Yield Surface - Wikipedia

4/23/2020 Yield surface - Wikipedia
Yield surface
A yield surface is a five-dimensional surface in the six-dimensional space of stresses. The yield
surface is usually convex and the state of stress of inside the yield surface is elastic. When the stress
state lies on the surface the material is said to have reached its yield point and the material is said to
have become plastic. Further deformation of the material causes the stress state to remain on the
yield surface, even though the shape and size of the surface may change as the plastic deformation
evolves. This is because stress states that lie outside the yield surface are non-permissible in rate-
independent plasticity, though not in some models of viscoplasticity.[1]
The yield surface is usually expressed in terms of (and visualized in) a three-dimensional principal
stress space ( ), a two- or three-dimensional space spanned by stress invariants ( )
or a version of the three-dimensional Haigh–Westergaard stress space. Thus we may write the
equation of the yield surface (that is, the yield function) in the forms:
where are the principal stresses.

where is the first principal invariant of the Cauchy stress and are the
second and third principal invariants of the deviatoric part of the Cauchy stress.
where are scaled versions of and and is a function of . Surfaces on which the invariants , , are
where are scaled versions of and , and is the Lode angle. constant. Plotted in principal stress space.
Contents
Invariants used to describe yield surfaces
Examples of yield surfaces
Tresca yield surface
von Mises yield surface
Burzyński-Yagn criterion
Mohr–Coulomb yield surface
Drucker–Prager yield surface
Bresler–Pister yield surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_surface 1/18
Willam–Warnke yield surface

Podgórski and Rosendahl trigonometric yield surfaces
Bigoni–Piccolroaz yield surface
Cosine Ansatz (Altenbach-Bolchoun-Kolupaev)
Barlat's Yield Surface
See also
References
Invariants used to describe yield surfaces

The first principal invariant ( ) of the Cauchy stress ( ), and the second and third principal
invariants ( ) of the deviatoric part ( ) of the Cauchy stress are defined as:
where ( ) are the principal values of ,( ) are the principal values of , and
where is the identity matrix.
A related set of quantities, ( ), are usually used to describe yield surfaces for cohesive frictional
materials such as rocks, soils, and ceramics. These are defined as
Surfaces on which the invariants , , are

constant. Plotted in principal stress space.
where is the equivalent stress. However, the possibility of negative values of and the
resulting imaginary makes the use of these quantities problematic in practice.
Another related set of widely used invariants is ( ) which describe a cylindrical coordinate system (the Haigh–Westergaard coordinates).
These are defined as:
The plane is also called the Rendulic plane. The angle is called the Lode angle[2] and the relation between and was first given by
Nayak and Zienkiewicz in 1972 [3]
The principal stresses and the Haigh–Westergaard coordinates are related by
A different definition of the Lode angle can also be found in the literature:[4]
in which case the ordered principal stresses (where ) are related by[5]
Examples of yield surfaces

There are several different yield surfaces known in engineering, and those most popular are listed below.
Tresca yield surface
The Tresca yield criterion is taken to be the work of Henri Tresca.[6] It is also known as the maximum shear stress theory (MSST) and the Tresca–
Guest[7] (TG) criterion. In terms of the principal stresses the Tresca criterion is expressed as
Where is the yield strength in shear, and is the tensile yield strength.
Figure 1 shows the Tresca–Guest yield surface in the three-dimensional space of principal stresses. It is a prism of six sides and having infinite
length. This means that the material remains elastic when all three principal stresses are roughly equivalent (a hydrostatic pressure), no matter how
much it is compressed or stretched. However, when one of the principal stresses becomes smaller (or larger) than the others the material is subject
to shearing. In such situations, if the shear stress reaches the yield limit then the material enters the plastic domain. Figure 2 shows the Tresca–
Guest yield surface in two-dimensional stress space, it is a cross section of the prism along the plane.
Figure 1: View of Tresca–Guest yield surface in 3D space of Figure 2: Tresca–Guest yield

principal stresses surface in 2D space ( )
von Mises yield surface
The von Mises yield criterion is expressed in the principal stresses as
where is the yield strength in uniaxial tension.
Figure 3 shows the von Mises yield surface in the three-dimensional space of principal stresses. It is a circular cylinder of infinite length with its axis
inclined at equal angles to the three principal stresses. Figure 4 shows the von Mises yield surface in two-dimensional space compared with Tresca–
Guest criterion. A cross section of the von Mises cylinder on the plane of produces the elliptical shape of the yield surface.
Figure 4: Comparison of Tresca–

