**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 . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

. .4 Viscoplastic ﬂow rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 General viscoplastic constitutive model . . . . 12. . . . . 12 Damage mechanics 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . .2 Continuum damage mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Examples . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 One-dimensional viscoplasticity model . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . .3. .2. . . .2.4 Perzyna-type model implementation . . . . 11. 12. . . . .3 Other isotropic and kinematic hardening laws . . . . . . . . . . .5 Hardening law . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .3 A von Mises-based multidimensional model . . . . . . .2 Rubbery polymers . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Consistent tangent operator .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Relation to the general continuum constitutive theory . . . . . . 11.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Remarks on the nature of the damage variable 12. . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . .2 Plane stress: stretching of a perforated plate . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Alternative Euler-based algorithms . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . .4.2. . . . . . . .3 The yield function and the elastic domain . .3 The tangent operators . . . .2 The elastic law . . . . 11. . . . . . .3. .1 Metals . . . .2. . . . . . . .2. 11. . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . .6 Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model 11. . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Double-notched tensile specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Other theories . . . . . .2 Alternative plastic strain rate deﬁnitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . .6. . . . . . .2. .4 Viscoplastic models without a yield surface . .2. . . . .5. . .6. . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . 11. .2. . . . . 11. 11. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Physical aspects of internal damage in solids . . . . . . .1 A von Mises-type viscoplastic model with isotropic strain hardening . . . . . . .1 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2 Potential structure and dissipation inequality . . 11. 11. 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . 11. . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . .3. . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . . .xiv CONTENTS 11 Viscoplasticity 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . .3. . . . . . .4. . 12. . . . . . .1 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Elastoplastic decomposition of the axial strain . . . . . .7.2.1 Original development: creep-damage . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 General consistent tangent operator . 11. .3 Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory . . . . . . . 11. . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . 11.2 Iso-error maps . . . .1 A general implicit integration algorithm . .1 Viscoplasticity: phenomenological aspects . . . . . . . .5 General numerical framework . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. . .6. . 11. . . . . . . 11. . .6 Summary of the model . . 11. . 11. . .3 Rate-independent plasticity as a limit case . . . . . . . . 11. . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Some simple analytical solutions . . . . .

. . 13. . .2 Isotropic hyperelasticity . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . .5. .2 The Ogden material model . . . . . . 12. . . . . . .2 Principal stretches representation: Ogden model . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . .1 Subroutine SUOGD . . . .5. 486 486 490 493 496 497 501 502 504 504 510 512 12. . .1 The single-equation integration algorithm . .5 Inﬂation of initially ﬂat membranes . . . . . . . . . .1 Axisymmetric extension of an annular plate . . . . . .3 Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The Hencky material . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . .6. . .1 The Mooney–Rivlin and the neo-Hookean models . . . . . . . . 13. 13. . . . . . . . .5.6. . . .6 Numerical examples . . . . 13. . . . . . 13. .3 Inﬂation of a spherical rubber balloon . . . . . . . . . .2 Integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 12.3 Incompressible hyperelasticity . . . . . . . . . .5 Application: Ogden material implementation . . . .4 Rugby ball . . . . . . . . . . Fracturing of a cylindrical notched specimen Gurson’s void growth model . . . . . . . . . . .4. 12. . . . .2 Some particular models . . . .1 Material objectivity: reduced form of the free-energy function 13. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . .1 The plane stress incompressible Ogden model . . . . . . .1 The model . . . .6 Part Three Large strains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . .4 The Blatz–Ko material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further issues in damage modelling . . . . . . . .4. . . .4. .6. . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Blatz–Ko material . . . . . . . .4. . . 13. . . . . .2. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Plane stress with nested iterations . . . .3. . . . . . . . .3 Isotropic ﬁnite hyperelasticity in plane stress . . . . . 12.6. .4 Tangent moduli: the elasticity tensors . . .1 Regularised neo-Hookean model . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . 13. . . . . . . .CONTENTS xv A simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Hencky model . . . .6. . . . 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. . . . .2 Crack closure effects in damage evolution .1. . .3 Anisotropic ductile damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . 12. . . . . . .2 The plane stress Hencky model . 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . .6. . . . . .2 Stretching of a square perforated rubber sheet . . . . . . 13.1. . . . .2. . .1. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . .3 The tangent operator . . . . . .4 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Hyperelasticity: basic concepts . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . 13. . 13. . . . . . . . . .1 Crack closure effects in damaged elastic materials . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . .4. .3. . . . . . . .4. . .3. . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . 13.2 The tangent operator . . . . . . . . . .2 Subroutine CSTOGD . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . .4 Compressible regularisation . . . . . .1. . . . . 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.

13. . . . . . .2 Nested iteration for plane stress enforcement . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Three-dimensional modelling. . . . 14.9. . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . .1 Multiplicative elastoplasticity kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Exponential map backward discretisation . . . . . . . . . . .xvi CONTENTS 13. .3 Plane strain localisation . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . .7. . .1 Stress-updating algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Finite strain extension to inﬁnitesimal theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . .4 The general elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . .3 Computational implementation of the general algorithm 14. . . . . . . . . . . .7.6 The plastic multiplier . . .3 A general isotropic large-strain plasticity model . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . .4. .7. . . 14. . . . .3. .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 A simple rate-independent three-dimensional model . . . . .5 Thin sheet metal-forming application .9. . 14. . . . . A brief review . . .7 Finite plasticity in plane stress . . . . .2. . . 13. . . . . .4. . .5 The hardening law . . . . . . 14. . . . . . .4. 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . 14. .7 13. . . .3 General hyperelastic-based multiplicative plasticity model . .3.4 The plastic ﬂow rule . . . 14. . . . . . . . .2 The logarithmic elastic strain measure . .2 Necking of a cylindrical bar . . . .7. . . .8 Finite viscoplasticity .2 Computational implementation . . . . .2 Tangent modulus computation . . . . . 13. . . . . 14. . . . . . 14.1 The basic constitutive initial value problem . . . . 14. . .1 The Gurtin–Francis uniaxial model . . 14. . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Finite strain bending of a V-notched Tresca bar . . .1 Numerical treatment . . . . . . .2. . . 14. 14. .7. . . . . . . . .7 Elastomeric bead compression . . . . .8. . .2 One-dimensional ﬁnite plasticity model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . .4 Stretching of a perforated plate . . . . . . 13. . . . .7. .3 The yield function . . . . . . . .6 Principal stress space-based implementation . . . .5 Computational implementation . Hyperelasticity with damage: the Mullins effect . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Logarithmic stretches and the Hencky hyperelastic law .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Example: inﬂation/deﬂation of a damageable rubber balloon . . 14. . . . 14. . . . . . .2. . .4 The dissipation inequality . . . . . . .1 Derivation of the spatial tangent modulus . . . . . . . . .6 Rubber cylinder pressed between two plates . 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. . . .5 The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . 14. . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . .6. . . 13. .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . .7. . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . 14. .3. . .9 Examples . . . .2. . . . . . . . .3. 14. 14.1 Finite strain elastoplasticity: a brief review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . 14. . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.1 The plane stress-projected ﬁnite von Mises model . .4 Example: the model problem . . . . . 13. . 14. . .1 The multiplicative split of the axial stretch . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .10. .2 Finite element equations . . . . 16 Anisotropic finite plasticity: Single crystals 16. . . . . . . . . . . .8 A more general F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . 615 619 621 622 624 625 628 632 633 633 637 642 644 644 647 648 649 651 652 655 656 656 663 663 665 669 669 671 676 678 678 683 683 685 687 689 691 692 692 693 694 694 695 696 14. . . . .1 The two-ﬁeld variational principle . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . .1. . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Integration of Green–Naghdi rate-based models . . . . . . . .2 The internal force vector . 15 Finite elements for large-strain incompressibility 15. . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . 15. . .3 Solution: static condensation . . . . .3 Mixed u/p formulations .4 Remarks on predictive capability . . . 14. .4 Plane strain implementation . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . .3 Spatial tangent operator . . .11.1 A model of ﬁnite strain kinematic hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . .2 EAS ﬁnite elements . . .2 The resolved Schmid shear stress . .6 Objective algorithm for Jaumann rate-based models . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . 16. . .1. . . . . 16. . . . . . . 14.5 Computational implementation aspects . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . .1 Objective stress rates . . .11 Finite plasticity with kinematic hardening . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Single crystal simulation: a brief review . . . .2.3. . .2. . . . 14. . . . . . . 16. . . . . .3 The Jaumann rate-based model . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Plastic deformation by slip: slip-systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . .3 Consistent linearisation: the tangent stiffness . 15. . . . . . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . . 15. . .1. . . . .3 Finite element equations: static condensation . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . .1. . . 15. . . . . . . . . . .4 A general continuum model of single crystals . . . 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. . . . . . . . .CONTENTS xvii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. .1. . . . . . . . . . .2 Plastic slip and the Schmid resolved shear stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Other centroid sampling-based F-bar elements . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . .1.1 Physical aspects . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . .4 Implementation aspects . . . . .1 Enhanced three-ﬁeld variational principle . . .5 Integration algorithms and incremental objectivity .2 Integration algorithm .1. . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . .6 Numerical tests . . . . .11. . .1 Stress computation: the F-bar deformation gradient 15. .1. . . . 14. . .1 The F-bar methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 The F-bar-Patch Method for simplex elements . . . . . . . .10. . . . . 15. . . . . . .10. . .10. . . . . . . . . . .2 Enhanced assumed strain methods . . . 16.1 The plastic ﬂow equation . . . . . . .5 Alternative descriptions . 14.1. . . . . 14. . . . . . 15. . .2 Hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . . 14. . 15. . . . . . . . . .4 Hyperelastic-based models and equivalent rate forms 14. . . .5 The stability of EAS elements . . . . . .10 Rate forms: hypoelastic-based plasticity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .4. . . . . The consistent spatial tangent modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729 731 731 732 732 733 733 734 735 736 738 739 739 740 740 742 743 744 . . . . 16.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The derivative of an isotropic tensor function A. . .1 A planar double-slip model . . . . . . . .1 The elastic modulus: compressible neo-Hookean model . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . . An algorithm for a planar double-slip model . . . . . . . .9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Rate-dependent crystal: model problem . . . . . . . CONTENTS 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . . 16. .2 The derivative of an isotropic scalar function A. . .2 Three dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . .3 Example: the model problem . . . . . . . . . .6 16. . . . . . . . . . A. . .5. . . . . . .2 The exponential map-based integration algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . .9. .8 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.1. . .1 Isotropic scalar-valued functions . . .3 Multisurface formulation of the ﬂow rule .xviii 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . . A. . . . . A. 16. 16.1 Representation . . . . . . . .3. . . . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 The three-dimensional case . . . . . . .1 Tensor function derivative . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.9. .7 16. . . . . A. . . A general integration algorithm . . .3. . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . .2 The integration algorithm . .1 Function computation . . . . . . . . . . . . A. . . . . . . .5 16. . . . . . . . .1 Two dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . A. . . . . . . . .5 A particular class of isotropic tensor functions . . . . .2 Computation of the function derivative . . . . . . . .9 . . .4.6 Alternative procedures . . . . . . .7. .1 Symmetric strain localisation on a rectangular strip . 16. . . . . . . .4. . . . . Numerical examples . . . . . . . . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Unsymmetric localisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . .6. .3 The two-dimensional case . . . . .6. .5. . 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . A. . .1 Representation . . . . . . . .3 The spatial tangent modulus: neo-Hookean-based model 16. . . . .8. . .2 Plane strain and axisymmetric problems . .4 Isotropic Taylor hardening . . .2 The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus . . .5 The hyperelastic law . . .2 Isotropic tensor-valued functions . . . . .9. . . 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. . . . . Viscoplastic single crystals . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Rate-dependent formulation . A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. . . .8. . . . . . . . .1 The search for an active set of slip systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

.

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

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

Part One Basic concepts .

.

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

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

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

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

Appendix A is concerned with isotropic scalar. 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. The main discussion is focused on hyperelastic-based ﬁnite plasticity theories with multiplicative kinematics. The ﬁnite plasticity models actually implemented in the program HYPLAS belong to this class of theories. for instance). . 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. are generally inappropriate near the incompressible limit) is highly desirable. in Appendix D we describe the handling – including array storage and product operations – of second and fourth-order tensors in ﬁnite element computer programs. 1. This implementation is incorporated in the program HYPLAS. However. Three different approaches to tackle the problem are considered: the so-called F -bar method (including its more recent F -bar-Patch variant for simplex elements).and tensor-valued functions of a symmetric tensor that are widely exploited throughout the text.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.3. Finally. a discussion on the so-called hypoelasticbased theories is also included. four appendices are included. The material presented is conﬁned mostly to isotropic elastoplasticity. 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. In addition to the above. to pages 146 and 199). Finally. the name of the corresponding FORTRAN subprogram is often indicated at the top of the box (see page 221. for completeness. 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. It presents some important basic properties as well as formulae that can be used in practice for the computation of function values and function derivatives.1. with anisotropy in the form of kinematic hardening added only at the end of the chapter. Chapter 15 is concerned with the treatment of large strain incompressibility within the Finite Element Method. For boxes describing key procedures implemented in the program HYPLAS. The implementation of a specialisation of the general model based on a planar double-slip system is described in detail. 1. the Enhanced Assumed Strain (EAS) technique. for example. 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 USE OF BOXES Extensive use of boxes has been made to summarise constitutive models and numerical algorithms in general (refer. Appendix B addresses the tensor exponential function. General scheme of notation Throughout the text. and the mixed u/p formulation. The tensor exponential is of relevance for the treatment of ﬁnite plasticity presented in Chapters 14 and 16. 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. without any added speciﬁc techniques.

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

INTRODUCTION 9 1.2. 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. SOME IMPORTANT CHARACTERS The speciﬁc meaning of some important characters is listed below.3. We remark that some of these symbols may occasionally be used with a different connotation (which should be clear from the context). elastic domain Set of plastically admissible stresses Generic base vector. unit eigenvector of a symmetric tensor associated with the ith eigenvalue D De Dep E Ei E ¯ E ei .

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

. . . N ) for a model with N terms in the Ogden strain-energy function series Generic set of internal state variables Up .INTRODUCTION 11 0 o P p p Q q R R R r s s s t ¯ t U U U u u V V V V v W W W x αp α e p e p e α e Zero tensor. . zero 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. zero array.

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

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

Typically.3. det(·) dev(·) divp (·) divx (·) exp(·) ln(·) o(·) sign(·) skew(·) sym(·) tr(·) ∆(·) δ(·) ∇(·) ∇p (·) ∇x (·) ∇ . S : T. OTHER IMPORTANT SYMBOLS AND OPERATIONS The meanings of other important symbols and operations are listed below. The symbol ≡ is often used to emphasise that the expression in question is a deﬁnition.4. Assignment operation. The value of the right-hand side of the expression is assigned to its left-hand side.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. s ∇x (·) ∂(·) s s ∇p . ∆(·) = (·)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. Double contraction of tensors (internal product of second-order tensors) ∂a (·) ∂ (·) ∂a ˙ (·) (·) T a≡b a := b. a := a + b S : T. Determinant of (·) Deviator of (·) Material divergence of (·) Spatial divergence of (·) Exponential (including tensor exponential) of (·) Natural logarithm (including tensor logarithm) of (·) A term that vanishes faster than (·) The signum function: sign(·) ≡ (·)/|(·)| Skew-symmetric part of (·) Symmetric part of (·) Trace of (·) Increment of (·). S:T .

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

.

This will allow readers not yet familiar with compact notation to associate compactly written entities and operations with their indicial forms. Points of E and vectors U satisfy the basic rules of vector algebra.3) . simply. indicial notation is also used. However. the use of compact notation. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.1.1. and u is said to be a unit vector if u = 1. 2. Vectors Let E be an n-dimensional Euclidean space and let U be the space of n-dimensional vectors associated with E.2) (2. may comfortably skip this chapter. here denoted o. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. rather than curvilinear. NORM AND ORTHOGONALITY Let u·v denote the inner product (or scalar product) between two arbitrary vectors of U. which will be expressed exclusively in terms of Cartesian coordinate systems.1. We remark that no proofs are given to most relations presented in this chapter. Ltd (2. the use of indicial notation will be much less frequent. coordinates for indicial representation is sufﬁciently general for the applications considered in this book. The Euclidean norm (or.1) u = u · u. In the subsequent chapters. preference is given to the use of intrinsic (or compact) tensor notation where no indices are used to represent mathematical entities. Readers interested in such proofs and a more in-depth treatment of the subject are referred to other textbooks such as Gurtin (1981). in particular. 2. The zero vector. norm) of a vector u is deﬁned as √ (2. INNER PRODUCT. is the element of U that satisﬁes o = 0. Readers who are familiar with tensor analysis and. We note that the use of Cartesian.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. in many of the deﬁnitions introduced in this chapter. Throughout this text. with which we assume the reader to be familiar.

xi = (x − x0 ) · ei .4) is the Krönecker delta. Any vector of U is uniquely deﬁned by its components relative to a given basis.11) of x relative to the origin x0 . . The Cartesian coordinates {xi } of x are the Cartesian components of the position vector r = x − x0 .18 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS A vector u is said to be orthogonal (or perpendicular) to a vector v if u · v = 0. (2. deﬁnes a Cartesian coordinate frame.1. en } of n mutually orthogonal vectors satisfying ei · ej = δij . un An orthonormal basis.8) are the Cartesian components of u relative to the basis {ei }. i = 1. x0 ∈ E.2. 2. . denoted [u]. together with an origin point. . . Any vector u ∈ U can be represented as u = u 1 e1 + u 2 e2 + · · · + u n en = u i ei . e2 . xn of Cartesian coordinates of x. n (2. That is. . where u i = u · ei .12) (2. any point x of E can be represented by an array x1 x2 [x] = . .10) . . (2.6) (2. 2. This allows us to represent any vector u as a single column matrix.9) . . deﬁnes an orthonormal basis for U .7) (2. (2.5) (2. . Analogously to the representation of vectors. ORTHOGONAL BASES AND CARTESIAN COORDINATE FRAMES A set {ei } ≡ {e1 . . . of components u1 u2 [u] = . . . {ei }. where δij = 1 0 if i = j if i = j (2.

(2. The operations of sum and scalar multiplication of tensors are deﬁned by (S + T )u = S u + T u (α S)u = α (S u). In general.14) where α ∈ R. T T . and the identity tensor.21) (2. of a tensor T is the unique tensor that satisﬁes T u · v = u · T T v. i. ST = TS. Second-order tensors Second-order tensors are linear transformations from U into U. I. a second-order tensor T:U→U maps each vector u into a vector v = T u. then T is said to be symmetric. SYMMETRIC AND SKEW TENSORS The transpose. then S and T are said to commute. 2. simply. (2.18) (2. If T = TT. If ST = TS. THE TRANSPOSE. The product of two tensors S and T is the tensor ST deﬁned by ST u = S (T u). If T = −T T .17) (2.2. Any tensor T can be decomposed as the sum T = sym(T ) + skew(T ) of its symmetric part sym(T ) ≡ 1 (T + T T ) 2 and its skew part skew(T ) ≡ 1 (T − T T ).15) Iu=u ∀ u ∈ U.13) Any linear vector-valued function of a vector is a tensor. then T is said to be skew symmetric (or. v ∈ U. skew). respectively. the tensors that satisfy 0u = o (2.2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 19 2. 0.16) . 2 (2.22) (2.19) ∀ u. are.1. the zero tensor. In addition.e.20) (2. (2.23) (2.

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

. the array [v] of Cartesian components of v is obtained from the matrix-vector product v2 [v ] ≡ . . . 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. .30) Thus. Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . .32) . . . Note that in (2. . . the Cartesian components of the identity tensor. . read Iij = δij .31) (2. . Tn2 ··· ··· .3. .25) · · · Tnn For instance. . .ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 21 2.27) T2n . . . Any second tensor is uniquely deﬁned by its Cartesian components. .29) The Cartesian components of the vector v = T u are given by vi = [Tjk (ej ⊗ ek ) ul el ] · ei = Tij uj . . vn v1 T21 = . by arranging the components Tij in a matrix. . . . (2. (2. . T1n (2. .28) (2. so that its matrix representation is given by 1 0 0 1 [I ] = .26) are the Cartesian components of T. we may have the following matrix representation for T : T21 [T ] = . .. Thus. 0 0 ··· 0 · · · 0 . I. .2.25) no summation is implied over the index n. . . . Tn2 ··· ··· . un u1 · · · Tnn T It can be easily proved that the Cartesian components Tij of the transpose T T of a tensor T are given by T Tij = Tji . . . . T1n T2n u2 .. . ··· 1 (2. Tn1 T11 T12 T22 . (2.

. T and vectors s. TRACE. T T has the following Cartesian matrix representation T11 T21 · · · Tn1 T12 T22 · · · Tn2 [T T ] = .35) (2. . (2. the trace of the tensor (u ⊗ v) is the linear map deﬁned as tr(u ⊗ v) = u · v. S : T. The inner product. (iii) u · S v = S : (u ⊗ v). . (v) Tij = T : (ei ⊗ ej ). The Euclidean norm (or simply norm) of a tensor T is deﬁned as √ 2 2 2 T ≡ T : T = T11 + T12 + · · · + Tnn . the trace of T is the sum of the diagonal terms of the Cartesian matrix representation [T ].22 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thus.34) that is. v ∈ U. . (ii) R : (S T ) = (ST R) : T = (R T T ) : S. . v: (i) I : T = tr T.36) (2. . then S : T = S : T T = S : sym(T ). For a generic tensor. INNER PRODUCT AND EUCLIDEAN NORM For any u. (ix) If S is symmetric and T is skew. . t.37) (2. then S : T = 0. or.4.2. T = Tij ei ⊗ ej . S : T = Sij Tij .38) . . (2. (viii) If S is skew. between two tensors S and T is deﬁned as S : T = tr(ST T ). T1n T2n · · · Tnn (2. . (vii) If S is symmetric. Basic properties The following basic properties involving the internal product of tensors hold for any tensors R. u. (vi) (u ⊗ v)ij = (u ⊗ v) : (ei ⊗ ej ) = ui vj .. S. it then follows that tr T = Tij tr(ei ⊗ ej ) = Tij δij = Tii . (iv) (s ⊗ t) : (u ⊗ v) = (s · u)(t · v). then S : T = −S : T T = S : skew(T ). . in Cartesian component form.33) 2. .

(2. It will be denoted O + .43) is called a proper orthogonal tensor (or a rotation).42) The set of all orthogonal tensors will be denoted O. satisfying T −1 T = T T −1 = I exists. The product Q1 Q2 of any two orthogonal tensors Q1 and Q2 is an orthogonal tensor. (2. A tensor T is invertible if and only if det T = 0. Any positive deﬁnite tensor is invertible.2. INVERSE TENSOR.5.40) ∀ u = o.2. then the product Q1 Q2 is also a rotation. = T −1 S−1 . The set of all proper orthogonal (or rotation) tensors is the proper orthogonal group. DETERMINANT A tensor T is said to be invertible if its inverse.6. ORTHOGONAL TENSORS. −1 (iv) (T −1 ) = (T T ) . is the determinant of the matrix [T ]. denoted T −1 . (ii) det T −1 = (det T ) (iii) (ST ) −1 T −1 (2.41) . If Q1 and Q2 are rotations.39) (2. 2. The determinant of a tensor T. ROTATIONS A tensor Q is said to be orthogonal if QT = Q−1 . A tensor T is said to be positive deﬁnite if T u · u > 0. The determinant of any orthogonal tensor equals either +1 or −1. 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. an orthogonal tensor Q satisﬁes Qu · Qv = u · v. (2. denoted det T.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 23 2.44) . An orthogonal tensor Q with det Q = 1 (2. For all vectors u and v.

. Let T and u be. Such bases are related by i e∗ = R ei . 3} −1 if {i.53) .48) · · · en · e∗ n (2.2. 3} ijk = 0 if at least two indices coincide. j Example. Let the tensor R be a transformation that rotates all vectors of the two-dimensional space by an (anti-clockwise positive) angle θ. j. (2. . . e1 · e∗ 1 e1 · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ 2 .52) uj vk . 2. 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 ]. . . in component form. i ··· ··· . we have ∗ Tij = Rki Tkl Rlj . n. . (2. A rotation in two dimensions In two-dimensional space.. (2. . u∗ = Rji uj .49) Rij = ei · e∗ .46) (2. The matrix representation of R reads [R] = cos θ sin θ −sin θ cos θ . . denotes the alternating tensor +1 if {i. e1 · e∗ n (2. . whose components are given by wi = where ijk ijk (2. [u ∗ ] = [R]T [u ]. en · e∗ 1 or. respectively. .50) 2. 2. k} is an odd permutation of {1. j. CROSS PRODUCT Let us now restrict ourselves to the three-dimensional vector space.47) The matrix [R] is given by e2 · e∗ 1 [R] = . 2. a tensor and a vector with matrix representations [T ] and [u] with respect to the basis {ei }.51) (2. in component form. en · e∗ 2 e2 · e∗ n . the rotation tensor has a simple Cartesian representation.24 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Rotations and changes of basis Let {ei } and {e∗ } be two orthonormal bases of U. we deﬁne the cross product (or vector product) between two vectors u and v as the vector w = u × v.45) where R is a rotation. Equivalently.7. k} is an even permutation of {1. (2. . i for i = 1. In this space. .

The following properties hold: (i) The eigenvalues of a positive deﬁnite tensor are strictly positive. 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. v. reads [W ] = w3 −w2 where {wi } are the components of w.2. there is a unique vector w.57) (2. det T = (T u × T v) · T w . . the axial vector is expressed as w = W32 e1 + W13 e2 + W21 e3 . SPECTRAL DECOMPOSITION Given a tensor T. (u × v) · w (2.8. (2. (iv) For any tensor T and a set {u. 0 w2 (2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 25 Basic relations with the cross product Some useful relations involving the cross product are listed in the following: (i) u × v = −v × u. The matrix representation of W . In terms of the Cartesian components of W . (iii) u × u = o.55) The space of all vectors u satisfying the above equation is called the characteristic space of T corresponding to ω. (ii) The characteristic spaces of a symmetric tensor are mutually orthogonal.54) (v) For any skew tensor W .58) 0 −w3 0 w1 −w1 . (ii) (u × v) · w = (v × w) · u = (w × u) · v. such that W u = w × u. called the axial vector of W . 2. w} of linearly independent vectors.56) (2.

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

det(S − α I ) can be expressed as det(S − α I ) = α2 − α I1 + I2 . then we have I1 = s1 + s2 + s3 I2 = s1 s2 + s2 s3 + s1 s3 I3 = s1 s2 s3 .73) −s3 + s2 I1 − si I2 + I3 = 0. the characteristic equation reads s2 − si I1 + I2 = 0.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 27 Characteristic equation. then its principal invariants can be expressed in terms of its eigenvalues as I1 = s1 + s2 I2 = s1 s2 .71) (2.68) (2.69) (2. whose solution is the set of eigenvalues of S. If S is symmetric. Three-dimensional space In the three-dimensional space.72) The characteristic equation (now a cubic equation). (2. deﬁned as I1 (S) ≡ tr S = Sii I2 (S) ≡ det S = S11 S22 − S12 S21 .66) Two-dimensional space In the two-dimensional space. where I1 and I2 are the principal invariants of S.70) (2. (2. where I1 . det(S − α I ) has the representation det(S − α I ) = −α3 + α2 I1 − α I2 + I3 . In this case. i i If S is symmetric. i (2. Principal invariants Every eigenvalue si of a tensor S (symmetric or non-symmetric) satisﬁes the characteristic equation det(S − si I ) = 0. for any α ∈ R. (2.74) . 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 .67) The eigenvalues si are the solutions to this quadratic equation. I2 and I3 are the principal invariants of S. reads (2.

b.83) .2. In fact. we have already made use of a higher-order tensor: the third-order alternating tensor whose components are deﬁned in expression (2. (2. or higher-order tensors. (2.80) where the tensor product (now the tensor product of three vectors) is deﬁned as the operator that satisﬁes (a ⊗ b ⊗ c) d = (c · d)(a ⊗ b). (2.7. vectors.28 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. in the deﬁnition of the cross product in Section 2. which can be classed as ﬁrst-order tensors. The multiplication of the alternating tensor by a vector v yields the second-order tensor v = ijk vk ei ⊗ ej . POLAR DECOMPOSITION Let F be a positive deﬁnite tensor. The alternating tensor is a linear operator that maps vectors into skew symmetric tensors.75) The decompositions R U and V R are unique and are called.53). The symmetric tensors U and V are given by U= F T F. The square root of a symmetric tensor S is the unique tensor T that satisﬁes T 2 ≡ T T = S. the eigenvalues and the basis of eigenvectors of S. respectively. with the above deﬁnitions. which are linear operators on vectors. V= F F T. T.82) Note that. that can be considered as zero-order tensors.52) can be equivalently written in compact form as w = ( v) u.79) 2. and second-order tensors. expression (2. the spectral decomposition of its square root.3. c and d.77) With {si } and {ei } denoting.78) i Assertions (2. Note that the rotation R associated with an arbitrary F can be expressed as R = F U −1 = V −1 F . (2. It can be represented as = ijk ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek .76) are commonly referred to as the Polar Decomposition Theorem. reads √ T= si ei ⊗ ei .76) where (·) denotes the tensor square root of (·).81) for arbitrary vectors a. (2.75)–(2. (2. respectively.9. Then there exist symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V and a rotation R such that F = R U = V R. In this section we introduce some basic deﬁnitions and operations involving higher-order tensors. (2. are frequently employed in continuum mechanics.2. the right and left polar decompositions of F . Higher-order tensors So far we have seen operations involving scalars. (2. Linear operators of higher order. (2.

(vi) S : T = Tklij Skl ei ⊗ ej . If symmetry occurs in the last two indices. This deﬁnition is analogous to that of symmetric second-order tensors. Tijkl = Tjikl .e. The Cartesian components of symmetric fourth-order tensors satisfy the major symmetries Tijkl = Tklij .85) for arbitrary vectors a.89) for any S. (ii) T u = Tijkl ul ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek . (2. (2. b. the following relations are valid: (i) Tijkl = (ei ⊗ ej ) : T : (ek ⊗ el ).ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 29 2. the tensor has the properties T : S = T : ST . if Tijkl = Tijlk . then.1. (iii) T : S = Tijkl Skl ei ⊗ ej . (2.88) It should be noted that other symmetries are possible in fourth-order tensors.92) S : T = ST : T. i. T : S = (T : S)T .86) (2. As a direct extension of equation (2. A general fourthorder tensor‡ T can be represented as T = Tijkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . and the double contractions (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b).87) for any second-order tensors S and U .90) (2.3. tensors are represented in this text by bold face upright sans serif fonts.81) we deﬁne (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d)e = (e · d)(a ⊗ b ⊗ c). S : T = (S : T)T . d.91) (2. e and f. They also map vectors into third-order tensors and third-order tensors into vectors. . (2. (2. (v) T : S = Tijmn Smnkl ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek ⊗ el . If it is symmetric in the ﬁrst two indices. FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS Fourth-order tensors are of particular relevance in continuum mechanics. With the above deﬁnitions. Symmetry We shall call symmetric any fourth-order tensor that satisﬁes S : T : U = (T : S) : U .84) Fourth-order tensors map second-order tensors into second-order tensors. ‡ Fourth-order (2. c. (a ⊗ b ⊗ c ⊗ d) : (e ⊗ f ⊗ g ⊗ h) = (c · e)(d · f)(a ⊗ b ⊗ g ⊗ h).

4. is isotropic if [T ] = [R][T ][R]T for any rotation R. (2. (2.e. is isotropic if Tijkl = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq . i.4. The components T∗ of a tensor T relative to the basis deﬁned by {e∗ } ijkl i are given by T∗ = Rmi Rnj Rpk Rql Tmnpq .2.1.2.97) . extending the previous deﬁnitions of the tensor product. are the only second-order isotropic tensors. let us consider the orthonormal basis {e∗ } deﬁned as i e∗ = Rei . 2. 2. Spherical tensors. (2. The deﬁnition of contraction operations is completely analogous to that seen above for fourth-order tensors. tensors represented as αI. for any rotation R.98) (2.3. GENERIC-ORDER TENSORS Generic tensors of order m are deﬁned as T = Ti1 i2 ···im (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim ). ISOTROPIC SECOND-ORDER TENSORS A second-order tensor. T. ISOTROPIC FOURTH-ORDER TENSORS A fourth-order tensor. we have (ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim )u = (u · eim )(ei1 ⊗ ei2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ eim−1 ). 2. Isotropic tensors A tensor is said to be isotropic if its components are invariant under any change of basis.96) (2.4.93) with R a rotation. T. with scalar α. where.94) ijkl where Tmnpq are the components relative to {ei }.30 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Change of basis transformation Again.95) for all u ∈ U. i (2. 2.

101) The tensor IT is the transposition tensor. i.e. When multiplying any tensor T it gives (I ⊗ I ) : T = (tr T ) I.103) for any S. given in component form as Iijkl = δik δjl . U. the tensor (I ⊗ I ) has components (I ⊗ I)ijkl = δij δkl . 2 This tensor maps any second-order tensor into its symmetric part. IS : T = T : IS = sym(T ). IT : S = S : IT = ST . (2. IS : S = S.108) . (2. (2.106) (2. i. (2. we have I : T = T : I = T.105) (2. the fourth-order identity satisﬁes I : T = T : I = T. U = α I + β IT + γ (I ⊗ I ). i. (2.100) For any second-order tensor T.110) 2 (2. The tensor I is called the fourth-order identity.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 31 Any isotropic fourth-order tensor.e. for any fourth-order tensor. IT and (I ⊗ I ).104) Another important isotropic tensor that frequently appears in continuum mechanics is the tensor deﬁned as (2.102) (2. (2. T. and. Obviously.99) where α. Its Cartesian components are (IS )ijkl = 1 (δik δjl + δil δjk ). (2. Finally.109) We shall refer to this tensor as the symmetric projection or symmetric identity. β and γ are scalars. The components of IT are (IT )ijkl = δil δjk . It maps any second-order tensor onto its transpose.107) IS = 1 ( I + IT ).e. for any symmetric S. can be represented as a linear combination of three basic isotropic tensors: I.

it can be represented as DY(X 0 ) [U ] = ∇Y(X 0 ) ∗ U . DIRECTIONAL DERIVATIVE Let X and Y be ﬁnite-dimensional normed vector spaces and let a function Y be deﬁned as Y : D ⊂ X → Y.5. and o(U ) is a term that approaches zero faster than U . where the domain D of Y is an open subset of X. THE GRADIENT Since the derivative is a linear transformation between ﬁnite-dimensional spaces. For a given U .3. (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 ).111) where DY(X 0 ) [U ] denotes a linear transformation on U . represented in abstract notation.113) for each U ∈ X.32 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2.2. Differentiation 2. =0 (2. . that is.5. Y(X 0 + U ) = Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] + o(U ). 2. i.1. U→0 lim o(U ) = 0.112) If the linear map DY(X 0 ) exists.114) is the called the linearisation of Y about X 0 . The derivative satisﬁes DY(X 0 ) [U ] = lim 1 →0 ∈R [Y(X 0 + U ) − Y(X 0 )] = d Y(X 0 + U ) d . LINEARISATION OF A NONLINEAR FUNCTION The function L : D ⊂ X → Y. THE DERIVATIVE MAP.114) corresponds indeed to the approximation to Y that ignores all higher-order (nonlinear) terms in U .5.111) that the function deﬁned in (2. it is unique and is called the derivative of Y at X 0 . U (2.5.e. 2. it is the linear approximation to Y at X 0 . deﬁned as L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] (2. (2.115) where ∇Y(X 0 ) is the gradient of Y at X 0 and the symbol ‘∗’ denotes an appropriate product operation. 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.

the gradient of y can be promptly identiﬁed as ∇y(x0 ) = 2x0 . (2.122) 2. lim |o(u)| u2 = lim = 0.114).1) y(x) ≡ x2 . We will also use the notation dY dX to denote the gradient and when Y is a function of two or more arguments.115). 0 (2.111) reads y(x0 + u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] + o(u) = x2 + 2x0 u + u2 .4. Example. we ﬁnd that the linearisation of y about x0 in the present case reads l(u) ≡ y(x0 ) + ∇y(x0 )u = x2 + 2x0 u. Let us consider the function (Figure 2. DERIVATIVES OF FUNCTIONS OF VECTOR AND TENSOR ARGUMENTS Let us now consider some simple illustrative examples of derivatives of functions whose arguments and/or values may be scalar. this term vanishes faster than u. vectors or tensors. i. (2.5.120) Thus. With the above and (2.117) (2. . by comparing the above expression with (2.119) (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. 0 We can then identify o(u) = u2 . u→0 |u| |u| (2. we have Dy(x0 ) [u] = 2x0 u. In the present case.116) u→0 In addition.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 33 We remark that throughout this text we shall use the term derivative also as a synonym for gradient. 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.121) and the product ‘∗’ is identiﬁed with the standard product between scalars.e. indeed.118) (2. (2.

1.34 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 2.115) becomes the internal product between vectors in the present case.128) . in component form. (2. we have y(x + u) = x · x + 2x · u + o(u) where o(u) = u · u.126) (2. Function derivative and linearisation. dxi (2.129) = i (2.124) (2. (2.123) The generic product operation indicated in (2. In this case. dx or. It then follows that Dy(x) [u] = 2x · u. We may alternatively use the notation dy = 2x. and the gradient ∇y can be identiﬁed as the vector ∇y(x) = 2x. Scalar function of vector argument We start with the scalar function of a vector argument deﬁned by y(x) ≡ x · x = xi xi . dy dx Scalar function of a tensor argument Now consider the internal product between tensors y(X) ≡ X : X = Xij Xij .127) dy = 2xi .125) (2.

we write Y (X + U ) = XX + XU + U X + U U = Y (X) + DY (X) [U ] + o(U ). The Cartesian components of ∇Y can be easily found to be given by (∇Y )ijkl = Xik δjl + Xlj δik . (2. in component form. To obtain its derivative.137) (2. Dy(x) [u] = x ·u x (2.135) (2.132) (2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 35 We have y(X + U ) = X : X + 2X : U + U : U = y(X) + Dy(X) [U ] + o(U ).131) (2.130) Tensor function of a tensor argument We now determine the derivative of the square of a tensor Y (X) ≡ X 2 = XX. The gradient – a second-order tensor in this case – can be immediately identiﬁed as ∇y(X) = 2X. Some useful relations We list below (without proof) some basic expressions for derivatives relevant to theoretical and computational mechanics applications: (i) y(x) ≡ x .134) (2.136) d x x = . or. dXij (2. This tensor-value function is equivalently expressed in component form as Yij ≡ Xik Xkj . (∇y)ij = dy = 2 Xij . dx x (2.138) .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 .

141) (2.142) (2.5. dX 2.143) (2. dX (iv) Y (x) ≡ a ⊗ x (with constant a).139) (2.144) . Dy(X) [U ] = X :U X d X X = . −1 −1 Dijkl = −Xik Xlj (2. DY (X) [U ] = −X −1 U X −1 = D : U . DY (x) [u] = (a ⊗ I) · u d (a ⊗ x) = a ⊗ I.36 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (ii) y(X) ≡ X . 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. d (X −1 ) = D. Dy(X) [U ] = (det X) X −T : U d det X = (det X) X −T . dX X (iii) y(X) ≡ det X. DY (x) [u] = (I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I) · u d (x ⊗ x) = I ⊗ x + x ⊗ I. DY (X) [U ] = U d X = I.140) (2. dx (v) Y (x) ≡ x ⊗ x. dX (vii) Y (X) ≡ X −1 .5. dx (vi) Y (X) ≡ X. The derivative of Y satisﬁes DY(X) [U ] = DW(Z(X)) [DZ(X) [U ]] for all U ∈ X.

vector and tensor-valued ﬁelds on B.5. denoted div T.147) ∀ u ∈ U. (2. Then. we have (div T )i = ∂Tij . α n da = v · n da = T n da = ∇α dv. If W is a fourth-order tensor and Z is a second-order tensor. 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.148) ∂B B ∂B B ∂B B div T dv.7.6. respectively. In Cartesian components. that satisﬁes (div T ) · u = div(T T u). ‘∗’ could be the double contraction operation.145) ∂xi Now let T be a smooth second-order tensor ﬁeld on D. ∂xj (2. then so is Y and DY(X) [U ] = W(X) ∗ DZ(X) [U ] + DW(X) [U ] ∗ Z(X). THE DIVERGENCE Let v : D ⊂ E → U be a smooth vector ﬁeld on D. where n is the ﬁeld of unit outward normal vectors on ∂B.5.146) The divergence theorem Let B ⊂ E be a closed region with piecewise smooth boundary ∂B and let α. The divergence of T is the vector ﬁeld.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 37 2. this product could be the internal or tensor product between vectors. and so on. 2. . If W and Z are differentiable at an argument X. v and T be smooth scalar. (2. (2. div v dv. If W and Z are vectors. for instance. The divergence of v is the scalar ﬁeld deﬁned as ∂vi div v = tr(∇v) = .

(iv) div(u ⊗ v) = u div v + (∇u)v. In computational mechanics. Our generic nonlinear problem consists in ﬁnding X ∈ D such that Y(X) = 0. (vi) div(α T ) = α div T + T ∇α.8. the interest in linearisation stems mostly from the fact that numerical solutions to nonlinear problems are usually obtained by algorithms which require the solution of a sequence of linearised (or approximately linearised) problems. 2. smooth scalar and tensor ﬁelds on D ⊂ E and let u and v be smooth vector ﬁelds on D. USEFUL RELATIONS INVOLVING THE GRADIENT AND THE DIVERGENCE Let α and T be. which is extensively exploited in the ﬁnite element framework described later in this book. (ii) div(αu) = α div u + u · ∇α.149) about an arbitrary point X 0 ∈ D at which Y is differentiable consists in ﬁnding U ∈ D such that L(U ) ≡ Y(X 0 ) + DY(X 0 ) [U ] = 0.38 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 2. In theoretical continuum mechanics.5. (v) div(T u) = T T : ∇u + u · div T T . The proof of the above relations is given in Gurtin (1981). The following useful relations hold: (i) ∇(αu) = α ∇u + u ⊗ ∇α. (iii) ∇(u · v) = (∇v)T u + (∇u)T v. 2. on the other hand. (2. A typical example is the well-known Newton–Raphson iterative scheme. Linearisation of nonlinear problems The linearisation of nonlinear problems plays a crucial role in theoretical and computational mechanics. the concept of linearisation is essential in the derivation of linear approximations to general nonlinear theories. THE NONLINEAR PROBLEM AND ITS LINEARISED FORM Let Y : D ⊂ X → Y be a generic nonlinear function. respectively.1. where L(U ) is the linearisation of Y at X 0 . (2.6.149) The linearisation of the problem deﬁned by equation (2.6. 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.150) .

2.151) This is obviously a particularisation of the general nonlinear problem (2. Example.2. The scalar case To illustrate the above concept. 0 (2. The more interested reader is referred to Marsden and Hughes (1983) where the concept of linearisation is introduced in the context of mappings between Banach spaces. Linearisation of a nonlinear equation. we describe a much simpler example whose purpose is only to familiarise the reader with the concept. 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. LINEARISATION IN INFINITE-DIMENSIONAL FUNCTIONAL SPACES So far. let us again appeal to the case of a scalar function of a single scalar argument.149). (2. y(x) ≡ x2 .§ Of particular interest in computational mechanics is the case when Y is a functional.e. a scalar-valued function of a function.6. Here. In the present case. . the generic linearised problem (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.152) 2.2) deﬁned by the equation y(x) = 0. § The precise deﬁnition of such spaces falls outside the scope of the present text. i. the discussion on differentiation and linearisation has been restricted to mappings between ﬁnite-dimensional vector spaces. and consider the trivial root-ﬁnding problem (refer to the graphical illustration of Figure 2.ELEMENTS OF TENSOR ANALYSIS 39 nonlinear function y(x) linearisation of y(x) about x 0 y x0 solution of the nonlinear problem solution of the linearised problem x Figure 2.

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. the linearisation of the functional (2. (2. (2.153) at x0 is then established as l(u) = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Ω cos(x0 (p)) u(p) dp. (2.155) From the above.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. we frequently use the term sufﬁciently smooth in the present text.153) where Ω ⊂ R n is a given integration domain.156) ¶ To avoid a precise statement of regularity properties of functions.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. Linearisation of the above functional about a given argument (function) x0 is the following generalisation of (2. meaning that functions have a sufﬁcient degree of regularity so that all operations in which they are involved are properly deﬁned. .114): l(u) = y(x0 ) + Dy(x0 ) [u] = Ω sin(x0 (p)) dp + Dy(x0 ) [u]. (2. We deﬁne a functional y : X → R as y(x) ≡ Ω sin(x(p)) dp.

Thus. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. 1980. 1981. The deﬁnitions and notation introduced will be systematically employed throughout the subsequent chapters of this book. The region of E occupied by B in its deformed conﬁguration will be denoted ϕ(Ω). deﬁned by u(p) = ϕ(p) − p. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. 1965).2) † For convenience. 3. Truesdell and Noll.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. 1997. one may write x = p + u(p). A deformation of B (Figure 3. Ciarlet. (3. 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. 1990. material particles of B will be identiﬁed with their positions in the reference conﬁguration of B. Ltd .3) (3. Spencer. Gurtin. 1981.1) where the particle is positioned in the deformed conﬁguration of B. 1984.3 ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS T HIS chapter reviews some basic concepts of mechanics and thermodynamics of continuous media. Lemaitre and Chaboche. Ogden. 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. The vector ﬁeld u(p). Bonet and Wood. 1988.1.

or a combination of a translation and a rotation. rigid translation rigid rotation fixed point q x x p u p Figure 3. (3. A rigid deformation of B is a deformation that preserves the distances between all material particles of B. Rigid deformations.4) where R is a proper orthogonal tensor (a rotation) and q is the point about which B is rotated. A rigid deformation (Figure 3. A time-dependent deformation of B is called a motion of B.42 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p e2 u( p) x= ( p) e1 e3 Figure 3.3) is deﬁned by a function ϕ : Ω × R → E. including translations and/or rotations. A rigid translation is a deformation with constant displacement vector (u independent of p): ϕ(p) = p + u.1. A motion (Figure 3.2) 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. if and only if it can be expressed in the form: ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + R (p − q). (3. . A deformation is rigid. a rotation.2.5) (3. Deformation. A rigid rotation is a deformation that can be expressed as ϕ(p) = q + R (p − q).

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

with W (t) a skew tensor. the spatial velocity v admits the representation v(x. 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 material (spatial) ﬁeld does . Rigid velocity. vectorial or tensorial) ﬁeld α be deﬁned over the body B. t) = α(ϕ(p. (3. at each time t. then α is said to be a spatial ﬁeld. the arguments of v are spatial position and time. t).e. The vector w(t) is called the angular velocity of the body. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL FIELDS ˙ Both ﬁelds x and v introduced above describe the velocity of material particles.14) which is the standard formula for the velocity ﬁeld of classical rigid-body dynamics. t). (3. By denoting w(t) the axial vector of W (t). t) + w(t) × (x − y). the map ϕ(·. 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. However. the spatial description of a material ﬁeld β(p. If the domain of α is Ω × R. if its domain is ϕt (Ω) × R. The velocity at x is given as the sum of a uniform velocity v(y. i. A motion ϕ is rigid if and only if at each time t.1. This motivates the following deﬁnitions: Let a general time-dependent (scalar. t) is a rigid deformation. t) + W (t) (x − y) (3.44 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS x v(x) w x (x y ) v( y) v( y) y w Figure 3. On the other hand. y ∈ ϕ(Ω. t) is deﬁned by βs (x.1. t) = v(y. t) = v(y.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. the velocity ﬁeld above can be re-written as v(x. A rigid motion of B is a motion for which. The rigid velocity ﬁeld is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.4. t) is deﬁned by αm (p. Conversely.4.16) (3. the material description of a spatial ﬁeld α(x. Using (3. t). t). ˙ ˙ x and v have different arguments. 3.7). While x has material particle and time as arguments.13) for all x. t) = β(ϕ−1 (x. t).

t). To avoid notational complexity. The function θm gives the temperature. t) = θm (p(x. In experimental terms. Example 3. the rectangular body of Figure 3. not necessarily represent a quantity physically associated with the reference (deformed) conﬁguration of the body. the spatial description of the same ﬁeld is given by θs (x. 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. Taking the initial conﬁguration (at t = 0) as the reference conﬁguration (and. Material and spatial descriptions. t) = a + b p1 + c t. t) ≡ p + t v. the description employed will be evident either from the context or from the argument used (p or x). with constant velocity v. where a. of the material particle whose position at time t is x. in spite of having p as one of its arguments. In view of the assumed motion ϕ. therefore. b and c are constants.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. Consider. during the motion ϕ. .5 subjected to the rigid translation: x = ϕ(p. the material description of this temperature ﬁeld reads θm (p. at time t. for instance. θm (as θs ) expresses a physical quantity associated with the conﬁguration of time t. 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.5. Assume that. t) = a + b(x1 − t v1 ) + c t. at time t.1. of the material particle whose position at time 0 is p. The spatial description θs gives the temperature. 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). it would be the temperature read from a thermometer held ﬁxed in space at x. Note that. In general.1.

the spatial and material divergence are given.147)). t) = ∇p ϕ(p. (3.22) ∂xt .17) ∇p α = ∂p ∂x i. are deﬁned as ∂ ∂ αm (p. the material and spatial time derivatives of α. ˙ (3. ˙ are deﬁned by ∂ ∂ α = αm (p. ∂p (3.1. 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.145) (page 37). divx v = tr(∇x v). i. measures the rate of change of α observed at a ﬁxed spatial position x. 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. as divp v = tr(∇p v). the material and spatial time derivatives of the temperature ﬁeld θ are given by ˙ θ = c.e. α = αs (x.1. In the example of Figure 3.8) it can be written as F = I + ∇p u. It would also vanish if the temperature were uniform throughout the body (b = 0). t).18) ∂t ∂t The material time derivative α measures the rate of change of α at a ﬁxed material particle p. MATERIAL AND SPATIAL GRADIENTS. ∂pj (3. t). 3. for a tensor ﬁeld T.46 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3. on the other hand. This contribution vanishes if the body moves parallel to e2 (v1 = 0). (3. the derivatives of α with respect to p and x holding t ﬁxed. ∂xj (divp T )i = ∂Tij . ˙ The spatial time derivative. Similarly.19) In addition (refer to (2. ∇x α = αs (x.146) is also applicable to the material and spatial divergence of a tensor. t) = In view of (3. respectively. respectively.21) .20) The compact deﬁnition (2. THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT The deformation gradient of the motion ϕ is the second-order tensor F deﬁned by F (p. we deﬁne the spatial and material divergence of a vector ﬁeld v. Analogously to (2. (3. DIVERGENCES AND TIME DERIVATIVES The material and spatial gradients of a general ﬁeld α. denoted respectively α and α . in Cartesian components. the direction of temperature isolines.5. by (divx T )i = ∂Tij .2. denoted respectively ∇p α and ∇x α. t). θ = −b v1 + c. t).e. they are.

3.7).24) Consider the inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre dp that connects two neighbouring material particles p and p + dp of a deforming body (Figure 3.1. with F a positive deﬁnite tensor. into x and x + dx. respectively. VOLUME CHANGES. ∂pj (3. Clearly.23) = δij + where xi denote the components of xt . the deformation gradient may be equivalently expressed as F (x. The deformation gradient is the linear operator that relates inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbres dp with their deformed counterparts dx: dx = F dp.25) A deformation of B with uniform deformation gradient (F independent of p) is called a homogeneous deformation.6). (3.6. A deformation is homogeneous if and only if it admits the representation ϕ(p) = ϕ(q) + F (p − q) (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 47 reference configuration dp p p+dp t x+dx x dx=F dp t Figure 3. The Cartesian components of F are given by Fij = ∂xi ∂pj ∂ui . In terms of the reference map (3. Under the deformation ϕt . t) = [∇x ϕ−1 (x. these particles are mapped.11). t)]−1 = [I − ∇x u]−1 . rigid translations and rotations are homogeneous deformations. . q ∈ B. db and dc emanating from the material particle p in the reference conﬁguration (Figure 3.26) for all points p. THE DETERMINANT OF THE DEFORMATION GRADIENT Consider now the inﬁnitesimal volume dv0 deﬁned by the inﬁnitesimal vectors da. (3.4. Trivially. The deformation gradient.

at some stage. the determinant of the deformation gradient represents. Also note that. into F da. consequently. J satisﬁes J > 0. the volume after deformation per unit reference volume (or volume change ratio). J = 1.29) it follows that if det F = 0. so that the deformed inﬁnitesimal volume is given by dv = (F da × F db) · F dc. dv0 (3. (3.e.31) Isochoric deformations Isochoric (or volume-preserving) deformations are deformations that do not produce changes in volume. A locally isochoric deformation is characterised by J = 1. we will adopt the following notation J ≡ det F . Since the body is not allowed to penetrate itself (this restriction is embodied in the assumption that the deformation map is one-to-one). this represents a physically unacceptable situation. respectively. (3. Thus.29) (3.28) i. F = I and. a conﬁguration with J < 0 cannot be reached from the reference conﬁguration without having. Therefore. Throughout this book.30) From (3. locally. in any deformed conﬁguration of a body. F db and F dc.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 3.7. then the inﬁnitesimal volume has collapsed into a material particle. at the reference conﬁguration. (3. it follows that det F = dv .54).27) The deformation ϕt maps the inﬁnitesimal vectors. The determinant of the deformation gradient. By making use of identity (2. one has dv0 = (da × db) · dc.32) . (3. J = 0.

(3. With l0 and l denoting.35) where is the volumetric component of F and F iso ≡ (det F )− 3 F 1 F v ≡ (det F ) 3 I 1 (3.37) is the isochoric (volume-preserving or unimodular) component.33)) and. Note that. (3.1.40) where the proper orthogonal tensor R is the local rotation tensor and the symmetric positive deﬁnite tensors U and V are. respectively.6.e.39) 3. The deformation gradient of any volumetric deformation is a spherical tensor: F = α I. note that the deformation gradient can always be multiplicatively split as F = F iso F v = F v F iso . the undeformed and deformed lengths of a material ﬁbre. STRETCHES AND ROTATION By applying the polar decomposition to the deformation gradient. since 1 det F v = [(det F ) 3 ]3 det I = det F .38) F v produces the same volume change as F . pure contractions/dilations) are deformations consisting purely of a uniform contraction/dilation in all directions. To see this.36) (3. by construction.1. that is. for a locally volumetric deformation we have: l =α (3. det F iso = [(det F )− 3 ]3 det F = 1. 3. 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.41) . (3. The right and left stretch tensors are related by the rotation V = R U RT . (3. F v corresponds indeed to a purely volumetric deformation (it has the representation (3.33) where the scalar α is the corresponding contraction/dilation ratio. The isochoric component in turn represents a volume preserving deformation. POLAR DECOMPOSITION. (3.34) l0 in all directions. one obtains: F = R U = V R. the right and left stretch tensors. respectively.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 49 Volumetric deformations Volumetric deformations (i. 1 (3.5.

the matrix representation of the corresponding deformation gradient is given by F= λ1 cos α λ1 sin α −λ2 sin α λ2 cos α .1. i2 }.42) where C and B – named.2 (A simple plane deformation). In the basis {i1 . B = V 2 = F F T . respectively. V = B.8 subjected to homogeneous stretching/compression in the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (respectively.50 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS U dp R deformed configuration U reference configuration dx=F dp F dp i2 i1 p x * i2 ii1* R R dp V Figure 3. the directions of i1 and i2 in the reference conﬁguration) with a superimposed rigid rotation of angle α.44) x2 = p1 λ1 sin α + p2 λ2 cos α. respectively. (3.45) . where the factors λ1 and λ2 determine how much stretching/compression occurs.8. a simple example consisting of a body subjected to a homogeneous deformation. Consider the rectangular body of Figure 3. Polar decomposition of the deformation gradient. With pi and xi denoting coordinates of p and x in the Cartesian system associated with the orthonormal basis {i1 . i2 }. The stretch tensors U and V can be expressed as √ √ U = C. the right and left Cauchy–Green strain tensors – are deﬁned by C = U 2 = F TF . is given in what follows. along the longitudinal and transversal axes. Stretches and rotation.e. the deformation map is deﬁned as ϕ: x1 = p1 λ1 cos α − p2 λ2 sin α (3. (3.43) Example 3. (3. with F independent of p. i. To illustrate the meaning of 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. With use of the polar decomposition of F .8. dp −→ R dp. R dp −→ V (R dp) = F dp. 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. due to the previous rotation. In this case.48) λ1 cos2 α + λ2 sin2 α V= (λ1 − λ2 ) sin α cos α Insight into the meaning of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient can be gained by focusing now on the generic inﬁnitesimal ﬁbre represented by dp in Figure 3. Under deformation. U dp −→ R (U dp) = F dp. If the right polar decomposition F = R U is used. (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 51 The rotation tensor. 2. obtained from the polar decomposition of F . the sequence is reversed: 1. i∗ } is used.47) . 1 2 The above example has illustrated the signiﬁcance of the polar decomposition of F . dp deforms as if the body were being purely stretched (or compressed) along the directions of its longitudinal and transversal axes (which at this stage coincide with i1 and i2 respectively). dp −→ U dp. the 1 2 1 2 matrix representation of V reads λ1 0 . If the left polar decomposition F = V R is employed instead. 2. In the ﬁrst operation. dp is mapped into dx = F dp. the ﬁbre is ﬁrst rigidly rotated by an angle α.49) V= 0 λ2 so that the transformation (·) → V (·) indeed corresponds to stretchings along the directions of i∗ and i∗ . these directions coincide now with i∗ = R i1 and i∗ = R i2 . this mapping can be split into two sequential steps. respectively. 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. the two steps are: 1.46) (3. Note that if the basis {i∗ . (3. 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. However. It should be .

λ2 .51) gives the following relationship between the eigenvectors of V and U : l i = R ei . the interpretation of U and V as pure stretchings and of R as a rigid rotation remain valid in a local sense. intermediate conﬁgurations of the body corresponding to pure stretching or pure rigid rotation (such as those illustrated in Figure 3. (3. pure rotations can be distinguished from pure stretching by means of the polar decomposition of the deformation gradient. Pure stretching.41) into (3.51) where the {λ1 . within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of a generic material particle p. Nevertheless. They are called. U (p) and V (p) measure stretches from p and R(p) measures the local rigid rotation. λ2 } are the principal stretches and the Lagrangian and Eulerian bases are. it follows from the spectral theorem that they admit the spectral decomposition 3 3 U= i=1 λi li ⊗ li . respectively. characterised by U or V. each vector ei differs from the corresponding li by a rotation R. Thus. The vectors li and ei are unit eigenvectors of U and V respectively. the local stretching from a material particle can always be expressed as a superposition of stretches along three mutually orthogonal directions. The spectral decomposition of the right and left stretch tensors implies that in any deformation. {λ1 .8. i2 } and {i∗ . 1 2 3. the difference between the deformed neighbourhood of p and its reference conﬁguration is a rigid deformation. (3.8) do not exist in general. Note that for any deformation ϕ. l2 . the distances between particles within this neighbourhood remain ﬁxed. changes the . l3 } and {e1 . i. illustrated by Figure 3. STRAIN MEASURES In the above section. one may write: x + dx = ϕ(p + dp) = p + F (p) dp.50) that is. e3 } form orthonormal bases for the space U of vectors in E.e. the Lagrangian and Eulerian triads and deﬁne the Lagrangian and Eulerian principal directions. λ3 } are the eigenvalues of U (and V ) named the principal stretches. within this inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of p. Under the action of pure rotations. respectively. Substitution of (3. in which F is a function of p.52 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS remarked that for a generic deformation of a body. we say that the region surrounding p is unstrained. Spectral decomposition of the stretch tensors Since U and V are symmetric. The triads {l1 . on the other hand. In this case. In the example discussed above.7. e2 . {i1 .52) that is.1. (3. within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of a material point p. the deformation behaves like a homogeneous deformation with gradient F (p). we have seen that in a local sense. V= i=1 λi ei ⊗ ei . i∗ }. When the distances between material particles are identical to their values in the reference conﬁguration.

(3. i.57) where 1 (λm − 1) m = 0 i f (λi ) = m m = 0. The deformation maps dp into dx = F dp. is deﬁned by Seth (1964). the deﬁnition of a strain measure is somewhat arbitrary and a speciﬁc choice is usually dictated by mathematical and physical convenience. to evaluate how much U (or V ) departs from I (a rigid deformation).e. In fact.e. 2 (3. An important family of Lagrangian strain tensors. the generic material ﬁbre represented by the inﬁnitesimal vector dp that emanates from p (Figure 3. it is called a Lagrangian strain measure. ∀ dp).58) . since it measures strains along the principal Lagrangian directions. ln λi (3. Under stretching. 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 . Hill (1978) and Ogden (1984) 1 (U m − I) m = 0 E(m) = m (3. that is.56) may be rephrased as 3 E(m) = i=1 f (λi ) li ⊗ li . the size of any inﬁnitesimal material ﬁbre emanating from p remains constant ( dx = dp . strain measures based on the Lagrangian triad. Let us consider. It must be emphasised that the Green–Lagrange strain measure is deﬁned by expression (3. again. (3. Equivalently. (3. if and only if E(2) = 0. implying that F is an orthogonal tensor and the deformation is rigid (pure translation and/or rotation) in the neighbourhood of p.54). 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. in terms of its spectral decomposition.8 serves as an illustration). This condition is equivalent to C = U = I. some kind of strain measure needs to be deﬁned. To quantify straining. i. It is by no means the unique way of quantifying straining. we say that the region surrounding p is strained.55) and.56) ln[U ] m=0 where m is a real number and ln[ · ] denotes the tensor logarithm of [ · ]. (3.54) No straining occurs.53) where C = F T F = U 2 is the right Cauchy–Green tensor and the strain measure E(2) (the meaning of the superscript will be made clear below) is the so-called Green–Lagrange strain tensor deﬁned as E(2) = 1 (C − I ) 2 = 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u]. From the deﬁnition of E(2) . Thus.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 53 distance between material particles.

62) . (3. the principal strain for various strain measures is plotted in Figure 3. is a particular member of this family (with m = 2). Strain measures.9.61) Lagrangian and Eulerian strain tensors are related by ε(m) = R E(m) RT .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. (3. the Eulerian counterpart of the Lagrangian family of strain measures above is deﬁned by 1 (V m − I ) m = 0 (m) ε (3. Principal strain as a function of the principal stretch for various strain measures. Analogously to the strain measures discussed above. Hencky (m = 0) and Almansi (m = −2) strain tensors. it is also possible to deﬁne tensors that measure strain along the principal Eulerian directions or.60) = m ln[V ] m = 0. (3. Eulerian strain tensors. Other commonly used members of this family are the Biot (m = 1). 3 ε(m) = i=1 f (λi ) ei ⊗ ei . they differ by the local rotation R. E(2) .9 as a function of the corresponding principal stretch. E(m) = 0 ⇐⇒ U =I ⇐⇒ F = R. that is. a rigid deformation. simply. Based on the left stretch tensor. using the Eulerian triad. or. i. The Green–Lagrange strain tensor. the associated strain tensor vanishes if and only if the deformation gradient represents.59) To illustrate the relationship between the stretch and strain tensors.e. locally. Note that for any m.

(3. t) + W (t) (x − y). with application of the chain rule one has L= ∂ ∂ϕ ∂t ∂p ∂p ˙ =F F ∂x −1 (3.10. t) = v(y. . and the spin tensor.69) with di and {ei }. e3 } are given by S vi = di (xi − yi ). e2 . W . where xi and yi denote the coordinates of points x and y in a Cartesian system associated to {e1 . associated with the rate of deformation tensor. deﬁned as L = ∇x v. RATE OF DEFORMATION AND SPIN The spatial ﬁeld L. Note that. the velocity vR .67) where the following deﬁnitions have been used: vR (x. are deﬁned by D = sym(L).63) . (3.68) By recalling expression (3. t) = v(y. D admits the representation 3 D= i=1 di ei ⊗ ei . t) = D(t) (x − y).1. Equivalently.65) To gain insight into the physical meaning of the tensors D and W . t). As schematically illustrated in Figure 3. THE VELOCITY GRADIENT. With the spectral representation above. can be immediately identiﬁed as a rigid velocity. is named the velocity gradient. associated with the spin tensor W . the velocity ﬁeld can be split as v(x. so that the components of vS relative to the basis {e1 . t) + vS (x. The only contribution to straining is then provided by the term vS .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 55 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 rate of deformation tensor (also referred to as the stretching tensor).70) again with no summation implied. e3 }.66) If the decomposition of L into its symmetric and skew parts is introduced. For such a motion the velocity ﬁeld reads v(x.8. t) + L(t) (x − y). D. the eigenvalues and an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of D. due to its symmetry.13).64) Two important tensors are obtained by splitting L into its symmetric and skew parts. respectively. t) = vR (x. (3. vS (x. (3. Namely. W = skew(L). with no summation implied on i. (3. e2 . (3. (3. it is convenient to consider a body undergoing a motion with uniform (independent of x) velocity gradient.

consider a point x and a point x + dx lying within an inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x. is related to the rate of deformation tensor through the expression ˙ J = J tr D.71) so that.56 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ei x vis ei y xi yi Figure 3. (3. 3.9. J. t) dx. Straining velocity ﬁeld. t) dx. S each vi corresponds to a velocity ﬁeld that purely stretches the body in the direction of ei . in any motion. associated exclusively to the rate of deformation tensor D. The velocity ﬁeld within this inﬁnitesimal neighbourhood of x is given by v(x + dx. t) + W (x. Thus. associated with the spin tensor W .73) . we ﬁrst apply the chain rule to obtain ∂(det F ) ˙ ˙ ˙ J ≡ (det F ) = :F =J F ∂F −T : F˙ . the above decomposition of the velocity ﬁeld into the sum of a rigid velocity and a straining velocity remains valid in the local sense. In this case.1. the velocity ﬁeld can be locally decomposed as a sum of a rigid velocity v(x. t) dx. (3. t) = v(x. and a straining velocity D(x.10.72) To derive this expression. t) + L(x. If a general motion (in which L is not necessarily uniform) is considered. RATE OF VOLUME CHANGE ˙ The rate of volume change. the rate of deformation tensor corresponds indeed to a pure stretching of the body. with the plane perpendicular to ei that passes through y ﬁxed. (3.

140) (page 36) for the derivative of the determinant. (3. (3.77) B = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + ∇p u (∇p u)T .2. In fact.60) have the same small deformation limit. the second-order terms in ∇p u of the expressions above can be neglected so that.43) of the Cauchy–Green tensors.80) p where we have introduced the notation ∇s (·) = sym[∇(·)] = 1 [∇(·) + ∇(·)T ]. together with deﬁnition (2. it can be easily shown that not only E(2) and ε(2) but all Lagrangian and Eulerian strain measures deﬁned by expressions (3. i. under small deformations.81) for the symmetric gradient of a vector ﬁeld.36) (page 22) of the trace of a tensor and the fact that the skew symmetry of W implies tr L = tr D. If the displacement gradient is sufﬁciently small. (3. In terms of the displacement gradient.78) From the above expression and the deﬁnitions of the Green–Lagrange strain tensor E(2) and its Eulerian counterpart ε(2) . (3. For such deformations. This fact greatly simpliﬁes the description of small deformations.75) 3. to the same order of approximation.76) (3. it follows that. Inﬁnitesimal deformations Small or inﬁnitesimal deformations are deformations with sufﬁciently small displacement gradient. so that the rate of volume change can be equivalently expressed as ˙ J = J divx v. (3.79) 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 (2.72).74) leading to (3. E(2) ≈ ε(2) ≈ 1 [∇p u + (∇p u)T ]. ∇p u. for any m and to within an error of second order in ∇p u. Also note that from the deﬁnition (2. It is worth pointing out here that ε is a linear functional of u.145) of the divergence of a vector ﬁeld we have tr D = divx v. This. 2 (3. one has ε(m) ≈ E(m) ≈ ε. (3. THE INFINITESIMAL STRAIN TENSOR Recall deﬁnition (3.2. 3.e. one has C = I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T + (∇p u)T ∇p u.1. the following approximation can be made C ≈ B ≈ I + ∇p u + (∇p u)T . the description of kinematics can be substantially simpliﬁed.56) and (3.82) . 2 (3.

For a body under an arbitrary homogeneous deformation (∇p u independent of p).3.13) and (3. The tensor εv ≡ 1 3 (3. only the symmetric part ε of ∇p u is associated with local straining. u can be expressed as u(p) = u(q) + a × (p − q).2.83) with o(∇p u) a term of second order in ∇p u. (3.58 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3.86) Any displacement that admits the representation (3. the displacement ﬁeld can be written as u(p) = u(q) + ∇p u (p − q). the square of the deformed length of a generic material ﬁbre dp (recall the text preceding expression (3.88) is the isochoric component.89) .85) for all points p and q with A ≡ ∇p u a skew tensor. equivalently.84) for all points p and q.86) is called an inﬁnitesimal rigid displacement ﬁeld.2. ∇p u is skew and the ﬁeld u can be written as u(p) = u(q) + A (p − q). ∀ dp ) the tensor ε vanishes or. 3.14)). the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor ε can also be split into a purely volumetric and a volume-preserving contribution.1. where ε d ≡ ε − εv (3. ∇p u is skew. with a denoting the axial vector of A. Alternatively.85)–(3. The skew part of ∇p u produces no straining and is associated exclusively with local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotations.5). For a pure local inﬁnitesimal rigid rotation ( dx = dp .53)) reads dx 2 = (I + 2 ε) dp · dp + o(∇p u) (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 . which measures pure inﬁnitesimal distortions. known as the strain deviator or deviatoric strain.2.87) εv I (3. (3. 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. For inﬁnitesimal rigid deformations and within an approximation of second order in the displacement gradient. It is clear from this expression that. INFINITESIMAL RIGID DEFORMATIONS In terms of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. Note that inﬁnitesimal rigid displacements have the same representation as rigid velocity ﬁelds (see expressions (3. to within an error of o(∇p u).

we deﬁne the corresponding isochoric and volumetric Green–Lagrange strains Eiso ≡ 1 (Ciso − I ).e. The scalar invariant of ε.97) (3.90) is named the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain. deﬁned as εv ≡ I1 (ε) = tr ε = tr ∇s u = tr ∇u (3. tr εd = 0. The fourth-order tensor deﬁned as Id ≡ IS − 1 3 (3. (3.90). (3. where the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor is derived from the ﬁnite strain theory. the volumetric Green–Lagrange strain deﬁned above leads to deﬁnition (3.94) is referred to as the deviatoric projection tensor.92) It should be noted that the strain deviator is a traceless tensor.1.96)2 and (3. An inﬁnitesimal deformation is volumepreserving if and only if εv = 0. εv = 1 3 (I ⊗ I ) : ε. (3. To show this. From (3. It projects second-order symmetric tensors into the deviatoric subspace. let us consider the Green–Lagrange strain tensor. Now we proceed to show that.96) 2 T Ciso ≡ F iso F iso = (det F )− 3 F T F = (det F )− 3 C 2 (3. (3. we have 2 E(2) = 1 [(det F ) 3 − 1] I. into the space of traceless tensors. the above isochoric/volumetric split can also be obtained from its ﬁnite deformation counterpart by neglecting higher order terms in ∇p u. v 2 2 (3. i. Following the isochoric/volumetric split of the deformation gradient given by (3.93) I ⊗ I.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 59 is the inﬁnitesimal volumetric strain tensor. under small strain conditions (small ∇p u).95) E(2) ≡ 1 (Cv − I ).98).e. E(2) . dev(S) ≡ Id : S.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. From ﬁnite to inﬁnitesimal isochoric and volumetric strains Analogously to Section 3.e. i. i.2.35). Throughout this book we shall often use the alternative notation dev(S) to represent the deviator of a symmetric tensor S. 2 where and (2) (3.99) v 2 .98) T Cv ≡ F v F v = (det F ) 3 I.

