Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
DOI 10.1007/s00466-011-0611-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
An effective computational tool for parametric studies and
identification problems in materials mechanics
Gabriella Bolzon · Vladimir Buljak
Received: 8 October 2010 / Accepted: 26 May 2011 / Published online: 25 June 2011
© Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Parametric studies and identification problems
require to perform repeated analyses, where only a few
input parameters are varied among those defining the prob-
lem of interest, often associated to complex numerical sim-
ulations. In fact, physical phenomena relevant to several
practical applications involve coupled material and geom-
etry non-linearities. In these situations, accurate but expen-
sive computations, usually carried out by the finite element
method, may be replaced by numerical procedures based on
proper orthogonal decomposition combined with radial basis
function interpolation. Besides drastically reducing comput-
ing times and costs, this approach is capable of retaining
the essential features of the considered system responses
while filtering most disturbances. These features are illus-
trated in this paper with specific reference to some elastic–
plastic problems. The presented results can however be easily
extended to other meaningful engineering situations.
Keywords Non-linear mechanics · Parametric studies ·
Identification problems · Proper orthogonal decomposition ·
Radial basis functions
1 Introduction
Several applications in engineering practice require to repeat-
edly perform non-linear numerical analyses with a few varied
G. Bolzon (B)
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano,
piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
e-mail: gabriella.bolzon@polimi.it
V. Buljak
Department of Strength of Materials,
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
16 Kraljice Marije Str., 11120 Belgrade, Serbia
parameters among those defining the problem of interest.
This is for instance the case of parameter identification pro-
cedures based on laboratory testing and inverse analysis since
the mechanical response of construction materials beyond the
elastic limit is of interest for in-service diagnostic analysis of
industrial plants and components, civil structures and infra-
structures [1–9]. Statistical approaches based on recursive
computations and parametric studies are also required to
account for uncertainties, particularly relevant in soil–struc-
ture interaction problems for dam engineering, slope sta-
bility and landslide control, due to the expected variability
local material properties, hydrometric conditions and climate
changes [10–16]. Recent developments in stochastic analy-
sis can be recovered for instance from [17] and from the
references reported therein.
In a number of situations, the computational burden can
be significantly reduced by proper assumptions and by pecu-
liar problem formulations; see, e.g., [6,9,18,19]. In most
cases, however, traditional finite element (FE) analyses are
performed, which return quite accurate results but at the
price of a significant computational cost due to the frequent
occurrence of material and geometric non-linearities in the
domains to be investigated.
Substantial savings can be gathered by substituting the
FE simulations with suitable analytical approximations. In
a frequently adopted methodology, based on a proposal by
Aoki et al. [20], the system response is evaluated by the FE
method in an a priori established number of parameter com-
binations, defining a regular grid of knot points in the sought
parameter space. Lagrange interpolation is then introduced
in order to generalize the results to different input sets. The
expected correlation of the system response permits to obtain
a fairly accurate output with relatively low polynomial order
(cubic and above, see e.g., [20–24]). Nonetheless, the num-
ber of direct analyses to be performed increases rapidly with
123
676 Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687

the number of unknowns and with the selected polynomial

order. Further, the effectiveness of this methodology can be
seriously jeopardised by a few inaccurate evaluation of the
system response in the assumed reference situations and the
interpolation capability can be reduced by the requirement
of a regular grid of knot points, as the admissible parameter
space can be other than box-shaped [25].
An alternative approach is based on the so-called sub-
space or reduced basis methodology, widely employed in sig-
nal processing and other physics and engineering contexts.
For instance, problem reduction techniques are exploited for
the time integration of linear or weakly non-linear differen-
tial equations concerning acoustics, elasticity, electromag-
netics, fluid flows, see e.g., [26–28]. In the present paper,
this approach is considered with reference to time-indepen-
dent solid mechanics problems characterized by material and
geometric non-linearity, as in [29]. The system response,
evaluated in a number of knot points and projected into the
reduced space, is interpolated by the use of radial basis func-
tions, as in [30,31]. The performances of the numerical algo-
rithms resulting from this methodological coupling appear
outstanding, with much superior observed accuracy than
in [29].
A schematic flow-chart of the procedure exploited herein
is presented in Fig. 1. The state of the system under
observation, determined for some pre-selected parameter
sets, is projected in a reduced space by proper orthogonal
decomposition (POD) [32–35]. The output of these prelim-
inary numerical analyses (snapshots, in jargon) are referred
to an optimally truncated orthonormal reference basis, which
allows to retain the essential features of the system response
while filtering most artificial numerical disturbances and
unavoidable experimental noise. For some application, in
fact, the snapshot matrix may even consist of only experi-
mental data, if these are available in a sufficient number, as
in [26]. POD is profitably combined with radial basis func-
tion (RBF) interpolation [36–38], which returns an effective Fig. 1 Schematic flow-chart of the POD–RBF numerical procedure
and accurate analytical representation of the system response
for varying input parameters. RBFs allow the knot points of 2 Reference problems
the interpolation to be randomly distributed in the region
of interest, thus permitting to overcome the limitation of a A first reference problem concerns the simulation of the
box-shaped search domain and to include a large number of elastic–plastic response of a thin plate with a central
variables. circular hole, schematically represented in Fig. 1. The mate-
The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate the rial is assumed to be isotropic, obeying the classical Huber–
performance of the POD–RBF methodology for the simula- Henky–Mises (HHM) constitutive model with exponential
tion of the non-linear irreversible response of elastic–plastic hardening rule. Mechanical properties are supposed to be
materials. This is done with specific reference to loading– fixed. The solid is subjected to a loading–unloading cycle
unloading cycles of simple components, having in mind com- under different combinations of distributed shear and axial
mon experimental setting for material calibration purposes forces, which would induce uniform stress/strain fields in the
[20,21,38–42]. However, the outcome of the present study absence of the hole. The sensitivity of the system response to
can be easily generalised to many other meaningful engi- the control parameters, here consisting of the amplification
neering situations requiring to perform repetitive non-linear factors FS and FN of the external forces, can be inferred from
analyses of solids and structures. the output of repeated numerical simulations of the test.