Figure 3: View of Huber–Mises–Hencky yield surface in 3D space Guest and Huber–Mises–Hencky
of principal stresses criteria in 2D space ( )
Burzyński-Yagn criterion
This criterion[8][9]
represents the general equation of a second order surface of revolution about the hydrostatic axis. Some special case are:[10]
cylinder (Maxwell (1865), Huber (1904), von Mises (1913), Hencky (1924)),
cone (Botkin (1940), Drucker-Prager (1952), Mirolyubov (1953)),
paraboloid (Burzyński (1928), Balandin (1937), Torre (1947)),
ellipsoid centered of symmetry plane , (Beltrami (1885)),
ellipsoid centered of symmetry plane with (Schleicher (1926)),
hyperboloid of two sheets (Burzynski (1928), Yagn (1931)),

hyperboloid of one sheet centered of symmetry plane , , (Kuhn (1980))
hyperboloid of one sheet , (Filonenko-Boroditsch (1960), Gol’denblat-Kopnov (1968), Filin (1975)).
The relations compression-tension and torsion-tension can be computed to
The Poisson's ratios at tension and compression are obtained using
For ductile materials the restriction
is important. The application of rotationally symmetric criteria for brittle failure with
has not been studied sufficiently.[11]
The Burzyński-Yagn criterion is well suited for academic purposes. For practical applications, the third invariant of the deviator in the odd and even
power should be introduced in the equation, e.g.:[12]
Mohr–Coulomb yield surface
The Mohr–Coulomb yield (failure) criterion is similar to the Tresca criterion, with additional provisions for materials with different tensile and
compressive yield strengths. This model is often used to model concrete, soil or granular materials. The Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion may be
expressed as:
where
and the parameters and are the yield (failure) stresses of the material in uniaxial compression and tension, respectively. The formula
reduces to the Tresca criterion if .
Figure 5 shows Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in the three-dimensional space of principal stresses. It is a conical prism and determines the
inclination angle of conical surface. Figure 6 shows Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in two-dimensional stress space. It is a cross section of this conical
prism on the plane of .
Figure 6: Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in

2D space ( )
Drucker–Prager yield surface
The Drucker–Prager yield criterion is similar to the von Mises yield criterion,
with provisions for handling materials with differing tensile and compressive
yield strengths. This criterion is most often used for concrete where both normal
and shear stresses can determine failure. The Drucker–Prager yield criterion
may be expressed as
Figure 5: View of Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in 3D space of

principal stresses
where
and , are the uniaxial yield stresses in compression and tension respectively. The formula reduces to the von Mises equation if .
Figure 7 shows Drucker–Prager yield surface in the three-dimensional space of principal stresses. It is a regular cone. Figure 8 shows Drucker–
Prager yield surface in two-dimensional space. The elliptical elastic domain is a cross section of the cone on the plane of ; it can be chosen to
intersect the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in different number of vertices. One choice is to intersect the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface at three
vertices on either side of the line, but usually selected by convention to be those in the compression regime.[13] Another choice is to
intersect the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface at four vertices on both axes (uniaxial fit) or at two vertices on the diagonal (biaxial fit).[14] The
Drucker-Prager yield criterion is also commonly expressed in terms of the material cohesion and friction angle.
Figure 7: View of Drucker–Prager yield surface in 3D space of

principal stresses
Figure 8: View of Drucker–Prager yield surface in 2D space of principal stresses
Bresler–Pister yield surface

The Bresler–Pister yield criterion is an extension of the Drucker Prager yield criterion that uses three parameters, and has additional terms for
materials that yield under hydrostatic compression. In terms of the principal stresses, this yield criterion may be expressed as
where are material constants. The additional parameter gives the yield surface an ellipsoidal cross section when viewed from a direction
perpendicular to its axis. If is the yield stress in uniaxial compression, is the yield stress in uniaxial tension, and is the yield stress in biaxial
compression, the parameters can be expressed as
Figure 9: View of Bresler–Pister yield surface in 3D space of Figure 10: Bresler–Pister yield
principal stresses surface in 2D space ( )
Willam–Warnke yield surface
The Willam–Warnke yield criterion is a three-parameter smoothed version of the Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion that has similarities in form to the
Drucker–Prager and Bresler–Pister yield criteria.
The yield criterion has the functional form
However, it is more commonly expressed in Haigh–Westergaard coordinates as
The cross-section of the surface when viewed along its axis is a smoothed triangle (unlike Mohr–Coulomb). The Willam–Warnke yield surface is
convex and has unique and well defined first and second derivatives on every point of its surface. Therefore, the Willam–Warnke model is
computationally robust and has been used for a variety of cohesive-frictional materials.
Figure 11: View of Willam–Warnke yield surface in

