BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**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 . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . .1 Double-notched tensile specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . 11.7. . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .2 One-dimensional viscoplasticity model . . 11. .2. . . . . 12. . . . . .7 Examples . .1 Elastoplastic decomposition of the axial strain . . . . . .3 Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory . . 12.5 General numerical framework . . . . . . .1 Original development: creep-damage . . . .2 Plane stress: stretching of a perforated plate . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Rubbery polymers . .2. . . .3 Other isotropic and kinematic hardening laws . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects of internal damage in solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Viscoplastic ﬂow rule . . . . . .2 Iso-error maps . . . 11. 12. . 11. . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . .5. . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . .5 Hardening law . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .2 Integration algorithm . .3 The yield function and the elastic domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Some simple analytical solutions . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . .4 General viscoplastic constitutive model . 11. .2. . . .6. . . . . . .6 Summary of the model . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .4 Perzyna-type model implementation . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The elastic law . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . .2 Alternative Euler-based algorithms . . . .2. . . . . . .1 The model . . . . .2 Potential structure and dissipation inequality . . . .3 Rate-independent plasticity as a limit case . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model 11. . . . . . . . . .2 Other theories . . . . . . .2. . .7. . .1 A von Mises-type viscoplastic model with isotropic strain hardening . . . 11. . . . . . . . . .1 Relation to the general continuum constitutive theory . .xiv CONTENTS 11 Viscoplasticity 11.5. 12. 11. . . . . .6. . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . .6. .1 Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. 11. 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Alternative plastic strain rate deﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . 12 Damage mechanics 12. . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . 11. .2. 11. . .3.3 General consistent tangent operator . . . . . .3 The tangent operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A general implicit integration algorithm . . . . . . .4 Viscoplastic models without a yield surface . . . . . . . . .2. . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A von Mises-based multidimensional model . 11. . . . . . . . . . .2 Continuum damage mechanics . . 12. . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . .3 Remarks on the nature of the damage variable 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Metals .3 Consistent tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . 12. 11. . . . . . 11. . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . .

. .3 The Hencky material .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . .5 Inﬂation of initially ﬂat membranes . 13. . . . 13.6 Numerical examples . . . . . . . .5 12. . . . . . . . . . .2 Crack closure effects in damage evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .2. 12. . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .3 Plane stress with nested iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . 486 486 490 493 496 497 501 502 504 504 510 512 12. . . . . . . . . . .6. . . .3 Incompressible hyperelasticity . . . . . . . . . . .2. . .1 Subroutine SUOGD . . 13. . . . . .6 Part Three Large strains . . . . 13. . . . . . .1 The Mooney–Rivlin and the neo-Hookean models . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The Blatz–Ko material .5. .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Axisymmetric extension of an annular plate . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Anisotropic ductile damage . . . . . . 13.1 The single-equation integration algorithm .4 Rugby ball . .6.1 The plane stress incompressible Ogden model . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . .4 Blatz–Ko material . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . .5 Application: Ogden material implementation . .4 12. . . . .2 Some particular models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 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. . . . . . . . . .4 Tangent moduli: the elasticity tensors . .1 Regularised neo-Hookean model . . . . . . . . . .2 The plane stress Hencky model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Principal stretches representation: Ogden model . . . . . .CONTENTS xv A simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. .4. . . . . . . . .4. . .1 Crack closure effects in damaged elastic materials . . . . . 13.2 Subroutine CSTOGD . . 13. . . . .2 Stretching of a square perforated rubber sheet . . . . . . Further issues in damage modelling . . .4 Compressible regularisation . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . 13. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The model . . . 13. . . . . . .2 Isotropic hyperelasticity . . . . . . .2 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . 13. .3 Inﬂation of a spherical rubber balloon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 12. . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . 12. . . .5. . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . . .3 Hencky model . . . . . . . 13. . . .2 The Ogden material model .4. . . . .3. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .1. 13. . . . . . . 12. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . .6. . . 13. . . 12. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . .3 Example.3 Isotropic ﬁnite hyperelasticity in plane stress . . 13. . . . .3. . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Hyperelasticity: basic concepts . . . . . . . .1 Material objectivity: reduced form of the free-energy function 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . Fracturing of a cylindrical notched specimen Gurson’s void growth model .

. . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . 14.9. . .7 Finite plasticity in plane stress .2. . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . .4 The general elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm . 14. . . .1 The plane stress-projected ﬁnite von Mises model . . . . .2 Computational implementation . . . . . . . . . .1 The Gurtin–Francis uniaxial model . . . 14. . . . . .4 The plastic ﬂow rule . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A brief review . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . 14. . . . 14. . . 14. . . . . . . .5 The hardening law . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . 14. . .9. 14. . . . . . . . . . . . .6 The plastic multiplier . . . . . . . . .7. . .7. . . . . 14. . . . . . . . .6 Rubber cylinder pressed between two plates . . . . . . .2 Three-dimensional modelling. . . . . . .5 The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . . .1 Numerical treatment .7. . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Nested iteration for plane stress enforcement . .1 Stress-updating algorithm . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . .3 A general isotropic large-strain plasticity model . . . . .2. . . . . . 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. . .4. . . .1 The multiplicative split of the axial stretch . .1 The basic constitutive initial value problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Thin sheet metal-forming application . . . . .3. . . . .5 Finite strain extension to inﬁnitesimal theories . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 14. . . . .4 The dissipation inequality . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. .4. .6. 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . .9 Examples . . . . . . . . 14. . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . .6 Example: inﬂation/deﬂation of a damageable rubber balloon . . 13. . . . . . . Hyperelasticity with damage: the Mullins effect .7. . .3 General hyperelastic-based multiplicative plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Multiplicative elastoplasticity kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. .5 Computational implementation . . . .8.3. . 13. . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . 14. . . .2 Logarithmic stretches and the Hencky hyperelastic law . .3 A simple rate-independent three-dimensional model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Finite viscoplasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . .2 One-dimensional ﬁnite plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Plane strain localisation . 14. . . . . . . . . . . .7 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Exponential map backward discretisation . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Necking of a cylindrical bar . .2 Tangent modulus computation . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . .3 The yield function . .3. . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9. . . . . . . 14. . . .2. . . . . . . . . 14. . . .6 Principal stress space-based implementation . . .4 Stretching of a perforated plate . . . . . . . . . . .1 Finite strain bending of a V-notched Tresca bar . . .6. .3 Computational implementation of the general algorithm 14. . . . . . 14.6. . . . .1 Derivation of the spatial tangent modulus . . 14. . . . .4 Example: the model problem . . . . . .1 Finite strain elastoplasticity: a brief review .9. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . .6.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Elastomeric bead compression . 14. 14. .2. . .4. . . . .2 The logarithmic elastic strain measure . . . . .xvi CONTENTS 13.

. . . .5 Integration algorithms and incremental objectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . .1 A model of ﬁnite strain kinematic hardening . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . .2. . .1 Stress computation: the F-bar deformation gradient 15. . . . . . 14. . .10. . . . . . . .3 Mixed u/p formulations . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . .5 The stability of EAS elements . .CONTENTS xvii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . .4 Remarks on predictive capability . . . . . . . . .1 Enhanced three-ﬁeld variational principle . 14. . . . . . . .6 Objective algorithm for Jaumann rate-based models . 14. . 14. . . .4. . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Anisotropic finite plasticity: Single crystals 16. . . . .4 A general continuum model of single crystals . .2. . . .1. 15. 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Plastic slip and the Schmid resolved shear stress . . 16. . . .11.10. . . .2 Enhanced assumed strain methods . . . . . . . . . .10 Rate forms: hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. .1 Physical aspects . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . .7 Other centroid sampling-based F-bar elements . . . . . . . 15. . 16. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . .2 The internal force vector . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1. . . . .2 Hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 15. . . . .3 Solution: static condensation . . . . . . . 15.4. .3 The Jaumann rate-based model . . .11. . .3 Consistent linearisation: the tangent stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . .10.10. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The resolved Schmid shear stress . . . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . .9 The F-bar-Patch Method for simplex elements . 14. . . 14. . .11 Finite plasticity with kinematic hardening . . . .1 The plastic ﬂow equation . . . . . .1 The two-ﬁeld variational principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. .1. . . . 16. .3. . . . 15. . . . . .4 Hyperelastic-based models and equivalent rate forms 14. 15. .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . . . .6 Numerical tests . . . .1 Plastic deformation by slip: slip-systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . .2 Finite element equations .11.3 Spatial tangent operator . 15 Finite elements for large-strain incompressibility 15. . 14.10. . . . . . . . . . .2. . .8 A more general F-bar methodology .5 Alternative descriptions . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Integration of Green–Naghdi rate-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . 15. . .1. . . . . 16. .4 Plane strain implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Finite element equations: static condensation . . . . . .1 Objective stress rates .3. . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Single crystal simulation: a brief review . . . . . . . . 15. . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Computational implementation aspects . .3. . . . . . . . . .2 EAS ﬁnite elements . . 15.

. . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .2 The integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Isotropic Taylor hardening . . . . . . .3 The two-dimensional case . .4. . . . . . . . .1. . . . .2 Isotropic tensor-valued functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. .4. . . .2 Three dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Rate-dependent crystal: model problem . .9. . . . . .6 Alternative procedures . . . . A. . .7. . . .1 The elastic modulus: compressible neo-Hookean model . . . . . .1 The search for an active set of slip systems . . . . . . . . . .2 Unsymmetric localisation . . A. . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . .5. . . .2 The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . .1 Isotropic scalar-valued functions . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. . .1 Representation . . . . . . . . .2 Plane strain and axisymmetric problems . A. . . . . .1 Tensor function derivative . . . . . . 16. . . . .5 16. . .1 Function computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . .8 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical examples . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . .3 Example: the model problem . 16. . .7 16. . . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic tensor function A. .1 Representation . . . . . . . .2 Computation of the function derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.9.6. . . . . 16. . .8. . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . .2 The exponential map-based integration algorithm . . . . A. . . . . . . . .1 Two dimensions .xviii 16. . . . . . . .1 Symmetric strain localisation on a rectangular strip . . . A. 16.7. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 16. . 729 731 731 732 732 733 733 734 735 736 738 739 739 740 740 742 743 744 . . . . . .6. . . . A. . . . .5 A particular class of isotropic tensor functions . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic scalar function A. . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . A. . . . . . . 16. . .3. . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . .9 . . . . . . . . . . . CONTENTS 16. A general integration algorithm . . An algorithm for a planar double-slip model . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Multisurface formulation of the ﬂow rule . . . .1 Rate-dependent formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . .3 The spatial tangent modulus: neo-Hookean-based model 16. . . . .5 The hyperelastic law . . . . .1 A planar double-slip model . . . . . The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . .9. . . . .4 The three-dimensional case . . Viscoplastic single crystals . 16. . . . .

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

.

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

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

Part One Basic concepts .

.

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

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

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

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

the name of the corresponding FORTRAN subprogram is often indicated at the top of the box (see page 221. THE USE OF BOXES Extensive use of boxes has been made to summarise constitutive models and numerical algorithms in general (refer. and the mixed u/p formulation. 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 implementation of a specialisation of the general model based on a planar double-slip system is described in detail. 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. for completeness. 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.2. 1. This implementation is incorporated in the program HYPLAS. 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.and tensor-valued functions of a symmetric tensor that are widely exploited throughout the text. for example. 1. in Appendix D we describe the handling – including array storage and product operations – of second and fourth-order tensors in ﬁnite element computer programs. a discussion on the so-called hypoelasticbased theories is also included. The ﬁnite plasticity models actually implemented in the program HYPLAS belong to this class of theories. The main discussion is focused on hyperelastic-based ﬁnite plasticity theories with multiplicative kinematics.1. In addition to the above. the Enhanced Assumed Strain (EAS) technique. Finally. 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. without any added speciﬁc techniques. The tensor exponential is of relevance for the treatment of ﬁnite plasticity presented in Chapters 14 and 16. for instance). . 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). to pages 146 and 199).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. are generally inappropriate near the incompressible limit) is highly desirable. The material presented is conﬁned mostly to isotropic elastoplasticity. However. 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. Appendix A is concerned with isotropic scalar. For boxes describing key procedures implemented in the program HYPLAS. General scheme of notation Throughout the text. Chapter 15 is concerned with the treatment of large strain incompressibility within the Finite Element Method. Finally.3. Appendix B addresses the tensor exponential function. four appendices are included. This issue becomes crucial in large-scale ﬁnite strain simulations where the use of low-order elements (which. In Appendix C we derive the linearisation of the virtual work equation both under small and large deformations. with anisotropy in the form of kinematic hardening added only at the end of the chapter.

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

A Generic set of thermodynamical forces Finite element assembly operator (note the large font) First elasticity tensor Spatial elasticity tensor Left Cauchy–Green strain tensor e A A a B B B B b ¯ b C c D D D D D D D e ep e p Elastic left Cauchy–Green strain tensor Discrete (ﬁnite element) symmetric gradient operator (strain-displacement matrix) Generic body Body force Reference body force Right Cauchy–Green strain tensor Cohesion Damage internal variable Stretching tensor Elastic stretching Plastic stretching Inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operator Inﬁnitesimal elasticity tensor Inﬁnitesimal elastoplastic consistent tangent operator Consistent tangent matrix (array representation of D) Elasticity matrix (array representation of De ) Elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix (array representation of Dep ) Young’s modulus Eigenprojection of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue Three-dimensional Euclidean space.3. We remark that some of these symbols may occasionally be used with a different connotation (which should be clear from the context). SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERS The speciﬁc meaning of some important characters is listed below. unit eigenvector of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue D De Dep E Ei E ¯ E ei .INTRODUCTION 9 1.2. elastic domain Set of plastically admissible stresses Generic base vector.

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. I2 . I3 I IS Id I IS i J J2 . 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 . 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 + .

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

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

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

∆(·) = (·)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.4. The value of the right-hand side of the expression is assigned to its left-hand side. S:T . det(·) dev(·) divp (·) divx (·) exp(·) ln(·) o(·) sign(·) skew(·) sym(·) tr(·) ∆(·) δ(·) ∇(·) ∇p (·) ∇x (·) ∇ . S : T. a := a + b S : T. Double contraction of tensors (internal product of second-order tensors) ∂a (·) ∂ (·) ∂a ˙ (·) (·) T a≡b a := b. s ∇x (·) ∂(·) s s ∇p . Typically. 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 (·). Assignment operation. OTHER IMPORTANT SYMBOLS AND OPERATIONS The meanings of other important symbols and operations are listed below.3.14 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. The symbol := is often used to emphasise that a given expression is an assignment operation performed by a computational algorithm. The symbol ≡ is often used to emphasise that the expression in question is a deﬁnition.

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

.

coordinates for indicial representation is sufﬁciently general for the applications considered in this book. norm) of a vector u is deﬁned as √ (2. Points of E and vectors U satisfy the basic rules of vector algebra. may comfortably skip this chapter. and u is said to be a unit vector if u = 1. Readers who are familiar with tensor analysis and. NORM AND ORTHOGONALITY Let u·v denote the inner product (or scalar product) between two arbitrary vectors of U. with which we assume the reader to be familiar. preference is given to the use of intrinsic (or compact) tensor notation where no indices are used to represent mathematical entities. the use of indicial notation will be much less frequent.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. This will allow readers not yet familiar with compact notation to associate compactly written entities and operations with their indicial forms. is the element of U that satisﬁes o = 0. Ltd (2. in particular. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. in many of the deﬁnitions introduced in this chapter. the use of compact notation. simply. However.1.2) (2.1. which will be expressed exclusively in terms of Cartesian coordinate systems. INNER PRODUCT. Readers interested in such proofs and a more in-depth treatment of the subject are referred to other textbooks such as Gurtin (1981). We remark that no proofs are given to most relations presented in this chapter. rather than curvilinear. We note that the use of Cartesian.3) . Vectors Let E be an n-dimensional Euclidean space and let U be the space of n-dimensional vectors associated with E. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons.1. The zero vector. In the subsequent chapters. indicial notation is also used. 2.1) u = u · u. Throughout this text. 2. here denoted o. The Euclidean norm (or.

. . xi = (x − x0 ) · ei . ORTHOGONAL BASES AND CARTESIAN COORDINATE FRAMES A set {ei } ≡ {e1 .9) . The Cartesian coordinates {xi } of x are the Cartesian components of the position vector r = x − x0 . . . .8) are the Cartesian components of u relative to the basis {ei }.7) (2. n (2. . xn of Cartesian coordinates of x. e2 . This allows us to represent any vector u as a single column matrix.2.11) of x relative to the origin x0 . deﬁnes an orthonormal basis for U . deﬁnes a Cartesian coordinate frame. Any vector u ∈ U can be represented as u = u 1 e1 + u 2 e2 + · · · + u n en = u i ei .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. en } of n mutually orthogonal vectors satisfying ei · ej = δij . .1. i = 1. That is. denoted [u]. {ei }. (2. . un An orthonormal basis. . of components u1 u2 [u] = . . where u i = u · ei .12) (2. x0 ∈ E. Any vector of U is uniquely deﬁned by its components relative to a given basis. (2.6) (2. . any point x of E can be represented by an array x1 x2 [x] = . 2. .10) . Analogously to the representation of vectors.4) is the Krönecker delta. where δij = 1 0 if i = j if i = j (2. together with an origin point.5) (2. (2. 2. .

18) (2.17) (2.e. 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). a second-order tensor T:U→U maps each vector u into a vector v = T u. of a tensor T is the unique tensor that satisﬁes T u · v = u · T T v. The product of two tensors S and T is the tensor ST deﬁned by ST u = S (T u). are. If T = TT.20) (2. and the identity tensor. 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 ). If T = −T T . THE TRANSPOSE. then S and T are said to commute. then T is said to be symmetric.21) (2.16) . Second-order tensors Second-order tensors are linear transformations from U into U.2. 2.19) ∀ u. T T . simply. I. then T is said to be skew symmetric (or.13) Any linear vector-valued function of a vector is a tensor.2. 2 (2. (2. If ST = TS.23) (2. 0. the zero tensor. ST = TS. i. v ∈ U. SYMMETRIC AND SKEW TENSORS The transpose. (2. skew). In addition.22) (2. In general.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 19 2.14) where α ∈ R. (2. the tensors that satisfy 0u = o (2. respectively.15) Iu=u ∀ u ∈ U.1.

t. Some properties of the tensor product The following relations hold for any vectors s. (v) If T is skew. (iii) (u ⊗ v)(s ⊗ t) = (v · s)u ⊗ t. (ii) (S T )T = T T ST . (v) S (u ⊗ v) = (S u) ⊗ v. T . is the tensor that maps each vector w into the vector (v · w)u: (u ⊗ v) w = (v · w) u. sym(T ) = T. (iii) (T T ) = T. (2.2.24) sym(T ) = 0. skew and symmetric parts of a tensor hold: (i) (S + T )T = ST + T T .20 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Basic properties The following basic properties involving the transpose. (iv) ei ⊗ ei = I. v. (vi) (u ⊗ v)S = (u ⊗ ST v). The tensor product is sometimes referred to as the dyadic product. denoted u ⊗ v. TENSOR PRODUCTS The tensor product of two vectors u and v. u. (iv) If T is symmetric.2. 2. (ii) (u ⊗ v)T = v ⊗ u. w and tensor S : (i) u ⊗ (v + w) = u ⊗ v + u ⊗ w. then skew(T ) = T. then skew(T ) = 0.

.32) .3. . . . so that its matrix representation is given by 1 0 0 1 [I ] = .26) are the Cartesian components of T. the array [v] of Cartesian components of v is obtained from the matrix-vector product v2 [v ] ≡ . . vn v1 T21 = . . the Cartesian components of the identity tensor..31) (2. . read Iij = δij .25) no summation is implied over the index n. (2. . . . Any second tensor is uniquely deﬁned by its Cartesian components. . . 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 . . . . . by arranging the components Tij in a matrix. Note that in (2. . .. . (2. .28) (2. . I. 0 0 ··· 0 · · · 0 . . .2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 21 2.. 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. . T1n (2. we may have the following matrix representation for T : T21 [T ] = . Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . . . ··· 1 (2. Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . T1n T2n u2 . . Tn2 ··· ··· . . (2. . .30) Thus.27) T2n . Thus. .29) The Cartesian components of the vector v = T u are given by vi = [Tjk (ej ⊗ ek ) ul el ] · ei = Tij uj .25) · · · Tnn For instance. Tn2 ··· ··· .

37) (2.33) 2. (iv) (s ⊗ t) : (u ⊗ v) = (s · u)(t · v). . in Cartesian component form. . u. v ∈ U. (viii) If S is skew. .36) (2. it then follows that tr T = Tij tr(ei ⊗ ej ) = Tij δij = Tii . . T and vectors s. . (v) Tij = T : (ei ⊗ ej ). . t. S. between two tensors S and T is deﬁned as S : T = tr(ST T ). then S : T = 0. S : T = Sij Tij . T1n T2n · · · Tnn (2. INNER PRODUCT AND EUCLIDEAN NORM For any u. The inner product. . (ix) If S is symmetric and T is skew. . v: (i) I : T = tr T.35) (2. S : T. .2. (2.22 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thus. or. (iii) u · S v = S : (u ⊗ v). T T has the following Cartesian matrix representation T11 T21 · · · Tn1 T12 T22 · · · Tn2 [T T ] = . TRACE. . the trace of T is the sum of the diagonal terms of the Cartesian matrix representation [T ]. T = Tij ei ⊗ ej . (2. the trace of the tensor (u ⊗ v) is the linear map deﬁned as tr(u ⊗ v) = u · v..34) that is. . (ii) R : (S T ) = (ST R) : T = (R T T ) : S. (vii) If S is symmetric. (vi) (u ⊗ v)ij = (u ⊗ v) : (ei ⊗ ej ) = ui vj .38) . then S : T = S : T T = S : sym(T ). For a generic tensor. then S : T = −S : T T = S : skew(T ).4. Basic properties The following basic properties involving the internal product of tensors hold for any tensors R. The Euclidean norm (or simply norm) of a tensor T is deﬁned as √ 2 2 2 T ≡ T : T = T11 + T12 + · · · + Tnn .

5.42) The set of all orthogonal tensors will be denoted O. ORTHOGONAL TENSORS.2. (ii) det T −1 = (det T ) (iii) (ST ) −1 T −1 (2. 2. An orthogonal tensor Q with det Q = 1 (2. satisfying T −1 T = T T −1 = I exists.41) . denoted T −1 . −1 (iv) (T −1 ) = (T T ) . The determinant of any orthogonal tensor equals either +1 or −1. The set of all proper orthogonal (or rotation) tensors is the proper orthogonal group. The product Q1 Q2 of any two orthogonal tensors Q1 and Q2 is an orthogonal tensor.2. is the determinant of the matrix [T ]. denoted det T. It will be denoted O + . If Q1 and Q2 are rotations.43) is called a proper orthogonal tensor (or a rotation). A tensor T is invertible if and only if det T = 0.39) (2. The determinant of a tensor T. DETERMINANT A tensor T is said to be invertible if its inverse. an orthogonal tensor Q satisﬁes Qu · Qv = u · v. (2.44) . (2. (2. 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. then the product Q1 Q2 is also a rotation. Any positive deﬁnite tensor is invertible. A tensor T is said to be positive deﬁnite if T u · u > 0. For all vectors u and v.6.40) ∀ u = o. INVERSE TENSOR.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 23 2. ROTATIONS A tensor Q is said to be orthogonal if QT = Q−1 . = T −1 S−1 .

. CROSS PRODUCT Let us now restrict ourselves to the three-dimensional vector space. en · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ n . respectively. j. .45) where R is a rotation. (2. i for i = 1. . e1 · e∗ n (2. the rotation tensor has a simple Cartesian representation. u∗ = Rji uj . (2. .50) 2. 3} ijk = 0 if at least two indices coincide. we deﬁne the cross product (or vector product) between two vectors u and v as the vector w = u × v. [u ∗ ] = [R]T [u ]. e1 · e∗ 1 e1 · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ 2 . i ··· ··· . .2. . we have ∗ Tij = Rki Tkl Rlj .49) Rij = ei · e∗ . .. 2. denotes the alternating tensor +1 if {i. k} is an odd permutation of {1. . Such bases are related by i e∗ = R ei .47) The matrix [R] is given by e2 · e∗ 1 [R] = . k} is an even permutation of {1. .53) . a tensor and a vector with matrix representations [T ] and [u] with respect to the basis {ei }.48) · · · en · e∗ n (2.52) uj vk .7. 3} −1 if {i. In this space. 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 ].46) (2. en · e∗ 1 or. The matrix representation of R reads [R] = cos θ sin θ −sin θ cos θ . j Example. A rotation in two dimensions In two-dimensional space. 2. n. . Let T and u be. whose components are given by wi = where ijk ijk (2. 2. j. (2. Let the tensor R be a transformation that rotates all vectors of the two-dimensional space by an (anti-clockwise positive) angle θ. Equivalently. (2.51) (2.24 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Rotations and changes of basis Let {ei } and {e∗ } be two orthonormal bases of U. in component form. . in component form. .

SPECTRAL DECOMPOSITION Given a tensor T. 2. det T = (T u × T v) · T w .54) (v) For any skew tensor W . In terms of the Cartesian components of W . reads [W ] = w3 −w2 where {wi } are the components of w. v. called the axial vector of W . The following properties hold: (i) The eigenvalues of a positive deﬁnite tensor are strictly positive. (2. (ii) (u × v) · w = (v × w) · u = (w × u) · v.57) (2.56) (2. 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.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 25 Basic relations with the cross product Some useful relations involving the cross product are listed in the following: (i) u × v = −v × u. the axial vector is expressed as w = W32 e1 + W13 e2 + W21 e3 . The matrix representation of W .55) The space of all vectors u satisfying the above equation is called the characteristic space of T corresponding to ω. such that W u = w × u.2. (iv) For any tensor T and a set {u.8.58) 0 −w3 0 w1 −w1 . (ii) The characteristic spaces of a symmetric tensor are mutually orthogonal. (iii) u × u = o. . (u × v) · w (2. w} of linearly independent vectors. 0 w2 (2. there is a unique vector w.

(2.63) In closed form. . . . . . . Also. Ei are given by the expression p 1 (S − sj I) s i − sj j=1 Ei = j=i I if p > 1 (2. if p = n (no repeated eigenvalues). . whenever it is used. si should not be confused with the Cartesian component of a vector.. i i We remark that this notation is often employed throughout this book and. we may write p S= i=1 si Ei . Relative to the basis {ei }. . Each eigenprojection Ei is the orthogonal projection operator on the characteristic space of S associated with si . (2.61) where the symmetric tensors {Ei } are called the eigenprojections of S. j = 1. . i. . 0 0 ··· sn The direction of an eigenvector ei is called a principal axis or principal direction of S. (2. Then S admits the representation n S= i=1 si ei ⊗ ei . (2.62) and. 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 . . † Note that. .65) if p = 1.59) where {ei } is an orthonormal basis for U consisting exclusively of eigenvectors of S and {si } are the corresponding eigenvalues. with no summation implied on i. in the present context. . The eigenprojections have the property p I= i=1 Ei . the eigenprojections satisfy Ei : Ej = δij . .26 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Spectral theorem Let S be a symmetric tensor. Eigenprojections Alternatively.† The above representation is called the spectral decomposition of S. . p. . then Ei = ei ⊗ ei for i = 1.60) [S ] = . n. . S has the following diagonal matrix representation s1 0 · · · 0 0 s2 · · · 0 (2. .64) (2. . .

(2. where I1 . then we have I1 = s1 + s2 + s3 I2 = s1 s2 + s2 s3 + s1 s3 I3 = s1 s2 s3 .74) . for any α ∈ R. Principal invariants Every eigenvalue si of a tensor S (symmetric or non-symmetric) satisﬁes the characteristic equation det(S − si I ) = 0. reads (2. whose solution is the set of eigenvalues of S. i (2. In this case.71) (2. where I1 and I2 are the principal invariants of S. (2.66) Two-dimensional space In the two-dimensional space.68) (2. det(S − α I ) has the representation det(S − α I ) = −α3 + α2 I1 − α I2 + I3 . 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 .73) −s3 + s2 I1 − si I2 + I3 = 0. the characteristic equation reads s2 − si I1 + I2 = 0.72) The characteristic equation (now a cubic equation). deﬁned as I1 (S) ≡ tr S = Sii I2 (S) ≡ det S = S11 S22 − S12 S21 . det(S − α I ) can be expressed as det(S − α I ) = α2 − α I1 + I2 . If S is symmetric. (2.70) (2. I2 and I3 are the principal invariants of S.69) (2. i i If S is symmetric. Three-dimensional space In the three-dimensional space.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 27 Characteristic equation.67) The eigenvalues si are the solutions to this quadratic equation. then its principal invariants can be expressed in terms of its eigenvalues as I1 = s1 + s2 I2 = s1 s2 .

82) Note that. expression (2. or higher-order tensors. vectors. (2. (2. It can be represented as = ijk ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek . b.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 symmetric tensors U and V are given by U= F T F. (2. (2. respectively. (2. are frequently employed in continuum mechanics. The alternating tensor is a linear operator that maps vectors into skew symmetric tensors. that can be considered as zero-order tensors.79) 2. Then there exist symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V and a rotation R such that F = R U = V R. respectively. (2.75)–(2.81) for arbitrary vectors a.76) are commonly referred to as the Polar Decomposition Theorem.75) The decompositions R U and V R are unique and are called. T. POLAR DECOMPOSITION Let F be a positive deﬁnite tensor.76) where (·) denotes the tensor square root of (·).3. the spectral decomposition of its square root. (2.53). The square root of a symmetric tensor S is the unique tensor T that satisﬁes T 2 ≡ T T = S. The multiplication of the alternating tensor by a vector v yields the second-order tensor v = ijk vk ei ⊗ ej .52) can be equivalently written in compact form as w = ( v) u. (2. Linear operators of higher order. which are linear operators on vectors.77) With {si } and {ei } denoting. Note that the rotation R associated with an arbitrary F can be expressed as R = F U −1 = V −1 F . we have already made use of a higher-order tensor: the third-order alternating tensor whose components are deﬁned in expression (2. with the above deﬁnitions.83) .2. the eigenvalues and the basis of eigenvectors of S.28 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. reads √ T= si ei ⊗ ei .2. c and d. in the deﬁnition of the cross product in Section 2. and second-order tensors. V= F F T. In this section we introduce some basic deﬁnitions and operations involving higher-order tensors. (2.9. Higher-order tensors So far we have seen operations involving scalars.7. which can be classed as ﬁrst-order tensors. In fact.78) i Assertions (2. the right and left polar decompositions of F .

As a direct extension of equation (2. ‡ Fourth-order (2. Symmetry We shall call symmetric any fourth-order tensor that satisﬁes S : T : U = (T : S) : U . tensors are represented in this text by bold face upright sans serif fonts.1. If it is symmetric in the ﬁrst two indices. The Cartesian components of symmetric fourth-order tensors satisfy the major symmetries Tijkl = Tklij . (v) T : S = Tijmn Smnkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS Fourth-order tensors are of particular relevance in continuum mechanics. (ii) T u = Tijkl ul ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek .92) S : T = ST : T.86) (2. then. . the following relations are valid: (i) Tijkl = (ei ⊗ ej ) : T : (ek ⊗ el ).90) (2. (2. (2. b. With the above deﬁnitions. (2. S : T = (S : T)T . the tensor has the properties T : S = T : ST . This deﬁnition is analogous to that of symmetric second-order tensors.e.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 29 2. (2. d.91) (2. They also map vectors into third-order tensors and third-order tensors into vectors.3. (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f ⊗ g ⊗ h) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b ⊗ g ⊗ h).87) for any second-order tensors S and U . (vi) S : T = Tklij Skl ei ⊗ ej . if Tijkl = Tijlk . c. i.81) we deﬁne (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d)e = (e · d)(a ⊗ b ⊗ c). If symmetry occurs in the last two indices. A general fourthorder tensor‡ T can be represented as T = Tijkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el .88) It should be noted that other symmetries are possible in fourth-order tensors. T : S = (T : S)T . (2. (iii) T : S = Tijkl Skl ei ⊗ ej .85) for arbitrary vectors a.89) for any S.84) Fourth-order tensors map second-order tensors into second-order tensors. and the double contractions (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b). e and f. Tijkl = Tjikl .

The deﬁnition of contraction operations is completely analogous to that seen above for fourth-order tensors. (2. 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 .4. T.2. with scalar α. is isotropic if Tijkl = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq .95) for all u ∈ U. i.3. for any rotation R.94) ijkl where Tmnpq are the components relative to {ei }.98) (2. Isotropic tensors A tensor is said to be isotropic if its components are invariant under any change of basis. 2. extending the previous deﬁnitions of the tensor product.97) . i (2. ISOTROPIC SECOND-ORDER TENSORS A second-order tensor. 2. T. is isotropic if [T ] = [R][T ][R]T for any rotation R. (2. GENERIC-ORDER TENSORS Generic tensors of order m are deﬁned as T = Ti1 i2 ···im (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim ). tensors represented as αI.e. Spherical tensors. where.4.4. (2.96) (2.1.93) with R a rotation. ISOTROPIC FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS A fourth-order tensor. are the only second-order isotropic tensors.30 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Change of basis transformation Again. let us consider the orthonormal basis {e∗ } deﬁned as i e∗ = Rei . we have (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim )u = (u · eim )(ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim−1 ). 2.

Its Cartesian components are (IS )ijkl = 1 (δik δjl + δil δjk ). IS : T = T : IS = sym(T ). and.109) We shall refer to this tensor as the symmetric projection or symmetric identity.100) For any second-order tensor T.103) for any S.e. (2. IT : S = S : IT = ST . i.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 31 Any isotropic fourth-order tensor.e.107) IS = 1 ( I + IT ).104) Another important isotropic tensor that frequently appears in continuum mechanics is the tensor deﬁned as (2. (2. β and γ are scalars. the fourth-order identity satisﬁes I : T = T : I = T. (2. (2. (2.99) where α. IS : S = S. 2 This tensor maps any second-order tensor into its symmetric part. The components of IT are (IT )ijkl = δil δjk .106) (2. for any fourth-order tensor. (2.108) .101) The tensor IT is the transposition tensor.105) (2. The tensor I is called the fourth-order identity. When multiplying any tensor T it gives (I ⊗ I ) : T = (tr T ) I. we have I : T = T : I = T.e. T. U = α I + β IT + γ (I ⊗ I ). i. i.102) (2. (2. Finally. Obviously. the tensor (I ⊗ I ) has components (I ⊗ I)ijkl = δij δkl . IT and (I ⊗ I ). It maps any second-order tensor onto its transpose.110) 2 (2. for any symmetric S. can be represented as a linear combination of three basic isotropic tensors: I. U. given in component form as Iijkl = δik δjl .

it is the linear approximation to Y at X 0 . represented in abstract notation.112) If the linear map DY(X 0 ) exists.5. . U (2.5. =0 (2. The function Y is said to be differentiable at an argument X 0 ∈ D if there exists a linear transformation DY(X 0 ) : X → Y such that as U ∈ X approaches zero (the zero element of X ).114) is the called the linearisation of Y about X 0 . THE GRADIENT Since the derivative is a linear transformation between ﬁnite-dimensional spaces. LINEARISATION OF A NONLINEAR FUNCTION The function L : D ⊂ X → Y. Y(X 0 + U ) = Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] + o(U ). U→0 lim o(U ) = 0. i.3.5. where the domain D of Y is an open subset of X.1. The derivative satisﬁes DY(X 0 ) [U ] = lim 1 →0 ∈R [Y(X 0 + U ) − Y(X 0 )] = d Y(X 0 + U ) d . it can be represented as DY(X 0 ) [U ] = ∇Y(X 0 ) ∗ U .111) that the function deﬁned in (2.32 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2.113) for each U ∈ X. THE DERIVATIVE MAP.2. and o(U ) is a term that approaches zero faster than U . the term DY(X 0 ) [U ] is called the directional derivative of Y (at X 0 ) in the direction of U . Note by observing (2. (2. (2.114) corresponds indeed to the approximation to Y that ignores all higher-order (nonlinear) terms in U . 2. DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVE Let X and Y be ﬁnite-dimensional normed vector spaces and let a function Y be deﬁned as Y : D ⊂ X → Y. that is. Differentiation 2. For a given U . it is unique and is called the derivative of Y at X 0 .5. 2. deﬁned as L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] (2.111) where DY(X 0 ) [U ] denotes a linear transformation on U .e.115) where ∇Y(X 0 ) is the gradient of Y at X 0 and the symbol ‘∗’ denotes an appropriate product operation.

vectors or tensors.4.1) y(x) ≡ x2 . this term vanishes faster than u. by comparing the above expression with (2.111) reads y(x0 + u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] + o(u) = x2 + 2x0 u + u2 . Example. 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. indeed.121) and the product ‘∗’ is identiﬁed with the standard product between scalars. the gradient of y can be promptly identiﬁed as ∇y(x0 ) = 2x0 . we ﬁnd that the linearisation of y about x0 in the present case reads l(u) ≡ y(x0 ) + ∇y(x0 )u = x2 + 2x0 u.116) u→0 In addition. .118) (2. A scalar function The above concepts are probably better understood by applying them to the trivial case of a scalar function of a scalar argument. Note that.5. 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.122) 2. we have Dy(x0 ) [u] = 2x0 u. (2. In the present case.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 33 We remark that throughout this text we shall use the term derivative also as a synonym for gradient.114). lim |o(u)| u2 = lim = 0. i. u→0 |u| |u| (2.119) (2. (2.115). (2.e.120) Thus. Let us consider the function (Figure 2. We will also use the notation dY dX to denote the gradient and when Y is a function of two or more arguments. With the above and (2. 0 We can then identify o(u) = u2 . 0 (2.117) (2.

129) = i (2.128) . (2.125) (2. We may alternatively use the notation dy = 2x. Function derivative and linearisation.1.124) (2. It then follows that Dy(x) [u] = 2x · u.115) becomes the internal product between vectors in the present case. dx or. In this case. in component form. Scalar function of vector argument We start with the scalar function of a vector argument deﬁned by y(x) ≡ x · x = xi xi . and the gradient ∇y can be identiﬁed as the vector ∇y(x) = 2x. we have y(x + u) = x · x + 2x · u + o(u) where o(u) = u · u. dxi (2.123) The generic product operation indicated in (2. (2.34 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y y(x) = x2 linearisation of y(x) about x 0 tan--1 2x 0 x0 x Figure 2.127) dy = 2xi .126) (2. dy dx Scalar function of a tensor argument Now consider the internal product between tensors y(X) ≡ X : X = Xij Xij .

(∇y)ij = dy = 2 Xij . To obtain its derivative.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 .132) (2. dXij (2.137) (2.138) . Dy(x) [u] = x ·u x (2. The Cartesian components of ∇Y can be easily found to be given by (∇Y )ijkl = Xik δjl + Xlj δik . This tensor-value function is equivalently expressed in component form as Yij ≡ Xik Xkj .130) Tensor function of a tensor argument We now determine the derivative of the square of a tensor Y (X) ≡ X 2 = XX. The gradient – a second-order tensor in this case – can be immediately identiﬁed as ∇y(X) = 2X.134) (2. (2.136) d x x = . dx x (2.131) (2.135) (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 .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 35 We have y(X + U ) = X : X + 2X : U + U : U = y(X) + Dy(X) [U ] + o(U ). in component form. we write Y (X + U ) = XX + XU + U X + U U = Y (X) + DY (X) [U ] + o(U ). or.

142) (2. DY (X) [U ] = U d X = I. DY (x) [u] = (I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I) · u d (x ⊗ x) = I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I. DY (x) [u] = (a ⊗ I) · u d (a ⊗ x) = a ⊗ I. DY (X) [U ] = −X −1 U X −1 = D : U . dX X (iii) y(X) ≡ det X.143) (2. d (X −1 ) = D.141) (2. dX 2. dx (vi) Y (X) ≡ X. −1 −1 Dijkl = −Xik Xlj (2.144) . dX (iv) Y (x) ≡ a ⊗ x (with constant a).139) (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. Dy(X) [U ] = X :U X d X X = . dX (vii) Y (X) ≡ X −1 .5.36 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (ii) y(X) ≡ X .140) (2. dx (v) Y (x) ≡ x ⊗ x. The derivative of Y satisﬁes DY(X) [U ] = DW(Z(X)) [DZ(X) [U ]] for all U ∈ X.5. Dy(X) [U ] = (det X) X −T : U d det X = (det X) X −T .

If W and Z are vectors. denoted div T.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 37 2. this product could be the internal or tensor product between vectors. we have (div T )i = ∂Tij .145) ∂xi Now let T be a smooth second-order tensor ﬁeld on D. α n da = v · n da = T n da = ∇α dv.7.146) The divergence theorem Let B ⊂ E be a closed region with piecewise smooth boundary ∂B and let α. In Cartesian components.147) ∀ u ∈ U. (2. The divergence of v is the scalar ﬁeld deﬁned as ∂vi div v = tr(∇v) = . vector and tensor-valued ﬁelds on B.6. ‘∗’ could be the double contraction operation. div v dv.148) ∂B B ∂B B ∂B B div T dv. If W is a fourth-order tensor and Z is a second-order tensor. (2. for instance. ∂xj (2.5. 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.5. . (2. THE DIVERGENCE Let v : D ⊂ E → U be a smooth vector ﬁeld on D. If W and Z are differentiable at an argument X. and so on. respectively. 2. then so is Y and DY(X) [U ] = W(X) ∗ DZ(X) [U ] + DW(X) [U ] ∗ Z(X). v and T be smooth scalar. that satisﬁes (div T ) · u = div(T T u). Then. The divergence of T is the vector ﬁeld. where n is the ﬁeld of unit outward normal vectors on ∂B.

38 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. which is extensively exploited in the ﬁnite element framework described later in this book.150) . The proof of the above relations is given in Gurtin (1981).1. Linearisation of nonlinear problems The linearisation of nonlinear problems plays a crucial role in theoretical and computational mechanics.149) The linearisation of the problem deﬁned by equation (2. In computational mechanics. (v) div(T u) = T T : ∇u + u · div T T . (iv) div(u ⊗ v) = u div v + (∇u)v. (vi) div(α T ) = α div T + T ∇α. A typical example is the well-known Newton–Raphson iterative scheme. smooth scalar and tensor ﬁelds on D ⊂ E and let u and v be smooth vector ﬁelds on D. (iii) ∇(u · v) = (∇v)T u + (∇u)T v. USEFUL RELATIONS INVOLVING THE GRADIENT AND THE DIVERGENCE Let α and T be.5. 2. (2. (2. 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.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. 2. the concept of linearisation is essential in the derivation of linear approximations to general nonlinear theories.6. Our generic nonlinear problem consists in ﬁnding X ∈ D such that Y(X) = 0. (ii) div(αu) = α div u + u · ∇α. where L(U ) is the linearisation of Y at X 0 . on the other hand. In theoretical continuum mechanics. THE NONLINEAR PROBLEM AND ITS LINEARISED FORM Let Y : D ⊂ X → Y be a generic nonlinear function.8. 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.6. The following useful relations hold: (i) ∇(αu) = α ∇u + u ⊗ ∇α. respectively.

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. the discussion on differentiation and linearisation has been restricted to mappings between ﬁnite-dimensional vector spaces.152) 2.§ Of particular interest in computational mechanics is the case when Y is a functional. The scalar case To illustrate the above concept. 0 (2. 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.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. . (2.e. § The precise deﬁnition of such spaces falls outside the scope of the present text. In the present case.2. and consider the trivial root-ﬁnding problem (refer to the graphical illustration of Figure 2. let us again appeal to the case of a scalar function of a single scalar argument. a scalar-valued function of a function.6. LINEARISATION IN INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONAL SPACES So far.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. Here.2. 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. the generic linearised problem (2.2) deﬁned by the equation y(x) = 0. Linearisation of a nonlinear equation. y(x) ≡ x2 . we describe a much simpler example whose purpose is only to familiarise the reader with the concept.149).151) This is obviously a particularisation of the general nonlinear problem (2. i. Example.

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. meaning that functions have a sufﬁcient degree of regularity so that all operations in which they are involved are properly deﬁned. We deﬁne a functional y : X → R as y(x) ≡ Ω sin(x(p)) dp.113): Dy(x0 ) [u] = d y(x0 + u) d =0 d = sin(x0 (p) + u(p)) dp d Ω = Ω =0 cos(x0 (p)) u(p) dp. (2. Linearisation of the above functional about a given argument (function) x0 is the following generalisation of (2. (2.153) where Ω ⊂ R n is a given integration domain. we frequently use the term sufﬁciently smooth in the present text.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 (2.114): l(u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Dy(x0 ) [u].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. (2. (2.155) From the above. .156) ¶ To avoid a precise statement of regularity properties of functions.

Lemaitre and Chaboche. Gurtin. 1984. 1980. deﬁned by u(p) = ϕ(p) − p. Ltd . (3. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. A deformation of B (Figure 3.1) 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. The deﬁnitions and notation introduced will be systematically employed throughout the subsequent chapters of this book. Spencer.3) (3. 1981. material particles of B will be identiﬁed with their positions in the reference conﬁguration of B. 1981. 3. The region of E occupied by B in its deformed conﬁguration will be denoted ϕ(Ω). 1990. The vector ﬁeld u(p). is the displacement of p. 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. Thus. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. Ogden. Truesdell and Noll.1) where the particle is positioned in the deformed conﬁguration of B. one may write x = p + u(p). 1965). 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. Bonet and Wood. 1988.3 ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS T HIS chapter reviews some basic concepts of mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media.1. Ciarlet. 1997.2) † For convenience.

5) (3.2. (3. A motion (Figure 3. rigid translation rigid rotation fixed point q x x p u p Figure 3. A time-dependent deformation of B is called a motion of B.3) is deﬁned by a function ϕ : Ω × R → E. (3. if and only if it can be expressed in the form: ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + R (p − q). 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. A rigid rotation is a deformation that can be expressed as ϕ(p) = q + R (p − q).42 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p e2 u( p) x= ( p) e1 e3 Figure 3. Deformation. A deformation is rigid.1. A rigid deformation (Figure 3. A rigid deformation of B is a deformation that preserves the distances between all material particles of B. Rigid deformations.2) can be a translation.6) The deformation map above represents a rigid translation with displacement ϕ(q) − q superimposed on a rigid rotation R about point q. including translations and/or rotations. a rotation. or a combination of a translation and a rotation.

During a motion ϕ. ϕ(Ω.8) Since at each time t the map ϕ(·. deﬁned as c(t) = ϕ(p. The deformation map at time t will be also denoted ϕt . t) for a ﬁxed material point p. t). (3.3. material points can be expressed in terms of the place they occupy at a time t as p = ϕ−1 (x. so that for each time t. (3. t2 ) xt 2 Figure 3. t1 t2 u( p. . t) = x − u(ϕ−1 (x. t) = p + u(p. Motion.7) Similarly. the velocity of a material particle p is deﬁned by ˙ x(p. t). t). t) ≡ x(ϕ−1 (x.11) The map ϕ−1 is called the reference map.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 43 c(t) reference configuration t1 xt p 1 ) u( p. During the motion ϕ. describes the trajectory of p during the motion of B. The parametric curve c(t). ∂t (3. Using the reference map. the position x of a material particle p at time t is given by x = ϕ(p. t). t) is a deformation of B. (3. one may deﬁne the function ˙ v(x. t) will denote the region of E occupied by the body B at time t. In terms of the displacement ﬁeld the motion is expressed as ϕ(p.10) (3.12) The ﬁeld v is called the spatial velocity and gives the velocity of the material particle positioned at x at time t. t). the map ϕ(·. t) = ∂ϕ(p. t) . t) is one-to-one (and hence invertible) by assumption. t).9) (3.

t) is a rigid deformation. 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 . A motion ϕ is rigid if and only if at each time t. (3. However. The rigid velocity ﬁeld is schematically illustrated in Figure 3. the spatial description of a material ﬁeld β(p. On the other hand.e. Using (3. with W (t) a skew tensor. By denoting w(t) the axial vector of W (t). Rigid velocity.44 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS x v(x) w x (x y ) v( y) v( y) y w Figure 3. at each time t. t) + W (t) (x − y) (3. y ∈ ϕ(Ω. the velocity ﬁeld above can be re-written as v(x. t) = β(ϕ−1 (x.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. Conversely. t).16) (3. ˙ ˙ x and v have different arguments. t). t) = v(y. then α is said to be a spatial ﬁeld. if the value of α is expressed as a function of material particles p (and time) then α is said to be a material ﬁeld. t). t) + w(t) × (x − y). the material description of a spatial ﬁeld α(x. t). The vector w(t) is called the angular velocity of the body.1. t) = v(y. 3.13) for all x. A material (spatial) ﬁeld does .4. the map ϕ(·.14) which is the standard formula for the velocity ﬁeld of classical rigid-body dynamics.1. i. t) = α(ϕ(p. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL FIELDS ˙ Both ﬁelds x and v introduced above describe the velocity of material particles. A rigid motion of B is a motion for which.7). if its domain is ϕt (Ω) × R. t) is deﬁned by αm (p. the arguments of v are spatial position and time. (3. This motivates the following deﬁnitions: Let a general time-dependent (scalar. t) is deﬁned by βs (x. While x has material particle and time as arguments. vectorial or tensorial) ﬁeld α be deﬁned over the body B.4. The velocity at x is given as the sum of a uniform velocity v(y. If the domain of α is Ω × R. t). the spatial velocity v admits the representation v(x.

the spatial description of the same ﬁeld is given by θs (x. at time t. Example 3.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. Assume that. not necessarily represent a quantity physically associated with the reference (deformed) conﬁguration of the body.5. Note that. the description employed will be evident either from the context or from the argument used (p or x). b and c are constants. t). therefore. In experimental terms. In view of the assumed motion ϕ.5 subjected to the rigid translation: x = ϕ(p. The function θm gives the temperature. in spite of having p as one of its arguments. Material and spatial descriptions.1.1. it would be the temperature read from a thermometer held ﬁxed in space at x. It would be the temperature indicated by a thermometer attached to this material particle. labelling material particles of the body with their position p at time 0). In general. t) ≡ p + t v. To avoid notational complexity. . 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. Consider. 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. for instance. θm (as θs ) expresses a physical quantity associated with the conﬁguration of time t. where a. with constant velocity v. the rectangular body of Figure 3. of the material particle whose position at time 0 is p. t) = a + b(x1 − t v1 ) + c t. The spatial description θs gives the temperature. the material description of this temperature ﬁeld reads θm (p. during the motion ϕ. t) = a + b p1 + c t. Taking the initial conﬁguration (at t = 0) as the reference conﬁguration (and. t) = θm (p(x. of the material particle whose position at time t is x. at time t.

e. 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. denoted respectively α and α . t). the direction of temperature isolines. THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT The deformation gradient of the motion ϕ is the second-order tensor F deﬁned by F (p. (3. t) = ∇p ϕ(p. t).1. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL GRADIENTS.e. 3.145) (page 37). we deﬁne the spatial and material divergence of a vector ﬁeld v. the spatial and material divergence are given. measures the rate of change of α observed at a ﬁxed spatial position x. t) = In view of (3. i. divx v = tr(∇x v). It would also vanish if the temperature were uniform throughout the body (b = 0). ∇x α = αs (x.19) In addition (refer to (2. ˙ The spatial time derivative. Similarly. on the other hand. respectively. as divp v = tr(∇p v). the material and spatial time derivatives of α. ∂pj (3. ∂xj (divp T )i = ∂Tij .8) it can be written as F = I + ∇p u. in Cartesian components.17) ∇p α = ∂p ∂x i. ∂p (3. t). respectively.147)). (3. θ = −b v1 + c. This contribution vanishes if the body moves parallel to e2 (v1 = 0). the derivatives of α with respect to p and x holding t ﬁxed. they are. for a tensor ﬁeld T. are deﬁned as ∂ ∂ αm (p. the material and spatial time derivatives of the temperature ﬁeld θ are given by ˙ θ = c. t). (3. by (divx T )i = ∂Tij .22) ∂xt . Analogously to (2. ˙ are deﬁned by ∂ ∂ α = αm (p. denoted respectively ∇p α and ∇x α.18) ∂t ∂t The material time derivative α measures the rate of change of α at a ﬁxed material particle p.5. DIVERGENCES AND TIME DERIVATIVES The material and spatial gradients of a general ﬁeld α. α = αs (x.46 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3.146) is also applicable to the material and spatial divergence of a tensor.3. The material time derivative in this case corresponds to the temperature rate computed from a thermometer attached to a material particle p whilst θ is the temperature rate observed in a thermometer held ﬁxed in space at x. ˙ (3.1. In the example of Figure 3.21) .20) The compact deﬁnition (2.2.

(3. t)]−1 = [I − ∇x u]−1 . The Cartesian components of F are given by Fij = ∂xi ∂pj ∂ui .11). q ∈ B.23) = δij + where xi denote the components of xt . Clearly. A deformation is homogeneous if and only if it admits the representation ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + F (p − q) (3. .7). rigid translations and rotations are homogeneous deformations. VOLUME CHANGES.24) Consider the inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre dp that connects two neighbouring material particles p and p + dp of a deforming body (Figure 3.4. db and dc emanating from the material particle p in the reference conﬁguration (Figure 3. In terms of the reference map (3.6. the deformation gradient may be equivalently expressed as F (x. into x and x + dx.25) A deformation of B with uniform deformation gradient (F independent of p) is called a homogeneous deformation.1. The deformation gradient is the linear operator that relates inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbres dp with their deformed counterparts dx: dx = F dp. t) = [∇x ϕ−1 (x. respectively. ∂pj (3.26) for all points p.6). Trivially. 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. (3. 3. these particles are mapped. THE DETERMINANT OF THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT Consider now the inﬁnitesimal volume dv0 deﬁned by the inﬁnitesimal vectors da. with F a positive deﬁnite tensor. The deformation gradient.

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. (3. dv0 (3. J = 1. consequently. into F da.30) From (3.29) (3. (3.28) i. in any deformed conﬁguration of a body.31) Isochoric deformations Isochoric (or volume-preserving) deformations are deformations that do not produce changes in volume.32) . Therefore. at some stage. J = 0. it follows that det F = dv . a conﬁguration with J < 0 cannot be reached from the reference conﬁguration without having. F = I and. this represents a physically unacceptable situation. locally. then the inﬁnitesimal volume has collapsed into a material particle.54). at the reference conﬁguration. Since the body is not allowed to penetrate itself (this restriction is embodied in the assumption that the deformation map is one-to-one). so that the deformed inﬁnitesimal volume is given by dv = (F da × F db) · F dc. (3. respectively. the volume after deformation per unit reference volume (or volume change ratio). Also note that.29) it follows that if det F = 0. the determinant of the deformation gradient represents.e. (3. Thus. By making use of identity (2.7. A locally isochoric deformation is characterised by J = 1. Throughout this book. we will adopt the following notation J ≡ det F . The determinant of the deformation gradient. F db and F dc.27) The deformation ϕt maps the inﬁnitesimal vectors. one has dv0 = (da × db) · dc.

that is. one obtains: F = R U = V R. (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 49 Volumetric deformations Volumetric deformations (i. F v corresponds indeed to a purely volumetric deformation (it has the representation (3. respectively.34) l0 in all directions.39) 3.40) where the proper orthogonal tensor R is the local rotation tensor and the symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V are. POLAR DECOMPOSITION. the undeformed and deformed lengths of a material ﬁbre.1.1.37) is the isochoric (volume-preserving or unimodular) component. by construction. note that the deformation gradient can always be multiplicatively split as F = F iso F v = F v F iso . respectively.33)) and.6. 3.38) F v produces the same volume change as F . With l0 and l denoting. pure contractions/dilations) are deformations consisting purely of a uniform contraction/dilation in all directions. STRETCHES AND ROTATION By applying the polar decomposition to the deformation gradient. 1 (3. The isochoric component in turn represents a volume preserving deformation. (3.5. (3. To see this.36) (3. since 1 det F v = [(det F ) 3 ]3 det I = det F . The right and left stretch tensors are related by the rotation V = R U RT . (3.33) where the scalar α is the corresponding contraction/dilation ratio. Note that. (3.41) . det F iso = [(det F )− 3 ]3 det F = 1. the right and left stretch tensors.e. 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. for a locally volumetric deformation we have: l =α (3. The deformation gradient of any volumetric deformation is a spherical tensor: F = α I.35) where is the volumetric component of F and F iso ≡ (det F )− 3 F 1 F v ≡ (det F ) 3 I 1 (3.

respectively. (3. a simple example consisting of a body subjected to a homogeneous deformation. B = V 2 = F F T . To illustrate the meaning of the polar decomposition of F . along the longitudinal and transversal axes.2 (A simple plane deformation).8. the right and left Cauchy–Green strain tensors – are deﬁned by C = U 2 = F TF . the directions of i1 and i2 in the reference conﬁguration) with a superimposed rigid rotation of angle α. V = B. the deformation map is deﬁned as ϕ: x1 = p1 λ1 cos α − p2 λ2 sin α (3.43) Example 3. respectively.8 subjected to homogeneous stretching/compression in the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (respectively.44) x2 = p1 λ1 sin α + p2 λ2 cos α. Stretches and rotation. the matrix representation of the corresponding deformation gradient is given by F= λ1 cos α λ1 sin α −λ2 sin α λ2 cos α . (3. i. i2 }. with F independent of p.45) . Polar decomposition of the deformation gradient. where the factors λ1 and λ2 determine how much stretching/compression occurs.e. The stretch tensors U and V can be expressed as √ √ U = C. In the basis {i1 .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. With pi and xi denoting coordinates of p and x in the Cartesian system associated with the orthonormal basis {i1 . i2 }. Consider the rectangular body of Figure 3. (3.42) where C and B – named.1. is given in what follows.

obtained from the polar decomposition of F . The second operation corresponds to the deformation of the ﬁbre under pure stretching/compression of the body along its axial and transversal directions. respectively. With use of the polar decomposition of F . 2. this mapping can be split into two sequential steps. Note that if the basis {i∗ . i∗ } is used. dp −→ R dp. the sequence is reversed: 1. Under deformation. (3. However. (3. the 1 2 1 2 matrix representation of V reads λ1 0 . 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. R dp −→ V (R dp) = F dp. the ﬁbre is ﬁrst rigidly rotated by an angle α.8. It should be . In the ﬁrst operation. If the left polar decomposition F = V R is employed instead. 2.47) . dp is mapped into dx = F dp. 1 2 The above example has illustrated the signiﬁcance of the polar decomposition of F . If the right polar decomposition F = R U is used. In this case. 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 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. 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.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 51 The rotation tensor. due to the previous rotation. U dp −→ R (U dp) = F dp.48) λ1 cos2 α + λ2 sin2 α V= (λ1 − λ2 ) sin α cos α Insight into the meaning of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient can be gained by focusing now on the generic inﬁnitesimal ﬁbre represented by dp in Figure 3. the two steps are: 1. dp −→ U dp. these directions coincide now with i∗ = R i1 and i∗ = R i2 .49) V= 0 λ2 so that the transformation (·) → V (·) indeed corresponds to stretchings along the directions of i∗ and i∗ .46) (3.

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

to evaluate how much U (or V ) departs from I (a rigid deformation). it is called a Lagrangian strain measure.e. the size of any inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre emanating from p remains constant ( dx = dp .56) ln[U ] m=0 where m is a real number and ln[ · ] denotes the tensor logarithm of [ · ].56) may be rephrased as 3 E(m) = i=1 f (λi ) li ⊗ li . that is.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 53 distance between material particles. Equivalently.54) No straining occurs. (3. It is by no means the unique way of quantifying straining.55) and. 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 . This condition is equivalent to C = U = I. ln λi (3. we say that the region surrounding p is strained. It must be emphasised that the Green–Lagrange strain measure is deﬁned by expression (3. An important family of Lagrangian strain tensors. From the deﬁnition of E(2) . Let us consider. again. The deformation maps dp into dx = F dp.57) where 1 (λm − 1) m = 0 i f (λi ) = m m = 0.53) 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].e.58) . (3. ∀ dp).54). implying that F is an orthogonal tensor and the deformation is rigid (pure translation and/or rotation) in the neighbourhood of p. (3. (3. 2 (3. the deﬁnition of a strain measure is somewhat arbitrary and a speciﬁc choice is usually dictated by mathematical and physical convenience.8 serves as an illustration). some kind of strain measure needs to be deﬁned. i. is deﬁned by Seth (1964). Thus. Hill (1978) and Ogden (1984) 1 (U m − I) m = 0 E(m) = m (3. since it measures strains along the principal Lagrangian directions. in terms of its spectral decomposition. 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. To quantify straining. In fact. i. the generic material ﬁbre represented by the inﬁnitesimal vector dp that emanates from p (Figure 3. if and only if E(2) = 0. strain measures based on the Lagrangian triad. Under stretching.

Note that for any m. using the Eulerian triad. Strain measures. The Green–Lagrange strain tensor. it is also possible to deﬁne tensors that measure strain along the principal Eulerian directions or.62) . that is. the Eulerian counterpart of the Lagrangian family of strain measures above is deﬁned by 1 (V m − I ) m = 0 (m) ε (3. a rigid deformation.60) = m ln[V ] m = 0. is a particular member of this family (with m = 2). locally. simply. Principal strain as a function of the principal stretch for various strain measures. (3. (3. the principal strain for various strain measures is plotted in Figure 3.9 as a function of the corresponding principal stretch.9. 3 ε(m) = i=1 f (λi ) ei ⊗ ei . Hencky (m = 0) and Almansi (m = −2) strain tensors. they differ by the local rotation R. Analogously to the strain measures discussed above.59) To illustrate the relationship between the stretch and strain tensors. i. Based on the left stretch tensor. E(2) . the associated strain tensor vanishes if and only if the deformation gradient represents.e. or. (3.54 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 Green-Lagrange (m=2) 2 Biot (m=1) 1 Hencky (m=0) f (λi ) 0 Almansi (m= --2) -1 -2 0 1 λi 2 Figure 3. Other commonly used members of this family are the Biot (m = 1). Eulerian strain tensors.61) Lagrangian and Eulerian strain tensors are related by ε(m) = R E(m) RT . E(m) = 0 ⇐⇒ U =I ⇐⇒ F = R.

it is convenient to consider a body undergoing a motion with uniform (independent of x) velocity gradient. As schematically illustrated in Figure 3. with application of the chain rule one has L= ∂ ∂ϕ ∂t ∂p ∂p ˙ =F F ∂x −1 (3. . (3. (3. Equivalently.1. vS (x. with no summation implied on i. t) + L(t) (x − y). The only contribution to straining is then provided by the term vS . due to its symmetry. W = skew(L). associated with the spin tensor W . Namely.67) where the following deﬁnitions have been used: vR (x. t). the eigenvalues and an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of D. D admits the representation 3 D= i=1 di ei ⊗ ei .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 55 3. With the spectral representation above. are deﬁned by D = sym(L). e2 . e3 }.63) . RATE OF DEFORMATION AND SPIN The spatial ﬁeld L. (3. where xi and yi denote the coordinates of points x and y in a Cartesian system associated to {e1 . so that the components of vS relative to the basis {e1 .8. THE VELOCITY GRADIENT. deﬁned as L = ∇x v. the rate of deformation tensor (also referred to as the stretching tensor). W . associated with the rate of deformation tensor. t) = D(t) (x − y). t) + vS (x.64) Two important tensors are obtained by splitting L into its symmetric and skew parts. the velocity vR .65) To gain insight into the physical meaning of the tensors D and W . Note that. t) + W (t) (x − y). (3. D. (3.66) If the decomposition of L into its symmetric and skew parts is introduced. (3.69) with di and {ei }. t) = v(y. respectively. e3 } are given by S vi = di (xi − yi ). t) = v(y. can be immediately identiﬁed as a rigid velocity. e2 .13). is named the velocity gradient.10. t) = vR (x. For such a motion the velocity ﬁeld reads v(x.68) By recalling expression (3. the velocity ﬁeld vS can be decomposed as a sum of three linearly independent velocities of the form: di (ei ⊗ ei ) (x − y). the velocity ﬁeld can be split as v(x.70) again with no summation implied. (3. and the spin tensor.

the velocity ﬁeld can be locally decomposed as a sum of a rigid velocity v(x.1. (3. t) dx. t) dx. the rate of deformation tensor corresponds indeed to a pure stretching of the body. 3. and a straining velocity D(x.10.73) . S each vi corresponds to a velocity ﬁeld that purely stretches the body in the direction of ei . t) dx. in any motion. J. (3.9. is related to the rate of deformation tensor through the expression ˙ J = J tr D. we ﬁrst apply the chain rule to obtain ∂(det F ) ˙ ˙ ˙ J ≡ (det F ) = :F =J F ∂F −T : F˙ .71) so that. (3. associated exclusively to the rate of deformation tensor D. t) = v(x. Straining velocity ﬁeld.56 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ei x vis ei y xi yi Figure 3. with the plane perpendicular to ei that passes through y ﬁxed. the above decomposition of the velocity ﬁeld into the sum of a rigid velocity and a straining velocity remains valid in the local sense. If a general motion (in which L is not necessarily uniform) is considered. associated with the spin tensor W . Thus. RATE OF VOLUME CHANGE ˙ The rate of volume change.72) To derive this expression. In this case. t) + L(x. t) + W (x. consider a point x and a point x + dx lying within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x. The velocity ﬁeld within this inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x is given by v(x + dx.

2. 3.43) of the Cauchy–Green tensors. 2 (3. If the displacement gradient is sufﬁciently small. For such deformations. (3.2.140) (page 36) for the derivative of the determinant.81) for the symmetric gradient of a vector ﬁeld.e. In fact. 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.76) (3. one has ε(m) ≈ E(m) ≈ ε.78) From the above expression and the deﬁnitions of the Green–Lagrange strain tensor E(2) and its Eulerian counterpart ε(2) . ∇p u.79) This motivates the deﬁnition of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor to measure strains under small deformations ε ≡ ∇s u.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 57 where we have made use of relation (2. Inﬁnitesimal deformations Small or inﬁnitesimal deformations are deformations with sufﬁciently small displacement gradient. This fact greatly simpliﬁes the description of small deformations.72). THE INFINITESIMAL STRAIN TENSOR Recall deﬁnition (3.74) leading to (3. the description of kinematics can be substantially simpliﬁed. It is worth pointing out here that ε is a linear functional of u.1.80) p where we have introduced the notation ∇s (·) = sym[∇(·)] = 1 [∇(·) + ∇(·)T ]. 2 (3.75) 3.60) have the same small deformation limit. (3.77) B = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + ∇p u (∇p u)T . E(2) ≈ ε(2) ≈ 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T ].145) of the divergence of a vector ﬁeld we have tr D = divx v. Also note that from the deﬁnition (2. (3. the following approximation can be made C ≈ B ≈ I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T . (3. (3.82) . This.36) (page 22) of the trace of a tensor and the fact that the skew symmetry of W implies tr L = tr D. the second-order terms in ∇p u of the expressions above can be neglected so that. one has C = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u. under small deformations. so that the rate of volume change can be equivalently expressed as ˙ J = J divx v. i. together with deﬁnition (2. it follows that.56) and (3. (3. to the same order of approximation.

equivalently. the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor ε can also be split into a purely volumetric and a volume-preserving contribution.2.53)) reads dx 2 = (I + 2 ε) dp · dp + o(∇p u) (3. For a pure local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotation ( dx = dp .14)).85) for all points p and q with A ≡ ∇p u a skew tensor. Alternatively. with a denoting the axial vector of A. For inﬁnitesimal rigid deformations and within an approximation of second order in the displacement gradient.3. u can be expressed as u(p) = u(q) + a × (p − q). only the symmetric part ε of ∇p u is associated with local straining. ∇p u is skew and the ﬁeld u can be written as u(p) = u(q) + A (p − q).85)–(3.89) . The skew part of ∇p u produces no straining and is associated exclusively with local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotations. known as the strain deviator or deviatoric strain. ∀ dp ) the tensor ε vanishes or.13) and (3. It is clear from this expression that. where ε d ≡ ε − εv (3.83) with o(∇p u) a term of second order in ∇p u. 3.86) is called an inﬁnitesimal rigid displacement ﬁeld.2. For a body under an arbitrary homogeneous deformation (∇p u independent of p).5). 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. The isochoric/volumetric split of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor is additive (in contrast to the multiplicative split of the deformation gradient in the ﬁnite strain theory) and reads ε = ε d + εv . (3.84) for all points p and q.1. to within an error of o(∇p u). INFINITESIMAL RIGID DEFORMATIONS In terms of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. The tensor εv ≡ 1 3 (3. (3. Note that inﬁnitesimal rigid displacements have the same representation as rigid velocity ﬁelds (see expressions (3.58 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3.2.87) εv I (3. ∇p u is skew. the square of the deformed length of a generic material ﬁbre dp (recall the text preceding expression (3. the displacement ﬁeld can be written as u(p) = u(q) + ∇p u (p − q).88) is the isochoric component. which measures pure inﬁnitesimal distortions.86) Any displacement that admits the representation (3.

The scalar invariant of ε. let us consider the Green–Lagrange strain tensor. From ﬁnite to inﬁnitesimal isochoric and volumetric strains Analogously to Section 3. It projects second-order symmetric tensors into the deviatoric subspace.96)2 and (3. dev(S) ≡ Id : S. v 2 2 (3. under small strain conditions (small ∇p u). the volumetric Green–Lagrange strain deﬁned above leads to deﬁnition (3. Now we proceed to show that. i. into the space of traceless tensors.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 59 is the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain tensor.92) It should be noted that the strain deviator is a traceless tensor. To show this.97) (3. An inﬁnitesimal deformation is volumepreserving if and only if εv = 0.96) 2 T Ciso ≡ F iso F iso = (det F )− 3 F T F = (det F )− 3 C 2 (3. (3.e. we have 2 E(2) = 1 [(det F ) 3 − 1] I. The fourth-order tensor deﬁned as Id ≡ IS − 1 3 (3. tr εd = 0.95) E(2) ≡ 1 (Cv − I ). 2 where and (2) (3. (3. i.93) I ⊗ I. i. From (3. deﬁned as εv ≡ I1 (ε) = tr ε = tr ∇s u = tr ∇u (3. (3. εv = 1 3 (I ⊗ I ) : ε.90).90) is named the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain.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.99) v 2 . the above isochoric/volumetric split can also be obtained from its ﬁnite deformation counterpart by neglecting higher order terms in ∇p u.1.94) is referred to as the deviatoric projection tensor.e. E(2) . Throughout this book we shall often use the alternative notation dev(S) to represent the deviator of a symmetric tensor S.98) T Cv ≡ F v F v = (det F ) 3 I. we deﬁne the corresponding isochoric and volumetric Green–Lagrange strains Eiso ≡ 1 (Ciso − I ). where the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor is derived from the ﬁnite strain theory. (3.e.98).35).2. Following the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient given by (3.

