The tangent modulus D is not uniquely deﬁned and two tangent stress–strain relations exist: an elastic tangent relation.93). deﬁned for elastic unloading. ∂εe 2 (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . In the multidimensional case. the function σ is also differentiable if the hardening curve is smooth.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 .

The derivation of elastoplastic tangent operators consistent with the implicit return mapping for general plasticity models is addressed later.4. for example. 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. 7.4. Note.3. As an illustration of the above concepts. which employs only the elastic constitutive law. in this case. This procedure is common to all algorithms described in Section 7. it is the standard elastic modulus. 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. Thus.232 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS i.e. the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model is derived below. the stress σn+1 is the outcome of the elastic predictor. The application of the generic . it was remarked that from the computational point of view the implementation of the von Mises model is the simplest described in this book. The system solved in the return mapping depends on the particular algorithm adopted. that the term ∆γ in (7. For elastoplastic materials whose elastic response is linear.93) is an implicit function of εe trial (or εn+1 ) deﬁned as the solution n+1 of an algebraic nonlinear equation.6. such as the von Mises model and all other models described in Chapter 6. In this section.e. then the tangent operator is called the elastoplastic consistent tangent and is denoted Dep . 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. It is important to emphasise here that elastoplastic consistent tangent operators cannot be derived for the cutting-plane algorithm (refer to Remark 7.2. Note that. 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.107). In other words. In this case. the elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the von Mises implicit return mapping is derived step by step. the elastic consistent tangent is the standard elasticity operator (7. in Section 7. The simplicity of this particular return-mapping scheme avoids the complications associated with more complex models/algorithms. it is clear that σn+1 is deﬁned implicitly through the corresponding nonlinear system. There. The elastoplastic tangent: the derivative of an implicit function If the stress is on the yield surface.4. 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. i.2. Φtrial > 0 or Φtrial = 0 and it is assumed that further plastic loading is going to occur. the updated stress σn+1 is an implicit function of the elastic trial strain εe trial in this case. Crucial to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent moduli is the observation that under plastic yielding.

95). which offers an alternative route to the derivation presented below.117).113). Further.116) into account gives trial ∂qn+1 ∂∆γ 1 = e trial e trial 3G + H ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 2G 3 ¯ = Nn+1 .113) where ∆γ is the solution of the return-mapping equation of the algorithm (Box 7. the elastic trial von Mises effective stress.3).119) εp +∆γ ¯n Finally.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . qn+1 .93). trial trial (qn+1 )2 ∂εn+1 (7. we obtain trial ∂qn+1 = 2G e trial ∂εn+1 3 2 ¯ N n+1 . we obtain. i. is the function of the elastic trial strain deﬁned by (7. taking (7.114) trial In the above.116) and (7. by substituting (7. The incremental algorithmic constitutive function for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening is given by (7. is described in Section 7.115) From (7.117) and we have made use of the trivial identity: εe trial : Id = εe trial .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 233 procedure to the isotropically hardening von Mises model. (7. the following expression for the .139) (page 36).e.95) and relation (2. the differentiation of the implicit equation (7. after a straightforward manipulation making use of (7. Under plastic ﬂow. for the tensor norm derivative.115). trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.95) and deﬁnition (7. The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus for the present model/algorithm combination is obtained by differentiating (7.5. 3G + H 2 (7.118) into (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 (7.118) where H is the slope of the hardening curve: H≡ dσy d¯p ε .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 . (7. when the return-mapping procedure is used. A straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules to (7.114) for ∆γ. n+1 trial qn+1 (7. when applying the chain d n+1 d n+1 rule. (7. the update formula for σn+1 reads σn+1 = De − ∆γ 6G2 Id : εe trial .4.

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. Remark 7.122) where we have used the subscript ‘c’ to emphasise that the above operator is the continuum tangent modulus. for this particular model and numerical integration algorithm is symmetric.107). With De deﬁned by (7. Its closed form is given by expression (6.124) (7. and taking into consideration the fact that for the von Mises model N is a deviatoric tensor.4. we have De : N = 2G N.121) With the above. For the ﬁrst iteration of any global load increment.123) . N n+1 .192).187)–(6.67).3. ∆γ is zero.120) are those obtained for the Gauss point of interest in the return-mapping procedure of the previous global iteration. Within the global (equilibrium) Newton–Raphson scheme.8 and 6.e.67) particularises in the following format: Dep = De − c (De : N ) ⊗ (De : N ) . (7. Let us now particularise this formula for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening. In the HYPLAS program. The continuum tangent operator The concept of tangent operators in plasticity has been initially discussed in Sections 6. ¯ q trial and H.136). using (6. Its implementation is described in detail in Section 7.136) for the von Mises model.194) and the associative ﬂow vector deﬁnition (6.4. In addition. together with (6. the above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVM. Firstly we consider (6. In Section 6. The symmetry of consistent elastoplastic tangent operators will be further commented upon in Section 7. that take part in (7.6. it follows that N : De : N = 3G. as well as the incremental unit ﬂow vector.3.8. N : De : N + H (7.3. the corresponding elastoplastic continuum tangent operator has been derived for the generic multi-dimensional plasticity model. In this case we have ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψp ∂ 2 ψp ∂κ =ρ ¯ = p = H. respectively) in the time-continuum setting. i. 2 ∂α ∂ε ¯ ∂ εp 2 ¯ (7.8 (from pages 147 and 153.2.8. (7. we ﬁnd that expression (6.120) ¯ ¯ 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. the value of ∆γ.

MSTRE). if the continuum tangent is used in conjunction with the return-mapping scheme. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUBROUTINE CTVM 1( DGAMA . 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. 3G + H (7. 7. SUBROUTINE CTVM This section describes subroutine CTVM (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model) in detail.IPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . 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. The use of the consistent tangent operator in this context was introduced by Simo and Taylor (1985).STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION . 1980) relied exclusively on the use of the continuum tangent operator.RPROPS(*) . . Dep .120).O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . Early implicit elastoplastic implementations (Owen and Hinton.126) If ∆γ is set to zero (as in the ﬁrst iteration of any load increment). given by (7. given by expression (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 235 By introducing these results into (7.EPFLAG 2 RPROPS . or the elastoplastic tangent operator. Remark 7. The algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVM. Clearly. It computes either the elastic tangent. This fact (Ortiz and Martin. 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.125) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector at the current state. De .STRES IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.3.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.NTYPE . the continuum tangent is recovered.107). . Note that we may write Dep = Dep − c ∆γ 6G2 ¯ ¯ [ Id − N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 ].DMATX .122).IPROPS ) . the difference between the continuum and the consistent operator can be substantial. when the value of ∆γ is large.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .9.120). The FORTRAN source code of CTVM is listed below. this routine is called by the material interface MATICT at each Gauss point during the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix.RSTAVA . In such cases.4. trial qn+1 (7. For large steps. 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. In the HYPLAS program. The elastoplastic operator is consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening. then the global iterative procedure is not the Newton–Raphson algorithm.

0D0 .0D0.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.3)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)/ 6 0.FOID(2.NTYPE.0.5D0 .SOID(3) .0.FOID(3.0.0D0.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 .FOID(4.3).0D0 .2).0D0 .0D0 .3).0D0 / 7 FOID(4.0.2).NSTRE DO 10 J=1.AND. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.FOID(2.4)/ 4 0.0D0 / DATA 1 R1 .0.1.SOID(4) / 2 1.4)/ 8 0.FOID(MSTRE.0D0 .0.0.2).0D0 .1.0D0 .J)=FOID(I.0D0 .0D0 .NSTRE DEVPRJ(I.1).3).0D0 .FOID(3.0.EQ.0.NE.R6 / 2 1.1).0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .FOID(3.R2 .MSTRE).2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.0D0 .1). C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.FOID(1.FOID(1.FOID(2. 2 SOID(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.NE.1.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 .6.2.3.0D0.R3 .FOID(4.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ENDIF DO 20 I=1.FOID(4.236 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.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.3).EQ.0.0.0D0 .1).0D0 .FOID(1.2.S(MSTRE) .4)/ 2 1.SOID(2) .2).MSTRE) .1.

2 above and is given by expression (7.J)+BULK*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 50 CONTINUE 60 CONTINUE ENDIF Assemble lower triangle ----------------------DO 80 J=1. DMATX returns as the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator. The value of EPFLAG is set in subroutine MATICT. The procedure for setting EPFLAG in MATICT is common to all elastoplastic models of the material class HYPEPL. It is set to zero (before being passed into CTVM) for the ﬁrst iteration of every load increment.120).4.I) 70 CONTINUE 80 CONTINUE RETURN END The arguments of CTVM → DGAMA [∆γ]. Array of integer material properties (see description on page 227).NSTRE DO 50 J=I. → IPROPS.J)=AFACT*DEVPRJ(I.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Dep .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. → RPROPS.FALSE. ← DMATX [either De or Dep ].NSTRE DO 30 J=I.. DMATX returns as the elastic matrix.NSTRE DMATX(I.NSTRE-1 DO 70 I=J+1. Tangent operator (stored in matrix form) consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model.TRUE. The associated elastoplastic consistent tangent.J)=R2G*DEVPRJ(I. The incremental plastic multiplier obtained from the return mapping of SUVM in the previous global (equilibrium) iteration. If .2. If . The implicit algorithm has been described in Section 7.NHARD. was derived in Section 7. → EPFLAG. De . → NTYPE.. Dep .NSTRE DMATX(I. Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag.NSTRE DMATX(I. Array of real material properties (see description on page 227). Stress state type ﬂag.3.RPROPS(IPHARD))))/ 2 (SNORM*SNORM) DO 40 I=1.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. NTYPE=2 for plane strain and NTYPE=3 for axisymmetric problems. .J)=DMATX(J.

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

131) dα = J ∗ dA.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 239 the stress tensor at tn+1 . In this case we end up with the following relation: dεe = C : dσ . F and G are deﬁned in (7. Thus. A and J are suitably deﬁned linear operators. Note that. (7. ∂εn+1 i.50). the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator ∂σn+1 Dep ≡ e trial . under the classical assumption of decoupling between elasticity and plastic hardening: ψ(εe . As discussed in the preceding sections.129) where C. for the differentials dσ and dA.e.48)–(7. B. 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 . (7. α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α). (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . where C = [De ]−1 and J = G−1 . Recall that.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.130) the tangent moduli E and F vanish and so do B and A. 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). .52) on page 206): dσ = De : dεe + E ∗ dα dA = F ∗ dεe + G ∗ dα. we have the following relations (refer to the rate elastoplasticity equations (7. (7.128) The linear operators E. (7. the derivative of the implicit function for stress. gives the linear tangent relationship between εe trial and σn+1 . Inversion of this relation gives the following general expression dεe = C : dσ + B ∗ dA dα = A ∗ dσ + J ∗ dA.

we obtain dσ dA = D21 d∆γ D31 D11 D12 D22 D32 D13 e trial dε 0 . of associated forces.133) D33 From the above. we obtain the generalised tangent operators consistent with the implicit return-mapping algorithm.5. The generalised operators are: The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. dσn+1 D11 = e trial ≡ Dep . The product operations between the elements of the matrix and the elements of the ‘vector’ containing the differentials dσ. 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 . As far as ﬁnite element computations are concerned.240 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS By substituting (7. of internal state variables. 7. only the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator is of relevance. by inverting the above linear relation. D23 0 (7.129) into (7. etc. and d∆γ D31 = e trial .134) dεn+1 The operator D21 = dAn+1 . (7. are the corresponding appropriate products.135) which gives the tangent relation between increments of elastic trial strain and thermodynamical force set An+1 . etc. dεe trial n+1 (7.132) is a generic tensor (or set containing scalars.132) J − ∆γ −H ∂σ ∂A ∂Φ ∂Φ d∆γ 0 0 ∂σ ∂A Finally. no assumptions have been made about the nature of the sets α. (7.) of appropriate order. Note that the dimension and order of the linear operator D21 depends on the deﬁnition of set A. This symbolic matrix notation will be used frequently in this book to represent linearised systems. in the above symbolic derivation. and A.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.4. A − ∆γ (7. † Note that each element of the symbolic matrix of expression (7.127). . tensors. ILLUSTRATION: THE VON MISES MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC HARDENING For the sake of generality.

141) is equivalent to dσ = P : (dεe trial − d∆γ N ). The tangential relation (7. the general procedure described above is here particularised for the implicit return mapping for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening.139) where H is the hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve).143) .136) of the associative ﬂow vector for the von Mises model. From the deﬁnition (6. it also follows that ∂N ∂N ≡ = 0. We then have ∂H ∂H ≡ = 0. 2 ∂σ ∂σ 2q (7.132) results in the following e trial dε dσy = 0 .117).140) and (6. ∂A ∂κ ∂H = 0. we recall the discussion around expressions (6. Firstly. these sets may contain as many variables as necessary for the appropriate description of the material behaviour.136) into account. −1 d∆γ 0 0 N dσ 0 1 H −1 (7.142) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector (7. it may not be easy to have a clear picture of what operations are involved in the above derivation. the operators B and A vanish.141) can be inverted trivially as follows.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 241 As discussed in Chapter 6. the ﬂow vector derivative is easily obtained as ∂N ∂ 2 Φ 3 ¯ ¯ = = (Id − N ⊗ N).129). Depending on the particular model. We start by observing that the ﬁrst row of (7. ∂A ∂κ Substitution of the above expressions linearised form: ∂N [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂σ 0 N (7.194) into (7. vector or tensor of any order. ∂σ (7. as elasticity and plastic hardening are decoupled in the von Mises model. The remaining (non-vanishing) operators are C = [De ]−1 and ¯ J = G−1 = ρ ∂2ψ ∂ εp 2 ¯ −1 (7. each element of these sets may be a scalar. (7. as pointed out in the discussion following expression (7.138) ∂σy ∂ εp ¯ −1 = = 1 .194) (page 182) for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. In order to provide the reader with a better view of the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator. H (7.141) where by taking (6.137) In addition.187–6. With such a high degree of generality.

Alternative formula Yet another representation.141) and then inverting the resulting differential relation. by Dutko et al. Also note the similarity between (7. 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). page 235). for instance. 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 ). combined with the third row and (7.148) and the continuum tangent operator (7. is sometimes used in computational applications. (7.149) or. the above formula recovers (7.144) The second row of (7. (7.146) into the ﬁrst row of (7.9. alternative to (7. Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ ¯ 3∆γ 3 1 ¯ Id + − N⊗N 2q 2 H q −1 .148). ¯ N : P : N + 2H 3 (7.148) The above expression for Dep is an equivalent representation to (7. Remark 7.145) (7.242 where COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ −1 : De . H (7. in view of (7.120) and could be used as an alternative in the computational implementation of the model. (7.122) if ∆γ = 0. This. in turn.146) or. (1993) in the context of anisotropic plasticity. As expected (refer to Remark 7.150) The use of an analogous formula is reported. by substituting (7.147) into (7.10.142). (7. The corresponding expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent reads Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ 1 ∂N + N⊗N ∂σ H −1 .143). 1 N : P : dεe trial .143).147) N:P:N+H Finally. . after rearranging. 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.141). gives dσy = H d∆γ. The alternative formula is obtained simply by replacing the ﬁrst right-hand side of (7.122).

4. the incremental equilibrium boundary value problem is endowed with a potential structure analogous to that of hyperelasticity boundary value problems.148) or (7. page 153) that the time-continuum elastoplastic tangent modulus with general expression (6.67) is symmetric for models with associative plastic ﬂow rule. σn+1 . For models with associative ﬂow but non-associative hardening. This property is not transferred in general to its time-discrete (or consistent) counterpart. 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 ¯ 2.42).4.120). many important properties associated with the regularity and stability of the solution of (time-continuum) elastoplasticity problems . These authors show. εp . such that the updated stress. even though the continuum tangent is symmetric. 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. TANGENT OPERATOR SYMMETRY: INCREMENTAL POTENTIALS It has been emphasised in Chapter 6 (refer to Remark 6. (7. Also.37).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Simo and Govindjee (1991) show that for the variant of the family of midpoint algorithms with consistency equation (7. αn } there n exists an incremental potential.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 243 7. ψ. This allows methods conventionally used in hyperelasticity to be adopted in the study of elastoplastic incremental boundary value problems. In a further discussion on this issue.153) Remark 7.151) analogous to the free-energy function. then. for instance.11. is symmetric. in the presence of hardening. for fully associative models. models with associative ﬂow and hardening rules). For elastoplastic model/algorithm combinations that preserve the consistent tangent operator symmetry.150). in the presence of hardening. An interesting discussion on this topic is provided by Ortiz and Martin (1989). again only for perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or.4. ¯ ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 (7. 1].106). its implicit consistent counterpart is not.152) Analogously to (7. ˜ ¯ ψn = ψn (εn+1 ) = ψn (εe trial ) n+1 (7.6. the symmetry of the corresponding consistent tangents is guaranteed for any θ ∈ [0. ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εe trial n+1 (7. delivered by the integration algorithm is given by σn+1 = ρ ¯ ˜ ¯ ∂ ψn ∂ ψn = ρ e trial . that for the family of generalised midpoint algorithms based on the returnmapping equations (7.130). when applied to perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or. the consistent tangents for this family of algorithms are generally unsymmetric. If the plastic ﬂow rule is associative but the hardening rule does not derive from the associative relation (6. whose general symbolic expression was derived in Section 7. to fully associative models (i.e. Incremental potentials The symmetry of the consistent tangent operator implies that at any state {εn . operator symmetry is preserved only for the fully implicit member (θ = 0).1.

whose details of numerical implementation have been given in the previous sections.3. Interested readers are referred to Martin (1975) and Rice (1976) for further details.14. this chapter has presented a general framework for the numerical treatment of elastoplasticity within the context of implicit incremental ﬁnite element procedures.5.244 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS depend crucially on the symmetry of the continuum tangent operator. When symmetry is preserved in the consistent tangent operator. The analysis . In all examples.152) with the above potential can be established by a straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules taking expression (2.5. Subsequently. 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.4. Firstly. the material properties and the adopted ﬁnite element mesh is illustrated in Figure 7.139) (page 36). The standard eight-noded quadrilateral element. These issues fall outside the scope of this book. with four (2 × 2) Gauss integration points is adopted. 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 . The practical application of these numerical procedures is illustrated in this section by a comprehensive set of benchmark numerical examples. with a complete description of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit algorithm. has been adopted. the concept of consistent tangent operators in elastoplasticity has been introduced and also specialised.154) That the incremental constitutive function (7. (7. The examples presented here are restricted to the von Mises model with isotropic hardening. many such properties can be transferred to the discretised problem. All ﬁnite element analyses have been carried out in the HYPLAS program. 7.4. The geometry of the problem. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm.1. n+1 d n+1 7. for the same model. into account together with the identity εe trial = Id : εe trial . INTERNALLY PRESSURISED CYLINDER This example considers the simulation of the behaviour of a long metallic thick-walled cylinder subjected to internal pressure. 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.2 and 7. resulting from the use of the consistent tangent operator described in Sections 7.103) is indeed obtained from the potential relation (7. Numerical examples with the von Mises model So far. Most results are compared with existing analytical solutions.

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)

here.e. deﬁned by the same number of (user supplied) sampling pairs as the isotropic hardening curve {¯p . is assumed to be piecewise linear.6. i.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 261 ˆ where H is the Heaviside step function (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . (7. if σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H i εp .203) = qn+1 (βn . n+1 (7. Also note that.3. These components are stored in array RSTAVA of real-state variables. 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. β. εe trial ) − σy (¯p ).6. εe trial ) ≡ ¯trial n+1 Φtrial is the function Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p .206) with constant σy 0 .5). the algorithm of Box 7. As for the isotropic hardening curve.199). the kinematic hardening curve. 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.4.207) 3G + H k + H i 7. εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (βn .5.204) (7. βn . H i and H k . β}. This routine is a simple modiﬁcation of routine SUVM (listed in Section 7. qn+1 = ¯trial 3 2 strial − βn = n+1 3 2 3 2 2Gεe trial − βn d n+1 2G Id : εe trial − βn . . εe trial ) εn n+1 is the implicit function of consistency equation (7. εn ¯trial εn n+1 n+1 and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p .94).5 is a straightforward extension of the algorithm for the isotropic hardening-only model listed in Boxes 7. βn . ε ¯ The extra properties are read and stored in array RPROPS (real material properties) during the data input phase of HYPLAS.6.205) βn } deﬁned by the 7. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS As anticipated at the beginning of Section 7. εe trial n+1 and the internal variables {¯p . ¯ (7. LINEAR HARDENING: CLOSED-FORM RETURN MAPPING If the kinematic and isotropic hardening are linear. ε ¯ ¯ε β(¯p ) = H k εp ..4.3 and 7. then the present return mapping equation has the following closed form solution: Φtrial ∆γ = . The present mixed hardening algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMMX (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening). ¯ε β(¯p ).

199) with respect to εe trial .211) 2 ¯ N n+1 .212) Then. (7.209) we obtain. (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 . after a straightforward algebra taking (7.209) where we have made use of the connection ηtrial = 2G Id : εe trial − βn .4.202) gives ∆γ 6G2 ∆γ 3G σn+1 = De − trial Id : εe trial + trial βn . The derivative of the n+1 n+1 trial relative effective stress is obtained analogously to (7.116). 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.6.211) into account. The corresponding expression in the present case has the same format as (7.e. The differentiation of (7.208) 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 .194) and (7. ηtrial n+1 (7.212) into (7.116).262 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7.210) and (7. trial )2 trial (¯n+1 q ∂εn+1 (7. with the substitution of (7. i. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT Under plastic ﬂow (Φtrial > 0).208) n+1 qn+1 ¯ qn+1 ¯ The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the present case is obtained by differentiating the above relation. the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (7. 2 (7.210) The incremental plastic multiplier derivative is obtained by differentiating the return-mapping equation (7. 3 (7.213) ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 1 − trial 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯ .6. ∂ qn+1 ¯trial = 2G ∂εe trial n+1 with the unit ﬂow vector here deﬁned as ηtrial ¯ N n+1 ≡ n+1 . The derivation follows closely that presented in Section 7.2 (from page 232) for the isotropic hardening-only model.

from page 235) coded for the isotropic hardening-only model.3. . As the reader may ¯ verify CTVMMX is a straightforward variation of routine CTVM (refer to Section 7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .4. The basic difference is that. the incremental ﬂow vector and the scalar factors multiplying the fourth-order tensors are redeﬁned according to the above formulae. in CTVMMX.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.

.

for the Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models.5. respectively. • the Mohr–Coulomb model. the complete computational implementation of other basic plasticity models discussed in Chapter 6. Note that all three models addressed here feature such singularities where. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models. a table has been added indicating the location of ﬂowcharts. including a step-by-step derivation and FORTRAN coding of the necessary procedures. 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.3. 8. and • the Drucker–Prager 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. all featuring linear elastic behaviour and generally a nonlinear isotropic hardening law. 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. have been derived in detail for the isotropic and mixed hardening cases. 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 main sections of this chapter are three: Sections 8. the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb criteria admit a multisurface representation with corresponding multivector ﬂow rules.2.8 COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS I N Chapter 7. Namely. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. in particular. discussed in Section 7. The associative plastic ﬂow rule is adopted for the Tresca model whereas. the generally non-associated laws discussed in Section 6. 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. We remark that the only new concept introduced in this chapter concerns the computational treatment of singularities (corners) in the yield surface. the models discussed here are • the Tresca model. the implementation of the Tresca. These sections describe.3. together with the associated consistent tangent. 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. is described in detail. Ltd .3 of Chapter 6 are considered. At the beginning of each of the main sections.1. To illustrate such concepts. In the present chapter.2 and 8.

3 to the Tresca model with general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. The Tresca model This section describes the specialisation of the implicit algorithm of Section 7. 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. .1.1–8. The multisurface representation of the Tresca model is deﬁned by means of the six yield functions. The corresponding consistent tangent operator is also derived and an accuracy assessment of the integration algorithm.7 subroutine CTTR (Section 8. is presented.266 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS interest.2. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. Applications of the numerical procedures derived in the main sections are illustrated in Section 8. a summary of the constitutive equations of the model concerned is presented. 8. 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.1) where Ni ≡ ∂Φi . Also at the beginning of each main section. the location of the main results is summarised below.91) (page 160). ∂σ (8. . In the following we summarise for convenience only its main equations.3 subroutine SUTR (Section 8.5) 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) . Φ6 .2) Figures 8. The corresponding associative plastic ﬂow rule is deﬁned by the rate equation 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i. ˙ (8. Φ1 . . by means of iso-error maps.1. given in (6. where a more detailed description of the constitutive equations adopted here is given.6 and 8. .1.4 by means a comprehensive set of benchmarking numerical examples.3 Boxes 8. For the reader who is interested only in the practical implementation aspects of the material presented in this section.

In this case. respectively).8) 3. 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 . The ﬂow rule. Isotropic strain hardening is incorporated. 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. the model can be completely deﬁned with reference to a single sextant of the principal stress space. L. Plastic ﬂow from the ﬂat portion (main plane). R. as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (refer to Figure 6. without loss of generality. (8. Plastic ﬂow from the left corner. page 173).10) . as in the von Mises model implementation discussed in Chapter 7. The ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . (8.6).7) where N a is the normal to the main plane. ˙ εp = γN a . γ i ≥ 0. (8.18. (8. deﬁned by (8.11) (8. ˙ Φi γ i = 0 ˙ (8. only three possibilities are identiﬁed for the associative plastic ﬂow: 1.6) 2. is the same as the one above. which are given respectively by ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ for plastic ﬂow from the main plane (item 1 above). 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 . where the Tresca yielding function is differentiable.3) with no summation on the repeated index. in this case.9) Under the assumption of associative hardening (for further details. Plastic ﬂow from the right corner.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 267 together with the loading/unloading conditions Φi ≤ 0. the accumulated plastic strain for this model is deﬁned by means of its evolution equations. In this case. (8. refer to the text surrounding equation (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 .4) With the principal stresses ordered. page 183). ˙ (8. and ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a + γ b ¯ for plastic ﬂow from the right and left corners (items 2 and 3. ˙ ˙ (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 ).196).

More recently. numerical instabilities frequently arise in connection with the high curvature of the smoothed corners. 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. 1987. however.268 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8. An alternative c c approach based on a semi-analytical integration algorithm is described by Sloan and Booker (1992). given the incremental strain ∆ε. 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. 1989. The principal elastic trial stresses. then the process is elastic and (8. Simo et al. are computed in closed form by means of the formulae described in Appendix A.80)–(7. 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. note that the Tresca surface can be represented by means of a set of linear functions of the principal stresses.83). Owen and Hinton. 1972. With trial trial trial the principal trial stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (for notational convenience. and the state variables at tn . 1989. 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.25) are . σi ei . de Borst. the consistency check follows as: trial trial • If Φtrial ≡ σ1 − σ3 − σy (¯p ) ≤ εn tol . with an extra degree of complexity introduced due to the existence of singularities (corners) on the yield surface.1. n+1 • Otherwise. and the corresponding eigenvectors. the algorithm for the Tresca model becomes substantially different from the previously described von Mises algorithm. The elastic predictor stage here is identical to the one in the von Mises model implementation so that. At this point. the elastic trial state is computed as in (7. In such approaches. trial (i = 1. Pramono and Willam. The next step is to verify whether the trial state violates the plastic consistency constraint. Pankaj and Bi´ ani´ .1. Early numerical implementations of singular-surface models have resorted to the smoothing of corners leading to singularity-free formulations (Nayak and Zienkiewicz. 1988b). as in the algorithm for the von Mises model. The principal stress-based algorithm results in a simpler computational implementation of this particular model. Due to the principal stress approach adopted here. It is emphasised here that. 1987. 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. the subscript n + 1 is omitted from the trial and updated principal stresses). 2. 3).. For instance. the updated state at tn+1 is obtained by the return-mapping procedure described in what follows.94). page 160).12) (·)n+1 := (·)trial . 1980). the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress is required prior to the consistency check. substantial simpliﬁcation is possible when the general implicit return mapping equations (7.

¯n+1 ¯n (8.9) results in the three following possibilities for the return-mapping algorithm: 1. expression (8.13) Due to the isotropic linear elastic law and the fact that the Tresca ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric. In this case.15) i i where Nj denotes the eigenvalues of Nn+1 . .1): 6 εe = εe trial − n+1 n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 . The discretisation of (8. 3). (8. this expression is equivalent. 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. 2. However. The three possible return mappings Crucial to the derivation of the return-mapping algorithm is the observation that the plastic ﬂow rule (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. This substituted in (8. Thus.5)–(8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 269 particularized for the Tresca model.14) i Note that by deﬁnition of the ﬂow vectors.16) On the main plane. there is only one possible nonzero multiplier and the ﬂow vector is given by (8. for the von Mises model. The updated stress lies on the main plane.6). (8. Nn+1 and sn+1 share the same principal directions.10): εp = εp + ∆γ.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 . (8. (8.17) † The update formula in terms of principal deviatoric stresses is equally valid for the von Mises model. the update formula for the accumulated plastic strain is given by the implicit discrete counterpart of (8. as in the von Mises model. 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. (j = 1. consider the implicit update formula for the elastic strain obtained as a result of the discretisation of (8.5)–(8.9) has three different explicit forms. To derive the simpliﬁed equations. 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 .

Here.8).21) into the discrete consistency condition resulting from (8. σy (¯p )) = 0. ˜ (8.25) . two plastic multipliers may be nonzero and the incremental plastic strain is obtained from the discretisation of (8. here. a b (8. The updated stress lies on the right corner. 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 ).7) as a b ∆εp = ∆γ a Nn+1 + ∆γ b Nn+1 . ∆γ b ) = 0. ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a .17) into the discrete consistency condition Φ1 (σn+1 . ∆γ b ) ≡ σy (¯p + ∆γ a + ∆γ b ). σy (¯p )) = 0.6) and (8.24) 3. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . the normals to the main plane and to the plane on its right side given by (8. n+1 Φb ≡ Φ6 (σn+1 . The updated stress lies on the left corner.19) where N a and N b denote. 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) = 0.9).18) 2.20) and (8. a (8.20) The incremental law for εp in this case is the discrete counterpart of (8. is obtained with the introduction of (8. (8.16) and (8. ¯n+1 ¯n (8. ˜ 1 2 (8. 1 3 (8. the two-vector return-mapping equation is obtained here by introducing (8.3): εn+1 Φa ≡ Φ1 (σn+1 . N b is the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane. in the present case. εn+1 n+1 (8. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a .11): ¯ εp = εp + ∆γ a + ∆γ b .270 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The return mapping.22) This yields the following set of two algebraic equations for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ˜ ˜ Φa (∆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 . respectively.21) Analogously to the one-vector return mapping of item 1. The situation now is completely analogous to item 2 above with the difference that. σy (¯p )) = 0.23) where σy has been deﬁned as ˜ εn σy (∆γ a .

The geometric interpretation is illustrated in Figure 8. ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a . a rather simple and effective algorithm to select the appropriate return mapping can be derived based on the geometric characteristics of the Tresca surface. lies necessarily on the plane s1 − s3 − σy (¯p ) = 0. right or left corner). With the plastic multiplier(s) at hand. It is remarked that the selection algorithm. it has been shown above that the essential return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model.27) In summary. consider the application of the return algorithm to the main plane (item 1 above) for an arbitrary trial stress. ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. the principal deviatoric stresses. the question now is: as the ﬁnal location of the updated stress on the (updated) yield surface is not known in advance. they lie on the updated yield surface. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . required in the ﬁnite element computations. The updated stress tensor components. and. how can one decide which return mapping to apply in the actual computational implementation of the model? In the present case.26) The last of the above equations enforces Φ2 (σn+1 . and the accumulated plastic strain.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 .25).29) Upon application of the main plane return algorithm. the ﬁnal stress can end up either inside or outside the main sextant: s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 . If the updated principal stresses satisfy the above relation.30) represented by the shaded areas in Figure 8. clearly. εn+1 (8. σy (¯p )) = 0. In this case. and the result of the return mapping to the main plane is valid. εp . εn+1 (8. i. ˜ 2 3 (8. (8. (8. ∆γ b ) = 0. the updated deviatoric stress. sn+1 . In any case. Firstly. are then obtained simply by assembling 3 σn+1 := i=1 (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei .1. are updated by the formulae corresponding ¯ to the particular case considered (main plane. si . similarly to the von Mises return mapping. The particular form to be employed depends on the position of the updated stress on the yield surface. satisfy the consistency condition.1(a)).28) Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having described the possible return procedures. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a .1. may have three different explicit forms. then they are in the main sextant (Figure 8. described below. formulated in principal deviatoric stresses. 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).e. If the updated stress falls outside the main sextant .

Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.1.2. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. Selection of the appropriate return mapping to corner. Computer Methods in Applied c Mechanics and Engineering.) 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.A. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses: (a) valid return to main plane.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. and (b) invalid return to main plane – converged stress outside the original sextant. D Peri´ c and EA de Souza Neto.) . Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.A. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.

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.2.3.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 273 spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.3) assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and other state variables. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses.2. ∆γ b and σi (i=1. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUTR of program HYPLAS. .2. and exit Figure 8.3) 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.

If the scalar product 3 T2 = −2. .e. therefore. respectively.1 shows the main algorithm and Boxes 8.2. if relation (8. The appropriate algorithm to be applied (right or left) can be easily determined by. the only possible return is to the right corner. which is unacceptable. With the appropriate choice of return mappings based on the above.1(b)). then the trial stress is on the left side and the return mapping to the left corner is applied. In this case. i. T3 = 1. Clearly. 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. in actual computations. then the appropriate return is to the left corner. In this case. (8. T has the same eigenvectors as strial and its eigenvalues may be chosen as n+1 T1 = 1. implemented in subroutine SUTR (State Update procedure for the TResca model). then. Let T be a tangent vector to the main plane as illustrated in Figure 8. is positive. the updated stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the return mapping to the main plane and the two-vector return mappings to the corners. whether strial lies on the right or left of the n+1 dotted line.1–8.3 show. respectively. is described in detail in Boxes 8. It is very simple to determine.3.274 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (Figure 8. i 1 3 2 (8. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model is completely deﬁned.31) T: strial n+1 = i=1 Ti strial = strial + strial − 2 strial . described. Box 8. 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). one concludes that if the trial deviatoric stress is on the left side of the dotted line. 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.30) is not satisﬁed. again.2. in items 2 and 3 above. represented by the dotted line in Figure 8. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is illustrated in Figure 8. The algorithm.2 and 8. in spite of being on the main plane. Using the same argument. If the product is negative. then it can be easily visualized that strial could only return to the n+1 left corner if ∆γ b were negative.32) between T and strial .3. violates the consistency condition.

2 (iv. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 275 Box 8.3 (v) Assemble updated stress pn+1 := ptrial n+1 σn+1 := and update elastic strain 3 i=1 and ei (i = 1.c) Return to corner IF strial + strial − 2 strial > 0 1 3 2 THEN apply return to right corner – GOTO Box 8. n+1 n ptrial := K εe trial . Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε. 3) (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial I v n+1 2G 3 .3 ELSE apply return to left corner – GOTO Box 8.b) Check validity of main plane return IF s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv. 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).1.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8. 2. 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. HYPLAS procedure: SUTR (i) Elastic predictor.

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 8.2.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) . The Tresca model.276 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b ∆γ a := 0 and corresponding residual ˜ Φa ˜ Φb where sa = strial − strial . ¯ 1 3 sb = ¯ := sa − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn sb − σy (¯p ) ¯ εn 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. 1 2 strial 2 − strial . The Tresca model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 277 Box 8.

Two-vector return mappings to corners (implemented in subroutine SUTR). The Tresca model. from page 277).1 (iv) GOTO (ii) for left corner .278 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.3 (contd. (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.

MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(4) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS. TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.D-10.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . SUBROUTINE SUTR As in the von Mises state update procedure implemented in subroutine SUVM (Section 7.PSTRS(3) .NTYPE .1.3.1.R2 .R1 . RIGHT. 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 .STREST(3) DATA 1 2 .AND. .2.1.1-3).STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL 1 DUMMY.3.STRAT .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 8.5.SMALL .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 279 8.TOL / 0. SUFAIL.RPROPS 2 RSTAVA .3.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. SUFAIL=.5 for details of implementation of the piecewise linear hardening law. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.LALGVA .0D0. The FORTRAN source code of SUTR is listed below.2. R0 .0D0. starting page 224). IFPLAS.2.R4 .2) .1.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0029’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=.STRAT(MSTRE) .FALSE. The reader is referred to Section 7.4.R3 .NE. piecewise linear isotropic hardening is assumed in the present implementation of the implicit integration algorithm for the Tresca model.NTYPE.0D0.0D0.IPROPS(*) . This hardening rule is adopted due to its ﬂexibility in ﬁtting experimental data.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .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 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 SUBROUTINE SUTR 1( DGAM .IPROPS .0D0.NE.

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.JJ.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SHMAXT-SIGMAY IF(PHIA/SIGMAY.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SHMAX=SHMAXT-R4G*DGAMA PHIA=SHMAX-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.1)MM=1 IF(II.PSTRS.GE.NE.NE.R0)THEN RIGHT=.TRUE.TOL)THEN C Check validity of one-vector return S1=PSTRS1-R2G*DGAMA .NHARD. C identify possible two-vector return: right or left of main plane SCAPRD=PSTRS1+PSTRS3-PSTRS2*R2 IF(SCAPRD. C Start Newton-Raphson iterations DO 20 NRITER=1.3 IF(PSTRS(I).DUMMY.TRUE.JJ.AND.NE.PSTRS3)THEN JJ=I PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.NHARD.PSTRS1)THEN II=I PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRS(I).FALSE.NE.AND.JJ.NE.2. ELSE RIGHT=.GE.1.FALSE.2)MM=2 IF(II.NE.LE.GT.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping C ================================== IFPLAS=.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.MXITER C Compute residual derivative DENOM=-R4G-DPLFUN(EPBAR.AND. ENDIF C Apply one-vector return mapping first (return to main plane) C -----------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.LT.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=2.3.3)MM=3 PSTRS2=PSTRS(MM) C Compute trial yield function and check for plastic consistency C -------------------------------------------------------------SHMAXT=PSTRS1-PSTRS3 SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.

NHARD. DGAMA=R0 DGABAR=R1 EPBAR=EPBARN SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.S2.NHARD.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.NHARD.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.go to two-vector procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.GE.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 .LE.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.MXITER Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.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. Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS1=S1 PSTRS3=S3 GOTO 50 ELSE 1-vector return is not valid .ABS(S2).GE. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping (return to corner .right or left) -----------------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.AND.TRUE.S2+DELTA.TRUE.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.

2)+P STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*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=. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 50 CONTINUE update stress components -----------------------PSTRS(II)=PSTRS1 PSTRS(JJ)=PSTRS3 PSTRS(MM)=PSTRS2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.2) 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).TRUE. except for the following: .1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.2)+P STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.

The right corner return ﬂag is set to . This argument now is an array that stores up to two incremental plastic multipliers. otherwise. Used to evaluate the slope of the piecewise linear hardening curve. 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. Array of components of the trial stress tensor. Called to send warning message to results ﬁle and standard output in case of failure of the return-mapping algorithm. ∆γ b ]. both multipliers are set to 0.3. If the increment is elastic. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial stress. if one of the two possible two-vector return mappings (right or left corner) is used. The ﬂags TWOVEC and RIGHT are required by subroutine CTTR to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with main plane. IPROPS(3) and array RPROPS are.2. right or left corner return mapping). the multiplier(s) are obtained as the solution of one of the three possible return mapping equation sets (main plane. if to the left corner.FALSE. Some local variables and arrays of SUTR • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei . n+1 8. n+1 • TOL [ tol ]. Also.FALSE. for the present material model implementation. ← LALGVA. Used in SUTR as the piecewise linear hardening function σy (¯p ). In addition to the plastic yielding ﬂag IFPLAS and the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL used also in SUVM. Otherwise. • PLFUN. ε • SPDEC2.1. set in subroutine RDTR during the data input phase of HYPLAS. The two-vector return ﬂag is set to . Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm used to solve the return-mapping equations.10.TRUE. • PSTRS [σi • STREST [σtrial ].TRUE. It is set to . Recall that for the von Mises model (given as example in Section 7. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of σtrial . Array of principal trial stresses or principal updated stresses. the array LALGVA of logical algorithnmic ﬂags now stores the two-vector return ﬂag TWOVEC and the right corner return ﬂag RIGHT.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 283 ← DGAM [∆γ a .2. This procedure is adopted here to assess the accuracy of the implicit elastic predictor/returnmapping algorithm for the Tresca model described above. right or left corner). 2]. Corresponding message is in ﬁle ERROR. • ERRPRT.RUN. trial or σi ]. i = 1. if the possible two-vector return is to the right corner to .10) the starting point for the map is immaterial due to the . Function calls from SUTR • DPLFUN.

the error plotted is the (Euclidean) norm of the relative difference between the numerical and ‘exact’ updated stresses. • nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening. (8. For the Tresca model.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). the hardening curve adopted is shown in Figure 8.5. However.6.284 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT ∆σN N B T T N A σ1 r σ3 σ2 Figure 8. there is a large area within which the integration error vanishes.4. Here. however. This is obviously a very desirable feature. A total of 16 sampling points have been used to deﬁne the curve. Two cases are considered in the iso-error maps constructed in this section: • perfect plasticity. The error maps obtained for the perfectly plastic case are shown in Figure 8.33) ∆σtrial = r r where N and T are unit (in Euclidean norm) tensors deﬁning the increment directions and the scaling factor. symmetry of the yield surface. at the singularity (point A). the tensors N and T are not orthogonal to each other. Iso-error maps for the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. In both cases. lying on the deviatoric plane are considered. within a narrow band of increments the relative error can be as high as 40% for the increment range considered in the present assessment. Increment directions. the starting point has to be taken into consideration. Point A is on the singularity of the Tresca hexagon and point B corresponds to a state of pure shear. A and B. Note that. (8. Note that for both starting points. The increments ∆σtrial are of the form ∆σT ∆σN N+ T. r≡ 2 3 σy . These points are shown in Figure 8.4. With isotropic hardening. 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 . two starting points.

Perfectly plastic Tresca model: (a) point A.12 εp ¯ 0. In this case (perfect plasticity). A comparison of the maps obtained with and without hardening suggests that. Again.04 0. for practical purposes. but errors are high within a narrow band of increments. chosen sizes.6 0. the integration error is reduced to zero for any increment if the substepping procedure is included in the return-mapping algorithm. 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. Figure 8.5. and (b) point B.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 285 0.6. Iso-error maps for the Tresca model.7. the accuracy expected from the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model is not inﬂuenced by hardening. σy 0.2 0 0 0. ∆σN /r .8 uniaxial yield stress. Iso-error maps.08 0. Isotropic hardening curve.16 accumulated plastic strain.4 0. The error maps obtained with isotropic hardening are shown in Figure 8. the areas in which the error is reasonably small are quite large.

In the present section. and (b) point B.35) 3 so that. 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.1.7.1 that the elastoplastic tangent modulus associated with a particular return-mapping scheme is the derivative Dep ≡ dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 (8. (iv) and (v) of Box 8. 8.1. there are three possible sets of equations to be solved: (i) return to main plane.4. illustrating the application of the concept of consistent tangent operators. There.1. 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. Iso-error maps.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 8.36) where σn+1 is the outcome of the implicit function deﬁned by the corresponding returnmapping equations. For the return mapping for the Tresca model presented in Section 8. attention will be focused on the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent modulus – the elastoplastic tangent – consistent with the return mapping for the Tresca model. for the Tresca model. To start with. 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. ∆σN /r . Tresca model with hardening: (a) point A.4.1. (8. in what follows. It is important to note that. recall from Section 7.4. the implicit constitutive function for the stress tensor is deﬁned by the procedures of items (ii). this concept is applied in the derivation of the tangent modulus consistent with the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model.

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

16). and differentiating the principal stress update formula (8. By using the elastic deviatoric relation.18) (item (iii) of Box 8.40) into (8.41) where the factor f has been deﬁned as f≡ The complete derivatives. d3 With the differentiation of the return-mapping equation (8.38) where H ≡ dσy /d¯p is the slope of the hardening curve. 4G + H (8.40) (dεe trial − dεe trial ).18) the linearised form of the consistency condition is obtained as ˜ dΦ = 2G(dεe trial − dεe trial − 2 d∆γ) − H d∆γ = 0.16–8. we ε obtain 2G d∆γ = (8.42) .2). So far. required in the assemblage of the j elastoplastic tangent (these derivatives must be passed as arguments to the general routine 2G . In order to obtain the complete derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial . From the above expression.38) it follows that the partial derivatives ∂si /∂εe trial .39) (8. ∂εe trial dj of the principal deviatoric stresses with respect to the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains. d1 d3 (8. only the expressions for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives have been derived. strial = 2G εe trial . we i di obtain ds1 = 2G(dεe trial − d∆γ) d1 ds2 = 2Gdεe trial d2 ds3 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ).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. When the return to the main plane is applied. it is convenient to derive ﬁrst the derivatives ∂si . dj arranged in matrix format. the principal deviatoric stresses are updated according to expressions (8. d1 d3 4G + H With the substitution of (8. are given by ∂si ∂εe trial dj 2Gf 2G(1 − f ) 0 = 0 2G 0 2Gf 0 2G(1 − f ) (8.

20) where the incremental plastic multipliers are the solution to the return-mapping equations (8.48) (8.23) (see also item (iii) of Box 8. εe trial ) = si (εe trial .43) i. (8.3. Principal stress derivatives for the right corner return Now consider the return mapping to the right corner of the Tresca hexagon.46) 3 ∂εe trial ∂εd k j with summation on repeated indices implied. the substitution of these expressions into (8. εe trial .47) 1 3 εe trial . dbb (8. K is the bulk modulus and δkj denotes the Krönecker delta. εe trial . ˜ 1 ˜ d1 2 3 d2 d3 v (8. 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. Differentiation of (8. Here. The principal deviatoric trial strains are given by εe trial = εe trial − di i where εe trial = εe trial + εe trial + εe trial . 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 ).e. d3 The differentials of the incremental plastic multipliers are obtained by linearising the consistency condition (return-mapping equations) as follows.44) where the matrix d.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 289 DGISO2).45) Finally. v (8.49) . v 1 2 3 (8. b b e trial e trial 0 dΦ d∆γ dεd 1 − dεd 2 (8. In this case. 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.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 = .3). εe trial ) + p(εe trial ). is deﬁned as daa d= dba dab . also used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the returnmapping equation in Box 8. the principal deviatoric stresses are updated by (8.

290 with COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS daa = −4G − H. ∂σi /∂εe trial . j .46). to the expressions for the derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses consistent with the return mapping to the right corner.46). 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. are obtained by applying formula (8. the resulting derivatives are 8G2 4G2 4G2 2G 1 − (dab − daa ) (dba − dbb ) det d det d det d ∂si 2G daa 4G2 8G3 = . dbb = −4G − H.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. dab = −2G − H. (8. Arranged in matrix format. the principal stress derivatives.50) −dab dεe trial − dεe trial d3 d1 . 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. again. 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. dba = −2G − H.47) leads.51) (8. daa dεe trial − dεe trial d1 d2 which substituted into (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. the derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial are obtained by applying (8.

PSTRA(MDIM) .3). MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG.NE. REPEAT.1. OUTOFP.MDIM) . TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.0D0 . the principal stresses derivatives consistent with the appropriate return mapping (main plane.0.0D0 .IPROPS(*) .FOID(2.STRAT .R1 .FOID(4.0.FOID(4.2.0.4)/ 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*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.2).4)/ 8 0.0D0.0.0D0 .NE.1). The integration algorithm is coded in subroutine SUTR. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.SOID(2) .RP5 . The tangent operator.0.RSTAVA .STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.SOID(4) / 2 1.0D0 . RIGHT. right or left corner) are evaluated according to the expressions derived in the above.0D0 .0D0.MSTRE) .1).0.3).LALGVA .R4 / 2 0.FOID(3.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0028’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . 2 FOID(MSTRE.0.0.0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .4.2). Dep .FOID(1. The elastic tangent is evaluated here in a trivial manner. 3 SOID(MSTRE) .0D0 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.NTYPE .FOID(4.0.R3 .3).3).5D0 .FOID(1.1).EIGPRJ(MSTRE. 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(3.0D0.PSTRS(MDIM) .0.EPFLAG .FOID(3.1.RPROPS(*) .2) .0.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) . The FORTRAN source code of CTTR is listed below.SOID(3) .2.1).AND.0D0.0D0 . 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 .0D0 / 7 FOID(4.0D0 . LALGVA(4).FOID(1. Firstly.0D0 .0. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .5D0.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .STRAT(*) .1.0D0 . 2 RPROPS .STRES(*) DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR TRESCA TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.FOID(2.1.FOID(2.DPSTRE(MDIM.3.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 291 8. 2.2). The computation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent comprises the following basic steps: 1.MSTRE) .1.IPROPS .5.0D0 / DATA 1 R0 . This routine is called by CTTR which passes the principal stress derivatives (as well as other necessary variables) as arguments.4)/ 2 1.MDIM=3.4)/ 6 0.1.MDIM) .0D0 .0D0 / 3 FOID(2.2).NTYPE.R2 .

JJ.NE.NE.3.NHARD.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.REPEAT.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.AND.JJ.NE.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.returned to right corner DPSTRS(II.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.NE.AND.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.NE.MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) .PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).AND.JJ.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*R4G) DPSTRS(II.GE.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) C and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1)MM=1 IF(II.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.2)MM=2 IF(II.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 ..2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.PSTRA.3 IF(PSTRA(I).NE..LT.1.3)MM=3 IF(TWOVEC)THEN C Tangent consistent with two-vector return algorithm HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.2.

returned to left corner 108 DPSTRS(II.1)=+DPSTRS(3.II)=R2G*(R1-FACTOR) 122 DPSTRS(II.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.2)=-DPSTRS(1.JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 111 DPSTRS(MM.II) 130 ENDIF 131 DPSTRE(1.3)=-DPSTRS(1.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 109 DPSTRS(II.II)=DPSTRS(II.FALSE.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.2)THEN 150 OUTOFP=.1)=+DPSTRS(1.MM)=DPSTRS(MM.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1.II)=R4G2DD*R2G 101 DPSTRS(MM.EQ.II)=R4G2DD*DBA 112 DPSTRS(MM.3)*R1D3+ 140 1 BULK 141 DPSTRE(3.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.REPEAT ) 157 ELSE 158 C Compute elasticity matrix 293 .3)*R1D3+ 134 1 BULK 135 DPSTRE(3.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.2)=-DPSTRS(2.II)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 115 DPSTRS(JJ.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.3)*R1D3+ 142 1 BULK 143 DPSTRE(1.3)*R1D3+ 136 1 BULK 137 DPSTRE(1.3)*R2D3+ 144 1 BULK 145 DPSTRE(2.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.JJ)=R4G2DD*DBA 103 DPSTRS(JJ.EIGPRJ .MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) 116 DPSTRS(JJ.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 99 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 100 DPSTRS(MM. 156 2 OUTOFP .MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 102 DPSTRS(MM. 151 ELSEIF(NTYPE.TRUE.3)*R2D3+ 148 1 BULK 149 IF(NTYPE.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.3)=-DPSTRS(3.3)THEN 152 OUTOFP=.RPROPS(IPHARD))) 121 DPSTRS(II.1)=+DPSTRS(2.JJ)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 106 ELSE 107 C .JJ)=R2G*FACTOR 124 DPSTRS(MM.JJ) 129 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 114 DPSTRS(JJ.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 110 DPSTRS(II.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.JJ) 128 DPSTRS(JJ.PSTRS .PSTRA .DMATX ..2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3. 153 ENDIF 154 CALL DGISO2 155 1( DPSTRE .MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 105 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ)=R0 127 DPSTRS(JJ.3)*R1D3+ 138 1 BULK 139 DPSTRE(2.EQ.MM)=R0 123 DPSTRS(II.3)=-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.2)=-DPSTRS(3.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3.3)*R2D3+ 146 1 BULK 147 DPSTRE(3.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3.JJ)=DPSTRS(II.3)*R1D3+ 132 1 BULK 133 DPSTRE(2.MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 113 DPSTRS(MM.MM) 125 DPSTRS(MM..MM)=R2G 126 DPSTRS(MM.NHARD.II)=DPSTRS(II.

• STRAT [εe trial ].NSTRE-1 173 DO 60 I=J+1. Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag (refer to page 237 for a description). Matrix of derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses.2].J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 170 40 CONTINUE 171 50 CONTINUE 172 DO 70 J=1.EQ. right or left return algorithm).2)THEN 161 NSTRE=3 162 ELSEIF(NTYPE. i The names of most local variables deﬁned in CTTR resemble resemble the notation of Section 8.EQ. j • DPSTRS [∂si /∂εe trial ]. page 762. • FOID [IS ]. whose output values are taken as input values for (and are not changed by) CTTR. Some local arrays of CTTR • DPSTRE [∂σi /∂εe trial ]. Fourth-order identity tensor stored in array form according to (D. the present routine requires the following: ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. Array containing the principal elastic trial strains.NSTRE 169 DMATX(I.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).NSTRE 168 DO 40 J=I.16).294 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 159 C ------------------------160 IF(NTYPE. → EPFLAG.J)=R2G*FOID(I.1.NSTRE 174 DMATX(I. dj • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei . i=1.J)=DMATX(J. Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. The elements of the array LALGVA of logical algorithmic ﬂags. .3)THEN 163 NSTRE=4 164 ENDIF 165 C 166 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 167 DO 50 I=1.4. Matrix of derivatives of the principal stresses. As in the von Mises implementation (refer to page 237). • SOID [I]. indicate which elastoplastic tangent is to be computed here (consistent with main plane. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial strain. set in subroutine SUTR.

The multisurface description of the Mohr–Coulomb plastic ﬂow rule has the representation (8. the ﬂow rule may be formulated within the sextant of the principal stress space depicted in Figure 6. With the principal stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8.2) Figure 8. Here. In the generally non-associative case. . the algorithm described here is entirely based on the ideas that underly the numerical integration scheme for the Tresca model of the previous section.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 295 Important function calls from CTTR • DGISO2. Called to assemble the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator as a particular case of the general derivatives of isotropic tensor function discussed in Section A. In what follows.54) ∂σ where each Ψi has the same format as the corresponding Φi .10 Boxes 8. except that the frictional angle φ is replaced with the dilatancy angle ψ ≤ φ (assumed constant) in the deﬁnition of Ψi .2.2. we summarised the actual equations adopted in the present computational implementation of the Mohr– Coulomb model.118) (page 165). however. • SPDEC2. the following table shows where the main results of this section can be found. There are four distinct possibilities for the plastic ﬂow deﬁnition. the ﬂow vectors are re-deﬁned as ∂Ψi Ni ≡ .3) in the associative case with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6.5) iso-error maps consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – As far as yield surface singularities are concerned. 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. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain.7 subroutine SUMC (Section 8.19(a) (page 174). an extra return-mapping procedure – the return to the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface – is required in the numerical integration scheme. (8.1)–(8. 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. whose implementation is described here.2.3 of Appendix A. For quick reference.4–8. 8.12 subroutine CTMC (Section 8.

57) (8. 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 . the general equation (6. the following general relation ˙ εp = ¯ cos φ p ε . the evolution of εp reads ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ).56) 2.55) where N a is the same as in the above.(b) which illustrates the associative ﬂow case).64) . ˙ (8. 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 . 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 . Plastic ﬂow from the smooth (ﬂat) portion of the main plane. up to six multipliers may be non-zero. (8. In this case.63) At the apex.200) is reduced to ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ. For ﬂow from the main plane as discussed above. The general equation for the evolution of εp in this case ¯ is given by (6. ˙ sin ψ v (8. 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 ). The plastic strain rate equation in this case is left in its general format 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γ iN i. ¯ (8.19.61) Hardening associativity is assumed.60) In the present implementation. ¯ (8. and ˙ εp = γN a .58) 3.296 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. Plastic ﬂow from the right edge. 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 . (8. ε (8. (8. Plastic ﬂow from the left edge.59) 4.200) applies. Plastic ﬂow from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.62) For plastic ﬂow from an edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. In this case. Here. as the plastic rate tensor lies within the pyramid formed by the six vectors of the Mohr–Coulomb model (refer to Figure 6. (8. where only one multiplier may be non-zero. only one multiplier may be non-zero and (6.200) on page 184.

i i ∆γ i (2G [Nd ]j − K Nv ). ˙ (8. 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 ≤ 0.67) Due to the isotropy of the model. 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. the essential stress-updating is carried out here in the principal stress space. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM FOR THE MOHR–COULOMB MODEL As for the algorithm for the Tresca model. the stress update formula can be written equivalently in terms of principal stresses as 6 trial σj = σj − i=1 i for j = 1.68) . then the step is elastic and all state variables are updated as (·)n+1 := (·)trial .2.155) (page 175) under non-associative plastic ﬂow: 6 εp ˙v and (6. 3.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 297 between the rate of accumulated plastic strain and the volumetric plastic strain rate. the spectral decomposition of the trial stress.65) 8.1. n+1 • Otherwise. Hence. In the above formula. a return-mapping procedure is carried out. after the computation of the elastic trial state. σtrial . This relation can be obtained by combining the counterpart of (6. Recall that the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor is given by σn+1 = σtrial − De : ∆εp . 2. (8.60). this gives 6 σn+1 = σtrial − De : n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 .200). (8. With the principal trial stresses arranged trial trial trial as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . n+1 (8. is performed. will be crucial in the computational implementation of the model. = 2 sin ψ i=1 γ i.66) With the discretisation of the non-associated Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule (8.

71) is obtained by introducing the update formulae (8.68) gives the following principal stress updating formulae: trial σ1 = σ1 − ∆γ [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] (8. The equations for each of the four possible return mappings are derived below: 1.75) .70) The incremental plastic multiplier. ε (8.69) into the main plane equation Φ1 = 0.63): ∆¯p = 2 cos φ (∆γ a + ∆γ b ). ε (8. (8.70) and a is the constant ε a = 4G(1 + 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ.71) where ∆¯p is the (linear) function of ∆γ deﬁned by (8.68): 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 . the corresponding backward Euler-based return-mapping algorithm has four distinct explicit forms.73) The corresponding principal stress update formulae follow from the substitution of the above expression into (8. which depend on the location of the updated stress. obtained from the backward Euler discretisation of (8.298 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The four possible return mappings Following the four possible descriptions of the Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule.74) The increment of accumulated plastic strain is the discrete form of (8.72) Equation (8.57). ∆γ. The updated stress lies on the main plane (smooth portion). ε (8. The corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain reads ∆¯p = 2 cos φ ∆γ. The incremental plastic strain. Introduction of this expression in (8. σn+1 . The updated stress lies on the right edge of the pyramid. on the yield surface. 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. 2.55).69) trial σ2 = σ2 + ∆γ ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + ∆γ [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]. 3 (8. is in this case given by the two-vector formula ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . (8. The ﬂow vector in this case is deﬁned by (8.

4. The updated stress lies on the left edge. 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 ). ∆¯p . (8.75). Φ1 = 0. The updated stress lies on the apex. The apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid is the point along the hydrostatic axis for which p = c cot φ. εn The incremental accumulated plastic strain. The incremental plastic multipliers are the solution of the following return-mapping equations: trial trial trial trial ˜ Φa (∆γ a . Φ1 = 0. ∆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 .59).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 299 At the right edge. Φ2 = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ (8. with the plane on its left. (8. The return mapping to the left edge is completely analogous to the return to the right edge derived in the above. (8.79) 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. ∆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 .81) . The essential difference is that the tensor N b is now deﬁned by (8.77) 3. Φ6 = 0. are simultaneously satisﬁed. and the plane on its right.80) The above equations represent the intersection of the main plane.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. 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 .78) and the corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain is also given by (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. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ (8. (8.

sin ψ (8.82) The updated hydrostatic stress in the present case must lie on the apex of the updated Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. α → ∞. with c = c0 + H εp . 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.81).82). we update v εp := εp + α∆εp .8) ¯ ε c(¯p + ∆¯p ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. together with the hardening curve and the discretised evolution equation for εp . Remark 8. As in the Tresca algorithm. Firstly apply the return mapping to the main plane. whose description starts on page 271.64): ∆¯p = α∆εp . into the apex equation (8. can be solved in closed form. Note that under zero dilatancy (ψ = 0).83) The substitution of this expression into (8.85) v n+1 v for the unknown ∆εp .84) (8. (8. Once the solution is found. 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. 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. the present strategy is simple and ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. Remark 8. In essence. the strategy comprises the following steps. therefore. 1. ε v α≡ cos φ .86) .25).1. εn (8. regardless of the prescribed hardening/softening curve. all four sets of ¯ return-mapping equations are linear and.83) yields the ﬁnal apex return-mapping equation: c(¯p + α∆εp ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.1. We then have (Figure 8. derived in Section 8. In this case.1. This condition is enforced by introducing the update formula (8. with pn+1 given by (8. ¯n+1 ¯n v σn+1 := pn+1 I. Under the assumption of linear hardening.82). εn n+1 v Now consider the discrete version of (8.300 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 .2. n+1 v (8.

Otherwise. apply the return algorithm to the apex. The result obtained now is necessarily valid and does not require further checks. This can be easily veriﬁed by simple geometrical considerations analogous to those of the Tresca model given in Figure 8. Otherwise.1. 2. Mohr–Coulomb model. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stress.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 301 updated yield surface yield surface at t n σntrial +1 σn +1= pn +1 I p . i. 3. 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).e. 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. 5.K ∆εv pntrial +1 Figure 8. then the return mapping carried out in item 3 is valid and the updated state is accepted. if σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . therefore. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stresses.8. (8.87) then the return to the main plane is valid and the corresponding updated state is accepted. . Return mapping to apex. not admissible. 4.

Consider now the deviatoric part to the two-vector edge return algorithms (Figure 8. respectively. Here T is chosen with the following eigenvalues: T1 = 1 − sin ψ. Selection of appropriate return mapping to edge. T2 = −2. n+1 (8. The dotted line of Figure 8. pointing to the right. b N in the above is normal to the right (left) plane if sn+1 lies on the right (left) edge. On the deviatoric plane. it should be noted that at any edge of the Mohr– Coulomb pyramid we have si = sj for at least one pair {si . if σtrial returns to n+1 an edge. Firstly. According to the present convention. 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. sj } with i = j. it can only be the right edge.88) a b where Nd and Nd are the deviatoric components of N a and N b . Mohr–Coulomb model. Similarly. Based on the above considerations. s2 = s3 corresponds to a point on the right edge and s1 = s2 to a point on the left edge. the n+1 only possibly valid edge return algorithm is the return to the left edge.2 for the Tresca model. the procedure for selection of the appropriate edge return is extremely simple. Selection of right or left edge return.9. (8.89) . In this case.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. Clearly. 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. Let T be a deviatoric tensor orthogonal to the deviatoric a projection Nd . T3 = 1 + sin ψ.9): a b sn+1 = strial − 2G(∆γ a Nd + ∆γ b Nd ). these points correspond to corners of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid cross section (irregular hexagon).9 is the deviatoric projection of the plane parallel to N a that contains the hydrostatic line. if strial lies on the left of the dotted line.

4–8. The ﬂowchart of the overall integration algorithm is shown in Figure 8. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model is completely deﬁned. The procedure is implemented in subroutine SUMC (State Update procedure for the Mohr–Coulomb model) of program HYPLAS. (8. Otherwise. If S > 0 the possible edge return is to the right.10.2. The overall integration algorithm Having described the four possible return mappings together with a simple and robust strategy to select the valid return mapping.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 303 Its eigenvectors coincide with those of σtrial .2 below.7. 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 . To select the appropriate edge return.90) is computed ﬁrst. . The corresponding pseudo-code is conveniently summarised in Boxes 8. it is the return mapping to the left edge. Its FORTRAN code and details of its computational implementation are explained in Section 8.

2.3) 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.10. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUMC of program HYPLAS. .304 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.2.3) 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. ∆γ b assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and σi (i=1. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model in principal stresses. ∆γ b and σi (i=1.2.3) 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=1.2. and exit Figure 8.

6 ELSE apply return to left edge – GOTO Box 8. 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.e) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8.6 (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 8.4. 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.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 . Compute trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 and ei (i = 1. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 305 Box 8. 2.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8. Implicit elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm for the Mohr– Coulomb model.b) Check validity of main plane return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.5 (iv.

4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .306 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. 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. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0. The Mohr–Coulomb model.5.

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. 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 .6. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b ∆γ a := 0. Two-vector return mappings to edges.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 307 Box 8.

The Mohr–Coulomb model.308 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. from page 307).6 (contd. 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 8.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .

4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8. The Mohr–Coulomb model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 309 Box 8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUMC ∆εp := 0. Return mapping to apex.7.85)) 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.

EDGE.RPROPS(*) .2) .STRAT(MSTRE) .IPROPS(*) . The FORTRAN source code of subroutine SUMC is listed below.1. APEX=.FALSE. i c} ¯ deﬁned by the accumulated plastic strain and the corresponding cohesion.FALSE. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor plane stress state IF(NTYPE.R2 .AND. IFPLAS.1.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. the hardening curve is here deﬁned by a user-speciﬁed number of sampling points.FALSE.R4 .1.IPROPS .R1 .NTYPE.2.2.LALGVA .STRES(MSTRE) C Local variables and arrays LOGICAL 1 APEX.NE.4-7).D-06.0D0.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(5) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .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 8.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0027’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .STREST(3) DATA 1 R0 .R3 .0D0. DUMMY.3.TOL / 2 0. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . each sampling point i is a pair {i εp . respectively).RPROPS .310 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.SMALL . 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.2. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLMENTATIONS.FALSE.STRAT . As in the algorithms for the von Mises and Tresca models (subroutines SUVM and SUTR. 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. EDGE=. For the hardening law adopted in the present implementation.PSTRS(3) .0D0.0D0.NE.NTYPE . EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) .4. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE. SUFAIL=. 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 . 2 RSTAVA .0D0.2. RIGHT.

DUMMY.3)MM=3 PSTRS2=PSTRS(MM) Compute trial yield function and check for plastic consistency -------------------------------------------------------------COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.GE.TRUE. identify possible edge return: either right or left of main plane SCAPRD=PSTRS1*(R1-SINPSI)+PSTRS2*(-R2)+PSTRS3*(R1+SINPSI) IF(SCAPRD.R0)RES=RES/ABS(COHE) IF(RES.PSTRS.2)MM=2 IF(II.LT.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.NE.NE.2.AND.JJ.TOL)THEN Plastic step: Apply return mapping ================================== IFPLAS=.PSTRS1)THEN II=I PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRS(I).NE.GT.FALSE.AND.PSTRS3)THEN JJ=I PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.GE.NE.NE.R0)THEN RIGHT=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SMCT=PSTRS1-PSTRS3+(PSTRS1+PSTRS3)*SINPHI PHIA=SMCT-R2CPHI*COHE RES=PHIA IF(COHE.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.AND.NHARD.JJ.NE.3 IF(PSTRS(I).TRUE.1. ENDIF Apply one-vector return mapping first (return to MAIN PLANE) -----------------------------------------------------------SPHSPS=SINPHI*SINPSI .JJ.1)MM=1 IF(II.3. ELSE RIGHT=.NE.

P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 1-vector result is not valid.S2. Go to two-vector return map to edge GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.NHARD.NHARD. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping to appropriate EDGE --------------------------------------------------DGAMA=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.AND.LE.MXITER Compute residual derivative matrix FACTA=R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.NHARD.MXITER Compute residual derivative DENOM=-CONSTA-R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(SMCT) IF(RESNOR.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=1.312 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 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.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCT-CONSTA*DGAMA-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA) IF(SMCT.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.ABS(S2).NE.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).GE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-CONSTA-FACTA .TRUE.S2+DELTA.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.GE.

NHARD. Go to two-vector return map to APEX GOTO 50 ENDIF ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/FACTOR IF(RESNOR.NE.NHARD.LE.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0010’) Set initial guess for volumetric plastic strain increment DEPV DEPV=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.S2.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.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.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. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 2-vector return to edge is not valid.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).S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 2-vector return to edge is valid. EDGE=.GE.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.ABS(S2).TRUE.GE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) COTPHI=COSPHI/SINPHI RES=COTPHI*COHE-PT Newton-Raphson iterations for DEPV .AND.TRUE.EQ.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0009’) IF(SINPSI.S2+DELTA.

2) STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.MXITER DENOM=COSPHI*COTPHI/SINPSI*DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD.TRUE.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD))+ 1 BULK DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV EPBAR=EPBARN+COSPHI/SINPSI*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.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. DGAMA=DEPV DGAMB=R0 update principal stresses S1=P S2=P S3=P GOTO 70 ENDIF 60 CONTINUE SUFAIL=.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.2) STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=COTPHI*COHE-P check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(PT.TOL)THEN APEX=.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.LE.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(PT) IF(RESNOR.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.TRUE. 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.

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

εe trial . we need only to derive expressions for the partial derivatives ∂ σi ˜ . Firstly. 2 3 (8.12. 2. the present integration algorithm simply projects the trial stress onto the yield surface along a suitable direction. large areas in which the integration error vanishes are observed in the present case for all starting points. 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. εe trial ). 3 where σi are the implicit functions for the principal updated stresses ˜ ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . j = 1. that is.2. in order to compute the elastoplastic tangent operator. 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 the absence of hardening. the integration error can be high.4. however.1. only the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent is addressed.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. Within some narrow bands. Starting points and increment directions.2. having the vector T parallel to the corresponding edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. Recall that. that the results presented in this section give a very good insight into the accuracy properties of the present algorithm. In what follows. The maps obtained are shown in Figure 8. 8. It is remarked.91) . however. e trial ∂εj i. Iso-error maps for the Mohr–Coulomb model.1. Essentially. Similarly to the integration algorithm for the Tresca model (Section 8.1 (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 8.3).11. 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.

the matrix form of Dep is assembled in subroutine DGISO2). (b) point B. Iso-error maps. ∆σN /c 50% ∆σN /c 5 . deﬁned by the Mohr–Coulomb integration algorithm. Having computed the principal stress consistent derivatives. the tangent operator dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 Dep ≡ (8. (c) point C. Associative Mohr–Coulomb model: (a) point A.12.3 of Appendix A (in the program.92) can then be assembled as described in Section A. and.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.

together with the use of the linear elastic relation σtrial = De : εe trial .79). Principal stress derivatives for the edge return mappings To obtain the principal stress derivatives consistent with the right edge return.5. H is the isotropic hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve): H≡ dc d¯p ε .95) εp ¯n+1 and the constant a is deﬁned by (8.93) 4G − 2K sin ψ d∆γ 3 trial dσ3 = dσ3 + [2G(1 − 1 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ] d∆γ. we need ﬁrst to differentiate the update formulae (8.§ For each one there is a different explicit form for the principal stress derivatives and for Dep . (8.74) and then substitute the differentials d∆γ a and d∆γ b obtained by linearising the consistency equations (8. 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. The derivation of the principal stresses derivatives consistent with each of the four possible return mappings is addressed in what follows. left edge and apex. whose main steps involve the differentiation of the expressions given in (8.2.69).78) and (8. This gives trial dσ1 = dσ1 − [2G(1 + trial dσ2 = dσ2 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] d∆γ (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. § The situation here is completely analogous to the Tresca model implementation where three return map equation sets exist. (8. right.94) which is obtained by differentiating (8. The derivation is lengthier than the previous one and will not be shown here.72). In this last expression.76).96) renders the ﬁnal expressions for the derivatives of the principal stresses. In the ﬁnite element program. In CTMC. Combination of the two differential forms above.71). the computed principal stress derivatives are stored in matrix DPSTRS. . The same comments apply to the derivation of the derivatives for the left edge return mapping. 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. The ﬁnal results can be easily identiﬁed in subroutine CTMC.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. 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.