3D space of principal stresses
Figure 12: Willam–Warnke yield surface in the -
plane
Podgórski and Rosendahl trigonometric yield surfaces
Normalized with respect to the uniaxial tensile stress , the Podgórski criterion [15] as function of the stress angle reads
with the shape function of trigonal symmetry in the -plane
It contains the criteria of von Mises (circle in the -plane, , ), Tresca (regular hexagon, , ), Mariotte
(regular triangle, , ), Ivlev [16] (regular triangle, , ) and also the cubic criterion of Sayir [17] (the
Ottosen criterion [18]) with and the isotoxal (equilateral) hexagons of the Capurso criterion[16][17][19] with . The von Mises
- Tresca transition [20] follows with , . The isogonal (equiangular) hexagons of the Haythornthwaite criterion [21][22][23]
containing the Schmidt-Ishlinsky criterion (regular hexagon) cannot be described with the Podgórski ctiterion.
The Rosendahl criterion [24] reads
with the shape function of hexagonal symmetry in the -plane
It contains the criteria of von Mises (circle, , ), Tresca (regular hexagon, , ), Schmidt--Ishlinsky (regular
hexagon, , ), Sokolovsky (regular dodecagon, , ), and also the bicubic criterion of Szwed [21][25]
with or equally[24] with and the isotoxal dodecagons of the unified yield criterion of Yu [26] with . The isogonal
dodecagons of the multiplicative ansatz criterion of hexagonal symmetry [21] containing the Ishlinsky--Ivlev criterion (regular dodecagon) cannot be
described by the Rosendahl criterion.
The criteria of Podgórski and Rosendahl describe single surfaces in principal stress space without any additional outer contours and plane
intersections. Note that in order to avoid numerical issues the real part function can be introduced to the shape function: and .
The generalization in the form [24] is relevant for theoretical investigations.
A pressure-sensitive extension of the criteria can be obtained with the linear -substitution [21]
which is sufficient for many applications, e.g. metals, cast iron, alloys, concrete, unreinforced polymers, etc.
Bigoni–Piccolroaz yield surface
The Bigoni–Piccolroaz yield criterion [27][28] is a seven-parameter surface defined by
where is the "meridian" function
describing the pressure-sensitivity and is the "deviatoric" function [29]
describing the Lode-dependence of yielding. The seven, non-negative material parameters:
define the shape of the meridian and deviatoric sections.
This criterion represents a smooth and convex surface, which is closed both in hydrostatic tension and compression and has a drop-like shape,
particularly suited to describe frictional and granular materials. This criterion has also been generalized to the case of surfaces with corners.[30]
In the -plane
In 3D space of principal stresses