101) With the substitution of the above expression into (3.102) Following a completely analogous procedure with the isochoric Green–Lagrange strain.99). . 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. 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. Thus.104) (3. In particular. (2) (3. (3. 1965).60). Forces. v Thus.5 together with the deﬁnition F = I + ∇p u and the expression given in (iii) of page 36 for the derivative of the determinant. 3. 1909.56) and (3. we have the following approximation E(2) ≈ εv . if higher-order terms are neglected. Toupin.60 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS From the standard concepts of differentiation discussed in Section 2. Truesdell and Noll. to within second-order terms in ∇p u. we then obtain E(2) = εv + o(∇p u).103) (3. It should be noted that. 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. thus far. 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). no reference has been made to forces and how they are transferred within continuum bodies. we have Eiso ≈ εd . Stress Measures The previous sections of this chapter have been limited to the mathematical description of the kinematics of deformation.105) The inﬁnitesimal limits above are valid for all Lagrangian and Eulerian ﬁnite strain measures deﬁned by expressions (3. v (3.3. concepts such as the deformation gradient.100) 2 3 tr ∇p u + o(∇p u). 1962.

i.106) and the balance of angular momentum. The dimension of body forces is force per unit mass (or volume). S t(n) da + P ρ b dv = P ˙ ρ v dv (3. Let S be an oriented surface of B with unit normal vector n at a point x. 3.2. 2. 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. Forces exerted on the interior of the body. n). This force (per unit area) is called the Cauchy stress vector and will be denoted t(n).e. Thus. t(x. with dependence on x and time omitted for notational convenience. THE CAUCHY STRESS VECTOR Crucial to the description of surface forces is Cauchy’s axiom stated in what follows. the force per unit area.107) .3. Consider a body B in an arbitrarily deformed conﬁguration (Figure 3.11). The axiom of momentum balance asserts that ‘For any part P of the deformed conﬁguration of B.3. are transmitted across a surface (the boundary of the body in this case). This means that identical forces are transmitted across any surfaces with normal n at x (such as surfaces S and T in Figure 3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 61 1. exerted across S by the material on the side of S into which n is pointing upon the material on the other side of S depends on S only through its normal n’. The dimension of boundary forces is force per unit area. Body forces. The dimension of such interactions is force per unit area. Cauchy’s axiom states that ‘At x. as internal interactions. 3. The spatial ﬁeld b(x) represents force per unit mass acting on the interior of B.1. with boundary S.11). CAUCHY’S AXIOM. Gravitational and magnetic forces are typical examples of such forces. b(x). S x × t(n) da + P x × ρ b dv = P ˙ x × ρ v dv (3. the concept of stress as well as the different ways of quantifying it are introduced in this section. 3. Internal interactions between adjacent parts of a body. Boundary forces. the surface force. THE AXIOM OF MOMENTUM BALANCE Let B now be subjected to a system of surface forces. Boundary forces represent interactions between the exterior and the interior of a body and. boundary forces and interactions between distinct parts of a body are forces of essentially the same type and will be collectively called surface forces. then the Cauchy stress vector represents the contact force exerted by the surrounding environment on B. Forces applied to the boundary of the body such as those resulting from contact with another body. If S belongs to the boundary of B. To describe surface forces mathematically. the balance of linear momentum.

i.12) is given by t(x. with ρ = ρ(x) denoting the mass density ﬁeld. forces are actually transferred by atomic interactions which are clearly discrete quantities. Marsden and Hughes (1983) and Ciarlet (1988). among others. Cauchy stress components Using an orthonormal basis {e1 . THE CAUCHY STRESS TENSOR One of the most fundamental results in continuum mechanics is Cauchy’s theorem which establishes that. 3. i. Surface forces.109) The tensor σ is called the Cauchy stress tensor and is often referred to as the true stress tensor or. n) = σ(x) n. simply. e3 }.2.62 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS B n t (n) x T S Figure 3. At this point.e. . the mass per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of B ’. there exists (recall Section 2. σ is symmetric. § The (3. Formal proofs to Cauchy’s theorem can be found. the dependence of the surface force t upon the normal n is linear. in Wang and Truesdell (1973).§ σ = σT . with v = u denoting the acceleration ﬁeld of B. (3.11.3. it should be emphasised that. stress tensor. (3. starting page 19) a second-order tensor ﬁeld σ(x) such that the Cauchy stress vector (see Figure 3. 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.106) and (3.3. Gurtin and Martins (1976).110) symmetry of σ is a result of the balance of angular momentum.108) Further. This observation applies equally to quantities such as strain measures or any other continuum ﬁelds associated with the body. the Cauchy stress tensor is represented as σ = σij ei ⊗ ej . Gurtin (1972. as a consequence of the axiom of momentum balance. e2 . in real life bodies. 1981).e. are satisﬁed.107) contain the ˙ ¨ inertia terms. The right-hand sides of (3. The smallest volume of material for which the continuum representation makes sense is called the representative volume element.

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

3. 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. particularly for the purpose of constitutive modelling. to split the stress tensor σ into the sum of a spherical and a traceless component σ = s + p I. at the point of interest. Crucial to the deﬁnition of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress is the counterpart ¯ of t that measures.13. THE FIRST PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The traction vector t of expression (3. there exists an orthonormal basis {e∗ . t da0 da0 (3. e∗ . The normal components. where the invariant p≡ 1 3 (3.108) measures the force exerted across a material surface per unit deformed area.116) 3 is called the spherical stress tensor. the spectral decomposition has been used in Section 3. one has m da0 = dp1 × dp2 . σi . (3. are the eigenvalues of σ and are called the principal Cauchy stresses.51)). 3. e∗ .114) I1 (σ) = 1 3 is the hydrostatic pressure (also referred to as hydrostatic stress. the force that acts across t any surface whose normal is n in the deformed conﬁguration per unit reference area. for which all shear components of the 1 2 3 Cauchy stress tensor vanish and only the normal components may be non-zero. 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 . The directions deﬁned by the basis {e∗ .3.2. Note that.14).117) Consider the surface S in the reference conﬁguration of B (Figure 3. e∗ }. and (3. The above decomposition is analogous to the isochoric/volumetric split of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor discussed in Section 3.115) s ≡ σ − p I = Id : σ. mean stress or mean normal pressure).118) .14) t ¯ = da t = da σ n. with Id deﬁned by (3. analogously to the representation of the stress tensor in terms of principal stresses. Deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses It is often convenient.4.94). e∗ } are named the principal stress directions. The tensor p I = 1 (I ⊗ I ) : σ (3. With m denoting the unit normal to S at p. ¯ is expressed as (Figure 3. is a traceless tensor named the deviatoric stress or stress deviator. 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.113) tr σ (3.1 to represent the stretch tensors U and V in terms of principal stretches (see expression (3.64 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS that is. The forces are exclusively normal to the faces of this cube.

123) This last expression motivates the following deﬁnition P ≡J σF −T .121) m. the tangent vectors dp1 and dp2 are mapped. . normal to the reference conﬁguration of S at the point of interest. respectively. ¶ Some authors (Billington and Tate. leads to F T n da = J dp1 × dp2 = J m da0 .124) so that the force transmitted across S measured per unit reference area reads ¯ = P m. Nemat-Nasser.125) The tensor P is called the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and is often referred to as the Piola– Kirchhoff stress or nominal stress. (3.117). ¯ may be written in terms of t the reference unit normal m as ¯ = J σ F −T m. 1981. S deformed configuration Under deformation. where J ≡ det F .122) Finally.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. This is equivalent to da n=J F da0 −T (3. P is generally unsymmetric.¶ The vector ¯ is obtained by applying the ﬁrst Piola– t Kirchhoff stress to the unit vector m.119) where da is the corresponding deformed area element. The ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. 1999) deﬁne the nominal stress as the transpose of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. with substitution of the expression above into (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). (3. t (3. t (3. (3. Note that in contrast to the Cauchy stress.14.120) (3. valid for any invertible tensor S and vectors u and v. into F dp1 and F dp2 so that the unit normal to the deformed conﬁguration of S reads n da = F dp1 × F dp2 .

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

THE KIRCHHOFF STRESS Another important measure of stress is the Kirchhoff stress tensor. we have ST = JF −1 σT F −T . e. frequent reference to the principal Kirchhoff stresses will be made in the formulation of various constitutive models. to the body force (force per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration) and heat ﬂux.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 67 Note that from this deﬁnition.2.6. it is necessary to introduce the scalar ﬁelds θ. ˙ 3. the Kirchhoff stress is symmetric. i i (3.4. Its spectral representation reads 3 τ= i=1 τi e∗ ⊗ e∗ .127) so that the symmetry of σ implies that S is symmetric.129) where the principal Kirchhoff stresses. 3.132) are also a result of Cauchy’s theorem. the temperature. s and r deﬁned over B which represent. respectively.128) Due to the symmetry of σ.132) in ϕ(∂Ω).131) . deﬁned by τ ≡ J σ. σi . 3. (3. Fundamental laws of thermodynamics In order to state the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.4.3. alluded to in page 62. are related to the principal Cauchy stresses.4.130) Later in this book. (3.3. speciﬁc internal energy. Equations (3. 3. MOMENTUM BALANCE In terms of the Cauchy stress tensor. b and q will denote the vector ﬁelds corresponding. (3. CONSERVATION OF MASS The postulate of conservation of mass requires that ˙ ρ + ρ divx u = 0. whose existence has been established in Section 3. respectively. In addition. τ. 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. speciﬁc entropy and the density of heat production. by τi = J σi . (3. τi .1.3.

135) is the reference density (mass per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration). The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics is mathematically expressed by the equation ρ e = σ : D + ρ r − divx q. Before stating this principle. Equation (3.137) .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). Equivalently.4.e.132) are often referred to as the strong. 3.134) in Ω (3. 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. which represents the stress power per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of a body. ˙ (3.136) In words. ¯ 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.132)1 is known as Cauchy’s equation of motion. It is expressed by means of the inequality ρ s + divx ˙ ρr q − ≥ 0. θ θ (3. 3. ¯ (3.3. THE SECOND PRINCIPLE The second principle of thermodynamics postulates the irreversibility of entropy production. Equations (3.133) in ∂Ω.4. local or point-wise form of equilibrium. is the reference body force.4. The above momentum balance equations are formulated in the spatial (deformed) conﬁguration. the body force measured per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration. it is convenient to introduce the product σ : D. 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. ρ = J ρ. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics postulates the conservation of energy. i.

1.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 69 3.1.5.142) 3.5. deﬁned by ψ = e − θ s.138) The introduction of the speciﬁc free energy ψ (also known as the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass). The discussion on constitutive theory ends in Section 3.5. ˙ θ θ (3.4 summarises a generic purely mechanical internal variable model. CONSTITUTIVE AXIOMS In the present context.4. t)} of ﬁelds satisfying the balance of momentum. regardless of the material of which the body is made. Equivalently.5. we review the principles that form the basis of the constitutive theories discussed in later chapters of this book. t). We start by stating. (3. t). 3. t) A set {σ(p. s(p.5. e(p.5. divx (3. We remark that all dissipative constitutive models discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book are based on the internal variable approach. the axioms stated in this section must be satisﬁed for any constitutive model.5. and θ(p.141) represents the dissipation per unit deformed volume. t). Before going further. the ﬁrst and the second principles of thermodynamics is called a calorodynamic process of B. The left-hand side of (3. it is convenient to introduce the deﬁnitions of thermokinetic and calorodynamic processes (Truesdell. The use of internal variables to formulate constitutive models of dissipative materials is then addressed in Section 3. In this section. THE CLAUSIUS–DUHEM INEQUALITY By combination of the ﬁrst and second principles stated above. three fundamental axioms that deﬁne a rather general class of constitutive models of continua. θ where we have deﬁned g = ∇x θ.139) along with the identity 1 q 1 = divx q − 2 q · ∇x θ.5 where the fundamental constitutive initial value problems are stated. 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. r(p. θ (3. Section 3. . by making use of (3. t).141) σ : D − ρ(ψ + s θ) − q · g ≥ 0. Constitutive theory The balance principles presented so far are valid for any continuum body. t). t). q(p. 1969).140) θ θ θ into the above fundamental inequality results in the Clausius–Duhem inequality 1 ˙ ˙ (3. b(p. a constitutive model must be introduced. one easily obtains the fundamental inequality ρ s + divx ˙ 1 q − (ρ e − σ : D + divx q) ≥ 0.2.135). in Section 3. In order to distinguish between different types of material. A thermokinetic process of B is a pair of ﬁelds ϕ(p.

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

145. H and I are not affected.146). The symmetry group of a solid material is a subset of the proper orthogonal group O + . θ . 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.143). gt ) G (F t .147) for any transformation of the form (3. θ . THERMODYNAMICS WITH INTERNAL VARIABLES The constitutive equations (3.2. gt ) = G([F Q]t . θ . Therefore. gt ) = H([F Q]t . it requires that F. A solid is said to be isotropic∗∗ if its symmetry group is the entire proper orthogonal group. gt∗ ) . 3. gt ) = F ([F Q]t .5. in that format. θ . a set of rotations. G. gt ) = I ([F Q]t . G. gt ) I (F t . gt ) hold for any time-independent rotation Q ∈ S. θ .148) t remark that most constitutive models discussed in this book are isotropic. 3. θ . H and I if the relations t t F (F t . θ . θ . An effective alternative to the general description based on history functionals is the adoption of the so-called thermodynamics with internal variables. θ and g. This concept is expressed mathematically as follows. the constitutive functionals must comply with the restrictions imposed by the symmetries of the material in question. gt∗ ) . In the development of any constitutive model. . H and I satisfy σ∗ (t) = F (F ψ(t) = G(F s(t) = H(F q∗ (t) = I (F t∗ t∗ t∗ t∗ . A subgroup S of O + is said to be the symmetry group of the material deﬁned by the constitutive functionals F. it is imperative that simplifying assumptions are added to the general forms of the constitutive relations stated above. gt ) H (F t . θ . that is. ψ. 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.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 71 The principle of material objectivity places restrictions on the constitutive functionals (3. θ . Formally. G. gt∗ ) (3. gt∗ ) t t t t . θ . the symmetry group of a solid material is the set of rotations of the reference conﬁguration under which the response functionals remain unchanged. 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. Thus.143) written in terms of functionals of the history of F . θ . s and q) at a given ∗∗ We t t t t t (3. are far too general to have practical utility in modelling real materials undergoing real thermodynamical process.

153) Equivalently. . Stress constitutive equation Following the above hypothesis. (3. The relationship between the two approaches is discussed in detail by Kestin and Bataille (1977) and Bataille and Kestin (1979). θ. g.149) is a set of internal variables containing. in general. ˙ ∂αk θ (3. The state variables For the applications with which we are mostly concerned.152) for the stress power. ˙ ψ= ∂F ∂θ ∂αk where summation over k is implied. the thermodynamic state at a point is determined by the following set of state variables: {F . θ and g are the instantaneous values of deformation gradient. α}. state variable models can be seen as particular instances of the general history functional-based constitutive theory.151) ˙ :F . In general terms. we have P −ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ :F −ρ s+ ¯ ∂F ∂θ ˙ ¯ ∂ψ αk − J q · g ≥ 0. Mathematically. temperature and the temperature gradient and α = {αk } (3. using the connection σ:D=σF −T (3.150) (3. In this case. 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. entities of scalar. the speciﬁc free energy is assumed to have the form†† ψ = ψ(F .72 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS point p can be completely determined by the knowledge of a ﬁnite number of state variables. where F .154) †† The dependence of ψ on the temperature gradient is disregarded as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics (Coleman and Gurtin. θ. Thermodynamic potential. 1967). θ−ρ ˙ ∂αk θ (3. α). 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). in terms of power per unit reference volume. it will be convenient to assume that at any time t. vectorial and tensorial nature associated with dissipative mechanisms. so that its rate of change is given by ∂ψ ˙ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ ˙ :F + θ+ αk . The thermodynamic state depends only on the instantaneous value of the state variables and not on their past history.

θ. so that (3. by simply using relation (3. The following constitutive equations are then postulated ˙ α = f (F . g. The principle of thermodynamic determinism requires that the constitutive equations must be such that the above inequality holds for any thermokinetic process. In what follows. (3.155). θ.154) must ˙ ˙ remain valid for any pair of functions {F (t). ∂F s=− ∂ψ . ∂αk (3. for further details on this issue).159) for the set of thermodynamical forces. In the general case.153). It is also . we will adopt for convenience the notation ˙ A ≡ {Ak } (3. Truesdell.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. Thus. we assume that the ﬂux variables are given functions of the state variables.135).155) for the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and entropy.158) θ where we recall that the symbol ‘∗’ denotes the appropriate product operation between Ak and αk . ∂F (3.158) can be expressed in a more compact form as J ˙ −A ∗ α − q · g ≥ 0. must hold for any process. θ (3. we deﬁne the conjugate thermodynamical force ¯ Ak ≡ ρ ∂ψ . Equation (3.156) With this deﬁnition and the identities (3. the Clausius–Duhem inequality.161) (the reader is referred to Coleman and Gurtin. J ∂F τ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ T F . Evolution of the internal variables In order to completely characterise a constitutive model.161) Recalling the principle of thermodynamic determinism. complementary laws associated with the dissipative mechanisms are required. Namely. ∂θ (3. constitutive equations for the ﬂux variables 1 ˙ θ q and α must be postulated. 1969. α). the Clausius–Duhem inequality can be rewritten as J ˙ −Ak ∗ αk − q · g ≥ 0. now expressed by (3. 1967.160) θ Dissipation. This implies the constitutive equations P =ρ ¯ ∂ψ .154) is obtained from (3. α) 1 q = h(F .157) 1 ∂ψ T ρ ¯ F . g. (3. θ(t)}.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 73 Expression (3. This requirement places restrictions on the possible forms of the general constitutive functions f and h in (3.158). (3.

by considering a simple steel bar. PHENOMENOLOGICAL AND MICROMECHANICAL APPROACHES The success of a constitutive model intended to describe the behaviour of a particular material depends critically on the choice of an appropriate set of internal variables. however.158) is satisﬁed consists in postulating the existence of a scalar-valued dissipation potential of the form Ξ = Ξ(A. θ and α appear as parameters. g} = {0. the hypothesis of normal dissipativity is introduced. F . In addition. 0}. other phenomena such as internal damaging and possibly fracturing may take place and more . however.74 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS important to mention that when internal variables of vectorial or tensorial nature are present. Since no plausible model will be general enough to describe the response of a material under all processes.10 (starting page 615) in the context of the hypoelastic-based formulation of plasticity models. Dissipation potential. say. In this case. cyclic extension).150). The potential Ξ is assumed convex with respect to each Ak and g. i. by the processes (i. With further increase in complexity of the strain history (by introducing. ∂Ak ∂Ξ 1 q=− . α).5.163) satisﬁes a priori the dissipation inequality.e. for instance.163) A constitutive model deﬁned by (3. it is frequently convenient to re-formulate (3. Objective rates are discussed in Section 14. 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 importance of considering the possible thermokinetic processes when devising a constitutive model can be clearly illustrated. we should have in mind that the choice of internal variables must be guided not only by the speciﬁc material in question but. non-negative and zero valued at the origin. the ﬂux variables are assumed to be determined by the laws αk = − ˙ ∂Ξ .e. rather. a convenient tool for formulating constitutive equations without violating thermodynamics. (3. 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. a plasticity theory may be more appropriate. When subjected to a sufﬁciently small axial strain at room temperature.3. Normal dissipativity An effective way of ensuring that (3. θ ∂g (3. 3. equally importantly. g. If strains become larger. It should be noted.162) where the state variables F . {A. the bar exhibits a behaviour that can be accurately modelled by linear elasticity theory (generalised Hooke’s law). θ.161)1 in terms of so-called objective rates rather than the standard material time derivative of α. 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. linear elasticity may no longer capture the observed response satisfactorily. (3.155) and (3. that the constitutive description by means of convex potentials as described above is not a consequence of thermodynamics but.

Numerous well-established models of solids.). the long-term behaviour of the steel bar subjected to even a very small strain. By removing the thermallyrelated terms of the above theory.e. molecular or crystalline levels. The micromechanical approach involves the determination of mechanisms and related variables at the atomic. Despite the macroscopic nature of theories derived on the basis of the phenomenological methodology. the bar will cease to be a solid. α). 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. . In general. on the other hand. is based on the study of the response of the representative volume element. a ﬂuid mechanics theory will be needed to describe the behaviour of the material. due to the difﬁculty involved in the identiﬁcation of the underlying dissipative mechanisms. if the temperature rises above melting point.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 75 reﬁned constitutive models. however. 3. it should be expected that ‘good’ phenomenological internal variables will be somehow related to the underlying microscopic dissipation mechanisms. where a microscopically-based continuum model of ductile metallic crystals is described. Due account of the possible temperature histories and time span to be considered is also fundamental. α) ∂ψ (3. In simplistic terms. we end up with the following set of mechanical constitutive equations: ψ = ψ(F . In an extreme situation. the inclusion of microscopic information becomes essential and a purely phenomenological methodology is unlikely to describe the behaviour of the material with sufﬁcient accuracy. In some instances. i. therefore. 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. may no longer be accurately modelled by the linear elasticity theory. In this case the introduction of time-dependent effects (creep/relaxation) may be essential to produce an acceptable model. temperature. incorporating a larger number of state variables. convenient at this point to summarise the general internal variablebased constitutive equations in the purely mechanical case. THE PURELY MECHANICAL THEORY Thermal effects are ignored in the constitutive theories addressed in Parts Two and Three of this book. Under such circumstances. The phenomenological approach to irreversible thermodynamics has been particularly successful in the ﬁeld of solid mechanics. will be required. 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. The phenomenological approach.4.164) P =ρ ¯ ∂F ˙ α = f (F . In general. It is. One such case is illustrated in Chapter 16. At higher temperatures. these variables are discrete quantities and their continuum (macroscopic) counterparts can be deﬁned by means of homogenisation techniques. etc. the element of matter large enough to be regarded as a homogeneous continuum.5. we may say that constitutive modelling by means of internal variables relies either on a micromechanical or on a phenomenological approach. discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book. such as classical isotropic elastoplasticity and viscoplasticity.

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

169) In obtaining the above identity we have used the fact that σ is symmetric. The divergence theorem (expression (2.5. B occupies the region ϕ(Ω) with boundary ϕ(∂Ω) deﬁned through the deformation map ϕ. we state the momentum balance equations in their corresponding weak (global or integral) forms. In its deformed conﬁguration. local or differential) forms of the momentum balance have been stated in Section 3. equation (3. the virtual work equation is equivalent to the strong momentum balance equations (3. ∀ η ∈ V. its Cauchy stress ﬁeld. page 37) implies the following identity divx (σ η) dv = ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) σ η · n da. Next. ∀ η ∈ V. by substituting the above expression into (3.1. the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacements η : ϕ(Ω) → U. Weak equilibrium.132).ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 77 3.168). The principle of virtual work The strong (point-wise. (3.171) By taking into account the symmetry of σ. let us consider the body B which occupies the region Ω ⊂ E with boundary ∂Ω in its reference conﬁguration subjected to body forces in its interior and surface tractions on its boundary.e. ∀ η ∈ V.6.170) We now concentrate on the ﬁrst term within the square brackets of the above equation. as we shall see in Chapter 4.8 (page 38) to obtain σ : ∇x η = divx (σ η) − (divx σ) · η. which implies ση · n = σn · η. In this section. (3. (3. 3.148)2.4 by expressions (3. together with the above identity. is the starting point of displacement-based ﬁnite element procedures for the analysis of solids. let us start by assuming that the ﬁeld σ is sufﬁciently regular so that we can use the identity (v) of Section 2. THE SPATIAL VERSION The spatial version of the principle of virtual work states that the body B is in equilibrium if. it follows that [divx (σ η) − (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. To show this. 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. (3. (3.6. The weak equilibrium statement – the Principle of Virtual Work – is fundamental to the deﬁnition of the basic initial boundary value problem stated in Section 3.132) and (3. satisﬁes the equation ¨ [σ : ∇x η − (b − ρ u) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. Again.7 and.172) . i. and only if. σ.170) can be rewritten in the equivalent form (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η dv + u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) (t − σ n) · η da = 0.133).

∀ η ∈ V. P . 3.6. the identities σ= 1 P F T. The ¯ space of virtual displacements. respectively. and making use of the standard relation (Gurtin. V. J ∇x a = ∇p a F −1 .173) ¯ where b and ¯ are. 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.176) . (3.78 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Finally.6. 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. Conversely. The material version of the virtual work equation is obtained by introducing. THE INFINITESIMAL CASE Under inﬁnitesimal deformations.174) where the second expression holds for a generic vector ﬁeld a. is accordingly deﬁned as the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacement ﬁelds η : Ω → U. in its spatial counterpart.173) and the strong form (3.132). THE MATERIAL VERSION The virtual work equation can be equivalently expressed in the reference conﬁguration of B. since this equation holds for all virtual displacement ﬁelds η. the strong form yields the weak form of equilibrium. i. 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. to Gurtin 1972. 1981) a(x) dv = ϕ(Ω) Ω J(p) a(ϕ(p)) dv. The proof of equivalence between (3.6.133) under conditions of sufﬁcient regularity is then analogous to that given for the spatial version discussed in Section 3. then it follows from the fundamental theorem of variational calculus (refer.3. 3.e.1 above. t ∀ η ∈ V.175) valid for any scalar ﬁeld a. for instance. (3. (3. (3. Oden 1979 or Reddy 1998) that each bracketed term of the above equation must vanish pointwise within their respective domains. we recover the strong equilibrium equations (3. 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.2. satisﬁes ¯ ¯¨ [P : ∇p η − (b − ρu) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ω ¯ · η da = 0.

u ∈ K. 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. T ]. (i) The natural boundary condition. Problem 3. whose numerical solution by the ﬁnite element method is the main subject of the subsequent chapters of this book. the following boundary conditions are imposed.7. 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. the virtual work . t) t ∈ [t0 . The history of the surface traction t(t).1.6. In addition. t ∈ [t0 . α(p. Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. This is the case on which the numerical methods discussed in this book are focused. ¯ where u is the corresponding prescribed boundary displacement ﬁeld. (3. In the above. p ∈ ∂Ωu }.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 79 3. it is assumed here that ∂Ωu ∂Ωt = ∅. t). T ].3 (The spatial quasi-static initial boundary value problem). is prescribed over the portion of the boundary of B that occupies the region ∂Ωt in its reference conﬁguration.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. t0 ) = α0 (p). For simplicity. (3. t ∈ [t0 . The problems formulated here are restricted to quasi-static conditions. T ]. The quasi-static initial boundary value problem Having deﬁned the generic constitutive initial value problems in Section 3.16) be subjected to a prescribed history of body forces b(t).1 (page 76) and the internal variable ﬁeld.178) The fundamental quasi-static initial boundary value problem is stated in its spatial version in the following.7. T ]. T ] in its interior. 3. FINITE DEFORMATIONS Let the body B (Figure 3. is known at the initial time t0 . i. t) = u(p. dependence of b on x is implicitly assumed.5 and the weak equilibrium statements in Section 3. t ∈ [t0 . we are now in a position to state the weak form of fundamental initial boundary value problems. (ii) The essential boundary condition. α. such that. with dependence on x implied.e. for all t ∈ [t0 . where inertia effects are ignored. p ∈ ∂Ωu . t) = p + u(p.

P (t). Schematic illustration.179) The space of virtual displacements at time t is deﬁned by Vt = {η : ϕ(Ω.181) (3. ¯ [P (t) : ∇p η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt ¯ · η da = 0.80 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t x t t @ @ t t t b x t u t @ u t @ u Figure 3. for all t ∈ [t0 . ∀ η ∈ Vt . at each point of B.16. the Cauchy stress is given by σ(t) = P (t)F (t)T /J(t). t).183) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3.4 (The material quasi-static initial boundary value problem). t)} and. For completeness. is the solution of initial value Problem 3. t) → U | η = 0 on ϕ(∂Ωu . we state the material version of the fundamental initial boundary value problem in the following. such that. t) = I + ∇p u(p. (3. Problem 3. t(t) ∀ η ∈ V.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 (3.173). (3. T ]. equation is satisﬁed [σ(t) : ∇x η − b(t) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω. The initial boundary value problem.1 with prescribed deformation gradient (3.1 (page 76) with prescribed deformation gradient F (t) = ∇p ϕ(p. u ∈ K.t) ϕ(∂Ωt .180) where P (t) is the solution of constitutive initial value Problem 3.182).184) and the Piola–Kirchhoff stress. . Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. (3. (3.t) t(t) · η da = 0.

2.2 (page 76) with prescribed strain ε(t) = ∇s u(p. for t ∈ [t0 .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 81 3. at each point p. T ]. the quasi-static initial boundary value problem is based on the weak form (3.176).185) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3. ∀ η ∈ V. [σ(t) : ∇η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt t(t) · η da = 0. u ∈ K. Find a kinematically admissible displacement. (3. σ(t) is the solution of the constitutive initial value Problem 3.187) . THE INFINITESIMAL PROBLEM Under inﬁnitesimal deformations.7. It is stated in the following. (3.186) and. Problem 3. t).5 (The inﬁnitesimal quasi-static initial boundary value problem). such that.

.

**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

(ii) the use of a constant stiffness within each increment. The stiffness is updated at the beginning of every increment. which in the standard method is updated in every iteration...THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . In particular.6. which relies on consistent tangent operators. rather than to appeal to the rate stress–strain tangential relation (commonly used at the time). We remark that the full Newton–Raphson scheme. A straightforward alternative to the above full Newton–Raphson scheme are the so-called modiﬁed Newton methods.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) . 4. 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. linearisation of the incremental constitutive function. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for the incremental ﬁnite element equilibrium equation. in order to achieve quadratic rates of asymptotic convergence in the iterative solution of the ﬁnite element equilibrium equations. this author has emphasised the need for linearisation of the incremental stress updating procedure. These methods consist of replacing the tangential stiffness KT . Traditional approaches include (Owen and Hinton (1980) and Zienkiewicz and Taylor (2000)) (i) the use of the initial tangent stiffness throughout all increments. in the context of elastoplasticity and elastoviscoplasticity.6. . is available for all material models implemented in HYPLAS. un+1 u Figure 4. 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.2. The derivation of consistent tangent operators is thoroughly discussed in Part Two of this book. by a constant counterpart.

Some procedures of this type are available in the HYPLAS program. The convergence rates of such methods are far slower than the quadratic rates of the classical Newton algorithm and numerical experience shows that much faster solutions are obtained generally with the full Newton–Raphson scheme. IFSTD2] f int := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT σn+1 i (k) i (ix) Assemble global internal force vector and update residual [CONVER] ¯ r := f int − λn+1 f (x) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol ext THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)n+1 and EXIT (k) (iii) a variant of method (ii) where the stiffness matrix is updated after a certain number of iterations within each increment. STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT Di Bi i (iv) k := k + 1. (i) k := 0. 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. (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.2. (viii) Compute element internal force vectors [INTFOR. For such schemes.100 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 4. Set initial guess and residual un+1 := un . . εn+1 ) σn+1 := σ(αn . εn+1 ). The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation (inﬁnitesimal strains).

σi } of velocity and stress ﬁelds over Ω × [t0 .2 (page 81) results in the incremental version stated in Problem 4. (4. or LATIN Method for short.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 101 Other alternatives include the quasi-Newton methods. Essentially. the approximate inverse stiffness of the BFGS scheme is updated by the formula K−1 (k) where v = u(k−1) − u(k−2) . this method generates a sequence of histories {vi .60). An interesting alternative to the above general incremental procedure deserves special mention: the so-called Large Time Increment Method.1). when the derivation of the tangent operator (4. The numerical solution of the initial boundary value problem in this case is obtained by splitting the considered time interval.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . T ]. 1990). Again. Instead. w = r(k−1) − r(k−2) . an updated approximation of the inverse of the stiffness matrix is obtained which depends on the residual and displacement vectors at the end of the previous two iterations and the inverse stiffness approximation employed in the previous iteration of the algorithm.81) is difﬁcult – a situation that may arise in dealing with complex material models/integration algorithms. 4. for instance. for each step. whose roots are in the theory of optimisation (Haftka et al. into a number of sufﬁciently small time steps and then solving sequentially. say [t0 . vi . 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+ . The interested reader is referred to Ladevèze (1999) for further details. require neither the direct computation of the tangent stiffness nor its inversion (linear system solution). T ] – note that the entire time domain considered is covered by each function of the sequence – that converges to a pair {v∗ . Such procedures generate approximate (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor with general form (4. at a new iteration.84) These methods can be useful. 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. At the beginning of an iteration (k). whose substitution into the generic initial boundary value problem of Section 3. The LATIN method falls outside the scope of the present text. originally proposed by Ladevèze (1984. vT w vT w (4. 1999) is a non-incremental iterative procedure relying on a radically different approach to the treatment of the problem. the rates of convergence are much slower than those produced by the standard Newton algorithm. 1989. Its computational implementation is considerably different from that of the incremental approach explored and explained in detail throughout this book. Such methods.. Its application in the ﬁnite element context has been introduced by Matthies and Strang (1979).7. Each iteration i of the LATIN method produces a new velocity history.7. 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. The Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm (BFGS) is a particularly popular quasiNewton scheme.83) . σ∗ } whose stress satisﬁes equilibrium (over the entire time domain [t0 .2. T ]) and is related to the strain history resulting from v∗ through the constitutive equations of the model.1 (page 95).

T ] may contain several cycles of a cyclic load. Analogously to (4.3. In contrast to the conventional incremental procedure. 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). The functions wk are generated by conventional ﬁnite element interpolation and their corresponding nodal values are unknowns at each iteration of the method. (4. The starting point here is the ﬁnite strain version of the Principle of Virtual Work and the corresponding initial boundary value problem stated at the end of Chapter 3. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION At the outset. In such cases. The overall accuracy of the history approximations depends crucially upon the choice of the total number. 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. for instance. 4. Ladevèze and Perego (2000) and Dureisseix et al. Thus. Thus. t) + k=1 gk (t) wk (x). 1989) in elastoplastic applications. the framework presented in this section is equally applicable to ﬁnite elasticity models. Cognard and Ladèveze (1993). T ] and wk are vector-valued functions deﬁned over Ω. F n+1 ) = Jn+1 σ (αn . tn+1 ] and σ is now the Cauchy stress tensor. Analogous approximations are used to describe the sequence of strain rate and stress rate histories. (2003).2.85) where gk are suitably chosen scalar-valued basis functions deﬁned over [t0 . we shall assume that the underlying material model is path-dependent.87) where Jn+1 = det[F n+1 ]. Finite strain pathdependent models (including constitutive integration algorithms) as well as hyperelastic theories are discussed in Part Three of this book. (1990. (4. 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. of terms used to describe the iterative history differences. An equivalent incremental function can be deﬁned for the Kirchhoff stress ˆ ˆ τn+1 = τ (αn . that is. F n+1 ).1.3. 4.86) where F n+1 is the deformation gradient prescribed at the end of the standard interval [tn . (1999). given the set αn of internal variables.102 the form COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p v (x. This is illustrated. 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. . the single increment of the LATIN Method comprising the interval [t0 . (4. by Boisse et al. the comments made in Section 4. p. (1997). F n+1 ). t) = v i i−1 (x. Further applications are found in Boucard et al. Cognard et al.60) the corresponding algorithmic incremental constitutive function is deﬁned in the following general format ˆ σn+1 = σ (αn .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.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . The problem – here considered in its spatial version – is stated in the following. ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (4. that is.2.4. The B-matrix above is the spatial discrete symmetric gradient operator. Problem 4.89) (4. LINEARISATION. and F n+1 = ∇p ϕn+1 = I + ∇p un+1 .32) (page 757) of the virtual work equation (4. to be used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the large deformation incremental equilibrium equation. 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. THE FINITE ELEMENT EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION The ﬁnite element discretisation of the above equation is completely analogous to the discretisation of its inﬁnitesimal counterpart.2 (The ﬁnite strain incremental boundary value problem).7. THE CONSISTENT SPATIAL TANGENT MODULUS Analogously to the inﬁnitesimal deformations case of Section 4. can be obtained by applying a ﬁnite element discretisation to the linearised form (C.88) is satisﬁed for any η ∈ V.2.92) NT bn+1 dv + ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (e) f ext (e) = ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) NT tn+1 da. for example. 4.88). . Given the ﬁeld αn at time tn and given the body forces and surface traction ﬁelds at tn+1 . It has the same format as that of its small strain counterpart (such as. F n+1 ) : ∇x η − bn+1 · η] dv − σ ϕn+1 (Ω) tn+1 · η da = 0. ﬁnd a kinematically admissible conﬁguration ϕn+1 (Ω) ∈ Kn+1 such that the virtual work equation s [ˆ (αn .1 (starting on page 79). the internal and external force vectors are deﬁned as f int = (e) ϕn+1 (4. (4. 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. now.30) for the plane stress and plane strain cases).91). F (un+1 )) dv (Ω(e) ) (4.3. but its shape function derivatives are spatial derivatives. derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates of the ﬁnite element mesh (at the deformed conﬁguration deﬁned by un+1 ).4. the linearised version of (4.90) ˆ BT σ(αn . where ϕn+1 is the deformation map at tn+1 xn+1 = ϕn+1 (p) = p + un+1 (p).91) where.3. that given by (4.3. 4.3.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 103 4.

94) Gg = g g g N 0 N2.2 0 N2.70) we obtain the discrete form of the linearised virtual work equation for large strain problems in spatial description:¶ (Gg )T a Gg dv δu = − [(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv (Ng )T t da .3.2.93). .1. it is given by g g g N1. Its extension to account for conﬁguration-dependent loads is brieﬂy addressed in Section 4.2 Its multiplication by.32) and following the same arguments as those resulting in (4.95) where the global tangent stiffness matrix KT corresponds to the bracketed term on the lefthand side of (4.1 0 (e) (e) (e) 0 0 N2.1 .1 · · · 0 Nnpoin .1 0 g g g 0 0 N2.1 N1.2 0 · · · Nnnode .2 ¶ We remark that this expression is valid when the external loads b and t are conﬁguration-independent.2 0 1.2 · · · 0 Nnpoin .1 0 N2.1 (starting page 763). (4. (4. the global vector δu gives the array of components of the spatial gradient of δu ordered according to the convention of Section D.96) where G is the element discrete spatial gradient operator which. say.1 · · · 0 Nnnode .1 .97) G = (e) (e) (e) N 0 N2.e.6. The matrix Gg is the global discrete spatial gradient operator.2 g g g 0 N1. Similarly to the inﬁnitesimal strain case.1 0 · · · Nnpoin . in plane stress/strain analyses.2 0 1.2 0 · · · Nnpoin .2 0 N1. 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) . In plane strain and plane stress analyses.2. for example.93) where a is the matrix of components of the spatial tangent modulus (C.2 · · · 0 Nnnode .2 (e) (e) (e) 0 N2.104 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Starting from (C. i.1 0 · · · Nnnode . ϕ(∂ h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) − (4. they do not depend on the displacement u.1 0 N2.1 N1. (4. (4. 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.

As in the inﬁnitesimal case.2: aijkl = 1 ∂τij Flm − σil δjk . (ii) Compute consistent spatial tangent modulus matrix [MATICT] aijkl := ˆ 1 ∂ τij Flm − σil δjk J ∂Fkm (iii) Assemble element tangent stiffness matrices [ELEIST.3. the only terms that depend on the constitutive equations of the model are the derivatives of the Kirchhoff stress tensor components. Finite elasticity (also addressed in Part Three) is a particular instance where τn+1 is obtained by direct function evaluation. The derivation of explicit expressions for the above implicit function derivative may become quite intricate but involve nothing more than standard concepts of linearisation.2 with the ﬁnite strain counterparts listed in Box 4.2. that is. 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.2.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 105 Box 4. In the general case considered here. αn+1 := α(αn . the incremental function is usually implicit and is deﬁned by the particular algorithm used to integrate the constitutive equations of the model.98) On the right-hand side of the above expression. . as a general rule. the Kirchhoff stress tensor is the outcome of the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (4. τ is an explicit function of the deformation gradient and its derivative can. Thus. the derivatives ∂τij /∂Fkm are the components of the derivative of this generally implicit incremental constitutive function. Fn+1 ).87). be derived in a relatively straightforward manner. Examples of path-dependent material implementations where τ is deﬁned by an implicit algorithmic function are given in Part Three of this book. The Newton–Raphson scheme for the large strain incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation. The only necessary change is the replacement of some of the items of Box 4.2 for the inﬁnitesimal theory. STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji GT ai Gi i (vi) Update deformation gradient [IFSTD2] Fn+1 := (I − ∇x un+1 )−1 (k) (k) (vii) Use constitutive integration algorithm to update stresses and other state variables [MATISU] (k) (k) (k) (k) ˆ ˆ σn+1 := σ(αn .99) The overall Newton procedure in the ﬁnite strain case is completely analogous to that shown in Box 4. J ∂Fkm (4.3. ∂τij ∂ˆ τ = ∂Fkm ∂F n+1 . ˆ In such a case.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . ijkm (4. Modiﬁcations to Box 4.

3. As the inﬁnitesimal tangent operator (4. the tangent stiffness (4. 4.3. that takes part in (4. however.103) (4. CONFIGURATION-DEPENDENT LOADS. we ﬁrstly compute the matrix form of tensor a and then obtain the element stiffness by performing a single computation with (4. We remark.80) except that.104) (4. If this approach is adopted. that is. is replaced by KT + KL . deﬁned by KM = KG = (e) (e) (k) ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (e) (e) (e) (4.102) replaces the matrix form of the inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operator. under ﬁnite strains. (4. is the so-called load-correction or load-stiffness matrix.81). that is.105) . In computational terms.101)2 to the material stiffness.96) is adopted instead. MATERIAL AND GEOMETRIC STIFFNESSES In ﬁnite element computations. THE LOAD-STIFFNESS MATRIX If the external load depends on the conﬁguration of the body. and S is the array representation of the tensor Sijkl = σjl δik .101)1 has the same format as that of the inﬁnitesimal stiffness matrix (4.6. in the ﬁnite strain case. ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (k) where c is the array representation of the fourth-order tensor cijkl = aijkl − σjl δik . KL .100) BT c B dv (4.96) is frequently split into the so-called material and geometric stiffnesses KT = KM + KG . The load stiffness is the derivative of the external force vector with respect to the displacement (4.102) The material stiffness matrix (4. where the added contribution. the tensor c has the symmetries cijkl = cjikl = cijlk .101) GT S G dv.96).106 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 4. n+1 then the tangent stiffness. if f ext = f ext (un+1 ).95). that in program HYPLAS the form (4. this allows the subroutines for computation of the inﬁnitesimal element tangent stiffness matrix to be reused to compute the material stiffness of the ﬁnite strain case. the full tangent stiffness under ﬁnite strains can be obtained by simply adding the geometrical term (4. the matrix form of the tensor deﬁned by (4.5.

where the displacement vector is found for a prescribed load factor.107) be the corresponding incremental load factor. u} which satisfy equilibrium. 1997. 1991.1. . 1971).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. The explicit derivation of the load stiffness will not be addressed in this book. 4. To trace an equilibrium path beyond limit points we need to resort to continuation techniques. 1981. 1996. The reader is referred to Schweizerhof and Ramm (1984) for details of derivation (see also Argyris and Symeonidis. 4. Readers who wish to skip the description of this technique are referred directly to Box 4.4. An equilibrium path is formed by the set of all load factor-displacement pairs {λ.4 are shown within square brackets. To derive the arc-length method. Riks. 1981).7. In such situations. ∂un+1 u(k−1) n+1 (4. 1999. of which the arc-length method appears to be the most popular (Crisﬁeld. The method is implemented in program HYPLAS. 1997. THE ARC-LENGTH METHOD Let us consider. tn+1 ] and let ∆λ ≡ λn+1 − λn (4.7) is reached. de Souza Neto and Feng. 1981. A description of the arc-length method is given in this section. Ramm.4 (page 109). 1979. 1972. Let us consider the case of proportional loading. Typical equilibrium paths associated with snap-through and snapback behaviour are illustrated in Figure 4. Wempner.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . Common examples appear in buckling instability and problems involving snap-through or snap-back phenomena. The names of the main routines involved in the computational implementation of the most relevant procedures of Box 4. again. 1983. where the combined Newton–Raphson/cylindrical arc-length scheme provided in HYPLAS is summarised in pseudo-code format. we allow ∆λ to become a variable and redeﬁne the residual equation (4.91) as ¯ r(un+1 . cannot be used in general once a limit point (points A of Figure 4.4. ∆λ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − (λn + ∆λ) f ext = 0. the standard load-controlled ﬁnite element scheme of the previous section..6). (4. Feng et al. the standard interval [tn .STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 107 vector: KL = ∂f ext . Unstable equilibrium. 1995. The arc-length method Many ﬁnite deformation problems of practical interest are characterised by the existence of unstable equilibrium conﬁgurations. A typical example is given by pressure loading of rubber membranes (see some of the numerical examples of Section 13.108) 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.

(4. Unstable equilibrium. Snap-through and snap-back behaviour.7.2. the residual equation (4. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 4. 4.109) or (4.4.e. the scaling parameter ψ is set to zero and the constraint equation reads simply ∆uT ∆u = l2 . the constraint equation requires that the Euclidean norm of the converged incremental displacement be l.109) where ∆u and ∆λ are converged incremental quantities.108 λ COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS λ snap-through A A snap-back 0 u 0 u Figure 4.108) in conjunction with one of the above ‘length’ constraint equations ((4. The spherical arc-length method For the so-called spherical arc-length method. For the cylindrical version of the arc-length method. The possible intersections are denoted A and B. The cylindrical arc-length method For the more widely used cylindrical arc-length method (implemented in HYPLAS). an equilibrium solution is obtained by solving. the linearised system to be solved for δu(k) and δλ(k) at . the constraint equation has the general format f f ∆uT ∆u + ∆λ2 ψ 2 ¯ext T ¯ext − l2 = 0. l is a prescribed incremental solution length and ψ is a prescribed scaling parameter. The standard Newton–Raphson algorithm for iterative solution of the augmented arc-length system of nonlinear equations is derived by simply linearising (4.108) together with the relevant arc-length constraint. for both un+1 and ∆λ. having speciﬁed the required l.110)). 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.8 which illustrates a system with two degrees of freedom. (4.110) In this case. i. THE COMBINED NEWTON–RAPHSON/ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE In summary.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . (k) (0) ¯ r(0) := f int (un ) − λn f ext (ii) Assemble stiffness. (0) λn+1 := λn .STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 109 Box 4. k := 0. 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 combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme. (4. (i) Initialise iteration counter.4. ELEIST] (iii) Set k := k + 1. δ¯ u [subroutine FRONT] KT δu∗ = −r(k−1) .111) . and set initial guess for displacement and incremental load factor un+1 := un . (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.117) and choose root δλ(k) according to (4.118) (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) . (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. KT := KT (un+1 ) [FRONT. r(k) := f int (un+1 ) − λn+1 f (ix) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r(k) / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol [INTFOR. Solve the linear systems for δu∗ and for the tangential solution. ∆λ(k−1) ) =− . (k) (k) (k) (k−1) (k) (k−1) 2 ∆un+1 := ∆un+1 + δu(k) ext (k) (k−1) ¯ (viii) Update residual.

112)1.112) ∆u(k) ∆u(k) = l2 . In the iterations (4. we have ¯ (4. The non-consistent scheme In practice. instead of solving the above coupled system (whose coefﬁcients matrix is nonbanded). where δu∗ is the iterative displacement stemming from the Newton–Raphson algorithm for the standard load controlled scheme: δu∗ ≡ −K−1 r(k−1) .8. un ) 0 un A u2 u1 l Figure 4. where the original augmented system to be solved at each iteration is replaced by the following equations: δu(k) = −r(u(k−1) . ∆λ(k−1) ) KT (u(k−1) ) −¯ext f δλ(k) (4.111). in the non-consistent scheme. the arc-length constraint is enforced at every iteration.113) δu(k) = δu∗ + δλ δ u. The cylindrical arc-length method. From (4. it is more convenient to adopt what is sometimes referred to as the non-consistent scheme. T f (4. u}. T ¯ and δ u is the so-called tangential solution deﬁned by ¯ δ u ≡ K−1 ¯ext .110 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS arc-length constraint λ λn B ∆uT ∆u = l equilibrium path ( λ n .115) (4. the arc-length constraint is guaranteed to hold only at the converged solution whereas.114) T . Both iterative schemes lead to identical converged equilibrium solutions {∆λ.

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. δλ(k) is the solution of (4. 1991).117) (k−1) + δu ) (∆u ∗ T + δu ) − l . (b) Incremental work.e.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 111 Substitution of (4.122) (4. i. (c) Secant path (Feng et al. the above criterion cannot be used for determination of the appropriate root δγ (k) as the initial guess. (4. does not contain information about the path being currently followed by the iterative procedure. 1996).112)2. Follow the sign of the stiffness determinant |KT (u(0) )|: sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(|KT (u(0) )|). Some criteria are listed below: (a) Stiffness determinant..THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . THE PREDICTOR SOLUTION When k = 1 (the predictor solution). If the wrong choice is made. The sign of δλ(1) is determined as sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(∆uT δ u).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) } . The two possible values of δλ(1) for the predictor solution are l δλ(1) = ± √ .e.113) into the relation ∆u(k) = ∆u(k−1) + δu(k) .4. (4. followed by the enforcement of the constraint (4.3. 1991).116) with coefﬁcients ¯ ¯ a = δ uT δ u ¯ b = 2(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ )T δ u c = (∆u (k−1) (4. ∆u(0) = 0. 4. the predictor solution will ‘track back’ on the current path (Crisﬁeld. n ¯ (4. (4. results in the quadratic equation for the iterative load factor δλ(k) 2 a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0. 1995.120) ¯ ¯ 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.119) . is updated according to ∆λ(k) = ∆λ(k−1) + δλ(k) .123) (4. Many procedures are currently used to predict the continuation direction.121) (4. ∆λ(k) .118) The incremental load factor. to choose the sign of δλ(1) that carries on tracing the current solution path. i. Follow the sign of the predictor work increment: ¯ f sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(δ uT ¯ext ).

a positive product. The importance of this fact is established in the discussion that follows. tn ]. This property is mathematically proved by Feng et al.115).123). 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. where. is ‘blind’ to bifurcations and can continue to trace an equilibrium path after passing a bifurcation point. 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. ∆uT δ u. A schematic representation is shown in Figure 4. 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. However. on the other hand. on the other hand. instead of following the current equilibrium path. In other words. The decision on the sign of δλ is made without considering the history of the currently traced equilibrium path. Note that δ u is not deﬁned at load-reversing points (cf. . In essence. In contrast. ∆un approximates the history of the current equilibrium path within [tn−1 .10(b)). is secant to the equilibrium path and. this may result in wrong direction prediction. In situations such as the ones pointed out above. Clearly.10. tn ]. that is. in particular. the solution will oscillate about the bifurcation point. the load factor is decreasing and the negative sign should be n ¯ chosen (Figure 4. where the predicted positive ‘slope’ will provoke a ‘back tracking’ load increase. δ u is a vector tangent to the equilibrium path in the space of displacements. when sufﬁciently small. (1997). As schematically ¯ illustrated in Figure 4. Procedure (b). if ∆uT δ u is negative. In the presence of bifurcations. n ¯ (4. Geometric interpretation ¯ Firstly. δ u. The incremental displacement ∆un . it is known not to be appropriate and fails in most cases. In this case.10(a)). gives a good approximation to the solution curve within the interval [tn−1 . In the presence of a bifurcation. points S1 and S2 of Figure 4.112 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. when sufﬁciently small.124) The above inequality is equivalent to (4. In order to keep tracing the current path without returning to previously obtained points. a key point concerning criterion (c) is the fact that ∆un carries with it information about the history of the current equilibrium path. Procedure (a) is widely used in commercial ﬁnite element codes and works well in the absence of bifurcations. δλδ u.9. however. ∆un indicates the ‘forward’ direction of the current solution path at un . In view of its deﬁnition (4. δλ ∆uT δ u > 0. we show by means of geometric arguments that the secant predictor can easily overcome the problems associated with criteria (a) and (b). As pointed out by Crisﬁeld (1991).9) where KT is singular. be in the ‘forward’ direction. the predictor cannot distinguish between these two quite different situations. it points in the direction of the positive ¯ gradient of λ. this criterion requires that the incremental displacement of the ¯ predictor solution. Secant path. Thus. Similarly. 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). unless further (usually computationally expensive) analyses are undertaken. let us concentrate on the meaning of the tangential solution.

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

.

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

1. This feature is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to use HYPLAS for the development. In addition. difﬁcult-to-follow source codes. . Whenever convenient. the pseudo-code and the corresponding FORTRAN source code of the relevant routines. PORTABILITY The code of HYPLAS is entirely written in (almost) standard FORTRAN 77 programming language (ANSI. Finite element codes are no exception. the comments indicate where in the book the procedure being carried out is described. 1978).2. REMARKS ON PROGRAM STRUCTURE In order to treat a wider range of material models and ﬁnite element types within the above general framework. We do not mean that clarity of coding and computational efﬁciency are opposing concepts but. Frequently. excessive optimisation of computer operations tends to result in cumbersome. Element and material model-related data are also self-contained to some extent. 5.116 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS material model are thoroughly discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book. Comment lines The reader will also ﬁnd that numerous comments have been added to the source code.1. the programming philosophy adopted in its development has been biased towards code clarity and modularity. the adopted program structure makes the incorporation of new material models and ﬁnite element types relatively straightforward tasks (once the associated numerical procedures have been coded by the developer). The existing exceptions to the FORTRAN 77 standards are known to be accepted by most currently available compilers. 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. the routines of HYPLAS involved in the computational implementation of procedures described in the book are also indicated in the text. in many cases. as a general rule. Clarity of coding When developing a computer code. the code of. This is particularly true for the numerical procedures whose theory is described in this text. Due to this modularity. implementation and testing of new constitutive models/algorithms as well as ﬁnite elements. a constitutive integration algorithm for a particular material model can be easily identiﬁed with the corresponding description provided in this book.3. say. The reader will ﬁnd there a detailed description of the associated procedures including. This should allow a relatively easy cross-referencing between theory and corresponding computer implementation. Cross-referencing. In view of the educational purposes of HYPLAS. programmers are frequently faced with the dilemma: clarity versus efﬁciency. Part Two focuses on the inﬁnitesimal theory and Part Three on the ﬁnite strain range. 5.

1. It contains an image of the complete database at the time of its creation.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 117 5.1. Input data can be read: (a) either from an input data ﬁle only. The corresponding data can be classed into two basic categories: (i) Problem-deﬁning (ﬁxed) data. These are data that do not change during the solution process such as initial nodal coordinates. 3. is the data related to the deﬁnition of the proportional load incrementation programme. The procedure has been conceptually described in Boxes 4. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 5. the ﬁnite element analysis is restarted from where the restart ﬁle was created. At this stage all data deﬁning the problem to be analysed are read from the relevant ﬁles and all necessary arrays are initialised. 5. The incremental ﬁnite element procedure.3. The input data ﬁle is an ASCII format ﬁle which. where the numerical procedures discussed in Chapter 4 are implemented. THE GLOBAL DATABASE The global database of HYPLAS stores most arrays and program control parameters required in the ﬁnite element solution process. Output routines are called from inside the main loop over load increments. This is a binary ﬁle generated during a previous execution of HYPLAS. These components are described in more detail in the following sections. Data input and initialisation. Under option (b). it consists of a main loop over load increments with a nested loop over equilibrium iterations. This is the main body of the program. Output of converged results. 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. reading of input data and initialising of most global arrays. Essentially. Data input and initialisation The ﬁrst operations carried out as the execution of HYPLAS is initiated. material and element properties.3. contains all information about the problem to be analysed. kinematic constraints and applied external loads as well as various control parameters required in the ﬁnite element analysis. comprise the opening of ﬁles accessed during the execution. (b) or from an input restart ﬁle and an input data ﬁle. 2.4 of the previous chapter. . 5. In this case (case (b)). topology of the ﬁnite element mesh (nodal connectivities). The data input and initialisation phase is carried out at the very beginning of the execution of the program. The main program The main program of HYPLAS can be divided into three basic parts: 1. where the main routines involved are indicated.2. most of the problem deﬁnition is read from an input restart ﬁle.1–4. in case (a). The only information read from the relevant (ASCII) input data ﬁle.

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

3. MAIN PROBLEM-DEFINING DATA. The components of f RLOAD. EXTERNAL LOADING. the gravity acceleration and the unit vector deﬁning the direction of the gravity acceleration. mesh topology. INDATA also carries out a number of checks to ensure the validity of the given data. Array t is the array of nodal pressure vectors of the loaded edge. respectively.67) and (4. kinematic constraints.1) where the input data ρ. coordinates.3. The above numerical integration is carried out for each loaded edge of the element. (5.2. the material density. In this case. the geometry of the problem. then an error message is printed (by routine ERRPRT) and the execution of the program is aborted. material properties.3. (5. Assembly of element vectors ngausb ∂Ωt (e) (e) NT b t da ≈ i=1 wi j(ξi ) Nb (ξi )T t.2) where ∂Ωt is the loaded edge of the boundary of element e. etc. nonlinear solution algorithm. 5. • Gravity load. etc. SUBROUTINE INDATA This routine reads. • Distributed load at element boundaries (edges in two dimensions). 5. Forces deﬁned directly at nodal points. 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. current values at the last equilibrium (converged) solution are retrieved instead from the input restart ﬁle in RSTART. 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. If in restart mode. If unacceptable data is detected (such as undeﬁned or multiply deﬁned nodal numbers. the corresponding prescribed values are assigned to their appropriate position in array RLOAD. g and g are.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 119 of type (ii) are initialised in subroutine INITIA. element properties as well as most program control parameters including: analysis type (plane stress. . The loading types implemented in INLOAD are • Point load. from the input data ﬁle. 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.68)).). Some checks are also made in INLOAD to detect incorrect data. strain or axisymmetric) ﬂag.

l. The corresponding ﬂowchart is shown in Figure 5. 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 idea is to allow the arc length to increase when convergence is ‘easy’ and to reduce it if convergence is ‘difﬁcult’. The inner (equilibrium iteration) loop for the combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme is summarised in Box 4. Stresses and other state variables (most arrays of COMMON block STATE). 5. the ﬂow of the main program is a small variation of that followed with prescribed load increments. trying to obtain . Also. Within each step of the loop over load increments.1–4. 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. an iterative procedure (typically the Newton–Raphson algorithm) is carried out to solve the nonlinear equilibrium problem. The load incrementation loop.7. The essential difference is that the proportional load increment factor here is recalculated (routine ARCLEN) in each pass of the iteration loop whereas. Under this option. Arrays such as displacements (incremental. Overview Let us now focus on the core of the ﬁnite element analysis code: the load incrementation loop. the proportional load increments are determined along the process according to the cylindrical arc-length procedure described in the previous chapter.4. with ﬁxed increments.2. 5.120 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5. the current incremental load factor is split into two equally sized sub-increments. the external load is incremented (in INCREM) before the iteration loop starts. SUBROUTINE INITIA This routine initialises some arrays and problem control variables. The pseudo-code of the overall scheme is given in Boxes 4.4. INITIALISATION OF VARIABLE DATA. 5.3.3) is activated. The convenience of using material-speciﬁc routines for state variable initialisation is discussed in Section 5. are initialised by material-speciﬁc routines called from subroutine MATISW.4). The main routines called from the HYPLAS main program are indicated. ARC-LENGTH CONTROL OPTION Under arc-length control. the incremental load factors for each increment are ﬁxed. 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. is changed at the end of every increment (after convergence) according to the number of iterations required to achieve convergence within the prescribed tolerance.4. iterative and total) are initialised to zero.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 arc length.3 for the ﬁxed increments option.4.3.2. In the present implementation. If the increment cutting procedure (Section 5.1. as deﬁned in the input data ﬁle. In the latter case.4. In the present arc-length implementation. which are deﬁned at the Gauss point level.

nitdes (prescribed in the input data ﬁle).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.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. convergence in a desired number of iterations. Fixed increments option. 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. RSTART Figure 5. respectively. the new length lnext to be used in the next step is set (in subroutine LENGTH) as lnext = lcurr nitdes . nitact (5.2. the number of iterations for convergence and the arc length used in the current step. With nitact and lcurr denoting.3) The new length is not allowed to be larger than a maximum value lmax . . The load incrementation loop.

f (e) INTFOR failure in state update compute residual set convergence flag CONVER iterations diverging iteration converged? NO YES maximum number of iterations exceeded output converged results compute new arc-length for next increment OUTPUT. Obviously.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. the start-up length. The load incrementation loop. Since it is not normally easy to imagine the magnitude of l that would be reasonable for a particular problem. Start-up length.4) LOOP OVER EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS . the above length adjustment cannot be applied. l0 . at the beginning of the ﬁrst iteration of the very ﬁrst load increment. RSTART LENGTH Figure 5.3.122 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. ∆λ0 . is calculated (in ARCLEN) by specifying (in the input data ﬁle) an initial load increment factor. and setting l0 = ∆λ2 δ¯T u 0 u ¯ (5. 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. Arc-length control.

The present implementation allows the choice of the sign of the predictor solution (refer to Section 4. The causes of failure to converge are • The load increment is too large. falls outside the convergence radius of the iterative solution method. In this case the residual norm will either diverge or not converge within a reasonable number of iterations. un+1 (refer to Box 4. Certain measures can be taken to make constitutive algorithms more robust and avoid the problem. AUTOMATIC INCREMENT CUTTING An automatic increment cutting facility is available in HYPLAS (see dashed lines in the ﬂowcharts of Figures 5.4. This is normally caused by excessively large strain increments. This issue is addressed in Part Two of this book. This facility proves extremely useful in general nonlinear analysis. The maximum length lmax is also set at this stage as lmax = p l0 . 5. It frequently occurs that a converged equilibrium solution cannot be attained in the equilibrium iterations.3.2 and 5. • The linear equation system cannot be solved in FRONT due to a zero pivot in the stiffness matrix.2). The predictor solution is computed in subroutine ARCLEN. .5) where p is the maximum arc-length parameter (deﬁned in the input data ﬁle).4. The total prescribed load (with ﬁxed increments (0) option) is beyond the limit load of the structure or the initial guess. 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. Whenever that happens. Under arc-length control. 1991) within the equilibrium iterations. Stopping the load incrementation loop. (5. This may occur for material models whose tangent operator may become singular under certain states of stress. 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. • The algorithm for numerical integration of path-dependent constitutive equations (the state update procedure) fails to produce a solution at a Gauss point.3). A possible alternative (not available in HYPLAS) to increase the convergence radius is the incorporation of line-searches (Crisﬁeld.4).OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 123 ¯ where u is the initial tangential solution (see item (iii) of Box 4. the increment cutting procedure is activated and the current step is restarted (from the last converged solution) with reduced increment size.3) to be made by two criteria: the stiffness determinant sign or the secant path predictor.

The global arrays of HYPLAS used exclusively by the frontal solver are not included in the global database (ﬁle GLBDBASE. 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. INTERNAL FORCE CALCULATION.INC). the linear system is solved by Gauss elimination. They are grouped in the COMMON block named FRONTA. SUBROUTINE INTFOR Subroutine INTFOR computes the element internal force vector of all elements of the mesh.124 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS • For arc-length control only. . For each element. Another local control ﬂag used by this routine is the integer MODE. This problem is also generally overcome by reducing the increment size (the arc length. the tangential solution of the arc-length method. it calls the internal force evaluation routine of the corresponding element class. when the initial stiffness method is used). 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. 1970).4. the equation system is solved for up to two right-hand sides. If MODE=1. may have no real roots. and eliminated simultaneously. THE LINEAR SOLVER. 5. In the frontal method. Details of the technique are described elsewhere (Hinton and Owen. SWITCHING DATA. The variable KRESL controls whether or not a new stiffness is computed. then both solutions are obtained. The equations are assembled. is obtained u instead by solving ¯ext KT δ¯ = −f . KRESL is always set to 1. The arc-length constraint equation (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. solved in routine ARCLEN.6) is solved for δu. If KRESL=2. for instance. In this case.4. Further details on the structure of HYPLAS regarding the evaluation of internal forces and general state updating are given in Section 5. In the present implementation. l. in this case) and restarting the current step with the reduced value of l. the stiffness matrix is reduced only once.4. 5. If MODE=2. SUBROUTINE FRONT The linear system solution is carried out in subroutine FRONT which uses the classical frontal method (Hinton and Owen.4.5. 1977. 5. When the standard Newton–Raphson algorithm is used.5. with the appropriate contribution of individual elements to the global stiffness matrix and load vector. If KRESL=1. then a new stiffness is required.6. The number of right-hand sides for which the solution is required is set in the local variable NRHS. the standard system KT δu = −r (5.116). δ¯ . 1977) and will not be discussed here. Note that the solution for two right-hand sides is required by the arc-length method.7) If MODE=3. u (5. Irons.

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. In large deformation analysis.2. printed in the results ﬁle. incremental and iterative nodal displacement vectors also require switching/resetting.1.e. Brief reference to the modularity of elements and material models in HYPLAS has been made in Section 5. to a large extent. is made with the output control ﬂags stored in arrays NOUTP and NOUTPV.or element-related.1. SUBROUTINES OUTPUT AND RSTART Once the equilibrium iteration loop has converged. When . the results are.7. The type of switching operation carried out by SWITCH depends on the integer argument MODE.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 125 This applies to all arrays of COMMON block STATE (see comments in ﬁle GLBDBASE. 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. At this point. if required. Appropriate switching/resetting is also needed when increment cutting is activated. state variables at Gauss points and (extrapolated) state variables at nodes. when and what to output. Output to the restart ﬁle is carried out by routine RSTART. material-speciﬁc operations and the ‘rest’ of the program occurs in the computation of the element internal force vector.4. When the iterative procedure converges. array COORD (in COMMON block MESH) of nodal coordinates also needs switching between current and last converged values.INC). EXAMPLE. The basic steps executed are. 5.7). This is illustrated in the call tree of Figure 5. The current values (which have converged at this point) are then assigned to the corresponding array positions that store converged data. the previous converged values are assigned to the positions corresponding to the current values. we have provided an overview of the main program with a summary description of the input phase and the main load incrementation loop. Switching between current and last converged data is managed by subroutine SWITCH as follows (refer to source code). 5. This will be addressed here in more detail. The operations of output to results ﬁle are performed by subroutine OUTPUT. Material and element modularity In the above. the converged values need updating. Output control. such as the total. 5.5. The concept is illustrated in the following example. MODULARISATION OF INTERNAL FORCE COMPUTATION An example where clear distinction can be made between element-speciﬁc operations. Other arrays. These are passed on to the state-updating procedure which returns (in the same position) the updated (or current) values. independent of ﬁnite element types and material models adopted. Printed results can be nodal displacements. reactions. Most arrays of COMMON block STATE are switched in material-speciﬁc routines (see Section 5.4. 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). OUTPUT OF CONVERGED RESULTS.5. i. In designing the structure of HYPLAS. this feature has been exploited to allow a relatively high degree of modularity of ﬁnite element types and constitutive models/algorithms.

the main program calls subroutine INTFOR (refer to the ﬂowcharts of Figures 5. are computed depend only on the particular element being used. ξi and the way in which the Jacobian. Material and element levels At this point. the Gauss points positions.8) The Gaussian quadrature weights. . The stress array. f (e) compute residual.126 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reset some variables to last converged values compute element int internal force vectors. Element and material modularity in internal force computation. Before ELEIIF is called. (5. INTFOR loops over all elements of the mesh and calls the element interface routine for internal force calculation ELEIIF (see call tree of 5. on the other hand. 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 . Return updated values to element level material interface for state update MATISU MATERIAL LEVEL state update linear elastic material state update Tresca model .2 and 5. and the strain-displacement matrix. 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. state update Ogden model SUEL SUTR SUOGD Figure 5. j. are carried out. only operations related to the general incremental procedure. set converence flag SWITCH INTFOR CONVER ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient). element internal forces need to be computed within the equilibrium iteration loop. Pass them on to material level to update stress.† The calculation of these quantities is independent of the underlying material model. More precisely. with no distinction between different types of ﬁnite element or material. B..3). 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.4. they depend on the element class to which the adopted element belongs.6. wi .4)..

12) Based on the above comments.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 127 algorithm used to integrate its constitutive equations (if the material is path-dependent). the computation of the internal force vector can be split into two well-deﬁned levels: 1.10) and the set αn which now contains the converged internal state variables at time station tn and the strain εn .10) in that it has different arguments. In the general path-dependent case. Here. In ﬁnite strain analysis. the corresponding argument is the incremental deformation gradient. that. The element level. as part of αn .9) within the typical interval [tn . the internal force vector is assembled according to (5. it will be convenient to have the elastic strain of time station tn . B) are computed together with the essential kinematic variable ∆ε (F ∆ in large strains). Throughout the text. where the function arguments are the incremental strains. The material level. εn+1 ) (5.8). regardless of their list of arguments. tn+1 ]. F ∆ ≡ I + ∇n (∆u) = [I − ∇n+1 (∆u)]−1 . 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. under inﬁnitesimal strains. however. ∆ε). In the above. With the updated stress at hand. F ∆ ).§ In HYPLAS. formally. It receives the incremental strain (or deformation gradient) from the element level. the function on the right-hand side of (5. in computations with elastoplastic/viscoplastic models. the incremental strain is the actual argument passed into the state update interface in the inﬁnitesimal case.10). The incremental strain (or deformation gradient) is passed on to the material level which returns the updated stress. 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. (5. § As we shall see later. The incremental constitutive function can be expressed in the equivalent form‡ ˆ σ = σ(αn .13) (5. The updated stress is returned to the element level. all element-related quantities (wi . we shall employ the symbol σ to denote algorithmic ˆ (incremental) constitutive functions for the stress tensor in general. ∆ε ≡ εn+1 − εn = ∇s (∆u). and the incremental constitutive function is represented as ˆ σ = σ(αn .9) differs from that on the right-hand side of (5. (5. This is the lowest layer of code.11) (5. j. rather than the strain εn . the state update algorithm deﬁnes an incremental constitutive function ˆ σ = σ(αn . ‡ Note . 2.