(3.3.100) 2 3 tr ∇p u + o(∇p u). we have the following approximation E(2) ≈ εv . (2) (3. Thus.60 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS From the standard concepts of differentiation discussed in Section 2. concepts such as the deformation gradient. .99).104) (3. 1962. Toupin.102) Following a completely analogous procedure with the isochoric Green–Lagrange strain. 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. It should be noted that. Stress Measures The previous sections of this chapter have been limited to the mathematical description of the kinematics of deformation. thus far.56) and (3. we obtain T T Eiso = 1 [(det F )− 3 (I + ∇p u + ∇p u + ∇p u ∇p u) − I ] 2 (2) 2 = 1 {[1 − 2 2 3 T tr ∇p u + o(∇p u)][I + ∇p u + ∇p u + o(∇p u)] − I } = ε − 1 (tr ∇p u)I + o(∇p u) 3 = εd + o(∇p u). v (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. we have Eiso ≈ εd . Forces. we ﬁnd that det F = det(I + ∇p u) = det I + (det I) I : ∇p u + o(∇p u) = 1 + tr ∇p u + o(∇p u) and (det F ) 3 = 1 + 2 (3. In particular.60).101) With the substitution of the above expression into (3. 1965). 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. to within second-order terms in ∇p u. 1909. 3. we then obtain E(2) = εv + o(∇p u).103) (3. Truesdell and Noll. if higher-order terms are neglected.105) The inﬁnitesimal limits above are valid for all Lagrangian and Eulerian ﬁnite strain measures deﬁned by expressions (3. no reference has been made to forces and how they are transferred within continuum bodies.

Body forces. are transmitted across a surface (the boundary of the body in this case). The spatial ﬁeld b(x) represents force per unit mass acting on the interior of B. Cauchy’s axiom states that ‘At x. S t(n) da + P ρ b dv = P ˙ ρ v dv (3.2.106) and the balance of angular momentum. This means that identical forces are transmitted across any surfaces with normal n at x (such as surfaces S and T in Figure 3. Forces applied to the boundary of the body such as those resulting from contact with another body. 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’. Let S be an oriented surface of B with unit normal vector n at a point x. To describe surface forces mathematically. Thus. Boundary forces. If S belongs to the boundary of B. S x × t(n) da + P x × ρ b dv = P ˙ x × ρ v dv (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 61 1. Consider a body B in an arbitrarily deformed conﬁguration (Figure 3. The dimension of such interactions is force per unit area. CAUCHY’S AXIOM. The dimension of body forces is force per unit mass (or volume).11). i. the concept of stress as well as the different ways of quantifying it are introduced in this section. The dimension of boundary forces is force per unit area.3. Internal interaction forces arise from the action of one part of the body upon an adjacent part and are transmitted across the surface that separate them. THE CAUCHY STRESS VECTOR Crucial to the description of surface forces is Cauchy’s axiom stated in what follows.1. Internal interactions between adjacent parts of a body. The axiom of momentum balance asserts that ‘For any part P of the deformed conﬁguration of B. THE AXIOM OF MOMENTUM BALANCE Let B now be subjected to a system of surface forces. as internal interactions. 3. This force (per unit area) is called the Cauchy stress vector and will be denoted t(n). with boundary S. the balance of linear momentum. with dependence on x and time omitted for notational convenience. and body forces. t(x.e. b(x). Forces exerted on the interior of the body. 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. 3. 2.11). Gravitational and magnetic forces are typical examples of such forces. the surface force. 3.3.107) . Boundary forces represent interactions between the exterior and the interior of a body and. n). the force per unit area.

§ The (3. . forces are actually transferred by atomic interactions which are clearly discrete quantities.106) and (3. there exists (recall Section 2. with ρ = ρ(x) denoting the mass density ﬁeld. The right-hand sides of (3. THE CAUCHY STRESS TENSOR One of the most fundamental results in continuum mechanics is Cauchy’s theorem which establishes that.109) The tensor σ is called the Cauchy stress tensor and is often referred to as the true stress tensor or. with v = u denoting the acceleration ﬁeld of B.110) symmetry of σ is a result of the balance of angular momentum. e3 }.§ σ = σT . Cauchy stress components Using an orthonormal basis {e1 . it should be emphasised that. stress tensor. the dependence of the surface force t upon the normal n is linear. i. σ is symmetric. The smallest volume of material for which the continuum representation makes sense is called the representative volume element. are satisﬁed.e. among others. At this point. n) = σ(x) n.107) contain the ˙ ¨ inertia terms. in real life bodies. the mass per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of B ’. i. 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. in Wang and Truesdell (1973).62 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS B n t (n) x T S Figure 3. Gurtin (1972.12) is given by t(x. 1981). (3.3. (3. as a consequence of the axiom of momentum balance. Gurtin and Martins (1976).2.108) Further.11.e. Marsden and Hughes (1983) and Ciarlet (1988).3. Surface forces. 3. Formal proofs to Cauchy’s theorem can be found. the Cauchy stress tensor is represented as σ = σij ei ⊗ ej . simply. This observation applies equally to quantities such as strain measures or any other continuum ﬁelds associated with the body. e2 . starting page 19) a second-order tensor ﬁeld σ(x) such that the Cauchy stress vector (see Figure 3.

13 where an inﬁnitesimal cube with faces normal to the base vectors e1 . the Cauchy stress tensor admits the spectral representation 3 σ= i=1 σi e∗ ⊗ e∗ . σ22 and σ33 represent the tractions normal to the faces of the inﬁnitesimal cube whereas the remaining components.111) From (3. 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. Principal Cauchy stresses Due to its symmetry. σ21 . 22 2 1 21 12 23 32 11 13 31 e2 e1 e3 33 * e2 * e1 3 e* 3 Figure 3. with summation on repeated indices implied and the components σij given by σij = (σ ei ) · ej .108).ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 63 B n t x n S Figure 3. (3. Cauchy stress tensor components and principal Cauchy stresses. σ31 and σ32 are the shear tractions acting parallel to the faces. σ23 . σ13 . σ12 .112) . The components σ11 . i i (3.12. 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. The schematic representation of such projections is illustrated in Figure 3.13. The Cauchy stress.

14) t ¯ = da t = da σ n. Note that. are the eigenvalues of σ and are called the principal Cauchy stresses.114) I1 (σ) = 1 3 is the hydrostatic pressure (also referred to as hydrostatic stress.3.116) 3 is called the spherical stress tensor. ¯ is expressed as (Figure 3. the force that acts across t any surface whose normal is n in the deformed conﬁguration per unit reference area. With m denoting the unit normal to S at p. the spectral decomposition has been used in Section 3.118) .113) tr σ (3. THE FIRST PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The traction vector t of expression (3. With da denoting an inﬁnitesimal element of area of a surface normal to n in the deformed conﬁguration and with da0 being its undeformed counterpart. there exists an orthonormal basis {e∗ . with Id deﬁned by (3. to split the stress tensor σ into the sum of a spherical and a traceless component σ = s + p I. t da0 da0 (3.1 to represent the stretch tensors U and V in terms of principal stretches (see expression (3. e∗ . The tensor p I = 1 (I ⊗ I ) : σ (3.14). for which all shear components of the 1 2 3 Cauchy stress tensor vanish and only the normal components may be non-zero.94). mean stress or mean normal pressure). particularly for the purpose of constitutive modelling.13.3. e∗ . (3. Deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses It is often convenient. The directions deﬁned by the basis {e∗ .2.117) Consider the surface S in the reference conﬁguration of B (Figure 3. The forces are exclusively normal to the faces of this cube. The above decomposition is analogous to the isochoric/volumetric split of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor discussed in Section 3. where the invariant p≡ 1 3 (3. at the point of interest. is a traceless tensor named the deviatoric stress or stress deviator. 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 . σi . Crucial to the deﬁnition of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress is the counterpart ¯ of t that measures.108) measures the force exerted across a material surface per unit deformed area. analogously to the representation of the stress tensor in terms of principal stresses. and (3.115) s ≡ σ − p I = Id : σ.4. one has m da0 = dp1 × dp2 . 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 3.64 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS that is. The normal components. e∗ } are named the principal stress directions. e∗ }.51)). 3.

respectively. (3. 1999) deﬁne the nominal stress as the transpose of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. (3. with substitution of the expression above into (3. ¯ may be written in terms of t the reference unit normal m as ¯ = J σ F −T m.125) The tensor P is called the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and is often referred to as the Piola– Kirchhoff stress or nominal stress. P is generally unsymmetric. 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).120) (3.122) Finally. ¶ Some authors (Billington and Tate. Nemat-Nasser. the tangent vectors dp1 and dp2 are mapped. The ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. leads to F T n da = J dp1 × dp2 = J m da0 . t (3.123) This last expression motivates the following deﬁnition P ≡J σF −T . t (3. normal to the reference conﬁguration of S at the point of interest.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. (3. S deformed configuration Under deformation.124) so that the force transmitted across S measured per unit reference area reads ¯ = P m. where J ≡ det F . 1981.117).14. .¶ The vector ¯ is obtained by applying the ﬁrst Piola– t Kirchhoff stress to the unit vector m.121) m. valid for any invertible tensor S and vectors u and v.119) where da is the corresponding deformed area element. into F dp1 and F dp2 so that the unit normal to the deformed conﬁguration of S reads n da = F dp1 × F dp2 . Note that in contrast to the Cauchy stress. This is equivalent to da n=J F da0 −T (3.

15) with cross-sectional area a0 in its initial conﬁguration (taken as reference). Example. then the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff or nominal stress component is determined P11 = f . The ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress.1 (The Piola–Kirchhoff stress).3. t a0 3. Assume that the ﬁnal deformed conﬁguration of the bar corresponds to a state of homogeneous deformation with cross-sectional area a. deformed and reference area. is the tensor deﬁned as S ≡ JF −1 −T σF . the force f (and not the stress component) is what can actually be measured in an experiment. During a uniaxial experiment this bar is stretched along its longitudinal axis (direction of e1 ) with a simultaneous reduction of its cross section. are simply t = σ11 e1 = 1 f.5.66 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS reference a0 e1 f deformed configuration f a Figure 3. Consider a cylindrical bar (Figure 3. THE SECOND PIOLA–KIRCHHOFF STRESS The Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor. the corresponding tractions t and ¯ respectively per unit t. the reference cross-sectional area a0 is used. in this case. after f is measured. (3.15. with constant σ given by σ = σ11 e1 ⊗ e1 . the Cauchy stress σ11 is determined according to the expression above. a0 It is obvious that. Furthermore. force balance requires that the Cauchy stress component σ11 be given by σ11 = f . Thus.3. a ¯ = P11 e1 = 1 f. Example 3. denoted S. If instead of a. Let f = f e1 be the total force applied to the deformed conﬁguration of the bar (by the experimental equipment). a In practice.126) . Under the assumption of uniform stress distribution in the crosssection of the bar. assume that the bar is subjected to a state of uniaxial stress.

whose existence has been established in Section 3.132) are also a result of Cauchy’s theorem. MOMENTUM BALANCE In terms of the Cauchy stress tensor. 3. i i (3. Fundamental laws of thermodynamics In order to state the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. In addition.129) where the principal Kirchhoff stresses.3. deﬁned by τ ≡ J σ. (3. respectively.3. ˙ 3. (3.131) . frequent reference to the principal Kirchhoff stresses will be made in the formulation of various constitutive models. THE KIRCHHOFF STRESS Another important measure of stress is the Kirchhoff stress tensor. 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. alluded to in page 62.4. 3. by τi = J σi . the temperature. speciﬁc entropy and the density of heat production. σi .6. CONSERVATION OF MASS The postulate of conservation of mass requires that ˙ ρ + ρ divx u = 0. are related to the principal Cauchy stresses. it is necessary to introduce the scalar ﬁelds θ. 3. the Kirchhoff stress is symmetric.4. (3.2. e. τ. we have ST = JF −1 σT F −T .130) Later in this book. (3. speciﬁc internal energy.132) in ϕ(∂Ω). s and r deﬁned over B which represent.128) Due to the symmetry of σ. Its spectral representation reads 3 τ= i=1 τi e∗ ⊗ e∗ . respectively.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 67 Note that from this deﬁnition.4.3. b and q will denote the vector ﬁelds corresponding. Equations (3.1. τi .127) so that the symmetry of σ implies that S is symmetric. to the body force (force per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration) and heat ﬂux.

4.4. they may be expressed in the reference (or material) conﬁguration of B in terms of the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor as ¯ ¯¨ divp P + b = ρ u ¯=P m t where ¯ b=J b (3. 3. which represents the stress power per unit volume in the deformed conﬁguration of a body. 3. ¯ (3. THE FIRST PRINCIPLE The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics postulates the conservation of energy. it is convenient to introduce the product σ : D. 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. The above momentum balance equations are formulated in the spatial (deformed) conﬁguration.e. θ θ (3.134) in Ω (3. ρ = J ρ.4.136) In words.135) is the reference density (mass per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration). It is expressed by means of the inequality ρ s + divx ˙ ρr q − ≥ 0.132)1 is known as Cauchy’s equation of motion.3. ¯ 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. the body force measured per unit volume in the reference conﬁguration. local or point-wise form of equilibrium. Equation (3. Equations (3. ˙ (3. Equivalently. THE SECOND PRINCIPLE The second principle of thermodynamics postulates the irreversibility of entropy production. The ﬁrst principle of thermodynamics is mathematically expressed by the equation ρ e = σ : D + ρ r − divx q.137) . Before stating this principle. is the reference body force.133) in ∂Ω.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).132) are often referred to as the strong. i.

1. t). 3. Section 3. Before going further. a constitutive model must be introduced. by making use of (3. The use of internal variables to formulate constitutive models of dissipative materials is then addressed in Section 3. 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 ≥ 0.4. t). t).1.142) 3. b(p.5. the ﬁrst and the second principles of thermodynamics is called a calorodynamic process of B. THE CLAUSIUS–DUHEM INEQUALITY By combination of the ﬁrst and second principles stated above.135). θ where we have deﬁned g = ∇x θ. ˙ θ θ (3.5.4 summarises a generic purely mechanical internal variable model.2. CONSTITUTIVE AXIOMS In the present context. three fundamental axioms that deﬁne a rather general class of constitutive models of continua. The discussion on constitutive theory ends in Section 3. t).5. In this section. s(p. e(p. The left-hand side of (3. t) A set {σ(p. We start by stating. 1969). it is convenient to introduce the deﬁnitions of thermokinetic and calorodynamic processes (Truesdell. t).139) along with the identity 1 q 1 = divx q − 2 q · ∇x θ. In order to distinguish between different types of material. in Section 3. and θ(p. (3.141) σ : D − ρ(ψ + s θ) − q · g ≥ 0.141) represents the dissipation per unit deformed volume. t).5. divx (3. q(p. We remark that all dissipative constitutive models discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book are based on the internal variable approach.5.138) The introduction of the speciﬁc free energy ψ (also known as the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass). regardless of the material of which the body is made. the axioms stated in this section must be satisﬁed for any constitutive model. . deﬁned by ψ = e − θ s.5. we review the principles that form the basis of the constitutive theories discussed in later chapters of this book.5. A thermokinetic process of B is a pair of ﬁelds ϕ(p. θ (3. Equivalently. Constitutive theory The balance principles presented so far are valid for any continuum body. r(p. one easily obtains the fundamental inequality ρ s + divx ˙ 1 q − (ρ e − σ : D + divx q) ≥ 0.140) θ θ θ into the above fundamental inequality results in the Clausius–Duhem inequality 1 ˙ ˙ (3.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 69 3. t)} of ﬁelds satisfying the balance of momentum.5 where the fundamental constitutive initial value problems are stated.

The motion ϕ∗ is related to the motion ϕ by a change in observer if it can be expressed as ϕ∗ (p.70 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Thermodynamic determinism The basic axiom underlying the constitutive theory discussed here is the principle of thermodynamically compatible determinism (Truesdell. gt ) ψ(t) = G(F t . θ . t) relative to an arbitrary origin x0 . θ . ψ and s) are unaffected by a change in observer but the Cauchy stress σ(t). In this case. we shall be concerned with so-called simple materials. t) − x0 is the position vector of ϕ(p.141) holds for every thermokinetic process of B. In particular. by the linear momentum balance (3. θ and g such that. t) = y(t) + Q(t) [ϕ(p. G. for a point p. θ . regarding the body force b and heat supply r as delivered. gt ) and the Clausius–Duhem inequality (3. respectively. t) − x0 ].143) and (·)t on the right-hand sides denotes the history of (·) at p up to time t. 1969). The dependence on p is understood on both sides of (3. θ . heat ﬂux q(t) and the temperature gradient g(t) transform according to the rules σ −→ σ∗ = Q σ QT q −→ q∗ = Q q g −→ g = Q g.143) where y(t) is a point in space. σ(t) = F (F t . gt ) s(t) = H(F t .146) .132)1 and conservation of energy (3. θ and g sufﬁces to determine the history of the thermokinetic process for constitutive purposes. 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. 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’. ∗ (3.145) Scalar ﬁelds (such as θ. (3. Q(t) is a rotation and ϕ(p.144) t t t t (3. for which the local history (history at point p only) of F . (3. Material objectivity Another fundamental axiom of the constitutive theory is the principle of material objectivity (or frame invariance). It states that ‘the material response is independent of the observer’. the principle of thermodynamic determinism implies the existence of constitutive functionals F.139). H and I of the histories of F . gt ) q(t) = I (F t .136) and introducing the speciﬁc free energy (3.

2. Thus. θ . gt∗ ) .147) for any transformation of the form (3. it is imperative that simplifying assumptions are added to the general forms of the constitutive relations stated above. Formally. gt ) I (F t . θ .143) written in terms of functionals of the history of F .5. gt∗ ) t t t t . H and I satisfy σ∗ (t) = F (F ψ(t) = G(F s(t) = H(F q∗ (t) = I (F t∗ t∗ t∗ t∗ .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 71 The principle of material objectivity places restrictions on the constitutive functionals (3. Therefore. s and q) at a given ∗∗ We t t t t t (3. θ . in that format. are far too general to have practical utility in modelling real materials undergoing real thermodynamical process. a set of rotations. θ . A subgroup S of O + is said to be the symmetry group of the material deﬁned by the constitutive functionals F. ψ.148) t remark that most constitutive models discussed in this book are isotropic. gt ) hold for any time-independent rotation Q ∈ S. θ . θ and g. θ . THERMODYNAMICS WITH INTERNAL VARIABLES The constitutive equations (3.145. In the development of any constitutive model. gt∗ ) (3. 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. 3. the symmetry group of a solid material is the set of rotations of the reference conﬁguration under which the response functionals remain unchanged. A solid is said to be isotropic∗∗ if its symmetry group is the entire proper orthogonal group. 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. G. An effective alternative to the general description based on history functionals is the adoption of the so-called thermodynamics with internal variables. H and I if the relations t t F (F t . The symmetry group of a solid material is a subset of the proper orthogonal group O + .146). gt∗ ) . θ . it requires that F. G. This concept is expressed mathematically as follows. gt ) G (F t . θ . G. gt ) H (F t . θ . that is. θ . 3. gt ) = I ([F Q]t . the constitutive functionals must comply with the restrictions imposed by the symmetries of the material in question. gt ) = G([F Q]t . Material symmetry The symmetry group of a material is the set of density preserving changes of reference conﬁguration under which the material response functionals F. H and I are not affected. θ . gt ) = H([F Q]t . gt ) = F ([F Q]t . θ . .143).

entities of scalar. vectorial and tensorial nature associated with dissipative mechanisms. state variable models can be seen as particular instances of the general history functional-based constitutive theory. In general terms. g. Stress constitutive equation Following the above hypothesis. Mathematically. .72 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS point p can be completely determined by the knowledge of a ﬁnite number of state variables. so that its rate of change is given by ∂ψ ˙ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ ˙ :F + θ+ αk . we have P −ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ψ ˙ :F −ρ s+ ¯ ∂F ∂θ ˙ ¯ ∂ψ αk − J q · g ≥ 0.152) for the stress power.149) is a set of internal variables containing.154) †† The dependence of ψ on the temperature gradient is disregarded as it contradicts the second principle of thermodynamics (Coleman and Gurtin.150) (3. in terms of power per unit reference volume. 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). ˙ ∂αk θ (3. θ.153) Equivalently. the thermodynamic state at a point is determined by the following set of state variables: {F . θ. The relationship between the two approaches is discussed in detail by Kestin and Bataille (1977) and Bataille and Kestin (1979). it will be convenient to assume that at any time t. 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. α}. using the connection σ:D=σF −T (3. (3. θ−ρ ˙ ∂αk θ (3. Thermodynamic potential. θ and g are the instantaneous values of deformation gradient. where F . The state variables For the applications with which we are mostly concerned. ˙ ψ= ∂F ∂θ ∂αk where summation over k is implied. In this case. α). The thermodynamic state depends only on the instantaneous value of the state variables and not on their past history. temperature and the temperature gradient and α = {αk } (3. the speciﬁc free energy is assumed to have the form†† ψ = ψ(F . in general. 1967).151) ˙ :F .

the Clausius–Duhem inequality. the Clausius–Duhem inequality can be rewritten as J ˙ −Ak ∗ αk − q · g ≥ 0.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 73 Expression (3. we will adopt for convenience the notation ˙ A ≡ {Ak } (3.135). (3. we assume that the ﬂux variables are given functions of the state variables.158) can be expressed in a more compact form as J ˙ −A ∗ α − q · g ≥ 0. The following constitutive equations are then postulated ˙ α = f (F . In the general case. ∂F (3.155)1 is equivalent to the following constitutive relations for the Cauchy and Kirchoff stress tensors: σ= Thermodynamical forces For each internal variable αk of the set α.155). by simply using relation (3. must hold for any process. (3. so that (3. ∂θ (3. Thus. constitutive equations for the ﬂux variables 1 ˙ θ q and α must be postulated. g.154) must ˙ ˙ remain valid for any pair of functions {F (t). 1969. θ. ∂αk (3.160) θ Dissipation. g. for further details on this issue). now expressed by (3. α) 1 q = h(F . In what follows. This requirement places restrictions on the possible forms of the general constitutive functions f and h in (3. Equation (3. This implies the constitutive equations P =ρ ¯ ∂ψ . (3.159) for the set of thermodynamical forces. Namely. θ(t)}.155) for the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and entropy.157) 1 ∂ψ T ρ ¯ F . The principle of thermodynamic determinism requires that the constitutive equations must be such that the above inequality holds for any thermokinetic process.158).158) θ where we recall that the symbol ‘∗’ denotes the appropriate product operation between Ak and αk . It is also . θ (3. ∂F s=− ∂ψ . we deﬁne the conjugate thermodynamical force ¯ Ak ≡ ρ ∂ψ . 1967.161) Recalling the principle of thermodynamic determinism.153). Evolution of the internal variables In order to completely characterise a constitutive model.156) With this deﬁnition and the identities (3.161) (the reader is referred to Coleman and Gurtin. α). J ∂F τ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ T F .154) is obtained from (3. θ. complementary laws associated with the dissipative mechanisms are required. Truesdell.

the bar exhibits a behaviour that can be accurately modelled by linear elasticity theory (generalised Hooke’s law). a convenient tool for formulating constitutive equations without violating thermodynamics. we should have in mind that the choice of internal variables must be guided not only by the speciﬁc material in question but. When subjected to a sufﬁciently small axial strain at room temperature. (3.74 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS important to mention that when internal variables of vectorial or tensorial nature are present.162) where the state variables F . Normal dissipativity An effective way of ensuring that (3. however. {A. say. The potential Ξ is assumed convex with respect to each Ak and g. Dissipation potential. 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. that the constitutive description by means of convex potentials as described above is not a consequence of thermodynamics but. non-negative and zero valued at the origin.150). In addition. by considering a simple steel bar. F .163) A constitutive model deﬁned by (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. With further increase in complexity of the strain history (by introducing. linear elasticity may no longer capture the observed response satisfactorily. If strains become larger. g} = {0. θ. 0}. equally importantly. the hypothesis of normal dissipativity is introduced. 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). other phenomena such as internal damaging and possibly fracturing may take place and more . θ and α appear as parameters.155) and (3.3.e.163) satisﬁes a priori the dissipation inequality. θ ∂g (3. it is frequently convenient to re-formulate (3. i. The importance of considering the possible thermokinetic processes when devising a constitutive model can be clearly illustrated.5. 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. 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. for instance. 3.e. ∂Ak ∂Ξ 1 q=− .158) is satisﬁed consists in postulating the existence of a scalar-valued dissipation potential of the form Ξ = Ξ(A. by the processes (i. g. a plasticity theory may be more appropriate. α). Objective rates are discussed in Section 14. however. In this case.161)1 in terms of so-called objective rates rather than the standard material time derivative of α. the ﬂux variables are assumed to be determined by the laws αk = − ˙ ∂Ξ . It should be noted. rather. cyclic extension). (3.

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

Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. for the stress tensor and the set of internal variables. We then have the general constitutive law ψ = ψ(ε. If the internal variable approach is adopted in the formulation of the constitutive equations. T ]. ε(t). ﬁnd the free-energy and stress (plus entropy and heat ﬂux. if thermal effects are considered). α(t)) are satisﬁed for every t ∈ [t0 . the generic constitutive problem reduces to the following fundamental mechanical initial value problem. α) ∂ψ (3. T ].5. Given the initial values of the internal variables α(t0 ) and the history of the deformation gradient. the inﬁnitesimal strain tensor. T ].2 (The inﬁnitesimal constitutive initial value problem). respectively. ﬁnd the functions P (t) and α(t). 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. α(t)) are satisﬁed for every t ∈ [t0 .166) ˙ α(t) = f (F (t). t ∈ [t0 . For completeness. 3. P and F are replaced with σ and ε. in the above initial value problem. such that the constitutive equations σ(t) = ρ ∂ψ ¯ ∂ε t (3. α). the inﬁnitesimal constitutive initial value problem is stated in the following.167) ˙ α(t) = f (ε(t). Problem 3. T ].76 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The inﬁnitesimal strain case In the inﬁnitesimal strain case.1 (The mechanical constitutive initial value problem). In the inﬁnitesimal case.5. such that the constitutive equations P (t) = ρ ∂ψ ¯ ∂F t (3. . ε. t ∈ [t0 . Problem 3.143)’.165) σ=ρ ¯ ∂ε ˙ α = f (ε. F (t). in the thermomechanical case) according to the constitutive law conceptually expressed by (3. ﬁnd the functions σ(t) and α(t). for the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress and the set of internal variables. replaces the deformation gradient and the stress tensor σ of the inﬁnitesimal theory replaces the ﬁrst Piola–Kirchhoff stress.

6. by substituting the above expression into (3. In this section.5. it follows that [divx (σ η) − (divx σ + b − ρ¨ ) · η] dv − u ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. 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.171) By taking into account the symmetry of σ. Next. ∀ η ∈ V.148)2. ∀ η ∈ V. as we shall see in Chapter 4. equation (3. Equivalence between strong and weak equilibrium statements When the stress ﬁeld σ is sufﬁciently smooth. (3. ∀ η ∈ V. together with the above identity. is the starting point of displacement-based ﬁnite element procedures for the analysis of solids. 3. satisﬁes the equation ¨ [σ : ∇x η − (b − ρ u) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) t · η da = 0. To show this. (3.168) 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. Weak equilibrium.1. (3. σ. The divergence theorem (expression (2.4 by expressions (3.132) and (3. let us start by assuming that the ﬁeld σ is sufﬁciently regular so that we can use the identity (v) of Section 2.133). the virtual work equation is equivalent to the strong momentum balance equations (3. which implies ση · n = σn · η. 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. page 37) implies the following identity divx (σ η) dv = ϕ(Ω) ϕ(∂Ω) σ η · n da.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. the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacements η : ϕ(Ω) → U. and only if.ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 77 3.132).7 and. 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. its Cauchy stress ﬁeld. The principle of virtual work The strong (point-wise. (3.e. i.172) . Again.6.169) In obtaining the above identity we have used the fact that σ is symmetric.168). THE SPATIAL VERSION The spatial version of the principle of virtual work states that the body B is in equilibrium if.170) We now concentrate on the ﬁrst term within the square brackets of the above equation. (3.8 (page 38) to obtain σ : ∇x η = divx (σ η) − (divx σ) · η. local or differential) forms of the momentum balance have been stated in Section 3. In its deformed conﬁguration.

in its spatial counterpart. 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. The proof of equivalence between (3. (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. THE MATERIAL VERSION The virtual work equation can be equivalently expressed in the reference conﬁguration of B.175) valid for any scalar ﬁeld a.174) where the second expression holds for a generic vector ﬁeld a. respectively. since this equation holds for all virtual displacement ﬁelds η.6.2. Oden 1979 or Reddy 1998) that each bracketed term of the above equation must vanish pointwise within their respective domains. THE INFINITESIMAL CASE Under inﬁnitesimal deformations.173) ¯ where b and ¯ are. we recover the strong equilibrium equations (3. i.6.3.1 above. 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. 3. (3. is accordingly deﬁned as the space of sufﬁciently regular arbitrary displacement ﬁelds η : Ω → U. The ¯ space of virtual displacements. 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. t ∀ η ∈ V. 1981) a(x) dv = ϕ(Ω) Ω J(p) a(ϕ(p)) dv. J ∇x a = ∇p a F −1 . satisﬁes ¯ ¯¨ [P : ∇p η − (b − ρu) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ω ¯ · η da = 0. P .6. V. to Gurtin 1972.e. for instance.133) under conditions of sufﬁcient regularity is then analogous to that given for the spatial version discussed in Section 3.78 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Finally.173) and the strong form (3. and making use of the standard relation (Gurtin. 3. then it follows from the fundamental theorem of variational calculus (refer. ∀ η ∈ V. (3. The material version of the virtual work equation is obtained by introducing. (3.176) .132). the strong form yields the weak form of equilibrium. the identities σ= 1 P F T. Conversely.

Find a kinematically admissible displacement function. i. 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.1. In addition. T ]. The problems formulated here are restricted to quasi-static conditions.1 (page 76) and the internal variable ﬁeld. t) t ∈ [t0 .ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 79 3. (i) The natural boundary condition. T ] in its interior. with dependence on x implied.178) The fundamental quasi-static initial boundary value problem is stated in its spatial version in the following. In the above. 3. α. p ∈ ∂Ωu }.3 (The spatial quasi-static initial boundary value problem). t ∈ [t0 . t) = u(p. FINITE DEFORMATIONS Let the body B (Figure 3. where inertia effects are ignored. α(p. t ∈ [t0 . the virtual work .16) be subjected to a prescribed history of body forces b(t). u ∈ K. dependence of b on x is implicitly assumed. (3. t).6. 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 following boundary conditions are imposed.7.177) The body B is assumed to be made from a generic material modelled by the internal variable-based constitutive equations associated with Problem 3. For simplicity. T ]. (ii) The essential boundary condition. we are now in a position to state the weak form of fundamental initial boundary value problems. Problem 3. for all t ∈ [t0 . ¯ where u is the corresponding prescribed boundary displacement ﬁeld. The quasi-static initial boundary value problem Having deﬁned the generic constitutive initial value problems in Section 3. T ]. T ]. The history of the surface traction t(t). (3. whose numerical solution by the ﬁnite element method is the main subject of the subsequent chapters of this book. such that.7. is known at the initial time t0 . t) = p + u(p. This is the case on which the numerical methods discussed in this book are focused. is prescribed over the portion of the boundary of B that occupies the region ∂Ωt in its reference conﬁguration.e. p ∈ ∂Ωu . t ∈ [t0 . t0 ) = α0 (p).5 and the weak equilibrium statements in Section 3. it is assumed here that ∂Ωu ∂Ωt = ∅.

Find a kinematically admissible displacement function.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. T ]. 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 (3.184) and the Piola–Kirchhoff stress.16. t) → U | η = 0 on ϕ(∂Ωu .180) where P (t) is the solution of constitutive initial value Problem 3. is the solution of initial value Problem 3. (3. P (t). (3. Schematic illustration. ∀ η ∈ Vt .1 with prescribed deformation gradient (3.t) ϕ(∂Ωt .182). at each point of B. t)} and. (3. t). equation is satisﬁed [σ(t) : ∇x η − b(t) · η] dv − ϕ(Ω. t) = I + ∇p u(p.183) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3.173). for all t ∈ [t0 . the Cauchy stress is given by σ(t) = P (t)F (t)T /J(t). ¯ [P (t) : ∇p η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt ¯ · η da = 0. such that.181) (3.179) The space of virtual displacements at time t is deﬁned by Vt = {η : ϕ(Ω.t) t(t) · η da = 0. (3.1 (page 76) with prescribed deformation gradient F (t) = ∇p ϕ(p.4 (The material quasi-static initial boundary value problem). The initial boundary value problem. we state the material version of the fundamental initial boundary value problem in the following. For completeness. . u ∈ K. Problem 3.

176).ELEMENTS OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS AND THERMODYNAMICS 81 3. ∀ η ∈ V. Find a kinematically admissible displacement. It is stated in the following. u ∈ K. at each point p.185) where V = {η : Ω → U | η = 0 on ∂Ωu } (3. (3.5 (The inﬁnitesimal quasi-static initial boundary value problem).186) and. (3. T ]. t).2.7. σ(t) is the solution of the constitutive initial value Problem 3. [σ(t) : ∇η − b(t) · η] dv − Ω ∂Ωt t(t) · η da = 0. for t ∈ [t0 . such that. the quasi-static initial boundary value problem is based on the weak form (3. Problem 3.187) . THE INFINITESIMAL PROBLEM Under inﬁnitesimal deformations.2 (page 76) with prescribed strain ε(t) = ∇s u(p.

.

**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

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

2. εn+1 ). Set initial guess and residual un+1 := un . Some procedures of this type are available in the HYPLAS program. (i) k := 0. . the stiffness matrix does not need to be computed or factorised whenever it is reused. For such schemes. 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. 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. (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. εn+1 ) σn+1 := σ(αn . (viii) Compute element internal force vectors [INTFOR.100 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 4. The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation (inﬁnitesimal strains). 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 . STSTD2] KT := (e) ngausp i=1 wi ji BT Di Bi i (iv) k := k + 1.

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI .83) . T ]. The Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm (BFGS) is a particularly popular quasiNewton scheme. Essentially.1). The interested reader is referred to Ladevèze (1999) for further details. originally proposed by Ladevèze (1984. when the derivation of the tangent operator (4. vT w vT w (4.. 4. whose substitution into the generic initial boundary value problem of Section 3. Instead. vi . 1990). Its application in the ﬁnite element context has been introduced by Matthies and Strang (1979).7. the approximate inverse stiffness of the BFGS scheme is updated by the formula K−1 (k) where v = u(k−1) − u(k−2) . for each step. T ]) and is related to the strain history resulting from v∗ through the constitutive equations of the model. 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. The numerical solution of the initial boundary value problem in this case is obtained by splitting the considered time interval. Again.2 (page 81) results in the incremental version stated in Problem 4. Each iteration i of the LATIN method produces a new velocity history. at a new iteration. w = r(k−1) − r(k−2) . An interesting alternative to the above general incremental procedure deserves special mention: the so-called Large Time Increment Method. 1989.7.1 (page 95). Its computational implementation is considerably different from that of the incremental approach explored and explained in detail throughout this book. or LATIN Method for short. 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. At the beginning of an iteration (k).60). for instance. The LATIN method falls outside the scope of the present text. σi } of velocity and stress ﬁelds over Ω × [t0 . 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 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. say [t0 .STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 101 Other alternatives include the quasi-Newton methods.81) is difﬁcult – a situation that may arise in dealing with complex material models/integration algorithms. σ∗ } whose stress satisﬁes equilibrium (over the entire time domain [t0 . the rates of convergence are much slower than those produced by the standard Newton algorithm. this method generates a sequence of histories {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+ . 1999) is a non-incremental iterative procedure relying on a radically different approach to the treatment of the problem. into a number of sufﬁciently small time steps and then solving sequentially. whose roots are in the theory of optimisation (Haftka et al.84) These methods can be useful. (4. require neither the direct computation of the tangent stiffness nor its inversion (linear system solution). Such methods.2.

F n+1 ). In contrast to the conventional incremental procedure. 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. for instance. Thus.60) the corresponding algorithmic incremental constitutive function is deﬁned in the following general format ˆ σn+1 = σ (αn . The functions wk are generated by conventional ﬁnite element interpolation and their corresponding nodal values are unknowns at each iteration of the method. F n+1 ) = Jn+1 σ (αn . Cognard et al. The overall accuracy of the history approximations depends crucially upon the choice of the total number. This is illustrated.2. Finite strain pathdependent models (including constitutive integration algorithms) as well as hyperelastic theories are discussed in Part Three of this book. tn+1 ] and σ is now the Cauchy stress tensor.87) where Jn+1 = det[F n+1 ]. 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. t) + k=1 gk (t) wk (x). .3. given the set αn of internal variables. the framework presented in this section is equally applicable to ﬁnite elasticity models. p. Analogous approximations are used to describe the sequence of strain rate and stress rate histories. no internal variables are needed and σn+1 (or τn+1 ) can usually be computed by simple function evaluation (rather than by some numerical integration algorithm). (1999). 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. by Boisse et al. Ladevèze and Perego (2000) and Dureisseix et al. An equivalent incremental function can be deﬁned for the Kirchhoff stress ˆ ˆ τn+1 = τ (αn . (4.3. 4. F n+1 ). (1997). Thus. of terms used to describe the iterative history differences. we shall assume that the underlying material model is path-dependent.1. t) = v i i−1 (x. Analogously to (4. T ] may contain several cycles of a cyclic load.86) where F n+1 is the deformation gradient prescribed at the end of the standard interval [tn . Cognard and Ladèveze (1993).102 the form COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS p v (x. In such cases. the single increment of the LATIN Method comprising the interval [t0 . the comments made in Section 4.1 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. that is. (1990. (2003). T ] and wk are vector-valued functions deﬁned over Ω. (4. 4. 1989) in elastoplastic applications. 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. (4. Further applications are found in Boucard et al.85) where gk are suitably chosen scalar-valued basis functions deﬁned over [t0 . THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION At the outset.

the internal and external force vectors are deﬁned as f int = (e) ϕn+1 (4. ﬁnd a kinematically admissible conﬁguration ϕn+1 (Ω) ∈ Kn+1 such that the virtual work equation s [ˆ (αn . The B-matrix above is the spatial discrete symmetric gradient operator. but its shape function derivatives are spatial derivatives.92) NT bn+1 dv + ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (e) f ext (e) = ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) NT tn+1 da. Given the ﬁeld αn at time tn and given the body forces and surface traction ﬁelds at tn+1 .91) where. 4. THE CONSISTENT SPATIAL TANGENT MODULUS Analogously to the inﬁnitesimal deformations case of Section 4.3.88). derivatives with respect to the spatial coordinates of the ﬁnite element mesh (at the deformed conﬁguration deﬁned by un+1 ).7. that is. 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. and F n+1 = ∇p ϕn+1 = I + ∇p un+1 . LINEARISATION. now. Problem 4. the linearised version of (4.4. to be used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the large deformation incremental equilibrium equation.91).3. F n+1 ) : ∇x η − bn+1 · η] dv − σ ϕn+1 (Ω) tn+1 · η da = 0.1 (starting on page 79).2.3. 4.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . that given by (4.32) (page 757) of the virtual work equation (4. (4.30) for the plane stress and plane strain cases). THE FINITE ELEMENT EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION The ﬁnite element discretisation of the above equation is completely analogous to the discretisation of its inﬁnitesimal counterpart.4.90) ˆ BT σ(αn .2. F (un+1 )) dv (Ω(e) ) (4. . ϕn+1 (∂Ωt ) (4.88) is satisﬁed for any η ∈ V.2 (The ﬁnite strain incremental boundary value problem).89) (4. where ϕn+1 is the deformation map at tn+1 xn+1 = ϕn+1 (p) = p + un+1 (p). It has the same format as that of its small strain counterpart (such as. The problem – here considered in its spatial version – is stated in the following. can be obtained by applying a ﬁnite element discretisation to the linearised form (C. for example. 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 3.3.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 103 4.

2 0 · · · Nnnode . .2 · · · 0 Nnnode .1 (starting page 763).1 0 g g g 0 0 N2.32) and following the same arguments as those resulting in (4. (4. the generic Newton–Raphson iteration (k) here requires the solution of the standard linear system for δu: KT δu(k) = −r(k−1) . (4.1 . (4. In plane strain and plane stress analyses.1 0 N2.104 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Starting from (C.1 0 N2.2 Its multiplication by. they do not depend on the displacement u.1 · · · 0 Nnpoin .2.6. in plane stress/strain analyses. ϕ(∂ h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) ϕ(h Ω) − (4.94) Gg = g g g N 0 N2.1 · · · 0 Nnnode .e.97) G = (e) (e) (e) N 0 N2.1 N1.1 0 (e) (e) (e) 0 0 N2.70) we obtain the discrete form of the linearised virtual work equation for large strain problems in spatial description:¶ (Gg )T a Gg dv δu = − [(Bg )T σ − (Ng )T b] dv (Ng )T t da .2 0 1.2 g g g 0 N1. 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. Its extension to account for conﬁguration-dependent loads is brieﬂy addressed in Section 4.2 · · · 0 Nnpoin .1. it is given by g g g N1. The matrix Gg is the global discrete spatial gradient operator.2 0 1.2 ¶ We remark that this expression is valid when the external loads b and t are conﬁguration-independent.2 (e) (e) (e) 0 N2.95) where the global tangent stiffness matrix KT corresponds to the bracketed term on the lefthand side of (4. (4.96) where G is the element discrete spatial gradient operator which. i.1 .93) where a is the matrix of components of the spatial tangent modulus (C. for example.2 0 N2.1 0 · · · Nnnode . Similarly to the inﬁnitesimal strain case.1 0 · · · Nnpoin .31) ordered according to the convention described in Section D.2 0 N1.3. has the format (e) (e) (e) N1. say.1 N1.2. the global vector δu gives the array of components of the spatial gradient of δu ordered according to the convention of Section D.93).2 0 · · · Nnpoin .

. 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. ∂τij ∂ˆ τ = ∂Fkm ∂F n+1 . Examples of path-dependent material implementations where τ is deﬁned by an implicit algorithmic function are given in Part Three of this book. the derivatives ∂τij /∂Fkm are the components of the derivative of this generally implicit incremental constitutive function. Finite elasticity (also addressed in Part Three) is a particular instance where τn+1 is obtained by direct function evaluation.99) The overall Newton procedure in the ﬁnite strain case is completely analogous to that shown in Box 4. The Newton–Raphson scheme for the large strain incremental nonlinear ﬁnite element equation. J ∂Fkm (4.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . In the general case considered here. ˆ In such a case.2.87).2 for the inﬁnitesimal theory. The derivation of explicit expressions for the above implicit function derivative may become quite intricate but involve nothing more than standard concepts of linearisation. as a general rule.2 with the ﬁnite strain counterparts listed in Box 4. (ii) Compute consistent spatial tangent modulus matrix [MATICT] aijkl := ˆ 1 ∂ τij Flm − σil δjk J ∂Fkm (iii) Assemble element tangent stiffness matrices [ELEIST.2. be derived in a relatively straightforward manner.3. 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. Fn+1 ). The only necessary change is the replacement of some of the items of Box 4. Thus.3. 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 . that is. As in the inﬁnitesimal case. ijkm (4.98) On the right-hand side of the above expression. Modiﬁcations to Box 4.2: aijkl = 1 ∂τij Flm − σil δjk .STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 105 Box 4. the only terms that depend on the constitutive equations of the model are the derivatives of the Kirchhoff stress tensor components. 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.

3.101)2 to the material stiffness. is the so-called load-correction or load-stiffness matrix. that is. the full tangent stiffness under ﬁnite strains can be obtained by simply adding the geometrical term (4. if f ext = f ext (un+1 ). KL .103) (4. THE LOAD-STIFFNESS MATRIX If the external load depends on the conﬁguration of the body. In computational terms.6.105) . where the added contribution. we ﬁrstly compute the matrix form of tensor a and then obtain the element stiffness by performing a single computation with (4. If this approach is adopted. We remark. the tensor c has the symmetries cijkl = cjikl = cijlk .104) (4. in the ﬁnite strain case. MATERIAL AND GEOMETRIC STIFFNESSES In ﬁnite element computations. however. n+1 then the tangent stiffness.96) is frequently split into the so-called material and geometric stiffnesses KT = KM + KG . deﬁned by KM = KG = (e) (e) (k) ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (e) (e) (e) (4.80) except that. the matrix form of the tensor deﬁned by (4. ϕn+1 (Ω(e) ) (k) where c is the array representation of the fourth-order tensor cijkl = aijkl − σjl δik .102) replaces the matrix form of the inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operator. 4. the tangent stiffness (4.95).100) BT c B dv (4. is replaced by KT + KL . that takes part in (4.102) The material stiffness matrix (4. and S is the array representation of the tensor Sijkl = σjl δik . The load stiffness is the derivative of the external force vector with respect to the displacement (4. CONFIGURATION-DEPENDENT LOADS. (4.101)1 has the same format as that of the inﬁnitesimal stiffness matrix (4.101) GT S G dv.81).96) is adopted instead. that is. 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.106 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 4. As the inﬁnitesimal tangent operator (4.5.3. that in program HYPLAS the form (4.96). under ﬁnite strains.

A typical example is given by pressure loading of rubber membranes (see some of the numerical examples of Section 13. In such situations.7. 4. 4. (4. again.4. 1983. ∂un+1 u(k−1) n+1 (4.4. Ramm. 1999. A description of the arc-length method is given in this section. 1979. The method is implemented in program HYPLAS. 1972.4 are shown within square brackets. An equilibrium path is formed by the set of all load factor-displacement pairs {λ.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI .6). u} which satisfy equilibrium. Let us consider the case of proportional loading. 1981.108) 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.91) as ¯ r(un+1 . 1981). 1991. Readers who wish to skip the description of this technique are referred directly to Box 4. ∆λ) ≡ f int (un+1 ) − (λn + ∆λ) f ext = 0. cannot be used in general once a limit point (points A of Figure 4.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 107 vector: KL = ∂f ext . THE ARC-LENGTH METHOD Let us consider. Riks. To trace an equilibrium path beyond limit points we need to resort to continuation techniques. The reader is referred to Schweizerhof and Ramm (1984) for details of derivation (see also Argyris and Symeonidis. 1996.107) be the corresponding incremental load factor. Typical equilibrium paths associated with snap-through and snapback behaviour are illustrated in Figure 4. the standard interval [tn . de Souza Neto and Feng. To derive the arc-length method.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. Unstable equilibrium. Common examples appear in buckling instability and problems involving snap-through or snap-back phenomena. the standard load-controlled ﬁnite element scheme of the previous section.7) is reached.. of which the arc-length method appears to be the most popular (Crisﬁeld. 1995. 1971). 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. 1997. 1997. The explicit derivation of the load stiffness will not be addressed in this book. 1981.1.4 (page 109). Feng et al. The arc-length method Many ﬁnite deformation problems of practical interest are characterised by the existence of unstable equilibrium conﬁgurations. The names of the main routines involved in the computational implementation of the most relevant procedures of Box 4. where the displacement vector is found for a prescribed load factor. Wempner. . tn+1 ] and let ∆λ ≡ λn+1 − λn (4.

4. the constraint equation requires that the Euclidean norm of the converged incremental displacement be l. The cylindrical arc-length method For the more widely used cylindrical arc-length method (implemented in HYPLAS). (4.109) where ∆u and ∆λ are converged incremental quantities. The standard Newton–Raphson algorithm for iterative solution of the augmented arc-length system of nonlinear equations is derived by simply linearising (4.2.110) In this case. an equilibrium solution is obtained by solving. the scaling parameter ψ is set to zero and the constraint equation reads simply ∆uT ∆u = l2 . (4.8 which illustrates a system with two degrees of freedom.110)). Unstable equilibrium.7. the residual equation (4.e. The spherical arc-length method For the so-called spherical arc-length method. i. For the cylindrical version of the arc-length method. l is a prescribed incremental solution length and ψ is a prescribed scaling parameter.108 λ COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS λ snap-through A A snap-back 0 u 0 u Figure 4. A graphical representation is shown in Figure 4.109) or (4. the equilibrium solution at the end of the increment lies at an intersection between the solution path and a ball of radius l in the space of nodal displacements (a cylinder in the λ-u space) centred at the equilibrium conﬁguration un of the beginning of the increment. for both un+1 and ∆λ. the linearised system to be solved for δu(k) and δλ(k) at . Snap-through and snap-back behaviour. The possible intersections are denoted A and B.108) in conjunction with one of the above ‘length’ constraint equations ((4. THE COMBINED NEWTON–RAPHSON/ARC-LENGTH PROCEDURE In summary.4.108) together with the relevant arc-length constraint. the constraint equation has the general format f f ∆uT ∆u + ∆λ2 ψ 2 ¯ext T ¯ext − l2 = 0. having speciﬁed the required l.

STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 109 Box 4. (0) λn+1 := λn . ELEIST] (iii) Set k := k + 1. r(k) := f int (un+1 ) − λn+1 f (ix) Check for convergence [CONVER] IF r(k) / f ext ≤ ELSE GOTO (ii) tol [INTFOR. and set initial guess for displacement and incremental load factor un+1 := un . The combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme. (k) (k) (k) (k−1) (k) (k−1) 2 ∆un+1 := ∆un+1 + δu(k) ext (k) (k−1) ¯ (viii) Update residual. 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) . ∆λ(k−1) ) =− .4. (i) Initialise iteration counter. (4.117) and choose root δλ(k) according to (4. KT := KT (un+1 ) [FRONT.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) . δ¯ u [subroutine FRONT] KT δu∗ = −r(k−1) . (iv) Find iterative load factor δλ(k) [ARCLEN] (a) If k = 1 (predictor solution) then compute δλ(1) := sign(∆uT δ¯ ) √ n u l ¯ ¯ δ uT δ u ¯ KT δ¯ = −f u ext (b) If k = 1 then solve the cylindrical arc-length constraint equation a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0 with coefﬁcients deﬁned by (4. k := 0. (k) (0) ¯ r(0) := f int (un ) − λn f ext (ii) Assemble stiffness. (k−1) T δλ(k) (k−1) T 2∆u 0 ∆u(k−1) − l2 ∆u where the subscripts n + 1 have been dropped for notational convenience.111) .THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . Solve the linear systems for δu∗ and for the tangential solution.

in the non-consistent scheme. The cylindrical arc-length method. u}. we have ¯ (4.112) ∆u(k) ∆u(k) = l2 . un ) 0 un A u2 u1 l Figure 4. where δu∗ is the iterative displacement stemming from the Newton–Raphson algorithm for the standard load controlled scheme: δu∗ ≡ −K−1 r(k−1) . where the original augmented system to be solved at each iteration is replaced by the following equations: δu(k) = −r(u(k−1) . instead of solving the above coupled system (whose coefﬁcients matrix is nonbanded). In the iterations (4. T f (4.112)1.114) T . The non-consistent scheme In practice. From (4. the arc-length constraint is enforced at every iteration. it is more convenient to adopt what is sometimes referred to as the non-consistent scheme. T ¯ and δ u is the so-called tangential solution deﬁned by ¯ δ u ≡ K−1 ¯ext .115) (4.8.113) δu(k) = δu∗ + δλ δ u. the arc-length constraint is guaranteed to hold only at the converged solution whereas.111).110 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS arc-length constraint λ λn B ∆uT ∆u = l equilibrium path ( λ n . Both iterative schemes lead to identical converged equilibrium solutions {∆λ. ∆λ(k−1) ) KT (u(k−1) ) −¯ext f δλ(k) (4.

Follow the sign of the stiffness determinant |KT (u(0) )|: sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(|KT (u(0) )|). is updated according to ∆λ(k) = ∆λ(k−1) + δλ(k) . (4.4.118) The incremental load factor. the above criterion cannot be used for determination of the appropriate root δγ (k) as the initial guess. 1991). followed by the enforcement of the constraint (4. n ¯ (4. (4. (b) Incremental work. The two possible values of δλ(1) for the predictor solution are l δλ(1) = ± √ .THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . results in the quadratic equation for the iterative load factor δλ(k) 2 a δλ(k) + b δλ(k) + c = 0. Follow the sign of the predictor work increment: ¯ f sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(δ uT ¯ext ). i.122) (4. does not contain information about the path being currently followed by the iterative procedure.119) . δλ(k) is the solution of (4.117) (k−1) + δu ) (∆u ∗ T + δu ) − l .. The sign of δλ(1) is determined as sign(δλ(1) ) = sign(∆uT δ u). (c) Secant path (Feng et al. ∆λ(k) . 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.e. 4.121) (4.3.STATIC NONLINEAR SOLID MECHANICS 111 Substitution of (4. 1996).e.116) which gives the maximum product ∆u(k) T ∆u(k−1) : δλ(k) = arg ˆ ˆ ˆ δ λ | a δ λ2 +b δ λ+c=0 max ˆ ¯ {(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ + δ λ δ u)T ∆u(k−1) } . THE PREDICTOR SOLUTION When k = 1 (the predictor solution). ∆u(0) = 0. Some criteria are listed below: (a) Stiffness determinant. Many procedures are currently used to predict the continuation direction. to choose the sign of δλ(1) that carries on tracing the current solution path. i. 1995.113) into the relation ∆u(k) = ∆u(k−1) + δu(k) . If the wrong choice is made.116) with coefﬁcients ¯ ¯ a = δ uT δ u ¯ b = 2(∆u(k−1) + δu∗ )T δ u c = (∆u (k−1) (4.120) ¯ ¯ δ uT δ u and the success of the path-following technique depends crucially on the choice of the appropriate sign for the iterative load factor. (4.123) (4. the predictor solution will ‘track back’ on the current path (Crisﬁeld.112)2. 1991).

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

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’. the secant path predictor should indicate that the load is decreasing (negative δλ). Step-size limitation The need for sufﬁciently small ∆un has been stressed above as a condition for producing reliable indications of the ‘forward’ direction.) (a) 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. numerical experience shows that the maximum increment size is usually dictated by the Newton–Raphson algorithm rather than by the direction predictor criterion. in the descending branch of ‘snap back’ curves.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. (a) Load factor is currently increasing: choose δλ > 0. δ u. The secant path direction prediction criterion. Vol 179. Also.A. it is important to recall that a natural limitation on the maximum size of ∆un is already imposed by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. Vol 179. . (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. EA de Souza Neto and YT Feng.THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD IN QUASI . (Reproduced with permission from On the determination of the path direction for arc-length methods in the presence of bifurcations and ‘snap-backs’. In fact. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. overcoming the problem associated with the predictor incremental work criterion. With regard to this aspect. 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).10. If the convergence radius of the Newton–Raphson scheme is smaller than the maximum size of ∆un that produces an accurate direction prediction.9. Issue 12 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.) It is important to emphasise that the secant path criterion is insensitive to the presence of bifurcations and. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. does not show the basic deﬁciency associated with the criterion based on the sign of |KT |. The tangential solution. EA de Souza Neto and YT Feng.A. provided that ∆un is sufﬁciently small.

.

etc. It is by no means intended to be a comprehensive guide to the code.1.1. ﬁnite elements. including generic path-dependent constitutive models and ﬁnite deformations and strains. I 5. 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. whenever appropriate.1. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. material models. (iii) an arc-length scheme for problems involving structural instability. 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. In the present chapter we provide a more thorough description of the HYPLAS program. we have described a general strategy for the ﬁnite element simulation of linear and nonlinear solid mechanics problems. (ii) iterative schemes (e. 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. OBJECTIVES The main purpose of HYPLAS is to illustrate the computational implementation of numerical procedures described throughout this book. numerous (elastic and elastoplastic) material models have been incorporated. Introduction HYPLAS is a ﬁnite element code for implicit small and large strain analysis of hyperelastic and elastoplastic solids in plane stress. The present chapter is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to understand and/or modify the basic code by including new procedures.g. plane strain and axisymmetric states. Throughout their description. Newton–Raphson) for the solution of nonlinear incremental ﬁnite element equations. Most procedures described there are incorporated in the standard version of the program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. Ltd . 5.5 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE N Chapter 4. The general framework adopted is that described in Chapter 4. with emphasis on its structure. It comprises: (i) a general displacement-based incremental ﬁnite element procedure. Within this framework. The theory and numerical methods underlying the implementation of each Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.

Part Two focuses on the inﬁnitesimal theory and Part Three on the ﬁnite strain range. 5. The existing exceptions to the FORTRAN 77 standards are known to be accepted by most currently available compilers. the routines of HYPLAS involved in the computational implementation of procedures described in the book are also indicated in the text. the programming philosophy adopted in its development has been biased towards code clarity and modularity. . 1978). the comments indicate where in the book the procedure being carried out is described. in many cases. as a general rule. In view of the educational purposes of HYPLAS. Whenever convenient. Frequently. 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). PORTABILITY The code of HYPLAS is entirely written in (almost) standard FORTRAN 77 programming language (ANSI. The reader will ﬁnd there a detailed description of the associated procedures including. implementation and testing of new constitutive models/algorithms as well as ﬁnite elements. Due to this modularity. programmers are frequently faced with the dilemma: clarity versus efﬁciency. In addition. 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. Cross-referencing.1. Comment lines The reader will also ﬁnd that numerous comments have been added to the source code. the code of. excessive optimisation of computer operations tends to result in cumbersome. This is particularly true for the numerical procedures whose theory is described in this text. a constitutive integration algorithm for a particular material model can be easily identiﬁed with the corresponding description provided in this book. 5. Finite element codes are no exception.1. difﬁcult-to-follow source codes. Clarity of coding When developing a computer code. 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. This should allow a relatively easy cross-referencing between theory and corresponding computer implementation.2. the pseudo-code and the corresponding FORTRAN source code of the relevant routines.116 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS material model are thoroughly discussed in Parts Two and Three of this book. Element and material model-related data are also self-contained to some extent. say.3. This feature is particularly relevant for researchers who wish to use HYPLAS for the development.

3. Data input and initialisation. These are data that do not change during the solution process such as initial nodal coordinates. At this stage all data deﬁning the problem to be analysed are read from the relevant ﬁles and all necessary arrays are initialised. The procedure has been conceptually described in Boxes 4. The data input and initialisation phase is carried out at the very beginning of the execution of the program. the ﬁnite element analysis is restarted from where the restart ﬁle was created. It contains an image of the complete database at the time of its creation. The input data ﬁle is an ASCII format ﬁle which. comprise the opening of ﬁles accessed during the execution. material and element properties. Data input and initialisation The ﬁrst operations carried out as the execution of HYPLAS is initiated.3. These components are described in more detail in the following sections. 3. 5. Essentially.4 of the previous chapter. 2. reading of input data and initialising of most global arrays. 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. Input data can be read: (a) either from an input data ﬁle only. contains all information about the problem to be analysed. This is the main body of the program. Under option (b). Output of converged results. 5. is the data related to the deﬁnition of the proportional load incrementation programme. Output routines are called from inside the main loop over load increments. most of the problem deﬁnition is read from an input restart ﬁle. In this case (case (b)).OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 117 5. This is a binary ﬁle generated during a previous execution of HYPLAS.1. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is shown in Figure 5. where the numerical procedures discussed in Chapter 4 are implemented. topology of the ﬁnite element mesh (nodal connectivities). The incremental ﬁnite element procedure. where the main routines involved are indicated. kinematic constraints and applied external loads as well as various control parameters required in the ﬁnite element analysis. THE GLOBAL DATABASE The global database of HYPLAS stores most arrays and program control parameters required in the ﬁnite element solution process. (b) or from an input restart ﬁle and an input data ﬁle. it consists of a main loop over load increments with a nested loop over equilibrium iterations. The only information read from the relevant (ASCII) input data ﬁle.2. in case (a). The main program The main program of HYPLAS can be divided into three basic parts: 1.1–4. The corresponding data can be classed into two basic categories: (i) Problem-deﬁning (ﬁxed) data.1. .

INC (refer to their comment lines). File MAXDIM. respectively.INC and ELEMENTS. data . Flowchart. stresses and state variables in general at Gauss points. 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. the data otherwise read and set in INDATA and INLOAD are retrieved from the input restart ﬁle by subroutine RSTART. Variables and arrays (or array components) containing data of type (i) are set once and for all in subroutines INDATA.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. Files MATERIAL.INC. These will be further explained in this chapter only when convenient for a better understanding of the program. File GLBDBASE. If in restart mode. Data input and initialisation. etc.INC is included in all routines that require data stored in any of the COMMON blocks of the global database. (ii) Solution-related (variable) data. INLOAD and ININCR. arrays storing element internal forces. MATERIAL.INC.INC sets the parameters that deﬁne the maximum admissible problem size that can be analysed. All arrays of the database have ﬁxed dimension and are grouped in a number of COMMON blocks. Typical solution-related data are nodal displacements.INC and ELEMENTS. 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. These are discussed further in Sections 5. maximum array dimensions required by the currently implemented material models and element types. current nodal coordinates (changes in large deformation analysis only).6 and 5.7.1. The global database is deﬁned in the include ﬁle GLBDBASE. The array-dimensioning parameters deﬁning the dimensions of the global database arrays are set in the include ﬁles MAXDIM. Data that change during the solution process. In the data input and initialisation phase of HYPLAS. according to the input data ﬁle.INC set.

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

In the present implementation.4.3.2. INITIALISATION OF VARIABLE DATA. The convenience of using material-speciﬁc routines for state variable initialisation is discussed in Section 5. The main routines called from the HYPLAS main program are indicated. Also. 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 incremental load factors for each increment are ﬁxed. Stresses and other state variables (most arrays of COMMON block STATE). 5. 5. an iterative procedure (typically the Newton–Raphson algorithm) is carried out to solve the nonlinear equilibrium problem. The pseudo-code of the overall scheme is given in Boxes 4. l. If the increment cutting procedure (Section 5.4.1–4. iterative and total) are initialised to zero. 5.1. is changed at the end of every increment (after convergence) according to the number of iterations required to achieve convergence within the prescribed tolerance. the proportional load increments are determined along the process according to the cylindrical arc-length procedure described in the previous chapter. 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. the current incremental load factor is split into two equally sized sub-increments. which are deﬁned at the Gauss point level.4.3.7. with ﬁxed increments. as deﬁned in the input data ﬁle.120 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5.4). the arc length.3) is activated. ARC-LENGTH CONTROL OPTION Under arc-length control. The inner (equilibrium iteration) loop for the combined Newton–Raphson/arc-length scheme is summarised in Box 4. The load incrementation loop. the ﬂow of the main program is a small variation of that followed with prescribed load increments. The corresponding ﬂowchart is shown in Figure 5. are initialised by material-speciﬁc routines called from subroutine MATISW. Under this option. 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. trying to obtain . Within each step of the loop over load increments.4. Arrays such as displacements (incremental.4. In the present arc-length implementation.2. In the latter case. The idea is to allow the arc length to increase when convergence is ‘easy’ and to reduce it if convergence is ‘difﬁcult’. the external load is incremented (in INCREM) before the iteration loop starts. The essential difference is that the proportional load increment factor here is recalculated (routine ARCLEN) in each pass of the iteration loop whereas. SUBROUTINE INITIA This routine initialises some arrays and problem control variables. the arc-length method requires the solution of the linear system (in FRONT) for two right-hand sides (refer to item (iii) of Box 4.4. Overview Let us now focus on the core of the ﬁnite element analysis code: the load incrementation loop.3 for the ﬁxed increments option.

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

is calculated (in ARCLEN) by specifying (in the input data ﬁle) an initial load increment factor. the start-up length. Arc-length control. l0 . ∆λ0 . at the beginning of the ﬁrst iteration of the very ﬁrst load increment.122 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS data input and initialisation (see flowchart of Fig 5. and setting l0 = ∆λ2 δ¯T u 0 u ¯ (5.4) LOOP OVER EQUILIBRIUM ITERATIONS . Since it is not normally easy to imagine the magnitude of l that would be reasonable for a particular problem. Obviously. the above length adjustment cannot be applied. 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.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. RSTART LENGTH Figure 5. Start-up length.3. The load incrementation loop. update load factor and iterative displacements ARCLEN LOOP OVER LOAD INCREMENTS no roots for arc-length equation update displacements & coordinates UPCONF reset some variables to last converged values SWITCH compute element int internal force vectors.

• The algorithm for numerical integration of path-dependent constitutive equations (the state update procedure) fails to produce a solution at a Gauss point. falls outside the convergence radius of the iterative solution method. the increment cutting procedure is activated and the current step is restarted (from the last converged solution) with reduced increment size. It frequently occurs that a converged equilibrium solution cannot be attained in the equilibrium iterations. • The linear equation system cannot be solved in FRONT due to a zero pivot in the stiffness matrix.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 123 ¯ where u is the initial tangential solution (see item (iii) of Box 4. (5. Certain measures can be taken to make constitutive algorithms more robust and avoid the problem. Stopping the load incrementation loop. The total prescribed load (with ﬁxed increments (0) option) is beyond the limit load of the structure or the initial guess.2). 5. 1991) within the equilibrium iterations. un+1 (refer to Box 4.3) to be made by two criteria: the stiffness determinant sign or the secant path predictor. This facility proves extremely useful in general nonlinear analysis. Under arc-length control. The causes of failure to converge are • The load increment is too large. In this case the residual norm will either diverge or not converge within a reasonable number of iterations. This issue is addressed in Part Two of this book. 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.3. A possible alternative (not available in HYPLAS) to increase the convergence radius is the incorporation of line-searches (Crisﬁeld.4.2 and 5. . Predictor solution.4. The maximum length lmax is also set at this stage as lmax = p l0 . The present implementation allows the choice of the sign of the predictor solution (refer to Section 4. This is normally caused by excessively large strain increments.4).5) where p is the maximum arc-length parameter (deﬁned in the input data ﬁle). Whenever that happens. This may occur for material models whose tangent operator may become singular under certain states of stress. AUTOMATIC INCREMENT CUTTING An automatic increment cutting facility is available in HYPLAS (see dashed lines in the ﬂowcharts of Figures 5.3). The predictor solution is computed in subroutine ARCLEN. 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.

and eliminated simultaneously.5. Further details on the structure of HYPLAS regarding the evaluation of internal forces and general state updating are given in Section 5. 1977. it calls the internal force evaluation routine of the corresponding element class.INC). In the present implementation. when the initial stiffness method is used). The number of right-hand sides for which the solution is required is set in the local variable NRHS. INTERNAL FORCE CALCULATION.6) is solved for δu. with the appropriate contribution of individual elements to the global stiffness matrix and load vector. for instance. KRESL is always set to 1. In the frontal method. The equations are assembled.5. . solved in routine ARCLEN. The arc-length constraint equation (4. SUBROUTINE INTFOR Subroutine INTFOR computes the element internal force vector of all elements of the mesh. If MODE=2. then a new stiffness is required.124 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS • For arc-length control only. 5. This problem is also generally overcome by reducing the increment size (the arc length. 5.4. then both solutions are obtained. 1977) and will not be discussed here. They are grouped in the COMMON block named FRONTA. SUBROUTINE FRONT The linear system solution is carried out in subroutine FRONT which uses the classical frontal method (Hinton and Owen. the linear system is solved by Gauss elimination. l. In this case. If KRESL=1. the stiffness matrix is reduced only once. 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. the equation system is solved for up to two right-hand sides. is obtained u instead by solving ¯ext KT δ¯ = −f . THE LINEAR SOLVER. the tangential solution of the arc-length method. Details of the technique are described elsewhere (Hinton and Owen. δ¯ .7) If MODE=3. u (5. The variable KRESL controls whether or not a new stiffness is computed. SWITCHING DATA.6. If KRESL=2. Note that the solution for two right-hand sides is required by the arc-length method. Irons. For each element. 1970). When the standard Newton–Raphson algorithm is used. The global arrays of HYPLAS used exclusively by the frontal solver are not included in the global database (ﬁle GLBDBASE.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. 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. 5. If MODE=1. Another local control ﬂag used by this routine is the integer MODE.4. the standard system KT δu = −r (5.116). may have no real roots.4. in this case) and restarting the current step with the reduced value of l.

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

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

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

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

6. At the element level. for the isoparametric three-noded triangle and four-noded bi-linear quadrilateral. 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. These data are used by the corresponding element classspeciﬁc subroutines for computation of internal force and tangent stiffness matrices. 5. To read the relevant data from the input data ﬁle and assign all necessary properties to IELPRP and RELPRP. For standard isoparametric two-dimensional elements. IMPLEMENTING A NEW FINITE ELEMENT In this section. respectively. The basic task of the element interface here is to identify the class of the element whose internal force is required and call the appropriate class-speciﬁc internal force evaluation routine. The corresponding call tree is shown in Figure 5.5. For instance.1.2. the class-speciﬁc routine is IFSTD2. subroutines RST3 and RSQ4 read and set data. we provide a summary of the basic path to be followed in order to include a new ﬁnite element into HYPLAS.4. Subroutine ELEIIF in this case is the element interface routine that controls the evaluation of the element internal force vector. 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. the corresponding class-speciﬁc routine is IFFBA2. The properties of the element type assigned to an element group IGRUP are stored in the columns IELPRP( . 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). .5.3. INTERNAL FORCE AND STIFFNESS COMPUTATION The modularisation of elements in the internal force computation has been discussed in Section 5. These routines are called only once during the program execution. For F -bar elements (discussed in Chapter 15). of the element properties arrays.6. 5. Element properties are also used in the evaluation of the external load vector carried out in INLOAD. The class-speciﬁc routines for standard and F -bar elements are STSTD2 and STFBA2. respectively.IGRUP). ELEMENT INTERFACES. Such subroutines are named following the convention: RSxxxx.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.IGRUP) and RELPRP( .

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

a new elementclass identiﬁcation parameter has to be added to ﬁle ELEMENTS. Grouping materials into classes is not absolutely necessary for modularity but becomes convenient particularly in the ﬁnite strain regime when. • Integer material properties. and calls to the new routines have to be included in the element interfaces ELEIIF and ELEIST. of COMMON block MATERL (see include ﬁle GLBDBASE. Examples of integer and real material properties are: • Real material properties. 5. a number of models may require identical transformation of the basic kinematic variable (F ∆ ) before the essential state updating procedure can be applied. in the arrays IPROPS and RPROPS. all materials of this class are logarithmic strainbased extensions of the corresponding inﬁnitesimal models (the linear elastic model. The situation here is analogous to the storage of element properties discussed in Section 5. may also contain other parameters related to the speciﬁc numerical algorithm adopted to integrate the constitutive equations of the model.INC. The Hencky material is discussed in Chapter 13 and the ﬁnite elastoplasticity models are described in Chapter 14. Also. respectively. This is the most demanding part.7. Material types and classes are identiﬁed by identiﬁcation parameters deﬁned in the include ﬁle MATERIAL.OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 131 A new element class Obviously. The data stored in these arrays include all parameters required by the continuum constitutive model and. number of terms in the series deﬁning an Ogden-type ﬁnite strain hyperelasticity strain energy function. for instance. In addition to the above procedures. This ﬁle is the material database of HYPLAS. 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. for instance. if required.6.7. MATERIAL PROPERTIES.1. turns into the Hencky material). MATERIAL-SPECIFIC DATA INPUT Integer and real material properties are stored. Number of points deﬁning a piecewise linear hardening curve for elastoplastic materials. Poisson’s ratio. Usual properties such as Young’s modulus.INC).INC).1. 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 typical example is the class of isotropic elastoplasticity models implemented in the program (which also includes the linear elastic model).INC. etc. we need to code new element class-speciﬁc stiffness and internal force evaluation routines. Material models: implementation and management Material models (or types) are also grouped into classes. Each group of elements deﬁned by the user in the input data ﬁle is assigned one material type . parameters deﬁning hardening curves of elastoplastic materials. 5. F ∆ . The identiﬁcation parameter of this class is HYPEPL (see ﬁle MATERIAL. Under ﬁnite strains. this will require more work than to include an element of an existing class. In this case. etc.