Bigoni-Piccolroaz yield surface
Cosine Ansatz (Altenbach-Bolchoun-Kolupaev)
For the formulation of the strength criteria the stress angle
can be used.
The following criterion of isotropic material behavior
contains a number of other well-known less general criteria, provided suitable parameter values are chosen.
Parameters and describe the geometry of the surface in the -plane. They are subject to the constraints
which follow from the convexity condition. A more precise formulation of the third constraints is proposed in.[31] [32]
Parameters and describe the position of the intersection points of the yield surface with hydrostatic axis (space diagonal in the
principal stress space). These intersections points are called hydrostatic nodes. In the case of materials which do not fail at hydrostatic pressure
(steel, brass, etc.) one gets . Otherwise for materials which fail at hydrostatic pressure (hard foams, ceramics, sintered materials, etc.) it
follows .
The integer powers and , describe the curvature of the meridian. The meridian with is a straight line and with
– a parabola.
Barlat's Yield Surface
For the anisotropic materials, depending on the direction of the applied process (e.g., rolling) the mechanical properties vary and, therefore, using
an anisotropic yield function is crucial. Since 1989 Frederic Barlat has developed a family of yield functions for constitutive modelling of plastic
anisotropy. Among them, Yld2000-2D yield criteria has been applied for a wide range of sheet metals (e.g., aluminum alloys and advanced high-
strength steels). The Yld2000-2D model is a non-quadratic type yield function based on two linear transformation of the stress tensor:
:
where is the effective stress. and and are the transformed matrices (by linear transformation C or L):
where s is the deviatoric stress tensor.
for principal values of X’ and X”, the model could be expressed as:
and:
The Yld2000-2D yield loci for a AA6022 T4 sheet.
where are eight parameters of the Barlat's Yld2000-2D model to be identified with a set of experiments.
See also
Yield (engineering)
Plasticity (physics)
Stress
Henri Tresca
von Mises stress
Mohr–Coulomb theory
Strain
Strain tensor
Stress–energy tensor
Stress concentration
3-D elasticity
Frederic Barlat
References
10. Altenbach, H., Kolupaev, V.A. (2014) Classical and Non-Classical
1. Simo, J. C. and Hughes, T,. J. R., (1998), Computational Inelasticity, Failure Criteria, in Altenbach, H., Sadowski, Th., eds., Failure and
Springer. Damage Analysis of Advanced Materials, in press, Springer,
2. Lode, W. (1926). Versuche über den Einfuss der mittleren Heidelberg (2014), pp. 1–66
Hauptspannung auf das Fliessen der Metalle Eisen Kupfer und
11. Beljaev, N. M. (1979). Strength of Materials. Mir Publ., Moscow
Nickel. Zeitung Phys., vol. 36, pp. 913–939.
12. Bolchoun, A., Kolupaev, V. A., Altenbach, H. (2011) Convex and non-
3. Nayak, G. C. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1972). Convenient forms of convex yield surfaces (in German: Konvexe und nichtkonvexe
stress invariants for plasticity. Proceedings of the ASCE Journal of Fließflächen), Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, 75 (2), pp. 73–92
the Structural Division, vol. 98, no. ST4, pp. 949–954.
13. Khan and Huang. (1995), Continuum Theory of Plasticity. J.Wiley.
4. Chakrabarty, J., 2006, Theory of Plasticity: Third edition, Elsevier,
Amsterdam. 14. Neto, Periç, Owen. (2008), The mathematical Theory of Plasticity.
J.Wiley.
5. Brannon, R.M., 2009, KAYENTA: Theory and User's Guide, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 15. Podgórski, J. (1984). Limit state condition and the dissipation
function for isotropic materials, Archives of Mechanics 36(3), pp.
6. Tresca, H. (1864). Mémoire sur l'écoulement des corps solides 323-342.
soumis à de fortes pressions. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 59, p. 754.
16. Ivlev, D. D. (1959). The theory of fracture of solids (in Russ.: K teorii
7. Guest razrusheniia tverdykh tel), J. of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics,
8. Burzyński, W. (1929). Über die Anstrengungshypothesen. 23(3), pp. 884-895.
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 94 (21), pp. 259–262. 17. Sayir, M. (1970). Zur Fließbedingung der Plastizitätstheorie,
9. Yagn, Yu. I. (1931). New methods of strength prediction (in Russ.: Ingenieur-Archiv 39(6), pp. 414-432.
Novye metody pascheta na prochnost'). Vestnik inzhenerov i 18. Ottosen, N. S. (1975). Failure and Elasticity of Concrete, Danish
tekhnikov, 6, pp. 237–244. Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment Risö,
Engineering Department, Report Risö-M-1801, Roskilde.
19. Capurso, M. (1967). Yield conditions for incompressible isotropic and 26. Yu M.-H. (2002). Advances in strength theories for materials under
orthotropic materials with different yield stress in tension and complex stress state in the 20th century, Applied Mechanics
compression, Meccanica 2(2), pp. 118--125. Reviews, 55(5), pp. 169-218.
20. Lemaitre J., Chaboche J.L. (1990). Mechanics of Solid Materials, 27. Bigoni, D. Nonlinear Solid Mechanics: Bifurcation Theory and
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Material Instability. Cambridge University Press, 2012 .
21. Kolupaev, V.A. (2018). Equivalent Stress Concept for Limit State ISBN 9781107025417.
Analysis, Springer, Cham. 28. Bigoni, D. and Piccolroaz, A., (2004), Yield criteria for quasibrittle
22. Candland C.T. (1975). Implications of macroscopic failure criteria and frictional materials, International Journal of Solids and Structures
which are independent of hydrostatic stress, Int. J. Fracture 11(3), 41, 2855–2878.
pp. 540–543. 29. Podgórski, J. (1984). Limit state condition and the dissipation
23. Haythornthwaite R.M. (1961). Range of yield condition in ideal function for isotropic materials. Archives of Mechanics, 36 (3), pp.
plasticity, Proc ASCE J Eng Mech Div, EM6, 87, pp. 117–133. 323–342.
24. Rosendahl, P. L., Kolupaev, V A., Altenbach, H. (2019). Extreme 30. Piccolroaz, A. and Bigoni, D. (2009), Yield criteria for quasibrittle and
Yield Figures for Universal Strength Criteria, in Altenbach, H., frictional materials: a generalization to surfaces with corners,
Öchsner, A., eds., State of the Art and Future Trends in Material International Journal of Solids and Structures 46, 3587–3596.
Modeling, Advanced Structured Materials STRUCTMAT, Springer, 31. Altenbach, H., Bolchoun, A., Kolupaev, V.A. (2013).
Cham, pp. 259-324. Phenomenological Yield and Failure Criteria, in Altenbach, H.,
25. Szwed, A. (2000). Strength Hypotheses and Constitutive Relations of Öchsner, A., eds., Plasticity of Pressure-Sensitive Materials, Serie
Materials Including Degradation Effects, (in Polish: Hipotezy ASM, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 49–152.
Wytężeniowe i Relacje Konstytutywne Materiałów z Uwzględnieniem 32. Kolupaev, V.A. (2018). Equivalent Stress Concept for Limit State
Efektów Degradacji), Praca Doctorska, Wydział Inąynierii Lądowej Analysis, Springer, Cham.
Politechniki Warszawskiej, Warszawa.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yield_surface&oldid=938622447"
This page was last edited on 1 February 2020, at 10:57 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Yield Surface - Wikipedia

