See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329680368

Theory of Plasticity

Presentation · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 1,411

1 author:

Sheelan Hama
University of Anbar
42 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Incorporating Waste Glass Powder as Partial Replacement of Cement View project

An introduction to previous concrete production and application View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sheelan Hama on 15 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Theory of Plasticity

THEORY OF PLASTICITY

INROUDUCTION

The theory of plasticity is the branch of mechanics that deals with the
calculation of stresses and strains in a body, made of ductile material,
permanently deformed by a set of applied forces. The theory is based on
certain experimental observations on the macroscopic behavior of metals
in uniform states of combined stresses. The observed results are then
idealized into a mathematical formulation to describe the behavior of
metals under complex stresses. Unlike elastic solids, in which the state of
strain depends only on the final state of stress, the deformation that
occurs in a plastic solid is determined by the complete history of the
loading. The plasticity problem is, therefore, essentially incremental in
nature, the final distortion of the solid being obtained as the sum total of
the incremental distortions following the strain path.

Up to now we have concentrated on the elastic analysis of structures. In

these analyses we used superposition often, knowing that for a linearly
elastic structure it was valid. However, an elastic analysis does not give
information about the loads that will actually collapse a structure. An
indeterminate structure may sustain loads greater than the load that first
causes a yield to occur at any point in the structure. In fact, a structure
will stand as long as it is able to find redundancies to yield. It is only
when a structure has exhausted all of its redundancies will extra load
causes it to fail. Plastic analysis is the method through which the actual
failure load of a structure is calculated, and as will be seen, this failure
load can be significantly greater than the elastic load capacity.

In ductile metals, under favorable conditions, plastic deformation can

continue to a very large extent without failure by fracture. Large plastic
strains do occur in many metal-working processes, which constitute an
important area of application of the theory of plasticity. While elastic

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

strains may be neglected in such problems, the continued change in

geometry of the workpiece must be allowed for in the theoretical
treatment. Severe plastic strains are produced locally in certain
mechanical tests such as the hardness test and the notch tensile test. The
significance of these tests cannot be fully appreciated without a
knowledge of the extent of the plastic zone and the associated state of
stress. Situations in which elastic and plastic strains are comparable in
magnitude arise in a number of important structural problems when the
loading is continued beyond the elastic limit. Structural designs based on
the estimation of collapse loads are more economical than elastic designs,
since the plastic method takes full advantage of the available ductility of
the material.

THE STRESS–STRAIN BEHAVIOR

A uniaxial tensile stress on a ductile material such as mild steel typically

provides the following graph of stress versus strain:

Fig. a represent behavior up to rupture while Fig. b represent yield range.

As can be seen, the material can sustain strains far in excess of the strain
at which yield occurs before failure. This property of the material is
called its ductility. Ductility is a measure of a material's ability to
undergo significant plastic deformation before rupture
Though complex models do exist to accurately reflect the above real
behavior of the material, the most common, and simplest, model is the

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

idealized stress-strain curve. This is the curve for an ideal elastic-plastic

material (which doesn‟t exist), and the graph is:
As can be seen, once the yield has been
reached it is taken that an indefinite
amount of strain can occur. It must be
sufficiently ductile for the idealized stress-
strain curve to be valid.

Let us consider the uniaxial tension test

with the subsequent unloading for two
materials: i) pure cooper, and ii) soft-
annealed carbon steel (Steels with higher
carbon content, and most high-alloy steels, which are
allowed to air cool after hot working, such as forging
or hot rolling, are usually hard to machine. Soft
annealing reduces the hardness and makes the
material easier to machine)
as shown in
Figure, where the strain and stress are
defined as follows:

Since the deformed cross-section at tension shrinks, the true stress should
actually be defined as F/A, where A is the current cross-section area.
However, at small strains of the order ε < 1% the error is not so grave.

Looking at the stress-strain curve one can recognize two different types
of material response in the elastic and elasto-plastic regions. In the purely
elastic region (within the line OA) no residual strain is observed: the
specimen assume its original length after the load is removed. For most of
metals the stress is proportional to the strain so that the Hooke law is
valid. The purely elastic region ends at point A corresponding to the yield
stress σy. Beyond this purely elastic region we observe for cooper

i) a “mild” transition to the elasto-plastic region, while for

steel
ii) a sharp yield stress marked by a nearly horizontal segment. If
the specimen is loaded beyond this yield stress, it begins to
deform plastically. The specimen shows a residual strain after

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

unloading. The total strain is additively decomposed into the

elastic and plastic parts

THEORY OF YIELD CRITERION

The failure of a material under stresses is the condition when the material
cannot take any more stress.