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

. ∆ε) ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . we described in more detail the structure of the material level layer of Figure 5.2).OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 133 The arrays of COMMON block STATE store both current and last converged values of the corresponding variables. σ and α. ∆ε). rather than ∆ε. performs extra class-speciﬁc kinematic operations (if necessary) and then calls the material type-speciﬁc routine SUxxxx. The state-updating procedures (subroutines) are named according to the rule SUxxxx. the above functions are deﬁned in terms of the incremental deformation gradient. . each material model implementation has a material-speciﬁc stateˆ ˆ updating procedure that deﬁnes a pair of functions {σ. To keep the modularity of material models. such that the state {σn+1 . F ∆ .1) for the Gauss point stresses. such as STRSG( . store the current values.7. . α}.4. 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. 5. 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). within the overall incremental ﬁnite element scheme. for instance. Positions with the last index equal to 2. contain the last equilibrium converged values. For path-dependent constitutive models. Material-speciﬁc state updating procedure Here. Let us recall that. In the HYPLAS program.14) In the ﬁnite strain case. we have the subroutines SUVM (general case) and SUVMPS (plane stress algorithm). (5. This routine identiﬁes the material class and type. such as STRSG( . For the von Mises elastoplastic model.3. αn+1 } at a Gauss point is symbolically represented as ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . each material model ˆ ˆ implementation is deﬁned by incremental constitutive functions. The array positions having the last index equal to 1. 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.

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. required in the assemblage of element tangent stiffness matrices. 5. 5. The switching/initialising subroutines are named as SWxxxx. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC RESULTS OUTPUT ROUTINES Finally. and CSTxxx for consistent spatial tangent moduli (deﬁned by (4.5. MATERIAL-SPECIFIC TANGENT COMPUTATION ROUTINES The call tree for computation of material-related tangent operators is illustrated in Figure 5.134 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS it is thus convenient to perform the operations of initialisation of variables as well as switching between current and previous converged values in material-speciﬁc routines. the material-speciﬁc routine for the von Mises model is named CTVM.7. is also carried out in material-speciﬁc routines. It identiﬁes the material and calls the appropriate tangent computation routine.81)). The Ogden hyperelastic model uses subroutine CSTOGD. the computation of the consistent tangent operators (4. The name convention adopted for such routines is CTxxxx for computation of inﬁnitesimal consistent tangent operators (deﬁned by (4.98). respectively. . For the von Mises and Ogden models we have.81) and (4. The MATerial Interface for Consistent Tangent computation is named MATICT. Whenever required.4.98)) needed in ﬁnite strain analyses. 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. In line with the material modularity discussed in the above.7. 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).5 (material level). The material interface for tangent computation A material interface routine is also used to call the tangent operator computation subroutines. we describe the last material-related operation: the output of material-speciﬁc data to a results ﬁle. the routines SWVM and SWOGD. In this case.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE 135 For instance. 5. In addition. Material interface for results output Again. A new material class identiﬁcation parameter needs to be added too. These routines are named in HYPLAS according to the convention ORxxxx. at the same time. .1 The state updating procedure. the von Mises effective stress is important for metals but may be of no relevance for concrete failure models. SWxxxx. MATICT. the use of material-speciﬁc routines at this stage is convenient in order to print out only relevant results and keep.6. calls to the above routines have to be added to the corresponding material interfaces: MATISU. The developer needs to code ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines. Write new material-speciﬁc routines.INC). The maximum dimensioning parameters of ﬁle MATERIAL.INC have to be increased accordingly if the new material model requires more storage space. Most of the programming work is concentrated in items 2.2 The routine for computation of the associated consistent tangent operator. Add a new material-type identiﬁcation parameter to the materials database (include ﬁle MATERIAL. Note that changes to the existing code are needed only in the material database ﬁle MATERIAL. CTxxxx (CSTxxx in ﬁnite strains). a clean and modular structure. 2. For path-dependent materials this is a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding constitutive equations.2. MATIRD and MATIOR. Add new entries to the materials database. a material interface routine is used to control calls to material-speciﬁc routines. for instance.7.1 and 2. requires the following basic steps: 1. Add new calls to the material interface routines.INC and in the above material interface routines. the incorporation of a new material model/algorithm into HYPLAS. IMPLEMENTING A NEW MATERIAL MODEL Within the modular structure described above. 2.3 The routine for switching and initialising material-related variables. SUxxxx.5 The routine for output of material-related results ORxxxx. Finally. 2. MATISW. The MATerial Interface to Output Results is the subroutine MATIOR. 3. The output routine for the von Mises model. The crucial material-deﬁning routines are 2. only if the new material belongs to a newly deﬁned class. is named ORVM. Thus.4 The routine for material data input RDxxxx. the following auxiliary routines are required: 2. 2.

.

Part Two Small strains .

.

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

a range of stresses within which the behaviour of the material can be considered as purely elastic. If the material is further loaded at the yield stress.1. 3. in segment O0 Y0 the behaviour of the material is regarded as linear elastic. then plastic yielding (or plastic ﬂow).e. it is important to emphasise that. 6. 2. it returns to the original unstressed state O0 . . O1 . σ0 . loading beyond an elastic limit (point Y1 in this case) will cause further increase in plastic deformation. The elastic domain is delimited by the so-called yield stress. Accompanying the evolution of the plastic strain. The bar is then unloaded back to an unstressed state and subsequently reloaded to a higher stress level σ1 . In the schematic diagram of Figure 6. differs from the initial unstressed state.6. materials as contrasting as metals and soils share some important features of their phenomenological behaviour that make them amenable to modelling by means of the theory of plasticity. where the axial stress. i. takes place. point Z0 . without evolution of permanent (plastic) strains. The new unstressed state. evolution of plastic strains. The existence of an elastic domain. the initial line segment O0 Y0 is virtually straight and. in Sections 6. O0 . the behaviour of the material in the segment O1 Y1 may also be regarded as linear elastic. is plotted against the axial strain.5 and 6. Beyond Y0 . with no further plastic straining of the bar. In this path. The associated yield stresses correspond to points Y0 and Y1 . ε. σ. a uniaxial tension experiment with a metallic bar is discussed in what follows. 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.1. the actual difference between them is in fact much smaller than that shown in the diagram of Figure 6. To illustrate such common features. In Figure 6. This shape change is represented in the graph by the permanent (or plastic) axial strain εp .1. i. Plastic ﬂow rules and hardening laws are addressed. They are enumerated below: 1. Phenomenological aspects In spite of their qualitatively distinct mechanical responses. Similarly to the initial elastic segment O0 Y0 . Again. Typically. The stress–strain curve follows the path O0 Y0 Z0 O1 Y1 Z1 shown. even though some discrepancy between unloading and reloading curves (such as lines Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 ) is observed in typical experiments. segments O0 Y0 and O1 Y1 deﬁne the elastic domain at two different states. in that a permanent change in the shape of the bar is observed. Some important phenomenological properties can be identiﬁed in the above described uniaxial test.1. 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 . say.1. an evolution of the yield stress itself is also observed (note that the yield stresses corresponding to points Y0 and Y1 are different). the bar returns to an unstressed state via path Z0 O1 .e. Here. uniaxial tension tests with ductile metals produce stress–strain curves of the type shown in Figure 6. respectively. if the bar is unloaded from point Y0 (or before it is reached).140 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS described in Section 6.4. Monotonic reloading of the bar to a stress level σ1 will follow the path O1 Y1 Z1 . Thus. This phenomenon is known as hardening. the slope of the stress–strain curve changes dramatically and if the stress (or strain) loading is reversed at. Therefore.

Obviously. In this case.2.1. which typically cannot resist tensile stresses. One-dimensional constitutive model A simple mathematical model of the uniaxial experiment discussed in the previous section is formulated in what follows. that correspond respectively to . in which the sides of the specimen are subjected to a conﬁning hydrostatic pressure prior to the application of longitudinal compression. 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. For instance. Uniaxial tension experiment with ductile metals. are more appropriate.1) is ignored and points Z0 and Y1 . The object of the mathematical theory of plasticity is to provide continuum constitutive models capable of describing (qualitatively and quantitavely) with sufﬁcient accuracy the phenomenological behaviour of materials that possess the characteristics discussed in the above. the difference between unloading and reloading curves (segments Z0 O1 and O1 Y1 of Figure 6. the microscopic mechanisms that give rise to these common phenomenological characteristics can be completely distinct for different types of material. different experimental procedures may be required for the veriﬁcation of such properties. is approximated by the idealised version shown in Figure 6.2. that resulted from the loading programme described in the previous section. experiments such as triaxial shear tests. according to the type of material. the original stress–strain curve of Figure 6. It is also important to note that. 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. Firstly.1. in materials such as soils. uniaxial tension tests do not make physical sense. soils and many others. The assumptions involved in the approximation are summarised in the following. 6. rocks.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 141 σ σ1 σ0 Y1 Y0 Z0 Z1 O0 εp O1 ε Figure 6. At the outset.

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

only elastic straining may occur. Φ. either elastic unloading or plastic yielding (or plastic loading) takes place.2. The items 1 and 2 of Section 6. ε = εe + εp . the constitutive law for the axial stress can be expressed as σ = E εe .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. 6. i. σy ) < 0}. whereas on its boundary (at the yield stress). the elastic domain is the set of stresses σ that satisfy |σ| < σy .9) . With the introduction of a yield function. σy ) ≤ 0. no stress level is allowed above the current yield stress.2. σy ) = |σ| − σy . for plastic loading. (6. If Φ(σ. 6. These are described in the following. any admissible stress must satisfy the restriction Φ(σ. Thus.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 143 plastic (or permanent) component. plastically admissible stresses lie either in the elastic domain or on its boundary (the yield limit).1.5) (6. (6.8) For stress levels within the elastic domain. It should be noted that. This yield criterion can be expressed by If Φ(σ. (6. σy ) = 0 =⇒ εp = 0 ˙ εp = 0 ˙ for elastic unloading. where the elastic strain has been deﬁned as εe = ε − εp .7) (6. σy ) < 0 =⇒ ε˙p = 0. The corresponding idealised elastic domain is illustrated in Figure 6.1 are associated with the formulation of a yield criterion and a plastic ﬂow rule. (6.e.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. at any stage. εp .3) (6. or. of the form Φ(σ. (6.2. equivalently.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.3.4) 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. THE ELASTIC UNIAXIAL CONSTITUTIVE LAW Following the above deﬁnition of the elastic axial strain. whereas item 3 requires the formulation of a hardening law.3.

13) The constitutive equations (6. 6. i. Φ < 0 =⇒ γ = 0 =⇒ εp = 0.e.15) .2. ˙ ˙ where sign is the signum function deﬁned as sign(a) = +1 if a ≥ 0 −1 if a < 0 (6. Elastic domain.144 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ tension elastic domain σy 0 ε compression − σy Figure 6.10) to (6. upon plastic loading.12) and satisﬁes the complementarity condition Φ γ = 0.4. By noting in Figure 6.13) imply that. THE PLASTIC FLOW RULE. the plastic strain rate εp is positive (stretching) under tension (positive σ) and ˙ negative (compressive) under compression (negative σ).3.14) and plastic ﬂow (εp = 0) may occur only when the stress level σ coincides with the current ˙ yield stress |σ| = σy =⇒ Φ = 0 =⇒ γ ≥ 0. ˙ (6.9) above have deﬁned a criterion for plastic yielding. as stated in the yield criterion (6.11) (6. The plastic multiplier is ˙ non-negative. they have set the conditions under which plastic straining may occur. ˙ (6. ˙ ˙ (6. Uniaxial model. i. the plastic ﬂow rule for the uniaxial model can be formally established as εp = γ sign(σ).e. ˙ (6. the plastic strain rate vanishes within the elastic domain.3 that.9). LOADING/UNLOADING CONDITIONS Expressions (6.10) for any scalar a and the scalar γ is termed the plastic multiplier. γ ≥ 0.

˙ γΦ = 0.4).1.13) deﬁne the so-called loading/unloading conditions of the elasticplastic model.10). Clearly.18) thus ensuring that both tensile and compressive plastic straining contribute to εp .8).THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 145 Expressions (6. εp . (6.2).19) The curve deﬁned by the hardening function σy (¯p ) is usually referred to as the hardening ε curve (Figure 6. From the deﬁnition of εp . the complete characterisation of the uniaxial model is achieved with the introduction of the hardening law. (6. the yield stress σy is a given function σy = σy (¯p ) ε (6. (6.5) of Φ.21) . ˙ (6.16). (6.20) (6. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional plasticity model is deﬁned by the constitutive equations (6. it follows that its evolution law is given by ¯ ˙ ˙ εp = |εp |. THE HARDENING LAW Finally.4). in view of the plastic ﬂow rule. The model is summarised in Box 6. the constraints Φ ≤ 0.1. known as hardening. in ¯ a monotonic tensile test we have εp = εp . in the deﬁnition (6. that is.12) and (6.5). 6. an evolution of the yield stress accompanies the evolution of the plastic strain. ¯ 6. can be incorporated into the uniaxial model simply by assuming that. ¯ (6.5.22).2. (6. ˙ (6. ¯ which. is equivalent to ˙ ˙ εp = γ. establish when plastic ﬂow may occur.6.16) of the accumulated axial plastic strain. This phenomenon. and (6. (6.22) (6.17).2. As remarked in item 3 of Section 6. The accumulated axial plastic strain is deﬁned as ¯ t εp ≡ ¯ 0 |εp | dt. ¯ whereas in a monotonic compressive uniaxial test. (6. εp = −εp .17) γ ≥ 0.

during plastic ﬂow. One-dimensional elastoplastic constitutive model. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. DETERMINATION OF THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER So far. in the uniaxial plasticity model introduced above. Yield function 4. Uniaxial elastic law 3.4. Hardening law σ = E εe Φ(σ.2. was left ˙ indeterminate during plastic yielding.12) and (6. it should be noted ﬁrstly that. One-dimensional model. Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. the plastic multiplier. Indeed. . In order to eliminate this indetermination. γ ≥ 0. 1. γ. Plastic ﬂow rule 5. Hardening curve. σy ) = |σ| − σy ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ σy = σy (¯p ) ε ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6.13) just tell us that γ ˙ vanishes during elastic straining but may assume any non-negative value during plastic ﬂow.146 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σy σy ( ε p ) hardening slope. expressions (6.7. Box 6.1. H σA 0 εp Figure 6. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ 6.

By taking the time derivative of the yield function (6.32) E+H Equivalently. (6. during elastic straining. ˙ ˙ Φ = 0.31) where E ep is called the elastoplastic tangent modulus.10). (γ = 0). one obtains ˙ ˙ Φ = sign(σ) σ − H εp .25) holds so that one has the following expression for the stress rate ˙ sign(σ) σ = H εp . Equation (6.26) where H is called the hardening modulus. γ.25) (6.8.29).23) as the absolute value of the current stress always coincides with the current yield stress.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 147 the value of the yield function remains constant Φ = 0. the plastic multiplier. ε (6. Therefore. equation (6. H. the following additional complementarity condition may be established: ˙ ˙ Φγ=0 which implies that the rate of Φ vanishes whenever plastic yielding occurs (γ = 0). ˙ ¯ (6. (6. by combining the above expression with (6.22). By combining expressions (6.5).28) From the elastic law. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. Φ may assume any value.10) and (6. ˙ H +E H +E (6.31). is uniquely determined during plastic yielding as ˙ γ= ˙ E E sign(σ) ε = ˙ |ε|. and is deﬁned as (refer to Figure 6. (6.27) d¯ ε Under plastic yielding.33) . can be expressed in terms of the elastic modulus and the elastoplastic modulus as H= E ep . (6.2. Plastic ﬂow at a generic yield limit produces the following tangent relation between strain and stress ˙ σ = E ep ε.24) ˙ and.2.25) is called the ˙ consistency condition. (6. THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT MODULUS Let us now return to the stress–strain curve of Figure 6. the hardening modulus. ˙ (6.30) the following expression is obtained for the elastoplastic tangent modulus EH E ep = . or hardening slope.29) Finally. ˙ ¯ (6.4) dσy H = H(¯p ) = p .28) and (6. the ﬂow rule (6. 1 − E ep /E (6. it follows that σ = E(ε − εp ).30) 6.

The corresponding rate form of the additive split reads ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp . ε = εe + ε p . • an elastic law.1. the plastic strain (taken as an internal variable) and a set α of internal variables associated with the phenomenon of hardening.3. is a function ψ(ε. εe . 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. respectively. εp . The generalisation of these concepts for application in two. into the sum of an elastic component.34). ψ. as the elastic strain tensor and the plastic strain tensor. that is.148 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. General elastoplastic constitutive model A mathematical model of a uniaxial tension experiment with a ductile metal has been described in the previous section. • a plastic ﬂow rule deﬁning the evolution of the plastic strain. (6. characterising the evolution of the yield limit. The starting point of the theories of plasticity treated in this book is the assumption that the free energy. the one-dimensional equations contain all basic components of a general elastoplastic constitutive model: • the elastoplastic strain decomposition. 6. ε. As already mentioned. εp . of the total strain. α).and three-dimensional situations is described in this section.35) .3. ADDITIVE DECOMPOSITION OF THE STRAIN TENSOR Following the decomposition of the uniaxial strain given in the previous section. and a plastic component.3.36) (6. • a yield criterion.34) The tensors εe and εp are known. 6. 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.5 of Chapter 3.35) together with the given initial condition ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) at a (pseudo-)time t0 is equivalent to (6. and • a hardening law. Note that (6.2. stated with the use of a yield function. It is usual to assume that the free (6.

A.43) where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor and G and K are. Following the above expression for the free energy. (6.39) ∂ψ e ∂εe ˙ ˙ ˙ : εe + σ : εp − A ∗ α ≥ 0.37) into a sum of an elastic contribution. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α. Thus. εp .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. α) = ψ e (ε − εp ) + ψ p (α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α) (6. (6.4) is given by σ = De : εe = 2G εe + K εe I. the Clausius–Duhem inequality reads σ−ρ ¯ where A ≡ ρ ∂ψ p/∂α ¯ (6. respectively the shear and bulk moduli. 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 (6.44) .41) is called the plastic dissipation function. d v (6. where the function Υp . ∂εe (6. the general counterpart of uniaxial elastic v law (6.40) so that the requirement of non-negative dissipation can be reduced to ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. In this case. deﬁned by ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. ψ p . ψ e . εp . This chapter is focused on materials whose elastic behaviour is linear (as in the uniaxial model of the previous section) and isotropic.38) is the hardening thermodynamical force and we note that −σ is the thermodynamical force associated with the plastic strain while the symbol * indicates the appropriate product ˙ between A and α. εp . whose dependence upon strains and internal variables appears only through the elastic strain. α) ≥ 0. A. and a contribution due to hardening. The above inequality implies a general elastic law of the form σ=ρ ¯ ∂ψ e .42) (6.

A) < 0} (6. (6. A) = 0. (6.3. Extension of this concept to the three-dimensional case is obtained by stating that plastic ﬂow may occur only when Φ(σ. the set of stresses for which plastic yielding may occur. This hypersurface is termed the yield surface and is deﬁned as Y = {σ | Φ(σ. A) is termed the ﬂow vector and the function H = H(σ. a yield function deﬁnes the elastic domain as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ. 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.45) where the scalar yield function. The yield locus in this case is represented by a hypersurface in the space of stresses. A) ≤ 0}. γ ≥ 0. the general plasticity model resulting from the above equations is listed in Box 6. A) (6.3.50) are complemented by the loading/unloading conditions Φ ≤ 0.53) that deﬁne when evolution of plastic strains and internal variables (γ = 0) may occur.2. Φγ = 0. The following plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law are then postulated ˙ εp = γ N ˙ ˙ α = γ H. ˙ where the tensor N = N(σ.50) is the generalised hardening modulus which deﬁnes the evolution of the hardening variables.51) (6.e. A) = 0}. is now a function of the stress tensor and a set A of hardening thermodynamical forces. Φ. (6.49) (6. i. where Φ(σ. ˙ For convenience. The evolution equations (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.48) 6.e.46) of stresses for which plastic yielding is not possible. 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.52) (6. ˙ ˙ (6.47) The yield locus. is the boundary of the elastic domain.150 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6.4.3. Analogously to the uniaxial case. 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. i. We then deﬁne the set of plastically admissible stresses (or plastically admissible domain) as ¯ E = {σ | Φ(σ. .49) and (6. the variables associated with the dissipative phenomena. A) = 0.

57) . 1. Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. Ψ. Free-energy function ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp . is obtained as N≡ ∂Ψ .55) (6. ˙ γΦ = 0 ˙ ∂ψ .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 151 Box 6. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. γ ≥ 0. A) 5.3. 0) = 0. the plastic potential. A) ˙ ˙ α = γ H(σ. ∂σ (6. it is often convenient to deﬁne the ﬂow rule (and possibly the hardening law) in terms of a ﬂow (or plastic) potential. is required to be a non-negative convex function of both σ and A and zero-valued at the origin.56) ∂A When such an approach is adopted. then we have in addition ∂Ψ H≡− .2. Ψ(0. A general elastoplastic constitutive model. A) from which the ﬂow vector.54) If the hardening law is assumed to be derived from the same potential. ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α 6. Yield function Φ = Φ(σ. FLOW RULES DERIVED FROM A FLOW POTENTIAL In the formulation of multidimensional plasticity models. (6.5. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = γ N(σ. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp or 2. ε(t0 ) = εe (t0 ) + εp (t0 ) ψ = ψ(εe . A) ˙ 6. 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. N. (6.

2. many plasticity models.60) lead to the following closed formula for the plastic multiplier γ= ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε .6. i. Following ˙ the same arguments employed in Section 6.64) .50). γ. ∂Φ/∂σ : D : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ e (6. Associative ﬂow rule As we shall see later. Ψ ≡ Φ. THE PLASTIC MULTIPLIER Here we extend to the multidimensional case the procedure for the determination of the plastic multiplier. = ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 (6.59) under plastic yielding (when γ = 0).7. the above expression and the consistency condition (6.152 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS These restrictions ensure that the dissipation inequality (6. Φ. described in Section 6. together with the deﬁnition of A in terms of the free-energy potential (refer to expression (6.1.60) (6. as a ﬂow potential. the elastic law and the plastic ﬂow rule (6.41) is satisﬁed a priori by the evolution equations (6.50).2. Φ= ∂σ ∂A ∂α2 2 p ∂ ψ ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ : De : (ε − γ N ) + γ ∗ρ ¯ ˙ ˙ ∗ H.e. the starting point in the determination of γ is ˙ the consideration of the additional complementarity equation ˙ ˙ Φ γ = 0.61) equivalently as ∂ 2 ψp ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ : De : (ε − εp ) + ∗ρ ¯ ∗ α. (6.49) and (6.62) This. By differentiating the yield function with respect to time. ˙ we obtain ∂Φ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ= :σ+ ∗ A.58) Such models are called associative (or associated) plasticity models.7 for the one-dimensional plasticity model.39)) and the evolution law (6. which implies the consistency condition ˙ Φ=0 (6. 6.61) ∂σ ∂A By taking into account the additive split of the strain tensor. we promptly ﬁnd the obvious rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De : (ε − εp ) = De : (ε − γ N ).3. particularly for ductile metals.63) Finally. have their yield function. (6. ˙ (6.49). allow us to write (6.5. The issue of associativity will be further discussed in Section 6.

Those wishing to see now the link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive theory are referred to Section 11. 6. the ﬂow vector. We remark.9.55) and (6.87). though.3.68) 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. For models with non-associative plastic ﬂow. Dep is generally unsymmetric. page 29) of the elasticity tensor implies ˙ ˙ ∂Φ/∂σ : De : ε = De : ∂Φ/∂σ : ε. i.2.4. then the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator is symmetric. Dep is frequently referred to as the continuum elastoplastic tangent operator. starting on page 452. 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. 6. NON-SMOOTH POTENTIALS AND THE SUBDIFFERENTIAL It should be noted that expressions (6.5.67) (6.8.3.9 before moving to Section 11. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY At this point. that the concept of subdifferential.9. Note that if the plastic ﬂow rule is associative. (6. we have made use of the fact that the symmetry (refer to equation (2. since the theory of elasto-viscoplasticity is introduced only in Chapter 11. the corresponding rate relation can be obtained by introducing expression (6.4. RATE FORM AND THE ELASTOPLASTIC TANGENT OPERATOR In the elastic regime.3. However. the rate constitutive equation for stress reads simply ˙ ˙ σ = De : ε. When that happens. starting page 71.3. Remark 6.62). Readers not yet familiar with this concept are advised to read through Section 6. we ﬁnd it convenient to carry on focusing on rate-independent plasticity and postpone the demonstration until that chapter.56) only make sense if the potential Ψ is differentiable. where Dep is the elastoplastic tangent modulus given by Dep = De − (De : N) ⊗ (De : ∂Φ/∂σ) .64) into (6. introduced below in Section 6.3.3.65) Under plastic ﬂow. can be interpreted as a vector . 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). is fundamental to the demonstration. (6. In the computational plasticity literature. if N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ.7.3. ∂Φ/∂σ : De : N − ∂Φ/∂A ∗ ρ∂ 2 ψ p /∂α2 ∗ H ¯ (6. The rate equation reads ˙ ˙ σ = Dep : ε.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 153 6.e.66) In obtaining the above expression.1 (The symmetry of Dep ). N.

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

6.72) At this point. n. which incorporates a wide class of models. (6.e. the evolution law (6. An alternative deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow rule with non-smooth potentials. Plastic ﬂow with subdifferentiable ﬂow potentials Assume now that the (pseudo-) potential Ψ is a subdifferentiable function of σ and A. denoted ∂σ Ψ. (6.55) for the ﬂow vector with N ∈ ∂σ Ψ. At points where Ψ is non-differentiable in σ. In this case. are assumed to exist. The subdifferential of a convex function. N2 . Therefore. Firstly assume that a ﬁnite number. is the set of vectors contained in the cone deﬁned by all linear combinations (with positive coefﬁcients) of N1 and N2 . the concepts of subgradient and subdifferential sets introduced above are important in the formulation of evolution laws for εp . The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow rule (6. .49) is obtained by replacing expression (6. of distinct normals (N1 . A typical situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6.50) for α can be generalised with the replacement of the deﬁnition (6. the subdifferential of Ψ with respect to σ. . is obtained as follows. In this case.56) by H ∈ −∂A Ψ. Analogously. . N1 and N2 . Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager theories to be seen later. any subgradient of Ψ can be written as a linear combination c1 N1 + c2 N2 + · · · + cn Nn .THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 155 the subdifferential of y at x y(x) − y(x ) s 1 s⋅(x − x ) x x Figure 6. the ﬂow vector N is now assumed to be a subgradient of Ψ.7 where two distinct normals. such as the Tresca. the isosurfaces of Ψ in the space of stresses contain a singularity (corner) where the normal direction is not uniquely deﬁned. .71) i. Nn ) is deﬁned at a generic singular point of an isosurface of Ψ. it should be remarked that differentiability of Ψ with respect to the stress tensor is violated for some very basic plasticity models. .

(6. . the boundary of E. ‡ It should be emphasised that this representation is not valid for certain types of singularity where the corresponding subdifferential set cannot be generated by a ﬁnite number of vectors. with non-negative coefﬁcients c1 . was originally proposed by Koiter (1953). A) ≤ 0 for all other indices j = i. A) < 0. c2 . i = 1. A) = 0 for at least one i and Φj (σ. Multisurface models The above concepts are particularly useful in deﬁning evolution laws for multisurface plasticity models.e. (6. In a generic multisurface model. The elastic domain in this case reads E = {σ | Φi (σ.76) and the yield surface. ˙ (6. . In this case. i = 1. Non-smooth potential. . n. . the ﬂow rule (6. . the elastic domain is bound by a set of n surfaces in the space of stresses which intersect in a non-smooth fashion.73) with all n plastic multipliers required to be non-negative γi ≥ 0.49) can be generalised as n ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i . . . n) are deﬁned so that each bounding surface is given by an equation (6. is the set of all stresses such that Φi (σ. The ﬂow vector.75) Φi (σ. in this format. cn . . . i. .7. ˙ i = 1. . n}. . . . .‡ Based on this observation. .156 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the subdifferential set of at p N1 N2 isosurfaces of A Figure 6. n yield functions (Φi . A) = 0.74) The generalisation of the plastic ﬂow law. .

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

it is convenient to introduce the following deﬁnition: A plastic yield criterion is said to be isotropic if it is deﬁned in terms of an isotropic yield function of the stress tensor. i. when plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. Note that. the hydrostatic pressure component. we have σmax = σy . for these materials. the yield function associated with the Tresca yield criterion can be represented as (6. Alternatively.84) is deﬁned as a function of the principal stresses. . (6. p∗ . on the stress tensor does not affect the value of the Tresca yield function Φ(σ + p∗ I ) = Φ(σ).83) Φ(σ) = 1 (σmax − σmin ) − τy (α). it satisﬁes Φ(σ) = Φ(QσQT ) (6.89) We remark that the von Mises criterion described in Section 6. the inﬂuence of the hydrostatic stress on yielding is usually negligible in practice.158 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In view of (6. page 731.82). note that the superposition of an arbitrary pressure. it is the stress level at which plastic yielding begins under uniaxial stress conditions. σmin = 0. the Tresca criterion is pressure insensitive.86) The substitution of the above into (6.4.85) that is. (6. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager criteria described in the following sections). rotations of the state of stress do not affect the value of the yield function.90) for all rotations Q. Indeed.83) or (6. 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. that is. the Tresca yield function is an isotropic function of the stress tensor (refer to Section A. σy ) < 0}. At this point.1. The elastic domain for the Tresca criterion can be deﬁned as (6.82) gives (6. This property is particularly relevant in the modelling of metals as. (6.85).87) E = {σ | Φ(σ. the Tresca yield function may be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = (σmax − σmin ) − σy (α).84) where σy is the uniaxial yield stress σy = 2 τy . Isotropy One very important aspect of the Tresca criterion is its isotropy (a property shared by the von Mises. (6. that is.2 below is also pressureinsensitive. 2 with the onset of yielding characterised by Φ = 0. for the deﬁnition of isotropic scalar functions of a symmetric tensor).88) of the stress tensor does not affect yielding. since Φ in (6. (6. Pressure-insensitivity Due to its deﬁnition exclusively in terms of shear stress.

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

9(a). σy ) = 0 for at least one i with Φj (σ. .95) .94) tr[s2 ] = 1 2 s:s= 1 2 s 2. . by its projection on the subspace of stresses with zero hydrostatic pressure component (σ1 + σ2 + σ3 = 0). . It is graphically illustrated in Figure 6. the yield function assumes the format Φ = 2 J2 cos θ − σy .87) and (6. σy ) = 0 (6. the Tresca yield surface. deﬁned by σ1 = σ2 = σ3 . σy ) = σ3 − σ2 − σy Φ6 (σ. The elastic domain (for which Φ < 0) corresponds to the interior of the prism. proposed by Nayak and Zienkiewicz (1972) (see also Owen and Hinton 1980. The Tresca yield surface may be represented. deﬁned by J2 ≡ −I2 (s) = 1 2 (6. (6.e. σy ) = σ1 − σ3 − σy Φ2 (σ. a further simpliﬁcation in the representation of the yield surface is possible in this case. The yield surface – the boundary of E – is deﬁned in this case as the set of stresses for which Φi (σ. . and Crisﬁeld 1997). 6}. Due to the assumed insensitivity to pressure. s. also referred to as the π-plane. Invariant representation Alternatively to the representations discussed above. In the multisurface representation. i. it is also possible to describe the yield locus of the Tresca criterion in terms of stress invariants. σy ) < 0.93) (6. σy ) = σ2 − σ3 − σy Φ3 (σ. Multisurface representation Equivalently to the above representation. . the Tresca yield criterion can be expressed by means of the following six yield functions Φ1 (σ. the equation Φi (σ. is graphically represented by the surface of an inﬁnite hexagonal prism with axis coinciding with the hydrostatic line (also known as the space diagonal).92) corresponds to a plane in the space of principal stresses for each i = 1. so that.10). σy ) ≤ 0 for j = i.9(b) shows the π-plane projection of the Tresca yield surface. σy ) = σ1 − σ2 − σy . for ﬁxed σy . .93) are completely equivalent. This is illustrated in Figure 6. σy ) = σ2 − σ1 − σy Φ4 (σ. σy ) = σ3 − σ1 − σy Φ5 (σ. This subspace is called the deviatoric plane.160 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In principal stress space. In the invariant representation. the set of stresses for which Φ = 0.91) Deﬁnitions (6. 6 (Figure 6. where J2 = J2 (s) is the invariant of the stress deviator. Figure 6.8. the elastic domain for a given σy can be deﬁned as E = {σ | Φi (σ. without loss of generality. (6. . . i = 1.

99) − ≤θ≤ . The Tresca criterion. 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.96) (6. between s and the nearest pure shear line (a pure shear line is graphically represented in Figure 6. 3 The Lode angle.10.98) is established by summing the characteristic equation (2.97) tr(s)3 . the above invariant representation results in rather cumbersome algorithms for integration of the evolution equations of the Tresca model.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY Φ1 = 0 Φ2 = 0 σ1 Φ6 = 0 Φ5 = 0 Φ4 = 0 161 Φ3 = 0 σ3 σ2 Figure 6. θ. 6 6 Despite being used often in computational plasticity. 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. is a function of the deviatoric stress deﬁned as √ −3 3 J3 . 2. on the deviatoric plane.73) (page 27) for i = 1. The multisurface representation. (6.98) The Lode angle is the angle. i .11). Multisurface representation in principal stress space. It satisﬁes π π (6. on the other hand. § The equivalence between the two rightmost terms in (6. Recall that the stress deviator is given by s ≡ σ − 1 (trσ)I. is found by the authors to provide an optimal parametrisation of the Tresca surface which results in a simpler numerical algorithm and will be adopted in the computational implementation of the model addressed in Chapter 8. This is essentially due to the high degree of nonlinearity introduced by the trigonometric function involved in the deﬁnition of the Lode angle.

162 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6. The physical interpretation of the von Mises criterion is given in the following.103) K where G and K are. here assumed to be a function of a hardening internal variable.102). as in the Tresca criterion. 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 . According to the von Mises criterion. G It should be noted that. i. This condition is mathematically represented by the equation (6. the shear and bulk modulus. (6.105) R is the shear yield stress.4. the von Mises criterion is also pressure-insensitive. 2G G (6. 1 1 s : s = J2 . Thus.107) [σ] = 0 0 0. the von Mises criterion is equivalent to stating that plastic yielding begins when the distortional elastic strain-energy reaches a critical value. The corresponding critical value of the distortional energy is 1 R. a yield function for the von Mises criterion can be deﬁned as Φ(σ) = where τy ≡ √ J2 (s(σ)) − τy . In view of (6.104) [σ] = τ 0 0. THE VON MISES YIELD CRITERION Also appropriate to describe plastic yielding in metals. In a state of pure shear.100) J2 = R(α). s = σ and J2 = τ 2 . plastic yielding begins when the J2 stress deviator invariant reaches a critical value. Since the elastic behaviour of the materials described in this chapter is assumed to be linear elastic. to be deﬁned later.101) of a distortional contribution. α. a state with stress tensor 0 τ 0 (6. 0 0 0 . Thus.102) 1 2 p . respectively. this criterion was proposed by von Mises (1913). where R is the critical value.2. 0 0 0 ρ ψv = ¯ e we have. (6.106) (6.e. 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. ρ ψd = ¯ e and a volumetric contribution. Let us now consider a state of uniaxial stress: σ 0 0 (6. (6.

111) is termed the von Mises effective or equivalent stress.4. by the surface of an inﬁnite circular cylinder. It is remarked that.4 (starting page 427). which includes both the Tresca and the von Mises yield surfaces as particular cases (and. 3 (6. in addition. due to its deﬁnition in terms of an invariant of the stress tensor. the von Mises √ criterion will predict a yield stress 2/ 3 (≈ 1. 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 6.84) and (6. in the space of principal stresses. The von Mises circle intersects the vertices of the Tresca hexagon. The yield surface (Φ = 0) associated with the von Mises criterion is represented.3. for many metals. The von Mises surface is illustrated in Figure 6. in uniaxial stress states.110) √ where σy ≡ 3R is the uniaxial yield stress and q(σ) ≡ 3 J2 (s(σ)) (6. is described in Section 10.110) so that both predict the same uniaxial yield stress σy . Obviously.106) with the same τy ). In this case. the von Mises circle is tangent to the sides of the Tresca hexagon. experimentally determined yield surfaces fall between the von Mises and Tresca surfaces. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 163 (6. √ then. 6. under pure shear. For materials such as soils. if both criteria are made to coincide under pure shear (expressions (6. The corresponding π-plane representation is shown in Figure 6.9(b). (6.11.85). If they are set by using the yield functions (6. whose behaviour is generally characterised by . A more general model.155) times that given by the Tresca criterion. The von Mises and Tresca criteria may be set to agree with one another in either uniaxial stress or pure shear states.866) times the level predicted by Tresca’s law.3. The uniaxial and shear yield stresses for the von Mises criterion are related by √ σy = 3 τy . rocks and concrete. THE MOHR–COULOMB YIELD CRITERION The criteria presented so far are pressure-insensitive and adequate to describe metals. the von Mises criterion will predict yielding at a stress level 3/2 (≈ 0. On the other hand.108) In this case.83) and (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 .112) Note that this relation differs from that of the Tresca criterion given by (6. then.8 where it has been set to match the Tresca surface (shown in the same ﬁgure) under uniaxial stress. allows for anisotropy of the yield surface). we have 2 [s] = 0 0 and 3σ 0 −1σ 3 0 0 −1σ 3 0 J2 = 1 σ 2 . the axis of which coincides with the hydrostatic axis.

115).115) σmax + σmin σmax − σmin + sin φ tan φ. (6.e. τ .113) where c is the cohesion and φ is the angle of internal friction or frictional angle. was assumed tensile positive. σn . on a plane in the body. reach the critical combination τ = c − σn tan φ. A classical example of a pressure-sensitive law is given by the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion described in the following. rearranged. (6. Generalising Coulomb’s friction law. c) = (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ. is tangent to the critical line deﬁned by τ = c − σn tanφ. and the normal stress. The yield locus of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is the set of all stress states such that there exists a plane in which (6. The elastic domain for the Mohr–Coulomb law is the set of stresses whose all three Mohr circles are below the critical line. the normal stress. In the above. a yield function expressed in terms of the principal stresses can be immediately deﬁned for the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as Φ(σ. i. (6.164 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 sh ea r Tresca 30o von Mises pu re 1 2 Figure 6. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is based on the assumption that the phenomenon of macroscopic plastic yielding is.114) In view of (6. the shearing stress.113) is found to be equivalent to the following form in terms of principal stresses σmax − σmin cos φ = c − 2 which. the yield condition (6. the result of frictional sliding between material particles.116) . The Mohr–Coulomb yield locus can be easily visualised in the Mohr plane representation shown in Figure 6. From Figure 6. essentially. appropriate description of plastic yielding requires the introduction of pressure-sensitivity. 2 2 (6. Yield surfaces for the Tresca and von Mises criteria coinciding in pure shear. It is the set of all stresses whose largest Mohr circle. respectively). gives (σmax − σmin ) + (σmax + σmin ) sin φ = 2 c cos φ. a strong dependence of the yield limit on the hydrostatic pressure.12. the circle associated with the maximum and minimum principal stresses (σmax and σmin . this criterion states that plastic yielding begins when. σn .113) holds.12.11.

this yield function is an isotropic function of σ. when φ = 0. c) = σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ. deﬁne six planes in the principal stress space. It should be noted.e.118) . Its pyramidal shape. c) = σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ2 (σ. c) = σ3 − σ1 + (σ3 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ5 (σ. Limited strength under tensile pressure is a typical characteristic of materials such as concrete. The Mohr–Coulomb surface is illustrated in Figure 6. c) = σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ3 (σ.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 apex of the pyramid (point A in the ﬁgure) deﬁnes the limit of resistance of the material to tensile pressures.12.117) on the tensile side of the hydrostatic axis. Multisurface representation Analogously to the multisurface representation of the Tresca criterion. Mohr plane representation. c) = 0 (for ﬁxed c). 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. (6. rock and soils. c) = σ3 − σ2 + (σ3 + σ2 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ6 (σ. c) = σ2 − σ1 + (σ2 + σ1 ) sin φ − 2 c cos φ Φ4 (σ. i. As no stress state is allowed on the outside of the yield surface. Each plane contains one face of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid represented in Figure 6.13. as opposed to the prismatic shape of the Tresca surface. that both criteria coincide in the absence of internal friction. however. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion.13. Φi (σ. Due to its deﬁnition in terms of principal stresses. is a consequence of the pressure-sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. the Mohr–Coulomb criterion can also be expressed by means of six functions: Φ1 (σ. whose roots.

14. p. (6.119) where the Lode angle. the Mohr–Coulomb yield function can be expressed as (Owen and Hinton 1980.166 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS − σ3 Φ=0 √3 p √3 cc ot φ A − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6. The Drucker–Prager criterion states that plastic yielding begins when the J2 invariant of the deviatoric stress and the hydrostatic stress. in spite of its frequent use in computational plasticity. 6. θ. where η and c are material parameters.13. reach a critical combination. The Drucker–Prager cone is illustrated in Figure 6. THE DRUCKER–PRAGER YIELD CRITERION This criterion has been proposed by Drucker and Prager (1952) as a smooth approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb law. ¯ (6.120) is satisﬁed. and Crisﬁeld 1997): 1 Φ = cos θ − √ sin θ sin φ 3 J2 (s) + p(σ) sin φ − c cos φ. ¯ the yield locus of this criterion is a circular cone whose axis is the hydrostatic line.4. is deﬁned in (6. 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. . Represented in the principal stress space. It consists of a modiﬁcation of the von Mises criterion in which an extra term is included to introduce pressure-sensitivity. For η = 0.4.94) of the Tresca criterion.97). The onset of plastic yielding occurs when the equation J2 (s) + η p = c. The Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space. The deﬁnition of the elastic domain and the yield surface in the multisurface representation is completely analogous to that of the Tresca criterion. the von Mises cylinder is recovered. Invariant representation Analogously to the invariant representation (6. As for the Tresca model.

122) 3 (3 − sin φ) 3 (3 − sin φ) whereas. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c. 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). 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. coincidence at the inner edges is given by the choice 6 sin φ . ξ= √ . (6. respectively. The inner cone matches the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in uniaxial tension and biaxial compression. 3 (3 + sin φ) (6. In this case (the reader is referred to Section 4.14. as the compression cone and the extension cone. In order to approximate the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. Coincidence at the outer edges is obtained when 6 sin φ 6 cos φ η= √ . η= √ 3 (3 + sin φ) 6 cos φ ξ= √ . The Drucker–Prager yield surface in principal stress space. The outer edge approximation matches the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial compression and biaxial tension.123) The outer and inner cones are known.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 167 √3 p − σ3 Φ=0 − σ2 − σ1 Figure 6.15. (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. it is convenient to deﬁne the Drucker–Prager yield function as Φ(σ.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 6.7 of Chen and Mizuno (1990) for .

126) Its apex no longer coincides with the apex of the original Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. a different approximation (such as the inner cone that matches point fbc ) needs to be adopted to produce sensible predictions. For problems where the failure mechanism is indeed dominated by uniaxial tension/compression.168 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS derivation) the constants η and ξ read η= 3 tan φ 9 + 12 tan φ 2 . Plastic ﬂow rules 6. fc − ft (6. fc .5. particularly for high ratios fc /ft which are typical for concrete. For the Mohr–Coulomb criterion to ﬁt a given uniaxial tensile strength.1. uniaxial tensile and uniaxial compressive stress states. ξ= 3 9 + 12 tan2 φ .127) Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion are thoroughly discussed by Chen (1982).16). Φ.124) For all three sets of parameters above. ft .128) . ASSOCIATIVE AND NON-ASSOCIATIVE PLASTICITY It has already been said that a plasticity model is classed as associative if the yield function. the above approximation should produce reasonable results.e. where the Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the Mohr–Coulomb surface in biaxial tension (point fbt ) and biaxial compression (point fbc ). other approximations may be more appropriate. 3 (6. However. 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. i. under plane stress. For instance. it may be convenient to use an approximation such that both criteria match under. then the above approximation will largely overestimate the limit load. fc + ft c= fc ft tan φ. (6. (1978). and a given uniaxial compressive strength. the parameters φ and c have to be chosen as φ = sin−1 fc − ft .16) that predicts the same uniaxial failure loads is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . (6. Chen and Mizuno (1990) and Zienkiewicz et al. Thus. is taken as the ﬂow potential. 2 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . Under such a condition. Another useful approximation for plane stress. failure occurs under biaxial compression instead (with stresses near point fbc of Figure 6. say.125) The corresponding Drucker–Prager cone (Figure 6. which can be assumed in the analysis of structures such as concrete walls. 3 (6. 3 ξ= 2 cos φ √ . the apex of the approximating Drucker–Prager cone coincides with the apex of the corresponding Mohr–Coulomb yield surface. 6. Ψ = Φ. is obtained by setting η= 3 sin φ √ . according to the dominant stress state in a particular problem to be analysed.5. if for a particular problem.

THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 169 3 Drucker Prager (outer edges) Drucker Prager (inner edges) Mohr Coulomb 1 pu re sh ea r 2 Figure 6. Drucker–Prager approximation matching the Mohr–Coulomb surface in uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression. The π-plane section of the Mohr–Coulomb surface and the Drucker–Prager approximations. σ2 ft’ fc’ Mohr–Coulomb ’ fbt ft’ σ1 ’ fbc Drucker–Prager biaxial fit Drucker–Prager uniaxial fit fc’ Figure 6.15. . Plane stress.16.

(6. A. (6. The principle of maximum dissipation postulates that among all admissible pairs (σ∗ . α).170 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Any other choice of ﬂow potential characterises a non-associative (or non-associated) plasticity model. εp . εp . εp . for given (εp .131) In non-associative models.130) and the loading/unloading conditions Φ(σ.130) ∂A Associativity implies that the plastic strain rate is a tensor normal to the yield surface in the space of stresses. we have ˙ εp = γN .133) In other words. ˙ Φ(σ. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. and ˙ rate α of hardening internal variables.135) . 6. the evolution equations for the plastic strain and hardening variables are given by ∂Φ ˙ . A∗ . A∗ ) ∈ A. A)γ = 0. γ ≥ 0. ˙ (6. Chapter 10) for this optimisation problem are precisely the associative plastic ﬂow rule (6. ˙ N ∈ ∂σ Φ.134) The Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions (Luenberger. In associative models. A) of stress and hardening force is a solution to the following constrained optimisation problem: ˙ ˙ maximise Υp (σ∗ . α) subject to Φ(σ∗ . A∗ . 1973. the admissible stress states are those that satisfy Φ(σ. the associative hardening rule (6.42) for a given plastic strain rate. A∗ ) ∈ A. A) ≤ 0. A) | Φ(σ. α). A) ≤ 0} (6. A∗ ) ≤ 0.5. the actual ˙ state (σ. the plastic strain rate is not normal to the yield surface in general. the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of the yield function.132) as the set of all admissible pairs (combinations) of stress and hardening force. 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. ∀ (σ∗ . The principle of maximum plastic dissipation requires ˙ ˙ that.129) εp = γ ˙ ∂σ and ∂Φ ˙ α = −γ ˙ . Thus. recall that for a state deﬁned by a hardening force A. (6. the actual state (σ. (6. A) maximises the dissipation function (6. it makes sense to deﬁne A = {(σ. i.e.2.129). (6. A) ≤ 0. α) ≥ Υp (σ∗ . Before stating the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. εp . In the generalised case of non-smooth yield surfaces.

Its principal stress representation is depicted in Figure 6.e. for many materials. N and σ are coaxial. The Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector is a tensor parallel to the deviatoric projection s of the stress tensor.5.137) Here.138) where N is a subgradient of the Tresca function N ∈ ∂σ Φ. ∂σ (6. i. Due to the pressure-insensitivity of the von Mises yield function. the plastic ﬂow vector is deviatoric.2. associative laws frequently do not correspond to experimental evidence. maximum dissipation has been shown to hold in crystal plasticity and is particularly successful when applied to the description of metals. 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.1. and the corresponding associative laws. simply. Associative Tresca The associative Tresca ﬂow rule utilises the yield function (6.84) as the ﬂow potential. Thus (refer to Section A. particularly soils and granular materials in general.17. the Tresca associative plastic ﬂow rule is generally expressed as ˙ εp = γN. where the derivative of isotropic functions of this type is discussed).THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 171 Remark 6. The Tresca yield function is differentiable when the three principal stresses are distinct (σ1 = σ2 = σ3 ) and non-differentiable when two principal stresses coincide (at the edges of the Tresca hexagonal prism). 6. ˙ (6. the rate of plastic strain has the same principal directions as σ. Its multisurface-based representation reads 6 6 (6. In such cases.140) . are not universal. Since Φ here is also an isotropic function of σ. ||s|| 3 2 s . The postulate of maximum plastic dissipation.110) as the ﬂow potential. Hence. CLASSICAL FLOW RULES The Prandtl–Reuss equations The Prandtl–Reuss plasticity law is the ﬂow rule obtained by taking the von Mises yield function (6.3.136) (6. the von Mises model. Nevertheless. Based on physical considerations. page 732. the principal directions of N coincide with those of σ.139) ˙ εp = i=1 γiN i = ˙ i=1 γi ˙ ∂Φi .2. 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. ||s|| (6. 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 . the maximum dissipation postulate is clearly not applicable and the use of non-associative laws is essential.

142) with ei denoting the eigenvector of σ associated with the principal stress σi .91). Firstly assume. Each vector N i is normal to the plane deﬁned by Φi = 0. The above ﬂow rule can be alternatively expressed as follows. 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. R (Φ1 = 0. where two planes intersect. In deriving the last right-hand side of (6. L (Φ1 = 0.27) of page 736 for the derivative of an eigenvalue of a symmetric tensor. At the right and left corners of the hexagon. The Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector. use has been made of the expression (A. ˙ (6. Thus. without loss of generality. so that the discussion can be concentrated on the sextant of the π-plane illustrated in Figure 6. with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6. Φ2 = 0 and Φ6 < 0). (b) yielding from the right corner. ˙ ˙ (6. only one multiplier may be non-zero and the plastic ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ N a . the plastic ﬂow equation is ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . (6. two multipliers may be non-zero. and (c) Yielding from the left corner.17.143) . When the stress is on the side of the hexagon. Φ6 = 0 and Φ2 < 0). Φ2 < 0 and Φ6 < 0).18.141) where the ﬂow vector is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.172 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS N σ √3 p σ3 σ2 σ1 Figure 6.142). given by Na ≡N1 = ∂ ∂Φ1 = (σ1 − σ3 ) ∂σ ∂σ = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 . that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .

from an edge or from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. the present surface has an extra singularity in its apex (Figure 6. The associative Tresca ﬂow rule. as for the Prandtl–Reuss rule. Again. the second vector.116) is adopted as the ﬂow potential.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. (6.145) It should be noted that. the analysis can be reduced to a single sextant of a cross-section of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid as illustrated in Figure 6. note that.142) as N b ≡ N 6 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 . In the right corner (repeated minimum principal stress). Plastic yielding may then take place from a face. which requires consideration of the intersections between the yield surfaces. it is convenient to assume that the principal stresses are ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 so that. is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. The situation is identical to Tresca’s (Figure 6. (6.146) . N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . we have trivially tr N a = tr N b = 0. Indeed. the Mohr–Coulomb yield function (6.118).18. N b . This is due to the pressure-insensitivity of the Tresca yield function. without loss of generality. The ﬂow rule.19.13). Its multisurface representation is based on the yield functions (6. in the above. is derived in a manner analogous to the Tresca law described above. it should be noted that in addition to the edge singularities. The vector N a is the normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.18) except that (6. already deﬁned. the plastic ﬂow predicted by the associative Tresca law is volume-preserving. Associative and non-associative Mohr–Coulomb In the associative Mohr–Coulomb law. N b . However.144) In the left corner (repeated maximum principal stress). is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is obtained analogously to (6. in the derivation of the ﬂow rules at faces and edges.

150) whereas. they have a non-zero component along the hydrostatic axis (the vectors shown in Figure 6. therefore. This situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 6. The Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. at the left (compression) corner. the above ﬂow rule is replaced by ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . the second vector. and (b) apex. ˙ (6.e. all six planes intersect and. ˙ where N a is normal to the plane Φ1 = 0.174 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS sextant with 1 2 3 1 (a) Na a 1 Nbb (b) 6 R L Nb b 2 2 3 Figure 6. i.152) . (6. (6.19(b). the ﬂow rule is given by ˙ εp = γ N a . N b = (1 + sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 − (1 − sin φ) e3 ⊗ e3 . Na = ∂ ∂Φ1 = [σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ] ∂σ ∂σ = (1 + sin φ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ)e3 ⊗ e3 .151) At the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb surface.148) At the corners. N b . six normals are deﬁned and up to six plastic multipliers may be non-zero. (6.147) (6. the normal vectors N a and N b are no longer deviatoric. L. (6. (a) faces and edges.19. the tensor N b is normal to the plane Φ2 = 0. The plastic strain rate tensor lies within the pyramid deﬁned by the six normals: 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i. For plastic yielding from the face.19 are deviatoric projections of the actual normals). R.149) At the right (extension) corner. is normal to the plane Φ6 = 0 and is given by N b = (1 + sin φ) e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin φ) e2 ⊗ e2 .

20(a)) N= 1 η s + I. At the cone surface. Thus. one should note ﬁrst that the Drucker– Prager function is singular at the apex of the yield surface and is smooth anywhere else.153) ε2 = 0 α α 0 β β 4 .156) 2 . Note that for ψ = 0. The non-associated Mohr–Coulomb law adopts. therefore. a Mohr–Coulomb yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a different (smaller) angle ψ. particularly geomaterials. the ﬂow vector is obtained by simply differentiating (6. the dilatancy predicted by the associative Mohr– Coulomb law is often excessive.121) which gives (Figure 6.154) εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 2 sin φ ˙v ˙ 1 ˙2 ˙3 i=1 γi. γ ˙ p β β 0 α α 0 5 ε3 ˙ γ ˙ γ6 ˙ where α ≡ 1 + sin φ. the associative Mohr–Coulomb rule predicts a non-zero volumetric plastic straining. it is necessary to use a nonassociated ﬂow rule in conjunction with the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. ˙ dilatant. The above trivially yields 6 β ≡ −1 + sin φ. the volumetric plastic strain rate is positive and. This gives 1 γ ˙ p γ 2 ˙ ε1 ˙ α 0 β β 0 α 3 γ ˙ p ˙ (6. 3 J2 (s) (6. The phenomenon of dilatancy during plastic ﬂow is observed for many materials. where the Drucker–Prager yield function is differentiable. This is in contrast to the Prandtl–Reuss and associative Tresca laws. as ﬂow potential. two situations need to be considered: (a) plastic yielding at (smooth portion of) the cone surface.152) in principal stress space taking into account the deﬁnitions of Ni . To derive the corresponding ﬂow rule. (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 175 It is important to note that.155) As all γ i ’s are non-negative.121). The volumetric component of the plastic strain rate in the associative Mohr–Coulomb law can be obtained by expanding (6. Associative and non-associative Drucker–Prager The associative Drucker–Prager model employs as ﬂow potential the yield function deﬁned by (6. and (b) plastic yielding at the apex. the plastic ﬂow becomes purely deviatoric and the ﬂow rule reduces to the associative Tresca law. ˙ (6. To overcome this problem. due to the pressure sensitivity of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. However. The angle ψ is called the dilatancy angle and the amount of dilation predicted is proportional to its sine.

Similarly to the associative Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. 1970. The non-associative Drucker–Prager law is obtained by adopting.20(b). (6. The Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector.122)1. according to the chosen approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb surface. Rockafellar and Wets. where η is given by (6.e. The ﬂow rule is then ˙ εp = γ N.20. Expressions (6.160) where Φd ≡ J2 (s). From standard properties of subdifferentials (Rockafellar. (6.176 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (a) Prandtl Reuss associative Drucker Prager p (b) 3 2 1 Figure 6. (a) cone surface. It lies within the complementary cone to the Drucker–Prager yield surface. ˙v ˙ (6. (6.155).159) N ∈ ∂σ Φ. (6.121): (6. the cone whose wall is normal to the Drucker–Prager cone illustrated in Figure 6. ˙ The deviatoric/volumetric decomposition of the Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector gives Nd = 1 2 J2 (s) s. and (b) apex.160) result in the following rate of (dilatant) volumetric plastic strain for the associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule: εp = γ η. a Drucker–Prager yield function with the frictional angle φ replaced by a dilatancy angle . i.158) and (6.124)1. the ﬂow vector is an element of the subdifferential of the yield function (6. 1998) it can be established that the deviatoric/volumetric split of N in this case is given by Nd ∈ ∂σ Φd .123)1 or (6. the often excessive dilatancy predicted by the associated rule in the present case is avoided by using a non-associated law. Nv = η.161) This expression is analogous to (6.157). Nv = η.158) (6. as the ﬂow potential.157) At the apex singularity.

165) (6. 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ .21 shows the stress– strain curve of a typical uniaxial cyclic (tension–compression) test with a perfectly plastic .122)1.123)1 ¯ or (6. deﬁned by Φ(σ.and three-dimensional situations. In the uniaxial model. the elastoplastic modulus. that is. vanishes and the ﬂow rule reduces to the Prandtl–Reuss law that predicts volume-preserving plastic ﬂow (refer to Figure 6.20(a)). E ep . during plastic yielding. then the volumetric component. ¯ (6.166) If the dilatancy angle of the non-associative potential is chosen as ψ = 0. Hardening laws The phenomenon of hardening has been identiﬁed in the uniaxial experiment described in Section 6. Nv . perfect plasticity corresponds to a constant uniaxial yield stress. (6. in a uniaxial test. 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.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 177 ψ < φ. In this case. hardening is represented by changes in the hardening thermodynamical force. σy (or constant cohesion. we deﬁne Ψ(σ. in general. hardening is characterised by a dependence of yield stress level upon the history of plastic straining to which the body has been subjected.124)1.1.6.164) The non-associated Drucker–Prager ﬂow vector differs from its associated counterpart only in the volumetric component which. shape and orientation of the yield surface.2. 6 sin ψ η= √ ¯ . When the inner cone approximation is used.163) 3 (3 − sin ψ) when the outer cone approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is employed. 6. for the plane strain match. A) = 0. (6. the yield stress level does not depend in any way on the degree of plastiﬁcation. 3 (3 + sin ψ) whereas. the yield surface remains ﬁxed regardless of any deformation process the material may experience and. (6.1. formulated in Section 6. Drucker–Prager and Mohr–Coulomb models described above. 6. PERFECT PLASTICITY A material model is said to be perfectly plastic if no hardening is allowed. In the von Mises. (6. vanishes. A. affect the size. that is. These changes may. c). Figure 6. η= ¯ 3 tan ψ 9 + 12 tan2 ψ . reads ¯ Nv = η . Tresca. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p.162) where η is obtained by replacing φ with ψ in the deﬁnition of η given by (6. for the non-associated case. Essentially. In the two.6. In other words.

Strain hardening In this case the hardening internal state variable is some suitably chosen scalar measure of strain. The choice of a suitable set (denoted α in Section 6. In metal plasticity. it corresponds to a uniform (isotropic) expansion of the initial yield surface. 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.2. For a multiaxial plasticity model with a von Mises yield surface. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. the set α normally contains a single scalar variable.3) of hardening internal variables must be obviously dependent on the speciﬁc characteristics of the material considered. strain hardening and work hardening. Perfect plasticity. at any state of hardening. For that model. without translation.2 is a typical example of an isotropic hardening 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. the elastic domain expands equally in tension and compression during plastic ﬂow. These are described below. also referred to as the . This. von Mises model along with the corresponding π-plane representation of the yield surface. The uniaxial model described in Section 6.6.21. A typical example is the von Mises effective plastic strain. which determines the size of the yield surface. are particularly popular in the treatment of isotropic hardening and are suitable for modelling the behaviour of a wide range of materials. isotropic hardening corresponds to the increase in radius of the von Mises cylinder in principal stress space. ISOTROPIC HARDENING A plasticity model is said to be isotropic hardening if the evolution of the yield surface is such that. for instance. together with a typical stress–strain curve for a uniaxial cyclic test for an isotropic hardening von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 6. 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.22. 6. In the constitutive description of isotropic hardening. Two approaches.

von Mises equivalent or accumulated plastic strain. ˙ ˙ εp = γ. from a uniaxial tensile test. Let us assume that both models share the same Young’s modulus.137). E.18) (page 145) of the one-dimensional model to the multiaxially strained case.168) or. This is demonstrated in the following. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. the two models have identical uniaxial elastic behaviour and initial yield stress. deﬁned as εp ≡ ¯ 0 t 2 3 t ˙ ˙ εp : εp dt = 0 2 3 ˙ ||εp || dt.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 (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 179 3 -plane uniaxial cyclic test initial surface 1 2 hardened surface Figure 6. (6.169) Accordingly.22. (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 ). . ¯ (6. Isotropic hardening.2 and summarised in Box 6. for instance.167) The above deﬁnition generalises the accumulated axial plastic strain (6. equivalently. and hardening function σy = σy (¯p ). Hence. ε Clearly.1 (page 146). in view of the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6. Behaviour under uniaxial stress conditions Under uniaxial stress conditions the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening reproduces the behaviour of the one-dimensional plasticity model discussed in Section 6. we only need to show next that their behaviour under plastic yielding is also identical.

In the present case.136) and H = H(¯p ) is the hardε ening modulus deﬁned in (6.172) (6. Now. deﬁned by t wp ≡ 0 ˙ σ : εp dt. (6. under uniaxial stress conditions.176) which is identical to equation (6. ˙ E+H (6.175) with (6.10). we recall the consistency condition (6.171) ˙ [σ] = σ 0 0 0. with σy deﬁned by (6.136). the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow equation (6. following the same arguments as in the one-dimensional case we ﬁnd that.28) and. the isotropic strain hardening von Mises model predicts the tangential axial stress–strain relation σ= ˙ EH ε. 0 0 0 0 0 0 The corresponding stress deviator reads 1 0 0 0 .170). which must be satisﬁed under plastic ﬂow. Work hardening In work-hardening models. ˙ ˙ [εp ] = εp 0 − 1 2 1 0 0 −2 where ˙ εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ (6.174) is the axial plastic strain rate. (6.171)2 and (6. i.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 . however. In this text. Note that the above expression coincides with the onedimensional plastic ﬂow rule (6. [s] = 2 σ 0 − 1 2 3 1 0 0 −2 In this case. by taking the derivatives of the von Mises yield function (6.60). materials whose yield stress level depends on the history of strains.110).172) to recover (6.175) (6. ¯ (6. Materials that harden. are frequently referred to as work-hardening materials. we obtain ˙ ˙ ˙ Φ = N : σ − H εp = 0. To conclude the demonstration.¶ wp .e.31) of the one-dimensional model.137) gives 1 0 0 0 . then.177) ¶ The term work hardening is adopted by many authors as a synonym for the phenomenon of hardening in general. we combine (6. the term work hardening is reserved for plasticity models in which the dissipated plastic work is taken as the state variable associated with hardening. 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 ˙ (6.27). .173) where N ≡ ∂Φ/∂σ is the Prandtl–Reuss ﬂow vector (6. [σ] = σ 0 0 0. the variable deﬁning the state of hardening is the dissipated plastic work.

gives ˙ wp = σy εp . The remaining (shaded) area. the above differential relation implies that the mapping between wp and εp is one-to-one and. wp . invertible so that ¯ ε wp = wp (¯p ) and εp = εp (wp ). The plastic work. is stored in the form of elastic energy and is fully recovered upon elastic unloading. ¯ ¯ (6.182) . It corresponds to the energy dissipated by the plastic mechanisms and cannot be recovered.137) into (6.181) d¯p ε As σy is strictly positive (σy > 0). together with the identity 3/2 s = σy valid for the von Mises model under plastic ﬂow. This deﬁnes the work-hardening curve (or work-hardening function).178). we . Part of this work. The substitution of (6.178) An isotropic work-hardening von Mises model is obtained by postulating σy = σy (wp ). Equivalence between strain and work hardening Under some circumstances.23). ˙ ¯ or. This is shown in the following for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 181 σ w = p+ w = wp + wee P p wp w w we e ε Figure 6. the strain-hardening and work-hardening descriptions are equivalent. is the plastic work. (6. its evolution equation is given by ˙ w p = σ : εp . ˙ (6. for instance (Figure 6. From the deﬁnition of wp .180) (6.137).179) dwp = σy .23.183) (6. the total work w necessary to deform the material up to point P is given by the total area under the corresponding stress–strain curve. equivalently. (6. therefore. In a uniaxial test.

κ.e. (6.170) to be expressed as an equivalent work-hardening function. page 149) is a function of a single scalar argument – the accumulated plastic strain. and H is called the linear isotropic hardening modulus. associated to isotropic hardening is deﬁned by κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p = κ(¯p ).e.189) (6. the uniaxial yield stress at the initial (virgin) state of the material.186) with constant σy 0 and H. ψ p .185) establish the equivalence between the strain and workhardening descriptions for the von Mises model with associative ﬂow rule. Any other hardening model is said to be nonlinear hardening.6. a nonlinear hardening model).184) and any given work-hardening function of the type (6.3. the set α of hardening variables is deﬁned as α ≡ {¯p } ε and ε ψ p = ψ p (¯p ).187) where the scalar thermodynamic force. ˆ ε ε σy (wp ) = σy (¯p ) ≡ σy (wp (¯p )).37). Linear and nonlinear hardening A model is said to be linear hardening if the strain-hardening function (6. The set of hardening thermodynamic forces in this case specialises as A ≡ {κ}. It should also be noted that a linear work-hardening function corresponds in general to an equivalent nonlinear strain-hardening function (i. ε ∂ εp ¯ (6.186). ε ˜ ε (6. ASSOCIATIVE ISOTROPIC HARDENING Within the formalism of thermodynamics with internal variables.e. (6. That is. ε ¯ (6.182 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS This allows any given strain-hardening function of the type (6. i. The constant σy 0 is the initial yield stress. This can be easily established by observing that (6.184) and (6.188) (6. to the free energy (recall expression (6. THERMODYNAMICAL ASPECTS. ¯ 6.6. the above isotropic strainhardening law corresponds to the assumption that the plastic contribution.179) to be expressed as an equivalent strain-hardening function.170) is linear.181) deﬁnes a nonlinear relation between wp and εp if σy is not a constant. if it can be expressed as σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H εp . σy (¯p ) = σy (wp ) ≡ σy (¯p (wp )). Note that perfect plasticity (deﬁned in Section 6.190) .1) is obtained if we set H = 0 in (6.185) Expressions (6. i.

we have ˙ εp = γH = γ. ¯ ˙ ˙ The associative generalised modulus H is given by H=− ∂Φ ∂Φ ≡− = 1. (6. (6.191) If the state of hardening is deﬁned in terms of cohesion (or shear yield stress). the accumulated plastic strain.27). p ∂ε ¯ ∂ε ¯ (6. The corresponding associative evolution equations that deﬁne the accumulated plastic strain εp are ¯ ∂Φ1 ˙ =γ ˙ (6.168) and (6.194) (6. ∂κ (6.197) εp = − γ a ¯ ∂κ ∂κ . i. ∂A ∂κ (6. deﬁned respectively on the side (smooth portion) and corner of the Tresca yield surface. Its actual physical meaning depends on the speciﬁc format of the functions Φi and is generally different from that of (6.167) adopted for the von Mises model. c (or τy ) replaces σy in (6.e.192) For the strain-hardening von Mises model the evolution law (6. The associative evolution equation for εp in this ¯ case is a specialisation of (6. εp . H(¯p ) ≡ ε ∂σy ∂κ = p.141) and (6. Any other hardening rule is said to be non-associative.77) and (6.195). A hardening law deﬁned by means of the associativity hypothesis is called an associative hardening law. here. Note that the hardening modulus H. that is.191).193) where Φ is the von Mises yield function (6.196) ˙ εp = −γ ¯ ∂κ and ∂Φ1 ∂Φ6 ˙ − γb ˙ = γa + γb.195) is obtained for the Tresca model.130). initially deﬁned in (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. we refer to the plastic ﬂow equations (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 183 The hardening curve is postulated in terms of κ as ε ε σy (¯p ) ≡ σy 0 + κ(¯p ).143). εp . Multisurface models with associative hardening Analogously to the associative plastic ﬂow rule deﬁnition (6.73).169) for the internal variable. is being deﬁned by evolution equa¯ tion (6. A simple example of associative isotropic hardening law of the type (6.195) Note that. that relies on the choice of ¯ the yield function as the plastic potential. follows from the hypothesis of associativity.78).110). represents the rate of change of the hardening thermodynamic force with respect to the hardening internal variable. 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 . Here.

202) Note that if it is insisted to adopt the von Mises accumulated plastic strain rate deﬁnition (6.121) with the general associative evolution law (6.141) to (6. The accumulated plastic strain in this case is then deﬁned by the evolution equation ˙ ˙ εp = − γ ¯ ∂Φ = γ ξ. the evolution equation for εp will result in ¯ ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 γ ˙ (6.203) for ﬂow from the smooth portions of the Tresca surface. In this case. with the Tresca model with associative plastic ﬂow. ε (6. 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. This gives the general expression 6 ˙ εp = 2 cos φ ¯ i=1 γ i.149)). this is reduced to ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ. If hardening associativity is also assumed.198) This type of hardening description is often used in practice in the modelling of soils – for which cohesion is a fundamental strength parameter. and ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ ˙ εp : εp = 2 √ 3 (γ a )2 + γ a γ b + (γ b )2 . one of the possibilities in deﬁning a hardening law is to assume the cohesion.191) we deﬁne c(¯p ) = c0 + κ(¯p ).167) in conjunction.130) for the hardening internal variable.199) and the yield function deﬁnition (6.195).199) and the internal variable εp – the accumulated plastic strain for associative Mohr–Coulomb ¯ hardening – is deﬁned by the corresponding particularisation of general evolution law (6. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ (6. say. ˙ (6. the isotropic hardening law is non-associative in spite of the associativity of the plastic ﬂow rule.205) .191).121) to be a function of the hardening internal variable: c = c(¯p ). ¯ ˙ (6. (6. that takes part of the yield function (6.201) At the corners (refer to the plastic ﬂow equation (6.143). c. we have ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ). This assumption will be adopted in the computer implementation of Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models described in Chapter 8. then similarly to (6.116) or (6. where functions Φ1 and Φ6 are deﬁned by (6. ¯ (6.91) with σy related to κ through (6.204) for ﬂow from a corner. ˙ ∂κ (6. ε ε (6.184 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS respectively.

1990). Analogously to expression (6. known as the back-stress tensor. ε ξ = ξ(¯p ). η. for example.206) The direction of plastic ﬂow is generally affected by the history of plastic straining in materials such as soils and rocks. deﬁned as the difference σ − β.208) . β)) − σy . It is important to observe that. the above would correspond to having η = η(¯p ). deﬁned as the difference between the stress deviator and the symmetric deviatoric (stress-like) tensor. many materials show a decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction (Lemaitre and Chaboche.4. When β = 0. It is frequently observed in experiments that.208) deﬁnes the radius of the yield surface. this can be obtained by having the parameter η as a function of the hardening variable. Note that. of the accumulated plastic strain: φ = φ(¯p ). ¯ 6. ψ. β) = where η(σ. The typical result of a uniaxial cyclic test showing the Bauschinger effect is illustrated in Figure 6. For Drucker–Prager-based models. The constant σy in (6.6. by deﬁnition. we have η = s and the yield surface deﬁned by Φ = 0 is the isotropic von Mises yield surface with uniaxial yield stress σy . after being loaded (and hardened) in one direction. A number of constitutive models have been proposed to describe elastoplastic behaviour under cyclic loading conditions (Lemaitre and Chaboche.208) is not an isotropic function of the stress tensor for kinematically hardened states (β = 0). The yield function for the kinematically hardening model is given by Φ(σ. This phenomenon can be accounted for in non-associative ﬂow Mohr–Coulomb type models by letting the dilatancy angle. The back-stress tensor is the thermodynamical force associated with kinematic hardening and represents the translation (Figure 6. The evolution of a kinematically hardening von Mises-type yield surface (in the deviatoric plane) used to model the phenomenon is shown alongside.208). THE BAUSCHINGER EFFECT When the yield surfaces preserve their shape and size but translate in the stress space as a rigid body. Skrzypek. unlike the isotropically hardening von Mises model. ε (6.24. β. ε For Drucker–Prager-based models. The function (6. it is possible to introduce kinematic hardening in other plasticity models simply by replacing σ with a relative stress measure. the frictional angle to be a function. Mróz. be a function of the hardening internal variable. This phenomenon is known as the Bauschinger effect and can be modelled with the introduction of kinematic hardening. (6. β) ≡ s(σ) − β (6.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 185 Other hardening models Further reﬁnements to capture hardening behaviour more accurately can be incorporated in Mohr–Coulomb based plasticity models by assuming. kinematic hardening is said to take place.208) is an isotropic function of the relative stress. 1990.24) of the yield surface in the space of stresses. 3 J2 (η(σ. 1993). KINEMATIC HARDENING. in addition. 1967. the relative stress is deviatoric. the yield function Φ deﬁned by (6.207) (6. in the deﬁnition of the corresponding yield function.209) is the relative stress tensor.