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

we have the interface routine ELEIST (called from FRONT) whose task is to identify element classes and call the class-speciﬁc routine for computation of the element tangent stiffness. For standard isoparametric two-dimensional elements. respectively. For instance.2. each element type uses its own routine. The evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix is also carried out in a modular structure completely analogous to that shown in Figure 5. The class-speciﬁc routines for standard and F -bar elements are STSTD2 and STFBA2. 5.IGRUP) and RELPRP( . subroutines RST3 and RSQ4 read and set data.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. For F -bar elements (discussed in Chapter 15). of the element properties arrays.IGRUP). 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. The corresponding call tree is shown in Figure 5. These routines are called only once during the program execution. IMPLEMENTING A NEW FINITE ELEMENT In this section. Such subroutines are named following the convention: RSxxxx. Element properties are also used in the evaluation of the external load vector carried out in INLOAD. To read the relevant data from the input data ﬁle and assign all necessary properties to IELPRP and RELPRP.4. the corresponding class-speciﬁc routine is IFFBA2.6. the class-speciﬁc routine is IFSTD2. ELEMENT INTERFACES. we provide a summary of the basic path to be followed in order to include a new ﬁnite element into HYPLAS. These data are used by the corresponding element classspeciﬁc subroutines for computation of internal force and tangent stiffness matrices.1. INTERNAL FORCE AND STIFFNESS COMPUTATION The modularisation of elements in the internal force computation has been discussed in Section 5.3. 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). The properties of the element type assigned to an element group IGRUP are stored in the columns IELPRP( .5. Subroutine ELEIIF in this case is the element interface routine that controls the evaluation of the element internal force vector. for the isoparametric three-noded triangle and four-noded bi-linear quadrilateral.5. 5.6. respectively. .

These routines have not been discussed above. They are called by SHPFUN which is used by element classes available in the program. The implementation of the new element requires coding of the following new element type-speciﬁc procedures: 1.. In addition. New classes of element that do not use this structure will not require shape function routines coded in this way. For the interested reader a good exercise could be to include. 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 element data input/setting routine (RSxxxx). A new element of an existing class Assume that we want to include a new element type belonging to an existing element class. Subroutine SHPFUN is the interface for shape function/shape function derivatives computation. Consistent tangent computation.. the nine-noded Lagrangian isoparametric quadrilateral.INC. It identiﬁes the element type and calls the corresponding element type-speciﬁc shape function/derivative routine (refer to the source code of subroutine SFT3 or SFQ4). say. In this case.. Use tangent operator to assemble element stiffness matrix assemble and solve linear equation systems . Modular structure. a new element-type identiﬁcation parameter has to be added to the include ﬁle ELEMENTS.. basic class-related internal force and stiffness computation routines already exist and do not need to be changed. 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). . spatial tangent modulus for Ogden model CTEL CTTR CSTOGD Figure 5.5. ELEMENT LEVEL Compute material-independent kinematic quantities (strains or deformation gradient). Pass them on to material level to compute tangent operator. The routine for evaluation of shape functions and shape function derivatives (SFxxxx).130 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS . 2..

etc.INC). for instance.INC. This ﬁle is the material database of HYPLAS. parameters deﬁning hardening curves of elastoplastic materials. if required. and calls to the new routines have to be included in the element interfaces ELEIIF and ELEIST.6.INC.1. a new elementclass identiﬁcation parameter has to be added to ﬁle ELEMENTS. this will require more work than to include an element of an existing class. number of terms in the series deﬁning an Ogden-type ﬁnite strain hyperelasticity strain energy function. In addition to the above procedures. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC DATA INPUT Integer and real material properties are stored. The Hencky material is discussed in Chapter 13 and the ﬁnite elastoplasticity models are described in Chapter 14. 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. a number of models may require identical transformation of the basic kinematic variable (F ∆ ) before the essential state updating procedure can be applied. • Integer material properties. 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 . The identiﬁcation parameter of this class is HYPEPL (see ﬁle MATERIAL. 5. Material types and classes are identiﬁed by identiﬁcation parameters deﬁned in the include ﬁle MATERIAL.INC). Usual properties such as Young’s modulus. The data stored in these arrays include all parameters required by the continuum constitutive model and.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 131 A new element class Obviously. F ∆ . 5. etc. all materials of this class are logarithmic strainbased extensions of the corresponding inﬁnitesimal models (the linear elastic model. Number of points deﬁning a piecewise linear hardening curve for elastoplastic materials. for instance. we need to code new element class-speciﬁc stiffness and internal force evaluation routines. 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. of COMMON block MATERL (see include ﬁle GLBDBASE. Grouping materials into classes is not absolutely necessary for modularity but becomes convenient particularly in the ﬁnite strain regime when. The situation here is analogous to the storage of element properties discussed in Section 5. Material models: implementation and management Material models (or types) are also grouped into classes. respectively.1. turns into the Hencky material). in the arrays IPROPS and RPROPS. Examples of integer and real material properties are: • Real material properties. MATERIAL PROPERTIES. Poisson’s ratio. Also. In this case. may also contain other parameters related to the speciﬁc numerical algorithm adopted to integrate the constitutive equations of the model. Under ﬁnite strains.7. This is the most demanding part.7.

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

For path-dependent constitutive models. such as STRSG( . 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. Material-speciﬁc state updating procedure Here. The state-updating procedures (subroutines) are named according to the rule SUxxxx. such that the state {σn+1 .3. each material model implementation has a material-speciﬁc stateˆ ˆ updating procedure that deﬁnes a pair of functions {σ. for instance. rather than ∆ε. The array positions having the last index equal to 1. performs extra class-speciﬁc kinematic operations (if necessary) and then calls the material type-speciﬁc routine SUxxxx. This routine identiﬁes the material class and type. ∆ε). σ and α. . contain the last equilibrium converged values. we have the subroutines SUVM (general case) and SUVMPS (plane stress algorithm). . ∆ε) ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . (5. 5.7. Positions with the last index equal to 2.1) for the Gauss point stresses. To keep the modularity of material models.4.14) In the ﬁnite strain case. the above functions are deﬁned in terms of the incremental deformation gradient. such as STRSG( .OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 133 The arrays of COMMON block STATE store both current and last converged values of the corresponding variables. 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. within the overall incremental ﬁnite element scheme. 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). In the HYPLAS program. F ∆ . αn+1 } at a Gauss point is symbolically represented as ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn .2). each material model ˆ ˆ implementation is deﬁned by incremental constitutive functions. . we described in more detail the structure of the material level layer of Figure 5. α}. Let us recall that. For the von Mises elastoplastic model. store the current values.

It identiﬁes the material and calls the appropriate tangent computation routine. The MATerial Interface for Consistent Tangent computation is named MATICT. the material-speciﬁc routine for the von Mises model is named CTVM. Whenever required. The Ogden hyperelastic model uses subroutine CSTOGD.98)) needed in ﬁnite strain analyses. 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. is also carried out in material-speciﬁc routines.98).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. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC TANGENT COMPUTATION ROUTINES The call tree for computation of material-related tangent operators is illustrated in Figure 5.81) and (4. 5.81)). The name convention adopted for such routines is CTxxxx for computation of inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operators (deﬁned by (4.5. In this case. we describe the last material-related operation: the output of material-speciﬁc data to a results ﬁle. For the von Mises and Ogden models we have. 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). required in the assemblage of element tangent stiffness matrices. and CSTxxx for consistent spatial tangent moduli (deﬁned by (4. The material interface for tangent computation A material interface routine is also used to call the tangent operator computation subroutines.4. the computation of the consistent tangent operators (4. 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. respectively. the routines SWVM and SWOGD. 5.7. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC RESULTS OUTPUT ROUTINES Finally. The switching/initialising subroutines are named as SWxxxx. . In line with the material modularity discussed in the above.5 (material level).

1 and 2. 5.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 135 For instance. the incorporation of a new material model/algorithm into HYPLAS. SWxxxx. the von Mises effective stress is important for metals but may be of no relevance for concrete failure models.INC and in the above material interface routines. 2. Add a new material-type identiﬁcation parameter to the materials database (include ﬁle MATERIAL. The MATerial Interface to Output Results is the subroutine MATIOR. a clean and modular structure. 3. CTxxxx (CSTxxx in ﬁnite strains). IMPLEMENTING A NEW MATERIAL MODEL Within the modular structure described above. Thus. A new material class identiﬁcation parameter needs to be added too. The maximum dimensioning parameters of ﬁle MATERIAL. In addition.2 The routine for computation of the associated consistent tangent operator. MATICT.INC have to be increased accordingly if the new material model requires more storage space.3 The routine for switching and initialising material-related variables. Add new calls to the material interface routines. Add new entries to the materials database. Material interface for results output Again.6. For path-dependent materials this is a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding constitutive equations. The output routine for the von Mises model. MATISW. the use of material-speciﬁc routines at this stage is convenient in order to print out only relevant results and keep. The developer needs to code ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines. 2. a material interface routine is used to control calls to material-speciﬁc routines.7. Most of the programming work is concentrated in items 2. Write new material-speciﬁc routines.1 The state updating procedure. at the same time.INC).4 The routine for material data input RDxxxx. 2. is named ORVM. for instance. SUxxxx. MATIRD and MATIOR. . Note that changes to the existing code are needed only in the material database ﬁle MATERIAL. requires the following basic steps: 1.2. the following auxiliary routines are required: 2. 2. These routines are named in HYPLAS according to the convention ORxxxx. The crucial material-deﬁning routines are 2. only if the new material belongs to a newly deﬁned class.5 The routine for output of material-related results ORxxxx. Finally. calls to the above routines have to be added to the corresponding material interfaces: MATISU.

.

Part Two Small strains .

.

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

in segment O0 Y0 the behaviour of the material is regarded as linear elastic. This shape change is represented in the graph by the permanent (or plastic) axial strain εp . point Z0 . The associated yield stresses correspond to points Y0 and Y1 . 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 . the slope of the stress–strain curve changes dramatically and if the stress (or strain) loading is reversed at. with no further plastic straining of the bar. The bar is then unloaded back to an unstressed state and subsequently reloaded to a higher stress level σ1 . it returns to the original unstressed state O0 . an evolution of the yield stress itself is also observed (note that the yield stresses corresponding to points Y0 and Y1 are different). 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. it is important to emphasise that. i.e. . Similarly to the initial elastic segment O0 Y0 . the bar returns to an unstressed state via path Z0 O1 . Phenomenological aspects In spite of their qualitatively distinct mechanical responses. the behaviour of the material in the segment O1 Y1 may also be regarded as linear elastic. the actual difference between them is in fact much smaller than that shown in the diagram of Figure 6.1. Thus. in that a permanent change in the shape of the bar is observed. Therefore. even though some discrepancy between unloading and reloading curves (such as lines Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 ) is observed in typical experiments. respectively. 2. Monotonic reloading of the bar to a stress level σ1 will follow the path O1 Y1 Z1 . Accompanying the evolution of the plastic strain. 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 stress–strain curve follows the path O0 Y0 Z0 O1 Y1 Z1 shown. In the schematic diagram of Figure 6. Some important phenomenological properties can be identiﬁed in the above described uniaxial test.e.5 and 6. In Figure 6. if the bar is unloaded from point Y0 (or before it is reached). is plotted against the axial strain. loading beyond an elastic limit (point Y1 in this case) will cause further increase in plastic deformation. The existence of an elastic domain. in Sections 6. Typically. Plastic ﬂow rules and hardening laws are addressed. the initial line segment O0 Y0 is virtually straight and. If the material is further loaded at the yield stress. σ0 . where the axial stress.140 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS described in Section 6. The new unstressed state. a uniaxial tension experiment with a metallic bar is discussed in what follows. then plastic yielding (or plastic ﬂow). evolution of plastic strains. The elastic domain is delimited by the so-called yield stress.1. In this path. To illustrate such common features.1. without evolution of permanent (plastic) strains. σ. differs from the initial unstressed state. Here. takes place.6. This phenomenon is known as hardening. Beyond Y0 . i. segments O0 Y0 and O1 Y1 deﬁne the elastic domain at two different states. O1 . a range of stresses within which the behaviour of the material can be considered as purely elastic. 6. ε.1. say.1. 3. O0 . They are enumerated below: 1.4. uniaxial tension tests with ductile metals produce stress–strain curves of the type shown in Figure 6. Again.

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

6. the uniaxial stress corresponding to a conﬁguration with total strain ε is given by σ = E (ε − εp ).1) where E denotes the Young’s modulus of the material of the bar. σ0 . with constant plastic strain. upon complete unloading of the bar. and a .1. This path is normally referred to as the virgin curve and is obtained by a continuous monotonic loading from the initial unstressed state O0 . 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. This motivates the additive decomposition of the axial strain described in the following section.2. ε. 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 ). after being monotonically loaded from the initial unstressed state to the stress level σ0 . the behaviour of the bar between states O1 and Y1 is considered to be linear elastic. Uniaxial tension experiment. Under the above assumptions. ε − εp is fully recovered without further evolution of plastic strains. During plastic yielding. within the segment O1 Y1 . are assumed to coincide. (6. into the sum of an elastic (or reversible) component.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. Note that the difference between the total strain and the current plastic strain. Mathematical model. is fully reversible. εp . εe .2. and yield limit. the stress–strain curve always follows the path deﬁned by O0 Y0 Y1 Z1 . Thus. ε the beginning of unloading and the onset of plastic yielding upon subsequent reloading. ε − εp . that is.

(6.1 are associated with the formulation of a yield criterion and a plastic ﬂow rule. ε = εe + εp . It should be noted that. (6. i. The items 1 and 2 of Section 6. (6. This yield criterion can be expressed by If Φ(σ.2. (6. whereas on its boundary (at the yield stress).5) (6. only elastic straining may occur. εp . of the form Φ(σ. no stress level is allowed above the current yield stress. where the elastic strain has been deﬁned as εe = ε − εp .8) For stress levels within the elastic domain. σy ) < 0 =⇒ ε˙p = 0.2.1.e.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. σy ) ≤ 0. equivalently.9) . (6. σy ) < 0}. Φ. at any stage. for plastic loading. Thus.3) (6. σy ) = |σ| − σy . the constitutive law for the axial stress can be expressed as σ = E εe .2. THE ELASTIC UNIAXIAL CONSTITUTIVE LAW Following the above deﬁnition of the elastic axial strain.3. or.3. If Φ(σ. any admissible stress must satisfy the restriction Φ(σ. whereas item 3 requires the formulation of a hardening law.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 143 plastic (or permanent) component. either elastic unloading or plastic yielding (or plastic loading) takes place. 6. With the introduction of a yield function. the elastic domain is the set of stresses σ that satisfy |σ| < σy .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. plastically admissible stresses lie either in the elastic domain or on its boundary (the yield limit).6) Generalising the results of the uniaxial tension test discussed. it has been assumed in the above that the yield stress in compression is identical to that in tension. These are described in the following. The corresponding idealised elastic domain is illustrated in Figure 6.7) (6. 6.1. THE YIELD FUNCTION AND THE YIELD CRITERION The existence of an elastic domain delimited by a yield stress has been pointed out in item 1 of Section 6. σy ) = 0 =⇒ εp = 0 ˙ εp = 0 ˙ for elastic unloading.

Elastic domain. the plastic ﬂow rule for the uniaxial model can be formally established as εp = γ sign(σ).9) above have deﬁned a criterion for plastic yielding.3 that. Uniaxial model.2. ˙ ˙ (6. they have set the conditions under which plastic straining may occur. i.10) to (6.e. 6. upon plastic loading. ˙ (6. LOADING/UNLOADING CONDITIONS Expressions (6. the plastic strain rate εp is positive (stretching) under tension (positive σ) and ˙ negative (compressive) under compression (negative σ).13) The constitutive equations (6. THE PLASTIC FLOW RULE.9).12) and satisﬁes the complementarity condition Φ γ = 0.3.13) imply that.144 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ tension elastic domain σy 0 ε compression − σy Figure 6. ˙ (6. as stated in the yield criterion (6. Φ < 0 =⇒ γ = 0 =⇒ εp = 0. ˙ (6.10) for any scalar a and the scalar γ is termed the plastic multiplier. i. By noting in Figure 6. the plastic strain rate vanishes within the elastic domain. γ ≥ 0.15) .e. The plastic multiplier is ˙ non-negative.4. ˙ ˙ where sign is the signum function deﬁned as sign(a) = +1 if a ≥ 0 −1 if a < 0 (6.14) and plastic ﬂow (εp = 0) may occur only when the stress level σ coincides with the current ˙ yield stress |σ| = σy =⇒ Φ = 0 =⇒ γ ≥ 0.11) (6.

6.1. ¯ (6. From the deﬁnition of εp . that is.16) of the accumulated axial plastic strain. known as hardening.22). εp . The accumulated axial plastic strain is deﬁned as ¯ t εp ≡ ¯ 0 |εp | dt.4). (6. establish when plastic ﬂow may occur. in the deﬁnition (6. THE HARDENING LAW Finally.21) .10).19) The curve deﬁned by the hardening function σy (¯p ) is usually referred to as the hardening ε curve (Figure 6. (6. ˙ (6.2.17). SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional plasticity model is deﬁned by the constitutive equations (6.22) (6. (6. (6. it follows that its evolution law is given by ¯ ˙ ˙ εp = |εp |. Clearly.2.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 145 Expressions (6.1. can be incorporated into the uniaxial model simply by assuming that. (6. εp = −εp .4). ˙ (6. the constraints Φ ≤ 0. As remarked in item 3 of Section 6. ˙ γΦ = 0. This phenomenon. (6. The model is summarised in Box 6. the complete characterisation of the uniaxial model is achieved with the introduction of the hardening law. in view of the plastic ﬂow rule. and (6. is equivalent to ˙ ˙ εp = γ.12) and (6.5.13) deﬁne the so-called loading/unloading conditions of the elasticplastic model. ¯ which.2). ¯ whereas in a monotonic compressive uniaxial test.8). the yield stress σy is a given function σy = σy (¯p ) ε (6.16). in ¯ a monotonic tensile test we have εp = εp .17) γ ≥ 0.20) (6. an evolution of the yield stress accompanies the evolution of the plastic strain.5) of Φ. ¯ 6.5). 6.18) thus ensuring that both tensile and compressive plastic straining contribute to εp . (6.

H σA 0 εp Figure 6. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ 6. Hardening law σ = E εe Φ(σ. σy ) = |σ| − σy ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ σy = σy (¯p ) ε ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. was left ˙ indeterminate during plastic yielding. . Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. Indeed. One-dimensional elastoplastic constitutive model. 1. DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER So far. In order to eliminate this indetermination. Uniaxial elastic law 3. the plastic multiplier.7.12) and (6. Hardening curve. expressions (6.13) just tell us that γ ˙ vanishes during elastic straining but may assume any non-negative value during plastic ﬂow. Plastic ﬂow rule 5. Box 6.4.2. in the uniaxial plasticity model introduced above. Yield function 4. One-dimensional model. γ.1. during plastic ﬂow. it should be noted ﬁrstly that. γ ≥ 0.146 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σy σy ( ε p ) hardening slope.

is uniquely determined during plastic yielding as ˙ γ= ˙ E E sign(σ) ε = ˙ |ε|.23) as the absolute value of the current stress always coincides with the current yield stress.2.8. (6.31). By combining expressions (6. ˙ ˙ Φ = 0.25) is called the ˙ consistency condition. 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).25) holds so that one has the following expression for the stress rate ˙ sign(σ) σ = H εp . it follows that σ = E(ε − εp ).29). By taking the time derivative of the yield function (6.22).30) the following expression is obtained for the elastoplastic tangent modulus EH E ep = .28) and (6. (6.10) and (6.30) 6. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6.31) where E ep is called the elastoplastic tangent modulus.10). ε (6. the ﬂow rule (6.5). can be expressed in terms of the elastic modulus and the elastoplastic modulus as H= E ep . ˙ ¯ (6.32) E+H Equivalently. ˙ H +E H +E (6. Φ may assume any value.29) Finally. (6. or hardening slope.24) ˙ and. by combining the above expression with (6.2. and is deﬁned as (refer to Figure 6. 1 − E ep /E (6. Plastic ﬂow at a generic yield limit produces the following tangent relation between strain and stress ˙ σ = E ep ε. (γ = 0).THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 147 the value of the yield function remains constant Φ = 0. Therefore.27) d¯ ε Under plastic yielding. Equation (6. the hardening modulus. THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT MODULUS Let us now return to the stress–strain curve of Figure 6.28) From the elastic law. H. (6. one obtains ˙ ˙ Φ = sign(σ) σ − H εp .4) dσy H = H(¯p ) = p . γ. the plastic multiplier. (6.26) where H is called the hardening modulus. equation (6.33) .25) (6. ˙ ¯ (6. ˙ (6.

3. and • a hardening law.35) .35) together with the given initial condition ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) at a (pseudo-)time t0 is equivalent to (6.34). as the elastic strain tensor and the plastic strain tensor.34) The tensors εe and εp are known. The starting point of the theories of plasticity treated in this book is the assumption that the free energy. ε. Recall that the free energy potential plays a crucial role in the derivation of the model and provides the constitutive law for stress. the corresponding generalisation is obtained by splitting the strain tensor.3. ε = εe + ε p .148 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6.3. • an elastic law. that is. εe . the one-dimensional equations contain all basic components of a general elastoplastic constitutive model: • the elastoplastic strain decomposition. εp . • a plastic ﬂow rule deﬁning the evolution of the plastic strain. stated with the use of a yield function. characterising the evolution of the yield limit. 6. respectively. (6. and a plastic component. It is usual to assume that the free (6.1.5 of Chapter 3. 6. of the total strain. into the sum of an elastic component. The generalisation of these concepts for application in two. ADDITIVE DECOMPOSITION OF THE STRAIN TENSOR Following the decomposition of the uniaxial strain given in the previous section.2. 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. General elastoplastic constitutive model A mathematical model of a uniaxial tension experiment with a ductile metal has been described in the previous section. is a function ψ(ε. Note that (6. α). • a yield criterion.and three-dimensional situations is described in this section. the plastic strain (taken as an internal variable) and a set α of internal variables associated with the phenomenon of hardening. εp . The corresponding rate form of the additive split reads ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp .36) (6. ψ. As already mentioned.

respectively the shear and bulk moduli. the general counterpart of uniaxial elastic v law (6. d v (6. The above inequality implies a general elastic law of the form σ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ e . (6.44) .37) into a sum of an elastic contribution.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.40) so that the requirement of non-negative dissipation can be reduced to ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. α) ≥ 0. deﬁned by ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.43) where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor and G and K are. ψ p .42) (6.41) is called the plastic dissipation function.4) is given by σ = De : εe = 2G εe + K εe I. (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. εp . ∂εe (6. ψ e . Following the above expression for the free energy. the Clausius–Duhem inequality reads σ−ρ ¯ where A ≡ ρ ∂ψ p/∂α ¯ (6. Thus. whose dependence upon strains and internal variables appears only through the elastic strain. where the function Υp .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 149 energy can be split as ψ(ε. The tensor εe is the deviatoric component of the elastic strain and d εe ≡ tr[εe ] is the volumetric elastic strain. A. εp . α) = ψ e (ε − εp ) + ψ p (α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α) (6. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α. A. In this case. and a contribution due to hardening.39) ∂ψ e ∂εe ˙ ˙ ˙ : εe + σ : εp − A ∗ α ≥ 0. εp . This chapter is focused on materials whose elastic behaviour is linear (as in the uniaxial model of the previous section) and isotropic.

51) (6. A) = 0. where Φ(σ. ˙ where the tensor N = N(σ. We then deﬁne the set of plastically admissible stresses (or plastically admissible domain) as ¯ E = {σ | Φ(σ.e. This hypersurface is termed the yield surface and is deﬁned as Y = {σ | Φ(σ. (6. ˙ For convenience.3. The following plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law are then postulated ˙ εp = γ N ˙ ˙ α = γ H. A) (6. a yield function deﬁnes the elastic domain as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ.52) (6. the variables associated with the dissipative phenomena. A) ≤ 0}.49) (6. Analogously to the uniaxial case. A) = 0}.150 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6.47) The yield locus. The yield locus in this case is represented by a hypersurface in the space of stresses.3. A) = 0. the set of stresses for which plastic yielding may occur. A) < 0} (6. Φ.46) of stresses for which plastic yielding is not possible.49) and (6.e. . Extension of this concept to the three-dimensional case is obtained by stating that plastic ﬂow may occur only when Φ(σ. ˙ ˙ (6. PLASTIC FLOW RULE AND HARDENING LAW The complete characterisation of the general plasticity model requires the deﬁnition of the evolution laws for the internal variables.50) are complemented by the loading/unloading conditions Φ ≤ 0. (6. is now a function of the stress tensor and a set A of hardening thermodynamical forces. γ ≥ 0. 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. A) is termed the ﬂow vector and the function H = H(σ. i. is the boundary of the elastic domain. (6. Any stress lying in the elastic domain or on its boundary is said to be plastically admissible. In the present case. the internal variables are the plastic strain tensor and the set α of hardening variables.53) that deﬁne when evolution of plastic strains and internal variables (γ = 0) may occur.50) is the generalised hardening modulus which deﬁnes the evolution of the hardening variables.48) 6.45) where the scalar yield function. the general plasticity model resulting from the above equations is listed in Box 6. Φγ = 0. The evolution equations (6.3.4.2. i.

5. it is often convenient to deﬁne the ﬂow rule (and possibly the hardening law) in terms of a ﬂow (or plastic) potential. A general elastoplastic constitutive model. then we have in addition ∂Ψ H≡− .54) If the hardening law is assumed to be derived from the same potential.3. Ψ.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 151 Box 6. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ ∂ψ .57) . Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp or 2. A) ˙ 6. is required to be a non-negative convex function of both σ and A and zero-valued at the origin. is obtained as N≡ ∂Ψ . Free-energy function ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp . Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0.2. FLOW RULES DERIVED FROM A FLOW POTENTIAL In the formulation of multidimensional plasticity models. (6. the plastic potential. (6. Ψ(0. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3.56) ∂A When such an approach is adopted. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = γ N(σ. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4. The starting point of such an approach is to postulate the existence of a ﬂow potential with general form Ψ = Ψ(σ.55) (6. γ ≥ 0. ∂σ (6. N. A) from which the ﬂow vector. 1. A) 5. Yield function Φ = Φ(σ. A) ˙ ˙ α = γ H(σ. ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) ψ = ψ(εe . 0) = 0. ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α 6.

5. as a ﬂow potential. Φ. By differentiating the yield function with respect to time. Following ˙ the same arguments employed in Section 6.61) ∂σ ∂A By taking into account the additive split of the strain tensor.3. 6.50). γ.50).59) under plastic yielding (when γ = 0).49) and (6.6.7. ˙ we obtain ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ= :σ+ ∗ A.58) Such models are called associative (or associated) plasticity models. ∂Φ/∂σ : D : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ e (6.64) .7 for the one-dimensional plasticity model. The issue of associativity will be further discussed in Section 6. described in Section 6. Φ= ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 2 p ∂ ψ ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ : De : (ε − γ N ) + γ ∗ρ ¯ ˙ ˙ ∗ H. Ψ ≡ Φ.1. ˙ (6. have their yield function. Associative ﬂow rule As we shall see later.41) is satisﬁed a priori by the evolution equations (6.62) This.39)) and the evolution law (6.e. the above expression and the consistency condition (6.49). many plasticity models. (6.63) Finally. i. = ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 (6. particularly for ductile metals.61) equivalently as ∂ 2 ψp ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ : De : (ε − εp ) + ∗ρ ¯ ∗ α. THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER Here we extend to the multidimensional case the procedure for the determination of the plastic multiplier. the starting point in the determination of γ is ˙ the consideration of the additional complementarity equation ˙ ˙ Φ γ = 0.2.60) (6. allow us to write (6.2. we promptly ﬁnd the obvious rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De : (ε − εp ) = De : (ε − γ N ). which implies the consistency condition ˙ Φ=0 (6. (6.152 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS These restrictions ensure that the dissipation inequality (6. together with the deﬁnition of A in terms of the free-energy potential (refer to expression (6. the elastic law and the plastic ﬂow rule (6.60) lead to the following closed formula for the plastic multiplier γ= ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε .

3.8. starting page 71. Those wishing to see now the link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive theory are referred to Section 11. Remark 6. (6.9 before moving to Section 11.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 153 6. that the concept of subdifferential. We remark. then the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator is symmetric. where Dep is the elastoplastic tangent modulus given by Dep = De − (De : N) ⊗ (De : ∂Φ/∂σ) . since the theory of elasto-viscoplasticity is introduced only in Chapter 11.62).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.e.5.67) (6. Note that if the plastic ﬂow rule is associative.55) and (6. i. RATE FORM AND THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT OPERATOR In the elastic regime. When that happens.4.9. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY At this point.3.1 (The symmetry of Dep ). 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). However.65) Under plastic ﬂow. the ﬂow vector.2.3. 6. the rate constitutive equation for stress reads simply ˙ ˙ σ = De : ε. For models with non-associative plastic ﬂow.56) only make sense if the potential Ψ is differentiable.66) In obtaining the above expression. is fundamental to the demonstration.3.87). 6.4. if N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ. starting on page 452. page 29) of the elasticity tensor implies ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε = De : ∂Φ/∂σ : ε. N.9. The rate equation reads ˙ ˙ σ = Dep : ε.3. though. the corresponding rate relation can be obtained by introducing expression (6. Dep is generally unsymmetric.64) into (6. ∂Φ/∂σ : De : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ (6.7. In the computational plasticity literature.3.3. introduced below in Section 6. Readers not yet familiar with this concept are advised to read through Section 6. (6. Dep is frequently referred to as the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator. 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. can be interpreted as a vector . we have made use of the fact that the symmetry (refer to equation (2. NON-SMOOTH POTENTIALS AND THE SUBDIFFERENTIAL It should be noted that expressions (6. we ﬁnd it convenient to carry on focusing on rate-independent plasticity and postpone the demonstration until that chapter.

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

. the ﬂow vector N is now assumed to be a subgradient of Ψ. is the set of vectors contained in the cone deﬁned by all linear combinations (with positive coefﬁcients) of N1 and N2 . of distinct normals (N1 . denoted ∂σ Ψ. the isosurfaces of Ψ in the space of stresses contain a singularity (corner) where the normal direction is not uniquely deﬁned. . Therefore. N1 and N2 . Firstly assume that a ﬁnite number.72) At this point.55) for the ﬂow vector with N ∈ ∂σ Ψ. Analogously.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. In this case. Nn ) is deﬁned at a generic singular point of an isosurface of Ψ. the subdifferential of Ψ with respect to σ. such as the Tresca. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager theories to be seen later. The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow rule (6. it should be remarked that differentiability of Ψ with respect to the stress tensor is violated for some very basic plasticity models. An alternative deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow rule with non-smooth potentials. A typical situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6. (6. .e. .71) i. the evolution law (6. N2 . which incorporates a wide class of models.6. The subdifferential of a convex function. . are assumed to exist.56) by H ∈ −∂A Ψ. any subgradient of Ψ can be written as a linear combination c1 N1 + c2 N2 + · · · + cn Nn . is obtained as follows. Plastic ﬂow with subdifferentiable ﬂow potentials Assume now that the (pseudo-) potential Ψ is a subdifferentiable function of σ and A.7 where two distinct normals. the concepts of subgradient and subdifferential sets introduced above are important in the formulation of evolution laws for εp .50) for α can be generalised with the replacement of the deﬁnition (6. At points where Ψ is non-differentiable in σ.49) is obtained by replacing expression (6. In this case. (6. n.

. (6. In this case. . A) = 0. i = 1. . . n}. . . The elastic domain in this case reads E = {σ | Φi (σ. A) ≤ 0 for all other indices j = i.49) can be generalised as n ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i .‡ Based on this observation. the ﬂow rule (6. n yield functions (Φi . . is the set of all stresses such that Φi (σ. i = 1.7. cn . . A) = 0 for at least one i and Φj (σ. was originally proposed by Koiter (1953). . ˙ (6. A) < 0. ˙ i = 1. (6.73) with all n plastic multipliers required to be non-negative γi ≥ 0. . . . Multisurface models The above concepts are particularly useful in deﬁning evolution laws for multisurface plasticity models. Non-smooth potential. in this format. In a generic multisurface model. with non-negative coefﬁcients c1 .76) and the yield surface.e. . . the boundary of E. .74) The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow law.75) Φi (σ. n. . The ﬂow vector. ‡ 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. the elastic domain is bound by a set of n surfaces in the space of stresses which intersect in a non-smooth fashion.156 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the subdifferential set of at p N1 N2 isosurfaces of A Figure 6. . c2 . i. n) are deﬁned so that each bounding surface is given by an equation (6.

the standard loading/unloading criterion (6. . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager. α. the yield criterion has been stated in its general form. 3 σ= i=1 σi ei ⊗ ei . von Mises. There. ˙ ˙ (6. Note that summation on repeated indices is not implied in the above law. . σ2 .73) with the normals being deﬁned here as ∂Φi . 6. Recall the spectral representation of the stress tensor. σ3 ). (6. . The maximum shear stress. the situation discussed previously. (6. and let σmax and σmin be. the onset of plastic yielding is deﬁned by the condition 1 2 (σmax − σmin ) = τy (α). σ3 ). σmin = min(σ1 . Thus. is given by τmax = 1 (σmax − σmin ). respectively. Φi γi = 0.80) According to the Tresca criterion.79) where σi are the principal stresses and ei the associated unit eigenvectors. 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.77) Ni = ∂σ In the present case. σ2 . the plastic ﬂow rule can be written in the general form (6. some of the most common yield criteria used in engineering practice are described in detail. to be deﬁned later.78) which must hold for each i = 1. . γi ≥ 0. the criteria of Tresca. here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. the maximum and minimum principal stresses σmax = max(σ1 . . is recovered. 6. namely. τmax . n.1.81) (6. Classical yield criteria The general constitutive model for elastoplastic materials has been established in the previous section. 2 (6. where the subgradient of the ﬂow potential is a linear combination of a ﬁnite number of normals.82) where τy is the shear yield stress. The shear yield stress is the yield limit under a state of pure shear.4. without reference to any particular criteria.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 157 Assuming associativity (Ψ ≡ Φ).53) is replaced by the generalisation Φi ≤ 0. In this section.4. (6.

82) gives (6. it satisﬁes Φ(σ) = Φ(QσQT ) (6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager criteria described in the following sections). the yield function associated with the Tresca yield criterion can be represented as (6. p∗ . σmin = 0.2 below is also pressureinsensitive. for these materials.86) The substitution of the above into (6. 2 with the onset of yielding characterised by Φ = 0. (6. rotations of the state of stress do not affect the value of the yield function. Note that. for the deﬁnition of isotropic scalar functions of a symmetric tensor). on the stress tensor does not affect the value of the Tresca yield function Φ(σ + p∗ I ) = Φ(σ). i. Pressure-insensitivity Due to its deﬁnition exclusively in terms of shear stress.83) or (6.85). 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. p≡ 1 3 tr[σ] = 1 3 (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 ).e. That σy is indeed the uniaxial yield stress for the Tresca theory can be established by noting that. Alternatively. the Tresca yield function is an isotropic function of the stress tensor (refer to Section A. the Tresca yield function may be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = (σmax − σmin ) − σy (α).158 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In view of (6. (6. we have σmax = σy . note that the superposition of an arbitrary pressure. that is.84) is deﬁned as a function of the principal stresses.85) that is.90) for all rotations Q. the hydrostatic pressure component. . since Φ in (6.83) Φ(σ) = 1 (σmax − σmin ) − τy (α). page 731.4. The elastic domain for the Tresca criterion can be deﬁned as (6.84) where σy is the uniaxial yield stress σy = 2 τy . when plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. the inﬂuence of the hydrostatic stress on yielding is usually negligible in practice. (6.82).88) of the stress tensor does not affect yielding. it is the stress level at which plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions.1. σy ) < 0}. (6. that is. Indeed.89) We remark that the von Mises criterion described in Section 6. Isotropy One very important aspect of the Tresca criterion is its isotropy (a property shared by the von Mises. (6. the Tresca criterion is pressure insensitive.87) E = {σ | Φ(σ. At this point. This property is particularly relevant in the modelling of metals as.

48).e. page 150) of any isotropic yield criterion to be represented in a particularly simple and useful format as a three-dimensional surface in the space of principal stresses.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 159 Graphical representation Since any isotropic scalar function of a symmetric tensor can be described as a function of the principal values of its argument. σ3 − √3 p Tresca von Mises σ2 σ1 Figure 6. This allows. in particular. 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 yield surface (refer to expression (6. (b) the π-plane representation of the Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces. it follows that any iso-surface (i.8.9. . (a) 3 (b) 3 ti sta dro hy axis c pla ne von Mises 0 2 Tresca 1 1 2 Figure 6. The Tresca and von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space.

93) (6.9(b) shows the π-plane projection of the Tresca yield surface. In the multisurface representation. In the invariant representation. (6. proposed by Nayak and Zienkiewicz (1972) (see also Owen and Hinton 1980.160 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In principal stress space. deﬁned by σ1 = σ2 = σ3 . . Multisurface representation Equivalently to the above representation.94) tr[s2 ] = 1 2 s:s= 1 2 s 2. also referred to as the π-plane. . σy ) = σ2 − σ3 − σy Φ3 (σ.9(a).e. and Crisﬁeld 1997). the equation Φi (σ. σy ) = σ3 − σ2 − σy Φ6 (σ. σy ) = 0 for at least one i with Φj (σ. σy ) ≤ 0 for j = i.92) corresponds to a plane in the space of principal stresses for each i = 1. by its projection on the subspace of stresses with zero hydrostatic pressure component (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 0). σy ) = σ3 − σ1 − σy Φ5 (σ. . the yield function assumes the format Φ = 2 J2 cos θ − σy .95) .87) and (6. without loss of generality. This subspace is called the deviatoric plane. i = 1. the elastic domain for a given σy can be deﬁned as E = {σ | Φi (σ. i. the set of stresses for which Φ = 0. The Tresca yield surface may be represented. where J2 = J2 (s) is the invariant of the stress deviator. σy ) = σ1 − σ3 − σy Φ2 (σ. It is graphically illustrated in Figure 6. the Tresca yield criterion can be expressed by means of the following six yield functions Φ1 (σ. 6 (Figure 6. The elastic domain (for which Φ < 0) corresponds to the interior of the prism. for ﬁxed σy . σy ) < 0. a further simpliﬁcation in the representation of the yield surface is possible in this case. the Tresca yield surface. The yield surface – the boundary of E – is deﬁned in this case as the set of stresses for which Φi (σ.91) Deﬁnitions (6.8. it is also possible to describe the yield locus of the Tresca criterion in terms of stress invariants. (6. deﬁned by J2 ≡ −I2 (s) = 1 2 (6. . Due to the assumed insensitivity to pressure. σy ) = 0 (6. Invariant representation Alternatively to the representations discussed above. Figure 6. . is graphically represented by the surface of an inﬁnite hexagonal prism with axis coinciding with the hydrostatic line (also known as the space diagonal). so that. σy ) = σ2 − σ1 − σy Φ4 (σ. 6}. .10). σy ) = σ1 − σ2 − σy . .93) are completely equivalent. s. This is illustrated in Figure 6. .

Multisurface representation in principal stress space. 6 6 Despite being used often in computational plasticity.10.98) The Lode angle is the angle.73) (page 27) for i = 1. on the other hand. between s and the nearest pure shear line (a pure shear line is graphically represented in Figure 6. 2.96) (6.98) is established by summing the characteristic equation (2.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY Φ1 = 0 Φ2 = 0 σ1 Φ6 = 0 Φ5 = 0 Φ4 = 0 161 Φ3 = 0 σ3 σ2 Figure 6. Recall that the stress deviator is given by s ≡ σ − 1 (trσ)I. § The equivalence between the two rightmost terms in (6.99) − ≤θ≤ .11). This is essentially due to the high degree of nonlinearity introduced by the trigonometric function involved in the deﬁnition of the Lode angle.97) tr(s)3 . 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. (6. 3 The Lode angle. It satisﬁes π π (6. 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. the above invariant representation results in rather cumbersome algorithms for integration of the evolution equations of the Tresca model. on the deviatoric plane. is a function of the deviatoric stress deﬁned as √ −3 3 J3 . 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. i . The multisurface representation. The Tresca criterion.

1 1 s : s = J2 .162 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. In view of (6. (6.107) [σ] = 0 0 0.101) of a distortional contribution.102).105) R is the shear yield stress.2. s = σ and J2 = τ 2 . a state with stress tensor 0 τ 0 (6. this criterion was proposed by von Mises (1913). This condition is mathematically represented by the equation (6. Thus. plastic yielding begins when the J2 stress deviator invariant reaches a critical value. the von Mises criterion is also pressure-insensitive.e. 0 0 0 .100) J2 = R(α). here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable. the von Mises criterion is equivalent to stating that plastic yielding begins when the distortional elastic strain-energy reaches a critical value. Thus. α. Let us now consider a state of uniaxial stress: σ 0 0 (6. 0 0 0 ρ ψv = ¯ e we have. THE VON MISES YIELD CRITERION Also appropriate to describe plastic yielding in metals. where R is the critical value. i.102) 1 2 p . Since the elastic behaviour of the materials described in this chapter is assumed to be linear elastic.4. to be deﬁned later. According to the von Mises criterion. the shear and bulk modulus.103) K where G and K are.106) (6. In a state of pure shear.104) [σ] = τ 0 0. respectively. a yield function for the von Mises criterion can be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = where τy ≡ √ J2 (s(σ)) − τy . The physical interpretation of the von Mises criterion is given in the following. 2G G (6. as in the Tresca criterion. The corresponding critical value of the distortional energy is 1 R. (6. 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 . G It should be noted that. ρ ψd = ¯ e and a volumetric contribution. (6. 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.

the von Mises circle is tangent to the sides of the Tresca hexagon. The von Mises surface is illustrated in Figure 6. in addition.155) times that given by the Tresca criterion. then. The yield surface (Φ = 0) associated with the von Mises criterion is represented.108) In this case. In this case. if both criteria are made to coincide under pure shear (expressions (6.109) The above expression for the J2 -invariant suggests the following alternative deﬁnition of the von Mises yield function: Φ(σ) = q(σ) − σy . √ then. the von Mises √ criterion will predict a yield stress 2/ 3 (≈ 1. It is remarked that. 6. the von Mises yield function is an isotropic function of σ. The yield surfaces for the von Mises and Tresca criteria set to coincide in shear is shown in Figure 6.11.866) times the level predicted by Tresca’s law. A more general model. is described in Section 10. which includes both the Tresca and the von Mises yield surfaces as particular cases (and.110) so that both predict the same uniaxial yield stress σy . under pure shear.9(b). rocks and concrete. for many metals. On the other hand.111) is termed the von Mises effective or equivalent stress. The uniaxial and shear yield stresses for the von Mises criterion are related by √ σy = 3 τy . The von Mises circle intersects the vertices of the Tresca hexagon. The corresponding π-plane representation is shown in Figure 6.112) Note that this relation differs from that of the Tresca criterion given by (6.4.85).106) with the same τy ). If they are set by using the yield functions (6. due to its deﬁnition in terms of an invariant of the stress tensor. Obviously.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 163 (6. by the surface of an inﬁnite circular cylinder. (6. (6.3.8 where it has been set to match the Tresca surface (shown in the same ﬁgure) under uniaxial stress. the axis of which coincides with the hydrostatic axis. experimentally determined yield surfaces fall between the von Mises and Tresca surfaces. allows for anisotropy of the yield surface). The von Mises and Tresca criteria may be set to agree with one another in either uniaxial stress or pure shear states.110) √ where σy ≡ 3R is the uniaxial yield stress and q(σ) ≡ 3 J2 (s(σ)) (6.4 (starting page 427). we have 2 [s] = 0 0 and 3σ 0 −1σ 3 0 0 −1σ 3 0 J2 = 1 σ 2 . in the space of principal stresses. in uniaxial stress states. the von Mises criterion will predict yielding at a stress level 3/2 (≈ 0. whose behaviour is generally characterised by . For materials such as soils. 3 (6.84) and (6.3.83) and (6. THE MOHR–COULOMB YIELD CRITERION The criteria presented so far are pressure-insensitive and adequate to describe metals.

σn .e. the result of frictional sliding between material particles. reach the critical combination τ = c − σn tan φ. the circle associated with the maximum and minimum principal stresses (σmax and σmin . 2 2 (6. (6.114) In view of (6. τ . The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is based on the assumption that the phenomenon of macroscopic plastic yielding is. (6. appropriate description of plastic yielding requires the introduction of pressure-sensitivity. The yield locus of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the set of all stress states such that there exists a plane in which (6. was assumed tensile positive. is tangent to the critical line deﬁned by τ = c − σn tanφ.11. the shearing stress. i. The Mohr–Coulomb yield locus can be easily visualised in the Mohr plane representation shown in Figure 6. a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure.115) σmax + σmin σmax − σmin + sin φ tan φ. and the normal stress. It is the set of all stresses whose largest Mohr circle. The elastic domain for the Mohr–Coulomb law is the set of stresses whose all three Mohr circles are below the critical line. gives (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ = 2 c cos φ. (6. In the above. essentially. a yield function expressed in terms of the principal stresses can be immediately deﬁned for the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as Φ(σ. rearranged. c) = (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ.116) .113) where c is the cohesion and φ is the angle of internal friction or frictional angle. respectively). on a plane in the body.113) holds. this criterion states that plastic yielding begins when. A classical example of a pressure-sensitive law is given by the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion described in the following. From Figure 6. Generalising Coulomb’s friction law. the yield condition (6.115). the normal stress.12. σn .164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 sh ea r Tresca 30o von Mises pu re 1 2 Figure 6. Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coinciding in pure shear.113) is found to be equivalent to the following form in terms of principal stresses σmax − σmin cos φ = c − 2 which.12.

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

6. where η and c are material parameters. The Drucker–Prager cone is illustrated in Figure 6. The deﬁnition of the elastic domain and the yield surface in the multisurface representation is completely analogous to that of the Tresca criterion. p. . Represented in the principal stress space.119) where the Lode angle.94) of the Tresca criterion. As for the Tresca model.14. and Crisﬁeld 1997): 1 Φ = cos θ − √ sin θ sin φ 3 J2 (s) + p(σ) sin φ − c cos φ. θ.97). the Mohr–Coulomb yield function can be expressed as (Owen and Hinton 1980.4.120) is satisﬁed. the von Mises cylinder is recovered. The onset of plastic yielding occurs when the equation J2 (s) + η p = c. ¯ (6. Invariant representation Analogously to the invariant representation (6.4. THE DRUCKER–PRAGER YIELD CRITERION This criterion has been proposed by Drucker and Prager (1952) as a smooth approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law.13. The Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space. in spite of its frequent use in computational plasticity.166 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS − σ3 Φ=0 √3 p √3 cc ot φ A − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. It consists of a modiﬁcation of the von Mises criterion in which an extra term is included to introduce pressure-sensitivity. ¯ the yield locus of this criterion is a circular cone whose axis is the hydrostatic line. (6. reach a critical combination. 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. For η = 0. The Drucker–Prager criterion states that plastic yielding begins when the J2 invariant of the deviatoric stress and the hydrostatic stress. is deﬁned in (6.

Coincidence at the outer edges is obtained when 6 sin φ 6 cos φ η= √ . as the compression cone and the extension cone.7 of Chen and Mizuno (1990) for .14.123) The outer and inner cones are known. 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).121) where c is the cohesion and the parameters η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The π-plane section of both surfaces is shown in Figure 6. it is convenient to deﬁne the Drucker–Prager yield function as Φ(σ.15.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 167 √3 p − σ3 Φ=0 − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. ξ= √ . In order to approximate the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. (6. 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. respectively. In this case (the reader is referred to Section 4. The Drucker–Prager yield surface in principal stress space. η= √ 3 (3 + sin φ) 6 cos φ ξ= √ . The inner cone matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in uniaxial tension and biaxial compression. 3 (3 + sin φ) (6. coincidence at the inner edges is given by the choice 6 sin φ . 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.122) 3 (3 − sin φ) 3 (3 − sin φ) whereas. 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.

128) .124) For all three sets of parameters above. For problems where the failure mechanism is indeed dominated by uniaxial tension/compression. For the Mohr–Coulomb criterion to ﬁt a given uniaxial tensile strength. Φ. i. 3 (6. ξ= 3 9 + 12 tan2 φ .5. ASSOCIATIVE AND NON-ASSOCIATIVE PLASTICITY It has already been said that a plasticity model is classed as associative if the yield function. Plastic ﬂow rules 6. the apex of the approximating Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the apex of the corresponding Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. which can be assumed in the analysis of structures such as concrete walls. other approximations may be more appropriate. Another useful approximation for plane stress. it may be convenient to use an approximation such that both criteria match under. Thus. For instance. uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive stress states.168 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS derivation) the constants η and ξ read η= 3 tan φ 9 + 12 tan φ 2 . 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. ft . failure occurs under biaxial compression instead (with stresses near point fbc of Figure 6. and a given uniaxial compressive strength. particularly for high ratios fc /ft which are typical for concrete. is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . then the above approximation will largely overestimate the limit load. 6.127) Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion are thoroughly discussed by Chen (1982).1. say.125) The corresponding Drucker–Prager cone (Figure 6. Under such a condition. fc . Chen and Mizuno (1990) and Zienkiewicz et al. 2 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . fc − ft (6. fc + ft c= fc ft tan φ. if for a particular problem. where the Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the Mohr–Coulomb surface in biaxial tension (point fbt ) and biaxial compression (point fbc ).e. the parameters φ and c have to be chosen as φ = sin−1 fc − ft . is taken as the ﬂow potential. Ψ = Φ.16). (6. 3 (6. the above approximation should produce reasonable results. (1978).5. 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . according to the dominant stress state in a particular problem to be analysed. under plane stress.126) Its apex no longer coincides with the apex of the original Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. (6. However. a different approximation (such as the inner cone that matches point fbc ) needs to be adopted to produce sensible predictions.16) that predicts the same uniaxial failure loads is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ .

Drucker–Prager approximation matching the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression.16. The π-plane section of the Mohr–Coulomb surface and the Drucker–Prager approximations.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. . σ2 ft’ fc’ Mohr–Coulomb ’ fbt ft’ σ1 ’ fbc Drucker–Prager biaxial fit Drucker–Prager uniaxial fit fc’ Figure 6.15. Plane stress.

2. (6. the admissible stress states are those that satisfy Φ(σ. Before stating the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. and ˙ rate α of hardening internal variables. the plastic strain rate is not normal to the yield surface in general. In associative models. (6. the associative hardening rule (6.132) as the set of all admissible pairs (combinations) of stress and hardening force. 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. (6. The principle of maximum dissipation postulates that among all admissible pairs (σ∗ . A∗ . A. A∗ ) ≤ 0. ˙ (6. it makes sense to deﬁne A = {(σ. εp .129). A) | Φ(σ. we have ˙ εp = γN . In the generalised case of non-smooth yield surfaces. A) ≤ 0} (6. A∗ ) ∈ A. recall that for a state deﬁned by a hardening force A. Chapter 10) for this optimisation problem are precisely the associative plastic ﬂow rule (6. The principle of maximum plastic dissipation requires ˙ ˙ that. 1973. the evolution equations for the plastic strain and hardening variables are given by ∂Φ ˙ . A) ≤ 0. the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of the yield function. ˙ N ∈ ∂σ Φ. the actual state (σ.42) for a given plastic strain rate. α). i.e. the actual ˙ state (σ. A) ≤ 0. A∗ . εp .129) εp = γ ˙ ∂σ and ∂Φ ˙ α = −γ ˙ . α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ . α) subject to Φ(σ∗ . A∗ ) ∈ A. εp .170 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Any other choice of ﬂow potential characterises a non-associative (or non-associated) plasticity model. (6. Thus. A)γ = 0.133) In other words.130) and the loading/unloading conditions Φ(σ. (6. ˙ Φ(σ. γ ≥ 0. α). ∀ (σ∗ .134) The Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions (Luenberger. εp .130) ∂A Associativity implies that the plastic strain rate is a tensor normal to the yield surface in the space of stresses. A) of stress and hardening force is a solution to the following constrained optimisation problem: ˙ ˙ maximise Υp (σ∗ . A) maximises the dissipation function (6. for given (εp .135) .131) In non-associative models.5. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.

84) as the ﬂow potential. 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). ||s|| (6. The Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector is a tensor parallel to the deviatoric projection s of the stress tensor. Hence. 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. maximum dissipation has been shown to hold in crystal plasticity and is particularly successful when applied to the description of metals. for many materials.e. 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. CLASSICAL FLOW RULES The Prandtl–Reuss equations The Prandtl–Reuss plasticity law is the ﬂow rule obtained by taking the von Mises yield function (6.110) as the ﬂow potential. the plastic ﬂow vector is deviatoric. Since Φ here is also an isotropic function of σ. Due to the pressure-insensitivity of the von Mises yield function. 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 .136) (6. ∂σ (6.5. the principal directions of N coincide with those of σ. where the derivative of isotropic functions of this type is discussed).17.139) ˙ εp = i=1 γiN i = ˙ i=1 γi ˙ ∂Φi . ˙ (6. the von Mises model. page 732. i. associative laws frequently do not correspond to experimental evidence. Its multisurface-based representation reads 6 6 (6.138) where N is a subgradient of the Tresca function N ∈ ∂σ Φ.140) . 6. Nevertheless. are not universal. Associative Tresca The associative Tresca ﬂow rule utilises the yield function (6. Based on physical considerations.1. simply. and the corresponding associative laws.3. the maximum dissipation postulate is clearly not applicable and the use of non-associative laws is essential. the Tresca associative plastic ﬂow rule is generally expressed as ˙ εp = γN.2. ||s|| 3 2 s . Its principal stress representation is depicted in Figure 6. the rate of plastic strain has the same principal directions as σ. N and σ are coaxial.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 171 Remark 6.2. Thus (refer to Section A. In such cases. The postulate of maximum plastic dissipation.137) Here. particularly soils and granular materials in general.

In deriving the last right-hand side of (6.17. R (Φ1 = 0. so that the discussion can be concentrated on the sextant of the π-plane illustrated in Figure 6.172 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS N σ √3 p σ3 σ2 σ1 Figure 6. Φ6 = 0 and Φ2 < 0). At the right and left corners of the hexagon. The Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector.141) where the ﬂow vector is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0. Φ2 < 0 and Φ6 < 0). Φ2 = 0 and Φ6 < 0).142) with ei denoting the eigenvector of σ associated with the principal stress σi . When the stress is on the side of the hexagon. two multipliers may be non-zero. the plastic ﬂow equation is ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . Each vector N i is normal to the plane deﬁned by Φi = 0.18. with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6.91). L (Φ1 = 0. ˙ ˙ (6. 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 = 0.142). Thus. without loss of generality. The above ﬂow rule can be alternatively expressed as follows. use has been made of the expression (A. that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . and (c) Yielding from the left corner. only one multiplier may be non-zero and the plastic ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ N a . where two planes intersect. ˙ (6. (b) yielding from the right corner. given by Na ≡N1 = ∂ ∂Φ1 = (σ1 − σ3 ) ∂σ ∂σ = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 . Firstly assume.27) of page 736 for the derivative of an eigenvalue of a symmetric tensor.143) . (6.

In the right corner (repeated minimum principal stress). N b . it should be noted that in addition to the edge singularities. However. without loss of generality. Again. it is convenient to assume that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 so that.116) is adopted as the ﬂow potential. already deﬁned. The vector N a is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.18. Plastic yielding may then take place from a face.13). as for the Prandtl–Reuss rule. N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . (6. The associative Tresca ﬂow rule. Associative and non-associative Mohr–Coulomb In the associative Mohr–Coulomb law. we have trivially tr N a = tr N b = 0. the analysis can be reduced to a single sextant of a cross-section of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid as illustrated in Figure 6. Indeed. the present surface has an extra singularity in its apex (Figure 6. is derived in a manner analogous to the Tresca law described above. in the derivation of the ﬂow rules at faces and edges. The ﬂow rule. Its multisurface representation is based on the yield functions (6.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. the plastic ﬂow predicted by the associative Tresca law is volume-preserving.18) except that (6. is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is obtained analogously to (6. (6. is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. in the above.19.144) In the left corner (repeated maximum principal stress). from an edge or from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. The situation is identical to Tresca’s (Figure 6.118). the second vector. note that. This is due to the pressure-insensitivity of the Tresca yield function.142) as N b ≡ N 6 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 . which requires consideration of the intersections between the yield surfaces.145) It should be noted that.146) . N b . the Mohr–Coulomb yield function (6.

148) At the corners. the second vector. ˙ (6. ˙ where N a is normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.19(b).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.e. and (b) apex. the tensor N b is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. all six planes intersect and. therefore.151) At the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb surface. Na = ∂ ∂Φ1 = [σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ] ∂σ ∂σ = (1 + sin φ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ)e3 ⊗ e3 . R. (a) faces and edges. N b = (1 + sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 − (1 − sin φ) e3 ⊗ e3 .147) (6. the ﬂow rule is given by ˙ εp = γ N a .152) . is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is given by N b = (1 + sin φ) e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 . the normal vectors N a and N b are no longer deviatoric. six normals are deﬁned and up to six plastic multipliers may be non-zero. N b . (6. The plastic strain rate tensor lies within the pyramid deﬁned by the six normals: 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i.19. (6. they have a non-zero component along the hydrostatic axis (the vectors shown in Figure 6.149) At the right (extension) corner. the above ﬂow rule is replaced by ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . L. (6. (6. i. This situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6. at the left (compression) corner.150) whereas. The Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. For plastic yielding from the face.19 are deviatoric projections of the actual normals).

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

Nv = η. Expressions (6. (6.122)1.157) At the apex singularity.158) and (6. the cone whose wall is normal to the Drucker–Prager cone illustrated in Figure 6.161) This expression is analogous to (6.160) where Φd ≡ J2 (s). ˙ The deviatoric/volumetric decomposition of the Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector gives Nd = 1 2 J2 (s) s. where η is given by (6.155). It lies within the complementary cone to the Drucker–Prager yield surface. (a) cone surface.20.160) result in the following rate of (dilatant) volumetric plastic strain for the associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule: εp = γ η. ˙v ˙ (6. the often excessive dilatancy predicted by the associated rule in the present case is avoided by using a non-associated law. Similarly to the associative Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. From standard properties of subdifferentials (Rockafellar.20(b). and (b) apex. (6.121): (6.e.124)1. The Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector. (6. 1970.159) N ∈ ∂σ Φ. i. Nv = η.176 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (a) Prandtl Reuss associative Drucker Prager p (b) 3 2 1 Figure 6. The ﬂow rule is then ˙ εp = γ N. The non-associative Drucker–Prager law is obtained by adopting. according to the chosen approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb surface.123)1 or (6. 1998) it can be established that the deviatoric/volumetric split of N in this case is given by Nd ∈ ∂σ Φd .158) (6. (6. the ﬂow vector is an element of the subdifferential of the yield function (6. a Drucker–Prager yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a dilatancy angle .157). Rockafellar and Wets. as the ﬂow potential.

166) If the dilatancy angle of the non-associative potential is chosen as ψ = 0.6. reads ¯ Nv = η . 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . 6.21 shows the stress– strain curve of a typical uniaxial cyclic (tension–compression) test with a perfectly plastic .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 177 ψ < φ. In other words. 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. Essentially. σy (or constant cohesion. the elastoplastic modulus. In the uniaxial model. A. for the plane strain match. the yield stress level does not depend in any way on the degree of plastiﬁcation. hardening is characterised by a dependence of yield stress level upon the history of plastic straining to which the body has been subjected.6. When the inner cone approximation is used.2. (6. in a uniaxial test. shape and orientation of the yield surface. 3 (3 + sin ψ) whereas. PERFECT PLASTICITY A material model is said to be perfectly plastic if no hardening is allowed. In the two.1. (6.164) The non-associated Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector differs from its associated counterpart only in the volumetric component which. in general. Nv . c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p. 6. that is. during plastic yielding. In the von Mises.1. E ep . that is.and three-dimensional situations.20(a)). formulated in Section 6. These changes may. hardening is represented by changes in the hardening thermodynamical force.124)1. vanishes and the ﬂow rule reduces to the Prandtl–Reuss law that predicts volume-preserving plastic ﬂow (refer to Figure 6. Hardening laws The phenomenon of hardening has been identiﬁed in the uniaxial experiment described in Section 6. vanishes. c). Tresca. In this case.122)1. affect the size. deﬁned by Φ(σ.163) 3 (3 − sin ψ) when the outer cone approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is employed. ¯ (6. perfect plasticity corresponds to a constant uniaxial yield stress. for the non-associated case.162) where η is obtained by replacing φ with ψ in the deﬁnition of η given by (6. A) = 0. the yield surface remains ﬁxed regardless of any deformation process the material may experience and. Figure 6. (6. Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb models described above. (6.165) (6.123)1 ¯ or (6. η= ¯ 3 tan ψ 9 + 12 tan2 ψ . we deﬁne Ψ(σ. then the volumetric component.

the elastic domain expands equally in tension and compression during plastic ﬂow. 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. strain hardening and work hardening. it corresponds to a uniform (isotropic) expansion of the initial yield surface. The choice of a suitable set (denoted α in Section 6. Two approaches. Strain hardening In this case the hardening internal state variable is some suitably chosen scalar measure of strain.21.6. 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 uniaxial model described in Section 6. ISOTROPIC HARDENING A plasticity model is said to be isotropic hardening if the evolution of the yield surface is such that. This. For a multiaxial plasticity model with a von Mises yield surface. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation.2. for instance. In the constitutive description of isotropic hardening. These are described below. A typical example is the von Mises effective plastic strain. together with a typical stress–strain curve for a uniaxial cyclic test for an isotropic hardening von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 6.2 is a typical example of an isotropic hardening model. 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. are particularly popular in the treatment of isotropic hardening and are suitable for modelling the behaviour of a wide range of materials. Perfect plasticity. von Mises model along with the corresponding π-plane representation of the yield surface. isotropic hardening corresponds to the increase in radius of the von Mises cylinder in principal stress space. without translation. In metal plasticity. also referred to as the . For that model.178 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 -plane ET y uniaxial cyclic test E 1 2 y fixed yield surface Figure 6. at any state of hardening. the set α normally contains a single scalar variable. 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 ).1 (page 146). Let us assume that both models share the same Young’s modulus.169) Accordingly. ¯ (6. deﬁned as εp ≡ ¯ 0 t 2 3 t ˙ ˙ εp : εp dt = 0 2 3 ˙ ||εp || dt.2 and summarised in Box 6. the two models have identical uniaxial elastic behaviour and initial yield stress. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. for instance. (6. (6. equivalently. 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. we only need to show next that their behaviour under plastic yielding is also identical. von Mises equivalent or accumulated plastic strain. from a uniaxial tensile test. ˙ ˙ εp = γ. and hardening function σy = σy (¯p ). in view of the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6. E.167) The above deﬁnition generalises the accumulated axial plastic strain (6.18) (page 145) of the one-dimensional model to the multiaxially strained case. This is demonstrated in the following. .170) This function deﬁnes the strain-hardening curve (or strain-hardening function) that can be obtained. Its rate evolution equation reads ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 3 ˙ ||εp ||. ε Clearly.137).THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 179 3 -plane uniaxial cyclic test initial surface 1 2 hardened surface Figure 6.168) or. ε (6. Hence.22. Isotropic hardening.

¶ wp .171)2 and (6. (6.174) is the axial plastic strain rate.175) with (6. Materials that harden.110). the isotropic strain hardening von Mises model predicts the tangential axial stress–strain relation σ= ˙ EH ε. however. then.172) (6. by taking the derivatives of the von Mises yield function (6. we combine (6.60). the variable deﬁning the state of hardening is the dissipated plastic work. following the same arguments as in the one-dimensional case we ﬁnd that.136). . ˙ ˙ [εp ] = εp 0 − 1 2 1 0 0 −2 where ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ (6. materials whose yield stress level depends on the history of strains. In this text.171) ˙ [σ] = σ 0 0 0. we obtain ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ = N : σ − H εp = 0.27). [s] = 2 σ 0 − 1 2 3 1 0 0 −2 In this case. (6. deﬁned by t wp ≡ 0 ˙ σ : εp dt.136) and H = H(¯p ) is the hardε ening modulus deﬁned in (6. with σy deﬁned by (6.170). we recall the consistency condition (6. i.175) (6.173) where N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ is the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector (6. 0 0 0 0 0 0 The corresponding stress deviator reads 1 0 0 0 .176) which is identical to equation (6. Work hardening In work-hardening models. the term work hardening is reserved for plasticity models in which the dissipated plastic work is taken as the state variable associated with hardening.177) ¶ The term work hardening is adopted by many authors as a synonym for the phenomenon of hardening in general.e. In the present case.10).137) gives 1 0 0 0 . Note that the above expression coincides with the onedimensional plastic ﬂow rule (6. [σ] = σ 0 0 0.28) and. are frequently referred to as work-hardening materials. Now.31) of the one-dimensional model. the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6. ¯ (6. 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. ˙ E+H (6. To conclude the demonstration.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 . under uniaxial stress conditions. which must be satisﬁed under plastic ﬂow.172) to recover (6.

179) dwp = σy . the above differential relation implies that the mapping between wp and εp is one-to-one and. therefore.137) into (6. equivalently. the strain-hardening and work-hardening descriptions are equivalent. Equivalence between strain and work hardening Under some circumstances. wp . we . is the plastic work. (6. The remaining (shaded) area. This deﬁnes the work-hardening curve (or work-hardening function).181) d¯p ε As σy is strictly positive (σy > 0). ¯ ¯ (6.178). ˙ (6.137). for instance (Figure 6.182) . This is shown in the following for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule (6.178) An isotropic work-hardening von Mises model is obtained by postulating σy = σy (wp ).183) (6. gives ˙ wp = σy εp . ˙ ¯ or. It corresponds to the energy dissipated by the plastic mechanisms and cannot be recovered. The plastic work. Part of this work.180) (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 181 σ w = p+ w = wp + wee P p wp w w we e ε Figure 6.23. (6. The substitution of (6. From the deﬁnition of wp . is stored in the form of elastic energy and is fully recovered upon elastic unloading. together with the identity 3/2 s = σy valid for the von Mises model under plastic ﬂow.23). 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. invertible so that ¯ ε wp = wp (¯p ) and εp = εp (wp ). In a uniaxial test. its evolution equation is given by ˙ w p = σ : εp .

e. The constant σy 0 is the initial yield stress. ASSOCIATIVE ISOTROPIC HARDENING Within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables. ψ p . Linear and nonlinear hardening A model is said to be linear hardening if the strain-hardening function (6.189) (6. the uniaxial yield stress at the initial (virgin) state of the material. and H is called the linear isotropic hardening modulus. The set of hardening thermodynamic forces in this case specialises as A ≡ {κ}. ˆ ε ε σy (wp ) = σy (¯p ) ≡ σy (wp (¯p )).37).3. Note that perfect plasticity (deﬁned in Section 6. ε ∂ εp ¯ (6. κ. i.185) Expressions (6.e.181) deﬁnes a nonlinear relation between wp and εp if σy is not a constant. Any other hardening model is said to be nonlinear hardening.6. ¯ 6.186).185) establish the equivalence between the strain and workhardening descriptions for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule. page 149) is a function of a single scalar argument – the accumulated plastic strain.1) is obtained if we set H = 0 in (6.6. the above isotropic strainhardening law corresponds to the assumption that the plastic contribution.184) and (6.188) (6.186) with constant σy 0 and H. (6. (6. associated to isotropic hardening is deﬁned by κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p = κ(¯p ). if it can be expressed as σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H εp .190) .170) is linear.187) where the scalar thermodynamic force. σy (¯p ) = σy (wp ) ≡ σy (¯p (wp )). a nonlinear hardening model). This can be easily established by observing that (6.184) and any given work-hardening function of the type (6. It should also be noted that a linear work-hardening function corresponds in general to an equivalent nonlinear strain-hardening function (i.179) to be expressed as an equivalent strain-hardening function.182 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This allows any given strain-hardening function of the type (6. the set α of hardening variables is deﬁned as α ≡ {¯p } ε and ε ψ p = ψ p (¯p ). THERMODYNAMICAL ASPECTS. ε ˜ ε (6. i. That is.e. ε ¯ (6. to the free energy (recall expression (6.170) to be expressed as an equivalent work-hardening function.