123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
Fig. 2 Thin plate subjected to combined shear and axial loading
(FN /F S = 1.3): shear force versus the horizontal displacement of the
upper left corner (displacement amplification factor equal to 5)
Fig. 3 Plate response under pure shear loading: total force versus the
horizontal displacement of the upper left corner (displacement ampli-
fication factor equal to 5)
The existing correlation of meaningful output quantities
(like nodal displacements, see e.g. Figs. 2, 3 and 4) returned
by the computations can be exploited, as shown in the follow-
ing, to reduce the overall computational burden of the study.
Two further examples concern the more demanding (from
a computational standpoint) indentation test, which rep-
resents a practical methodology for material characteriza-
tion widely employed in several industrial environments.
Its application ranges from nano-technological systems to
large networks of pipelines for oil or gas transportation,
power plants and offshore structures [8,22–24,42–44]. In the
experiment, a diamond or hard steel tip of different geom-
etry is pressed against the surface of the material sample
to be investigated. During the test, the force exerted on the
tip is monitored versus the corresponding penetration depth.
The deformed configuration of the specimen surface can be
mapped after the removal of the indentation apparatus and
this information can be exploited to parameter identification
purposes as shown, e.g., in [23,24,38–42].
677
Fig. 4 Plate response under pure axial load applied in the vertical direc-
tion: total force versus the maximum vertical displacement (displace-
ment amplification factor equal to 5)
The simulation of the test can be carried out by the
FE method, taking into account the non-linear effects
associated with large plastic deformations and frictional
contact, besides the non-linear material response. The con-
tact interface between the indentation tool and the spec-
imen is often characterised by Coulomb friction without
dilatancy, i.e., interpreted by non-associative rigid-plastic
relationships. The material response is modelled by elastic–
plastic constitutive laws, for instance obeying the classical
Huber–Henky–Mises (HHM) or Hill [39,40] yield crite-
rion, respectively, in the case of isotropic and anisotropic
metals. Pressure dependent plasticity models are considered
for ceramics and metal-ceramic composites [23,43]. Other
non-linear phenomena like fracture and delamination, which
may occur in the case of brittle and/or layered materials,
can be further analysed by means of suitable interface laws
[24,41] but are not considered to the present demonstrative
purposes.
Figure 5 represents a FE mesh designed to exploit
the problem symmetries associated with the simulation of
sphero-conical (Rockwell [46]) indentation of an isotropic
material; details are given in the example section. Figure 6a
shows a typical output in terms of the profile of the resid-
ual axis-symmetric imprint left on the surface of a homo-
geneous metal sample. This deformed shape is obtained by
the combination of the displacement components shown in
Fig. 6b.
Sensitivity studies and inverse analyses performed to
parameter calibration purposes require to be carried out
repeatedly, considering the same spatial region with fixed
boundary conditions and only a few varied input data,
consisting in this case of some parameters entering the
material constitutive law. FE simulations of the system
response to indentation return quite accurate and realistic
output but at the cost of high computational time, which
123
678
Fig. 5 Axis-symmetric FE mesh of Rockwell indentation of isotropic
materials
Fig. 6 Profile of the residual imprint resulting from the simulation of
conical indentation test (a), as combination of nodal displacements (b)
can however be significantly reduced by exploiting the
expected correlation of the numerical output, as shown in
the following.
123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
Y
σ [MPa]
400
350
300
250
120 150 180 210
E [GPa]
Fig. 7 Training points in the parameter space E (Young’s modulus)—
σ Y (yield limit) relevant to the indentation of isotropic elastic-perfectly
plastic materials
3 POD–RBF methodology
Let us focus on the indentation test of an isotropic metal, and
let the material response be represented by an elastic–plastic
constitutive model. To facilitate graphical representation, let
us assume for the moment that the variable parameter set
consists of the elastic modulus E and of the initial yield
limit σ Y only. The material response can then be evaluated
for an initial selection of, say, Ns couples of E and σ Y val-
ues defining vectors z̄i . This training set, collected by matrix
z̄, can be either defined by a regular grid of knot points in
the parameter space, as visualised e.g., in Fig. 7, or more
or less randomly distributed in the region of interest; see the
example section. This latter option is preferred as the number
of independent parameters increases, or when the admissible
parameter space is not box-shaped [25]. Each parameter set is
input to a traditional FE analysis, which returns the quantities
of interest, named snapshots in the present context.
Let snapshots consist of the computed residual imprint,
described by the Nu nodal displacement on the top surface
of the modelled material specimen, see Fig. 6. These data,
which are expected to be correlated, at least to some extent,
are stored in matrix U, in ordered correspondence with the
entries of matrix z̄; see the sketch of Fig. 1.
Snapshots can be referred to an orthonormal reference
system  (such that T = −1 ), defined by the linear trans-
formation:
U=·A (1)
The coefficients (amplitudes) of the new basis combination
are collected by matrix A = T · U. The size of  is the
same as U [Nu × Ns ], while A [Ns × Ns ].
Optimal basis vectors that allow to exploit the expected
correlation among the snapshots are defined by proper
orthogonal decomposition (POD), namely:
 = U · V · −1/2 (2)
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687 679