The ﬂow vector in this case reads N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 2 η η (6. η (6. Behaviour under monotonic uniaxial stress loading For monotonic loading under uniaxial stress conditions. Kinematic hardening and the Bauschinger effect.24. η (6. Uniaxial test and π-plane representation. Loading in one direction results in decreased resistance to plastic yielding in the opposite direction.212) and initial .212) The material constant H is the linear kinematic hardening modulus. Prager’s linear kinematic hardening To complete the deﬁnition of the kinematic hardening plasticity model. Note that the plastic ﬂow is in the direction of the (deviatoric) relative stress. with constant σy = σy 0 .211) and (6. evolution equations for β are required. where the rate evolution equation for β is given by ˙ ˙ β = 2 H εp = γ ˙ 3 2 3 H η . Plastic ﬂow rule with kinematic hardening The von Mises model with kinematic hardening is used in conjunction with an associative ﬂow rule.208). (6. One of the most commonly used laws is Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule. η. and coincides with the Prandtl–Reuss equation if β = 0. the stress–strain behaviour of the model deﬁned by equations (6.211) This rule extends the Prandtl–Reuss equation to account for kinematic hardening.186 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 3 uniaxial cyclic test hardened surface y y -plane y 1 initial surface 2 Figure 6.210) and we have the following plastic strain rate equation: ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ 3 2 η .

With the above. the deﬁnition of η. the following consistency condition must be satisﬁed: ∂Φ ˙ ∂Φ ˙ ˙ :σ+ : β = 0. under plastic yielding.214) we obtain 1 0 0 ˙ 0 .219) . let us consider again a uniaxial test with loading in the direction of the base vector e1 . with the introduction of the elastoplastic split of the axial strain rate. In this case.213) 0 0 −1 2 where β is the axial back-stress component.218) yields σ = H εp . To show that their plastic behaviour also coincides. it is clear that both models have the same elastic behaviour and uniaxial yield stress. E.212) and (6.171) and (6. From (6.172).172) gives a back-stress tensor of the form 1 0 0 1 0 . σy 0 . ˙ (6. together with the equation σ = E εe .216) Now. [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).217) (6.220) Then. β.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.e.186) and initial state of hardening εp = 0. (6. ˙ ˙ (6. It is assumed in this statement that both models share the same Young’s modulus. Now note that the integration of the rate equation (6.221) 3 η .171)2 and the above ˙ expressions for β. ˙ ˙ (6.60) and specialising (6. we obtain for the relative stress tensor 1 0 0 1 0 .218) After some straightforward tensor algebra.61) for the present case we have that. 2 η (6. η = s) and s as in (6. taking into account (6. the stress.212) with initial condition β = 0 (i. Φ= ∂σ ∂β (6.214) [η] = η 0 − 2 1 0 0 −2 where η = 2σ − β 3 is the axial relative stress. ¯ Under the above conditions.215) (6. by recalling (6. stress rate and stress deviator tensors have the matrix representations given in (6. and the identity ∂Φ ∂Φ =− =− ∂β ∂σ equation (6. [β] = β 0 − 2 (6.

into (6. Nonlinear extension to Prager’s rule Another possible improvement upon Prager’s linear kinematic hardening rule is the introduction of nonlinearity by replacing the constant kinematic hardening modulus. εp . . Chapter 20. ˙ E+H (6. In this case. of (6.176) of the von Mises isotropic strainhardening model with constant H.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. we have either ε > 0 or ε < 0 throughout the entire loading ˙ ˙ process. In the case of the von Mises criterion. the integration of (6. d¯p ε (6.224) deﬁnes the kinematic hardening curve. ¯ 2 ∂Φ 2 ˙ ε ˙ ε . The extra term −γ b β introduces the effect of saturation in the ˙ kinematic hardening rule. let us assume that the uniaxial loading is monotonic. we obtain σ= ˙ EH ε.e. To complete the demonstration.226) (6. for details) with the evolution of β given by 2 ˙ ˙ β = H εp − γ b β ˙ 3 2 ∂Φ H −bβ .188 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of the linear elastic model under uniaxial stress conditions.225) (6. H. Chapter 5. ˙ β = H(¯p ) εp = γ H(¯p ) 3 3 ∂σ In this case.220).212) with a generic function of the accumulated plastic strain.222) which coincides with the stress rate equation (6. the saturation corresponds to a maximum limit value for the norm of β. at which the material behaves as perfectly plastic.223) where b is a material constant. 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). 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. =γ ˙ 3 ∂σ (6. a scalar function ¯ ¯ε β ≡ β(¯p ). or Jirásek and Bažant (2002). i. such that H(¯p ) = ε ¯ dβ .

2 (6.227) The variable X is related to self-equilibrated residual stresses that remain after elastic unloading. (6. The kinematic hardening thermodynamical force – the back-stress tensor.234) ∂β ∂σ 6. given by β = a X. X ≡ −γ ˙ ∂β ∂β a (6. ∂X a X : X. that is.6.223) can be established by taking into account (6. we have ψ p (X) = (6. MIXED ISOTROPIC/KINEMATIC HARDENING Rather than purely isotropic or purely kinematic hardening.THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY 189 Thermodynamical aspects of kinematic hardening From the thermodynamical viewpoint. more realistic plasticity models can be obtained by combining the above laws for isotropic and kinematic hardening. (6. (6. to the free energy is a function of a second-order tensor-valued internal variable. ψ p = ψ p (X). X.233) b β : β. since Φ is obtained from a non-kinematic hardening yield function by replacing the argument σ with σ − β. the yield surface expands/shrinks and translates simultaneously in stress space. the above kinematic hardening laws follow from the assumption that the plastic contribution. The equivalence between the above equation and (6.228) is then a scalar multiple of X. this evolution law is non-associative.228) For the Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (6.230) The back-stress tensor (6. Thus.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 . we have ∂Φ ∂Φ =− . real-life materials show in general a combination of both.232) Obviously (since Ψ = Φ). These stresses may increase or decrease resistance to plastic slip according to the direction considered.229) where the material constant a has been deﬁned as a≡ 2 3 H. (6.231) and the fact that. for instance.223). 2a (6. under plastic straining. β – is then deﬁned as the derivative β≡ ∂ψ p . . ψ p .5.

.235) which can be obtained from relatively simple uniaxial tests with load reversal (see schematic ¯ illustration of Figure 6. For example.3 (starting on page 478) in the context of damage mechanics.190 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ load reversal σy εp β σy ε Figure 6. a relatively simple von Mises-based model with mixed isotropic/kinematic hardening can be devised by adopting the yield function (6. β. A model including mixed hardening of this type is discussed in Section 12. At each point εp . is a function of the accumulated plastic strain. A more reﬁned mixed hardening model can be devised by coupling the Armstrong– Frederick law (6. is the ¯ kinematic contribution to overall hardening. the hardening ¯ behaviour of the model is determined by the curves σy = σy (¯p ).225) is adopted.25. as in (6.235)1.25).208) and allowing σy to be a function of εp . the kinematic hardening stress. Uniaxial test with load reversal. (6. If the nonlinear rule deﬁned by (6.224) and (6. ε ¯ ¯ε β = β(¯p ). Mixed hardening.223) with the von Mises-type yield function (6.208) where σy .

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

within the modular structure of the HYPLAS program (refer to Section 5. Following the nomenclature established in Chapter 5 (refer to the call trees of Figures 5. specialised to the case of elastoplastic materials.5) These are the primary procedures that effectively deﬁne a particular constitutive model/algorithm in the program. Preliminary implementation aspects At this point. εn+1 ).2) ˆ ˆ The incremental constitutive functions σ and α are deﬁned by the integration algorithm ˆ adopted and the stress delivered by σ is used to assemble the element internal force vector ngausp f int = e i=1 ji wi BT σn+1 |i . There are two most fundamental material-speciﬁc operations: 1.192 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7.4 and 5.5 respectively on pages 126 and 130). from page 131). (7. each material model implementation is deﬁned by a set of ﬁve material-speciﬁc routines. This chapter will focus precisely on the two topics listed above. Within a (pseudo-) time increment [tn . The computation of the associated consistent tangent modulus D≡ ˆ ∂σ .7.3) 2. 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 . The element tangent stiffness matrix is computed as ngausp KT = i=1 (e) wi ji BT Di Bi . εn+1 ). it is convenient to recall that. i (7.4) 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. Each one of these routines is called by a corresponding material interface subroutine that is common to all models. The state update procedure which.1) (7. . i (7. the computational implementation of the state update algorithms and tangent moduli addressed in the present chapter appears at the lowest layer of the material level in the computation of the element internal force vector and tangent stiffness matrix. tn+1 ].1. requires the formulation of a scheme for numerical integration of the rate elastoplastic evolution equations. ˆ αn+1 = α(αn . in the case of elastoplastic materials. ∂εn+1 (7.

6) as reduced in that it is obtained from the model of Box 6. In this way. εe (t0 ). T . the Tresca.3. A(t)) ≤ 0.1. T ]. the updating scheme usually requires the formulation of a numerical algorithm for integration of the corresponding rate constitutive equations. the prescribed motion deﬁnes the history of the strain tensor. Problem 7. εp (t0 ).2 by incorporating the plastic ﬂow equation into the additive strain rate decomposition.2.2 (page 151). hardening internal variables set and plastic ˙ multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic constitutive equations ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). 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. ε(t). T ]. 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. ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . 7. A(t)) = 0 ˙ (7.2. 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. This section describes a numerical procedure for integration of the general elastoplastic model of Section 6. We refer to the system of differential equations (7. t ∈ [t0 . the plastic strain tensor. such as elastoplastic materials. ∂α t (7. This requirement stems from the fact that analytical solutions to the initial value problem deﬁned by the elastoplastic equations are generally not known for complex strain paths. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). and in Chapter 12. ﬁnd the functions εe (t).1 (The elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem). Assume that at a given (pseudo-)time t0 the elastic strain.8) Remark 7. Specialisation to the other basic plasticity models of Chapter 6.6) for each instant t ∈ [t0 .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Further applications of the algorithms described in the present chapter are made in Chapter 10. A(t)) ˙ γ(t) ≥ 0. ε(t). The basic elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem at point p is stated in the following.7) (7. the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in . in the context of advanced plasticity models. Clearly.3. and all elements of the set α(t0 ) of hardening internal variables are known at point p. Furthermore.e. let the motion of B be prescribed between t0 and a subsequent instant. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. A(t)) ˙ ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). i. is presented in Chapter 8 and its plane stress implementation is addressed in Chapter 9. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . The strategy presented here is later specialised and applied to the von Mises model in Section 7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 193 7. In the case of path-dependent materials. ˙ Φ(σ(t).1. α(t) and γ(t) for the elastic strain. where the numerical implementation of damage mechanics models is discussed. at the material point of interest between instants t0 and T .

7). of the elastic strain and internal variables set at the beginning of the pseudo-time interval [tn .10) . which are more likely to occur in realistic engineering problems. where σn+1 = ρ ¯ Φ(σn+1 .1 is stated in the following. tn+1 ].2. we replace all rate quantities in (7. As already mentioned.11) (7. ∂ψ ∂α (7. For complex deformation paths.6) with corresponding incremental values within the considered interval and the functions N. n+1 (7.2 (The incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem). An+1 ) = 0. Problem 7. (7. For simplicity we shall choose to adopt a backward (or fully implicit) Euler scheme. An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . αn+1 and ∆γ. tn+1 . may only be obtained for very simple prescribed strain histories.194 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the system and the only unknowns are the elastic strain. tn+1 ]. for integration within a generic (pseudo-)time interval [tn . ∂ψ ∂εe ∆γ Φ(σn+1 . The resulting discrete version of Problem 7. analytical solutions are not available in general and the adoption of a numerical technique to ﬁnd an approximate solution becomes absolutely essential. subjected to the constraints n+1 ∆γ ≥ 0. the history of the plastic strain tensor is obtained from the trivial relation εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t). Note that with the solution εe (t) of Problem 7. exact solutions to Problem 7. Given the values εe n and αn .† Accordingly. the derivation of the analytical solutions is normally cumbersome.7.9) so that the history of all variables involved in the deﬁnition of the elastoplastic model of Box 6.1 at hand.6) and (7.13) Euler-based schemes can be equally adopted. Even in such cases.1. the set of hardening internal variables and the plastic multiplier.12) In the above. 7.2.2 is determined. solve the following system of algebraic equations εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . and given the prescribed incremental strain ∆ε for this interval. An+1 ) for the unknowns εe . when yield functions and ﬂow rules such as the ones described in the previous chapter are adopted. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ . we have adopted the obvious notation ∆(·) ≡ (·)n+1 − (·)n . . H and Φ with their values at the end of the interval.7)–(7.2. A general framework for the numerical solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity is described below. † Other (7. These will be discussed later in Section 7. EULER DISCRETISATION: THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE PROBLEM The starting point here is the adoption of an Euler scheme to discretise equations (7. An+1 ) ≤ 0.

εe .e. the plastic strain at tn+1 can be calculated as εp = εp + ∆ε − ∆εe .7)).11)3 result in the constraint Φ(σn+1 . (7. Firstly. An+1 ) and (7. Nevertheless.12) does not follow directly the conventional procedure for standard initial value problems (i. 2. Note that once the solution εe has been n+1 obtained. Strictly positive plastic multiplier. the step is purely elastic.16) must hold.14) In this case there is no plastic ﬂow or evolution of internal variables within the considered interval [tn . 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. αn+1 and ∆γ satisfy n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆γ N(σn+1 . tn+1 ]. n n+1 so that all variables of the model are known at the end of the interval [tn . Null incremental plastic multiplier.20) (7. An+1 ) = 0. (7. ∆γ = 0. note that (7.11). An+1 ) n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆γ H(σn+1 . An+1 ) ≤ 0. where σn+1 and An+1 are functions of εe and An+1 deﬁned through n+1 the potential relations (7. the constraint Φ(σn+1 . i. The constraint (7. (7. initial value problems without equations of the type (7. in addition.11)1 allows only for the two (mutually exclusive) possibilities enumerated below: 1. The increment ∆γ will be called the incremental plastic multiplier. tn+1 ].11)3 is automatically satisﬁed.11)2 combined with (7.10)–(7. the solution of the incremental elastoplastic problem (7.e. as we shall see.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 195 with (·)n and (·)n+1 denoting the value of (·) respectively at tn and tn+1 . In this case.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .15) (7. εe and αn+1 are given by n+1 εe = εe + ∆ε n+1 n αn+1 = αn and.18) .12). ∆γ > 0. Solution of the incremental problem Due to the presence of the discrete complementarity condition (7.17) (7.19) (7.

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. we assume that the ﬁrst of the above two situations (∆γ = 0) occurs. Using the elastic trial state deﬁnition above. It remains now to devise a procedure whereby the correct solution can be chosen. An+1 ) n+1 Φ(σn+1 .23) n+1 n+1 that is.16).19)–(7.22) The above variables are collectively called the elastic trial state. (7.19)–(7. tn+1 ] is elastic. Now note that.20).2 must be obtained from the plastic corrector step described below. in which case it must satisfy constraint (7. that is. (b) The Plastic Corrector Step (or Return-Mapping Algorithm). and will be denoted εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n (7. will be called the elastic trial solution. In this case.16). Atrial ) ≤ 0. Otherwise. only one of two possible sets of equations provides a solution to Problem 7.196 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In summary. to satisfy (7.2.2. in addition. The solution given by (7. (7.17). An+1 ) = 0.20) of algebraic equations subject to the constraint (7.2.2. if the elastic trial state lies within the elastic domain or on the yield surface. the elastic trial state is not plastically admissible and a solution to Problem 7. we update (·)n+1 := (·)trial n+1 (7. the elastic trial state has. n+1 Atrial = ρ ¯ n+1 ∂ψ ∂α trial . The strategy adopted is the following: (a) The Elastic Trial Step. Firstly. An+1 ) n+1 n+1 αn+1 = αtrial + ∆γ H(σn+1 . it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. n+1 (7.18). The only option left now is to solve the system (7. we have just seen that any solution to Problem 7.17). subjected to the constraint (7. If Φtrial ≡ Φ(σtrial .21) trial αn+1 = αn . to be the actual solution.25) . This is next described in detail. we rewrite the algebraic system equivalently as εe = εe trial − ∆γ N(σn+1 . The corresponding stress and hardening force will be called the elastic trial stress and elastic trial hardening force. given by ¯ σtrial = ρ n+1 ∂ψ ∂εe trial .3. that is.2 is either given by (7. 7. or it is a solution of the algebraic system of equations (7. which is not necessarily the actual solution to Problem 7.24) and the algorithm is terminated. we assume that the step [tn . We then proceed as follows.18).

25) are called the return mapping equations. Due to n+1 this interpretation the procedure of item (b) is referred to as the return mapping algorithm and (7. Consider the yield surface at the elastic trial state.1. Summary of the overall procedure In summary. followed by the return mapping.25). ensures that the stress. the elastic trial stress returns to the yield surface so that plastic consistency is re-established in the updated state. General return mapping schemes. The schematic diagram of Figure 7. which is commonly referred to as the plastic consistency equation. Upon solution of the algebraic system (7. Geometric interpretation: (a) hardening plasticity. The elastic trial stress. equation (7. which are.12). The ﬁrst algorithm of this type appears to have been the radial return method proposed in the pioneering work of Wilkins (1964). in this case lies outside the plastically admissible domain (i.1 – has resulted in a numerical algorithm that involves two steps: the elastic predictor.e.1. An+1 ) = 0 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ. in which the evolution problem is solved as if the material were purely elastic within the interval considered.25) that satisﬁes ∆γ > 0. which accounts for plastic ﬂow and enforces plastic admissibility. The plastic corrector stage of the algorithm then consists in ﬁnding a solution εe . tn+1 ] lies on the updated yield surface.2.26) Remark 7. σtrial returns to a ﬁxed surface. that is. of course.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. The return mapping procedure is executed only if the elastic trial state violates plastic admissibility. In the case of perfect plasticity. and (b) perfect plasticity. the application of an Euler difference scheme to ﬁnd an approximate solution of the constitutive initial value problem of elastoplasticity – Problem 7. σn+1 . The procedure of item (b) above possesses an appealing geometric interpretation as illustrated in Figure 7. σtrial . complemented with the potential relations (7. at the end of the interval [tn . An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . neither in n+1 the elastic domain nor on the yield surface). (7.2 shows the main steps in the .25)3.

7. the backward Euler scheme to discretise elastoplastic constitutive equations and is. termed the backward. This choice is motivated mainly by the quadratic rates of convergence achieved by this method which. The procedure commonly adopted in practice is quite simple. such as quasi-Newton procedures in general. results in very computationally efﬁcient return mapping procedures. As far as the iterative procedure for the solution of the return-mapping equations is concerned.198 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elastoplastic constitutive initial value problem (Problem 7.26). could be used instead.4. each one resulting in a different return mapping algorithm.e. The main argument in favour of these methods is normally based on . derivation of the overall integration algorithm.2 does not have a solution. It should be noted that the algebraic system (7. If the found solution satisﬁes (7. then it is accepted as a solution to Problem 7. then Problem 7. We remark that different discretisation schemes may be used instead. The algorithm described above has been obtained by adopting. This algorithm is conveniently summarised in Box 7. fully implicit or simply implicit elastic predictor/return mapping scheme.26).2.7. without regard for the constraint equation (7.1 in pseudo-code format. Schematic diagram.1) Euler pseudo-time discretisation incremental elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7. i. Firstly. Alternatives to the backward Euler-based algorithm will be discussed in Section 7. therefore. by some iterative procedure. but all having the same elastic predictor step.2.2) solution procedure ELASTIC PREDICTOR PLASTIC CORRECTOR (RETURN MAPPING ALGORITHM) Figure 7.25) is solved on its own. as a general rule.2.2. From the initial value problem of elastoplasticity to the elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithm. Note that if no solution exists with strictly positive incremental plastic multiplier.25) is generally nonlinear and. SOLUTION OF THE RETURN-MAPPING EQUATIONS Let us now focus on the solution of the return mapping equations. the algebraic system (7. in particular. has to be solved subjected to the constraint (7.26). in addition. Alternative techniques. 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).

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

σn+1 .2. the updated stress.27) with constant elasticity tensor. equation (7. the degree of nonlinearity of the return-mapping equations is so high that the convergence radius of the Newton scheme becomes substantially reduced. This approach consists of dividing the total strain increment ∆ε into a number m of sub-increments ∆ε = ∆ε1 + ∆ε2 + · · · + ∆εm .. i = 1. . for some plasticity models.e. Since ∆γ is required to be positive. and then applying the integration algorithm sequentially m times to reach the approximate state at tn+1 . 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). 7.5.5 below) and the associated variational structure of the returnmapping equations to devise globally convergent root-ﬁnding algorithms (i. In such cases. has to be sufﬁciently small to ensure convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations. For perfectly plastic materials with associative ﬂow rule. It may occur.28) n+1 In this case. Each strain sub-increment ∆εi . materials for which the stress is given by σ = De : εe .200 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆γ < 0. 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. 1999). Fortunately. such a solution is physically meaningless and must be disregarded if the Newton–Raphson algorithm converges to it. numerical experience shows that such a situation is not usual and. obtained by the implicit return mapping (Figure 7. .29) . More recently. Another important consideration is that. Armero and PérezFoguet (2002) and Pérez-Foguet and Armero (2002) have explored the closest point projection interpretation (Section 7. procedures such as linesearches (as suggested by Dutko et al.e.25)1 can be rewritten equivalently in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . m. a strategy must be developed to ensure that the converged incremental plastic multiplier is positive.3) is the projection of the trial stress σtrial onto the updated yield surface along the direction of n+1 the tensor De : Nn+1 . algorithms that converge regardless of the initial guess) based on a combination of the Newton–Raphson scheme and constrained line-search procedures. for complex constitutive models. however. (7.2. . In such cases. . (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. in particular. Another alternative can be the use of a sub-stepping scheme (Huerta et al. De . This issue is discussed in Chapter 12 in the context of damage mechanics plasticity models. CLOSEST POINT PROJECTION INTERPRETATION For materials with linear elastic response. does not occur for the basic plasticity models implemented in this chapter and in Chapter 8 for the normal range of material parameters.

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. The fully implicit return mapping.3.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .31) (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).6. i.30) (7. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. 7. the accuracy and stability (the concepts of accuracy and stability ∆γ || D e : N hardening plasticity (7. of plastically admissible stresses. σn+1 = arg min[d(σ. An+1 ) = 0 D e : Nn+1 σn elastic domain at t n Φ(σ. With the energy norm deﬁned by σ De ≡ σ : [De ]−1 : σ.7. Obviously. σtrial )] .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial σn+1 trial σn+1 201 perfect plasticity ∆γ || D e : N σn+1 Φ(σ. An ) = 0 σn elastic domain σn+1 Φ(σ) = 0 Figure 7. and the associated measure of distance between two generic stress states given by d(σa .1).e. 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 updated stress is the admissible stress that lies closest to the elastic trial stress.2. 7.2. 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. (1978) for further details on operator split algorithms). σb ) ≡ σa − σb De . (1988b) for details).32) n+1 || D e : Nn+1 n+1 || .

202 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS are reviewed in Section 7.26) is satisﬁed. The corresponding discrete plastic ﬂow equation is εp = εp + ∆γ [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ].33)1 may be equivalently written in terms of stresses as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : [(1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 ].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 ].1).2.4 for materials with linear elastic response. The choice θ = 0 corresponds to a fully explicit return mapping. . An+1 ) = 0. n n+1 (7. as previously described. can be derived by adopting generalised versions of the classical trapezoidal and midpoint rules in the discretisation of Problem 7. These procedures are described below. 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. expression (7.1. (7.34) The incremental ﬂow vector. n+1 (7. It is important to note that the previously described fully implicit return mapping is recovered by choosing θ = 1 in the generalised trapezoidal rule. Individual members of this family of algorithms are deﬁned by the prescribed parameter θ. where. 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 .10) of the overall elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm will depend on the particular strategy adopted. Two important families of algorithms for elastoplasticity. is a linear combination of the ﬂow vectors at times tn and tn+1 .33) The geometric interpretation of the generalised trapezoidal return algorithm in the space of stresses is shown in Figure 7. These procedures have been proposed by Ortiz and Popov (1985). Another popular scheme is the so-called cutting plane algorithm proposed by Simo and Ortiz (1985) (see also Ortiz and Simo 1986). which incorporate the backward (or fully implicit) Euler approach as a particular case. it is implicitly understood that constraint (7.35) (7. in the present case given by (1 − θ)Nn + θNn+1 . The elastic predictor stage. of course. which must lie within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. In this case. remains unchanged.

33) for θ = 1 and θ = 0.38) (7. again. which correspond. to the fully implicit and fully explicit . (7. with the generalised midpoint state deﬁned by the variables σn+θ = (1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn An+θ = (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 .37) The parameter θ is. the discrete plastic ﬂow rule reads εp = εp + ∆γ Nn+θ . An+1 ) = 0. An+θ ). a prescribed constant within the interval 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. The generalised trapezoidal return mapping. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response. where Nn+θ = N(σn+θ . In the present case.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .40) Note that the generalised midpoint rule coincides with the generalised trapezoidal rule (7. n n+1 (7.4. An ) = 0 Figure 7.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.39) (7. respectively. 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+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. An+θ ) Hn+θ = H(σn+θ .

An ) = 0 Figure 7.5.37)3 with the alternative Φ(σn+θ . In particular. state.33) and (7. Remark 7. Geometric interpretation for materials with linear elastic response.41) n+1 and corresponds to the projection of the elastic trial stress.4. return mappings. in particular. onto the updated yield n+1 surface at tn+1 along the direction of De : Nn+θ .37). This version of the generalised return mapping is discussed in detail by Simo and Govindjee (1991) who highlight. σtrial .6. As for the fully implicit return mapping.5 for materials with linear elastic response. 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. A possible variation of the above generalised midpoint rule is obtained by replacing the consistency condition (7. The generalised midpoint return mapping. . in this case. a discussion on the possible symmetry of such operators is provided in Section 7.4. (7.204 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial σn+1 ∆γ || D e : Nn+θ || D e : Nn+θ σn+1 σn+θ σn elastic domain Φ(σ. as noted by Ortiz and Martin (1989). (7.4. is given by σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+θ . The geometric interpretation of the generalised midpoint return algorithm is given in Figure 7. both generalised trapezoidal and midpoint return-mapping algorithms. deﬁned respectively by (7. An+θ ) = 0. The updated stress. require the ‡ Consistent tangent operators for return-mapping schemes will be discussed in Section 7.42) In this case.37)3. rather than the updated. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. plastic consistency is enforced upon the generalised midpoint.

The cutting-plane method. The cutting-plane algorithm Let us start by observing that the return-mapping equations (7. 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).46) (7.25)1.47) which. The operator E(εe . α) denotes the tangent modulus associated with the hardening response.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . This idea is exploited in Section 7. subject to the consistency condition (7.3.25)3.48) . A). α) ∗ α ˙ ˙ ˙ A = F(εe . n+1 αe = αe trial .45) The implicit return-mapping scheme consists in solving the above problem. ∂εe 2 (7. In this case.2 are a backward Euler approximation to the initial value problem deﬁned by the differential equation ˙ εe = −γN(σ. As before. by means of the backward Euler scheme. For certain material models. α) ∗ α. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . The ﬁrst step to derive the cutting-plane algorithm. α) = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . deﬁned by E(εe . the return-mapping equations can be substantially simpliﬁed. all terms. α) ∗ εe + G(εe . on the right-hand side of (7. where the derivation of implicit return mapping for the von Mises model is described in detail. ∂εe ∂α (7.44) where ∗ denotes the product of the appropriate type. εe n+1 and αn+1 become functions solely of the incremental multiplier ∆γ and so does σn+1 and An+1 . for the fully explicit member of these families of algorithms (θ = 0). (7. A) ˙ ˙ α = γH(σ. with the exception of ∆γ. is an alternative scheme for the numerical solution of the return-mapping problem. an efﬁcient scheme is normally obtained by adopting the quadratically convergent Newton–Raphson method. (7.37) are known values at tn . α) in (7.8).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 205 solution of a (generally nonlinear) system of equations for any prescribed parameter θ. the original system variables.8) into the equivalent rate form ˙ ˙ ˙ σ = De (εe . The fourth-order tensor De (εe . ˙ with initial condition εe = εe trial . An+1 (∆γ)) = 0.43) for any elastoplastic model. The above rate constitutive equations for σ and A are obtained by a straightforward application of the chain rule to (7. It is interesting to note that. simpliﬁcations of this type are also possible for θ = 0 and are crucially important for the computational efﬁciency of the associated return-mapping procedure. in general. is to recast the potential relation (7.46)1 is the elastic modulus De (εe . which we shall describe below. is assumed to be a function of εe and α. n+1 (7. α) : εe + E(εe . Therefore.

An+1 }. In a typical cutting-plane iteration. α) = ρ ¯ we redeﬁne the initial value problem (7. for models in which elasticity is coupled with dissipative phenomena. (7. § Refer (k+1) (k+1) (7. A)]. ˙ with the obvious initial condition σ = σtrial .54) Basically.46)1 and the ﬁrst term on the right-hand side of (7. {σn+1 . A). However.51) G(εe . the return-mapping problem now comprises the initial value problem (7. An+1 ) + N n+1 : [σn+1 − σn+1 ] (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) + H n+1 ∗ [An+1 − An+1 ] = 0.45) equivalently in terms of stress and hardening force as ˙ σ = γ[−De (σ. α = α(σ. the tangential operators F and G are deﬁned as F(εe . α) = ρ ¯ and ∂2ψ ∂α∂εe (7. A). the (k) (k) plastic consistency equation is linearised§ about the current (known) state. A) ∗ H(σ. A) + E(σ. the tangent operators E and F vanish and so does the second term on the right-hand side of (7. A new state. (7. {σn+1 .6.46)2.46) and making use of complementary potential relations that give εe = εe (σ. n+1 (7.206 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS In addition. these terms do not vanish in general.37) (page 149) of decoupling between elasticity and hardening.44)–(7. (7. is then obtained as the solution of the linearised equation (k) (k) (k+1) (k) ¯ (k) Φ(σn+1 .52)– (7.53) (7. A) : N(σ. By combining (7. A) ∗ H(σ.49) ∂2ψ . such as Lemaitre’s damage theory discussed in Chapter 12.44) with (7. A) + G(σ. the cutting plane return-mapping algorithm is an iterative procedure for numerical solution of the return-mapping problem whereby the linear approximation to the plastic consistency equation is solved at each iteration. .52) In summary. under the assumption (6. n+1 A = Atrial . (from page 38) for the deﬁnition of the linearisation of a nonlinear problem. A) ∗ N(σ.53) in conjunction with the plastic consistency constraint Φ(σn+1 . A)] ˙ ˙ A = γ[−F(σ.50) ∂α2 It should be noted that De is constant for materials whose elastic behaviour is linear. Also. An+1 }. of the stress and hardening force. An+1 ) = 0. (k).55) to Section 2.

(7.6. . e (k) (k) (k) (k) . respectively. . . 1.e.An+1 (k) (k) ∂Φ ¯ (k) H n+1 = ∂A . {σn+1 . the new stress. (k) (k) σn+1 . The projection is made along the direction of the tensor Dn+1 : N n+1 − En+1 ∗ H n+1 .57). ¶ Note that the linearised consistency condition (7.2 in pseudo-code format. σn+1 .55) deﬁnes a hyperplane in the space of stresses and hardening forces. . To solve (7. N. With the substitution of the above equations into (7. n+1 n+1 the repeated application of the above iteration generates a sequence of states {σn+1 . An+1 }. 2. Remark 7.56) ¯ ¯ Note that for fully associative plasticity (Ψ ≡ Φ).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 207 ¯ ¯ where N n+1 and H n+1 have been deﬁned as ∂Φ ¯ (k) N n+1 = ∂σ . An+1 } satisﬁes the convergence criterion Φ(σn+1 . The cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm is summarised in Box 7. i. The cutting-plane iterations continue until the value of the yield function is sufﬁciently close (k) (k) to zero.59) k = 0. (k) (k) (0) (0) (7. Atrial }.58) and the new state {σn+1 . (7. The geometric interpretation of the cutting-plane algorithm is illustrated in Figure 7.60) where tol is a prescribed convergence tolerance. This gives the formula σn+1 − σn+1 = ∆γ −Dn+1 : N n+1 + En+1 ∗ H n+1 (7. is obtained by projecting the (k) (k) current stress.55) we proceed as follows. and H.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . Starting (with k = 0) from the initial condition of the return-mapping problem {σn+1 . with the ﬂow vector.52) using a forward (or explicit) Euler scheme. The interpretation here remains valid for materials with a nonlinear elastic (k+1) (k+1) response. An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol . the iterative process is interrupted at an iteration (k) if the state {σn+1 . In each iteration. 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) . We discretise the rate constitutive equations (7. An+1 } is computed by substituting the value obtained for ∆γ into (7. onto a cutting plane deﬁned by the linearised consistency condition¶.57) An+1 − An+1 = ∆γ −Fn+1 ∗ N n+1 + Gn+1 ∗ H n+1 . An+1 }. An+1 } = {σtrial .5. An+1 }. {σn+1 .55). N and H coincide.An+1 (k) (k) (7.

(i) Given the elastic trial state. A(k) ). An+1 = A(k) . This makes the cutting-plane algorithm particularly attractive for more complex plasticity models. set k = 0 and σ(0) = σtrial .4. to which readers unfamiliar with the concept are referred. 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 . (7. 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. A(k) ). Remark 7.61) delivered by the cutting-plane algorithm. 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) . (7. plastic consistency is restored and the cutting plane is tangent to the actual yield surface. εn+1 ). n+1 n+1 ELSE set k := k + 1 and GO TO (ii) In the limit of the iterative process. However. n+1 αn+1 = α(σ(k) .6. . An+1 ) ≤ (k) (k) tol THEN update σn+1 = σ (k) n+1 . Cutting-plane return-mapping algorithm for general elastoplastic models.62) ∂εn+1 The notion of a consistent tangent modulus for elastoplasticity numerical integration algorithms is introduced in Section 7. The iterations of the cutting-plane algorithm converge to the solution Φ = 0 at quadratic rates.208 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. is not amenable to linearisation and derivation of a consistent tangent modulus ˆ ∂σ D= . Quadratic rates of convergence are achieved here despite the fact that only relatively simple function evaluations are performed in each iteration. n+1 n+1 n+1 εp = εn+1 − εe .2.

63) . A(t)) = 0. where the potential relations (7.2.8. An ) = 0 Figure 7. An+1 ) = 0 Φ(σ. cutting planes σn+1 σn elastic domain at tn Φ(σ. The identiﬁcation of plasticity equations with DAEs allows the use of numerical methods (7.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . page 98).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS trial (0) σn+1 ≡ σn+1 Φlin (σ .6. An+1 ) = 0 (2) . 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).. Formally. The cutting-plane return mapping.5.8) can be used to express σ and A as explicit functions of εe and α.2 in the present case) complemented by a constraint in the form of algebraic equations (equation (7. PLASTICITY AND DIFFERENTIAL-ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS Under continuous plastic loading.63)3).63)1. 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. However. in explicit codes. such a system is classed as a system of differential-algebraic equations (DAE).1) reduces to ˙ ˙ ˙ εe (t) = ε(t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). These generally contain ordinary differential equations (equations (7.2. the use of cutting-plane algorithms could be an attractive option. Within the implicit ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4 (see Section 4. A(t)) ˙ Φ(σ(t).. 7. which do not require the solution of a global system of equilibrium equations.. Geometric interpretation. An+1 ) = 0 (1) 209 (1) σn+1 (2) σn+1 Φlin (σ . A(t)) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). the system of equations that characterises the elastoplastic constitutive problem (Problem 7..

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

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

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

is also ﬁrst-order accurate.3. should be expected to predict its behaviour only for relatively small increments.45). 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. The next step in the analysis of these families of algorithms is the assessment of their stability properties. stability does not depend on the shape of the yield surface. 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.7 characterised by the midpoint plastic consistency equation (7. described in 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. Recall that the integration algorithm based on the fully implicit return mapping. Since the sequence of states generated by the cutting-plane return mapping is obtained by fully linearising the plastic corrector evolution problem (7. such as the von Mises surface. For the algorithms based on the generalised midpoint rule. Finite step accuracy aspects: the iso-error maps As mentioned previously. for surfaces with inﬁnite curvature. is a particular (common) member of both families (for θ = 1) and. the 2 interval for which the generalised trapezoidal algorithms remain unconditionally stable narrows around θ = 1 (the fully implicit scheme). With increasing curvature. For surfaces with constant curvature in the space of stresses. 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.42). all trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms satisfy the necessary condition of ﬁrst-order accuracy for convergence. In the limit.2. is only conditional. Essentially. In summary. The analysis was focused on materials with an associative hardening and ﬂow rules and. it follows that. unconditional stability is obtained for 1 ≤ θ ≤ 1.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . therefore. their algorithms are stable for θ ≥ 1 . 2 Attention is now focused on the elastoplastic algorithm based on the cutting-plane return mapping. restricted to the case of linear elastic behaviour. 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. again. 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. the cutting-plane procedure is naturally ﬁrst-order accurate. such as the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb surfaces which have sharp corners.2.7. In addition. as the Backward Euler-based scheme (which also approximates this problem numerically). however. 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. These algorithms are unconditionally stable for θ ≥ 1 .44. as far 2 as accuracy order is concerned. second-order accuracy is attained for the choice θ = 1 in both trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms. therefore. In addition. the only unconditionally stable algorithm is the fully implicit.37)3. Within the context of the fully . The stability of the cutting-plane algorithm.

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

This is in obvious agreement with 2 the (inﬁnitesimal) accuracy analysis that established second-order accuracy for this particular choice of θ.7 and 0.7 concentrating on their ﬁnite step accuracy characteristics. 7. model. It is remarked that the ∆σ N ⁄ q ∆σ trial σ trial 5% 10% 4 . is described in this section. A ﬁnite step accuracy analysis of the generalised trapezoidal and midpoint rule integration algorithms.2. it might be useful to include the error associated with the hardening internal variable in the deﬁnition of the error measure. for instance.3. 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. Essentially. these authors have found that. the fully implicit algorithm (θ = 1). In the case of hardening materials. 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. let us now return to the discussion regarding the properties of the integration algorithms of Sections 7. 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. (1992) for the variant of the midpoint rule based algorithm proposed by Simo and Govindjee (1991). Having described the concept of iso-error maps. likely to occur in real problems. featuring the standard associative law and linear elastic behaviour and including general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. It is worth remarking that completely analogous results have been found by Fuschi et al. the performance of the second-order algorithm deteriorates.1 (page 199) to the von Mises model. however.7. For reasonably sized increments. the von Mises model is the simplest type discussed in this book. for small increments. The specialisation of the fully implicit algorithm of Box 7. a choice of θ between 0. Iso-error map: (a) typical increment directions. Also.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. With increasing increment size.2.8 gives the best accuracy. gives better accuracy than the second-order algorithm. but may not be so for different models. based on iso-error maps.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .3 and 7. and (b) a typical iso-error map. the best accuracy is obtained with θ = 1 . which will be adopted in the numerical implementation described in the following sections of this chapter.

¯ 3. Before going further. Its particularisation for the Tresca.3. in Chapter 8. it is convenient at this point to list the basic equations used in the present implementation of the von Mises model.73) 3 J2 (s(σ)) − σy . ensures that the resulting algorithm is convergent. 2 s (7. 7. ∂σ (7. A yield function of the form Φ(σ. explicitly given by N≡ ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s . The choice of the fully implicit algorithm here and in the remainder of this book is essentially motivated by: (i) its (unconditional) stability which. An associative hardening rule. (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.77) 4.216 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. ¯ ˙ (7.7. in conjunction with its ﬁrst-order accuracy.1. the model comprises: 1. as compared to other members of the families of generalised trapezoidal and midpoint algorithms discussed in Section 7. (ii) its generally ‘good’ ﬁnite step accuracy. (7.75) with the (Prandtl–Reuss) ﬂow vector. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models is described later.78) 3 .2. σy ) = where σy = σy (¯p ) ε is the uniaxial yield stress – a function of the accumulated plastic strain. 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 6.76) p e (7. with the evolution equation for the hardening internal variable given by ˙ ˙ εp = 2 εp = γ. ε .74) (7. N. where D is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor. 2. A linear elastic law σ = De : εe . and (iv) its relatively simple computational implementation. A standard associative ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N = γ ˙ ˙ ∂Φ . Essentially.

3.25) to the von Mises model gives the following set . the process is elastoplastic within the interval [tn . direct specialisation of the general fully implicit return-mapping equations (7. 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. ¯n+1 The corresponding trial stress is computed as σtrial = De : εe trial . the deviatoric and volumetric components.80) where s and p denote. tn+1 ] is purely elastic and the elastic trial state itself is the solution to the integration problem. the shear and bulk moduli and the subscripts d and v in the elastic trial strain denote. by applying the hydrostatic/deviatoric decomposition strial = 2G εe trial . (7. σy n ) ≤ 0. In this case.2.84) is updated. 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. if n+1 Φ(σtrial . The trial yield stress is simply trial σy n+1 = σy (¯p ) = σy n . i. equivalently. n+1 then the process within the interval [tn . Recall that the general implicit return-mapping procedure corresponds to solving the system (7. tn+1 ]. n+1 n+1 or. n+1 d n+1 ptrial = K εe trial .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 217 7. G and K are.82) (7. and given the state variables {εe . respectively. tn+1 ] and the returnmapping procedure described below has to be applied. In the present case. εn (7.25) of nonlinear equations. εp } at tn . respectively. 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 .83) Having computed the elastic trial state.e.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .81) (7. the deviatoric and hydrostatic stresses. • Otherwise. n+1 v n+1 (7. respectively.79) corresponding to a typical (pseudo-) time increment [tn . THE IMPLICIT ELASTIC PREDICTOR/RETURN-MAPPING SCHEME Given the increment of strain ∆ε = εn+1 − εn .

of course. the trial and updated deviatoric stresses are co-linear.86) After the solution of the above system.89) 3 sn+1 . therefore.85)1 gives εe n+1 = εe trial v v n+1 εe n+1 = εe trial − ∆γ d d n+1 Equivalently.85).89)2 we obtain 1+ 3 ∆γ 2G sn+1 = strial n+1 2 sn+1 strial sn+1 = n+1 . the plastic strain tensor can be updated according to the following formula: 3 sn+1 εp = εp + ∆γ .87) n n+1 2 sn+1 Single-equation return mapping It is remarked here that the above system can be substantially simpliﬁed. sn+1 strial n+1 i. 2 sn+1 (7. In fact. εp and ∆γ and where n+1 ¯n+1 sn+1 = sn+1 (εe ) = 2G dev[εe ]. be eliminated from the system of equations.e. The hydrostatic stress. 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.85) 3 J2 (sn+1 ) − σy (¯p ) = 0. 2 sn+1 (7. in terms of stresses. Further simpliﬁcation follows by noting that by rearranging the deviatoric stress update formula (7. This implies that . the return mapping affects only the deviatoric stress component. we have pn+1 = ptrial n+1 sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G n+1 3 sn+1 .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. it should be noted ﬁrstly that the von Mises ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric so that the deviatoric/volumetric split of (7. to improve the performance of the overall ﬁnite element scheme. pn+1 . as shall be seen in what follows. n+1 n+1 (7. It should be emphasised that this reduction in the number of equations is of extreme importance in order to make the state-update procedure more computationally efﬁcient and.88) that is. Upon simpliﬁcation of the system (7. has the value computed in the elastic predictor stage and can. εn+1 which has to be solved for εe . (7.

90) and (7. in Figures 7.90) trial where qn+1 ≡ 3 J2 (strial ) is the elastic trial von Mises effective stress. as the only unknown: trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. The geometric representations of this update formula in the principal stress space and deviatoric plane are illustrated. Geometric interpretation in principal stress space.9. sn+1 . with substitution of (7.85)3.90) implies that. the updated deviatoric stress is obtained trial by scaling down the trial deviatoric stress by the factor 1 − ∆γ 3G/qn+1 . ∆γ. is a (linear) n+1 function of ∆γ only in the above update formula. Finally. since n+1 strial is a constant tensor in the return mapping. Substitution of the above identity into (7. trial qn+1 (7. respectively.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. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. in the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model.8.85)2 into the plastic consistency condition (7.91) .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. (7. Note that.8 and 7. the deviatoric stress. Expression (7. the system (7.89)2 leads to the following simpler update formula for the deviatoric stress: sn+1 = 1 − = 1− 3 ∆γ 2G trial sn+1 2 strial n+1 ∆γ 3G trial sn+1 . so that the ﬂow vectors at the trial and updated states coincide.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .

4. This routine is described in detail in Section 7.5.3 and 7.82) we establish after simple ¯n manipulations that the updated stress tensor. THE INCREMENTAL CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION FOR THE STRESS From the update formulae (7. can be expressed in terms of εp and (∆γ 3 sn+1 G/q tr ia n+1 l ) || π -plane - tr sn+ ial 1 || Nn+1 .81.3. The procedure shown in these boxes is implemented in subroutine SUVM of the HYPLAS program. The above equation is then solved by the Newton–Raphson method and. The implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping scheme for the von Mises model. The overall elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model is summarised in Boxes 7. σn+1 .7.92)1. Geometric interpretation in the deviatoric plane.9. with its solution ∆γ at hand. ¯n+1 ¯n If required. the plastic strain tensor is updated by means of (7.87).3.220 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 sn surface at t n updated surface at t n+1 Figure 7.2 and relations (7.92) σn+1 = sn+1 + ptrial I n+1 εe n+1 = [D ] e −1 εp = εp + ∆γ. 7.3. 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.

(7.93) Id is the deviatoric projection tensor deﬁned by (3. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n+1 n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial . Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 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. Fully implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening. n+1 v n+1 trial qn+1 := 3 2 strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 strial : strial n+1 n+1 (ii) Check plastic admissibility trial εn+1 IF qn+1 − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .94) (page 59).3. εe trial ) ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn n+1 Id : εe trial .95) .4 – and update the state variables ∆γ 3G pn+1 := ptrial . for any scalar a. n+1 (7.94) (7. 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 . HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Elastic predictor. 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 .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 221 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 .

HYPLAS procedure: SUVM (i) Initialise iteration counter. of the elastic trial stress and the total elastic strain at tn+1 . εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (εe trial ) − σy (¯p ).98. Clearly.97) and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p . the functions (7.96) (7.98) express the updated stress as implicit functions.7. The reader is referred to expression (4. we may write n+1 n ˆ ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (¯p .91).93) and (7. respectively. εn+1 − εp ). The function σ deﬁned in (7.4. εn n εn n (7. εn n+1 εn n+1 (7. The Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the von Mises model. εn+1 ) ≡ σn+1 (¯p . εe trial ) εn n+1 εe trial n+1 εp ¯n and deﬁned as the solution of the consistency equais the implicit function of tion (7. 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. k := 0.93) is the . ¯n Equivalently.98) For a given state at tn .3 Φtrial is the value of the yield function at the elastic trial state: trial Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p . since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . Remark 7. 7. ˆ and the text surrounding it for details.60) (page 95). 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.93) deﬁnes σn+1 as an implicit function of the elastic trial strain and εp . εp .222 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 7. (7.

STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 223 particularisation of the generic incremental function (4. 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). For linear ε hardening materials.99) where σ0 is the initial yield stress of the virgin material and H is the (constant) hardening modulus. 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. For more realistic models. for linearly hardening von Mises materials. n+1 (7. (7.93). (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.91) is the hardening curve.103) ¯ In contrast to the general case (7. It is the closest point projection of the trial stress onto the yield surface. εp ) ¯n n+1 ˆ ≡ De − H(Φtrial ) εn σy (¯p ) 6G2 1 − trial 3G + H qn+1 Id : εe trial . such functions are usually implicit.10.4 in the return-mapping procedure. 3G + H (7. deﬁned by the given function σy = σy (¯p ). . after a straightforward manipulation.91) reads trial ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − [σ0 + (¯p + ∆γ) H] = 0 εn (7.101) Thus.60) for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening (for which αn = {¯p .3.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . In the case of perfect plasticity (H = 0). this function is linear and is expressed by σy (¯p ) = σ0 + H εp .93) and obtain. 7. the expression for ∆γ reads Φtrial . In such cases. however.100) and the incremental plastic multiplier can be obtained in closed form as ∆γ = Φtrial . εp }) integrated numerically by the fully εn n implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm. In this case. ε ¯ (7. we substitute the explicit formula (7. σn+1 in the above deﬁnition is an explicit function.4.102) 3G The geometric interpretation of the fully implicit algorithm for the perfectly plastic von Mises model is illustrated in Figure 7. the following incremental constitutive function for the updated stress: ¯ σn+1 = σn+1 (εe trial . We remark. the above closed expression replaces the Newton–Raphson algorithm of Box 7.101) for ∆γ into (7.

subroutine SUVM is called by the material interface MATISU during the computation of the ﬁnite element internal force vector. 3 σy ) ( 2 ε p .. This procedure.. 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. 7. n hard σ y ) ( 1 ε p . summarised in Boxes 7.3. In the HYPLAS program. The perfectly plastic von Mises model.224 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS trial sn+1 Nn+1 sn+1 sn π -plane - fixed yield surface Figure 7.. ( 3 ε p .5.4.11. . is carried out in subroutine SUVM (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model). Geometric interpretation of the implicit returnmapping scheme as the closest point projection algorithm. 2 σy ) piecewise linear approximation with n hard sampling points ( n hard ε p. Piecewise linear hardening.10.3 and 7. 1 σy ) εp Figure 7.. σy hardening curve .

5D0. 2 RSTAVA .STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 225 In the present implementation.FALSE. C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE. The FORTRAN source code of SUVM is listed below. In fact.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .2.R3 .RPROPS(*) .NE.IPROPS .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL IFPLAS.FALSE. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .R2 . the present implementation of the von Mises model allows for the experimental data to be used directly in the deﬁnition of the hardening curve. SUFAIL=.TOL / 2 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 SUBROUTINE SUVM 1( DGAMA . ¯ Thus. SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .0D0.0.0D0. actual experimental data for hardening curves are normally obtained as a set of points (σy . 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) .R1 . This means that any (arbitrarily nonlinear) hardening curve can be adequately approximated by using a sufﬁciently large number of sampling pairs {¯p .NTYPE . the isotropic hardening curve deﬁned by σy (¯p ) ε has been assumed to be piecewise linear.3. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS. A piecewise linear approximation.RPROPS .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . to a generic hardening curve is illustrated in Figure 7.NTYPE. LALGVA(2).0D0.NE. εp ).11.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.LALGVA .1.2.3-4).0D0. σy } ε with linear interpolation between adjacent pairs.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0013’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.RP5 . with nhard sampling points.STRAT .1.AND.

TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping .TOL)THEN C update accumulated plastic strain RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR C update stress components FACTOR=R2G*(R1-R3G*DGAMA/QTRIAL) STRES(1)=FACTOR*EET(1)+P STRES(2)=FACTOR*EET(2)+P STRES(3)=FACTOR*EET(3) STRES(4)=FACTOR*EET(4)+P C compute converged elastic (engineering) strain components FACTOR=FACTOR/R2G RSTAVA(1)=FACTOR*EET(1)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(2)=FACTOR*EET(2)+EEVD3 RSTAVA(3)=FACTOR*EET(3)*R2 RSTAVA(4)=FACTOR*EET(4)+EEVD3 GOTO 999 ENDIF 10 CONTINUE C reset failure flag and print warning message if the algorithm fails SUFAIL=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------PHI=QTRIAL-SIGMAY IF(PHI/SIGMAY.NHARD.LE.NHARD.MXITER C Compute residual derivative DENOM=-R3G-DPLFUN(EPBAR.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. EPBAR=EPBARN DO 10 NRITER=1. 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 .TRUE.4) C ------------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHI=QTRIAL-R3G*DGAMA-SIGMAY C Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHI/SIGMAY) IF(RESNOR.use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the return mapping equation (Box 7.NHARD.TRUE.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.

nhard . . Array of state variables other than the stress components. of ¯ sampling points along the hardening curve (see illustration of Figure 7. Array of logical algorithmic ﬂags or variables..STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 102 STRES(3)=R2G*EET(3) 103 STRES(4)=R2G*EET(4)+P 104 C elastic engineering strain 105 RSTAVA(1)=STRAT(1) 106 RSTAVA(2)=STRAT(2) 107 RSTAVA(3)=STRAT(3) 108 RSTAVA(4)=STRAT(4) 109 ENDIF 110 999 CONTINUE 111 C Update some algorithmic variables before exit 112 LALGVA(1)=IFPLAS 113 LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL 114 RETURN 115 END 227 The arguments of SUVM ← DGAMA [∆γ]. Array of integer material properties. the calculations for the current load increment are aborted and restarted with a smaller increment. ↔ RSTAVA [εe . . εe . → IPROPS.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . . it returns as 0. and Poisson’s ratio. If the increment is elastic. → NTYPE.. . . ν. ← LALGVA. In this case. → RPROPS. IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. . 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. and the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL. only if the Newton scheme of the return-mapping algorithm fails to converge. εp ]. updated value εp on exit). 1 εp .91).FALSE. . It contains the elastic properties (Young’s modulus. and is the only integer material property required by the present subroutine. ν) and the pairs {i εp . 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. Array of real material properties. IPROPS(3) contains the number of sampling points for the piecewise linear hardening curve. For the ¯ present material model implementation. When the state update procedure fails (for any material model). 2 εp .TRUE. increment cutting is activated in the main program. ¯n ¯n+1 n is used in subroutine MATISU to compute the elastic trial strain before the present subroutine is called. 2 σy . nhard εp . For the von Mises model it contains the plastic yielding ﬂag. . . E. that is. i σy }. . ¯ ¯ ¯ Array RPROPS is set in subroutine RDVM during the input phase of HYPLAS. IFPLAS. nhard σy ]. it is obtained as the solution of the return-mapping equation (7. If the step is elastic. i = 1. . The last converged elastic strain. Otherwise. Stress state type ﬂag. otherwise its return value is .TRUE.11): RP ROP S = [E. NHARD. The state update failure ﬂag returns as . 1 σy . The incremental plastic multiplier. . the plastic yielding ﬂag returns as .

Some function calls from SUVM • DPLFUN.104) in the computation of the element tangent stiffness. Most remaining local variables of SUVM have been named so as to resemble the corresponding notation of Section 7. The consistent tangent modulus Within the description of the incremental ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4.4. • MXITER. the operations carried out in SUVM can be easily identiﬁed with those indicated in Boxes 7. Equals the actual elastic volumetric strain v n+1 for the present model. d n+1 • EEV [εe trial ]. Maximum number of iterations allowed in the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation.228 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS → STRAT [εe trial ]. Piecewise linear function deﬁned by a set of pairs (x. f (x)). H. • PLFUN. Array containing the updated stress tensor components.5 (page 98) to the use of consistent tangent operators: D≡ ∂σn+1 . . ← STRES [σn+1 ]. Recall that the hardening curve is deﬁned here by the NHARD pairs of sampling points stored in array RPROPS.2. 7. • NRITER. Used in SUVM to compute the slope of the hardening curve. Convergence tolerance for the Newton–Raphson algorithm. It is computed n+1 as shown in item (i) of Box 7. Some local variables and arrays of SUVM • EET [εe trial ]. • TOL [ tol ]. Iteration counter for the Newton–Raphson algorithm.3 and 7. reference has been made in Section 4. Array containing the elastic trial (engineering) strains. The calculation of array STRAT in MATISU is common to all elastoplastic material models of the class whose identiﬁcation parameter is HYPEPL.2. Elastic trial volumetric strain.3. Used in SUVM as ε the hardening function σy (¯p ). Thus.3 in subroutine MATISU. This function computes the derivative of a piecewise linear function.4. Array of elastic trial deviatoric strain components. ∂εn+1 (7.

within each global load increment. Expressions (7. tn+1 ]. for the stress tensor with general form ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . tn+1 ].2. σ. ∂ε (7. the stress is an explicit function of the strain tensor σ = σ(ε) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ(ε) .108) Algorithmic functions of this type have been ﬁrst referred to in Section 4. in the formulation of incremental boundary value problems with general path-dependent material models. εn+1 – associated with the guesses for the displacement ﬁeld. . Only the guesses for the total strain.107) 7.4. elastoplastic materials require in general some kind of numerical integration algorithm to update the stress tensor. from page 94 for details on the global Newton–Raphson procedure).103) shows the particular (explicit) format obtained under linear hardening.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 229 Elastic materials In the case of purely elastic materials. εn+1 ). 7. In other words. the consistent tangent modulus is the standard (constant) elasticity tensor D = 2G Id + K I ⊗ I.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . the stress σn+1 delivered by the integration ˆ algorithm is a function of the total strain tensor only.e.98) show the corresponding (implicit) incremental constitutive function for the model with nonlinear hardening and expression (7. (7.93. ∂ε2 (7. given the known internal variable set αn and the new prescribed total strain εn+1 as input.2.106) For linear elastic materials. This function – σ(αn . CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATORS IN ELASTOPLASTICITY As shown in Section 7.2. 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. ˆ Within a load increment [tn . 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 . it is the derivative of the algorithmic function σ with respect to εn+1 with αn held constant. This deﬁnes an ˆ algorithmic incremental constitutive function.1 (page 95).109) ˆ i.2 will deliver the updated stress σn+1 as the result of the application of a particular numerical algorithm (see diagram of Figure 7. equivalent to a (nonlinear) elastic law. Basically. εn+1 ) with ﬁxed αn – deﬁnes a path-independent stress/strain relation within the interval [tn . (7.12).105) so that the tangent modulus can be explicitly derived as D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψ(ε) .1. αn (7. the internal variable set αn given as argument of σ is ﬁxed. un+1 – change during the global Newton–Raphson equilibrium iterations (refer to Section 4. each of the general integration procedures described in Section 7.

εn+1 ) input state update procedure elastic predictor/ return-mapping algorithm ⇔ output α n . in order to maximise the number of routines shared by small and large-strain isotropic plasticity models in the HYPLAS program. n+1 n+1 n (7.‡‡ The elastic and elastoplastic tangents Before going into further details. i.e. does n+1 appear naturally in the formulation of the corresponding elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes.230 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS algorithmic stress constitutive function ^ σn+1 = σ (α n .98) of the incremental constitutive law for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening. 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). For states lying within the elastic domain. At this point. and we also have the trivial identity ˆ ¯ ∂σ ∂σ D= = e trial (7. since εe trial = εn+1 − εp . εe trial . rather than the total n+1 strain εn+1 . states corresponding obvious equivalence has already been used in (7. This is clearly seen by noting the presence of the Heaviside step function – a non-differentiable function – in deﬁnition (7. The algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor.111) as the deﬁnition of consistent tangent operator. εe trial ) ≡ σ(αn . we have conveniently chosen the elastic trial strain. εn+1 α n+1. however. (7. no measure of total nonlinear strain analogous to εn+1 is used (or needed) in the deﬁnition of elastoplastic constitutive models.12. it is worth remarking at this point that the algorithmic ˆ function σ is non-differentiable in general. in the context of the multiplicative ﬁnite strain plasticity framework discussed in Chapter 14. Clearly. An elastic trial strain measure (analogous to the inﬁnitesimal tensor εe trial ).98).111) ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 for the consistent tangent operator. we shall adopt in what follows the rightmost term of (7. it is worth remarking that.93). ‡‡ Also †† This . as the actual input argument to the elastoplastic integration procedures for models of the present type (see routine SUVM. note that. εe trial + εp ). the incremental constitutive function for σn+1 n+1 n can always be expressed equivalently as†† ¯ ˆ σn+1 = σ(αn . σn+1 Figure 7. listed on page 227. for instance).110) in terms of the elastic trial strain and the internal variable set at tn .

the tangent modulus D consistent with any of the integration algorithms previously discussed is simply given by D = De ≡ ρ ¯ ∂2ψ . when assembling the tangent stiffness matrix required by the Newton– Raphson iterative procedure for the global incremental equilibrium problem. Dep . Clearly.93. deﬁned for elastic unloading. these are generalised respectively as the elastic tangent modulus. The tangent modulus D is not uniquely deﬁned and two tangent stress–strain relations exist: an elastic tangent relation. Consider the one-dimensional case ˆ illustrated in Figure 7. The elastic tangent is associated with the elastic predictor procedure whereas the elastoplastic tangent is related to the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure. the appropriate choice of tangent operator must be made.112) .98) – where the Heaviside step function is non-differentiable – either elastic unloading or plastic straining may occur in the incremental constitutive law. Inﬁnitesimal changes of εn+1 will move the stress along the elastoplastic part of the incremental stress– strain curve.93). and an elastoplastic tangent relation. with the stress σn+1 evolving along the (smooth) elastic curve (see graphical representation of the ˆ uniaxial stress case in Figure 7. (7. any inﬁnitesimal change of total strain can only be elastic.εn 1 ) Elastic unloading D is the elasticity tensor: D = De Plastic loading D is the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: D = Dep σ(αn . Even though σ is non-differentiable its two one-sided derivatives – the elastic and the elastoplastic tangents – are well deﬁned. The incremental constitutive function is obviously nondifferentiable in this case. the function σ is also differentiable if the hardening curve is smooth. 7. The elastic tangent If the stress is inside the elastic domain (Φtrial < 0) or if it is on the yield surface (Φtrial = 0) and elastic unloading is assumed to occur.13. ∂εe 2 (7.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 . De . The tangent moduli consistent with elastic predictor/return-mapping integration algorithms. However. at states with Φtrial = 0 in (7. At states with ˆ Φtrial > 0.13.εn 1 ) loading σn 1 σn 1 unloading εn 1 εn 1 Figure 7. and the elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. to Φtrial < 0 in (7. In the multidimensional case.13).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . deﬁned for plastic loading.98). In this case the function σ is differentiable.

4.4. Note. the elastoplastic tangent consistent with the fully implicit algorithm for the von Mises model is derived below. 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. 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. it is clear that σn+1 is deﬁned implicitly through the corresponding nonlinear system. Thus.93) is an implicit function of εe trial (or εn+1 ) deﬁned as the solution n+1 of an algebraic nonlinear equation.e. Φtrial > 0 or Φtrial = 0 and it is assumed that further plastic loading is going to occur. The system solved in the return mapping depends on the particular algorithm adopted. There.232 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS i.2. Crucial to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent moduli is the observation that under plastic yielding. The application of the generic . the stress σn+1 is the outcome of the elastic predictor. Note that. that the term ∆γ in (7. In other words. 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. such as the von Mises model and all other models described in Chapter 6. which employs only the elastic constitutive law. The elastoplastic tangent: the derivative of an implicit function If the stress is on the yield surface.2. As an illustration of the above concepts. for example. the updated stress σn+1 is an implicit function of the elastic trial strain εe trial in this case. This procedure is common to all algorithms described in Section 7.3. The idea is to use this algorithm as an example to provide the reader with a clear picture of the procedure for the derivation of elastoplastic consistent tangent operators. The simplicity of this particular return-mapping scheme avoids the complications associated with more complex models/algorithms.6.4. the elastoplastic tangent operator consistent with the von Mises implicit return mapping is derived step by step. It is important to emphasise here that elastoplastic consistent tangent operators cannot be derived for the cutting-plane algorithm (refer to Remark 7. in this case. in Section 7. In this case. The derivation of elastoplastic tangent operators consistent with the implicit return mapping for general plasticity models is addressed later. the outcome σn+1 of any member of the families of generalised midpoint and trapezoidal integration algorithms is the solution of a nonlinear system of algebraic equations in the plastic corrector (return-mapping) procedure. In this section. 7. it is the standard elastic modulus. then the tangent operator is called the elastoplastic consistent tangent and is denoted Dep .107). 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. For elastoplastic materials whose elastic response is linear.e. the elastic consistent tangent is the standard elasticity operator (7.

is the function of the elastic trial strain deﬁned by (7. Further.113) where ∆γ is the solution of the return-mapping equation of the algorithm (Box 7.93). (7.118) into (7.116) into account gives trial ∂qn+1 ∂∆γ 1 = e trial e trial 3G + H ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 2G 3 ¯ = Nn+1 . which offers an alternative route to the derivation presented below. The incremental algorithmic constitutive function for the implicitly integrated von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic strain hardening is given by (7.95). when applying the chain d n+1 d n+1 rule. 3G + H 2 (7. (7.117). the following expression for the .115) From (7.119) εp +∆γ ¯n Finally. trial ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ qn+1 − 3G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.116) and (7.95) and relation (2. after a straightforward manipulation making use of (7.4.117) and we have made use of the trivial identity: εe trial : Id = εe trial . for the tensor norm derivative. the elastic trial von Mises effective stress. A straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules to (7.116) where we have conveniently deﬁned the unit ﬂow vector ¯ Nn+1 ≡ 2 3 Nn+1 = εe trial strial n+1 n+1 = d trial strial εe n+1 n+1 d (7. the update formula for σn+1 reads σn+1 = De − ∆γ 6G2 Id : εe trial . qn+1 . is described in Section 7. we obtain.95) and deﬁnition (7. by substituting (7. taking (7. The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus for the present model/algorithm combination is obtained by differentiating (7.114) trial In the above.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . n+1 trial qn+1 (7. when the return-mapping procedure is used.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 233 procedure to the isotropically hardening von Mises model. trial trial (qn+1 )2 ∂εn+1 (7.5. we obtain trial ∂qn+1 = 2G e trial ∂εn+1 3 2 ¯ N n+1 . (7. Under plastic ﬂow. the differentiation of the implicit equation (7.113) 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 .139) (page 36).118) where H is the slope of the hardening curve: H≡ dσy d¯p ε .e.3). i.115).114) for ∆γ.113).

With De deﬁned by (7. together with (6.3. that take part in (7. Firstly we consider (6. In this case we have ρ ¯ ∂ 2 ψp ∂ 2 ψp ∂κ =ρ ¯ = p = H. the value of ∆γ.8 and 6. for this particular model and numerical integration algorithm is symmetric. Remark 7.3.120) ¯ ¯ 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. Its implementation is described in detail in Section 7.121) With the above. For the ﬁrst iteration of any global load increment.136). 2 ∂α ∂ε ¯ ∂ εp 2 ¯ (7. we ﬁnd that expression (6.192). Within the global (equilibrium) Newton–Raphson scheme. we have De : N = 2G N.4.123) .107). Its closed form is given by expression (6. The symmetry of consistent elastoplastic tangent operators will be further commented upon in Section 7.6. ¯ q trial and H. the above tangent operator is computed in subroutine CTVM. ∆γ is zero.67) particularises in the following format: Dep = De − c (De : N ) ⊗ (De : N ) .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.e.187)–(6.8. N : De : N + H (7.8. the corresponding elastoplastic continuum tangent operator has been derived for the generic multi-dimensional plasticity model. as well as the incremental unit ﬂow vector.124) (7.8 (from pages 147 and 153.3. In addition. respectively) in the time-continuum setting. In the HYPLAS program. it follows that N : De : N = 3G. In Section 6.2.194) and the associative ﬂow vector deﬁnition (6. The continuum tangent operator The concept of tangent operators in plasticity has been initially discussed in Sections 6.120) are those obtained for the Gauss point of interest in the return-mapping procedure of the previous global iteration.67). and taking into consideration the fact that for the von Mises model N is a deviatoric tensor. Let us now particularise this formula for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening. (7. using (6.122) where we have used the subscript ‘c’ to emphasise that the above operator is the continuum tangent modulus. i. N n+1 . (7.136) for the von Mises model.4.

3G + H (7. In the HYPLAS program. The algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVM. Clearly. this routine is called by the material interface MATICT at each Gauss point during the evaluation of the element tangent stiffness matrix.122). when the value of ∆γ is large.126) If ∆γ is set to zero (as in the ﬁrst iteration of any load increment).EPFLAG 2 RPROPS .107). The difference between the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator and its continuum counterpart above lies only in the terms that contain ∆γ in expression (7. It computes either the elastic tangent.MSTRE).120). the difference between the continuum and the consistent operator can be substantial.IPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . This fact (Ortiz and Martin.4.9. then the global iterative procedure is not the Newton–Raphson algorithm. the use of the continuum tangent in the assemblage of the stiffness matrix results in a dramatic degradation of the convergence rate of the global iterative procedure. In this case. Note that we may write Dep = Dep − c ∆γ 6G2 ¯ ¯ [ Id − N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 ]. In such cases.STRES IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION . The use of the consistent tangent operator in this context was introduced by Simo and Taylor (1985).FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . 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. trial qn+1 (7.3. . For large steps. given by expression (7. The elastoplastic operator is consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening. Dep .DMATX . the continuum tangent is recovered. 7.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. or the elastoplastic tangent operator.NTYPE . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUBROUTINE CTVM 1( DGAMA . if the continuum tangent is used in conjunction with the return-mapping scheme. Remark 7. 1980) relied exclusively on the use of the continuum tangent operator. given by (7.RSTAVA . the global iterations are a form of approximation to the Newton–Raphson scheme.IPROPS ) .120).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 235 By introducing these results into (7.RPROPS(*) . Early implicit elastoplastic implementations (Owen and Hinton.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . De . 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. SUBROUTINE CTVM This section describes subroutine CTVM (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model) in detail.125) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector at the current state. The FORTRAN source code of CTVM is listed below.

SOID(3) .0D0 .FOID(2.0.MSTRE) .0.NE.1).3.0.5D0 .R6 / 2 1.0D0 / 7 FOID(4.3).2).0D0 .0D0 .MSTRE).FOID(4.3)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.2.FOID(1.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.236 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.0.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ENDIF DO 20 I=1.6.1.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.0D0 .NE.FOID(1.FOID(2.2).EQ.NTYPE.1).SOID(2) .2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.0D0.0D0 .2.EQ.0.1.0.0D0.4)/ 6 0.FOID(MSTRE.4)/ 8 0. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.AND.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .2).0.NSTRE DEVPRJ(I.0D0 .SOID(4) / 2 1.0D0 .FOID(3.3).0D0 / 5 FOID(3.1).FOID(3.0D0 .FOID(4.FOID(3.0.0.0D0 .1.0D0 .2).0D0 / DATA 1 R1 .0. 2 SOID(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.3).0.1).0D0 .1.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 . C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.FOID(1.0D0 .4)/ 4 0.FOID(2.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 .S(MSTRE) .0D0 .4)/ 2 1.R2 .3).R3 .0D0.J)=FOID(I.