¯ ˙ ˙ The associative generalised modulus H is given by H=− ∂Φ ∂Φ ≡− = 1. p ∂ε ¯ ∂ε ¯ (6. A hardening law deﬁned by means of the associativity hypothesis is called an associative hardening law. Any other hardening rule is said to be non-associative.195) is obtained for the Tresca model.168) and (6.130). 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 .194) (6. A simple example of associative isotropic hardening law of the type (6.143). that is. we have ˙ εp = γH = γ.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 183 The hardening curve is postulated in terms of κ as ε ε σy (¯p ) ≡ σy 0 + κ(¯p ).196) ˙ εp = −γ ¯ ∂κ and ∂Φ1 ∂Φ6 ˙ − γb ˙ = γa + γb. εp . here. Multisurface models with associative hardening Analogously to the associative plastic ﬂow rule deﬁnition (6. (6.110).141) and (6. represents the rate of change of the hardening thermodynamic force with respect to the hardening internal variable.193) where Φ is the von Mises yield function (6. the accumulated plastic strain.e.195). follows from the hypothesis of associativity.169) for the internal variable. we refer to the plastic ﬂow equations (6. Its actual physical meaning depends on the speciﬁc format of the functions Φi and is generally different from that of (6. H(¯p ) ≡ ε ∂σy ∂κ = p. c (or τy ) replaces σy in (6. (6. The associative evolution equation for εp in this ¯ case is a specialisation of (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6.191).191) If the state of hardening is deﬁned in terms of cohesion (or shear yield stress). The corresponding associative evolution equations that deﬁne the accumulated plastic strain εp are ¯ ∂Φ1 ˙ =γ ˙ (6.192) For the strain-hardening von Mises model the evolution law (6.73). initially deﬁned in (6. Note that the hardening modulus H.195) Note that. ∂κ (6.167) adopted for the von Mises model. that relies on the choice of ¯ the yield function as the plastic potential.27). Here. deﬁned respectively on the side (smooth portion) and corner of the Tresca yield surface. i.77) and (6. εp .78). ∂A ∂κ (6. is being deﬁned by evolution equa¯ tion (6.197) εp = − γ a ¯ ∂κ ∂κ .

204) for ﬂow from a corner.203) for ﬂow from the smooth portions of the Tresca surface.201) At the corners (refer to the plastic ﬂow equation (6.191).191) we deﬁne c(¯p ) = c0 + κ(¯p ).199) and the yield function deﬁnition (6. The accumulated plastic strain in this case is then deﬁned by the evolution equation ˙ ˙ εp = − γ ¯ ∂Φ = γ ξ.121) with the general associative evolution law (6.91) with σy related to κ through (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ (6.184 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS respectively. ¯ ˙ (6. and ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 (γ a )2 + γ a γ b + (γ b )2 . the isotropic hardening law is non-associative in spite of the associativity of the plastic ﬂow rule. c.116) or (6. one of the possibilities in deﬁning a hardening law is to assume the cohesion. this is reduced to ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ. where functions Φ1 and Φ6 are deﬁned by (6. ˙ (6. ε (6.202) Note that if it is insisted to adopt the von Mises accumulated plastic strain rate deﬁnition (6. 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 8.121) to be a function of the hardening internal variable: c = c(¯p ).205) . Drucker–Prager associative hardening Associative hardening for Drucker–Prager plasticity is obtained by combining assumption (6.200) When ﬂow takes place at the smooth portion of a Mohr–Coulomb pyramid face. For Mohr–Coulomb plasticity.198) This type of hardening description is often used in practice in the modelling of soils – for which cohesion is a fundamental strength parameter.143). In this case. that takes part of the yield function (6. ε ε (6. then similarly to (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. the evolution equation for εp will result in ¯ ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 γ ˙ (6. If hardening associativity is also assumed. This gives the general expression 6 ˙ εp = 2 cos φ ¯ i=1 γ i. ˙ ∂κ (6.149)).141) to (6. ¯ (6.130) for the hardening internal variable. (6. we have ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ).167) in conjunction.195). say.

Skrzypek. The constant σy in (6. be a function of the hardening internal variable. ε (6. 1967.208) is not an isotropic function of the stress tensor for kinematically hardened states (β = 0). KINEMATIC HARDENING. It is frequently observed in experiments that.4. by deﬁnition. this can be obtained by having the parameter η as a function of the hardening variable. in the deﬁnition of the corresponding yield function. β. (6. β)) − σy . This phenomenon can be accounted for in non-associative ﬂow Mohr–Coulomb type models by letting the dilatancy angle. the yield function Φ deﬁned by (6. 3 J2 (η(σ. For Drucker–Prager-based models.6.208).208) .208) is an isotropic function of the relative stress.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. It is important to observe that. Mróz. THE BAUSCHINGER EFFECT When the yield surfaces preserve their shape and size but translate in the stress space as a rigid body. the frictional angle to be a function. many materials show a decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction (Lemaitre and Chaboche. for example. it is possible to introduce kinematic hardening in other plasticity models simply by replacing σ with a relative stress measure.24. 1990).24) of the yield surface in the space of stresses. A number of constitutive models have been proposed to describe elastoplastic behaviour under cyclic loading conditions (Lemaitre and Chaboche. we have η = s and the yield surface deﬁned by Φ = 0 is the isotropic von Mises yield surface with uniaxial yield stress σy . β) = where η(σ. 1990. ε For Drucker–Prager-based models.206) The direction of plastic ﬂow is generally affected by the history of plastic straining in materials such as soils and rocks. in addition. Analogously to expression (6. ψ. of the accumulated plastic strain: φ = φ(¯p ). deﬁned as the difference σ − β. known as the back-stress tensor. When β = 0. β) ≡ s(σ) − β (6. The typical result of a uniaxial cyclic test showing the Bauschinger effect is illustrated in Figure 6. ε ξ = ξ(¯p ). deﬁned as the difference between the stress deviator and the symmetric deviatoric (stress-like) tensor. 1993). η.209) is the relative stress tensor. ¯ 6.207) (6. the relative stress is deviatoric. after being loaded (and hardened) in one direction. 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 ).208) deﬁnes the radius of the yield surface. The yield function for the kinematically hardening model is given by Φ(σ. Note that. The back-stress tensor is the thermodynamical force associated with kinematic hardening and represents the translation (Figure 6. The function (6. kinematic hardening is said to take place. This phenomenon is known as the Bauschinger effect and can be modelled with the introduction of kinematic hardening. unlike the isotropically hardening von Mises model.

where the rate evolution equation for β is given by ˙ ˙ β = 2 H εp = γ ˙ 3 2 3 H η . with constant σy = σy 0 . η.211) and (6.211) This rule extends the Prandtl–Reuss equation to account for kinematic hardening.212) The material constant H is the linear kinematic hardening modulus. and coincides with the Prandtl–Reuss equation if β = 0. Loading in one direction results in decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction.186 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 uniaxial cyclic test hardened surface y y -plane y 1 initial surface 2 Figure 6.212) and initial . Plastic ﬂow rule with kinematic hardening The von Mises model with kinematic hardening is used in conjunction with an associative ﬂow rule. One of the most commonly used laws is Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule. Behaviour under monotonic uniaxial stress loading For monotonic loading under uniaxial stress conditions. Prager’s linear kinematic hardening To complete the deﬁnition of the kinematic hardening plasticity model. The ﬂow vector in this case reads N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 2 η η (6. η (6.208). Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. the stress–strain behaviour of the model deﬁned by equations (6. η (6.210) and we have the following plastic strain rate equation: ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ 3 2 η . (6. Note that the plastic ﬂow is in the direction of the (deviatoric) relative stress. Kinematic hardening and the Bauschinger effect. evolution equations for β are required.24.

221) 3 η . η = s) and s as in (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 187 state of hardening deﬁned by β = 0 is identical to the behaviour of the purely isotropic hardening von Mises model with linear hardening curve (6.218) yields σ = H εp .219) . by recalling (6. In this case.216) Now.217) (6.171) and (6.214) [η] = η 0 − 2 1 0 0 −2 where η = 2σ − β 3 is the axial relative stress. [β] = β 0 − 2 (6.61) for the present case we have that. With the above. ¯ Under the above conditions.171)2 and the above ˙ expressions for β. It is assumed in this statement that both models share the same Young’s modulus. ˙ ˙ (6. it is clear that both models have the same elastic behaviour and uniaxial yield stress. E.218) After some straightforward tensor algebra. ˙ (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). the following consistency condition must be satisﬁed: ∂Φ ˙ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ :σ+ : β = 0.186) and initial state of hardening εp = 0. 2 η (6.e. stress rate and stress deviator tensors have the matrix representations given in (6. let us consider again a uniaxial test with loading in the direction of the base vector e1 .212) and (6. together with the equation σ = E εe . the deﬁnition of η. To show that their plastic behaviour also coincides. Now note that the integration of the rate equation (6. β. we obtain for the relative stress tensor 1 0 0 1 0 . with the introduction of the elastoplastic split of the axial strain rate.213) 0 0 −1 2 where β is the axial back-stress component.172) gives a back-stress tensor of the form 1 0 0 1 0 . under plastic yielding. ˙ ˙ (6.212) with initial condition β = 0 (i. (6.172). σy 0 . Φ= ∂σ ∂β (6.220) Then.60) and specialising (6. From (6.214) we obtain 1 0 0 ˙ 0 .215) (6. taking into account (6. the stress. and the identity ∂Φ ∂Φ =− =− ∂β ∂σ equation (6.

˙ E+H (6. for details) with the evolution of β given by 2 ˙ ˙ β = H εp − γ b β ˙ 3 2 ∂Φ H −bβ .176) of the von Mises isotropic strainhardening model with constant H. Chapter 20. . 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). the integration of (6. Chapter 5.222) which coincides with the stress rate equation (6. This curve can be obtained from simple uniaxial tests in a manner analogous to the determination of the hardening curve for the purely isotropic hardening model.212) with a generic function of the accumulated plastic strain.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. ˙ β = H(¯p ) εp = γ H(¯p ) 3 3 ∂σ In this case. into (6. ¯ 2 ∂Φ 2 ˙ ε ˙ ε .188 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of the linear elastic model under uniaxial stress conditions. The extra term −γ b β introduces the effect of saturation in the ˙ kinematic hardening rule. at which the material behaves as perfectly plastic. 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.223) where b is a material constant.224) deﬁnes the kinematic hardening curve. such that H(¯p ) = ε ¯ dβ . or Jirásek and Bažant (2002).e. a scalar function ¯ ¯ε β ≡ β(¯p ).220). εp . In this case.226) (6. let us assume that the uniaxial loading is monotonic. =γ ˙ 3 ∂σ (6. d¯p ε (6. In the case of the von Mises criterion. 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. i. we obtain σ= ˙ EH ε.225) (6. of (6. To complete the demonstration. H.

234) ∂β ∂σ 6. the above kinematic hardening laws follow from the assumption that the plastic contribution.228) For the Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (6.228) is then a scalar multiple of X.233) b β : β. the yield surface expands/shrinks and translates simultaneously in stress space. MIXED ISOTROPIC/KINEMATIC HARDENING Rather than purely isotropic or purely kinematic hardening. we have ∂Φ ∂Φ =− . 2a (6.231) The evolution law for the internal variable X is obtained by postulating a ﬂow potential Ψ≡Φ+ and assuming normal dissipativity b ∂Φ ∂Ψ ˙ = −γ ˙ + β .227) The variable X is related to self-equilibrated residual stresses that remain after elastic unloading.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 189 Thermodynamical aspects of kinematic hardening From the thermodynamical viewpoint. X ≡ −γ ˙ ∂β ∂β a (6. β – is then deﬁned as the derivative β≡ ∂ψ p .230) The back-stress tensor (6. we have ψ p (X) = (6. under plastic straining.232) Obviously (since Ψ = Φ).6. to the free energy is a function of a second-order tensor-valued internal variable. ψ p . . (6. ∂X a X : X. X. given by β = a X. ψ p = ψ p (X). (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. The equivalence between the above equation and (6. that is. 2 (6. more realistic plasticity models can be obtained by combining the above laws for isotropic and kinematic hardening.231) and the fact that. real-life materials show in general a combination of both. (6. These stresses may increase or decrease resistance to plastic slip according to the direction considered. this evolution law is non-associative.223) can be established by taking into account (6.223).5.229) where the material constant a has been deﬁned as a≡ 2 3 H. (6. for instance. Thus.

If the nonlinear rule deﬁned by (6. as in (6.25). a relatively simple von Mises-based model with mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening can be devised by adopting the 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.25. Mixed hardening.208) and allowing σy to be a function of εp . is the ¯ kinematic contribution to overall hardening. A more reﬁned mixed hardening model can be devised by coupling the Armstrong– Frederick law (6. the hardening ¯ behaviour of the model is determined by the curves σy = σy (¯p ).235) which can be obtained from relatively simple uniaxial tests with load reversal (see schematic ¯ illustration of Figure 6. ε ¯ ¯ε β = β(¯p ).235)1.3 (starting on page 478) in the context of damage mechanics.225) is adopted. the kinematic hardening stress.208) where σy . A model including mixed hardening of this type is discussed in Section 12. For example.224) and (6. Uniaxial test with load reversal. At each point εp .223) with the von Mises-type yield function (6. β. . (6.

page 151) as the underlying constitutive model. the mathematical theory of plasticity has been reviewed. 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. Prager. the approximate solution to such problems is addressed in this book within the context of the Finite Element Method. Lubliner. Ltd I . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models is left for Chapter 8. A set of numerical examples is also presented. including a complete description of the algorithms and corresponding FORTRAN subroutines of the HYPLAS program. Hill. 1990. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. 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. due to the mathematical complexity of such constitutive theories. Skrzypek. 1987. Application to the Tresca. A general small-strain elastoplastic constitutive model has been established within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables and the most popular theories. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. Practical application of the theory and procedures introduced. Obviously. the von Mises. 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. Tresca. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. In fact. 1950. 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. This model is also included in the HYPLAS program. an exact solution to boundary value problems of practical engineering interest can only be obtained under very simpliﬁed conditions. the methodologies presented in this chapter are initially derived taking the general plasticity model introduced in Chapter 6 (summarised in Box 6.7 FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL-STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS N the previous chapter. 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.2. For the sake of generality. 1959. 1993). is then made to the particular case of the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. Since the ﬁrst reported applications of ﬁnite elements in plasticity in the mid-1960s. The choice of this model is motivated here by the simplicity of its computational implementation. a substantial development of the related numerical techniques has occurred. Today. As pointed out in Chapter 4. have been described in detail. namely. the Finite Element Method is by far the most commonly adopted procedure for the solution of elastoplastic problems.

specialised to the case of elastoplastic materials. The state update procedure which. εn+1 ). ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . εn+1 ). . 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. Following the nomenclature established in Chapter 5 (refer to the call trees of Figures 5. it is convenient to recall that. Each one of these routines is called by a corresponding material interface subroutine that is common to all models. ∂εn+1 (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 . i (7. There are two most fundamental material-speciﬁc operations: 1. tn+1 ]. The element tangent stiffness matrix is computed as ngausp KT = i=1 (e) wi ji BT Di Bi . This chapter will focus precisely on the two topics listed above. i (7.4 and 5.5) These are the primary procedures that effectively deﬁne a particular constitutive model/algorithm in the program. from page 131). (7.1) (7. each material model implementation is deﬁned by a set of ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines.3) 2. in the case of elastoplastic materials. Preliminary implementation aspects At this point.192 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7. The computation of the associated consistent tangent modulus D≡ ˆ ∂σ .5 respectively on pages 126 and 130). Within a (pseudo-) time increment [tn .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 5.1.4) 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.7. requires the formulation of a scheme for numerical integration of the rate elastoplastic evolution equations.

Further applications of the algorithms described in the present chapter are made in Chapter 10. In this way. hardening internal variables set and plastic ˙ multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t).2. This section describes a numerical procedure for integration of the general elastoplastic model of Section 6. ε(t).1 (The elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem). i. Assume that at a given (pseudo-)time t0 the elastic strain.2. A(t)) = 0 ˙ (7. t ∈ [t0 . let the motion of B be prescribed between t0 and a subsequent instant. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. 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. ε(t). and in Chapter 12. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). We refer to the system of differential equations (7.1.3. ﬁnd the functions εe (t). Problem 7.1. ∂α t (7.7) (7. 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. T ]. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . The basic elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem at point p is stated in the following.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . 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. such as elastoplastic materials. In the case of path-dependent materials. the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in . Specialisation to the other basic plasticity models of Chapter 6. T . εp (t0 ). 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. where the numerical implementation of damage mechanics models is discussed. 7.2 by incorporating the plastic ﬂow equation into the additive strain rate decomposition. at the material point of interest between instants t0 and T . the prescribed motion deﬁnes the history of the strain tensor. in the context of advanced plasticity models.6) for each instant t ∈ [t0 . is presented in Chapter 8 and its plane stress implementation is addressed in Chapter 9. Furthermore. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor. Clearly. ˙ Φ(σ(t). A(t)) ≤ 0. and all elements of the set α(t0 ) of hardening internal variables are known at point p. A(t)) ˙ ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). the Tresca. the updating scheme usually requires the formulation of a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding rate constitutive equations. ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . εe (t0 ).3. A(t)) ˙ γ(t) ≥ 0. the plastic strain tensor.6) as reduced in that it is obtained from the model of Box 6. α(t) and γ(t) for the elastic strain. The strategy presented here is later specialised and applied to the von Mises model in Section 7.2 (page 151).e.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 193 7.8) Remark 7. T ].

7. of the elastic strain and internal variables set at the beginning of the pseudo-time interval [tn . subjected to the constraints n+1 ∆γ ≥ 0.9) so that the history of all variables involved in the deﬁnition of the elastoplastic model of Box 6.10) . and given the prescribed incremental strain ∆ε for this interval. ∂ψ ∂εe ∆γ Φ(σn+1 .2. (7. An+1 ) for the unknowns εe . n+1 (7. .194 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the system and the only unknowns are the elastic strain.2 (The incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem).1 is stated in the following. we replace all rate quantities in (7. the derivation of the analytical solutions is normally cumbersome. As already mentioned.2. which are more likely to occur in realistic engineering problems. A general framework for the numerical solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity is described below. we have adopted the obvious notation ∆(·) ≡ (·)n+1 − (·)n .2 is determined. H and Φ with their values at the end of the interval. exact solutions to Problem 7. † Other (7. αn+1 and ∆γ.7)–(7. ∂ψ ∂α (7.7. where σn+1 = ρ ¯ Φ(σn+1 . analytical solutions are not available in general and the adoption of a numerical technique to ﬁnd an approximate solution becomes absolutely essential. An+1 ) = 0. For complex deformation paths. for integration within a generic (pseudo-)time interval [tn . Problem 7. For simplicity we shall choose to adopt a backward (or fully implicit) Euler scheme.7). the history of the plastic strain tensor is obtained from the trivial relation εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t). tn+1 ]. These will be discussed later in Section 7.1.13) Euler-based schemes can be equally adopted. may only be obtained for very simple prescribed strain histories. solve the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . An+1 ) ≤ 0. the set of hardening internal variables and the plastic multiplier.6) and (7. EULER DISCRETISATION: THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE PROBLEM The starting point here is the adoption of an Euler scheme to discretise equations (7. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 .2. tn+1 ]. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ . when yield functions and ﬂow rules such as the ones described in the previous chapter are adopted.11) (7.12) In the above. Given the values εe n and αn . Note that with the solution εe (t) of Problem 7.1 at hand.6) with corresponding incremental values within the considered interval and the functions N. tn+1 . Even in such cases. The resulting discrete version of Problem 7.† Accordingly.

An+1 ) = 0. Null incremental plastic multiplier.12) does not follow directly the conventional procedure for standard initial value problems (i.17) (7. Strictly positive plastic multiplier. as we shall see. ∆γ = 0. An+1 ) ≤ 0. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . 2. αn+1 and ∆γ satisfy n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 .11)1 allows only for the two (mutually exclusive) possibilities enumerated below: 1.18) .e. n n+1 so that all variables of the model are known at the end of the interval [tn .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 195 with (·)n and (·)n+1 denoting the value of (·) respectively at tn and tn+1 .14) In this case there is no plastic ﬂow or evolution of internal variables within the considered interval [tn . An+1 ) and (7. the solution of the incremental elastoplastic problem (7. In this case. tn+1 ]. Nevertheless. εe . in addition.e.11)2 combined with (7.12). 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. (7.7)). εe and αn+1 are given by n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αn+1 = αn and. Note that once the solution εe has been n+1 obtained. (7. ∆γ > 0.19) (7. tn+1 ]. the step is purely elastic. the constraint Φ(σn+1 .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Firstly. Solution of the incremental problem Due to the presence of the discrete complementarity condition (7.16) must hold.11)3 is automatically satisﬁed. i.11). where σn+1 and An+1 are functions of εe and An+1 deﬁned through n+1 the potential relations (7.15) (7. (7. The constraint (7.10)–(7. the plastic strain at tn+1 can be calculated as εp = εp + ∆ε − ∆εe .11)3 result in the constraint Φ(σn+1 . initial value problems without equations of the type (7. The increment ∆γ will be called the incremental plastic multiplier.20) (7. note that (7.

Otherwise.19)–(7. the elastic trial state has. in addition. 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. (b) The Plastic Corrector Step (or Return-Mapping Algorithm). An+1 ) n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αtrial + ∆γ H(σn+1 .2.21) trial αn+1 = αn . We then proceed as follows. we have just seen that any solution to Problem 7. If Φtrial ≡ Φ(σtrial . (7. n+1 (7. to satisfy (7. This is next described in detail. only one of two possible sets of equations provides a solution to Problem 7.2 is either given by (7. The strategy adopted is the following: (a) The Elastic Trial Step. if the elastic trial state lies within the elastic domain or on the yield surface.16).2. The solution given by (7. Firstly.25) . we update (·)n+1 := (·)trial n+1 (7. In this case.22) The above variables are collectively called the elastic trial state. It remains now to devise a procedure whereby the correct solution can be chosen. the elastic trial state is not plastically admissible and a solution to Problem 7. that is.24) and the algorithm is terminated. The corresponding stress and hardening force will be called the elastic trial stress and elastic trial hardening force.20). Now note that. and will be denoted εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n (7. Atrial ) ≤ 0. we rewrite the algebraic system equivalently as εe = εe trial − ∆γ N(σn+1 .3. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial . to be the actual solution.17).23) n+1 n+1 that is.16). (7. we assume that the ﬁrst of the above two situations (∆γ = 0) occurs. An+1 ) = 0. or it is a solution of the algebraic system of equations (7. given by ¯ σtrial = ρ n+1 ∂ψ ∂εe trial .19)–(7. Using the elastic trial state deﬁnition above. we assume that the step [tn . The only option left now is to solve the system (7.18). in which case it must satisfy constraint (7.2.18).2 must be obtained from the plastic corrector step described below. subjected to the constraint (7.2. it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7.196 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In summary. that is. 7.17).20) of algebraic equations subject to the constraint (7. An+1 ) n+1 Φ(σn+1 . which is not necessarily the actual solution to Problem 7. will be called the elastic trial solution. tn+1 ] is elastic.

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

2) solution procedure ELASTIC PREDICTOR PLASTIC CORRECTOR (RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM) Figure 7. The procedure commonly adopted in practice is quite simple. Alternatives to the backward Euler-based algorithm will be discussed in Section 7. From the initial value problem of elastoplasticity to the elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithm. as a general rule. the backward Euler scheme to discretise elastoplastic constitutive equations and is. Alternative techniques. therefore.e. derivation of the overall integration algorithm.2. This choice is motivated mainly by the quadratic rates of convergence achieved by this method which. but all having the same elastic predictor step. SOLUTION OF THE RETURN-MAPPING EQUATIONS Let us now focus on the solution of the return mapping equations. We remark that different discretisation schemes may be used instead.2.26).26). This algorithm is conveniently summarised in Box 7.26). the algebraic system (7. If the found solution satisﬁes (7. fully implicit or simply implicit elastic predictor/return mapping scheme. The main argument in favour of these methods is normally based on .7. Note that if no solution exists with strictly positive incremental plastic multiplier. Schematic diagram. then it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. 7.1) Euler pseudo-time discretisation incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7. each one resulting in a different return mapping algorithm. could be used instead.1 in pseudo-code format. i. As far as the iterative procedure for the solution of the return-mapping equations is concerned. in particular.2 does not have a solution.2.4. The algorithm described above has been obtained by adopting. It should be noted that the algebraic system (7. results in very computationally efﬁcient return mapping procedures. 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). by some iterative procedure. has to be solved subjected to the constraint (7.25) is generally nonlinear and. such as quasi-Newton procedures in general. without regard for the constraint equation (7.198 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem (Problem 7. termed the backward. then Problem 7.2. in addition.25) is solved on its own. Firstly.

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

In such cases. m. i = 1. algorithms that converge regardless of the initial guess) based on a combination of the Newton–Raphson scheme and constrained line-search procedures. Another alternative can be the use of a sub-stepping scheme (Huerta et al. (7. for complex constitutive models. It may occur. . Another important consideration is that.28) n+1 In this case. procedures such as linesearches (as suggested by Dutko et al. σn+1 . the updated stress.e. 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. 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.27) with constant elasticity tensor. In such cases.2. . i. 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). This approach consists of dividing the total strain increment ∆ε into a number m of sub-increments ∆ε = ∆ε1 + ∆ε2 + · · · + ∆εm .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 . the degree of nonlinearity of the return-mapping equations is so high that the convergence radius of the Newton scheme becomes substantially reduced. for some plasticity models. a strategy must be developed to ensure that the converged incremental plastic multiplier is positive. Armero and PérezFoguet (2002) and Pérez-Foguet and Armero (2002) have explored the closest point projection interpretation (Section 7. Each strain sub-increment ∆εi . and then applying the integration algorithm sequentially m times to reach the approximate state at tn+1 . For perfectly plastic materials with associative ﬂow rule. obtained by the implicit return mapping (Figure 7. numerical experience shows that such a situation is not usual and. De . .5. CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION INTERPRETATION For materials with linear elastic response. More recently.25)1 can be rewritten equivalently in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . 1999)..200 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆γ < 0. This issue is discussed in Chapter 12 in the context of damage mechanics plasticity models. such a solution is physically meaningless and must be disregarded if the Newton–Raphson algorithm converges to it. .2.29) .5 below) and the associated variational structure of the returnmapping equations to devise globally convergent root-ﬁnding algorithms (i. has to be sufﬁciently small to ensure convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations. materials for which the stress is given by σ = De : εe . equation (7. 7.e. Fortunately. does not occur for the basic plasticity models implemented in this chapter and in Chapter 8 for the normal range of material parameters. Since ∆γ is required to be positive. (7. in particular. however.

and the associated measure of distance between two generic stress states given by d(σa .2. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7. 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). i. With the energy norm deﬁned by σ De ≡ σ : [De ]−1 : σ. σn+1 = arg min[d(σ. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. Obviously. (1988b) for details). 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. The fully implicit return mapping. 7.1).2. σtrial )] .32) n+1 || D e : Nn+1 n+1 || .3.7.6. 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. the accuracy and stability (the concepts of accuracy and stability ∆γ || D e : N hardening plasticity (7. An+1 ) = 0 D e : Nn+1 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ.30) (7.e. the updated stress is the admissible stress that lies closest to the elastic trial stress. (1978) for further details on operator split algorithms).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . of plastically admissible stresses. σb ) ≡ σa − σb De . 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.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 trial σn+1 201 perfect plasticity ∆γ || D e : N σn+1 Φ(σ.31) (7.

26) is satisﬁed. where.10) of the overall elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm will depend on the particular strategy adopted. The elastic predictor stage. Individual members of this family of algorithms are deﬁned by the prescribed parameter θ. expression (7.1. which must lie within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1.2.36) so that the updated stress can be interpreted as the projection of the trial stress onto the updated yield surface along the direction De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. It is important to note that the previously described fully implicit return mapping is recovered by choosing θ = 1 in the generalised trapezoidal rule. it is implicitly understood that constraint (7. remains unchanged. (7. In this case. An+1 ) = 0.34) The incremental ﬂow vector.202 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS are reviewed in Section 7.33)1 may be equivalently written in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ]. The choice θ = 0 corresponds to a fully explicit return mapping. 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 . as previously described.33) The geometric interpretation of the generalised trapezoidal return algorithm in the space of stresses is shown in Figure 7. The corresponding discrete plastic ﬂow equation is εp = εp + ∆γ [(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). of course.4 for materials with linear elastic response. can be derived by adopting generalised versions of the classical trapezoidal and midpoint rules in the discretisation of Problem 7. which incorporate the backward (or fully implicit) Euler approach as a particular case.35) (7.1). 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). . in the present case given by (1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 . These procedures are described below. is a linear combination of the ﬂow vectors at times tn and tn+1 . n n+1 (7. n+1 (7. Two important families of algorithms for elastoplasticity.

a prescribed constant within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. An ) = 0 Figure 7. which correspond. respectively. again. the discrete plastic ﬂow rule reads εp = εp + ∆γ Nn+θ . An+1 ) = 0. The generalised trapezoidal return mapping. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ.33) for θ = 1 and θ = 0.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . to the fully implicit and fully explicit . An+θ ). The generalised midpoint return mapping A generalisation of the midpoint rule for integration of the elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem gives the following return mapping equations εe = εe trial − ∆γ Nn+θ n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αn + ∆γ Hn+θ Φ(σn+1 . An+θ ) Hn+θ = H(σn+θ .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. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. where Nn+θ = N(σn+θ .39) (7.37) The parameter θ is. (7.4. n n+1 (7.38) (7.40) Note that the generalised midpoint rule coincides with the generalised trapezoidal rule (7. In the present case. 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 .

(7. (7.4.6. The geometric interpretation of the generalised midpoint return algorithm is given in Figure 7. This version of the generalised return mapping is discussed in detail by Simo and Govindjee (1991) who highlight. As for the fully implicit return mapping.37)3 with the alternative Φ(σn+θ . return mappings. In particular.41) n+1 and corresponds to the projection of the elastic trial stress. onto the updated yield n+1 surface at tn+1 along the direction of De : Nn+θ . A possible variation of the above generalised midpoint rule is obtained by replacing the consistency condition (7. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. The updated stress. in particular. An+θ ) = 0.204 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. σtrial .42) In this case. 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 (7.37). as noted by Ortiz and Martin (1989). a discussion on the possible symmetry of such operators is provided in Section 7. rather than the updated. both generalised trapezoidal and midpoint return-mapping algorithms. in this case. is given by σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+θ .5.37)3. state. An ) = 0 Figure 7.5 for materials with linear elastic response. . The generalised midpoint return mapping.4. deﬁned respectively by (7.4.33) and (7. plastic consistency is enforced upon the generalised midpoint. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. Remark 7. require the ‡ Consistent tangent operators for return-mapping schemes will be discussed in Section 7.

25)3. the original system variables. simpliﬁcations of this type are also possible for θ = 0 and are crucially important for the computational efﬁciency of the associated return-mapping procedure.8) into the equivalent rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De (εe .47) which. with the exception of ∆γ. α) ∗ α ˙ ˙ ˙ A = F(εe .8).2 are a backward Euler approximation to the initial value problem deﬁned by the differential equation ˙ εe = −γN(σ. n+1 (7. α) in (7.3.46) (7. is an alternative scheme for the numerical solution of the return-mapping problem. This idea is exploited in Section 7. (7. The operator E(εe . deﬁned by E(εe .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . an efﬁcient scheme is normally obtained by adopting the quadratically convergent Newton–Raphson method. by means of the backward Euler scheme. n+1 αe = αe trial . The fourth-order tensor De (εe . for the fully explicit member of these families of algorithms (θ = 0). The above rate constitutive equations for σ and A are obtained by a straightforward application of the chain rule to (7. ∂εe 2 (7. the return-mapping equations can be substantially simpliﬁed. An+1 (∆γ)) = 0.25)1. For certain material models. The cutting-plane algorithm Let us start by observing that the return-mapping equations (7. α) ∗ εe + G(εe . α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .37) are known values at tn . α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . in general. α) ∗ α. 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). The ﬁrst step to derive the cutting-plane algorithm.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 205 solution of a (generally nonlinear) system of equations for any prescribed parameter θ. is to recast the potential relation (7. Therefore.48) .45) The implicit return-mapping scheme consists in solving the above problem. α) : εe + E(εe . εe n+1 and αn+1 become functions solely of the incremental multiplier ∆γ and so does σn+1 and An+1 . on the right-hand side of (7. subject to the consistency condition (7. A). ∂εe ∂α (7.46)1 is the elastic modulus De (εe . α) denotes the tangent modulus associated with the hardening response. The cutting-plane method. In this case. which we shall describe below.43) for any elastoplastic model. is assumed to be a function of εe and α. As before. ˙ with initial condition εe = εe trial . where the derivation of implicit return mapping for the von Mises model is described in detail. (7. all terms. It is interesting to note that.44) where ∗ denotes the product of the appropriate type. A) ˙ ˙ α = γH(σ.

(k).206 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In addition. An+1 }.37) (page 149) of decoupling between elasticity and hardening. n+1 A = Atrial . 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. In a typical cutting-plane iteration. A) : N(σ. α) = ρ ¯ we redeﬁne the initial value problem (7.46) and making use of complementary potential relations that give εe = εe (σ. However. An+1 }. . α) = ρ ¯ and ∂2ψ ∂α∂εe (7. A) + G(σ. under the assumption (6.44)–(7. A) ∗ H(σ.51) G(εe . § Refer (k+1) (k+1) (7.53) in conjunction with the plastic consistency constraint Φ(σn+1 . ˙ with the obvious initial condition σ = σtrial . (7. the (k) (k) plastic consistency equation is linearised§ about the current (known) state. the tangent operators E and F vanish and so does the second term on the right-hand side of (7. the tangential operators F and G are deﬁned as F(εe .46)1 and the ﬁrst term on the right-hand side of (7. A) + E(σ. A new state. for models in which elasticity is coupled with dissipative phenomena.54) Basically.6. n+1 (7.53) (7. (from page 38) for the deﬁnition of the linearisation of a nonlinear problem. α = α(σ. An+1 ) + N n+1 : [σn+1 − σn+1 ] (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) + H n+1 ∗ [An+1 − An+1 ] = 0. A). An+1 ) = 0.49) ∂2ψ . is then obtained as the solution of the linearised equation (k) (k) (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) Φ(σn+1 . {σn+1 .45) equivalently in terms of stress and hardening force as ˙ σ = γ[−De (σ.52) In summary. A) ∗ N(σ. A)]. Also. the return-mapping problem now comprises the initial value problem (7.52)– (7. (7. such as Lemaitre’s damage theory discussed in Chapter 12. A) ∗ H(σ.46)2. of the stress and hardening force. (7. A). A)] ˙ ˙ A = γ[−F(σ.55) to Section 2. {σn+1 . these terms do not vanish in general.50) ∂α2 It should be noted that De is constant for materials whose elastic behaviour is linear. By combining (7.44) with (7.

An+1 (k) (k) ∂Φ ¯ (k) H n+1 = ∂A . The cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm is summarised in Box 7. e (k) (k) (k) (k) . . An+1 }. 2. Remark 7. To solve (7. An+1 }. . In each iteration.59) k = 0. The cutting-plane iterations continue until the value of the yield function is sufﬁciently close (k) (k) to zero. n+1 n+1 the repeated application of the above iteration generates a sequence of states {σn+1 . (k) (k) (0) (0) (7. σn+1 .58) and the new state {σn+1 . . 1. respectively. {σn+1 .e. onto a cutting plane deﬁned by the linearised consistency condition¶. An+1 } = {σtrial . The projection is made along the direction of the tensor Dn+1 : N n+1 − En+1 ∗ H n+1 . Atrial }. the new stress.57) An+1 − An+1 = ∆γ −Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 + Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 .2 in pseudo-code format. (k) (k) σn+1 .52) using a forward (or explicit) Euler scheme. An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol . (7.60) where tol is a prescribed convergence tolerance. The interpretation here remains valid for materials with a nonlinear elastic (k+1) (k+1) response.6. is obtained by projecting the (k) (k) current stress.5. (7. {σn+1 . An+1 } satisﬁes the convergence criterion Φ(σn+1 .55) deﬁnes a hyperplane in the space of stresses and hardening forces.57). Starting (with k = 0) from the initial condition of the return-mapping problem {σn+1 . ¶ Note that the linearised consistency condition (7. The geometric interpretation of the cutting-plane algorithm is illustrated in Figure 7.55). 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) .An+1 (k) (k) (7. the iterative process is interrupted at an iteration (k) if the state {σn+1 . N. . i. We discretise the rate constitutive equations (7. This gives the formula σn+1 − σn+1 = ∆γ −Dn+1 : N n+1 + En+1 ∗ H n+1 (7. An+1 } is computed by substituting the value obtained for ∆γ into (7.56) ¯ ¯ Note that for fully associative plasticity (Ψ ≡ Φ).55) we proceed as follows.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 207 ¯ ¯ where N n+1 and H n+1 have been deﬁned as ∂Φ ¯ (k) N n+1 = ∂σ .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . with the ﬂow vector. N and H coincide. and H. With the substitution of the above equations into (7. An+1 }.

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

63)1. page 98).8) can be used to express σ and A as explicit functions of εe and α. 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.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. An+1 ) = 0 (2) . Formally.2. The identiﬁcation of plasticity equations with DAEs allows the use of numerical methods (7. such a system is classed as a system of differential-algebraic equations (DAE).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial (0) σn+1 ≡ σn+1 Φlin (σ .1) reduces to ˙ ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). 7.2 in the present case) complemented by a constraint in the form of algebraic equations (equation (7. A(t)) ˙ Φ(σ(t). The cutting-plane return mapping. PLASTICITY AND DIFFERENTIAL-ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS Under continuous plastic loading. A(t)) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t).63) . in explicit codes.5... Within the implicit ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4 (see Section 4. An ) = 0 Figure 7.8.63)3). 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). An+1 ) = 0 (1) 209 (1) σn+1 (2) σn+1 Φlin (σ . Geometric interpretation.. cutting planes σn+1 σn elastic domain at tn Φ(σ. which do not require the solution of a global system of equilibrium equations.. where the potential relations (7.2. A(t)) = 0. the system of equations that characterises the elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7.6. However. These generally contain ordinary differential equations (equations (7. the use of cutting-plane algorithms could be an attractive option.

1973) has been proposed by a number of authors. however. Papadopoulos and Taylor (1994) proposed a two-step backward difference formula of second-order accuracy for von Mises type plasticity. 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. Results from DAE theory were used by these authors to prove the stability and accuracy order of their method (here.210 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS devised for this type of equation. Tresca) do not require special treatment and are naturally accommodated within the mathematical programming environment. 7. An important class of numerical procedures developed on the basis of mathematical programming concepts (Bazaraa and Shetty.9. ACCURACY AND STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS Accuracy and stability are crucially important aspects of numerical algorithms for the solution of initial value problems in general. (1991) and Romano et al. For other methods of this class.2. By exploiting these ideas.10. In contrast. in the treatment of plasticity problems. For details on this class of methods. only the elastoplastic constitutive evolution problem at the Gauss point level is reduced to a mathematical programming problem. 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. 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. 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. extra complexity is inevitably introduced in the presence of non-smooth corners on the yield surface. It is emphasised that no attempt is made here to derive (usually complex) mathematical proofs of the accuracy . ‘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. Comi et al. In this section. Martin et al.10). Feijóo and Zouain (1988). Luenberger.2. To the authors’ knowledge. 1992). In the present context. Caddemi and Martin (1991). as well as the corresponding methods of analysis.2. (1987). Zouain et al. (1988. the concepts of accuracy and stability are brieﬂy reviewed below in Section 7.g. (1993). 7. we refer to the work of Maier (1970). The effectiveness of such methodologies has been demonstrated in the numerical solution of a wide range of initial boundary value problems. By exploiting the potential structure that characterises many elastoplasticity models and concepts of convex analysis. 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. 1979. even though singular models can be efﬁciently integrated within the elastic predictor/return-mapping framework (as we shall see in Chapter 8). Generally speaking. The use of such tools in plasticity is also discussed by Simo (1998). Reddy and Martin (1991). accuracy and stability properties of the return-mapping schemes described above are discussed.

we shall address this issue in the following.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . however. for a given ﬁnite step size ∆t. 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. the algorithm satisﬁes d2 xn+1 d∆t2 = x(tn ). the choice of a method of higher accuracy order rather than one of lower order does not necessarily produce a more accurate numerical solution.67) The numerical error. or to have consistency of order one) (Gear. subjected to the initial condition x(t0 ) = x0 . ˙ ∆t=0 (7.64)–(7. it is convenient at this point to give a more precise deﬁnition of what accuracy and stability mean in the discussion that follows. ∆t2 . 1971).e. . produced by ﬁrst-order accurate algorithms is proportional to the step size.66) is said to be ﬁrst-order accurate. The term accuracy will be used here in two different contexts: (a) With a mathematically precise deﬁnition. if the update formula for the approximate value xn+1 of the unknown function x at the end of the generic step [tn . by Gear (1971). the accuracy order of an algorithm provides information about its behaviour as the step size ∆t (strain increment size in the case of elastoplasticity) approaches zero. that is. tf ] satisﬁes d xn+1 d∆t = x(tn ). (7. Second-order accurate algorithms produce numerical errors that are proportional to the square of the step size. in addition to ﬁrst-order accuracy. t) ˙ over the generic domain t ∈ [t0 . In summary. Here. as ∆t → 0. Let us consider a typical (well-posed) initial value problem deﬁned by an ordinary differential equation x(t) = f (x. 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 ]. as to the actual numerical errors incurred under steps of ﬁnite size. the maximum difference between exact and numerical solutions (excluding machine round-off errors) within (t0 .68) then it is said to be second-order accurate (or to have consistency of order two). for instance. tf ].65) (7. A numerical method for approximate solution of (7. as ∆t → 0.64) (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 211 and stability of elastoplastic integration algorithms. tn+1 = tn + ∆t] ∈ [t0 . Rather. It gives no indication. ﬁnite step accuracy and stability Before proceeding. If. This aspect of numerical methods for ordinary differential equations is discussed. ¨ ∆t=0 (7.66) with the superimposed dot denoting differentiation with respect to the independent variable t. i. The concepts of accuracy order. ∆t.

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 .212 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (b) With a more practical (and less precise) deﬁnition. may produce dramatic changes in the numerical results which completely invalidate the solution.70) with λ denoting arbitrary paths on the yield surface connecting σa and σb . (7. For unstable algorithms. Generally speaking. Finite step accuracy measurements can give important information on the practical limitations of integration algorithms. especially with regard to the permissible size of strain increments for which the error remains within reasonable bounds. The reader is referred. Their analysis has concentrated on perfectly plastic materials with linear elastic response and possible non-associative ﬂow rule. In the case of perfectly plastic models (Ortiz and Popov. If an algorithm is not stable or not (at least) ﬁrst-order accurate. It is remarked that consideration of general . The property of stability of an algorithm for numerical solution of the typical problem (7. σb ) ≡ inf λ λ σ (s) ds. to Ascher and Petzold (1998) for various deﬁnitions of stability in this context. the term ﬁnite step accuracy will be adopted here to describe the actual accuracy of particular algorithms under ﬁnite step sizes. An algorithm that satisﬁes the ﬁrst-order accuracy and stability requirements is said to be convergent. their analysis provides a very interesting insight into the properties of the trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms described in Section 7.69) where d is a measure of distance on the yield surface deﬁned such that for any pair {σa . perturbations to the initial conditions propagate in an unbounded manner so that small changes in increment size. 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∗ . 1985). In the context of plasticity. or even machine round-off errors. σ∗ ) ≤ d(σn . σb } of stresses on the yield surface. for instance. then it does not converge to the exact solution. tf ]. the n corresponding updated values at tn+1 are bounded by d(σn+1 .66) relates to how perturbations to the initial condition propagate throughout the stepping procedure. an elastic predictor/plastic corrector scheme (under plastic yielding) is said to be stable if given two arbitrary distinct initial stress states at tn . we have d(σa .64)– (7. are necessary and sufﬁcient conditions for the numerical solution to converge to the exact solution as the increment size tends to zero. 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.7 which allow for general elastic and hardening laws. The property of stability together with ﬁrst-order accuracy (or consistency of order one) of the numerical method. In spite of the restriction to perfect plasticity and linear elastic law. σ∗ ) n+1 n (7. on the other hand.2.

the 2 interval for which the generalised trapezoidal algorithms remain unconditionally stable narrows around θ = 1 (the fully implicit scheme). Within the context of the fully . Recall that the integration algorithm based on the fully implicit return mapping. Finite step accuracy aspects: the iso-error maps As mentioned previously. is only conditional. therefore. 2 Attention is now focused on the elastoplastic algorithm based on the cutting-plane return mapping. unconditional stability is obtained for 1 ≤ θ ≤ 1. all trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms satisfy the necessary condition of ﬁrst-order accuracy for convergence. again. In addition.44. their algorithms are stable for θ ≥ 1 . 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. therefore. For surfaces with constant curvature in the space of stresses. such as the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb surfaces which have sharp corners. second-order accuracy is attained for the choice θ = 1 in both trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. 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. on the other hand. 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. restricted to the case of linear elastic behaviour. With increasing curvature. as far 2 as accuracy order is concerned. however. These algorithms are unconditionally stable for θ ≥ 1 . The analysis was focused on materials with an associative hardening and ﬂow rules and. is also ﬁrst-order accurate. the cutting-plane procedure is naturally ﬁrst-order accurate. is a particular (common) member of both families (for θ = 1) and. such as the von Mises surface.45).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . described in Section 7. should be expected to predict its behaviour only for relatively small increments.7. as the Backward Euler-based scheme (which also approximates this problem numerically). In the limit. it follows that.2. In summary. for surfaces with inﬁnite curvature. 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.7 characterised by the midpoint plastic consistency equation (7.42). 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. Essentially. For the algorithms based on the generalised midpoint rule. The next step in the analysis of these families of algorithms is the assessment of their stability properties. Since the sequence of states generated by the cutting-plane return mapping is obtained by fully linearising the plastic corrector evolution problem (7. In addition.2. the only unconditionally stable algorithm is the fully implicit. 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.37)3. 2 as for the midpoint schemes based on the fully implicit consistency (7.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 stability of the cutting-plane algorithm.3. stability does not depend on the shape of the yield surface.

which for this particular model is termed the radial return method. q q (7.7(b). since the original application by Krieg and Krieg (1977).e. respectively. the perfectly plastic associative von Mises model is adopted for illustration. Calling σexact the exact solution of the stress integration problem. It is important to note that. Simo and Taylor. the extension of the accuracy order study to the assessment of the accuracy of elastoplastic integration algorithms under ﬁnite steps becomes crucial. From this point of view. 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. i. 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. The fully implicit algorithm. it is worth mentioning that one thousand sub-increments have been used to produce the ‘exact’ solutions for the map of Figure 7. the starting point P is immaterial. was among the procedures assessed by these authors. 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. consider an arbitrary stress state at a point P on the yield surface as shown in Figure 7. Ortiz and Popov. 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. the error associated with each increment is deﬁned as ERROR = (σexact − σnum ) : (σexact − σnum ) √ . Fuschi et al. 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. Dutko et al. . The contour plot of this error ﬁeld is the iso-error map for P .7(a). 1994a.72) By varying the prescribed increment sizes ∆σT and ∆σN . For this particular model. 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. an error ﬁeld is obtained.7(b). ﬁrst-order accurate and stable. 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.. In order to generate a typical iso-error map. the unit (in Euclidean norm) normal and tangent vectors to the yield surface and q is the von Mises equivalent stress at P . As a result of the numerical integration algorithm. It is remarked that. σexact : σexact (7. Their assessment was based on the use of iso-error maps.7(a) represented in the deviatoric plane. To give a general idea of reasonable sub-increment sizes.71) where N and T are. with the yield surface of Figure 7.. 1992. 1985. σexact is taken as the numerical solution obtained by dividing each strain increment into a sufﬁciently large number of subincrements∗∗. an approximated stress σnum is computed for each increment. respectively associated with the tangential and normal directions to the yield surface. 1993. as analytical solutions are generally not available.. 1986). Here.

a choice of θ between 0. With increasing increment size. however. model. the best accuracy is obtained with θ = 1 .3. A ﬁnite step accuracy analysis of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint rule integration algorithms.8 gives the best accuracy.2. which will be adopted in the numerical implementation described in the following sections of this chapter. Iso-error map: (a) typical increment directions. for small increments. Also.2. 7. Having described the concept of iso-error maps. let us now return to the discussion regarding the properties of the integration algorithms of Sections 7. for instance. likely to occur in real problems.7 concentrating on their ﬁnite step accuracy characteristics. (1992) for the variant of the midpoint rule based algorithm proposed by Simo and Govindjee (1991). it might be useful to include the error associated with the hardening internal variable in the deﬁnition of the error measure.7. It is remarked that the ∆σ N ⁄ q ∆σ trial σ trial 5% 10% 4 . the performance of the second-order algorithm deteriorates. based on iso-error maps. gives better accuracy than the second-order algorithm.1 (page 199) to the von Mises model. 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. featuring the standard associative law and linear elastic behaviour and including general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. the fully implicit algorithm (θ = 1).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .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. these authors have found that. 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. the von Mises model is the simplest type discussed in this book. and (b) a typical iso-error map. 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. In the case of hardening materials. It is worth remarking that completely analogous results have been found by Fuschi et al. Essentially. This is in obvious agreement with 2 the (inﬁnitesimal) accuracy analysis that established second-order accuracy for this particular choice of θ. The specialisation of the fully implicit algorithm of Box 7.3 and 7.7 and 0. but may not be so for different models. is described in this section. For reasonably sized increments.

it is convenient at this point to list the basic equations used in the present implementation of the von Mises model.3. as compared to other members of the families of generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms discussed in Section 7. An associative hardening rule. A standard associative ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ ∂Φ .73) 3 J2 (s(σ)) − σy .78) 3 . σy ) = where σy = σy (¯p ) ε is the uniaxial yield stress – a function of the accumulated plastic strain.2. with the evolution equation for the hardening internal variable given by ˙ ˙ εp = 2 εp = γ. A yield function of the form Φ(σ. 7.75) with the (Prandtl–Reuss) ﬂow vector. where D is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor.1.77) 4. Essentially. N.74) (7. (ii) its generally ‘good’ ﬁnite step accuracy. A linear elastic law σ = De : εe . (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.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. explicitly given by N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . in conjunction with its ﬁrst-order accuracy. Its particularisation for the Tresca. in Chapter 8. ∂σ (7. the model comprises: 1.7. ¯ ˙ (7. The choice of the fully implicit algorithm here and in the remainder of this book is essentially motivated by: (i) its (unconditional) stability which. Before going further. 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. 2. ensures that the resulting algorithm is convergent.76) p e (7. 2 s (7. (7. ε . and (iv) its relatively simple computational implementation. ¯ 3. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models is described later.

81) (7.e. the shear and bulk moduli and the subscripts d and v in the elastic trial strain denote. εp } at tn .2. G and K are. n+1 d n+1 ptrial = K εe trial .79) corresponding to a typical (pseudo-) time increment [tn . tn+1 ] is purely elastic and the elastic trial state itself is the solution to the integration problem. the process is elastoplastic within the interval [tn . (7. ¯n+1 The corresponding trial stress is computed as σtrial = De : εe trial . 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 elastic trial strain and trial accumulated plastic strain are given by n ¯n εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n ¯n εp trial = εp . respectively. • Otherwise. the deviatoric and volumetric components. n+1 n+1 or. equivalently. i.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 217 7. tn+1 ]. In this case.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .25) of nonlinear equations. and given the state variables {εe . n+1 v n+1 (7.82) (7. direct specialisation of the general fully implicit return-mapping equations (7. if n+1 Φ(σtrial . THE IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN-MAPPING SCHEME Given the increment of strain ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . respectively. 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. Recall that the general implicit return-mapping procedure corresponds to solving the system (7. n+1 then the process within the interval [tn . In the present case. respectively.80) where s and p denote. σy n ) ≤ 0.83) Having computed the elastic trial state. The trial yield stress is simply trial σy n+1 = σy (¯p ) = σy n .84) is updated. by applying the hydrostatic/deviatoric decomposition strial = 2G εe trial . tn+1 ] and the returnmapping procedure described below has to be applied.3. εn (7. the deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses.25) to the von Mises model gives the following set .

2 sn+1 (7. it should be noted ﬁrstly that the von Mises ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric so that the deviatoric/volumetric split of (7.88) that is. In fact. sn+1 strial n+1 i. εp and ∆γ and where n+1 ¯n+1 sn+1 = sn+1 (εe ) = 2G dev[εe ]. therefore.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.e. The hydrostatic stress. the trial and updated deviatoric stresses are co-linear.85). to improve the performance of the overall ﬁnite element scheme. 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. be eliminated from the system of equations. n+1 n+1 (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. pn+1 . This implies that . of course. 2 sn+1 (7. (7. Upon simpliﬁcation of the system (7.86) After the solution of the above system. εn+1 which has to be solved for εe .89) 3 sn+1 . the plastic strain tensor can be updated according to the following formula: 3 sn+1 εp = εp + ∆γ . has the value computed in the elastic predictor stage and can. Further simpliﬁcation follows by noting that by rearranging the deviatoric stress update formula (7. we have pn+1 = ptrial n+1 sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G n+1 3 sn+1 . the return mapping affects only the deviatoric stress component.85) 3 J2 (sn+1 ) − σy (¯p ) = 0.218 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 (7.87) n n+1 2 sn+1 Single-equation return mapping It is remarked here that the above system can be substantially simpliﬁed. in terms of stresses.89)2 we obtain 1+ 3 ∆γ 2G sn+1 = strial n+1 2 sn+1 strial sn+1 = n+1 .

(7. Note that. The geometric representations of this update formula in the principal stress space and deviatoric plane are illustrated.90) implies that.9. the deviatoric stress. is a (linear) n+1 function of ∆γ only in the above update formula.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . in the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model.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. so that the ﬂow vectors at the trial and updated states coincide.90) and (7. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. ∆γ. since n+1 strial is a constant tensor in the return mapping. sn+1 . in Figures 7.8 and 7.85)2 into the plastic consistency condition (7.85) 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. Expression (7. the updated deviatoric stress is obtained trial by scaling down the trial deviatoric stress by the factor 1 − ∆γ 3G/qn+1 . Finally. Geometric interpretation in principal stress space.90) trial where qn+1 ≡ 3 J2 (strial ) is the elastic trial von Mises effective stress.85)3. with substitution of (7. respectively.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 . as the only unknown: trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. Substitution of the above identity into (7. the system (7. trial qn+1 (7.8.91) .

4. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE STRESS From the update formulae (7.5.2 and relations (7.3. Geometric interpretation in the deviatoric plane. 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 implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model.220 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 sn surface at t n updated surface at t n+1 Figure 7. with its solution ∆γ at hand.9. The above equation is then solved by the Newton–Raphson method and. 7.87).3.92) σn+1 = sn+1 + ptrial I n+1 εe n+1 = [D ] e −1 εp = εp + ∆γ.7. ¯n+1 ¯n If required. The procedure shown in these boxes is implemented in subroutine SUVM of the HYPLAS program.81.82) we establish after simple ¯n manipulations that the updated stress tensor. The overall elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model is summarised in Boxes 7.92)1. This routine is described in detail in Section 7. σn+1 .3. the plastic strain tensor is updated by means of (7. 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 (7.3 and 7.

94) (page 59).95) .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 . 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. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 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 . 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. 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 . (7. Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. for any scalar a. n+1 (7. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial .3.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Elastic predictor.4 – and update the state variables ∆γ 3G pn+1 := ptrial .93) Id is the deviatoric projection tensor deﬁned by (3.94) (7. εe trial ) ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn n+1 Id : εe trial .

4. the functions (7. 7. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . εp . εn n+1 εn n+1 (7. The reader is referred to expression (4. ¯n Equivalently. k := 0.98.3 Φtrial is the value of the yield function at the elastic trial state: trial Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p . we may write n+1 n ˆ ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p . ˆ and the text surrounding it for details. Clearly.91). εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (εe trial ) − σy (¯p ). 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. 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. The function σ deﬁned in (7.60) (page 95). respectively.7. εn n εn n (7.98) For a given state at tn . HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Initialise iteration counter. εn+1 − εp ). of the elastic trial stress and the total elastic strain at tn+1 .222 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. (7.93) deﬁnes σn+1 as an implicit function of the elastic trial strain and εp .98) express the updated stress as implicit functions. Remark 7.97) and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p . εn+1 ) ≡ σn+1 (¯p .96) (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 (7.93) is the . The Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the von Mises model.93) and (7.

For linear ε hardening materials. In such cases.99) where σ0 is the initial yield stress of the virgin material and H is the (constant) hardening modulus.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . for linearly hardening von Mises materials. 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). 3G + H (7. the updated stress is simply the projection of the elastic trial stress onto the ﬁxed yield surface along its radial direction. d ∆γ = The explicit incremental constitutive function Under the assumption of linear hardening. after a straightforward manipulation.60) for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening (for which αn = {¯p .93) and obtain. we substitute the explicit formula (7. We remark. this function is linear and is expressed by σy (¯p ) = σ0 + H εp . εp ) ¯n n+1 ˆ ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn σy (¯p ) 6G2 1 − trial 3G + H qn+1 Id : εe trial . n+1 (7. σn+1 in the above deﬁnition is an explicit function. deﬁned by the given function σy = σy (¯p ). εp }) integrated numerically by the fully εn n implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. (7. such functions are usually implicit.91) is the hardening curve. (7. ε ¯ (7. In the case of perfect plasticity (H = 0).102) 3G The geometric interpretation of the fully implicit algorithm for the perfectly plastic von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 7.10.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 223 particularisation of the generic incremental function (4. .100) and the incremental plastic multiplier can be obtained in closed form as ∆γ = Φtrial .4 in the return-mapping procedure. however.91) reads trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − [σ0 + (¯p + ∆γ) H] = 0 εn (7. the above closed expression replaces the Newton–Raphson algorithm of Box 7. 7.4. In this case.3. the expression for ∆γ reads Φtrial .101) for ∆γ into (7. the following incremental constitutive function for the updated stress: ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (εe trial . 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. It is the closest point projection of the trial stress onto the yield surface. For more realistic models.101) Thus.103) ¯ In contrast to the general case (7.93).

3 and 7.. is carried out in subroutine SUVM (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model). . In the HYPLAS program. 2 σy ) piecewise linear approximation with n hard sampling points ( n hard ε p.5.3. n hard σ y ) ( 1 ε p . 1 σy ) εp Figure 7. σy hardening curve .. Geometric interpretation of the implicit returnmapping scheme as the closest point projection algorithm. summarised in Boxes 7. This procedure. 7. Piecewise linear hardening. subroutine SUVM is called by the material interface MATISU during the computation of the ﬁnite element internal force vector.11.. 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 σy ) ( 2 ε p . ( 3 ε p . The perfectly plastic von Mises model.10.4..224 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 Nn+1 sn+1 sn π -plane - fixed yield surface Figure 7.

R1 .RP5 .R3 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .5D0. 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 . In fact.FALSE.RPROPS(*) . the isotropic hardening curve deﬁned by σy (¯p ) ε has been assumed to be piecewise linear.AND. actual experimental data for hardening curves are normally obtained as a set of points (σy .TOL / 2 0.NTYPE . to a generic hardening curve is illustrated in Figure 7. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS. A piecewise linear approximation.0D0. LALGVA(2).RPROPS . with nhard sampling points. 2 RSTAVA .MSTRE=4) LOGICAL IFPLAS.1.STRAT .0D0.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. 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 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. 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) . SUFAIL=.NTYPE. σy } ε with linear interpolation between adjacent pairs.FALSE.0. ¯ Thus.11.3. the present implementation of the von Mises model allows for the experimental data to be used directly in the deﬁnition of the hardening curve.NE.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 225 In the present implementation.R2 .1. C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.3-4).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .2.IPROPS . The FORTRAN source code of SUVM is listed below.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . εp ).RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0D0.0D0.2.LALGVA .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0013’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.

RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=QTRIAL-R3G*DGAMA-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.4) C ------------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.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.GT.NHARD.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the return mapping equation (Box 7.NHARD.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .TRUE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------PHI=QTRIAL-SIGMAY IF(PHI/SIGMAY.NHARD.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 .LE.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=. EPBAR=EPBARN DO 10 NRITER=1.226 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P=BULK*EEV C Elastic trial deviatoric strain EEVD3=EEV/R3 EET(1)=STRAT(1)-EEVD3 EET(2)=STRAT(2)-EEVD3 EET(4)=STRAT(4)-EEVD3 C Convert engineering shear component into physical component EET(3)=STRAT(3)/R2 C Compute trial effective stress and uniaxial yield stress VARJ2T=R2G*R2G*(EET(3)*EET(3)+RP5*(EET(1)*EET(1)+ 1 EET(2)*EET(2)+EET(4)*EET(4))) QTRIAL=SQRT(R3*VARJ2T) SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.TRUE.

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

reference has been made in Section 4. f (x)).3. • MXITER. The calculation of array STRAT in MATISU is common to all elastoplastic material models of the class whose identiﬁcation parameter is HYPEPL. Array of elastic trial deviatoric strain components.2.4.104) in the computation of the element tangent stiffness. Thus. Array containing the updated stress tensor components. • PLFUN.4. Array containing the elastic trial (engineering) strains. d n+1 • EEV [εe trial ]. the operations carried out in SUVM can be easily identiﬁed with those indicated in Boxes 7. Iteration counter for the Newton–Raphson algorithm. It is computed n+1 as shown in item (i) of Box 7. Most remaining local variables of SUVM have been named so as to resemble the corresponding notation of Section 7. • TOL [ tol ].3 and 7. Used in SUVM as ε the hardening function σy (¯p ). H. ∂εn+1 (7. Equals the actual elastic volumetric strain v n+1 for the present model. Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm. 7. This function computes the derivative of a piecewise linear function. Some function calls from SUVM • DPLFUN. ← STRES [σn+1 ]. • NRITER.3 in subroutine MATISU. Maximum number of iterations allowed in the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation. The consistent tangent modulus Within the description of the incremental ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4. Used in SUVM to compute the slope of the hardening curve. Elastic trial volumetric strain. Some local variables and arrays of SUVM • EET [εe trial ].2. . Recall that the hardening curve is deﬁned here by the NHARD pairs of sampling points stored in array RPROPS.5 (page 98) to the use of consistent tangent operators: D≡ ∂σn+1 .228 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS → STRAT [εe trial ]. Piecewise linear function deﬁned by a set of pairs (x.

given the known internal variable set αn and the new prescribed total strain εn+1 as input.12).98) show the corresponding (implicit) incremental constitutive function for the model with nonlinear hardening and expression (7.2. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATORS IN ELASTOPLASTICITY As shown in Section 7. ∂ε2 (7. the consistent tangent modulus is the standard (constant) elasticity tensor D = 2G Id + K I ⊗ I. equivalent to a (nonlinear) elastic law. εn+1 – associated with the guesses for the displacement ﬁeld. it is the derivative of the algorithmic function σ with respect to εn+1 with αn held constant.2 will deliver the updated stress σn+1 as the result of the application of a particular numerical algorithm (see diagram of Figure 7. in the formulation of incremental boundary value problems with general path-dependent material models.2. each of the general integration procedures described in Section 7. for the stress tensor with general form ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . the stress is an explicit function of the strain tensor σ = σ(ε) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ(ε) . This function – σ(αn . from page 94 for details on the global Newton–Raphson procedure). elastoplastic materials require in general some kind of numerical integration algorithm to update the stress tensor.4. 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 . un+1 – change during the global Newton–Raphson equilibrium iterations (refer to Section 4.1 (page 95). tn+1 ]. tn+1 ]. the internal variable set αn given as argument of σ is ﬁxed.105) so that the tangent modulus can be explicitly derived as D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψ(ε) . . within each global load increment.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . (7. εn+1 ) with ﬁxed αn – deﬁnes a path-independent stress/strain relation within the interval [tn . (7.109) ˆ i.106) For linear elastic materials. ∂ε (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 229 Elastic materials In the case of purely elastic materials. σ. the stress σn+1 delivered by the integration ˆ algorithm is a function of the total strain tensor only. Basically. 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. This deﬁnes an ˆ algorithmic incremental constitutive function. Expressions (7.e. In other words. αn (7.2. ˆ Within a load increment [tn .1.93.103) shows the particular (explicit) format obtained under linear hardening.108) Algorithmic functions of this type have been ﬁrst referred to in Section 4. Only the guesses for the total strain. 7.107) 7. εn+1 ).

rather than the total n+1 strain εn+1 . we have conveniently chosen the elastic trial strain.98) of the incremental constitutive law for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. it is worth remarking that.110) in terms of the elastic trial strain and the internal variable set at tn . σn+1 Figure 7. states corresponding obvious equivalence has already been used in (7. in the context of the multiplicative ﬁnite strain plasticity framework discussed in Chapter 14.e. the incremental constitutive function for σn+1 n+1 n can always be expressed equivalently as†† ¯ ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . as the actual input argument to the elastoplastic integration procedures for models of the present type (see routine SUVM. The algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor. (7. i. εe trial + εp ). εe trial .‡‡ The elastic and elastoplastic tangents Before going into further details. no measure of total nonlinear strain analogous to εn+1 is used (or needed) in the deﬁnition of elastoplastic constitutive models. note that.98). and we also have the trivial identity ˆ ¯ ∂σ ∂σ D= = e trial (7. For states lying within the elastic domain.12.230 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS algorithmic stress constitutive function ^ σn+1 = σ (α n . does n+1 appear naturally in the formulation of the corresponding elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes. n+1 n+1 n (7. 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).111) ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 for the consistent tangent operator. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . in order to maximise the number of routines shared by small and large-strain isotropic plasticity models in the HYPLAS program. we shall adopt in what follows the rightmost term of (7.93). εe trial ) ≡ σ(αn . however. This is clearly seen by noting the presence of the Heaviside step function – a non-differentiable function – in deﬁnition (7. ‡‡ Also †† This . εn+1 α n+1.111) as the deﬁnition of consistent tangent operator. it is worth remarking at this point that the algorithmic ˆ function σ is non-differentiable in general. Clearly. listed on page 227. An elastic trial strain measure (analogous to the inﬁnitesimal tensor εe trial ). for instance). εn+1 ) input state update procedure elastic predictor/ return-mapping algorithm ⇔ output α n . At this point.

at states with Φtrial = 0 in (7. The elastic tangent is associated with the elastic predictor procedure whereas the elastoplastic tangent is related to the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure. these are generalised respectively as the elastic tangent modulus.93). any inﬁnitesimal change of total strain can only be elastic. 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.98) – where the Heaviside step function is non-differentiable – either elastic unloading or plastic straining may occur in the incremental constitutive law.εn 1 ) Elastic unloading D is the elasticity tensor: D = De Plastic loading D is the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: D = Dep σ(αn . 7. deﬁned for plastic loading. with the stress σn+1 evolving along the (smooth) elastic curve (see graphical representation of the ˆ uniaxial stress case in Figure 7. (7.98).13). the appropriate choice of tangent operator must be made. However. De .93.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . and the elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. to Φtrial < 0 in (7. the function σ is also differentiable if the hardening curve is smooth. ∂εe 2 (7. when assembling the tangent stiffness matrix required by the Newton– Raphson iterative procedure for the global incremental equilibrium problem. Dep . Clearly. Inﬁnitesimal changes of εn+1 will move the stress along the elastoplastic part of the incremental stress– strain curve. In this case the function σ is differentiable.13. At states with ˆ Φtrial > 0. 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.112) . The tangent moduli consistent with elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithms.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 . deﬁned for elastic unloading. In the multidimensional case.εn 1 ) loading σn 1 σn 1 unloading εn 1 εn 1 Figure 7. The tangent modulus D is not uniquely deﬁned and two tangent stress–strain relations exist: an elastic tangent relation. and an elastoplastic tangent relation.13. Even though σ is non-differentiable its two one-sided derivatives – the elastic and the elastoplastic tangents – are well deﬁned.

In other words. Crucial to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent moduli is the observation that under plastic yielding. for example. Note that. The elastoplastic tangent: the derivative of an implicit function If the stress is on the yield surface.107).232 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS i.4. such as the von Mises model and all other models described in Chapter 6. it is clear that σn+1 is deﬁned implicitly through the corresponding nonlinear system. The application of the generic . in Section 7. Thus. in this case. the elastic consistent tangent is the standard elasticity operator (7. Note. In this case. the elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the von Mises implicit return mapping is derived step by step. There.e. As an illustration of the above concepts.93) is an implicit function of εe trial (or εn+1 ) deﬁned as the solution n+1 of an algebraic nonlinear equation. 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. the stress σn+1 is the outcome of the elastic predictor. the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model is derived below. 7. the updated stress σn+1 is an implicit function of the elastic trial strain εe trial in this case. The simplicity of this particular return-mapping scheme avoids the complications associated with more complex models/algorithms.4. which employs only the elastic constitutive law.6. it was remarked that from the computational point of view the implementation of the von Mises model is the simplest described in this book. i.2. Φtrial > 0 or Φtrial = 0 and it is assumed that further plastic loading is going to occur. that the term ∆γ in (7. 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. 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. 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. it is the standard elastic modulus. The derivation of elastoplastic tangent operators consistent with the implicit return mapping for general plasticity models is addressed later. It is important to emphasise here that elastoplastic consistent tangent operators cannot be derived for the cutting-plane algorithm (refer to Remark 7. This procedure is common to all algorithms described in Section 7.4. In this section. 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.3.2.e. then the tangent operator is called the elastoplastic consistent tangent and is denoted Dep . For elastoplastic materials whose elastic response is linear. The system solved in the return mapping depends on the particular algorithm adopted.