Clearly.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 319 Principal stress derivatives for the apex return Differentiation of the apex return stress update formulae (8.RSTAVA .RPROPS(*) K cos φ cot φ sin ψ H .97) for i = 1. v 1 2 3 v sin ψ which rearranged gives d∆εp = v K K+ cos φ cot φ sin ψ (8.MSTRE) . .97) yields the principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return mapping: ∂σi =K 1− ∂εe trial K+ j for i.IPROPS . MSTRE=4) 6 C Arguments 7 LOGICAL EPFLAG .100) .STRES ) 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. 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. 3.EPFLAG . 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). In the absence of hardening (H = 0) all principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return vanish. (8. . as in this case the apex remains ﬁxed in stress space. It returns either the elastic tangent or the elastoplastic tangent depending on the entry value of the logical ﬂag EPFLAG (one of its arguments). j = 1. consistency with the appropriate return algorithm (main plane.3. 2.5. 3.NTYPE 3 2 RPROPS . 1 SUBROUTINE CTMC 2 1( DMATX . 8.86)2 yields dσi = dptrial − K d∆εp n+1 v = K (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial − d∆εp ) 1 2 3 v (8. 1 2 3 (8. Remark 8. This routine is consistent with the algorithm coded in SUMC.98) H (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial ).2.85).LALGVA(5) 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE.82) and (8. right.LALGVA .O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . When the elastoplastic tangent is required.IPROPS(*) . By differentiating (8.STRAT . the following linearised consistency condition is obtained: H cos φ cot φ d∆εp − K (dεe trial + dεe trial + dεe trial − d∆εp ) = 0.99) The substitution of this expression into (8. The source code of CTMC is listed in the following.MDIM=3. we have trivially Dep = 0. 2.

1.SOID(3) .1.0D0 .SOID(4) / 2 1.FOID(4.0D0 .3).1.FOID(1.3).2).2).1).REPEAT DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.MDIM) .0D0 / 7 FOID(4.0D0 .1).3.0.1. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.NE.SOID(MSTRE) .0.0D0 .0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .0.2.R1 .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) .FOID(2.3).R3 .5D0 .FOID(4.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL APEX .0D0 .NE.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) .0D0 .4)/ 6 0.2.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .0.3).FOID(2.STRAT(MSTRE) .4)/ 4 0. 2 PSTRS(MDIM) .NTYPE.AND.FOID(3.4)/ 2 1. 3 STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.RIGHT .1).0D0 .0D0 .PSTRA(MDIM) .FOID(MSTRE.0.0.0D0.0D0.0D0 .FOID(2.2).SOID(2) .0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0D0/ 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.0.0D0 .0D0 .5D0.R2 .FOID(3.4)/ 8 0.FOID(3.FOID(4.0.0D0 .4.1.FOID(1.EDGE .R4 / 2 0.EIGPRJ(MSTRE.MSTRE) .2) .0D0 .0.0D0.FOID(1. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.0D0 .0.1).OUTOFP .0.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.2).

2)MM=2 IF(II.REPEAT.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVBA-DRVBB)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.NHARD.JJ.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).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.GE.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 .JJ.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.LT.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.2) 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..NE.NE.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVAB-DRVAA)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVBA-DRVBB)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+AUX3*(DRVBA1 DRVAA))*(R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.NE.NE.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.3 IF(PSTRA(I).II)=BULK+R4GD3+AUX1*(-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)* 1 (R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.PSTRA.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.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.JJ..NE.1)MM=1 IF(II.3.returned to right edge DPSTRS(II.2.NE.1.AND.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.AND.

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.MM)=DSIDEJ 188 DPSTRS(MM.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 .II)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX2*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+AUX3*(DRVAB137 1 DRVBB))*((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI+R2G))*R1DDET 138 DPSTRS(JJ..II)=DSIDEJ 190 DPSTRS(JJ.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 .JJ)=DSIDEJ 189 DPSTRS(JJ.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.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.322 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 132 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=DSIDEJ 185 DPSTRS(II.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.RPROPS(IPHARD))*COTPHI*COSPHI/ 182 2 SINPSI))) 183 DPSTRS(II.II)=DSIDEJ 184 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=DSIDEJ 186 DPSTRS(MM.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.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.NHARD.returned to left edge 148 DPSTRS(II..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.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX1*(DRVBB-DRVAB)+AUX2*(DRVBA157 1 DRVAA))*(((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 158 DPSTRS(MM.II)=DSIDEJ 187 DPSTRS(MM.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)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX1*(DRVAA-DRVBA)+AUX2*(DRVAB167 1 DRVBB))*(((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 168 DPSTRS(JJ.

MM)=R4G*R1D3*(R1+B2*SINPHI)+BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.NSTRE DMATX(I.TRUE.NSTRE-1 DO 60 I=J+1.J)=DMATX(J.JJ)=R2G*(R2D3+B3*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) ENDIF .DMATX 224 2 OUTOFP .REPEAT 225 ELSE 226 C Compute elasticity matrix 227 C ------------------------228 IF(NTYPE.2)THEN 218 OUTOFP=.FALSE.JJ)=R2G*(-R1D3-B1*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.MM)=R1D3*(R3*BULK-R2G)*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=R1D3*(R3*BULK-R2G)*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(II.NHARD.J)=R2G*FOID(I.2)THEN 229 NSTRE=3 230 ELSEIF(NTYPE. DMATX(I.II)=R2G*(-R1D3-B3*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B3*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.EIGPRJ ) .NSTRE 235 DO 40 J=I.EQ.EQ.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) CONTINUE CONTINUE DO 70 J=1. 221 ENDIF 222 CALL DGISO2 223 1( DPSTRS .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. 219 ELSEIF(NTYPE.3)THEN 220 OUTOFP=.EQ.PSTRA .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 191 DPSTRS(JJ.EQ.JJ)=R2G*(-R1D3+B2*(R1-R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(JJ.II)=R2G*(R2D3+B1*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1+R2*B1*SINPHI) DPSTRS(II.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.3)THEN 231 NSTRE=4 232 ENDIF 233 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 234 DO 50 I=1.PSTRS .II)=R2G*(-R1D3-B2*(R1+R1D3*SINPHI))+ BULK*(R1-R2*B2*SINPHI) DPSTRS(MM.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.I) 60 CONTINUE 70 CONTINUE ENDIF RETURN END 40 50 .

(8. (6. (8.2) Figure 8. 8. The most important results of this section can be found as indicated in the table below.3.122). by expressions (6. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. inner edge. Function calls from CTMC Function calls here are the same as from subroutine CTTR (for the Tresca model implementation).3.15 Boxes 8. The implemented Drucker–Prager constitutive equations The Drucker–Prager yield surface is deﬁned by means of the yield function Φ(σ. Refer to page 295.101) .127).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.102) p = 1/3 tr[σ] is the hydrostatic pressure and c is the cohesion.10 subroutine SUDP (Section 8. c) = where J2 = 1 s : s. respectively.5) iso-error map consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – Following the format of the previous sections. plane strain. 2 s = σ − p(σ) I. respectively. a brief summary of the constitutive equations adopted in the present implementation is presented below.126) and (6.123) and (6. Their formulae for outer edge. uniaxial tension/compression and biaxial tension/compression matching are given. The output values of the arguments of SUMC are taken as input values by CTMC. The constants η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. (6.124). J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c.3. Here we focus on a Drucker–Prager model with piecewise linear isotropic strain hardening. the tangent operator and the elastoplastic ﬂag that indicates whether the elastic or elastoplastic operator is to be computed in CTMC.16 subroutine CTDP (Section 8. The Drucker–Prager model We now move on to the last model implementation discussed in this chapter.8–8.

page 176).163). where. The ﬂow rule reads ˙ ˙ εp = γ N.3. respectively. are fully symmetric about the hydrostatic axis.6. the ﬂow vector is given by N= ∂Ψ = ∂σ 2 1 J2 (s) η ¯ s + I. and according to the adopted ¯ Drucker–Prager approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law may be given by (6.104) At the cone apex. only one singularity exists in the Drucker–Prager yield surface – its apex. associative isotropic strain hardening is adopted here. as well as the ﬂow vector ﬁeld resulting from the generally non-associative ﬂow potential. the Drucker–Prager yield surface.165) respectively for the outer. (6. ¯ (8. This relation is obtained by combining the non-associative version of (6. ψ. on the smooth portion of the yield surface.161) with the evolution law (8. inner edge and plane strain match.20(b). c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ). whenever the above formula is applied (regardless .107) η v ¯ will be needed in the derivation of the return-mapping equation for the apex of the Drucker– Prager cone. The hardening law is deﬁned by (8. N is a vector contained in the complementary cone (refer to the schematic illustration of Figure 6. where the potential is singular. together with the associative evolution equation for the accumulated plastic strain derived for Drucker–Prager plasticity in Section 6.105) (8.106) εp = γ ξ. Firstly.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 325 The generally non-associative ﬂow rule is adopted in the present implementation of the Drucker–Prager model.20. As a consequence of the symmetry about the pressure axis (see Figure 6. Consider the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor for materials with linear elastic law: σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . This is in contrast with the two and three possible singularities identiﬁed.108) n+1 where −∆γ De : Nn+1 is the return vector.61).1.164) or (6. 3 (8. Secondly. ¯ (8. that is. (8. ¯ Analogously to the Mohr–Coulomb implementation.3: ˙ ˙ (8. the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of Ψ. page 176).103) where the constant η depends on the dilatancy angle. the Drucker–Prager counterpart of relation (8. 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 relative simplicity stems from two main features of the present material model.106). 8. in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models.64): ξ ˙ ˙ εp = ε p . The corresponding ﬂow potential is Ψ(σ. As for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of the previous section.

111) which. The consistency condition in the present case is given by Φn+1 ≡ J2 (sn+1 ) + η pn+1 − ξ c(¯p ) = 0. Thus.114) . equivalently. n+1 page 329). 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 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.105). the return vector is always parallel to the plane that contains σtrial and the hydrostatic axis (see Figure 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). These are treated separately below. the following identity holds strial sn+1 n+1 = . The corresponding algorithms are derived in what follows. 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 . 3 (8. the ﬂow vector is deﬁned by (8. by a factor that depends on ∆γ. 3 (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.113) It should be noted that the deviatoric updated stress. is obtained by simply scaling down the trial deviatoric stress. strial .109) Simpliﬁcation of the above expression can be obtained by noting that. due to the deﬁnition of J2 .110) 1 2 J2 (s) sn+1 + η ¯ I . Note that. εn+1 (8. two possible explicit forms exist for the return-mapping algorithm. without loss of generality. 3 (8.14. sn+1 .112) (8. Return to the smooth portion of the cone On the smooth portion of the cone. ¯ strial n+1 (8. 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 .

for linearly hardening models.120) This equation is analogous to the return-mapping equation (8.85) of the Mohr–Coulomb implementation.113). ε ¯ In such cases. we update v ¯n εp := εp + α∆εp . ¯n+1 v σn+1 := (ptrial − K ∆εp ) I. η ¯ (8. εn v v n+1 v where ξ α≡ .119) for ∆εp . Return to the apex At the apex. the stress is updated by (8.117) (8.86) for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation apply. εn After solution of the above equation.121) Note that for non-dilatant ﬂow (¯ = 0).20(b) of page 176.4. For perfectly plastic materials.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. Its geometrical representation is shown in Figure 8. .118) (8.115) Further.119) respectively for the smooth portion and apex of the Drucker–Prager cone are linear and ∆γ is computed in closed form. the return to apex does not make sense in the present η context and the comments made immediately after expression (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 327 where the update accumulated plastic strain is obtained from the discrete version of (8. n+1 v η ¯ (8. the return-mapping equations (8. ε (8. where H denotes the hardening modulus.107) in the above equation. the hardening function reads c(¯p ) = c0 + H εp . we obtain the ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the Drucker–Prager apex: r(∆εp ) ≡ c(¯p + α∆εp ) β − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.119) (8. with the introduction of the discretised form of (8. η β≡ ξ . n+1 v (8.114) is reduced to c(¯p + ∆¯p ) εn ε ξ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. After the solution of (8.117) and (8.106): ε εp = εp + ∆¯p ¯n+1 ¯n with ∆¯p = ξ ∆γ. c is constant and. 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 299.116) The substitution of the above expression and (8. Remark 8. The consistency condition (8. the return vector must be contained in the complementary cone schematically illustrated in Figure 6.13.

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

A ﬂowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 8. Selection of appropriate return mapping. 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.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 ) .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 329 trial σ n +1 J2( s ) 1 η J2( s trial ) .8–8. The corresponding pseudo-code is summarised in Boxes 8.14. Drucker–Prager model. The overall integration algorithm Essentially.10.G ∆γ < 0 n +1 Figure 8. . The integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model has been implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS and is explained in detail below.15. with the associated selection strategy.

Flowchart of the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the Drucker–Prager model. .15. ∆γ and σ n+1 update other state variables. and exit Figure 8.330 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 . Procedure implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS.

Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Drucker– Prager model. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .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.10 (iv) Update elastic strain εe := n+1 (v) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K .8.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.

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0.9. The Drucker–Prager model. Return mapping to smooth portion of cone.8 (iv) GOTO (ii) . 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 8.332 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 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. Return mapping to apex. v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8. The Drucker–Prager model.10.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 333 Box 8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUDP ∆εp := 0.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .

R3 .MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.2.FALSE.1.AND.NE.RPROPS .STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 STRIAL(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .334 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0016’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.FALSE.0D0. i c}.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 8.2. ¯ The source code of SUDP is listed below.0. a general piecewise isotropic hardening law is assumed with the (user-supplied) hardening curve deﬁned by a set of pairs: {i εp .NE.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .1.3.2.TOL / 2 0.RP5 .5D0. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .2).RPROPS(*) .R2 . 2 RSTAVA . SUFAIL=.0D0. LALGVA(3).0D0. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. IFPLAS.0D0.3. As in the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of subroutine SUMC (Section 8.LALGVA .R1 .NTYPE .STRAT .IPROPS .2.NTYPE. SUBROUTINE SUDP The above integration algorithm has been implemented in subroutine SUDP (State Update procedure for the Drucker–Prager model) of program HYPLAS.8-10) C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric IF(NTYPE. 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 . 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 .RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .

NE.TRUE.NE.NHARD. Apply return mapping to smooth portion of cone .R0)RES=RES/ABS(COHE) IF(RES.9 -------------------------------------------------------DO 20 IPTER1=1.TOL)THEN Plastic step: Use return mapping ================================ IFPLAS=.Box 8.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SQRJ2=SQRJ2T-GMODU*DGAMA P=PT-BULK*ETABAR*DGAMA PHI=SQRJ2+ETA*P-XI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI) IF(COHE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) Check for plastic consistency ----------------------------SQRJ2T=SQRT(VARJ2T) PHI=SQRJ2T+ETA*PT-XI*COHE RES=PHI IF(COHE.GE. update stress components and other variables IF(SQRJ2T.TOL)THEN Check validity of return to smooth portion IF(SQRJ2.NHARD. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0002’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply return mapping to APEX .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.LE.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(COHE) IF(RESNOR.R0)THEN results are valid.NHARD.FALSE. APEX=.10 --------------------------------------perform checks and set some variables .R0)THEN FACTOR=R0 ELSE FACTOR=R1-GMODU*DGAMA/SQRJ2T ENDIF GOTO 50 ELSE smooth wall return not valid .GT.Box 8.go to apex return procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.TRUE.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.MAXRT Compute residual derivative DENOM=-GMODU-BULK*ETABAR*ETA1 XI*XI*DPLFUN(EPBAR.

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.EQ.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0011’) IF(ETABAR.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.TOL)THEN update stress components and other variables DGAMA=DEPV/ETABAR FACTOR=R0 GOTO 50 ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.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=.EQ.TRUE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) RES=BETA*COHE-PT DO 40 IPTER2=1.NE.LE.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=BETA*COHE-P Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(COHE.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(COHE) IF(RESNOR.NHARD.TRUE.MAXRT DENOM=ALPHA*BETA*DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD. 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) . IF(ETA.

3. Here the error map is constructed having a generic point of the deviatoric plane as the starting point. Due to the pressure-sensitivity of the model (as for the Mohr–Coulomb case). The analysis is restricted to the perfectly plastic case with associative ﬂow rule. for the Drucker–Prager model. 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).3. nhard εp . The unit tensors N and T deﬁning the increment directions are. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ and array LALGVA is deﬁned as ← LALGVA.TRUE. The resulting error map is plotted in Figure 8. . the error maps obtained from all points within the same cross-section of the Drucker–Prager cone are identical. . The tangent tensor here is deviatoric. respectively. that in the present case IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDDP. array RPROPS stores the following: RPROPS = [E. IFPLAS.3. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL Again. η . 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 . with non-deviatoric tangents to the yield surface as well. 2 c. however.FALSE. 8. the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL and the apex return ﬂag APEX. a more comprehensive accuracy assessment would require increments in other directions. Also. normal and tangent to the yield surface. . It is set to . The increment normalising factor q is the von Mises effective stress at the starting point. ξ. Flags IFPLAS and SUFAIL are set in the same way as in the previous implementations discussed. η.e. Note. Due to the symmetry of the Drucker–Prager yield surface about the hydrostatic axis. i. nhard c]. 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 .16. if the return mapping to the apex is selected.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. 2 εp . 1 εp . 1 c. 8. . The apex return ﬂag is set to . .4. otherwise. ISO-ERROR MAP An iso-error map for the integration algorithm described above for the Drucker–Prager model is presented in this section. ν. . . For the Drucker–Prager model this array contains the plastic yielding ﬂag.

127) . the differentiation of the hydrostatic pressure update formula ¯ ¯ pn+1 = ptrial − K η ∆γ = K(εe trial − η ∆γ). For this model.16. 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 . Following the procedure adopted in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models where.124) Straightforward differentiation of the above expression yields dsn+1 = 2G ∆γ 1− √ 2 εe trial d n+1 dεe trial d n+1 (8.0 0 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /q Figure 8. Drucker–Prager model with associative ﬂow. n+1 v n+1 (8. three and four elastoplastic explicit forms of tangent exist.0 7.5 5 5. Tangent consistent with the smooth portion return Firstly. 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.126) Similarly. 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 4 10 10. Iso-error map.0 2 0. εe trial d n+1 ∆σN /q (8.125) ∆γ 1 D ⊗ D : dεe trial − √ d∆γ D . d n+1 (8.5 7.338 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 2. respectively.5 2. +√ 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 . above for the Drucker–Prager model.

¯ which results in the identity d∆γ = √ 1 ( 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial ). the differential of the updated stress consistent with the application of the apex return is simply dσn+1 = dpn+1 I. where Id is the deviatoric projection tensor and A is deﬁned as A= 1 .117). d n+1 v n+1 2H G + Kη η + ξ ¯ (8. dεe trial dεn+1 dεn+1 n+1 (8.128).134) Now. vanishes at the apex.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 339 gives ¯ dpn+1 = K (dεe trial − η d∆γ).133) (8.136) .132) Tangent consistent with the return mapping to the apex Since the stress deviator. in conjunction with the use of the elastic relation.137) (8. sn+1 . The linearisation of (8. v n+1 (8.125) and (8. and use of the identity Dep ≡ dσn+1 dsn+1 dpn+1 = e trial + I ⊗ e trial . recall the hydrostatic pressure update formula: pn+1 = ptrial − K ∆εp .128) The expression relating d∆γ and the differentials of trial strain is obtained by linearising the consistency condition (8. dεe trial dεn+1 n+1 (8.130) into (8.117).129) Finally. the associated elastoplastic tangent modulus is given by Dep ≡ dσn+1 dpn+1 = I ⊗ e trial . with the substitution of (8.135) (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. G + Kη η + ξ 2 H ¯ (8.130) (8. n+1 v (8. n+1 v Its differentiation gives dpn+1 = K I : dεe trial − K d∆εp .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. Accordingly.

Remark 8.140).2). .STRAT ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. in the absence of hardening (H = 0) the above tangent operator vanishes.100) in terms of principal stress derivatives.SOID(MSTRE) 2 UNIDEV(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(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).137) and use of (8.EPFLAG .FOID(1. 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. 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 . 8.5.139) (8.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SUBROUTINE CTDP 1( DGAM . The source code of CTDP is listed below.140) This formula is in complete analogy with that of the apex return for the Mohr–Coulomb model. The elastoplastic tangents computed in CTDP are those given by expressions (8.138) Finally.1).3.5.IPROPS(*) .MSTRE) .FOID(MSTRE.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . If the elastoplastic tangent is requested. LALGVA(3) DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. The comments made in Remark 8. This routine returns either the standard elastic tangent or the consistent elastoplastic tangent operator depending on the entry value of the logical argument EPFLAG.MSTRE).135) we obtain the expression for the tangent operator consistent with the apex return mapping: Dep = K 1 − K I ⊗ I.IPROPS .STRAT(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EETD(MSTRE) .3 are equally valid for the Drucker–Prager model. Note that.RSTAVA . The implicit algorithm with which the present tangent computation is consistent is coded in subroutine SUDP.DMATX . EPFLAG. given by (8.RPROPS .3).4)/ .FOID(1. K + αβH (8.340 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. n+1 K + αβH (8.LALGVA 2 NTYPE . with the substitution of the above formula into (8.119).132) and (8. 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.FOID(1. .

4)/ 0.2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.1).0D0 .FOID(4.0D0 .0.0D0 / FOID(3.0D0 .0D0 .NHARD.0D0 .0D0 .SOID(2) .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=1.0.5D0.1.0D0/ 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.4)/ 0.FOID(3.SOID(4) .0D0 / FOID(4.J)=AFACT*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 10 CONTINUE 20 CONTINUE ELSE C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with smooth cone wall return .2).SOID(3) . 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.0.3).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(4.2).0D0 / FOID(2.FOID(3.FOID(2.2).0D0 .1.0D0 .0.0D0 .0.FOID(3.1).NSTRE DO 10 J=1.EQ.FOID(2.FOID(4.1.0.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ELSE CALL ERRPRT(’EI0017’) ENDIF C Retrieve accumulated plastic strain.R1 .3.0.R2 .1.0D0 .0.5D0 .0D0 / SOID(1) 1.0D0 / / DATA 1 R0 .0D0 .2.1).0D0.FOID(2.3).0.0D0 .NSTRE DMATX(I.4)/ 0.1.EQ.3).0D0 .0D0 .0D0.RP5 .0.0D0.0.0.R3 / 2 0.

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).J)=DMATX(J.NSTRE 116 DMATX(I.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.R0)THEN 87 EDNINV=R1/ETDNOR 88 ELSE 89 EDNINV=R0 90 ENDIF 91 DO 30 I=1.J)=AFACT*FOID(I.NE.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 117 60 CONTINUE 118 70 CONTINUE 119 DO 90 J=1.NSTRE-1 120 DO 80 I=J+1.NSTRE 103 DMATX(I.J)=R2G*FOID(I.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.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 102 DO 40 J=1.NSTRE 115 DO 60 J=I. with state update related arguments coming in the present case from subroutine SUDP. .NSTRE 121 DMATX(I.

a condition close to pure bending is obtained near the neck. the collapse of a wide rectangular metal bar containing a deep 90o V-shaped notch and subjected to pure bending is analysed. Due to the distance between the neck and the points where the forces are applied. The bar is wide enough so that the analysis can be carried out under the assumption of plane strain conditions. 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. 8. 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 reader is referred to Chakrabarty (1987) for details of the solution.18. Whenever available. The geometry and material parameters are shown in Figure 8. The vertical deﬂection obtained for the nodes where the forces are applied is plotted in Figure 8. The material is modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic with the Tresca yield criterion. only half of the bar is discretised with symmetry kinematical constraints imposed on the nodes across the neck.4. It is noted that all results presented here have been obtained with the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. A total number of 13 load increments is applied in the ﬁnite element analysis. A mesh of 312 eight-noded elements (with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature) is adopted with a total of 1001 nodes.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 343 Some local variables and arrays of CTDP • ETDNOR [ εe trial ]. BENDING OF A V-NOTCHED TRESCA BAR In this example.141) where a is the thickness of the bar in the neck and the cohesion or shear strength. D ≡ εe trial / εe trial . For the present material parameters and geometry. Examples This section presents a set of benchmark numerical examples involving all material model implementations described in the previous sections of this chapter. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm has been adopted in the iterative solution of the global ﬁnite element equilibrium equations. c. For a notch angle of 90o the associated upper bound moment per unit width of the bar is Mu ≈ 0.17.869 Nm (8. For symmetry reasons.623 c a2 (8.18.4. Array of components of the unit tensor parallel to the deviatoric elastic trial strain. it gives Mu ≈ 1. 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).142) per millimetre width of the bar.1. Without exception. The ﬁnite element model adopted in the present analysis is shown in Figure 8. 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.19 against the normalised . d n+1 d n+1 8. Norm of the deviatoric component of the elastic trial strain tensor. for the Tresca model is given as c = σy /2.

A.e. END-LOADED TAPERED CANTILEVER The collapse of a wide end-loaded tapered cantilever is analysed in this example. c a2 (8.20(a). Finite element model. ∆¯p .17. the contour plot of the incremental accumulated plastic strain.20(b). D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. The limit load determined by the present analysis is fe Mlim ≈ 0.143) This result is in very close agreement (about 2% higher) with Green’s upper bound.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) a = 5 mm h = 8 mm M l = 40 mm Figure 8. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space.18. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.636. 8. M = Fh F h Figure 8. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. In this increment the bar is effectively collapsing. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. corresponding to load increment 12 of the ﬁnite element computation ε is shown for comparison. in Figure 8. Alongside. Bending of a V-notched bar. Problem deﬁnition.) 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.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. The geometry of the cantilever as well as the mesh adopted in the ﬁnite element analysis are .) F Please Wait. M/ca2 . Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.4. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. i.A..3 σ y = 0. Note that the collapse mechanism predicted by the ﬁnite element simulation is in agreement with Green’s slip-line ﬁeld. The slipline ﬁeld proposed by Green (1953) for the present dimensions is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.2. a small increment of applied load results in extremely large incremental deﬂections. Bending of a V-notched bar.

due to experimental conﬁrmation of the proposed slip-line ﬁelds. The cantilever is ﬁrmly supported (clamped) on one edge and the applied load is a uniformly distributed shearing traction. M/ca2 0. Bending of a V-notched bar: (a) slip-line ﬁeld of the upper bound solution by Green (1953).) p ∆ε .21. ∆¯p .5 2 edge deﬂection (mm) Figure 8.A.20.004 0.010 0. are only upper bounds.) illustrated in Figure 8.623 0. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. The cantilever is assumed to be made of a Tresca elastic-perfectly plastic material with the same constants as in the previous example. of intensity S. Nevertheless. such as in the present example.A. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.2 0 0 0. the normalised upper bound for the shear traction ¶ Green’s limit loads are exact for taper angles θ ≤ 75o . ε (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.5 1 1. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.8 345 bending moment. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.19. Moment-deﬂection diagram.050 0. The width of the cantilever is assumed sufﬁciently large so that a plane strain analysis is carried out. (b) ﬁnite element result under collapse (increment 12): incremental accumulated plastic strain.6 0. His solution for θ > 75o . Bending of a V-notched bar. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.000 M M (a) (b) Figure 8. acting on the opposite edge. Green argues that it is unlikely that his upper-bound solutions will be above the exact theoretical limit load. .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 0.contour levels: 0. Computer c Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.¶ For the present geometry. Upper bound limit loads for tapered cantilevers have been obtained analytically by Green (1954) by means of slip-line ﬁeld theory.117 0.

The slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954) is schematically illustrated in Figure 8. at collapse.23(a). The associated collapse mechanism is of the plastic hinge type. End-loaded tapered cantilever. (8. u.4. obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is plotted in Figure 8. σ y = 0. the load is applied incrementally until collapse occurs. where the suitability of the ﬁnite element framework of program HYPLAS for the determination of collapse loads has been made evident. found by Green is Su ≈ 0. when the cantilever is effectively collapsing.786. In this plot. The contour plot shows that.3. the load above which convergence of equilibrium iterations cannot be attained for sufﬁciently small increments) is fe Slim ≈ 0. Figure 8.3 Please Wait.21. The corresponding collapse load (i. The present limit load has been reached in eight increments. A diagram showing the vertical deﬂection. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element mesh..4% above Green’s upper bound. S. 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. of the mid-node of the free edge versus the applied force. the sizes of the vectors have been largely exaggerated and do not correspond to the norms of the actual nodal displacements. 8. by c = σy /2. In the . the portion to the right of the slip-line ﬁeld rotates by sliding over the circular arc BC. obtained in the ε same load increment is illustrated in Figure 8.24 GPa S h = 100 mm Figure 8.23(b) shows the incremental nodal displacements obtained in the last increment (increment 8).22.4 (page 252) of Chapter 7.144) c where c is the shear strength given. At collapse.e. It can be seen that the ﬁnite element solution has captured Green’s collapse mechanism quite accurately.145) which is about 1.346 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. However. for the Tresca model.775 (8. In the ﬁnite element analysis. the analysis performed in that example was restricted to the use of the von Mises material model.5.23(c). ∆¯p . The increment of accumulated plastic strain. STRIP-FOOTING COLLAPSE The plane strain analysis of a strip footing has been carried out in detail in Example 7.

S/c 0.146) are practically identical to those obtained with the von Mises model in Example 7. Note that due to symmetry.24. Tresca Firstly. boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are identical to those of Example 7. Force-deﬂection diagram. This curve and the corresponding limit load fe Plim ≈ 5. End-loaded tapered cantilever.4 (plotted in Figure 7. c (8. only half of the problem is discretised. u.19. Thus.24).24. of the nodes under the footing as shown in Figure 7. The resulting loadsettlement curve is plotted in Figure 8.5.5.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.775 0. The corresponding uniaxial yield stress (required by the input data procedure for the Tresca material in HYPLAS) is σy = 2c = 980 kPa. The adopted common material parameters are Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Cohesion E = 107 kPa ν = 0. where the same material parameters have been used. The . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager material.04 normalised edge deﬂection. the same strip-footing problem is analysed but the soil is now modelled as a Tresca. A ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 347 0. The mesh contains 135 eightnoded quadrilaterals (four Gauss point quadrature) and a total of 446 nodes. page 253).48 c = 490 kPa The dimensions.03 0.4 (see Figure 7. the analysis is carried out using the Tresca model.002 is applied in 14 increments.01 0.02 0. The horizontal displacement of these nodes is unconstrained. The objective is to illustrate the performance of the algorithms described earlier in the present chapter for these models. The footing is assumed to be rigid and perfectly smooth (no friction). u/h Figure 8.26. present example.8 normalised load.6 0. The soil is assumed to be weightless.2 0 0 0.22. the loading consists of the prescribed vertical displacement.

348 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Green’s slip-line field A B C D (a) p ∆ε . Please Wait. End-loaded tapered cantilever. 0. c (8. Analytical solution: (a) slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954).28.120 0. (c) incremental accumulated plastic strain. is illustrated in Figure 7. as obtained in the simulation with the von Mises model carried out in the previous chapter..004 0. ﬁnite element results under collapse (increment 8): (b) incremental nodal displacements.040 0.167 0.14. ε numerically determined limit pressure is less than 1% above the slip-line theory solution Plim ≈ 5..148) . Mohr–Coulomb The analysis of the strip-footing problem with the Mohr–Coulomb material model is carried out assuming a frictional angle φ = 20o .000 (b) (c) Figure 8. ∆¯p . This mechanism. (8.147) 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).23.contour levels: Please Wait.

0. c (8. Strip footing with Tresca model. The corresponding load–settlement curves obtained in the analyses are plotted in Figure 8.25. • the inner (or compression) cone. • non-associative with dilatancy angle ψ = 10o .0025 is applied in six and seven increments.24. Two ﬂow rules are considered: • associative (φ = ψ = 20o ). The prescribed ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0. P/c 4 3 TRESCA: 2 1 0 0 0. u/B finite element results slip-line theory limit load: 5.14 0. The limit loads obtained with the associative and non-associative law are virtually identical fe Plim ≈ 15.4% higher) with Prandtl’s solution Plim ≈ 14.8.4. respectively.4 (and implemented in program HYPLAS) are used here in the analysis of the footing: • the outer (or extension) cone.150) Drucker–Prager Three of the Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion discussed in Section 6.149) This value is in excellent agreement (about 1. Load–displacement curve. for the associative and non-associative laws. and . c (8.001 normalised settlement.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 349 6 5 normalised pressure.002 Figure 8.

the predicted limit pressure is fe Plim /c ≈ 15.26. The load consists of the prescribed vertical displacements (settlement) of the nodes under the foot.152) is effectively attained in seven increments. (8.151) which is practically identical to the limit loads obtained with the Mohr–Coulomb model.28. Load-displacement curves.003 normalised settlement. P/c 12 MOHR–COULOMB: 8 associative non-associative Prandtl solution: 14. (1961).0. In the present analysis.5.3 (about 17% above Prandtl’s solution). The normalised limit pressure predicted by the inner cone is around 17.8 4 0 0 0. Strip footing with Mohr–Coulomb model. loading and boundary conditions are the same as in the previous example (these are illustrated in Figure 7. The limit load predicted by the outer cone approximation is well above Prandtl’s solution. the results are in excellent agreement with Prandtl’s solution.4.25.27. The mesh. It consists of a circular footing of diameter B = 1 m (assumed rigid and smooth) lying on soil.350 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16 normalised pressure.7 (about 140% above Prandtl’s solution). (8. a total settlement u/B = 0.24. The corresponding load-displacement diagram obtained is depicted in Figure 8.004 is imposed gradually in 10 increments.001 0.4. • the plane strain match to the Mohr–Coulomb model. For all approximations. The normalised limit pressure in this case is approximately 35. The collapse load fe Plim /c ≈ 20. The corresponding limit loads are . page 252). For the plane strain match on the other hand. u/B Figure 8.002 is reached in nine increments. A complete solution to the circular (rigid smooth) footing problem has been obtained by Cox et al. CIRCULAR-FOOTING COLLAPSE This section considers the axisymmetric analogue of the footing collapse problem described in the previous section. In this case.002 0. Only the associative law (φ = ψ = 20o ) is considered. a total settlement u/B = 0. The load-settlement diagrams obtained are shown in Figure 8. 8. The geometry is shown in Figure 8.

The failure mechanism captured in the ﬁnite element analysis is in agreement with the slip-line ﬁeld of Cox et al. The soil is modelled as a (perfectly plastic) Mohr–Coulomb material with the constants shown in Figure 8. The objective is to assess the safety of the slope illustrated in Figure 8. P/c 30 DRUCKER–PRAGER: outer cone inner cone plane strain match Prandtl solution: 14.26. β.5.4.002 0. Load-displacement curves. Limit analysis solution The limit analysis of slopes under gravity load is described by Chen (1975). For the present frictional angle (φ = 20o ) the limit average pressure on the footing is Plim /c ≈ 20. The relative error is less than 2%. SLOPE STABILITY In this example.153). The vector sizes have been ampliﬁed to ease visualisation. 8. as in the present problem. determined (to any desired accuracy) by the ﬁnite difference method (the limit loads for several frictional angles are tabulated in Chen. Strip footing with Drucker–Prager model.001 0.27.8 20 10 0 0 0. The incremental nodal displacement vectors near the footing obtained in increment 8 (where the collapse load has effectively been reached) are plotted in Figure 8.153) The corresponding slip-line net is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.1. φ.154) c . The limit load obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is in close agreement with (8.003 0. u/B Figure 8. is greater than the internal friction angle.29. If the slope angle.004 0. 1975). (8.005 normalised settlement. the slope will collapse when the ratio γ N =h (8. (1961).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 40 351 normalised pressure. the plane strain analysis of an inclined earth embankment subjected to self-weight is carried out.30.30.