→ EPFLAG.TRUE. NTYPE=2 for plane strain and NTYPE=3 for axisymmetric problems.J)=DMATX(J.NHARD.3. → IPROPS.2.J)+BULK*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 50 CONTINUE 60 CONTINUE ENDIF Assemble lower triangle ----------------------DO 80 J=1.4.NSTRE DO 30 J=I. The value of EPFLAG is set in subroutine MATICT.120).NSTRE DO 50 J=I.2 above and is given by expression (7. If .J)=AFACT*DEVPRJ(I. The associated elastoplastic consistent tangent. → NTYPE.J)=R2G*DEVPRJ(I.NSTRE DMATX(I. DMATX returns as the elastic matrix. .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.NSTRE-1 DO 70 I=J+1.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. ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. Tangent operator (stored in matrix form) consistent with the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model. → RPROPS.. The procedure for setting EPFLAG in MATICT is common to all elastoplastic models of the material class HYPEPL. Dep .FALSE.I) 70 CONTINUE 80 CONTINUE RETURN END The arguments of CTVM → DGAMA [∆γ]. Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag. Dep . The incremental plastic multiplier obtained from the return mapping of SUVM in the previous global (equilibrium) iteration. Array of integer material properties (see description on page 227). was derived in Section 7. Stress state type ﬂag.RPROPS(IPHARD))))/ 2 (SNORM*SNORM) DO 40 I=1.NSTRE DMATX(I. Array of real material properties (see description on page 227). The implicit algorithm has been described in Section 7.NSTRE DMATX(I. It is set to zero (before being passed into CTVM) for the ﬁrst iteration of every load increment.. De . If .FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . DMATX returns as the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator.

7. The names of most local variables and arrays of CTVM follow closely the notation of Section 7. εp ]. by changing the elastic trial strain.3.4. Function calls from CTVM • DPLFUN.238 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS → RSTAVA [εe . Array containing the updated stress tensor components (output of SUVM). n+1 Clearly.4. The general implicit algorithm for plasticity was derived in Section 7. The corresponding returnmapping equations. the updated set of internal variables. 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. Some local arrays of CTVM • DEVPRJ [Id ].2. → STRES [σn+1 ].4. εe trial . Fourth-order deviatoric projection tensor stored in array form. Refer to Appendix D for rules of array conversion. ∆γ. • FOID [IS ]. H.16) (page 762). 0 Φ(σn+1 . the solution {εe . the algebraic system of equations deﬁne an implicit function for . εe .1 [item (iii)].2. In this way. 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 . ∆γ} will change accordingly and so will the updated n+1 stress σn+1 . Array of updated state variables other than the stress components ¯ (output of SUVM) (see page 227 for complete description). and the incremental plastic multiplier. where the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator has been derived. αn+1 . of the piecewise linear hardening curve (see details on page 228). Fourth-order symmetric identity tensor stored in array form according to the convention shown in (D. An+1 ) The basic unknowns of the above system of algebraic equations are: the updated elastic strain. Called to compute the slope. Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. that takes part in the return map n+1 equations. summarised in Box 7. are repeated below for convenience: e εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1 0 n+1 αn+1 − αn − ∆γ Hn+1 = 0 . αn+1 . • SOID [I].

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator ∂σn+1 Dep ≡ e trial . (7. In this case we end up with the following relation: dεe = C : dσ .131) dα = J ∗ dA. (7. .128) The linear operators E.e. A and J are suitably deﬁned linear operators. Thus. we have the following relations (refer to the rate elastoplasticity equations (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 . for the differentials dσ and dA. α) = ψ e (εe ) + ψ p (α). ∂εn+1 i. where C = [De ]−1 and J = G−1 .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. Recall that. As discussed in the preceding sections. (7.130) the tangent moduli E and F vanish and so do B and A. under the classical assumption of decoupling between elasticity and plastic hardening: ψ(εe . the derivative of the implicit function for stress. (7.52) on page 206): dσ = De : dεe + E ∗ dα dA = F ∗ dεe + G ∗ dα.50).48)–(7. Inversion of this relation gives the following general expression dεe = C : dσ + B ∗ dA dα = A ∗ dσ + J ∗ dA.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 239 the stress tensor at tn+1 . Note that. 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). B. gives the linear tangent relationship between εe trial and σn+1 .129) where C. (7. F and G are deﬁned in (7.

etc. 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 . no assumptions have been made about the nature of the sets α. .4. we obtain dσ dA = D21 d∆γ D31 D11 D12 D22 D32 D13 e trial dε 0 . tensors.129) into (7. and A. of internal state variables.127). D23 0 (7. 7. dεe trial n+1 (7. As far as ﬁnite element computations are concerned. (7.136) 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. etc.132) J − ∆γ −H ∂σ ∂A ∂Φ ∂Φ d∆γ 0 0 ∂σ ∂A Finally. by inverting the above linear relation. The product operations between the elements of the matrix and the elements of the ‘vector’ containing the differentials dσ.132) is a generic tensor (or set containing scalars.) of appropriate order.5.134) dεn+1 The operator D21 = dAn+1 . and d∆γ D31 = e trial . The generalised operators are: The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus. This symbolic matrix notation will be used frequently in this book to represent linearised systems. dσn+1 D11 = e trial ≡ Dep . in the above symbolic derivation. ILLUSTRATION: THE VON MISES MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC HARDENING For the sake of generality. are the corresponding appropriate products.133) D33 From the above.240 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS By substituting (7. we obtain the generalised tangent operators consistent with the implicit return-mapping algorithm. Note that the dimension and order of the linear operator D21 depends on the deﬁnition of set A. only the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator is of relevance. of associated forces. † Note that each element of the symbolic matrix of expression (7. A − ∆γ (7.135) which gives the tangent relation between increments of elastic trial strain and thermodynamical force set An+1 .

129). the general procedure described above is here particularised for the implicit return mapping for the von Mises model with isotropic strain hardening.139) where H is the hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve).136) of the associative ﬂow vector for the von Mises model.141) is equivalent to dσ = P : (dεe trial − d∆γ N ).141) can be inverted trivially as follows. (7.140) and (6. In order to provide the reader with a better view of the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 241 As discussed in Chapter 6.141) where by taking (6. we recall the discussion around expressions (6.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .194) (page 182) for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. 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. it also follows that ∂N ∂N ≡ = 0. ∂A ∂κ Substitution of the above expressions linearised form: ∂N [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂σ 0 N (7. The tangential relation (7.117).136) into account. 2 ∂σ ∂σ 2q (7. H (7. it may not be easy to have a clear picture of what operations are involved in the above derivation.137) In addition.138) ∂σy ∂ εp ¯ −1 = = 1 . We then have ∂H ∂H ≡ = 0. as elasticity and plastic hardening are decoupled in the von Mises model.142) ¯ where N is the unit ﬂow vector (7. each element of these sets may be a scalar. Firstly. the ﬂow vector derivative is easily obtained as ∂N ∂ 2 Φ 3 ¯ ¯ = = (Id − N ⊗ N). ∂σ (7.132) results in the following e trial dε dσy = 0 . With such a high degree of generality. −1 d∆γ 0 0 N dσ 0 1 H −1 (7. vector or tensor of any order. From the deﬁnition (6. The remaining (non-vanishing) operators are C = [De ]−1 and ¯ J = G−1 = ρ ∂2ψ ∂ εp 2 ¯ −1 (7.187–6.143) . ∂A ∂κ ∂H = 0.194) into (7. the operators B and A vanish. Depending on the particular model. as pointed out in the discussion following expression (7.

. Alternative formula Yet another representation. in turn.150) The use of an analogous formula is reported.242 where COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ −1 : De . (7. As expected (refer to Remark 7.146) into the ﬁrst row of (7. Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ ¯ 3∆γ 3 1 ¯ Id + − N⊗N 2q 2 H q −1 .141) and then inverting the resulting differential relation. gives dσy = H d∆γ. 1 N : P : dεe trial . Remark 7. H (7. combined with the third row and (7.142). The alternative formula is obtained simply by replacing the ﬁrst right-hand side of (7. is sometimes used in computational applications.146) or. after rearranging. The presence of the hardening modulus in the denominator in the above formula does not allow its use in practical computations if H = 0 (perfect plasticity). The corresponding expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent reads Dep = [De ]−1 + ∆γ 1 ∂N + N⊗N ∂σ H −1 . in view of (7. (1993) in the context of anisotropic plasticity.148) The above expression for Dep is an equivalent representation to (7. alternative to (7. Also note the similarity between (7. by substituting (7.148).9.147) into (7.141). page 235). ¯ N : P : N + 2H 3 (7. for instance. (7. the above formula recovers (7.120) and could be used as an alternative in the computational implementation of the model.10.148) and the continuum tangent operator (7.145) (7. and making use of the unit ﬂow vector deﬁnition.143).144) The second row of (7.143). (7. by Dutko et al.149) or.122) if ∆γ = 0.122). This.147) N:P:N+H Finally. (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 ). results in d∆γ = 1 N : dσ H 1 = (N : P : dεe trial − d∆γ N : P : N ).

1]. the symmetry of the corresponding consistent tangents is guaranteed for any θ ∈ [0. An interesting discussion on this topic is provided by Ortiz and Martin (1989). (7.4. ¯ ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 (7. is symmetric. then.150).153) Remark 7.106). Simo and Govindjee (1991) show that for the variant of the family of midpoint algorithms with consistency equation (7.6. This allows methods conventionally used in hyperelasticity to be adopted in the study of elastoplastic incremental boundary value problems. ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εn+1 ∂εe trial n+1 (7. αn } there n exists an incremental potential. TANGENT OPERATOR SYMMETRY: INCREMENTAL POTENTIALS It has been emphasised in Chapter 6 (refer to Remark 6.37). the incremental equilibrium boundary value problem is endowed with a potential structure analogous to that of hyperelasticity boundary value problems. ψ. ˜ ¯ ψn = ψn (εn+1 ) = ψn (εe trial ) n+1 (7.11. even though the continuum tangent is symmetric.148) or (7.67) is symmetric for models with associative plastic ﬂow rule. in the presence of hardening. page 153) that the time-continuum elastoplastic tangent modulus with general expression (6.130). 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. such that the updated stress.e. delivered by the integration algorithm is given by σn+1 = ρ ¯ ˜ ¯ ∂ ψn ∂ ψn = ρ e trial . For elastoplastic model/algorithm combinations that preserve the consistent tangent operator symmetry. for fully associative models. In a further discussion on this issue. for instance. εp . in the presence of hardening.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . For models with associative ﬂow but non-associative hardening. that for the family of generalised midpoint algorithms based on the returnmapping equations (7. 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. Incremental potentials The symmetry of the consistent tangent operator implies that at any state {εn .1. the consistent tangents for this family of algorithms are generally unsymmetric. operator symmetry is preserved only for the fully implicit member (θ = 0).4. These authors show. If the plastic ﬂow rule is associative but the hardening rule does not derive from the associative relation (6.151) analogous to the free-energy function. to fully associative models (i.42).120). σn+1 . whose general symbolic expression was derived in Section 7.152) Analogously to (7. models with associative ﬂow and hardening rules).STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 243 7. when applied to perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or. again only for perfectly plastic associative ﬂow models or. This property is not transferred in general to its time-discrete (or consistent) counterpart. many important properties associated with the regularity and stability of the solution of (time-continuum) elastoplasticity problems .4. Also. its implicit consistent counterpart is not.

The examples presented here are restricted to the von Mises model with isotropic hardening. has been adopted.4.4.1. 7. with four (2 × 2) Gauss integration points is adopted. Subsequently. The analysis . n+1 d n+1 7. many such properties can be transferred to the discretised problem. All ﬁnite element analyses have been carried out in the HYPLAS program. The standard eight-noded quadrilateral element. Most results are compared with existing analytical solutions. The geometry of the problem. the material properties and the adopted ﬁnite element mesh is illustrated in Figure 7. The practical application of these numerical procedures is illustrated in this section by a comprehensive set of benchmark numerical examples.5. this chapter has presented a general framework for the numerical treatment of elastoplasticity within the context of implicit incremental ﬁnite element procedures. for the same model. 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.5. These issues fall outside the scope of this book. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm.154) That the incremental constitutive function (7. INTERNALLY PRESSURISED CYLINDER This example considers the simulation of the behaviour of a long metallic thick-walled cylinder subjected to internal pressure. This particular combination of elastoplasticity model and constitutive integration algorithm has the following incremental (pseudo-) potential: ρψn = ¯ 1 e e trial (D : εn+1 ) : εe trial n+1 2 1 e trial 6G2 ˆ ε − H(Φtrial ) n+1 3G + H 2 d n+1 2 − σy 2G 3/2 εe trial d n+1 . with a complete description of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit algorithm.2 and 7. Numerical examples with the von Mises model So far. Interested readers are referred to Martin (1975) and Rice (1976) for further details.139) (page 36). In all examples.103) is indeed obtained from the potential relation (7. the concept of consistent tangent operators in elastoplasticity has been introduced and also specialised.152) with the above potential can be established by a straightforward application of tensor differentiation rules taking expression (2. whose details of numerical implementation have been given in the previous sections.3. (7.244 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS depend crucially on the symmetry of the continuum tangent operator. Firstly. When symmetry is preserved in the consistent tangent operator. into account together with the identity εe trial = Id : εe trial . 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. resulting from the use of the consistent tangent operator described in Sections 7.14.

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)

i.5). ¯ (7. then the present return mapping equation has the following closed form solution: Φtrial ∆γ = . the kinematic hardening curve. These components are stored in array RSTAVA of real-state variables. Also note that.. εe trial ) εn n+1 is the implicit function of consistency equation (7. εe trial ) ≡ ¯trial n+1 Φtrial is the function Φtrial = Φtrial (¯p . β}.FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL . εe trial n+1 and the internal variables {¯p .6. εe trial ) − σy (¯p ). COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS As anticipated at the beginning of Section 7. is assumed to be piecewise linear. qn+1 = ¯trial 3 2 strial − βn = n+1 3 2 3 2 2Gεe trial − βn d n+1 2G Id : εe trial − βn . if σy (¯p ) = σy 0 + H i εp . ε ¯ ¯ε β(¯p ) = H k εp . βn .207) 3G + H k + H i 7.204) (7. the algorithm of Box 7.6.203) = qn+1 (βn . βn . H i and H k .6.5. deﬁned by the same number of (user supplied) sampling pairs as the isotropic hardening curve {¯p .206) with constant σy 0 .5 is a straightforward extension of the algorithm for the isotropic hardening-only model listed in Boxes 7.4.3. . As for the isotropic hardening curve.205) βn } deﬁned by the 7.94). The main modiﬁcations comprise the redeﬁnition of the return-mapping equation and the incorporation of new state variables – the components of the backstress tensor. 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. The present mixed hardening algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMMX (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model with nonlinear MiXed hardening).199). n+1 (7.STRAIN PLASTICITY PROBLEMS 261 ˆ where H is the Heaviside step function (7. LINEAR HARDENING: CLOSED-FORM RETURN MAPPING If the kinematic and isotropic hardening are linear.3 and 7.4. here. εn ¯trial εn n+1 n+1 and ∆γ = ∆γ(¯p . ¯ε β(¯p ). ε ¯ The extra properties are read and stored in array RPROPS (real material properties) during the data input phase of HYPLAS. This routine is a simple modiﬁcation of routine SUVM (listed in Section 7. εn (7.e. (7. β. εe trial ) ≡ qn+1 (βn .

(7. ∂ qn+1 ¯trial = 2G ∂εe trial n+1 with the unit ﬂow vector here deﬁned as ηtrial ¯ N n+1 ≡ n+1 . The differentiation of (7. ηtrial n+1 (7.4. the algorithmic incremental constitutive function (7. 2 (7. after a straightforward algebra taking (7.209) where we have made use of the connection ηtrial = 2G Id : εe trial − βn .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 . 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 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.210) and (7.211) into account.202) gives ∆γ 6G2 ∆γ 3G σn+1 = De − trial Id : εe trial + trial βn . (7. The derivative of the n+1 n+1 trial relative effective stress is obtained analogously to (7.262 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 7.194) and (7. 3 (7.e.211) 2 ¯ N n+1 . i.208) n+1 qn+1 ¯ qn+1 ¯ The elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the present case is obtained by differentiating the above relation.2 (from page 232) for the isotropic hardening-only model.212) into (7.212) Then.6.199) with respect to εe trial . with the substitution of (7.213) ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 1 − trial 3G + H k + H i qn+1 ¯ .116).209) we obtain. trial )2 trial (¯n+1 q ∂εn+1 (7.210) The incremental plastic multiplier derivative is obtained by differentiating the return-mapping equation (7.116). The corresponding expression in the present case has the same format as (7.6. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT Under plastic ﬂow (Φtrial > 0). The derivation follows closely that presented in Section 7.

FINITE ELEMENTS IN SMALL .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. .3. from page 235) coded for the isotropic hardening-only model.4. in CTVMMX. 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. The basic difference is that.

.

respectively. • the Mohr–Coulomb model. a table has been added indicating the location of ﬂowcharts.1. The complete FORTRAN implementation of the related computational procedures within the ﬁnite element environment of program HYPLAS has also been presented for the isotropic hardening version of the model. The 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.3. 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. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker– Prager models.2 and 8. and • the Drucker–Prager model. The associative plastic ﬂow rule is adopted for the Tresca model whereas.3 of Chapter 6 are considered. have been derived in detail for the isotropic and mixed hardening cases. These sections describe. the implementation of the Tresca. 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. Ltd .5. To illustrate such concepts. the complete computational implementation of other basic plasticity models discussed in Chapter 6. for the Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager models. the generally non-associated laws discussed in Section 6.3. the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb criteria admit a multisurface representation with corresponding multivector ﬂow rules.2. discussed in Section 7. in particular. In the present chapter. 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. Namely. all featuring linear elastic behaviour and generally a nonlinear isotropic hardening law. 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. The main sections of this chapter are three: Sections 8.8 COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS I N Chapter 7. including a step-by-step derivation and FORTRAN coding of the necessary procedures. We remark that the only new concept introduced in this chapter concerns the computational treatment of singularities (corners) in the yield surface. 8. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. the models discussed here are • the Tresca model. At the beginning of each of the main sections. Note that all three models addressed here feature such singularities where. together with the associated consistent tangent. is described in detail.

a summary of the constitutive equations of the model concerned is presented.1. where a more detailed description of the constitutive equations adopted here is given.266 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS interest.7 subroutine CTTR (Section 8. These summarise the most important results and the tables should be particularly helpful to readers who wish to skip the details of derivation and concentrate only on the practical aspects of computational implementation.6 and 8. For the reader who is interested only in the practical implementation aspects of the material presented in this section.1–8. 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 6.2. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. ∂σ (8.91) (page 160). .1.4 by means a comprehensive set of benchmarking numerical examples.2) . given in (6.2) Figures 8. 8. Φ1 . In the following we summarise for convenience only its main equations. .3 to the Tresca model with general nonlinear isotropic strain hardening.3 subroutine SUTR (Section 8. The multisurface representation of the Tresca model is deﬁned by means of the six yield functions. The corresponding associative plastic ﬂow rule is deﬁned by the rate equation 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γi N i.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. Φ6 .1) where Ni ≡ ∂Φi . by means of iso-error maps.1. . The corresponding consistent tangent operator is also derived and an accuracy assessment of the integration algorithm. Also at the beginning of each main section. is presented. . the location of the main results is summarised below. The Tresca model This section describes the specialisation of the implicit algorithm of Section 7. ˙ (8.3 Boxes 8. Applications of the numerical procedures derived in the main sections are illustrated in Section 8.

the model can be completely deﬁned with reference to a single sextant of the principal stress space. respectively). R. ˙ εp = γN a . and ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a + γ b ¯ for plastic ﬂow from the right and left corners (items 2 and 3. ˙ ˙ (8.18. deﬁned by (8. γ i ≥ 0. as in the von Mises model implementation discussed in Chapter 7.7) where N a is the normal to the main plane. Plastic ﬂow from the ﬂat portion (main plane).10) .9) Under the assumption of associative hardening (for further details. in this case. without loss of generality. page 173). ˙ Φi γ i = 0 ˙ (8. In this case. 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 . where the Tresca yielding function is differentiable. page 183). L. is the same as the one above. The ﬂow rule reads ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . 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 ).COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 267 together with the loading/unloading conditions Φi ≤ 0.5) where the ﬂow vector N a is the normal to the corresponding plane deﬁned by Φ1 = 0: N a ≡ N 1 = e1 ⊗ e1 − e3 ⊗ e3 . (8. (8.4) With the principal stresses ordered. only three possibilities are identiﬁed for the associative plastic ﬂow: 1.8) 3. Isotropic strain hardening is incorporated. Plastic ﬂow from the left corner.196). (8. ˙ (8. (8. The ﬂow rule. refer to the text surrounding equation (6.6). Plastic ﬂow from the right corner. the accumulated plastic strain for this model is deﬁned by means of its evolution equations.6) 2.3) with no summation on the repeated index.11) (8. as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (refer to Figure 6. which are given respectively by ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ for plastic ﬂow from the main plane (item 1 above). but with N b being the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane (deﬁned by Φ2 = 0): N b ≡ N 2 = e2 ⊗ e2 − e3 ⊗ e3 . The rate of plastic strain in this case is a linear combination with non-negative coefﬁcients of the normals to the two intersecting planes at this point. In this case. (8.

83). note that the Tresca surface can be represented by means of a set of linear functions of the principal stresses. Pankaj and Bi´ ani´ . 1980).80)–(7.25) are . 1987. The principal elastic trial stresses. the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress is required prior to the consistency check. de Borst. 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. substantial simpliﬁcation is possible when the general implicit return mapping equations (7. trial (i = 1. numerical instabilities frequently arise in connection with the high curvature of the smoothed corners. and the state variables at tn . 1989. the algorithm for the Tresca model becomes substantially different from the previously described von Mises algorithm. 2. the elastic trial state is computed as in (7. given the incremental strain ∆ε. In such approaches. σi ei .. Simo et al. Due to the principal stress approach adopted here. For instance.268 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8. An alternative c c approach based on a semi-analytical integration algorithm is described by Sloan and Booker (1992). as in the algorithm for the von Mises model. 1987. The principal stress-based algorithm results in a simpler computational implementation of this particular model. and the corresponding eigenvectors.12) (·)n+1 := (·)trial . however. 1989. The elastic predictor stage here is identical to the one in the von Mises model implementation so that. More recently. With trial trial trial the principal trial stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 (for notational convenience. At this point. the consistency check follows as: trial trial • If Φtrial ≡ σ1 − σ3 − σy (¯p ) ≤ εn tol . 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.1. the subscript n + 1 is omitted from the trial and updated principal stresses). then the process is elastic and (8. 1972. n+1 • Otherwise. Early numerical implementations of singular-surface models have resorted to the smoothing of corners leading to singularity-free formulations (Nayak and Zienkiewicz. with an extra degree of complexity introduced due to the existence of singularities (corners) on the yield surface. Owen and Hinton.1. are computed in closed form by means of the formulae described in Appendix A. 1988b).94). The next step is to verify whether the trial state violates the plastic consistency constraint. 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. Pramono and Willam. It is emphasised here that. the updated state at tn+1 is obtained by the return-mapping procedure described in what follows. It is worth remarking that in most of the computational plasticity literature – especially in the derivation of return-mapping-type schemes – the numerical treatment of the Tresca model is based on the representation of the Tresca yield function in terms of stress invariants (refer to expression (6. THE 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. 3). page 160).

However.17) † The update formula in terms of principal deviatoric stresses is equally valid for the von Mises model. the update formula for the accumulated plastic strain is given by the implicit discrete counterpart of (8. (8. 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. consider the implicit update formula for the elastic strain obtained as a result of the discretisation of (8. This substituted in (8. In this case.10): εp = εp + ∆γ.13) Due to the isotropic linear elastic law and the fact that the Tresca ﬂow vector is purely deviatoric. . for the von Mises model. The three possible return mappings Crucial to the derivation of the return-mapping algorithm is the observation that the plastic ﬂow rule (8. there is only one possible nonzero multiplier and the ﬂow vector is given by (8. 2. as in the von Mises model.6).9) results in the three following possibilities for the return-mapping algorithm: 1. 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.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 269 particularized for the Tresca model.9) has three different explicit forms. The discretisation of (8.15) i i where Nj denotes the eigenvalues of Nn+1 . (8. (j = 1. To derive the simpliﬁed equations. this expression is equivalent. Nn+1 and sn+1 share the same principal directions.14) i Note that by deﬁnition of the ﬂow vectors. Thus. The updated stress lies on the main plane.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 . expression (8. 3). 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 .15) gives the following update formula for the principal deviatoric stresses: s1 = strial − 2G ∆γ 1 s2 = strial 2 s3 = strial 3 + 2G ∆γ.5)–(8. (8. ¯n+1 ¯n (8.16) On the main plane.1): 6 εe = εe trial − n+1 n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 .5)–(8. (8.

σy (¯p )) = 0. ˜ 1 2 (8.19) where N a and N b denote.7) as a b ∆εp = ∆γ a Nn+1 + ∆γ b Nn+1 .20) and (8. here. a (8. the normals to the main plane and to the plane on its right side given by (8. N b is the normal to the plane on the left of the main plane. ˜ (8. two plastic multipliers may be nonzero and the incremental plastic strain is obtained from the discretisation of (8.11): ¯ εp = εp + ∆γ a + ∆γ b . ∆γ b ) = 0.16) and (8. εn+1 n+1 (8. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(2∆γ a + ∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a . in the present case. σy (¯p )) = 0. (8.21) Analogously to the one-vector return mapping of item 1. ∆γ b ) ≡ σy (¯p + ∆γ a + ∆γ b ).270 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The return mapping. 1 3 (8.18) 2. 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 ).25) . σy (¯p )) = 0. the two-vector return-mapping equation is obtained here by introducing (8. The updated stress lies on the right corner. a b (8.20) The incremental law for εp in this case is the discrete counterpart of (8. 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 .17) into the discrete consistency condition Φ1 (σn+1 .8). respectively.3): εn+1 Φa ≡ Φ1 (σn+1 . given by (8. n+1 Φb ≡ Φ6 (σn+1 . This εn+1 results in the following scalar (generally nonlinear) equation in ∆γ: ˜ εn Φ(∆γ) ≡ strial − strial − 4G ∆γ − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. Here. ¯n+1 ¯n (8. is obtained with the introduction of (8. ∆γ b ) ≡ strial − strial − 2G(∆γ a + 2∆γ b ) − σy (∆γ a .9).6) and (8.21) into the discrete consistency condition resulting from (8. The updated stress lies on the left corner. ∆γ b ) = 0 1 3 ˜ Φb (∆γ a .23) where σy has been deﬁned as ˜ εn σy (∆γ a .22) This yields the following set of two algebraic equations for ∆γ a and ∆γ b : ˜ ˜ Φa (∆γ a . The situation now is completely analogous to item 2 above with the difference that.24) 3.

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

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

2. ∆γ b and σi (i=1. and exit Figure 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 273 spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Tresca model in principal stresses.3. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUTR of program HYPLAS.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.2.3) check validity of one-vector return: σ 1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 YES ? NO apply two-vector return map to appropriate corner (right or left) – obtain: ∆γ a.2. .

Clearly.3.1(b)). i. respectively.2. Box 8. considering the geometric properties of the Tresca yield surface: if strial lies on the right side of the line that passes through the n+1 origin of stresses and is orthogonal to the main plane (the pure shear line).2. In this case.274 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS (Figure 8. one concludes that if the trial deviatoric stress is on the left side of the dotted line. whether strial lies on the right or left of the n+1 dotted line. (8.e. It is very simple to determine. then strial is on the right side of the dotted line and the n+1 n+1 return mapping to the right corner is applied. then. T3 = 1. . in spite of being on the main plane. the only possible return is to the right corner.1 shows the main algorithm and Boxes 8. The ﬂowchart of the procedure is illustrated in Figure 8. is described in detail in Boxes 8.31) T: strial n+1 = i=1 Ti strial = strial + strial − 2 strial . the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the return mapping to the main plane and the two-vector return mappings to the corners. in items 2 and 3 above. again. With the appropriate choice of return mappings based on the above.3. therefore. The appropriate algorithm to be applied (right or left) can be easily determined by. If the product is negative.3 show. Using the same argument. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model is completely deﬁned. violates the consistency condition. then the trial stress is on the left side and the return mapping to the left corner is applied. i 1 3 2 (8. the updated stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and. 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.30) is not satisﬁed.32) between T and strial . If the scalar product 3 T2 = −2. implemented in subroutine SUTR (State Update procedure for the TResca model). which is unacceptable.2 and 8. In this case.1–8. The algorithm. in actual computations. Let T be a tangent vector to the main plane as illustrated in Figure 8. then the appropriate return is to the left corner. described. then it can be easily visualized that strial could only return to the n+1 left corner if ∆γ b were negative. T has the same eigenvectors as strial and its eigenvalues may be chosen as n+1 T1 = 1. represented by the dotted line in Figure 8. is positive. respectively. if relation (8.

2 (iv. 3) (si + pn+1 ) ei ⊗ ei εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 1 sn+1 + εe trial I v n+1 2G 3 .3 (v) Assemble updated stress pn+1 := ptrial n+1 σn+1 := and update elastic strain 3 i=1 and ei (i = 1. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn .COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 275 Box 8.3 ELSE apply return to left corner – GOTO Box 8. n+1 n ptrial := K εe trial . Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Tresca model. 2. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε.b) Check validity of main plane return IF s1 ≥ s2 ≥ s3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv. n+1 v n+1 εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n strial := 2G εe trial n+1 d n+1 (ii) Spectral decomposition of strial (routine SPDEC2). Compute strial ≥ strial ≥ strial 1 2 3 (iii) Check plastic admissibility εn+1 IF strial − strial − σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 1 3 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iv) Return mapping (iv. HYPLAS procedure: SUTR (i) Elastic predictor.1.c) Return to corner IF strial + strial − 2 strial > 0 1 3 2 THEN apply return to right corner – GOTO Box 8.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8.

276 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) .2. One-vector return mapping to main plane. The Tresca model. 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.

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

(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. from page 277).3 (contd. The Tresca model.278 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.1 (iv) GOTO (ii) for left corner . Two-vector return mappings to corners (implemented in subroutine SUTR).

0D0. The FORTRAN source code of SUTR is listed below. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.STRAT .LALGVA .RPROPS 2 RSTAVA .FALSE.2. starting page 224). SUBROUTINE SUTR As in the von Mises state update procedure implemented in subroutine SUVM (Section 7.5 for details of implementation of the piecewise linear hardening law.R3 .NTYPE . 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 .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0029’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=.PSTRS(3) . The reader is referred to Section 7.STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL 1 DUMMY.D-10.1.0D0.3.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(4) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .NE.3.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 .NE.FALSE.STRAT(MSTRE) .AND.R1 .0D0.1.1. This hardening rule is adopted due to its ﬂexibility in ﬁtting experimental data.2) .3.STREST(3) DATA 1 2 . . SUFAIL. piecewise linear isotropic hardening is assumed in the present implementation of the implicit integration algorithm for the Tresca model. C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.0D0.2.2. 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 .5.IPROPS .R4 .4.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 279 8. IFPLAS.NTYPE. RIGHT.0D0.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .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. SUFAIL=.IPROPS(*) . R0 .SMALL .R2 . TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.TOL / 0.1-3).1.

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

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).NHARD.TRUE.LE.S2+DELTA.right or left) -----------------------------------------------------------------TWOVEC=.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.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.GE.NHARD. Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS1=S1 PSTRS3=S3 GOTO 50 ELSE 1-vector return is not valid .NHARD.go to two-vector procedure GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.S2.GE.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. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping (return to corner .AND. DGAMA=R0 DGABAR=R1 EPBAR=EPBARN SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.TRUE.TOL)THEN Update EPBAR and principal deviatoric stresses RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR IF(RIGHT)THEN PSTRS1=PSTRS1-R2G*(DGAMA+DGAMB) PSTRS3=PSTRS3+R2G*DGAMA .MXITER Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.ABS(S2).

except for the following: .1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.2)+P STRES(2)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(2.2)+P STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.282 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS C C C C 202 203 204 205 206 207 C 208 C 209 210 211 212 213 C 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 C 221 C 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 PSTRS2=PSTRS2+R2G*DGAMB ELSE PSTRS1=PSTRS1-R2G*DGAMA PSTRS3=PSTRS3+R2G*(DGAMA+DGAMB) PSTRS2=PSTRS2-R2G*DGAMB ENDIF GOTO 50 ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0001’) GOTO 999 50 CONTINUE update stress components -----------------------PSTRS(II)=PSTRS1 PSTRS(JJ)=PSTRS3 PSTRS(MM)=PSTRS2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.TRUE.1)+PSTRS(2)*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).

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

within a narrow band of increments the relative error can be as high as 40% for the increment range considered in the present assessment. symmetry of the yield surface. there is a large area within which the integration error vanishes. Iso-error maps for the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. Point A is on the singularity of the Tresca hexagon and point B corresponds to a state of pure shear.5. For the Tresca model. the hardening curve adopted is shown in Figure 8. (8.6. A total of 16 sampling points have been used to deﬁne the curve. (8. Note that. at the singularity (point A). two starting points.34) is the size of the sides of the Tresca hexagon (same as the radius of the von Mises cylinder matching the Tresca prism on the edges). The increments ∆σtrial are of the form ∆σT ∆σN N+ T. lying on the deviatoric plane are considered.4. Here. 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 . The error maps obtained for the perfectly plastic case are shown in Figure 8.4. the starting point has to be taken into consideration. • nonlinear (piecewise linear) isotropic hardening.284 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ∆σT ∆σN N B T T N A σ1 r σ3 σ2 Figure 8. r≡ 2 3 σy . These points are shown in Figure 8. Note that for both starting points. In both cases. This is obviously a very desirable feature. Two cases are considered in the iso-error maps constructed in this section: • perfect plasticity. Increment directions. the tensors N and T are not orthogonal to each other. however. With isotropic hardening. However. the error plotted is the (Euclidean) norm of the relative difference between the numerical and ‘exact’ updated stresses. A and B.33) ∆σtrial = r r where N and T are unit (in Euclidean norm) tensors deﬁning the increment directions and the scaling factor.

Iso-error maps for the Tresca model. ∆σN /r .8 uniaxial yield stress. Perfectly plastic Tresca model: (a) point A.6. Isotropic hardening curve.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 285 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 8.12 εp ¯ 0. chosen sizes. A comparison of the maps obtained with and without hardening suggests that.6 0.08 0. for practical purposes. The error maps obtained with isotropic hardening are shown in Figure 8.2 0 0 0.16 accumulated plastic strain. and (b) point B. Again. the integration error is reduced to zero for any increment if the substepping procedure is included in the return-mapping algorithm. but errors are high within a narrow band of increments.4 0. In this case (perfect plasticity). Iso-error maps.7. the accuracy expected from the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model is not inﬂuenced by hardening.04 0.5. Figure 8. σy 0. the areas in which the error is reasonably small are quite large.

4. 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 7.35) 3 so that.7.1. 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. In the present section. For the return mapping for the Tresca model presented in Section 8. 8. for the Tresca model.1. illustrating the application of the concept of consistent tangent operators. attention will be focused on the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent modulus – the elastoplastic tangent – consistent with the return mapping for the Tresca model. ∆σN /r . There.1. Iso-error maps. Tresca model with hardening: (a) point A. the implicit constitutive function for the stress tensor is deﬁned by the procedures of items (ii). 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 7.286 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. It is important to note that. (iv) and (v) of Box 8. and (b) point B.4.1 that the elastoplastic tangent modulus associated with a particular return-mapping scheme is the derivative Dep ≡ dσn+1 dεe trial n+1 (8. this concept is applied in the derivation of the tangent modulus consistent with the implicit algorithm for the Tresca model. there are three possible sets of equations to be solved: (i) return to main plane.1.4. (8. To start with. in what follows.36) where σn+1 is the outcome of the implicit function deﬁned by the corresponding returnmapping equations.

37) where the eigenprojection tensors. the tangent operator used to assemble the stiffness matrix will be the derivative of one of the three possible implicit functions. and i • the partial derivatives. depend on the particular algorithm used (main plane. The principal stresses. Its derivative – the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator – can be computed by means of the general procedure presented in Sections A. the Tresca return-mapping equations deﬁne implicit functions for the principal stresses. Their explicit forms. the tangent modulus will be consistent with the implicit function deﬁned by the right (left) corner return-mapping equations. can be identiﬁed as a particular case of the class of tensorvalued functions of a single tensor discussed in Appendix A. With these values at hand. The tangent moduli consistent with the three possible sets of equations are derived below. Similarly.37). ∂σi /∂εe trial . right or left corner). 2 3 i = 1. as an isotropic tensor function of a single tensor‡ – the elastic trial strain. if the return to the right (left) corner was used in previous stress update. εe trial ). of the principal stresses with respect to the j principal elastic trial strains associated with the algorithmic functions (8.3. 3. and the corresponding unit eigenvectors. • the principal elastic trial strains. σn+1 . ‡ 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. derived below. of σn+1 coincide with those of εe trial .37). and (iii) return to left corner. εe trial . deﬁned in (8. εe trial . 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 other words. The procedure for computation of derivatives of this type of function is implemented in subroutine DGISO2. 2. In summary. ∂σi /∂εe trial . In order to compute Dep . 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.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 287 (ii) return to right corner. the tangent operator Dep is assembled as described in Box A. (8. The principal stresses derivatives. ei ⊗ ei . σi . the main arguments required by this routine are • the principal stresses. the elastic trial strains and the associated eigenvectors are computed in a trivial manner. In n+1 addition. are the result of the consistent j linearisation of the (principal stress-based) return-mapping algorithm.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 integration algorithm for the Tresca model deﬁnes the stress tensor. due to the isotropy of the model. σi . each one deﬁning a different implicit function for σn+1 . at tn+1 of the form ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . In this case. the algorithmic constitutive function for the stress tensor is isotropic. n+1 This function. . Thus.3 and A. εe trial .

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 8.2). 4G + H (8.288 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.40) into (8. From the above expression. dj arranged in matrix format.40) (dεe trial − dεe trial ). d1 d3 (8. So far.18) the linearised form of the consistency condition is obtained as ˜ dΦ = 2G(dεe trial − dεe trial − 2 d∆γ) − H d∆γ = 0. d1 d3 4G + H With the substitution of (8.38) where H ≡ dσy /d¯p is the slope of the hardening curve. ∂εe trial dj of the principal deviatoric stresses with respect to the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains. By using the elastic deviatoric relation. and differentiating the principal stress update formula (8. it is convenient to derive ﬁrst the derivatives ∂si . 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 . When the return to the main plane is applied.38) it follows that the partial derivatives ∂si /∂εe trial .16). the principal deviatoric stresses are updated according to expressions (8. In order to obtain the complete derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial .39) (8.42) . only the expressions for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives have been derived.16–8. we ε obtain 2G d∆γ = (8.41) where the factor f has been deﬁned as f≡ The complete derivatives. strial = 2G εe trial . we i di obtain ds1 = 2G(dεe trial − d∆γ) d1 ds2 = 2Gdεe trial d2 ds3 = 2G(dεe trial + d∆γ).

43) i. Principal stress derivatives for the right corner return Now consider the return mapping to the right corner of the Tresca hexagon. εe trial . also used in the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the returnmapping equation in Box 8.45) Finally. v 1 2 3 (8. dbb (8.48) (8. the substitution of these expressions into (8.3). v (8. b b e trial e trial 0 dΦ d∆γ dεd 1 − dεd 2 (8. the principal deviatoric stresses are functions solely of the principal deviatoric elastic trial strains and the hydrostatic stress is a function of the volumetric elastic trial strain only.43) followed by a straightforward application of the chain rule leads to the following expression for the principal stress derivatives: ∂σi ∂si = e trial (δkj − 1 ) + K. Here. is deﬁned as daa d= dba dab . 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 ). εe trial .20) where the incremental plastic multipliers are the solution to the return-mapping equations (8. ˜ 1 ˜ d1 2 3 d2 d3 v (8.3.44) where the matrix d. note that for the present algorithm we have σi (εe trial .49) .46) 3 ∂εe trial ∂εd k j with summation on repeated indices implied. (8. K is the bulk modulus and δkj denotes the Krönecker delta.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 = . Differentiation of (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 289 DGISO2).e. The principal deviatoric trial strains are given by εe trial = εe trial − di i where εe trial = εe trial + εe trial + εe trial . εe trial ) + p(εe trial ). d3 The differentials of the incremental plastic multipliers are obtained by linearising the consistency condition (return-mapping equations) as follows. εe trial ) = si (εe trial . In this case. the principal deviatoric stresses are updated by (8.23) (see also item (iii) of Box 8.47) 1 3 εe trial .

the resulting derivatives are 8G2 4G2 4G2 2G 1 − (dab − daa ) (dba − dbb ) det d det d det d ∂si 2G daa 4G2 8G3 = . dab = −2G − H. 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.47) leads. the derivatives ∂σi /∂εe trial are obtained by applying (8.51) (8.53) = − 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. to the expressions for the derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses consistent with the return mapping to the right corner. dbb = −4G − H.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.46). ∂σi /∂εe trial .50) −dab dεe trial − dεe trial d3 d1 .46). Arranged in matrix format. (8. j . the principal stress derivatives. are obtained by applying formula (8. 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. dba = −2G − H.290 with COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS daa = −4G − H. again. The ﬁnal expression for the deviatoric principal stress derivatives is given by 2 3 4G 8G 2G 1 + 2G dbb − dab det d det d det d ∂si 8G3 2G daa 4G2 (8. after a straightforward manipulation. daa dεe trial − dεe trial d1 d2 which substituted into (8.

The tangent operator.NE.FOID(2.RSTAVA .3). RIGHT.1.1.2. 2.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .AND.0D0.1). 2 FOID(MSTRE.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . The elastic tangent is evaluated here in a trivial manner.2).DPSTRE(MDIM.4)/ 6 0.FOID(4.0D0 . The integration algorithm is coded in subroutine SUTR.PSTRS(MDIM) .IPROPS .R3 .4)/ 8 0.RPROPS(*) .PSTRA(MDIM) .0. REPEAT. right or left corner) are evaluated according to the expressions derived in the above.5D0. 2 RPROPS .0D0 / 5 FOID(3.0D0 / DATA 1 R0 .FOID(4.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 291 8.0.FOID(2.0.0D0 .0D0 / 7 FOID(4.5.1. The FORTRAN source code of CTTR is listed below.0D0 .MDIM=3.5D0 .FOID(2.R2 . the principal stresses derivatives consistent with the appropriate return mapping (main plane.FOID(1. TWOVEC DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE.STRAT .LALGVA .EIGPRJ(MSTRE.3. 3 SOID(MSTRE) .0D0.RP5 .MSTRE) .0.4)/ 4 0.SOID(4) / 2 1.MSTRE) .MDIM) .0D0 .R1 .EPFLAG .1).2) .MDIM) .STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. Firstly.2). LALGVA(4).0D0 .2.0.STRAT(*) .0D0 .0.NE.0D0 .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0028’) C Current accumulated plastic strain EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .FOID(3.3).FOID(1. MSTRE=4) LOGICAL EPFLAG.NTYPE.0D0.FOID(3.SOID(3) . This routine is called by CTTR which passes the principal stress derivatives (as well as other necessary variables) as arguments.1).3).2).0.0.3).4.1). 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 SUBROUTINE CTTR 1( DMATX .SOID(2) .0.FOID(3.0D0 .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. Dep . OUTOFP. The computation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent comprises the following basic steps: 1. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0D0 . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.0D0.0D0 .0D0 .R4 / 2 0.0D0 . (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).IPROPS(*) .0.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR TRESCA TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 / 3 FOID(2.4)/ 2 1.FOID(4.1.1.1.0D0 .0. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.FOID(1.2).NTYPE .STRES(*) DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.0.

STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) C and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.MM)=R4G2DD*(DAA-DAB) .3 IF(PSTRA(I).NE.NE.AND..2)MM=2 IF(II.AND.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).1)MM=1 IF(II.JJ.3.JJ.LT.NE.PSTRA.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NE.GE.1.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 .JJ.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.NHARD.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.3)MM=3 IF(TWOVEC)THEN C Tangent consistent with two-vector return algorithm HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.II)=R2G*(R1-R2GDD*R4G) DPSTRS(II.2) PSTRS(3)=STRES(4) C Identify directions of maximum and minimum principal trial stresses II=1 JJ=1 PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) DO 10 I=2.REPEAT.NE.returned to right corner DPSTRS(II.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.2.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.292 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.AND..NE.

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

4. j • DPSTRS [∂si /∂εe trial ]. Matrix of derivatives of the principal stresses.2)THEN 161 NSTRE=3 162 ELSEIF(NTYPE.EQ.J)=DMATX(J. Fourth-order identity tensor stored in array form according to (D.J)=R2G*FOID(I. • STRAT [εe trial ]. i=1. • SOID [I]. right or left return algorithm). the present routine requires the following: ← DMATX [either De or Dep ]. i The names of most local variables deﬁned in CTTR resemble resemble the notation of Section 8. The elements of the array LALGVA of logical algorithmic ﬂags.NSTRE 169 DMATX(I. dj • EIGPRJ [ei ⊗ ei .NSTRE-1 173 DO 60 I=J+1. Matrix containing the components of the in-plane eigenprojection tensors of the elastic trial strain.I) 175 60 CONTINUE 176 70 CONTINUE 177 ENDIF 178 RETURN 179 END The arguments of CTTR In addition to the arguments of SUTR (see list on page 282).NSTRE 168 DO 40 J=I.294 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 159 C ------------------------160 IF(NTYPE.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 170 40 CONTINUE 171 50 CONTINUE 172 DO 70 J=1.1. Second-order identity tensor stored in array form. Matrix of derivatives of the principal deviatoric stresses. set in subroutine SUTR.2].EQ. Some local arrays of CTTR • DPSTRE [∂σi /∂εe trial ].NSTRE 174 DMATX(I.16). → EPFLAG. whose output values are taken as input values for (and are not changed by) CTTR.3)THEN 163 NSTRE=4 164 ENDIF 165 C 166 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 167 DO 50 I=1. indicate which elastoplastic tangent is to be computed here (consistent with main plane. page 762. . Elastoplastic tangent logical ﬂag (refer to page 237 for a description). Array containing the principal elastic trial strains. As in the von Mises implementation (refer to page 237). • FOID [IS ].

4–8. we summarised the actual equations adopted in the present computational implementation of the Mohr– Coulomb model.2) Figure 8. Called to assemble the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator as a particular case of the general derivatives of isotropic tensor function discussed in Section A. the ﬂow vectors are re-deﬁned as ∂Ψi Ni ≡ .1)–(8. There are four distinct possibilities for the plastic ﬂow deﬁnition. the following table shows where the main results of this section can be found. In what follows. the ﬂow rule may be formulated within the sextant of the principal stress space depicted in Figure 6. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8. 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. (8.118) (page 165). 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 6.3) in the associative case with the yield functions Φi deﬁned by (6. an extra return-mapping procedure – the return to the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface – is required in the numerical integration scheme. With the principal stresses ordered as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .2.54) ∂σ where each Ψi has the same format as the corresponding Φi . .5) iso-error maps consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – As far as yield surface singularities are concerned. Here. however. For quick reference. In the generally non-associative case.2. except that the frictional angle φ is replaced with the dilatancy angle ψ ≤ φ (assumed constant) in the deﬁnition of Ψi .3 of Appendix A.2.12 subroutine CTMC (Section 8. The multisurface description of the Mohr–Coulomb plastic ﬂow rule has the representation (8.10 Boxes 8. Called to perform the spectral decomposition of the elastic trial strain. 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 295 Important function calls from CTTR • DGISO2.19(a) (page 174). whose implementation is described here. • SPDEC2.7 subroutine SUMC (Section 8. the algorithm described here is entirely based on the ideas that underly the numerical integration scheme for the Tresca model of the previous section.

19. For ﬂow from the main plane as discussed above. where only one multiplier may be non-zero. (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 ). only two plastic multipliers can be non-zero and the ﬂow rule is explicitly deﬁned as ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = γ a N a + γ b N b . Plastic ﬂow from the right edge.296 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 1.63) At the apex. and ˙ εp = γN a .200) on page 184. In this case. up to six multipliers may be non-zero. Plastic ﬂow from the apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. N b is the ﬂow vector of the plane on the right of the main plane N b ≡ N 6 = (1 + sin ψ)e1 ⊗ e1 − (1 − sin ψ)e2 ⊗ e2 . (8. only one multiplier may be non-zero and (6. 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 . ε (8.62) For plastic ﬂow from an edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. ¯ (8. Here.58) 3. Plastic ﬂow from the left edge. as the plastic rate tensor lies within the pyramid formed by the six vectors of the Mohr–Coulomb model (refer to Figure 6. (8.55) where N a is the same as in the above. The general equation for the evolution of εp in this case ¯ is given by (6. ¯ (8. (8. In this case. ˙ (8. The plastic strain rate equation in this case is left in its general format 6 ˙ εp = i=1 γ iN i. the evolution of εp reads ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ (γ a + γ b ). 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 .59) 4. ˙ sin ψ v (8.56) 2. the general equation (6.200) applies.60) In the present implementation. the following general relation ˙ εp = ¯ cos φ p ε .64) .(b) which illustrates the associative ﬂow case). Plastic ﬂow from the smooth (ﬂat) portion of the main plane.61) Hardening associativity is assumed.200) is reduced to ˙ ˙ εp = 2 cos φ γ.57) (8.

Hence. 3. σtrial . 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.155) (page 175) under non-associative plastic ﬂow: 6 εp ˙v and (6.1. ˙ (8.65) 8.67) Due to the isotropy of the model. = 2 sin ψ i=1 γ i. this gives 6 σn+1 = σtrial − De : n+1 i=1 i ∆γ i Nn+1 . n+1 (8.68) .60).200). 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 ≤ 0.66) With the discretisation of the non-associated Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule (8. (8. Recall that the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor is given by σn+1 = σtrial − De : ∆εp . This relation can be obtained by combining the counterpart of (6. i i ∆γ i (2G [Nd ]j − K Nv ). the spectral decomposition of the trial stress. (8. is performed. the essential stress-updating is carried out here in the principal stress space. 2. In the above formula. a return-mapping procedure is carried out. after the computation of the elastic trial state. With the principal trial stresses arranged trial trial trial as σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .2. will be crucial in the computational implementation of the model. then the step is elastic and all state variables are updated as (·)n+1 := (·)trial . the stress update formula can be written equivalently in terms of principal stresses as 6 trial σj = σj − i=1 i for j = 1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 297 between the rate of accumulated plastic strain and the volumetric plastic strain rate. INTEGRATION ALGORITHM FOR THE MOHR–COULOMB MODEL As for the algorithm for the Tresca model.

2. 3 (8.55).63): ∆¯p = 2 cos φ (∆γ a + ∆γ b ).57). The ﬂow vector in this case is deﬁned by (8. is in this case given by the two-vector formula ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . ∆γ.74) The increment of accumulated plastic strain is the discrete form of (8. (8. The updated stress lies on the right edge of the pyramid. Introduction of this expression in (8.68) gives the following principal stress updating formulae: trial σ1 = σ1 − ∆γ [2G(1 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] (8. The incremental plastic strain. (8.71) is obtained by introducing the update formulae (8. ε (8.72) Equation (8. The corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain reads ∆¯p = 2 cos φ ∆γ. ε (8.70) and a is the constant ε a = 4G(1 + 1 3 sin φ sin ψ) + 4K sin φ sin ψ. ε (8.70) The incremental plastic multiplier. 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) where ∆¯p is the (linear) function of ∆γ deﬁned by (8.73) The corresponding principal stress update formulae follow from the substitution of the above expression into (8. The equations for each of the four possible return mappings are derived below: 1.69) into the main plane equation Φ1 = 0. The updated stress lies on the main plane (smooth portion).298 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The four possible return mappings Following the four possible descriptions of the Mohr–Coulomb ﬂow rule. which depend on the location of the updated stress.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 .69) trial σ2 = σ2 + ∆γ ( 4 G − 2K) sin ψ 3 trial σ3 = σ3 + ∆γ [2G(1 − 1 3 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ].75) . obtained from the backward Euler discretisation of (8. the corresponding backward Euler-based return-mapping algorithm has four distinct explicit forms. σn+1 . on the yield surface.

The incremental plastic multipliers are the solution of the following return-mapping equations: trial trial trial trial ˜ Φa (∆γ a . The updated stress lies on the apex. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ2 − σ3 + (σ2 + σ3 ) sin φ (8. (8. ∆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 .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. the updated principal stresses are such that the equations of the main plane. (8. Φ1 = 0.78) and the corresponding increment of accumulated plastic strain is also given by (8. εn The incremental accumulated plastic strain. 4. 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 ). Φ2 = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ2 + (σ1 + σ2 ) sin φ (8.75). The updated stress lies on the left edge. Φ6 = 0. ∆γ b ) ≡ σ1 − σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ ε − 2 cos φ c(¯p + ∆¯p ) − a ∆γ a − b ∆γ b = 0 εn trial trial trial trial ˜ Φb (∆γ a . 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 . (8.77) 3. The essential difference is that the tensor N b is now deﬁned by (8. Φ1 = 0. The apex of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid is the point along the hydrostatic axis for which p = c cot φ. (8.81) . 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.59).80) The above equations represent the intersection of the main plane.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. and the plane on its right. with the plane on its left.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 299 At the right edge. are simultaneously satisﬁed. ∆¯p .

86) . sin ψ (8. εn (8. derived in Section 8.2.81).25). all four sets of ¯ return-mapping equations are linear and. Under the assumption of linear hardening.82) The updated hydrostatic stress in the present case must lie on the apex of the updated Mohr–Coulomb pyramid. We then have (Figure 8. ¯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. the strategy comprises the following steps. Note that under zero dilatancy (ψ = 0). ε v α≡ cos φ .1. Remark 8. n+1 v (8. This condition is enforced by introducing the update formula (8. α → ∞. can be solved in closed form. Remark 8. into the apex equation (8. Once the solution is found.83) The substitution of this expression into (8.83) yields the ﬁnal apex return-mapping equation: c(¯p + α∆εp ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.64): ∆¯p = α∆εp . with pn+1 given by (8. Firstly apply the return mapping to the main plane. As in the Tresca algorithm. εn n+1 v Now consider the discrete version of (8. the present strategy is simple and ensures that the resulting updated state rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (7. (8. regardless of the prescribed hardening/softening curve.84) (8. with c = c0 + H εp . 1.1.8) ¯ ε c(¯p + ∆¯p ) cot φ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0. In essence. therefore. 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.1. the return to apex does not make sense as the purely deviatoric ﬂow vector (combination of deviatoric ﬂow vectors) does not produce volumetric plastic ﬂow.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 .82).85) v n+1 v for the unknown ∆εp . we update v εp := εp + α∆εp . In this case. together with the hardening curve and the discretised evolution equation for εp . whose description starts on page 271.82).

then the return mapping carried out in item 3 is valid and the updated state is accepted.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 301 updated yield surface yield surface at t n σntrial +1 σn +1= pn +1 I p .87) then the return to the main plane is valid and the corresponding updated state is accepted.1. apply the return algorithm to the apex. 5.8.K ∆εv pntrial +1 Figure 8. Return mapping to apex. The result obtained now is necessarily valid and does not require further checks. if σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 .e. Otherwise. (8. Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stresses. 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). Check validity: if the updated principal stresses remain in the same sextant as the trial stress. not admissible. therefore. 3. 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. 4. 2. . Mohr–Coulomb model. i. This can be easily veriﬁed by simple geometrical considerations analogous to those of the Tresca model given in Figure 8. Otherwise.

b N in the above is normal to the right (left) plane if sn+1 lies on the right (left) edge.2 for the Tresca model. 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. it should be noted that at any edge of the Mohr– Coulomb pyramid we have si = sj for at least one pair {si . 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. n+1 (8. In this case. Let T be a deviatoric tensor orthogonal to the deviatoric a projection Nd . if σtrial returns to n+1 an edge. Selection of appropriate return mapping to edge. s2 = s3 corresponds to a point on the right edge and s1 = s2 to a point on the left edge. Based on the above considerations.9): a b sn+1 = strial − 2G(∆γ a Nd + ∆γ b Nd ). the n+1 only possibly valid edge return algorithm is the return to the left edge. it can only be the right edge. Firstly. The dotted line of Figure 8.88) a b where Nd and Nd are the deviatoric components of N a and N b . Similarly. Mohr–Coulomb model.89) . Consider now the deviatoric part to the two-vector edge return algorithms (Figure 8. these points correspond to corners of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid cross section (irregular hexagon). sj } with i = j. Clearly. T3 = 1 + sin ψ.9. According to the present convention. On the deviatoric plane. 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. respectively. the procedure for selection of the appropriate edge return is extremely simple. Here T is chosen with the following eigenvalues: T1 = 1 − sin ψ. pointing to the right. Selection of right or left edge return. T2 = −2. (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.

7. The ﬂowchart of the overall integration algorithm is shown in Figure 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 303 Its eigenvectors coincide with those of σtrial .2. .2 below. The overall integration algorithm Having described the four possible return mappings together with a simple and robust strategy to select the valid return mapping. The corresponding pseudo-code is conveniently summarised in Boxes 8. it is the return mapping to the left edge. (8. The procedure is implemented in subroutine SUMC (State Update procedure for the Mohr–Coulomb model) of program HYPLAS. If S > 0 the possible edge return is to the right.10. the implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model is completely deﬁned. Its FORTRAN code and details of its computational implementation are explained in Section 8.90) is computed ﬁrst. 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 .4–8. To select the appropriate edge return. Otherwise.

2.2.3) trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ3 check consistency: trial σ1 − process is elastic – update: φ −2 trial trial trial σ3 + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin _p c ( ε n ) cos φ > ∈tol NO and exit ? ( ⋅ )n+1 := ( ⋅ ) n+1 trial YES apply one-vector return mapping to main plane – obtain: ∆γ and σi (i=1. .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.304 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS spectral decomposition of the elastic trial stress – obtain: σitrial and with ei (i=1. ∆γ b and σi (i=1. ∆γ b assemble updated stress tensor: σn+1 := ∑ σ i e i⊗ e i i=1 3 and σi (i=1.2. and exit Figure 8.3) 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. Flowchart of the integration algorithm for the Mohr–Coulomb model in principal stresses.2.3) and other state variables. Procedure implemented in subroutine SUMC of program HYPLAS.10.

HYPLAS procedure: SUMC (i) Elastic predictor. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 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). 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.a) Return to main plane – GOTO Box 8.6 (iv.7 (v) Assemble updated stress tensor 3 σn+1 := i=1 σ i ei ⊗ ei and update elastic strain εe := n+1 (vi) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K . Compute trial trial trial σ1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 and ei (i = 1.6 ELSE apply return to left edge – GOTO Box 8.e) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8.b) Check validity of main plane return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 305 Box 8. 2. Implicit elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm for the Mohr– Coulomb model.d) Check validity of edge return IF σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3 THEN return is valid – GOTO (v) (iv.c) Return to edge trial trial trial IF (1 − sin ψ)σ1 − 2σ3 + (1 + sin ψ)σ2 > 0 THEN apply return to right edge – GOTO Box 8. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε.4.5 (iv.

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.306 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .

HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ a and ∆γ b ∆γ a := 0.6. 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 . Two-vector return mappings to edges. The Mohr–Coulomb model.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 307 Box 8. and corresponding residual ˜ Φa ˜ Φb where := σ a − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn σ b − 2 c(¯p ) cos φ ¯ εn ∆γ b := 0.

6 (contd.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . from page 307). The Mohr–Coulomb model. 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 8.308 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8.

85)) r := c(¯p ) cot φ − ptrial εn n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration H := d := dc d¯p ε (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (update ∆εp ) v εn+1 ¯ p H cos φ cot φ +K sin ψ ∆εp := ∆εp − r/d v v (iii) Compute new residual and check for convergence ¯n εp := εp + ¯n+1 cos φ ∆εp v sin ψ pn+1 := ptrial − K ∆εp n+1 v r := c(¯p ) cot φ − pn+1 εn+1 IF |r| ≤ tol THEN update σ1 := σ2 := σ3 := pn+1 and RETURN to Box 8.7.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 309 Box 8.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) . The Mohr–Coulomb model. Return mapping to apex. 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.

EDGE.NE.1. EDGE=.2.0D0.FALSE.STRAT(MSTRE) .4-7). i c} ¯ deﬁned by the accumulated plastic strain and the corresponding cohesion. RIGHT.IPROPS .PSTRS(3) .D-06.2.R1 .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0027’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 DGAMB=R0 IFPLAS=. 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .R2 .0D0. For the hardening law adopted in the present implementation.2) .AND.FALSE.R4 .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.TOL / 2 0. 2 RSTAVA .FALSE.IPROPS(*) .3. each sampling point i is a pair {i εp .0D0.NTYPE . the hardening curve is here deﬁned by a user-speciﬁed number of sampling points.STREST(3) DATA 1 R0 .STRAT .RPROPS .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . IFPLAS.0D0.SMALL . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 EIGPRJ(MSTRE.1.STRES(MSTRE) C Local variables and arrays LOGICAL 1 APEX. SUFAIL=. As in the algorithms for the von Mises and Tresca models (subroutines SUVM and SUTR.RPROPS(*) . EPBARN=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) EPBAR=EPBARN C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) SINPHI=RPROPS(4) . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLMENTATIONS.2. 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. respectively). The FORTRAN source code of subroutine SUMC is listed below.4.0D0. DUMMY.1.R3 .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. APEX=.FALSE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 SUBROUTINE SUMC 1( DGAM .NE.2.LALGVA . 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.NTYPE. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor plane stress state IF(NTYPE.310 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.MSTRE=4) C Arguments LOGICAL 1 LALGVA(5) DIMENSION 1 DGAM(2) .

JJ.NE.NE.R0)RES=RES/ABS(COHE) IF(RES. identify possible edge return: either right or left of main plane SCAPRD=PSTRS1*(R1-SINPSI)+PSTRS2*(-R2)+PSTRS3*(R1+SINPSI) IF(SCAPRD.JJ.2.TOL)THEN Plastic step: Apply return mapping ================================== IFPLAS=.NE.3.PSTRS1)THEN II=I PSTRS1=PSTRS(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRS(I).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=2.1)MM=1 IF(II. ELSE RIGHT=.NE.NE.JJ.AND.AND.TRUE.NE.DUMMY.GT.3 IF(PSTRS(I).NHARD.2)MM=2 IF(II.LT.GE.PSTRS3)THEN JJ=I PSTRS3=PSTRS(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.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.TRUE.R0)THEN RIGHT=.3)MM=3 PSTRS2=PSTRS(MM) Compute trial yield function and check for plastic consistency -------------------------------------------------------------COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.PSTRS.AND.NE.RPROPS(IPHARD)) SMCT=PSTRS1-PSTRS3+(PSTRS1+PSTRS3)*SINPHI PHIA=SMCT-R2CPHI*COHE RES=PHIA IF(COHE.1.FALSE. ENDIF Apply one-vector return mapping first (return to MAIN PLANE) -----------------------------------------------------------SPHSPS=SINPHI*SINPSI .GE.

GE.ABS(S2).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.GE.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 1-vector return is valid.AND.LE.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(SMCT) IF(RESNOR.RPROPS(IPHARD)) DRVAA=-CONSTA-FACTA .RPROPS(IPHARD)) Compute Newton-Raphson increment and update variable DGAMA DDGAMA=-PHIA/DENOM DGAMA=DGAMA+DDGAMA Compute new residual EPBAR=EPBARN+R2CPHI*DGAMA COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.S2+DELTA.NHARD.MXITER Compute residual derivative DENOM=-CONSTA-R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.S2.MXITER Compute residual derivative matrix FACTA=R4C2PH*DPLFUN(EPBAR.TOL)THEN Check validity of 1-vector return (check sextant of converged stress) S1=PSTRS1-(R2G*(R1+R1D3*SINPSI)+R2BULK*SINPSI)*DGAMA S2=PSTRS2+(R4G*R1D3-R2BULK)*SINPSI*DGAMA S3=PSTRS3+(R2G*(R1-R1D3*SINPSI)-R2BULK*SINPSI)*DGAMA DELTA=DMAX1(ABS(S1).NHARD. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 1-vector result is not valid.TRUE.NHARD.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCT-CONSTA*DGAMA-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=ABS(PHIA) IF(SMCT. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE Apply two-vector return mapping to appropriate EDGE --------------------------------------------------DGAMA=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBARN.NHARD. Go to two-vector return map to edge GOTO 30 ENDIF ENDIF 20 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.NE.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.

RPROPS(IPHARD)) COTPHI=COSPHI/SINPHI RES=COTPHI*COHE-PT Newton-Raphson iterations for DEPV .S2+DELTA.EQ.ABS(S3))*SMALL IF(S1+DELTA.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0009’) IF(SINPSI.TRUE.S3)THEN converged stress is in the same sextant as trial stress -> 2-vector return to edge is valid.S2.GE.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).R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/FACTOR IF(RESNOR.AND. 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.RPROPS(IPHARD)) PHIA=SMCTA-CONSTA*DGAMA-CONSTB*DGAMB-R2CPHI*COHE PHIB=SMCTB-CONSTB*DGAMA-CONSTA*DGAMB-R2CPHI*COHE Check convergence RESNOR=(ABS(PHIA)+ABS(PHIB)) FACTOR=(ABS(SMCTA)+ABS(SMCTB)) IF(FACTOR. P=(S1+S2+S3)*R1D3 GOTO 70 ELSE converged stress is not in the same sextant -> 2-vector return to edge is not valid.ABS(S2).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.R0)CALL ERRPRT(’EE0010’) Set initial guess for volumetric plastic strain increment DEPV DEPV=R0 EPBAR=EPBARN COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD. Go to two-vector return map to APEX GOTO 50 ENDIF ENDIF 40 CONTINUE failure of stress update procedure SUFAIL=.EQ.GE.NE.TRUE.LE. EDGE=.NHARD.

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 .TRUE.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.R0)RESNOR=RESNOR/ABS(PT) IF(RESNOR. DGAMA=DEPV DGAMB=R0 update principal stresses S1=P S2=P S3=P GOTO 70 ENDIF 60 CONTINUE SUFAIL=.MXITER DENOM=COSPHI*COTPHI/SINPSI*DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD.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. CALL ERRPRT(’WE0003’) GOTO 999 70 CONTINUE update internal variable EPBAR and stress components ----------------------------------------------------RSTAVA(MSTRE+1)=EPBAR PSTRS(II)=S1 PSTRS(JJ)=S3 PSTRS(MM)=S2 STRES(1)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(1.RPROPS(IPHARD))+ 1 BULK DDEPV=-RES/DENOM DEPV=DEPV+DDEPV EPBAR=EPBARN+COSPHI/SINPSI*DEPV COHE=PLFUN(EPBAR.2) STRES(3)=PSTRS(1)*EIGPRJ(3.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(2.TRUE.NHARD.NE.TOL)THEN APEX=.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(1.1)+PSTRS(2)*EIGPRJ(3.LE.

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

4. Starting points and increment directions. only the derivation of the elastoplastic tangent is addressed.12. εe trial .3). 2. 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.4 for details of this approach). the integration error can be high. 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. The maps obtained are shown in Figure 8. Recall that. εe trial ). having the vector T parallel to the corresponding edge of the Mohr–Coulomb pyramid.11. however. 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. large areas in which the integration error vanishes are observed in the present case for all starting points. we need only to derive expressions for the partial derivatives ∂ σi ˜ . 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 8.1 (coded in SUMC). in the absence of hardening. j = 1. 8.316 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. It is remarked. that is.2. the present integration algorithm simply projects the trial stress onto the yield surface along a suitable direction.1.1. Within some narrow bands.2. 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. e trial ∂εj i. Similarly to the integration algorithm for the Tresca model (Section 8. Essentially. Firstly. in order to compute the elastoplastic tangent operator. In what follows. 2 3 (8. 3 where σi are the implicit functions for the principal updated stresses ˜ ˜ 1 σi = σi (εe trial . however.91) .

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

§ For each one there is a different explicit form for the principal stress derivatives and for Dep . H is the isotropic hardening modulus (slope of the hardening curve): H≡ dc d¯p ε .95) εp ¯n+1 and the constant a is deﬁned by (8.74) and then substitute the differentials d∆γ a and d∆γ b obtained by linearising the consistency equations (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. (8. Principal stress derivatives for the edge return mappings To obtain the principal stress derivatives consistent with the right edge return. In this last expression. The derivation of the principal stresses derivatives consistent with each of the four possible return mappings is addressed in what follows. we need ﬁrst to differentiate the update formulae (8. . 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. Combination of the two differential forms above.71).93) 4G − 2K sin ψ d∆γ 3 trial dσ3 = dσ3 + [2G(1 − 1 sin ψ) − 2K sin ψ] d∆γ. right.2.94) which is obtained by differentiating (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. (8. n+1 n+1 (8.78) and (8.79). The same comments apply to the derivation of the derivatives for the left edge return mapping.5. The ﬁnal results can be easily identiﬁed in subroutine CTMC.69). 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. left edge and apex.96) renders the ﬁnal expressions for the derivatives of the principal stresses. together with the use of the linear elastic relation σtrial = De : εe trial . In CTMC. This gives trial dσ1 = dσ1 − [2G(1 + trial dσ2 = dσ2 + 1 3 sin ψ) + 2K sin ψ] d∆γ (8. The derivation is lengthier than the previous one and will not be shown here. 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. whose main steps involve the differentiation of the expressions given in (8. In the ﬁnite element program.76). the computed principal stress derivatives are stored in matrix DPSTRS.72).

3.82) and (8.RPROPS(*) K cos φ cot φ sin ψ H . Remark 8. (8.LALGVA .IPROPS .85). 2. 8. as in this case the apex remains ﬁxed in stress space. . we have trivially Dep = 0.5. This routine is consistent with the algorithm coded in SUMC. consistency with the appropriate return algorithm (main plane.STRES ) 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.EPFLAG .MSTRE) . . It returns either the elastic tangent or the elastoplastic tangent depending on the entry value of the logical ﬂag EPFLAG (one of its arguments).MDIM=3.3.NTYPE 3 2 RPROPS .86)2 yields dσi = dptrial − K d∆εp n+1 v = K (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial − d∆εp ) 1 2 3 v (8. v 1 2 3 v sin ψ which rearranged gives d∆εp = v K K+ cos φ cot φ sin ψ (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. the following linearised consistency condition is obtained: H cos φ cot φ d∆εp − K (dεe trial + dεe trial + dεe trial − d∆εp ) = 0. right.IPROPS(*) .100) .RSTAVA . 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).99) The substitution of this expression into (8. The source code of CTMC is listed in the following.97) for i = 1. When the elastoplastic tangent is required.STRAT . 3. 1 SUBROUTINE CTMC 2 1( DMATX . 1 2 3 (8. By differentiating (8. MSTRE=4) 6 C Arguments 7 LOGICAL EPFLAG .98) H (dεtrial + dεtrial + dεtrial ).O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . 2.2. Clearly.LALGVA(5) 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE. j = 1.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 319 Principal stress derivatives for the apex return Differentiation of the apex return stress update formulae (8. In the absence of hardening (H = 0) all principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return vanish.97) yields the principal stress derivatives consistent with the apex return mapping: ∂σi =K 1− ∂εe trial K+ j for i.