118) where H is the slope of the hardening curve: H≡ dσy d¯p ε . the update formula for σn+1 reads σn+1 = De − ∆γ 6G2 Id : εe trial . (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .93).117). (7. when applying the chain d n+1 d n+1 rule. i. taking (7. 3G + H 2 (7. trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.119) εp +∆γ ¯n Finally.115). is described in Section 7.116) into account gives trial ∂qn+1 ∂∆γ 1 = e trial e trial 3G + H ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 2G 3 ¯ = Nn+1 . (7.95) and relation (2.114) for ∆γ.113). we obtain trial ∂qn+1 = 2G e trial ∂εn+1 3 2 ¯ N n+1 .e. trial trial (qn+1 )2 ∂εn+1 (7. when the return-mapping procedure is used. is the function of the elastic trial strain deﬁned by (7.5.116) 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 (7.3). after a straightforward manipulation making use of (7. the differentiation of the implicit equation (7.115) From (7.118) into (7. which offers an alternative route to the derivation presented below. qn+1 .116) and (7. the following expression for the .4. A straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules to (7. n+1 trial qn+1 (7. by substituting (7. we obtain.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 233 procedure to the isotropically hardening von Mises model. Under plastic ﬂow. for the tensor norm derivative.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 .95). The incremental algorithmic constitutive function for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening is given by (7.113) where ∆γ is the solution of the return-mapping equation of the algorithm (Box 7. Further.95) and deﬁnition (7. The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus for the present model/algorithm combination is obtained by differentiating (7.139) (page 36).117) and we have made use of the trivial identity: εe trial : Id = εe trial .114) trial In the above. the elastic trial von Mises effective stress.

we ﬁnd that expression (6. (7. the value of ∆γ. In Section 6. With De deﬁned by (7.136) for the von Mises model.3.6.187)–(6. using (6.4. the corresponding elastoplastic continuum tangent operator has been derived for the generic multi-dimensional plasticity model. ∆γ is zero.2.192).120) are those obtained for the Gauss point of interest in the return-mapping procedure of the previous global iteration. Firstly we consider (6. N n+1 .107).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.8 (from pages 147 and 153. N : De : N + H (7.194) and the associative ﬂow vector deﬁnition (6. we have De : N = 2G N. that take part in (7. Its closed form is given by expression (6.234 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. ¯ q trial and H. and taking into consideration the fact that for the von Mises model N is a deviatoric tensor. the above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVM. Let us now particularise this formula for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening.122) where we have used the subscript ‘c’ to emphasise that the above operator is the continuum tangent modulus.124) (7.3. together with (6. as well as the incremental unit ﬂow vector.3. 2 ∂α ∂ε ¯ ∂ εp 2 ¯ (7.121) With the above.8 and 6.136). Remark 7.4. In this case we have ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψp ∂ 2 ψp ∂κ =ρ ¯ = p = H. For the ﬁrst iteration of any global load increment.8. Its implementation is described in detail in Section 7. Within the global (equilibrium) Newton–Raphson scheme.67) particularises in the following format: Dep = De − c (De : N ) ⊗ (De : N ) . it follows that N : De : N = 3G. (7. respectively) in the time-continuum setting.123) . The continuum tangent operator The concept of tangent operators in plasticity has been initially discussed in Sections 6. In addition. In the HYPLAS program.e. The symmetry of consistent elastoplastic tangent operators will be further commented upon in Section 7.8.67). i. for this particular model and numerical integration algorithm is symmetric.

DMATX . we obtain the following explicit expression for the continuum tangent operator for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening: Dep = De − c 6G2 ¯ ¯ N ⊗ N. The difference between the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator and its continuum counterpart above lies only in the terms that contain ∆γ in expression (7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUBROUTINE CTVM 1( DGAMA .RPROPS(*) . Note that we may write Dep = Dep − c ∆γ 6G2 ¯ ¯ [ Id − N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 ]. when the value of ∆γ is large. then the global iterative procedure is not the Newton–Raphson algorithm. given by expression (7.126) If ∆γ is set to zero (as in the ﬁrst iteration of any load increment). Clearly.IPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . or the elastoplastic tangent operator.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 235 By introducing these results into (7.MSTRE). The FORTRAN source code of CTVM is listed below.9.122). if the continuum tangent is used in conjunction with the return-mapping scheme. 3G + H (7. Dep . It computes either the elastic tangent.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. For large steps. This fact (Ortiz and Martin.3.120). In the HYPLAS program.4.125) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector at the current state. 7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . . In such cases. The elastoplastic operator is consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening. The use of the consistent tangent operator in this context was introduced by Simo and Taylor (1985).120). . Remark 7. this routine is called by the material interface MATICT at each Gauss point during the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix.RSTAVA . 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. the difference between the continuum and the consistent operator can be substantial. trial qn+1 (7.NTYPE . given by (7. 1980) relied exclusively on the use of the continuum tangent operator. De . the continuum tangent is recovered.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . 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.EPFLAG 2 RPROPS .107). In this case. Early implicit elastoplastic implementations (Owen and Hinton. SUBROUTINE CTVM This section describes subroutine CTVM (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model) in detail. the global iterations are a form of approximation to the Newton–Raphson scheme.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION .STRES IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. The algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVM.IPROPS ) .

FOID(4.0.FOID(1. 2 SOID(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.FOID(2.R2 . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.2).1).1.FOID(MSTRE.2).FOID(3.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .4)/ 8 0.EQ.S(MSTRE) .0.0D0.0.0.2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.1.AND.SOID(4) / 2 1.0D0 .0.0D0 .R6 / 2 1.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0030’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 C Set deviatoric projection tensor IF(NTYPE.FOID(3.FOID(2.FOID(4.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 .MSTRE).MSTRE) .0D0 .1).4)/ 6 0.J)=FOID(I.6.0D0 / 5 FOID(3.3).SOID(3) .1.3).0D0 .3).0D0 .0D0 .0.3).0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0D0 .2.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ENDIF DO 20 I=1.2).FOID(1.NTYPE.0.0.0D0 / 7 FOID(4.NE.5D0 .SOID(2) .R3 .4)/ 2 1.2). C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.0D0.1).0D0 .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 .0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.FOID(1.0D0 .EQ.0D0 / DATA 1 R1 .0.FOID(3.2.4)/ 4 0.0D0.0D0 .0D0 .NSTRE DEVPRJ(I.FOID(2.FOID(4.0D0 .0.1.1).0D0 .0.3.NE.

J)=AFACT*DEVPRJ(I..FALSE. DMATX returns as the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator. → RPROPS.J)=DMATX(J.2 above and is given by expression (7.RPROPS(IPHARD))))/ 2 (SNORM*SNORM) DO 40 I=1. The implicit algorithm has been described in Section 7.. → NTYPE.J)+BULK*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 50 CONTINUE 60 CONTINUE ENDIF Assemble lower triangle ----------------------DO 80 J=1. The value of EPFLAG is set in subroutine MATICT.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=1.3.NSTRE DMATX(I. It is set to zero (before being passed into CTVM) for the ﬁrst iteration of every load increment. → IPROPS. Tangent operator (stored in matrix form) consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model.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.TRUE. → EPFLAG.2. The incremental plastic multiplier obtained from the return mapping of SUVM in the previous global (equilibrium) iteration.J)=R2G*DEVPRJ(I.4. was derived in Section 7. The procedure for setting EPFLAG in MATICT is common to all elastoplastic models of the material class HYPEPL.120). If .NSTRE DO 30 J=I. If .NSTRE DO 50 J=I.NSTRE DMATX(I. Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag. DMATX returns as the elastic matrix. Dep . De .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Array of real material properties (see description on page 227). Array of integer material properties (see description on page 227).NSTRE-1 DO 70 I=J+1. .I) 70 CONTINUE 80 CONTINUE RETURN END The arguments of CTVM → DGAMA [∆γ]. NTYPE=2 for plane strain and NTYPE=3 for axisymmetric problems. ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. Dep . Stress state type ﬂag.NSTRE DMATX(I.NHARD. The associated elastoplastic consistent tangent.

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

. Inversion of this relation gives the following general expression dεe = C : dσ + B ∗ dA dα = A ∗ dσ + J ∗ dA. In this case we end up with the following relation: dεe = C : dσ . (7.129) where C. (7. the ﬁrst step in its derivation is to linearise the returnn+1 mapping equations (having the elastic trial strain – the system input – also as a variable). for the differentials dσ and dA. the derivative of the implicit function for stress. (7. under the classical assumption of decoupling between elasticity and plastic hardening: ψ(εe .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. where C = [De ]−1 and J = G−1 . (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 239 the stress tensor at tn+1 .e. F and G are deﬁned in (7. 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 .128) The linear operators E. Recall that.48)–(7.130) the tangent moduli E and F vanish and so do B and A.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . we have the following relations (refer to the rate elastoplasticity equations (7.50). (7.52) on page 206): dσ = De : dεe + E ∗ dα dA = F ∗ dεe + G ∗ dα. As discussed in the preceding sections. A and J are suitably deﬁned linear operators. ∂εn+1 i. α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α). Note that.131) dα = J ∗ dA. gives the linear tangent relationship between εe trial and σn+1 . Thus. the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator ∂σn+1 Dep ≡ e trial . B.

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

H (7.141) is equivalent to dσ = P : (dεe trial − d∆γ N ).194) (page 182) for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. −1 d∆γ 0 0 N dσ 0 1 H −1 (7. Depending on the particular model.194) into (7. each element of these sets may be a scalar. Firstly.142) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector (7. We then have ∂H ∂H ≡ = 0. these sets may contain as many variables as necessary for the appropriate description of the material behaviour. We start by observing that the ﬁrst row of (7. With such a high degree of generality. it also follows that ∂N ∂N ≡ = 0.136) into account.136) of the associative ﬂow vector for the von Mises model.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .139) where H is the hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve). we recall the discussion around expressions (6. From the deﬁnition (6. The tangential relation (7.141) can be inverted trivially as follows.140) and (6.187–6. ∂A ∂κ ∂H = 0.132) results in the following e trial dε dσy = 0 . the general procedure described above is here particularised for the implicit return mapping for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening. as elasticity and plastic hardening are decoupled in the von Mises model. as pointed out in the discussion following expression (7. 2 ∂σ ∂σ 2q (7.141) where by taking (6. (7. vector or tensor of any order.137) In addition.138) ∂σy ∂ εp ¯ −1 = = 1 . The remaining (non-vanishing) operators are C = [De ]−1 and ¯ J = G−1 = ρ ∂2ψ ∂ εp 2 ¯ −1 (7.117). In order to provide the reader with a better view of the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator. ∂A ∂κ Substitution of the above expressions linearised form: ∂N [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂σ 0 N (7. the ﬂow vector derivative is easily obtained as ∂N ∂ 2 Φ 3 ¯ ¯ = = (Id − N ⊗ N).129).143) . ∂σ (7. the operators B and A vanish.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 241 As discussed in Chapter 6. it may not be easy to have a clear picture of what operations are involved in the above derivation.

142). Alternative formula Yet another representation.146) into the ﬁrst row of (7. by substituting (7. we obtain the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator d∆γ = Dep = P − 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ) N:P:N+H 1 ¯ ¯ =P− ¯ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). This. Also note the similarity between (7.9.148) and the continuum tangent operator (7. (7. the above formula recovers (7. alternative to (7. ¯ N : P : N + 2H 3 (7.149) or. combined with the third row and (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). results in d∆γ = 1 N : dσ H 1 = (N : P : dεe trial − d∆γ N : P : N ). (1993) in the context of anisotropic plasticity. after rearranging. 1 N : P : dεe trial .146) or.120) and could be used as an alternative in the computational implementation of the model.242 where COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ −1 : De . (7. in turn. by Dutko et al.147) into (7.141) and then inverting the resulting differential relation.144) The second row of (7.148). As expected (refer to Remark 7. Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ ¯ 3∆γ 3 1 ¯ Id + − N⊗N 2q 2 H q −1 . page 235). Remark 7. (7. for instance.147) N:P:N+H Finally.143).122) if ∆γ = 0. The alternative formula is obtained simply by replacing the ﬁrst right-hand side of (7. and making use of the unit ﬂow vector deﬁnition.141). .148) The above expression for Dep is an equivalent representation to (7. The corresponding expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent reads Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ 1 ∂N + N⊗N ∂σ H −1 . gives dσy = H d∆γ.122).150) The use of an analogous formula is reported.143). (7.10. H (7.145) (7. is sometimes used in computational applications. in view of (7.

ψ. If the plastic ﬂow rule is associative but the hardening rule does not derive from the associative relation (6. is symmetric.120). In a further discussion on this issue.4.151) analogous to the free-energy function. Incremental potentials The symmetry of the consistent tangent operator implies that at any state {εn . ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εe trial n+1 (7. page 153) that the time-continuum elastoplastic tangent modulus with general expression (6. the symmetry of the corresponding consistent tangents is guaranteed for any θ ∈ [0.148) or (7.106). when applied to perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or. then. whose general symbolic expression was derived in Section 7. αn } there n exists an incremental potential. in the presence of hardening. An interesting discussion on this topic is provided by Ortiz and Martin (1989). For elastoplastic model/algorithm combinations that preserve the consistent tangent operator symmetry. for instance. delivered by the integration algorithm is given by σn+1 = ρ ¯ ˜ ¯ ∂ ψn ∂ ψn = ρ e trial . such that the updated stress. ¯ ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 (7. This allows methods conventionally used in hyperelasticity to be adopted in the study of elastoplastic incremental boundary value problems. the corresponding (symmetric) consistent tangent operator in such cases obeys the potential relations Dep ≡ ˜ ¯ ∂σn+1 ∂ 2 ψn ∂σn+1 ∂ 2 ψn =ρ 2 ¯ = e trial = ρ ¯ 2.4. again only for perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 243 7. that for the family of generalised midpoint algorithms based on the returnmapping equations (7.37).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .1. σn+1 . its implicit consistent counterpart is not. the consistent tangents for this family of algorithms are generally unsymmetric. These authors show.150). For models with associative ﬂow but non-associative hardening. 1]. the incremental equilibrium boundary value problem is endowed with a potential structure analogous to that of hyperelasticity boundary value problems. even though the continuum tangent is symmetric.11.6. Also.130).67) is symmetric for models with associative plastic ﬂow rule.e.4. 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 (7.42). many important properties associated with the regularity and stability of the solution of (time-continuum) elastoplasticity problems . models with associative ﬂow and hardening rules). in the presence of hardening.153) Remark 7. (7. Simo and Govindjee (1991) show that for the variant of the family of midpoint algorithms with consistency equation (7. εp . for fully associative models. This property is not transferred in general to its time-discrete (or consistent) counterpart. ˜ ¯ ψn = ψn (εn+1 ) = ψn (εe trial ) n+1 (7.152) Analogously to (7. TANGENT OPERATOR SYMMETRY: INCREMENTAL POTENTIALS It has been emphasised in Chapter 6 (refer to Remark 6. operator symmetry is preserved only for the fully implicit member (θ = 0). to fully associative models (i.

5. The geometry of the problem.4.5. When symmetry is preserved in the consistent tangent operator. resulting from the use of the consistent tangent operator described in Sections 7. Subsequently.4. Most results are compared with existing analytical solutions. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm. The standard eight-noded quadrilateral element. with a complete description of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit algorithm. 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. whose details of numerical implementation have been given in the previous sections. 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.139) (page 36).14. (7. Firstly. has been adopted.2 and 7. 7.3. for the same model. with four (2 × 2) Gauss integration points is adopted. The practical application of these numerical procedures is illustrated in this section by a comprehensive set of benchmark numerical examples. INTERNALLY PRESSURISED CYLINDER This example considers the simulation of the behaviour of a long metallic thick-walled cylinder subjected to internal pressure. the material properties and the adopted ﬁnite element mesh is illustrated in Figure 7. many such properties can be transferred to the discretised problem.103) is indeed obtained from the potential relation (7.244 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS depend crucially on the symmetry of the continuum tangent operator. The examples presented here are restricted to the von Mises model with isotropic hardening. this chapter has presented a general framework for the numerical treatment of elastoplasticity within the context of implicit incremental ﬁnite element procedures. 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 . Interested readers are referred to Martin (1975) and Rice (1976) for further details.152) with the above potential can be established by a straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules taking expression (2. All ﬁnite element analyses have been carried out in the HYPLAS program.154) That the incremental constitutive function (7.1. In all examples. the concept of consistent tangent operators in elastoplasticity has been introduced and also specialised. Numerical examples with the von Mises model So far. The analysis . into account together with the identity εe trial = Id : εe trial . n+1 d n+1 7. These issues fall outside the scope of this book.

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)

n+1 (7. (7. These components are stored in array RSTAVA of real-state variables.5 is a straightforward extension of the algorithm for the isotropic hardening-only model listed in Boxes 7. As for the isotropic 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.3. β}.4. the kinematic hardening curve. εn (7. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS As anticipated at the beginning of Section 7. ε ¯ The extra properties are read and stored in array RPROPS (real material properties) during the data input phase of HYPLAS.206) with constant σy 0 . The main modiﬁcations comprise the redeﬁnition of the return-mapping equation and the incorporation of new state variables – the components of the backstress tensor. εe trial ) εn n+1 is the implicit function of consistency equation (7.4.6. ¯ε β(¯p ). εe trial ) − σy (¯p ). βn .204) (7. βn . This routine is a simple modiﬁcation of routine SUVM (listed in Section 7.94).6. the algorithm of Box 7.207) 3G + H k + H i 7. εe trial n+1 and the internal variables {¯p .6. if σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H i εp . εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (βn . The present mixed hardening algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMMX (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening). H i and H k . εe trial ) ≡ ¯trial n+1 Φtrial is the function Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p ..FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .199). deﬁned by the same number of (user supplied) sampling pairs as the isotropic hardening curve {¯p . ¯ (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 261 ˆ where H is the Heaviside step function (7.5.203) = qn+1 (βn . i. εn ¯trial εn n+1 n+1 and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p .205) βn } deﬁned by the 7.5). is assumed to be piecewise linear. Also note that. then the present return mapping equation has the following closed form solution: Φtrial ∆γ = . LINEAR HARDENING: CLOSED-FORM RETURN MAPPING If the kinematic and isotropic hardening are linear. ε ¯ ¯ε β(¯p ) = H k εp . here. β. .e. qn+1 = ¯trial 3 2 strial − βn = n+1 3 2 3 2 2Gεe trial − βn d n+1 2G Id : εe trial − βn .3 and 7.

∂ qn+1 ¯trial = 2G ∂εe trial n+1 with the unit ﬂow vector here deﬁned as ηtrial ¯ N n+1 ≡ n+1 . the following closed-form expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep = De − ∆γ ∆γ 6G2 1 Id + 6G2 trial − 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯trial qn+1 ¯ ∆γ 3G qn+1 ¯trial Id ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 + K I ⊗ I.208) n+1 qn+1 ¯ qn+1 ¯ The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the present case is obtained by differentiating the above relation.209) we obtain.194) and (7. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT Under plastic ﬂow (Φtrial > 0).4.262 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 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 . with the substitution of (7. 3 (7.e.211) into account. after a straightforward algebra taking (7. The corresponding expression in the present case has the same format as (7.212) Then. ηtrial n+1 (7.116).211) 2 ¯ N n+1 . (7.210) and (7.6. trial )2 trial (¯n+1 q ∂εn+1 (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 . The derivative of the n+1 n+1 trial relative effective stress is obtained analogously to (7. i. The differentiation of (7.116). (7.2 (from page 232) for the isotropic hardening-only model.199) with respect to εe trial .209) where we have made use of the connection ηtrial = 2G Id : εe trial − βn .212) into (7.6.213) ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 1 − trial 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯ .202) gives ∆γ 6G2 ∆γ 3G σn+1 = De − trial Id : εe trial + trial βn .210) The incremental plastic multiplier derivative is obtained by differentiating the return-mapping equation (7. the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (7. 2 (7. The derivation follows closely that presented in Section 7.

As the reader may ¯ verify CTVMMX is a straightforward variation of routine CTVM (refer to Section 7. the incremental ﬂow vector and the scalar factors multiplying the fourth-order tensors are redeﬁned according to the above formulae.4.3. The basic difference is that. .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 263 Implementation The above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVMMX (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening) of HYPLAS. from page 235) coded for the isotropic hardening-only model.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . in CTVMMX.

.

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. the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb criteria admit a multisurface representation with corresponding multivector ﬂow rules. respectively. 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. These sections describe. including a step-by-step derivation and FORTRAN coding of the necessary procedures. Note that all three models addressed here feature such singularities where. In the present chapter.5. in particular. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models. a table has been added indicating the location of ﬂowcharts. 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.2. At the beginning of each of the main sections. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. The associative plastic ﬂow rule is adopted for the Tresca model whereas.8 COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS I N Chapter 7. Namely. the implementation of the Tresca. the complete computational implementation of other basic plasticity models discussed in Chapter 6.3. have been derived in detail for the isotropic and mixed hardening cases. the models discussed here are • the Tresca model.3. Ltd .3 of Chapter 6 are considered. 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. together with the associated consistent tangent. 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. for the Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. all featuring linear elastic behaviour and generally a nonlinear isotropic hardening law. 8. The main sections of this chapter are three: Sections 8. discussed in Section 7. and • the Drucker–Prager model. We remark that the only new concept introduced in this chapter concerns the computational treatment of singularities (corners) in the yield surface. 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. To illustrate such concepts. • the Mohr–Coulomb model.2 and 8. the generally non-associated laws discussed in Section 6.1. is described in detail.

.3 subroutine SUTR (Section 8. 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. .3 Boxes 8. The Tresca model This section describes the specialisation of the implicit algorithm of Section 7. The corresponding consistent tangent operator is also derived and an accuracy assessment of the integration algorithm. ∂σ (8.1) where Ni ≡ ∂Φi . given in (6. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. Also at the beginning of each main section.1.3 to the Tresca model with general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening.7 subroutine CTTR (Section 8. . 8.266 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS interest. the location of the main results is summarised below. where a more detailed description of the constitutive equations adopted here is given. 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.6 and 8.1–8.2) . In the following we summarise for convenience only its main equations. Applications of the numerical procedures derived in the main sections are illustrated in Section 8. The multisurface representation of the Tresca model is deﬁned by means of the six yield functions. . ˙ (8. by means of iso-error maps. is presented. For the reader who is interested only in the practical implementation aspects of the material presented in this section. Φ6 . Φ1 .91) (page 160).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. a summary of the constitutive equations of the model concerned is presented.1. The corresponding associative plastic ﬂow rule is deﬁned by the rate equation 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i.2.4 by means a comprehensive set of benchmarking numerical examples.2) Figures 8.1.

The ﬂow rule. (8. page 173). which are given respectively by ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ for plastic ﬂow from the main plane (item 1 above).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 .18. as in the von Mises model implementation discussed in Chapter 7.7) where N a is the normal to the main plane.6). 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 ).9) Under the assumption of associative hardening (for further details. In this case. as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (refer to Figure 6. γ i ≥ 0. refer to the text surrounding equation (6. Plastic ﬂow from the right corner. the accumulated plastic strain for this model is deﬁned by means of its evolution equations. Isotropic strain hardening is incorporated. ˙ ˙ (8. R. is the same as the one above. ˙ (8.196). (8.4) With the principal stresses ordered. page 183). Plastic ﬂow from the ﬂat portion (main plane).11) (8.10) . (8. the model can be completely deﬁned with reference to a single sextant of the principal stress space. in this case. and ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a + γ b ¯ for plastic ﬂow from the right and left corners (items 2 and 3.3) with no summation on the repeated index. ˙ Φi γ i = 0 ˙ (8. without loss of generality. 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. deﬁned by (8. L.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 267 together with the loading/unloading conditions Φi ≤ 0.8) 3. In this case. ˙ εp = γN a . respectively). 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 . (8. where the Tresca yielding function is differentiable.6) 2. Plastic ﬂow from the left corner. (8. 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 . The ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . only three possibilities are identiﬁed for the associative plastic ﬂow: 1.

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

10): εp = εp + ∆γ. In this case. consider the implicit update formula for the elastic strain obtained as a result of the discretisation of (8.13) Due to the isotropic linear elastic law and the fact that the Tresca ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric. there is only one possible nonzero multiplier and the ﬂow vector is given by (8. to independent update formulae for the hydrostatic and the deviatoric stress: pn+1 = ptrial n+1 6 sn+1 = strial − 2G n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 . this expression is equivalent.16) On the main plane. expression (8. This substituted in (8. ¯n+1 ¯n (8.9) has three different explicit forms. Nn+1 and sn+1 share the same principal directions.6). (8. (8.1): 6 εe = εe trial − n+1 n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 . (j = 1. The discretisation of (8.5)–(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. The updated stress lies on the main plane. Thus. 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. . for the von Mises model.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 . The three possible return mappings Crucial to the derivation of the return-mapping algorithm is the observation that the plastic ﬂow rule (8. 2. To derive the simpliﬁed equations. (8. (8. 3). the update formula for the accumulated plastic strain is given by the implicit discrete counterpart of (8. 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.5)–(8. as in the von Mises model.9) results in the three following possibilities for the return-mapping algorithm: 1. However.17) † The update formula in terms of principal deviatoric stresses is equally valid for the von Mises model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 269 particularized for the Tresca model.14) i Note that by deﬁnition of the ﬂow vectors.15) i i where Nj denotes the eigenvalues of Nn+1 .

n+1 Φb ≡ Φ6 (σn+1 . The updated stress lies on the right corner. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . a (8.21) into the discrete consistency condition resulting from (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. given by (8. σy (¯p )) = 0. σy (¯p )) = 0.17) into the discrete consistency condition Φ1 (σn+1 . Here. ˜ 1 2 (8. σy (¯p )) = 0. is obtained with the introduction of (8. ˜ (8.20) and (8. a b (8.25) . in the present case.3): εn+1 Φa ≡ Φ1 (σn+1 . ∆γ b ) = 0. (8.23) where σy has been deﬁned as ˜ εn σy (∆γ a .270 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The return mapping. respectively. The situation now is completely analogous to item 2 above with the difference that. two plastic multipliers may be nonzero and the incremental plastic strain is obtained from the discretisation of (8.16) and (8. ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a . ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a .22) This yields the following set of two algebraic equations for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ˜ ˜ Φa (∆γ a .7) as a b ∆εp = ∆γ a Nn+1 + ∆γ b Nn+1 .24) 3. εn+1 n+1 (8.19) where N a and N b denote. the normals to the main plane and to the plane on its right side given by (8.9). The updated stress lies on the left corner.8).21) Analogously to the one-vector return mapping of item 1. ¯n+1 ¯n (8.18) 2.6) and (8. The deviatoric principal stress update formula in the present case reads s1 = strial − 2G ∆γ a 1 s2 = strial − 2G ∆γ b 2 s3 = strial 3 + 2G (∆γ + ∆γ ). the two-vector return-mapping equation is obtained here by introducing (8.11): ¯ εp = εp + ∆γ a + ∆γ b . 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 .20) The incremental law for εp in this case is the discrete counterpart of (8. here. N b is the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane. ∆γ b ) ≡ σy (¯p + ∆γ a + ∆γ b ). 1 3 (8.

1. sn+1 . ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . similarly to the von Mises return mapping. and the accumulated plastic strain. σy (¯p )) = 0. εp . If the updated stress falls outside the main sextant . Firstly.27) In summary. The particular form to be employed depends on the position of the updated stress on the yield surface. they lie on the updated yield surface. In this case. εn+1 (8. are then obtained simply by assembling 3 σn+1 := i=1 (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei . it has been shown above that the essential return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model. formulated in principal deviatoric stresses.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 . ˜ 2 3 (8. εn+1 (8. ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . are updated by the formulae corresponding ¯ to the particular case considered (main plane. The geometric interpretation is illustrated in Figure 8. and. The updated stress tensor components. If the updated principal stresses satisfy the above relation. 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). With the plastic multiplier(s) at hand.1.26) The last of the above equations enforces Φ2 (σn+1 . lies necessarily on the plane s1 − s3 − σy (¯p ) = 0.1(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. consider the application of the return algorithm to the main plane (item 1 above) for an arbitrary trial stress. satisfy the consistency condition.28) Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having described the possible return procedures. It is remarked that the selection algorithm. si . and the result of the return mapping to the main plane is valid.29) Upon application of the main plane return algorithm. ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a . the ﬁnal stress can end up either inside or outside the main sextant: s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 . (8. required in the ﬁnite element computations. (8. then they are in the main sextant (Figure 8.e. i. the updated deviatoric stress.25). described below. right or left corner). In any case. how can one decide which return mapping to apply in the actual computational implementation of the model? In the present case.30) represented by the shaded areas in Figure 8. ∆γ b ) = 0. may have three different explicit forms. clearly. the question now is: as the ﬁnal location of the updated stress on the (updated) yield surface is not known in advance. the principal deviatoric stresses.

(Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.1. and (b) invalid return to main plane – converged stress outside the original sextant. Selection of the appropriate return mapping to corner. D Peri´ c and EA de Souza Neto.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. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.2.A. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.) 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. The implicit algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses: (a) valid return to main plane.A.) . Computer Methods in Applied c Mechanics and Engineering. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space.

Procedure implemented in subroutine SUTR of program HYPLAS.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.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 273 spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.2.3) 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=1.3) 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. ∆γ b and σi (i=1. and exit Figure 8.2.3.

the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the return mapping to the main plane and the two-vector return mappings to the corners. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model is completely deﬁned. In this case. therefore.2. which is unacceptable. i. again. then the trial stress is on the left side and the return mapping to the left corner is applied. violates the consistency condition.2.2 and 8.1(b)). T3 = 1. 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 . is positive. is described in detail in Boxes 8.31) T: strial n+1 = i=1 Ti strial = strial + strial − 2 strial . It is very simple to determine. If the scalar product 3 T2 = −2. 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.274 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (Figure 8. In this case. Let T be a tangent vector to the main plane as illustrated in Figure 8. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is illustrated in Figure 8. Clearly. in actual computations. whether strial lies on the right or left of the n+1 dotted line.3 show. in items 2 and 3 above. With the appropriate choice of return mappings based on the above. represented by the dotted line in Figure 8. If the product is negative. i 1 3 2 (8.30) is not satisﬁed. 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. . The appropriate algorithm to be applied (right or left) can be easily determined by. the updated stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and. Box 8. then. in spite of being on the main plane. described.3. one concludes that if the trial deviatoric stress is on the left side of the dotted line.1 shows the main algorithm and Boxes 8. (8. The algorithm. the only possible return is to the right corner.e. implemented in subroutine SUTR (State Update procedure for the TResca model). T has the same eigenvectors as strial and its eigenvalues may be chosen as n+1 T1 = 1. 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).1–8. respectively.3. respectively. if relation (8. Using the same argument. then the appropriate return is to the left corner.

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.a) Return to main plane – GOTO 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.b) Check validity of main plane return IF s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.1. 3) (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial I v n+1 2G 3 .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 . HYPLAS procedure: SUTR (i) Elastic predictor. n+1 v n+1 εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 (ii) Spectral decomposition of strial (routine SPDEC2). evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε.3 ELSE apply return to left corner – GOTO Box 8.2 (iv. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 275 Box 8. Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model. 2.

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 and corresponding residual (yield function value) ˜ Φ := strial − strial − σy (¯p ) εn 1 3 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dσy d¯p ε ˜ dΦ (hardening slope) (residual derivative) SUTR εn +∆γ ¯ p ˜ Φ (new guess for ∆γ) ∆γ := ∆γ − d (iii) Check for convergence ˜ Φ := strial − strial − 4G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) εn 1 3 ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ tol d∆γ = −4G − H THEN update s1 := strial 1 − 2G ∆γ s2 := strial 2 s3 := strial + 2G ∆γ 3 εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n and RETURN to Box 8.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) . The Tresca model.2.276 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. One-vector return mapping to main plane.

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

Two-vector return mappings to corners (implemented in subroutine SUTR).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. The Tresca model.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) for left corner . from page 277).278 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.

D-10. TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL 1 DUMMY.FALSE.0D0.2.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . SUFAIL.3.3. The reader is referred to Section 7.TOL / 0.LALGVA .IPROPS(*) . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.0D0.NTYPE .MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(4) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .R1 .1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 279 8.PSTRS(3) .2. The FORTRAN source code of SUTR is listed below.1. SUBROUTINE SUTR As in the von Mises state update procedure implemented in subroutine SUVM (Section 7.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .R3 .R4 . 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 . 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 .SMALL .STRAT(MSTRE) . SUFAIL=.5 for details of implementation of the piecewise linear hardening law. RIGHT.0D0.NTYPE.IPROPS .FALSE.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0029’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=. starting page 224). IFPLAS.1.2) .STRAT .1-3).5.R2 .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.AND.1.3.STREST(3) DATA 1 2 . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.NE.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. piecewise linear isotropic hardening is assumed in the present implementation of the implicit integration algorithm for the Tresca model. This hardening rule is adopted due to its ﬂexibility in ﬁtting experimental data.2. R0 .4.0D0.RPROPS 2 RSTAVA .0D0.NE. .

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

S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.go to two-vector procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-R4G-HSLOPE DRVAB=-R2G-HSLOPE DRVBA=-R2G-HSLOPE DRVBB=-R4G-HSLOPE Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variables DGAMA and DGAMB R1DDET=R1/(DRVAA*DRVBB-DRVAB*DRVBA) DDGAMA=(-DRVBB*PHIA+DRVAB*PHIB)*R1DDET DDGAMB=(DRVBA*PHIA-DRVAA*PHIB)*R1DDET DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA DGAMB=DGAMB+DDGAMB Compute new residual DGABAR=DGAMA+DGAMB EPBAR=EPBARN+DGABAR SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBAR.LE.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.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SHMXTA=PSTRS1-PSTRS3 IF(RIGHT)THEN SHMXTB=PSTRS1-PSTRS2 ELSE SHMXTB=PSTRS2-PSTRS3 ENDIF PHIA=SHMXTA-SIGMAY PHIB=SHMXTB-SIGMAY Start Newton-Raphson iterations DO 40 NRITER=1.S2+DELTA. DGAMA=R0 DGABAR=R1 EPBAR=EPBARN SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.GE.TRUE.ABS(S2).TRUE.NHARD.S2.AND. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping (return to corner .MXITER Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD.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). Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS1=S1 PSTRS3=S3 GOTO 50 ELSE 1-vector return is not valid .GE.right or left) -----------------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.TOL)THEN Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR IF(RIGHT)THEN PSTRS1=PSTRS1-R2G*(DGAMA+DGAMB) PSTRS3=PSTRS3+R2G*DGAMA .ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.

2)+P STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.TRUE. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 50 CONTINUE update stress components -----------------------PSTRS(II)=PSTRS1 PSTRS(JJ)=PSTRS3 PSTRS(MM)=PSTRS2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.282 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 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=. except for the following: .2)+P STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.2) 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).

otherwise. Recall that for the von Mises model (given as example in Section 7. ∆γ b ]. Function calls from SUTR • DPLFUN. trial or σi ]. This argument now is an array that stores up to two incremental plastic multipliers.TRUE. This procedure is adopted here to assess the accuracy of the implicit elastic predictor/returnmapping algorithm for the Tresca model described above.2. • PSTRS [σi • STREST [σtrial ]. Array of components of the trial stress tensor. if the possible two-vector return is to the right corner to .FALSE. If the increment is elastic. the array LALGVA of logical algorithnmic ﬂags now stores the two-vector return ﬂag TWOVEC and the right corner return ﬂag RIGHT. • ERRPRT.TRUE. i = 1. for the present material model implementation. 2]. set in subroutine RDTR during the data input phase of HYPLAS. Some local variables and arrays of SUTR • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei .10) the starting point for the map is immaterial due to the . right or left corner). Otherwise. Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm used to solve the return-mapping equations. if one of the two possible two-vector return mappings (right or left corner) is used. The two-vector return ﬂag is set to . In addition to the plastic yielding ﬂag IFPLAS and the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL used also in SUVM. Corresponding message is in ﬁle ERROR. both multipliers are set to 0. ← LALGVA.2. The right corner return ﬂag is set to . Used to evaluate the slope of the piecewise linear hardening curve. Called to send warning message to results ﬁle and standard output in case of failure of the return-mapping algorithm. n+1 8. if to the left corner. IPROPS(3) and array RPROPS are. the multiplier(s) are obtained as the solution of one of the three possible return mapping equation sets (main plane. Used in SUTR as the piecewise linear hardening function σy (¯p ).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 283 ← DGAM [∆γ a .FALSE.3.RUN. The ﬂags TWOVEC and RIGHT are required by subroutine CTTR to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with main plane. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial stress. n+1 • TOL [ tol ]. It is set to . Also. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of σtrial .1. • PLFUN. 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. ε • SPDEC2. Array of principal trial stresses or principal updated stresses. right or left corner return mapping).10.

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).284 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT ∆σN N B T T N A σ1 r σ3 σ2 Figure 8. the hardening curve adopted is shown in Figure 8.4. at the singularity (point A).4. Iso-error maps for the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. Here. (8. In both cases. Note that. Note that for both starting points. (8. r≡ 2 3 σy . With isotropic hardening.33) ∆σtrial = r r where N and T are unit (in Euclidean norm) tensors deﬁning the increment directions and the scaling factor. the tensors N and T are not orthogonal to each other. the error plotted is the (Euclidean) norm of the relative difference between the numerical and ‘exact’ updated stresses. the starting point has to be taken into consideration. • nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening. For the Tresca model. Point A is on the singularity of the Tresca hexagon and point B corresponds to a state of pure shear. however. there is a large area within which the integration error vanishes. These points are shown in Figure 8. Two cases are considered in the iso-error maps constructed in this section: • perfect plasticity. lying on the deviatoric plane are considered. The increments ∆σtrial are of the form ∆σT ∆σN N+ T. A total of 16 sampling points have been used to deﬁne the curve. within a narrow band of increments the relative error can be as high as 40% for the increment range considered in the present assessment. The error maps obtained for the perfectly plastic case are shown in Figure 8.6. 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 . symmetry of the yield surface. However. two starting points.5. This is obviously a very desirable feature. Increment directions. A and B.

and (b) point B. chosen sizes. Isotropic hardening curve. In this case (perfect plasticity).5.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 285 0.4 0.6. Perfectly plastic Tresca model: (a) point A. A comparison of the maps obtained with and without hardening suggests that. Iso-error maps. σy 0. 6 6 0% 4 0% 4 ∆σN /r 40% 2 2 20% 0% 5% 0 2 4 6 20% 0% 0 0 0% 5% 0% 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /r ∆σT /r (a) (b) Figure 8. Figure 8. the integration error is reduced to zero for any increment if the substepping procedure is included in the return-mapping algorithm. ∆σN /r .04 0. but errors are high within a narrow band of increments. for practical purposes.6 0.16 accumulated plastic strain.8 uniaxial yield stress. The error maps obtained with isotropic hardening are shown in Figure 8.08 0. Iso-error maps for the Tresca model. Again.12 εp ¯ 0.2 0 0 0. the accuracy expected from the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model is not inﬂuenced by hardening.7. the areas in which the error is reasonably small are quite large.

illustrating the application of the concept of consistent tangent operators. (iv) and (v) of Box 8. 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. recall from Section 7. There.4.36) where σn+1 is the outcome of the implicit function deﬁned by the corresponding returnmapping equations. In the present section. 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. (8. It is important to note that. the implicit constitutive function for the stress tensor is deﬁned by the procedures of items (ii). ∆σN /r . there are three possible sets of equations to be solved: (i) return to main plane.1.7.35) 3 so that.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. Tresca model with hardening: (a) point A. in what follows.1 that the elastoplastic tangent modulus associated with a particular return-mapping scheme is the derivative Dep ≡ dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 (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. this concept is applied in the derivation of the tangent modulus consistent with the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. Iso-error maps. To start with.4. 8.1. For the return mapping for the Tresca model presented in Section 8.1. for the Tresca model.1.4. and (b) point B. 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.

Similarly. εe trial . εe trial . and the corresponding unit eigenvectors. if the return to the right (left) corner was used in previous stress update. n+1 This function. ∂σi /∂εe trial . the Tresca return-mapping equations deﬁne implicit functions for the principal stresses.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 287 (ii) return to right corner. σi . With these values at hand. of σn+1 coincide with those of εe trial . 2.4. 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. The tangent moduli consistent with the three possible sets of equations are derived below. Their explicit forms. each one deﬁning a different implicit function for σn+1 . In order to compute Dep . the integration algorithm for the Tresca model deﬁnes the stress tensor. ‡ 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. as an isotropic tensor function of a single tensor‡ – the elastic trial strain. ei ⊗ ei . In other words. and i • the partial derivatives. σi . Its derivative – the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator – can be computed by means of the general procedure presented in Sections A. and (iii) return to left corner. (8. right or left corner). deﬁned in (8. εe trial ). σn+1 . the algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor is isotropic. In summary. the main arguments required by this routine are • the principal stresses. The principal stresses derivatives.3. The procedure for computation of derivatives of this type of function is implemented in subroutine DGISO2. the tangent operator used to assemble the stiffness matrix will be the derivative of one of the three possible implicit functions. the tangent modulus will be consistent with the implicit function deﬁned by the right (left) corner return-mapping equations. 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 tangent operator Dep is assembled as described in Box A.3 and A. 3.37). In n+1 addition. depend on the particular algorithm used (main plane. at tn+1 of the form ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . due to the isotropy of the model. ∂σi /∂εe trial . The principal stresses. εe trial . the elastic trial strains and the associated eigenvectors are computed in a trivial manner. 2 3 i = 1. • the principal elastic trial strains. are the result of the consistent j linearisation of the (principal stress-based) return-mapping algorithm.37) where the eigenprojection tensors. derived below. . Thus. 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. In this case.37). can be identiﬁed as a particular case of the class of tensorvalued functions of a single tensor discussed in Appendix A.

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 ) (8.18) (item (iii) of Box 8. 4G + H (8.2).18) the linearised form of the consistency condition is obtained as ˜ dΦ = 2G(dεe trial − dεe trial − 2 d∆γ) − H d∆γ = 0.39) (8. dj arranged in matrix format. it is convenient to derive ﬁrst the derivatives ∂si . In order to obtain the complete derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial . and differentiating the principal stress update formula (8. strial = 2G εe trial . only the expressions for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives have been derived. When the return to the main plane is applied.38) it follows that the partial derivatives ∂si /∂εe trial . we ε obtain 2G d∆γ = (8. So far. d1 d3 (8. By using the elastic deviatoric relation.16). d3 With the differentiation of the return-mapping equation (8. required in the assemblage of the j elastoplastic tangent (these derivatives must be passed as arguments to the general routine 2G .38) where H ≡ dσy /d¯p is the slope of the hardening curve.16–8. we i di obtain ds1 = 2G(dεe trial − d∆γ) d1 ds2 = 2Gdεe trial d2 ds3 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ). ∂εe trial dj of the principal deviatoric stresses with respect to the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains.288 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Principal stress derivatives for the one-vector return Since the return mapping for the Tresca model affects only the deviatoric component of the stress tensor. From the above expression.40) (dεe trial − dεe trial ).42) . the principal deviatoric stresses are updated according to expressions (8.41) where the factor f has been deﬁned as f≡ The complete derivatives.40) into (8.

3. Principal stress derivatives for the right corner return Now consider the return mapping to the right corner of the Tresca hexagon. is deﬁned as daa d= dba dab . v (8.20) where the incremental plastic multipliers are the solution to the return-mapping equations (8.43) 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.48) (8. Differentiation of (8.45) Finally. ˜ 1 ˜ d1 2 3 d2 d3 v (8. (8. εe trial .43) i. εe trial ) = si (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 ).3). d3 The differentials of the incremental plastic multipliers are obtained by linearising the consistency condition (return-mapping equations) as follows. εe trial ) + p(εe trial ).23) (see also item (iii) of Box 8. K is the bulk modulus and δkj denotes the Krönecker delta. also used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the returnmapping equation in Box 8.23) and use of the elastic law yields the linearised equation dΦa d∆γ a dεe trial − dεe trial 0 d3 =d + 2G d 1 = . dbb (8. the substitution of these expressions into (8.44) where the matrix d. εe trial . the principal deviatoric stresses are updated by (8.47) 1 3 εe trial .46) 3 ∂εe trial ∂εd k j with summation on repeated indices implied.e. Here. In this case.49) . v 1 2 3 (8. b b e trial e trial 0 dΦ d∆γ dεd 1 − dεd 2 (8. The principal deviatoric trial strains are given by εe trial = εe trial − di i where εe trial = εe trial + εe trial + εe trial . note that for the present algorithm we have σi (εe trial .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 289 DGISO2). 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.

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. to the expressions for the derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses consistent with the return mapping to the right corner.47) leads. the resulting derivatives are 8G2 4G2 4G2 2G 1 − (dab − daa ) (dba − dbb ) det d det d det d ∂si 2G daa 4G2 8G3 = . Arranged in matrix format. ∂σi /∂εe trial .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.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. dba = −2G − H. j . dbb = −4G − H. 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. after a straightforward manipulation.46). again.51) (8. are obtained by applying formula (8. daa dεe trial − dεe trial d1 d2 which substituted into (8.290 with COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS daa = −4G − H. dab = −2G − H. the derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial are obtained by applying (8.50) −dab dεe trial − dεe trial d3 d1 . the principal stress derivatives. 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. (8.46).

0. MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG.2. Firstly.1.R2 .DPSTRE(MDIM.NE.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .EIGPRJ(MSTRE.0.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.MDIM) .0D0.FOID(2.FOID(1. This routine is called by CTTR which passes the principal stress derivatives (as well as other necessary variables) as arguments. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.RP5 .0. The integration algorithm is coded in subroutine SUTR.MDIM) . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.1.2). 2 RPROPS . REPEAT.0D0 .0D0 . 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.MSTRE) .PSTRS(MDIM) .FOID(1.FOID(2.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0028’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .SOID(4) / 2 1.0D0 / DATA 1 R0 .R1 .4)/ 2 1.5D0 .0.4)/ 6 0.PSTRA(MDIM) .2).FOID(4.0D0.1).0D0 .0D0 / 7 FOID(4.IPROPS(*) .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 291 8.0D0 .3).MDIM=3.0D0 . The elastic tangent is evaluated here in a trivial manner.NTYPE .0.2).2) . 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0.0D0 .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . (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).0D0 .STRES(*) DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.AND.RPROPS(*) .LALGVA .0D0. The tangent operator.5.0D0 .0D0 .0.3).IPROPS .STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.1. Dep . 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 .0.FOID(4.FOID(1.0D0 / 3 FOID(2. TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. the principal stresses derivatives consistent with the appropriate return mapping (main plane.0D0.1).1.0D0 .0D0 / 5 FOID(3.4.FOID(2.1).0D0 .RSTAVA .3).0.1.1.2.5D0. 3 SOID(MSTRE) .FOID(4.NTYPE.3.EPFLAG .SOID(2) .0. OUTOFP. 2. 2 FOID(MSTRE.R4 / 2 0.3).MSTRE) . The FORTRAN source code of CTTR is listed below.SOID(3) . right or left corner) are evaluated according to the expressions derived in the above.STRAT(*) .0.NE.STRAT .0D0 .0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR TRESCA TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.2). LALGVA(4). RIGHT.1).FOID(3.FOID(3.4)/ 4 0. The computation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent comprises the following basic steps: 1.0D0 .R3 .FOID(3.0.4)/ 8 0.0D0 .

NE.NE.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*R4G) DPSTRS(II.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.AND.AND.JJ.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) C and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.AND..PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).JJ.2.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.REPEAT.returned to right corner DPSTRS(II..3)MM=3 IF(TWOVEC)THEN C Tangent consistent with two-vector return algorithm HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.3.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DAA=R4G+HSLOPE DAB=R2G+HSLOPE DBA=R2G+HSLOPE DBB=R4G+HSLOPE DET=DAA*DBB-DAB*DBA R2GDD=R2G/DET R4G2DD=R2G*R2GDD IF(RIGHT)THEN C .1)MM=1 IF(II.NE.MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) .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=2.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.NE.1.GE.3 IF(PSTRA(I).NHARD.LT.JJ.2)MM=2 IF(II.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.292 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.NE.PSTRA.

3)*R1D3+ 138 1 BULK 139 DPSTRE(2.MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 113 DPSTRS(MM.3)*R2D3+ 144 1 BULK 145 DPSTRE(2.1)=+DPSTRS(2.MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) 116 DPSTRS(JJ.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 99 DPSTRS(II.RPROPS(IPHARD))) 121 DPSTRS(II.MM)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DAA) 102 DPSTRS(MM.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 109 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 111 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 110 DPSTRS(II.REPEAT ) 157 ELSE 158 C Compute elasticity matrix 293 .EQ.JJ) 128 DPSTRS(JJ.3)*R1D3+ 140 1 BULK 141 DPSTRE(3.JJ)=DPSTRS(II.3)*R1D3+ 132 1 BULK 133 DPSTRE(2.TRUE.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3.3)THEN 152 OUTOFP=.MM)=DPSTRS(MM.II) 130 ENDIF 131 DPSTRE(1.3)*R1D3+ 136 1 BULK 137 DPSTRE(1.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.3)*R1D3+ 134 1 BULK 135 DPSTRE(3.MM)=R2G 126 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=R0 123 DPSTRS(II.PSTRA ..1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(2.3)=-DPSTRS(1.MM) 125 DPSTRS(MM.II)=DPSTRS(II.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(2.II)=R2G*(R1-FACTOR) 122 DPSTRS(II.3)=-DPSTRS(3.JJ)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 100 DPSTRS(MM.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.NHARD.2)THEN 150 OUTOFP=.II)=R4G2DD*DBA 112 DPSTRS(MM.1)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1.3)=-DPSTRS(2.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3.3)*R2D3+ 148 1 BULK 149 IF(NTYPE.PSTRS .MM)=R4G2DD*DAB 105 DPSTRS(JJ.1)=+DPSTRS(1.EIGPRJ .DMATX .1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(3.JJ)=R4G2DD*R2G 114 DPSTRS(JJ.1)=+DPSTRS(3.II)=DPSTRS(II.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(3.EQ.3)*R2D3+ 146 1 BULK 147 DPSTRE(3.JJ)=R4G2DD*DBA 103 DPSTRS(JJ.1)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.3)*R1D3+ 142 1 BULK 143 DPSTRE(1.1)*R1D3+DPSTRS(3. 153 ENDIF 154 CALL DGISO2 155 1( DPSTRE .2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(1.2)*R2D3-DPSTRS(1.JJ)=R0 127 DPSTRS(JJ. 151 ELSEIF(NTYPE.II)=R4G2DD*R2G 101 DPSTRS(MM. 156 2 OUTOFP .FALSE.JJ) 129 DPSTRS(JJ.2)=-DPSTRS(3.JJ)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*DBB) 106 ELSE 107 C .II)=R4G2DD*R2G 104 DPSTRS(JJ.II)=R4G2DD*(DBB-DBA) 115 DPSTRS(JJ.2)*R1D3+DPSTRS(1.2)=-DPSTRS(1.2)=-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.2)*R1D3-DPSTRS(2.returned to left corner 108 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=R2G*FACTOR 124 DPSTRS(MM..

whose output values are taken as input values for (and are not changed by) CTTR. As in the von Mises implementation (refer to page 237). i The names of most local variables deﬁned in CTTR resemble resemble the notation of Section 8.1.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). Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. → EPFLAG.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 170 40 CONTINUE 171 50 CONTINUE 172 DO 70 J=1. i=1. indicate which elastoplastic tangent is to be computed here (consistent with main plane. Fourth-order identity tensor stored in array form according to (D. j • DPSTRS [∂si /∂εe trial ].16). right or left return algorithm). . page 762. Some local arrays of CTTR • DPSTRE [∂σi /∂εe trial ].EQ.2)THEN 161 NSTRE=3 162 ELSEIF(NTYPE.NSTRE 174 DMATX(I. • SOID [I].3)THEN 163 NSTRE=4 164 ENDIF 165 C 166 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 167 DO 50 I=1.NSTRE-1 173 DO 60 I=J+1.NSTRE 169 DMATX(I.2]. Array containing the principal elastic trial strains.294 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 159 C ------------------------160 IF(NTYPE.J)=DMATX(J.NSTRE 168 DO 40 J=I. Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag (refer to page 237 for a description). Matrix of derivatives of the principal stresses.EQ. Matrix of derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses.J)=R2G*FOID(I. The elements of the array LALGVA of logical algorithmic ﬂags. the present routine requires the following: ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. dj • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei . • FOID [IS ]. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial strain.4. set in subroutine SUTR. • STRAT [εe trial ].

1)–(8. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8.3 of Appendix A.2. In what follows. For quick reference. . we summarised the actual equations adopted in the present computational implementation of the Mohr– Coulomb model. Called to assemble the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator as a particular case of the general derivatives of isotropic tensor function discussed in Section A.19(a) (page 174). the ﬂow rule may be formulated within the sextant of the principal stress space depicted in Figure 6.5) iso-error maps consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – As far as yield surface singularities are concerned.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 295 Important function calls from CTTR • DGISO2.2. In the generally non-associative case. There are four distinct possibilities for the plastic ﬂow deﬁnition. an extra return-mapping procedure – the return to the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface – is required in the numerical integration scheme. 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. With the principal stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .3) in the associative case with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6. however.4–8. (8.54) ∂σ where each Ψi has the same format as the corresponding Φi .12 subroutine CTMC (Section 8.118) (page 165). 8.10 Boxes 8. except that the frictional angle φ is replaced with the dilatancy angle ψ ≤ φ (assumed constant) in the deﬁnition of Ψi . the following table shows where the main results of this section can be found. The multisurface description of the Mohr–Coulomb plastic ﬂow rule has the representation (8. Here. the algorithm described here is entirely based on the ideas that underly the numerical integration scheme for the Tresca model of the previous section.2) Figure 8. • SPDEC2.7 subroutine SUMC (Section 8. whose implementation is described here. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain. 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. the ﬂow vectors are re-deﬁned as ∂Ψi Ni ≡ .2.

˙ sin ψ v (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 .64) .62) For plastic ﬂow from an edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. (8. Plastic ﬂow from the smooth (ﬂat) portion of the main plane. only two plastic multipliers can be non-zero and the ﬂow rule is explicitly deﬁned as ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . the general equation (6. (8.61) Hardening associativity is assumed. where only one multiplier may be non-zero.60) In the present implementation.200) is reduced to ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ. the following general relation ˙ εp = ¯ cos φ p ε .(b) which illustrates the associative ﬂow case). as the plastic rate tensor lies within the pyramid formed by the six vectors of the Mohr–Coulomb model (refer to Figure 6. Plastic ﬂow from the left edge. In this case. The general equation for the evolution of εp in this case ¯ is given by (6. ˙ (8.57) (8. up to six multipliers may be non-zero.63) At the apex.296 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1. Plastic ﬂow from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.19.55) where N a is the same as in the above. (8. 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 . only one multiplier may be non-zero and (6. For ﬂow from the main plane as discussed above.58) 3. ε (8. The plastic strain rate equation in this case is left in its general format 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γ iN i. ¯ (8. and ˙ εp = γN a . Here.56) 2. (8.200) applies. 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 evolution of εp reads ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ). In this case. Plastic ﬂow from the right edge.200) on page 184. ¯ (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 ).59) 4.

then the step is elastic and all state variables are updated as (·)n+1 := (·)trial . This relation can be obtained by combining the counterpart of (6. the essential stress-updating is carried out here in the principal stress space. a return-mapping procedure is carried out. 3. n+1 (8. the stress update formula can be written equivalently in terms of principal stresses as 6 trial σj = σj − i=1 i for j = 1. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM FOR THE MOHR–COULOMB MODEL As for the algorithm for the Tresca model.155) (page 175) under non-associative plastic ﬂow: 6 εp ˙v and (6. the spectral decomposition of the trial stress.67) Due to the isotropy of the model. (8.65) 8. this gives 6 σn+1 = σtrial − De : n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 .66) With the discretisation of the non-associated Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule (8. ˙ (8. In the above formula. will be crucial in the computational implementation of the model.200). is performed.2.1. Recall that the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor is given by σn+1 = σtrial − De : ∆εp . n+1 • Otherwise. 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. Hence. 2. = 2 sin ψ i=1 γ i.68) . With the principal trial stresses arranged trial trial trial as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . σtrial .60). after the computation of the elastic trial state. (8. 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. i i ∆γ i (2G [Nd ]j − K Nv ).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 297 between the rate of accumulated plastic strain and the volumetric plastic strain rate.

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 increment of accumulated plastic strain reads ∆¯p = 2 cos φ ∆γ.69) trial σ2 = σ2 + ∆γ ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + ∆γ [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ]. ε (8.71) where ∆¯p is the (linear) function of ∆γ deﬁned by (8. The updated stress lies on the right edge of the pyramid. 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 = 0.71) is obtained by introducing the update formulae (8. obtained from the backward Euler discretisation of (8. (8.74) The increment of accumulated plastic strain is the discrete form of (8. (8. The equations for each of the four possible return mappings are derived below: 1.68) gives the following principal stress updating formulae: trial σ1 = σ1 − ∆γ [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] (8.75) .57). σn+1 . Introduction of this expression in (8. ∆γ. The incremental plastic strain.298 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The four possible return mappings Following the four possible descriptions of the Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. ε (8. The ﬂow vector in this case is deﬁned by (8. ε (8.55). 2. 3 (8.72) Equation (8.70) The incremental plastic multiplier.70) and a is the constant ε a = 4G(1 + 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ. The updated stress lies on the main plane (smooth portion).73) The corresponding principal stress update formulae follow from the substitution of the above expression into (8.69) into the main plane equation Φ1 = 0. on the yield surface. the corresponding backward Euler-based return-mapping algorithm has four distinct explicit forms.63): ∆¯p = 2 cos φ (∆γ a + ∆γ b ). is in this case given by the two-vector formula ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . which depend on the location of the updated stress.

∆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 . are simultaneously satisﬁed.80) The above equations represent the intersection of the main plane. Φ6 = 0.76) ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − b ∆γ a − a ∆γ b = 0. The return mapping to the left edge is completely analogous to the return to the right edge derived in the above. εn The incremental accumulated plastic strain. Φ2 = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ (8. the updated principal stresses are such that the equations of the main plane. with the plane on its left. The resulting principal stress updating formulae are trial σ1 = σ1 − [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ a + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ b 3 1 3 trial σ2 = σ2 + ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ ∆γ a − [2G(1 + 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ]∆γ b sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ](∆γ a + ∆γ b ). The incremental plastic multipliers are the solution of the following return-mapping equations: trial trial trial trial ˜ Φa (∆γ a . (8.77) 3.59). The apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid is the point along the hydrostatic axis for which p = c cot φ. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ (8. and the plane on its right.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 299 At the right edge.81) . ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − a ∆γ a − b ∆γ b = 0 εn trial trial trial trial ˜ Φb (∆γ a .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. Φ1 = 0. 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.75). 4.78) and the corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain is also given by (8. (8. (8. The updated stress lies on the apex. Φ1 = 0. (8. The updated stress lies on the left edge. 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 . ∆¯p . The essential difference is that the tensor N b is now deﬁned by (8.

sin ψ (8. the strategy comprises the following steps. Firstly apply the return mapping to the main plane. Remark 8.85) v n+1 v for the unknown ∆εp .82) The updated hydrostatic stress in the present case must lie on the apex of the updated Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.2. As in the Tresca algorithm. with pn+1 given by (8. Remark 8. n+1 v (8. all four sets of ¯ return-mapping equations are linear and. the present strategy is simple and ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. therefore.83) yields the ﬁnal apex return-mapping equation: c(¯p + α∆εp ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. We then have (Figure 8.81). This condition is enforced by introducing the update formula (8. into the apex equation (8. εn n+1 v Now consider the discrete version of (8. 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.1.300 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 .64): ∆¯p = α∆εp . Under the assumption of linear hardening. derived in Section 8. Note that under zero dilatancy (ψ = 0).83) The substitution of this expression into (8. ε v α≡ cos φ .8) ¯ ε c(¯p + ∆¯p ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.25). can be solved in closed form.1. regardless of the prescribed hardening/softening curve. with c = c0 + H εp .82). (8. whose description starts on page 271.1.82). α → ∞. together with the hardening curve and the discretised evolution equation for εp . 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.84) (8.86) . 1. ¯n+1 ¯n v σn+1 := pn+1 I. 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. we update v εp := εp + α∆εp . εn (8. In essence. Once the solution is found. In this case.

Otherwise. Otherwise. Return mapping to apex. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stress. not admissible. 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. 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). 4.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 301 updated yield surface yield surface at t n σntrial +1 σn +1= pn +1 I p . The result obtained now is necessarily valid and does not require further checks. 3. 5. . (8. apply the return algorithm to the apex.87) then the return to the main plane is valid and the corresponding updated state is accepted. then the return mapping carried out in item 3 is valid and the updated state is accepted.K ∆εv pntrial +1 Figure 8. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stresses.1.e. i. if σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 . This can be easily veriﬁed by simple geometrical considerations analogous to those of the Tresca model given in Figure 8. Mohr–Coulomb model. therefore. 2.8.

if strial lies on the left of the dotted line.9 is the deviatoric projection of the plane parallel to N a that contains the hydrostatic line. The dotted line of Figure 8. Consider now the deviatoric part to the two-vector edge return algorithms (Figure 8.302 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS right trial σ n+1 : T < 0 trial σ n+1 : T > 0 left strial n+1 − 2G ∆γ a Nd a strial n+1 Nd a Nd b a Nd − 2G ∆γ b T b Nd Nd b sn+1 sn+1 yield surface at t n b Nd b Nd σ1 σ2 σ3 updated surface Figure 8. If σtrial 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. In this case.9): a b sn+1 = strial − 2G(∆γ a Nd + ∆γ b Nd ). respectively. On the deviatoric plane.89) . if σtrial returns to n+1 an edge. it can only be the right edge. pointing to the right. s2 = s3 corresponds to a point on the right edge and s1 = s2 to a point on the left edge. T3 = 1 + sin ψ. n+1 (8. Let T be a deviatoric tensor orthogonal to the deviatoric a projection Nd . the n+1 only possibly valid edge return algorithm is the return to the left edge. According to the present convention. Similarly.9. (8. Firstly. Mohr–Coulomb model. it should be noted that at any edge of the Mohr– Coulomb pyramid we have si = sj for at least one pair {si . T2 = −2. b N in the above is normal to the right (left) plane if sn+1 lies on the right (left) edge. Selection of appropriate return mapping to edge. the procedure for selection of the appropriate edge return is extremely simple. sj } with i = j. these points correspond to corners of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid cross section (irregular hexagon).2 for the Tresca model. Here T is chosen with the following eigenvalues: T1 = 1 − sin ψ. Clearly. Selection of right or left edge return. 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. Based on the above considerations.88) a b where Nd and Nd are the deviatoric components of N a and N b .

To select the appropriate edge return.10. Otherwise. If S > 0 the possible edge return is to the right. The corresponding pseudo-code is conveniently summarised in Boxes 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 303 Its eigenvectors coincide with those of σtrial . (8. The procedure is implemented in subroutine SUMC (State Update procedure for the Mohr–Coulomb model) of program HYPLAS. The ﬂowchart of the overall integration algorithm is shown in Figure 8. Its FORTRAN code and details of its computational implementation are explained in Section 8.7.4–8.2 below. it is the return mapping to the left edge. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model is completely deﬁned. 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 . The overall integration algorithm Having described the four possible return mappings together with a simple and robust strategy to select the valid return mapping.90) is computed ﬁrst.2. .

∆γ b and σi (i=1.3) 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=1.3) 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. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUMC of program HYPLAS. . ∆γ b assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and σi (i=1.2.10.2.3) check validity of two-vector return: σ 1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 YES ? NO apply 2vector mapping to apex apply return return map to apex obtain: – obtain: p ∆ε v ∆γ a.3) and other state variables.2. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model in principal stresses. and exit Figure 8.304 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1.2.

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).5 (iv. Compute trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 and ei (i = 1.6 (iv. Implicit elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm for the Mohr– Coulomb model. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε. 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 . 2. HYPLAS procedure: SUMC (i) Elastic predictor.b) Check validity of main plane return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.d) Check validity of edge return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 305 Box 8.6 ELSE apply return to left edge – GOTO Box 8.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8.4. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .e) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8.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.

306 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . One-vector return mapping to main plane. 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 8.5. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0. The Mohr–Coulomb model.

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

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

v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUMC ∆εp := 0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 309 Box 8. The Mohr–Coulomb model.85)) r := c(¯p ) cot φ − ptrial εn n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dc d¯p ε (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (update ∆εp ) v εn+1 ¯ p H cos φ cot φ +K sin ψ ∆εp := ∆εp − r/d v v (iii) Compute new residual and check for convergence ¯n εp := εp + ¯n+1 cos φ ∆εp v sin ψ pn+1 := ptrial − K ∆εp n+1 v r := c(¯p ) cot φ − pn+1 εn+1 IF |r| ≤ tol THEN update σ1 := σ2 := σ3 := pn+1 and RETURN to Box 8.7.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . Return mapping to apex.

IPROPS(*) .0D0.STRAT(MSTRE) . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor plane stress state IF(NTYPE. APEX=.RPROPS(*) .NE. the hardening curve is here deﬁned by a user-speciﬁed number of sampling points.2. IFPLAS.PSTRS(3) .RPROPS .IPROPS . For the hardening law adopted in the present implementation.FALSE.1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 SUBROUTINE SUMC 1( DGAM .0D0.FALSE. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . The FORTRAN source code of subroutine SUMC is listed below.0D0.FALSE.1. RIGHT.STRAT .0D0.R2 . As in the algorithms for the von Mises and Tresca models (subroutines SUVM and SUTR.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(5) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .D-06.4.2.3.NTYPE.NE.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0027’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=. i c} ¯ deﬁned by the accumulated plastic strain and the corresponding cohesion.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 8.2.R4 . each sampling point i is a pair {i εp .2) . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLMENTATIONS.R3 .STRES(MSTRE) C Local variables and arrays LOGICAL 1 APEX.TOL / 2 0.LALGVA .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) . EDGE=.0D0. respectively).FALSE. SUFAIL=. 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.2.310 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8. DUMMY.NTYPE . EDGE.1.STREST(3) DATA 1 R0 .R1 . 2 RSTAVA .AND. 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.SMALL . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.4-7).

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

ABS(S2). CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping to appropriate EDGE --------------------------------------------------DGAMA=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.NE.S2+DELTA.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.MXITER Compute residual derivative DENOM=-CONSTA-R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 1-vector result is not valid.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(SMCT) IF(RESNOR.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.NHARD.GE.TRUE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-CONSTA-FACTA .LE.NHARD.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.AND.MXITER Compute residual derivative matrix FACTA=R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCT-CONSTA*DGAMA-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA) IF(SMCT.S2.GE.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).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. Go to two-vector return map to edge GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.

R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0010’) Set initial guess for volumetric plastic strain increment DEPV DEPV=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR. 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.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 2-vector return to edge is valid.S2+DELTA.EQ.GE.EQ.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.RPROPS(IPHARD)) COTPHI=COSPHI/SINPHI RES=COTPHI*COHE-PT Newton-Raphson iterations for DEPV .NHARD.NE.AND.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/FACTOR IF(RESNOR.S2.NHARD. EDGE=.LE.TRUE.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.ABS(S2).R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0009’) IF(SINPSI.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. Go to two-vector return map to APEX GOTO 50 ENDIF ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.TRUE.GE. 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).

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 .2) STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.TOL)THEN APEX=.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.NHARD.LE.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.TRUE.TRUE.NHARD. DGAMA=DEPV DGAMB=R0 update principal stresses S1=P S2=P S3=P GOTO 70 ENDIF 60 CONTINUE SUFAIL=.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.MXITER DENOM=COSPHI*COTPHI/SINPSI*DPLFUN(EPBAR. 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.NE.RPROPS(IPHARD))+ 1 BULK DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV EPBAR=EPBARN+COSPHI/SINPSI*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.2) STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=COTPHI*COHE-P check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(PT.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(PT) IF(RESNOR.

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

2 3 (8. however. Starting points and increment directions. Firstly. εe trial ). the present integration algorithm simply projects the trial stress onto the yield surface along a suitable direction.12. Within some narrow bands.4. e trial ∂εj i. 3 where σi are the implicit functions for the principal updated stresses ˜ ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . It is remarked. Essentially. 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. Recall that. only the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent is addressed. that is.4 for details of this approach). j = 1. Similarly to the integration algorithm for the Tresca model (Section 8. 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 8.11.1.316 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT σ trial ∆σN T C N T N A B σ1 N T σ2 σ3 Figure 8.2. large areas in which the integration error vanishes are observed in the present case for all starting points.91) . Iso-error maps for the Mohr–Coulomb model. that the results presented in this section give a very good insight into the accuracy properties of the present algorithm. having the vector T parallel to the corresponding edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.2. 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. we need only to derive expressions for the partial derivatives ∂ σi ˜ . 2. the integration error can be high. 8. in order to compute the elastoplastic tangent operator. however. In what follows.1 (coded in SUMC). in the absence of hardening.3). 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 . The maps obtained are shown in Figure 8.1.

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

The ﬁnal results can be easily identiﬁed in subroutine CTMC. the computed principal stress derivatives are stored in matrix DPSTRS. 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. The same comments apply to the derivation of the derivatives for the left edge return mapping. n+1 n+1 (8. whose main steps involve the differentiation of the expressions given in (8.79).5.96) renders the ﬁnal expressions for the derivatives of the principal stresses. Principal stress derivatives for the edge return mappings To obtain the principal stress derivatives consistent with the right edge return. (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.69). In the ﬁnite element program.93) 4G − 2K sin ψ d∆γ 3 trial dσ3 = dσ3 + [2G(1 − 1 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ] d∆γ. In this last expression.94) which is obtained by differentiating (8. right. . This gives trial dσ1 = dσ1 − [2G(1 + trial dσ2 = dσ2 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] d∆γ (8.72). The derivation of the principal stresses derivatives consistent with each of the four possible return mappings is addressed in what follows. H is the isotropic hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve): H≡ dc d¯p ε .74) and then substitute the differentials d∆γ a and d∆γ b obtained by linearising the consistency equations (8.318 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Recall that the present model admits four distinct return-mapping sets of equations: return to main plane. together with the use of the linear elastic relation σtrial = De : εe trial . In CTMC. left edge and apex.§ For each one there is a different explicit form for the principal stress derivatives and for Dep .76).78) and (8. (8. Combination of the two differential forms above.71). 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 situation here is completely analogous to the Tresca model implementation where three return map equation sets exist.95) εp ¯n+1 and the constant a is deﬁned by (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 = 0.2. we need ﬁrst to differentiate the update formulae (8. The derivation is lengthier than the previous one and will not be shown here.

