PDT 2 PDF

Dedi Apriadi – SI 4121 Pengantar Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa
SI 4121 Pengantar Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa
Modeling Soil Response During

Earthquake Shear Cycles
Prepared by : Dedi Apriadi, Ph.D.

Stress-strain Behavior of Cyclically Loaded Soils

PLATFORM
LWS
• Viscoelastic Kelvin-Voigt Model
PGA SEA BED • Equivalent linear models (modifying

the Kelvin-Voigt model to account for
some types of soil nonlinearities)
SOIL CONDITION
• Cyclic nonlinear models
PBA • Advanced constitutive models

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
Dedi Apriadi – SI 6121 Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa
Viscoelastic Model
Dedi Apriadi – SI 6121 Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa
Viscoelastic Model
Equivalent Linear Model



Cyclic Non Linear Models




Masing Rules

Masing Rules

Masing Rules


Extended Masing Rules

Advanced Constitutive Models

1. Yield Criterion
F ( ,  , Wp )  0  material is in elastic range
F ( ,  ,Wp )  0  yielding occurs
=> Work hardening rule parameters
2. Flow Rule is defining the direction of plastic strain

increment Q( ,  ,W )  0  a plastic potential
p
 Q  F  associated
(fine soil materials and ductile metals)
 Q  F  nonassociated (granular soil materials)
  ,Wp are hardening rule parameters
    Q  

p
   plastic multiplier increment

Advanced Constitutive Models

3. Hardening Rule
Define a plastic behavior or how the yield

criterion is changed by the history of plastic
flow
Uni-axial Hardening Behaviour (1D)
Loading/Unloading behavior
After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Initial yield
Initial yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield

Expanded yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
Initial yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
Initial yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
This is more common behavior in material plasticity, for example in soils. When
the material has already been yielded, it yields earlier in the opposite
direction.This effect is referred to as the Bauschinger effect.

 Expanded yield

Expanded yield
Expanded yield
 Expanded yield


Moved yield
Moved yield Expanded yield

Moved yield
 Expanded yield
Moved yield
Moved yield
Moved yield

• The idealized curve is shown in dashed

lines (the sequence 0-1R-2R). Thus,
the compressive plastic flow after 0-1-2
tensile sequence should occur at
magnitude equal to σ3 = σ2.
• If the material exhibits the Bauschinger

effect, this stress is decreased from σ3
to σ4. Hence, the material “softens”
upon the inversion of the loading.
Multi-axial Hardening Behaviour (2D)
Isotropic Hardening 2
load path
f peak
y0 y1 y2
Initial yield 1
Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield
Expanded yield

Multi-axial Hardening Behaviour (2D)

Kinematic Hardening
2
load path
peak
f
y2
y1
y0
1


• Isotropic hardening is commonly used in

mathematical models for finite element analysis to
describe plasticity. though it is not absolutely correct
for real materials. Isotropic hardening is not useful in
situations where components are subjected to cyclic
loading. Real materials exhibit some isotropic
hardening AND some kinematic hardening. Isotropic
hardening does not account for Bauschinger effect
and predicts that after a few cycles, the material
(solid) just hardens until it responds elastically .

• For many materials, the kinematic hardening model

gives a better representation of loading/unloading
behavior than the isotropic hardening model. For
cyclic loading, however, the kinematic hardening
model cannot represent either cyclic hardening or
cyclic softening.

.
The initial hardening is assumed to be almost entirely
isotropic, but after some plastic straining, the elastic
range attains an essentially constant value (that is, pure
kinematic hardening).
In this model, there is a variable proportion between the
isotropic and kinematic contributions that depends on the
extent of plastic deformation.
• Combined Hardening is good for simulating the shift of the stress-

strain curve apparent in a cyclical loading (hysteresis).