where matrix V [Ns × Ns ] stores the normalised eigenvectors

associated to matrix D = UT · U, while the diagonal matrix
named −1/2 [Ns × Ns ] collects the inverse of the eigenvalue
square roots, which represent further normalisation terms.
Notice: if Nu < Ns , at least Ns − Nu eigenvalues and
corresponding columns in U · V matrix are null. So, mean-
ingful eigenpairs are computed sequentially, starting from the
largest eigenvalue, and the corresponding basis vectors are
orderly stored in matrix . Thus, an optimally reduced basis
¯ can be generated by the truncation of the eigenpair evalua-
tion to the first Nr  Ns (and, often Nr  Nu < Ns ) largest
eigenvalues of matrix D [32–35]. The amount of information Fig. 8 Inverse multiquadric function
associated to each basis vector is in fact proportional to the
corresponding eigenvalue, thus providing an useful indicator
of the most suitable basis selection for each application.
including the smoothing coefficient r , fixed on the basis of
This POD data reduction scheme permits to keep con-
some comparative numerical tests. The analytical function
temporary control of the computational burden and of the
(8) is visualised in Fig. 8 for the case of a bi-dimensional
numerical disturbances; see the example section.
space, assuming zk in the origin of the space and r = 1.
The amplitude matrix Ā [Nr × Ns ] associated to the
¯ is simply given by In the frequent case that the parameters entering into vec-
reduced basis 
tor z are normalized in the range 0–1, r is also defined within
¯ ·U
Ā = 
T
(3) this range. In general, larger values of r give better interpo-
lation result. However, when the knot points z̄i are randomly
being selected, it may occur that some of them are relatively close
¯ · Ā
U= (4) one to the other, making matrix G close to singular. This
numerical inconvenience can be circumvented by properly
Relation (4), which represents the core of the POD training reducing the r value.
procedure, can be generalised to different parameter sets,
defined in the region of interest and not included in the ini-
tial selection z̄, by RBF interpolation [36].
So, let the vector valued function u(z) represent the geom-
etry of the residual imprint left on a material characterized 4 Comparative numerical tests
by the parameter vector z. Function u(z) can be expressed,
analogously to (4), by the combination of basis vectors  ¯ The performances of the above introduced POD–RBF tech-
and the amplitudes a(z), namely: nique are illustrated in this section with the aid of some
numerical examples concerning the elastic–plastic response
¯ · a(z)
u(z) =  (5) of materials under cycling loading. All pertaining FE simu-
lations have been carried out by a commonly exploited com-
In turn, amplitudes a(z) are defined by the linear combina-
mercial code [45] within the large displacement framework,
tion, through the coefficient matrix B, of some non-linear
under the hypothesis that elastic strains are much smaller
interpolation functions, gathered in vector g(z):
than plastic deformations.
a(z) = B · g(z) (6) The accurate interpolation and filtering capability of the
POD–RBF methodology is verified first by considering
The coefficients stored in matrix B [Ns × Ns ] can be recov- only two varying control parameters, which may represent
ered by exploiting the information collected in the amplitude either load amplitudes or material constants. Thus, graphical
matrix Ā (3), which consists of the vectors a(z̄i ). So: representation is also facilitated.
Ā = B · G (7) The computing effectiveness of the considered procedure
grows as the problem dimensions and the number of varying
where matrix G gathers the vector-valued functions g(z̄i ), as parameters increase. This feature is illustrated with refer-
shown in the flow-chart of Fig. 1. ence to the indentation test performed on anisotropic hard-
For the present application, interpolation functions gk (z) ening metals described by Hill’s constitutive model, which
coincide with the RBF set: requires three-dimensional FE simulations and is character-
1 ized herein by seven independent parameters defining an
gk (z) =  (8)
||z − zk ||2 + r 2 admissible space other than box-shaped.