3.NTYPE 3 2 RPROPS .99) The substitution of this expression into (8. By differentiating (8. 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.85).3. 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).5. 1 2 3 (8. 3. 2.LALGVA .MDIM=3.97) for i = 1.IPROPS . consistency with the appropriate return algorithm (main plane. Clearly. 2.IPROPS(*) .82) and (8. as in this case the apex remains ﬁxed in stress space.97) yields the principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return mapping: ∂σi =K 1− ∂εe trial K+ j for i.RPROPS(*) K cos φ cot φ sin ψ H . It returns either the elastic tangent or the elastoplastic tangent depending on the entry value of the logical ﬂag EPFLAG (one of its arguments).86)2 yields dσi = dptrial − K d∆εp n+1 v = K (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial − d∆εp ) 1 2 3 v (8.O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . we have trivially Dep = 0. v 1 2 3 v sin ψ which rearranged gives d∆εp = v K K+ cos φ cot φ sin ψ (8. 8.LALGVA(5) 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE.98) H (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial ). j = 1. (8.RSTAVA . MSTRE=4) 6 C Arguments 7 LOGICAL EPFLAG . In the absence of hardening (H = 0) all principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return vanish.STRES ) 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. The source code of CTMC is listed in the following.EPFLAG .STRAT . .MSTRE) .100) . When the elastoplastic tangent is required. the following linearised consistency condition is obtained: H cos φ cot φ d∆εp − K (dεe trial + dεe trial + dεe trial − d∆εp ) = 0.2. Remark 8. right. 1 SUBROUTINE CTMC 2 1( DMATX .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 319 Principal stress derivatives for the apex return Differentiation of the apex return stress update formulae (8. . This routine is consistent with the algorithm coded in SUMC.

0D0 .FOID(1.3).2).MDIM) .0.0.FOID(2.FOID(1.FOID(1.0.1.STRAT(MSTRE) .0D0.0D0.NTYPE.EIGPRJ(MSTRE. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.FOID(4.4)/ 6 0.0D0 .SOID(4) / 2 1.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL APEX .0.REPEAT DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.0D0 .EDGE .4)/ 4 0.SOID(2) .1.NE.3.5D0.1).0.SOID(3) .0D0 .1. 3 STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.0D0 .3).FOID(3.1.0.2).0D0 .0D0 .R1 .FOID(2.1.2) .RIGHT .0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .5D0 .2).0.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .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) .R3 .SOID(MSTRE) .0D0 .0D0 .1).2).4.1). 2 PSTRS(MDIM) . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.4)/ 2 1.R2 .0D0 .4)/ 8 0.FOID(3.2.FOID(MSTRE.0D0.0.3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0026’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) COSPHI=RPROPS(5) SINPSI=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Set needed algorithmic variables EDGE=LALGVA(3) RIGHT=LALGVA(4) APEX=LALGVA(5) C Set some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R2BULK=R2*BULK R2CPHI=R2*COSPHI R4C2PH=R2CPHI*R2CPHI R1D3=R1/R3 R2D3=R2*R1D3 R2GD3=R2G*R1D3 R4GD3=R4G*R1D3 IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ---------------------------------------C Spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain STRAC(1)=STRAT(1) STRAC(2)=STRAT(2) .NE.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0.FOID(2.FOID(3.FOID(4.0D0/ 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.FOID(4.0.0D0 / 7 FOID(4.R4 / 2 0.OUTOFP .0D0 .0D0 / 5 FOID(3.PSTRA(MDIM) .3).0D0 .3).0.0D0 .MSTRE) .0D0 .AND.1).2.

GE.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.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.AND.NE.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVBA-DRVBB)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.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.JJ.REPEAT.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)MM=1 IF(II.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3..3.NE.returned to right edge DPSTRS(II.LT.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVAB-DRVAA)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVBA-DRVBB)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.PSTRA.3 IF(PSTRA(I).2)MM=2 IF(II.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.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).II)=BULK+R4GD3+AUX1*(-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)* 1 (R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II..2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.NE.JJ.AND.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+AUX3*(DRVBA1 DRVAA))*(R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.NE.1.NE.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.NE.NHARD.2.

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.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...JJ)=DSIDEJ 189 DPSTRS(JJ.returned to left edge 148 DPSTRS(II.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX1*(DRVAA-DRVBA)+AUX2*(DRVAB167 1 DRVBB))*(((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)-R2G))*R1DDET 168 DPSTRS(JJ.NHARD.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.MM)=DSIDEJ 185 DPSTRS(II.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+R4GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVAA-DRVBA)+ 163 1 (DRVAA*R2GD3+DRVBA*R4GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAA*R2G)+ 164 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+(DRVAB*R2GD3+ 165 3 DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAB*R2G))*R1DDET 166 DPSTRS(MM.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)139 1 (DRVBA*R4GD3+DRVAA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)+DRVAA*R2G)+ 140 2 AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+(DRVAB*R2GD3+ 141 3 DRVBB*R4GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVAB*R2G))*R1DDET 142 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=DSIDEJ 188 DPSTRS(MM.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.322 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 132 DPSTRS(MM.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)133 1 (DRVBB*R2GD3+DRVAB*R4GD3))*SINPHI+DRVBB*R2G)+ 134 2 AUX3*((R2BULK*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+(DRVAA*R4GD3+ 135 3 DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI-DRVBA*R2G))*R1DDET 136 DPSTRS(JJ.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)=DSIDEJ 184 DPSTRS(II.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX3*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB-DRVAA+ 172 1 DRVBA)+(DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2GD3+(DRVBB-DRVBA)* 173 2 R4GD3)*SINPHI)+(DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G))*R1DDET 174 DPSTRS(JJ.JJ)=DSIDEJ 186 DPSTRS(MM.II)=BULK-R2GD3+((AUX2*(DRVBA-DRVAA)+AUX3*(DRVAB137 1 DRVBB))*((R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI+R2G))*R1DDET 138 DPSTRS(JJ.MM)=DSIDEJ .II)=DSIDEJ 190 DPSTRS(JJ.RPROPS(IPHARD))*COTPHI*COSPHI/ 182 2 SINPSI))) 183 DPSTRS(II.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX1*(((R2BULK*(DRVAA-DRVBA)159 1 (DRVAA*R4GD3+DRVBA*R2GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVBA*R2G)+ 160 2 AUX2*(((R2BULK*(DRVAB-DRVBB)-(DRVAB*R4GD3+ 161 3 DRVBB*R2GD3))*SINPHI)-DRVBB*R2G))*R1DDET 162 DPSTRS(MM.

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

Their formulae for outer edge. plane strain. The implemented Drucker–Prager constitutive equations The Drucker–Prager yield surface is deﬁned by means of the yield function Φ(σ.102) p = 1/3 tr[σ] is the hydrostatic pressure and c is the cohesion. (6.8–8.126) and (6.123) and (6. The most important results of this section can be found as indicated in the table below. the tangent operator and the elastoplastic ﬂag that indicates whether the elastic or elastoplastic operator is to be computed in CTMC.15 Boxes 8. Function calls from CTMC Function calls here are the same as from subroutine CTTR (for the Tresca model implementation).122). ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. 2 s = σ − p(σ) I. (6. J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c. The Drucker–Prager model We now move on to the last model implementation discussed in this chapter.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. The constants η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. respectively.3. (8. uniaxial tension/compression and biaxial tension/compression matching are given.16 subroutine CTDP (Section 8. respectively.127).10 subroutine SUDP (Section 8. inner edge.5) iso-error map consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – Following the format of the previous sections.124). c) = where J2 = 1 s : s.3.101) . (8. Here we focus on a Drucker–Prager model with piecewise linear isotropic strain hardening. Refer to page 295. 8.3. The output values of the arguments of SUMC are taken as input values by CTMC.2) Figure 8. a brief summary of the constitutive equations adopted in the present implementation is presented below. by expressions (6.

As a consequence of the symmetry about the pressure axis (see Figure 6. This relation is obtained by combining the non-associative version of (6. The ﬂow rule reads ˙ ˙ εp = γ N. The hardening law is deﬁned by (8. the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of Ψ.20(b).108) n+1 where −∆γ De : Nn+1 is the return vector.164) or (6.106) εp = γ ξ. (8.107) η v ¯ will be needed in the derivation of the return-mapping equation for the apex of the Drucker– Prager cone. This is in contrast with the two and three possible singularities identiﬁed. respectively.104) At the cone apex.3: ˙ ˙ (8. page 176). whenever the above formula is applied (regardless . the Drucker–Prager counterpart of relation (8. where.106). Secondly. ¯ (8. are fully symmetric about the hydrostatic axis. 3 (8.105) (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 325 The generally non-associative ﬂow rule is adopted in the present implementation of the Drucker–Prager model. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ). associative isotropic strain hardening is adopted here. together with the associative evolution equation for the accumulated plastic strain derived for Drucker–Prager plasticity in Section 6. N is a vector contained in the complementary cone (refer to the schematic illustration of Figure 6.161) with the evolution law (8. where the potential is singular. page 176). only one singularity exists in the Drucker–Prager yield surface – its apex. the ﬂow vector is given by N= ∂Ψ = ∂σ 2 1 J2 (s) η ¯ s + I. ¯ (8. in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models. The corresponding ﬂow potential is Ψ(σ. Consider the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor for materials with linear elastic law: σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . ¯ Analogously to the Mohr–Coulomb implementation.6. (6. that is.163). and according to the adopted ¯ Drucker–Prager approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law may be given by (6. on the smooth portion of the yield surface.64): ξ ˙ ˙ εp = ε p . 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.3. inner edge and plane strain match. This relative simplicity stems from two main features of the present material model.1.61).165) respectively for the outer. the Drucker–Prager yield surface. Firstly.103) where the constant η depends on the dilatancy angle. As for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of the previous section. ψ. as well as the ﬂow vector ﬁeld resulting from the generally non-associative ﬂow potential.20. 8.

These are treated separately below. the return vector is always parallel to the plane that contains σtrial and the hydrostatic axis (see Figure 8. Return to the smooth portion of the cone On the smooth portion of the cone.105). by a factor that depends on ∆γ. Thus.109) Simpliﬁcation of the above expression can be obtained by noting that. two possible explicit forms exist for the return-mapping algorithm. 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 .111) which.114) .113) It should be noted that the deviatoric updated stress. the return-mapping algorithm can be completely formulated in such a plane of the stress space.14. 3 (8. sn+1 . 3 (8. ¯ strial n+1 (8. 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 . is obtained by simply scaling down the trial deviatoric stress. the following identity holds strial sn+1 n+1 = . without loss of generality. 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. since the deﬁnition of the ﬂow vector Nn+1 in the smooth portion of the cone differs from that at the apex singularity. The consistency condition in the present case is given by Φn+1 ≡ J2 (sn+1 ) + η pn+1 − ξ c(¯p ) = 0. εn+1 (8. n+1 page 329). equivalently. the ﬂow vector is deﬁned by (8. due to the deﬁnition of J2 .112) (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).110) 1 2 J2 (s) sn+1 + η ¯ I . Note that. in terms of deviatoric and hydrostatic components reads sn+1 = 1 − pn+1 = ptrial n+1 G ∆γ J2 (strial ) n+1 − K η ∆γ. The corresponding algorithms are derived in what follows. strial . 3 (8.

n+1 v η ¯ (8.113). the return-mapping equations (8.114) is reduced to c(¯p + ∆¯p ) εn ε ξ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. Its geometrical representation is shown in Figure 8.118) (8. the return to apex does not make sense in the present η context and the comments made immediately after expression (8. .86) for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation apply. εn v v n+1 v where ξ α≡ . n+1 v (8.119) for ∆εp . η ¯ (8. Remark 8.120) This equation is analogous to the return-mapping equation (8. εn After solution of the above equation.115) Further.119) respectively for the smooth portion and apex of the Drucker–Prager cone are linear and ∆γ is computed in closed form. we update v ¯n εp := εp + α∆εp . where H denotes the hardening modulus.117) (8. for linearly hardening models. After the solution of (8.85) of the Mohr–Coulomb implementation. the hardening function reads c(¯p ) = c0 + H εp .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 327 where the update accumulated plastic strain is obtained from the discrete version of (8.117) and (8. Return to the apex At the apex. ε (8. the return vector must be contained in the complementary cone schematically illustrated in Figure 6. For perfectly plastic materials. ε ¯ In such cases. c is constant and. η β≡ ξ . with the introduction of the discretised form of (8.119) (8. the stress is updated by (8.116) The substitution of the above expression and (8.20(b) of page 176. The consistency condition (8.4.13. we obtain the ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the Drucker–Prager apex: r(∆εp ) ≡ c(¯p + α∆εp ) β − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. 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. ¯n+1 v σn+1 := (ptrial − K ∆εp ) I.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) = 0.107) in the above equation.106): ε εp = εp + ∆¯p ¯n+1 ¯n with ∆¯p = ξ ∆γ.121) Note that for non-dilatant ﬂow (¯ = 0).

25). Recall that the purpose of the selection procedure is to ensure that the validated return mapping – in the present case.113)1. Return mapping to apex.122) If. n+1 (8. it follows that J2 (sn+1 ) = J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ.13. after determination of ∆γ from the related consistency condition. n+1 (8. A possible selection strategy is summarised in the following steps (refer to Figure 8. There are only two possible return mappings. then the other one must be valid. apply the return algorithm to the smooth part of the Drucker–Prager cone. the following is satisﬁed acone ≡ J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ ≥ 0. the return mapping to the apex must be applied. From the corresponding deviatoric stress update formula (8. Drucker–Prager model. Thus. Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having derived the two possible forms of return mapping for the Drucker–Prager model. The selection strategy for the Drucker–Prager model is simple.123) then the returned stress indeed lies on the Drucker–Prager cone and the return mapping is validated.14 for a graphical representation): • Firstly. The above selection procedure ensures the consistency of the selected return algorithm regardless of any prescribed hardening/softening law. a strategy for selection of the appropriate one is necessary for the complete deﬁnition of the integration algorithm. In this case. 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. • Otherwise. . derived in Chapter 7.328 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 results obtained by the apex return are then necessarily valid. the returned stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and is not admissible.

Selection of appropriate return mapping. . A ﬂowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 8. the overall integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model comprises the elastic predictor stage – which is common to all models addressed in this chapter – followed by the two return mappings described above.8–8.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 ) . with the associated selection strategy.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 329 trial σ n +1 J2( s ) 1 η J2( s trial ) .14. The overall integration algorithm Essentially.10.G ∆γ < 0 n +1 Figure 8.15. Drucker–Prager model. The integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model has been implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS and is explained in detail below. The corresponding pseudo-code is summarised in Boxes 8.

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 . and exit Figure 8. ∆γ and σ n+1 update other state variables.15. . Flowchart of the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the Drucker–Prager model. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS.

Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Drucker– Prager model. HYPLAS procedure: SUDP (i) Elastic predictor. 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 8.10 (iv) Update elastic strain εe := n+1 (v) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 331 Box 8. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility IF εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial n+1 v n+1 J2 (strial ) + η ptrial − ξ c(¯p trial ) ≤ 0 εn+1 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping (a) Return to smooth portion of cone – GOTO Box 8.8.

The Drucker–Prager model. Return mapping to smooth portion of cone.332 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.8 (iv) GOTO (ii) . HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0. SUDP ¯n εp := εp ¯n+1 and corresponding residual (yield function value) ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) + η ptrial − ξ c(¯p ) εn n+1 n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆γ H := d := dc d¯p ε ˜ dΦ p (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (new guess for ∆γ) εn+1 ¯ = −G − K η η − ξ 2 H ¯ d∆γ ˜ ∆γ := ∆γ − Φ/d (iii) Check convergence ¯n εp := εp + ξ ∆γ ¯n+1 ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) − G∆γ + η (ptrial − K η ∆γ) − ξ c(¯p ) ¯ εn+1 n+1 tol ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ THEN sn+1 := 1 − update G ∆γ J2 (s trial n+1 ) strial n+1 pn+1 := ptrial − K η ∆γ ¯ n+1 and RETURN to Box 8.9.

COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 333 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 8.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUDP ∆εp := 0. Return mapping to apex. The Drucker–Prager model.10.

1.2.0D0.2.0. As in the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of subroutine SUMC (Section 8.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.FALSE. LALGVA(3). IFPLAS.IPROPS .RPROPS(*) .RP5 .0D0.NTYPE .FALSE.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. 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 . SUBROUTINE SUDP The above integration algorithm has been implemented in subroutine SUDP (State Update procedure for the Drucker–Prager model) of program HYPLAS.AND.3.R3 .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.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0016’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 SUBROUTINE SUDP 1( DGAM .LALGVA .2. 2 RSTAVA .R2 .2.R1 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .RPROPS . 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .2).NE.8-10) C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric IF(NTYPE.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 STRIAL(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .334 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.5D0. SUFAIL=.NE.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .STRAT . ¯ The source code of SUDP is listed below. a general piecewise isotropic hardening law is assumed with the (user-supplied) hardening curve deﬁned by a set of pairs: {i εp .3.0D0. i c}.TOL / 2 0.0D0.NTYPE.

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

RPROPS(IPHARD)) P=PT-BULK*DEPV RES=BETA*COHE-P Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(RES) IF(COHE.NHARD.TRUE.MAXRT DENOM=ALPHA*BETA*DPLFUN(EPBAR.EQ.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=.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(COHE) IF(RESNOR. IF(ETA.TOL)THEN update stress components and other variables DGAMA=DEPV/ETABAR FACTOR=R0 GOTO 50 ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.TRUE.LE.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0011’) IF(ETABAR.RPROPS(IPHARD)) RES=BETA*COHE-PT DO 40 IPTER2=1.EQ.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.NHARD.NE. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0002’) GOTO 999 Store converged stress components and other state variables ----------------------------------------------------------50 CONTINUE STRES(1)=FACTOR*STRIAL(1)+P STRES(2)=FACTOR*STRIAL(2)+P STRES(3)=FACTOR*STRIAL(3) STRES(4)=FACTOR*STRIAL(4)+P update EPBAR RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR compute converged elastic (engineering) strain components FACTOR=FACTOR/R2G EEVD3=P/(BULK*R3) RSTAVA(1)=FACTOR*STRIAL(1)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTOR*STRIAL(2)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTOR*STRIAL(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=FACTOR*STRIAL(4)+EEVD3 ELSE Elastic step: update stress using linear elastic law ==================================================== STRES(1)=STRIAL(1)+PT STRES(2)=STRIAL(2)+PT STRES(3)=STRIAL(3) STRES(4)=STRIAL(4)+PT elastic engineering strain RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) .NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD))+BULK Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DEPV DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+ALPHA*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.

The tangent tensor here is deviatoric. Also. 8. Note. 1 εp . The analysis is restricted to the perfectly plastic case with associative ﬂow rule. Due to the symmetry of the Drucker–Prager yield surface about the hydrostatic axis. a more comprehensive accuracy assessment would require increments in other directions. 8.3. IFPLAS. ISO-ERROR MAP An iso-error map for the integration algorithm described above for the Drucker–Prager model is presented in this section. ν. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL Again. Due to the pressure-sensitivity of the model (as for the Mohr–Coulomb case). i. . . η . array RPROPS stores the following: RPROPS = [E. The resulting error map is plotted in Figure 8. ξ.3. normal and tangent to the yield surface. Flags IFPLAS and SUFAIL are set in the same way as in the previous implementations discussed. nhard εp . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ and array LALGVA is deﬁned as ← LALGVA. if the return mapping to the apex is selected. Here the error map is constructed having a generic point of the deviatoric plane as the starting point.FALSE. . respectively. The unit tensors N and T deﬁning the increment directions are. . .16.TRUE. 2 εp . however. the error maps obtained from all points within the same cross-section of the Drucker–Prager cone are identical. . .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. that in the present case IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDDP. 1 c. The increment normalising factor q is the von Mises effective stress at the starting point. 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). 2 c. For the Drucker–Prager model this array contains the plastic yielding ﬂag. with non-deviatoric tangents to the yield surface as well. η. 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 .e. It is set to . nhard c]. The apex return ﬂag is set to .3. otherwise. 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 .4. the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL and the apex return ﬂag APEX.

For this model.124) Straightforward differentiation of the above expression yields dsn+1 = 2G ∆γ 1− √ 2 εe trial d n+1 dεe trial d n+1 (8.5 7. εe trial d n+1 ∆σN /q (8. respectively.0 2 0. Following the procedure adopted in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models where. above for the Drucker–Prager model.5 5 5. there are two possible elastoplastic tangents: one consistent with the return to the smooth portion of the cone and the other consistent with the return to the apex. +√ d n+1 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 .0 0 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /q Figure 8.126) Similarly.338 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 2. 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 . three and four elastoplastic explicit forms of tangent exist. 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.16. Iso-error map. d n+1 (8. Drucker–Prager model with associative ﬂow.5 2. the differentiation of the hydrostatic pressure update formula ¯ ¯ pn+1 = ptrial − K η ∆γ = K(εe trial − η ∆γ).127) . Tangent consistent with the smooth portion return Firstly.125) ∆γ 1 D ⊗ D : dεe trial − √ d∆γ D .0 7.5 4 10 10. n+1 v n+1 (8.

the associated elastoplastic tangent modulus is given by Dep ≡ dσn+1 dpn+1 = I ⊗ e trial . with the substitution of (8.135) (8.128) The expression relating d∆γ and the differentials of trial strain is obtained by linearising the consistency condition (8.134) Now. and use of the identity Dep ≡ dσn+1 dsn+1 dpn+1 = e trial + I ⊗ e trial .132) Tangent consistent with the return mapping to the apex Since the stress deviator.117).137) (8.131) 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. in conjunction with the use of the elastic relation.130) (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 339 gives ¯ dpn+1 = K (dεe trial − η d∆γ).117). the differential of the updated stress consistent with the application of the apex return is simply dσn+1 = dpn+1 I. recall the hydrostatic pressure update formula: pn+1 = ptrial − K ∆εp .128). sn+1 . Accordingly. n+1 v Its differentiation gives dpn+1 = K I : dεe trial − K d∆εp .133) (8.136) . dεe trial dεn+1 dεn+1 n+1 (8. v n+1 (8. n+1 v (8. ¯ which results in the identity d∆γ = √ 1 ( 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial ). vanishes at the apex.130) into (8. dεe trial dεn+1 n+1 (8. gives the following equation: √ ˜ dΦ = 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial d n+1 v n+1 − (G + Kη η + ξ 2 H) d∆γ = 0. The linearisation of (8. d n+1 v n+1 2H G + Kη η + ξ ¯ (8. where Id is the deviatoric projection tensor and A is deﬁned as A= 1 . G + Kη η + ξ 2 H ¯ (8.129) Finally.125) and (8.

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.140) This formula is in complete analogy with that of the apex return for the Mohr–Coulomb model.139) (8.138) Finally. The elastoplastic tangents computed in CTDP are those given by expressions (8. EPFLAG. K + αβH (8.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .STRAT ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. This routine returns either the standard elastic tangent or the consistent elastoplastic tangent operator depending on the entry value of the logical argument EPFLAG. LALGVA(3) DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.137) and use of (8. in the absence of hardening (H = 0) the above tangent operator vanishes.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . The comments made in Remark 8. .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). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SUBROUTINE CTDP 1( DGAM .5.EPFLAG .IPROPS .3).DMATX .RPROPS .LALGVA 2 NTYPE .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.MSTRE) . Note that. with the substitution of the above formula into (8. The implicit algorithm with which the present tangent computation is consistent is coded in subroutine SUDP.FOID(1.140).5. The source code of CTDP is listed below.132) and (8. If the elastoplastic tangent is requested.MSTRE).4)/ .MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.100) in terms of principal stress derivatives.SOID(MSTRE) 2 UNIDEV(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.1).135) we obtain the expression for the tangent operator consistent with the apex return mapping: Dep = K 1 − K I ⊗ I.RSTAVA .3 are equally valid for the Drucker–Prager model. Remark 8. .IPROPS(*) .3. n+1 K + αβH (8. 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 .119).FOID(1. The actual tangent computed is consistent with the last application of the return mapping (in the Gauss integration point of interest) carried out in SUDP. . given by (8.FOID(MSTRE.2).STRAT(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EETD(MSTRE) . 8.

0D0.FOID(3.RP5 .FOID(2.FOID(2.R3 / 2 0.FOID(4.4)/ 0.0.0D0 / FOID(2.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ELSE CALL ERRPRT(’EI0017’) ENDIF C Retrieve accumulated plastic strain.1.0.NHARD.EQ.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.NSTRE DMATX(I. 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.0D0 / FOID(3.2).0D0 .FOID(2.3).FOID(4.0D0 / SOID(1) 1.4)/ 0.0D0 .0D0 .R1 .FOID(3.1).0D0 .0.2.0D0 .SOID(4) .R2 .0D0 .4)/ 0.0D0.3).0D0 .1.J)=AFACT*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 10 CONTINUE 20 CONTINUE ELSE C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with smooth cone wall return .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 1.0D0 .0.0.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.0.SOID(3) .0D0 / / DATA 1 R0 .0.EQ.5D0 .1.0D0 / FOID(4.2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.2).FOID(4.3).0.1.SOID(2) .0D0 .1).FOID(3.3.0.0.0D0/ 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.1.2).0.0D0 .5D0.0.0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .0D0 .1).0D0.

NSTRE-1 120 DO 80 I=J+1.J)=R2G*FOID(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. with state update related arguments coming in the present case from subroutine SUDP.NSTRE 103 DMATX(I.NSTRE 121 DMATX(I.R0)THEN 87 EDNINV=R1/ETDNOR 88 ELSE 89 EDNINV=R0 90 ENDIF 91 DO 30 I=1.J)=AFACT*FOID(I.I) 122 80 CONTINUE 123 90 CONTINUE 124 ENDIF 125 RETURN 126 END The arguments of CTDP The situation here is completely analogous to that of subroutine CTMC (refer to page 324).NSTRE 116 DMATX(I. .J)=DMATX(J.NE.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.NSTRE 102 DO 40 J=1.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 117 60 CONTINUE 118 70 CONTINUE 119 DO 90 J=1.NSTRE 115 DO 60 J=I.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.

d n+1 d n+1 8. D ≡ εe trial / εe trial .623 c a2 (8. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm has been adopted in the iterative solution of the global ﬁnite element equilibrium equations.1. a condition close to pure bending is obtained near the neck. The bar is wide enough so that the analysis can be carried out under the assumption of plane strain conditions. The vertical deﬂection obtained for the nodes where the forces are applied is plotted in Figure 8. A mesh of 312 eight-noded elements (with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature) is adopted with a total of 1001 nodes. 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. c. Norm of the deviatoric component of the elastic trial strain tensor. it gives Mu ≈ 1. n+1 • UNIDEV [D]. The reader is referred to Chakrabarty (1987) for details of the solution. It is noted that all results presented here have been obtained with the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. Array of components of the unit tensor parallel to the deviatoric elastic trial strain. The ﬁnite element model adopted in the present analysis is shown in Figure 8.142) per millimetre width of the bar.19 against the normalised .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 343 Some local variables and arrays of CTDP • ETDNOR [ εe trial ]. The geometry and material parameters are shown in Figure 8. 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).141) where a is the thickness of the bar in the neck and the cohesion or shear strength. The material is modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic with the Tresca yield criterion. theoretical solutions are presented and compared with the results obtained in order to illustrate the accuracy of the numerical procedures described in the preceding sections. for the Tresca model is given as c = σy /2.18.869 Nm (8. The moment M is applied by means of two opposite nodal forces of equal intensity F prescribed on the nodes indicated in Figure 8.4. Whenever available. Without exception. For symmetry reasons. For a notch angle of 90o the associated upper bound moment per unit width of the bar is Mu ≈ 0. only half of the bar is discretised with symmetry kinematical constraints imposed on the nodes across the neck. 8. Examples This section presents a set of benchmark numerical examples involving all material model implementations described in the previous sections of this chapter. the collapse of a wide rectangular metal bar containing a deep 90o V-shaped notch and subjected to pure bending is analysed.17. For the present material parameters and geometry. A total number of 13 load increments is applied in the ﬁnite element analysis. BENDING OF A V-NOTCHED TRESCA BAR In this example.18. Due to the distance between the neck and the points where the forces are applied.4.

20(b). The contour plot of ∆¯p shows the area where the plastic process is concentrated and clearly illustrates ε the collapse mechanism. The slipline ﬁeld proposed by Green (1953) for the present dimensions is schematically illustrated in Figure 8. 8.17. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.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.) bending moment per unit width. END-LOADED TAPERED CANTILEVER The collapse of a wide end-loaded tapered cantilever is analysed in this example. Bending of a V-notched bar. Problem deﬁnition. c a2 (8. M/ca2 . The limit load determined by the present analysis is fe Mlim ≈ 0. M = Fh F h Figure 8.3 σ y = 0.) F Please Wait. In this increment the bar is effectively collapsing. Bending of a V-notched bar.e. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. i.A. Finite element model. Note that the collapse mechanism predicted by the ﬁnite element simulation is in agreement with Green’s slip-line ﬁeld.A. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.636.4. 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. in Figure 8.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) a = 5 mm h = 8 mm M l = 40 mm Figure 8.18. corresponding to load increment 12 of the ﬁnite element computation ε is shown for comparison. the contour plot of the incremental accumulated plastic strain. The geometry of the cantilever as well as the mesh adopted in the ﬁnite element analysis are . a small increment of applied load results in extremely large incremental deﬂections.20(a).2. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering.. ∆¯p . Alongside.143) This result is in very close agreement (about 2% higher) with Green’s upper bound. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.

19. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering.000 M M (a) (b) Figure 8. such as in the present example.contour levels: 0. His solution for θ > 75o .050 0. The cantilever is assumed to be made of a Tresca elastic-perfectly plastic material with the same constants as in the previous example.A.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 0. Bending of a V-notched bar: (a) slip-line ﬁeld of the upper bound solution by Green (1953). (b) ﬁnite element result under collapse (increment 12): incremental accumulated plastic strain. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.6 0. Bending of a V-notched bar. Green argues that it is unlikely that his upper-bound solutions will be above the exact theoretical limit load. of intensity S.8 345 bending moment. acting on the opposite edge.5 1 1. the normalised upper bound for the shear traction ¶ Green’s limit loads are exact for taper angles θ ≤ 75o . (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space.) illustrated in Figure 8.) p ∆ε . Nevertheless. ∆¯p . The cantilever is ﬁrmly supported (clamped) on one edge and the applied load is a uniformly distributed shearing traction.623 0.A. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. M/ca2 0. Moment-deﬂection diagram.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.21. .004 0. Upper bound limit loads for tapered cantilevers have been obtained analytically by Green (1954) by means of slip-line ﬁeld theory.117 0.20.2 0 0 0. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. ε (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. are only upper bounds.¶ For the present geometry. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. Computer c Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. due to experimental conﬁrmation of the proposed slip-line ﬁelds.5 2 edge deﬂection (mm) Figure 8.010 0. The width of the cantilever is assumed sufﬁciently large so that a plane strain analysis is carried out.

22. However. u. The associated collapse mechanism is of the plastic hinge type. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element mesh. by c = σy /2. Figure 8. The increment of accumulated plastic strain. 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. The slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954) is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.346 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. the portion to the right of the slip-line ﬁeld rotates by sliding over the circular arc BC. The present limit load has been reached in eight increments.23(b) shows the incremental nodal displacements obtained in the last increment (increment 8). σ y = 0. where the suitability of the ﬁnite element framework of program HYPLAS for the determination of collapse loads has been made evident. 8.144) c where c is the shear strength given. STRIP-FOOTING COLLAPSE The plane strain analysis of a strip footing has been carried out in detail in Example 7. ∆¯p . the analysis performed in that example was restricted to the use of the von Mises material model. End-loaded tapered cantilever.23(c). the sizes of the vectors have been largely exaggerated and do not correspond to the norms of the actual nodal displacements.4. At collapse.e.4% above Green’s upper bound. S. In the ﬁnite element analysis.775 (8. the load is applied incrementally until collapse occurs. the load above which convergence of equilibrium iterations cannot be attained for sufﬁciently small increments) is fe Slim ≈ 0..21.4 (page 252) of Chapter 7. for the Tresca model. obtained in the ε same load increment is illustrated in Figure 8. The contour plot shows that. In the . The corresponding collapse load (i.23(a).3.5. It can be seen that the ﬁnite element solution has captured Green’s collapse mechanism quite accurately. A diagram showing the vertical deﬂection.786. (8. found by Green is Su ≈ 0.3 Please Wait. when the cantilever is effectively collapsing. obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is plotted in Figure 8. at collapse.145) which is about 1. In this plot. of the mid-node of the free edge versus the applied force.24 GPa S h = 100 mm Figure 8.

775 0. The soil is assumed to be weightless. only half of the problem is discretised. Tresca Firstly. u/h Figure 8.26.02 0. where the same material parameters have been used. The mesh contains 135 eightnoded quadrilaterals (four Gauss point quadrature) and a total of 446 nodes. The footing is assumed to be rigid and perfectly smooth (no friction).01 0. The adopted common material parameters are Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Cohesion E = 107 kPa ν = 0. page 253).24).03 0.22.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 347 0.4 (plotted in Figure 7.4 (see Figure 7. the same strip-footing problem is analysed but the soil is now modelled as a Tresca. End-loaded tapered cantilever. Thus. The corresponding uniaxial yield stress (required by the input data procedure for the Tresca material in HYPLAS) is σy = 2c = 980 kPa. u. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager material. The horizontal displacement of these nodes is unconstrained.04 normalised edge deﬂection. Note that due to symmetry.24. of the nodes under the footing as shown in Figure 7. The objective is to illustrate the performance of the algorithms described earlier in the present chapter for these models. the analysis is carried out using the Tresca model.002 is applied in 14 increments. the loading consists of the prescribed vertical displacement.146) are practically identical to those obtained with the von Mises model in Example 7. A ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0. This curve and the corresponding limit load fe Plim ≈ 5.5.48 c = 490 kPa The dimensions. The resulting loadsettlement curve is plotted in Figure 8.2 0 0 0. The .6 0. c (8.24. boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are identical to those of Example 7. S/c 0. present example.8 normalised load.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.19.5. Force-deﬂection diagram.

14.000 (b) (c) Figure 8.004 0.167 0.120 0. (8. Mohr–Coulomb The analysis of the strip-footing problem with the Mohr–Coulomb material model is carried out assuming a frictional angle φ = 20o . Please Wait.28.23. This mechanism.contour levels: Please Wait.348 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Green’s slip-line field A B C D (a) p ∆ε . as obtained in the simulation with the von Mises model carried out in the previous chapter. ﬁnite element results under collapse (increment 8): (b) incremental nodal displacements. 0. ∆¯p . c (8...148) .040 0. is illustrated in Figure 7. End-loaded tapered cantilever. ε numerically determined limit pressure is less than 1% above the slip-line theory solution Plim ≈ 5.147) 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). (c) incremental accumulated plastic strain. Analytical solution: (a) slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954).

25. c (8.0.24.14 0. for the associative and non-associative laws.150) Drucker–Prager Three of the Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion discussed in Section 6.8.002 Figure 8.4. and .0025 is applied in six and seven increments. c (8.001 normalised settlement.4% higher) with Prandtl’s solution Plim ≈ 14. u/B finite element results slip-line theory limit load: 5. • non-associative with dilatancy angle ψ = 10o . Two ﬂow rules are considered: • associative (φ = ψ = 20o ).149) This value is in excellent agreement (about 1. The corresponding load–settlement curves obtained in the analyses are plotted in Figure 8.4 (and implemented in program HYPLAS) are used here in the analysis of the footing: • the outer (or extension) cone. The limit loads obtained with the associative and non-associative law are virtually identical fe Plim ≈ 15. The prescribed ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0. P/c 4 3 TRESCA: 2 1 0 0 0. Load–displacement curve. Strip footing with Tresca model. • the inner (or compression) cone. respectively.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 349 6 5 normalised pressure.

The normalised limit pressure in this case is approximately 35. Strip footing with Mohr–Coulomb model. the results are in excellent agreement with Prandtl’s solution.002 0.004 is imposed gradually in 10 increments. 8.25. For all approximations. page 252). For the plane strain match on the other hand. A complete solution to the circular (rigid smooth) footing problem has been obtained by Cox et al.151) which is practically identical to the limit loads obtained with the Mohr–Coulomb model. (1961). The load consists of the prescribed vertical displacements (settlement) of the nodes under the foot.27. The corresponding load-displacement diagram obtained is depicted in Figure 8. It consists of a circular footing of diameter B = 1 m (assumed rigid and smooth) lying on soil. The load-settlement diagrams obtained are shown in Figure 8. The normalised limit pressure predicted by the inner cone is around 17. The geometry is shown in Figure 8. In the present analysis. (8.002 is reached in nine increments.28.24.152) is effectively attained in seven increments. a total settlement u/B = 0.8 4 0 0 0. The collapse load fe Plim /c ≈ 20.350 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16 normalised pressure. In this case. a total settlement u/B = 0. (8.5.003 normalised settlement.001 0.4. CIRCULAR-FOOTING COLLAPSE This section considers the axisymmetric analogue of the footing collapse problem described in the previous section.7 (about 140% above Prandtl’s solution). P/c 12 MOHR–COULOMB: 8 associative non-associative Prandtl solution: 14. The mesh.26. The limit load predicted by the outer cone approximation is well above Prandtl’s solution.3 (about 17% above Prandtl’s solution). u/B Figure 8.4. Load-displacement curves. • the plane strain match to the Mohr–Coulomb model. loading and boundary conditions are the same as in the previous example (these are illustrated in Figure 7.0. The corresponding limit loads are . Only the associative law (φ = ψ = 20o ) is considered. the predicted limit pressure is fe Plim /c ≈ 15.

Strip footing with Drucker–Prager model. If the slope angle.153) The corresponding slip-line net is schematically illustrated in Figure 8. determined (to any desired accuracy) by the ﬁnite difference method (the limit loads for several frictional angles are tabulated in Chen. Load-displacement curves.30.002 0. u/B Figure 8. φ. as in the present problem. β.30.003 0.004 0. The relative error is less than 2%.4. P/c 30 DRUCKER–PRAGER: outer cone inner cone plane strain match Prandtl solution: 14.154) c .1. (1961). The objective is to assess the safety of the slope illustrated in Figure 8. 1975). is greater than the internal friction angle.005 normalised settlement. Limit analysis solution The limit analysis of slopes under gravity load is described by Chen (1975). The incremental nodal displacement vectors near the footing obtained in increment 8 (where the collapse load has effectively been reached) are plotted in Figure 8.27.5. The soil is modelled as a (perfectly plastic) Mohr–Coulomb material with the constants 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.29.001 0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 40 351 normalised pressure. (8. the slope will collapse when the ratio γ N =h (8. 8.8 20 10 0 0 0. The vector sizes have been ampliﬁed to ease visualisation. the plane strain analysis of an inclined earth embankment subjected to self-weight is carried out.26. SLOPE STABILITY In this example. For the present frictional angle (φ = 20o ) the limit average pressure on the footing is Plim /c ≈ 20.153). The limit load obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is in close agreement with (8.

001 0.48 c = 490 kPa 7 φ soil = 20 o 20 o (associative flow) ψ= Figure 8. 1961: 20. P/c 20 15 10 CIRCULAR FOOTING: finite element results Cox et al. 25 normalised pressure.28.. u/B Figure 8.002 normalised settlement.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. Circular footing. Figure 8. Circular footing. .1 5 0 0 0.29.27. Geometry. Incremental nodal displacement vectors at increment 8. Circular footing. Load-displacement curve.

155) with ρ being the mass density and g the gravitational acceleration. c is the cohesion and γ is the speciﬁc weight of the soil γ = ρ g. h denotes the slope height. (8. Mohr–Coulomb model h = 10 m Young’s modulus: C Poisson’s ratio: Cohesion: E = 20 000 kPa ν = 0. (8. is Ns ≈ 16. 35 m 40 m Please Wait. Here. The stability factor tabulated by Chen (1975) for the angles β = 45o and φ = 20o .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS β = 45 o 353 B A Soil properties. reaches a critical limit.18. denoted Ns . Geometry and material properties. For the present geometry and material constants.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. 75 m Figure 8. adopted in the present example. Slope stability. 30 m . Slope stability. the ratio N is N = 4. is called the stability factor. Finite element mesh.156) The critical value of N .31..30.

Please Wait. incremental nodal displacements Please Wait..33. . Slope stability.3263 0.354 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5 4 gravity load factor.0000 Figure 8.3050 0.. Load-settlement diagram. Slope stability.9788 0. ∆ε p .6525 0. Increment of accumulated plastic strain and displacement at collapse (increment 6).contour levels: 1.32. α 3 2 finite element results limit analysis upper bound: 4.045 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 settlement at point A (m) Figure 8.

33. In the ﬁnite element analysis. the loading process starts from α = 0 (completely unloaded). The contour plot of incremental accumulated plastic strain. A safety factor based on limit analysis can be deﬁned as αlim = Ns /N .158) (8. consists of 221 eight-noded quadrilaterals (2 × 2 integration quadrature) with a total of 718 nodes. a total of seven load increments are applied.30) is plotted in Figure 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 355 This value corresponds to a collapse mechanism (Figure 8. With g=αg ¯ (8. (8. The adopted mesh.32 against the load factor α. The load factor. The limit value of α. α. The settlement at the top corner of the slope (point A of Figure 8.2.31.159) lim It is about 3. found in the incremental ﬁnite element analysis is αfe ≈ 4. . i. as well as the incremental nodal displacements obtained at increment ε 6 are depicted in Figure 8. The failure mechanism captured by the ﬁnite element simulation is in good agreement with the logarithmic spiral slide line referred to above. For the present dimensions and material properties it gives αlim ≈ 4. The value of α at collapse is the safety factor. the safety factor. The discretised domain is made large enough to avoid interference of the collapse mechanism with the boundaries of the ﬁnite element mesh.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).157) denoting the applied gravity acceleration. is then increased gradually until collapse occurs. 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. The slope is effectively collapsing during this increment.045. shown in Figure 8.e. ∆¯p .8% above the limit analysis solution.

.

the three-dimensional numerical integration algorithms of Chapters 7 and 8.1. 9. From the theoretical point of view. then it will be determined naturally as an outcome of the numerical integration algorithm. rather than strain. we are concerned with plane stress problems in which certain components of stress. In spite of the generality of the algorithmic formulations presented in Chapters 7 and 8. 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. where all stress components are unknown – no longer applies and needs to be reformulated. 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. Note that. In spite of its triviality within the realm of linear elasticity. Here.1 (page 193). As a result. page 193. having formulated the generic three-dimensional integration algorithms (as we did in Chapters 7 and 8).1. cannot be used in general without modiﬁcations.1. Clearly.1). 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. 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. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. are constrained to be zero. the treatment of the plane stress constraint in elastoplastic problems requires further consideration and justiﬁes a chapter of its own. the original statement of the elastoplastic initial value problem – Problem 7. Ltd . attention has been focused on generic three-dimensional states of stress and strain – conditions under which the elastoplastic models were formulated in Chapter 6. a generic plane Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. 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.9 PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY I N the numerical solution of elastoplastic initial value problems addressed in the previous two chapters. if the corresponding stress component is generally non-vanishing (such as the normal out-of-plane stress in plane strain problems). The conditions addressed in the present chapter are quite different from those discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. With indices 1 and 2 associated with the in-plane directions and index 3 corresponding to the normal (transverse or thickness) direction.

let us now review the simple case of linear isotropic plane stress elasticity. PLANE STRESS LINEAR ELASTICITY Before going further. equivalently. 3K + 4G (9. The relationship between the non-zero stress components and the in-plane strains is given by the well-known expression 1 σ11 E ν σ22 = 1 − ν2 σ12 0 ν 1 0 0 ε11 0 ε .3) which. The plane stress state.1. stress state is deﬁned by a stress tensor σ11 [σ] = σ12 0 σ12 σ22 0 0 0.4) (9.1.358 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ12 e3 σ22 σ12 σ11 e2 e1 t Figure 9. 1 − ν 22 2ε12 2 (9.1) The corresponding subspace of plane stress states can be deﬁned as Spl ≡ {σ | σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0}.2) 9. in terms of the shear and bulk moduli reads 1+α α 0 ε11 σ11 1 + α 0 ε22 . 0 (9. σ22 = 2G α 1 0 0 σ12 2ε12 2 where α= 3K − 2G .5) . (9.1.

1. of the elastic strain tensor and internal variable set.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 359 the three-dimensional elastic law as follows. (9. as a result. The original three-dimensional elastoplastic initial value problem (Problem 7. the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. ε12 (t)}.8) 3K − 2G ν (ε11 + ε22 ) = − (ε11 + ε22 ). K − 2G 3 K− K+ 0 0 0 2 3G 4 3G This relationship is derived directly from Firstly. 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. t ∈ [t0 . 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. T ]. ε22 (t). and given the history of the in-plane components of the strain tensor {ε11 (t). . ε11 . 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 = . Problem 9. THE CONSTRAINED ELASTOPLASTIC INITIAL VALUE PROBLEM The concept of constraining the original three-dimensional constitutive equation in order to obtain its plane stress counterpart can be extended to the elastoplastic case. and then obtaining.6) we prescribe the in-plane strain components. ε22 and ε12 together with the (zero) outof-plane stress components. ε33 = − 3K + 4G 1−ν In summary. (9. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ).1. 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. page 193) is accordingly redeﬁned in constrained form as follows. σ23 and σ13 .1 (The plane stress elastoplastic initial value problem). 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. σ33 . ε23 = 0. 0 2ε12 0 2ε23 2ε13 G 0 (9.7) ∗ 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.

1.12) . some modiﬁcation is required in the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. This strategy has been implemented in program HYPLAS for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. satisfy the plane stress constraint σ(t) = ρ ¯ σ(t) ∈ Spl for each instant t ∈ [t0 . (9. A(t)) ≤ 0. (b) and (c) are equivalent in that. the three methodologies produce identical incremental plane stress constitutive equations.360 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ﬁnd the functions εe (t). (7. similarly to the procedure of item (a). ˙ with ∂ψ ∂ψ . 9. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). A(t) = ρ ¯ e ∂ε ∂α and. The nested iteration procedure is implemented in program HYPLAS for the Drucker–Prager model. to which the present chapter is restricted. α(t) and γ(t).12) imposed upon the three-dimensional model is enforced. PROCEDURES FOR PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY In order to ﬁnd a numerical approximation to the solution of the above plane stress elastoplastic evolution problem. The essential difference between distinct approaches in this case lies in the way that the plane stress constraint (9.10) (9. Remark 9. A(t)) ˙ and γ(t) ≥ 0. in addition. (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. for the elastic strain. the plane stress constraint is enforced at the Gauss point level. 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. A(t)) = 0.25) (refer to page 196) applied at the Gauss point level. provided the same numerical scheme is used in the discretisation of the elastoplastic evolution equations. T ]. .22) and (7. ˙ (9. This approach can also be implemented by means of a nested Newton return-mapping iteration for plane stress enforcement. 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). A(t)) ˙ (9.9) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t).3.1.11) Φ(σ(t). Issues related to the explicit implementation of plane stress models are addressed by Marques (1984).21). (c) use of plane stress-projected constitutive equations where. For the implicit scheme. Approaches (a).

αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe . The return mapping now requires the solution of the augmented algebraic system εe = εe trial − ∆γ Nn+1 n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αn + ∆γ Hn+1 Φ(σn+1 . † Note that if the elastic behaviour is nonlinear. the solution of the above system can be undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. and 9.1 above. is also given in Section 9. .15) As in the standard non-constrained case.1. n+1 (9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 for the variables εe . An+1 ) = 0 σ13 (εe . The complete description of the computational implementation.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. If plastic admissibility is violated.2.2. In Section 9. the plane stress-constrained elastic equations may not be obtained as trivially as in the linear case reviewed in Section 9. 23 εe trial . An ) > 0.e.25) (page 196) and letting the out-ofplane components of the elastic trial strain tensor become unknowns of the new system. it consists of simply adding the extra equations σ13 (εe .13) to the general system of return-mapping equations (7.4.† plastic consistency is checked in the usual way. an outline of the FORTRAN code of the von Mises model implementation with nested iterations is shown. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . After performing a plane stress-constrained elastic trial state evaluation.3 as the underlying model/algorithm. ∆γ and the elastic trial components n+1 εe trial . if Φ(σtrial .2. respectively. 9. The third strategy is described in Section 9. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . 13 εe trial . 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. i.4 where the von Mises model is used as an example for completeness.14) then the return-mapping procedure has to be applied.3. n+1 αn+1 ) = 0 (9. including the FORTRAN code. approaches (a) and (b) are discussed below in Sections 9.2. This procedure appears to have been suggested ﬁrstly by Aravas (1987) in the context of pressure-dependent plasticity. 33 (9. αn+1 . αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe . For the fully implicit algorithm.

33 33 (9. In this case the only extra equation to be added to the general three-dimensional return mapping is‡ σ33 (εe .16) which ensures that σ13 and σ23 vanish. the plane stress condition implies that ε13 = εe = εp = 0. Under elastoplastic isotropy. Instead of giving εn+1 (or εe trial ) as the input of an augmented n+1 algebraic system (as described in the above). ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . This approach. 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. 13 13 ε23 = εe = εp = 0.362 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9. page 215). αn+1 ) = 0. 23 23 (9. let us consider the isotropic case where stress and strain transverse shear components vanish identically as discussed above.2.3. the in-plane displacements are prescribed and so is the in-plane strain array εn+1 . we deﬁne some initial guess for the unknown (εe )trial . having Gurson’s void growth model (described in Section 12. . 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 . is described in the following. Next.18) (9. It should be emphasised. § Axisymmetric implementations of the general integration algorithm have been included in the corresponding routines for all material models discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. 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. One possible guess can be the previously 33 n+1 (equilibrium) converged out-of-plane elastic strain. We note that such simpliﬁcations have reduced the return mapping for the von Mises model to a single nonlinear equation (Section 7. for instance. In order to describe the procedure. considerable simpliﬁcation of the return-mapping algebraic system may be achieved by exploiting particular properties of the material model in question. n+1 with the associated extra unknown εe trial . that.17) During a typical equilibrium iteration. i.2. from page 496) as the underlying material. we can set εe trial := (εe )n .5.2.e. For simplicity. as for the three-dimensional case. Firstly. we proceed as follows. ‡ The original algorithm proposed by Aravas (1987) was derived under such isotropy conditions. (9. 33 9. however. introduced by Dodds (1987) within the implicit implementation of the von Mises model.19) Here the subscript n + 1 has been dropped for notational convenience.1. we use the augmented strain array T [εe trial εe trial ]T 33 as the input of the integration algorithm for the axisymmetric case.§ Note that an out-of-plane strain component must be prescribed for the axisymmetric algorithm.

the present procedure is computationally expensive. D22 (9.21) that relates the transverse stress and strain components. in computational terms. Thus. for each global equilibrium loop. |σ33 | ≤ tol ) then the guess εe trial indeed solves the 33 plane stress problem. however. 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. An outline of its specialisation to the von Mises model is presented in the next section. Remark 9. together with the in-plane strain kinematically 33 prescribed by the global equilibrium iteration. that the cost of the calculations carried out at the Gauss point level increases approximately linearly with the problem size. . Otherwise. for any ¶ The implementation of the axisymmetric consistent tangent for the material models of Chapters 7 and 8 is also included in the corresponding routines of HYPLAS. Since the axisymmetric integration algorithm is applied in each iteration of the inner loop.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 .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 363 After application of the axisymmetric elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure. The solution obtained by the nested iteration is identical to that obtained by the previously discussed strategy based on the augmented return-mapping system. n+1 If σ33 = 0 (or. the corresponding routine will return the augmented stress array [σT σ33 ]T .1 in pseudo-code format. 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). whereas the cost of the solution of the global linearised problem increases at a much higher nonlinear rate. 12 dσ33 D21 D22 dεe trial 33 (9. Its main advantage over the augmented system procedure lies in its simplicity. It is important to remember. we apply a Newton–Raphson correction to obtain another guess εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 σ33 . results in zero (or sufﬁciently small) transverse stress upon application of the axisymmetric algorithm. Essentially. Its complete computational implementation for the Drucker–Prager model is included in program HYPLAS.¶ We repeat this process until we ﬁnd the elastic trial thickness strain εe trial that. and the solution obtained by the axisymmetric algorithm is the one we are looking for. Remark 9.2.3. 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 resulting overall algorithm is shown in Box 9. In other words. 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).

4.21)) (v) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to the thickness trial strain εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 (vi) GOTO (ii) σ33 D22 material model. for instance. the von Mises model is used as an example and a possible FORTRAN implementation is outlined in this section.3 (page 235).3.1. Following the steps of Box 9. described in Section 7.3.5 (page 224). without the need for modiﬁcation of the original integration algorithms. 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. (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. Remark 9. The corresponding subroutines are. Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level with nested iterations. and CTVM. 9. 9.3.364 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. whose complete description is given in Section 7. The present strategy is compatible with material models other than elastoplastic. Note that for a linear elastic model. SUVM.4. PLANE STRESS VON MISES WITH NESTED ITERATIONS To illustrate the above concepts.1. an outline of the FORTRAN implementation of the von Mises model in plane stress is given by .2. such as generic nonlinear elastic materials. This is what happens before plastic yielding in analyses involving linear elasticplastic materials such as the von Mises model. respectively.4). the nested iteration loop produces the solution that satisﬁes the standard plane equilibrium together with the trivial plane stress linear elastic law (9. 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 generic (plane strain/axisymmetric) procedures are included in program HYPLAS.

LE.STRAT . The procedure can be made more efﬁcient if a new subroutine that computes only the scalar D22 is used instead.TRUE. RSTAVA. It should be emphasised that no effort has been made to optimise the FORTRAN code suggested above. In the above.IPROPS .RPROPS .*)’Plane stress enforcement loop failed to converge’ SUFAIL=. Note that when CTVM is called.STRES ) C Apply Newton-Raphson correction to normal elastic trial strain D22=DMATX(4.DMATX . 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. is updated only if the plane stress enforcement loop converges.3 ..1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Set initial guess for elastic trial thickness strain.LALGVA . .IPROPS . all components of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix are computed. 2 RSTAUX .. we have created the local array RSTAUX to store the state variables temporarily. E33TRL=RSTAVA(4) C Start N-R loop DO 20 ITER=1. The actual array of state variables.EPFLAG .STRES ) IFPLAS=LALGVA(1) SUFAIL=LALGVA(2) IF(SUFAIL)GOTO 999 C Check plane stress convergence IF(ABS(STRES(4)).RSTAUX . Use previously converged elastic thickness strain.MXITER C Set state variables to values at beginning of increment DO 10 I=1. This is the only component of the consistent tangent required in the plane stress enforcement loop.4) E33TRL=E33TRL-STRES(4)/D22 20 CONTINUE WRITE(*.TOL)THEN C.and break N-R loop in case of convergence GOTO 30 ENDIF C Compute axisymmetric consistent tangent components EPFLAG=IFPLAS CALL CTVM 1( DGAMA . 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 .MSTRE+1 RSTAVA(I)=RSTAUX(I) 40 CONTINUE 999 CONTINUE RETURN The incorporation of the procedure into HYPLAS is a straightforward programming exercise.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. LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE C Set state variables to current updated values DO 40 I=1.3 .

THE CONSISTENT TANGENT FOR THE NESTED ITERATION PROCEDURE To obtain the tangent operator consistent with the above nested iteration algorithm.RSTAVA .4) 13 C Assemble plane stress consistent tangent matrix 14 DO 20 I=1.4) 7 D12(2)=DMATX(2.3.5.366 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9.J)=DMATX(I. .DMATX . n+1 33 which renders dεe trial = 33 −1 D21 dεe trial .3) 12 D22=DMATX(4.22) (9.2) 11 D21(3)=DMATX(4. This. The associated FORTRAN subroutine (not listed here) is named CTDPPN (Consistent Tangent for the Drucker–Prager model in Plane stress with Nested iterations).2.1) 10 D21(2)=DMATX(4. page 235). D22 (9.4) 9 D21(1)=DMATX(4.3 .IPROPS 4 2 RPROPS . Using the (existing) generic consistent tangent calculation routine for the von Mises model.2. D22 dεe trial n+1 (9.4.24) 9. CONSISTENT TANGENT COMPUTATION FOR THE VON MISES MODEL For completeness.4. 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 .21) results in the following consistent tangent relation between the in-plane stress and strain components 1 dσn+1 = D11 − D12 D21 . Its incorporation into HYPLAS can be left as an exercise.23) Substitution of the above expression into (9.3 16 DMATX(I.J)-D12(I)*D21(J)/D22 17 10 CONTINUE 18 20 CONTINUE . CTVM (Section 7.3 15 DO 10 J=1.EPFLAG .4) 8 D12(3)=DMATX(3. we ﬁrst differentiate the residual equation σ33 = 0 of the plane stress enforcement loop. together with (9. 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. we outline below the implementation of the above expressions for the von Mises model.21) gives dσ33 = D21 dεe trial + D22 dεe trial = 0.STRES ) 5 C Decompose into submatrices 6 D12(1)=DMATX(1.

. for simplicity. In this case.26). εe trial ). the present strategy consists For notational convenience. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 ˆ σn+1 ≡ σ12 (εe trial . ∆u = un+1 − un . tn+1 .28) (9.26) n+1 13 23 33 σ22 (εe trial .27) Here and in what follows. the three-dimensional algorithm is used with zero prescribed out-of-plane strains. and plastic) strain vanish identically ε13 = ε23 = 0. At the generic (pseudo-) time station.1. 9.3. let us write the general ﬁnite element equilibrium residual equation for plane problems (plane stress/strain).3. σij (with the superimposed hat) denote the algorithmic constitutive ˆ functionals for the stress components deﬁned by the three-dimensional elastoplastic integration algorithm. Firstly. elastic trial. the plane stress constraint is satisﬁed only at converged (equilibrium) conﬁgurations. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 where εe trial ≡ εe + B ∆u = [ εe trial εe trial εe trial ]T .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 367 9. εe trial . Note that in the plane strain case.25) where B is the in-plane symmetric gradient operator (with only the three rows associated with ext the in-plane strain components ε11 . 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. Under such a condition. ε22 and ε12 ). we have r≡ Ω ext BT σn+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0. εe trial . 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. the dependence of the in-plane stress components on the transverse shear strain components is removed from (9. εe trial . we shall restrict ourselves in what follows to the more usual situation of elastoplastic isotropy where the transverse shear components of stress and (total. the functional dependence of the stress components on the state variables at tn is not explicitly indicated. (9. (9. εe trial . εe trial . εe trial . (9. rather than in the constitutive integration algorithm applied at the Gauss point level. THE METHOD Again. which contains only in-plane forces. it does not require the modiﬁcation of the three-dimensional elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm. fn+1 is the applied external force vector at tn+1 . At the Gauss point level. This approach has been proposed by de Borst (1991). n+1 n 11 22 12 with ∆u denoting the array of incremental nodal displacements. and σ is the array of in-plane stress components σ11 (εe trial . Its main advantage is the fact that. as the above described nested iteration approach. σ13 = σ23 = 0. The method is described in the following. elastic.

The linearised version of (9.29).21)). This gives δε33 = − 1 1 [D21 B δu(e) + σ33 ] = − [D21 δε + σ33 ]. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the new residual equation is obtained by linearising (9. is deﬁned as K∗ ≡ Ω (9.29). σ33 is the algorithmic constitutive function for the transverse stress component ˆ resulting from the three-dimensional integration algorithm. both the equilibrium and plane stress conditions are solved simultaneously.30)2 can be solved explicitly for δε33 . n+1 33 In the above. Firstly. reads ngausp nelem T (i) (i) (i) w(i) B(i) {D11 B(i) δu(e) + D12 δε33 } = −r e=1 i=1 (9.31) where the superscript i has been omitted. D21 and D22 are submatrices of the matrix form of the consistent tangent operator associated with the axisymmetric integration algorithm (see expression (9.368 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS simply in adding the zero transverse stress constraint to the ﬁnite element equilibrium equation (9. The linearised residual equation can be simpliﬁed as follows. D22 (9. where the modiﬁed tangent stiffness matrix. σ33 (εe trial . The resulting residual equations are accordingly redeﬁned as BT σ ext n+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0 Ω (9. D12 .34) . D22 (9.33) 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 . e A where D11 .p. With the substitution of this result into (9. 9. equation (9. i of each elem. K∗ .29) in each Gauss point.30) (i) (i) (i) (i) D21 B(i) δu(e) + D22 δε33 = −σ33 for each g. THE IMPLEMENTATION In the ﬁnite element procedure.32) BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ.25). 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. D22 D22 (9.3.2. where the unknowns are the iterative changes of nodal displacement and thickness strain (or elastic trial strain) at Gauss points.30)1 we obtain the linearised equation for the iterative nodal displacement array K∗ δu = −r∗ .

THEN EXIT ELSE GOTO (i) tol for all Gauss points of In summary. (iii) Update in-plane elastic trial strain δε := B δu(e) . δε33 . εe trial ) 33 ˆ σ33 := σ33 (εe trial . where the modiﬁed Newton–Raphson global equilibrium iteration loop is shown in standard pseudo-code format. the explicit expression (9. Thus. in general.31) to determine the corresponding iterative change of thickness strain (or thickness elastic trial strain). 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.2. Plane stress constraint at the structural level. 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.32) and using. εe trial := εe trial + δε n+1 n+1 u := u + δu (iv) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to thickness elastic trial strain δε33 := − 1 [D21 δε + σ33 ] D22 εe trial := εe trial + δε33 33 33 (v) Update stresses ˆ n+1 σn+1 := σ(εe trial . The main modiﬁcation consists in replacing the standard linearised equilibrium equation with (9. the plane stress . (i) Compute modiﬁed tangent stiffness K∗ := Ω BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ D22 (ii) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to nodal displacements δu := −[K∗ ]−1 r∗ . The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 369 Box 9.2. after computation of the iterative displacement δu. Remark 9.5. the present procedure requires only a relatively simple modiﬁcation of the global equilibrium Newton–Raphson iteration loop. The modiﬁed global equilibrium iteration loop.

4.7. Plane stress-projected plasticity models Finally. it is convenient to deﬁne precisely the meaning of plane stress-projected model.2 and 9.4).4) deﬁne the plane stress-projected elastic constitutive equation and the out-of-plane strains are given in closed form by (9. 9.2 and the use of plane stressprojected evolution equations (addressed in Section 9. σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0. Remark 9. we address the methodology of item (c) on page 360: the use of plane stress-projected plasticity models. Remark 9. The model adopted by Simo and Taylor . 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. However. is derived in detail together with the corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. In such cases.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. This is due to the use of a reduced set of equations involving only the relevant in-plane components. 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). 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. at the same time. 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. For complex models. This is at variance with the procedures presented previously. The situation here is completely analogous to plane stress linear elasticity where expressions (9.2.8).3.1. where the plane stress constraint is always enforced at each Gauss point. (b) are equivalent to the three-dimensional model with the added plane stress constraint deﬁned in Problem 9. The use of plane-stress projected equations leads in general to more efﬁcient computational procedures.6. Unlike the procedures discussed in Section 9. we recommend the use of the methods discussed in Sections 9. incorporating general nonlinear isotropic hardening. In this case.3) or (9. it may not be easy or feasible to derive such relations. Before proceeding. Explicit schemes do not incorporate equilibrium iterations. 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. whether or not the global equilibrium convergence criterion is satisﬁed. 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. the in-plane stress/strain components are the primary variables which have to be determined directly by solving the rate evolution equations. in Section 9.

13 εe = 0. 22 1 − ν 11 (9. Thus.37) σ23 (εe ) = 0.3 (page 374) where the corresponding ﬁnal equations are summarised.36) is equivalent to the well-known relations εe = 0.36) In addition. The equations and algorithms derived by these authors are analogous to those presented here but account for transverse shear stresses and strains. 23 εe = − 33 ν (εe + εe ).1.4. which become important in the analysis of thick shells. σ33 (εe ) = 0. the plastic incompressibility that follows from (9. the history of the out-of-plane strain components is . 33 11 22 As s13 = s23 = 0 under a plane stress state.35) Under plane stress. γ Φ = 0.35)4 gives εp = −(εp + εp ). as the elastic behaviour is linear and isotropic. 13 23 (9. (9. (9. ˙ 3J2 (s) − σy (¯p ) ε ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 s 2 s (9. the above equations are complemented with the constraints σ13 (εe ) = 0. we ﬁrstly need to derive explicit expressions relating the elastic and plastic out-of-plane strain components to the in-plane components. The plane stress-projected equations To obtain the plane stress-projected von Mises equations. We start by observing that. it also follows from (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 371 includes combined isotropic and Prager’s linear kinematic hardening whereas the derivation presented by Jetteur is restricted to purely isotropic hardening. THE PLANE STRESS-PROJECTED 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. Another application of the projected equations concept is reported by Ramm and Matzenmiller (1987) in the context of large deformation shell analysis. 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 ≥ 0.38) The above relations completely deﬁne the out-of-plane strain components as functions of the in-plane values.39) (9. under plane stress.35)4 that εp = εp = 0. ˙ Φ ≤ 0. 9.

11 22 12 Note that upright bold-face characters are used to denote the matrix representation. 3 (9. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . γ Φ = 0. 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 (9.41) p sαβ ε = γ 3 ˙αβ ˙ 2 σ σ − 1 (σ )2 γδ γδ γγ 3 ˙p ε = γ ¯ ˙ γ ≥ 0. εp = [εp εp 2εp ]T . the array s of plane deviator components can be s = [s11 s22 s12 ]T εe = [εe εe 2εe ]T 11 22 12 (9.3.41)2.43) 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 .40) which holds under plane stress condition. in component form.44) .4 we have made use of the identity s = σαβ σαβ − 1 (σαα )2 . with the history of the out-of-plane (elastic and plastic) strain components completely prescribed. s ≡ σ − 1 tr[σ] I. Dαβγδ denote the components of the plane stress elasticity tensor – the fourth-order counterpart of the matrix taking part in expressions (9.41)3. (9. This results in the plane stress-projected set of equations which.42) (9. ε33 (t) = − 22 11 22 1 − ν 11 Finally. From the deﬁnition of the deviatoric stress tensor. 9. In deriving (9. This identity is obtained by introducing the plane stress constraint into the deﬁnition √ s ≡ s : s.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) .4). ˙ ˙ where summation on repeated indices is implied with Greek subscripts ranging between 1 ¯e and 2.35). In equation (9. Φ ≤ 0. we can now eliminate them from the original set of equations (9.

and having [tn .46) 0. respectively. For the derivation of the integration algorithm to be described in the next section.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 7.47) of the evolution equations. we start by computing the elastic . in the present case.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 ≥ 0.2 (from page 217). the plane stress-projected von Mises equations (9. Then. 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.47)5.47)4 and (9.3.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 373 expressed as s = Pσ. ˙ ˙ (9. (9.2.47) where De is the plane stress elasticity matrix.4. Φ ≤ 0. in the set (9. The corresponding implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is derived subsequently. Within the framework of general elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes discussed in Chapter 7. where P is the matrix deﬁned by P≡ 1 −1 3 0 2 −1 0 2 0 (9.45) With the above matrix/vector notation at hand. tn+1 ] as the underlying (pseudo-)time interval. 6 (9. 9. it is more convenient to use the squared form of the yield function which.47)3. we replace (9.3. γ Φ = 0. can be handled more easily. (9.

˙ 2 T σ Pσ 3 Φ ≤ 0.50) The next step is to check for plastic admissibility of the elastic trial state. i. if Φtrial ≤ 0. Elastic law σ = De εe σ ≡ [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . (9. Elastoplastic strain split ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp ε ≡ [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T .52) . Yield function deﬁnition 2 Φ = 1 σT Pσ − 1 σy (¯p ). Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ ˙ εp = γ 5. 0 0 1−ν 2 0 0 6 εe ≡ [εe εe 2εe ]T . 1. ¯n (9.3. 2.e. n+1 n+1 2 3 (9. tn+1 ] ∆ε = εe − εe . Plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening. n+1 n 2 εn+1 Φtrial = 1 (σtrial )T Pσtrial − 1 σy (¯p trial ). γΦ=0 ˙ predictor state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n σtrial = De εe trial n+1 n+1 εp trial ¯n+1 = εp . Loading/unloading criterion γ ≥ 0.49) where ∆ε is the given (in-plane) strain increment associated with the interval [tn . ε 2 3 2 −1 0 −1 2 0 4.51) If the elastic trial state is admissible. 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. We then compute (9. Hardening variable evolution ∂Φ = γ Pσ ˙ ∂σ ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6.374 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9.

by substituting (9. With .58) (9. it is also possible to reduce the number of unknowns of the plane stress-projected return-mapping equations for the von Mises model. ∆γ.57) using the Newton–Raphson algorithm. n+1 (9. Firstly. To this end. and C is the inverse of the elastic matrix C ≡ (De )−1 .57) Here we have conveniently deﬁned ξ(∆γ) ≡ (σtrial )T AT (∆γ) P A(∆γ)σtrial . the return-mapping algorithm needs to be applied as described in the following. 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) = 0.55)2. The original return-mapping system reduces to σn+1 = [C + ∆γ P]−1 C σtrial n+1 (9. (9. n+1 ¯n+1 n+1 As in the three-dimensional case discussed in Section 7.53) Otherwise.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 375 then the process is elastic within [tn . we solve the consistency equation (9.54) 2 − 1 σy (¯p ) = 0. (9. εp and ∆γ where σn+1 is a function of εe deﬁned by the elastic law.55) 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 − 1 2 3 σy εp ¯n + ∆γ 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 = 0.3.54) can be reduced to a single scalar nonlinear equation having the incremental plastic multiplier as the unknown. and the plastic multiplier. εn+1 3 for εe . n+1 n+1 with A(∆γ) ≡ [C + ∆γ P]−1 C. (9.54)1 using the inverse elastic law.59) Thus. we substitute (9.54)3 and rearrange (9. the return mapping for the plane stress von Mises model is carried out as follows. The ﬁve-variable return-mapping system (9.56) Finally.2 (page 217).55)1 into the consistency condition (9. tn+1 ] and we update (·)n+1 = (·)trial .54)2 into (9. The plane stress-projected return mapping The implicit return mapping in the present case consists in solving the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe trial − ∆γ Pσn+1 n+1 n+1 εp = εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 (9. where the unknowns now are the stress array. σn+1 .

The plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with isotropic hardening is summarised in Boxes 9.4.59) involves the sum.4. The solution of the plane stress-projected consistency equation (9. In program HYPLAS. Newton–Raphson return-mapping solution The reader might have realised already that the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the consistency equation (9. the explicit expression for (9. 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 plane stress-projected return-mapping equation (9.57) is potentially cumbersome.61) Remark 9.57) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. page 223) whose only source of nonlinearity is the hardening curve and which becomes linear for perfectly plastic and linearly hardening models. By applying the orthogonal transformation 1 √ 2 1 Q = − √ 2 0 1 √ 2 1 √ 2 0 0 0 1 (9.5.62) . The Newton–Raphson procedure is shown in Box 9. This is in contrast with its threedimensional counterpart (see equation (7.5 in pseudo-code format. in turn. in the present case where the elastic behaviour is isotropic.60) If required. This is because the scalar function ξ deﬁned in (9.3.4 and 9. the in-plane plastic strains are updated by εp = εp + ∆γ Pσn+1 . Its implementation follows the simpliﬁcation obtained below by exploiting the properties of matrices P and De . Fortunately. (9. regardless of the prescribed hardening function σy .376 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the solution ∆γ at hand. is a function whose deﬁnition (9. 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).57) is always nonlinear in ∆γ.57) can be signiﬁcantly simpliﬁed. page 219.8. the procedure is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). whose FORTRAN code is shown in Section 9.58) depends on a matrix A(∆γ) which.3. inversion and multiplication of other matrices. and the comments made at the beginning of Section 7.91). n n+1 (9.

0 G 0 (9. Given the in-plane incremental strains.4.5 – 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. we obtain the diagonal representations 1 P∗ ≡ QPQT = 0 0 and 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2G 0 .64) . HYPLAS procedure: SUVMPS (i) Elastic predictor. 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 . ∆ε. and the state variables at tn . Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. 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. Plane stressprojected von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening.69) to P and De . a2 := (σ22 − σ11 )2 .63) E 1 − ν De∗ ≡ QDe QT = 0 0 (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 377 Box 9. Solve the nonlinear equation ˜ Φ(∆γ) = 0 for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson method – GOTO Box 9.

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 . SUBROUTINE SUVMPS The above plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS of HYPLAS.5 (page 224).3. The list of arguments of SUVMPS is identical to that of its general (plane strain/axisymmetric) counterpart described in Section 7. expression (9. can be written as A(∆γ) = QT A∗ (∆γ) Q. The corresponding representation of the elastic trial stress array reads 1 trial trial √ (σ 11 + σ22 ) 2 1 trial ∗ trial (9.65) where C∗ = [De ∗ ]−1 .67) The pseudo-code of the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation (9. which takes part in the stress update formula (9.3. 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ A∗ = 22 1 . using the above expression for ξ. Note that matrix A(∆γ).4.65). in view of (9. (9. is shown in Box 9.68) Thus.62) and (9. 1 + 2G ∆γ A∗ = A∗ .69) (9. (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 6 1+ E ∆γ 2 3(1−ν) + (9.70) 9. (9.58) 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 . n+1 n+1 trial σ12 With the above transformed variables. 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) .66) σtrial ≡ Q σtrial = √2 (σ22 − σ11 ).378 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS On the same basis. 33 22 (9.5.57). We refer to that section for the description of the arguments.60)1. Note that the same approach to .

which uses a piecewise linear hardening curve.4 the description of nonlinear isotropic hardening. .4 and 9.5. 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. Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 379 Box 9. the symbolic names of most variables resemble those of the corresponding name given in the text.5. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 ˜ and corresponding residual. This should allow readers easily to correlate the FORTRAN instructions with the corresponding expressions of Boxes 9. where the plane stress integration algorithm is summarised. The complete list of the FORTRAN source code of SUVMPS is given below. Again. is adopted here.

STRAT .IPROPS .0D0.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) . C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE. LALGVA(2).RPROPS(*) . SUFAIL=.MSTRE=4 .set previously (equilibrium) converged accumulated plastic strain EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C Shear and bulk moduli and other necessary constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R4G=R4*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 R1D6=R1/R6 R2D3=R2*R1D3 SQR2D3=SQRT(R2D3) R4GD3=R4G*R1D3 C Elastic predictor: Compute elastic trial state C ---------------------------------------------C Volumetric strain FACTOR=R2G/(BULK+R4GD3) EEV=(STRAT(1)+STRAT(2))*FACTOR C Elastic trial deviatoric strain EEVD3=EEV/R3 EET(1)=STRAT(1)-EEVD3 EET(2)=STRAT(2)-EEVD3 C Convert engineering shear component into physical component EET(3)=STRAT(3)*RP5 C Elastic trial stress components PT=BULK*EEV STREST(1)=R2G*EET(1)+PT STREST(2)=R2G*EET(2)+PT STREST(3)=R2G*EET(3) C Compute yield function value at trial state A1=(STREST(1)+STREST(2))*(STREST(1)+STREST(2)) . 2 RSTAVA .RPROPS .0D0.R4 .0D0.4-5).6.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.NTYPE .0D0.0D0.NE.4.TOL / 2 0.FALSE.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 .STREST(NSTRE) DATA 1 R0 . 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .1)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0031’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.NSTRE=3 ) LOGICAL IFPLAS.0.R6 .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. C.1. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) ..LALGVA .5D0.RP5 .2.3.R3 .0D0.1.FALSE.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .R1 ..R2 .O-Z) PARAMETER( IPHARD=4 .

5) C ----------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.GT.MXITER C Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.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..LE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.TOL)THEN C update accumulated plastic strain RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR C update stress components: sigma := A sigma^trial ASTAR1=R3*(R1-POISS)/(R3*(R1-POISS)+YOUNG*DGAMA) ASTAR2=R1/(R1+R2G*DGAMA) A11=RP5*(ASTAR1+ASTAR2) A22=A11 A12=RP5*(ASTAR1-ASTAR2) A21=A12 A33=ASTAR2 STRES(1)=A11*STREST(1)+A12*STREST(2) STRES(2)=A21*STREST(1)+A22*STREST(2) STRES(3)=A33*STREST(3) C compute corresponding elastic (engineering) strain components FACTG=R1/R2G P=R1D3*(STRES(1)+STRES(2)) EEV=P/BULK EEVD3=R1D3*EEV RSTAVA(1)=FACTG*(R2D3*STRES(1)-R1D3*STRES(2))+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTG*(R2D3*STRES(2)-R1D3*STRES(1))+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTG*STRES(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=-POISS/(R1-POISS)*(RSTAVA(1)+RSTAVA(2)) GOTO 999 . EPBAR=EPBARN SQRTXI=SQRT(XI) B1=R1 B2=R1 FMODU=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-POISS)) DO 10 NRITER=1.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the plane stress-projected return mapping C equation for the plastic multiplier (Box 9.TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .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.TRUE.NHARD.NHARD.NHARD.yield function PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------IF(PHI/SIGMAY.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C..

71) where σn+1 is the outcome of the plane stress-projected return-mapping algorithm. From the 3 (1 − 4Hξ 2 3 H ∆γ) dξ. together with the elastic law. (9.TRUE. 2 σy H 3 2 ξ. 2 d∆γ 3 (9. (9.4. 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 9.4.75) . gives dσn+1 = E[dεtrial − d∆γ Pσn+1 ].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=.54)1 which. it immediately follows that d∆γ = which holds under plastic ﬂow.2 (page 232). dεn+1 dεn+1 (9.4. We start by differentiating (9. The explicit expression for Dep is derived analogously to its three-dimensional counterpart discussed in Section 7.74) In the above. n+1 where we have deﬁned E ≡ [C + ∆γP]−1 .73) Differentiation of the plastic consistency (9. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR With the matrix notation adopted throughout the preceding sections.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. we have used the identity σy = above equation. the elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix is deﬁned as Dep ≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 = trial .72) (9.

yields the identity dE = −E P E d∆γ. The elastic tangent is the standard plane stress linear elasticity matrix. The argument list of CTVMPS is identical to that of its general counterpart CTVM.72) and straightforward algebraic manipulations gives dσn+1 = [E − α (EPσn+1 ) ⊗ (EPσn+1 )] dεtrial . Its computation in program HYPLAS is carried out in subroutine CTVMPS (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress).75) followed by the substitution of the resulting expression into (9. the scalar ξ deﬁned by (9. n+1 where the scalar α is deﬁned as α= 1 σT PEPσn+1 + n+1 2ξH 3−2H ∆γ (9. (9. together with the use of the chain rule in (9.5. This subroutine is described in the next section.78) . This relation.76) Substitution of the above formula into (9. the present routine returns either the elastic or the elastoplastic tangent operator. page 235).3. 9.4.77) (9. 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).80) The step-by-step procedure for evaluation of the above elastoplastic tangent is summarised in Box 9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 383 By using the elastic law and the above deﬁnition of matrix E.58) can be equivalently written as ξ = (εtrial )T E P E εtrial . The elastoplastic tangent is that given by expression (9.79) 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 ). valid for any invertible M.6.3 for a complete description of the arguments of CTVMPS. As in the standard implementation (plane strain/axisymmetric) of routine CTVM (see Section 7. . ∗∗ In deriving (9. (9. SUBROUTINE CTVMPS The FORTRAN implementation of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit plane stress-projected integration algorithm for the von Mises model is described in this section.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 .4.73). The reader is therefore referred to Section 7.4.6 in pseudo-code format.80) and its evaluation follows the ﬂow of Box 9.

384 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. 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.MSTRE). whose FORTRAN source code is listed below. matrix E appearing in the procedure of Box 9. εp and ∆γ (outcome of the return mapping of Box 9. 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ ∗ E22 = 2G .SOID(MSTRE) . . 2 (9.6 can be represented as 1 ∗ 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 2 (E11 + E22 ) 2 (E11 − E22 ) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (9.NTYPE .VECN(3) .81) E(∆γ) = 1 (E11 − E22 ) 1 (E11 + E22 ) 0 2 2 ∗ 0 0 E33 with ∗ E11 = 3E .69).EPFLAG 3 2 RPROPS .STRES 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.82) A similar expression is obtained for the product EP.IPROPS ) . 1 + 2G ∆γ ∗ E33 = ∗ E22 .IPROPS(*) 10 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . 1 SUBROUTINE CTVMPS 2 1( DGAMA .O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . .STRES(MSTRE) 11 C Local arrays 12 DIMENSION 13 1 FOID(MSTRE.MSTRE=4) 6 LOGICAL EPFLAG 7 C Array arguments 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE.MSTRE) . Computation of the elastoplastic tangent operator for the plane stressprojected von Mises model. HYPLAS procedure: CTVMPS (i) Given σn+1 .4).RSTAVA .6.RPROPS(*) .DMATX . This representation is exploited in subroutine CTVMPS.

PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 385 DATA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATA 1 2 SOID(1) 1.0D0 .0.0D0 .0D0 / / FOID(1.FOID(4.0D0 .0D0 .1).0D0 .0D0 / FOID(4.FOID(3.R3 .NHARD.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 .FOID(4.1).4)/ 0.0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .FOID(1.R2 .FOID(3.FOID(3.0.4.1).0D0 .2).0.2).1.SOID(3) .3).4)/ 0.0D0 .FOID(2.0.2).0D0 .3).4)/ 1.5D0 .0D0 .SOID(4) . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 .0D0 .0D0.FOID(2.3.1.3).SOID(2) .3).0.0D0 .0.6) 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.1.0.FOID(1.FOID(2.R1 .1.1.0.4)/ 0.0D0 .0D0 / FOID(2.2.1)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 9.0. C PLANE STRESS IMPLEMENTATION ONLY.FOID(4.2).5D0.0D0.0D0 / FOID(3.0.1).R4 / 2 0.0D0.FOID(1.NE.0.0D0 .

NSTRE 110 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. In all examples. we present a selected set of benchmarking numerical examples involving plane stress plasticity.NSTRE 103 DO 10 J=I.1)=DMATX(1. the equilibrium convergence tolerance for the relative residual norm was set to 10−7 %.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(3) 90 DMATX(2.3) 94 DMATX(3.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(3) 93 DMATX(3. The results have been obtained with program HYPLAS with the full Newton– Raphson scheme selected for the equilibrium iterations.1)=DMATX(1. .2)=E12-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(2) DMATX(1.2)=DMATX(2. The numerical results obtained in the ﬁrst two examples is compared with existing analytical solutions.1)=E11-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(1) DMATX(1.NSTRE-1 109 DO 30 I=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) 95 DMATX(3.2)=E22-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(2) 92 DMATX(2. Numerical examples In this section.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 105 10 CONTINUE 106 20 CONTINUE 107 C lower triangle 108 DO 40 J=1.5.2) 91 DMATX(2.NSTRE 104 DMATX(I.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.J)=R2G*FOID(I.J)=DMATX(J.I) 111 30 CONTINUE 112 40 CONTINUE 113 ENDIF 114 RETURN 115 END 89 88 9.

4.5.2. Due to the symmetry of the problem around the centre of the hole only a 10o slice of the geometry is discretised. The load level at the end of the last increment is F = 30.1 for increments 2. the analytical limit load is Flim = 30 KN. the evolution of the residuals (out-of-balance forces) during the global Newton–Raphson iterations is shown in Table 9. has been fully described in Sections 9.2. boundary conditions. to emphasise the quadratic rates of equilibrium convergence attained as a result of the consistent linearisation of the algorithmic constitutive rule. 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 9.2. The plate is made from a von Mises perfectly plastic material.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 387 9. For the present geometry and material properties. the cantilever is effectively collapsing and equilibrium can no longer be found for reasonably sized load increments. The analytical solution to this problem.7 of Chakrabarty (1987). the breadth and width of the cross-section and L is the length of the cantilever. eight-noded quadrilaterals are usually employed in conjunction with the nine-point Gaussian quadrature.3). Here. COLLAPSE OF AN END-LOADED CANTILEVER In this example. In the ﬁnite element model.4. is found in Section 5. which follows the plane-stress projected approach. The relative error is approximately 1. The geometry. where the plate is considered to be an inﬁnite medium in plane stress state.4). The cantilever is modelled with 2 × 50 eight-noded quadrilaterals (element type QUAD 8 of HYPLAS) with 2×2-point (reduced) Gauss quadrature. Note that for increment 6 (the last load increment) the cantilever is effectively collapsing (see the load-deﬂection diagram of Figure 9. The plane stress implementation of the von Mises model. the plate has a large radius (as compared to the radius of the hole) in order to emulate the inﬁnite planar medium.5.2. The above solution is derived in detail in section 4.1.4. 9. respectively.3. Finally. 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. 4 and 6. Flim = 4L where b. The numerical solution is obtained here by applying six load increments to the loaded node shown in Figure 9.2 of Lubliner (1990).2 and 9. ﬁnite element model and material properties are illustrated in Figure 9. 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.4. It should be noted that the numerically obtained collapse load is in excellent agreement with the theoretical limit. . The analytical limit load for this problem is given by σy bh2 . At that stage. At this point. the problem is solved by using the mesh shown in Figure 9.3594 KN. we study the problem of the plastic collapse of an end-loaded cantilever beam with a rectangular cross-section. A perfectly plastic von Mises material model in plane stress is assumed. Under plane stress conditions. h are. The resulting vertical deﬂection of the loaded node is plotted against the applied force for each increment in Figure 9.2%.

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. End-loaded cantilever. p/σy . 30 applied load.2. End-loaded cantilever.5 against the normalised applied pressure.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) F b = 50 mm h = 100 mm L = 1000 mm Figure 9. the pressure p is increased gradually until a limit load is attained.388 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties: E = 210 GPa ν = 0. Seven load increments are used to reach p = 0. In the ﬁnite element simulation. results virtually identical to those obtained by the nine-point Gauss quadrature. underintegration is not required here. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model. with less computational effort. is informed by the fact that it produces. The analytical . as locking is not an issue in plane stress problems. As opposed to plane strain applications. where u is the radial displacement of the mid-side node of the loaded edge – is plotted in Figure 9. The choice of the ﬁve-point integration rule in the present example. The resulting normalised radial expansion – u/a. Load-deﬂection diagram.3 σy = 0.3.2853 – the numerical pressure limit at which global convergence cannot be obtained for any signiﬁcant load increment.

σy 3 The limit pressure obtained in the simulation is about 3% higher than the analytical value.0625 KN Increment 6 ∆F = 0. In the present problem. 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.895831 E + 01 0. respectively.015625 KN 0.128691 E + 01 0. 2 r . a 3 In the elastic region – where the radial coordinate r satisﬁes r ≥ c – the radial and hoop stresses are given. by σy c2 σr = − √ 3 r2 σy c2 and σθ = √ .1 (page 244).751. End-loaded cantilever.155.549382 E − 09 normalised limit pressure is plim 2 = √ ≈ 1. Similarly to the problem studied in Section 7.634491 E + 00 0. Convergence table.104585 E − 02 0. The hoop and radial stress distribution along the radial direction obtained at different stages of loading is shown in Figure 9. The corresponding analytical solution is also plotted for comparison.5.533184 E + 00 0.380886 E + 01 0.205624 E + 01 0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 389 Table 9.295108 E − 01 0. 6 3 where.629249 E − 01 0. the radius of the plastic zone has the limit value √ clim π = eπ/ 3 cos ≈ 1.526293 E − 10 0.464825 E + 00 0.248066 E + 01 0. 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 . when the above limit pressure is reached. for a given c ≤ clim . φ is the implicit function of r deﬁned by √ c2 = e 3φ cos φ.162250 E − 06 0.414654 E − 08 0.6.139026 E − 03 0.1. 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. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Increment 2 ∆F = 10 KN Increment 4 ∆F = 0.717926 E − 01 0.486441 E − 04 0.

14 mm is imposed on the constrained edge in seven .3 σ y = 0. only one quarter of the complete domain is discretised with the appropriate kinematic constraints being imposed along the symmetry edges.7.5.4.390 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties (von Mises model): E = 210 GPa ν = 0. 1986).2 normalised pressure.8 numerical result analytical limit (1.02 radial expansion at edge. This classical example is frequently used as a benchmark for the plane stress implementation of plasticity models (Fuschi et al. p/σy 0. boundary conditions and material properties are shown in Figure 9.3. Inﬁnite plate with a hole. A total vertical displacement u = 0..24 GPa (perfectly plastic) p 10 o a =10 mm 100 mm Figure 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. 1. Simo and Taylor. 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. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model. 9. Inﬁnite plate with a hole.4 0 0 0. The geometry. 1992. u/a Figure 9. Pressure-expansion diagram.5. For symmetry reasons.01 0. A linearly hardening von Mises law is adopted.155) 0.

The given material properties for the concrete (also shown in Figure 9.6 1. The top edge nodes (except that on the symmetry line) are free to move horizontally. Inﬁnite plate with a hole. In this problem. The mesh used to discretise the symmetric half of the problem contains 12 × 24 equally sized eight-noded quadrilaterals with four-point Gauss quadrature.2. the HYPLAS implementation of the plane stress Drucker–Prager model follows the nested iteration methodology described in Section 9.25 0 p=0. which shows contour plots of accumulated plastic strain at different stages of the loading process.9. respectively.1 stresses.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 391 0.25 -0. We remark that. Two different sets of material parameters are adopted with the plane stress section of the Drucker–Prager surface matching: . boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are shown in Figure 9.5.4 1. σr and σθ (GPa) p=0. The geometry.8 2 analytical (hoop) analytical (radial) FE results radial position.2 p=0. r/a Figure 9. in contrast to the plane stress-projected approach of the von Mises implementation used in the previous examples.10.1 p=0. 9. the concrete is modelled as an associative perfectly plastic Drucker–Prager material in plane stress. 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.02 mm.2 p=0. The evolution of the plastic front is depicted in Figure 9.2 1.10) are its uniaxial compression and tensile strengths.6.4.2. increments ∆u = 0.8 versus the prescribed displacement.15 -0. Analytical and ﬁnite element results for different applied pressures (indicated pressures levels in GPa). The reaction force obtained over the complete edge is plotted in Figure 9. Stress distribution in the radial direction (r denotes the radial coordinate).3 1 1. 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. denoted fc and ft . Here.20 p=0.20 -0.15 0.

Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.0 1. u (mm) Figure 9.243 + 0. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.08 0. Reaction–deﬂection diagram.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.04 0.16 edge displacement.2 ε p [GPa] d/ 2 sym w/2 Figure 9. 3. sym l /2 Material properties (von Mises) : E = 70 GPa ν = 0.0 edge reaction (KN) 2.2 linear hardening: _ _ σy ( ε p ) = 0. boundary conditions and ﬁnite element mesh..0 0 0 0.8. Geometry.12 0. .7.

Please Wait.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 393 Please Wait. . Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.01 0. and the cohesion.06 mm Please Wait. A schematic representation of the corresponding yield surfaces is given in Figure 6. u = 0.14 mm Figure 9. for the above are given by (refer to expressions (6. ¯ (a) the given uniaxial data.04 0..10 0.07 0.57o. φ.10 mm u = 0..02 mm 0.16 (page 169). (b) the biaxial tension and compression limits of the Mohr–Coulomb surface that matches the given uniaxial data.09 0.58 MPa.. Contour plots of accumulated plastic strain.06 0.127)) φ = 56. Please Wait.9.03 0. c.08 0. u = 0..00 u = 0.05 0. The frictional angle.125–6. c = 4.02 0. εp .11 0.

447672 E − 08 Increment 6 0. Other predictions can be obtained by using the outer or inner edge Drucker– Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb surface (refer to Section 6. until collapse occurs. in cases (a) and (b) to reach a numerical limit load. with arc-length control. The failure mechanism is illustrated in Figure 9. failure occurs by crushing of the material near the support under a combination of shear and compressive stresses. respectively.198868 E − 00 0. 2539 KN/m and 276 KN/m. Table 9.10) is shown in Figure 9.2 shows the evolution of the normalised residuals (out-of-balance forces) during typical global Newton iterations at sample load increments.134854 E + 01 0.394 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Table 9.541467 E − 10 Increment 9 0. In these cases (not shown on the load-deﬂection graphs) the predicted limit loads are.101283 E + 02 0. limit loads can be signiﬁcantly overestimated when the uniaxial match is used under such conditions. To emphasise the quadratic (equilibrium) convergence rates resulting from the consistent linearisation of the nested iteration-based integration algorithm. the present example is not meant to be a practical engineering application. This example illustrates the huge discrepancy that may exist between results obtained with different types of Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. A total of 16 and 10 increments are used. Instead.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.102911 E + 02 0. The most conservative one is that produced by the inner match approximation.282426 E − 05 0. The biaxial match on the other hand produces a conservative prediction. respectively. Convergence table. In the numerical simulation.5 KN/m. The applied load versus vertical deﬂection of the midpoint of the lower edge (point A of Figure 9. . the load is applied incrementally.653716 E − 04 0. shear walls are made from reinforced rather than plain concrete. from page 166) corresponding to the given uniaxial data. in practice.2. becoming worse towards the biaxial compression state. As pointed out in Section 6.567046 E + 01 0. Within the ﬁnite element environment of HYPLAS. This is particularly true in the present case where the ratio fc /ft is high. It should be emphasised that.4.495802 E + 00 0.12 where the direction of the incremental nodal displacements at failure are plotted for the biaxial match case. effects of reinforcement could be accounted for by adding steel elements (the reinforcement) on top of an appropriately designed background plain concrete mesh. it serves to illustrate the performance of the (nested iteration) plane stress Drucker–Prager model.904595 E − 02 0. The limit load obtained with the uniaxial match is about nine times that obtained with the biaxial match.4.4.4.11.822378 E − 03 0. Shear wall. In the present example. Thus. The numerical limit load in the uniaxial match case is 3045 KN/m whereas with the biaxial match the limit load is 335. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 Increment 2 0.557241 E + 01 0.

P Geometry: l = 1. (b) biaxial match. t = 0.10.2 1.75 MPa h A l/8 l Figure 9. . Shear wall. Load versus vertical deﬂection at point A: (a) uniaxial match.5 MPa ft ’ = 2.2 fc’ = 30. P (KN/m) 3000 300 2000 200 1000 100 0 vertical deflection at node A (mm) 0 0 0.0 3.18 m h = 1.1 m Material properties: E = 2.0 2. Geometry and ﬁnite element model.4 0. Shear wall.6 vertical deflection at node A (mm) (a) (b) Figure 9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 395 Uniformly distributed load. 400 applied load.75 x 104 MPa ν = 0.8 1.11.0 applied load.20 m thickness. P (KN/m) 0 1.

13). which have the same format as those of the plane stress-projected model. η2 .12.83) . The equations derived here are completely analogous to the plane-stress projected equations discussed earlier. 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. be approximated by constraining appropriate components of the stress tensor. under many practical conditions.6. are also derived. 9. The corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator.6. Shear wall. To illustrate further applications of those concepts. 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. plates and shells can. Other stress-constrained states Plane stress is certainly not the only stress-constrained state of practical interest in engineering analysis and design. Within the context of linear elasticity. This assumption results in the following representation for the strain components ε13 . 9. Following the standard kinematic hypotheses that characterise two-dimensional Timoshenko beams.1. Incremental displacements at failure.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. States of stress arising typically in structures such as beams. 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. In the present case we will end up with a beam state-projected set of evolution equations for von Mises plasticity. 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. ε23 and ε33 at any point with local coordinates (η1 .

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

Having done so. s ≡ 2s23 = 2σ23 . In what follows.88) C C C σ13 dA σ23 dA σ33 dA (9. are dependent on s33 1 1 s11 = s22 = − 2 s33 = − 3 σ33 . it is convenient here to introduce the matrix notation 2s13 2σ13 σ13 (9. Note that the generally nonvanishing components s11 and s22 . 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. the cross-section integration can be performed numerically by means of. (9. u and ω) the history of the strain components ε13 . 2 σ33 s33 σ33 3 where sij denote components of the deviatoric stress tensor. 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 . the constitutive relationship between the history of the generalised strains and the resultant forces is obtained as follows. Resultant forces/generalised strains constitutive relation In the present context. say. a Gauss quadrature. The beam state-projected von Mises model Analogously to what has been done in the derivation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model. we need to integrate the elastoplastic evolution equations so as to produce the corresponding stress σ. 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. At the element level.85) has to be satisﬁed. the resultant forces n and m are then obtained by integration of the stresses over the cross-section according to their deﬁnition. Given the history of γ and κ (directly ¯ obtained from the history of generalised displacements.87) C m2 = − m3 = C C (η1 σ23 − η2 σ13 ) dA. With the prescribed strain components. ε22 and ε12 which can be calculated a posteriori.398 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS integration of the non-vanishing stress components over the beam cross-section.89) σ ≡ σ23 . 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.83). Clearly.90) .

the projected version of the von Mises yield function can be deﬁned as Φ(σ. Given the history of the total independent strain components. ˙ γ Φ(σ. the beam state-projected von Mises evolution equations are deﬁned as follows. With the above notation. ε13 (t). 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. εp ) > 0. for the three-dimensional Timoshenko beam is given simply by G 0 0 (9.86) and has only the relevant non-vanishing stress components as arguments. εp ) ≡ 3 σT P σ − σy (¯p ). Finally. De . εe (t). and ε33 (t) – the history of the strain arrays ε – the basic initial value problem now consists of ﬁnding the functions εp (t).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 399 The stress and stress deviator arrays are related by s = P σ.96) The elastic matrix. εp ) ≥ 0. ¯ ε (9. 2 3 (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. ˙ ¯ (9. it is also convenient to deﬁne the following notation for the independent (engineering) strain components e p 2ε13 2ε13 2ε13 . ε23 (t).97) De = 0 G 0 . ¯ γ ≥ 0.91) (9.95) . εp ≡ 2εp .93) ε ≡ 2ε23 . where the projection matrix P is here given by 2 0 P ≡ 0 2 0 0 0 0 . εe ≡ 2εe e23 p23 ε33 ε33 ε33 The yield function.92) In order to formulate the constrained evolution equations. 0 0 E ˙p ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 2 √ Pσ σT Pσ (9. The beam state-projected von Mises equations. (9.

2. implies that 12 ε12 = εe = εp = 0. the elastoplastic additive strain decomposition together with the elastic relation.99) From the three-dimensional von Mises equations.57. 11 11 9.98) 12 12 The three-dimensional Timoshenko beam constraint on stresses also imply that εe = εe = 11 22 −K εe . the history of the dependent strain components. ε11 . for constrained stress states. the total strain components ε11 and ε22 are obtained from the additive elastoplastic split of the total strain tensor (9.3.102) .58).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 . εp = 0 for constrained ˙12 stress states.4. the rates εp . is prescribed in the underlying initial value problem. The main difference between the two formulations is the fact that. these components are dependent variables whose evolution is a consequence of the constraint on the stress state. σ12 = 2G εe . consequently. ε22 and ε12 . with matrix P redeﬁned by (9. (9.6. is obtained as follows. the history of the total strain components. ε12 and ε22 .86). 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. Evolution of the dependent strain components. 1 we have εp = εp = − 2 εp . The ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the plastic multiplier can be cast in the same format as equations (9.2. ε11 . 2(G + K) 33 (9.100) εp = εp = − 1 εp . so that the components εp and εp are promptly found to be ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 11 22 given by (9.400 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. As σ12 = 0 and. whereas. 9. it follows that. 11 22 2 33 Finally. (9.101) ε11 = ε22 = εe + εp . in the three-dimensional case. Having determined the history of the independent strains by integrating the constrained elastoplastic evolution equations. Under stress states that satisfy the constraint (9. in the constrained case. 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.

106) E(∆γ) = 1 + 2G ∆γ E 0 0 2 1 + 3 E ∆γ With the appropriate redeﬁnition of the relevant terms. Dep . the computation of the derivative ξ is replaced by ξ := trial trial trial −8G[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 8E (σ33 )2 − . As in the return mapping described above. (1 + 2G ∆γ)3 9(1 + 2 E ∆γ)3 3 (9. (9. 3 (9.103) 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. The ﬁnal expression has the same format as (9. 0 0 (9.6.5.105) The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus.4 and 9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 401 With the above matrix. the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be computed as in Box 9.104) In the Newton algorithm of Box 9. is analogous to that of the plane stress-projected model addressed in Section 9.4.80) where the matrix E is here redeﬁned as G 0 0 1 + 2G ∆γ G .58) has the following explicit expression trial trial trial 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 2(σ33 )2 ξ(∆γ) ≡ + .4. .5 except that A and ξ (as well as De and the stress and strain arrays) have now the above new deﬁnitions and trial trial trial ξ trial := 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] + 2 (σ33 )2 . the derivation of the corresponding elastoplastic consistent tangent.

.

3 introduces the modelling of anisotropic plasticity. In many cases. In this context. Ltd . Recall that. essentially. all examples of numerical implementation of plasticity models have been limited to basic theories. T 10. the use of a linear elastic law can be justiﬁed whenever the considered range of hydrostatic pressures is sufﬁciently narrow. the Hill model (Hill. Sections 10. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. Note. Section 10. Models of this type are frequently used in the ﬁnite element modelling of soil mechanics problems.1. Cam-Clay-type models can be used within a multiphase environment with coupling between solid behaviour and ﬂow through porous media. 1989) are discussed in detail. 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. the modelling of plastic compaction – a phenomenon of particular relevance in the behaviour of geomaterials – and the modelling of plastic anisotropy. 1950). 1967) – here referred to as the Hoffman model – and the Barlat–Lian model for sheet metals (Barlat and Lian. Here. for instance. The new theoretical concepts introduced in this chapter are. in Chapters 7– 9.1 and 10. that the computational implementation of elastoplastic models possessing such new features reduces to mere specialisations of the general framework discussed in the preceding chapters. 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. In soil mechanics applications. respectively. 1981.2 describe. we move one step further and apply the same underlying concepts to more advanced models. These models are characterised by plastic compressibility. together with the computational treatment of the Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models with isotropic strain hardening. however. when dealing with soil consolidation problems. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. and Muir Wood 1990).10 ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS HIS chapter is devoted to more advanced plasticity models. a model based on the Hoffman anisotropic criterion (Hoffman. to Naylor et al. hardening (softening) associated with compressive (dilatant) plastic ﬂow and a possibly nonlinear elasticity law to model the hydrostatic pressure/volumetric elastic strain relation (refer. the treatment of a modiﬁed Cam-Clay model and a capped Drucker–Prager model – both mainly applicable to the description of geomaterials.

1. Modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. along directions p and q. the yield locus becomes an ellipse with radii a and M a. we will focus on a version of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model whose yield surface (refer to Figure 10. THE MODEL Let p and q denote. Here.1) is deﬁned by a yield function of the form Φ(σ. respectively. for any β > 0. q) = (pt − a. The parameter M is the slope of the critical state line. the two horizontal halves of the surface intersect in a smooth fashion at (p. M a). The dashed line in Figure 10.1 is named the critical state line. a is the radius of the ellipse along the pressure axis and pt is the tensile yield hydrostatic stress. . Yield surface. This parameter modiﬁes the radius of the second half of the ellipse on the compressive side of the hydrostatic axis.1) where the constant M is the ratio between the two radii of the Cam-Clay ellipse.1. 10.1.404 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS q 1 M yield surface Φ=0 0 p βa pc a pt Figure 10. (10. the hydrostatic stress and the von Mises effective stress. The elastic domain of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model is delimited by an elliptic yield surface in the p–q space. If β = 1. The portion of the p–q plane on the right of the intersection between the critical state line and the Cam-Clay ellipse is named the supercritical region and the portion on its left is the subcritical region. respectively. Note that. where β is a material constant.2) b= β if p < pt − a. The parameter b takes the values 1 if p ≥ pt − a (10. a) = 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + 2 b M 2 − a2 .

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

10. by Simo and Meschke (1993) and Owen et al.1 (Hardening behaviour). Firstly.e.13) where qn+1 is the von Mises effective stress associated with sn+1 . the linearly independent components of sn+1 and the incremental plastic multiplier. for instance. b2 where the updated hardening variable is given by the equation α n+1 = α n − ∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]. The implementation of Cam-Clay-type models with nonlinear elastic laws is described. . i. In this case.1. as the unknowns. ∆γ. v (10.11) pn+1 = ptrial − K∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]. pn+1 . M2 (10. We remark.25) (page 196) for the present model results in the system of equations comprising (10.2. following the comments on the volumetric plastic strain rate made immediately after expression (10. b2 (10. hardening (expansion of the elastic domain) occurs only in the subcritical region. 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) The return-mapping algorithm is derived as follows.12) In addition. (10. under hydrostatic pressures p < pt − a. The hardening function a(α) (or pc (α)) is usually expected to be monotonically increasing in its argument. that is.13).4) of the plastic ﬂow and the elastic relations. that it is sometimes convenient to adopt nonlinear elasticity laws with models of this type. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Here we shall adopt a linear elasticity law to model the reversible behaviour of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. 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 .406 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Remark 10. 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). d ptrial = K εe trial . having αn+1 . however. Particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. (1998).5).11)–(10. a increases with increasing plastic compression. by observing the deviatoric/volumetric split (10. The return-mapping algorithm The elastic trial state computation follows the usual format: strial = 2G εe trial .

that is. qn+1 = q(∆γ) ≡ M2 q trial .11)2 and (10. It should be noted.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. 2[p(αn+1 ) − pt + a(αn+1 )] (10.19) and then replacing this result into the ﬁrst equation.11)1 implies that for a given strial the updated stress deviator.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 .16) in (10. by combining (10.17) can be undertaken as usual by the Newton–Raphson algorithm.16) Finally. (10.12) and (10. however. M 2 + 6G ∆γ (10.18) It is worth commenting here that system (10.17) 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. is a function of ∆γ only. (10.11)1 we obtain sn+1 = s(∆γ) ≡ and. we start by noting that (10. after a simple rearrangement in (10. followed by the calculation of the updated stress tensor through the standard relation σn+1 = sn+1 + pn+1 I. For completeness. (10. similarly. Once the solution to the above return-mapping equations is obtained.14). Newton–Raphson solution The solution of (10.14) M2 In addition. the substitution of (10.15) M2 strial . the stress-updating procedure is completed with the computation of sn+1 by means of (10.15) and (10.12) we can write pn+1 = p(αn+1 ) ≡ ptrial + K (αn+1 − αn ). that the above expression cannot be used in practice at p = pt − a.17) for ∆γ: ∆γ = ∆γ(αn+1 ) ≡ b2 (αn − αn+1 ) . + 6G ∆γ (10. for qn+1 . sn+1 .ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 407 Reduced equation system In order to obtain an equivalent reduced system of equations for the return mapping. an explicit expression for the linear system to be solved for the iterative .

13) we obtain 2 ∂Nv = 2 I.11)–(10. (10.26) Here we should note that tangential relation (10. The elastoplastic consistent tangent To derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.23) has a similar format to that of (7. we resort to the general procedure of Section 7.20) (10.4. ¯ ¯ da . dα (10.24) (10.408 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 . α) = (k−1) (∆γ (k−1) . in which the elastic trial strain tensor is also treated as a variable.3).21) (10. from (10. we start by differentiating the full system of return-mapping equations which.13) together with the trivial update formula (10. comprises (10.23) 0 ∆γ ∂Nv /∂σ 1+ Nv b2 0 d∆γ N ∂Φ/∂α 0 where. ∂σ 3b (10.18). ∂α b (10. ∂σ M In addition.4 (from page 238).25) ∂Φ 2 = 2 (p − pt + a)H − 2aH = (Nv − 2a)H.5 (page 240) as an alternative to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent for the implicit integration of the von Mises model. Accordingly.22) and all terms of the derivative matrix on the right-hand side are evaluated at (∆γ. = (k−1) 2¯ p 2∆γ δα(k) R2 1 + 2 (K + H) b2 b where H is the hardening modulus (the slope of the hardening curve): H = H(α) ≡ the scalar p is deﬁned as ¯ p = p(α) ≡ p(α) − pt + a(α). yields the tangential relationship e −1 [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 N dσn+1 dεe trial 2H∆γ dαn+1 = . in the present case.4. following the deviatoric/volumetric split of (10. The differentiation.141) which was obtained for the implicit implementation of the isotropically hardening von Mises . αn+1 ). which was also applied in Section 7. we write ∂N ∂Nd ∂Nv = +I ⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ with ∂Nd 3 = 2 Id .

(1988a).27) P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ : De (10. its inversion follows completely analogous steps to those leading to (7.3 (from page 324). . compressive plastic ﬂow (compaction) under (possibly pure) compressive hydrostatic stresses can be an important feature of the overall behaviour. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the non-associativity of the adopted hardening law. ˜ N : P : N + (Nv − 2a)Nv H −1 =P− where (10. N coincides with N and symmetry is recovered. 10. Accordingly. For that model (as well as for the Mohr–Coulomb model).148) and yields the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep ≡ ∂σn+1 ∂εe trial 1 ˜ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). from page 243. The p–q plane representation of the yield surface so obtained is illustrated in Figure 10. The reader is referred to the discussion at the beginning of Section 7. In circumstances where plastic compaction is relevant.2. however.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 409 model. that is. I+ 1+ = 2 3b b2 (10. The modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in the previous section already incorporates the possibility of plastic compaction.4. followed by an outline of its numerical treatment. The equations of the resulting multisurface (twosurface) model. Plastic ﬂow under compressive hydrostatic pressure may only be triggered with the superposition of shearing stresses.2. is presented below. the application of an arbitrary compressive hydrostatic pressure alone does not cause plastic ﬂow. 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. The implementation of a Cap-type model similar to that described here is presented by Simo et al.27) is generally unsymmetric. ˜ Also note that in the absence of hardening.6. the elastoplastic tangent operator (10. the standard Drucker–Prager or Mohr– Coulomb plasticity models are not able to capture the actual material behaviour. and 2H∆γ ∂Nv ˜ + 1+ N N ≡ −∆γ(Nv − 2a)H ∂σ b2 2H∆γ −2∆γ(Nv − 2a)H N. 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. A particularly simple choice is the adoption of an elliptical cap as the compressive bounding surface. For many geomaterials.24). if H = 0.28) with ﬂow vector derivative given by (10.29) ˜ Since in general N = N.

32) For a ﬁxed a. where Φa is an equivalent representation of the Drucker–Prager yield function obtained from its original expression (6.2. a) ≤ 0}.33) . the plastic strain rate equation is given by (6. In (10. η= 2/3 M. Φb (σ. Capped Drucker–Prager model. On the smooth part of the cone.157) (10. ξ (10. 10.410 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 10.31) and Φb = 0 deﬁnes the elliptical cap – the modiﬁed Cam-Clay yield surface for subcritical states discussed in the previous section of this chapter. Yield surface.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. 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + β2 M 2 (10.30)1. CAPPED DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL The yield functions of the model are Φa (σ) ≡ Φb (σ.30) − a2 .2.1. (10. the standard generally non-associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule is adopted. a) = J2 (s(σ)) + η [p(σ) − pt ]. Plastic ﬂow rule On the cone.

36) A general p-q plane illustration of the plastic ﬂow directions for the resulting model is given in Figure 10. respectively.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 411 εp cap normal Nb .77) and (6.34) where N a and N b are. given by (10. (6. Following the general representation of associative plastic ﬂow rules for multisurface plasticity models given by (6. The ﬂow vector N a has the standard form Na = 1 η ¯ s + I. the normal to the cap with general expression (10. p Figure 10. (6.3) and (10. (page 176).78). Capped Drucker–Prager model. ˙ ˙ (10. On the cap. where p = pt − a.4).4) is a deviatoric tensor: b N b = Nd = 3 s. respectively.3.3. 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 .166). Flow vectors.158)1 and (6. the (associative) ﬂow rule is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.35) At the cap/cone intersection. At the cone apex.9) and (10. Hardening As for the previously discussed modiﬁed Cam-Clay model (refer to expressions (10.73) (page 156). M2 (10.8)) isotropic strain hardening is incorporated by letting the compaction pressure pc (or. the yield surface parameter a) be a function of the compressive-positive . 3 2 J2 (s) (10. cone flow vector Na εp .160)1 and (6. the ﬂow vector has deviatoric and volumetric components (6.166). 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. equivalently.

1 (from page 325) and 10.2.36): ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . (10. return to the smooth portion of the Drucker–Prager cone.3.2. In this case (refer to Remark 8. the cap moves in the compression (tensile) direction along the hydrostatic line.2.40) (10. is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in Section 10. the returnmapping equations can be solved in closed form. return to the elliptic cap.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. As pc increases (decreases). 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. . deﬁned in (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. with the added simplicity of perfect plasticity. return to the cone/cap intersection. 4. respectively.39) The return-mapping equation for the cone/cap intersection is derived by introducing (10. The return mapping to the cap surface. return to the cone apex.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. together with (10.34)–(10. n+1 d pn+1 = ptrial − K∆εp . 10. in turn. The Drucker–Prager cone remains ﬁxed and is independent of the hardening variable.37) into the general stress update formula sn+1 = strial − 2G∆εp . expanding (shrinking) the elastic domain. 2.38) so that the update formula for the hardening internal variable at the cone/cap intersection is given by αn+1 = αn − η ∆γ a . ¯ (10. n+1 v (10. 3. ¯ v (10. α.7).412 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS volumetric plastic strain.37) and then substituting the resulting expression. 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 (10.1.2 for the Drucker–Prager and modiﬁed Cam-Clay models.4. The two-surface model admits four possible return mappings: 1.1. page 327).3 (from page 324). Its volumetric component reads εp = η ∆γ a .

3. and so on. . The summary of a possible selection algorithm is shown in the ﬂowchart of Figure 10. if the return to the main Drucker–Prager cone was used in the last stress update for that point.4. Capped Drucker–Prager model. Selection of the appropriate return mapping As discussed in detail in Chapter 8. then the current tangent will be consistent with the cone–cap intersection return. when dealing with multivector implementations of multisurface plasticity models. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The elastoplastic consistent tangent will be dependent on the particular return mapping considered. for a given elastic trial state. This will be left as an exercise for the reader.15 (page 330).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 )] . If the cone–cap intersection was the last return mapping used. then the current elastoplastic tangent will be consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone return.4.2. 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. Algorithm for selection of the correct return-mapping procedure. an appropriate algorithm has to be devised to select. 10. as four distinct return procedures are possible for the present model. The situation here is an extension of that studied in Chapter 8 for the standard Drucker–Prager model. 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. the return mapping that fully satisﬁes plastic consistency. Its validity can also be established on the basis of geometrical arguments. that is.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.

1950).3. Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models The elastoplasticity theories discussed so far in this book have been limited by the assumption of elastoplastic isotropy. Hoffman (1967) and Barlat and Lian (1989). e3 } whose vectors coincide with the principal axes of plastic orthotropy. However. However. we have Dep = 0.3. In this section. that is.27) with b = β in (10. Polycrystalline aggregates with sufﬁciently random crystal orientation distribution present an effectively isotropic macroscopic behaviour and can be modelled by conventional isotropic plasticity theories. Anisotropic plasticity: the Hill. must be particularised for the perfectly plastic case.4 (from page 337) which. 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. This property is known as strain-induced plastic anisotropy and is often present in formed metal components.414 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The tangent operator consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone and cone apex return algorithms are those derived in Section 8. 10. In such cases. material behaviour is truly anisotropic with substantial discrepancy among phenomenological properties observed in different material directions. An important instance of anisotropic behaviour arises in polycrystalline metals. Note that. the yield function associated with the Hill criterion . 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). 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. Many such materials (ﬁbre-reinforced polymers are typical examples) are designed so as to produce optimal strength/performance along predeﬁned directions.3. Another class of materials whose anisotropy can be of particular relevance are composites in general. 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.42) For the cap return. in this case. 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. for the present model. 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. in many circumstances of practical interest. With σij denoting the stress tensor components on an orthonormal basis {e1 . we address the modelling and computational implementation of anisotropic phenomenological plasticity models. Attention is focused on the orthotropic models proposed by Hill (1948. 10. when such materials undergo manufacturing processes characterised by extreme straining along preferential directions (rolling is a typical example). (10. e2 .29). the tangent operator is that of (10. at the cone apex.1.

σ22 and σ33 are. with no summation on repeated indices.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. as for the von Mises and Tresca criteria. By recalling the trivial identities σii − σjj = sii − sjj . the yield stress under a stress state ¯ with a single non-zero stress component σij is y σij = σ σij .50) . not necessarily unity σ ). note that under such a stress state it follows from (10. For a generic state of hardening (i.e. s. (10. and σij = sij . The constants F1 .48) (10. ¯ ¯ 0 Pressure insensitivity One important feature of the Hill criterion is the fact that. 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 415 can be cast in the following form: Φ(σ.44) 0 0 0 where σ11 . ¯ 12 23 13 (10. 2 (σ11 22 33 1 1 1 1 − 0 2+ 0 2 . 0 (σ12 )2 F5 = 1 . F5 and F6 are deﬁned as F4 = 1 . σ ) = F1 (σ11 − σ22 )2 + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )2 + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )2 ¯ 2 2 2 + F4 σ12 + F5 σ23 + F6 σ13 − σ 2 . the (generally distinct) uniaxial yield stresses in the directions of e1 . ¯ (10. ¯ The constants F4 . 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) 1 −1 1 1 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 .43) that Φ(σ.46) Indeed. ¯ 0 (10. it is pressure insensitive.47) the Hill yield function can be equivalently written as Φ(σ. σ ) = F1 (s11 − s22 )2 + F2 (s22 − s33 )2 + F3 (s11 − s33 )2 ¯ + F4 s2 + F5 s2 + F6 s2 − σ 2 . 0 (σ13 )2 (10. F2 and F3 are deﬁned as F1 = F2 = F3 = 1 1 1 1 + 0 2− 0 2 . This allows us to express its yield function in terms of the components of the stress deviator.49) (10. only. 0 (σ23 )2 F6 = 1 . e2 and e3 when σ = 1 (here assumed to be the initial state of the material). for i = j. respectively.43) where σ is the relative yield stress (a non-dimensional scalar) which deﬁnes the size (state ¯ of hardening) of the yield surface in the six-dimensional space of stress components. σ ) = 0 ⇐⇒ σij = σ σij .

it is worth remarking that at any given state of shear stress (deﬁned by the components σ12 . σ23 and σ13 relative to the axes of material orthotropy). In order to give the reader some visual insight into properties of the Hill criterion.50).54) (10. we obtain Φ(σ. (10. respectively. we will plot here the corresponding yield surfaces under states of plane stress. an appropriate visual study of anisotropic yield criteria requires plotting such projections with different combinations of ﬁxed stress values. σy (10.and threedimensional projections are obtained by ﬁxing. visualisation of projections of such hypersurfaces on two. (10. yield surfaces for anisotropic models cannot be easily represented graphically. Nevertheless. 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 ). e2 }). The size of the cylinder cross-section (and its intersection with the plane stress space) depends upon the state of shear stress.51) 0 To see this. Two. Geometric representation Unlike isotropic models. Anisotropic yield surfaces are truly six-dimensional hypersurfaces in the space of stress components. 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.55) . four and three stress components and then plotting the corresponding yield locus on the subset of the two or three free stress components. we assume that the above relation holds and set σ11 = σy and σ = 1 in (10.53) The corresponding yield surface is that of the von Mises model with uniaxial yield stress σy : 3 J2 (s) = σy . Before proceeding to the graphical representation. ¯ After a straightforward algebraic manipulation.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 . For plane stress states (on plane {e1 . where we make use of the trivial relation s11 + s22 + s33 = 0. Thus.or three-dimensional yield locus will change if the ﬁxed stress components are changed. In general. σ ) = ¯ 3 2 [s + s2 + s2 + 2(s2 + s2 + s2 )] − 1 22 33 12 23 13 2 2σy 11 3 = 2 J2 (s) − 1.52) (10. the Hill yield surface is deﬁned by 2 2 2 ¯ (F1 + F3 ) σ11 + (F1 + F2 ) σ22 − 2F1 σ11 σ22 + F4 σ12 − σ 2 = 0.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. the two.

the maximum variation of yield strength between the different orthotropy directions is typically less than about 5 to 10%.e. 0 0 σ33 = a33 σ11 . the elastic domain becomes unbounded in some directions and does not correspond to physical behaviour. 0 Note that the von Mises surface. 3 a13 0 0 σ13 = √ σ11 . Finally. different values of a22 ). we conveniently assume the following relations: 0 0 σ22 = a22 σ11 .5). When σ33 decreases (see surfaces with a33 = 0. At this point. 3 (10. the ellipse degenerates into two straight lines and becomes a hyperbola for a33 < 0. In the limit.3). the Hill criterion can provide reasonable approximations to the actual yield surfaces. . (10. in such cases. (10.6) the ellipse is compressed in the biaxial state direction and stretched in a pure shear (σ11 = −σ22 ) direction. the Hill yield 0 surface on the σ11 -σ22 space is plotted for different values of direct yield stress σ22 (i. The surface with a22 = 1 corresponds to that of the von Mises model. let us focus on the effect of the variation of direct yield stresses on the Hill yield surface. with uniaxial yield stress σ11 is recovered if we set a22 = a33 = a12 = a23 = a13 = 1. For a33 > 0. In Figure 10. Essentially. it is important to emphasise that the Hill criterion was originally proposed to model anisotropy of formed steel components.56) 0 where aij are parameters deﬁning all initial yield stresses of the model as a function of σ11 . the original ellipse degenerates into two parallel straight lines (two hyperplanes in the six-dimensional stress space).5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two).6. Thus.5 (see surface with a22 = 0.57) Firstly. the Hill surface is an ellipse intersecting the horizontal axis at ±1 and the vertical axis at ±a22 .7). As σ33 increases (see surface with a33 = 1. a12 0 0 σ12 = √ σ11 . For such materials. as opposed to the usual representation in principal stress space. the ellipse is compressed in the vertical direction but substantially stretched along its longer radius.58) In this case (absence of shear stresses). the parameters a12 .5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). 0). the ellipse stretches in the biaxial state 0 direction. when a22 = 0.5).7 we illustrate the effect of shear stresses on the Hill yield surface.5. if σ12 = σ σ12 (the ¯ 0 shear stress has reached its yield limit) the σ11 -σ22 space surface degenerates to a point at (0. In the next representation of the Hill surface shown in Figure 10.5. Obviously. If a22 increases (see surface plotted for a22 = 1. Clearly. 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.5. in Figure 10. Under such conditions. the surface is represented in the space of direct stresses along ﬁxed axes). For a22 < 0. For a22 > 0. If a22 decreases (refer to the surface with a22 = 0. the yield locus produced by Hill’s function is a set of two hyperbolic (non-convex) surfaces in stress space. a23 and a13 have no effect on the Hill yield function. the Hill surface is always an ellipse intersecting the horizontal and vertical axis 0 at ±1.6.5 and 10.7 and 0. 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). the von Mises ellipse is stretched in the σ22 direction. This effect is illustrated in Figures 10. the Hill criterion is to be used only within certain limits of yield strength variation among the orthotropy directions.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 417 In order to study the effect of the material constants (the yield stresses) on the yield surface. When a33 = 0.5. 3 a23 0 0 σ23 = √ σ11 . assuming no shear stresses and a33 = 1.

3 a 22 = 0.5 0.0 a 22 = 0. . y σ22 /σ11 a 33 =1.5 a 33 =0.4 0 Figure 10.7 y σ11 /σ11 -1 1 -1 a 33 = 0.5 a 33 = 0. Surface plot for various values of a22 with no shear stresses and a33 = 1 (σ33 = σ11 ).6 a 33 =1.5 a 22 =1.5 -1 -0. The Hill orthotropic criterion.5.418 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y σ22 /σ11 1.7 1 a 22 = 0. Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ22 on the yield 0 0 surface.5 a 22 =1.5 1 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -1. Surface plot for various values of a33 with no shear stresses and 0 0 a22 = 1 (σ22 = σ11 ).6. The Hill orthotropic criterion.5 0 Figure 10.0 1 a 33 =0. Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ33 (the transversal yield stress) on the yield surface.

46).5 419 σ12 =0 y σ12 =0.59) The material in this case is assumed to remain orthotropic with constant axes of orthotropy. The Hill orthotropic criterion.2.5 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -0. we postulate ¯ σ = σ (¯p ). 7 and 9. 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. undoubtedly. a22 = 1.5 1 -0.7.5 and a12 = a33 = 1. Remark 10. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface.5 Figure 10. isotropic strain hardening can be easily incorporated into the Hill model by assuming the relative yield stress σ in (10. that the phenomenological modelling of hardening in plastically anisotropic materials is a complex issue which remains open at present.5 -1 -1.43) to be a given function of the von Mises ¯ accumulated plastic strain. however. that is. The approximation provided by simple laws of the above type can be very useful in the ﬁnite element analysis of plastically orthotropic materials and. ¯ ¯ ε (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS y σ22 /σ11 1. all six yield stresses of the Hill criterion will change in strict proportion (isotropically) as the accumulated plastic strain increases. Since general straining of an initially orthotropic material is usually expected to change the yield stresses in different directions by different amounts.5 σ12 1 y σ12 =0. We remark. .5 0.8 σ12 0. Hardening law Analogously to the standard strain-hardening von Mises model thoroughly discussed in Chapters 6. in view of (10. In addition. Surface plot for various values of σ12 with σ23 = σ13 = 0. the model resulting from the above assumptions provides only a ﬁrst approximation to the phenomenon of hardening. εp . or even lead to loss of orthotropy.

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. 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 . ˙12 ˙ εp = γ F5 σ23 . In order to model such effects in orthotropic materials. 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 .43) take into account the trivial identity σij = σji . ˙11 ˙ εp = γ 2[F1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )]. (10.66). that is. owing to the pressure-insensitivity of the Hill criterion. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ F6 σ13 . ∂σij (10. it is important to note that the shear stress contributions to (10. ∂σ (10.64) As expected.61) Before presenting the ﬁnal expressions. ˙33 ˙ εp = γ F4 σ12 . Hoffman (1967) proposed an extension to the Hill criterion described by the following yield function:§ Φ(σ.2. ¯ (10.3. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in some composite materials and is also commonly observed in worked metals.66) § This function was in fact proposed by Hoffman (1967) originally to deﬁne a fracture criterion for brittle materials. . a marked difference is observed between yield stress levels in tension and compression (the Bauschinger effect). Hill’s associative ﬂow rule is found to be given by εp = γ 2[F1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ11 − σ33 )]. with no reference to plastic ﬂow modelling. σij (i = j). What we refer to as the Hoffman model here. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ 2[F2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )]. of the stress tensor read 2 1 2 [F4 (σ12 2 2 2 2 2 + σ21 ) + F5 (σ23 + σ32 ) + F6 (σ13 + σ31 )]. ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 10. the above associative law is volume-preserving. Indeed. (10.65) (10. is an extension of the Hill elastoplastic model with yield criterion and plastic ﬂow rule based on Hoffman’s function (10. the plastic ﬂow is given by the standard equation ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ . (10.63) With the above considerations. i = j.64) implies ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 0. ˙13 ˙ (10.60) Here.62) The actual contributions to Φ from the independent shear components. TENSION–COMPRESSION DISTINCTION: THE HOFFMAN MODEL For many materials.

.8.e. (10.121). .68) (σ12 ) (σ23 ) (σ13 ) and C7 = c t σ11 − σ11 . the contribution of the linear terms on the direct stresses to Φ in (10. . in the absence of shear stresses. c t σ11 σ11 C8 = c t σ22 − σ22 . If for each principal direction of orthotropy the direct yield stress in tension coincides with the direct yield stress in compression. c t 0 σ33 = σ33 = σ33 . when σ = 1) ¯ direct yield stresses along the orthotropy direction i. the Hill criterion is recovered. it should be noted that. page 167). . i.66) will be (C7 + C8 + C9 )p. (10. is . Again. if we set c t 0 σ11 = σ11 = σ11 . the Hoffman criterion is (unlike the Hill criterion) pressure-sensitive. the Hoffman yield surface is an elliptic cone in the σ11 -σ22 -σ33 space.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 421 where σ is the non-dimensional relative yield stress (analogous to that of the Hill criterion) ¯ and C1 . C5 = 0 2 . . c t 0 σ22 = σ22 = σ22 .71) This contribution – a linear function of the hydrostatic pressure – is identical to that of the Drucker–Prager criterion (refer to expression (6. The constraint C7 + C8 + C9 = 0 (10. c t σ33 σ33 (10. only the intersection of the yield surface with the σ11 -σ22 plane. c t σ22 σ22 C9 = c t σ33 − σ33 . The cone intersects the σ11 . C9 are material constants deﬁned as C1 = C2 = C3 = 1 1 1 1 . C6 = 0 2 . C2 . σ23 and σ13 have the same meaning as in the Hill criterion. (10. respectively in tension and compression. F6 of (10. σ22 and σ33 axes at the corresponding prescribed values of (tensile and compressive) direct yield stresses. they denote the initial yield stresses in states of pure shear on the planes of orthotropy. t c − σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 (10. C6 coincide with the constants F1 .72) is the necessary and sufﬁcient condition for the Hoffman criterion to be pressure-insensitive.3 (Hill criterion as a particular case).e. . in general. Indeed.e. . . under a state of pure hydrostatic pressure (σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = p). i. . Remark 10. . In this case. .70) then C7 = C8 = C9 = 0 and the constants C1 . .67) t c with σii and σii (no summation on repeated indices) denoting the initial (i. t σc + σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 11 22 22 33 33 1 1 1 1 . and 1 1 1 C4 = 0 2 . A graphical representation of the Hoffman criterion is shown in Figure 10. In its general form (within the range of applicability of the criterion). However.69) 0 0 0 The constants σ12 .43). t c + σt σc − σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 1 −1 1 1 .

As a result of the pressure-sensitivity of the Hoffman criterion. 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. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ [C9 + 2C2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ33 − σ11 )]. c t σ22 = 0.5 0.422 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t σ22 /σ σ11 1 0.73) As for the Hill criterion (refer to Figure 10.7). ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 ˙ and the plastic ﬂow is isochoric if and only if constraint (10. the Hoffman surface shrinks isotropically with an increase in shear stresses. 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.8.75) .8 σ11 . ¯ Again. t t σ22 = 0.5 1 t σ11 /σ σ11 -0.9 σ11 . (10.72) holds. Analogously to (10.5 -1 Figure 10.64). The volumetric plastic strain rate for the present model is ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = γ (C7 + C8 + C9 ). the above associative ﬂow rule is not volume-preserving in general. the following relations have been chosen: c t σ11 = 1. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ [C8 + 2C1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + 2C2 (σ22 − σ33 )]. t t σ33 = σ11 . the associative component-wise plastic ﬂow equations for the Hoffman model are given by εp = γ [C7 + 2C1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ11 − σ33 )].2 σ11 . (10. The Hoffman orthotropic criterion.5 -1 -0. 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.74) Remark 10. ˙13 ˙ (10. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ C5 σ23 . c c σ33 = σ11 . an associative ﬂow rule is also postulated.4 (Non-isochoric plastic ﬂow).5 -1. plotted. For illustration purposes only. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ C6 σ13 . ˙33 ˙ εp = γ C4 σ12 . Flow rule Here.

ν12 . 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. 3 (no summation on the repeated index) and (i. Clearly. G23 and G31 associated. (10. 2. we shall assume here an orthotropic elasticity law. the shear moduli.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 423 10. G12 . 2. 11 22 12 33 (10. The extension to the full three-dimensional situation is trivial. associated with directions 1. Early implementations of the Hill and Hoffman anisotropic models are described. ν23 and ν31 . 3). Using the ﬁnite element array notation. A plane stress implementation of the Hoffman model in the context of explicit dynamics ﬁnite element analysis is given by Koh et al. by de Borst and Feenstra (1990) and Schellekens and de Borst (1990). . again. (10. no summation on the repeated index. νji + νjk νki Dij = Dii (10.82) and three Poisson’s ratios. with planes 12. j. 2 and 3 of orthotropy respectively. 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. respectively. The orthotropic elastic law As plastically orthotropic composites usually also present a marked elastic orthotropy. These are: the Young’s moduli. E1 . (1995).78) (10. the discussion will be limited to the plane strain and axisymmetric cases.81) The total number of independent elastic constants is nine (in the full three-dimensional case). For simplicity. the stress–elastic strain relation then reads σ = D εe . 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 ) (10.3.80) 1 − νjk νkj for i = j and.79) for i = 1.76) where σe = [σ11 σ22 σ12 σ33 ]T .3. respectively. 23 and 31 and satisfying Gij = Gji . E2 and E3 . εe = [εe εe 2εe εe ]T . (10. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOFFMAN MODEL The computational implementation of the Hoffman model is described in what follows. k) denoting cyclic permutations of (1. and D44 = G12 .77) and D denotes the orthotropic elasticity matrix given by D11 D12 0 D13 D12 D22 0 D23 .

clearly.87) and q = [ C7 C8 0 C9 ]T .66).78). .83) In the plane strain/axisymmetric case. the ﬂow rule (10.89) ˙ ˙ εp : εp = γ ˙ 2 3 2 3 ˙ ˙ (εp )T Z εp (10. That is.88) With the above notation. it is convenient to write the Hoffman yield function (10. the return mapping described below is applied. ¯ ¯n (10.66) in the following equivalent form in terms of the array of stress components: Φ(σ. σ ) = ¯ where C1 + C3 −C1 P=2 0 −C3 1 2 σT Pσ + qT σ − σ 2 . The trial accumulated plastic strain (isotropic hardening state variable) is εp trial = εp .90) (Pσ + q)T Z (Pσ + q). the D matrix here is the orthotropic operator (10.74) can be equivalently expressed in terms of the engineering plastic strain rate array as ˙ εp = γ (Pσ + q).424 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The following relation applies: νji = νij Ej . Return-mapping algorithm For computer implementation purposes. we compute σtrial = D εe trial . with the elasticity operator represented in (10. ¯ −C1 C2 + C1 0 −C2 0 0 C4 0 −C3 (10.84) where.86) −C2 0 C3 + C2 (10. (10. ˙ The rate of accumulated plastic strain. the transverse shear moduli G23 and G31 are not required. Elastic trial state The computation of the elastic trial state proceeds as usual. in turn. Ei (10.78). (10.85) If the trial state is outside the elastic domain deﬁned by the yield function (10. can be represented as ˙ εp ≡ ¯ =γ ˙ 2 3 (10.

92) gives εp = εp (∆γ) ≡ εp + ∆γ{ 2 [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T Z [Pσ(∆γ) + q]} 2 .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. ∆γ. by using the linear elastic law.94). Further. the updated stress. we start by noting that. ¯n+1 ¯ ¯n 3 1 (10. followed by the update of stress and accumulated plastic strain according to (10.91) With the above relations at hand. 0 1 where we have used the deﬁnition 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (10.93) and (10.92) can be expressed. exclusively.96) where δ∆γ (k) = − ˜ Φ(∆γ) ˜ dΦ/d∆γ (k−1) . (10. a direct particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. the k th guess for the solution ∆γ is obtained as ∆γ (k) = ∆γ (k−1) + δ∆γ (k) .95) In summary.97) . with the substitution of the last two expressions in the third equation of (10. To obtain the reduced equation.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 425 1 0 Z= 0 0 0 0 . the return mapping here can also be reduced to the solution of a single equation for the plastic multiplier. the stress-updating procedure for the Hoffman model comprises the solution of (10. as σn+1 = σ(∆γ) ≡ (I + ∆γ DP)−1 (σtrial − ∆γ Dq). respectively. Newton–Raphson solution In the Newton–Raphson iterative scheme to solve (10.95). introduction of the above function in the second equation of (10. after a straightforward manipulation. the ﬁrst equation of system (10.93) that is.92) = 0 .25) (page 196) is obtained as εe − εe trial + ∆γ (Pσn+1 + q) 0 n+1 1 p 2 p T 2 (10.95). 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. (10.94) Finally. σn+1 is a function of ∆γ. (10. σ ε (10.

(10. 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 . we need to use formula (vii) of page 36. and the scalar η is deﬁned as η= 2 T 3N Z (10. Here.92).426 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ˜ The derivative of Φ is given by ˜ dΦ dσ εp ¯ d¯ .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.103) Finally. d¯ ε also evaluated at εp .104) The above operator is clearly unsymmetric.4. with the inversion of (10.4 (from page 238). (10. To obtain an σ ε explicit expression for the derivative of function σ deﬁned by (10.102) N. = [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T − 2 σ (∆γ) H ¯ d∆γ d∆γ d∆γ (10. (10. d∆γ (10. The ﬂow vector N is given by ¯n+1 N = Pσn+1 + q. we shall follow the general procedure of Section 7. A straightforward manipulation then gives dσ = −(I + ∆γ DP)−1 D [P σ(∆γ) + q]. 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.93).98) ¯ where H ≡ d¯ /d¯p is the slope of the (non-dimensional) hardening curve. page 408). we start by differentiating the system (10. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the fact that the adopted hardening rule is non-associative (despite the associativity of the plastic .23). which together with the elastic law.99) With the above expressions at hand. The elastoplastic consistent tangent As in the modiﬁed Cam-Clay implementation presented earlier in this chapter (refer to the text preceding equation (10.101) (10. to derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the Hoffman model.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 .

page 243. This can be seen in Figure 10. written at the outset exclusively in terms of in-plane components of the stress tensor. b. 10. We remark that the criterion becomes isotropic when a = b = h = 1. The parameter h relates the y uniaxial yield strength.10(a). (1989) for an aluminium alloy: M = 8. a.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). For use under the assumption of perfect plasticity (H = 0). (10.3. Under such a condition. with K1 = σ11 + h σ22 .149) for the von Mises isotropically hardening ¯ model. in the principal orthotropy direction 2 with that of direction 1. b and h are material constants and σ11 is the uniaxial yield stress in the principal orthotropy direction 1.02. σ11 ) = f (σ) − 2 (σ11 )M .ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 427 ﬂow rule). Unlike the other plasticity models discussed in this book.6. This will be left as an exercise for the interested reader.107) y where M .10(b). that is. a < 2. 1989) has been proposed to model the behaviour of orthotropic metallic sheets (typically rolled materials) under plane stress. (10.105) (10. 1989) if M > 1.105) is convex (Barlat and Lian. the standard von Mises locus is recovered when M = 2 and the Tresca yield locus is recovered for M = 1 and M → ∞.4. σy y σ22 = 11 . h = 1. a. 2 K2 = σ11 − h σ22 2 2 2 + b2 σ12 .4. The effect of constant a is shown in Figure 10.109) The constant M deﬁnes the curvature of the yield surface.106) where f (σ) ≡ a|K1 + K2 |M + a|K1 − K2 |M + (2 − a)|2 K2 |M . an alternative representation can be obtained following completely analogous steps to those leading to expression (7. Similarly to the previously discussed .24.110) h The effect of the choice of h on the Barlat–Lian yield surface is illustrated in Figure 10. whose equations are ﬁrstly formulated in the sixdimensional stress space and corresponding plane stress versions are subsequently addressed within the framework of Chapter 9. (10. Note that the above formula is analogous to that given by (7. The yield function (10. (10. h > 0. reads y y Φ(σ. The corresponding yield function. Refer to the comments made in Section 7.148). THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL FOR SHEET METALS The Barlat–Lian criterion (Barlat and Lian. σ22 . Its use. the following have been determined by Lege et al. a = 1. (10.15. in this format. 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. b = 1.108) To give the reader an idea of realistic values for these constants. the Barlat–Lian criterion was originally deﬁned in plane stress format.

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. a = b = 1 and h = 2/3 at different levels of shear stress. the presence of shear stresses will shrink the Barlat–Lian yield surface. σ11 ) = g(σ) − σ11 .11. Hill and Hoffman criteria. (10.428 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS M =2 M =2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M = 1. α: y y (10. the yield function has dimension of stress to the power M . In the original deﬁnition (10.2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M =8 M = 40 M =1 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 -1 Figure 10. 2 Note that the yield function now has dimension of stress.105). where we plot yield surfaces obtained with M = 8. Here we take the yield function (10. We remark that (not shown in Figure 10.9. which may produce computationally intractable numbers for large values of material constant M . This effect is illustrated in Figure 10. ∂σ11 (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. For the purposes of computational implementation of the model.112) where g(σ) ≡ [ 1 f (σ)]1/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.111) (10. The Barlat–Lian criterion. Hardening law Analogously to the Hill and Hoffman criteria.5 M = 1.11) an increase (decrease) in constant b will increase (decrease) the rate at which the surface shrinks with increasing shear stress.113) σ11 = σ11 (α). Yield surfaces on σ11 -σ22 plane (in the absence of shear stress) for various values of M with a = h = 1.114) .