0.0.0.OUTOFP .SOID(2) . 2 PSTRS(MDIM) .0.RIGHT .0.MSTRE) .R2 .0D0 .FOID(4.0.SOID(4) / 2 1.0D0 .FOID(2.FOID(MSTRE.0D0.FOID(2.0D0 .1.3).1.PSTRA(MDIM) .FOID(4.1.1).0.1).STRES(MSTRE) C Local arrays and variables LOGICAL APEX .1).0D0 .SOID(MSTRE) .0D0 .NTYPE.NE.3).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) .3).0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .MDIM) .FOID(3.3).EDGE .FOID(1.0D0 .0D0 .0D0 / 5 FOID(3.SOID(3) .0D0 .1.FOID(3.2).1.0D0 .4)/ 6 0.5D0 .0D0.0D0 .R3 .4)/ 4 0. 3 STRAC(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1.4)/ 8 0.0.FOID(3.FOID(2.2).REPEAT DIMENSION 1 DPSTRS(MDIM.0.3.EIGPRJ(MSTRE.1).R1 . C PLANE STRAIN AND AXISYMMETRIC IMPLEMENTATIONS.4)/ 2 1.0D0 / DATA 1 SOID(1) .4.0D0 .0D0 / 3 FOID(2.2).2.NE.2.0D0 .FOID(4.5D0. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric state IF(NTYPE.0D0.3)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) .AND.FOID(1.2) .0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR MOHR-COULOMB TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH ASSOCIATIVE/NON-ASSOCIATIVE FLOW RULE AND C PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.0D0 .0D0 .STRAT(MSTRE) .FOID(1.R4 / 2 0.0.2).0.0D0 / 7 FOID(4.

returned to right edge DPSTRS(II.AND.PSTRA.3 IF(PSTRA(I).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.NE.2.NE.1.NE.MM)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVAB-DRVAA)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVBA-DRVBB)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II..JJ.2)MM=2 IF(II.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.PSTMIN)THEN JJ=I PSTMIN=PSTRA(JJ) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE IF(II.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.GE.NE.II)=BULK-R2GD3+(AUX2*(DRVAB-DRVBB)+AUX3*(DRVBA1 DRVAA))*(R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.REPEAT.2)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.2)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.1)MM=1 IF(II.1)+ 1 R2*STRES(3)*EIGPRJ(3.1) PSTRS(2)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.NHARD.JJ)=BULK-R2GD3+AUX1*(R2G*(DRVBA-DRVBB)+ 1 ((-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)*(R2BULK+R2GD3)+ 2 (DRVAB-DRVAA)*R2G)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(MM.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 .3.1)+STRES(2)*EIGPRJ(2.NE..NE.LT.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 .JJ.STRAC) PSTRA(3)=STRAT(4) and current total stress PSTRS(1)=STRES(1)*EIGPRJ(1.AND.JJ.AND.II)=BULK+R4GD3+AUX1*(-DRVAB+DRVBB+DRVAA-DRVBA)* 1 (R2G+(R2BULK+R2GD3)*SINPHI)*R1DDET DPSTRS(II.PSTMAX)THEN II=I PSTMAX=PSTRA(II) ENDIF IF(PSTRA(I).

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

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

inner edge. Their formulae for outer edge. The constants η and ξ are chosen according to the required approximation to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. The Drucker–Prager model We now move on to the last model implementation discussed in this chapter. Refer to page 295. by expressions (6.126) and (6. The implemented Drucker–Prager constitutive equations The Drucker–Prager yield surface is deﬁned by means of the yield function Φ(σ. (8. The most important results of this section can be found as indicated in the table below.16 subroutine CTDP (Section 8. Function calls from CTMC Function calls here are the same as from subroutine CTTR (for the Tresca model implementation). J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ) − ξ c.8–8.324 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. respectively. ﬂowchart integration algorithm pseudo-code FORTRAN code Figure 8.15 Boxes 8.3.3.101) .2) Figure 8. uniaxial tension/compression and biaxial tension/compression matching are given.102) p = 1/3 tr[σ] is the hydrostatic pressure and c is the cohesion. (8. 8.122).10 subroutine SUDP (Section 8.127). c) = where J2 = 1 s : s. respectively. The output values of the arguments of SUMC are taken as input values by CTMC. the tangent operator and the elastoplastic ﬂag that indicates whether the elastic or elastoplastic operator is to be computed in CTMC.3.5) iso-error map consistent tangent – FORTRAN code – Following the format of the previous sections. (6. 2 s = σ − p(σ) I. (6.123) and (6. Here we focus on a Drucker–Prager model with piecewise linear isotropic strain hardening. plane strain. a brief summary of the constitutive equations adopted in the present implementation is presented below.124).

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.164) or (6. page 176).163). are fully symmetric about the hydrostatic axis.20(b). the Drucker–Prager yield surface. inner edge and plane strain match. Secondly.108) n+1 where −∆γ De : Nn+1 is the return vector.61).3: ˙ ˙ (8. This relation is obtained by combining the non-associative version of (6. The corresponding ﬂow potential is Ψ(σ. that is.1. c) = J2 (s(σ)) + η p(σ). ¯ (8.165) respectively for the outer. (6. page 176). N is a vector contained in the complementary cone (refer to the schematic illustration of Figure 6.161) with the evolution law (8. As for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of the previous section.106). associative isotropic strain hardening is adopted here. in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models.64): ξ ˙ ˙ εp = ε p . The hardening law is deﬁned by (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. where. together with the associative evolution equation for the accumulated plastic strain derived for Drucker–Prager plasticity in Section 6.105) (8. ¯ (8. (8. the Drucker–Prager counterpart of relation (8.103) where the constant η depends on the dilatancy angle. 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. ψ.106) εp = γ ξ. as well as the ﬂow vector ﬁeld resulting from the generally non-associative ﬂow potential. respectively. This is in contrast with the two and three possible singularities identiﬁed. only one singularity exists in the Drucker–Prager yield surface – its apex. Firstly. As a consequence of the symmetry about the pressure axis (see Figure 6.104) At the cone apex. where the potential is singular.20.6.107) η v ¯ will be needed in the derivation of the return-mapping equation for the apex of the Drucker– Prager cone. Consider the general return-mapping update formula for the stress tensor for materials with linear elastic law: σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : Nn+1 . the ﬂow vector is a subgradient of Ψ. This relative simplicity stems from two main features of the present material model. ¯ Analogously to the Mohr–Coulomb implementation.3. the ﬂow vector is given by N= ∂Ψ = ∂σ 2 1 J2 (s) η ¯ s + I. The ﬂow rule reads ˙ ˙ εp = γ N. 8. whenever the above formula is applied (regardless . 3 (8.

equivalently. is obtained by simply scaling down the trial deviatoric stress. n+1 page 329).14. 3 (8. the return vector is always parallel to the plane that contains σtrial and the hydrostatic axis (see Figure 8. ¯ strial n+1 (8.112) (8.109) Simpliﬁcation of the above expression can be obtained by noting 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. sn+1 . strial . 3 (8.326 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS of whether σn+1 lies on the smooth portion of the cone or on its apex). the ﬂow vector is deﬁned by (8. due to the deﬁnition of J2 . without loss of generality.113) It should be noted that the deviatoric updated stress. Thus. The corresponding algorithms are derived in what follows. by a factor that depends on ∆γ.114) . two possible explicit forms exist for the return-mapping algorithm.105). 3 (8. since the deﬁnition of the ﬂow vector Nn+1 in the smooth portion of the cone differs from that at the apex singularity. 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. εn+1 (8. Return to the smooth portion of the cone On the smooth portion of the cone. The consistency condition in the present case is given by Φn+1 ≡ J2 (sn+1 ) + η pn+1 − ξ c(¯p ) = 0. 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 . Note that. These are treated separately below. 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 . the following identity holds strial sn+1 n+1 = .111) which. the return-mapping algorithm can be completely formulated in such a plane of the stress space.110) 1 2 J2 (s) sn+1 + η ¯ I .

117) (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 327 where the update accumulated plastic strain is obtained from the discrete version of (8.13.116) The substitution of the above expression and (8.113) into the consistency condition results in the following (generally nonlinear) equation for ∆γ: ˜ Φ(∆γ) ≡ J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ + η (ptrial − K η ∆γ) ¯ n+1 n+1 − ξ c(¯p + ξ ∆γ) = 0.107) in the above equation. the return-mapping equations (8. Its geometrical representation is shown in Figure 8. εn After solution of the above equation.85) of the Mohr–Coulomb implementation.119) (8. we obtain the ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the Drucker–Prager apex: r(∆εp ) ≡ c(¯p + α∆εp ) β − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.119) respectively for the smooth portion and apex of the Drucker–Prager cone are linear and ∆γ is computed in closed form. Remark 8. the return to apex does not make sense in the present η context and the comments made immediately after expression (8.119) for ∆εp . for linearly hardening models.20(b) of page 176. we update v ¯n εp := εp + α∆εp .86) for the Mohr–Coulomb implementation apply. c is constant and. n+1 v (8.121) Note that for non-dilatant ﬂow (¯ = 0). the hardening function reads c(¯p ) = c0 + H εp .4. ε (8. the stress is updated by (8. with the introduction of the discretised form of (8.120) This equation is analogous to the return-mapping equation (8. η β≡ ξ . εn v v n+1 v where ξ α≡ . ε ¯ In such cases.115) Further. . η ¯ (8. The derivation of the return-mapping procedure in this case is completely analogous to that of the Mohr–Coulomb apex return described in item 4 of page 299. the return vector must be contained in the complementary cone schematically illustrated in Figure 6. The consistency condition (8.113). where H denotes the hardening modulus.114) is reduced to c(¯p + ∆¯p ) εn ε ξ − ptrial + K ∆εp = 0.117) and (8. n+1 v η ¯ (8. ¯n+1 v σn+1 := (ptrial − K ∆εp ) I. After the solution of (8. Return to the apex At the apex.106): ε εp = εp + ∆¯p ¯n+1 ¯n with ∆¯p = ξ ∆γ.118) (8. For perfectly plastic materials.

Selection of the appropriate return mapping Having derived the two possible forms of return mapping for the Drucker–Prager model. the returned stress lies outside the updated elastic domain and is not admissible. a strategy for selection of the appropriate one is necessary for the complete deﬁnition of the integration algorithm. Recall that the purpose of the selection procedure is to ensure that the validated return mapping – in the present case.113)1. after determination of ∆γ from the related consistency condition. A possible selection strategy is summarised in the following steps (refer to Figure 8.13. In this case.14 for a graphical representation): • Firstly. the following is satisﬁed acone ≡ J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ ≥ 0. The above selection procedure ensures the consistency of the selected return algorithm regardless of any prescribed hardening/softening law. derived in Chapter 7. From the corresponding deviatoric stress update formula (8.122) If. n+1 (8. Thus. then the other one must be valid.25).123) then the returned stress indeed lies on the Drucker–Prager cone and the return mapping is validated. Return mapping to apex. the return mapping to the apex must be applied. n+1 (8. it follows that J2 (sn+1 ) = J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ. either the return to the smooth wall or the return to the apex – rigorously satisﬁes the general implicit return-mapping equations (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. . if the application of one of them generates a contradiction. The selection strategy for the Drucker–Prager model is simple. The results obtained by the apex return are then necessarily valid. • Otherwise. Drucker–Prager model. There are only two possible return mappings. apply the return algorithm to the smooth part of the Drucker–Prager cone.

14. with the associated selection strategy.G ∆γ < 0 n +1 Figure 8. Drucker–Prager model. The overall integration algorithm Essentially.8–8. The corresponding pseudo-code is summarised in Boxes 8. .15.10.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 329 trial σ n +1 J2( s ) 1 η J2( s trial ) . The integration algorithm for the Drucker–Prager model has been implemented in subroutine SUDP of program HYPLAS and is explained in detail below.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 ) . 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. Selection of appropriate return mapping.

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

HYPLAS procedure: SUDP (i) Elastic predictor.10 (iv) Update elastic strain εe := n+1 (v) EXIT 1 p sn+1 + n+1 I 2G 3K . Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the Drucker– Prager model. Given ∆ε and the state variables at tn . 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 8.9 (b) Check validity IF J2 (strial ) − G ∆γ ≥ 0 n+1 THEN return is valid – GOTO (iv) (c) Return to apex – GOTO Box 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 331 Box 8.8.

SUDP ¯n εp := εp ¯n+1 and corresponding residual (yield function value) ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) + η ptrial − ξ c(¯p ) εn n+1 n+1 (ii) Perform Newton–Raphson iteration for ∆γ H := d := dc d¯p ε ˜ dΦ p (hardening slope) (residual derivative) (new guess for ∆γ) εn+1 ¯ = −G − K η η − ξ 2 H ¯ d∆γ ˜ ∆γ := ∆γ − Φ/d (iii) Check convergence ¯n εp := εp + ξ ∆γ ¯n+1 ˜ Φ := J2 (strial ) − G∆γ + η (ptrial − K η ∆γ) − ξ c(¯p ) ¯ εn+1 n+1 tol ˜ IF |Φ| ≤ THEN sn+1 := 1 − update G ∆γ J2 (s trial n+1 ) strial n+1 pn+1 := ptrial − K η ∆γ ¯ n+1 and RETURN to Box 8.332 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 8. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0. Return mapping to smooth portion of cone.8 (iv) GOTO (ii) . The Drucker–Prager model.9.

Return mapping to apex. v εp := εp ¯n+1 ¯n and corresponding residual (refer to equation (8.10. HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆εp v SUDP ∆εp := 0.4 (iv) GOTO (ii) .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.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 333 Box 8. The Drucker–Prager model.

LALGVA(3).2.RPROPS(*) .8-10) C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if neither plane strain nor axisymmetric IF(NTYPE.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.IPROPS . i c}.0D0.NTYPE .5D0. IFPLAS. ¯ The source code of SUDP is listed below.R3 .0.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 8.334 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 8.R2 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .3)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0016’) C Initialize some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.FALSE.2.STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 .0D0.2). 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 . 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 . 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .1. SUBROUTINE SUDP The above integration algorithm has been implemented in subroutine SUDP (State Update procedure for the Drucker–Prager model) of program HYPLAS.RPROPS .R1 .1.0D0.2. As in the Mohr–Coulomb implementation of subroutine SUMC (Section 8.NE.3.LALGVA . SUFAIL=.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 STRIAL(MSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .NE.NTYPE.STRAT . a general piecewise isotropic hardening law is assumed with the (user-supplied) hardening curve deﬁned by a set of pairs: {i εp .RP5 .AND.TOL / 2 0.RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .0D0.3. 2 RSTAVA .2.FALSE.

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

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

16. i. 2 εp . the state update failure ﬂag SUFAIL and the apex return ﬂag APEX. 1 εp .4. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ and array LALGVA is deﬁned as ← LALGVA. .TRUE.e. The analysis is restricted to the perfectly plastic case with associative ﬂow rule. IFPLAS. . 2 c. The Drucker–Prager parameters adopted in the test are chosen so as to match the outer edges of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion with frictional angle φ = 20o . however. . . .3. otherwise. if the return mapping to the apex is selected. Also. ISO-ERROR MAP An iso-error map for the integration algorithm described above for the Drucker–Prager model is presented in this section. 8. ν. The tangent tensor here is deviatoric. η . that in the present case IPROPS(3) is set in subroutine RDDP. Due to the symmetry of the Drucker–Prager yield surface about the hydrostatic axis. . The logical ﬂag APEX is required by subroutine CTDP to decide which elastoplastic tangent operator to compute (consistent with the return to either the smooth part or apex of the Drucker–Prager cone). The unit tensors N and T deﬁning the increment directions are. for the Drucker–Prager model. 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 . The increment normalising factor q is the von Mises effective stress at the starting point.3. . For the Drucker–Prager model this array contains the plastic yielding ﬂag. array RPROPS stores the following: RPROPS = [E. The apex return ﬂag is set to . Note. It is set to . η. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR FOR THE DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL Again. the error maps obtained from all points within the same cross-section of the Drucker–Prager cone are identical. ξ.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. respectively. normal and tangent to the yield surface. Due to the pressure-sensitivity of the model (as for the Mohr–Coulomb case). with non-deviatoric tangents to the yield surface as well. Here the error map is constructed having a generic point of the deviatoric plane as the starting point. a more comprehensive accuracy assessment would require increments in other directions. nhard εp . Flags IFPLAS and SUFAIL are set in the same way as in the previous implementations discussed. nhard c]. 8.3.FALSE. 1 c. The resulting error map is plotted in Figure 8.

127) .5 2. d n+1 (8.125) ∆γ 1 D ⊗ D : dεe trial − √ d∆γ D . three and four elastoplastic explicit forms of tangent exist. Iso-error map. For this model. Following the procedure adopted in the implementation of the Tresca and Mohr–Coulomb models where. +√ 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 7. εe trial d n+1 ∆σN /q (8.5 4 10 10. 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.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. 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 . Tangent consistent with the smooth portion return Firstly.338 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 2. above for the Drucker–Prager model. respectively.0 0 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT /q Figure 8. Drucker–Prager model with associative ﬂow. the differentiation of the hydrostatic pressure update formula ¯ ¯ pn+1 = ptrial − K η ∆γ = K(εe trial − η ∆γ).5 7. 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.126) Similarly. n+1 v n+1 (8.5 5 5.0 2 0.16.

135) (8.130) into (8.134) Now. in conjunction with the use of the elastic relation.128) The expression relating d∆γ and the differentials of trial strain is obtained by linearising the consistency condition (8. the differential of the updated stress consistent with the application of the apex return is simply dσn+1 = dpn+1 I.117). d n+1 v n+1 2H G + Kη η + ξ ¯ (8.132) Tangent consistent with the return mapping to the apex Since the stress deviator. and use of the identity Dep ≡ dσn+1 dsn+1 dpn+1 = e trial + I ⊗ e trial .136) . ¯ which results in the identity d∆γ = √ 1 ( 2 G D : dεe trial + Kη dεe trial ). The linearisation of (8.128). Accordingly. G + Kη η + ξ 2 H ¯ (8. with the substitution of (8. sn+1 .129) Finally.125) and (8. v n+1 (8.130) (8. recall the hydrostatic pressure update formula: pn+1 = ptrial − K ∆εp . the associated elastoplastic tangent modulus is given by Dep ≡ dσn+1 dpn+1 = I ⊗ e trial .117).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. where Id is the deviatoric projection tensor and A is deﬁned as A= 1 . 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. vanishes at the apex.137) (8.133) (8. n+1 v Its differentiation gives dpn+1 = K I : dεe trial − K d∆εp . dεe trial dεn+1 n+1 (8. n+1 v (8. dεe trial dεn+1 dεn+1 n+1 (8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 339 gives ¯ dpn+1 = K (dεe trial − η d∆γ).

MSTRE).3). K + αβH (8.FOID(1.3. given by (8. The implicit algorithm with which the present tangent computation is consistent is coded in subroutine SUDP. . .LALGVA 2 NTYPE .STRAT ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H. 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).FOID(1. This routine returns either the standard elastic tangent or the consistent elastoplastic tangent operator depending on the entry value of the logical argument EPFLAG.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 (8.140). If the elastoplastic tangent is requested.139) (8.138) Finally.2).SOID(MSTRE) 2 UNIDEV(MSTRE) DATA 1 FOID(1. The source code of CTDP is listed below. with the substitution of the above formula into (8.IPROPS(*) . 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. Remark 8. The comments made in Remark 8.RSTAVA .119). in the absence of hardening (H = 0) the above tangent operator vanishes. .5.FOID(1.RPROPS . 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 .IPROPS .FOID(MSTRE.EPFLAG .MSTRE) . EPFLAG. n+1 K + αβH (8.1).5. 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. Note that.STRAT(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EETD(MSTRE) .O-Z) PARAMETER(IPHARD=7 . The elastoplastic tangents computed in CTDP are those given by expressions (8.DMATX . LALGVA(3) DIMENSION 1 DMATX(MSTRE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SUBROUTINE CTDP 1( DGAM .3 are equally valid for the Drucker–Prager model.132) and (8.137) and use of (8.RPROPS(*) 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) . 8.100) in terms of principal stress derivatives.140) This formula is in complete analogy with that of the apex return for the Mohr–Coulomb model.4)/ .135) we obtain the expression for the tangent operator consistent with the apex return mapping: Dep = K 1 − K I ⊗ I.MSTRE=4) LOGICAL APEX.

FOID(2.0D0 .0D0 .1).SOID(3) .0D0 .0D0 / SOID(1) 1.0D0 .0D0 .EQ.0D0.FOID(3.NHARD.FOID(2.2).FOID(2.0D0 .0D0.NSTRE DO 10 J=1.2).0D0 .R1 .0D0 .3).0D0 .5D0.0D0 .R2 .0D0 / / DATA 1 R0 .R3 / 2 0.1.FOID(4.0.RPROPS(IPHARD)) IF(APEX)THEN C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with apex return C ------------------------------------------------ALPHA=XI/ETABAR BETA=XI/ETA AFACT=BULK*(R1-BULK/(BULK+ALPHA*BETA*HSLOPE)) DO 20 I=1.0D0.SOID(4) .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.0.0.2.0.3).4)/ 0.RP5 .FOID(3.0.0D0 / FOID(3.0.1.0D0 .EQ.3.0D0 .1).0.3)THEN NSTRE=4 ELSE CALL ERRPRT(’EI0017’) ENDIF C Retrieve accumulated plastic strain.FOID(4.0D0 .0.SOID(2) .4)/ 0.0.0D0 / FOID(4.5D0 .FOID(3. DGAMA and APEX algorithm flag EPBAR=RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) DGAMA=DGAM APEX=LALGVA(3) C Set some material properties YOUNG=RPROPS(2) POISS=RPROPS(3) ETA=RPROPS(4) XI=RPROPS(5) ETABAR=RPROPS(6) NHARD=IPROPS(3) C and some constants GMODU=YOUNG/(R2*(R1+POISS)) BULK=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-R2*POISS)) R2G=R2*GMODU R1D3=R1/R3 ROOT2=SQRT(R2) C IF(EPFLAG)THEN C Compute elastoplastic consistent tangent C ======================================== C Hardening slope HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.1).2)THEN NSTRE=3 ELSEIF(NTYPE.1.0D0 .2).J)=AFACT*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 10 CONTINUE 20 CONTINUE ELSE C Elastoplastic tangent consistent with smooth cone wall return .0.4)/ 0.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 1.0.3).1.1.NSTRE DMATX(I.FOID(4.0.0D0 / FOID(2.

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.J)=R2G*FOID(I.NSTRE 115 DO 60 J=I.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 117 60 CONTINUE 118 70 CONTINUE 119 DO 90 J=1.NSTRE-1 120 DO 80 I=J+1.J)=DMATX(J.I) 122 80 CONTINUE 123 90 CONTINUE 124 ENDIF 125 RETURN 126 END The arguments of CTDP The situation here is completely analogous to that of subroutine CTMC (refer to page 324).J)=AFACT*FOID(I. with state update related arguments coming in the present case from subroutine SUDP.R0)THEN 87 EDNINV=R1/ETDNOR 88 ELSE 89 EDNINV=R0 90 ENDIF 91 DO 30 I=1.NE.J)+BFACT*UNIDEV(I)*UNIDEV(J)+ 104 1 CFACT*(ETA*UNIDEV(I)*SOID(J)+ 105 2 ETABAR*SOID(I)*UNIDEV(J))+ 106 3 (DFACT-AFACD3)*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 107 40 CONTINUE 108 50 CONTINUE 109 ENDIF 110 ELSE 111 C Compute elasticity matrix 112 C ========================= 113 FACTOR=BULK-R2G*R1D3 114 DO 70 I=1.NSTRE 102 DO 40 J=1.342 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 116 DMATX(I.NSTRE 103 DMATX(I. .NSTRE 121 DMATX(I.

1. The ﬁnite element model adopted in the present analysis is shown in Figure 8. The material is modelled as elastic-perfectly plastic with the Tresca yield criterion. It is noted that all results presented here have been obtained with the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. for the Tresca model is given as c = σy /2.4. c.623 c a2 (8. it gives Mu ≈ 1. 8. The vertical deﬂection obtained for the nodes where the forces are applied is plotted in Figure 8. Examples This section presents a set of benchmark numerical examples involving all material model implementations described in the previous sections of this chapter. For symmetry reasons. Due to the distance between the neck and the points where the forces are applied.18. the collapse of a wide rectangular metal bar containing a deep 90o V-shaped notch and subjected to pure bending is analysed. For the present material parameters and geometry. Without exception.4. The bar is wide enough so that the analysis can be carried out under the assumption of plane strain conditions.869 Nm (8. Whenever available.17.19 against the normalised . 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. n+1 • UNIDEV [D]. Array of components of the unit tensor parallel to the deviatoric elastic trial strain. the full Newton–Raphson algorithm has been adopted in the iterative solution of the global ﬁnite element equilibrium equations. For a notch angle of 90o the associated upper bound moment per unit width of the bar is Mu ≈ 0. A mesh of 312 eight-noded elements (with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature) is adopted with a total of 1001 nodes.18. d n+1 d n+1 8. a condition close to pure bending is obtained near the neck.141) where a is the thickness of the bar in the neck and the cohesion or shear strength. 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. Norm of the deviatoric component of the elastic trial strain tensor. BENDING OF A V-NOTCHED TRESCA BAR In this example. The geometry and material parameters are shown in Figure 8. The reader is referred to Chakrabarty (1987) for details of the solution. D ≡ εe trial / εe trial . only half of the bar is discretised with symmetry kinematical constraints imposed on the nodes across the neck.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 343 Some local variables and arrays of CTDP • ETDNOR [ εe trial ]. 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). A total number of 13 load increments is applied in the ﬁnite element analysis.142) per millimetre width of the bar. The moment M is applied by means of two opposite nodal forces of equal intensity F prescribed on the nodes indicated in Figure 8.

3 σ y = 0. In this increment the bar is effectively collapsing. c a2 (8.20(a). Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. i.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) a = 5 mm h = 8 mm M l = 40 mm Figure 8. Alongside. Note that the collapse mechanism predicted by the ﬁnite element simulation is in agreement with Green’s slip-line ﬁeld.A. M/ca2 . The geometry of the cantilever as well as the mesh adopted in the ﬁnite element analysis are . corresponding to load increment 12 of the ﬁnite element computation ε is shown for comparison.) bending moment per unit width. M = Fh F h Figure 8. Finite element model.) F Please Wait.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 of a V-notched bar. Problem deﬁnition. in Figure 8.636. The limit load determined by the present analysis is fe Mlim ≈ 0. ∆¯p . The slipline ﬁeld proposed by Green (1953) for the present dimensions is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.A. END-LOADED TAPERED CANTILEVER The collapse of a wide end-loaded tapered cantilever is analysed in this example. (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. a small increment of applied load results in extremely large incremental deﬂections. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering. Bending of a V-notched bar.2.e.17.143) This result is in very close agreement (about 2% higher) with Green’s upper bound. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. 8.4. The contour plot of ∆¯p shows the area where the plastic process is concentrated and clearly illustrates ε the collapse mechanism. the contour plot of the incremental accumulated plastic strain..18. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto.20(b). Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering.

∆¯p . acting on the opposite edge. His solution for θ > 75o .4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0. Upper bound limit loads for tapered cantilevers have been obtained analytically by Green (1954) by means of slip-line ﬁeld theory. the normalised upper bound for the shear traction ¶ Green’s limit loads are exact for taper angles θ ≤ 75o . Computer c Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. (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. Bending of a V-notched bar: (a) slip-line ﬁeld of the upper bound solution by Green (1953). Moment-deﬂection diagram. The cantilever is assumed to be made of a Tresca elastic-perfectly plastic material with the same constants as in the previous example. such as in the present example.20.contour levels: 0. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and c Engineering.2 0 0 0. The width of the cantilever is assumed sufﬁciently large so that a plane strain analysis is carried out.¶ For the present geometry.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 0.A. The cantilever is ﬁrmly supported (clamped) on one edge and the applied load is a uniformly distributed shearing traction.19.5 1 1.623 0.6 0.004 0.117 0.A. of intensity S. D Peri´ and EA de Souza Neto. Nevertheless. ε (Reproduced with permission from A new computational model for Tresca plasticity at ﬁnite strains with an optimal parametrization in the principal space. .8 345 bending moment.21. due to experimental conﬁrmation of the proposed slip-line ﬁelds.050 0.) p ∆ε .010 0. are only upper bounds. M/ca2 0.000 M M (a) (b) Figure 8. (b) ﬁnite element result under collapse (increment 12): incremental accumulated plastic strain.5 2 edge deﬂection (mm) Figure 8. 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. Vol 171 c 1999 Elsevier Science S.

by c = σy /2. 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. S.3.346 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS L = 150 mm θ = 80 o Material properties – Tresca model Young’s modulus: Poisson ratio: Uniaxial yield stress: (perfectly plastic) E = 210 GPa ν = 0.23(c). ∆¯p . The increment of accumulated plastic strain. obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is plotted in Figure 8. the load above which convergence of equilibrium iterations cannot be attained for sufﬁciently small increments) is fe Slim ≈ 0.786. the analysis performed in that example was restricted to the use of the von Mises material model.4% above Green’s upper bound. End-loaded tapered cantilever. σ y = 0. The present limit load has been reached in eight increments.775 (8.22. the sizes of the vectors have been largely exaggerated and do not correspond to the norms of the actual nodal displacements. (8. obtained in the ε same load increment is illustrated in Figure 8. for the Tresca model. 8.145) which is about 1. In the ﬁnite element analysis. the load is applied incrementally until collapse occurs. found by Green is Su ≈ 0. The contour plot shows that. In this plot. when the cantilever is effectively collapsing. STRIP-FOOTING COLLAPSE The plane strain analysis of a strip footing has been carried out in detail in Example 7. u. The slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954) is schematically illustrated in Figure 8. It can be seen that the ﬁnite element solution has captured Green’s collapse mechanism quite accurately.144) c where c is the shear strength given.23(b) shows the incremental nodal displacements obtained in the last increment (increment 8). The associated collapse mechanism is of the plastic hinge type. of the mid-node of the free edge versus the applied force. In the . At collapse.4. Figure 8. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element mesh.4 (page 252) of Chapter 7..5.24 GPa S h = 100 mm Figure 8.3 Please Wait. A diagram showing the vertical deﬂection.e. the portion to the right of the slip-line ﬁeld rotates by sliding over the circular arc BC.21. The corresponding collapse load (i.23(a). where the suitability of the ﬁnite element framework of program HYPLAS for the determination of collapse loads has been made evident. However. at collapse.

the same strip-footing problem is analysed but the soil is now modelled as a Tresca. the loading consists of the prescribed vertical displacement.26. Force-deﬂection diagram.8 normalised load.5. The resulting loadsettlement curve is plotted in Figure 8. Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager material.002 is applied in 14 increments. the analysis is carried out using the Tresca model.24. The objective is to illustrate the performance of the algorithms described earlier in the present chapter for these models.24).5.01 0. page 253).24.775 0. Thus. of the nodes under the footing as shown in Figure 7. Note that due to symmetry. The soil is assumed to be weightless. c (8. The corresponding uniaxial yield stress (required by the input data procedure for the Tresca material in HYPLAS) is σy = 2c = 980 kPa.04 normalised edge deﬂection. u. S/c 0. present example.4 finite element results Green’s upper bound: 0.02 0. The adopted common material parameters are Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio Cohesion E = 107 kPa ν = 0. where the same material parameters have been used.6 0. boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are identical to those of Example 7. The footing is assumed to be rigid and perfectly smooth (no friction). This curve and the corresponding limit load fe Plim ≈ 5.48 c = 490 kPa The dimensions. End-loaded tapered cantilever.03 0. Tresca Firstly.146) are practically identical to those obtained with the von Mises model in Example 7.4 (see Figure 7.19. The horizontal displacement of these nodes is unconstrained.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 347 0.22. The . only half of the problem is discretised. A ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0. u/h Figure 8. The mesh contains 135 eightnoded quadrilaterals (four Gauss point quadrature) and a total of 446 nodes.4 (plotted in Figure 7.2 0 0 0.

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). 0. Analytical solution: (a) slip-line ﬁeld proposed by Green (1954).contour levels: Please Wait.23.004 0. as obtained in the simulation with the von Mises model carried out in the previous chapter. Mohr–Coulomb The analysis of the strip-footing problem with the Mohr–Coulomb material model is carried out assuming a frictional angle φ = 20o .040 0..28.000 (b) (c) Figure 8. is illustrated in Figure 7. ∆¯p .348 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Green’s slip-line field A B C D (a) p ∆ε . This mechanism.120 0.14.148) .167 0. (c) incremental accumulated plastic strain. ε numerically determined limit pressure is less than 1% above the slip-line theory solution Plim ≈ 5. End-loaded tapered cantilever. ﬁnite element results under collapse (increment 8): (b) incremental nodal displacements. Please Wait.. (8. c (8.

The limit loads obtained with the associative and non-associative law are virtually identical fe Plim ≈ 15.0025 is applied in six and seven increments.14 0. for the associative and non-associative laws. Load–displacement curve.25.002 Figure 8.8. c (8.24. • the inner (or compression) cone.4% higher) with Prandtl’s solution Plim ≈ 14. The corresponding load–settlement curves obtained in the analyses are plotted in Figure 8. Strip footing with Tresca model.001 normalised settlement. respectively.4. u/B finite element results slip-line theory limit load: 5. c (8. The prescribed ﬁnal settlement u/B = 0. and . P/c 4 3 TRESCA: 2 1 0 0 0. Two ﬂow rules are considered: • associative (φ = ψ = 20o ).150) Drucker–Prager Three of the Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion discussed in Section 6.149) This value is in excellent agreement (about 1.0.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 349 6 5 normalised pressure. • non-associative with dilatancy angle ψ = 10o .4 (and implemented in program HYPLAS) are used here in the analysis of the footing: • the outer (or extension) cone.

page 252).8 4 0 0 0. The limit load predicted by the outer cone approximation is well above Prandtl’s solution.0. the predicted limit pressure is fe Plim /c ≈ 15. A complete solution to the circular (rigid smooth) footing problem has been obtained by Cox et al. a total settlement u/B = 0. It consists of a circular footing of diameter B = 1 m (assumed rigid and smooth) lying on soil. loading and boundary conditions are the same as in the previous example (these are illustrated in Figure 7.002 0. P/c 12 MOHR–COULOMB: 8 associative non-associative Prandtl solution: 14.004 is imposed gradually in 10 increments. The mesh. The corresponding limit loads are .7 (about 140% above Prandtl’s solution). The normalised limit pressure predicted by the inner cone is around 17. the results are in excellent agreement with Prandtl’s solution. (8.4. The geometry is shown in Figure 8. For all approximations.002 is reached in nine increments.26. CIRCULAR-FOOTING COLLAPSE This section considers the axisymmetric analogue of the footing collapse problem described in the previous section. The collapse load fe Plim /c ≈ 20. The load consists of the prescribed vertical displacements (settlement) of the nodes under the foot. The corresponding load-displacement diagram obtained is depicted in Figure 8.27. • the plane strain match to the Mohr–Coulomb model. In this case. Strip footing with Mohr–Coulomb model.151) which is practically identical to the limit loads obtained with the Mohr–Coulomb model. In the present analysis. (8. (1961). Only the associative law (φ = ψ = 20o ) is considered.28. The normalised limit pressure in this case is approximately 35.152) is effectively attained in seven increments.5.24. Load-displacement curves. For the plane strain match on the other hand. 8.001 0.003 normalised settlement.3 (about 17% above Prandtl’s solution). a total settlement u/B = 0.25.4. The load-settlement diagrams obtained are shown in Figure 8.350 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 16 normalised pressure. u/B Figure 8.

26. the slope will collapse when the ratio γ N =h (8. u/B Figure 8. Limit analysis solution The limit analysis of slopes under gravity load is described by Chen (1975).003 0. The soil is modelled as a (perfectly plastic) Mohr–Coulomb material with the constants shown in Figure 8. determined (to any desired accuracy) by the ﬁnite difference method (the limit loads for several frictional angles are tabulated in Chen.4. φ.29.004 0. is greater than the internal friction angle. (8. as in the present problem.5. The incremental nodal displacement vectors near the footing obtained in increment 8 (where the collapse load has effectively been reached) are plotted in Figure 8.30.30.1. If the slope angle. (1961).002 0.8 20 10 0 0 0. The objective is to assess the safety of the slope illustrated in Figure 8. β. Load-displacement curves. the plane strain analysis of an inclined earth embankment subjected to self-weight is carried out. The limit load obtained in the ﬁnite element analysis is in close agreement with (8. SLOPE STABILITY In this example. The failure mechanism captured in the ﬁnite element analysis is in agreement with the slip-line ﬁeld of Cox et al. For the present frictional angle (φ = 20o ) the limit average pressure on the footing is Plim /c ≈ 20. P/c 30 DRUCKER–PRAGER: outer cone inner cone plane strain match Prandtl solution: 14.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 40 351 normalised pressure.154) c . 8.27. The relative error is less than 2%.153) The corresponding slip-line net is schematically illustrated in Figure 8.005 normalised settlement. Strip footing with Drucker–Prager model.153). 1975).001 0. The vector sizes have been ampliﬁed to ease visualisation.

Geometry. . Circular footing. Figure 8.28.27. Circular footing. P/c 20 15 10 CIRCULAR FOOTING: finite element results Cox et al. 25 normalised pressure. u/B Figure 8. 1961: 20.1 5 0 0 0.002 normalised settlement. Incremental nodal displacement vectors at increment 8.48 c = 490 kPa 7 φ soil = 20 o 20 o (associative flow) ψ= Figure 8. Circular footing. Load-displacement curve.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 = 0.29.001 0..

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

.3050 0.32.0000 Figure 8. Slope stability.33.6525 0.contour levels: 1.354 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 5 4 gravity load factor.045 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 settlement at point A (m) Figure 8. Slope stability. Increment of accumulated plastic strain and displacement at collapse (increment 6).. incremental nodal displacements Please Wait. ∆ε p . Load-settlement diagram.9788 0.3263 0. α 3 2 finite element results limit analysis upper bound: 4. . Please Wait.

as well as the incremental nodal displacements obtained at increment ε 6 are depicted in Figure 8.COMPUTATIONS WITH OTHER BASIC PLASTICITY MODELS 355 This value corresponds to a collapse mechanism (Figure 8. shown in Figure 8.33. The slope is effectively collapsing during this increment. 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. With g=αg ¯ (8. the loading process starts from α = 0 (completely unloaded). α. ∆¯p . A safety factor based on limit analysis can be deﬁned as αlim = Ns /N . consists of 221 eight-noded quadrilaterals (2 × 2 integration quadrature) with a total of 718 nodes. . The limit value of α.32 against the load factor α. is then increased gradually until collapse occurs. The adopted mesh. The value of α at collapse is the safety factor. a total of seven load increments are applied. the safety factor. For the present dimensions and material properties it gives αlim ≈ 4. The contour plot of incremental accumulated plastic strain. The failure mechanism captured by the ﬁnite element simulation is in good agreement with the logarithmic spiral slide line referred to above.158) (8. The settlement at the top corner of the slope (point A of Figure 8. (8.31.157) denoting the applied gravity acceleration.8% above the limit analysis solution.2.30) is plotted in Figure 8. In the ﬁnite element analysis.159) lim It is about 3.30) 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). The load factor.045.e. The discretised domain is made large enough to avoid interference of the collapse mechanism with the boundaries of the ﬁnite element mesh. i. found in the incremental ﬁnite element analysis is αfe ≈ 4.

.

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. With indices 1 and 2 associated with the in-plane directions and index 3 corresponding to the normal (transverse or thickness) direction. Here. 9. page 193.1. 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. if the corresponding stress component is generally non-vanishing (such as the normal out-of-plane stress in plane strain problems). are constrained to be zero. In spite of the generality of the algorithmic formulations presented in Chapters 7 and 8. 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. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. The conditions addressed in the present chapter are quite different from those discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.1. then it will be determined naturally as an outcome of the numerical integration algorithm. cannot be used in general without modiﬁcations. In spite of its triviality within the realm of linear elasticity. the original statement of the elastoplastic initial value problem – Problem 7. having formulated the generic three-dimensional integration algorithms (as we did in Chapters 7 and 8). we are concerned with plane stress problems in which certain components of stress. where all stress components are unknown – no longer applies and needs to be reformulated. As a result.1). 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. Clearly. The main difﬁculty lies in the fact that as some components of the stress tensor are now prescribed. attention has been focused on generic three-dimensional states of stress and strain – conditions under which the elastoplastic models were formulated in Chapter 6.1. which have been developed speciﬁcally to solve Problem 7. the three-dimensional numerical integration algorithms of Chapters 7 and 8. the treatment of the plane stress constraint in elastoplastic problems requires further consideration and justiﬁes a chapter of its own.1 (page 193). From the theoretical point of view. Ltd . rather than strain.9 PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY I N the numerical solution of elastoplastic initial value problems addressed in the previous two chapters. a generic plane Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. the actual computational implementation of the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms shown in the corresponding subroutines of program HYPLAS has been restricted to states of plane strain and axisymmetric deformation.

358 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS σ12 e3 σ22 σ12 σ11 e2 e1 t Figure 9.2) 9. The plane stress state.1. 0 (9. in terms of the shear and bulk moduli reads 1+α α 0 ε11 σ11 1 + α 0 ε22 . 1 − ν 22 2ε12 2 (9. PLANE STRESS LINEAR ELASTICITY Before going further.1) The corresponding subspace of plane stress states can be deﬁned as Spl ≡ {σ | σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0}. (9. 3K + 4G (9.3) which. stress state is deﬁned by a stress tensor σ11 [σ] = σ12 0 σ12 σ22 0 0 0. σ22 = 2G α 1 0 0 σ12 2ε12 2 where α= 3K − 2G .1.1. let us now review the simple case of linear isotropic plane stress elasticity. equivalently.5) .4) (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 .

8) 3K − 2G ν (ε11 + ε22 ) = − (ε11 + ε22 ). T ]. σ23 and σ13 . 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 = . σ33 .2. 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 . 9. Problem 9. the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. page 193) is accordingly redeﬁned in constrained form as follows. as a result. ε23 = 0. t ∈ [t0 .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. 0 2ε12 0 2ε23 2ε13 G 0 (9. (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 359 the three-dimensional elastic law as follows. The original three-dimensional elastoplastic initial value problem (Problem 7. of the elastic strain tensor and internal variable set. and then obtaining.1 (The plane stress elastoplastic initial value problem). (9. ε22 (t). ε12 (t)}.1. and given the history of the in-plane components of the strain tensor {ε11 (t).6) we prescribe the in-plane strain components. ε33 = − 3K + 4G 1−ν In summary. The underlying idea is the same: we prescribe only the in-plane strains in the three-dimensional equation and use the plane stress constraint as an additional condition so as to determine the in-plane stresses and out-of-plane strains. the constitutive equations of plane stress elasticity are obtained by prescribing the in-plane strains and enforcing the plane stress constraint on the three-dimensional law. . ε11 . K − 2G 3 K− K+ 0 0 0 2 3G 4 3G This relationship is derived directly from Firstly. 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.1. ε22 and ε12 together with the (zero) outof-plane stress components. 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. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ).

For the implicit scheme. ˙ (9.21).3. to which the present chapter is restricted. Remark 9. A(t)) ˙ (9. ˙ with ∂ψ ∂ψ . provided the same numerical scheme is used in the discretisation of the elastoplastic evolution equations.22) and (7.1. the three methodologies produce identical incremental plane stress constitutive equations. (9. (b) and (c) are equivalent in that. Approaches (a). (c) use of plane stress-projected constitutive equations where. the plane stress constraint is enforced at the Gauss point level. (7. 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 (7.360 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ﬁnd the functions εe (t). A(t)) ˙ and γ(t) ≥ 0.10) (9. α(t) and γ(t). similarly to the procedure of item (a).25) (refer to page 196) applied at the Gauss point level. (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.11) Φ(σ(t). The essential difference between distinct approaches in this case lies in the way that the plane stress constraint (9. γ(t) Φ(σ(t). A(t) = ρ ¯ e ∂ε ∂α and. 9. This strategy has been implemented in program HYPLAS for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. for the elastic strain. A(t)) ≤ 0. some modiﬁcation is required in the elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithms discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. satisfy the plane stress constraint σ(t) = ρ ¯ σ(t) ∈ Spl for each instant t ∈ [t0 . internal variable set and ˙ plastic multiplier that satisfy the reduced general elastoplastic three-dimensional constitutive equations ˙ ˙ ε(t) = εe (t) − γ(t) N(σ(t). The nested iteration procedure is implemented in program HYPLAS for the Drucker–Prager model. PROCEDURES FOR PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY In order to ﬁnd a numerical approximation to the solution of the above plane stress elastoplastic evolution problem. A(t)) = 0.12) imposed upon the three-dimensional model is enforced. T ]. This approach can also be implemented by means of a nested Newton return-mapping iteration for plane stress enforcement.12) . in addition.1.9) ˙ α(t) = γ(t) H(σ(t). Issues related to the explicit implementation of plane stress models are addressed by Marques (1984). .

αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe . n+1 (9. approaches (a) and (b) are discussed below in Sections 9. 13 εe trial .e. is also given in Section 9.4 where the von Mises model is used as an example for completeness. .2.2. αn+1 . the solution of the above system can be undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. After performing a plane stress-constrained elastic trial state evaluation. i. 23 εe trial .1.3 as the underlying model/algorithm. An+1 ) = 0 σ13 (εe .14) then the return-mapping procedure has to be applied. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 for the variables εe . An ) > 0.25) (page 196) and letting the out-ofplane components of the elastic trial strain tensor become unknowns of the new system.15) As in the standard non-constrained case. and 9.2. † Note that if the elastic behaviour is nonlinear.1 above. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . the plane stress-constrained elastic equations may not be obtained as trivially as in the linear case reviewed in Section 9. if Φ(σtrial . 33 (9.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. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ33 (εe . If plastic admissibility is violated.3. The complete description of the computational implementation. αn+1 ) = 0 n+1 σ23 (εe . 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. it consists of simply adding the extra equations σ13 (εe . In Section 9.4. For the fully implicit algorithm. ∆γ and the elastic trial components n+1 εe trial .13) to the general system of return-mapping equations (7. 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 . an outline of the FORTRAN code of the von Mises model implementation with nested iterations is shown. 9. respectively.† plastic consistency is checked in the usual way. n+1 αn+1 ) = 0 (9.2. The third strategy is described in Section 9. including the FORTRAN code. This procedure appears to have been suggested ﬁrstly by Aravas (1987) in the context of pressure-dependent plasticity.

One possible guess can be the previously 33 n+1 (equilibrium) converged out-of-plane elastic strain. . 23 23 (9. 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. introduced by Dodds (1987) within the implicit implementation of the von Mises model. Next. is described in the following. ‡ The original algorithm proposed by Aravas (1987) was derived under such isotropy conditions.2. the plane stress condition implies that ε13 = εe = εp = 0.2. from page 496) as the underlying material. We note that such simpliﬁcations have reduced the return mapping for the von Mises model to a single nonlinear equation (Section 7. that. (9. Firstly. § Axisymmetric implementations of the general integration algorithm have been included in the corresponding routines for all material models discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. n+1 with the associated extra unknown εe trial .2.3. In order to describe the procedure.362 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9. 33 9. we deﬁne some initial guess for the unknown (εe )trial .16) which ensures that σ13 and σ23 vanish.e. we use the augmented strain array T [εe trial εe trial ]T 33 as the input of the integration algorithm for the axisymmetric case.18) (9.5.1. 13 13 ε23 = εe = εp = 0.§ Note that an out-of-plane strain component must be prescribed for the axisymmetric algorithm.19) Here the subscript n + 1 has been dropped for notational convenience. the in-plane displacements are prescribed and so is the in-plane strain array εn+1 . 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. page 215). having Gurson’s void growth model (described in Section 12. For simplicity. 33 33 (9. considerable simpliﬁcation of the return-mapping algebraic system may be achieved by exploiting particular properties of the material model in question. as for the three-dimensional case. αn+1 ) = 0. we proceed as follows. however. In this case the only extra equation to be added to the general three-dimensional return mapping is‡ σ33 (εe . we can set εe trial := (εe )n . Under elastoplastic isotropy. This approach. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T .17) During a typical equilibrium iteration. Instead of giving εn+1 (or εe trial ) as the input of an augmented n+1 algebraic system (as described in the above). It should be emphasised. i. it is convenient to employ the matrix notation σ = [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . for instance. let us consider the isotropic case where stress and strain transverse shear components vanish identically as discussed above. IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS The above procedure can be implemented even for very complex plasticity models.

3. Remark 9. Since the axisymmetric integration algorithm is applied in each iteration of the inner loop. Its complete computational implementation for the Drucker–Prager model is included in program HYPLAS. In other words. 12 dσ33 D21 D22 dεe trial 33 (9. together with the in-plane strain kinematically 33 prescribed by the global equilibrium iteration. Remark 9. It is important to remember. 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). The solution obtained by the nested iteration is identical to that obtained by the previously discussed strategy based on the augmented return-mapping system.2. 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 computational terms. D22 (9.1 in pseudo-code format.21) that relates the transverse stress and strain components. however. the present procedure is computationally expensive. An outline of its specialisation to the von Mises model is presented in the next section. that the cost of the calculations carried out at the Gauss point level increases approximately linearly with the problem size. 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. for each global equilibrium loop. and the solution obtained by the axisymmetric algorithm is the one we are looking for. 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. |σ33 | ≤ tol ) then the guess εe trial indeed solves the 33 plane stress problem. 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. 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). n+1 If σ33 = 0 (or.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.¶ We repeat this process until we ﬁnd the elastic trial thickness strain εe trial that. Its main advantage over the augmented system procedure lies in its simplicity. the corresponding routine will return the augmented stress array [σT σ33 ]T . whereas the cost of the solution of the global linearised problem increases at a much higher nonlinear rate. Otherwise. Thus.

whose complete description is given in Section 7. and CTVM.3. 9. 9.3.21)) (v) Apply Newton–Raphson correction to the thickness trial strain εe trial := εe trial − 33 33 (vi) GOTO (ii) σ33 D22 material model. an outline of the FORTRAN implementation of the von Mises model in plane stress is given by .2.364 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. SUVM. the nested iteration loop produces the solution that satisﬁes the standard plane equilibrium together with the trivial plane stress linear elastic law (9. such as generic nonlinear elastic materials.4. The corresponding subroutines are. Remark 9. Following the steps of Box 9. without the need for modiﬁcation of the original integration algorithms.4. for instance. described in Section 7. The present strategy is compatible with material models other than elastoplastic.3 (page 235).1. (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 (9.5 (page 224). 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.3. The generic (plane strain/axisymmetric) procedures are included in program HYPLAS. Note that for a linear elastic model. respectively.1. the von Mises model is used as an example and a possible FORTRAN implementation is outlined in this section.4). Plane stress constraint at the Gauss point level with nested iterations. This is what happens before plastic yielding in analyses involving linear elasticplastic materials such as the von Mises model. PLANE STRESS VON MISES WITH NESTED ITERATIONS To illustrate the above concepts. 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 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..LALGVA .TOL)THEN C.MXITER C Set state variables to values at beginning of increment DO 10 I=1. 2 RPROPS . The actual array of state variables.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. we have created the local array RSTAUX to store the state variables temporarily.STRAT .EPFLAG .4) E33TRL=E33TRL-STRES(4)/D22 20 CONTINUE WRITE(*.DMATX ..RPROPS . It should be emphasised that no effort has been made to optimise the FORTRAN code suggested above.RSTAUX . 2 RSTAUX . Use previously converged elastic thickness strain. In the above. This is the only component of the consistent tangent required in the plane stress enforcement loop. all components of the axisymmetric consistent tangent matrix are computed.STRES ) IFPLAS=LALGVA(1) SUFAIL=LALGVA(2) IF(SUFAIL)GOTO 999 C Check plane stress convergence IF(ABS(STRES(4)).1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Set initial guess for elastic trial thickness strain. E33TRL=RSTAVA(4) C Start N-R loop DO 20 ITER=1.*)’Plane stress enforcement loop failed to converge’ SUFAIL=. LALGVA(2)=SUFAIL GOTO 999 30 CONTINUE C Set state variables to current updated values DO 40 I=1.MSTRE+1 RSTAUX(I)=RSTAVA(I) 10 CONTINUE C Use axisymmetric integration algorithm to compute stresses STRAT(4)=E33TRL CALL SUVM 1( DGAMA .STRES ) C Apply Newton-Raphson correction to normal elastic trial strain D22=DMATX(4. is updated only if the plane stress enforcement loop converges. RSTAVA.3 .IPROPS . The procedure can be made more efﬁcient if a new subroutine that computes only the scalar D22 is used instead. .and break N-R loop in case of convergence GOTO 30 ENDIF C Compute axisymmetric consistent tangent components EPFLAG=IFPLAS CALL CTVM 1( DGAMA .IPROPS .3 .MSTRE+1 RSTAVA(I)=RSTAUX(I) 40 CONTINUE 999 CONTINUE RETURN The incorporation of the procedure into HYPLAS is a straightforward programming exercise.TRUE. Note that when CTVM is called.LE.

22) (9.2) 11 D21(3)=DMATX(4.4) 7 D12(2)=DMATX(2. we ﬁrst differentiate the residual equation σ33 = 0 of the plane stress enforcement loop.4) 8 D12(3)=DMATX(3.366 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 9.1) 10 D21(2)=DMATX(4.4. we outline below the implementation of the above expressions for the von Mises model.5. page 235). THE CONSISTENT TANGENT FOR THE NESTED ITERATION PROCEDURE To obtain the tangent operator consistent with the above nested iteration algorithm.21) results in the following consistent tangent relation between the in-plane stress and strain components 1 dσn+1 = D11 − D12 D21 . D22 (9. Its incorporation into HYPLAS can be left as an exercise.RSTAVA . CTVM (Section 7.3 .DMATX .EPFLAG .3 16 DMATX(I. 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.3) 12 D22=DMATX(4.4) 9 D21(1)=DMATX(4.21) gives dσ33 = D21 dεe trial + D22 dεe trial = 0. CONSISTENT TANGENT COMPUTATION FOR THE VON MISES MODEL For completeness. D22 dεe trial n+1 (9.23) Substitution of the above expression into (9. 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 .24) 9. n+1 33 which renders dεe trial = 33 −1 D21 dεe trial .4. together with (9.IPROPS 4 2 RPROPS .STRES ) 5 C Decompose into submatrices 6 D12(1)=DMATX(1.3 15 DO 10 J=1. The associated FORTRAN subroutine (not listed here) is named CTDPPN (Consistent Tangent for the Drucker–Prager model in Plane stress with Nested iterations).2.J)=DMATX(I.3. Using the (existing) generic consistent tangent calculation routine for the von Mises model.2. .4) 13 C Assemble plane stress consistent tangent matrix 14 DO 20 I=1. This.J)-D12(I)*D21(J)/D22 17 10 CONTINUE 18 20 CONTINUE .

elastic. σij (with the superimposed hat) denote the algorithmic constitutive ˆ functionals for the stress components deﬁned by the three-dimensional elastoplastic integration algorithm. and σ is the array of in-plane stress components σ11 (εe trial . 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 dependence of the in-plane stress components on the transverse shear strain components is removed from (9. tn+1 . 9. as the above described nested iteration approach. εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 where εe trial ≡ εe + B ∆u = [ εe trial εe trial εe trial ]T . (9. elastic trial.25) where B is the in-plane symmetric gradient operator (with only the three rows associated with ext the in-plane strain components ε11 . ε22 and ε12 ). Note that in the plane strain case. the three-dimensional algorithm is used with zero prescribed out-of-plane strains. fn+1 is the applied external force vector at tn+1 . Under such a condition. In this case. εe trial . The method is described in the following.26). the plane stress constraint is satisﬁed only at converged (equilibrium) conﬁgurations.28) (9. εe trial . the functional dependence of the stress components on the state variables at tn is not explicitly indicated. εe trial . we have r≡ Ω ext BT σn+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0.3. εe trial . εe trial ) ˆ n+1 13 23 33 ˆ σn+1 ≡ σ12 (εe trial . THE METHOD Again. rather than in the constitutive integration algorithm applied at the Gauss point level. it does not require the modiﬁcation of the three-dimensional elastic predictor/return mapping algorithm.26) n+1 13 23 33 σ22 (εe trial . εe trial . the present strategy consists For notational convenience.27) Here and in what follows. . εe trial . Its main advantage is the fact that. Firstly. (9. 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. εe trial ). for simplicity. (9.3. 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.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 367 9. At the Gauss point level. This approach has been proposed by de Borst (1991). At the generic (pseudo-) time station. which contains only in-plane forces. σ13 = σ23 = 0.1. let us write the general ﬁnite element equilibrium residual equation for plane problems (plane stress/strain). ∆u = un+1 − un . n+1 n 11 22 12 with ∆u denoting the array of incremental nodal displacements. and plastic) strain vanish identically ε13 = ε23 = 0.

The resulting residual equations are accordingly redeﬁned as BT σ ext n+1 dΩ − fn+1 = 0 Ω (9. e A where D11 .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 . With the substitution of this result into (9. εe trial ) = 0 ˆ n+1 33 where the unknowns are the nodal incremental displacements ∆u (which enter the equations through the dependence of εe trial upon it) and the thickness strain εe trial in each Gauss point. D12 .3. The linearised residual equation can be simpliﬁed as follows. σ33 is the algorithmic constitutive function for the transverse stress component ˆ resulting from the three-dimensional integration algorithm. reads ngausp nelem T (i) (i) (i) w(i) B(i) {D11 B(i) δu(e) + D12 δε33 } = −r e=1 i=1 (9. σ33 (εe trial . 9. n+1 33 In the above. D22 (9. THE IMPLEMENTATION In the ﬁnite element procedure.29). equation (9. D22 D22 (9.32) BT D11 − 1 D12 D21 B dΩ.21)).29).29) in each Gauss point. both the equilibrium and plane stress conditions are solved simultaneously.30)2 can be solved explicitly for δε33 . Firstly. The linearised version of (9. where the modiﬁed tangent stiffness matrix.2. is deﬁned as K∗ ≡ Ω (9. K∗ . This gives δε33 = − 1 1 [D21 B δu(e) + σ33 ] = − [D21 δε + σ33 ].30)1 we obtain the linearised equation for the iterative nodal displacement array K∗ δu = −r∗ . i of each elem.p. where the unknowns are the iterative changes of nodal displacement and thickness strain (or elastic trial strain) at Gauss points.30) (i) (i) (i) (i) D21 B(i) δu(e) + D22 δε33 = −σ33 for each g.31) where the superscript i has been omitted. D22 (9. 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 (9.34) .25). The Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of the new residual equation is obtained by linearising (9.

in general. Remark 9.2. the present procedure requires only a relatively simple modiﬁcation of the global equilibrium Newton–Raphson iteration loop. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 9. Thus. 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 . δε33 . after computation of the iterative displacement δu. The main modiﬁcation consists in replacing the standard linearised equilibrium equation with (9. the explicit expression (9.5. THEN EXIT ELSE GOTO (i) tol for all Gauss points of In summary. where the modiﬁed Newton–Raphson global equilibrium iteration loop is shown in standard pseudo-code format. (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∗ . Plane stress constraint at the structural level. 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.32) and using. εe trial ) 33 ˆ σ33 := σ33 (εe trial . The modiﬁed global equilibrium iteration loop. the plane stress . (iii) Update in-plane elastic trial strain δε := B δu(e) .31) to determine the corresponding iterative change of thickness strain (or thickness elastic trial strain).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 369 Box 9.2. 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.

(b) are equivalent to the three-dimensional model with the added plane stress constraint deﬁned in Problem 9. Plane stress-projected plasticity models Finally.2. For complex models. we address the methodology of item (c) on page 360: the use of plane stress-projected plasticity models. the in-plane stress/strain components are the primary variables which have to be determined directly by solving the rate evolution equations.4) deﬁne the plane stress-projected elastic constitutive equation and the out-of-plane strains are given in closed form by (9. This is at variance with the procedures presented previously. Remark 9. A plane stress-projected plasticity model is deﬁned by a set of evolution equations that (a) involve only in-plane stress and strain components and. where the plane stress constraint is always enforced at each Gauss point. σ13 = σ23 = σ33 = 0.4). it may not be easy or feasible to derive such relations.1. 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. the present strategy cannot be used in conjunction with explicit transient dynamic ﬁnite element schemes. in Section 9. Before proceeding. is derived in detail together with the corresponding integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. 9. Remark 9. Plane stress-projected equations for the von Mises model have been originally derived and used in a computational context by Simo and Taylor (1986) and Jetteur (1986). However. The situation here is completely analogous to plane stress linear elasticity where expressions (9. plane stress-projected equations can only be formulated if the underlying three-dimensional model is sufﬁciently simple to allow closedform relationships between in-plane and out-of-plane variables to be derived from the plane stress constraint. Explicit schemes do not incorporate equilibrium iterations.370 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS condition will be attained only at (converged) equilibrium conﬁgurations.4.3. 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. whether or not the global equilibrium convergence criterion is satisﬁed. we recommend the use of the methods discussed in Sections 9. incorporating general nonlinear isotropic hardening.2 and 9.3) or (9.8). The use of plane-stress projected equations leads in general to more efﬁcient computational procedures. 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. In this case. it is convenient to deﬁne precisely the meaning of plane stress-projected model. The model adopted by Simo and Taylor . This is due to the use of a reduced set of equations involving only the relevant in-plane components.2 and the use of plane stressprojected evolution equations (addressed in Section 9. In such cases.6. Unlike the procedures discussed in Section 9.7.

σ33 (εe ) = 0. 23 εe = − 33 ν (εe + εe ). γ Φ = 0.35)4 gives εp = −(εp + εp ).4. 9.1. THE PLANE STRESS-PROJECTED VON MISES MODEL The reader who wishes to skip the details of the derivation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model is referred directly to Box 9. ˙ Φ ≤ 0. We start by observing that. Thus. it also follows from (9. under plane stress. The plane stress-projected equations To obtain the plane stress-projected von Mises equations.36) is equivalent to the well-known relations εe = 0. 33 11 22 As s13 = s23 = 0 under a plane stress state. (9.36) In addition. 13 εe = 0. the history of the out-of-plane strain components is .38) The above relations completely deﬁne the out-of-plane strain components as functions of the in-plane values. The equations and algorithms derived by these authors are analogous to those presented here but account for transverse shear stresses and strains. 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. as the elastic behaviour is linear and isotropic. 22 1 − ν 11 (9.37) σ23 (εe ) = 0.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 above equations are complemented with the constraints σ13 (εe ) = 0.3 (page 374) where the corresponding ﬁnal equations are summarised.39) (9.35)4 that εp = εp = 0. (9. which become important in the analysis of thick shells. ˙ 3J2 (s) − σy (¯p ) ε ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 s 2 s (9. we ﬁrstly need to derive explicit expressions relating the elastic and plastic out-of-plane strain components to the in-plane components. the plastic incompressibility that follows from (9.35) Under plane stress. 13 23 (9. Another application of the projected equations concept is reported by Ramm and Matzenmiller (1987) in the context of large deformation shell analysis.

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. 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. γ Φ = 0.3. ε = [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T . 9. ε33 (t) = − 22 11 22 1 − ν 11 Finally.41)3.41) 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 . ˙ ˙ where summation on repeated indices is implied with Greek subscripts ranging between 1 ¯e and 2.372 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) .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 . This results in the plane stress-projected set of equations which.41)2.40) which holds under plane stress condition. the array s of plane deviator components can be s = [s11 s22 s12 ]T εe = [εe εe 2εe ]T 11 22 12 (9.42) (9. In equation (9.35). 3 (9. This identity is obtained by introducing the plane stress constraint into the deﬁnition √ s ≡ s : s. with the history of the out-of-plane (elastic and plastic) strain components completely prescribed. 11 22 12 Note that upright bold-face characters are used to denote the matrix representation.4 we have made use of the identity s = σαβ σαβ − 1 (σαα )2 . (9. Φ ≤ 0. in component form. In deriving (9.44) . From the deﬁnition of the deviatoric stress tensor.4). we can now eliminate them from the original set of equations (9.

respectively. Within the framework of general elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes discussed in Chapter 7. γ Φ = 0. For the derivation of the integration algorithm to be described in the next section.47)5. 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) where De is the plane stress elasticity matrix.47)4 and (9. where P is the matrix deﬁned by P≡ 1 −1 3 0 2 −1 0 2 0 (9. in the present case. The corresponding implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is derived subsequently. we replace (9. Then.2 (from page 217). in the set (9.41) can be equivalently written in compact form as ˙ ˙e ˙p ε = ε + ε σ = De εe Φ = 3 σT Pσ − σy (¯p ) ε 2 p ε = γ ∂Φ = γ 3 √ Pσ ˙ ˙ ˙ ∂σ 2 σT Pσ p ε = γ ˙ ˙ ¯ γ ≥ 0. we start by computing the elastic .47) of the evolution equations. can be handled more easily.48) The complete set of equations of the plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening is conveniently grouped in Box 9. Φ ≤ 0.3.2.47)3. (9.46) 0.45) With the above matrix/vector notation at hand.4. 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. it is more convenient to use the squared form of the yield function which. and having [tn . 6 (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 373 expressed as s = Pσ. the plane stress-projected von Mises equations (9. 9.3. tn+1 ] as the underlying (pseudo-)time interval. (9. ˙ ˙ (9.

Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ ˙ εp = γ 5.52) . ε 2 3 2 −1 0 −1 2 0 4. if Φtrial ≤ 0. ¯n (9. Elastoplastic strain split ˙ ˙ ˙ ε = εe + εp ε ≡ [ε11 ε22 2ε12 ]T .374 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9. n+1 n 2 εn+1 Φtrial = 1 (σtrial )T Pσtrial − 1 σy (¯p trial ).e. Plane stress-projected von Mises model with isotropic hardening. n+1 n+1 2 3 (9. Yield function deﬁnition 2 Φ = 1 σT Pσ − 1 σy (¯p ). We then compute (9. 1. ˙ 2 T σ Pσ 3 Φ ≤ 0. tn+1 ] ∆ε = εe − εe . Loading/unloading criterion γ ≥ 0. 0 0 1−ν 2 0 0 6 εe ≡ [εe εe 2εe ]T .3. γΦ=0 ˙ predictor state εe trial = εe + ∆ε n+1 n σtrial = De εe trial n+1 n+1 εp trial ¯n+1 = εp .51) If the elastic trial state is admissible.50) The next step is to check for plastic admissibility of the elastic trial state. 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. Elastic law σ = De εe σ ≡ [σ11 σ22 σ12 ]T . i.49) where ∆ε is the given (in-plane) strain increment associated with the interval [tn . 2. Hardening variable evolution ∂Φ = γ Pσ ˙ ∂σ ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ 6. (9.

where the unknowns now are the stress array. 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. we substitute (9. The original return-mapping system reduces to σn+1 = [C + ∆γ P]−1 C σtrial n+1 (9. by substituting (9.3. εp and ∆γ where σn+1 is a function of εe deﬁned by the elastic law. and C is the inverse of the elastic matrix C ≡ (De )−1 .54) can be reduced to a single scalar nonlinear equation having the incremental plastic multiplier as the unknown.57) Here we have conveniently deﬁned ξ(∆γ) ≡ (σtrial )T AT (∆γ) P A(∆γ)σtrial .54)3 and rearrange (9. εn+1 3 for εe . (9.59) Thus. To this end. (9. and the plastic multiplier. Firstly. tn+1 ] and we update (·)n+1 = (·)trial . it is also possible to reduce the number of unknowns of the plane stress-projected return-mapping equations for the von Mises model. ∆γ. With .54)1 using the inverse elastic law.56) Finally.55) 1 T 2 σn+1 Pσn+1 − 1 2 3 σy εp ¯n + ∆γ 2 T 3 (σn+1 ) Pσn+1 = 0.58) (9.54)2 into (9. we solve the consistency equation (9. the return-mapping algorithm needs to be applied as described in the following.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 375 then the process is elastic within [tn . n+1 (9.54) 2 − 1 σy (¯p ) = 0.53) Otherwise. the return mapping for the plane stress von Mises model is carried out as follows.55)2. σn+1 . n+1 ¯n+1 n+1 As in the three-dimensional case discussed in Section 7.57) using the Newton–Raphson algorithm. The ﬁve-variable return-mapping system (9. (9.2 (page 217).55)1 into the consistency condition (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. n+1 n+1 with A(∆γ) ≡ [C + ∆γ P]−1 C.

whose FORTRAN code is shown in Section 9. inversion and multiplication of other matrices. in turn. This is in contrast with its threedimensional counterpart (see equation (7.61) Remark 9. Fortunately.91). is a function whose deﬁnition (9.4. The key point to be observed is the fact that matrices P and De share the same eigenvectors so that they both have diagonal representation on the same basis (as do C and A).5. The solution of the plane stress-projected consistency equation (9. the procedure is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS (State Update procedure for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). This is because the scalar function ξ deﬁned in (9.59) involves the sum.57) can be signiﬁcantly simpliﬁed.4.4 and 9.3. and the comments made at the beginning of Section 7.60) If required. In program HYPLAS. The plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm for the von Mises model with isotropic hardening is summarised in Boxes 9.62) .8.57) is potentially cumbersome.5 in pseudo-code format. page 223) whose only source of nonlinearity is the hardening curve and which becomes linear for perfectly plastic and linearly hardening models. regardless of the prescribed hardening function σy .3. in the present case where the elastic behaviour is isotropic. the in-plane plastic strains are updated by εp = εp + ∆γ Pσn+1 . (9.376 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS the solution ∆γ at hand. page 219.57) is always nonlinear in ∆γ. By applying the orthogonal transformation 1 √ 2 1 Q = − √ 2 0 1 √ 2 1 √ 2 0 0 0 1 (9. n n+1 (9. Newton–Raphson return-mapping solution The reader might have realised already that the Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the consistency equation (9. The plane stress-projected return-mapping 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).57) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. Its implementation follows the simpliﬁcation obtained below by exploiting the properties of matrices P and De . The Newton–Raphson procedure is shown in Box 9.58) depends on a matrix A(∆γ) which.

Given the in-plane incremental strains. HYPLAS procedure: SUVMPS (i) Elastic predictor. we obtain the diagonal representations 1 P∗ ≡ QPQT = 0 0 and 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2G 0 . Implicit elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm.69) to P and De . 0 G 0 (9. Solve the nonlinear equation ˜ Φ(∆γ) = 0 for ∆γ using the Newton–Raphson method – GOTO Box 9. a3 := (σ12 )2 ξ trial := 1 a1 + 1 a2 + 2a3 6 2 2 IF Φtrial := 1 ξ trial − 1 σy (¯p trial ) ≤ 0 εn+1 2 3 THEN set (·)n+1 := (·)trial and EXIT n+1 (iii) Return mapping.4.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 377 Box 9. a2 := (σ22 − σ11 )2 . ∆ε. Plane stressprojected von Mises model with nonlinear isotropic hardening.63) E 1 − ν De∗ ≡ QDe QT = 0 0 (9.5 – and update the state variables σn+1 := A(∆γ) σtrial n+1 εe := C σn+1 n+1 εp := εp + ∆γ ¯n+1 ¯n (iv) EXIT 2 ξ(∆γ) 3 where C ≡ [De ]−1 and matrix A(∆γ) is given in (9. and the state variables at tn . 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 .64) .

378 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS On the same basis. using the above expression for ξ.70) 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 . in view of (9. (1 + 2G ∆γ)2 6 1+ E ∆γ 2 3(1−ν) + (9. SUBROUTINE SUVMPS The above plane stress-projected elastic predictor/return-mapping algorithm is implemented in subroutine SUVMPS of HYPLAS. Note that the same approach to . The corresponding representation of the elastic trial stress array reads 1 trial trial √ (σ 11 + σ22 ) 2 1 trial ∗ trial (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 . which takes part in the stress update formula (9. expression (9.62) and (9. We refer to that section for the description of the arguments.68) Thus.67) The pseudo-code of the Newton–Raphson procedure for solution of the return-mapping equation (9.3. can be written as A(∆γ) = QT A∗ (∆γ) Q. 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) .3. The list of arguments of SUVMPS is identical to that of its general (plane strain/axisymmetric) counterpart described in Section 7.65).5.5 (page 224). (9.69) (9. 1 + 2G ∆γ A∗ = A∗ .60)1.57). is shown in Box 9. Note that matrix A(∆γ).65) where C∗ = [De ∗ ]−1 . 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ A∗ = 22 1 . (9.4. n+1 n+1 trial σ12 With the above transformed variables.66) σtrial ≡ Q σtrial = √2 (σ22 − σ11 ). 33 22 (9.

5.4 the description of nonlinear isotropic hardening. the symbolic names of most variables resemble those of the corresponding name given in the text. where the plane stress integration algorithm is summarised. This should allow readers easily to correlate the FORTRAN instructions with the corresponding expressions of Boxes 9. . HYPLAS procedure: (i) Set initial guess for ∆γ ∆γ := 0 ˜ and corresponding residual. Again. Newton–Raphson algorithm for solution of the return-mapping equation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model. The complete list of the FORTRAN source code of SUVMPS is given below.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 379 Box 9. is adopted here. 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 9.4 and 9.5. which uses a piecewise linear hardening curve.