29. 1961: 20. Load-displacement curve.48 c = 490 kPa 7 φ soil = 20 o 20 o (associative flow) ψ= Figure 8. Circular footing. . Geometry.. Circular footing.002 normalised settlement.001 0. Figure 8. 25 normalised pressure.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 = 0.1 5 0 0 0.27. u/B Figure 8. P/c 20 15 10 CIRCULAR FOOTING: finite element results Cox et al. Incremental nodal displacement vectors at increment 8.28. Circular footing.

Slope stability. denoted Ns . is Ns ≈ 16. (8. 30 m .156) The critical value of N .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS β = 45 o 353 B A Soil properties. 35 m 40 m Please Wait. c is the cohesion and γ is the speciﬁc weight of the soil γ = ρ g.30.49 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. The stability factor tabulated by Chen (1975) for the angles β = 45o and φ = 20o .18. adopted in the present example. is called the stability factor. reaches a critical limit. For the present geometry and material constants. Geometry and material properties. Here. Slope stability. 75 m Figure 8. Mohr–Coulomb model h = 10 m Young’s modulus: C Poisson’s ratio: Cohesion: E = 20 000 kPa ν = 0. the ratio N is N = 4. Finite element mesh.. (8.31. h denotes the slope height.155) with ρ being the mass density and g the gravitational acceleration.

354 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5 4 gravity load factor..33. ∆ε p .3050 0. Please Wait. incremental nodal displacements Please Wait. Slope stability. . α 3 2 finite element results limit analysis upper bound: 4.6525 0.32.9788 0. Slope stability.contour levels: 1.3263 0. Increment of accumulated plastic strain and displacement at collapse (increment 6).045 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 settlement at point A (m) Figure 8. Load-settlement diagram..0000 Figure 8.

8% above the limit analysis solution.2. α. A safety factor based on limit analysis can be deﬁned as αlim = Ns /N . found in the incremental ﬁnite element analysis is αfe ≈ 4. 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 8.31. For the present dimensions and material properties it gives αlim ≈ 4. The load factor. The value of α at collapse is the safety factor. With g=αg ¯ (8. consists of 221 eight-noded quadrilaterals (2 × 2 integration quadrature) with a total of 718 nodes. ∆¯p . as well as the incremental nodal displacements obtained at increment ε 6 are depicted in Figure 8.30) 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). 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.32 against the load factor α. shown in Figure 8. In the ﬁnite element analysis.157) denoting the applied gravity acceleration. The discretised domain is made large enough to avoid interference of the collapse mechanism with the boundaries of the ﬁnite element mesh.30) is plotted in Figure 8. a total of seven load increments are applied. the loading process starts from α = 0 (completely unloaded).159) lim It is about 3. i. The adopted mesh.e. (8. The contour plot of incremental accumulated plastic strain. is then increased gradually until collapse occurs. .045.158) (8. The limit value of α.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 355 This value corresponds to a collapse mechanism (Figure 8.33. The slope is effectively collapsing during this increment. the safety factor.

.

As a result. 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 main difﬁculty lies in the fact that as some components of the stress tensor are now prescribed. which have been developed speciﬁcally to solve Problem 7. a generic plane Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. 9. 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. the treatment of the plane stress constraint in elastoplastic problems requires further consideration and justiﬁes a chapter of its own. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. The conditions addressed in the present chapter are quite different from those discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.1. page 193. In spite of the generality of the algorithmic formulations presented in Chapters 7 and 8. are constrained to be zero. Clearly. where all stress components are unknown – no longer applies and needs to be reformulated. 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. then it will be determined naturally as an outcome of the numerical integration algorithm. we are concerned with plane stress problems in which certain components of stress. Here. cannot be used in general without modiﬁcations. having formulated the generic three-dimensional integration algorithms (as we did in Chapters 7 and 8). From the theoretical point of view. the original statement of the elastoplastic initial value problem – Problem 7.1 (page 193). In spite of its triviality within the realm of linear elasticity. 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). Ltd .9 PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY I N the numerical solution of elastoplastic initial value problems addressed in the previous two chapters. 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. attention has been focused on generic three-dimensional states of stress and strain – conditions under which the elastoplastic models were formulated in Chapter 6. the three-dimensional numerical integration algorithms of Chapters 7 and 8.1.1). Note that. 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.1. rather than strain.

(9. equivalently. PLANE STRESS LINEAR ELASTICITY Before going further.2) 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. 3K + 4G (9. stress state is deﬁned by a stress tensor σ11 [σ] = σ12 0 σ12 σ22 0 0 0.1.4) (9.358 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ12 e3 σ22 σ12 σ11 e2 e1 t Figure 9.1) The corresponding subspace of plane stress states can be deﬁned as Spl ≡ {σ | σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0}. 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 .3) which.5) . 0 (9.1. σ22 = 2G α 1 0 0 σ12 2ε12 2 where α= 3K − 2G . The plane stress state. 1 − ν 22 2ε12 2 (9.

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. σ23 and σ13 . 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. ε11 . ε22 and ε12 together with the (zero) outof-plane stress components. ε22 (t).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 359 the three-dimensional elastic law as follows. (9. ε23 = 0. as a result. page 193) is accordingly redeﬁned in constrained form as follows.6) we prescribe the in-plane strain components. 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 = .1. t ∈ [t0 . 0 2ε12 0 2ε23 2ε13 G 0 (9. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ). K − 2G 3 K− K+ 0 0 0 2 3G 4 3G This relationship is derived directly from Firstly. 9.1 (The plane stress elastoplastic initial value problem). . Solution of the above system yields the plane stress elastic law together with the well-known expressions for the out-of-plane strains ε13 = 0.7) ∗ 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. 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. and then obtaining. the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. ε33 = − 3K + 4G 1−ν In summary. σ33 . (9. 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 .2.8) 3K − 2G ν (ε11 + ε22 ) = − (ε11 + ε22 ). of the elastic strain tensor and internal variable set. Problem 9. The original three-dimensional elastoplastic initial value problem (Problem 7.1. and given the history of the in-plane components of the strain tensor {ε11 (t). T ]. ε12 (t)}.

PROCEDURES FOR PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY In order to ﬁnd a numerical approximation to the solution of the above plane stress elastoplastic evolution problem. satisfy the plane stress constraint σ(t) = ρ ¯ σ(t) ∈ Spl for each instant t ∈ [t0 . 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).12) imposed upon the three-dimensional model is enforced.21).1. 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. (c) use of plane stress-projected constitutive equations where. This strategy has been implemented in program HYPLAS for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. to which the present chapter is restricted. (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.3. similarly to the procedure of item (a). the plane stress constraint is enforced at the Gauss point level. ˙ with ∂ψ ∂ψ . γ(t) Φ(σ(t).1. The essential difference between distinct approaches in this case lies in the way that the plane stress constraint (9. Remark 9. ˙ (9. some modiﬁcation is required in the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. provided the same numerical scheme is used in the discretisation of the elastoplastic evolution equations. For the implicit scheme.10) (9. A(t)) ≤ 0. A(t)) ˙ (9.11) Φ(σ(t). in addition. 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. Issues related to the explicit implementation of plane stress models are addressed by Marques (1984). 9. (9.22) and (7. A(t)) = 0.12) .25) (refer to page 196) applied at the Gauss point level.9) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). (7. (b) and (c) are equivalent in that. A(t) = ρ ¯ e ∂ε ∂α and. A(t)) ˙ and γ(t) ≥ 0. . Approaches (a).360 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ﬁnd the functions εe (t). α(t) and γ(t). for the elastic strain. the three methodologies produce identical incremental plane stress constitutive equations. T ].

3 as the underlying model/algorithm.13) to the general system of return-mapping equations (7. The complete description of the computational implementation. In Section 9. 13 εe trial . The third strategy is described in Section 9.4 where the von Mises model is used as an example for completeness. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 for the variables εe . 33 (9. it consists of simply adding the extra equations σ13 (εe . is also given in Section 9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe .1 above.4. An+1 ) = 0 σ13 (εe . n+1 (9. . 23 εe trial . approaches (a) and (b) are discussed below in Sections 9. the plane stress-constrained elastic equations may not be obtained as trivially as in the linear case reviewed in Section 9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe .25) (page 196) and letting the out-ofplane components of the elastic trial strain tensor become unknowns of the new system.1. n+1 αn+1 ) = 0 (9. including the FORTRAN code. and 9. 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. the solution of the above system can be undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. respectively.3. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe .e.2. If plastic admissibility is violated.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. αn+1 . An ) > 0. ∆γ and the elastic trial components n+1 εe trial .2. † Note that if the elastic behaviour is nonlinear. For the fully implicit algorithm. After performing a plane stress-constrained elastic trial state evaluation. i. This procedure appears to have been suggested ﬁrstly by Aravas (1987) in the context of pressure-dependent plasticity.† plastic consistency is checked in the usual way.2. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . if Φ(σtrial . 9. 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 .14) then the return-mapping procedure has to be applied.2.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.

23 23 (9. from page 496) as the underlying material. αn+1 ) = 0. It should be emphasised. In order to describe the procedure.3.17) During a typical equilibrium iteration. 13 13 ε23 = εe = εp = 0. For simplicity. 33 33 (9.362 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9. 33 9. This approach. that.§ Note that an out-of-plane strain component must be prescribed for the axisymmetric algorithm. as for the three-dimensional case.e. page 215). Firstly. i. however. the plane stress condition implies that ε13 = εe = εp = 0. IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS The above procedure can be implemented even for very complex plasticity models. it is convenient to employ the matrix notation σ = [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . let us consider the isotropic case where stress and strain transverse shear components vanish identically as discussed above. we use the augmented strain array T [εe trial εe trial ]T 33 as the input of the integration algorithm for the axisymmetric case. One possible guess can be the previously 33 n+1 (equilibrium) converged out-of-plane elastic strain. 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.2.19) Here the subscript n + 1 has been dropped for notational convenience. for instance.2.2. introduced by Dodds (1987) within the implicit implementation of the von Mises model. We note that such simpliﬁcations have reduced the return mapping for the von Mises model to a single nonlinear equation (Section 7. In this case the only extra equation to be added to the general three-dimensional return mapping is‡ σ33 (εe . ‡ The original algorithm proposed by Aravas (1987) was derived under such isotropy conditions.5. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . we proceed as follows.16) which ensures that σ13 and σ23 vanish. having Gurson’s void growth model (described in Section 12. the in-plane displacements are prescribed and so is the in-plane strain array εn+1 . is described in the following. we deﬁne some initial guess for the unknown (εe )trial .1. considerable simpliﬁcation of the return-mapping algebraic system may be achieved by exploiting particular properties of the material model in question.18) (9. Instead of giving εn+1 (or εe trial ) as the input of an augmented n+1 algebraic system (as described in the above). 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. n+1 with the associated extra unknown εe trial . Next. Under elastoplastic isotropy. we can set εe trial := (εe )n . § Axisymmetric implementations of the general integration algorithm have been included in the corresponding routines for all material models discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. . (9.

3. The resulting overall algorithm is shown in Box 9. |σ33 | ≤ tol ) then the guess εe trial indeed solves the 33 plane stress problem. 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.¶ We repeat this process until we ﬁnd the elastic trial thickness strain εe trial that. 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. 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. the present procedure is computationally expensive. Its main advantage over the augmented system procedure lies in its simplicity. 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). D22 (9. 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. Thus. Remark 9. in computational terms. Remark 9. . the corresponding routine will return the augmented stress array [σT σ33 ]T . Otherwise. for each global equilibrium loop.1 in pseudo-code format. together with the in-plane strain kinematically 33 prescribed by the global equilibrium iteration. Since the axisymmetric integration algorithm is applied in each iteration of the inner loop. n+1 If σ33 = 0 (or. The solution obtained by the nested iteration is identical to that obtained by the previously discussed strategy based on the augmented return-mapping system. In other words.2.21) that relates the transverse stress and strain components. An outline of its specialisation to the von Mises model is presented in the next section. however. 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).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 363 After application of the axisymmetric elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure. Essentially. we apply a Newton–Raphson correction to obtain another guess εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 σ33 . Its complete computational implementation for the Drucker–Prager model is included in program HYPLAS. It is important to remember. 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.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 .

and CTVM. 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. The present strategy is compatible with material models other than elastoplastic.4. 9.1. The generic (plane strain/axisymmetric) procedures are included in program HYPLAS.3. the von Mises model is used as an example and a possible FORTRAN implementation is outlined in this section. 9. for instance. without the need for modiﬁcation of the original integration algorithms. The corresponding subroutines are. whose complete description is given in Section 7.3 (page 235).1.5 (page 224). an outline of the FORTRAN implementation of the von Mises model in plane stress is given by .4). respectively.3. Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level with nested iterations. such as generic nonlinear elastic materials. PLANE STRESS VON MISES WITH NESTED ITERATIONS To illustrate the above concepts.4. Note that for a linear elastic model.3. This is what happens before plastic yielding in analyses involving linear elasticplastic materials such as the von Mises model.364 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. the nested iteration loop produces the solution that satisﬁes the standard plane equilibrium together with the trivial plane stress linear elastic law (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 (9.2. 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. described in Section 7. Remark 9.21)) (v) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to the thickness trial strain εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 (vi) GOTO (ii) σ33 D22 material model. Following the steps of Box 9. SUVM.

TOL)THEN C.EPFLAG . 2 RPROPS .MSTRE+1 RSTAUX(I)=RSTAVA(I) 10 CONTINUE C Use axisymmetric integration algorithm to compute stresses STRAT(4)=E33TRL CALL SUVM 1( DGAMA . is updated only if the plane stress enforcement loop converges.STRAT .LALGVA .. Note that when CTVM is called.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. This is the only component of the consistent tangent required in the plane stress enforcement loop.RSTAUX . The actual array of state variables.3 . we have created the local array RSTAUX to store the state variables temporarily. The procedure can be made more efﬁcient if a new subroutine that computes only the scalar D22 is used instead. 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(*. .IPROPS . 2 RSTAUX . Use previously converged elastic thickness strain. RSTAVA.MXITER C Set state variables to values at beginning of increment DO 10 I=1. E33TRL=RSTAVA(4) C Start N-R loop DO 20 ITER=1.MSTRE+1 RSTAVA(I)=RSTAUX(I) 40 CONTINUE 999 CONTINUE RETURN The incorporation of the procedure into HYPLAS is a straightforward programming exercise. In the above.DMATX .1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Set initial guess for elastic trial thickness strain. all components of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix are computed.IPROPS .STRES ) IFPLAS=LALGVA(1) SUFAIL=LALGVA(2) IF(SUFAIL)GOTO 999 C Check plane stress convergence IF(ABS(STRES(4)). 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. It should be emphasised that no effort has been made to optimise the FORTRAN code suggested above.STRES ) C Apply Newton-Raphson correction to normal elastic trial strain D22=DMATX(4.RPROPS .*)’Plane stress enforcement loop failed to converge’ SUFAIL=.and break N-R loop in case of convergence GOTO 30 ENDIF C Compute axisymmetric consistent tangent components EPFLAG=IFPLAS CALL CTVM 1( DGAMA .3 ..TRUE.LE.

23) Substitution of the above expression into (9.3. page 235).5. D22 (9.4) 9 D21(1)=DMATX(4. Using the (existing) generic consistent tangent calculation routine for the von Mises model.2. This. CONSISTENT TANGENT COMPUTATION FOR THE VON MISES MODEL For completeness. .4) 13 C Assemble plane stress consistent tangent matrix 14 DO 20 I=1.EPFLAG . 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 . Its incorporation into HYPLAS can be left as an exercise.4.3 . The associated FORTRAN subroutine (not listed here) is named CTDPPN (Consistent Tangent for the Drucker–Prager model in Plane stress with Nested iterations).RSTAVA .STRES ) 5 C Decompose into submatrices 6 D12(1)=DMATX(1.24) 9. CTVM (Section 7.J)-D12(I)*D21(J)/D22 17 10 CONTINUE 18 20 CONTINUE .2. together with (9.3 16 DMATX(I.21) results in the following consistent tangent relation between the in-plane stress and strain components 1 dσn+1 = D11 − D12 D21 . we outline below the implementation of the above expressions for the von Mises model.J)=DMATX(I. n+1 33 which renders dεe trial = 33 −1 D21 dεe trial .3 15 DO 10 J=1.DMATX .21) gives dσ33 = D21 dεe trial + D22 dεe trial = 0. 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.IPROPS 4 2 RPROPS .366 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9.4) 8 D12(3)=DMATX(3.3) 12 D22=DMATX(4. THE CONSISTENT TANGENT FOR THE NESTED ITERATION PROCEDURE To obtain the tangent operator consistent with the above nested iteration algorithm.4) 7 D12(2)=DMATX(2.2) 11 D21(3)=DMATX(4. D22 dεe trial n+1 (9.1) 10 D21(2)=DMATX(4.22) (9.4. we ﬁrst differentiate the residual equation σ33 = 0 of the plane stress enforcement loop.

the functional dependence of the stress components on the state variables at tn is not explicitly indicated.25) where B is the in-plane symmetric gradient operator (with only the three rows associated with ext the in-plane strain components ε11 . At the Gauss point level.3. (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 367 9. σij (with the superimposed hat) denote the algorithmic constitutive ˆ functionals for the stress components deﬁned by the three-dimensional elastoplastic integration algorithm. and σ is the array of in-plane stress components σ11 (εe trial . THE METHOD Again. At the generic (pseudo-) time station. which contains only in-plane forces. 9.28) (9. εe trial . εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 ˆ σn+1 ≡ σ12 (εe trial . εe trial . it does not require the modiﬁcation of the three-dimensional elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm. we shall restrict ourselves in what follows to the more usual situation of elastoplastic isotropy where the transverse shear components of stress and (total. (9. the plane stress constraint is satisﬁed only at converged (equilibrium) conﬁgurations.3. ∆u = un+1 − un . ε22 and ε12 ). Under such a condition.26) n+1 13 23 33 σ22 (εe trial . let us write the general ﬁnite element equilibrium residual equation for plane problems (plane stress/strain). tn+1 . (9. εe trial . This approach has been proposed by de Borst (1991). the dependence of the in-plane stress components on the transverse shear strain components is removed from (9. 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. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 where εe trial ≡ εe + B ∆u = [ εe trial εe trial εe trial ]T . Firstly. σ13 = σ23 = 0. . The method is described in the following. for simplicity. the three-dimensional algorithm is used with zero prescribed out-of-plane strains.1. and plastic) strain vanish identically ε13 = ε23 = 0. we have r≡ Ω ext BT σn+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0.27) Here and in what follows. fn+1 is the applied external force vector at tn+1 . the present strategy consists For notational convenience. εe trial . Its main advantage is the fact that. 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. n+1 n 11 22 12 with ∆u denoting the array of incremental nodal displacements. elastic trial. elastic. as the above described nested iteration approach. Note that in the plane strain case. εe trial . rather than in the constitutive integration algorithm applied at the Gauss point level. εe trial ).26). εe trial .

D12 . Firstly.21)). where the modiﬁed tangent stiffness matrix.30)1 we obtain the linearised equation for the iterative nodal displacement array K∗ δu = −r∗ .30)2 can be solved explicitly for δε33 .32) BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ. reads ngausp nelem T (i) (i) (i) w(i) B(i) {D11 B(i) δu(e) + D12 δε33 } = −r e=1 i=1 (9.25). 9.29) in each Gauss point. THE IMPLEMENTATION In the ﬁnite element procedure.368 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS simply in adding the zero transverse stress constraint to the ﬁnite element equilibrium equation (9. The resulting residual equations are accordingly redeﬁned as BT σ ext n+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0 Ω (9.34) . K∗ . The linearised residual equation can be simpliﬁed as follows. With the substitution of this result into (9.29). D22 D22 (9. where the unknowns are the iterative changes of nodal displacement and thickness strain (or elastic trial strain) at Gauss points. 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. e A where D11 . D21 and D22 are submatrices of the matrix form of the consistent tangent operator associated with the axisymmetric integration algorithm (see expression (9.31) where the superscript i has been omitted. D22 (9.30) (i) (i) (i) (i) D21 B(i) δu(e) + D22 δε33 = −σ33 for each g.p. σ33 is the algorithmic constitutive function for the transverse stress component ˆ resulting from the three-dimensional integration algorithm. The linearised version of (9. n+1 33 In the above.2. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the new residual equation is obtained by linearising (9. This gives δε33 = − 1 1 [D21 B δu(e) + σ33 ] = − [D21 δε + σ33 ]. is deﬁned as K∗ ≡ Ω (9. both the equilibrium and plane stress conditions are solved simultaneously. σ33 (εe trial .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 . D22 (9. equation (9.3.29). i of each elem.

2. THEN EXIT ELSE GOTO (i) tol for all Gauss points of In summary.5. the explicit expression (9.2. where the modiﬁed Newton–Raphson global equilibrium iteration loop is shown in standard pseudo-code format.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 369 Box 9. (iii) Update in-plane elastic trial strain δε := B δu(e) . the plane stress . The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 9. The main modiﬁcation consists in replacing the standard linearised equilibrium equation with (9. δε33 . Plane stress constraint at the structural level. εe trial ) 33 ˆ σ33 := σ33 (εe trial . 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.31) to determine the corresponding iterative change of thickness strain (or thickness elastic trial strain).32) and using. the present procedure requires only a relatively simple modiﬁcation of the global equilibrium Newton–Raphson iteration loop. Remark 9. The modiﬁed global equilibrium iteration loop. after computation of the iterative displacement δu. 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. in general. (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∗ . 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 . Thus.

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. we recommend the use of the methods discussed in Sections 9.370 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS condition will be attained only at (converged) equilibrium conﬁgurations. the present strategy cannot be used in conjunction with explicit transient dynamic ﬁnite element schemes. the in-plane stress/strain components are the primary variables which have to be determined directly by solving the rate evolution equations. 9. it is convenient to deﬁne precisely the meaning of plane stress-projected model.1. However. This is at variance with the procedures presented previously. In such cases.4) deﬁne the plane stress-projected elastic constitutive equation and the out-of-plane strains are given in closed form by (9.2.7. whether or not the global equilibrium convergence criterion is satisﬁed. where the plane stress constraint is always enforced at each Gauss point. The use of plane-stress projected equations leads in general to more efﬁcient computational procedures. The situation here is completely analogous to plane stress linear elasticity where expressions (9. 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.2 and the use of plane stressprojected evolution equations (addressed in Section 9. 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). is derived in detail together with the corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0. 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. Remark 9.3) or (9. 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.6. incorporating general nonlinear isotropic hardening. In this case. For complex models. in Section 9.2 and 9. Unlike the procedures discussed in Section 9. Explicit schemes do not incorporate equilibrium iterations. we address the methodology of item (c) on page 360: the use of plane stress-projected plasticity models. The model adopted by Simo and Taylor . Before proceeding. (b) are equivalent to the three-dimensional model with the added plane stress constraint deﬁned in Problem 9.3.8). at the same time. 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. Remark 9. Plane stress-projected plasticity models Finally.4.4). This is due to the use of a reduced set of equations involving only the relevant in-plane components. it may not be easy or feasible to derive such relations.

(9.38) The above relations completely deﬁne the out-of-plane strain components as functions of the in-plane values. Another application of the projected equations concept is reported by Ramm and Matzenmiller (1987) in the context of large deformation shell analysis. 13 εe = 0. 9. We start by observing that. 33 11 22 As s13 = s23 = 0 under a plane stress state. (9. 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 ≥ 0.37) σ23 (εe ) = 0.4. ˙ Φ ≤ 0. 13 23 (9.35)4 that εp = εp = 0. the above equations are complemented with the constraints σ13 (εe ) = 0. which become important in the analysis of thick shells. the history of the out-of-plane strain components is . Thus.35)4 gives εp = −(εp + εp ).36) is equivalent to the well-known relations εe = 0. it also follows from (9. we ﬁrstly need to derive explicit expressions relating the elastic and plastic out-of-plane strain components to the in-plane components. The equations and algorithms derived by these authors are analogous to those presented here but account for transverse shear stresses and strains.39) (9. as the elastic behaviour is linear and isotropic.36) In addition. 23 εe = − 33 ν (εe + εe ). σ33 (εe ) = 0.35) Under plane stress. ˙ 3J2 (s) − σy (¯p ) ε ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 s 2 s (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. γ Φ = 0.3 (page 374) where the corresponding ﬁnal equations are summarised. under plane stress. 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. 22 1 − ν 11 (9.1. the plastic incompressibility that follows from (9.

35).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) . γ Φ = 0. This identity is obtained by introducing the plane stress constraint into the deﬁnition √ s ≡ s : s. s ≡ σ − 1 tr[σ] I. Φ ≤ 0.3. we can now eliminate them from the original set of equations (9. the array s of plane deviator components can be s = [s11 s22 s12 ]T εe = [εe εe 2εe ]T 11 22 12 (9. 11 22 12 Note that upright bold-face characters are used to denote the matrix representation. 3 (9.43) 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 . In deriving (9. ε33 (t) = − 22 11 22 1 − ν 11 Finally.41) p sαβ ε = γ 3 ˙αβ ˙ 2 σ σ − 1 (σ )2 γδ γδ γγ 3 ˙p ε = γ ¯ ˙ γ ≥ 0. From the deﬁnition of the deviatoric stress tensor. This results in the plane stress-projected set of equations which. 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 (9.40) which holds under plane stress condition.42) (9. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . Dαβγδ denote the components of the plane stress elasticity tensor – the fourth-order counterpart of the matrix taking part in expressions (9. ˙ ˙ where summation on repeated indices is implied with Greek subscripts ranging between 1 ¯e and 2.41)3. 9. with the history of the out-of-plane (elastic and plastic) strain components completely prescribed.44) . εp = [εp εp 2εp ]T . in component form.4 we have made use of the identity s = σαβ σαβ − 1 (σαα )2 . (9.4).41)2. In equation (9.

2.41) 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 ≥ 0.3. where P is the matrix deﬁned by P≡ 1 −1 3 0 2 −1 0 2 0 (9. we replace (9. ˙ ˙ (9. Φ ≤ 0. For the derivation of the integration algorithm to be described in the next section. and having [tn .47)5.47) of the evolution equations. respectively. Within the framework of general elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes discussed in Chapter 7.3. in the present case. it is more convenient to use the squared form of the yield function which.2 (from page 217).47)3.45) With the above matrix/vector notation at hand.47)4 and (9. in the set (9. Then. can be handled more easily.47) where De is the plane stress elasticity matrix.48) The complete set of equations of the plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening is conveniently grouped in Box 9. 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. 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.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 373 expressed as s = Pσ. tn+1 ] as the underlying (pseudo-)time interval. (9.4. 6 (9. The corresponding implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is derived subsequently. the plane stress-projected von Mises equations (9. 9. γ Φ = 0.46) 0. we start by computing the elastic . (9.

Elastoplastic strain split ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp ε ≡ [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ ˙ εp = γ 5. 2. n+1 n+1 2 3 (9. 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. tn+1 ] ∆ε = εe − εe .374 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. 0 0 1−ν 2 0 0 6 εe ≡ [εe εe 2εe ]T .51) If the elastic trial state is admissible. n+1 n 2 εn+1 Φtrial = 1 (σtrial )T Pσtrial − 1 σy (¯p trial ).3. Hardening variable evolution ∂Φ = γ Pσ ˙ ∂σ ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. ε 2 3 2 −1 0 −1 2 0 4.49) where ∆ε is the given (in-plane) strain increment associated with the interval [tn . 1. if Φtrial ≤ 0. ˙ 2 T σ Pσ 3 Φ ≤ 0. i. γΦ=0 ˙ predictor state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n σtrial = De εe trial n+1 n+1 εp trial ¯n+1 = εp . ¯n (9. Plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening. Loading/unloading criterion γ ≥ 0.50) The next step is to check for plastic admissibility of the elastic trial state. We then compute (9.52) .e. Elastic law σ = De εe σ ≡ [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . Yield function deﬁnition 2 Φ = 1 σT Pσ − 1 σy (¯p ). (9.

The original return-mapping system reduces to σn+1 = [C + ∆γ P]−1 C σtrial n+1 (9. (9.54)3 and rearrange (9.57) Here we have conveniently deﬁned ξ(∆γ) ≡ (σtrial )T AT (∆γ) P A(∆γ)σtrial . and C is the inverse of the elastic matrix C ≡ (De )−1 . 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. To this end.54) 2 − 1 σy (¯p ) = 0. where the unknowns now are the stress array. n+1 ¯n+1 n+1 As in the three-dimensional case discussed in Section 7. ∆γ.57) using the Newton–Raphson algorithm. it is also possible to reduce the number of unknowns of the plane stress-projected return-mapping equations for the von Mises model. Firstly.54)2 into (9. (9.54) can be reduced to a single scalar nonlinear equation having the incremental plastic multiplier as the unknown.55)1 into the consistency condition (9. the return-mapping algorithm needs to be applied as described in the following.2 (page 217).53) Otherwise.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 375 then the process is elastic within [tn . and the plastic multiplier. 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 (9.58) (9. (9.56) Finally.3. n+1 (9.54)1 using the inverse elastic law. εp and ∆γ where σn+1 is a function of εe deﬁned by the elastic law. εn+1 3 for εe .59) Thus. tn+1 ] and we update (·)n+1 = (·)trial .55)2. The ﬁve-variable return-mapping system (9.55) 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 − 1 2 3 σy εp ¯n + ∆γ 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 = 0. With . the return mapping for the plane stress von Mises model is carried out as follows. we substitute (9. by substituting (9. n+1 n+1 with A(∆γ) ≡ [C + ∆γ P]−1 C. σn+1 . we solve the consistency equation (9.

page 219. This is in contrast with its threedimensional counterpart (see equation (7.59) involves the sum.61) Remark 9. is a function whose deﬁnition (9.4.5 in pseudo-code format. 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). the in-plane plastic strains are updated by εp = εp + ∆γ Pσn+1 . page 223) whose only source of nonlinearity is the hardening curve and which becomes linear for perfectly plastic and linearly hardening models. Newton–Raphson return-mapping solution The reader might have realised already that the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the consistency equation (9.60) If required. In program HYPLAS. The plane stress-projected return-mapping equation (9. Fortunately.57) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm.57) is always nonlinear in ∆γ.4. in turn. The Newton–Raphson procedure is shown in Box 9. regardless of the prescribed hardening function σy . Its implementation follows the simpliﬁcation obtained below by exploiting the properties of matrices P and De .3.91). inversion and multiplication of other matrices. (9. the procedure is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress).57) can be signiﬁcantly simpliﬁed. in the present case where the elastic behaviour is isotropic.58) depends on a matrix A(∆γ) which.57) is potentially cumbersome.4 and 9. By applying the orthogonal transformation 1 √ 2 1 Q = − √ 2 0 1 √ 2 1 √ 2 0 0 0 1 (9.62) . This is because the scalar function ξ deﬁned in (9. whose FORTRAN code is shown in Section 9. The solution of the plane stress-projected consistency equation (9. and the comments made at the beginning of Section 7.376 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the solution ∆γ at hand.5.3. The plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with isotropic hardening is summarised in Boxes 9. n n+1 (9.8. the explicit expression for (9.

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.69) to P and De . and the state variables at tn . Plane stressprojected von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. Solve the nonlinear equation ˜ Φ(∆γ) = 0 for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson method – GOTO Box 9. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. 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 . 0 G 0 (9.5 – 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. Given the in-plane incremental strains.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 377 Box 9.63) E 1 − ν De∗ ≡ QDe QT = 0 0 (9. ∆ε.4. HYPLAS procedure: SUVMPS (i) Elastic predictor.64) . a2 := (σ22 − σ11 )2 . we obtain the diagonal representations 1 P∗ ≡ QPQT = 0 0 and 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2G 0 .

in view of (9.70) 9.68) Thus.378 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS On the same basis.62) and (9. We refer to that section for the description of the arguments.67) The pseudo-code of the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation (9. (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 6 1+ E ∆γ 2 3(1−ν) + (9. expression (9. is shown in Box 9. 33 22 (9. which takes part in the stress update formula (9. Note that matrix A(∆γ).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 .5 (page 224). using the above expression for ξ.5.3.3. The corresponding representation of the elastic trial stress array reads 1 trial trial √ (σ 11 + σ22 ) 2 1 trial ∗ trial (9.65). Note that the same approach to .57). The list of arguments of SUVMPS is identical to that of its general (plane strain/axisymmetric) counterpart described in Section 7.4. 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) . n+1 n+1 trial σ12 With the above transformed variables.65) where C∗ = [De ∗ ]−1 .66) σtrial ≡ Q σtrial = √2 (σ22 − σ11 ). (9. SUBROUTINE SUVMPS The above plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS of HYPLAS. can be written as A(∆γ) = QT A∗ (∆γ) Q. (9. 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ A∗ = 22 1 .69) (9. 1 + 2G ∆γ A∗ = A∗ .60)1. 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 .

This should allow readers easily to correlate the FORTRAN instructions with the corresponding expressions of Boxes 9. Again. where the plane stress integration algorithm is summarised. The complete list of the FORTRAN source code of SUVMPS is given below. the symbolic names of most variables resemble those of the corresponding name given in the text. .5.5. 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. is adopted here.4 the description of nonlinear isotropic hardening.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 379 Box 9.4 and 9. which uses a piecewise linear hardening curve. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 ˜ and corresponding residual. Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model.

STRAT .0D0.4.6.R2 .LALGVA .NTYPE .0D0.FALSE. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) . C.R6 . LALGVA(2).IPROPS .NSTRE=3 ) LOGICAL IFPLAS..R4 .2.RPROPS .RPROPS(*) .NE..1.380 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 .RP5 .0D0.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)) .RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0. 2 RSTAVA .1.0D0.FALSE.0D0. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .O-Z) PARAMETER( IPHARD=4 .MSTRE=4 .5D0.TOL / 2 0.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.R1 .4-5). SUFAIL=. C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.3.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) .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 9.0D0.R3 .STREST(NSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .1)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0031’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.

5) C ----------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.NHARD.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.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.LE.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 .RPROPS(IPHARD)) C.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.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .TRUE.NHARD.yield function PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------IF(PHI/SIGMAY.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the plane stress-projected return mapping C equation for the plastic multiplier (Box 9..MXITER C Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.GT.. EPBAR=EPBARN SQRTXI=SQRT(XI) B1=R1 B2=R1 FMODU=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-POISS)) DO 10 NRITER=1.NHARD.

TRUE.54)1 which.4.57) 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) = 0.73) Differentiation of the plastic consistency (9.382 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ENDIF 10 CONTINUE C reset failure flag and print warning message if N-R algorithm fails SUFAIL=.75) . the elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix is deﬁned as Dep ≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 = trial . we have used the identity σy = above equation.72) (9. We start by differentiating (9. it immediately follows that d∆γ = which holds under plastic ﬂow. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR With the matrix notation adopted throughout the preceding sections. The explicit expression for Dep is derived analogously to its three-dimensional counterpart discussed in Section 7. 2 d∆γ 3 (9.71) where σn+1 is the outcome of the plane stress-projected return-mapping algorithm. together with the elastic law. (9.4. (9. n+1 where we have deﬁned E ≡ [C + ∆γP]−1 .4. gives dσn+1 = E[dεtrial − d∆γ Pσn+1 ].74) In the above.2 (page 232). From the 3 (1 − 4Hξ 2 3 H ∆γ) dξ. dεn+1 dεn+1 (9. 2 σy H 3 2 ξ. 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.