In the case of multidimensional stress at a point we have a more

complicated situation present. Since it is impractical to test every material
and every combination of stresses σ1, σ2, and σ3, a failure theory is
needed for making predictions on the basis of a material‟s performance
on the tensile test., of how strong it will be under any other conditions of
static loading. The “theory” behind the various failure theories is that
whatever is responsible for failure in the standard tensile test will also be
responsible for failure under all other conditions of static loading.

Failure of a material under one normal stress is defined by experimental

evidence as:

1. Yield stress σy (in tension or compression materials) in ductile

materials
2. Rupture or crushing stress in brittle materials

For easier computations, consider a material under principal stresses:

σ1> σ2> σ3

There are many theories of failures:

 Max. principal stress theory – Rankine

 Max. principal strain theory – St. Venants
 Distortional energy – von Mises
 Max. shear stress theory – Tresca
 Mohr-Coulomb envelop theory

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

Max. Principal Stress Theory – Rankine

For maximum normal stress theory, the failure occurs when one of the
principal stresses (𝜎1,𝜎2 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜎3) equals to the yield strength.

𝜎1>𝜎2>𝜎3

Failure occurs when either 𝜎1=𝜎yield in ductile material or 𝜎1=𝜎rupture in

brittle material. The shorting's of this theory are the neglect the effects of
the other principal stresses (𝜎2 and 𝜎3 ).

Theory of Maximum Tensile Strain (Saint-Venant)

The tensile strain is:

ε tensile = 1/E [𝜎1 - µ(𝜎1- 𝜎3)]

If only 𝜎yield is acting: ε tensile = 𝜎yield /E

Then the failure: 𝜎1 - µ(𝜎1- 𝜎3) = 𝜎yield ….. this is acceptable

for certain brittle material (concrete).

Theory of Maximum Shearing Stress (Tressca)

Failure occur when: τmax = k (a specified value)

But τmax = 1/2 (𝜎1- 𝜎3) (from Moher circle)

τmax = 1/2 (𝜎yield - 0)

The failure is specified by: 𝜎1 = 𝜎3 = 𝜎yield

This theory is acceptable for ductile materials.

Theory of Maximum Distortion Energy (Von Mises)

It predicts the failure of a specimen subjected to any combination of loads

when the strain energy per unit volume due to shear of any portion of the
stressed member reaches the failure value of strain energy per unit

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

volume due to shear as determined from an axial or compression test of

the same material.

The total strain enery per unit volume is given by the sum of the energy
component due to three principal stresses and strains:

Here the total strain energy can be considered as the sum of two parts,
one part representing the energy needed to cause a volume change of
the element with no change in shape & the other part representing the
energy needed to distort * the element.

Ut = Uv + Us or Us = Ut - Uv

If 𝜎1> 𝜎2 >𝜎3 are three principal stress, then 𝜎v= (𝜎1+ 𝜎2 +𝜎3)/3
Where 𝜎v= mean stress or hydraulic stress. This causes change in volume
and no change in angle.
So for the case of Maximum shear/distortion energy theory, the failure
occurs when the quantity Us reaches the value in elastic limit. As for
limiting value:

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

𝜎1 = 𝜎yield and 𝜎2 = 𝜎3 = 0
(𝜎 𝜎 ) (𝜎 )

At failure: Us = UY
Equating the two energies and simplify:

𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

√
√ 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

This theory also states: Failure occurs when τoct. reaches a certain value.
√
τoct.= √𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎 𝜎𝜎

√ 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

( ⁄ ) ( ⁄ ) ( ⁄ ) ( ⁄ )

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

* Distortion is the deformation from shearing stresses, deviator stresses causes change in angles and no
change in volume.