4-5). 2 RSTAVA . C.NSTRE=3 ) LOGICAL IFPLAS.R1 .STREST(NSTRE) DATA 1 R0 .5D0.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.NE.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 .R4 .0.LALGVA .FALSE.4. LALGVA(2).1.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)) .R6 .NTYPE .RP5 .R2 . SUFAIL DIMENSION 1 IPROPS(*) .0D0.1..MSTRE=4 .0D0.6.O-Z) PARAMETER( IPHARD=4 .RPROPS(*) .0D0.2.IPROPS .. 2 STRAT(MSTRE) .STRES ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.R3 . SUFAIL=.FALSE.TOL / 2 0.RPROPS .RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .1)CALL ERRPRT(’EI0031’) C Initialise some algorithmic and internal variables DGAMA=R0 IFPLAS=.STRAT .3.0D0.0D0.0D0.STRES(MSTRE) DIMENSION 1 EET(MSTRE) . C*********************************************************************** C Stop program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.

MXITER C Compute residual derivative HSLOPE=DPLFUN(EPBAR.NHARD.LE.NHARD. EPBAR=EPBARN SQRTXI=SQRT(XI) B1=R1 B2=R1 FMODU=YOUNG/(R3*(R1-POISS)) DO 10 NRITER=1.NHARD..use Newton-Raphson algorithm C to solve the plane stress-projected return mapping C equation for the plastic multiplier (Box 9.GT.TRUE.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 .TOL)THEN C Plastic step: Apply return mapping ..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.5) C ----------------------------------------------------------------IFPLAS=.yield function PHI=RP5*XI-R1D3*SIGMAY*SIGMAY C Check for plastic admissibility C ------------------------------IF(PHI/SIGMAY.RPROPS(IPHARD)) C.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 381 A2=(STREST(2)-STREST(1))*(STREST(2)-STREST(1)) A3=STREST(3)*STREST(3) XI=R1D6*A1+RP5*A2+R2*A3 SIGMAY=PLFUN(EPBARN.

(9. dεn+1 dεn+1 (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 9.75) .74) In the above.4. gives dσn+1 = E[dεtrial − d∆γ Pσn+1 ].4. The explicit expression for Dep is derived analogously to its three-dimensional counterpart discussed in Section 7.TRUE.54)1 which.73) Differentiation of the plastic consistency (9. THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR With the matrix notation adopted throughout the preceding sections. From the 3 (1 − 4Hξ 2 3 H ∆γ) dξ. n+1 where we have deﬁned E ≡ [C + ∆γP]−1 . the elastoplastic consistent tangent matrix is deﬁned as Dep ≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 = trial . it immediately follows that d∆γ = which holds under plastic ﬂow.71) where σn+1 is the outcome of the plane stress-projected return-mapping algorithm. (9.382 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ENDIF 10 CONTINUE C reset failure flag and print warning message if N-R algorithm fails SUFAIL=. together with the elastic law.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) = 0.2 (page 232). 2 d∆γ 3 (9. we have used the identity σy = above equation. 2 σy H 3 2 ξ.72) (9. We start by differentiating (9.

The elastoplastic tangent is that given by expression (9. yields the identity dE = −E P E d∆γ. together with the use of the chain rule in (9.3. As in the standard implementation (plane strain/axisymmetric) of routine CTVM (see Section 7. Its computation in program HYPLAS is carried out in subroutine CTVMPS (Consistent Tangent operator for the Von Mises model in Plane Stress). n+1 n+1 n+1 (9. the present routine returns either the elastic or the elastoplastic tangent operator. page 235). ∗∗ In deriving (9. .6.80) The step-by-step procedure for evaluation of the above elastoplastic tangent is summarised in Box 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).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 .5. The argument list of CTVMPS is identical to that of its general counterpart CTVM.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 ). n+1 where the scalar α is deﬁned as α= 1 σT PEPσn+1 + n+1 2ξH 3−2H ∆γ (9.3 for a complete description of the arguments of CTVMPS.76) Substitution of the above formula into (9. This relation.73).80) and its evaluation follows the ﬂow of Box 9.4. The elastic tangent is the standard plane stress linear elasticity matrix. valid for any invertible M.75) followed by the substitution of the resulting expression into (9. (9. the scalar ξ deﬁned by (9.4.77) (9. SUBROUTINE CTVMPS The FORTRAN implementation of the tangent operator consistent with the implicit plane stress-projected integration algorithm for the von Mises model is described in this section.6 in pseudo-code format.4.78) . The reader is therefore referred to Section 7.58) can be equivalently written as ξ = (εtrial )T E P E εtrial . This subroutine is described in the next section.72) and straightforward algebraic manipulations gives dσn+1 = [E − α (EPσn+1 ) ⊗ (EPσn+1 )] dεtrial . (9.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 383 By using the elastic law and the above deﬁnition of matrix E. 9.

RPROPS(*) .81) E(∆γ) = 1 (E11 − E22 ) 1 (E11 + E22 ) 0 2 2 ∗ 0 0 E33 with ∗ E11 = 3E .O-Z) 5 PARAMETER(IPHARD=4 . 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 (9.69). 1 SUBROUTINE CTVMPS 2 1( DGAMA . matrix E appearing in the procedure of Box 9.MSTRE). . 3(1 − ν) + E ∆γ ∗ E22 = 2G .DMATX .MSTRE=4) 6 LOGICAL EPFLAG 7 C Array arguments 8 DIMENSION 9 1 DMATX(MSTRE. 1 + 2G ∆γ ∗ E33 = ∗ E22 . whose FORTRAN source code is listed below.MSTRE) .RSTAVA . HYPLAS procedure: CTVMPS (i) Given σn+1 .82) A similar expression is obtained for the product EP.VECN(3) .NTYPE . This representation is exploited in subroutine CTVMPS.SOID(MSTRE) . Computation of the elastoplastic tangent operator for the plane stressprojected von Mises model. εp and ∆γ (outcome of the return mapping of Box 9.6 can be represented as 1 ∗ 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 2 (E11 + E22 ) 2 (E11 − E22 ) ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (9. 2 (9.384 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 9.IPROPS ) .4). .EPFLAG 3 2 RPROPS .STRES(MSTRE) 11 C Local arrays 12 DIMENSION 13 1 FOID(MSTRE.6.STRES 4 IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A-H.IPROPS(*) 10 2 RSTAVA(MSTRE+1) .

4)/ 0.0.R2 .FOID(4.FOID(3.2).0D0 .3).0D0 .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.0D0.FOID(3.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 .1.3.FOID(2. C*********************************************************************** C Stops program if not plane stress IF(NTYPE.FOID(4.0.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 .4.4)/ 0.0.0D0 .1).FOID(1.0D0 .FOID(2.4)/ 1.0D0 .3).NHARD.0D0 .1).0D0.R3 .1).NE.5D0.1.FOID(4.1).1.1.FOID(3.0D0 .0.0D0 / FOID(4.0.0D0 .FOID(2.4)/ 0.0.0D0/ C*********************************************************************** C COMPUTATION OF THE CONSISTENT TANGENT MODULUS FOR VON MISES TYPE C ELASTO-PLASTIC MATERIAL WITH PIECE-WISE LINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING.R1 .SOID(2) .0D0 .R4 / 2 0.0.SOID(4) .FOID(1. C PLANE STRESS IMPLEMENTATION ONLY.0.2).5D0 .FOID(1.0.0D0 / DATA 1 RP5 .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 9.0D0 / FOID(2.2).0D0 / FOID(3.0D0 .1.0D0 .3).0D0.0D0 / / FOID(1.2).SOID(3) .0.0D0 .0.3).0D0 .

In all examples. the equilibrium convergence tolerance for the relative residual norm was set to 10−7 %.5. Numerical examples In this section.J)=DMATX(J. .3)=-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(3) 90 DMATX(2.2)=DMATX(2.3)=E33-ALPHA*VECN(3)*VECN(3) 96 ELSE 97 C Compute plane stress elasticity matrix 98 C ====================================== 99 NSTRE=3 100 R4GD3=R4*GMODU/R3 101 FACTOR=(BULK-R2G/R3)*(R2G/(BULK+R4GD3)) 102 DO 20 I=1.NSTRE-1 109 DO 30 I=J+1.J)+FACTOR*SOID(I)*SOID(J) 105 10 CONTINUE 106 20 CONTINUE 107 C lower triangle 108 DO 40 J=1.NSTRE 110 DMATX(I. The results have been obtained with program HYPLAS with the full Newton– Raphson scheme selected for the equilibrium iterations.1)=E11-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(1) DMATX(1.3) 94 DMATX(3. 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.NSTRE 103 DO 10 J=I.NSTRE 104 DMATX(I.2)=E12-ALPHA*VECN(1)*VECN(2) DMATX(1.2)=E22-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(2) 92 DMATX(2.1)=DMATX(1.3)=-ALPHA*VECN(2)*VECN(3) 93 DMATX(3.386 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. we present a selected set of benchmarking numerical examples involving plane stress plasticity. The numerical results obtained in the ﬁrst two examples is compared with existing analytical solutions.I) 111 30 CONTINUE 112 40 CONTINUE 113 ENDIF 114 RETURN 115 END 89 88 9.J)=R2G*FOID(I.2) 91 DMATX(2.1)=DMATX(1.

the problem is solved by using the mesh shown in Figure 9.1 for increments 2.4).3594 KN.4. the cantilever is effectively collapsing and equilibrium can no longer be found for reasonably sized load increments.2. is found in Section 5. The plane stress implementation of the von Mises model. The analytical solution to this problem. The geometry.5.2 and 9. the plate has a large radius (as compared to the radius of the hole) in order to emulate the inﬁnite planar medium.4.3). For the present geometry and material properties. The relative error is approximately 1.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 387 9. where the plate is considered to be an inﬁnite medium in plane stress state. The numerical solution is obtained here by applying six load increments to the loaded node shown in Figure 9. to emphasise the quadratic rates of equilibrium convergence attained as a result of the consistent linearisation of the algorithmic constitutive rule. 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. At that stage. Flim = 4L where b. Finally.2 of Lubliner (1990).4.2. At this point. 4 and 6.5.2. Under plane stress conditions. Here. 9.4.1.3. In the ﬁnite element model. A perfectly plastic von Mises material model in plane stress is assumed. The above solution is derived in detail in section 4. It should be noted that the numerically obtained collapse load is in excellent agreement with the theoretical limit. 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. INFINITE PLATE WITH A CIRCULAR HOLE The problem considered in this numerical example consists of a large ﬂat plate containing a circular hole which is expanded by the action of a gradually increasing uniform radial pressure applied on its edge. The plate is made from a von Mises perfectly plastic material. we study the problem of the plastic collapse of an end-loaded cantilever beam with a rectangular cross-section. respectively. boundary conditions. has been fully described in Sections 9. eight-noded quadrilaterals are usually employed in conjunction with the nine-point Gaussian quadrature.7 of Chakrabarty (1987). the analytical limit load is Flim = 30 KN. COLLAPSE OF AN END-LOADED CANTILEVER In this example. h are. the breadth and width of the cross-section and L is the length of the cantilever. The resulting vertical deﬂection of the loaded node is plotted against the applied force for each increment in Figure 9. Note that for increment 6 (the last load increment) the cantilever is effectively collapsing (see the load-deﬂection diagram of Figure 9.2%. The analytical limit load for this problem is given by σy bh2 . ﬁnite element model and material properties are illustrated in Figure 9.2. the evolution of the residuals (out-of-balance forces) during the global Newton–Raphson iterations is shown in Table 9. The load level at the end of the last increment is F = 30. which follows the plane-stress projected approach. The cantilever is modelled with 2 × 50 eight-noded quadrilaterals (element type QUAD 8 of HYPLAS) with 2×2-point (reduced) Gauss quadrature. . Due to the symmetry of the problem around the centre of the hole only a 10o slice of the geometry is discretised.

Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model. The choice of the ﬁve-point integration rule in the present example. the pressure p is increased gradually until a limit load is attained. as locking is not an issue in plane stress problems. In the ﬁnite element simulation. End-loaded cantilever. where u is the radial displacement of the mid-side node of the loaded edge – is plotted in Figure 9.2. underintegration is not required here. As opposed to plane strain applications. Load-deﬂection diagram.3. is informed by the fact that it produces. p/σy . Seven load increments are used to reach p = 0.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) F b = 50 mm h = 100 mm L = 1000 mm Figure 9. 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. 30 applied load. results virtually identical to those obtained by the nine-point Gauss quadrature.388 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties: E = 210 GPa ν = 0.2853 – the numerical pressure limit at which global convergence cannot be obtained for any signiﬁcant load increment.5 against the normalised applied pressure. The analytical . End-loaded cantilever. with less computational effort. The resulting normalised radial expansion – u/a.3 σy = 0.

526293 E − 10 0.139026 E − 03 0. the radius of the plastic zone has the limit value √ clim π = eπ/ 3 cos ≈ 1. The corresponding analytical solution is also plotted for comparison.015625 KN 0. for a given c ≤ clim . Similarly to the problem studied in Section 7.5. a 3 In the elastic region – where the radial coordinate r satisﬁes r ≥ c – the radial and hoop stresses are given. when the above limit pressure is reached. φ is the implicit function of r deﬁned by √ c2 = e 3φ cos φ. 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. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Increment 2 ∆F = 10 KN Increment 4 ∆F = 0.549382 E − 09 normalised limit pressure is plim 2 = √ ≈ 1.717926 E − 01 0.486441 E − 04 0.6.104585 E − 02 0. σy 3 The limit pressure obtained in the simulation is about 3% higher than the analytical value.162250 E − 06 0. In the present problem. 2 r . by σy c2 σr = − √ 3 r2 σy c2 and σθ = √ .295108 E − 01 0.0625 KN Increment 6 ∆F = 0.533184 E + 00 0. The numerical results shown on the graph are those obtained at the central integration point of each of the ﬁrst ﬁve elements on the left side of the mesh. The hoop and radial stress distribution along the radial direction obtained at different stages of loading is shown in Figure 9.895831 E + 01 0.1.380886 E + 01 0.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 389 Table 9. Convergence table.205624 E + 01 0.464825 E + 00 0. 6 3 where.248066 E + 01 0.629249 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 . respectively.128691 E + 01 0. End-loaded cantilever.751.155.1 (page 244).414654 E − 08 0.634491 E + 00 0.

Simo and Taylor. Problem deﬁnition and ﬁnite element model.01 0.4. 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.7. p/σy 0. Pressure-expansion diagram.155) 0. The geometry. The ﬁnite element mesh used contains 576 three-noded constant strain triangles (element type TRI 3 of HYPLAS) with a total number of 325 nodes.2 normalised pressure. For symmetry reasons. 1986). 1.5.3 σ y = 0.390 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Material properties (von Mises model): E = 210 GPa ν = 0.5.24 GPa (perfectly plastic) p 10 o a =10 mm 100 mm Figure 9. only one quarter of the complete domain is discretised with the appropriate kinematic constraints being imposed along the symmetry edges. boundary conditions and material properties are shown in Figure 9..02 radial expansion at edge. A total vertical displacement u = 0. Inﬁnite plate with a hole.3. This classical example is frequently used as a benchmark for the plane stress implementation of plasticity models (Fuschi et al.14 mm is imposed on the constrained edge in seven . Inﬁnite plate with a hole. 9.4 0 0 0. u/a Figure 9. 1992. A linearly hardening von Mises law is adopted.8 numerical result analytical limit (1.

10) are its uniaxial compression and tensile strengths.02 mm. The reaction force obtained over the complete edge is plotted in Figure 9.4. Two different sets of material parameters are adopted with the plane stress section of the Drucker–Prager surface matching: .2 p=0. 9.6.8 2 analytical (hoop) analytical (radial) FE results radial position. 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.15 -0.25 -0.20 p=0. 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. In this problem.1 stresses.2 1. The evolution of the plastic front is depicted in Figure 9.10. boundary conditions and the ﬁnite element mesh adopted are shown in Figure 9. We remark that.2 p=0. Stress distribution in the radial direction (r denotes the radial coordinate).PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 391 0.25 0 p=0.6 1.20 -0. σr and σθ (GPa) p=0. The top edge nodes (except that on the symmetry line) are free to move horizontally. in contrast to the plane stress-projected approach of the von Mises implementation used in the previous examples.2.9. Inﬁnite plate with a hole. The given material properties for the concrete (also shown in Figure 9. denoted fc and ft .2. Here.5. Analytical and ﬁnite element results for different applied pressures (indicated pressures levels in GPa). the HYPLAS implementation of the plane stress Drucker–Prager model follows the nested iteration methodology described in Section 9.1 p=0. which shows contour plots of accumulated plastic strain at different stages of the loading process. respectively. the concrete is modelled as an associative perfectly plastic Drucker–Prager material in plane stress.8 versus the prescribed displacement.4 1. The mesh used to discretise the symmetric half of the problem contains 12 × 24 equally sized eight-noded quadrilaterals with four-point Gauss quadrature. r/a Figure 9.3 1 1. The geometry.15 0. increments ∆u = 0.

08 0.243 + 0.04 0.2 ε p [GPa] d/ 2 sym w/2 Figure 9. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.8. .16 edge displacement.12 0.392 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS prescribed displacement u Geometry: l = 36 mm w = 20 mm d = 10 mm thickness = 1 mm Please Wait. sym l /2 Material properties (von Mises) : E = 70 GPa ν = 0.7.2 linear hardening: _ _ σy ( ε p ) = 0.0 1.. Reaction–deﬂection diagram. Geometry.0 edge reaction (KN) 2. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate. boundary conditions and ﬁnite element mesh.0 0 0 0. 3. u (mm) Figure 9.

58 MPa.06 mm Please Wait.14 mm Figure 9. (b) the biaxial tension and compression limits of the Mohr–Coulomb surface that matches the given uniaxial data.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 393 Please Wait.02 0. εp .57o.9.125–6.10 0.127)) φ = 56. The frictional angle.04 0..06 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.. Please Wait. Please Wait..16 (page 169). u = 0. and the cohesion.02 mm 0.08 0. for the above are given by (refer to expressions (6.01 0. ¯ (a) the given uniaxial data. A schematic representation of the corresponding yield surfaces is given in Figure 6. φ. .. Stretching of a perforated rectangular plate.07 0.05 0. c = 4.00 u = 0.10 mm u = 0. Contour plots of accumulated plastic strain. u = 0. c.

effects of reinforcement could be accounted for by adding steel elements (the reinforcement) on top of an appropriately designed background plain concrete mesh.541467 E − 10 Increment 9 0. in practice. it serves to illustrate the performance of the (nested iteration) plane stress Drucker–Prager model. The limit load obtained with the uniaxial match is about nine times that obtained with the biaxial match.102911 E + 02 0. becoming worse towards the biaxial compression state.4. Instead.567046 E + 01 0. To emphasise the quadratic (equilibrium) convergence rates resulting from the consistent linearisation of the nested iteration-based integration algorithm. from page 166) corresponding to the given uniaxial data.447672 E − 08 Increment 6 0. Table 9. As pointed out in Section 6. In the numerical simulation.282426 E − 05 0. The most conservative one is that produced by the inner match approximation. with arc-length control. Shear wall. The biaxial match on the other hand produces a conservative prediction.904595 E − 02 0.822378 E − 03 0. Convergence table. limit loads can be signiﬁcantly overestimated when the uniaxial match is used under such conditions.12 where the direction of the incremental nodal displacements at failure are plotted for the biaxial match case. A total of 16 and 10 increments are used.653716 E − 04 0. the load is applied incrementally.101283 E + 02 0.198868 E − 00 0. In these cases (not shown on the load-deﬂection graphs) the predicted limit loads are. Other predictions can be obtained by using the outer or inner edge Drucker– Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb surface (refer to Section 6. This example illustrates the huge discrepancy that may exist between results obtained with different types of Drucker–Prager approximations to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. respectively. until collapse occurs. the present example is not meant to be a practical engineering application. Normalised residuals (%) Iteration number 1 2 3 4 5 Increment 2 0. shear walls are made from reinforced rather than plain concrete. in cases (a) and (b) to reach a numerical limit load.134854 E + 01 0. Thus. In the present example.2.557241 E + 01 0.495802 E + 00 0. It should be emphasised that. The failure mechanism is illustrated in Figure 9. This is particularly true in the present case where the ratio fc /ft is high.394 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Table 9.132435 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. The numerical limit load in the uniaxial match case is 3045 KN/m whereas with the biaxial match the limit load is 335. respectively.4.11.4.5 KN/m. . Within the ﬁnite element environment of HYPLAS. 2539 KN/m and 276 KN/m.4. failure occurs by crushing of the material near the support under a combination of shear and compressive stresses.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. The applied load versus vertical deﬂection of the midpoint of the lower edge (point A of Figure 9.

18 m h = 1.2 1. P (KN/m) 0 1.5 MPa ft ’ = 2.1 m Material properties: E = 2.2 fc’ = 30. P (KN/m) 3000 300 2000 200 1000 100 0 vertical deflection at node A (mm) 0 0 0.10. t = 0.4 0.6 vertical deflection at node A (mm) (a) (b) Figure 9. Geometry and ﬁnite element model.75 MPa h A l/8 l Figure 9. .75 x 104 MPa ν = 0.8 1. Shear wall.0 applied load. Shear wall.20 m thickness. 400 applied load. Load versus vertical deﬂection at point A: (a) uniaxial match.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 395 Uniformly distributed load.0 2. (b) biaxial match. P Geometry: l = 1.11.0 3.

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

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

ε23 and ε33 is automatically prescribed by (9. say. 2 σ33 s33 σ33 3 where sij denote components of the deviatoric stress tensor.85) has to be satisﬁed. Resultant forces/generalised strains constitutive relation In the present context. (9. The resultant force has the local components n1 = n2 = n3 = whereas the resultant moment is deﬁned by m1 = η2 σ33 dA η1 σ33 dA (9.83). Given the history of γ and κ (directly ¯ obtained from the history of generalised displacements.398 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS integration of the non-vanishing stress components over the beam cross-section. Having done so. 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 . Note that the generally nonvanishing components s11 and s22 . The beam state-projected von Mises model Analogously to what has been done in the derivation of the plane stress-projected von Mises model. ε22 and ε12 which can be calculated a posteriori.89) σ ≡ σ23 . The dependent variables are the strain components ε11 . it is convenient here to introduce the matrix notation 2s13 2σ13 σ13 (9. With the prescribed strain components. the resultant forces n and m are then obtained by integration of the stresses over the cross-section according to their deﬁnition. we need to integrate the elastoplastic evolution equations so as to produce the corresponding stress σ. a Gauss quadrature. ε23 and ε33 is prescribed and the constraint (9. In what follows.87) C m2 = − m3 = C C (η1 σ23 − η2 σ13 ) dA. the cross-section integration can be performed numerically by means of. are dependent on s33 1 1 s11 = s22 = − 2 s33 = − 3 σ33 . s ≡ 2s23 = 2σ23 . missing in the above representation of the stress deviator. At the element level. u and ω) the history of the strain components ε13 .88) C C C σ13 dA σ23 dA σ33 dA (9.90) . the constitutive relationship between the history of the generalised strains and the resultant forces is obtained as follows. the only step that depends on the material model is the integration of the elastoplastic evolution problem. Clearly.

and ε33 (t) – the history of the strain arrays ε – the basic initial value problem now consists of ﬁnding the functions εp (t). the projected version of the von Mises yield function can be deﬁned as Φ(σ.86) and has only the relevant non-vanishing stress components as arguments. εe (t). (9. ¯ ε (9. it is also convenient to deﬁne the following notation for the independent (engineering) strain components e p 2ε13 2ε13 2ε13 . where the projection matrix P is here given by 2 0 P ≡ 0 2 0 0 0 0 . for the three-dimensional Timoshenko beam is given simply by G 0 0 (9.91) (9. ˙ γ Φ(σ. εp ) ≡ 3 σT P σ − σy (¯p ). εp ) ≥ 0. 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. 2 3 (9. Finally. Given the history of the total independent strain components. εp ≡ 2εp . ε13 (t).97) De = 0 G 0 . ˙ ¯ (9. ε23 (t). De .96) The elastic matrix. With the above notation. The beam state-projected von Mises equations.93) ε ≡ 2ε23 . εe ≡ 2εe e23 p23 ε33 ε33 ε33 The yield function. ¯ γ ≥ 0. 0 0 E ˙p ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ 3 2 √ Pσ σT Pσ (9.95) .PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 399 The stress and stress deviator arrays are related by s = P σ. the beam state-projected von Mises evolution equations are deﬁned as follows.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. εp ) > 0.92) In order to formulate the constrained evolution equations.

100) εp = εp = − 1 εp . in the constrained case. the history of the total strain components. 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. the total strain components ε11 and ε22 are obtained from the additive elastoplastic split of the total strain tensor (9.98) 12 12 The three-dimensional Timoshenko beam constraint on stresses also imply that εe = εe = 11 22 −K εe . is prescribed in the underlying initial value problem. The ﬁnal return-mapping equation for the plastic multiplier can be cast in the same format as equations (9. so that the components εp and εp are promptly found to be ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 11 22 given by (9. Having determined the history of the independent strains by integrating the constrained elastoplastic evolution equations.58). in the three-dimensional case. (9. consequently. σ12 = 2G εe . εp = 0 for constrained ˙12 stress states. ε11 . Under stress states that satisfy the constraint (9.2. implies that 12 ε12 = εe = εp = 0.3.99) From the three-dimensional von Mises equations.86).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. it follows that.102) . Evolution of the dependent strain components. with matrix P redeﬁned by (9. The main difference between the two formulations is the fact that. ε22 and ε12 . 11 11 9. 1 we have εp = εp = − 2 εp .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 .4. 2(G + K) 33 (9.6. ε12 and ε22 . 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.57. As σ12 = 0 and. (9. 11 22 2 33 Finally. ε11 . 9. the rates εp . the history of the dependent strain components. is obtained as follows.101) ε11 = ε22 = εe + εp . the elastoplastic additive strain decomposition together with the elastic relation. these components are dependent variables whose evolution is a consequence of the constraint on the stress state. whereas.2. for constrained stress states.

(9.58) has the following explicit expression trial trial trial 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 2(σ33 )2 ξ(∆γ) ≡ + .105) The elastoplastic consistent tangent modulus.104) In the Newton algorithm of Box 9. the function ξ(∆γ) deﬁned in (9.5 except that A and ξ (as well as De and the stress and strain arrays) have now the above new deﬁnitions and trial trial trial ξ trial := 2[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] + 2 (σ33 )2 . the derivation of the corresponding elastoplastic consistent tangent. the computation of the derivative ξ is replaced by ξ := trial trial trial −8G[(σ13 )2 + (σ23 )2 ] 8E (σ33 )2 − . 0 0 (9. is analogous to that of the plane stress-projected model addressed in Section 9. .4. The ﬁnal expression has the same format as (9.4 and 9.106) E(∆γ) = 1 + 2G ∆γ E 0 0 2 1 + 3 E ∆γ With the appropriate redeﬁnition of the relevant terms.PLANE STRESS PLASTICITY 401 With the above matrix.5. (1 + 2G ∆γ)3 9(1 + 2 E ∆γ)3 3 (9. 3 (9. Dep .6. the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be computed as in Box 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 9.80) where the matrix E is here redeﬁned as G 0 0 1 + 2G ∆γ G .4. As in the return mapping described above.

.

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

where β is a material constant. for any β > 0.1 is named the critical state line.1. we will focus on a version of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model whose yield surface (refer to Figure 10.1. M a). respectively.404 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS q 1 M yield surface Φ=0 0 p βa pc a pt Figure 10. Here. respectively.1) where the constant M is the ratio between the two radii of the Cam-Clay ellipse. Note that. The parameter b takes the values 1 if p ≥ pt − a (10. 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. (10. 10. the two horizontal halves of the surface intersect in a smooth fashion at (p. The elastic domain of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model is delimited by an elliptic yield surface in the p–q space.1. . a is the radius of the ellipse along the pressure axis and pt is the tensile yield hydrostatic stress. the yield locus becomes an ellipse with radii a and M a. THE MODEL Let p and q denote. The dashed line in Figure 10. q) = (pt − a. The parameter M is the slope of the critical state line. Yield surface. Modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. the hydrostatic stress and the von Mises effective stress. a) = 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + 2 b M 2 − a2 . This parameter modiﬁes the radius of the second half of the ellipse on the compressive side of the hydrostatic axis. along directions p and q. If β = 1.1) is deﬁned by a yield function of the form Φ(σ.2) b= β if p < pt − a.

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

pn+1 . The hardening function a(α) (or pc (α)) is usually expected to be monotonically increasing in its argument.13) where qn+1 is the von Mises effective stress associated with sn+1 .12) In addition. that it is sometimes convenient to adopt nonlinear elasticity laws with models of this type. We remark. b2 (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). v (10. that is.10) The return-mapping algorithm is derived as follows. 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 . as the unknowns. by Simo and Meschke (1993) and Owen et al.11) pn+1 = ptrial − K∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]. by observing the deviatoric/volumetric split (10. Firstly. ∆γ. having αn+1 . however.5). The return-mapping algorithm The elastic trial state computation follows the usual format: strial = 2G εe trial . for instance.11)–(10. d ptrial = K εe trial . 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. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION Here we shall adopt a linear elasticity law to model the reversible behaviour of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.1 (Hardening behaviour). a increases with increasing plastic compression. .2. 10. M2 (10. b2 where the updated hardening variable is given by the equation α n+1 = α n − ∆γ 2 [pn+1 − pt + a(αn+1 )]. (1998). Particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. under hydrostatic pressures p < pt − a. In this case.4) of the plastic ﬂow and the elastic relations. following the comments on the volumetric plastic strain rate made immediately after expression (10.13).1.25) (page 196) for the present model results in the system of equations comprising (10.406 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Remark 10. The implementation of Cam-Clay-type models with nonlinear elastic laws is described. i.e. (10. the linearly independent components of sn+1 and the incremental plastic multiplier. hardening (expansion of the elastic domain) occurs only in the subcritical region.

M 2 + 6G ∆γ (10. Newton–Raphson solution The solution of (10. (10. by combining (10. however.18) It is worth commenting here that system (10.17) can be undertaken as usual by the Newton–Raphson algorithm. for qn+1 . an explicit expression for the linear system to be solved for the iterative . that the above expression cannot be used in practice at p = pt − a.15) M2 strial .11)1 we obtain sn+1 = s(∆γ) ≡ and.16) Finally.12) we can write pn+1 = p(αn+1 ) ≡ ptrial + K (αn+1 − αn ). (10.11)1 implies that for a given strial the updated stress deviator.17) for ∆γ: ∆γ = ∆γ(αn+1 ) ≡ b2 (αn − αn+1 ) . the stress-updating procedure is completed with the computation of sn+1 by means of (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 407 Reduced equation system In order to obtain an equivalent reduced system of equations for the return mapping. sn+1 . qn+1 = q(∆γ) ≡ M2 q trial .12) and (10.19) and then replacing this result into the ﬁrst equation. that is. 2[p(αn+1 ) − pt + a(αn+1 )] (10.15) and (10. after a simple rearrangement in (10. For completeness.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.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 (10.16) in (10. Once the solution to the above return-mapping equations is obtained.11)2 and (10. we start by noting that (10. followed by the calculation of the updated stress tensor through the standard relation σn+1 = sn+1 + pn+1 I. It should be noted. is a function of ∆γ only. similarly. + 6G ∆γ (10.13) leads to the following reduced system of two scalar equations with unknowns ∆γ and αn+1 : 2 1 [p(α) − p + a(α)]2 + q(∆γ) − [a(α)]2 0 R1 2 t b M . (10. the substitution of (10.14).14) M2 In addition.

we start by differentiating the full system of return-mapping equations which. in which the elastic trial strain tensor is also treated as a variable.18). ¯ ¯ da .3). ∂α b (10.4. αn+1 ).5 (page 240) as an alternative to the derivation of the elastoplastic consistent tangent for the implicit integration of the von Mises model.4.26) Here we should note that tangential relation (10. we write ∂N ∂Nd ∂Nv = +I ⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ with ∂Nd 3 = 2 Id .22) and all terms of the derivative matrix on the right-hand side are evaluated at (∆γ. in the present case.23) 0 ∆γ ∂Nv /∂σ 1+ Nv b2 0 d∆γ N ∂Φ/∂α 0 where. yields the tangential relationship e −1 [D ] + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 N dσn+1 dεe trial 2H∆γ dαn+1 = .21) (10.20) (10.25) ∂Φ 2 = 2 (p − pt + a)H − 2aH = (Nv − 2a)H. ∂σ M In addition.13) together with the trivial update formula (10. ∂σ 3b (10.13) we obtain 2 ∂Nv = 2 I. which was also applied in Section 7. Accordingly. α) = (k−1) (∆γ (k−1) .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 . = (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).141) which was obtained for the implicit implementation of the isotropically hardening von Mises . following the deviatoric/volumetric split of (10.23) has a similar format to that of (7. comprises (10. The elastoplastic consistent tangent To derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model.11)–(10. from (10. dα (10.24) (10. The differentiation.4 (from page 238). (10. we resort to the general procedure of Section 7.

A particularly simple choice is the adoption of an elliptical cap as the compressive bounding surface. the elastoplastic tangent operator (10. For many geomaterials.27) is generally unsymmetric. Plastic ﬂow under compressive hydrostatic pressure may only be triggered with the superposition of shearing stresses. if H = 0. is presented below. ˜ N : P : N + (Nv − 2a)Nv H −1 =P− where (10.29) ˜ Since in general N = N. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the non-associativity of the adopted hardening law. The p–q plane representation of the yield surface so obtained is illustrated in Figure 10.4. Accordingly. The modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in the previous section already incorporates the possibility of plastic compaction. 10. I+ 1+ = 2 3b b2 (10.2. the application of an arbitrary compressive hydrostatic pressure alone does not cause plastic ﬂow.3 (from page 324). (1988a). compressive plastic ﬂow (compaction) under (possibly pure) compressive hydrostatic stresses can be an important feature of the overall behaviour. the standard Drucker–Prager or Mohr– Coulomb plasticity models are not able to capture the actual material behaviour. from page 243.27) P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ : De (10. . 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. that is. 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. ˜ Also note that in the absence of hardening.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 409 model.6.2.24). The reader is referred to the discussion at the beginning of Section 7. For that model (as well as for the Mohr–Coulomb model). The equations of the resulting multisurface (twosurface) model. In circumstances where plastic compaction is relevant.148) and yields the following formula for the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator: Dep ≡ ∂σn+1 ∂εe trial 1 ˜ (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ). The implementation of a Cap-type model similar to that described here is presented by Simo et al. followed by an outline of its numerical treatment. however. and 2H∆γ ∂Nv ˜ + 1+ N N ≡ −∆γ(Nv − 2a)H ∂σ b2 2H∆γ −2∆γ(Nv − 2a)H N. N coincides with N and symmetry is recovered. its inversion follows completely analogous steps to those leading to (7.28) with ﬂow vector derivative given by (10.

where Φa is an equivalent representation of the Drucker–Prager yield function obtained from its original expression (6. CAPPED DRUCKER–PRAGER MODEL The yield functions of the model are Φa (σ) ≡ Φb (σ. ξ (10.30) − a2 . the standard generally non-associative Drucker–Prager ﬂow rule is adopted. Capped Drucker–Prager model. the set of plastically admissible stress states is deﬁned by A = {σ | Φa (σ) ≤ 0.32) For a ﬁxed a. η= 2/3 M.30)1. 1 q(σ) [p(σ) − pt + a]2 + β2 M 2 (10. (10.33) .1. a) = J2 (s(σ)) + η [p(σ) − pt ].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. Plastic ﬂow rule On the cone. a) ≤ 0}. the plastic strain rate equation is given by (6.157) (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. On the smooth part of the cone. 10.121) (page 167) by using the trivial relation c= η pt .2. Φb (σ.2. In (10. Yield surface.

˙ ˙ (10. 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. p Figure 10. 3 2 J2 (s) (10. M2 (10.3) and (10. Hardening As for the previously discussed modiﬁed Cam-Clay model (refer to expressions (10.3.34) where N a and N b are.78).9) and (10. where p = pt − a. the ﬂow vector has deviatoric and volumetric components (6.160)1 and (6.158)1 and (6.166). given by (10. equivalently. the normal to the cap with general expression (10. (6. the (associative) ﬂow rule is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model. respectively.3. cone flow vector Na εp . Capped Drucker–Prager model. (page 176).77) and (6. The ﬂow vector N a has the standard form Na = 1 η ¯ s + I.4) is a deviatoric tensor: b N b = Nd = 3 s.73) (page 156). respectively.8)) isotropic strain hardening is incorporated by letting the compaction pressure pc (or. On the cap.166).35) At the cap/cone intersection. Flow vectors. At the cone apex.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 411 εp cap normal Nb .36) A general p-q plane illustration of the plastic ﬂow directions for the resulting model is given in Figure 10. (6.4). the yield surface parameter a) be a function of the compressive-positive . 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 . Following the general representation of associative plastic ﬂow rules for multisurface plasticity models given by (6.

page 327). return to the elliptic cap. respectively.3 (from page 324).37) and then substituting the resulting expression. (10. in turn. n+1 v (10. the returnmapping equations can be solved in closed form. The two-surface model admits four possible return mappings: 1. α. n+1 d pn+1 = ptrial − K∆εp . In this case (refer to Remark 8.34)–(10.3. 3. is that of the modiﬁed Cam-Clay model discussed in Section 10. 4. As pc increases (decreases). Its volumetric component reads εp = η ∆γ a .37) into the general stress update formula sn+1 = strial − 2G∆εp . 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. 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 (10.7).36): ∆εp = ∆γ a N a + ∆γ b N b . ¯ v (10. ¯ (10. . deﬁned in (10.39) The return-mapping equation for the cone/cap intersection is derived by introducing (10. 10.1. with the added simplicity of perfect plasticity.1 (from page 325) and 10. return to the cone apex.2. together with (10.2. The return mapping to the cap surface. THE IMPLICIT INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm for the present model is a combination of the elastic predictor/return-mapping schemes derived in Sections 8.4.38) so that the update formula for the hardening internal variable at the cone/cap intersection is given by αn+1 = αn − η ∆γ a .2 for the Drucker–Prager and modiﬁed Cam-Clay models. The Drucker–Prager cone remains ﬁxed and is independent of the hardening variable.40) (10.39) 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 = 0.1.2. 2. return to the smooth portion of the Drucker–Prager cone. the cap moves in the compression (tensile) direction along the hydrostatic line. expanding (shrinking) the elastic domain.412 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS volumetric plastic strain. return to the cone/cap intersection.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.

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.4. and so on. if the return to the main Drucker–Prager cone was used in the last stress update for that point.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS START 413 Φ OR atrial trial >0 >0 Y Φb Φ atrial >0 Y APPLY RETURN TO D-P CONE N N 1/2 trial [J 2(s n+1 )] . . THE ELASTOPLASTIC CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The elastoplastic consistent tangent will be dependent on the particular return mapping considered. Its validity can also be established on the basis of geometrical arguments. an appropriate algorithm has to be devised to select. Algorithm for selection of the correct return-mapping procedure. as four distinct return procedures are possible for the present model.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. This will be left as an exercise for the reader. that is. 10. The situation here is an extension of that studied in Chapter 8 for the standard Drucker–Prager model. then the current tangent will be consistent with the cone–cap intersection return. 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. then the current elastoplastic tangent will be consistent with the Drucker–Prager cone return. when dealing with multivector implementations of multisurface plasticity models. Capped Drucker–Prager model.15 (page 330).3. the return mapping that fully satisﬁes plastic consistency. The summary of a possible selection algorithm is shown in the ﬂowchart of Figure 10. If the cone–cap intersection was the last return mapping used.4.2. for a given elastic trial state. Selection of the appropriate return mapping As discussed in detail in Chapter 8.

In this section. This property is known as strain-induced plastic anisotropy and is often present in formed metal components.1. Hoffman and Barlat–Lian models The elastoplasticity theories discussed so far in this book have been limited by the assumption of elastoplastic isotropy. that is. 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.3.3.414 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. Polycrystalline aggregates with sufﬁciently random crystal orientation distribution present an effectively isotropic macroscopic behaviour and can be modelled by conventional isotropic plasticity theories. Another class of materials whose anisotropy can be of particular relevance are composites in general.29). the yield function associated with the Hill criterion . Note that. we address the modelling and computational implementation of anisotropic phenomenological plasticity models.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. 10. 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). we have Dep = 0. Many such materials (ﬁbre-reinforced polymers are typical examples) are designed so as to produce optimal strength/performance along predeﬁned directions. With σij denoting the stress tensor components on an orthonormal basis {e1 . in many circumstances of practical interest. (10. Hoffman (1967) and Barlat and Lian (1989). must be particularised for the perfectly plastic case. e3 } whose vectors coincide with the principal axes of plastic orthotropy.27) with b = β in (10. However.42) For the cap return.3. 1950). An important instance of anisotropic behaviour arises in polycrystalline metals. for the present model. when such materials undergo manufacturing processes characterised by extreme straining along preferential directions (rolling is a typical example). material behaviour is truly anisotropic with substantial discrepancy among phenomenological properties observed in different material directions. Anisotropic plasticity: the Hill. In such cases. in this case. e2 . 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. the development of texturing (reorientation of crystals according to the direction of straining) results in a ﬁnal crystallographic arrangement whose macroscopic behaviour is clearly anisotropic. the tangent operator is that of (10. However. 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. at the cone apex. 10. Attention is focused on the orthotropic models proposed by Hill (1948.

only. ¯ 12 23 13 (10.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 415 can be cast in the following form: Φ(σ.e. it is pressure insensitive. the yield stress under a stress state ¯ with a single non-zero stress component σij is y σij = σ σij .48) (10. and σij = sij .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.46) Indeed. 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) 1 −1 1 1 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 + (σ 0 )2 . The constants F1 . ¯ (10.44) 0 0 0 where σ11 . note that under such a stress state it follows from (10. for i = j.49) (10. not necessarily unity σ ).47) the Hill yield function can be equivalently written as Φ(σ. By recalling the trivial identities σii − σjj = sii − sjj . s. as for the von Mises and Tresca criteria. e2 and e3 when σ = 1 (here assumed to be the initial state of the material). σ22 and σ33 are. F2 and F3 are deﬁned as F1 = F2 = F3 = 1 1 1 1 + 0 2− 0 2 . 0 (σ12 )2 F5 = 1 . F5 and F6 are deﬁned as F4 = 1 . σ ) = 0 ⇐⇒ σij = σ σij . 0 (σ23 )2 F6 = 1 . with no summation on repeated indices. This allows us to express its yield function in terms of the components of the stress deviator. the (generally distinct) uniaxial yield stresses in the directions of e1 . σ ) = F1 (σ11 − σ22 )2 + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )2 + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )2 ¯ 2 2 2 + F4 σ12 + F5 σ23 + F6 σ13 − σ 2 . 0 (σ13 )2 (10.45) 0 ¯ where σij are the three (generally distinct) initial (when σ = 1) yield stresses in pure shear along the corresponding planes orthogonal to the principal directions of orthotropy. ¯ 0 (10. σ ) = F1 (s11 − s22 )2 + F2 (s22 − s33 )2 + F3 (s11 − s33 )2 ¯ + F4 s2 + F5 s2 + F6 s2 − σ 2 . ¯ The constants F4 . (10. 0 2 (σ11 )2 (σ22 ) (σ33 ) (10.43) that Φ(σ.50) . respectively. 2 (σ11 22 33 1 1 1 1 − 0 2+ 0 2 . For a generic state of hardening (i. ¯ ¯ 0 Pressure insensitivity One important feature of the Hill criterion is the fact that.

e2 }).and threedimensional projections are obtained by ﬁxing. (10. yield surfaces for anisotropic models cannot be easily represented graphically.or three-dimensional yield locus will change if the ﬁxed stress components are changed. σy (10. σ23 and σ13 relative to the axes of material orthotropy). (10. σ ) = ¯ 3 2 [s + s2 + s2 + 2(s2 + s2 + s2 )] − 1 22 33 12 23 13 2 2σy 11 3 = 2 J2 (s) − 1. where we make use of the trivial relation s11 + s22 + s33 = 0. four and three stress components and then plotting the corresponding yield locus on the subset of the two or three free stress components. it is worth remarking that at any given state of shear stress (deﬁned by the components σ12 . we will plot here the corresponding yield surfaces under states of plane stress. the Hill yield surface is deﬁned by 2 2 2 ¯ (F1 + F3 ) σ11 + (F1 + F2 ) σ22 − 2F1 σ11 σ22 + F4 σ12 − σ 2 = 0. 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. Before proceeding to the graphical representation.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 .52) (10. Two. visualisation of projections of such hypersurfaces on two. we obtain Φ(σ. Thus. the two.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.55) . ¯ After a straightforward algebraic manipulation. Anisotropic yield surfaces are truly six-dimensional hypersurfaces in the space of stress components. For plane stress states (on plane {e1 . Geometric representation Unlike isotropic models. an appropriate visual study of anisotropic yield criteria requires plotting such projections with different combinations of ﬁxed stress values.53) The corresponding yield surface is that of the von Mises model with uniaxial yield stress σy : 3 J2 (s) = σy . In order to give the reader some visual insight into properties of the Hill criterion. In general.51) 0 To see this. 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 ).54) (10. The size of the cylinder cross-section (and its intersection with the plane stress space) depends upon the state of shear stress. we assume that the above relation holds and set σ11 = σy and σ = 1 in (10.50). respectively.

In the next representation of the Hill surface shown in Figure 10. Finally. the von Mises ellipse is stretched in the σ22 direction. This effect is illustrated in Figures 10.5). At this point. the Hill surface is an ellipse intersecting the horizontal axis at ±1 and the vertical axis at ±a22 . the Hill criterion can provide reasonable approximations to the actual yield surfaces. it is important to emphasise that the Hill criterion was originally proposed to model anisotropy of formed steel components. Obviously. the original ellipse degenerates into two parallel straight lines (two hyperplanes in the six-dimensional stress space). 0). the ellipse is compressed in the vertical direction but substantially stretched along its longer radius. a12 0 0 σ12 = √ σ11 . Clearly.7 and 0. with uniaxial yield stress σ11 is recovered if we set a22 = a33 = a12 = a23 = a13 = 1.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 417 In order to study the effect of the material constants (the yield stresses) on the yield surface. assuming no shear stresses and a33 = 1.6) the ellipse is compressed in the biaxial state direction and stretched in a pure shear (σ11 = −σ22 ) direction. the Hill surface is always an ellipse intersecting the horizontal and vertical axis 0 at ±1.5 and 10.56) 0 where aij are parameters deﬁning all initial yield stresses of the model as a function of σ11 . in such cases.6. The surface with a22 = 1 corresponds to that of the von Mises model.57) Firstly. 0 0 σ33 = a33 σ11 . (10. Essentially. Thus. the maximum variation of yield strength between the different orthotropy directions is typically less than about 5 to 10%.7). 3 a13 0 0 σ13 = √ σ11 . if σ12 = σ σ12 (the ¯ 0 shear stress has reached its yield limit) the σ11 -σ22 space surface degenerates to a point at (0. the parameters a12 . when a22 = 0. 3 a23 0 0 σ23 = √ σ11 . the surface is represented in the space of direct stresses along ﬁxed axes). In Figure 10.6. the ellipse degenerates into two straight lines and becomes a hyperbola for a33 < 0.7 we illustrate the effect of shear stresses on the Hill yield surface.5). When σ33 decreases (see surfaces with a33 = 0. If a22 decreases (refer to the surface with a22 = 0. we conveniently assume the following relations: 0 0 σ22 = a22 σ11 . If a22 increases (see surface plotted for a22 = 1. . the Hill yield 0 surface on the σ11 -σ22 space is plotted for different values of direct yield stress σ22 (i. a23 and a13 have no effect on the Hill yield function.58) In this case (absence of shear stresses). As σ33 increases (see surface with a33 = 1. For a33 > 0. let us focus on the effect of the variation of direct yield stresses on the Hill yield surface.5. (10. the Hill criterion is to be used only within certain limits of yield strength variation among the orthotropy directions.5. For a22 > 0. the elastic domain becomes unbounded in some directions and does not correspond to physical behaviour.3). For such materials.5.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). 3 (10. Under such conditions.5. the ellipse stretches in the biaxial state 0 direction. In the limit. the yield locus produced by Hill’s function is a set of two hyperbolic (non-convex) surfaces in stress space. 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 (see surface with a22 = 0. For a22 < 0. different values of a22 ). as opposed to the usual representation in principal stress space. When a33 = 0. in Figure 10.e.5 (one direct yield stress is half of the other two). 0 Note that the von Mises surface. we illustrate the effect of the variation of the direct yield 0 0 0 stress σ33 (variation of a33 ) in the absence of shear stresses and with σ22 = σ11 (a22 = 1).

7 y σ11 /σ11 -1 1 -1 a 33 = 0.5 0 Figure 10.6.5 a 33 = 0. The Hill orthotropic criterion.7 1 a 22 = 0. Surface plot for various values of a22 with no shear stresses and a33 = 1 (σ33 = σ11 ). Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ33 (the transversal yield stress) on the yield surface.5 a 22 =1. The Hill orthotropic criterion. Effect of variation of direct yield stress σ22 on the yield 0 0 surface.0 1 a 33 =0.5 a 22 =1.5 -1 -0.5 1 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -1. Surface plot for various values of a33 with no shear stresses and 0 0 a22 = 1 (σ22 = σ11 ).5 a 33 =0.418 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS y σ22 /σ11 1.4 0 Figure 10. y σ22 /σ11 a 33 =1.5.6 a 33 =1.0 a 22 = 0. .3 a 22 = 0.5 0.

however. in view of (10. In addition. . or even lead to loss of orthotropy.5 -1 -1.5 419 σ12 =0 y σ12 =0. ¯ ¯ ε (10. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface. isotropic strain hardening can be easily incorporated into the Hill model by assuming the relative yield stress σ in (10.59) The material in this case is assumed to remain orthotropic with constant axes of orthotropy.5 1 -0. We remark.8 σ12 0.2. Hardening law Analogously to the standard strain-hardening von Mises model thoroughly discussed in Chapters 6.46). The approximation provided by simple laws of the above type can be very useful in the ﬁnite element analysis of plastically orthotropic materials and.43) to be a given function of the von Mises ¯ accumulated plastic strain. εp . 7 and 9.5 and a12 = a33 = 1. a22 = 1. all six yield stresses of the Hill criterion will change in strict proportion (isotropically) as the accumulated plastic strain increases. represents a substantial gain in predictive capability (as compared to the use of isotropic plasticity models) in situations where plastic anisotropy is an important feature of the material behaviour.5 Figure 10.7. undoubtedly. we postulate ¯ σ = σ (¯p ).ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS y σ22 /σ11 1. Surface plot for various values of σ12 with σ23 = σ13 = 0. The Hill orthotropic criterion. the model resulting from the above assumptions provides only a ﬁrst approximation to the phenomenon of hardening.5 0.5 σ12 1 y σ12 =0. that is.5 y σ11 /σ11 -1 -0. Since general straining of an initially orthotropic material is usually expected to change the yield stresses in different directions by different amounts. Remark 10. that the phenomenological modelling of hardening in plastically anisotropic materials is a complex issue which remains open at present.

˙33 ˙ εp = γ F4 σ12 .62) The actual contributions to Φ from the independent shear components. a marked difference is observed between yield stress levels in tension and compression (the Bauschinger effect).66) § This function was in fact proposed by Hoffman (1967) originally to deﬁne a fracture criterion for brittle materials. ˙23 ˙ εp = γ F6 σ13 . compact tensorial representation is not particularly convenient and the plastic ﬂow rule is best presented in its equivalent component-wise format εp = γ ˙ij ˙ ∂Φ . i = j. (10. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ 2[F2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ33 − σ11 )]. with no reference to plastic ﬂow modelling. the above associative law is volume-preserving.64) As expected.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.3.66). Hill’s associative ﬂow rule is found to be given by εp = γ 2[F1 (σ11 − σ22 ) + F3 (σ11 − σ33 )]. ∂σ (10. TENSION–COMPRESSION DISTINCTION: THE HOFFMAN MODEL For many materials.65) (10.63) With the above considerations. is an extension of the Hill elastoplastic model with yield criterion and plastic ﬂow rule based on Hoffman’s function (10. (10. it is important to note that the shear stress contributions to (10. σij (i = j). Indeed. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in some composite materials and is also commonly observed in worked metals. (10.61) Before presenting the ﬁnal expressions. ∂σij (10. .2. of the stress tensor read 2 1 2 [F4 (σ12 2 2 2 2 2 + σ21 ) + F5 (σ23 + σ32 ) + F6 (σ13 + σ31 )]. Hoffman (1967) proposed an extension to the Hill criterion described by the following yield function:§ Φ(σ.60) Here.43) take into account the trivial identity σij = σji . ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 10. In order to model such effects in orthotropic materials.64) implies ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = 0. that is. the plastic ﬂow is given by the standard equation ˙ ˙ εp = γ ∂Φ . owing to the pressure-insensitivity of the Hill criterion. What we refer to as the Hoffman model here. ¯ (10. σ ) = C1 (σ11 − σ22 )2 + C2 (σ22 − σ33 )2 + C3 (σ33 − σ11 )2 ¯ 2 2 2 + C4 σ12 + C5 σ23 + C6 σ13 + C7 σ11 + C8 σ22 + C9 σ33 − σ 2 . ˙13 ˙ (10. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ F5 σ23 . ˙11 ˙ εp = γ 2[F1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + F2 (σ22 − σ33 )].

the contribution of the linear terms on the direct stresses to Φ in (10. . Indeed. (10. t σc + σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 11 22 22 33 33 1 1 1 1 . the Hoffman yield surface is an elliptic cone in the σ11 -σ22 -σ33 space. . . A graphical representation of the Hoffman criterion is shown in Figure 10. In this case. i. and 1 1 1 C4 = 0 2 . in general. c t 0 σ33 = σ33 = σ33 . . F6 of (10.67) t c with σii and σii (no summation on repeated indices) denoting the initial (i. page 167). The constraint C7 + C8 + C9 = 0 (10. . C6 = 0 2 . the Hoffman criterion is (unlike the Hill criterion) pressure-sensitive.70) then C7 = C8 = C9 = 0 and the constants C1 .68) (σ12 ) (σ23 ) (σ13 ) and C7 = c t σ11 − σ11 . The cone intersects the σ11 . 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 1 −1 1 1 . σ22 and σ33 axes at the corresponding prescribed values of (tensile and compressive) direct yield stresses.8. .43). i. under a state of pure hydrostatic pressure (σ11 = σ22 = σ33 = p). If for each principal direction of orthotropy the direct yield stress in tension coincides with the direct yield stress in compression. the Hill criterion is recovered.69) 0 0 0 The constants σ12 . is . σ23 and σ13 have the same meaning as in the Hill criterion.e. . when σ = 1) ¯ direct yield stresses along the orthotropy direction i. However.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 421 where σ is the non-dimensional relative yield stress (analogous to that of the Hill criterion) ¯ and C1 .e. C2 . c t σ33 σ33 (10.e. c t σ22 σ22 C9 = c t σ33 − σ33 . in the absence of shear stresses. t c − σt σc + σt σc 2 σ11 σ11 22 22 33 33 (10. c t 0 σ22 = σ22 = σ22 .121). C5 = 0 2 . only the intersection of the yield surface with the σ11 -σ22 plane. C9 are material constants deﬁned as C1 = C2 = C3 = 1 1 1 1 . (10. .72) is the necessary and sufﬁcient condition for the Hoffman criterion to be pressure-insensitive. .71) This contribution – a linear function of the hydrostatic pressure – is identical to that of the Drucker–Prager criterion (refer to expression (6. respectively in tension and compression. Remark 10. . (10. . it should be noted that.3 (Hill criterion as a particular case). . c t σ11 σ11 C8 = c t σ22 − σ22 . Again. if we set c t 0 σ11 = σ11 = σ11 . In its general form (within the range of applicability of the criterion).66) will be (C7 + C8 + C9 )p. C6 coincide with the constants F1 .

the following relations have been chosen: c t σ11 = 1. (10. an associative ﬂow rule is also postulated. t t σ33 = σ11 .5 -1 Figure 10. Analogously to (10. ˙11 ˙ εp = γ [C8 + 2C1 (σ22 − σ11 ) + 2C2 (σ22 − σ33 )]. the above associative ﬂow rule is not volume-preserving in general.5 0. t t σ22 = 0. the Hoffman surface shrinks isotropically with an increase in shear stresses. plotted.4 (Non-isochoric plastic ﬂow). The volumetric plastic strain rate for the present model is ˙ tr εp ≡ εp + εp + εp = γ (C7 + C8 + C9 ). ˙11 ˙22 ˙33 ˙ and the plastic ﬂow is isochoric if and only if constraint (10. Excessive variations of direct (tensile or compressive) yield stress can cause the originally elliptic surface to degenerate into a hyperbola that does not model the actual behaviour of solids. ˙12 ˙ εp = γ C5 σ23 .75) .8.7).2 σ11 .9 σ11 . c t σ22 = 0.422 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS t σ22 /σ σ11 1 0. As a result of the pressure-sensitivity of the Hoffman criterion.5 -1.8 σ11 . (10. Flow rule Here.5 1 t σ11 /σ σ11 -0. For illustration purposes only. ˙13 ˙ (10. c c 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 )]. 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.72) holds. 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. ¯ Again. The Hoffman orthotropic criterion.5 -1 -0. ˙22 ˙ εp = γ [C9 + 2C2 (σ33 − σ22 ) + 2C3 (σ33 − σ11 )].73) As for the Hill criterion (refer to Figure 10.74) Remark 10.64). ˙33 ˙ εp = γ C4 σ12 . ˙23 ˙ εp = γ C6 σ13 .

with planes 12.79) for i = 1. 23 and 31 and satisfying Gij = Gji . (1995). the shear moduli. (10. again.3. 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.80) 1 − νjk νkj for i = j and. A plane stress implementation of the Hoffman model in the context of explicit dynamics ﬁnite element analysis is given by Koh et al. no summation on the repeated index. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOFFMAN MODEL The computational implementation of the Hoffman model is described in what follows.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 423 10. . j. the stress–elastic strain relation then reads σ = D εe . ν12 . The orthotropic elastic law As plastically orthotropic composites usually also present a marked elastic orthotropy. D= 0 0 D44 0 D13 D23 0 D33 with Dii = Ei (1 − νjk νkj ) (1 − νki νik )(1 − νjk νkj ) − (νij + νik νkj )(νji + νjk νki ) (10. ν23 and ν31 . εe = [εe εe 2εe εe ]T . and D44 = G12 . associated with directions 1. For simplicity. 3). Early implementations of the Hill and Hoffman anisotropic models are described. 3 (no summation on the repeated index) and (i.76) where σe = [σ11 σ22 σ12 σ33 ]T . (10. (10. 2 and 3 of orthotropy respectively.77) and D denotes the orthotropic elasticity matrix given by D11 D12 0 D13 D12 D22 0 D23 . νji + νjk νki Dij = Dii (10. respectively.3.78) (10.82) and three Poisson’s ratios. the discussion will be limited to the plane strain and axisymmetric cases. E1 . G12 . These are: the Young’s moduli.81) The total number of independent elastic constants is nine (in the full three-dimensional case). by de Borst and Feenstra (1990) and Schellekens and de Borst (1990). Clearly. 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. k) denoting cyclic permutations of (1. 2. 11 22 12 33 (10. The extension to the full three-dimensional situation is trivial. G23 and G31 associated. Using the ﬁnite element array notation. E2 and E3 . we shall assume here an orthotropic elasticity law. respectively. 2.

we compute σtrial = D εe trial .86) −C2 0 C3 + C2 (10. ¯ ¯n (10. ˙ The rate of accumulated plastic strain.74) can be equivalently expressed in terms of the engineering plastic strain rate array as ˙ εp = γ (Pσ + q).87) and q = [ C7 C8 0 C9 ]T .88) With the above notation. the D matrix here is the orthotropic operator (10.90) (Pσ + q)T Z (Pσ + q). Ei (10. .78). ¯ −C1 C2 + C1 0 −C2 0 0 C4 0 −C3 (10. with the elasticity operator represented in (10. can be represented as ˙ εp ≡ ¯ =γ ˙ 2 3 (10.424 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The following relation applies: νji = νij Ej . in turn.83) In the plane strain/axisymmetric case. σ ) = ¯ where C1 + C3 −C1 P=2 0 −C3 1 2 σT Pσ + qT σ − σ 2 . clearly. Return-mapping algorithm For computer implementation purposes. the transverse shear moduli G23 and G31 are not required. (10. Elastic trial state The computation of the elastic trial state proceeds as usual.66). (10.89) ˙ ˙ εp : εp = γ ˙ 2 3 2 3 ˙ ˙ (εp )T Z εp (10.78).85) If the trial state is outside the elastic domain deﬁned by the yield function (10.84) where. it is convenient to write the Hoffman yield function (10. The trial accumulated plastic strain (isotropic hardening state variable) is εp trial = εp . the return mapping described below is applied. the ﬂow rule (10. That is.66) in the following equivalent form in terms of the array of stress components: Φ(σ.

σn+1 is a function of ∆γ. ∆γ. the ﬁrst equation of system (10. the updated stress.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 425 1 0 Z= 0 0 0 0 . σ ε (10.93) that is. introduction of the above function in the second equation of (10.25) (page 196) is obtained as εe − εe trial + ∆γ (Pσn+1 + q) 0 n+1 1 p 2 p T 2 (10. the stress-updating procedure for the Hoffman model comprises the solution of (10. respectively. (10. after a straightforward manipulation. with the substitution of the last two expressions in the third equation of (10. To obtain the reduced equation.95).96) where δ∆γ (k) = − ˜ Φ(∆γ) ˜ dΦ/d∆γ (k−1) . exclusively. ¯n+1 ¯ ¯n 3 1 (10. by using the linear elastic law.92) = 0 .93) and (10. Newton–Raphson solution In the Newton–Raphson iterative scheme to solve (10.94) Finally. followed by the update of stress and accumulated plastic strain according to (10.95). a direct particularisation of the general return-mapping equations (7. as σn+1 = σ(∆γ) ≡ (I + ∆γ DP)−1 (σtrial − ∆γ Dq). (10.95) In summary.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. 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. the k th guess for the solution ∆γ is obtained as ∆γ (k) = ∆γ (k−1) + δ∆γ (k) .92) gives εp = εp (∆γ) ≡ εp + ∆γ{ 2 [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T Z [Pσ(∆γ) + q]} 2 . (10.97) . 0 1 where we have used the deﬁnition 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (10. the return mapping here can also be reduced to the solution of a single equation for the plastic multiplier.91) With the above relations at hand.92) can be expressed. Further. we start by noting that.94).

we need to use formula (vii) of page 36. and the scalar η is deﬁned as η= 2 T 3N Z (10. we start by differentiating the system (10. (10. to derive the elastoplastic consistent tangent operator for the above implementation of the Hoffman model.426 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS ˜ The derivative of Φ is given by ˜ dΦ dσ εp ¯ d¯ . = [Pσ(∆γ) + q]T − 2 σ (∆γ) H ¯ d∆γ d∆γ d∆γ (10. d∆γ (10. (10.23).92). A straightforward manipulation then gives dσ = −(I + ∆γ DP)−1 D [P σ(∆γ) + q]. 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 .101) (10. To obtain an σ ε explicit expression for the derivative of function σ deﬁned by (10.98) ¯ where H ≡ d¯ /d¯p is the slope of the (non-dimensional) hardening curve. page 408).4. The elastoplastic consistent tangent As in the modiﬁed Cam-Clay implementation presented earlier in this chapter (refer to the text preceding equation (10. (10. with the inversion of (10. we shall follow the general procedure of Section 7. d¯ ε also evaluated at εp .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.99) With the above expressions at hand. The ﬂow vector N is given by ¯n+1 N = Pσn+1 + 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. Its non-symmetry is a consequence of the fact that the adopted hardening rule is non-associative (despite the associativity of the plastic .93).104) The above operator is clearly unsymmetric. which together with the elastic law.103) Finally. Here.4 (from page 238).102) N.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 .

10.9 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).02. σ22 . The parameter h relates the y uniaxial yield strength. the following have been determined by Lege et al. Similarly to the previously discussed .108) To give the reader an idea of realistic values for these constants.107) y where M . page 243. b and h are material constants and σ11 is the uniaxial yield stress in the principal orthotropy direction 1. in this format. (1989) for an aluminium alloy: M = 8.24. For use under the assumption of perfect plasticity (H = 0). a. a. whose equations are ﬁrstly formulated in the sixdimensional stress space and corresponding plane stress versions are subsequently addressed within the framework of Chapter 9. 1989) has been proposed to model the behaviour of orthotropic metallic sheets (typically rolled materials) under plane stress. an alternative representation can be obtained following completely analogous steps to those leading to expression (7.6. This can be seen in Figure 10. (10. The effect of constant a is shown in Figure 10. The yield function (10. is restricted strictly to hardening models (H = 0) owing to the presence of the hardening modulus in the denominator of the third summand of the term within square brackets. Refer to the comments made in Section 7. h = 1. This will be left as an exercise for the interested reader. Unlike the other plasticity models discussed in this book. a = 1. written at the outset exclusively in terms of in-plane components of the stress tensor. 2 K2 = σ11 − h σ22 2 2 2 + b2 σ12 .10(b).149) for the von Mises isotropically hardening ¯ model. The corresponding yield function.15.3.4. (10. σy y σ22 = 11 .10(a). b.106) where f (σ) ≡ a|K1 + K2 |M + a|K1 − K2 |M + (2 − a)|2 K2 |M . (10. the Barlat–Lian criterion was originally deﬁned in plane stress format. Its use.105) (10. a < 2. with K1 = σ11 + h σ22 .4. the standard von Mises locus is recovered when M = 2 and the Tresca yield locus is recovered for M = 1 and M → ∞. in the principal orthotropy direction 2 with that of direction 1. σ11 ) = f (σ) − 2 (σ11 )M .109) The constant M deﬁnes the curvature of the yield surface. THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL FOR SHEET METALS The Barlat–Lian criterion (Barlat and Lian.148). (10. Under such a condition. that is.110) h The effect of the choice of h on the Barlat–Lian yield surface is illustrated in Figure 10. 1989) if M > 1. reads y y Φ(σ. (10. Note that the above formula is analogous to that given by (7. We remark that the criterion becomes isotropic when a = b = h = 1. h > 0. b = 1.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 427 ﬂow rule).105) is convex (Barlat and Lian.

For the purposes of computational implementation of the model. The Barlat–Lian criterion.111) (10. (10. Hill and Hoffman criteria.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. where we plot yield surfaces obtained with M = 8. This effect is illustrated in Figure 10. it turns out to be more convenient to describe the yield criterion for the Barlat–Lian model equivalently in terms of the following alternative deﬁnition of the yield function: y y Φ(σ. 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. α: y y (10. In the original deﬁnition (10. a = b = 1 and h = 2/3 at different levels of shear stress.105). σ11 ) = g(σ) − σ11 .2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M =8 M = 40 M =1 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 1 y σ11 / σ11 -1 -1 Figure 10.11) an increase (decrease) in constant b will increase (decrease) the rate at which the surface shrinks with increasing shear stress.113) σ11 = σ11 (α). the presence of shear stresses will shrink the Barlat–Lian yield surface.428 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS M =2 M =2 σ22 / σ11 1 y M = 1.9. Here we take the yield function (10.114) .5 M = 1.11. ∂σ11 (10. which may produce computationally intractable numbers for large values of material constant M . We remark that (not shown in Figure 10. the yield function has dimension of stress to the power M . Hardening law Analogously to the Hill and Hoffman criteria. Yield surfaces on σ11 -σ22 plane (in the absence of shear stress) for various values of M with a = h = 1.112) where g(σ) ≡ [ 1 f (σ)]1/M . 2 Note that the yield function now has dimension of stress.

5 y σ12 =0 σ12 =0. (b) effect of parameter a with h = 2/3.5 h= 1 1 1 h= 2 0. The Barlat–Lian criterion.5 0. The Barlat–Lian criterion.5 -1 -1.5 Figure 10.5 -1. σ22 / σ11 1.10. a = 1.5 σ11 y 0. Yield surfaces in the absence of shear for M = 8: (a) effect of parameter h with a = 1.5 y 429 y σ22 / σ11 h = 2/3 a=0. h = 2/3 and b = 1.11.5 -0.8 1.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0.5 -1 1 σ11 / σ11 y -1 -0.5 (a) (b) Figure 10. .5 0.5 a=1.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS σ22 / σ11 1.5 -1 -1 -1.3 σ11 y 1 σ12 =0.0 a=1.5 1 σ11 / σ11 y -0. Effect of shear stress on the yield surface for M = 8.

∂σ (10. β = 1. all out-of-plane strain components can be recovered a posteriori as functions of the in-plane elastic and plastic strains according to relations (9. (10.117) The corresponding explicit formulae for the derivatives of f are σ11 − hσ22 M ∂f a(K1 − K2 ) |K1 − K2 |M−2 1 − = ∂σ11 2 2K2 σ11 − hσ22 + a(K1 + K2 ) |K1 + K2 |M−2 1 − 2K2 M−1 σ11 − hσ22 .37)–(9. the complete set of plastic ﬂow equations comprises (10. Thus.121) Finally. we have εp = γ ˙αβ ˙ 1 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f .41)3.40) (refer to page 371). (10. . Then.430 Flow rule COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The Barlat–Lian yield function (10.105) (refer to the comments surrounding expression (10. page 372. we have taken into account the tensorial nature of the shear stress contribution in (10.120) Note that.120) together with the out-of plane rates εp = − ε p − ε p . + 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 .117)–(10. ∂σαβ α. in component form. following the procedure applied to the plane stress-projected von Mises model. 2. ˙33 ˙11 ˙22 εp = εp = 0. The thickness plastic strain rate is obtained by imposing plastic incompressibility and the transversal plastic shear strain rates are assumed to vanish.115) where N≡ ∂g 1 ∂Φ = = ∂σ ∂σ 2M f 2 (1−M)/M ∂f .111) is represented analogously to the plane stressprojected von Mises yield function given in (9.116) Equivalently.119) (10. ˙ (10. to complete the deﬁnition of the model.63)). − 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 }. The in-plane associative plastic strain rate is given simply by ˙ εp = γ N.120). ˙13 ˙23 (10. we assume the material to be elastically isotropic. in deriving (10.118) (10.

0 Φ(σn+1 .124) where H is the hardening modulus. including the corresponding consistent tangent operator. was originally proposed by Dutko et al. 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. unlike previously described implementations such as those of the von Mises and even the orthotropic Hoffman model. for a discussion on the possible need for strategies of this nature).125) With this relation and taking into account the linear elasticity law. We remark that only the in-plane components of the elastic strain take part in the above equation. The return mapping is a specialisation of (7.126) R≡ = 0 . 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. αn+1 and ∆γ.5. For convenience in the description of the return-mapping algorithm we have adopted. therefore. where Nn+1 is the ﬂow vector (10.122) = 0 e 0 Φ(σ(εn+1 ). IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BARLAT–LIAN MODEL The implicit elastic predictor/plastic corrector computational implementation of the (isotropically strain hardening) Barlat–Lian model. requiring the solution of the algebraic system of equations e εn+1 − εe trial + ∆γ Nn+1 0 αn+1 − αn − ∆γ (10. (1993). (10.4. page 199.116) evaluated at n+1 the updated state. κ = κ0 + H α. . (10. in the discrete setting. here and in what follows.2 (refer to Box 9.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 431 10. κn+1 ) where De here denotes the isotropic (plane stress) elasticity operator and the unknowns are σn+1 . the notation y κ ≡ σ11 .3. κn+1 and ∆γ. Then. i. (10. as we shall see. the evolution of κ reads κn+1 = κn + H ∆γ. the return-mapping equation system in the present case cannot be reduced to a single scalar equation.4. requires no further consideration. page 377) and. κ(αn+1 )) for the unknowns εe .25) (page 196). The implementation is a particular case of the general methodology adopted throughout this book but. we shall assume linear hardening.3.e. The corresponding algorithm and associated consistent tangent operator are described in the following. Note that.123) In the derivation of the return mapping presented below. 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.