3 for a complete description of the arguments of CTVMPS. ∗∗ In deriving (9. The elastoplastic tangent is that given by expression (9.78) . The reader is therefore referred to Section 7. Its computation in program HYPLAS is carried out in subroutine CTVMPS (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). 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 ). This relation. valid for any invertible M. The argument list of CTVMPS is identical to that of its general counterpart CTVM. the present routine returns either the elastic or the elastoplastic tangent operator.80) and its evaluation follows the ﬂow of Box 9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 383 By using the elastic law and the above deﬁnition of matrix E.3. n+1 n+1 n+1 (9. 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).58) can be equivalently written as ξ = (εtrial )T E P E εtrial . (9.76) Substitution of the above formula into (9.4. page 235).80) The step-by-step procedure for evaluation of the above elastoplastic tangent is summarised in Box 9. This subroutine is described in the next section. together with the use of the chain rule in (9.4.5.77) 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 .6. yields the identity dE = −E P E d∆γ.77) (9.75) followed by the substitution of the resulting expression into (9.72) and straightforward algebraic manipulations gives dσn+1 = [E − α (EPσn+1 ) ⊗ (EPσn+1 )] dεtrial . .6 in pseudo-code format. the scalar ξ deﬁned by (9. As in the standard implementation (plane strain/axisymmetric) of routine CTVM (see Section 7.73). The elastic tangent is the standard plane stress linear elasticity matrix. 9. n+1 where the scalar α is deﬁned as α= 1 σT PEPσn+1 + n+1 2ξH 3−2H ∆γ (9.4. (9.

MSTRE=4) 6 LOGICAL EPFLAG 7 C Array arguments 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE.384 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9.MSTRE).81) E(∆γ) = 1 (E11 − E22 ) 1 (E11 + E22 ) 0 2 2 ∗ 0 0 E33 with ∗ E11 = 3E .VECN(3) .IPROPS ) .STRES 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.SOID(MSTRE) . This representation is exploited in subroutine CTVMPS.69). .STRES(MSTRE) 11 C Local arrays 12 DIMENSION 13 1 FOID(MSTRE. Computation of the elastoplastic tangent operator for the plane stressprojected von Mises model.4).6 can be represented as 1 ∗ 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 2 (E11 + E22 ) 2 (E11 − E22 ) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (9. 2 (9. εp and ∆γ (outcome of the return mapping of Box 9.MSTRE) . . matrix E appearing in the procedure of Box 9. HYPLAS procedure: CTVMPS (i) Given σn+1 .NTYPE .EPFLAG 3 2 RPROPS .DMATX . 1 + 2G ∆γ ∗ E33 = ∗ E22 .RSTAVA . 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. 1 SUBROUTINE CTVMPS 2 1( DGAMA .O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .82) A similar expression is obtained for the product EP.6.RPROPS(*) .IPROPS(*) 10 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . whose FORTRAN source code is listed below. 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ ∗ E22 = 2G .

C PLANE STRESS IMPLEMENTATION ONLY.1).2.4)/ 0.FOID(1.5D0 .3).2).0.NHARD.0D0 .SOID(2) .0D0 .0D0 .FOID(1.0.4.1).0D0 / / FOID(1.2).1.6) 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.FOID(4.R3 .1.1.0.R2 .0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .1).0.0D0 .3).R1 .0D0 .FOID(2.R4 / 2 0.0.FOID(2.1.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 .3).2).4)/ 1.0.FOID(1.5D0.FOID(4.0D0 / FOID(3.3.0.NE.0.3).1).0D0 .0D0 / FOID(2.FOID(3.0.SOID(4) . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.SOID(3) .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) 1.1.FOID(3.4)/ 0.0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .2).0D0 .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/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0.FOID(2.0D0.FOID(4.4)/ 0.0.0D0.0D0 .FOID(3.0D0.0D0 / FOID(4.

I) 111 30 CONTINUE 112 40 CONTINUE 113 ENDIF 114 RETURN 115 END 89 88 9. Numerical examples In this section. we present a selected set of benchmarking numerical examples involving plane stress plasticity.NSTRE 110 DMATX(I. The results have been obtained with program HYPLAS with the full Newton– Raphson scheme selected for the equilibrium iterations.1)=E11-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(1) DMATX(1.2) 91 DMATX(2.2)=DMATX(2.5.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(3) 90 DMATX(2.386 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 numerical results obtained in the ﬁrst two examples is compared with existing analytical solutions.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 105 10 CONTINUE 106 20 CONTINUE 107 C lower triangle 108 DO 40 J=1. 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.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(3) 93 DMATX(3.J)=DMATX(J.1)=DMATX(1.2)=E12-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(2) DMATX(1.3) 95 DMATX(3.J)=R2G*FOID(I.1)=DMATX(1.NSTRE 103 DO 10 J=I.NSTRE 104 DMATX(I.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.NSTRE-1 109 DO 30 I=J+1. In all examples.3) 94 DMATX(3. the equilibrium convergence tolerance for the relative residual norm was set to 10−7 %. .2)=E22-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(2) 92 DMATX(2.

The numerical solution is obtained here by applying six load increments to the loaded node shown in Figure 9.4). The analytical limit load for this problem is given by σy bh2 .2 and 9. The above solution is derived in detail in section 4.2. Flim = 4L where b. . boundary conditions. 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. where the plate is considered to be an inﬁnite medium in plane stress state. The load level at the end of the last increment is F = 30. respectively. At that stage.3. The resulting vertical deﬂection of the loaded node is plotted against the applied force for each increment in Figure 9. The relative error is approximately 1. Under plane stress conditions.5. to emphasise the quadratic rates of equilibrium convergence attained as a result of the consistent linearisation of the algorithmic constitutive rule.4.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 387 9. The geometry.4.2 of Lubliner (1990). The analytical solution to this problem.5. h are. For the present geometry and material properties.3).1. eight-noded quadrilaterals are usually employed in conjunction with the nine-point Gaussian quadrature.2%. At this point. the analytical limit load is Flim = 30 KN. the problem is solved by using the mesh shown in Figure 9. COLLAPSE OF AN END-LOADED CANTILEVER In this example. The cantilever is modelled with 2 × 50 eight-noded quadrilaterals (element type QUAD 8 of HYPLAS) with 2×2-point (reduced) Gauss quadrature. In the ﬁnite element model. 4 and 6. which follows the plane-stress projected approach. A perfectly plastic von Mises material model in plane stress is assumed.4. is found in Section 5. the breadth and width of the cross-section and L is the length of the cantilever.2.2. has been fully described in Sections 9. 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. the evolution of the residuals (out-of-balance forces) during the global Newton–Raphson iterations is shown in Table 9.7 of Chakrabarty (1987).1 for increments 2.2. we study the problem of the plastic collapse of an end-loaded cantilever beam with a rectangular cross-section. The plate is made from a von Mises perfectly plastic material. It should be noted that the numerically obtained collapse load is in excellent agreement with the theoretical limit. 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.3594 KN. The plane stress implementation of the von Mises model. 9. the plate has a large radius (as compared to the radius of the hole) in order to emulate the inﬁnite planar medium.4. ﬁnite element model and material properties are illustrated in Figure 9. Here. the cantilever is effectively collapsing and equilibrium can no longer be found for reasonably sized load increments. Finally. Note that for increment 6 (the last load increment) the cantilever is effectively collapsing (see the load-deﬂection diagram of Figure 9. Due to the symmetry of the problem around the centre of the hole only a 10o slice of the geometry is discretised.

is informed by the fact that it produces. 30 applied load. underintegration is not required here. with less computational effort. End-loaded cantilever.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) F b = 50 mm h = 100 mm L = 1000 mm Figure 9. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model.388 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties: E = 210 GPa ν = 0. End-loaded cantilever.2853 – the numerical pressure limit at which global convergence cannot be obtained for any signiﬁcant load increment. where u is the radial displacement of the mid-side node of the loaded edge – is plotted in Figure 9. as locking is not an issue in plane stress problems. p/σy . In the ﬁnite element simulation. As opposed to plane strain applications.3 σy = 0.3. The resulting normalised radial expansion – u/a.5 against the normalised applied pressure. Load-deﬂection diagram. The choice of the ﬁve-point integration rule in the present example. 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. the pressure p is increased gradually until a limit load is attained. Seven load increments are used to reach p = 0.2. results virtually identical to those obtained by the nine-point Gauss quadrature. The analytical .

414654 E − 08 0.380886 E + 01 0. The corresponding analytical solution is also plotted for comparison.895831 E + 01 0.015625 KN 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 0.128691 E + 01 0.295108 E − 01 0.549382 E − 09 normalised limit pressure is plim 2 = √ ≈ 1. In the present problem.717926 E − 01 0. σy 3 The limit pressure obtained in the simulation is about 3% higher than the analytical value. by σy c2 σr = − √ 3 r2 σy c2 and σθ = √ .5. for a given c ≤ clim .1. respectively.526293 E − 10 0. φ is the implicit function of r deﬁned by √ c2 = e 3φ cos φ. The hoop and radial stress distribution along the radial direction obtained at different stages of loading is shown in Figure 9.104585 E − 02 0.162250 E − 06 0. Similarly to the problem studied in Section 7.205624 E + 01 0.1 (page 244). 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 .0625 KN Increment 6 ∆F = 0.139026 E − 03 0.248066 E + 01 0. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Increment 2 ∆F = 10 KN Increment 4 ∆F = 0. Convergence table.629249 E − 01 0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 389 Table 9. when the above limit pressure is reached. 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.486441 E − 04 0.6.751. End-loaded cantilever. the radius of the plastic zone has the limit value √ clim π = eπ/ 3 cos ≈ 1. 2 r . 6 3 where.155.464825 E + 00 0.533184 E + 00 0. 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.

Simo and Taylor. 9. 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. A linearly hardening von Mises law is adopted. only one quarter of the complete domain is discretised with the appropriate kinematic constraints being imposed along the symmetry edges. Pressure-expansion diagram. Inﬁnite plate with a hole.7. 1. A total vertical displacement u = 0.5.4 0 0 0.02 radial expansion at edge. 1986).4. p/σy 0.14 mm is imposed on the constrained edge in seven . Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model. Inﬁnite plate with a hole.5.2 normalised pressure. boundary conditions and material properties are shown in Figure 9. For symmetry reasons. This classical example is frequently used as a benchmark for the plane stress implementation of plasticity models (Fuschi et al. u/a Figure 9. The geometry. 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.390 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties (von Mises model): E = 210 GPa ν = 0.8 numerical result analytical limit (1.01 0.3 σ y = 0.3.155) 0.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) p 10 o a =10 mm 100 mm Figure 9. 1992..

2 1.1 p=0.9.2.6.1 stresses.8 versus the prescribed displacement.10. 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.4 1. The top edge nodes (except that on the symmetry line) are free to move horizontally. which shows contour plots of accumulated plastic strain at different stages of the loading process.2. σr and σθ (GPa) p=0.15 -0. r/a Figure 9. increments ∆u = 0. 9.02 mm. boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are shown in Figure 9. We remark that. In this problem. The given material properties for the concrete (also shown in Figure 9.5.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 391 0. the concrete is modelled as an associative perfectly plastic Drucker–Prager material in plane stress.2 p=0.8 2 analytical (hoop) analytical (radial) FE results radial position. denoted fc and ft .2 p=0. Inﬁnite plate with a hole. The geometry. Here. The mesh used to discretise the symmetric half of the problem contains 12 × 24 equally sized eight-noded quadrilaterals with four-point Gauss quadrature. The reaction force obtained over the complete edge is plotted in Figure 9. Analytical and ﬁnite element results for different applied pressures (indicated pressures levels in GPa). respectively. in contrast to the plane stress-projected approach of the von Mises implementation used in the previous examples. 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.25 -0.4. Two different sets of material parameters are adopted with the plane stress section of the Drucker–Prager surface matching: .15 0.20 -0.20 p=0. the HYPLAS implementation of the plane stress Drucker–Prager model follows the nested iteration methodology described in Section 9.6 1.10) are its uniaxial compression and tensile strengths.25 0 p=0.3 1 1. Stress distribution in the radial direction (r denotes the radial coordinate). The evolution of the plastic front is depicted in Figure 9.

2 linear hardening: _ _ σy ( ε p ) = 0. .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.7. Geometry. u (mm) Figure 9.243 + 0.8.2 ε p [GPa] d/ 2 sym w/2 Figure 9. sym l /2 Material properties (von Mises) : E = 70 GPa ν = 0.16 edge displacement.12 0. boundary conditions and ﬁnite element mesh.04 0.. Reaction–deﬂection diagram. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate. 3.0 1.08 0.0 edge reaction (KN) 2. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.0 0 0 0.

u = 0. and the cohesion.00 u = 0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 393 Please Wait.03 0. Please Wait. u = 0. Contour plots of accumulated plastic strain. c. for the above are given by (refer to expressions (6. A schematic representation of the corresponding yield surfaces is given in Figure 6.11 0. . (b) the biaxial tension and compression limits of the Mohr–Coulomb surface that matches the given uniaxial data. εp ..9.10 0.08 0.02 0.10 mm u = 0.09 0.07 0. ¯ (a) the given uniaxial data.06 0. The frictional angle.57o.01 0.16 (page 169).125–6..06 mm Please Wait.04 0.. c = 4.14 mm Figure 9.58 MPa.. φ. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.05 0.02 mm 0. Please Wait.127)) φ = 56.

effects of reinforcement could be accounted for by adding steel elements (the reinforcement) on top of an appropriately designed background plain concrete mesh. in practice. The numerical limit load in the uniaxial match case is 3045 KN/m whereas with the biaxial match the limit load is 335. respectively. The most conservative one is that produced by the inner match approximation. becoming worse towards the biaxial compression state.102911 E + 02 0. the load is applied incrementally. The failure mechanism is illustrated in Figure 9.447672 E − 08 Increment 6 0.557241 E + 01 0.904595 E − 02 0. A total of 16 and 10 increments are used. The biaxial match on the other hand produces a conservative prediction. respectively.5 KN/m.4.653716 E − 04 0.101283 E + 02 0.282426 E − 05 0. This is particularly true in the present case where the ratio fc /ft is high. Thus. the present example is not meant to be a practical engineering application. Convergence table.4. As pointed out in Section 6. in cases (a) and (b) to reach a numerical limit load.4.822378 E − 03 0.4. It should be emphasised that.12 where the direction of the incremental nodal displacements at failure are plotted for the biaxial match case. shear walls are made from reinforced rather than plain concrete.541467 E − 10 Increment 9 0. failure occurs by crushing of the material near the support under a combination of shear and compressive stresses.11. Other predictions can be obtained by using the outer or inner edge Drucker– Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb surface (refer to Section 6. Table 9.198868 E − 00 0.495802 E + 00 0. it serves to illustrate the performance of the (nested iteration) plane stress Drucker–Prager model. Within the ﬁnite element environment of HYPLAS. until collapse occurs.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.10) is shown in Figure 9. To emphasise the quadratic (equilibrium) convergence rates resulting from the consistent linearisation of the nested iteration-based integration algorithm.2. 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 limit load obtained with the uniaxial match is about nine times that obtained with the biaxial match.394 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Table 9. In the present example. Shear wall. from page 166) corresponding to the given uniaxial data.2 shows the evolution of the normalised residuals (out-of-balance forces) during typical global Newton iterations at sample load increments. In these cases (not shown on the load-deﬂection graphs) the predicted limit loads are. In the numerical simulation. 2539 KN/m and 276 KN/m.567046 E + 01 0. limit loads can be signiﬁcantly overestimated when the uniaxial match is used under such conditions. Instead. The applied load versus vertical deﬂection of the midpoint of the lower edge (point A of Figure 9. with arc-length control. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 Increment 2 0.134854 E + 01 0.

2 fc’ = 30.18 m h = 1.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 395 Uniformly distributed load.5 MPa ft ’ = 2.75 MPa h A l/8 l Figure 9.4 0.6 vertical deflection at node A (mm) (a) (b) Figure 9. t = 0. .0 2.2 1.11. P Geometry: l = 1.20 m thickness.8 1.75 x 104 MPa ν = 0.10. P (KN/m) 0 1. Shear wall.0 applied load.1 m Material properties: E = 2.0 3. Geometry and ﬁnite element model. Load versus vertical deﬂection at point A: (a) uniaxial match. Shear wall. P (KN/m) 3000 300 2000 200 1000 100 0 vertical deflection at node A (mm) 0 0 0. (b) biaxial match. 400 applied load.

To illustrate further applications of those concepts. This assumption results in the following representation for the strain components ε13 . 9. which have the same format as those of the plane stress-projected model. η2 .6. States of stress arising typically in structures such as beams. 9.396 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS failure region Figure 9. we derive in the following a set of stress-constrained elastoplastic constitutive equations suitable for implementation with threedimensional Timoshenko beam ﬁnite elements. under many practical conditions. it is assumed that upon a generic three-dimensional deformation the cross-sections remain plane. 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. 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. Within the context of linear elasticity. 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. ε23 and ε33 at any point with local coordinates (η1 . be approximated by constraining appropriate components of the stress tensor. Incremental displacements at failure.6. Shear wall.12. Following the standard kinematic hypotheses that characterise two-dimensional Timoshenko beams. are also derived. The corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. plates and shells can.13).83) . Other stress-constrained states Plane stress is certainly not the only stress-constrained state of practical interest in engineering analysis and design.1. In the present case we will end up with a beam state-projected set of evolution equations for von Mises plasticity. 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. The equations derived here are completely analogous to the plane-stress projected equations discussed earlier.

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 resultant force. Three-dimensional Timoshenko beam state.86) with σ13 . and the resultant moment. The components γ1 and γ2 are associated with transverse shear and γ3 is the longitudinal strain at the centroidal axis. Components κ1 and κ2 correspond to the beam curvature deformation whereas κ3 is the torsional strain. respectively. The constraint on the stress tensor In addition. ∂ζ κ≡ ∂ω ∂ζ (9. denoted m.84) ¯ with u(ζ) and ω(ζ) denoting. respectively. Resultant forces The generalised forces associated with the generalised strain vectors γ and κ are. where γi and κi are the components of the generalised strain arrays γ≡ ¯ ∂u . These are obtained by . denoted n.13.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 397 σ13 σ13 σ33 σ23 σ23 η1 e1 e2 η2 e3 ζ m n Figure 9. σ23 and σ33 being the only possible non-vanishing components.85) 0 σ= 0 σ13 0 0 σ23 (9. the displacement of the centroidal axis and the three-dimensional rotation of the cross-section.

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. Given the history of γ and κ (directly ¯ obtained from the history of generalised displacements. Clearly. s ≡ 2s23 = 2σ23 . Resultant forces/generalised strains constitutive relation In the present context. (9. a Gauss quadrature.398 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS integration of the non-vanishing stress components over the beam cross-section. 2 σ33 s33 σ33 3 where sij denote components of the deviatoric stress tensor. the only step that depends on the material model is the integration of the elastoplastic evolution problem. missing in the above representation of the stress deviator. 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. With the prescribed strain components. we need to integrate the elastoplastic evolution equations so as to produce the corresponding stress σ.90) .85) has to be satisﬁed. Having done so. Note that the generally nonvanishing components s11 and s22 . it is convenient here to introduce the matrix notation 2s13 2σ13 σ13 (9. say. u and ω) the history of the strain components ε13 .83).88) C C C σ13 dA σ23 dA σ33 dA (9. ε22 and ε12 which can be calculated a posteriori. the constitutive relationship between the history of the generalised strains and the resultant forces is obtained as follows. the cross-section integration can be performed numerically by means of. The dependent variables are the strain components ε11 . ε23 and ε33 is prescribed and the constraint (9. ε23 and ε33 is automatically prescribed by (9. we concentrate on the deﬁnition of the von Mises elastoplastic evolution problem subjected to the present stress constraint. In the present case only the history of strain components ε13 . are dependent on s33 1 1 s11 = s22 = − 2 s33 = − 3 σ33 . the resultant forces n and m are then obtained by integration of the stresses over the cross-section according to their deﬁnition. In what follows.89) σ ≡ σ23 . At the element level.

¯ γ ≥ 0. εe ≡ 2εe e23 p23 ε33 ε33 ε33 The yield function. Finally.95) . the projected version of the von Mises yield function can be deﬁned as Φ(σ. The beam state-projected von Mises equations. where the projection matrix P is here given by 2 0 P ≡ 0 2 0 0 0 0 .86) and has only the relevant non-vanishing stress components as arguments. ε23 (t).92) In order to formulate the constrained evolution equations. εp ) > 0. (9. ˙ γ Φ(σ. and ε33 (t) – the history of the strain arrays ε – the basic initial value problem now consists of ﬁnding the functions εp (t). εp ) ≥ 0.97) De = 0 G 0 . it is also convenient to deﬁne the following notation for the independent (engineering) strain components e p 2ε13 2ε13 2ε13 . the beam state-projected von Mises evolution equations are deﬁned as follows. εp ) ≡ 3 σT P σ − σy (¯p ). Given the history of the total independent strain components.93) ε ≡ 2ε23 . for the three-dimensional Timoshenko beam is given simply by G 0 0 (9. ε13 (t).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 399 The stress and stress deviator arrays are related by s = P σ. 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. De . ˙ ¯ (9. ¯ ε (9.94) 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. εe (t).91) (9. 0 0 E ˙p ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 2 √ Pσ σT Pσ (9.96) The elastic matrix. 2 3 (9. With the above notation. εp ≡ 2εp .

implies that 12 ε12 = εe = εp = 0. As σ12 = 0 and. (9. 11 22 2 33 Finally. is prescribed in the underlying initial value problem. (9.58). whereas. for constrained stress states. 9.99) From the three-dimensional von Mises equations. in the constrained case.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. these components are dependent variables whose evolution is a consequence of the constraint on the stress state. ε12 and ε22 .2.4. ε11 . σ12 = 2G εe .57. ε22 and ε12 .101) ε11 = ε22 = εe + εp . with matrix P redeﬁned by (9. The main difference between the two formulations is the fact that. consequently. the elastoplastic additive strain decomposition together with the elastic relation. it follows that. is obtained as follows.2. so that the components εp and εp are promptly found to be ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 11 22 given by (9. Having determined the history of the independent strains by integrating the constrained elastoplastic evolution equations. εp = 0 for constrained ˙12 stress states.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 .86). the total strain components ε11 and ε22 are obtained from the additive elastoplastic split of the total strain tensor (9. the history of the dependent strain components. The ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the plastic multiplier can be cast in the same format as equations (9.6.98) 12 12 The three-dimensional Timoshenko beam constraint on stresses also imply that εe = εe = 11 22 −K εe .3. Under stress states that satisfy the constraint (9. 11 11 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. ε11 .100) εp = εp = − 1 εp . 2(G + K) 33 (9. Evolution of the dependent strain components. 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. in the three-dimensional case. the rates εp . the history of the total strain components. 1 we have εp = εp = − 2 εp .102) .

(9.104) In the Newton algorithm of Box 9. 0 0 (9.4. the derivation of the corresponding elastoplastic consistent tangent.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. the function ξ(∆γ) deﬁned in (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 401 With the above matrix. is analogous to that of the plane stress-projected model addressed in Section 9. (1 + 2G ∆γ)3 9(1 + 2 E ∆γ)3 3 (9.106) E(∆γ) = 1 + 2G ∆γ E 0 0 2 1 + 3 E ∆γ With the appropriate redeﬁnition of the relevant terms. Dep .5.80) where the matrix E is here redeﬁned as G 0 0 1 + 2G ∆γ G . As in the return mapping described above.105) The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus.4. the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be computed as in Box 9. the computation of the derivative ξ is replaced by ξ := trial trial trial −8G[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 8E (σ33 )2 − . .6.4 and 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 .58) has the following explicit expression trial trial trial 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 2(σ33 )2 ξ(∆γ) ≡ + . The ﬁnal expression has the same format as (9. 3 (9.

.

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

a is the radius of the ellipse along the pressure axis and pt is the tensile yield hydrostatic stress.1) where the constant M is the ratio between the two radii of the Cam-Clay ellipse. we will focus on a version of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model whose yield surface (refer to Figure 10.2) b= β if p < pt − a. for any β > 0. the hydrostatic stress and the von Mises effective stress. This parameter modiﬁes the radius of the second half of the ellipse on the compressive side of the hydrostatic axis.1. q) = (pt − a. 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.1) is deﬁned by a yield function of the form Φ(σ. The parameter b takes the values 1 if p ≥ pt − a (10. Yield surface. M a). THE MODEL Let p and q denote. the yield locus becomes an ellipse with radii a and M a. 10.1 is named the critical state line.1. respectively.1.404 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS q 1 M yield surface Φ=0 0 p βa pc a pt Figure 10. the two horizontal halves of the surface intersect in a smooth fashion at (p. Here. where β is a material constant. Note that. Modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. The parameter M is the slope of the critical state line. along directions p and q. (10. respectively. The dashed line in Figure 10. If β = 1. a) = 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + 2 b M 2 − a2 . . The elastic domain of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model is delimited by an elliptic yield surface in the p–q space.

α.9) Under this assumption. (10. other yield surface parameters such as M or β could also be functions of hardening variables. εp = γ Nv .8) Equivalently. in terms of the compressive yield pressure (or compaction pressure).6) Because in actual applications. into deviatoric and volumetric components. It should be noted that the opposite sign convention is commonly adopted in soil mechanics texts.5) The plastic ﬂow deﬁned by the above associative rule is compressive† (εp < 0) if p < pt − a ˙v (subcritical states). b2 (10. which gives ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ = γ N = γ (Nd + Nv I ). the evolution of the volumetric plastic strain will change the size of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay yield surface while maintaining its shape. v (10. For many plastically compressible materials.4) The deviatoric and volumetric plastic strain rates then read ˙d ˙ εp = γ N d . ˙v ˙ (10.3) where we have conveniently split the ﬂow vector. 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.7) and the hardening behaviour will be deﬁned by means of the experimentally determined hardening function a = a(α). the state of hardening is largely dependent upon the volumetric plastic strain (or plastic compaction). compressive volumetric strains and hydrostatic pressures have a negative sign here. N = ∂Φ/∂σ. where compressive volumetric strains and hydrostatic pressures are assumed positive. ‡ In a more general setting. . soils will be predominantly subjected to compressive strains. M2 Nv = 2 (p − pt + a). Hardening in this case is characterised by a change in compressive yield pressure. εp ≡ tr[εp ]. † Consistently with the continuum mechanics sign convention adopted throughout this book. dilatant (εp > 0) if p > pt − a (supercritical states) and isochoric (εp = 0) ˙v ˙v at p = pt − a (critical state). having the intersection of the yield surface with the p-axis at p = pt (the tensile yield pressure) ﬁxed. ˙ ˙ ∂σ (10. respectively denoted Nd and Nv : Nd = 3 s.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 405 Flow rule The plastic ﬂow equation can be deﬁned by postulating associativity. pc (also assumed compressive-positive) hardening can be deﬁned by pc (α) ≡ (1 + β) a(α) − pt .‡ α. and for soils in particular. will be chosen as the compressive-positive volumetric plastic strain: α ≡ −εp v (10. (10. the hardening variable.

i.12) In addition. Particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. We remark.1. 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 .25) (page 196) for the present model results in the system of equations comprising (10. In this case. (1998). that is. The hardening function a(α) (or pc (α)) is usually expected to be monotonically increasing in its argument. 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. (10. by observing the deviatoric/volumetric split (10. however. having αn+1 . for instance. .1 (Hardening behaviour). d ptrial = K εe trial . pn+1 . 10. The implementation of Cam-Clay-type models with nonlinear elastic laws is described. hardening (expansion of the elastic domain) occurs only in the subcritical region. following the comments on the volumetric plastic strain rate made immediately after expression (10.13). that it is sometimes convenient to adopt nonlinear elasticity laws with models of this type. as the unknowns. ∆γ. M2 (10.11)–(10. a increases with increasing plastic compression. Firstly.e. the linearly independent components of sn+1 and the incremental plastic multiplier. under hydrostatic pressures p < pt − a.2.13) where qn+1 is the von Mises effective stress associated with sn+1 . by Simo and Meschke (1993) and Owen et al. 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). COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Here we shall adopt a linear elasticity law to model the reversible behaviour of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. v (10. b2 (10.11) pn+1 = ptrial − K∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )].5). b2 where the updated hardening variable is given by the equation α n+1 = α n − ∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )].406 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Remark 10.4) of the plastic ﬂow and the elastic relations.10) The return-mapping algorithm is derived as follows. The return-mapping algorithm The elastic trial state computation follows the usual format: strial = 2G εe trial .

(10.13) 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 .18) It is worth commenting here that system (10. followed by the calculation of the updated stress tensor through the standard relation σn+1 = sn+1 + pn+1 I. the substitution of (10.14) M2 In addition. Once the solution to the above return-mapping equations is obtained. similarly.14). that is. an explicit expression for the linear system to be solved for the iterative . It should be noted. 2[p(αn+1 ) − pt + a(αn+1 )] (10. For completeness.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 407 Reduced equation system In order to obtain an equivalent reduced system of equations for the return mapping. however. that the above expression cannot be used in practice at p = pt − a. for qn+1 .11)1 we obtain sn+1 = s(∆γ) ≡ and.17) for ∆γ: ∆γ = ∆γ(αn+1 ) ≡ b2 (αn − αn+1 ) .16) Finally. qn+1 = q(∆γ) ≡ M2 q trial .17) can be undertaken as usual by the Newton–Raphson algorithm.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. the stress-updating procedure is completed with the computation of sn+1 by means of (10.19) and then replacing this result into the ﬁrst equation. Newton–Raphson solution The solution of (10.15) M2 strial .16) in (10. (10. sn+1 .11)1 implies that for a given strial the updated stress deviator.15) and (10. (10.12) we can write pn+1 = p(αn+1 ) ≡ ptrial + K (αn+1 − αn ).12) and (10. is a function of ∆γ only. we start by noting that (10. after a simple rearrangement in (10. M 2 + 6G ∆γ (10.11)2 and (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. by combining (10. + 6G ∆γ (10.

24) (10.3).4. yields the tangential relationship e −1 [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 N dσn+1 dεe trial 2H∆γ dαn+1 = . ∂σ 3b (10. in which the elastic trial strain tensor is also treated as a variable. dα (10. ∂α b (10.13) we obtain 2 ∂Nv = 2 I. in the present case. = (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). we resort to the general procedure of Section 7. which was also applied in Section 7. ¯ ¯ da .4. comprises (10.13) together with the trivial update formula (10.4 (from page 238).23) 0 ∆γ ∂Nv /∂σ 1+ Nv b2 0 d∆γ N ∂Φ/∂α 0 where. (10. following the deviatoric/volumetric split of (10.141) which was obtained for the implicit implementation of the isotropically hardening von Mises . ∂σ M In addition.5 (page 240) as an alternative to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent for the implicit integration of the von Mises model.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 .23) has a similar format to that of (7. The differentiation. we write ∂N ∂Nd ∂Nv = +I ⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ with ∂Nd 3 = 2 Id . The elastoplastic consistent tangent To derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.11)–(10.21) (10.20) (10.25) ∂Φ 2 = 2 (p − pt + a)H − 2aH = (Nv − 2a)H. Accordingly. from (10.18).22) and all terms of the derivative matrix on the right-hand side are evaluated at (∆γ. αn+1 ). α) = (k−1) (∆γ (k−1) .26) Here we should note that tangential relation (10. we start by differentiating the full system of return-mapping equations which.

4. Plastic ﬂow under compressive hydrostatic pressure may only be triggered with the superposition of shearing stresses. however.148) and yields the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep ≡ ∂σn+1 ∂εe trial 1 ˜ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). The p–q plane representation of the yield surface so obtained is illustrated in Figure 10. the elastoplastic tangent operator (10. and 2H∆γ ∂Nv ˜ + 1+ N N ≡ −∆γ(Nv − 2a)H ∂σ b2 2H∆γ −2∆γ(Nv − 2a)H N. 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. is presented below. Accordingly. its inversion follows completely analogous steps to those leading to (7. that is. N coincides with N and symmetry is recovered. (1988a). ˜ N : P : N + (Nv − 2a)Nv H −1 =P− where (10. I+ 1+ = 2 3b b2 (10. A particularly simple choice is the adoption of an elliptical cap as the compressive bounding surface. 10.6. For many geomaterials.3 (from page 324). The reader is referred to the discussion at the beginning of Section 7.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 409 model. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the non-associativity of the adopted hardening law. the standard Drucker–Prager or Mohr– Coulomb plasticity models are not able to capture the actual material behaviour.27) is generally unsymmetric. if H = 0. ˜ Also note that in the absence of hardening.28) with ﬂow vector derivative given by (10. The equations of the resulting multisurface (twosurface) model. followed by an outline of its numerical treatment. The implementation of a Cap-type model similar to that described here is presented by Simo et al. 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. .24).29) ˜ Since in general N = N. compressive plastic ﬂow (compaction) under (possibly pure) compressive hydrostatic stresses can be an important feature of the overall behaviour.2.27) P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ : De (10. The modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in the previous section already incorporates the possibility of plastic compaction.2. For that model (as well as for the Mohr–Coulomb model). In circumstances where plastic compaction is relevant. the application of an arbitrary compressive hydrostatic pressure alone does not cause plastic ﬂow.

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. ξ (10. 10. a) = J2 (s(σ)) + η [p(σ) − pt ]. Φb (σ. Capped Drucker–Prager model.30) − a2 .30)1. η= 2/3 M. Plastic ﬂow rule On the cone. a) ≤ 0}. the plastic strain rate equation is given by (6.1.33) .121) (page 167) by using the trivial relation c= η pt . the set of plastically admissible stress states is deﬁned by A = {σ | Φa (σ) ≤ 0.2. (10. 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + β2 M 2 (10.32) For a ﬁxed a.2. CAPPED DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL The yield functions of the model are Φa (σ) ≡ Φb (σ. Yield surface.157) (10. where Φa is an equivalent representation of the Drucker–Prager yield function obtained from its original expression (6. In (10. On the smooth part of the cone. the standard generally non-associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule is adopted.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.

4) is a deviatoric tensor: b N b = Nd = 3 s. respectively. Following the general representation of associative plastic ﬂow rules for multisurface plasticity models given by (6. cone flow vector Na εp . ˙ ˙ (10.158)1 and (6. equivalently. At the cone apex. (6. Capped Drucker–Prager model.3.3. (page 176).77) and (6.73) (page 156).166). (6. the ﬂow vector has deviatoric and volumetric components (6.8)) isotropic strain hardening is incorporated by letting the compaction pressure pc (or.35) At the cap/cone intersection. the yield surface parameter a) be a function of the compressive-positive . Hardening As for the previously discussed modiﬁed Cam-Clay model (refer to expressions (10. On the cap.3) and (10.9) and (10.34) where N a and N b are. M2 (10. the normal to the cap with general expression (10.4). Flow vectors. the (associative) ﬂow rule is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 411 εp cap normal Nb .160)1 and (6.36) A general p-q plane illustration of the plastic ﬂow directions for the resulting model is given in Figure 10. 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 (10.166). 3 2 J2 (s) (10. p Figure 10. respectively. 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. The ﬂow vector N a has the standard form Na = 1 η ¯ s + I. where p = pt − a.78).

1.40) (10. 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 (10.2. . in turn. return to the smooth portion of the Drucker–Prager cone.1 (from page 325) and 10.37) and then substituting the resulting expression. ¯ (10. 2.3. The Drucker–Prager cone remains ﬁxed and is independent of the hardening variable. n+1 v (10. expanding (shrinking) the elastic domain.2.4. respectively. The two-surface model admits four possible return mappings: 1. ¯ v (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. with the added simplicity of perfect plasticity. Its volumetric component reads εp = η ∆γ a .7).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 = 0.37) into the general stress update formula sn+1 = strial − 2G∆εp . the cap moves in the compression (tensile) direction along the hydrostatic line.34)–(10. page 327). (10. α. THE IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm for the present model is a combination of the elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes derived in Sections 8.2 for the Drucker–Prager and modiﬁed Cam-Clay models.412 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS volumetric plastic strain.36): ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . The return mapping to the cap surface.1. As pc increases (decreases). 4.38) so that the update formula for the hardening internal variable at the cone/cap intersection is given by αn+1 = αn − η ∆γ a . 3.2. In this case (refer to Remark 8. return to the cone apex. return to the elliptic cap.3 (from page 324). 10. 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. together with (10. the returnmapping equations can be solved in closed form.39) The return-mapping equation for the cone/cap intersection is derived by introducing (10. deﬁned in (10. is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in Section 10. n+1 d pn+1 = ptrial − K∆εp . return to the cone/cap intersection.