Development of single to multisurface
The idea of extending the single yield surface to multiple yield

surface and then continuous surface
single yield surface N - yield surfaces Infinite yield surface
g (ij , ij ) g (ij ,  ij(1) ,,  ij( N ) )  gˆ (ij , ˆ ij (), )d

Y
  
  
Dedi Apriadi – SI 6224 Topik Khusus Geoteknik
Kinematic hardening yield surface
• Single-surface plasticity (St- Venant’s model)
• Multisurface plasticity
– Iwan(1967), Mroz(1967)
– multiple piecewise linear → nonlinear
– discrete material memories (yield stress, hardening)
• (Infinite Yield Surface/Continuous hyperplasticity

– Rational mechanics (Truesdell, 1977) + generalised
thermodynamics approach
– internal function → smooth transition
– functional material memories (yield stress, hardening)
Recent Advanced Soil Constitutive Models

• Multisurface model (Mroz, 1967; Iwan, 1967)
- Kinematic hardening model (Wood, 1995)
- 3-SKH model (Atkinson and Stallebrass, 1991)
• Bounding surface concept (Dafalias , 1975; Dafalias and

Hermann (1980)
- Bounding surface model (Dafalias and Hermann, 1982)
- Hashiguchi model (Hashiguchi, 1985)
- MIT-E3 model (Whittle, 1993)
• Hypoplasticity model (Wu and Kolymbas, 1990)
• Hyperplasticity model
- Linear KHMCC model (Likitlersuang and Houlsby, 2006)
- Non-linear KHMCC and mixed HMCC (Apriadi et. al, 2009,2011)
High-speed computer ! ! !
Intel’s 10nm Cannonlake

Rheological Models
Multisurface model
• Multisurface model (Mroz , 1967)
N
g ( n )
 ij   ij( e )    ij( p )( n )  ij( p )( n )   ( n )
n 1  ij
Each yield surface is specified in the form: f (n)

 ij , ( p )( n )
ij 0
Multisurface model (Cont.)

• Multisurface model (Iwan , 1967)
N
  kn
 ij   (e)
ij   ( p )( n )
ij  ( p )( n )
ij 
n 1 Hn
Each yield surface is specified in the form:  

f ( n )  ij ,  ij( p )( n )  0
Shortcomings: (1) It requires a considerable amount of calculation, (2) It

requires a large number of kinematic hardening parameters, (3) Many of
them are inherently complex.
Hyperplasticity Model
Elastic Potential Energy

Total Potential Energy
k (stiffness) k (stiffness)
F F
L
L L+ L
U = ½ x (stress in spring) x (strain) = ½ (k ) () = ½ k 2
We = - F L
 = U + We = ½ k 2 – F L
where:
 = total potential energy of a loaded structure
U = strain energy or stored energy (internal energy due to deformation effect)
We = External work

U: Stored energy or Elastic potential function
W
W: Complementary potential function U
σ  U (ε  ε ) ε  W (σ) C   U (ε  ε )
p e 2 p
• Conservation of energy
t G
in any closed loop Elastic D
region
g Larger cycle
• Path independence Dissipation C

energy loss in
one cycle
A B
Hysteretic loop
σ
Satisfy for small strain level
A→B→C→D = A→D

• Potential energy in terms of strain = Stored
energy function U (ε)
• Stress is determined by σ   εU (ε)
• By transformation, strain is determined by
ε   σW (σ) where W() is conjugate of U()
• Conjugate of potential energy

(Complementary stored energy) is
determined by using Legendre transformation
Legendre Transformation
It transforms one function into another function f (x )  g (y)
f (x ) : Convex function x   y g (y) & y   x f (x )
g (y)  maxx  y  f (x )
x
f(x) g(y) [- intercept of f(x)]
80 60
xo yo
60
40
40
g yo
20 20
f xo
0
g’(y)=x
-g(y) f’(x)=y g yo
0
f xo
20
-f(x)
40 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
x [slope of f(x)]
y
Hyperlasticity Model
W
U
Uniaxial Rate Independent Single

Surface Hyperplasticity
Total Energy Function

Gibb’s free energy (total energy in function of stress and plastic strain )
• Elastic complementary energy (recoverable energy)
• Plastic hardening energy (irrecoverable energy, linear hardening)
H
 1
WH
• Plastic dissipation work