123
680 Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687

4.1 Elastic–plastic isotropic response of a thin plate

The thin plate (20 mm×20 mm×1 mm) with a central circu-
lar hole (6 mm diameter) schematically represented in Fig. 2
is considered first, subjected to a loading–unloading cycle
under combined shear and axial distributed forces, which
would induce uniform stress/strain fields in the homogeneous
sample (no hole).
The material is assumed to be isotropic, obeying HHM
constitutive model with exponential hardening. Thus, the
elastic domain of each material point evolves according to
the expression:
 
Eεeq n Fig. 9 Training (circles) and verification (squares) knot points for the
f = σeq − σ Y ≤0 (9) parametric study of the plate
σY

where the equivalent stress and plastic strain measures, indi-

cated by σeq and εeq , respectively, are defined according to
HHM theory, in terms of the deviatoric part σ  of the stress
tensor σ and of the corresponding component ε of the strain
tensor ε, namely:
 
3  
2  
σeq = σ : σ , εeq = ε :ε (10)
2 3

In this example, Young’s modulus E and initial yield limit σ Y

have been fixed to the values E = 200 GPa, σ Y = 300 MPa,
while the hardening exponent n = 0.1.
Numerical analyses have been performed by the FE mesh
visualised in the insert of Figs. 2–4. Standard 4-node isopara-
metric elements with 2 × 2 Gauss integration scheme have
been exploited to the purpose.
The POD–RBF computational scheme is trained on the
results of 9 FE analyses only, carried out for the combi-
nations of load amplitudes marked by circles in Fig. 9.
A small number of training knots has been intentionally
chosen for this example, to outline the main features of
POD–RBF methodology. The reduced bases consist of four
deformation modes for reconstructing the in-plane residual
displacements at unloading and four other modes to describe Fig. 10 Plate results in terms of residual displacement distribution:
HHM equivalent stress distribution at maximum load. The comparison between the output of FE simulations and of the imple-
mented POD–RBF methodology: case A (top) and B (bottom) of Fig. 9
ratio between the eigenvalues associated to the neglected (displacement amplification factor equal to 5)
basis vectors and the largest among the retained one is smaller
than 10−6 .
Results relevant to the verification points A and B, marked A maximum 8% error is exhibited in the verification case
by squares in Fig. 9, are compared in Figs. 10 and 11 with A by the largest displacement value (of about 0.2 mm, see
the corresponding FE output. Notice that these points have Fig. 2); this discrepancy is reduced to less than 5% in case B.
been chosen on the border of the region defining the training
parameter set, where interpolation is less accurate. Never- 4.2 Elastic–plastic isotropic response to indentation test
theless, reasonable results are obtained in terms of both the
distribution of the residual displacements and of the map- An isotropic metal sample obeying the elastic–plastic HHM
ping of the equivalent stress, including the regions where the constitutive law has been further considered, subjected to
equivalent stress is larger than σ Y and unrecoverable plastic sphero-conical indentation conforming with Rockwell stan-
strains develop. dard [46]. The tests is simulated through the FE mesh shown

123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687 681

Fig. 11 Plate results in terms

of equivalent (von Mises) stress
distribution at maximum load
for the verification cases A (top)
and B (bottom) of Fig. 9:
comparison between the output
of FE simulations (left) and of
the implemented POD–RBF
methodology (right)