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. ∂σ ∂σ (10. (10.116). we update the Newton guess for the unknowns according to Σn+1 = Σn+1 + δΣ(k) .432 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Newton–Raphson iteration As usual. (10.131) where we have deﬁned A≡ [De ]−1 + ∆γ ∂N/∂σ 0 −1 0 H . it is convenient to split the residual vector R as ¯ R= R Φ . 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 ⊗ . To do this. where we have used the notation (k) σn+1 (k) .126) is undertaken by the Newton–Raphson iterative ¯ scheme.132) With the above solution at hand. (10.130) δσ(k) δκ(k) = −A(k−1) R(k−1) + δ∆γ (k) .127) Accordingly.129) Straightforward manipulation of system (10. R≡ [De ]−1 : (σn+1 − σtrial ) + ∆γ Nn+1 H −1 (κn+1 − κn ) − ∆γ . κn+1 and ∆γ.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. the solution of equation (10.133) (10. Following (10.134) .128) for the iterative increments of σn+1 . Σn+1 ≡ κ(k) n+1 (k) ∆γ δσ(k) δΣ(k) ≡ .

(10. the elastoplastic tangent for the Barlat–Lian model with implicit return mapping is a complete analogy to (7. Under such conditions. . The line-search in the present case is activated whenever the rate of convergence of the Newton–Raphson iterations falls below a prescribed minimum. page 243). 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 . by differentiating the return-mapping system (10.6. 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. The interested reader is referred to Dutko et al. obtained for the von Mises isotropically hardening model. (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 40.135) is satisﬁed.ADVANCED PLASTICITY MODELS 433 Line-search procedure Dutko et al. Line-search procedures are discussed in detail by Fletcher (1980) (see also Matthies and Strang 1979.148) and can be expressed as Dep ≡ where P≡ IS + ∆γ De : ∂N ∂σ ∂σn+1 1 (P : N ) ⊗ (P : N ).4.4. small changes in stress on the yield surface result in large changes in ﬂow vector direction. Dutko et al.141). Then. characterising a set of stiff evolution equations. an expression for the elastoplastic consistent tangent can be easily obtained by means of a specialisation of the general procedure of Section 7. and Crisﬁeld 1991). the above operator is symmetric. Consistent tangent operator Again. (1993) for a complete description of the algorithm. that is. if for a Newton iteration k ≥ 2 and a prescribed tolerance . then the line-search algorithm is carried out. =P− e trial ∂ε N:P:N+H −1 (10.138) As a result of the associative nature of the plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law (refer to Section 7. Accordingly.136) Note that this differential relation has the same symbolic format as expression (7. To tackle the problem. 0 0 d∆γ N (10. εe trial = [De ]−1 : σtrial .137) : De .126) with respect to its unknowns σn+1 . κn+1 and ∆γ as well as to its input. the relation ¯ ¯ |δΣ(k) · R(k) | ≥ |δΣ(k) · R(k−1) | (10.4. (1993) observed that the convergence bowl of the above Newton–Raphson scheme can be dramatically reduced for larger values of material constant M .

.

Ltd . the observed behaviour of real materials is generally time dependent. 1990. more precisely. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto.5 proceeds to introduce a numerical framework to treat the general viscoplasticity model within the ﬁnite element environment of Chapter 4. Here. A more general multidimensional model is presented in Section 11. identical solutions are produced when a given load (or sequence of loads) is applied at different rates. Section 11. However. that is. Then. a limit case of the general viscoplasticity model. This includes the numerical integration algorithm for the general viscoplastic constitutive equations as well as a symbolic form of the associated consistent tangent modulus. Lubliner. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons. from page 71).2. pseudo-time) is used merely to describe the sequence of events that deﬁnes the history of the loading process.6. Rateindependent plasticity is shown to be.3.4. then accurate predictions can only be obtained if rate dependence is adequately accounted for by the constitutive model. For such theories. Rate-dependence effects are described by means of so-called viscoplasticity (or rate-dependent plasticity) models. 1993). an error assessment of the numerical integration procedure is presented by means of iso-error maps. some simple analytical solutions are presented to demonstrate the ability of the one-dimensional model in capturing the fundamental phenomenological features of viscoplastic behaviour. It motivates the establishment of a one-dimensional mathematical model of viscoplasticity in Section 11.2. the general numerical framework is specialised to a von Mises-based model presented in Section 11. The integration algorithm and the associated consistent tangent operator are derived step by step. The extent of such dependence may or may not be signiﬁcant according to the physical conditions of the problem. If such conditions are not met. Section 11.3 the onedimensional viscoplastic theory is generalised to the multidimensional case within the context of von Mises plasticity. This establishes a formal link between rate-independent plasticity and the general constitutive framework of Chapter 3. In addition. Time (or. This chapter is organised as follows. in Section 11.1 presents a brief introduction to phenomenological aspects of viscoplasticity. rateindependent elastoplasticity models can provide good descriptions of the material behaviour (Lemaitre and Chaboche. to which the present chapter is devoted. 1990.5. The general model can be rigorously described within the constitutive framework of internal variable theories initially referred to in Chapter 3 (Section 3.11 VISCOPLASTICITY T HE elastoplastic constitutive theories presented so far in Part Two of this book are classed as rate independent or time independent. that is. under some circumstances. 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. Skrzypek. In Section 11. the stress response always depends on the rate of loading and/or the timescale considered. the material response is regarded as independent of the rate of application of loads and/or the timescale of the problems considered.

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

1. Thus. ε = εe + εp . from page 141).2.1. the uniaxial model possesses all the basic ingredients of the multidimensional models discussed in the remainder of this chapter.1. 11. (11. we devote this section to the description of a simple uniaxial viscoplastic constitutive model. (b) Creep. In particular.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 11.2. Phenomenological aspects: uniaxial tensile tests at high temperature. 11. Viscoplasticity. the decomposition of the total axial strain into a sum of an elastic (recoverable) and a plastic (permanent) component is introduced.1) . (a) Strain rate dependence. Plastic ﬂow at constant stress. (c) Relaxation. ELASTOPLASTIC DECOMPOSITION OF THE AXIAL STRAIN As for the rate-independent case.2. the model is able to capture many of the main features of the viscoplastic behaviour depicted in Figure 11. Stress decay at constant strain. we ﬁnd it convenient to introduce viscoplasticity by focusing ﬁrst on a simple one-dimensional theory. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model Similarly to what has been done in Chapter 6 for rate-independent plasticity (refer to Section 6. in spite of its simplicity. As we shall see. Uniaxial tests at different strain rates.

2. the plastic strain rate in (11.3) where σy is the yield stress. 11.3. The elastic domain is deﬁned as the set E = {σ | Φ(σ.4) (11.2) where sign is the signum function deﬁned by (6. σy ) = |σ| − σy . the elastic domain can be conveniently deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ(σ. In that case. the above constitutive equation for εp differs fundamentally from (6. it needs to be emphasised that in the rateindependent model the plastic strain rate is in fact a pseudo-time rate.3. .438 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. THE ELASTIC LAW The axial stress is again assumed to be related to the elastic component of the axial strain by means of the standard linear elastic constitutive relation σ = E εe . σy ) ≥ 0 σy γ(σ.11). In addition to this conceptual difference. the explicit function for γ should model how the rate of plastic straining ˙ varies with the level of stress. Here. we will deﬁne the one-dimensional viscoplasticity model by adopting the following particular deﬁnition 1/ 1 |σ| −1 if Φ(σ. εp in the rate˙ independent theory is the derivative of the plastic strain in respect to a pseudo-time parameter used solely to describe the sequence of events. THE YIELD FUNCTION AND THE ELASTIC DOMAIN Here.7 (page 146) in the rate-independent theory – is here a given explicit function of σ and σy . The viscoplastic ﬂow rule can be postulated with a format similar to that of the rate-independent case (see equation (6. some models of viscoplasticity do not have an elastic domain. σy ) < 0}. Essentially. σy ) sign(σ).6) 0 if Φ(σ. the actual timescale is irrelevant.2. Firstly. page 144) εp = γ(σ. ˙ ˙ (11. that is. which describes the evolution of εp . σy ) < 0.2.10).2. In spite of its similarity to the rate-independent ﬂow rule.2. Such models do not require the deﬁnition of a yield function.10). σy ) = µ ˙ (11. Many forms are possible for γ and a discussion on this issue ˙ will be left for Section 11.5) (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. so that the behaviour is purely elastic whenever |σ| < σy .2 and the viscoplasticity model introduced here lies in the deﬁnition of the ﬂow rule.2. 11. analogously to the rateindependent model of Section 6. (11. γ – named the plastic multiplier and determined by the procedure of ˙ Section 6. † As we shall see later in this chapter.5) is the actual time derivative of εp . In contrast.4.† Thus. VISCOPLASTIC FLOW RULE The crucial difference between the uniaxial elastoplastic model of Section 6.

For convenience we summarise the model in Box 11. It is important to emphasise that the material parameters µ and are temperature dependent. we derive in this section analytical solutions for three simple problems where the basic properties of creep at constant stress. be a given (experimentally determined) function σy = σy (¯p ) ε of the accumulated plastic strain t (11. after being applied. remains constant in time.2. the phenomenon of hardening describes the changes in yield stress that result from plastic straining. The fact that the model behaviour is elastic under . With the instantaneous loading (at time t = 0).6. 11. . when the material behaviour may be assumed rate-independent.1)–(11. an increase (decrease) in σy will produce a decrease (increase) in the plastic strain rate εp .VISCOPLASTICITY 439 where the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter µ. 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. the bar will initially deform (also instantaneously) in a purely elastic manner. hardening can be incorporated in the same manner as in the elastoplastic case by letting the yield stress. → 0 for sufﬁciently low temperatures. and the non-dimensional rate-sensitivity parameter.2.7) εp = ¯ 0 |εp | dt. As in the elastoplastic case. One important aspect to be emphasised here is that. For many metals. ˙ an increase of σy will be referred to as hardening whereas its reduction will be described as softening.7. SUMMARY OF THE MODEL The overall one-dimensional viscoplasticity model is deﬁned by the constinutive equations (11. Both parameters are strictly positive. as temperature increases (decreases) µ and increase (decrease).1. ˙ (11. the model is referred to as perfectly viscoplastic. SOME SIMPLE ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS Section 11.5. This particular form has been introduced by Peri´ (1993) similarly to the power law form of c the viscoplastic potential proposed by Perzyna (1963). in spite of its simplicity. If σy is a constant. strain rate dependence of the stress response and stress relaxation under constant strain are reproduced by the one-dimensional model. As a general rule. HARDENING LAW In the rate-independent case.1.2.6) implies that at a given constant applied stress σ. The load is applied instantaneously and.8) Note that (11. the above-deﬁned one-dimensional model can capture the key phenomenological features of rate-dependent plasticity shown in Figure 11. 11. µ. whose dimension is time.1 discussed some of the phenomenological aspects of viscoplastic behaviour. σy .8). In the viscoplastic model. 11. To illustrate this and give the reader a better insight into the theory.

Elastoplastic split of the axial strain ε = εe + εp 2. we then have εp = ˙ 1 µ σ σy 1/ −1 . Plastic ﬂow rule εp = γ sign(σ) ˙ ˙ 1 γ= ˙ µ 0 |σ| σy 1/ σ = E εe Φ(σ. the integration of the above equation. in conjunction with the elastoplastic decomposition of the total strain and the initial condition (11. gives the following solution for the straining of the bar ε(t) = σ 1 + E µ σ σy 1/ − 1 t. the behaviour must be purely elastic under such a condition. immediately after the instantaneous application of load. σy ) = |σ| − σy −1 if Φ(σ. One-dimensional viscoplastic constitutive model. Assuming zero initial plastic strain. will be σ ε0 = εe = . the bar is kept under a constant stress above the yield limit.6).11) . even without a formal proof.440 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. (11. as there is no time for plastic strains to develop over an (idealised) instantaneous loading event. 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. From this moment on. (11.9) 0 E where the zero subscript denotes quantities at t = 0. Uniaxial elastic law 3. 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. the elastic law implies that the elastic strain will also remain constant.10) For a perfectly viscoplastic material (constant σy ). the straining of the bar after the instantaneous loading will be due purely to viscoplastic ﬂow and will be modelled by constitutive equations (11. (11. (11. Under constant stress. σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ.1. Yield function 4. σy ) < 0 5. However. Assuming that σ is positive (tensile). 1.9).5). Thus. it makes sense to accept that.

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

note that by inverting the function deﬁned by (11.19) By placing the above solution together with (11.16) into the elastic law.17) . we have t = t(ε) = ε − ε∗ .20). after a straightforward manipulation. 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. the following solution for the stress as a function of time −t σ(t) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ ε∗ . (11. we obtain σ (ε) = σ(t(ε)) = σy 1 + α µ 1 − e µ α (1− ε∗ ) ˜ 1 ε .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 (11.15). the initial value problem can be written as 1 εp (t) = ˙ [α t − εp (t)]. In addition. In the present case. (11. Insight into the problem can be gained by looking into the limit stress–strain curves. (11.21) With the introduction of this relation into (11. The initial condition for εp (the plastic strain at the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow) is obviously εp (0) = 0. so that curves such as those depicted in Figure 11.e. the curves obtained at inﬁnitely slow rates (α → 0) and inﬁnitely fast processes (α → ∞). The limit is then easily obtained as lim σ (ε) = σy . ˜ (11. in the present monotonic loading process. the term 1 − ε/ε∗ in (11.442 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS corresponding to monotonic stretching with arbitrary (constant) strain rate α ≥ 0. Note that t = 0 corresponds to the onset of viscoplastic ﬂow (σ = σy ⇔ ε = ε∗ ). εp (0) = 0.16) into the differential equation (11.1(a) can be produced.20) The stress–strain response. In order to obtain the limit for inﬁnitely slow rates. σ = E(ε − εp ). (11. α (11.22) is the exponential of a negative number.20). we obtain. we ﬁrst observe that.16). such a function can be obtained by means of a simple variable transformation in (11.22) which gives the stress–strain curve for an arbitrary strain rate α. By substituting (11. i. The analytical solution. Indeed.22) is always negative.23) α→0 . µ and α are positive so that the last term on the right-hand side of (11.

2. at inﬁnitely slow strain rates. αµ = 0. even though it is not formally shown here.24) i. the model behaves in a purely elastic manner. ε/ε∗ .2. Analytical solution showing the dependence of the stress response on the applied strain rate/viscosity parameter.5 αµ = 0. the . is plotted against the relative strain. ˜ (11. the above limits remain valid for any hardening curve and any rate sensitivity parameter . the process is purely elastic and the stress–strain curve after the yield limit is the continuation (with the same slope.2 (this limit is also obtained for µ → 0) and.e. the analytical solution (11. For any other rate (or viscosity parameter).2 (page 141). Remark 11. at inﬁnitely fast rates (or when µ → ∞). E) of the elastic curve. for various normalised strain rates µα. the corresponding stress–strain curve will lie between these two limits with higher stress obtained at higher strain rates (or higher viscosity).e. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.0 σ / σy 2 αµ oo αµ = 1. the model recovers the rate-independent behaviour of the plasticity model of Section 6. In addition (again not formally shown in this section).22) is shown in the graph of Figure 11.1(a). It is also very important to note that the same limit is obtained for the vanishing viscosity parameter. Clearly. To illustrate better the behaviour of the model under the present conditions. the limit is derived by a standard limiting procedure which gives α→∞ lim σ (ε) = E ε. At inﬁnitely fast rates. that is. σ/σy . that is. ε / ε∗ Figure 11. at inﬁnitely slow rates the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the behaviour of the rate-independent plasticity model with yield stress σy .1 1 rate-independent limit: αµ lope 0 0 0 1 5 10 elas tic s relative strain. In fact. The rate-independent model was described in Section 6. i.VISCOPLASTICITY 443 αµ = 2. when µ → 0. regardless of the given hardening curve and rate-sensitivity parameter.0 non-dimensional stress. the model is able to capture the experimentally observed rate-dependence phenomenon illustrated in Figure 11. The limits µα → 0 (inﬁnitely slow rates or nonviscous material) and µα → ∞ (inﬁnitely fast rates or inﬁnitely viscous material) are also included. Also note that the identical limit is found for µ → ∞ (inﬁnitely viscous material).1. where the non-dimensional stress.

This last property will be demonstrated in Section 11. we will assume.10) which.29–11.28) To simplify the problem. c2 (11. µ σy (11. in view of the elastic law. µ σy c2 = E .24) and the text surrounding it). i.27) (11. 0 From this point on. The instantaneous stretching to ε is assumed to produce a stress above the yield limit of the material. (11.31) (11.4. 0 and. assuming that the plastic strain is zero at t = 0 (immediately after the instantaneous stretching).29) with initial condition εp (0) = 0. in view of the above expression can be equivalently written as εp = ˙ 1 µ σ0 − E εp σy 1/ −1 . that the material is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ) and = 1. In this case. ˙ (11. Here the model should be able to capture the phenomenon of stress relaxation alluded to in Figure 11. (11.25) where εp evolves in time according to the differential equation (11. when → 0.32) . the stress in the bar will be governed by the law σ = E(ε − εp ) = σ0 − E εp .3 in the context of the general multidimensional theory. the initial value problem is to ﬁnd a function εp (t) such that εp (t) = c1 − c2 εp (t). 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.26) (11. Thus. as in the previous example.444 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS rate-independent behaviour is also recovered with vanishing rate-sensitivity. where the constants c1 and c2 are deﬁned as c1 = 1 σ0 −1 .1(c). we have εe = ε.30) can be trivially obtained as εp (t) = c1 (1 − e−c2 t ).e. the bar will deform purely elastically (refer to the limit expression (11. Stress relaxation at constant strain In this ﬁnal example. the corresponding stress is given by σ0 = E εe = E ε. Over the instantaneous stretching (at time t = 0).30) The analytical solution to (11.

2 (page 141) was presented). including its potential structure and its relation to timeindependent plasticity as a limit case. with the stress taking the value σ = σ0 > σy at t = 0 and subsequently relaxing asymptotically to σy as t → ∞. Finally. This is illustrated in Figure 11. One-dimensional viscoplasticity model.3. A von Mises-based multidimensional model This section introduces a multidimensional extension of the one-dimensional model discussed above (and summarised in Box 11.27). by placing the above solution into (11. Rather than deﬁne a generic extension at the outset (as in Section 6.3. The analytical solution with the present one-dimensional model clearly captures the experimentally observed behaviour referred to in Figure 11.3 (page 148) where a general multidimensional extension of the onedimensional rate-independent plasticity model of Section 6. Analytical solution to the stress relaxation problem. we obtain the stress as a function of time σ(t) = σ0 − (σ0 − σy )(1 − e − µE y t σ ).3 for the rate-independent theory.1. and taking into account the deﬁnition of c1 and c2 . we chose here to focus ﬁrst on a von Mises-based generalisation of the uniaxial theory. will be left for Section 11.4.33) Clearly. A discussion of a more generic model.3 where a graph of the analytical function σ(t) (with σ0 = 2 σy ) is plotted. 11. (11. the above function describes the stress relaxation process of the bar. .3.1).1(c). E t / µσ y Figure 11.VISCOPLASTICITY 445 σ0 stress σy 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 non-dimensional time. 11. A VON MISES-TYPE VISCOPLASTIC MODEL WITH ISOTROPIC STRAIN HARDENING The multidimensional generalisation of the uniaxial viscoplastic model follows the same basic steps as the generalisation presented in Section 6.

Remark 11.2. Elastoplastic split of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. 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 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. σy ) < 0} 3 2 s s if Φ(σ. stress tensor and ﬂow vector).3.2. 1. stress relaxation and strain-rate dependence of the stress response (including the behaviour at limits) as demonstrated for the . the elastoplastic split of the total strain.2. The yield function is also redeﬁned as a function of variables of appropriate tensorial order. and elastic domain 4. Evolution of accumulated plastic strain εp = ¯ 0 t ˙ εp dt ˙ εp = γ ¯ ˙ that is. the linear elasticity law. the model of Box 11. Linear elastic law 3. Yield function Φ(σ. Analogously to its rate-independent counterpart. Isotropic strain hardening law −1 ε σy = σy (¯p ). σy ) ≥ 0 if Φ(σ. The constitutive equations of the von Mises-based extension are listed in Box 11.1. Plastic ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ =γ ˙ ∂σ q σy 1/ σ = De : εe q= 3 2 s:s E = {σ | Φ(σ. 6.2 reduces exactly to the one-dimensional theory of Box 11. The resulting model is a viscoplastic version of the rate-independent isotropically hardening von Mises model summarised in Section 7.446 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .1 (from page 216). under uniaxial stress conditions. It is also important to emphasise that the basic properties of creep. A von Mises-type viscoplastic constitutive model. as our multidimensional extension is von Mises-based. the ﬂow rule and yield function are recast in terms of the corresponding tensor quantities (total. elastic and plastic strain tensors. Here. σy ) < 0 1 γ= µ ˙ 0 5.

2. Other models.34) . The multiplier γ in this case is ˙ deﬁned as q(σ) − σy 1 if Φ(σ.4. each form of γ deﬁnes a different model of viscoplasticity. in many cases.37) 0 if Φ(σ.2) has been assumed to be of the form proposed by Peri´ (1993). the format of the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = γ N.2 (and also from the c Perzyna model described below) by setting η = 1.7 are reproduced by the multidimensional theory under any state of stress. many forms for γ c ˙ have been proposed and. within the framework of von Mises ˙ viscoplasticity. However. the linear approximation may give good results. As mentioned in Section 11. will remain unchanged for any deﬁnition of γ. in practice. ˙ with associative ﬂow vector N deﬁned by N= and yield function Φ(σ.VISCOPLASTICITY 447 uniaxial model in Section 11. 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. the plastic strain rate for the Bingham model is a linear function of the axial stress: 1 εp = (|σ| − σy ) sign(σ). in general. σy ) ≥ 0 Φ(σ. In this section.2. 11.2.1 and 11.36) ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s .6) and item 4 of Boxes 11. Clearly.3. over a relatively narrow range of stresses.35) (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. However. µ = . the explicit function for γ that takes part in the deﬁnition of the plastic ﬂow equation ˙ (see expression (11. better ﬂexibility to allow a wider range of experimental data to be ﬁtted.38) σy In the uniaxial case. ALTERNATIVE PLASTIC STRAIN RATE DEFINITIONS So far. (11. (11. Note that this law is obtained from Peri´ ’s model given in item 4 of Box 11. σy ) < 0. the observed strain rate may be a markedly nonlinear function of the stress. with more material constants. σy ) = q(s(σ)) − σy .39) η This may severely limit the ability of the model to ﬁt experimental data as. σy ) = η η γ(σ. have. σy ) = ˙ (11. ˙ Bingham model The Bingham model is the simplest model of viscoplasticity. we list some of the most widely used forms. 2 s (11. ˙ (11.

6 (page 177). As shown by Peri´ (1993). Kinematic hardening is introduced by simply replacing the von Mises effective stress. (11. with the relative effective stress q = 3 η : η. a yield surface and a corresponding elastic domain do not need to be introduced in the formulation of the . . however.3. many metals at high temperatures will ﬂow at virtually any stress state with a non-zero deviatoric component. µ. wp . 11. many materials can be modelled as ﬂowing whenever under stress. and the rate c sensitivity.41) σy = σy (wp ).2.42) 2 where η is the relative stress η = s − β. q.3. 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. As in Peri´ ’s model. σy ) < 0. the yield stress is effectively zero. 1971) and is widely used in computational applications of viscoplasticity. the Perzyna model produces a curve with σ = 2 σy instead. for vanishing viscosity (µ → 0) or vanishing strain rates.40) 0 if Φ(σ. For example. deﬁned by expression (6. such as Prager’s rule and the Armstrong– Frederick kinematic hardening law. However. the Perzyna model does not reproduce the uniaxial stress–strain curve of the corresponding rate-independent model with yield stress σy .448 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Perzyna model This model was introduced by Perzyna (1966. can be deﬁned as in Section 6. It is deﬁned by 1/ 1 q(σ) −1 if Φ(σ. in c this limit.3. isotropic work hardening is obtained by having σy as a given function of the plastic work. that is.43) and β is the backstress tensor.6. the response of both Perzyna and Peri´ models c coincide with the standard rate-independent model with yield stress σy . In such cases. 11. such an assumption is by no means required. σy ) = µ σy ˙ (11. For viscoplasticity models.177) (11. in spite of its similarity to Peri´ ’s deﬁnition. that is. only isotropic strain hardening has been taken into account. Evolution laws for β.1 on page 443). Other hardening laws.4. OTHER ISOTROPIC AND KINEMATIC HARDENING LAWS In the viscoplasticity model of Box 11. ¯ (11. In fact. We remark here that. particularly at higher temperatures. 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 the ratec independent limit is approached with vanishing rate-sensitivity → 0 (refer to Remark 11. the material constants are the viscosity-related parameter. σy ) ≥ 0 γ(σ.

37) the Bingham model recovers the Norton law with N = 1 and λ = η. time and temperature. The temperature function fT is . It is used mainly in the description of secondary creep. especially in the analysis of creep and hot metal forming operations.44) where N and λ are temperature-dependent material constants. with the following multiplicative format γ = γ(σ. Note that. ft and fT are experimentally deﬁned functions.47) where t and T denote. plastic ﬂow is assumed to occur whenever σ = 0.2 with the following γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N . ˙ ˙ (11.45) Here. to which the interested reader is referred. by setting σy = 0 in (11. such models can be deﬁned simply by postulating the explicit function for γ accordingly. For instance. Other creep laws A rather general class of viscoplastic laws can be obtained by assuming that γ is a function ˙ of the stress. T ) = fσ (σ) ft (t) fT (T ).VISCOPLASTICITY 449 theory. the time and absolute temperature and fσ . is obtained by simply replacing the deﬁnition of the function for γ in item ˙ 4 of Box 11. The function γ in this case reads ˙ γ(σ) = ˙ q(σ) λ N exp[α q(σ)N +1 ]. (11. the ﬂow rule is given by εp = ˙ |σ| λ N sign(σ). t. A comprehensive list of proposed empirical functions is given by Skrzypek (1993). Within the present framework. sometimes referred to as Odqvist’s law. Clearly. (11. plastic ﬂow takes place for any stress with non-zero deviator. fσ could be Norton’s law or the Lemaitre–Chaboche relation above. ˙ Norton’s creep law The classical Norton creep law has been employed extensively in the analysis of creep of metals. respectively.46) In addition to the material parameters N and λ required by Norton’s law. Viscoplasticity models without a yield surface have been used widely. the present model has a third (also temperature-dependent) parameter α. 1990). Its multidimensional generalisation. 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. In its original (uniaxial) version. (11.

it can be trivially established . The formulation of the viscoplastic model is analogous to that of its rate-independent counterpart.4.48) where C is a constant. General viscoplastic constitutive model Having described in the previous section some of the most commonly used viscoplasticity models. The theory presented here is a viscoplastic version of the general rate-independent model described in Section 6. Thus. 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.1 to 6. (11. 1975).1. A typical example of an empirical relation of the above format is given by the law (Boyle and Spence. The constitutive equations of the general viscoplasticity model are listed in Box 11. In addition.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. except that the ﬂow rule and hardening law are deﬁned as ˙ εp = G(σ. A) ˙ α = J(σ. the plastic strain rate and the evolution law for the set α of hardening internal variables are deﬁned by means of the explicit constitutive functions G and J of σ and the set A of hardening thermodynamic forces.31 J mol−1 K −1 .2 (page 151).3 (from page 148) and summarised in Box 6. At this point. is advised to review them before proceeding further. (11. It follows the same considerations as Sections 6.50) that is. Indeed. The reader who is not familiar with that notation. A).3. 1983) γ = C exp ˙ −Q RT tM q N . note that we will use here the notation of Section 6.450 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS normally deﬁned by the Arrhenius law fT (T ) = C exp −Q RT (11. The same applies to all other models (with or without an elastic domain) described in Section 11. R is the gas constant 8. An implicit computational implementation of the Bodner–Partom model has been recently described by Anderson (2003).5. we proceed here to formulate a more general constitutive theory of viscoplasticity.3. Q is the activation energy usually independent of the temperature.3. 11.49) with M and N being material parameters.4. as we have seen above. a yield function is not necessarily present in the viscoplastic formulation.3. Note that the von Mises-based model of Box 11. 11.2 (from page 71). or concepts used in that section.4. RELATION TO THE GENERAL CONTINUUM CONSTITUTIVE THEORY The above viscoplasticity model ﬁts within the generic internal variable-based constitutive framework discussed in Section 3.3. an elastic domain may not exist.

the evolution of the internal variables of the problem are derived as ˙ εp = ∂Ξ ∂σ (11.3 can be obtained by endowing the model with a potential structure (refer to the discussion surrounding expression (3. Plastic ﬂow rule and hardening law ˙ εp = G(σ. In this case. A) ∂ψ ∂ εe A=ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α that the model of Box 11. Additive decomposition of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp 2. refer to Section 6.165) on page 76. The general viscoplasticity model is obtained by simply deﬁning the set α of (3.2) ˙ ˙ σ : εp − A ∗ α.3. A). A) ˙ α = J(σ. it is important to recall that the plastic dissipation in the present case is given by (again.51) from which.3 is a particular case of the general purely mechanical inﬁnitesimal constitutive law deﬁned by (3.2) and then introducing the explicit constitutive functions for the rates of plastic strain and hardening variables listed in item 4 of Box 11.52) ∂Ξ ˙ .3. Constitutive equation for σ and hardening thermodynamic forces A ¯ σ=ρ 4. through the hypothesis of normal dissipativity.3. 11.2.4.162) on page 74).VISCOPLASTICITY 451 Box 11. . A general viscoplastic constitutive model.165) as composed of the plastic strain tensor and the set of hardening internal variables (as described in Section 6.3. (11. POTENTIAL STRUCTURE AND DISSIPATION INEQUALITY A specialisation of the general theory of Box 11. α) where α is a set of hardening internal variables 3. α=− ∂A At this point. 1. we deﬁne a dissipation potential Ξ = Ξ(σ. Free-energy function ψ = ψ(εe .

3. As emphasised above. 0} it is ensured that the dissipation inequality is satisﬁed a priori by the model. we now introduce the indicator function.e. A is the set of all admissible states (σ. A) ≤ 0}. 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. under some circumstances.54) is the dissipation function. let us consider the closure. where ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. In this context. A. that is. A) ∈ A (11.56) ΨA (σ.55) (11. By deﬁning Ξ such that it is convex with respect to both variables.3 (page 151) can be rigorously described. A) ≡ ΨA (σ. the demonstration that follows here shows effectively that. A} = {0.3. The rate-independent limit In what follows. Following the above considerations. as anticipated in Section 6. we choose Ξ(σ. α) ≥ 0.53) In rate-independent plasticity. (11.2. it deﬁnes a convex region in the space of stresses and hardening forces.‡ Crucial to the proof to be shown is the concept of indicator function of a convex set. A. εp . The indicator function of a convex set The demonstration presented here is based on arguments of convex analysis. .57) ‡ Readers not familiar with convex analysis are referred to Rockafellar (1970).5. A) | Φ(σ. α) ≡ σ : εp − A ∗ α (11.5.452 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS so that the dissipation inequality reads ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. A) of stress and hardening thermodynamical forces. the elastoplastic model of Box 6. the general viscoplastic model is a particular instance of the internal variable-based constitutive framework of Section 3.7. εp . The set A is convex. (11.2. of the elastic domain deﬁned by means of a yield function Φ: A = {(σ.4. as a particular case of the general continuum constitutive theory of Section 3. non-negative and zerovalued at {σ. ΨA . i. Thus. 11. / The indicator function is clearly non-differentiable. of the convex set A as the scalar-valued function deﬁned by 0 if (σ. A). A. A) = ∞ if (σ. 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) ∈ A.

A)γ = 0. A∗ . respectively.59) or. among all states (σ∗ .2 and. A) maximise the dissipation function. ˙ Φ(σ. εp .56) it can easily be established that (11. α) ≥ Υp (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. A) ≤ 0. equivalently. From the subdifferential deﬁnition (6.54) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Υp (σ. A∗ ) ∈ A.58) is equivalent to the inequality ˙ ˙ εp : (σ − σ∗ ) + α ∗ (A − A∗ ) ≥ 0. assume that the model is perfectly viscoplastic (constant σy ). Thus. A∗ ) ∈ A. for simplicity. The solution to the maximisation problem associated with the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is the classical associative laws ˙ εp = γ ˙ ∂Φ ∂σ (11. (11. εp . are replaced with the subdifferential relations ˙ εp ∈ ∂σ ΨA ˙ α ∈ −∂A ΨA . in terms of the dissipation function (11. (11.2 (page 170) to which the reader is referred for details. discussed in Section 6. 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. the constitutive equations (11. (11.69) together with (11. A∗ ) ∈ ΨA . γ ≥ 0.62) In summary. α = −γ ˙ ∂A together with the loading/unloading conditions of rate-independent plasticity Φ(σ.5.§ In view of the nondifferentiability of the indicator function.52).60) This last inequality states that.58) where ∂σ ΨA and ∂A ΨA are the subdifferentials of ΨA with respect to σ and A. which follow from normal dissipativity.9 (from page 153) for the deﬁnition of subdifferential.3. the actual stress and hardening force (σ.VISCOPLASTICITY 453 At this point we need to make use of the concept of subdifferential. § Refer to Section 6. in such limits. ˙ (11. A. Example: von Mises-based model Let us now consider the von Mises-based model of Box 11. the perfectly viscoplastic model rigorously recovers the classical perfectly elastoplastic von Mises model. α). ∀ (σ∗ . ∀ (σ∗ . . This is known as the principle of maximum plastic dissipation.61) ∂Φ ˙ .

11. Ξ tends to the indicator function of A. Runesson and Mahler (1999). we refer to Simo and Govindjee (1991).1. The schematic illustration of Figure 11.5. by simple inspection. Peri´ (1993). to be used in the assemblage of the ﬁnite element stiffness matrix. Simo and Hughes (1998).3 into the ﬁnite element framework of Chapter 4.454 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 < 1.64) is found through a straightforward differentiation to be that of item 4 of Box 11. (11.63) is the indicator function of the set of admissible stresses deﬁned by the von Mises yield function: lim Ξ(σ) = lim Ξ(σ) = ΨA (σ). The basic requirements are: (i) an algorithm for numerical integration of the viscoplastic constitutive equations.65) where A = {σ | q(σ) − σy ≤ 0}. for the sake of clarity. when → 0 or µ → 0. Chaboche and Cailletaud c (1996). General numerical framework This section describes the basic ingredients needed to incorporate the general viscoplasticity model of Box 11. Finally. Simo (1998).2 when hardening is not considered. the ﬂow rule ˙ εp = ∂Ξ . that is. The problem here is analogous to its rate-independent counterpart. the above potential indeed deﬁnes the von Mises-based viscoplasticity model of Box 11. For further discussions and analysis of various aspects of the numerical treatment of viscoplasticity. as → 0.5. to start by stating the underlying initial value problem we wish to solve. we can easily see that. With the above deﬁnition.4 shows the potential Ξ for various choices of the rate-sensitivity parameter .63) where σ is the only variable. to be used to update stresses and other state variables of the model. it seems convenient. (11. .1. Problem 7.2. (ii) the associated consistent tangent modulus. 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 (11.66) This completes the demonstration. Clearly. stated on page 193. and Alfano and Rosati (2001). ∂σ (11. →0 µ→0 (11. 11.

A(t)). ∂α t (11. ﬁnd the functions εe (t) and α(t). T ].4.70) ∋ ∋ .68) ˙ α(t) = J(σ(t). Problem 11. (11. 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). (11. tn+1 ] is considered. where a typical step over the time interval [tn .VISCOPLASTICITY 455 ∋ 1 elastic domain Ξ 0 small large 0 q (σ) σ y Figure 11.69) The fully implicit algorithm for the numerical solution of the above problem is derived by simply applying a standard backward Euler time discretisation of the rate equations. once the history of elastic strain is determined in the solution to the above problem. t ∈ [t0 .67) of ordinary differential equations has been obtained by incorporating the viscoplastic ﬂow equation (11. the reduced system (11.50)1 into the elastoplastic split of the total strain rate so that the plastic strain does not appear explicitly in the initial value problem.67) As in the deﬁnition of the rate-independent problem. the history of the plastic strain is promptly obtained as εp (t) = ε(t) − εe (t). A(t)) (11. ε(t). ∂εe t A(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ .1 (The viscoplastic constitutive initial value problem). Viscoplastic potential Ξ for various rate-sensitivity parameters .4. with σ(t) = ρ ¯ ∂ψ . T ]. Given the initial values εe (t0 ) and α(t0 ) and given the history of the strain tensor. The time and strain increments are deﬁned in the usual way as ∆t = tn+1 − tn . Clearly. The resulting incremental problem is presented in Box 11. ∆ε = εn+1 − εn . for each instant t ∈ [t0 .

71) J(σ.1. The resulting algorithm. A) = γ(σ.5. Then. A) = γ(σ. the updated stress state at tn+1 generally lies on the outside of the yield surface. The viscoplastic return mapping differs from its elastoplastic (rateindependent) counterpart (refer to Box 7. the specialisation of the algorithm of Box 11. tn+1 ] and the state variables at tn .4.e. 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. A) ˙ (11.4 takes a twostage format completely analogous to the elastic predictor/return-mapping procedure of the rate-independent case. If a yield surface is present. forces the updated state to be on the yield surface when there is plastic ﬂow over . Remark 11. Φn+1 = 0. tn+1 ]. A). N is the ﬂow vector and H is the generalised hardening modulus. Otherwise. A) H(σ.456 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11. A) N(σ. Clearly. The algorithm is valid for models with or without a yield surface. is listed in Box 11. compute the updated state by solving the nonlinear system of equations e e εn+1 − εn − ∆ε + ∆t G(σn+1 . here.3. Given the strain and time increment. The scalar γ is zero within the elastic domain or on the ˙ yield surface and may only be non-zero outside the elastic domain. n+1 An+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂α n+1 Models with a yield surface Note that in the algorithm of Box 11. the evolution of εp and α is computed by means of the standard backward Euler method. An+1 ) 0 = αn+1 − αn − ∆t J(σn+1 . with n+1 σn+1 = ρ ¯ ∂ψ ∂ εe .4 no assumption is made on the existence of an elastic domain. the constitutive functions G and J can be deﬁned with the following form G(σ. ˙ where. Fully implicit algorithm for numerical integration of general viscoplastic constitutive equations. i. An+1 ) > 0. states lying neither in the elastic domain nor on the yield surface. An+1 ) 0 for εe and αn+1 . following the terminology of the rate-independent theory.e. over [tn . If the trial state is within the elastic domain or on the 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 . evolution of εp and α may only occur here at states with Φ(σ. A) > 0. as in the rate-independent case. This is in contrast with the rate-independent case in which the consistency equation. which we shall refer to as the elastic predictor/viscoplastic corrector or elastic predictor/viscoplastic return mapping algorithm. however. page 199) in that. Φ(σn+1 . To see this. i. let us ﬁrst consider that for a general model with a yield surface. ∆ε and ∆t.

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

the discrete system of equations reads εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t Gn+θ n+1 n αn+1 = αn + ∆t Jn+θ .4.73) For the choice θ = 1. The linearised system reads dεe + ∆t ∂G : dσ + ∆t ∂G ∗ dA d∆ε ∂σ ∂A .75) (11. also lies within the interval [0. where θ is a prescribed parameter 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1. = dεn+1 d∆ε (11. the tangent modulus consistent with the general algorithm is needed.4 is recovered and θ = 0 corresponds to the explicit algorithm.4. Let us then consider the algorithm of Box 11. Analogously to the general procedure for the rate-independent case (refer to Section 7.74) Again.458 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS The generalised trapezoidal algorithm Here.5. (11. the task here is to ﬁnd the exact tangent operator D≡ dσn+1 dσn+1 . 1] and Gn+θ = G((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn . Given all variables of the problem at tn and a prescribed time increment ∆t.72) αn+1 = αn + ∆t [(1 − θ) Jn + θ Jn+1 ].76) consistent with the stress updating procedure deﬁned by the backward Euler algorithm of Box 11. the implicit algorithm of Box 11.4. where the prescribed parameter.3. (11. the backward Euler discrete equations of Box 11. the implicit algorithm of Box 11. θ. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ) Jn+θ = J((1 − θ)σn+1 + θ σn .4. we start by linearising the system of time-discrete equations of Box 11. (1 − θ)An + θ An+1 ). 11.4 is recovered and θ = 0 deﬁnes the explicit algorithm.77) = dα − ∆t ∂J ∗ dσ − ∆t ∂J ∗ dA 0 ∂σ ∂A . (11.4 are replaced with the following system εe = εe + ∆ε − ∆t [(1 − θ) Gn + θ Gn+1 ] n n+1 (11.4. for θ = 1. The generalised midpoint algorithm For the generalised midpoint rule. from page 238). GENERAL CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR To complete the requirements for the implementation of the model within an implicit ﬁnite element environment.

82) (11. ∂A ∂A ∂A (11.78) are deﬁned by (11.5. An+1 ) > 0. d∆ε (11. the linearised system is equivalently written as ∂G C + ∆t ∂σ ∂J A − ∆t ∂σ B + ∆t ∂G dσ d∆ε ∂A . The derivatives of G then specialise as ∂N ∂γ ˙ ∂G =γ ˙ +N⊗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂G ∂N ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +N∗ .78). dA D21 D22 0 where Dij are tensors of appropriate order resulting from the inversion of (11. the tangent operator is a specialisation of the general tangent modulus (11. the derivatives of J specialise as ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ ∂σ ∂σ ∂σ ∂J ∂H ∂γ ˙ =γ ˙ +H∗ . ∂A ∂A ∂A Similarly. 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. we ﬁnally obtain a tangent relation which can be written symbolically as D11 D12 dσ d∆ε (11.129) (page 239). In this case. as in rate-independent plasticity. ∂εe 2 (11. = ∂J dA 0 J − ∆t ∂A (11.VISCOPLASTICITY 459 where the symbol * denotes the product of the appropriate type and the subscripts n + 1 have been omitted for notational convenience.80) where the functions G and J taking part in the symbolic matrix (11. With the introduction of the differential relations (7. when Φ(σn+1 . we have D = De = ρ ¯ ∂2ψ .71).83) .79) = . when Φ(σn+1 .e. that is.81) dσn+1 = D11 . the stress is the result from the solution of the equation system of item (iii) of Box 11. An+1 ) ≤ 0. i.80) Under viscoplastic ﬂow.78) By inverting the linearised system above. the tangent modulus is elastic if the state is within the elastic domain.

85) −1 . The algorithm comprises the standard elastic predictor and the viscoplastic return mapping which. n+1 εe = εe trial − ∆γ n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . is given by ∆γ = ∆t µ q(σn+1 ) σy (¯p ) εn+1 1/ (11. (11.6.85).84) ∂Φ ∂σ n+1 (11.1. 1.5 which. 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 11.2. 2.5 to the model whose constitutive equations are summarised in Box 11. by taking the linear elastic law into consideration.86) with ∆t denoting the time increment within the considered interval. we apply the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm described in the following. are specialised as σn+1 = σtrial − ∆γ De : εp = εp + ∆γ. ¯n+1 ¯n where the incremental multiplier. we can update εp = εp + ∆γ n n+1 ∂Φ ∂σ . σy (¯p trial )) ≤ 0. for the present model. We remark that the procedures presented here are not incorporated in the standard version of program HYPLAS that accompanies this book. Application: computational implementation of a von Mises-based model To illustrate the application of the above numerical framework. has the following format.87) .6. In addition to the detailed description of the associated integration algorithm and consistent tangent operator. n+1 (11. 11. ∆γ. tn+1 ]. for the present model.460 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 11. we present an accuracy analysis of the algorithm based on iso-error maps. 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 . INTEGRATION ALGORITHM The integration algorithm described here is a specialisation of the generic algorithm described in Section 11. After solving (11. Elastic predictor. Viscoplastic return mapping. At this stage.2. If Φ(σtrial . Otherwise. we solve the system of discretised equations of item (iii) of Box 11. 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 material is assumed to behave purely elastically within the time interval [tn .

For convenience. trivially.2 (page 217). . Application of the deﬁnition of the von Mises equivalent stress to the above equation gives the update formula qn+1 = q trial − 3G ∆γ. The stress update equation (11.92) Finally.85) to a single scalar equation.88) is deviatoric so that the hydrostatic stress is independent of the viscoplastic ﬂow. The overall algorithm is summarised in Box 11. The solution of the equation for ∆γ is. The situation here is completely analogous to that of the implementation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) von Mises model described in Section 7.89)1 shows that sn+1 is a scalar multiple of strial so that. the steps leading to the system reduction are repeated here. (11. εp .94) The single-equation viscoplastic corrector comprises the solution of (11. with the substitution of the above formula together with (11.89) .VISCOPLASTICITY 461 Single-equation corrector The viscoplastic corrector can be more efﬁciently implemented by reducing (11. (q trial − 3G ∆γ) ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0.91) where q trial is the elastic trial von Mises equivalent stress.94) for the unknown ∆γ followed by the straightforward update of σ.93) or (11. (11. Further. εn (11.86) we obtain the following scalar algebraic equation for the multiplier ∆γ ∆γ − ∆t µ q trial − 3G ∆γ σy (¯p + ∆γ) εn 1/ − 1 = 0. after a straightforward rearrangement.3. simple inspection of (11.6 in pseudo-code format. εp . we observe that the plastic ﬂow vector ∂Φ = ∂σ 3 s 2 s (11.90) sn+1 s which allows us to rewrite (11. undertaken by the Newton– Raphson iterative scheme.93) or. (11. εe according to the relevant ¯ formulae. Firstly. we have the identity strial sn+1 = trial . equivalently.85)2 into (11. as usual.89)1 as sn+1 = 1 − 3 ∆γ 2G trial ∆γ 3G s = 1 − trial strial trial 2 s q (11.85)1 can then be split as sn+1 = strial − ∆γ 2G pn+1 = p trial 3 sn+1 2 sn+1 (11.

the algorithm of Box 11. . in such cases. The reason for this lies in the fact that.93) in the viscoplastic corrector stage of the algorithm. tn+1 ] with ∆t = tn+1 − tn ). 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. equation (11.6.94) rather than (11. small values of .462 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Box 11.6). In equation (11.94). The reduction of the convergence bowl stems from the fact that large exponents 1/ can easily produce numbers which are computationally intractable. it is more convenient to solve (11.94) rigorously recovers its elastoplastic (rate-independent) counterpart (7. This fact has been recognised by Peri´ (1993) c in the context of a more general viscoplastic algorithm.5 (Computational implementation aspects). Note that. evaluate the elastic trial state εe trial := εe + ∆ε n εp trial := εp ¯n+1 ¯n ptrial := K εe trial .4 (Rate-independent limit). Given ∆ε. 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. In the computer implementation of the model (as shown in Box 11.91) (refer to page 219) when µ → 0 (no viscosity). → 0 (no rate-sensitivity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining).93) becomes unstable as its convergence bowl is sharply reduced with decreasing . (i) Elastic predictor. the Newton–Raphson scheme for solution of (11. as expected. Then update pn+1 := ptrial .6 reproduces the rate-independent elastoplastic numerical solution. Integration algorithm for von Mises-type viscoplastic model (over a generic time interval [tn . i. on the other hand. and the state variables at tn . Clearly. Remark 11. for low rate-sensitivity. 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.e.

The resulting map in this case is obviously identical to the rate-independent map of Figure 7. 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. three values of rate-sensitivity parameter. The material is assumed perfectly viscoplastic (no hardening).7(b) and is shown here only to emphasise the effect of rate-dependence on the integration error.7. we can easily verify that R(q trial /3G) < 0. For each non-dimensional rate. Let R(∆γ) be the function deﬁned by the right-hand side of (11. q trial /3G) if the viscoplastic model is non-softening.10 (refer to Figure 7. taking into account the strict positiveness of the hardening function σy . if H is non-negative for any value of accumulated plastic strain. The largest errors are expected in the rate-independent limit. The above inequality clearly implies that R(0) > 0. The maps have been generated in the standard fashion as described in Section 7.5 and 11. 11. εn where H is the derivative of the isotropic hardening function σy . 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. 1] and causes no numerical problems within practical ranges of material constants. The main conclusion drawn from the iso-error maps is that.2. we have ε εn q trial > σy (¯p trial ) = σy (¯p ). R (∆γ) = − 3G + µ q trial − 3G∆γ µ ∆γ + ∆t ∆t µ ∆γ + ∆t − H(¯p + ∆γ).VISCOPLASTICITY 463 the term to the power on the left-hand side can only assume values within the interval [0. Remark 11. Figures 11.94) has a root within the interval (0. q trial /3G).6. The continuity of R then implies that (11. with σn lying on the yield surface. In addition. . Recall that for = 0 the algorithm reproduces the rate-independent solution. ISO-ERROR MAPS To illustrate the accuracy of the above integration algorithm in practical situations.7. Let us now consider the derivative of R. 10−1 and 0. tn+1 ]). page 215).e. 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. in general. produced with material constants covering a range of high rate-sensitivity to rate-independence. Using the three-dimensional implementation of the model.6 show iso-error maps obtained at low and high strain rates with the non-dimensional rate ˙ µ ε set respectively to 1 and 1000.94). q trial /3G) is unique for non-softening materials. we start from a stress point at time tn . increasing (decreasing) rate-sensitivity and/or increasing (decreasing) strain rates tend to produce decreasing (increasing) integration errors. i. Upon simple inspection.2. Within a viscoplastic step. we can easily establish that the derivative R is strictly negative for ∆γ ∈ (0. have been used: 100 .6 (Solution existence and uniqueness). this section presents some iso-error maps. .

5.6. CONSISTENT TANGENT OPERATOR The consistent tangent operator here is a particular case of the general tangent operator derived in Section 11. (b) = 10−1 . (c) = 0 (rate-independent).6. The incremental constitutive function for the stress tensor in the present case has identical format to that of the rate-independent implementation given by (7.2 (from page 232). De . Iso-error maps with µ ε = 1. when the stress state lies within the elastic domain and no viscoplastic ﬂow is possible. (a) = 100 . Its closed-form expression can be obtained by following the same steps of the derivation of the elastoplastic (rate-independent) tangent presented in Section 7.3. Under viscoplastic ﬂow. Thus.113) under plastic ﬂow – but the incremental plastic multiplier ∆γ here is the solution of viscoplastic return-mapping equation (11.5. is derived by consistently linearising the viscoplastic return-mapping algorithm referred to in item (iii) of Box 11.94).3. Clearly.4. to obtain the viscoplastic consistent tangent.464 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 6 6 5% 4 10% 4 10% 2 ∆σN / q 15% 2 15% 5% 0 0 2 4 6 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT / q ∆σT / q (a) 6 (b) 5% 10% 4 15% 2 20% 0 0 2 4 6 ∆σT / q (c) ˙ Figure 11. the tangent operator which (as in the rate-independent case) will be denoted Dep .93) – which reduces to (7. we simply replace the derivative of the incremental plastic ∆σN / q ∆σN / q . 11. the tangent operator is the elastic tangent.

and equating it to zero. (c) = 0 (rate-independent).94). having ∆γ trial and qn+1 as variables.6.1% 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. With the above differential relation.4% 0.2% 2 5% 2 0.VISCOPLASTICITY 6 6 465 0.95) which is consistent with (11. (b) = 10−1 . the ﬁnal ∆σN / q .3% 4 4 ∆σN / q 0. (11.118) with the expression ∂∆γ = ∂εe trial 3G + n+1 2G − ∆t µ ∆γ+∆t 3 2 ∆σN / q H+ µ qn+1 µ ∆γ+∆t ¯ N n+1 . multiplier (7. this expression is obtained by taking the differential of the viscoplastic corrector equation (11. Analogously to the elastoplastic case.94). Iso-error maps with µ ε = 103 . (a) = 100 .

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 .97) reduces to a von Mises elastoplastic return-mapping equation with yield stress 2σy .96) Note that the tangent operator is symmetric. PERZYNA-TYPE MODEL IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the von Mises-based model with Perzyna’s viscoplastic law (11.40). Elasto-viscoplastic consistent tangent operator The differential relation between the incremental plastic multiplier and εe trial consistent with n+1 the return-mapping equation (11.97) reduces to that of the elastoplastic rateindependent von Mises model with yield stress σy .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. (11. For vanishing rate sensitivity parameter. the return-mapping equation (11. consistently with the backward Euler time discretization of (11.6.40). (11. we have assumed isotropic strain hardening. µ → 0 (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow straining). Remark 11.98) . This is. By simple inspection we ﬁnd that in the limits → 0 (vanishing rate-sensitivity parameter). → 0.4.40) follows exactly the same procedure as described in the above except that. Note that.466 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS elasto-viscoplastic consistent tangent operator is obtained in closed form as Dep = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 3G trial qn+1 Id 1 − ∆t µ ∆γ+∆t ∆γ − trial qn+1 3G + H+ µ qn+1 µ ∆γ+∆t ¯ ¯ N n+1 ⊗ N n+1 + K I ⊗ I.7 (Rate-independent limit). 11. expression (11. as µ → ∞ (vanishing viscosity) or ∆t → ∞ (inﬁnitely slow process) equation (11. as one should expect.120). in agreement with the theoretical limits of the Perzyna model discussed in the text immediately following equation (11.6) is replaced with q trial − 3G ∆γ − 1 + µ ∆γ ∆t σy (¯p + ∆γ) = 0. εn (11. (11.97) Here.94) (or item (iii) of Box 11.

7.VISCOPLASTICITY 4 16 normalised net stress 3 467 12 normalised stretching rates: 8 1.29 (page 256).99) + K I ⊗ I. 11.2. Its format is completely analogous to that of (11. Analogously to the prescription of edge displacement u (refer to Figure 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. Examples The ﬁnite element examples presented in this section illustrate applications of the computational treatment of viscoplasticity described above. The problem consists of the plane strain analysis of a deep double-notched tensile specimen.95) ¯n+1 ¯n for the present implementation of Perzyna’s viscoplasticity law. DOUBLE-NOTCHED TENSILE SPECIMEN The rate-independent version of this problem has been studied in Section 7.E-04 rate independent normalised net stress 2 normalised stretching rates: 1. which includes isotropic strain hardening.1. 11. Reaction–deﬂection diagrams: (a) = 100 . where σy is evaluated at εp = εp + ∆γ. The underlying viscoplastic material model is the one shown in Box 11. we deﬁne the normalised stretching rate µv v∗ = l/2 .7.7. (b) = 10−2 .29).96). This expression is the counterpart of (11. Double-notched specimen. The geometry of the specimen and the ﬁnite element mesh used are shown in Figure 7.E+04 1.5 (from page 255).E+00 1. The corresponding elastoviscoplastic consistent tangent operator is obtained following the usual procedure as Dep = 2G 1 − + 6G2 ∆γ 3G trial qn+1 Id 1 µ ∆γ ∆t −1 ∆γ − trial qn+1 3G + 1 + H+ µ µ ∆γ ∆t ∆t σy ¯ ¯ Nn+1 ⊗ N n+1 (11.5. For convenience.E+04 1.E+00 1. the simulation consists of stretching the specimen by prescribing a constant (in time) vertical velocity v on the top nodes of the mesh.

555E+02 0.468 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS 14 12 10 edge reaction (KN) Deformation rates (1/s): 8 0.2 0.555E-02 0.5 0.555E-00 0.555E-00 0.555E-01 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (a) 14 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.1 0. (c) = 10−2 . Displacement-reaction diagrams.3 0.1 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (b) 3 edge reaction (KN) 2 Deformation rates (1/s): 0.4 0.2 0. Stretching of a perforated plate.5 0.3 0.5 0.555E+01 0.555E-03 0. = 100 .555E-04 rate independent 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.555E-02 0.555E-02 0. (a) 10−1 .3 0.8. (b) = .555E+02 0.555E+01 0.555E-04 rate independent 12 10 edge reaction (KN) 8 6 4 2 0 0.555E-03 0.6 edge displacement (mm) (c) Figure 11.1 0.555E-03 0.555E-01 0.2 0.4 0.555E-04 rate independent 1 0 0.

The stretching rate in the present case is deﬁned as 2v/l. The viscosity parameter adopted (required for the viscoplastic model) is µ = 500 s.5. This example has been analysed by Peri´ (1993). The results for = 100 and 10−2 are shown. .5. 10−2 ) being considered. The mesh.5. The results of the ﬁnite element simulations are presented in Figure 11. The plane stress implementation adopted follows the nested iteration approach described in Section 9.3 (from page 390). boundary conditions and the material parameters that are common to both plastic and viscoplastic models are also shown in Figure 9.9 GPa. ν = 0. a plane stress c version of the numerical integration algorithm discussed in Section 11. We remark that the rate-independent solution shown in the graphs for comparison can be obtained with the present model/algorithm simply by setting = 0 or µ = 0. with three values of rate sensitivity coefﬁcients ( = 1. They illustrate the expected higher reactions and limit loads for higher rates of stretching.7(a) and (b). PLANE STRESS: STRETCHING OF A PERFORATED PLATE This section describes the viscoplastic version of the plane stress problem of Section 9. in Figures 11.7. Similarly to the previous example. two values of are considered = 100 and 10−2 . several simulations are carried out with various stretching rates. In order to show the effect of the rate-sensitivity parameter on the behaviour of the model. the rate-independent solution is recovered for any rate-sensitivity parameter.VISCOPLASTICITY 469 and the simulation is carried out for three different values of v ∗ v ∗ = 10−4 .1 is employed.6. For the lowest nondimensional rate of 10−4 . Here. The following material parameters are adopted E = 206.29 is not considered here. respectively.2.2.8 where the reaction on the constrained edge of the plate is plotted against the prescribed edge displacement for the various conditions considered.2 (page 362) in the context of rate-independent plasticity.7 whose diagrams show the evolution of the reaction forces on the constrained edge against the corresponding edge deﬂection. The linearly hardening case listed in Figure 7.7. The results obtained in the simulations are shown in Figure 11.7 (page 392). 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. 10−1 . the results are plotted in terms of the normalised net stress and the normalised edge deﬂection deﬁned in Section 7. 104 . σy = 0. 11.29. 100 . Note that linear strain hardening is assumed. The problem consists of the axial stretching at constant rate of a perforated rectangular plate whose geometry is shown in Figure 9. As in the rate-independent case.45 GPa (constant). in order to illustrate the response predicted by the viscoplastic model over a wide range of conditions.

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

we give in Section 12. Traditionally. However. including crack closure effects and damage anisotropy are addressed in Section 12. This fact. Further issues. Note that the simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model discussed in Section 12. the computational implementation of the corresponding constitutive models within an implicit ﬁnite element environment is described in detail. describe. Lemaitre’s ductile damage model (Lemaitre.1. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications EA de Souza Neto. allied to the fast development of computational mechanics techniques. Ltd . the prediction of useful life/failure of materials is based on mostly empirical experience accumulated over long periods of time. non-scheduled stops for maintenance owing to unpredicted failure may incur serious economic consequences. a simpliﬁed version of Lemaitre’s model where kinematic hardening is not considered and Gurson’s void growth model (Gurson.4 is fully incorporated into program HYPLAS. In some applications. This relatively new branch of continuum solid mechanics is known as Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM). In many engineering applications. the ability of the designer to predict mechanical failure becomes an important factor. respectively.2 a brief historical account of CDM together with a discussion on the continuum modelling of damage phenomena. 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. In each of these sections. such as metalforming operations. particularly those where mechanical/structural components are subjected to severe service conditions. In the design of manufacturing processes.5. such as in certain types of industrial machinery. In some cases. with the growing knowledge of the mechanisms of progressive internal damage that cause failure in a wide range of materials. lead to failure – a complete loss of loadcarrying capability of the material. 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. prediction of failure is also a crucial issue. 1985b). it is becoming possible to formulate continuum constitutive models capable of accounting for the evolution of internal deterioration. eventually. After providing a brief review of some basic mechanisms that characterise the presence and evolution of damage in Section 12. In such cases. In safety-critical applications. 12. frequently encountered in the aeronautical and nuclear industries. The present chapter is devoted to computational continuum damage mechanics. the useful life of components is a crucial item of information which has to be carefully considered during the design process. D Peri´ and DRJ Owen c c 2008 John Wiley & Sons.4 and 12. Sections 12. The material presented in this chapter is summarised as follows. unpredicted failure may have catastrophic effects with consequences far beyond purely economical issues.6.12 DAMAGE MECHANICS I NTERNAL damage can be deﬁned as the presence and evolution of cracks and cavities at the microscopic level which may. 1977).3. failure prediction is achieved by the systematic (and expensive) testing of real models under laboratoryreproduced service conditions.

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

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

plastic strain. In the previous section. In this case.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.2. Without a clear physical meaning for damage. ω = 1 − D. While damage manifests itself in the form of the irreversible rupture of atomic bonds. 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). In this context. . as the variable associated with the internal deterioration process. In this context.2) in the standard Norton’s Law for creep. the density and/or distribution of the microscopic defects that characterise damage.1). Kachanov replaced the observed uniaxial stress σ with the effective stress σeﬀ = σ 1−D (12. † Kachanov in fact used the material continuity or integrity. 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. directly or indirectly.44) (page 449) for the plastic strain rate is replaced with εp = ˙ |σ| λ (1 − D) N sign(σ).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. It is clear that the underlying phenomena which characterise damage are essentially different from those characterising deformation. 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. we shall refer to Continuum Damage Mechanics Model as any continuum constitutive model which features special internal variables representing.1. A (12. 12. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT: CREEP-DAMAGE The ﬁrst continuum damage mechanics model was proposed by Kachanov (1958). etc. Therefore. the uniaxial constitutive equation (11.1) with D = 0 corresponding to the virgin material and D = 1 representing a total loss of loadbearing capacity. (12. denoting respectively by A and A0 the effective load bearing areas of the virgin and damaged materials. the damage variable D was introduced as D= A − A0 .† In order to describe the strain rate increase which characterises tertiary creep. Kachanov introduced a scalar internal variable to model the creep failure of metals under uniaxial loads. it should be expected that in order to describe the internal degradation of solids within the framework of the continuum mechanics theory.1(b) and the discussion in Section 11. some basic microscopic mechanisms associated with internal damage evolution in solids have been reviewed.) employed in the description of deformation.

σ = E ε. respectively. it did not take long before the concept of internal damage variable was generalised to three-dimensional situations by a number of authors. 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.5) (12. 1988).1) is then redeﬁned as E − E0 D= . in which. (12. The damage variable (12. Chaboche proposed a phenomenological theory for creep-damage based on rigorous thermodynamic foundations. (1989) used a non-local formulation to predict the nucleation and growth of cracks. As a consequence. 1984) and Murakami and Ohno (1981) deserve special mention. Saanouni et al.DAMAGE MECHANICS 475 Since Kachanov–Rabotnov’s original developments. Within the theory of elastoplasticity. In this case.6) are the Young’s moduli of the virgin (undamaged) and damaged materials. 1981. 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. 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.2. the anisotropic damage variable is represented by a second-rank symmetric tensor. equivalently. as a consequence of the hypothesis of strain equivalence. where E0 and E = (1 − D)E0 (12. Gurson’s void growth theory has been shown to be particularly suitable for the representation of the behaviour of porous metals. A scalar damage variable was also considered by Lemaitre (1983) in the deﬁnition of a purely phenomenological model for ductile isotropic damage in metals. OTHER THEORIES Despite its origin in the description of creep rupture. 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.4) or. Murakami’s ﬁctitious undamaged conﬁguration concept was later extended to describe general anisotropic states of internal damage in solids with particular reference to the analysis of elastic-brittle materials (Murakami. (12. Still within the context of creep-rupture. Continuum Damage Mechanics has been shown to provide an effective tool to describe the phenomenon of internal degradation in other areas of solid mechanics. 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’. this author postulates the following elastic constitutive law for a damaged material: σeﬀ = E0 ε.7) E . the damage variable appears as a fourth-order non-symmetric tensor in the most general anisotropic case.2. By appealing to the hypothesis of strain equivalence. 12. The theories derived later by Chaboche (1978. In the theory derived by Murakami and Ohno.

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

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

with isotropic hardening and isotropic damage. that ‘good’ phenomenological internal variables be somehow connected to the underlying physical mechanisms they are intended to represent. is an experimentally determined parameter that deﬁnes the initiation of a macrocrack (Lemaitre and Chaboche. can be interpreted as an indirect measure of density of microvoids and microcracks (Leckie and Onat. (12. D). the speciﬁc free energy is assumed to be given by the sum ψ = ψ ed (εe .6. in purely phenomenological theories. 12. i.2. The description of Lemaitre’s model together with the main components necessary for its computational implementation – the integration algorithm and associated tangent operators – are presented in the following.10) . X. it is desirable that.1. respectively. Lemaitre’s elastoplastic damage theory The constitutive equations for elastoplasticity coupled with damage described in this section have been proposed by Lemaitre (1985a. for the damage variable.e. Under the hypothesis of decoupling between elasticity–damage and plastic hardening.6.3. as we shall see below.3. This is obviously an expression of the requirement.9) where ψ ed and ψ p are. In the present theory. D) + ψ p (R. D} of state variables.8) where εe is the elastic strain tensor and R and D are the scalar internal variables associated. stated in Section 3. Lemaitre’s model includes evolution of internal damage as well as nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardening in the description of the behaviour of ductile metals. 1981). the elastic-damage and plastic contribution to the free energy.3. respectively. respectively. (12. Based on the concept of effective stress and the hypothesis of strain equivalence. X.5. 12. The second-order tensor X is the internal variable related to kinematic hardening. such microscopic defects are assumed isotropically distributed and. THE MODEL State variables The starting point of the theory is the assumption that the free energy is a function of the set {εe . X).4. as discussed in Section 12. R. ψ = ψ(εe . such restriction on the mathematical representation of the internal variables related to damage be satisﬁed also. 1990). The elastic-damage potential: elasticity–damage coupling In the present theory the following form is postulated for the elastic-damage potential: ρ ψ ed (εe . will be phenomenologically reﬂected in the degradation of the elastic modulus. The continuum damage variable D. D) = ¯ 1 2 εe : (1 − D)De : εe . In spite of the micromechanical nature of Onat’s argument. Thermodynamical aspects of isotropic and kinematic hardening and the physical meaning of the related internal variables have been discussed in Sections 6. R.2 and 6. (12. A critical value Dc .478 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS measure of damage.b).

using the inverse of the elastic stress/strain law. In the above. −Y corresponds to the variation of internal energy density due to damage growth at constant stress. For this particular potential. with D ∈ [0. 1−D (12. p is the hydrostatic stress and q is the von Mises effective stress. For a completely damaged state (D = 1). With the elasticity–damage coupling introduced via the hypothesis of strain equivalence (stated in Section 12.11) has an important experimental consequence. Y = −1 σ : [De ]−1 : σ 2(1 − D)2 −1 [(1 + ν) σ : σ − ν (tr σ)2 ] = 2E(1 − D)2 2 p 2 −q 2 (1 + ν) + 3(1 − 2ν) 2 3 2E(1 − D) q p2 −q 2 − . Stress–strain rule (12.2. is given by Deﬀ = (1 − D)De .15) where E and ν are. . the effective modulus equals the modulus De of the virgin material. (12. It is the continuum damage ˙ analogue of the J-integral used in fracture mechanics (Rice.11) ∂ε Equivalently. is then restricted to the measurement of the degradation of the current effective elastic modulus with respect to the virgin state (D = 0) as described by Lemaitre (1985a) and Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990). 1]. Deﬀ = 0. the elasticity law is given by ∂ψ σ = ρ e = (1 − D)De : εe . ¯ (12. respectively. the effective elastic modulus of the material. the above damaged elastic law can be written as σeﬀ = De : εe .12) where σeﬀ is the effective stress tensor that generalises the uniaxial effective stress of (12. The identiﬁcation of a generic damaged state. ∂D (12.2): σeﬀ ≡ 1 σ. = 6G (1 − D)2 2K (1 − D)2 = (12. In the absence of damage (D = 0). The product −Y D represents the power dissipated by the process of internal deterioration (mainly as decohesion of interatomic bonds).DAMAGE MECHANICS 479 where De is the standard isotropic elasticity tensor. the Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio associated with G and K.13) The thermodynamical force conjugate to the damage internal variable is given by Y ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ 1 = − 2 εe : De : εe . which can be measured from experiments.1.2). (12. corresponding to a total loss of stiffness and load bearing capacity of the material.16) where the damage variable assumes values within the interval [0. Remark 12.14) or. 1]. 1968). Commonly known as the damage energy release rate.

19) where the material parameter σy0 is the uniaxial yield stress of the virgin material. b. D) = 3 J2 (s − β) − σy0 − κ. page 188. b. (12. The thermodynamical force associated with isotropic hardening is.21) where a. . 2 (12. deﬁned as κ≡ρ ¯ ∂ψ p (R. it follows that the thermodynamic force associated with kinematic hardening – the back-stress tensor. κ.17) where a is a material constant and the isotropic hardening contribution.4. ∂R ∂R (12. r and s are material constants. 1990). β – is given by β≡ρ ¯ The yield function For the yield function Φ the following von Mises-type form is adopted: Φ(σ. r and s ensures that the dissipation inequality is satisﬁed a priori by the present constitutive model. The ﬂow potential: internal variables evolution The ﬂow potential is assumed to be given by Ψ=Φ+ r −Y b β:β+ 2a (1 − D)(s + 1) r s+1 .17). for the deﬁnitions of individual contributions associated.1. from pages 182 and 185. associated with the resulting Armstrong–Frederick kinematic hardening law (refer to the text surrounding expression (6. then. β. X) to the free energy is chosen as a sum of an isotropic and a kinematic hardening-related term:‡ ρ ψ p (R. ∂X (12.4 of Lemaitre and Chaboche (1990). ‡ Refer to Subsections 6. X) ∂ψ I (R) =ρ ¯ = κ(R).6.3 and 6.480 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR PLASTICITY: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS Isotropic and kinematic hardening forces The plastic contribution ψ p (R. The constants a and b.223). The constitutive equations of Lemaitre’s ductile damage model are conveniently grouped in Box 12. The convexity of the ﬂow potential Ψ with respect to the thermodynamical forces for positive constants a. is an arbitrary function of the single argument R. respectively. X) = ρ ψ I (R) + ¯ ¯ a X : X. The damage evolution constants r and s can be identiﬁed by integrating the damage evolution law for particular cases of (constant) stress triaxiality rate as described in Section 7. with isotropic and kinematic hardening. ψ I (R).6. for further details) and can be obtained from cyclic loading experiments (Lemaitre and Chaboche.18) From (12. 1−D (12.20) ∂ψ = a X.

15) and the ﬂow vector N≡ (v) Loading/unloading criterion Φ ≤ 0. we can assume that damage growth starts only at a critical value.1 as ˆ ε ¯D H(¯p − εp ) ˙ D=γ ˙ 1−D −Y r s . Lemaitre’s ductile damage model. elastic modulus degradation can be hardly ¯ detected in experiments. 3 s−β 2 (1 − D) s − β γ ≥ 0. This critical value will be called the damage threshold and can be included ¯D in the model by redeﬁning the damage evolution law of item (iv) of Box 12. From its deﬁnition (we recall expression (6. (12. then the evolution law for εp has to be deﬁned for the model ¯ to be complete. β and D ˙ εp = γ N ˙ ˙ R=γ ˙ ˙ β = γ (a N − b β) ˙ ˙ D=γ ˙ 1 1−D −Y r s 3 J2 (s − β) − σy 1−D with Y given by (12. denoted εp . εp .94) on page 221. (12. ˙ Φγ=0 ˙ Damage threshold At low values of accumulated plastic strain.22) ˆ where H here denotes the Heaviside step function deﬁned by (7. If such a threshold is adopted.168)) we have ˙ εp = ¯ 2 3 ˙ εp .DAMAGE MECHANICS 481 Box 12.23) . (i) Elastoplastic split of the strain tensor ε = εe + εp (ii) Coupled elastic-damage law σ = (1 − D)De : εe (iii) Yield function Φ= where σy = σy (R) (iv) Plastic ﬂow and evolution equations for R.1. Thus.

1998). 1996. 1−D (12. (1988) and later adopted in the ﬁnite strain context by the authors (de Souza Neto and Peri´ . Integration algorithm for Lemai