Energy & Dissipation/Yield Function

Gibb’s free energy (total energy in function of stress and plastic strain )   p
H  2 2
g ( ,  )     
2E 2
Elastic complementary Plastic hardening energy Plastic dissipation work
energy (linear hardening)
Yield function (dimension of stress in generalized stress and yield stress) k y
y(  , )    k
H
E

k
e

Generalized stress Yield stress 
St- Venant’s model

Stress-Strain Relation
Strain Strain increment
 1 1 
 E  H   y0
g      
        
 E E 
 E
y0
Generalized stress
Generalized stress increment
g
     H

Flow rule Plastic strain increment Stiffness
y  
  g   C ep
 H 
Consistency condition  EH
y  y0
   E  H
 y    0 g
  H  E y0
Example Problem - Parameters

H  2 2
Gibbs free energy g ( ,  )     
2E 2
Yield function y(  , )    k
H
E
Elastic Modulus (E) = 100

Plastic Modulus (H) = 20

k
e
yield stress (k) = 4


Initial stress (σi) = 0
Maximum stress (σt) = 5
St- Venant’s model stress difference (∆σ) = 5
Number of iteration (n) = 10

Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Stress-Strain Response
Stress vs Strain (Single)
6
2
Stress
0
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Stress vs Strain
-2
-4
-6
Strain
Uniaxial Rate Independent

Multisurface Hyperplasticity
Energy & Dissipation/Yield Function

Gibb’s free energy (total energy in function of stress and plastic strain )  n   np
 H2 N N
g ( , )    n
 n    n
2
2 E n 1 2 n 1
Elastic complementary Plastic hardening energy Plastic Dissipation work

energy (linear hardening)
Yield functions (dimension of stress in generalized stress & yield stress) kn   y 
n
Individual spring stiffness
yn (  ,  )   i  ki
H1 H2 HN
E

k1 k2 kN e
1 2 3
Generalized stress Yield stress 

Weakest slider will yield first
Stress-Strain Relation N* = N
Strain Strain increment  1 N * 1  y1.. N *

g  N
 N     
     n      n  E n 1 H n 
  
0
 E n 1 E n 1  
yn  0
 E
Generalized stress
Generalized stress increment
g
n      H n n
 n
Flow rule Plastic strain increment Stiffness

yn 
 n  g n  C ep 
 n  n  
Hn
 1 y1.. y N *
Consistency condition  1 N* 1 0

yn  n   
 yn   n  0 gn   E n 1 H n
 n n H n  E yn  0
Case 1 – Hysteresis Loop

Parameters and Functions:
E  100
H  20 Hˆ ( )  HwH ( )
k 5 wk     kˆ    kwk ( )
20
Hˆ ( )
cH wH (  ) 10 k̂  
ckwk (  )
2
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
 
Initial yield Failure Initial yield Failure

surface surface surface surface
Calculation Process
1 2 1
H   
2
g(     H  E) 
2 E 2
Strain (scalar)
1
 (     E)  
E
1
d( d d  E) d d
E
Yield functions
y(   k )  k
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process simulate    i  E cH  ck  N n rows ( ) Input number of

loading increment
H N ( cH genvec ( w H N ) )
d_( d     E H  k ) sum_d 0 k ck genvec ( w k N )

1 2 1
H   
2
g(     H  E) 

2E 2 n rows ( H ) Input number of
1
yield surfaces i i
H
Strain (scalar) for i  1  n
i   i   i E
1 i  Hi  i
 (     E)   j 1
E
d i 0 if y  i  ki 0 j i
1
d( d d  E) d d j i
E otherwise
Yield functions  i d j i
1 gi 
y(   k )  k  i Hi j j H  j
gi 0 if g i  0 Kj E
for j  1   n
i
di gi  _ d_ j   j   j  E H  k
i
 _ 1
sum_d sum_d di  _ 2
d j 1
j j
d sum_d
E j j 
1
d j j 
K 1
d j _ 3
1
d Kj _ 4
1
d 
 2 
K 