Algorithm for selection of the correct return-mapping procedure.2. 10. The summary of a possible selection algorithm is shown in the ﬂowchart of Figure 10. This will be left as an exercise for the reader. . the return mapping that fully satisﬁes plastic consistency.15 (page 330). as four distinct return procedures are possible for the present model. then the current elastoplastic tangent will be consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone return.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. 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. when dealing with multivector implementations of multisurface plasticity models. and so on. an appropriate algorithm has to be devised to select. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The elastoplastic consistent tangent will be dependent on the particular return mapping considered. Selection of the appropriate return mapping As discussed in detail in Chapter 8.4. for a given elastic trial state. then the current tangent will be consistent with the cone–cap intersection return.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 )] . Its validity can also be established on the basis of geometrical arguments. The situation here is an extension of that studied in Chapter 8 for the standard Drucker–Prager model.4.3. that is. Capped Drucker–Prager model. 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. If the cone–cap intersection was the last return mapping used. if the return to the main Drucker–Prager cone was used in the last stress update for that point.

e3 } whose vectors coincide with the principal axes of plastic orthotropy. (10. for the present model. the tangent operator is that of (10. we address the modelling and computational implementation of anisotropic phenomenological plasticity models. In this section. in this case. However. the yield function associated with the Hill criterion . However. when such materials undergo manufacturing processes characterised by extreme straining along preferential directions (rolling is a typical example).4 (from page 337) which. 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. we have Dep = 0. 1950). must be particularised for the perfectly plastic case. e2 . In such cases.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. Another class of materials whose anisotropy can be of particular relevance are composites in general. 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 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. material behaviour is truly anisotropic with substantial discrepancy among phenomenological properties observed in different material directions.27) with b = β in (10. 10. Attention is focused on the orthotropic models proposed by Hill (1948.3. 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. This property is known as strain-induced plastic anisotropy and is often present in formed metal components. Anisotropic plasticity: the Hill. Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models The elastoplasticity theories discussed so far in this book have been limited by the assumption of elastoplastic isotropy. Polycrystalline aggregates with sufﬁciently random crystal orientation distribution present an effectively isotropic macroscopic behaviour and can be modelled by conventional isotropic plasticity theories. Note that. in many circumstances of practical interest. An important instance of anisotropic behaviour arises in polycrystalline metals. 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).3. at the cone apex.42) For the cap return. 10. 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. Hoffman (1967) and Barlat and Lian (1989).1.29). Many such materials (ﬁbre-reinforced polymers are typical examples) are designed so as to produce optimal strength/performance along predeﬁned directions. that is.3. With σij denoting the stress tensor components on an orthonormal basis {e1 .

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

54) (10.and threedimensional projections are obtained by ﬁxing. the two. For plane stress states (on plane {e1 . σ23 and σ13 relative to the axes of material orthotropy). (10. visualisation of projections of such hypersurfaces on two. we will plot here the corresponding yield surfaces under states of plane stress. ¯ After a straightforward algebraic manipulation. Two.50). The size of the cylinder cross-section (and its intersection with the plane stress space) depends upon the state of shear stress. Geometric representation Unlike isotropic models. 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.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 .53) The corresponding yield surface is that of the von Mises model with uniaxial yield stress σy : 3 J2 (s) = σy . respectively. 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. Anisotropic yield surfaces are truly six-dimensional hypersurfaces in the space of stress components. where we make use of the trivial relation s11 + s22 + s33 = 0. 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 ).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. (10.51) 0 To see this. we obtain Φ(σ. yield surfaces for anisotropic models cannot be easily represented graphically. e2 }). we assume that the above relation holds and set σ11 = σy and σ = 1 in (10. In general.or three-dimensional yield locus will change if the ﬁxed stress components are changed. four and three stress components and then plotting the corresponding yield locus on the subset of the two or three free stress components. the Hill yield surface is deﬁned by 2 2 2 ¯ (F1 + F3 ) σ11 + (F1 + F2 ) σ22 − 2F1 σ11 σ22 + F4 σ12 − σ 2 = 0.52) (10. σy (10. In order to give the reader some visual insight into properties of the Hill criterion. Before proceeding to the graphical representation. Thus.55) . it is worth remarking that at any given state of shear stress (deﬁned by the components σ12 . an appropriate visual study of anisotropic yield criteria requires plotting such projections with different combinations of ﬁxed stress values.

the Hill criterion can provide reasonable approximations to the actual yield surfaces. If a22 decreases (refer to the surface with a22 = 0. Finally. Essentially. in such cases. (10.3). the surface is represented in the space of direct stresses along ﬁxed axes). a12 0 0 σ12 = √ σ11 . 0).6. 3 a23 0 0 σ23 = √ σ11 . if σ12 = σ σ12 (the ¯ 0 shear stress has reached its yield limit) the σ11 -σ22 space surface degenerates to a point at (0. the ellipse degenerates into two straight lines and becomes a hyperbola for a33 < 0. In Figure 10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 417 In order to study the effect of the material constants (the yield stresses) on the 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). For such materials. When a33 = 0. as opposed to the usual representation in principal stress space.7 and 0. When σ33 decreases (see surfaces with a33 = 0.7 we illustrate the effect of shear stresses on the Hill yield surface.57) Firstly.5 and 10.58) In this case (absence of shear stresses).5. with uniaxial yield stress σ11 is recovered if we set a22 = a33 = a12 = a23 = a13 = 1. it is important to emphasise that the Hill criterion was originally proposed to model anisotropy of formed steel components. 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. different values of a22 ). the elastic domain becomes unbounded in some directions and does not correspond to physical behaviour. In the next representation of the Hill surface shown in Figure 10. the ellipse is compressed in the vertical direction but substantially stretched along its longer radius. For a22 > 0. For a33 > 0. Obviously. This effect is illustrated in Figures 10. (10. the Hill surface is an ellipse intersecting the horizontal axis at ±1 and the vertical axis at ±a22 . 3 a13 0 0 σ13 = √ σ11 . the maximum variation of yield strength between the different orthotropy directions is typically less than about 5 to 10%.5. let us focus on the effect of the variation of direct yield stresses on the Hill yield surface.7). 0 Note that the von Mises surface.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). the Hill criterion is to be used only within certain limits of yield strength variation among the orthotropy directions. At this point. we conveniently assume the following relations: 0 0 σ22 = a22 σ11 . the von Mises ellipse is stretched in the σ22 direction. the ellipse stretches in the biaxial state 0 direction. The surface with a22 = 1 corresponds to that of the von Mises model.5. For a22 < 0.e. the Hill surface is always an ellipse intersecting the horizontal and vertical axis 0 at ±1.5).5). the Hill yield 0 surface on the σ11 -σ22 space is plotted for different values of direct yield stress σ22 (i.56) 0 where aij are parameters deﬁning all initial yield stresses of the model as a function of σ11 . a23 and a13 have no effect on the Hill yield function.5. assuming no shear stresses and a33 = 1. If a22 increases (see surface plotted for a22 = 1. 3 (10.5 (see surface with a22 = 0. Clearly. the original ellipse degenerates into two parallel straight lines (two hyperplanes in the six-dimensional stress space). Under such conditions.6. when a22 = 0. Thus.6) the ellipse is compressed in the biaxial state direction and stretched in a pure shear (σ11 = −σ22 ) direction. the yield locus produced by Hill’s function is a set of two hyperbolic (non-convex) surfaces in stress space. in Figure 10.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). In the limit. . 0 0 σ33 = a33 σ11 . the parameters a12 . As σ33 increases (see surface with a33 = 1.

5 a 22 =1. y σ22 /σ11 a 33 =1.5 -1 -0.5 a 33 = 0. . Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ22 on the yield 0 0 surface.3 a 22 = 0.7 1 a 22 = 0.418 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y σ22 /σ11 1. The Hill orthotropic criterion.5 a 33 =0. Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ33 (the transversal yield stress) on the yield surface. The Hill orthotropic criterion.5.0 a 22 = 0.5 a 22 =1. Surface plot for various values of a33 with no shear stresses and 0 0 a22 = 1 (σ22 = σ11 ).5 1 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -1.5 0.6.0 1 a 33 =0.6 a 33 =1. Surface plot for various values of a22 with no shear stresses and a33 = 1 (σ33 = σ11 ).7 y σ11 /σ11 -1 1 -1 a 33 = 0.5 0 Figure 10.4 0 Figure 10.

the model resulting from the above assumptions provides only a ﬁrst approximation to the phenomenon of hardening.5 -1 -1. Since general straining of an initially orthotropic material is usually expected to change the yield stresses in different directions by different amounts. We remark. all six yield stresses of the Hill criterion will change in strict proportion (isotropically) as the accumulated plastic strain increases.43) to be a given function of the von Mises ¯ accumulated plastic strain.5 and a12 = a33 = 1. .ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS y σ22 /σ11 1. εp .8 σ12 0. isotropic strain hardening can be easily incorporated into the Hill model by assuming the relative yield stress σ in (10. however. In addition. 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. we postulate ¯ σ = σ (¯p ).5 Figure 10. a22 = 1. or even lead to loss of orthotropy.7. ¯ ¯ ε (10. undoubtedly.5 419 σ12 =0 y σ12 =0. The Hill orthotropic criterion. in view of (10.59) The material in this case is assumed to remain orthotropic with constant axes of orthotropy.2. that is.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. that the phenomenological modelling of hardening in plastically anisotropic materials is a complex issue which remains open at present.5 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -0.5 σ12 1 y σ12 =0.5 0. 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. 7 and 9.5 1 -0. Remark 10.

Hill’s associative ﬂow rule is found to be given by εp = γ 2[F1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ11 − σ33 )]. ˙33 ˙ εp = γ F4 σ12 .64) As expected. ˙13 ˙ (10. (10. ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 10. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ 2[F1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )]. . 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 . i = j. the plastic ﬂow is given by the standard equation ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ . Hoffman (1967) proposed an extension to the Hill criterion described by the following yield function:§ Φ(σ.62) The actual contributions to Φ from the independent shear components. σij (i = j). (10.43) take into account the trivial identity σij = σji .60) Here. 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 . ¯ (10. that is.63) With the above considerations. owing to the pressure-insensitivity of the Hill criterion. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ F5 σ23 . the above associative law is volume-preserving. TENSION–COMPRESSION DISTINCTION: THE HOFFMAN MODEL For many materials.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.64) implies ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 0. a marked difference is observed between yield stress levels in tension and compression (the Bauschinger effect).65) (10. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ F6 σ13 . of the stress tensor read 2 1 2 [F4 (σ12 2 2 2 2 2 + σ21 ) + F5 (σ23 + σ32 ) + F6 (σ13 + σ31 )]. it is important to note that the shear stress contributions to (10. is an extension of the Hill elastoplastic model with yield criterion and plastic ﬂow rule based on Hoffman’s function (10.3. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ 2[F2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )].66) § This function was in fact proposed by Hoffman (1967) originally to deﬁne a fracture criterion for brittle materials. ∂σij (10.66). with no reference to plastic ﬂow modelling. ∂σ (10. Indeed.2.61) Before presenting the ﬁnal expressions. (10. What we refer to as the Hoffman model here. In order to model such effects in orthotropic materials. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in some composite materials and is also commonly observed in worked metals.

they denote the initial yield stresses in states of pure shear on the planes of orthotropy. . is . the Hoffman yield surface is an elliptic cone in the σ11 -σ22 -σ33 space. c t 0 σ33 = σ33 = σ33 . σ23 and σ13 have the same meaning as in the Hill criterion. if we set c t 0 σ11 = σ11 = σ11 . the Hill criterion is recovered. and 1 1 1 C4 = 0 2 . t c − σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 (10.43). The constraint C7 + C8 + C9 = 0 (10. C9 are material constants deﬁned as C1 = C2 = C3 = 1 1 1 1 . c t σ22 σ22 C9 = c t σ33 − σ33 . C6 coincide with the constants F1 . C6 = 0 2 . . . A graphical representation of the Hoffman criterion is shown in Figure 10. under a state of pure hydrostatic pressure (σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = p).66) will be (C7 + C8 + C9 )p.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 421 where σ is the non-dimensional relative yield stress (analogous to that of the Hill criterion) ¯ and C1 . (10. In its general form (within the range of applicability of the criterion).71) This contribution – a linear function of the hydrostatic pressure – is identical to that of the Drucker–Prager criterion (refer to expression (6. i. However. The cone intersects the σ11 . in general. only the intersection of the yield surface with the σ11 -σ22 plane. C5 = 0 2 . Indeed. t c + σt σc − σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 1 −1 1 1 . .8.67) t c with σii and σii (no summation on repeated indices) denoting the initial (i.68) (σ12 ) (σ23 ) (σ13 ) and C7 = c t σ11 − σ11 . t σc + σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 11 22 22 33 33 1 1 1 1 . i. (10. . in the absence of shear stresses. . c t σ33 σ33 (10. . C2 . when σ = 1) ¯ direct yield stresses along the orthotropy direction i.121). c t σ11 σ11 C8 = c t σ22 − σ22 . . F6 of (10.69) 0 0 0 The constants σ12 . Remark 10. .70) then C7 = C8 = C9 = 0 and the constants C1 .e. . respectively in tension and compression. . In this case.72) is the necessary and sufﬁcient condition for the Hoffman criterion to be pressure-insensitive.e. Again. σ22 and σ33 axes at the corresponding prescribed values of (tensile and compressive) direct yield stresses.e. (10. the Hoffman criterion is (unlike the Hill criterion) pressure-sensitive. it should be noted that. . page 167). the contribution of the linear terms on the direct stresses to Φ in (10. c t 0 σ22 = σ22 = σ22 .3 (Hill criterion as a particular case). If for each principal direction of orthotropy the direct yield stress in tension coincides with the direct yield stress in compression.

For illustration purposes only. 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 associative component-wise plastic ﬂow equations for the Hoffman model are given by εp = γ [C7 + 2C1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ11 − σ33 )].4 (Non-isochoric plastic ﬂow). (10.9 σ11 . 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.8 σ11 . ˙13 ˙ (10. t t σ33 = σ11 .2 σ11 . c t σ22 = 0.5 -1 Figure 10. t t σ22 = 0. Analogously to (10. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ C6 σ13 .74) Remark 10. The volumetric plastic strain rate for the present model is ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = γ (C7 + C8 + C9 ).8. ¯ Again.5 0. ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 ˙ and the plastic ﬂow is isochoric if and only if constraint (10. 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.75) . the Hoffman surface shrinks isotropically with an increase in shear stresses.72) holds.5 -1 -0. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ [C9 + 2C2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ33 − σ11 )]. (10. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ C5 σ23 .64). Flow rule Here. As a result of the pressure-sensitivity of the Hoffman criterion. the above associative ﬂow rule is not volume-preserving in general. c c σ33 = σ11 . The Hoffman orthotropic criterion. ˙33 ˙ εp = γ C4 σ12 .422 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t σ22 /σ σ11 1 0. an associative ﬂow rule is also postulated. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ [C8 + 2C1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + 2C2 (σ22 − σ33 )].5 1 t σ11 /σ σ11 -0. the following relations have been chosen: c t σ11 = 1.73) As for the Hill criterion (refer to Figure 10.7). plotted.5 -1.

80) 1 − νjk νkj for i = j and. by de Borst and Feenstra (1990) and Schellekens and de Borst (1990). 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.78) (10. 3). 2. we shall assume here an orthotropic elasticity law. j.3. 11 22 12 33 (10. the shear moduli.82) and three Poisson’s ratios. respectively.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 423 10. the discussion will be limited to the plane strain and axisymmetric cases. A plane stress implementation of the Hoffman model in the context of explicit dynamics ﬁnite element analysis is given by Koh et al. k) denoting cyclic permutations of (1. with planes 12.79) for i = 1. respectively. Using the ﬁnite element array notation. Early implementations of the Hill and Hoffman anisotropic models are described. again. E1 . The extension to the full three-dimensional situation is trivial. These are: the Young’s moduli. associated with directions 1. 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. ν23 and ν31 .3. 2.81) The total number of independent elastic constants is nine (in the full three-dimensional case). 3 (no summation on the repeated index) and (i. For simplicity. The orthotropic elastic law As plastically orthotropic composites usually also present a marked elastic orthotropy. and D44 = G12 . (10. εe = [εe εe 2εe εe ]T . the stress–elastic strain relation then reads σ = D εe . (10.76) where σe = [σ11 σ22 σ12 σ33 ]T . E2 and E3 . (10. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOFFMAN MODEL The computational implementation of the Hoffman model is described in what follows. no summation on the repeated index.77) and D denotes the orthotropic elasticity matrix given by D11 D12 0 D13 D12 D22 0 D23 . 2 and 3 of orthotropy respectively. ν12 . 23 and 31 and satisfying Gij = Gji . 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. νji + νjk νki Dij = Dii (10. (1995). G23 and G31 associated. . Clearly. G12 .

¯ ¯n (10. σ ) = ¯ where C1 + C3 −C1 P=2 0 −C3 1 2 σT Pσ + qT σ − σ 2 . the D matrix here is the orthotropic operator (10. Ei (10. That is.90) (Pσ + q)T Z (Pσ + q).87) and q = [ C7 C8 0 C9 ]T .85) If the trial state is outside the elastic domain deﬁned by the yield function (10.66). (10. (10. clearly. . with the elasticity operator represented in (10.88) With the above notation.84) where.66) in the following equivalent form in terms of the array of stress components: Φ(σ.83) In the plane strain/axisymmetric case. we compute σtrial = D εe trial . ¯ −C1 C2 + C1 0 −C2 0 0 C4 0 −C3 (10.89) ˙ ˙ εp : εp = γ ˙ 2 3 2 3 ˙ ˙ (εp )T Z εp (10. can be represented as ˙ εp ≡ ¯ =γ ˙ 2 3 (10. Elastic trial state The computation of the elastic trial state proceeds as usual. the return mapping described below is applied.74) can be equivalently expressed in terms of the engineering plastic strain rate array as ˙ εp = γ (Pσ + q).78).78). Return-mapping algorithm For computer implementation purposes. the transverse shear moduli G23 and G31 are not required. in turn.86) −C2 0 C3 + C2 (10.424 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The following relation applies: νji = νij Ej . the ﬂow rule (10. ˙ The rate of accumulated plastic strain. it is convenient to write the Hoffman yield function (10. The trial accumulated plastic strain (isotropic hardening state variable) is εp trial = εp .

the k th guess for the solution ∆γ is obtained as ∆γ (k) = ∆γ (k−1) + δ∆γ (k) . the stress-updating procedure for the Hoffman model comprises the solution of (10. followed by the update of stress and accumulated plastic strain according to (10.94).92) gives εp = εp (∆γ) ≡ εp + ∆γ{ 2 [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T Z [Pσ(∆γ) + q]} 2 . by using the linear elastic law. ∆γ.97) . Further.91) With the above relations at hand. (10. introduction of the above function in the second equation of (10.92) can be expressed. Newton–Raphson solution In the Newton–Raphson iterative scheme to solve (10. a direct particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. we start by noting that. respectively.93) and (10. σ ε (10. exclusively.25) (page 196) is obtained as εe − εe trial + ∆γ (Pσn+1 + q) 0 n+1 1 p 2 p T 2 (10.93) that is.95). (10. To obtain the reduced equation. with the substitution of the last two expressions in the third equation of (10. 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.92) = 0 .ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 425 1 0 Z= 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 where we have used the deﬁnition 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (10.95). ¯n+1 ¯ ¯n 3 1 (10. after a straightforward manipulation.96) where δ∆γ (k) = − ˜ Φ(∆γ) ˜ dΦ/d∆γ (k−1) .94) Finally. σn+1 is a function of ∆γ. the return mapping here can also be reduced to the solution of a single equation for the plastic multiplier. (10. as σn+1 = σ(∆γ) ≡ (I + ∆γ DP)−1 (σtrial − ∆γ Dq).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. the updated stress. the ﬁrst equation of system (10.95) In summary.

d¯ ε also evaluated at εp .99) With the above expressions at hand. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the fact that the adopted hardening rule is non-associative (despite the associativity of the plastic .101) (10.92). A straightforward manipulation then gives dσ = −(I + ∆γ DP)−1 D [P σ(∆γ) + q]. (10.4 (from page 238).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. = [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T − 2 σ (∆γ) H ¯ d∆γ d∆γ d∆γ (10.104) The above operator is clearly unsymmetric.426 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ˜ The derivative of Φ is given by ˜ dΦ dσ εp ¯ d¯ . (10.4. and the scalar η is deﬁned as η= 2 T 3N Z (10.103) Finally. we start by differentiating the system (10.93). The elastoplastic consistent tangent As in the modiﬁed Cam-Clay implementation presented earlier in this chapter (refer to the text preceding equation (10. d∆γ (10. (10. page 408).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 . The ﬂow vector N is given by ¯n+1 N = Pσn+1 + q. To obtain an σ ε explicit expression for the derivative of function σ deﬁned by (10.23). 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 .102) N.98) ¯ where H ≡ d¯ /d¯p is the slope of the (non-dimensional) hardening curve. Here. we need to use formula (vii) of page 36. to derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the Hoffman model. we shall follow the general procedure of Section 7. which together with the elastic law. with the inversion of (10.

reads y y Φ(σ. 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. 1989) if M > 1. h = 1. in the principal orthotropy direction 2 with that of direction 1. 10. Refer to the comments made in Section 7.15. b and h are material constants and σ11 is the uniaxial yield stress in the principal orthotropy direction 1.10(b).3. the Barlat–Lian criterion was originally deﬁned in plane stress format. Unlike the other plasticity models discussed in this book.105) is convex (Barlat and Lian.148). (1989) for an aluminium alloy: M = 8. 2 K2 = σ11 − h σ22 2 2 2 + b2 σ12 .4. (10. The corresponding yield function. We remark that the criterion becomes isotropic when a = b = h = 1. b. whose equations are ﬁrstly formulated in the sixdimensional stress space and corresponding plane stress versions are subsequently addressed within the framework of Chapter 9. This will be left as an exercise for the interested reader.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 427 ﬂow rule). h > 0. The parameter h relates the y uniaxial yield strength. a.02. b = 1. in this format.106) where f (σ) ≡ a|K1 + K2 |M + a|K1 − K2 |M + (2 − a)|2 K2 |M . Its use. page 243. (10. a. that is. The effect of constant a is shown in Figure 10. 1989) has been proposed to model the behaviour of orthotropic metallic sheets (typically rolled materials) under plane stress. with K1 = σ11 + h σ22 . Note that the above formula is analogous to that given by (7.110) h The effect of the choice of h on the Barlat–Lian yield surface is illustrated in Figure 10. This can be seen in Figure 10.24.9 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). THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL FOR SHEET METALS The Barlat–Lian criterion (Barlat and Lian. Under such a condition. (10. written at the outset exclusively in terms of in-plane components of the stress tensor. the standard von Mises locus is recovered when M = 2 and the Tresca yield locus is recovered for M = 1 and M → ∞. σ11 ) = f (σ) − 2 (σ11 )M .6. an alternative representation can be obtained following completely analogous steps to those leading to expression (7.10(a). a < 2.4. Similarly to the previously discussed . (10. σ22 . σy y σ22 = 11 . For use under the assumption of perfect plasticity (H = 0).108) To give the reader an idea of realistic values for these constants.109) The constant M deﬁnes the curvature of the yield surface. the following have been determined by Lege et al.149) for the von Mises isotropically hardening ¯ model.107) y where M .105) (10. The yield function (10. a = 1. (10.

9. The Barlat–Lian criterion. which may produce computationally intractable numbers for large values of material constant M . For the purposes of computational implementation of the model. We remark that (not shown in Figure 10. where we plot yield surfaces obtained with M = 8.114) .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. Here we take the yield function (10.105). σ11 ) = g(σ) − σ11 . 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. ∂σ11 (10. (10.11) an increase (decrease) in constant b will increase (decrease) the rate at which the surface shrinks with increasing shear stress. Hardening law Analogously to the Hill and Hoffman criteria.111) (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. the presence of shear stresses will shrink the Barlat–Lian yield surface.113) σ11 = σ11 (α). a = b = 1 and h = 2/3 at different levels of shear stress.11. This effect is illustrated in Figure 10.112) where g(σ) ≡ [ 1 f (σ)]1/M . 2 Note that the yield function now has dimension of stress. Yield surfaces on σ11 -σ22 plane (in the absence of shear stress) for various values of M with a = h = 1. the yield function has dimension of stress to the power M .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.428 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS M =2 M =2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M = 1.5 M = 1. Hill and Hoffman criteria. α: y y (10. In the original deﬁnition (10.

5 -0.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0. σ22 / σ11 1.0 a=1.5 y 429 y σ22 / σ11 h = 2/3 a=0.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS σ22 / σ11 1.5 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -1 -0. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface for M = 8.5 0. Yield surfaces in the absence of shear for M = 8: (a) effect of parameter h with a = 1.5 h= 1 1 1 h= 2 0.5 (a) (b) Figure 10.5 a=1. .3 σ11 y 1 σ12 =0.5 -1 -1.5 Figure 10.8 1.5 -1. The Barlat–Lian criterion. (b) effect of parameter a with h = 2/3.5 0. h = 2/3 and b = 1. a = 1.5 σ11 y 0.5 y σ12 =0 σ12 =0.11. The Barlat–Lian criterion.10.5 -1 -1 -1.

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. (10. 2. ∂σ (10. in component form. we assume the material to be elastically isotropic. we have εp = γ ˙αβ ˙ 1 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f .118) (10. in deriving (10. ˙ (10.41)3.111) is represented analogously to the plane stressprojected von Mises yield function given in (9. page 372. Then.115) where N≡ ∂g 1 ∂Φ = = ∂σ ∂σ 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f . (10. β = 1.117)–(10.120) Note that.121) Finally.120) together with the out-of plane rates εp = − ε p − ε p . − 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 }. we have taken into account the tensorial nature of the shear stress contribution in (10. The in-plane associative plastic strain rate is given simply by ˙ εp = γ N.430 Flow rule COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The Barlat–Lian yield function (10. to complete the deﬁnition of the model.63)). ˙13 ˙23 (10. ˙33 ˙11 ˙22 εp = εp = 0.117) 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 . Thus.116) Equivalently.119) (10. the complete set of plastic ﬂow equations comprises (10.105) (refer to the comments surrounding expression (10.120). + 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 .40) (refer to page 371).37)–(9. following the procedure applied to the plane stress-projected von Mises model. ∂σαβ α. The thickness plastic strain rate is obtained by imposing plastic incompressibility and the transversal plastic shear strain rates are assumed to vanish. .

3. (10. We remark that only the in-plane components of the elastic strain take part in the above equation.2 (refer to Box 9. (10. The implementation is a particular case of the general methodology adopted throughout this book but. 0 Φ(σn+1 . here and in what follows. the notation y κ ≡ σ11 . (1993).124) where H is the hardening modulus.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 431 10. 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. we shall assume linear hardening. κn+1 and ∆γ. the return-mapping equation system in the present case cannot be reduced to a single scalar equation. The return mapping is a specialisation of (7. for a discussion on the possible need for strategies of this nature). (10. as we shall see. αn+1 and ∆γ. .5.4.122) = 0 e 0 Φ(σ(εn+1 ). requires no further consideration. therefore.3. where Nn+1 is the ﬂow vector (10. was originally proposed by Dutko et al.25) (page 196).126) R≡ = 0 . i. κ = κ0 + H α. 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. the evolution of κ reads κn+1 = κn + H ∆γ. κn+1 ) where De here denotes the isotropic (plane stress) elasticity operator and the unknowns are σn+1 .4. page 377) and. The corresponding algorithm and associated consistent tangent operator are described in the following. 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. For convenience in the description of the return-mapping algorithm we have adopted.e.116) evaluated at n+1 the updated state.125) With this relation and taking into account the linear elasticity law.123) In the derivation of the return mapping presented below. page 199. Then. Note that. κ(αn+1 )) for the unknowns εe . in the discrete setting. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL The implicit elastic predictor/plastic corrector computational implementation of the (isotropically strain hardening) Barlat–Lian model. including the corresponding consistent tangent operator. unlike previously described implementations such as those of the von Mises and even the orthotropic Hoffman model. requiring the solution of the algebraic system of equations e εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1 0 αn+1 − αn − ∆γ (10.

Following (10. the solution of equation (10. To do this. it is convenient to split the residual vector R as ¯ R= R Φ . (10. δκ(k) δ∆γ (k) (k) (k−1) (10.133) (10. 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 ⊗ .432 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Newton–Raphson iteration As usual.134) . where we have used the notation (k) σn+1 (k) . ∂σ ∂σ (10.116).130) δσ(k) δκ(k) = −A(k−1) R(k−1) + δ∆γ (k) . we update the Newton guess for the unknowns according to Σn+1 = Σn+1 + δΣ(k) . (10.128) for the iterative increments of σn+1 . (10. κn+1 and ∆γ.131) where we have deﬁned A≡ [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 −1 0 H .126) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson iterative ¯ scheme.129) Straightforward manipulation of system (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 (10.127) Accordingly. Σn+1 ≡ κ(k) n+1 (k) ∆γ δσ(k) δΣ(k) ≡ . 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. R≡ [De ]−1 : (σn+1 − σtrial ) + ∆γ Nn+1 H −1 (κn+1 − κn ) − ∆γ .132) With the above solution at hand.

that is. . (1993) observed that the convergence bowl of the above Newton–Raphson scheme can be dramatically reduced for larger values of material constant M . To tackle the problem.136) Note that this differential relation has the same symbolic format as expression (7. (1993) for a complete description of the algorithm.141). if for a Newton iteration k ≥ 2 and a prescribed tolerance . The interested reader is referred to Dutko et al. κn+1 and ∆γ as well as to its input. characterising a set of stiff evolution equations. 0 0 d∆γ N (10. by differentiating the return-mapping system (10. the relation ¯ ¯ |δΣ(k) · R(k) | ≥ |δΣ(k) · R(k−1) | (10. the above operator is symmetric. Under such conditions.137) : De .4. (10.148) and can be expressed as Dep ≡ where P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ ∂σn+1 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). The line-search in the present case is activated whenever the rate of convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations falls below a prescribed minimum.6. 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 .4. εe trial = [De ]−1 : σtrial .126) with respect to its unknowns σn+1 .138) As a result of the associative nature of the plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law (refer to Section 7. Then. page 243). and Crisﬁeld 1991). Consistent tangent operator Again. Line-search procedures are discussed in detail by Fletcher (1980) (see also Matthies and Strang 1979. (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.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 433 Line-search procedure Dutko et al. an expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be easily obtained by means of a specialisation of the general procedure of Section 7.4.135) is satisﬁed. =P− e trial ∂ε N:P:N+H −1 (10. 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. obtained for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. Accordingly. then the line-search algorithm is carried out. the elastoplastic tangent for the Barlat–Lian model with implicit return mapping is a complete analogy to (7. small changes in stress on the yield surface result in large changes in ﬂow vector direction. Dutko et al.

.

rateindependent elastoplasticity models can provide good descriptions of the material behaviour (Lemaitre and Chaboche. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. under some circumstances. to which the present chapter is devoted. identical solutions are produced when a given load (or sequence of loads) is applied at different rates. 1993). 1990. the general numerical framework is specialised to a von Mises-based model presented in Section 11. In addition. This chapter is organised as follows. Here. Lubliner. It motivates the establishment of a one-dimensional mathematical model of viscoplasticity in Section 11.3 the onedimensional viscoplastic theory is generalised to the multidimensional case within the context of von Mises plasticity.6. in Section 11. Rate-dependence effects are described by means of so-called viscoplasticity (or rate-dependent plasticity) models. that is. 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. 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. pseudo-time) is used merely to describe the sequence of events that deﬁnes the history of the loading process. some simple analytical solutions are presented to demonstrate the ability of the one-dimensional model in capturing the fundamental phenomenological features of viscoplastic behaviour. Then. If such conditions are not met.11 VISCOPLASTICITY T HE elastoplastic constitutive theories presented so far in Part Two of this book are classed as rate independent or time independent. from page 71).1 presents a brief introduction to phenomenological aspects of viscoplasticity. then accurate predictions can only be obtained if rate dependence is adequately accounted for by the constitutive model.4. 1990.2. the observed behaviour of real materials is generally time dependent. The integration algorithm and the associated consistent tangent operator are derived step by step. Time (or. more precisely. that is. The extent of such dependence may or may not be signiﬁcant according to the physical conditions of the problem. A more general multidimensional model is presented in Section 11. Ltd . For such theories. Skrzypek.3. 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. However. a limit case of the general viscoplasticity model. This establishes a formal link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive framework of Chapter 3. Rateindependent plasticity is shown to be. In Section 11.2. Section 11.5 proceeds to introduce a numerical framework to treat the general viscoplasticity model within the ﬁnite element environment of Chapter 4. an error assessment of the numerical integration procedure is presented by means of iso-error maps.5. the stress response always depends on the rate of loading and/or the timescale considered. the material response is regarded as independent of the rate of application of loads and/or the timescale of the problems considered.

in metal-forming operations such as hot forging and may have to be taken into consideration in the design of the process.6 are used.1(c) shows the typical evolution of stress in a relaxation test. although not shown in Figure 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. Tertiary creep leads to the ﬁnal rupture of the material and is associated with the evolution of internal damage. Strain-rate dependence may be of crucial importance. 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. In metals. but usually becomes signiﬁcant only at higher temperatures. for instance.7. for instance. 11. The graph of Figure 11.436 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS We remark that Section 11. illustrated in Figure 11. geomaterials in general. is the phenomenon of stress relaxation. Materials such as metals. . Internal damage will be discussed in Chapter 12. The high strain rates shown towards the end of the schematic curves for high and moderate stresses is the phenomenon known as tertiary creep. It is also important to emphasise that. Prediction of creep behaviour is important. clearly.1(a).1(a) shows stress–strain curves obtained in uniaxial tensile tests carried out under different prescribed strain rates.1.6 is essential for the reader interested in the computational implementation of viscoplasticity. for instance. The time-dependent response in this case is characterised by the continuous decay of stress in time. concrete and composites may all present substantially time-dependent mechanical behaviour under many practical circumstances. Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects Many of the microscopic phenomena underlying the inelastic deformation of solids depend on time. the initial yield limit as well as the hardening curve depend strongly on the rate of straining. can also be strongly dependent on the rate of straining. This rate-dependence is also observed at low temperatures. 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 rupture limit. In general.1(b). the strain at which the specimen breaks. for instance.1. The chapter ends with ﬁnite element examples being shown in Section 11. in the design of pre-stressed load-carrying components. The material experiences a continuous plastic ﬂow that is accelerated for higher stress levels.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. This is illustrated in Figure 11. In the reported examples.1. rubbers. typical results of simple uniaxial tension tests with metallic bars at higher temperatures are schematically represented in Figure 11. The need for consideration of creep response arises typically in the design and analysis of nuclear reactor and jet turbine engine components. that is. the procedures of Section 11. the elasticity modulus is largely independent of the rate of loading but. The curves of Figure 11. Another aspect of time dependence is the phenomenon of creep. To illustrate this fact. in situations where load-carrying metallic components are subjected to long duration loads at high temperatures. Figure 11. The prediction of stress relaxation can be vital. The third aspect of rate dependence.