Mohr – Coulomb Failure Envelop Theory

Some materials such as rocks, concrete, cast

iron has much greater strength in compression
then in tension. Mohr‟s proposed that, in 1st
and 3rd quadrant of the failure Maximum
Principal Stress Theory was appropriate based
on the ultimate strength of the material in
tension or compression respectively. In 2nd &
4th quadrant the Maximum Shear Stress
Theory should be applied.

Take different values of 𝜎1 and 𝜎3 (triaxial

test) plot Mohr circles.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

Where = shear stress on the failure plane

c = apparent cohesion
=normal stress on the failure plane
f = angle of internal friction

If the stress condition for any other soil sample is represented by a Mohr
circle that lies below the failure envelope, every plane within the sample
experiences a shear stress which is smaller than the shear strength of the
sample. Thus, the point of tangency of the envelope to the Mohr circle at
failure gives a clue to the determination of the inclination of the failure
plane.

Conclusion
1. Materials does not fail under hydrostatic stress system i.e
𝜎1= 𝜎2 =𝜎3
2. None of the theories agrees with the test perform for all types of
materials and combinations of loads.
3. There is a good agreement between the maximum distortion energy
theory and experimental result for ductile materials.
4. The max. principal stress theory appears to be the best for brittle
materials
5. Max. shear stress or max. strain energy theories give the good
approximation for ductile materials but the max. shear stress
criterion is somewhat more conservative.
6. The max. strain theory should not be used in general as it only
gives the reliable results in particular cases.
7. If the brittle material has a stress strain diagram, that is different in
tension and compression, then the MOHR‟S Failure
8. Criterion may be used to predict the failure.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

The orientation of the failure plane can be finally determined by the pole
method as shown in Figure.

Examples: Consider a thin closed cylinder

under pressure p. find p for failure.

Solution: There are two principal stresses in

the wall of the cylinder

 Hoop stress*( 𝜎h)

2 𝜎h.t.l = p(D.l)

*The hoop stress is the force exerted circumferentially (perpendicular both to the axis and to the radius
of the object) in both directions on every particle in the cylinder wall.

 Longitude stress*(𝜎 )
𝜎 ( ) 𝜎

Then 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

a) Rankine method

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

𝜎1= 𝜎yield …… 𝜎 ………

b) Tersca method

(𝜎1- 𝜎3) = 𝜎yield ………. 𝜎

c) Von-Mises

√
√ 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎 𝜎

√
𝜎 𝜎

𝜎
√
* Longitude stress is defined as the total circumferential force exerted along the entire radial thickness

STRAIN HARDENING

In the one-dimensional (uniaxial

test) case, a specimen will deform
up to yield and then generally
harden, Fig. Also shown in the
figure is the perfectly-plastic
idealization. In the perfectly plastic
case, once the stress reaches the
yield point (A), plastic deformation

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

ensues, so long as the stress is maintained at Y. If the stress is reduced,

elastic unloading occurs. In the hardening case, once yield occurs, the
stress needs to be continually increased in order to drive the plastic
deformation. If the stress is held constant, for example at B, no further
plastic deformation will occur; at the same time, no elastic unloading will
occur. Note that this condition cannot occur in the perfectly-plastic case,
where there is one of plastic deformation or elastic unloading.
Strain Hardening is when a metal is strained beyond the yield point. An
increasing stress is required to produce additional plastic deformation
and the metal apparently becomes stronger and more difficult to deform.
These ideas can be extended to the multiaxial case, where the initial yield
surface will be of the form

In the perfectly plastic case, the yield surface remains unchanged.. In the
more general case, the yield surface may change size, shape and position,
and can be described by
……1
Here, Ki represents one or more hardening parameters, which change
during plastic deformation and determine the evolution of the yield
surface. They may be scalars or higher-order tensors. At first yield, the
hardening parameters are zero, and f(σij,0) = f0 (σij) . The description of
how the yield surface changes with plastic deformation, Eqn. 1, is called
the hardening rule.

STRAIN SOFTENING
The strain-softening of a material is the
decline of stress at increasing strain.
Strain-softening diagrams are obtained
from displacement controlled
compression tests on concrete-like
materials.