in Fig. 5, based on standard 4-node isoparametric elements

with 2 × 2 Gauss integration scheme and designed in order
to exploit the expected axis-symmetric material response.
Boundary conditions are selected in view of geometric
and physical symmetries and of the hypothesis that outside
the visualised domain the material response is linear elastic.
This permits to preliminarily perform the condensation of
the degrees of freedom pertaining to the specimen portion
exterior to the visualised part and to compute once-for-all
the elastic constraints to be attributed to the boundary of the
investigated domain.
The indenter tip is considered to be rigid; its geometry
conforms with ISO Standards [46]. The contact interface
between the indentation tool and the specimen is charac-
Fig. 12 The fist normalised modal basis vectors associated to the
terised by Coulomb friction without dilatancy. The friction displacements in the indentation direction
coefficient is fixed to the value 0.15.
In this example, Young’s modulus E and initial yield limit
σ Y are assumed to vary within the intervals 120 GPa ≤ E ≤ The four deformation modes (or directions) that constitute
210 GPa, 250 MPa ≤ σ Y ≤ 400 MPa, which approximately the reduced basis matrix  ¯ are visualised in Fig. 12. They
cover copper to steel properties, while the hardening coeffi- correspond to the eigenvalues listed in Table 1. The ratio
cient has been fixed to the relatively small value n = 0.05. between the eigenvalues associated to the neglected basis
The POD–RBF computational scheme is trained on the vectors and the largest retained one is smaller than 10−6 .
results of FE analyses, with input value of the constitutive The fast converging superposition of the reduced basis
parameters selected in the regular 4 × 4 grid shown in Fig. 7. contributions is shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for the parameter

123
682
Table 1 Eigenvalues associated to the retained basis directions
(deformation modes) in the case of isotropic plasticity
1.42 × 107 5.46 × 104 8.09 × 102
Fig. 13 Components in Fig. 12 scaled according to the amplitude coef-
ficients relevant to the reference example and comparison with the
corresponding FE result
Fig. 14 Comparison between the POD reconstruction by four basis
vectors and the reference FE result
values not exploited in the POD training procedure: E =
170 GPa; σ Y = 330 MPa. Notice the high informative con-
tent associated to the first basis vector. However, it is
worth recalling that contributions deriving from the next
deformation modes are also essential to distinguish the
material response corresponding to different constitutive
parameters.
The same snapshots were used for cubic Lagrange inter-
polation on the grid of Fig. 7, as in [20–24]. The imprint pro-
file predicted by Lagrange interpolation for E = 170 GPa
and σ Y = 330 MPa is compared with the correspond-
ing reference FE solution and with the above POD–RBF
approximation in Fig. 15: the three responses are practically
indistinguishable. Both Lagrange and POD–RBF proce-
dures were implemented in the same computing environment
123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
48.5
Fig. 15 Indentation profile predicted by direct FE analysis, by
Lagrange interpolation and by the POD–RBF approach in the case of
‘exact’ data
Fig. 16 Indentation profile predicted by direct FE analysis, by
Lagrange interpolation and by the POD–RBF approach in the case of
noisy data
(Matlab [47]). Computing time on a PC with processor Intel
CoreDuo 2.2 GHz with 2 GB RAM, is about 2 min for the FE
analysis, a few seconds and about 0.002 s for Lagrange inter-
polation and the POD–RBF approach, respectively. Clearly,
these differences become more and more significant as com-
putations are to be repeatedly performed.
In a further numerical test, 4 out of the 16 ‘exact’ out-
put returned by the FE simulations considered so far have
been corrupted by some noise, simulating severe computing
inaccuracies or possible experimental errors to be accounted
for in the case laboratory results are exploited in the snap-
shot matrix, as in [26]. The numerically evaluated displace-
ments have been corrupted by random addenda generated in
the interval ±10 µm. These noisy data were then used both
to feed the Lagrange interpolation and to train the POD–
RBF procedures. Results are shown in Fig. 16: notice that
the reduced basis selection permits to filter most disturbance
and to produce a still good approximation of the expected
material response, while the Lagrange interpolation is
strongly affected by the introduced numerical noise.
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687 683

Fig. 17 3D FE mesh (a) for the

simulation of indentation on
(a) (b)
transversally isotropic materials
and a view of the top surface (b)