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

analogously to the rateindependent model of Section 6. ˙ ˙ (11. σy ) sign(σ).2. σy ) = µ ˙ (11. σy ) < 0. VISCOPLASTIC FLOW RULE The crucial difference between the uniaxial elastoplastic model of Section 6.10).4) (11. Many forms are possible for γ and a discussion on this issue ˙ will be left for Section 11.6) 0 if Φ(σ. the plastic strain rate in (11. the actual timescale is irrelevant. The elastic domain is deﬁned as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ. Here. Firstly.2. (11. page 144) εp = γ(σ. σy ) ≥ 0 σy γ(σ.3. In contrast. σy ) < 0}. 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 .† Thus. σy ) = |σ| − σy .5) (11.2) where sign is the signum function deﬁned by (6. In addition to this conceptual difference.4. † As we shall see later in this chapter. In that case.3) where σy is the yield stress.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 YIELD FUNCTION AND THE ELASTIC DOMAIN Here. some models of viscoplasticity do not have an elastic domain.438 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. the above constitutive equation for εp differs fundamentally from (6. so that the behaviour is purely elastic whenever |σ| < σy . we will deﬁne the one-dimensional viscoplasticity model by adopting the following particular deﬁnition 1/ 1 |σ| −1 if Φ(σ.3. 11. the elastic domain can be conveniently deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ(σ. The viscoplastic ﬂow rule can be postulated with a format similar to that of the rate-independent case (see equation (6.10). which describes the evolution of εp . the explicit function for γ should model how the rate of plastic straining ˙ varies with the level of stress.11). Such models do not require the deﬁnition of a yield function. 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. . γ – named the plastic multiplier and determined by the procedure of ˙ Section 6.7 (page 146) in the rate-independent theory – is here a given explicit function of σ and σy . it needs to be emphasised that in the rateindependent model the plastic strain rate is in fact a pseudo-time rate. Essentially.2. that is. 11.5) is the actual time derivative of εp .2 and the viscoplasticity model introduced here lies in the deﬁnition of the ﬂow rule.2. In spite of its similarity to the rate-independent ﬂow rule.

2. when the material behaviour may be assumed rate-independent.7. and the non-dimensional rate-sensitivity parameter. The load is applied instantaneously and. hardening can be incorporated in the same manner as in the elastoplastic case by letting the yield stress. remains constant in time. SOME SIMPLE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS Section 11.5. → 0 for sufﬁciently low temperatures.VISCOPLASTICITY 439 where the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter µ. . For many metals. the bar will initially deform (also instantaneously) in a purely elastic manner. µ. σy . as temperature increases (decreases) µ and increase (decrease). after being applied. an increase (decrease) in σy will produce a decrease (increase) in the plastic strain rate εp . For convenience we summarise the model in Box 11. HARDENING LAW In the rate-independent case. strain rate dependence of the stress response and stress relaxation under constant strain are reproduced by the one-dimensional model. the phenomenon of hardening describes the changes in yield stress that result from plastic straining. 11. be a given (experimentally determined) function σy = σy (¯p ) ε of the accumulated plastic strain t (11.8) Note that (11.8). One important aspect to be emphasised here is that.1 discussed some of the phenomenological aspects of viscoplastic behaviour.1)–(11. Both parameters are strictly positive. The fact that the model behaviour is elastic under . the above-deﬁned one-dimensional model can capture the key phenomenological features of rate-dependent plasticity shown in Figure 11. With the instantaneous loading (at time t = 0). ˙ (11. It is important to emphasise that the material parameters µ and are temperature dependent.6.6) implies that at a given constant applied stress σ. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional viscoplasticity model is deﬁned by the constinutive equations (11. In the viscoplastic model. 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. we derive in this section analytical solutions for three simple problems where the basic properties of creep at constant stress.2.7) εp = ¯ 0 |εp | dt.2. To illustrate this and give the reader a better insight into the theory.1. As a general rule. whose dimension is time. As in the elastoplastic case. 11. If σy is a constant. in spite of its simplicity.1. the model is referred to as perfectly viscoplastic. This particular form has been introduced by Peri´ (1993) similarly to the power law form of c the viscoplastic potential proposed by Perzyna (1963). 11. ˙ an increase of σy will be referred to as hardening whereas its reduction will be described as softening.

However. (11. 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. Assuming that σ is positive (tensile).9). in conjunction with the elastoplastic decomposition of the total strain and the initial condition (11. gives the following solution for the straining of the bar ε(t) = σ 1 + E µ σ σy 1/ − 1 t. Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2.1. 1.11) . σy ) < 0 5. Yield function 4. From this moment on. Assuming zero initial plastic strain.440 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11.9) 0 E where the zero subscript denotes quantities at t = 0. it makes sense to accept that. the bar is kept under a constant stress above the yield limit. One-dimensional viscoplastic constitutive model. Plastic ﬂow rule εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ ˙ 1 γ= ˙ µ 0 |σ| σy 1/ σ = E εe Φ(σ. will be σ ε0 = εe = .5). Under constant stress.10) For a perfectly viscoplastic material (constant σy ). immediately after the instantaneous application of load.6). Thus. (11. as there is no time for plastic strains to develop over an (idealised) instantaneous loading event. Uniaxial elastic law 3. 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. σy ) = |σ| − σy −1 if Φ(σ. the straining of the bar after the instantaneous loading will be due purely to viscoplastic ﬂow and will be modelled by constitutive equations (11. even without a formal proof. the behaviour must be purely elastic under such a condition. the integration of the above equation. (11. the elastic law implies that the elastic strain will also remain constant. σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ. we then have εp = ˙ 1 µ σ σy 1/ −1 . (11.

The stress–strain response during this phase is expressed simply as σ=Eε or. the stress response does not depend on the rate of stretching. if ε < ε∗ .10). Before stating the associated initial value problem. our initial value problem will be deﬁned only over the portion of the loading process where σ ≥ σy (or ε ≥ ε∗ ). so that an analytical solution to the initial value problem can be easily found. The initial branches describe the phenomenon of primary creep. µ σy µ σy µ ε∗ (11. for instance. Under the above assumptions.1(a).16) . A hardening law could be incorporated to include the follow-up of the curves to their second straight branch that describes secondary creep. so as to capture the initial branches of the creep curves of the material (refer to Figure 11. 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 . as our purpose is to illustrate the rate dependence predicted by the model.14) Viscoplastic ﬂow (and rate-dependent behaviour) may only take place when σ ≥ σy or. 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. The material constants (µ and ) could be calibrated. at the initial stages of the monotonic stretching process. The evolution of the plastic strain for the present model is deﬁned by equation (11. To simplify the problem. when ε ≥ ε∗ .1(b)). Thus. we will assume that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and. (11.15) where the total strain is the prescribed function ε(t) = α t + ε∗ = α t + σy . E (11. equivalently.VISCOPLASTICITY 441 The creep rate in this case is constant and proportional to (σ/σy )1/ − 1. These are the conditions typically encountered in conventional tensile tests.13) where ε is the strain at which the yield stress is reached ε∗ = σy . in addition. let us ﬁrst recall that the material response within the elastic domain (σ < σy ) is purely elastic.12) (11. σ=Eε ∗ if σ < σy . The initial value problem. E (11. the rate sensitivity parameter will be set to = 1. Strain-rate dependence of the stress response Here we analyse the monotonic stretching of an initially unstrained (and unstressed) bar at constant strain rates. Then.

20). The initial condition for εp (the plastic strain at the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow) is obviously εp (0) = 0. the initial value problem can be written as 1 εp (t) = ˙ [α t − εp (t)]. σ = E(ε − εp ).16) into the differential equation (11.23) α→0 . after a straightforward manipulation.16). such a function can be obtained by means of a simple variable transformation in (11. Note that t = 0 corresponds to the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow (σ = σy ⇔ ε = ε∗ ). ˜ (11. note that by inverting the function deﬁned by (11.22) is the exponential of a negative number. Indeed. in the present monotonic loading process.22) which gives the stress–strain curve for an arbitrary strain rate α. Insight into the problem can be gained by looking into the limit stress–strain curves. (11. The limit is then easily obtained as lim σ (ε) = σy . i.15). In order to obtain the limit for inﬁnitely slow rates. the following solution for the stress as a function of time −t σ(t) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ ε∗ . By substituting (11. we ﬁrst observe that.17) . In the present case. The analytical solution.19) By placing the above solution together with (11. so that curves such as those depicted in Figure 11.22) is always negative. the curves obtained at inﬁnitely slow rates (α → 0) and inﬁnitely fast processes (α → ∞).e. 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. εp (0) = 0. the term 1 − ε/ε∗ in (11. we obtain σ (ε) = σ(t(ε)) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ α (1− ε∗ ) ˜ 1 ε .1(a) can be produced.20).20) The stress–strain response.16) into the elastic law.442 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS corresponding to monotonic stretching with arbitrary (constant) strain rate α ≥ 0. α (11. (11.18) 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 (11.21) With the introduction of this relation into (11. we have t = t(ε) = ε − ε∗ . (11. we obtain. µ and α are positive so that the last term on the right-hand side of (11. In addition. (11.

σ/σy .24) i. that is.VISCOPLASTICITY 443 αµ = 2.2 (page 141).0 σ / σy 2 αµ oo αµ = 1. the model behaves in a purely elastic manner.e. E) of the elastic curve. when µ → 0. the model recovers the rate-independent behaviour of the plasticity model of Section 6. In fact. Analytical solution showing the dependence of the stress response on the applied strain rate/viscosity parameter.0 non-dimensional stress. the analytical solution (11. i. ε / ε∗ Figure 11. for various normalised strain rates µα.e.2. that is. where the non-dimensional stress. ˜ (11. at inﬁnitely slow strain rates. regardless of the given hardening curve and rate-sensitivity parameter. at inﬁnitely fast rates (or when µ → ∞). To illustrate better the behaviour of the model under the present conditions. It is also very important to note that the same limit is obtained for the vanishing viscosity parameter.1. at inﬁnitely slow rates the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the behaviour of the rate-independent plasticity model with yield stress σy . the above limits remain valid for any hardening curve and any rate sensitivity parameter .2 (this limit is also obtained for µ → 0) and. is plotted against the relative strain. Remark 11. the limit is derived by a standard limiting procedure which gives α→∞ lim σ (ε) = E ε. The rate-independent model was described in Section 6. Clearly. the corresponding stress–strain curve will lie between these two limits with higher stress obtained at higher strain rates (or higher viscosity). the model is able to capture the experimentally observed rate-dependence phenomenon illustrated in Figure 11.22) is shown in the graph of Figure 11. Also note that the identical limit is found for µ → ∞ (inﬁnitely viscous material). One-dimensional viscoplasticity model. even though it is not formally shown here. At inﬁnitely fast rates.5 αµ = 0.2. the . the process is purely elastic and the stress–strain curve after the yield limit is the continuation (with the same slope.1 1 rate-independent limit: αµ lope 0 0 0 1 5 10 elas tic s relative strain. αµ = 0. The limits µα → 0 (inﬁnitely slow rates or nonviscous material) and µα → ∞ (inﬁnitely fast rates or inﬁnitely viscous material) are also included. For any other rate (or viscosity parameter).1(a). ε/ε∗ . In addition (again not formally shown in this section).

26) (11.30) The analytical solution to (11. Stress relaxation at constant strain In this ﬁnal example. 0 and. µ σy c2 = E . the bar will deform purely elastically (refer to the limit expression (11.3 in the context of the general multidimensional theory. 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. in view of the above expression can be equivalently written as εp = ˙ 1 µ σ0 − E εp σy 1/ −1 .24) and the text surrounding it).32) . the corresponding stress is given by σ0 = E εe = E ε. the stress in the bar will be governed by the law σ = E(ε − εp ) = σ0 − E εp . where the constants c1 and c2 are deﬁned as c1 = 1 σ0 −1 .29) with initial condition εp (0) = 0.10) which.29–11.30) can be trivially obtained as εp (t) = c1 (1 − e−c2 t ). (11.28) To simplify the problem. assuming that the plastic strain is zero at t = 0 (immediately after the instantaneous stretching). (11. Over the instantaneous stretching (at time t = 0).27) (11. ˙ (11. This last property will be demonstrated in Section 11.4.1(c).25) where εp evolves in time according to the differential equation (11. In this case. the initial value problem is to ﬁnd a function εp (t) such that εp (t) = c1 − c2 εp (t). The instantaneous stretching to ε is assumed to produce a stress above the yield limit of the material.e. we will assume. Here the model should be able to capture the phenomenon of stress relaxation alluded to in Figure 11. Thus. µ σy (11. 0 From this point on. we have εe = ε. in view of the elastic law.31) (11. i. that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and = 1. c2 (11.444 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS rate-independent behaviour is also recovered with vanishing rate-sensitivity. when → 0. as in the previous example.

1). including its potential structure and its relation to timeindependent plasticity as a limit case.3.1(c).3 for the rate-independent theory.2 (page 141) was presented).27). 11. and taking into account the deﬁnition of c1 and c2 . by placing the above solution into (11.3 (page 148) where a general multidimensional extension of the onedimensional rate-independent plasticity model of Section 6. we obtain the stress as a function of time σ(t) = σ0 − (σ0 − σy )(1 − e − µE y t σ ). Rather than deﬁne a generic extension at the outset (as in Section 6. we chose here to focus ﬁrst on a von Mises-based generalisation of the uniaxial theory. 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. the above function describes the stress relaxation process of the bar. . E t / µσ y Figure 11.3.33) Clearly. will be left for Section 11. The analytical solution with the present one-dimensional model clearly captures the experimentally observed behaviour referred to in Figure 11.3. Finally. This is illustrated in Figure 11.1. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.VISCOPLASTICITY 445 σ0 stress σy 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 non-dimensional time.4. A von Mises-based multidimensional model This section introduces a multidimensional extension of the one-dimensional model discussed above (and summarised in Box 11. with the stress taking the value σ = σ0 > σy at t = 0 and subsequently relaxing asymptotically to σy as t → ∞. Analytical solution to the stress relaxation problem.3 where a graph of the analytical function σ(t) (with σ0 = 2 σy ) is plotted. 11. (11. A discussion of a more generic model.

The usual concept of an elastic domain bounded by a yield surface in the rate-independent theory will remain valid in the viscoplastic case. stress tensor and ﬂow vector). the linear elasticity law. Elastoplastic split of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. 1.2. the ﬂow rule and yield function are recast in terms of the corresponding tensor quantities (total.2 reduces exactly to the one-dimensional theory of Box 11. elastic and plastic strain tensors. The constitutive equations of the von Mises-based extension are listed in Box 11. It is also important to emphasise that the basic properties of creep. A von Mises-type viscoplastic constitutive model. Isotropic strain hardening law −1 ε σy = σy (¯p ). σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ. σy ) < 0 1 γ= µ ˙ 0 5. 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.446 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. as our multidimensional extension is von Mises-based. Linear elastic law 3. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .1. The yield function is also redeﬁned as a function of variables of appropriate tensorial order. Analogously to its rate-independent counterpart. Remark 11.1 (from page 216).3. Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ q σy 1/ σ = De : εe q= 3 2 s:s E = {σ | Φ(σ. and elastic domain 4. under uniaxial stress conditions. the elastoplastic split of the total strain. 6. The resulting model is a viscoplastic version of the rate-independent isotropically hardening von Mises model summarised in Section 7. Evolution of accumulated plastic strain εp = ¯ 0 t ˙ εp dt ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ that is.2. Here. Yield function Φ(σ. the model of Box 11. stress relaxation and strain-rate dependence of the stress response (including the behaviour at limits) as demonstrated for the .2. σy ) < 0} 3 2 s s if Φ(σ.

2) has been assumed to be of the form proposed by Peri´ (1993). Clearly. σy ) ≥ 0 Φ(σ. ˙ (11.2.37) 0 if Φ(σ. 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.38) σy In the uniaxial case.34) .36) ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . σy ) = ˙ (11. have. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .1 and 11.4. σy ) < 0. in general. over a relatively narrow range of stresses. the explicit function for γ that takes part in the deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow equation ˙ (see expression (11. better ﬂexibility to allow a wider range of experimental data to be ﬁtted.2 (and also from the c Perzyna model described below) by setting η = 1. (11. 11. The multiplier γ in this case is ˙ deﬁned as q(σ) − σy 1 if Φ(σ.VISCOPLASTICITY 447 uniaxial model in Section 11.3. (11. in many cases. σy ) = η η γ(σ. in practice. 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. ˙ with associative ﬂow vector N deﬁned by N= and yield function Φ(σ. the plastic strain rate for the Bingham model is a linear function of the axial stress: 1 εp = (|σ| − σy ) sign(σ). with more material constants.2. ˙ Bingham model The Bingham model is the simplest model of viscoplasticity. In this section. the format of the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N. the linear approximation may give good results. each form of γ deﬁnes a different model of viscoplasticity. the observed strain rate may be a markedly nonlinear function of the stress. µ = .35) (11. However.39) η This may severely limit the ability of the model to ﬁt experimental data as. will remain unchanged for any deﬁnition of γ. ALTERNATIVE PLASTIC STRAIN RATE DEFINITIONS So far. However. many forms for γ c ˙ have been proposed and. Note that this law is obtained from Peri´ ’s model given in item 4 of Box 11. Other models.6) and item 4 of Boxes 11. 2 s (11. within the framework of von Mises ˙ viscoplasticity. we list some of the most widely used forms.7 are reproduced by the multidimensional theory under any state of stress.2. As mentioned in Section 11.

however. the Perzyna model produces a curve with σ = 2 σy instead.3. q. such as Prager’s rule and the Armstrong– Frederick kinematic hardening law. For example. only isotropic strain hardening has been taken into account. in c this limit. σy ) < 0. as the ratec independent limit is approached with vanishing rate-sensitivity → 0 (refer to Remark 11. wp . It is deﬁned by 1/ 1 q(σ) −1 if Φ(σ. many metals at high temperatures will ﬂow at virtually any stress state with a non-zero deviatoric component. We remark here that. ¯ (11. In such cases. 11. for vanishing viscosity (µ → 0) or vanishing strain rates.43) and β is the backstress tensor. 11. in spite of its similarity to Peri´ ’s deﬁnition.2. Evolution laws for β. particularly at higher temperatures. the yield stress is effectively zero. can be deﬁned as in Section 6. a yield surface and a corresponding elastic domain do not need to be introduced in the formulation of the .4. 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. 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. (11. σy ) = µ σy ˙ (11. isotropic work hardening is obtained by having σy as a given function of the plastic work. 1971) and is widely used in computational applications of viscoplasticity.6 (page 177). OTHER ISOTROPIC AND KINEMATIC HARDENING LAWS In the viscoplasticity model of Box 11.41) σy = σy (wp ). deﬁned by expression (6.40) 0 if Φ(σ.42) 2 where η is the relative stress η = s − β. Other hardening laws. . σy ) ≥ 0 γ(σ. µ. the Perzyna model does not reproduce the uniaxial stress–strain curve of the corresponding rate-independent model with yield stress σy .1 on page 443). In fact. the response of both Perzyna and Peri´ models c coincide with the standard rate-independent model with yield stress σy . Kinematic hardening is introduced by simply replacing the von Mises effective stress. the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter. However.3. that is. such an assumption is by no means required. As in Peri´ ’s model. with the relative effective stress q = 3 η : η.177) (11. As shown by Peri´ (1993). many materials can be modelled as ﬂowing whenever under stress.448 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Perzyna model This model was introduced by Perzyna (1966.6.3. that is. and the rate c sensitivity. For viscoplasticity models.

37) the Bingham model recovers the Norton law with N = 1 and λ = η.VISCOPLASTICITY 449 theory. fσ could be Norton’s law or the Lemaitre–Chaboche relation above.47) where t and T denote. plastic ﬂow takes place for any stress with non-zero deviator.44) where N and λ are temperature-dependent material constants. Clearly. Note that. respectively. plastic ﬂow is assumed to occur whenever σ = 0. In its original (uniaxial) version. the time and absolute temperature and fσ . ˙ Norton’s creep law The classical Norton creep law has been employed extensively in the analysis of creep of metals. (11. 1990). such models can be deﬁned simply by postulating the explicit function for γ accordingly. It is used mainly in the description of secondary creep. For instance. The temperature function fT is . (11. Within the present framework. the ﬂow rule is given by εp = ˙ |σ| λ N sign(σ).2 with the following γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N . the present model has a third (also temperature-dependent) parameter α. t. Other creep laws A rather general class of viscoplastic laws can be obtained by assuming that γ is a function ˙ of the stress. A comprehensive list of proposed empirical functions is given by Skrzypek (1993).46) In addition to the material parameters N and λ required by Norton’s law. ˙ ˙ (11. is obtained by simply replacing the deﬁnition of the function for γ in item ˙ 4 of Box 11. (11. Its multidimensional generalisation. sometimes referred to as Odqvist’s law. to which the interested reader is referred.45) Here. time and temperature. T ) = fσ (σ) ft (t) fT (T ). ft and fT are experimentally deﬁned functions. The function γ in this case reads ˙ γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N exp[α q(σ)N +1 ]. especially in the analysis of creep and hot metal forming operations. by setting σy = 0 in (11. with the following multiplicative format γ = γ(σ. Viscoplasticity models without a yield surface have been used widely. 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.

11. General viscoplastic constitutive model Having described in the previous section some of the most commonly used viscoplasticity models.4.3.2 (from page 71). (11. as we have seen above. A typical example of an empirical relation of the above format is given by the law (Boyle and Spence. Thus.450 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS normally deﬁned by the Arrhenius law fT (T ) = C exp −Q RT (11. At this point.50) that is. (11. The reader who is not familiar with that notation. The constitutive equations of the general viscoplasticity model are listed in Box 11. an elastic domain may not exist. A).4.1 to 6. It follows the same considerations as Sections 6.4. we proceed here to formulate a more general constitutive theory of viscoplasticity. 1975).3. 11. 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. except that the ﬂow rule and hardening law are deﬁned as ˙ εp = G(σ. 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. R is the gas constant 8.3. The same applies to all other models (with or without an elastic domain) described in Section 11. The theory presented here is a viscoplastic version of the general rate-independent model described in Section 6. or concepts used in that section. 1983) γ = C exp ˙ −Q RT tM q N .3 (from page 148) and summarised in Box 6.3. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY The above viscoplasticity model ﬁts within the generic internal variable-based constitutive framework discussed in Section 3. a yield function is not necessarily present in the viscoplastic formulation. Q is the activation energy usually independent of the temperature. In addition.48) where C is a constant. is advised to review them before proceeding further.2 (page 151). it can be trivially established .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.1. An implicit computational implementation of the Bodner–Partom model has been recently described by Anderson (2003). note that we will use here the notation of Section 6.31 J mol−1 K −1 . A) ˙ α = J(σ.49) with M and N being material parameters. The formulation of the viscoplastic model is analogous to that of its rate-independent counterpart.5. Note that the von Mises-based model of Box 11. Indeed.3.

through the hypothesis of normal dissipativity.165) on page 76.3 can be obtained by endowing the model with a potential structure (refer to the discussion surrounding expression (3.2) and then introducing the explicit constitutive functions for the rates of plastic strain and hardening variables listed in item 4 of Box 11.3.162) on page 74). α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. A general viscoplastic constitutive model. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. refer to Section 6. 11. Free-energy function ψ = ψ(εe .4. . the evolution of the internal variables of the problem are derived as ˙ εp = ∂Ξ ∂σ (11.3. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4.2) ˙ ˙ σ : εp − A ∗ α. In this case. POTENTIAL STRUCTURE AND DISSIPATION INEQUALITY A specialisation of the general theory of Box 11. it is important to recall that the plastic dissipation in the present case is given by (again. The general viscoplasticity model is obtained by simply deﬁning the set α of (3. (11. A) ∂ψ ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α that the model of Box 11.2.VISCOPLASTICITY 451 Box 11.52) ∂Ξ ˙ . α=− ∂A At this point. A).3. 1. we deﬁne a dissipation potential Ξ = Ξ(σ.165) as composed of the plastic strain tensor and the set of hardening internal variables (as described in Section 6.3.3 is a particular case of the general purely mechanical inﬁnitesimal constitutive law deﬁned by (3.51) from which. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = G(σ. A) ˙ α = J(σ.

In this context. we choose Ξ(σ. A) | Φ(σ. A) ∈ A (11. (11. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α (11. A} = {0. the demonstration that follows here shows effectively that. Thus.54) is the dissipation function. As emphasised above. 11.3 (page 151) can be rigorously described. εp . The rate-independent limit In what follows. the elastoplastic model of Box 6.2. A) = ∞ if (σ.56) ΨA (σ. 0} it is ensured that the dissipation inequality is satisﬁed a priori by the model. non-negative and zerovalued at {σ.55) (11.5.5. it deﬁnes a convex region in the space of stresses and hardening forces. By deﬁning Ξ such that it is convex with respect to both variables.e. A).3. 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. A.‡ Crucial to the proof to be shown is the concept of indicator function of a convex set. of the convex set A as the scalar-valued function deﬁned by 0 if (σ. under some circumstances. A) ≤ 0}. A) of stress and hardening thermodynamical forces. let us consider the closure. i.452 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS so that the dissipation inequality reads ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.3. A) ∈ A.57) ‡ Readers not familiar with convex analysis are referred to Rockafellar (1970).2. A. that is. the general viscoplastic model is a particular instance of the internal variable-based constitutive framework of Section 3. where ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. as anticipated in Section 6. we shall see that an associative rate-independent plasticity model is obtained by adopting ΨA as the dissipation potential in the general viscoplastic theory. The set A is convex. . εp .7. Following the above considerations. (11. A.53) In rate-independent plasticity. A is the set of all admissible states (σ. as a particular case of the general continuum constitutive theory of Section 3. / The indicator function is clearly non-differentiable. ΨA . of the elastic domain deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ: A = {(σ. A) ≡ ΨA (σ.4. α) ≥ 0. The indicator function of a convex set The demonstration presented here is based on arguments of convex analysis. we now introduce the indicator function.

A) ≤ 0. α).58) is equivalent to the inequality ˙ ˙ εp : (σ − σ∗ ) + α ∗ (A − A∗ ) ≥ 0. A)γ = 0. . ˙ Φ(σ.60) This last inequality states that.54) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. (11. A∗ ) ∈ A. discussed in Section 6. A∗ .§ In view of the nondifferentiability of the indicator function. Example: von Mises-based model Let us now consider the von Mises-based model of Box 11.58) where ∂σ ΨA and ∂A ΨA are the subdifferentials of ΨA with respect to σ and A.61) ∂Φ ˙ . (11. α = −γ ˙ ∂A together with the loading/unloading conditions of rate-independent plasticity Φ(σ.3. εp . 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. ∀ (σ∗ . A∗ ) ∈ ΨA . εp .69) together with (11. ˙ (11. A. equivalently. for simplicity. among all states (σ∗ .2 (page 170) to which the reader is referred for details.5. respectively. 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. § Refer to Section 6. Thus.9 (from page 153) for the deﬁnition of subdifferential. assume that the model is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ). in terms of the dissipation function (11. γ ≥ 0.59) or. are replaced with the subdifferential relations ˙ εp ∈ ∂σ ΨA ˙ α ∈ −∂A ΨA .VISCOPLASTICITY 453 At this point we need to make use of the concept of subdifferential.52).2 and. in such limits. which follow from normal dissipativity. the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the classical perfectly elastoplastic von Mises model. the actual stress and hardening force (σ. A) maximise the dissipation function.56) it can easily be established that (11. From the subdifferential deﬁnition (6. the constitutive equations (11. ∀ (σ∗ .62) In summary. The solution to the maximisation problem associated with the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is the classical associative laws ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ ∂σ (11. This is known as the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. A∗ ) ∈ A. (11. α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ .

Peri´ (1993).1. Simo (1998). to start by stating the underlying initial value problem we wish to solve. Clearly. for the sake of clarity. . 11.2. The basic requirements are: (i) an algorithm for numerical integration of the viscoplastic constitutive equations.63) where σ is the only variable. as → 0.1. ∂σ (11. that is.65) where A = {σ | q(σ) − σy ≤ 0}. With the above deﬁnition. For further discussions and analysis of various aspects of the numerical treatment of viscoplasticity. stated on page 193. to be used in the assemblage of the ﬁnite element stiffness matrix.5. the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = ∂Ξ . we can easily see that. Finally. the above potential indeed deﬁnes the von Mises-based viscoplasticity model of Box 11. Simo and Hughes (1998).4 shows the potential Ξ for various choices of the rate-sensitivity parameter . Chaboche and Cailletaud c (1996).64) is found through a straightforward differentiation to be that of item 4 of Box 11. (ii) the associated consistent tangent modulus. and Alfano and Rosati (2001). by simple inspection. A GENERAL IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM Before proceeding to the derivation of an integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic model. The schematic illustration of Figure 11.63) 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). (11.2 when hardening is not considered. Ξ tends to the indicator function of A. The problem here is analogous to its rate-independent counterpart.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. the limit of the potential Ξ of (11. Runesson and Mahler (1999).66) This completes the demonstration. to be used to update stresses and other state variables of the model. (11. General numerical framework This section describes the basic ingredients needed to incorporate the general viscoplasticity model of Box 11. when → 0 or µ → 0. →0 µ→0 (11. we refer to Simo and Govindjee (1991).5.3 into the ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4. it seems convenient. 11. Problem 7.

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).VISCOPLASTICITY 455 ∋ 1 elastic domain Ξ 0 small large 0 q (σ) σ y Figure 11.4. A(t)). where a typical step over the time interval [tn . ∂α t (11.67) As in the deﬁnition of the rate-independent problem. the reduced system (11. tn+1 ] is considered. A(t)) (11.68) ˙ α(t) = J(σ(t). ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . ε(t). the history of the plastic strain is promptly obtained as εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t).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. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . The resulting incremental problem is presented in Box 11. Problem 11.70) ∋ ∋ . ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . Viscoplastic potential Ξ for various rate-sensitivity parameters . (11. (11. ﬁnd the functions εe (t) and α(t). t ∈ [t0 . Clearly.4. The time and strain increments are deﬁned in the usual way as ∆t = tn+1 − tn . T ]. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor. once the history of elastic strain is determined in the solution to the above problem.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.1 (The viscoplastic constitutive initial value problem).67) of ordinary differential equations has been obtained by incorporating the viscoplastic ﬂow equation (11. T ].

e. The resulting algorithm. If the trial state is within the elastic domain or on the yield surface. A) = γ(σ. Given the strain and time increment. Φ(σn+1 . is listed in Box 11. the constitutive functions G and J can be deﬁned with the following form G(σ. The algorithm is valid for models with or without a yield surface. i.1. tn+1 ].e. which we shall refer to as the elastic predictor/viscoplastic corrector or elastic predictor/viscoplastic return mapping algorithm.3.4 takes a twostage format completely analogous to the elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure of the rate-independent case. following the terminology of the rate-independent theory. Fully implicit algorithm for numerical integration of general viscoplastic constitutive equations. If a yield surface is present. A). the evolution of εp and α is computed by means of the standard backward Euler method. A) H(σ. Otherwise. 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. here. Clearly. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 Models with a yield surface Note that in the algorithm of Box 11. A) = γ(σ.4. forces the updated state to be on the yield surface when there is plastic ﬂow over . it makes sense to ﬁrst compute an elastic trial state by assuming that the material behaviour is purely elastic within the interval [tn .456 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. To see this. An+1 ) 0 for εe and αn+1 . with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ εe . N is the ﬂow vector and H is the generalised hardening modulus.5. page 199) in that. as in the rate-independent case. This is in contrast with the rate-independent case in which the consistency equation. the specialisation of the algorithm of Box 11. tn+1 ] and the state variables at tn . Φn+1 = 0. A) N(σ. An+1 ) > 0. i. A) ˙ (11. A) > 0. let us ﬁrst consider that for a general model with a yield surface. The scalar γ is zero within the elastic domain or on the ˙ yield surface and may only be non-zero outside the elastic domain. Remark 11. compute the updated state by solving the nonlinear system of equations e e εn+1 − εn − ∆ε + ∆t G(σn+1 . the updated stress state at tn+1 generally lies on the outside of the yield surface. over [tn . states lying neither in the elastic domain nor on the yield surface. ∆ε and ∆t. Then. An+1 ) 0 = αn+1 − αn − ∆t J(σn+1 . The viscoplastic return mapping differs from its elastoplastic (rateindependent) counterpart (refer to Box 7. however. ˙ where.71) J(σ. evolution of εp and α may only occur here at states with Φ(σ.4 no assumption is made on the existence of an elastic domain.

In what follows we list the basic equations of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. page 201). An+1 ) n+1 for εe . (1984) and Koji´ and Bathe (1987). Zienkiewicz and Cormeau (1974).7. and αn+1 with n+1 ∆γ = ∆γ(σn+1 . upon application of the procedure. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial n+1 αn+1 − αtrial − ∆γ H(σn+1 . n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 the considered interval. Atrial ) ≤ 0 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 = (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Viscoplastic return mapping. Nevertheless. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 11. different numerical integration algorithms can be employed in the stress updating procedure. the updated stress is obtained by moving (or returning) the trial stress towards the yield surface.VISCOPLASTICITY 457 Box 11. Hughes and Taylor (1978). tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn . An+1 ) 0 = 0 ∂ψ ∂ εe trial . ALTERNATIVE EULER-BASED ALGORITHMS Similarly to the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7.5. 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 . Peirce et al.5. An+1 ) = ∆t γ(σn+1 .2. An+1 ) ˙ and σn+1 = ρ ¯ (iv) EXIT ∂ψ ∂ εe .2. (i) Elastic predictor. the terminology viscoplastic return mapping remains justiﬁable in the present case since. 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 . Solve the system e e trial εn+1 − εn+1 + ∆γ N(σn+1 . For further details on alternative integration algorithms we refer to Cormeau (1975). Marques and Owen (1983). c .

72) αn+1 = αn + ∆t [(1 − θ) Jn + θ Jn+1 ]. θ.4. the task here is to ﬁnd the exact tangent operator D≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 . Let us then consider the algorithm of Box 11. the discrete system of equations reads εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t Gn+θ n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆t Jn+θ . where the prescribed parameter. The generalised midpoint algorithm For the generalised midpoint rule.76) consistent with the stress updating procedure deﬁned by the backward Euler algorithm of Box 11.77) = dα − ∆t ∂J ∗ dσ − ∆t ∂J ∗ dA 0 ∂σ ∂A .4.458 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The generalised trapezoidal algorithm Here. also lies within the interval [0. from page 238). 11.4 is recovered and θ = 0 deﬁnes the explicit algorithm. = dεn+1 d∆ε (11.4. (11. the implicit algorithm of Box 11.74) Again.3.73) For the choice θ = 1. Given all variables of the problem at tn and a prescribed time increment ∆t. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ) Jn+θ = J((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn .4 are replaced with the following system εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t [(1 − θ) Gn + θ Gn+1 ] n n+1 (11. the tangent modulus consistent with the general algorithm is needed. Analogously to the general procedure for the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7.5.4 is recovered and θ = 0 corresponds to the explicit algorithm. the backward Euler discrete equations of Box 11.4. 1] and Gn+θ = G((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn . where θ is a prescribed parameter 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ). GENERAL CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR To complete the requirements for the implementation of the model within an implicit ﬁnite element environment. the implicit algorithm of Box 11. we start by linearising the system of time-discrete equations of Box 11.4. (11. for θ = 1. The linearised system reads dεe + ∆t ∂G : dσ + ∆t ∂G ∗ dA d∆ε ∂σ ∂A .75) (11. (11.