RULES OF PLASTIC FLOW

Flow plasticity is a solid mechanics theory that is used to describe
the plastic behavior of materials. Flow plasticity theories are
characterized by the assumption that a flow rule exists that can be used to
determine the amount of plastic deformation in the material.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

In flow plasticity theories it is assumed that the total strain in a body can
be decomposed additively (or multiplicatively) into an elastic part and a
plastic part. The elastic part of the strain can be computed from a linear
elastic or hyperelastic constitutive model. However, determination of the
plastic part of the strain requires a flow rule and a hardening model.
In metal plasticity, the assumption that the plastic strain increment and
deviatoric stress tensor have the same principal directions is encapsulated
in a relation called the flow rule. Rock plasticity theories also use a
similar concept except that the requirement of pressure-dependence of the
yield surface requires a relaxation of the above assumption.

Instead, it is typically assumed that the plastic strain increment and the
normal to the pressure-dependent yield surface have the same direction,
i.e.,
𝑑 𝑑

where 𝑑 >0 is a hardening

parameter. This form of the flow
rule is called an associated flow
rule and the assumption of co-
directionality is called
the normality condition. The
function f is also called a plastic
potential.
The above flow rule is easily
justified for perfectly plastic
deformations for
which dσ=0 when 𝑑 , i.e., the yield surface remains constant under

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

increasing plastic deformation. This implies that the increment of elastic

strain is also zero, 𝑑 , because of Hooke's law. Therefore,
𝑑𝜎 0 and 𝑑𝜎 𝑑 0
Hence, both the normal to the yield surface and the plastic strain tensor
are perpendicular to the stress tensor and must have the same direction.
For a work hardening material, the yield surface can expand with
increasing stress. We assume Drucker's second stability postulate which
states that for an infinitesimal stress cycle this plastic work is positive,
i.e., 𝑑𝜎 𝑑 0

The above quantity is equal to zero for purely elastic cycles. Examination
of the work done over a cycle of plastic loading-unloading can be used to
justify the validity of the associated flow rule.

MOMENT-ROTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL CROSS

SECTION
We consider an arbitrary cross-section with a vertical plane of symmetry,
which is also the plane of loading. We consider the cross section subject
to an increasing bending moment, and assess the stresses at each stage.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

Stage 1 – Elastic Behavior

The applied moment causes stresses over the cross-section that are all less
than the yield stress of the material.

Stage 2 – Yield Moment

The applied moment is just sufficient that the yield stress of the material
is reached at the outermost fiber(s) of the cross-section. All other stresses
in the cross section are less than the yield stress. This is limit of
applicability of an elastic analysis and of elastic design.

Stage 3 – Elasto-Plastic Bending

The moment applied to the cross section has been increased beyond the
yield moment. Since by the idealized stress-strain curve the material
cannot sustain a stress greater than yield stress, the fibers at the yield
stress have progressed inwards towards the center of the beam. Thus over
the cross section there is an elastic core and a plastic region.

Stage 4 – Plastic Bending

The applied moment to the cross section is such that all fibers in the cross
section are at yield stress. This is termed the Plastic Moment Capacity of
the section since there are no fibers at an elastic stress. Also note that the
full plastic moment requires an infinite strain at the neutral axis and so is
physically impossible to achieve. However, it is closely approximated in
practice. Any attempt at increasing the moment at this point simply
results in more rotation, once the cross-section has sufficient ductility.
Therefore in steel members the cross section classification must
be plastic and in concrete members the section must be under-reinforced.

Stage 5 – Strain Hardening

Due to strain hardening of the material, a small amount of extra moment
can be sustained.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

ANALYSIS OF RECTANGULAR CROSS SECTION

Since we now know that a cross section can sustain more load than just
the yield moment, we are interested in how much more. In other words
we want to find the yield moment and plastic moment, and we do so for a
rectangular section. Taking the stress diagrams from those of the
moment-rotation curve examined previously, we have:

Elastic Moment
From the diagram:
But, the force (or the volume of the stress block) is:
Hence:

The term bd2/ 6 is thus a property of the cross section called the elastic
section modulus and it is termed S.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

Plastic Moment
From the stress diagram:
And the force is:
Hence:

The term bd2/ 4 is a property of the cross section called the plastic section
modulus, termed Z.