4.3 Transversally isotropic elastic–plastic response ships reduce to HHM expression√(10) as soon as Rx = R y
to indentation and, contemporarily, Rx y = R y / 3.
The present investigation assumes three elastic constants
The mesh in Fig. 17 has been exploited for performing (Young’s moduli E x and E y = E z and shear modulus
three-dimensional (3D) analyses required to characterise G x y = G x z ) varying independently within the limits listed
anisotropic constitutive models. It consists of 2750 linear in Table 2. Due to transversal isotropy, the shear modulus
(8 nodes) solid elements defined by a total 3401 nodes, 421 G yz = E y /2(1+ν yz ), while the values of the lateral contrac-
on the indented surface. A 2×2×2 Gauss integration scheme tion ratios ν yz and νx y = νx z (being νi j /E i = ν ji /E j , i, j =
has been selected in this case. x, y, z) are fixed. Three further parameters define the ini-
The mesh is intentionally coarse, to lighten possible tial elastic domain according to Hill’s criterion, namely:
numerical disturbances. σxY = Rx σ Y and σ yY = R y σ Y = Rz σ Y = σzY related to the
Linear elasticity and hardening plasticity obeying Hill’s yield limits (equal in tension and compression) for uniaxial
constitutive model have been assumed to the present demon- stress along the main material axes and the shear yield stress √
strative purposes, under the hypothesis of transversal isotropy τxYy = τzxY = R σ Y . In the isotropy plane, τ Y = σ Y / 3.
xy yz y
about direction x. The material response to indentation is thus investigated for
The elastic domain is described by relationship (9) but the inelastic properties defined within the ranges specified in
σeq , earlier defined in (10), is replaced by: Table 2.
The results to be presented are obtained by the POD–RBF
σeq procedure trained on 700 FE analyses, performed on param-
  2  2
= k x σ yy −σzz +k y (σzz −σx x )2 +k z σx x −σ yy +k x y σx2y +k yz σ yz
2 +k σ 2
zx zx eter values almost randomly distributed in the selected space,
(11) see dots in Figs. 18 and 19. Notice that, due to the physical
constraint that requires the quadratic form in relation (11) to
where: be positive definite, not all the values of the material parame-

ters in the considered ranges are admissible. Also notice that
1 2 1 1 a denser distribution of snapshots has been generated for the
kx = 2
− 2 ; k y = kz = (12) more significant lower values of the hardening coefficient.
2 Ry Rx 2Rx2
The knot values of this physical parameter have been defined
1 3
k x y = k zx = ; k yz = 2 through a random extraction of the variable 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, such
Rx2y Ry that:
The equivalent plastic strain εeq is accordingly modified as
a function of the additional parameters (Rx , R y and Rz ) that e3α − 1
define Hill’s yield criterion (see e.g. [49]). These relation- n= (13)
40

Table 2 Range of the

150 ≤ E x ≤ 250 GPa 150 ≤ E y ≤ 250 GPa 70 ≤ G x y ≤ 110 GPa
investigated material properties
in the case of anisotropic metal 200 ≤ σxY ≤ 1300 MPa 200 ≤ σ yY ≤ 1300 MPa 200 ≤ τxYy ≤ 1300 MPa
plasticity 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.477

123
684 Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687

Fig. 18 Spatial distribution of the randomly generated elastic moduli

Data collected by the snapshots were relevant to both the

geometry of the residual imprint and to the so-called inden-
tation curves, which relate the applied force to the tip pene-
tration depth. Four basis vectors were retained to reconstruct
the indentation curves, twenty for describing the 3D imprint.
Some set of parameter values, indicated by stars in Figs. 18
and 19, were not exploited in the training procedure and
used to verification purpose, comparing the POD–RBF out-
put with that provided by a corresponding FE direct analysis.
The worst comparison for the indentation curves and for the
residual imprints are shown by Figs. 20 and 21, respectively.
Results in Fig. 20 have been obtained for a relatively high
value of parameter n, where the knot distribution is rather Fig. 19 Spatial distribution of the randomly generated parameters gov-
coarse, see Fig. 19; those in Fig. 21 correspond to a selection erning plastic response (initial yield limits and hardening exponent)
of parameter values that characterize a marked anisotropic
material response, singled out by the geometry of the resid-
ual imprint experiencing sinking in along direction x and Comparison with Lagrange interpolation was not per-
piling up along y. In both investigated cases, the observed formed in this case since an even simple cubic approxima-
scatter is consistent with that expected from the output of tion function would require more than 16,000 (47 ) direct FE
instrumentation most frequently exploited to perform inden- analyses to be carried out, each one corresponding to about
tation on real materials; see, e.g., [42,43,48]. 20 min computing time.

123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687 685

Fig. 20 Comparison between Discrepancy POD - FEM

the output of a direct FE
analysis and its POD–RBF
approximation for the parameter
set: E x = 231 GPa,
E y = 201 GPa,

Force [N]
G x y = 95 GPa,
σxY = 908 MPa,
σ yY = 1152 MPa,
σxYy = 732 MPa, n = 0.2299

Penetration depth [µm]

X Profile Y Profile
Depth [µm]

Depth [µm]
Radius [µm] Radius [µm]

Fig. 21 Comparison between Discrepancy POD - FEM

the output of a direct FE
analysis and its POD–RBF
approximation for the parameter
set: E x = 205 GPa,
E y = 199 GPa,
Force [N]

G x y = 96 GPa,
σxY = 556 MPa,
σ yY = 382 MPa,
σxYy = 1200 MPa, n = 0.0488

Penetration depth [µm]

X Profile Y Profile
Depth [µm]

Depth [µm]

Radius [µm] Radius [µm]