71). we ﬁnally obtain a tangent relation which can be written symbolically as D11 D12 dσ d∆ε (11. The derivatives of G then specialise as ∂N ∂γ ˙ ∂G =γ ˙ +N⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂G ∂N ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +N∗ . the stress is the result from the solution of the equation system of item (iii) of Box 11. = ∂J dA 0 J − ∆t ∂A (11.81) dσn+1 = D11 .5. when Φ(σn+1 . 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.82) (11.VISCOPLASTICITY 459 where the symbol * denotes the product of the appropriate type and the subscripts n + 1 have been omitted for notational convenience. the tangent operator is a specialisation of the general tangent modulus (11. i.129) (page 239).79) = . An+1 ) ≤ 0. d∆ε (11. ∂εe 2 (11. ∂A ∂A ∂A (11. as in rate-independent plasticity. dA D21 D22 0 where Dij are tensors of appropriate order resulting from the inversion of (11.e. we have D = De = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .78).78) are deﬁned by (11.80) Under viscoplastic ﬂow. the derivatives of J specialise as ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ . With the introduction of the differential relations (7. the linearised system is equivalently written as ∂G C + ∆t ∂σ ∂J A − ∆t ∂σ B + ∆t ∂G dσ d∆ε ∂A . An+1 ) > 0.80) where the functions G and J taking part in the symbolic matrix (11. In this case. the tangent modulus is elastic if the state is within the elastic domain. when Φ(σn+1 .83) . that is. ∂A ∂A ∂A Similarly.78) By inverting the linearised system above.

we apply the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm described in the following. 2. 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.5 which. ∆γ. tn+1 ].460 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. At this stage.6. then the process is indeed elastic within the interval and ε the variables at tn+1 are assigned the values of the trial variables.2.84) ∂Φ ∂σ n+1 (11. n+1 εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . 11. (11. Elastic predictor. by taking the linear elastic law into consideration.85) −1 . we present an accuracy analysis of the algorithm based on iso-error maps.87) . 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 . ¯n+1 ¯n where the incremental multiplier. In addition to the detailed description of the associated integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. 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 11.6. Viscoplastic return mapping. 1. we can update εp = εp + ∆γ n n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model To illustrate the application of the above numerical framework.85). σy (¯p trial )) ≤ 0.2. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm described here is a specialisation of the generic algorithm described in Section 11. for the present model.1. The material is assumed to behave purely elastically within the time interval [tn . is given by ∆γ = ∆t µ q(σn+1 ) σy (¯p ) εn+1 1/ (11. After solving (11. If Φ(σtrial . The algorithm comprises the standard elastic predictor and the viscoplastic return mapping which. are specialised as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : εp = εp + ∆γ.5 to the model whose constitutive equations are summarised in Box 11.86) with ∆t denoting the time increment within the considered interval. Otherwise. n+1 (11. has the following format. for the present model.

the steps leading to the system reduction are repeated here.85)2 into (11. (11.6 in pseudo-code format. εp . The situation here is completely analogous to that of the implementation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) von Mises model described in Section 7. with the substitution of the above formula together with (11. Further. .94) The single-equation viscoplastic corrector comprises the solution of (11. as usual. εe according to the relevant ¯ formulae. we observe that the plastic ﬂow vector ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s 2 s (11. equivalently. (11. Firstly.VISCOPLASTICITY 461 Single-equation corrector The viscoplastic corrector can be more efﬁciently implemented by reducing (11.94) for the unknown ∆γ followed by the straightforward update of σ.89)1 as sn+1 = 1 − 3 ∆γ 2G trial ∆γ 3G s = 1 − trial strial trial 2 s q (11. simple inspection of (11.3.90) sn+1 s which allows us to rewrite (11.86) 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. εn (11.88) is deviatoric so that the hydrostatic stress is independent of the viscoplastic ﬂow. we have the identity strial sn+1 = trial . (11. The stress update equation (11. The solution of the equation for ∆γ is. (q trial − 3G ∆γ) ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.92) Finally. trivially. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 11.93) or (11.89) .91) where q trial is the elastic trial von Mises equivalent stress. εp .85) to a single scalar equation. 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. undertaken by the Newton– Raphson iterative scheme. For convenience. after a straightforward rearrangement.89)1 shows that sn+1 is a scalar multiple of strial so that.2 (page 217).93) or.

small values of . The reason for this lies in the fact that. and the state variables at tn . the algorithm of Box 11.91) (refer to page 219) when µ → 0 (no viscosity).93) in the viscoplastic corrector stage of the algorithm.4 (Rate-independent limit). Remark 11. . Given ∆ε. equation (11. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of (11.94).5 (Computational implementation aspects). tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn ). This fact has been recognised by Peri´ (1993) c in the context of a more general viscoplastic algorithm. as expected. → 0 (no rate-sensitivity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining). Then update pn+1 := ptrial . (i) Elastic predictor. Clearly. 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. Integration algorithm for von Mises-type viscoplastic model (over a generic time interval [tn . In equation (11. In the computer implementation of the model (as shown in Box 11. on the other hand.6 reproduces the rate-independent elastoplastic numerical solution.462 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11.e. it is more convenient to solve (11. Note that. i. The reduction of the convergence bowl stems from the fact that large exponents 1/ can easily produce numbers which are computationally intractable.6). 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) rigorously recovers its elastoplastic (rate-independent) counterpart (7. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial .6. 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) becomes unstable as its convergence bowl is sharply reduced with decreasing . for low rate-sensitivity. in such cases.94) rather than (11.

94). Remark 11. we have ε εn q trial > σy (¯p trial ) = σy (¯p ). In addition. we can easily establish that the derivative R is strictly negative for ∆γ ∈ (0. Let R(∆γ) be the function deﬁned by the right-hand side of (11. The material is assumed perfectly viscoplastic (no hardening). 11. R (∆γ) = − 3G + µ q trial − 3G∆γ µ ∆γ + ∆t ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − H(¯p + ∆γ).7(b) and is shown here only to emphasise the effect of rate-dependence on the integration error. The above inequality clearly implies that R(0) > 0. The resulting map in this case is obviously identical to the rate-independent map of Figure 7. i. 1] and causes no numerical problems within practical ranges of material constants. page 215). The continuity of R then implies that (11. Recall that for = 0 the algorithm reproduces the rate-independent solution. Let us now consider the derivative of R. Using the three-dimensional implementation of the model. taking into account the strict positiveness of the hardening function σy . respectively) to the von Mises circle in the deviatoric plane. we start from a stress point at time tn .2. q trial /3G) is unique for non-softening materials.e. in general. produced with material constants covering a range of high rate-sensitivity to rate-independence. . . 10−1 and 0. ISO-ERROR MAPS To illustrate the accuracy of the above integration algorithm in practical situations. The main conclusion drawn from the iso-error maps is that. For each non-dimensional rate.6 (Solution existence and uniqueness). q trial /3G). three values of rate-sensitivity parameter. 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. increasing (decreasing) rate-sensitivity and/or increasing (decreasing) strain rates tend to produce decreasing (increasing) integration errors.6 show iso-error maps obtained at low and high strain rates with the non-dimensional rate ˙ µ ε set respectively to 1 and 1000.2. Upon simple inspection. if H is non-negative for any value of accumulated plastic strain.7.VISCOPLASTICITY 463 the term to the power on the left-hand side can only assume values within the interval [0. Within a viscoplastic step.10 (refer to Figure 7. The largest errors are expected in the rate-independent limit. tn+1 ]).5 and 11. Figures 11. 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. q trial /3G) if the viscoplastic model is non-softening. with σn lying on the yield surface.7. εn where H is the derivative of the isotropic hardening function σy . we can easily verify that R(q trial /3G) < 0. have been used: 100 . this section presents some iso-error maps. The maps have been generated in the standard fashion as described in Section 7.94) has a root within the interval (0. and apply a sequence of strain increments (at constant strain rate within the interval [tn .6.

5. 11.3. we simply replace the derivative of the incremental plastic ∆σN / q ∆σN / q . 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. Thus.5.93) – which reduces to (7. Under viscoplastic ﬂow. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The consistent tangent operator here is a particular case of the general tangent operator derived in Section 11.2 (from page 232).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 tangent operator which (as in the rate-independent case) will be denoted Dep .94). the tangent operator is the elastic tangent.3. Iso-error maps with µ ε = 1. (a) = 100 . (b) = 10−1 . The incremental constitutive function for the stress tensor in the present case has identical format to that of the rate-independent implementation given by (7.6. Clearly. is derived by consistently linearising the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm referred to in item (iii) of Box 11. when the stress state lies within the elastic domain and no viscoplastic ﬂow is possible. (c) = 0 (rate-independent). to obtain the viscoplastic consistent tangent.4. De .113) under plastic ﬂow – but the incremental plastic multiplier ∆γ here is the solution of viscoplastic return-mapping equation (11.6.

(11.3% 4 4 ∆σN / q 0. (c) = 0 (rate-independent).4% 0. Iso-error maps with µ ε = 103 . the ﬁnal ∆σN / q . (b) = 10−1 . With the above differential relation. and equating it to zero. Analogously to the elastoplastic case.VISCOPLASTICITY 6 6 465 0. this expression is obtained by taking the differential of the viscoplastic corrector equation (11.1% 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 11.118) 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 .95) which is consistent with (11.94). multiplier (7.6. (a) = 100 . having ∆γ trial and qn+1 as variables.94).2% 2 5% 2 0.

40) follows exactly the same procedure as described in the above except that. Remark 11. we have assumed isotropic strain hardening. PERZYNA-TYPE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the von Mises-based model with Perzyna’s viscoplastic law (11. (11.40). (11.97) Here. µ → 0 (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining).94) (or item (iii) of Box 11.97) reads ∂∆γ = ∂εe trial 3G + 1 + n+1 2G µ ∆γ ∆t 3 2 H+ µ µ ∆γ ∆t ∆t −1 σy ¯ Nn+1 . 11. Note that.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. (11.97) reduces to a von Mises elastoplastic return-mapping equation with yield stress 2σy . in agreement with the theoretical limits of the Perzyna model discussed in the text immediately following equation (11.6.97) reduces to that of the elastoplastic rateindependent von Mises model with yield stress σy . → 0. For vanishing rate sensitivity parameter.6) is replaced with q trial − 3G ∆γ − 1 + µ ∆γ ∆t σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.98) . Elasto-viscoplastic consistent tangent operator The differential relation between the incremental plastic multiplier and εe trial consistent with n+1 the return-mapping equation (11.40). By simple inspection we ﬁnd that in the limits → 0 (vanishing rate-sensitivity parameter).7 (Rate-independent limit).96) Note that the tangent operator is symmetric. as µ → ∞ (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow process) equation (11.120).96) rigorously recovers the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator of the isotropically hardening rate-independent von Mises model with implicit return mapping given by expression (7.4. as one should expect. εn (11. expression (11. the return-mapping equation (11. consistently with the backward Euler time discretization of (11. This is.

For convenience. DOUBLE-NOTCHED TENSILE SPECIMEN The rate-independent version of this problem has been studied in Section 7.95) ¯n+1 ¯n for the present implementation of Perzyna’s viscoplasticity law.29).5.7.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).E+04 1. 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.E-04 rate independent normalised net stress 2 normalised stretching rates: 1.1. Examples The ﬁnite element examples presented in this section illustrate applications of the computational treatment of viscoplasticity described above. Analogously to the prescription of edge displacement u (refer to Figure 7.E+04 1.E+00 1. The underlying viscoplastic material model is the one shown in Box 11.7.99) + K I ⊗ I. The geometry of the specimen and the ﬁnite element mesh used are shown in Figure 7. (b) = 10−2 .7. Double-notched specimen. which includes isotropic strain hardening. 11.5 (from page 255). Reaction–deﬂection diagrams: (a) = 100 .96). the simulation consists of stretching the specimen by prescribing a constant (in time) vertical velocity v on the top nodes of the mesh. 11. we deﬁne the normalised stretching rate µv v∗ = l/2 . Its format is completely analogous to that of (11.E+00 1. The problem consists of the plane strain analysis of a deep double-notched tensile specimen.VISCOPLASTICITY 4 16 normalised net stress 3 467 12 normalised stretching rates: 8 1.2. where σy is evaluated at εp = εp + ∆γ. This expression is the counterpart of (11.

555E-00 0.555E-02 0. Stretching of a perforated plate. Displacement-reaction diagrams.2 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (b) 3 edge reaction (KN) 2 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (c) Figure 11.555E-04 rate independent 1 0 0.555E-03 0. = 100 .5 0. (c) = 10−2 . (b) = .555E+02 0.555E-03 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (a) 14 Deformation rates (1/s): 0. (a) 10−1 .3 0.555E-00 0.555E+01 0.3 0.555E+01 0.555E-01 0.4 0.555E-03 0.555E+02 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.468 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 14 12 10 edge reaction (KN) Deformation rates (1/s): 8 0.555E-04 rate independent 12 10 edge reaction (KN) 8 6 4 2 0 0.1 0.555E-02 0.555E-01 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.555E-04 rate independent 6 4 2 0 0.1 0.8.555E-02 0.

5. In order to show the effect of the rate-sensitivity parameter on the behaviour of the model.29 is not considered here.29.7 whose diagrams show the evolution of the reaction forces on the constrained edge against the corresponding edge deﬂection. in Figures 11. the results are plotted in terms of the normalised net stress and the normalised edge deﬂection deﬁned in Section 7. 104 .45 GPa (constant). a plane stress c version of the numerical integration algorithm discussed in Section 11. The plane stress implementation adopted follows the nested iteration approach described in Section 9.6. 100 .7. 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 problem consists of the axial stretching at constant rate of a perforated rectangular plate whose geometry is shown in Figure 9.7(a) and (b). The results for = 100 and 10−2 are shown. Similarly to the previous example.2. They illustrate the expected higher reactions and limit loads for higher rates of stretching.7 (page 392). The mesh. The results of the ﬁnite element simulations are presented in Figure 11. with three values of rate sensitivity coefﬁcients ( = 1.2. The following material parameters are adopted E = 206. ν = 0. 11. the rate-independent solution is recovered for any rate-sensitivity parameter.5. in order to illustrate the response predicted by the viscoplastic model over a wide range of conditions. 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. Here. 10−1 . σy = 0. respectively.9 GPa.7. . Note that linear strain hardening is assumed.VISCOPLASTICITY 469 and the simulation is carried out for three different values of v ∗ v ∗ = 10−4 . PLANE STRESS: STRETCHING OF A PERFORATED PLATE This section describes the viscoplastic version of the plane stress problem of Section 9.1 is employed. two values of are considered = 100 and 10−2 . 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. For the lowest nondimensional rate of 10−4 . The results obtained in the simulations are shown in Figure 11. As in the rate-independent case. several simulations are carried out with various stretching rates. The linearly hardening case listed in Figure 7. 10−2 ) being considered.2 (page 362) in the context of rate-independent plasticity.5. boundary conditions and the material parameters that are common to both plastic and viscoplastic models are also shown in Figure 9. This example has been analysed by Peri´ (1993).3 (from page 390).8 where the reaction on the constrained edge of the plate is plotted against the prescribed edge displacement for the various conditions considered.

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

such as in certain types of industrial machinery. In each of these sections.3. In some cases.6. Lemaitre’s ductile damage model (Lemaitre. 1977). lead to failure – a complete loss of loadcarrying capability of the material. describe. In safety-critical applications. Traditionally. After providing a brief review of some basic mechanisms that characterise the presence and evolution of damage in Section 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. non-scheduled stops for maintenance owing to unpredicted failure may incur serious economic consequences. In some applications. a simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model where kinematic hardening is not considered and Gurson’s void growth model (Gurson. The present chapter is devoted to computational continuum damage mechanics. This fact. such as metalforming operations. In the design of manufacturing processes. respectively. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 1985b). In many engineering applications. particularly those where mechanical/structural components are subjected to severe service conditions. unpredicted failure may have catastrophic effects with consequences far beyond purely economical issues. Sections 12.12 DAMAGE MECHANICS I NTERNAL damage can be deﬁned as the presence and evolution of cracks and cavities at the microscopic level which may. 12. allied to the fast development of computational mechanics techniques. frequently encountered in the aeronautical and nuclear industries. failure prediction is achieved by the systematic (and expensive) testing of real models under laboratoryreproduced service conditions.4 is fully incorporated into program HYPLAS. the ability of the designer to predict mechanical failure becomes an important factor. 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.1. In such cases. with the growing knowledge of the mechanisms of progressive internal damage that cause failure in a wide range of materials. Ltd . we give in Section 12. the useful life of components is a crucial item of information which has to be carefully considered during the design process. the computational implementation of the corresponding constitutive models within an implicit ﬁnite element environment is described in detail. it is becoming possible to formulate continuum constitutive models capable of accounting for the evolution of internal deterioration. prediction of failure is also a crucial issue.2 a brief historical account of CDM together with a discussion on the continuum modelling of damage phenomena.5. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. the prediction of useful life/failure of materials is based on mostly empirical experience accumulated over long periods of time. including crack closure effects and damage anisotropy are addressed in Section 12. Note that the simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model discussed in Section 12. This relatively new branch of continuum solid mechanics is known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM). eventually. The material presented in this chapter is summarised as follows. Further issues. However.4 and 12.

usually at low temperatures.472 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS virgin material nucleation of microscopic cracks and voids growth. This behaviour is observed for many polycrystalline metals. 12. damage evolution may take place triggered by very different physical mechanisms which depend fundamentally on the type. rate of loading. rather than the material alone. on the other hand. the damage behaviour is a combination of brittle and ductile response and the contribution of each mode is. Further evolution of local plastic deformation may cause the cavities to coalesce. the material-process-environment triad must be considered in the study of internal damage. Ductile damage. In addition. Schematic illustration. Another important mode of material deterioration in metals is fatigue damage. brittle damage can also be observed associated with creep processes. At high temperatures. to a signiﬁcant extent. METALS In metals. At low stresses they are accompanied by relatively small strains. precipitates and particles of alloy elements leading to the formation of microscopic cracks and cavities. In this case. For most metallic materials. etc. coalescence and macroscopic fracturing Figure 12. for the same material. resulting in ﬁnal rupture.1.1.1. 12. dependent on the temperature. To illustrate the diversity of phenomena that may be involved in the process of internal degradation of solids. Therefore. It is normally observed in mechanical components subjected to a large number of load and/or . Ductile damage in metals. the primary mechanisms that characterise the phenomenon of mechanical degradation may be divided into two distinct classes: brittle and ductile damage. the decohesion of interatomic bonds is concentrated at grain boundaries. temperature as well as environmental factors such as exposure to corrosive substances or radiation. some basic physical mechanisms underlying damage evolution in metals and rubbery polymers are outlined below. The decohesion of interatomic bonds is initiated at the boundary interface of inclusions. is normally associated with the presence of large plastic deformations in the neighbourhood of crystalline defects. 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. Brittle damaging occurs mainly in the form of cleavage of crystallographic planes in the presence of negligible inelastic deformations. loading rate. This mechanism is schematically illustrated in Figure 12.1.1.

Essentially. 12. damage can occur in the form of progressive breakage of shorter polymer chains attached between ﬁller particles. these materials are made of long cross-linked molecular chains which differ radically from the structure of crystalline metals (refer to Arridge (1985). Although fatigue damage occurs at overall stress levels below the macroscopic plastic yield limit. In general. signiﬁcant progress has been achieved and such theories have merged into what is currently known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (Krajˇ inovi´ . and the understanding of fatigue degradation processes in metals remains a challenging issue in the ﬁeld of materials science. RUBBERY POLYMERS Rubbery polymers are widely employed in engineering applications. even at very small overall straining. damaging does take place due to straining and/or thermal activation. 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. 1990). 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. for further details). as described by Bueche (1960).2. Although rubbery polymers exhibit a behaviour which. Those materials are obtained by addition of a ﬁller in order to enhance the strength properties of the original rubber. Some of the most important mechanisms of material damage are described by Engel and Klingele (1981). the damage response of such materials is predominantly brittle (in the sense that permanent deformations are small).1. After over two decades of uninterrupted development.DAMAGE MECHANICS straining 473 polymer chains attached to adjacent filler particles rupture of shortest polymer chain Figure 12. may be regarded as purely elastic. is schematically illustrated in Figure 12. Schematic representation. Lemaitre and Chaboche. Damage in ﬁlled rubbery polymers.2. under a variety of circumstances. 12. A large number of complex interactive physical mechanisms take place from the nucleation of cracks to the complete failure of the material. Filled rubbers are particularly susceptible to internal damaging. Continuum damage mechanics Since the pioneering work by Kachanov (1958).2.2. In this case. temperature cycles. The internal degradation in this case is mainly characterised by the rupture of molecular bonds concentrated in regions containing impurities and defects. The concepts underlying the development of c c . 1996. This phenomenon.

the damage variable D was introduced as D= A − A0 . we shall refer to Continuum Damage Mechanics Model as any continuum constitutive model which features special internal variables representing.1) with D = 0 corresponding to the virgin material and D = 1 representing a total loss of loadbearing capacity. In the previous section. 12. as the variable associated with the internal deterioration process.1. It is clear that the underlying phenomena which characterise damage are essentially different from those characterising deformation. the density and/or distribution of the microscopic defects that characterise damage.44) (page 449) for the plastic strain rate is replaced with εp = ˙ |σ| λ (1 − D) N sign(σ). ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT: CREEP-DAMAGE The ﬁrst continuum damage mechanics model was proposed by Kachanov (1958). directly or indirectly. some basic microscopic mechanisms associated with internal damage evolution in solids have been reviewed. denoting respectively by A and A0 the effective load bearing areas of the virgin and damaged materials. 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. 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.2. In this case. plastic strain. † Kachanov in fact used the material continuity or integrity.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. While damage manifests itself in the form of the irreversible rupture of atomic bonds. In this context. the uniaxial constitutive equation (11.2) in the standard Norton’s Law for creep. Kachanov introduced a scalar internal variable to model the creep failure of metals under uniaxial loads.1).† In order to describe the strain rate increase which characterises tertiary creep. In this context. . Kachanov replaced the observed uniaxial stress σ with the effective stress σeﬀ = σ 1−D (12.) employed in the description of deformation. etc. A (12. Without a clear physical meaning for damage. ω = 1 − D. it should be expected that in order to describe the internal degradation of solids within the framework of the continuum mechanics theory.1(b) and the discussion in Section 11. 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). (12.474 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. Therefore.

The damage variable (12. (12. Still within the context of creep-rupture. 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’. 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. Continuum Damage Mechanics has been shown to provide an effective tool to describe the phenomenon of internal degradation in other areas of solid mechanics. where E0 and E = (1 − D)E0 (12. 1984) and Murakami and Ohno (1981) deserve special mention. A scalar damage variable was also considered by Lemaitre (1983) in the deﬁnition of a purely phenomenological model for ductile isotropic damage in metals.4) or. By appealing to the hypothesis of strain equivalence. Chaboche proposed a phenomenological theory for creep-damage based on rigorous thermodynamic foundations. (1989) used a non-local formulation to predict the nucleation and growth of cracks.2.2.1) is then redeﬁned as E − E0 D= . 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. 12.7) E . in which. OTHER THEORIES Despite its origin in the description of creep rupture. this author postulates the following elastic constitutive law for a damaged material: σeﬀ = E0 ε. Within the theory of elastoplasticity. the damage variable appears as a fourth-order non-symmetric tensor in the most general anisotropic case. 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.5) (12. Saanouni et al. (12. Gurson’s void growth theory has been shown to be particularly suitable for the representation of the behaviour of porous metals.DAMAGE MECHANICS 475 Since Kachanov–Rabotnov’s original developments. equivalently. As a consequence. 1981. In this case. 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. 1988). In the theory derived by Murakami and Ohno.6) are the Young’s moduli of the virgin (undamaged) and damaged materials. as a consequence of the hypothesis of strain equivalence. the anisotropic damage variable is represented by a second-rank symmetric tensor. respectively. The theories derived later by Chaboche (1978. 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. σ = E ε. it did not take long before the concept of internal damage variable was generalised to three-dimensional situations by a number of authors.

3 (page 74). 1983). REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF THE DAMAGE VARIABLE As pointed out in Section 3. the deﬁnition of adequate damage variables is certainly not an easy task. distribution of voids) have been employed in the description of damage under various circumstances. Janson (1978) developed a continuum theory to model fatigue crack propagation which showed good agreement with simple uniaxial experiments. (2000) to account for the anisotropy of damage as well as for partial closure of microcracks under compressive stresses. A general formulation incorporating low and high-cycle fatigue as well as creep-fatigue interaction at arbitrary stress states has been presented by Lemaitre (1987). . Based on the concept of energy equivalence (as opposed to Lemaitre’s strain equivalence) another model for elastoplastic damage worth mentioning was proposed by Cordebois and Sidoroff (1982). Assuming that damage in this case is characterised mainly by planar penny-shaped microcracks. Due to the diversity of forms in which internal damage manifests itself at the microscopic level. in the derivation of a continuum damage theory for brittle c c materials. Lemaitre’s hypothesis of strain equivalence and its dual hypothesis of stress equivalence are used. the appropriate deﬁnition of internal variables associated with a speciﬁc phenomenon is one of the most important factors determining the success or failure of the continuum model intended for its description. the evolution law for the damage variable is usually formulated in terms of a differential equation which relates damage growth with the mean stress. respectively. Further developments were introduced by Krajˇ inovi´ (1985) with the distinction between active and passive systems of microcracks. Simo and Ju (1987) proposed a framework for the development of (generally anisotropic) strainand stress-based damage models. Continuum damage mechanics has also been applied to the description of fatigue processes. 12. a vectorial variable was proposed as the local measure of internal deterioration. In this case. More recently. in (Krajˇ inovi´ . Application of the proposed framework was made in the description of brittle damage in concrete. variables of different mathematical nature (scalars. the original isotropic model has been extended by Lemaitre et al.b) and ageing effects were later incorporated by Marquis and Lemaitre (1988). loss of stiffness. These authors propose a framework whereby the strain tensor is decomposed additively into elastic. The more recent developments by Armero and Oller (2000) are also worth mentioning. Damage component of ε in this case is then split as a sum of individual contributions from various damage mechanisms. Also within the theory of elastoplasticity.3. the model was endowed with a thermodynamical structure c c and extended to account for ductile damage.2. Later.476 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This theory was further elaborated on by Lemaitre (1985a. in the formulation of models in stress and strain spaces. maximum stress and number of cycles. The damage variable in this case takes the form of a second-order tensor under general anisotropy. tensors) possessing different physical meaning (reduction of load bearing area. During the development of CDM. Further discussion on these models is provided by Chaboche (1988) and Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990).5. c c Other vectorial models are described by Kachanov (1977) and Mitchell (1990). The damage variable in this case is a second-order tensor whose evolution is linked to the principal directions of the plastic strain rate. brieﬂy reviewed above. A somewhat different approach was followed by Krajˇ inovi´ and Fonseka (1981) (see also c c Fonseka and Krajˇ inovi´ 1981). vectors. plastic and damage parts. In order to model the effects of fatigue.

The potential as well as the limitations of both micromechanical and phenomenological approaches to damage mechanics are discussed by Basista et al. Despite the physical appeal of internal variables such as the reduction of load-bearing area. 2000). The conclusions drawn by Onat were based on the use of averaging techniques to transform the distribution of micro-defects into a mathematically well-deﬁned continuum .. Onat (1986) showed that the same phenomenological representation for the damage variable applies to general microcracked continua. i. as suggested by Rabotnov (1963). Leckie and Onat (1981) showed that the distribution of voids on the grain boundaries can be mathematically represented by a sequence of even rank irreducible tensors. or distribution of microcracks.7). Horii and Nemat-Nasser. In micromechanical models. regardless of the underlying deformation processes. the damage variable is a second-order tensor (Lemaitre et al.DAMAGE MECHANICS 477 Physical signiﬁcance With regard to the physical signiﬁcance of damage variables. In the present state of development of CDM it has been veriﬁed that. 1985) c c in his vectorial model. the damage variable is the scalar deﬁned by expression (12. can be deﬁned on the basis of the inﬂuence that internal degradation exerts on the macroscopic properties of the material. Needless to say. the enormous amount of bookkeeping required in conjunction with the serious difﬁculties involved in the experimental identiﬁcation of damaged states and evolution laws preclude most micromechanical theories from practical applications at present. Based on such concepts. far easier than the determination of the geometry or distribution of micro-defects. experimental and computational tractability of the model. 1979. are described in detail by Lemaitre and Dufailly (1987). 1983). A similar deﬁnition for the isotropic damage variable is employed by Cordebois and Sidoroff (1982). (1992). Mathematical representation In view of the many possibilities regarding the choice of the damage internal variable. on the other hand. under ideally isotropic conditions. in general. Phenomenological damage variables. it is convenient to separate the CDM theories into two main categories: micromechanical and phenomenological models. the damage internal variable must represent some average of the microscopic defects that characterise the state of internal deterioration. in general. In its simplest form. comprising direct as well as indirect techniques. Such techniques range from the direct observation of microscopic pictures to the measurement of the degradation of the elastic moduli by means of ultrasonic emissions and micro-hardness tests. Although this result was obtained in the context of creep-damage theories. This is especially true if the ﬁnal objective is the analysis of large-scale problems for engineering design purposes. yield stress. In particular.e. density and electric resistance can be strongly affected by the presence of damage in the form of microscopic cavities. the loss of microscopic information resulting from a phenomenological approach is compensated for by the gain in analytical. the class of models presented by Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990) rely mostly on the use of the degradation of the elastic moduli as the macroscopic measure of damage. Under anisotropy. the measurement of such quantities is. properties such as the elastic moduli (Cordebois and Sidoroff. A model relying on the volume changes due to void growth as a measure of internal degradation is described by Gelin and Mrichcha (1992). Current methods of experimental identiﬁcation of damage. as adopted by Krajˇ inovi´ (1983.

9) where ψ ed and ψ p are.3. D) = ¯ 1 2 εe : (1 − D)De : εe . 1990). as discussed in Section 12. (12.2.3.6. Based on the concept of effective stress and the hypothesis of strain equivalence.1. is an experimentally determined parameter that deﬁnes the initiation of a macrocrack (Lemaitre and Chaboche. D) + ψ p (R. Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory The constitutive equations for elastoplasticity coupled with damage described in this section have been proposed by Lemaitre (1985a.10) .478 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS measure of damage. THE MODEL State variables The starting point of the theory is the assumption that the free energy is a function of the set {εe . respectively. The elastic-damage potential: elasticity–damage coupling In the present theory the following form is postulated for the elastic-damage potential: ρ ψ ed (εe . The second-order tensor X is the internal variable related to kinematic hardening. Lemaitre’s model includes evolution of internal damage as well as nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardening in the description of the behaviour of ductile metals. can be interpreted as an indirect measure of density of microvoids and microcracks (Leckie and Onat.4. D).2 and 6. that ‘good’ phenomenological internal variables be somehow connected to the underlying physical mechanisms they are intended to represent. In spite of the micromechanical nature of Onat’s argument. in purely phenomenological theories. 12. In the present theory. such microscopic defects are assumed isotropically distributed and. such restriction on the mathematical representation of the internal variables related to damage be satisﬁed also. Under the hypothesis of decoupling between elasticity–damage and plastic hardening. respectively. Thermodynamical aspects of isotropic and kinematic hardening and the physical meaning of the related internal variables have been discussed in Sections 6. D} of state variables. ψ = ψ(εe .6. it is desirable that. stated in Section 3. (12. The continuum damage variable D.e.8) where εe is the elastic strain tensor and R and D are the scalar internal variables associated. for the damage variable. A critical value Dc .5. as we shall see below. the speciﬁc free energy is assumed to be given by the sum ψ = ψ ed (εe . X. will be phenomenologically reﬂected in the degradation of the elastic modulus. 1981). X. respectively. R. with isotropic hardening and isotropic damage. R. This is obviously an expression of the requirement. The description of Lemaitre’s model together with the main components necessary for its computational implementation – the integration algorithm and associated tangent operators – are presented in the following.3. 12. i.b). (12. the elastic-damage and plastic contribution to the free energy. X).

With the elasticity–damage coupling introduced via the hypothesis of strain equivalence (stated in Section 12. Y = −1 σ : [De ]−1 : σ 2(1 − D)2 −1 [(1 + ν) σ : σ − ν (tr σ)2 ] = 2E(1 − D)2 2 p 2 −q 2 (1 + ν) + 3(1 − 2ν) 2 3 2E(1 − D) q p2 −q 2 − .11) has an important experimental consequence. (12. Remark 12.1.2.14) or. ¯ (12. (12.13) The thermodynamical force conjugate to the damage internal variable is given by Y ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ 1 = − 2 εe : De : εe . 1−D (12. 1].2). is then restricted to the measurement of the degradation of the current effective elastic modulus with respect to the virgin state (D = 0) as described by Lemaitre (1985a) and Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990). Commonly known as the damage energy release rate. is given by Deﬀ = (1 − D)De . with D ∈ [0. the effective elastic modulus of the material. = 6G (1 − D)2 2K (1 − D)2 = (12. The identiﬁcation of a generic damaged state. Stress–strain rule (12. the effective modulus equals the modulus De of the virgin material.2): σeﬀ ≡ 1 σ. the Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio associated with G and K. In the above. p is the hydrostatic stress and q is the von Mises effective stress.11) ∂ε Equivalently. For this particular potential. −Y corresponds to the variation of internal energy density due to damage growth at constant stress. The product −Y D represents the power dissipated by the process of internal deterioration (mainly as decohesion of interatomic bonds). .15) where E and ν are.16) where the damage variable assumes values within the interval [0. 1]. It is the continuum damage ˙ analogue of the J-integral used in fracture mechanics (Rice. Deﬀ = 0. In the absence of damage (D = 0). 1968). For a completely damaged state (D = 1). using the inverse of the elastic stress/strain law. ∂D (12. the elasticity law is given by ∂ψ σ = ρ e = (1 − D)De : εe .12) where σeﬀ is the effective stress tensor that generalises the uniaxial effective stress of (12. corresponding to a total loss of stiffness and load bearing capacity of the material. which can be measured from experiments. respectively.DAMAGE MECHANICS 479 where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor. the above damaged elastic law can be written as σeﬀ = De : εe .

The damage evolution constants r and s can be identiﬁed by integrating the damage evolution law for particular cases of (constant) stress triaxiality rate as described in Section 7.18) From (12. (12. β.4. r and s ensures that the dissipation inequality is satisﬁed a priori by the present constitutive model. then. X) to the free energy is chosen as a sum of an isotropic and a kinematic hardening-related term:‡ ρ ψ p (R. ∂R ∂R (12. from pages 182 and 185.21) where a. D) = 3 J2 (s − β) − σy0 − κ. 1990). The ﬂow potential: internal variables evolution The ﬂow potential is assumed to be given by Ψ=Φ+ r −Y b β:β+ 2a (1 − D)(s + 1) r s+1 .20) ∂ψ = a X. ‡ Refer to Subsections 6.17) where a is a material constant and the isotropic hardening contribution. ∂X (12. deﬁned as κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p (R. The thermodynamical force associated with isotropic hardening is. associated with the resulting Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (refer to the text surrounding expression (6. page 188. X) = ρ ψ I (R) + ¯ ¯ a X : X. . b. The constitutive equations of Lemaitre’s ductile damage model are conveniently grouped in Box 12.17). ψ I (R). it follows that the thermodynamic force associated with kinematic hardening – the back-stress tensor. The constants a and b.3 and 6. β – is given by β≡ρ ¯ The yield function For the yield function Φ the following von Mises-type form is adopted: Φ(σ.223).480 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Isotropic and kinematic hardening forces The plastic contribution ψ p (R. is an arbitrary function of the single argument R. κ. b.6. 1−D (12.6.19) where the material parameter σy0 is the uniaxial yield stress of the virgin material. respectively.1. X) ∂ψ I (R) =ρ ¯ = κ(R).4 of Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990). for the deﬁnitions of individual contributions associated. for further details) and can be obtained from cyclic loading experiments (Lemaitre and Chaboche. r and s are material constants. The convexity of the ﬂow potential Ψ with respect to the thermodynamical forces for positive constants a. 2 (12. with isotropic and kinematic hardening.

Thus.1. This critical value will be called the damage threshold and can be included ¯D in the model by redeﬁning the damage evolution law of item (iv) of Box 12.