Shape Factor
Thus the ratio of elastic to plastic moment capacity is:
𝑑 ⁄
𝜎
𝜎 𝑑 ⁄

This ration is termed the shape factor, f, and is a property of a cross

section alone. For a rectangular cross-section, we have:

And so a rectangular section can sustain 50% more moment than the yield
moment, before a plastic hinge is formed. Therefore the shape factor is a
good measure of the efficiency of a cross section in bending. Shape
factors for some other cross sections are:

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

MOMENT ROTATION CURVE OF A RECTANGULAR SECTION

It is of interest to examine the moment-rotation curve as the moment
approaches the plastic moment capacity of the section. We begin by
recalling the relationship between strain, ε , and distance from the neutral
axis, y:

This is a direct consequence of the assumption that plane sections remain

plane and is independent of any constitutive law (e.g. linear elasticity).
We next identify the yield strain (that corresponds to the yield stress, σY )
as εY . The curvature that occurs at the yield moment is therefore:

For moments applied beyond the yield moment, the curvature can be
found by noting that the yield strain, εY , occurs at a distance from the
neutral axis of α d/ 2 , giving:

Thus, the ratio curvature to yield curvature is:

Also, the ratio of elasto-plastic moment to yield moment is:

And so finally we have:

Plotting this gives:

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

There are some important observations to be made from this graph:

• To reach the plastic moment capacity of the section requires large
curvatures. Thus the section must be ductile.
• The full cross-section plasticity associated with the plastic moment
capacity of a section can only be reached at infinite curvature (or infinite
strain). Since this is impossible, we realize that the full plastic moment
capacity is unobtainable.

To show that the idea of the plastic moment capacity of section is still
useful, we examine this further. Firstly we note that strain hardening in
mild steel begins to occur at a strain of about 10 εY . At this strain, the
corresponding moment ratio is:

Since this is about 99.7% of the plastic moment capacity, we see that the
plastic moment capacity of a section is a good approximation of the
section‟s capacity. These calculations are based on a ductility ration of
10. This is about the level of ductility a section requires to be of use in
any plastic collapse analysis. Lastly, for other cross-section shapes we
have the moment-curvature relations shown in the following figure.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

METHODS OF PLASTIC ANALYSIS

There are three main approaches for performing a plastic analysis:

The Incremental Method

This is probably the most obvious approach: the loads on the structure are
incremented until the first plastic hinge forms. This continues until
sufficient hinges have formed to collapse the structure. This is a labour-
intensive, „brute-force‟, approach, but one that is most readily suited for
computer implementation.

The Equilibrium (or Statical) Method

In this method, free and reactant bending moment diagrams are drawn.
These diagrams are overlaid to identify the likely locations of plastic
hinges. This method therefore satisfies the equilibrium criterion first
leaving the two remaining criterion to derived therefrom.

The Kinematic (or Mechanism) Method

In this method, a collapse mechanism is first postulated. Virtual work
equations are then written for this collapse state, allowing the calculations
of the collapse bending moment diagram. This method satisfies the
mechanism condition first, leaving the remaining two criteria to be
derived therefrom.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
Load Factor: The load factor for a possible collapse mechanism i,
denoted λi , is of prime importance in plastic analysis:

The working load is the load which the structure is expected to carry in
the course of its lifetime. The collapse load factor, λc is the load factor at
which the structure will actually fail. It is therefore the minimum of the
load factors for the nm different possible collapse mechanisms:

Factor of Safety: This is defined as

THEOREMS OF LIMIT ANALYSIS

When the structure is exposed to the load of the proportional nature that
gradually increases, at some point it reaches a certain critical value, at
which point it comes to plastic failure of the structure (ie, unlimited
increase of deformation at constant load), after which a construction is no
longer able to receive further increase of the load. This critical state is
called the limit state of the construction, and load that causes it is the
limit load. Determination of the bearing power of structures (limit load) is
an important factor in designing structures. The limit analysis of
structures is an alternative analytical method to determine the maximum
load parameter or increasing load parameter, which a perfect elastic-
plastic construction is able to bear .
Limit analysis is a structural analysis field which is dedicated to the
development of efficient methods to directly determine estimates of the
collapse load of a given structural model without resorting to iterative or
incremental analysis. For this purpose, the field of limit analysis is based
on a set of theorems, referred to as limit theorems, which are a set of
theorems based on the law of conservation of energy that state properties
regarding stresses and strains, lower and upper-bound limits for the
collapse load and the exact collapse load.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

The theorems of limit analysis can be stated in a form that does not
directly refer to any concepts from plasticity theory:
A body will not collapse under a given loading if a possible stress field
can be found that is in equilibrium with a loading greater than the given
loading.
A body will collapse under a given loading if a velocity field obeying the
constraints (or a mechanism) can be found that so that the internal
dissipation is less than the rate of work of the given loading.