123
686
5 Closing remarks
The present paper has illustrated the capability of reduced-
basis models based on proper orthogonal decomposition
(POD) to effectively reproduce the mechanical response to
loading of complex non-linear material systems. Coupling of
POD with radial basis function (RBF) interpolation returns
a computationally efficient but accurate analytical model of
the problem.
The considered POD–RBF technique has been shown to
represent a suitable tool for in-situ use on small computers
for parametric studies, stochastic analysis, optimization and
material characterization purposes, when simulations have to
be repeatedly performed with only a few varied parameters
among those defining the problem of interest.
The POD procedure can be designed and trained in order
to provide a balanced capability of describing meaningful
solution details and to filter undesired disturbances, while
RBF interpolation technique permits knot points to be ran-
domly distributed in the region of interest, thus allowing a
large number of variable parameters to be considered, as
usually required by practical applications.
Acknowledgments Thanks are due to our co-worker, M. Talassi, for
his help with computations.
References
1. Bui HD (1994) Inverse problems in the mechanics of materials:
an introduction. CRC Press, Boca Raton
2. Kleiber M, Antúnez H, Hien TD, Kowalczyk P (1997) Parame-
ter sensitivity in non-linear mechanics. Theory and finite element
computations. Wiley, Chichster
3. Mroz Z, Stavroulakis G (eds) (2004) Parameter identification of
materials and structures. Springer, Berlin
4. Stavroulakis G, Bolzon G, Waszczyszyn Z, Ziemianski L (2003)
Inverse analysis. In: Karihaloo B, Ritchie RO, Milne I (eds in chief)
Comprehensive structural integrity. Numerical and computational
methods, vol 3, chap 13. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 685–718
5. Maier G, Bolzon G, Buljak V, Garbowski T, Miller B (2010) Syn-
ergic combinations of computational methods and experiments for
structural diagnoses. In: Kuczma M, Wilmanski K (eds) Com-
puter methods in mechanics. Lectures of the CMM 2009. Advanced
structured materials series, vol 1. Springer, Berlin pp 453–476
6. Bolzon G, Cocchetti G (2003) Direct assessment of structural
resistance against pressurized fracture. Int J Num Anal Methods
Geomech 27:353–378
7. Calvetti F, di Prisco C, Nova R (2004) Experimental and numer-
ical analysis of soil-pipe interaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
130:1292–1299
8. Jang J-I, Choi Y, Lee J-S, Lee Y-H, Kwon D, Gao M, Kania R
(2005) Application of instrumented indentation technique for
enhanced fitness-for-service assessment of pipeline crack. Int J
Fract 131:15–34
9. Bolzon G (2010) Collapse mechanisms at the foundation inter-
face of geometrically similar concrete gravity dams. Eng Struct
32:1304–1311
123
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
10. Collison A, Wade S, Griffiths J, Dehn M (2000) Modelling the
impact of predicted climate change on landslide frequency and
magnitude in SE England. Eng Geol 55:205–218
11. Buczkowski R, Kleiber M (2006) Elasto-plastic statistical model
of strongly anisotropic rough surfaces for finite element
3D-contact analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 195:
5141–5161
12. Ardito R, Cocchetti G (2006) Statistical approach to damage diag-
nosis of concrete dams by radar monitoring: formulation and a
pseudo-experimental test. Eng Sruct 28:2036–2045
13. De Sortis A, Paoliani P (2007) Statistical analysis and structural
identification in concrete dam monitoring. Eng Struct 29:110–120
14. Ardito R, Maier G, Massalongo G (2008) Diagnostics analysis of
concrete dams based on seasonal hydrostatic loading. Eng Struct
30:3176–3185
15. Valdebenito MA, Schuëller GI (2010) Design of maintenance
schedules for fatigue-prone metallic components using reliability-
based optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:2305–
2318
16. Gao W, Song C, Tin-Loi F (2010) Probabilistic interval analysis
for structures with uncertainty. Struct Saf 32:191–199
17. Kaminski M (2010) A generalized stochastic perturbation tech-
nique for plasticity problems. Comput Mech 45:349–361
18. Bolzon G, Fedele R, Maier G (2002) Parameter identification of
a cohesive crack model by Kalman filter. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 191:2847–2871
19. Marcuzzi F (2009) Space and time localization for the estimation
of distributed parameters in a finite element model. Comput Meth-
ods Appl Mech Eng 198:3020–3025
20. Aoki S, Amaya K, Sahashi M, Nakamura T (1997) Identification of
Gurson’s material constants by using Kalman filter. Comput Mech
19:501–506