5 -1 -1. a = 1.5 -1.5 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS σ22 / σ11 1.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -1 -0. σ22 / σ11 1.5 σ11 y 0.3 σ11 y 1 σ12 =0.5 Figure 10.5 (a) (b) Figure 10.11. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface for M = 8.5 -1 -1 -1.5 y σ12 =0 σ12 =0.5 y 429 y σ22 / σ11 h = 2/3 a=0.5 h= 1 1 1 h= 2 0. The Barlat–Lian criterion.8 1. (b) effect of parameter a with h = 2/3.0 a=1. .5 0. The Barlat–Lian criterion.10.5 -0. h = 2/3 and b = 1. Yield surfaces in the absence of shear for M = 8: (a) effect of parameter h with a = 1.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0.5 0.5 a=1.

˙ (10. we have taken into account the tensorial nature of the shear stress contribution in (10. ˙33 ˙11 ˙22 εp = εp = 0. Thus. following the procedure applied to the plane stress-projected von Mises model.105) (refer to the comments surrounding expression (10.120) Note that.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 .118) (10. − 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 }. β = 1. ∂σ (10. (10. 2. + 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 .37)–(9.40) (refer to page 371).119) (10. The in-plane associative plastic strain rate is given simply by ˙ εp = γ N. The thickness plastic strain rate is obtained by imposing plastic incompressibility and the transversal plastic shear strain rates are assumed to vanish.63)). all out-of-plane strain components can be recovered a posteriori as functions of the in-plane elastic and plastic strains according to relations (9.120) together with the out-of plane rates εp = − ε p − ε p . (10. . to complete the deﬁnition of the model.41)3. we assume the material to be elastically isotropic.116) Equivalently. we have εp = γ ˙αβ ˙ 1 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f . page 372.115) where N≡ ∂g 1 ∂Φ = = ∂σ ∂σ 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f . ˙13 ˙23 (10. ∂σαβ α. Then.121) Finally. in component form. in deriving (10.120).117)–(10.111) is represented analogously to the plane stressprojected von Mises yield function given in (9.430 Flow rule COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The Barlat–Lian yield function (10. the complete set of plastic ﬂow equations comprises (10.

requires no further consideration.3. as we shall see.25) (page 196).125) With this relation and taking into account the linear elasticity law.122) = 0 e 0 Φ(σ(εn+1 ). κn+1 ) where De here denotes the isotropic (plane stress) elasticity operator and the unknowns are σn+1 . (10. for a discussion on the possible need for strategies of this nature). the evolution of κ reads κn+1 = κn + H ∆γ. 0 Φ(σn+1 . Note that. 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. was originally proposed by Dutko et al. including the corresponding consistent tangent operator. we shall assume linear hardening. (10.3. therefore.123) In the derivation of the return mapping presented below.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 431 10. here and in what follows. The return mapping is a specialisation of (7.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL The implicit elastic predictor/plastic corrector computational implementation of the (isotropically strain hardening) Barlat–Lian model. in the discrete setting.e.124) where H is the hardening modulus. 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. κn+1 and ∆γ. the notation y κ ≡ σ11 . i. the return-mapping equation system in the present case cannot be reduced to a single scalar equation. κ(αn+1 )) for the unknowns εe .2 (refer to Box 9. requiring the solution of the algebraic system of equations e εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1 0 αn+1 − αn − ∆γ (10.126) R≡ = 0 . page 199. For convenience in the description of the return-mapping algorithm we have adopted.5. The implementation is a particular case of the general methodology adopted throughout this book but. (1993). The corresponding algorithm and associated consistent tangent operator are described in the following. (10.116) evaluated at n+1 the updated state. where Nn+1 is the ﬂow vector (10. We remark that only the in-plane components of the elastic strain take part in the above equation.4. page 377) and. κ = κ0 + H α. αn+1 and ∆γ. unlike previously described implementations such as those of the von Mises and even the orthotropic Hoffman model. 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. Then. .

where we have used the notation (k) σn+1 (k) . the solution of equation (10. we update the Newton guess for the unknowns according to Σn+1 = Σn+1 + δΣ(k) .133) (10. Σn+1 ≡ κ(k) n+1 (k) ∆γ δσ(k) δΣ(k) ≡ . ∂σ ∂σ (10.129) Straightforward manipulation of system (10.127) Accordingly.130) δσ(k) δκ(k) = −A(k−1) R(k−1) + δ∆γ (k) .132) With the above solution at hand.131) where we have deﬁned A≡ [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 −1 0 H .116). κn+1 and ∆γ. 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 ⊗ .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. it is convenient to split the residual vector R as ¯ R= R Φ . (10. R≡ [De ]−1 : (σn+1 − σtrial ) + ∆γ Nn+1 H −1 (κn+1 − κn ) − ∆γ . (10.432 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Newton–Raphson iteration As usual.128) for the iterative increments of σn+1 . δκ(k) δ∆γ (k) (k) (k−1) (10. 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 (10.134) . (10. To do this.126) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson iterative ¯ scheme. Following (10.

the elastoplastic tangent for the Barlat–Lian model with implicit return mapping is a complete analogy to (7. 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 .137) : De . Under such conditions.6. Consistent tangent operator Again.141). that is. =P− e trial ∂ε N:P:N+H −1 (10. the relation ¯ ¯ |δΣ(k) · R(k) | ≥ |δΣ(k) · R(k−1) | (10.4. and Crisﬁeld 1991). the above operator is symmetric. page 243). To tackle the problem. if for a Newton iteration k ≥ 2 and a prescribed tolerance . 0 0 d∆γ N (10.135) is satisﬁed.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 433 Line-search procedure Dutko et al. Then. by differentiating the return-mapping system (10. small changes in stress on the yield surface result in large changes in ﬂow vector direction. Dutko et al.4. an expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be easily obtained by means of a specialisation of the general procedure of Section 7. characterising a set of stiff evolution equations. Line-search procedures are discussed in detail by Fletcher (1980) (see also Matthies and Strang 1979. (10. obtained for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. εe trial = [De ]−1 : σtrial . then the line-search algorithm is carried out.148) and can be expressed as Dep ≡ where P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ ∂σn+1 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ).136) Note that this differential relation has the same symbolic format as expression (7.126) with respect to its unknowns σn+1 . (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. The interested reader is referred to Dutko et al.138) As a result of the associative nature of the plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law (refer to Section 7. κn+1 and ∆γ as well as to its input. (1993) observed that the convergence bowl of the above Newton–Raphson scheme can be dramatically reduced for larger values of material constant M . . The line-search in the present case is activated whenever the rate of convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations falls below a prescribed minimum. (1993) for a complete description of the algorithm. 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. Accordingly.4.

.

1990.11 VISCOPLASTICITY T HE elastoplastic constitutive theories presented so far in Part Two of this book are classed as rate independent or time independent. identical solutions are produced when a given load (or sequence of loads) is applied at different rates. Section 11. Rate-dependence effects are described by means of so-called viscoplasticity (or rate-dependent plasticity) models.3 the onedimensional viscoplastic theory is generalised to the multidimensional case within the context of von Mises plasticity. 1990. Rateindependent plasticity is shown to be. Skrzypek.2. The integration algorithm and the associated consistent tangent operator are derived step by step. Section 11. from page 71). This establishes a formal link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive framework of Chapter 3. in Section 11. the material response is regarded as independent of the rate of application of loads and/or the timescale of the problems considered. This chapter is organised as follows. a limit case of the general viscoplasticity model. Lubliner. to which the present chapter is devoted. Ltd . rateindependent elastoplasticity models can provide good descriptions of the material behaviour (Lemaitre and Chaboche. A more general multidimensional model is presented in Section 11. Time (or. some simple analytical solutions are presented to demonstrate the ability of the one-dimensional model in capturing the fundamental phenomenological features of viscoplastic behaviour. If such conditions are not met. an error assessment of the numerical integration procedure is presented by means of iso-error maps. This includes the numerical integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic constitutive equations as well as a symbolic form of the associated consistent tangent modulus.4. It motivates the establishment of a one-dimensional mathematical model of viscoplasticity in Section 11.5 proceeds to introduce a numerical framework to treat the general viscoplasticity model within the ﬁnite element environment of Chapter 4. 1993). under some circumstances. However.5.1 presents a brief introduction to phenomenological aspects of viscoplasticity. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.3. then accurate predictions can only be obtained if rate dependence is adequately accounted for by the constitutive model. the observed behaviour of real materials is generally time dependent. The general model can be rigorously described within the constitutive framework of internal variable theories initially referred to in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2. the stress response always depends on the rate of loading and/or the timescale considered. Here.6. The extent of such dependence may or may not be signiﬁcant according to the physical conditions of the problem. more precisely. pseudo-time) is used merely to describe the sequence of events that deﬁnes the history of the loading process. For such theories. the general numerical framework is specialised to a von Mises-based model presented in Section 11. that is. that is. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. In Section 11. In addition. 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. Then.

Prediction of creep behaviour is important. The chapter ends with ﬁnite element examples being shown in Section 11.1(b) show the evolution of plastic strains over time in experiments where tensile specimens have been loaded to different stress levels and left at constant stress during long periods of time. In metals. This is illustrated in Figure 11. Internal damage will be discussed in Chapter 12. in situations where load-carrying metallic components are subjected to long duration loads at high temperatures. the procedures of Section 11. concrete and composites may all present substantially time-dependent mechanical behaviour under many practical circumstances. for instance. is the phenomenon of stress relaxation. but usually becomes signiﬁcant only at higher temperatures. in the design of pre-stressed load-carrying components.1. that is. 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.1(b). clearly. The need for consideration of creep response arises typically in the design and analysis of nuclear reactor and jet turbine engine components.1(a) shows stress–strain curves obtained in uniaxial tensile tests carried out under different prescribed strain rates. for instance. Figure 11. geomaterials in general. illustrated in Figure 11. Strain-rate dependence may be of crucial importance. the rupture limit. The prediction of stress relaxation can be vital. The time-dependent response in this case is characterised by the continuous decay of stress in time. The material experiences a continuous plastic ﬂow that is accelerated for higher stress levels. the strain at which the specimen breaks.436 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS We remark that Section 11. can also be strongly dependent on the rate of straining. for instance. rubbers. Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects Many of the microscopic phenomena underlying the inelastic deformation of solids depend on time.6 is essential for the reader interested in the computational implementation of viscoplasticity. .1(c) shows the typical evolution of stress in a relaxation test. in metal-forming operations such as hot forging and may have to be taken into consideration in the design of the process. In the reported examples. Tertiary creep leads to the ﬁnal rupture of the material and is associated with the evolution of internal damage. for instance.6 are used. the initial yield limit as well as the hardening curve depend strongly on the rate of straining.7. 11. although not shown in Figure 11. typical results of simple uniaxial tension tests with metallic bars at higher temperatures are schematically represented in Figure 11. 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.1(a). 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. The graph of Figure 11. the elasticity modulus is largely independent of the rate of loading but. This rate-dependence is also observed at low temperatures.1. Another aspect of time dependence is the phenomenon of creep. The high strain rates shown towards the end of the schematic curves for high and moderate stresses is the phenomenon known as tertiary creep. Materials such as metals. To illustrate this fact. It is also important to emphasise that. In general.1. The third aspect of rate dependence. The curves of Figure 11.

11. (11.1) . One-dimensional viscoplasticity model Similarly to what has been done in Chapter 6 for rate-independent plasticity (refer to Section 6.2. Uniaxial tests at different strain rates. Thus.2. we devote this section to the description of a simple uniaxial viscoplastic constitutive model. the uniaxial model possesses all the basic ingredients of the multidimensional models discussed in the remainder of this chapter. Viscoplasticity. ELASTOPLASTIC DECOMPOSITION OF THE AXIAL STRAIN As for the rate-independent case.1. the decomposition of the total axial strain into a sum of an elastic (recoverable) and a plastic (permanent) component is introduced.1.1. In particular. in spite of its simplicity. Phenomenological aspects: uniaxial tensile tests at high temperature. Stress decay at constant strain. (c) Relaxation. (b) Creep. from page 141). the model is able to capture many of the main features of the viscoplastic behaviour depicted in Figure 11.2. (a) Strain rate dependence. we ﬁnd it convenient to introduce viscoplasticity by focusing ﬁrst on a simple one-dimensional theory. As we shall see. Plastic ﬂow at constant stress.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. ε = εe + εp . 11.

Here.6) 0 if Φ(σ. Firstly. 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 . 11.2. The elastic domain is deﬁned as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ. σy ) = µ ˙ (11.2.3) where σy is the yield stress.2. the plastic strain rate in (11. some models of viscoplasticity do not have an elastic domain. THE YIELD FUNCTION AND THE ELASTIC DOMAIN Here. the explicit function for γ should model how the rate of plastic straining ˙ varies with the level of stress.10). so that the behaviour is purely elastic whenever |σ| < σy .2. Such models do not require the deﬁnition of a yield function.4) (11. Many forms are possible for γ and a discussion on this issue ˙ will be left for Section 11. 11. 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. σy ) = |σ| − σy .5) (11. which describes the evolution of εp .438 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11.2 and the viscoplasticity model introduced here lies in the deﬁnition of the ﬂow rule. Essentially. the above constitutive equation for εp differs fundamentally from (6. In that case. † As we shall see later in this chapter.2) where sign is the signum function deﬁned by (6.11). σy ) ≥ 0 σy γ(σ. .2. the actual timescale is irrelevant. the elastic domain can be conveniently deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ(σ. it needs to be emphasised that in the rateindependent model the plastic strain rate is in fact a pseudo-time rate. analogously to the rateindependent model of Section 6. In spite of its similarity to the rate-independent ﬂow rule.† Thus. VISCOPLASTIC FLOW RULE The crucial difference between the uniaxial elastoplastic model of Section 6.5) is the actual time derivative of εp . The viscoplastic ﬂow rule can be postulated with a format similar to that of the rate-independent case (see equation (6.2. ˙ ˙ (11. the existence of an elastic domain for the stress within which the material behaviour is purely elastic is also experimentally observed in many cases.10). page 144) εp = γ(σ. In addition to this conceptual difference.7 (page 146) in the rate-independent theory – is here a given explicit function of σ and σy .4. we will deﬁne the one-dimensional viscoplasticity model by adopting the following particular deﬁnition 1/ 1 |σ| −1 if Φ(σ.3.3. σy ) < 0. γ – named the plastic multiplier and determined by the procedure of ˙ Section 6. (11. that is. σy ) < 0}. σy ) sign(σ). In contrast.

1 discussed some of the phenomenological aspects of viscoplastic behaviour.5. This particular form has been introduced by Peri´ (1993) similarly to the power law form of c the viscoplastic potential proposed by Perzyna (1963). Both parameters are strictly positive. One important aspect to be emphasised here is that. µ. SOME SIMPLE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS Section 11. To illustrate this and give the reader a better insight into the theory. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional viscoplasticity model is deﬁned by the constinutive equations (11.7) εp = ¯ 0 |εp | dt.1)–(11. the model is referred to as perfectly viscoplastic. For convenience we summarise the model in Box 11.8) Note that (11.6. 11. ˙ (11. the above-deﬁned one-dimensional model can capture the key phenomenological features of rate-dependent plasticity shown in Figure 11. we derive in this section analytical solutions for three simple problems where the basic properties of creep at constant stress.8). HARDENING LAW In the rate-independent case. the bar will initially deform (also instantaneously) in a purely elastic manner. Creeping at constant stress Let us consider the case of a bar subjected to an axial load that produces a uniform stress σ > σy over its cross-section.2. ˙ an increase of σy will be referred to as hardening whereas its reduction will be described as softening. With the instantaneous loading (at time t = 0). As in the elastoplastic case. 11.6) implies that at a given constant applied stress σ. The load is applied instantaneously and. strain rate dependence of the stress response and stress relaxation under constant strain are reproduced by the one-dimensional model. when the material behaviour may be assumed rate-independent. in spite of its simplicity.VISCOPLASTICITY 439 where the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter µ. an increase (decrease) in σy will produce a decrease (increase) in the plastic strain rate εp . . after being applied. As a general rule.2. and the non-dimensional rate-sensitivity parameter. 11. σy . → 0 for sufﬁciently low temperatures. whose dimension is time. For many metals. In the viscoplastic model. If σy is a constant.7. be a given (experimentally determined) function σy = σy (¯p ) ε of the accumulated plastic strain t (11.1. It is important to emphasise that the material parameters µ and are temperature dependent.2. remains constant in time. hardening can be incorporated in the same manner as in the elastoplastic case by letting the yield stress. as temperature increases (decreases) µ and increase (decrease).1. the phenomenon of hardening describes the changes in yield stress that result from plastic straining. The fact that the model behaviour is elastic under .

immediately after the instantaneous application of load.9) 0 E where the zero subscript denotes quantities at t = 0. the bar is kept under a constant stress above the yield limit. σy ) < 0 5. it follows from the elastoplastic split of the total strain together with the elastic law that the total strain in the bar at t = 0.440 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11.1. in conjunction with the elastoplastic decomposition of the total strain and the initial condition (11. 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. Plastic ﬂow rule εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ ˙ 1 γ= ˙ µ 0 |σ| σy 1/ σ = E εe Φ(σ. Uniaxial elastic law 3. One-dimensional viscoplastic constitutive model.11) . Assuming that σ is positive (tensile). Thus. even without a formal proof. as there is no time for plastic strains to develop over an (idealised) instantaneous loading event. Yield function 4. (11. However. will be σ ε0 = εe = . Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. Under constant stress. it makes sense to accept that. the straining of the bar after the instantaneous loading will be due purely to viscoplastic ﬂow and will be modelled by constitutive equations (11. 1. (11. the behaviour must be purely elastic under such a condition. the integration of the above equation.10) For a perfectly viscoplastic material (constant σy ). (11.5). (11.9). From this moment on. gives the following solution for the straining of the bar ε(t) = σ 1 + E µ σ σy 1/ − 1 t. the elastic law implies that the elastic strain will also remain constant. Assuming zero initial plastic strain. we then have εp = ˙ 1 µ σ σy 1/ −1 .6). σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ.

if ε < ε∗ . E (11. when ε ≥ ε∗ . the stress response does not depend on the rate of stretching. µ σy µ σy µ ε∗ (11. Thus. the rate sensitivity parameter will be set to = 1. The material constants (µ and ) could be calibrated.15) where the total strain is the prescribed function ε(t) = α t + ε∗ = α t + σy . at the initial stages of the monotonic stretching process. σ=Eε ∗ if σ < σy . Before stating the associated initial value problem. in addition.12) (11. Strain-rate dependence of the stress response Here we analyse the monotonic stretching of an initially unstrained (and unstressed) bar at constant strain rates. To simplify the problem. our initial value problem will be deﬁned only over the portion of the loading process where σ ≥ σy (or ε ≥ ε∗ ). E (11.13) where ε is the strain at which the yield stress is reached ε∗ = σy . The initial branches describe the phenomenon of primary creep.VISCOPLASTICITY 441 The creep rate in this case is constant and proportional to (σ/σy )1/ − 1. so as to capture the initial branches of the creep curves of the material (refer to Figure 11. The evolution of the plastic strain for the present model is deﬁned by equation (11.1(a). Under the above assumptions. These are the conditions typically encountered in conventional tensile tests. equivalently. Then. as our purpose is to illustrate the rate dependence predicted by the model. we will assume that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and.10).16) . so that an analytical solution to the initial value problem can be easily found. 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 11.1(b)). (11. let us ﬁrst recall that the material response within the elastic domain (σ < σy ) is purely elastic. The initial value problem. in terms of the applied strain. A hardening law could be incorporated to include the follow-up of the curves to their second straight branch that describes secondary creep. for instance. The stress–strain response during this phase is expressed simply as σ=Eε or. 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 .14) Viscoplastic ﬂow (and rate-dependent behaviour) may only take place when σ ≥ σy or.

˜ (11.20).16) into the differential equation (11. the term 1 − ε/ε∗ in (11. so that curves such as those depicted in Figure 11.15). in the present monotonic loading process.20). such a function can be obtained by means of a simple variable transformation in (11. α (11. In the present case.20) The stress–strain response. Insight into the problem can be gained by looking into the limit stress–strain curves.16). after a straightforward manipulation. the initial value problem can be written as 1 εp (t) = ˙ [α t − εp (t)]. The limit is then easily obtained as lim σ (ε) = σy . In order to obtain the limit for inﬁnitely slow rates. Indeed. 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.21) With the introduction of this relation into (11. i. we have t = t(ε) = ε − ε∗ .17) . we obtain σ (ε) = σ(t(ε)) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ α (1− ε∗ ) ˜ 1 ε . (11. Note that t = 0 corresponds to the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow (σ = σy ⇔ ε = ε∗ ).442 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS corresponding to monotonic stretching with arbitrary (constant) strain rate α ≥ 0.19) By placing the above solution together with (11. note that by inverting the function deﬁned by (11.23) α→0 .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.e. we ﬁrst observe that.22) is always negative.16) into the elastic law.22) which gives the stress–strain curve for an arbitrary strain rate α. the following solution for the stress as a function of time −t σ(t) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ ε∗ . (11. σ = E(ε − εp ). εp (0) = 0. we obtain. In addition.22) is the exponential of a negative number. By substituting (11. µ and α are positive so that the last term on the right-hand side of (11. The initial condition for εp (the plastic strain at the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow) is obviously εp (0) = 0. The analytical solution. (11. the curves obtained at inﬁnitely slow rates (α → 0) and inﬁnitely fast processes (α → ∞).1(a) can be produced. (11.

regardless of the given hardening curve and rate-sensitivity parameter. ˜ (11.2. the process is purely elastic and the stress–strain curve after the yield limit is the continuation (with the same slope. It is also very important to note that the same limit is obtained for the vanishing viscosity parameter. when µ → 0. the analytical solution (11. Remark 11. ε/ε∗ . Also note that the identical limit is found for µ → ∞ (inﬁnitely viscous material).e.0 non-dimensional stress. at inﬁnitely fast rates (or when µ → ∞). Analytical solution showing the dependence of the stress response on the applied strain rate/viscosity parameter. αµ = 0. In fact.2 (this limit is also obtained for µ → 0) and. In addition (again not formally shown in this section). the model recovers the rate-independent behaviour of the plasticity model of Section 6. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.1. ε / ε∗ Figure 11. the model behaves in a purely elastic manner. The limits µα → 0 (inﬁnitely slow rates or nonviscous material) and µα → ∞ (inﬁnitely fast rates or inﬁnitely viscous material) are also included. the . At inﬁnitely fast rates.1(a).2.1 1 rate-independent limit: αµ lope 0 0 0 1 5 10 elas tic s relative strain. that is. at inﬁnitely slow rates the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the behaviour of the rate-independent plasticity model with yield stress σy .VISCOPLASTICITY 443 αµ = 2. To illustrate better the behaviour of the model under the present conditions. the above limits remain valid for any hardening curve and any rate sensitivity parameter .e.22) is shown in the graph of Figure 11. σ/σy . For any other rate (or viscosity parameter). at inﬁnitely slow strain rates. 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 11.5 αµ = 0.0 σ / σy 2 αµ oo αµ = 1. E) of the elastic curve. the limit is derived by a standard limiting procedure which gives α→∞ lim σ (ε) = E ε. that is.2 (page 141).24) i. The rate-independent model was described in Section 6. is plotted against the relative strain. Clearly. i. where the non-dimensional stress. even though it is not formally shown here. for various normalised strain rates µα.

31) (11.27) (11.24) and the text surrounding it). 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. Stress relaxation at constant strain In this ﬁnal example. the bar will deform purely elastically (refer to the limit expression (11. The instantaneous stretching to ε is assumed to produce a stress above the yield limit of the material. Over the instantaneous stretching (at time t = 0).e. 0 From this point on.28) To simplify the problem. the corresponding stress is given by σ0 = E εe = E ε. in view of the above expression can be equivalently written as εp = ˙ 1 µ σ0 − E εp σy 1/ −1 .444 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS rate-independent behaviour is also recovered with vanishing rate-sensitivity. that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and = 1. µ σy c2 = E .30) The analytical solution to (11. i. In this case.30) can be trivially obtained as εp (t) = c1 (1 − e−c2 t ). when → 0. (11. the initial value problem is to ﬁnd a function εp (t) such that εp (t) = c1 − c2 εp (t). Thus. in view of the elastic law. assuming that the plastic strain is zero at t = 0 (immediately after the instantaneous stretching). we will assume.29–11. where the constants c1 and c2 are deﬁned as c1 = 1 σ0 −1 . the stress in the bar will be governed by the law σ = E(ε − εp ) = σ0 − E εp .25) where εp evolves in time according to the differential equation (11.32) . Here the model should be able to capture the phenomenon of stress relaxation alluded to in Figure 11. 0 and. (11.4. c2 (11.29) with initial condition εp (0) = 0.1(c).26) (11.3 in the context of the general multidimensional theory. This last property will be demonstrated in Section 11. µ σy (11.10) which. as in the previous example. we have εe = ε. ˙ (11.

3 where a graph of the analytical function σ(t) (with σ0 = 2 σy ) is plotted. 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.3 for the rate-independent theory. (11.4.3.3. E t / µσ y Figure 11. we chose here to focus ﬁrst on a von Mises-based generalisation of the uniaxial theory. we obtain the stress as a function of time σ(t) = σ0 − (σ0 − σy )(1 − e − µE y t σ ).1. 11. and taking into account the deﬁnition of c1 and c2 .1(c). by placing the above solution into (11.1). with the stress taking the value σ = σ0 > σy at t = 0 and subsequently relaxing asymptotically to σy as t → ∞. including its potential structure and its relation to timeindependent plasticity as a limit case. A discussion of a more generic model. Analytical solution to the stress relaxation problem.3 (page 148) where a general multidimensional extension of the onedimensional rate-independent plasticity model of Section 6. 11.3. Rather than deﬁne a generic extension at the outset (as in Section 6.33) Clearly. The analytical solution with the present one-dimensional model clearly captures the experimentally observed behaviour referred to in Figure 11. This is illustrated in Figure 11.VISCOPLASTICITY 445 σ0 stress σy 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 non-dimensional time.27). . A von Mises-based multidimensional model This section introduces a multidimensional extension of the one-dimensional model discussed above (and summarised in Box 11. Finally. will be left for Section 11.2 (page 141) was presented). One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.

Analogously to its rate-independent counterpart. The usual concept of an elastic domain bounded by a yield surface in the rate-independent theory will remain valid in the viscoplastic case. The yield function is also redeﬁned as a function of variables of appropriate tensorial order. Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ q σy 1/ σ = De : εe q= 3 2 s:s E = {σ | Φ(σ. σy ) < 0} 3 2 s s if Φ(σ.2.2. the model of Box 11. Elastoplastic split of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. The resulting model is a viscoplastic version of the rate-independent isotropically hardening von Mises model summarised in Section 7. A von Mises-type viscoplastic constitutive model. σy ) < 0 1 γ= µ ˙ 0 5. under uniaxial stress conditions.2 reduces exactly to the one-dimensional theory of Box 11. stress tensor and ﬂow vector). stress relaxation and strain-rate dependence of the stress response (including the behaviour at limits) as demonstrated for the .3. Isotropic strain hardening law −1 ε σy = σy (¯p ). and elastic domain 4.1 (from page 216). Remark 11. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .2. 6. 1. elastic and plastic strain tensors. The constitutive equations of the von Mises-based extension are listed in Box 11. σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ. as our multidimensional extension is von Mises-based. the elastoplastic split of the total strain. Yield function Φ(σ. the ﬂow rule and yield function are recast in terms of the corresponding tensor quantities (total.1. Evolution of accumulated plastic strain εp = ¯ 0 t ˙ εp dt ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ that is.446 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. Here. 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. the linear elasticity law. It is also important to emphasise that the basic properties of creep. Linear elastic law 3.

the observed strain rate may be a markedly nonlinear function of the stress.36) ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . In this section. σy ) ≥ 0 Φ(σ.3. However. ˙ Bingham model The Bingham model is the simplest model of viscoplasticity.39) η This may severely limit the ability of the model to ﬁt experimental data as. the plastic strain rate for the Bingham model is a linear function of the axial stress: 1 εp = (|σ| − σy ) sign(σ). σy ) = ˙ (11.2. 11. Clearly. will remain unchanged for any deﬁnition of γ. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy . the explicit function for γ that takes part in the deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow equation ˙ (see expression (11. ˙ (11. the format of the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N. better ﬂexibility to allow a wider range of experimental data to be ﬁtted. in practice. ALTERNATIVE PLASTIC STRAIN RATE DEFINITIONS So far. with more material constants.VISCOPLASTICITY 447 uniaxial model in Section 11. 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. each form of γ deﬁnes a different model of viscoplasticity.2) has been assumed to be of the form proposed by Peri´ (1993). 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. in general. ˙ with associative ﬂow vector N deﬁned by N= and yield function Φ(σ. σy ) < 0.34) .7 are reproduced by the multidimensional theory under any state of stress.2 (and also from the c Perzyna model described below) by setting η = 1. σy ) = η η γ(σ.1 and 11.2. (11. we list some of the most widely used forms. The multiplier γ in this case is ˙ deﬁned as q(σ) − σy 1 if Φ(σ. µ = . Note that this law is obtained from Peri´ ’s model given in item 4 of Box 11.4. the linear approximation may give good results. Other models.37) 0 if Φ(σ. in many cases. over a relatively narrow range of stresses. As mentioned in Section 11.2. (11. within the framework of von Mises ˙ viscoplasticity. However.6) and item 4 of Boxes 11. have.38) σy In the uniaxial case. many forms for γ c ˙ have been proposed and. 2 s (11.35) (11.

and the rate c sensitivity.40) 0 if Φ(σ. We remark here that.6. 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. As shown by Peri´ (1993). For example. the yield stress is effectively zero. Other hardening laws. In fact. however.42) 2 where η is the relative stress η = s − β.3. the Perzyna model produces a curve with σ = 2 σy instead. wp . 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. 11. only isotropic strain hardening has been taken into account. In such cases. for vanishing viscosity (µ → 0) or vanishing strain rates.177) (11. isotropic work hardening is obtained by having σy as a given function of the plastic work. many materials can be modelled as ﬂowing whenever under stress. can be deﬁned as in Section 6. OTHER ISOTROPIC AND KINEMATIC HARDENING LAWS In the viscoplasticity model of Box 11. σy ) < 0.41) σy = σy (wp ). 11. . particularly at higher temperatures. For viscoplasticity models. µ. that is. a yield surface and a corresponding elastic domain do not need to be introduced in the formulation of the . deﬁned by expression (6. Evolution laws for β. such as Prager’s rule and the Armstrong– Frederick kinematic hardening law. the Perzyna model does not reproduce the uniaxial stress–strain curve of the corresponding rate-independent model with yield stress σy . the response of both Perzyna and Peri´ models c coincide with the standard rate-independent model with yield stress σy . as the ratec independent limit is approached with vanishing rate-sensitivity → 0 (refer to Remark 11.448 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Perzyna model This model was introduced by Perzyna (1966.2. Kinematic hardening is introduced by simply replacing the von Mises effective stress. the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter. However. q. such an assumption is by no means required. ¯ (11.6 (page 177). with the relative effective stress q = 3 η : η.3. in spite of its similarity to Peri´ ’s deﬁnition. many metals at high temperatures will ﬂow at virtually any stress state with a non-zero deviatoric component.43) and β is the backstress tensor.3.4. σy ) ≥ 0 γ(σ.1 on page 443). (11. σy ) = µ σy ˙ (11. 1971) and is widely used in computational applications of viscoplasticity. It is deﬁned by 1/ 1 q(σ) −1 if Φ(σ. that is. As in Peri´ ’s model. in c this limit.

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

Another interesting viscoplastic model used primarily in the description of the behaviour of metallic alloys at high temperatures is the Bodner–Partom model (Bodner and Partom.3. Q is the activation energy usually independent of the temperature. The theory presented here is a viscoplastic version of the general rate-independent model described in Section 6.3.1. Thus. The constitutive equations of the general viscoplasticity model are listed in Box 11. A) ˙ α = J(σ. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY The above viscoplasticity model ﬁts within the generic internal variable-based constitutive framework discussed in Section 3.5. we proceed here to formulate a more general constitutive theory of viscoplasticity. 11.3. 11. R is the gas constant 8. an elastic domain may not exist. or concepts used in that section. (11. A typical example of an empirical relation of the above format is given by the law (Boyle and Spence.49) with M and N being material parameters. a yield function is not necessarily present in the viscoplastic formulation. It follows the same considerations as Sections 6. Indeed. note that we will use here the notation of Section 6. is advised to review them before proceeding further. The same applies to all other models (with or without an elastic domain) described in Section 11. An implicit computational implementation of the Bodner–Partom model has been recently described by Anderson (2003). The formulation of the viscoplastic model is analogous to that of its rate-independent counterpart. 1975). 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. At this point.3. as we have seen above.4. The reader who is not familiar with that notation. Note that the von Mises-based model of Box 11.31 J mol−1 K −1 .50) that is.2 (from page 71). A).450 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS normally deﬁned by the Arrhenius law fT (T ) = C exp −Q RT (11.1 to 6.4.48) where C is a constant. it can be trivially established . General viscoplastic constitutive model Having described in the previous section some of the most commonly used viscoplasticity models.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. (11. In addition.2 (page 151).3. 1983) γ = C exp ˙ −Q RT tM q N .4.3 (from page 148) and summarised in Box 6.

refer to Section 6. (11.2) ˙ ˙ σ : εp − A ∗ α.VISCOPLASTICITY 451 Box 11.2) and then introducing the explicit constitutive functions for the rates of plastic strain and hardening variables listed in item 4 of Box 11. α=− ∂A At this point. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = G(σ. . α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. the evolution of the internal variables of the problem are derived as ˙ εp = ∂Ξ ∂σ (11.3.3 is a particular case of the general purely mechanical inﬁnitesimal constitutive law deﬁned by (3. 1.52) ∂Ξ ˙ .165) as composed of the plastic strain tensor and the set of hardening internal variables (as described in Section 6. The general viscoplasticity model is obtained by simply deﬁning the set α of (3. Free-energy function ψ = ψ(εe .3.51) from which. A general viscoplastic constitutive model.162) on page 74). 11.3 can be obtained by endowing the model with a potential structure (refer to the discussion surrounding expression (3.4.3. through the hypothesis of normal dissipativity.2. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4. A).3.165) on page 76. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. we deﬁne a dissipation potential Ξ = Ξ(σ. POTENTIAL STRUCTURE AND DISSIPATION INEQUALITY A specialisation of the general theory of Box 11. A) ∂ψ ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α that the model of Box 11. In this case. it is important to recall that the plastic dissipation in the present case is given by (again. A) ˙ α = J(σ.

A) of stress and hardening thermodynamical forces. (11. 0} it is ensured that the dissipation inequality is satisﬁed a priori by the model. Following the above considerations. A is the set of all admissible states (σ.53) In rate-independent plasticity. let us consider the closure. i.3 (page 151) can be rigorously described.452 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS so that the dissipation inequality reads ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. as a particular case of the general continuum constitutive theory of Section 3. we shall see that an associative rate-independent plasticity model is obtained by adopting ΨA as the dissipation potential in the general viscoplastic theory. A) ≤ 0}. A) = ∞ if (σ. the demonstration that follows here shows effectively that.3.57) ‡ Readers not familiar with convex analysis are referred to Rockafellar (1970).5.4.7. A. where ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ.‡ Crucial to the proof to be shown is the concept of indicator function of a convex set. As emphasised above. . A} = {0.5. under some circumstances. as anticipated in Section 6.3. The indicator function of a convex set The demonstration presented here is based on arguments of convex analysis. The rate-independent limit In what follows. Thus.56) ΨA (σ. ΨA . A. (11. that is. εp . of the convex set A as the scalar-valued function deﬁned by 0 if (σ. The set A is convex. we choose Ξ(σ.2. A) ≡ ΨA (σ. A) | Φ(σ. By deﬁning Ξ such that it is convex with respect to both variables. In this context. εp . the general viscoplastic model is a particular instance of the internal variable-based constitutive framework of Section 3. A) ∈ A (11. / The indicator function is clearly non-differentiable. non-negative and zerovalued at {σ. A). it deﬁnes a convex region in the space of stresses and hardening forces. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α (11. A) ∈ A. we now introduce the indicator function. the elastoplastic model of Box 6.55) (11. A. α) ≥ 0.2.54) is the dissipation function. 11.e. of the elastic domain deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ: A = {(σ. 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.

59) or. ∀ (σ∗ . Our purpose here is to illustrate the above ideas by demonstrating that the viscoplastic model can be deﬁned in terms of a dissipation potential whose limit when → 0 or µ → 0 is the indicator function of the set of admissible stresses of the perfectly plastic von Mises model. the actual stress and hardening force (σ. γ ≥ 0. respectively. The solution to the maximisation problem associated with the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is the classical associative laws ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ ∂σ (11. A) maximise the dissipation function. ∀ (σ∗ . (11. A∗ . α = −γ ˙ ∂A together with the loading/unloading conditions of rate-independent plasticity Φ(σ. which follow from normal dissipativity. equivalently. εp . in such limits.62) In summary. A) ≤ 0. A∗ ) ∈ A. . in terms of the dissipation function (11. discussed in Section 6. εp . A)γ = 0. ˙ Φ(σ.58) is equivalent to the inequality ˙ ˙ εp : (σ − σ∗ ) + α ∗ (A − A∗ ) ≥ 0.61) ∂Φ ˙ .5.69) together with (11. for simplicity. α).VISCOPLASTICITY 453 At this point we need to make use of the concept of subdifferential.2 and. the constitutive equations (11. A.56) it can easily be established that (11. Thus. § Refer to Section 6. This is known as the principle of maximum plastic dissipation.52). the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the classical perfectly elastoplastic von Mises model. Example: von Mises-based model Let us now consider the von Mises-based model of Box 11.3.2 (page 170) to which the reader is referred for details.54) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. A∗ ) ∈ ΨA .9 (from page 153) for the deﬁnition of subdifferential. among all states (σ∗ .§ In view of the nondifferentiability of the indicator function. From the subdifferential deﬁnition (6. assume that the model is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ). A∗ ) ∈ A. are replaced with the subdifferential relations ˙ εp ∈ ∂σ ΨA ˙ α ∈ −∂A ΨA . (11. (11.58) where ∂σ ΨA and ∂A ΨA are the subdifferentials of ΨA with respect to σ and A. α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ . 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. ˙ (11.60) This last inequality states that.

to be used to update stresses and other state variables of the model.2. to start by stating the underlying initial value problem we wish to solve. the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = ∂Ξ .1. as → 0. . Ξ tends to the indicator function of A. (11. that is. For further discussions and analysis of various aspects of the numerical treatment of viscoplasticity.63) where σ is the only variable. 11. Clearly. stated on page 193. General numerical framework This section describes the basic ingredients needed to incorporate the general viscoplasticity model of Box 11. for the sake of clarity. Runesson and Mahler (1999).3 into the ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4. The schematic illustration of Figure 11. Simo (1998).64) is found through a straightforward differentiation to be that of item 4 of Box 11. Simo and Hughes (1998). we can easily see that. Problem 7.5.1.5. Peri´ (1993).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. ∂σ (11. and Alfano and Rosati (2001). to be used in the assemblage of the ﬁnite element stiffness matrix. The basic requirements are: (i) an algorithm for numerical integration of the viscoplastic constitutive equations. With the above deﬁnition.2 when hardening is not considered. Chaboche and Cailletaud c (1996). Finally. by simple inspection. The problem here is analogous to its rate-independent counterpart. A GENERAL IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM Before proceeding to the derivation of an integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic model. the limit of the potential Ξ of (11. it seems convenient.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. when → 0 or µ → 0. →0 µ→0 (11.65) where A = {σ | q(σ) − σy ≤ 0}.66) This completes the demonstration.4 shows the potential Ξ for various choices of the rate-sensitivity parameter . we refer to Simo and Govindjee (1991). (ii) the associated consistent tangent modulus. the above potential indeed deﬁnes the von Mises-based viscoplasticity model of Box 11. 11.

T ]. A(t)) (11. Problem 11. tn+1 ] is considered. T ]. ﬁnd the functions εe (t) and α(t). Viscoplastic potential Ξ for various rate-sensitivity parameters . ∂α t (11. The resulting incremental problem is presented in Box 11.4. Clearly.67) of ordinary differential equations has been obtained by incorporating the viscoplastic ﬂow equation (11. ε(t). where a typical step over the time interval [tn . (11. A(t)).1 (The viscoplastic constitutive initial value problem).68) ˙ α(t) = J(σ(t).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. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor.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.VISCOPLASTICITY 455 ∋ 1 elastic domain Ξ 0 small large 0 q (σ) σ y Figure 11. ∆ε = εn+1 − εn .67) As in the deﬁnition of the rate-independent problem. t ∈ [t0 . once the history of elastic strain is determined in the solution to the above problem. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ .70) ∋ ∋ .4. the history of the plastic strain is promptly obtained as εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t). for the elastic strain tensor and hardening internal variable set that satisfy the reduced general viscoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − G(σ(t). the reduced system (11. ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . The time and strain increments are deﬁned in the usual way as ∆t = tn+1 − tn . for each instant t ∈ [t0 . (11.

An+1 ) > 0. which we shall refer to as the elastic predictor/viscoplastic corrector or elastic predictor/viscoplastic return mapping algorithm.5. i. If the trial state is within the elastic domain or on the yield surface. with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ εe . following the terminology of the rate-independent theory. is listed in Box 11.1. Given the strain and time increment.71) J(σ. A) > 0. the updated stress state at tn+1 generally lies on the outside of the yield surface. Fully implicit algorithm for numerical integration of general viscoplastic constitutive equations. Clearly. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 Models with a yield surface Note that in the algorithm of Box 11.456 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. states lying neither in the elastic domain nor on the yield surface. The resulting algorithm. An+1 ) 0 for εe and αn+1 . tn+1 ] and the state variables at tn . A). If a yield surface is present.3. Otherwise. here. page 199) in that. i. To see this. The algorithm is valid for models with or without a yield surface. Φ(σn+1 . as in the rate-independent case. A) = γ(σ. tn+1 ]. Φn+1 = 0. then no viscoplastic ﬂow takes place within the considered time step and the trial state is the actual state at the end of the step.4 no assumption is made on the existence of an elastic domain. however. compute the updated state by solving the nonlinear system of equations e e εn+1 − εn − ∆ε + ∆t G(σn+1 . over [tn . An+1 ) 0 = αn+1 − αn − ∆t J(σn+1 .4 takes a twostage format completely analogous to the elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure of the rate-independent case. A) ˙ (11. forces the updated state to be on the yield surface when there is plastic ﬂow over . This is in contrast with the rate-independent case in which the consistency equation. the specialisation of the algorithm of Box 11. let us ﬁrst consider that for a general model with a yield surface. it makes sense to ﬁrst compute an elastic trial state by assuming that the material behaviour is purely elastic within the interval [tn . The viscoplastic return mapping differs from its elastoplastic (rateindependent) counterpart (refer to Box 7. A) H(σ. ˙ where.e. the evolution of εp and α is computed by means of the standard backward Euler method. A) = γ(σ. Remark 11. The scalar γ is zero within the elastic domain or on the ˙ yield surface and may only be non-zero outside the elastic domain. ∆ε and ∆t. Then. A) N(σ. the constitutive functions G and J can be deﬁned with the following form G(σ.4.e. N is the ﬂow vector and H is the generalised hardening modulus. evolution of εp and α may only occur here at states with Φ(σ.

Peirce et al. page 201). and αn+1 with n+1 ∆γ = ∆γ(σn+1 . An+1 ) 0 = 0 ∂ψ ∂ εe trial . An+1 ) ˙ and σn+1 = ρ ¯ (iv) EXIT ∂ψ ∂ εe .VISCOPLASTICITY 457 Box 11. An+1 ) n+1 for εe . 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 . Zienkiewicz and Cormeau (1974). An+1 ) = ∆t γ(σn+1 . In what follows we list the basic equations of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms.2.5.2. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 the considered interval. the terminology viscoplastic return mapping remains justiﬁable in the present case since. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial n+1 αn+1 − αtrial − ∆γ H(σn+1 . For further details on alternative integration algorithms we refer to Cormeau (1975). Solve the system e e trial εn+1 − εn+1 + ∆γ N(σn+1 .5. c . different numerical integration algorithms can be employed in the stress updating procedure.7. upon application of the procedure. 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 . (i) Elastic predictor. Nevertheless. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . (1984) and Koji´ and Bathe (1987). Marques and Owen (1983). Atrial ) ≤ 0 n+1 n+1 THEN set (·)n+1 = (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Viscoplastic return mapping. the updated stress is obtained by moving (or returning) the trial stress towards the yield surface. tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn . ALTERNATIVE EULER-BASED ALGORITHMS Similarly to the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7. 11. Hughes and Taylor (1978).

4. the backward Euler discrete equations of Box 11. from page 238). θ.73) For the choice θ = 1. where the prescribed parameter. 1] and Gn+θ = G((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn . the implicit algorithm of Box 11. the task here is to ﬁnd the exact tangent operator D≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 .4 is recovered and θ = 0 deﬁnes the explicit algorithm. for θ = 1.3.4 are replaced with the following system εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t [(1 − θ) Gn + θ Gn+1 ] n n+1 (11. The linearised system reads dεe + ∆t ∂G : dσ + ∆t ∂G ∗ dA d∆ε ∂σ ∂A .76) consistent with the stress updating procedure deﬁned by the backward Euler algorithm of Box 11. 11. (11. The generalised midpoint algorithm For the generalised midpoint rule.458 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The generalised trapezoidal algorithm Here. we start by linearising the system of time-discrete equations of Box 11. also lies within the interval [0.4.75) (11.77) = dα − ∆t ∂J ∗ dσ − ∆t ∂J ∗ dA 0 ∂σ ∂A . the implicit algorithm of Box 11. where θ is a prescribed parameter 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ) Jn+θ = J((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn .5. the tangent modulus consistent with the general algorithm is needed. = dεn+1 d∆ε (11. the discrete system of equations reads εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t Gn+θ n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆t Jn+θ .4. GENERAL CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR To complete the requirements for the implementation of the model within an implicit ﬁnite element environment.4 is recovered and θ = 0 corresponds to the explicit algorithm.4. (11. Given all variables of the problem at tn and a prescribed time increment ∆t. (11.72) αn+1 = αn + ∆t [(1 − θ) Jn + θ Jn+1 ]. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ).74) Again. Analogously to the general procedure for the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7. Let us then consider the algorithm of Box 11.4.

5.e. the stress is the result from the solution of the equation system of item (iii) of Box 11.80) Under viscoplastic ﬂow. that is. as in rate-independent plasticity. dA D21 D22 0 where Dij are tensors of appropriate order resulting from the inversion of (11.78) By inverting the linearised system above.79) = .80) where the functions G and J taking part in the symbolic matrix (11.83) .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 linearised system is equivalently written as ∂G C + ∆t ∂σ ∂J A − ∆t ∂σ B + ∆t ∂G dσ d∆ε ∂A . 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. the derivatives of J specialise as ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ .71).78) are deﬁned by (11.129) (page 239). we have D = De = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . we ﬁnally obtain a tangent relation which can be written symbolically as D11 D12 dσ d∆ε (11. = ∂J dA 0 J − ∆t ∂A (11. d∆ε (11. when Φ(σn+1 . In this case. An+1 ) > 0. the tangent operator is a specialisation of the general tangent modulus (11.78). ∂εe 2 (11. An+1 ) ≤ 0. i. ∂A ∂A ∂A (11. ∂A ∂A ∂A Similarly. With the introduction of the differential relations (7. when Φ(σn+1 .81) dσn+1 = D11 . The derivatives of G then specialise as ∂N ∂γ ˙ ∂G =γ ˙ +N⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂G ∂N ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +N∗ . the tangent modulus is elastic if the state is within the elastic domain.

6. by taking the linear elastic law into consideration. Viscoplastic return mapping. for the present model. we present an accuracy analysis of the algorithm based on iso-error maps. We remark that the procedures presented here are not incorporated in the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm described here is a specialisation of the generic algorithm described in Section 11. Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model To illustrate the application of the above numerical framework.6. At this stage. then the process is indeed elastic within the interval and ε the variables at tn+1 are assigned the values of the trial variables. 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 . for the present model. The algorithm comprises the standard elastic predictor and the viscoplastic return mapping which. If Φ(σtrial . (11. n+1 (11. ¯n+1 ¯n where the incremental multiplier. The material is assumed to behave purely elastically within the time interval [tn .84) ∂Φ ∂σ n+1 (11. n+1 εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . 1.2. ∆γ.5 which. has the following format. we apply the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm described in the following.2.1. 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 11.460 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. Elastic predictor. we solve the system of discretised equations of item (iii) of Box 11. tn+1 ]. are specialised as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : εp = εp + ∆γ.5 to the model whose constitutive equations are summarised in Box 11. is given by ∆γ = ∆t µ q(σn+1 ) σy (¯p ) εn+1 1/ (11. Otherwise. σy (¯p trial )) ≤ 0. we can update εp = εp + ∆γ n n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ .86) with ∆t denoting the time increment within the considered interval.87) .85) −1 . After solving (11. 2. In addition to the detailed description of the associated integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator.85). 11.

we observe that the plastic ﬂow vector ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s 2 s (11.89)1 as sn+1 = 1 − 3 ∆γ 2G trial ∆γ 3G s = 1 − trial strial trial 2 s q (11. trivially.89) . εp .3.89)1 shows that sn+1 is a scalar multiple of strial so that. after a straightforward rearrangement. undertaken by the Newton– Raphson iterative scheme. (11. .VISCOPLASTICITY 461 Single-equation corrector The viscoplastic corrector can be more efﬁciently implemented by reducing (11. the steps leading to the system reduction are repeated here. (11. as usual.85)1 can then be split as sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G pn+1 = p trial 3 sn+1 2 sn+1 (11. we have the identity strial sn+1 = trial . The situation here is completely analogous to that of the implementation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) von Mises model described in Section 7.6 in pseudo-code format. (q trial − 3G ∆γ) ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. εe according to the relevant ¯ formulae.92) Finally. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 11.93) or.2 (page 217). equivalently. Firstly.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 = 0.94) for the unknown ∆γ followed by the straightforward update of σ. For convenience.94) The single-equation viscoplastic corrector comprises the solution of (11. The solution of the equation for ∆γ is.91) where q trial is the elastic trial von Mises equivalent stress. εn (11.85)2 into (11. εp . Application of the deﬁnition of the von Mises equivalent stress to the above equation gives the update formula qn+1 = q trial − 3G ∆γ. simple inspection of (11. with the substitution of the above formula together with (11. The stress update equation (11.90) sn+1 s which allows us to rewrite (11. Further.93) or (11.88) is deviatoric so that the hydrostatic stress is independent of the viscoplastic ﬂow. (11.85) to a single scalar equation.

as expected. small values of .5 (Computational implementation aspects). Then update pn+1 := ptrial . The reduction of the convergence bowl stems from the fact that large exponents 1/ can easily produce numbers which are computationally intractable.e. 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. → 0 (no rate-sensitivity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining). . Note that.94) rather than (11. 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. on the other hand. Clearly.462 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. Given ∆ε. and the state variables at tn .94). equation (11. tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn ). for low rate-sensitivity. (i) Elastic predictor. The reason for this lies in the fact that.93) becomes unstable as its convergence bowl is sharply reduced with decreasing . Integration algorithm for von Mises-type viscoplastic model (over a generic time interval [tn . i. In equation (11. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of (11. the algorithm of Box 11.4 (Rate-independent limit). it is more convenient to solve (11. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial .91) (refer to page 219) when µ → 0 (no viscosity).93) in the viscoplastic corrector stage of the algorithm.6 reproduces the rate-independent elastoplastic numerical solution. This fact has been recognised by Peri´ (1993) c in the context of a more general viscoplastic algorithm. in such cases. 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.6). In the computer implementation of the model (as shown in Box 11. Remark 11.94) rigorously recovers its elastoplastic (rate-independent) counterpart (7.6.

εn where H is the derivative of the isotropic hardening function σy . Figures 11.2. 10−1 and 0. and apply a sequence of strain increments (at constant strain rate within the interval [tn . respectively) to the von Mises circle in the deviatoric plane.5 and 11. . For each non-dimensional rate. Let R(∆γ) be the function deﬁned by the right-hand side of (11. The main conclusion drawn from the iso-error maps is that.6. we can easily establish that the derivative R is strictly negative for ∆γ ∈ (0. ISO-ERROR MAPS To illustrate the accuracy of the above integration algorithm in practical situations. The maps have been generated in the standard fashion as described in Section 7. Let us now consider the derivative of R. q trial /3G) if the viscoplastic model is non-softening. we can easily verify that R(q trial /3G) < 0. 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. produced with material constants covering a range of high rate-sensitivity to rate-independence. in general.VISCOPLASTICITY 463 the term to the power on the left-hand side can only assume values within the interval [0. R (∆γ) = − 3G + µ q trial − 3G∆γ µ ∆γ + ∆t ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − H(¯p + ∆γ).94) has a root within the interval (0. 11. page 215). tn+1 ]). if H is non-negative for any value of accumulated plastic strain. Upon simple inspection. have been used: 100 . q trial /3G) is unique for non-softening materials.7(b) and is shown here only to emphasise the effect of rate-dependence on the integration error. Remark 11. i. In addition. we have ε εn q trial > σy (¯p trial ) = σy (¯p ).2.6 show iso-error maps obtained at low and high strain rates with the non-dimensional rate ˙ µ ε set respectively to 1 and 1000. Within a viscoplastic step. we start from a stress point at time tn . Using the three-dimensional implementation of the model. The resulting map in this case is obviously identical to the rate-independent map of Figure 7. The largest errors are expected in the rate-independent limit.6 (Solution existence and uniqueness). this section presents some iso-error maps. Recall that for = 0 the algorithm reproduces the rate-independent solution. . increasing (decreasing) rate-sensitivity and/or increasing (decreasing) strain rates tend to produce decreasing (increasing) integration errors. taking into account the strict positiveness of the hardening function σy . The material is assumed perfectly viscoplastic (no hardening). 1] and causes no numerical problems within practical ranges of material constants.7.10 (refer to Figure 7. The above inequality clearly implies that R(0) > 0.94). with σn lying on the yield surface. q trial /3G).7. 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. The continuity of R then implies that (11.e.

11. The incremental constitutive function for the stress tensor in the present case has identical format to that of the rate-independent implementation given by (7.5. 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. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The consistent tangent operator here is a particular case of the general tangent operator derived in Section 11. the tangent operator which (as in the rate-independent case) will be denoted Dep . when the stress state lies within the elastic domain and no viscoplastic ﬂow is possible.5.2 (from page 232). Thus. De .6. to obtain the viscoplastic consistent tangent. Clearly.113) under plastic ﬂow – but the incremental plastic multiplier ∆γ here is the solution of viscoplastic return-mapping equation (11. Iso-error maps with µ ε = 1. Under viscoplastic ﬂow.4. (a) = 100 .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 11.94). the tangent operator is the elastic tangent.6.3.93) – which reduces to (7.3. we simply replace the derivative of the incremental plastic ∆σN / q ∆σN / q . (b) = 10−1 . (c) = 0 (rate-independent). is derived by consistently linearising the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm referred to in item (iii) of Box 11.

Iso-error maps with µ ε = 103 .2% 2 5% 2 0. and equating it to zero.3% 4 4 ∆σN / q 0.6. (11. (c) = 0 (rate-independent). With the above differential relation.94).4% 0.VISCOPLASTICITY 6 6 465 0.95) which is consistent with (11. Analogously to the elastoplastic case. the ﬁnal ∆σN / q .94).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 . (b) = 10−1 . this expression is obtained by taking the differential of the viscoplastic corrector equation (11. (a) = 100 . multiplier (7. having ∆γ trial and qn+1 as variables.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.

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.40) follows exactly the same procedure as described in the above except that. (11.6) is replaced with q trial − 3G ∆γ − 1 + µ ∆γ ∆t σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.97) reduces to a von Mises elastoplastic return-mapping equation with yield stress 2σy . expression (11.96) Note that the tangent operator is symmetric.98) . µ → 0 (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining). 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. This is.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. PERZYNA-TYPE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the von Mises-based model with Perzyna’s viscoplastic law (11.120). 11. → 0.7 (Rate-independent limit).97) reduces to that of the elastoplastic rateindependent von Mises model with yield stress σy . By simple inspection we ﬁnd that in the limits → 0 (vanishing rate-sensitivity parameter). as µ → ∞ (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow process) equation (11. the return-mapping equation (11. as one should expect. (11. we have assumed isotropic strain hardening. (11. consistently with the backward Euler time discretization of (11. Note that. in agreement with the theoretical limits of the Perzyna model discussed in the text immediately following equation (11.40).6.97) reads ∂∆γ = ∂εe trial 3G + 1 + n+1 2G µ ∆γ ∆t 3 2 H+ µ µ ∆γ ∆t ∆t −1 σy ¯ Nn+1 .94) (or item (iii) of Box 11.40). For vanishing rate sensitivity parameter. Remark 11.97) Here.4. εn (11.

Its format is completely analogous to that of (11.7.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 11.1. DOUBLE-NOTCHED TENSILE SPECIMEN The rate-independent version of this problem has been studied in Section 7. where σy is evaluated at εp = εp + ∆γ. The underlying viscoplastic material model is the one shown in Box 11. For convenience.7. the simulation consists of stretching the specimen by prescribing a constant (in time) vertical velocity v on the top nodes of the mesh. The geometry of the specimen and the ﬁnite element mesh used are shown in Figure 7. 11. Examples The ﬁnite element examples presented in this section illustrate applications of the computational treatment of viscoplasticity described above.E-04 rate independent normalised net stress 2 normalised stretching rates: 1. The problem consists of the plane strain analysis of a deep double-notched tensile specimen.29 (page 256).5.5 (from page 255). Analogously to the prescription of edge displacement u (refer to Figure 7.95) ¯n+1 ¯n for the present implementation of Perzyna’s viscoplasticity law.VISCOPLASTICITY 4 16 normalised net stress 3 467 12 normalised stretching rates: 8 1. 11. (b) = 10−2 .96). we deﬁne the normalised stretching rate µv v∗ = l/2 .E+04 1.7.99) + K I ⊗ I. 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. Reaction–deﬂection diagrams: (a) = 100 . This expression is the counterpart of (11.E+00 1. Double-notched specimen.E+00 1.29).2.E+04 1. which includes isotropic strain hardening.

3 0.8.4 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (b) 3 edge reaction (KN) 2 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.5 0. Stretching of a perforated plate.1 0.1 0.555E-00 0.468 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 14 12 10 edge reaction (KN) Deformation rates (1/s): 8 0.555E+02 0.3 0.5 0.555E-02 0. = 100 .555E+01 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.555E-04 rate independent 6 4 2 0 0. (c) = 10−2 .555E-01 0.555E-02 0.3 0.4 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (c) Figure 11.555E-02 0.555E-00 0. Displacement-reaction diagrams.1 0.555E+01 0.555E+02 0.555E-04 rate independent 1 0 0. (a) 10−1 .555E-01 0. (b) = .6 edge displacement (mm) (a) 14 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.555E-04 rate independent 12 10 edge reaction (KN) 8 6 4 2 0 0.555E-03 0.2 0.555E-03 0.555E-03 0.

2.VISCOPLASTICITY 469 and the simulation is carried out for three different values of v ∗ v ∗ = 10−4 . The mesh.5. the rate-independent solution is recovered for any rate-sensitivity parameter. The stretching rate in the present case is deﬁned as 2v/l.3 (from page 390). a plane stress c version of the numerical integration algorithm discussed in Section 11. 100 . ν = 0.7 whose diagrams show the evolution of the reaction forces on the constrained edge against the corresponding edge deﬂection. The results for = 100 and 10−2 are shown.29. The following material parameters are adopted E = 206.1 is employed. Similarly to the previous example. 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. The results of the ﬁnite element simulations are presented in Figure 11. 10−2 ) being considered. In order to show the effect of the rate-sensitivity parameter on the behaviour of the model. They illustrate the expected higher reactions and limit loads for higher rates of stretching. several simulations are carried out with various stretching rates.7. The viscosity parameter adopted (required for the viscoplastic model) is µ = 500 s. boundary conditions and the material parameters that are common to both plastic and viscoplastic models are also shown in Figure 9.7(a) and (b).5. This example has been analysed by Peri´ (1993). 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. in order to illustrate the response predicted by the viscoplastic model over a wide range of conditions.29 is not considered here. For the lowest nondimensional rate of 10−4 . PLANE STRESS: STRETCHING OF A PERFORATED PLATE This section describes the viscoplastic version of the plane stress problem of Section 9. As in the rate-independent case. two values of are considered = 100 and 10−2 .2. The plane stress implementation adopted follows the nested iteration approach described in Section 9.8 where the reaction on the constrained edge of the plate is plotted against the prescribed edge displacement for the various conditions considered. 10−1 . The problem consists of the axial stretching at constant rate of a perforated rectangular plate whose geometry is shown in Figure 9.45 GPa (constant). in Figures 11. σy = 0. The linearly hardening case listed in Figure 7. Here.6. 104 .2 (page 362) in the context of rate-independent plasticity. 11.9 GPa. with three values of rate sensitivity coefﬁcients ( = 1.7. respectively. . The results obtained in the simulations are shown in Figure 11.5.7 (page 392). Note that linear strain hardening is assumed. the results are plotted in terms of the normalised net stress and the normalised edge deﬂection deﬁned in Section 7.

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

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

the damage behaviour is a combination of brittle and ductile response and the contribution of each mode is. dependent on the temperature.1. is normally associated with the presence of large plastic deformations in the neighbourhood of crystalline defects.472 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS virgin material nucleation of microscopic cracks and voids growth. rate of loading. brittle damage can also be observed associated with creep processes.1. the decohesion of interatomic bonds is concentrated at grain boundaries. Another important mode of material deterioration in metals is fatigue damage. Further evolution of local plastic deformation may cause the cavities to coalesce. 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. Schematic illustration.1. This mechanism is schematically illustrated in Figure 12. It is normally observed in mechanical components subjected to a large number of load and/or . temperature as well as environmental factors such as exposure to corrosive substances or radiation. Therefore. Brittle damaging occurs mainly in the form of cleavage of crystallographic planes in the presence of negligible inelastic deformations. Ductile damage. coalescence and macroscopic fracturing Figure 12. usually at low temperatures.1. At high temperatures. This behaviour is observed for many polycrystalline metals. In addition. 12. In this case. resulting in ﬁnal rupture. for the same material. The decohesion of interatomic bonds is initiated at the boundary interface of inclusions. For most metallic materials. some basic physical mechanisms underlying damage evolution in metals and rubbery polymers are outlined below. on the other hand. Ductile damage in metals. 12.1. etc. the material-process-environment triad must be considered in the study of internal damage. to a signiﬁcant extent. METALS In metals. At low stresses they are accompanied by relatively small strains. rather than the material alone. loading rate. precipitates and particles of alloy elements leading to the formation of microscopic cracks and cavities. damage evolution may take place triggered by very different physical mechanisms which depend fundamentally on the type. the primary mechanisms that characterise the phenomenon of mechanical degradation may be divided into two distinct classes: brittle and ductile damage. To illustrate the diversity of phenomena that may be involved in the process of internal degradation of solids.

12.2. 1990). 12. This phenomenon. damage can occur in the form of progressive breakage of shorter polymer chains attached between ﬁller particles. signiﬁcant progress has been achieved and such theories have merged into what is currently known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (Krajˇ inovi´ . Schematic representation. The internal degradation in this case is mainly characterised by the rupture of molecular bonds concentrated in regions containing impurities and defects. temperature cycles. for further details). Although rubbery polymers exhibit a behaviour which. Although fatigue damage occurs at overall stress levels below the macroscopic plastic yield limit. the damage response of such materials is predominantly brittle (in the sense that permanent deformations are small). Continuum damage mechanics Since the pioneering work by Kachanov (1958).DAMAGE MECHANICS straining 473 polymer chains attached to adjacent filler particles rupture of shortest polymer chain Figure 12.1.2. may be regarded as purely elastic. Some of the most important mechanisms of material damage are described by Engel and Klingele (1981). After over two decades of uninterrupted development. Those materials are obtained by addition of a ﬁller in order to enhance the strength properties of the original rubber. Essentially. and the understanding of fatigue degradation processes in metals remains a challenging issue in the ﬁeld of materials science. under a variety of circumstances. Filled rubbers are particularly susceptible to internal damaging. 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. even at very small overall straining. as described by Bueche (1960). these materials are made of long cross-linked molecular chains which differ radically from the structure of crystalline metals (refer to Arridge (1985). Lemaitre and Chaboche. In general. is schematically illustrated in Figure 12. 1996. The concepts underlying the development of c c . RUBBERY POLYMERS Rubbery polymers are widely employed in engineering applications. In this case.2. A large number of complex interactive physical mechanisms take place from the nucleation of cracks to the complete failure of the material. 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.2. Damage in ﬁlled rubbery polymers. damaging does take place due to straining and/or thermal activation.

In this case. In the previous section. the density and/or distribution of the microscopic defects that characterise damage.2. 12.1). the damage variable D was introduced as D= A − A0 .1(b) and the discussion in Section 11. † Kachanov in fact used the material continuity or integrity.2) in the standard Norton’s Law for creep. It is clear that the underlying phenomena which characterise damage are essentially different from those characterising deformation. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT: CREEP-DAMAGE The ﬁrst continuum damage mechanics model was proposed by Kachanov (1958). directly or indirectly. Kachanov introduced a scalar internal variable to model the creep failure of metals under uniaxial loads. denoting respectively by A and A0 the effective load bearing areas of the virgin and damaged materials. Without a clear physical meaning for damage. .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 11.44) (page 449) for the plastic strain rate is replaced with εp = ˙ |σ| λ (1 − D) N sign(σ). A (12. 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. While damage manifests itself in the form of the irreversible rupture of atomic bonds. etc. ω = 1 − D.† In order to describe the strain rate increase which characterises tertiary creep. In this context. 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. some basic microscopic mechanisms associated with internal damage evolution in solids have been reviewed.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. In this context.1.) employed in the description of deformation. 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). Therefore. as the variable associated with the internal deterioration process. Kachanov replaced the observed uniaxial stress σ with the effective stress σeﬀ = σ 1−D (12. plastic strain. the uniaxial constitutive equation (11. new variables intrinsically connected with the internal damage process will have to be introduced in addition to the standard variables (such as the strain tensor. (12. it should be expected that in order to describe the internal degradation of solids within the framework of the continuum mechanics theory.

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. Gurson’s void growth theory has been shown to be particularly suitable for the representation of the behaviour of porous metals. (12. A scalar damage variable was also considered by Lemaitre (1983) in the deﬁnition of a purely phenomenological model for ductile isotropic damage in metals. 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. respectively. 1984) and Murakami and Ohno (1981) deserve special mention. 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. The damage variable (12. Still within the context of creep-rupture. σ = E ε. where E0 and E = (1 − D)E0 (12. the damage variable appears as a fourth-order non-symmetric tensor in the most general anisotropic case. OTHER THEORIES Despite its origin in the description of creep rupture. equivalently. The theories derived later by Chaboche (1978.7) E . this author postulates the following elastic constitutive law for a damaged material: σeﬀ = E0 ε.2. By appealing to the hypothesis of strain equivalence. Saanouni et al. Continuum Damage Mechanics has been shown to provide an effective tool to describe the phenomenon of internal degradation in other areas of solid mechanics. 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. 1988). In this case. Chaboche proposed a phenomenological theory for creep-damage based on rigorous thermodynamic foundations. 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. 12. (12. 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’.1) is then redeﬁned as E − E0 D= . 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.2. Within the theory of elastoplasticity. 1981. it did not take long before the concept of internal damage variable was generalised to three-dimensional situations by a number of authors. the anisotropic damage variable is represented by a second-rank symmetric tensor.DAMAGE MECHANICS 475 Since Kachanov–Rabotnov’s original developments. (1989) used a non-local formulation to predict the nucleation and growth of cracks. in which.5) (12. As a consequence.4) or.

brieﬂy reviewed above. 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). 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. Janson (1978) developed a continuum theory to model fatigue crack propagation which showed good agreement with simple uniaxial experiments. Damage component of ε in this case is then split as a sum of individual contributions from various damage mechanisms.3. the evolution law for the damage variable is usually formulated in terms of a differential equation which relates damage growth with the mean stress. Also within the theory of elastoplasticity. the deﬁnition of adequate damage variables is certainly not an easy task. in (Krajˇ inovi´ . (2000) to account for the anisotropy of damage as well as for partial closure of microcracks under compressive stresses. plastic and damage parts. In order to model the effects of fatigue. 12. 1983). A somewhat different approach was followed by Krajˇ inovi´ and Fonseka (1981) (see also c c Fonseka and Krajˇ inovi´ 1981). Later. These authors propose a framework whereby the strain tensor is decomposed additively into elastic. a vectorial variable was proposed as the local measure of internal deterioration. More recently. respectively. Further developments were introduced by Krajˇ inovi´ (1985) with the distinction between active and passive systems of microcracks.3 (page 74). distribution of voids) have been employed in the description of damage under various circumstances.5. 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). Lemaitre’s hypothesis of strain equivalence and its dual hypothesis of stress equivalence are used. The damage variable in this case takes the form of a second-order tensor under general anisotropy. Due to the diversity of forms in which internal damage manifests itself at the microscopic level.476 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This theory was further elaborated on by Lemaitre (1985a. vectors. variables of different mathematical nature (scalars. REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF THE DAMAGE VARIABLE As pointed out in Section 3. the original isotropic model has been extended by Lemaitre et al. The damage variable in this case is a second-order tensor whose evolution is linked to the principal directions of the plastic strain rate.2. in the formulation of models in stress and strain spaces. tensors) possessing different physical meaning (reduction of load bearing area. maximum stress and number of cycles. . Continuum damage mechanics has also been applied to the description of fatigue processes. Assuming that damage in this case is chara