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

Yield Surface - Wikipedia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/23/2020 Yield surface - Wikipedia

where are the principal stresses.

Willam–Warnke yield surface

Invariants used to describe yield surfaces

where is the identity matrix.

Surfaces on which the invariants , , are

The principal stresses and the Haigh–Westergaard coordinates are related by

Examples of yield surfaces

Tresca yield surface

Figure 1: View of Tresca–Guest yield surface in 3D space of Figure 2: Tresca–Guest yield

von Mises yield surface

The von Mises yield criterion is expressed in the principal stresses as

where is the yield strength in uniaxial tension.

Figure 4: Comparison of Tresca–

ellipsoid centered of symmetry plane with (Schleicher (1926)),

hyperboloid of two sheets (Burzynski (1928), Yagn (1931)),

The relations compression-tension and torsion-tension can be computed to

The Poisson's ratios at tension and compression are obtained using

For ductile materials the restriction

has not been studied sufficiently.[11]

Mohr–Coulomb yield surface

Figure 6: Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in

Drucker–Prager yield surface

Figure 5: View of Mohr–Coulomb yield surface in 3D space of

Figure 7: View of Drucker–Prager yield surface in 3D space of

Figure 8: View of Drucker–Prager yield surface in 2D space of principal stresses

Bresler–Pister yield surface

Willam–Warnke yield surface

The yield criterion has the functional form

However, it is more commonly expressed in Haigh–Westergaard coordinates as

Figure 11: View of Willam–Warnke yield surface in

Podgórski and Rosendahl trigonometric yield surfaces

with the shape function of trigonal symmetry in the -plane

The Rosendahl criterion [24] reads

with the shape function of hexagonal symmetry in the -plane

Bigoni–Piccolroaz yield surface

The Bigoni–Piccolroaz yield criterion [27][28] is a seven-parameter surface defined by

where is the "meridian" function

describing the pressure-sensitivity and is the "deviatoric" function [29]

describing the Lode-dependence of yielding. The seven, non-negative material parameters:

define the shape of the meridian and deviatoric sections.

In 3D space of principal stresses

Cosine Ansatz (Altenbach-Bolchoun-Kolupaev)

For the formulation of the strength criteria the stress angle

The following criterion of isotropic material behavior

Barlat's Yield Surface

where s is the deviatoric stress tensor.

The Yld2000-2D yield loci for a AA6022 T4 sheet.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yield_surface&oldid=938622447"

This page was last edited on 1 February 2020, at 10:57 (UTC).

You might also like