Compared to the incremental analysis (the step-by-step method), the

efficiency of the limit analysis is achieved by observing the final state,
state of failure, without paying attention to what was happening with the
construction and load from the moment when one section of the structure
was completely plasticized ( formation of the first plastic joint for solid
beam) or one rod lattice was completely plasticized (formation of first
plastic truss rod), until the failure. Limit
analysis methods are based on the theorem of plastic failure of an ideal
elasto-plastic body. These theorems are known as static (lower) and
kinematic (upper) theorems of themarginal analysis of structures. It
should be noted that in addition to the limit state of load there are other
limit states, which may occur before the state of limit equilibrium and
which can be restrictive to the transferring of an external load, such as
limit states of usability, or even a marginal state of cracks in structures
made of reinforced or pre-stressed concrete.

THE BASIC SETTINGS OF THE LIMIT ANALYSIS

The calculation of structures by applying the theory of plasticity allows

plasticization of materials, that is to say, out of the boundaries of elastic
behavior. In the area of elastic behavior of the structure, stresses and
deformations are proportionally dependent. Increasing the load affecting
the structure leads to a gradual increase in stress until a stress level in the
most stressed fiber (or fibers, in the case of a symmetrical section)
reaches a value of the yield stress. Further increase of load leads to
plasticization of the cross section, in other words, it leads to the increase
of the plasticity zone, which gradually expands in height and in length of
the beam, until it comes to the plasticization of the entire cross section,
and therefore the formation of a plastic joint. It is known that, for

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

statically determined beams, plasticization of one section of the structure

(by forming a plastic joint in the area of the maximum bending moment)
is followed by the loss of load bearing capacity and the transition of a
beam into a mechanism. Unlike statically determined beams, with
statically indeterminate beams, the formation of a plastic joint does not
lead to the formation of a mechanism of failure. The bearing capacity of
an n times statically indeterminate structure will be fully depleted when
n+1 plastic joints are formed within the structure. For determining the
limit loads, the following assumptions are introduced:
- deformations are proportional to the deviation from the neutral axis
(Bernoulli hypothesis of straight sections is valid),
- an idealized elasto-plastic dependency for materials applies for tension
stress as well as pressure.
- deformations are small,
- section has the necessary ductility,
- conditions of balance of the cross-section are met, of normal forces Σ
X=0, as well as the bending moment ΣM=0.
In order of the limit load of a structure to be determined by applying the
theory of plasticity, first it is necessary to prove that an applicable limit
state will be caused by formation of the mechanism of failure, in other
words, it is necessary to eliminate the occurrence of any other limit states.
It is necessary to exclude the occurrence of fatigue because of the effects
of variable load, then the possibility of local instability prior to reaching
full plasticization and exclude the appearance of any effects that would
lead to failure of the structure before the formation of a sufficient number
of plastic joints for its transition into the mechanism of failure.
In the theory of the limit analysis the following assumptions apply:
- sections where the bending moment is less than the moment of
plasticization of the cross-section, are in the elastic range;
- section in which full plastic moment of the cross section (Mp) happened
is the perfect plastic joint;
- turning of section, after reaching the plastic moment, grows without
limit without further increasing the load,
- body is made of elastic-perfect plastic material with infinite surface
flow.
It can be said that one beam is in a state of limit balance when the bearing
capability of the construction is fully exhausted, and in a sufficient
number of sections the beam behaves completely plastically. Based on
this we can conclude that when it comes to forming a sufficient number

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

of plastic joints, deformities are progressive, and the beam transforms

into the failure mechanism. The moment that immediately precedes the
formation of the mechanism of failure represents the moment of the limit
balance of the system.