21. Corigliano A, Mariani S, Orsatti B (2000) Identification of
Gurson–Tvergaard material model parameters via Kalman filter-
ing, technique: I Theory. Int J Fract 104:349–373
22. Nakamura T, Wang T, Sampath S (2000) Determination of prop-
erties of graded materials by inverse analysis and instrumented
indentation. Acta Mater 48:4293–4306
23. Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G, Maier G (2008) A constitutive model of
metal–ceramic functionally graded material behavior: formulation
and parameter identification. Comput Mater Sci 43:16–26
24. Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G (2009) Indentation and imprint mapping
for the identification of interface properties in film-substrate sys-
tems. Int J Fract 155:1–17
25. Ageno M, Bolzon G, Maier G (2009) Mechanical characterisation
of free-standing elastoplastic foils by means of membranomet-
ric measurements and inverse analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim
38:229–243
26. Druault P, Guibert P, Alizon F (2005) Use of proper orthogonal
decomposition for time interpolation from PIV data. Application
to the cycle-to-cycle variation analysis of in-cylinder engine flows.
Exp Fluids 39:1009–1023
27. Deparis S, Rozza G (2009) Reduced basis method for multi-
parameter-dependent steady Navier–Stokes equations: Applica-
tions to natural convection in a cavity. J Comput Phys 228:
4359–4378
28. Huynh DBP, Knezevic DJ, Chen Y, Hesthaven JS, Patera AT
(2010) A natural-norm successive constraint method for inf-
sup lower bounds. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199:
1963–1975
29. Niroomandi S, Alfaro I, Cueto E, Chinesta F (2008) Real-time
deformable models of non-linear tissues by model reduction tech-
niques. Comput Methods Progr Biomed 91:223–231
30. Ostrowski Z, Bialecki RA, Kassab AJ (2005) Estimation of con-
stant thermal conductivity by use of proper orthogonal decompo-
sition. Comput Mech 37:52–59
Comput Mech (2011) 48:675–687
31. Ostrowski Z, Bialecki RA, Kassab AJ (2008) Solving inverse heat
conduction problems using trained POD-RBF network. Inv Prob-
lems Sci Eng 16:705–714
32. Katayama T (2005) Subspace methods for system identification.
Springer, Berlin
33. Chatterjee A (2000) An introduction to the proper orthogonal
decomposition. Curr Sci 78:808–817
34. Ly HV, Tran HT (2001) Modeling and control of physical pro-
cesses using proper orthogonal decomposition. Math Comput
Model 33:223–236
35. Liang YC, Lee HP, Lim SP, Lin WZ, Lee KH, Wu CG (2002)
Proper orthogonal decomposition and its applications. Part I: the-
ory. J Sound Vib 252:527–544
36. Buhmann MD (2003) Radial basis functions. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
37. Levasseur S, Malecot Y, Boulon M, Flavigny E (2009) Statistical
inverse analysis based on genetic algorithm and principal compo-
nent analysis: method and developments using synthetic data. Int
J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 33:1485–1511
38. Bolzon G, Buljak V (2010) An indentation based technique to
detect in-depth residual stress profiles induced by surface treat-
ment of metal components. Fat Fract Eng Mat Struct 34:97–107
39. Bolzon G, Maier G, Panico M (2004) Material model calibration
by indentation, imprint mapping and inverse analysis. Int J Solids
Struct 41:2957–2975
687
40. Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G, Maier G (2005) Parameter identification
in anisotropic elastoplasticity by indentation and imprint mapping.
Mech Mater 37:855–868
41. Maier G, Bocciarelli M, Bolzon G, Fedele R (2006) On inverse
analysis in fracture mechanics. Int J Fract 138:47–73
42. Bolzon G, Bocciarelli M, Chiarullo EJ (2008) Mechanical charac-
terization of materials by micro-indentation and AFM scanning.
In: Bhushan B, Fuchs H, Yamada H (eds) Applied scanning probe
methods, vol 11–13. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 85–120
43. Bolzon G, Chiarullo EJ, Egizabal P, Estournes C (2010) Consti-
tutive modelling and mechanical characterization of aluminium-
based metal matrix composites produced by spark plasma sintering.
Mech Mater 42:548–558
44. Bhushan B (1999) Handbook of micro/nano tribology. CRC Press,
Boca Raton
45. ABAQUS/Standard (2005) Theory and user’s manuals, release
6.5-1. HKS Inc., Pawtucket
46. ISO 6508-1&2 (2005) Metallic materials—Rockwell hardness test
47. The Math Works Inc. (2004) Matlab user’s guide and optimization
toolbox, release 6.13, Natick, MA, USA
48. Mulford R, Asaro RJ, Sebring RJ (2004) Spherical indentation of
ductile power law materials. J Mater Res 19:2641–2646
49. Criesfield MA (1997) Non-linear finite element analysis of solids
and structures, vol 2. Wiley, Chichester
123