3
K
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Calculation Process
Stress-Strain Response
Smoothness
4
i
5 surfaces 14 1
10 surfaces 24 0
0
20 surfaces 34
100 surfaces 44 1
4
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1
 14
 24  34  44
Increase of number of multi-yield surface clearly smooth stress-strain

relations but less effect on accuracy
Accuracy
4
i
25 substeps 41 1
50 substeps 42 0
0
250 substeps 43
500 substeps 44 1
4
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1
 41
 42  43  44
Increase of number of sub-steps substantially affect accuracy

Case 2 - Repetitive loading

Series of loading-unloading stress increments
Stress-Time Relation (input)
Step numbers: 100 steps / monotonic stress increments

Surface numbers: 100 surfaces
3
2
j
σ
i
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
j
t

Stress-Strain Relation (output)
i
2

σ
i
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
ε

Strain-Time Relation (output)
0.08
0.06
j
ε 0.04
0.02
i
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
j
t

Plastic Strain-Time Relation (output)
0.05
0.04
j 0.03
α
0.02
0.01
i
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
j
t
Case 3 - Cyclic loading

 
w (t )  sin  80t  cos  1  4t  
2 
4
 (t )  kw (t )
5 Stress-Time Relation (input)
Step numbers: 1000 steps Step numbers: 1000 steps

2
i
j
σ 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
j
t

Stress-Strain Relation (output)
i
i
 0
σ
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1
ε

Strain-Time Relation (output)
0.1
0.05
i
j
ε 0
0.05
0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
j
t

Plastic Strain-Time Relation (output)
0.05
i
α
44j 0
0.05
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
j
t
Conclusions
• 1-D kinematic hardening multi-surface plastic
model (Iwan’s model) can exhibit repetitive
loading-unloading and cyclic response behaviors
• Framework of hyperplasticity is convenient to

handle the complicated model and hardening
function for the multi-surface plasticity.
• Number of variables are required for allocating

material memories of multi-surface model. (20
yield surfaces seems to be sufficient)
Thank you

PDT 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDT 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dedi Apriadi – SI 4121 Pengantar Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa

SI 4121 Pengantar Dinamika Tanah dan Rekayasa Gempa

Modeling Soil Response During

Prepared by : Dedi Apriadi, Ph.D.

Stress-strain Behavior of Cyclically Loaded Soils

• Viscoelastic Kelvin-Voigt Model

PGA SEA BED • Equivalent linear models (modifying

PBA • Advanced constitutive models

Equivalent Linear Model

Equivalent Linear Model

Equivalent Linear Model

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Cyclic Non Linear Models

Advanced Constitutive Models

2. Flow Rule is defining the direction of plastic strain

    Q  

   plastic multiplier increment

Advanced Constitutive Models

Define a plastic behavior or how the yield

Uni-axial Hardening Behaviour (1D)

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

Uni-axial Hardening Behaviour (1D)

Uni-axial Hardening Behaviour (1D)

Moved yield Expanded yield

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

• The idealized curve is shown in dashed

• If the material exhibits the Bauschinger

Multi-axial Hardening Behaviour (2D)

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

Multi-axial Hardening Behaviour (2D)

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

• Isotropic hardening is commonly used in

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

• For many materials, the kinematic hardening model

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

• Combined Hardening is good for simulating the shift of the stress-

After Alireza Sadeghirad, 2009

Development of single to multisurface

The idea of extending the single yield surface to multiple yield

single yield surface N - yield surfaces Infinite yield surface

g (ij , ij ) g (ij ,  ij(1) ,,  ij( N ) )  gˆ (ij , ˆ ij (), )d

Kinematic hardening yield surface

• Single-surface plasticity (St- Venant’s model)

• (Infinite Yield Surface/Continuous hyperplasticity

Recent Advanced Soil Constitutive Models

• Bounding surface concept (Dafalias , 1975; Dafalias and

• Hypoplasticity model (Wu and Kolymbas, 1990)

Intel’s 10nm Cannonlake

Each yield surface is specified in the form: f (n)

Multisurface model (Cont.)

Each yield surface is specified in the form:  

Shortcomings: (1) It requires a considerable amount of calculation, (2) It

Elastic Potential Energy

Elastic Potential Energy