The Upperbound (Unsafe) Theorem

This can be stated as:
If a bending moment diagram is found which satisfies the conditions of
equilibrium and mechanism (but not necessarily yield), then the
corresponding load factor is either greater than or equal to the true load
factor at collapse.
This is called the unsafe theorem because for an arbitrarily assumed
mechanism the load factor is either exactly right (when the yield criterion
is met) or is wrong and is too large, leading a designer to think that the
frame can carry more load than is actually possible.
Think of it like this: unless it’s exactly right, it’s dangerous.
Since a plastic analysis will generally meet the equilibrium and
mechanism criteria by this theorem a plastic analysis is either right or
dangerous. This is why plastic analyses are not used as often in practice
as one might suppose.

The Lowerbound (Safe) Theorem

This can be stated as:
If a bending moment diagram is found which satisfies the conditions of
equilibrium and yield (but not necessarily that of mechanism), then the
corresponding load factor is either less than or equal to the true load
factor at collapse.
This is a safe theorem because the load factor will be less than (or at best
equal to) the collapse load factor once equilibrium and yield criteria are
met leading the designer to think that the structure can carry less than or
equal to its actual capacity.
Think of it like this: it’s either wrong and safe or right and safe.
Since an elastic analysis will always meet equilibrium and yield
conditions, an elastic analysis will always be safe. This is the main reason
that it is elastic analysis that is used, in spite of the significant extra
capacity that plastic analysis offers.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

The Uniqueness Theorem

Linking the upper- and lower-bound theorems, we have:
If a bending moment distribution can be found which satisfies the three
conditions of equilibrium, mechanism, and yield, then the corresponding
load factor is the true load factor at collapse.
So to have identified the correct load factor (and hence collapse
mechanism) for a structure we need to meet all three of the criteria:
1. Equilibrium;
2. Mechanism;
3. Yield.
The permutations of the three criteria and the three theorems are
summarized in the following table:

The Uniqueness Theorem does not claim that any particular collapse
mechanism is unique – only that the collapse load factor is unique.
Although rare, it is possible for more than one collapse mechanism to
satisfy the Uniqueness Theorem, but they will have the same load factor.

Corollaries of the Theorems

Some other results immediately apparent from the theorems are the
following:
1. If the collapse loads are determined for all possible mechanisms, then
the actual collapse load will be the lowest of these (Upper-bound
Theorem);
2. The collapse load of a structure cannot be decreased by increasing the
strength of any part of it (Lower-bound Theorem);
3. The collapse load of a structure cannot be increased by decreasing the
strength of any part of it (Upper-bound Theorem);
4. The collapse load is independent of initial stresses and the order in
which the plastic hinges form (Uniqueness Theorem);

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

The first point above is the basis for using virtual work in plastic analysis.
However, in doing so, it is essential that the designer considers the actual
collapse more. To not do so would lead to an unsafe design by the Upper-
bound Theorem.

References
• Baker, J.F., Horne, M.R. and Heyman, J., The Steel Skeleton, Volume II,
Plastic Behaviour and Design, Cambridge University Press, 1956.
• Baker, J.F. and Heyman, J., Plastic Design of Frames, Vol. 1:
Fundamentals, Cambridge University Press, London, 1969.
• Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M. and Whittaker, A., Ductile Design of Steel
Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998.
• Davies, J.M. and Brown, B.A., Plastic Design to BS5950, Blackwell
Science, Oxford, 1996.
• Heyman, J., Plastic Design of Portal Frames, Cambridge University
Press, London, 1957.
• Heyman, J., Plastic Design of Frames, Vol. 2: Applications, Cambridge
University Press, London, 1971.
• Heyman, J., Beams and Framed Structures, 2nd Edn., Pergamon Press,
1974.
• Heyman, J., Elements of the Theory of Structures, Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
• Hodge, P.G., Plastic Analysis of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1959.
• McKenzie, W.M.C., Examples in Structural Analysis, Taylor and
Francis, Abington, 2006.
• Neal, B.G., Structural Theorems and their Applications, Pergamon
Press, 1964.
• Neal, B.G., The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, 3rd Edn.,
Chapman &Hall, London, 1977.
• Thompson, F., and Haywood, G.G., Structural Analysis Using Virtual
Work, Chapman and Hall, 1986.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

 Theory of Plasticity

• Rees, D.W.A., Mechanics of Solids and Structures, Imperial College

Press, London, 2000.
• Wong, M.B., Plastic Analysis and Design of Steel Structures,
Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2009.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama

View publication stats