07496419/89$3.00 + .00
Copyright "~ 1989PergamonPress pie
AN IMPLICIT TIMEINTEGRATION
PROCEDURE FOR A SET
OF INTERNAL VARIABLE CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS
FOR ISOTROPIC ELASTOVISCOPLASTICITY
A b s t r a c t  I n the past decade or so, a substantial body of work on state variable constitutive
equations for elastoviscoplasticity has appeared in the literature. Such constitutive equations
are known to be numerically very stiff. In this paper we formulate a fully implicit, Euler backward timeintegration procedure for a set of internal variable constitutive equations for isothermal, isotropic elastoviscoplasticity with isotropic hardening. The timeintegration procedure
is a generalization of the wellknown "radialreturn" algorithm of classical rateindependent
plasticity, and it should therefore be well suited for implementation in largescale finite dement
codes. As an example, we have implemented the procedure in the finite element code ABAQUS,
and using a set of specific constitutive equations, we show the results of two sample problems.
!. INTRODUCTION
It has long been recognized that the notion of rateindependence of plastic response is
only a convenient approximation at low homologous temperatures. In actuality, plastic flow due to dislocation motion is inherently ratedependent (e.g., Gn.so.N [1966])
even at low temperatures. Various extensions of the classical theories of plasticity to
model ratedependent behavior have been proposed in the literature. We find the state
variable formulation of Rice [1970,1971,1975] most attractive because of its strong
physical basis. For a recent large deformation, state variable formulation of a ratedependent model see A~'qAm)[1985]. This ratedependent model, along with other similar models in the literature, differs from the classical rateindependent "./2 flow theory"
in that there is no yield condition, and no loading/unloading criterion is used. Instead,
plastic flow is assumed to occur at all nonzero values of stress, although at low stresses
the rate of plastic flow may be immeasurably small. Further, the equivalent plastic grain
rate is prescribed by an appropriate constitutive function in the ratedependent model,
whereas it is determined by the consistency condition in the rateindependent model.
For the case of isothermal, isotropic elastoviscoplasticity, the state of a material element is characterized in Anand's model by the Cauchy stress T, and a scalar internal
variable called the isotropic deformation resistance. This scalar state variable is denoted
by s (for state), and taken to have the dimensions of stress. The ratedependent model
then consists essentially of a coupled set of differential evolution equations for the state
variables (T,s).
In general, the differential evolution equations for stress and deformation resistance
can only be integrated by numerical means. Constitutive equations of this type have long
been known to be numerically very stiff (e.g., KRn~G [1977]; Sttm et ai. [1977]). With
an explicit Euler forward timeintegration procedure, the size of the time increment is
generally restricted by numerical stability requirements (Copa~.Au [1975]). Although the
521
522
A . M . t . u s H et aL
Timeintelltatlot~ procedure
523
[19851):
(T,s),
(1)
where T is the Cauchy stress, and s is a scalar internal variable with dimensions of stress,
called the isotropic deformation resistance. The internal variable s represents an averaged isotropic resistance to macroscopic plastic flow offered by the underlying "isotropic" strengthening mechanisms such as dislocation density, solid solution strengthening,
subgrain and grain size effects, etc.
The evolution equations for the state variables are:
,~ = 2#~1 + Ix  (2/3)#1 1 1
/g,K
L " grad v
D E sym (L)
W  skew (L)
1
(2)
(3)
(4)
524
(5)
is the direction of plastic flow. Also, 6P is the equivalent tensile plastic strain rate
prescribed by a constitutive function
~P = f ( O , s ) .
(6)
(7)
To complete this ratedependent constitutive model for a particular material the material properties/functions that need to be specified are the elastic shear and bulk moduli,
/~ and r, respectively; the constitutive function (6) for the equivalent tensile plastic strain
rate; and the initial value and evolution function (7) for the deformation resistance.
Even for a particular material it is not expected that the same constitutive functions for
~P and s will be appropriate for all values of strain rates and temperatures. Indeed, different particular forms for these functions will in general be necessary for different
regimes o f strain rate and temperature. These forms should reflect the dominant features o f the underlying microstructural mechanisms which govern the material response
in the regime under consideration.
Note that in this ratedependent model there is no switching parameter which turns
plastic flow off or on; plastic flow is assumed to occur at all nonzero values of stress.
Further, the equivalent plastic strain rate, which is determined by the consistency condition in the classical J2 rateindependent model, here needs to be prescribed by a constitutive function. Since there is no yield condition to be satisfied in the ratedependent
model, there is also no consistency condition which needs to be satisfied in this model.
The overall mathematical structure o f this ratedependent model is simpler than the classical J2 rateindependent model because the plastic flow rule is a smooth function,
although the particular form of the constitutive function for ~P may be mathematically
very stiff in certain regions of plastic flow, requiring special care in formulating timeintegration algorithms.
A transformation o f the constitutive equations. Let the current configuration of the
body be the configuration at time t, and a subsequent configuration be the configuration at time r, with z > t. Next, let Q(g') be the rotation tensor which is defined to be
the solution of the initialvalue problem
Q(~) =w(~)Q(~),
Q(t) = 1,
t<~<r,
(8)
(9)
IAlthough these equations do not employ a yield condition, and associated loading, neutralloading and
unloading criteria, by the use of appropriate forms of the equivalent plastic strain rate function, this ratedependent model can be made to simulate nearly rateindependem material behavior.
Timeintegrationprocedure
525
where W(~') is the spin tensor. Using rotations Q(l') soMef'med, we define the bar transformation of a symmetric secondorder spatial tensor A(~') by
.~(~)  Qx(~')At~')Q(~').
(10)
Then, upon using (8) and (10) we have the important result
~(~) = QT(~')TV(~')Q(~').
(1 I)
Next, using (I0), (I I), the isotropy of .~, and the isotropy of the other constitutive
functions, we obtain the following set of bartransformed equations:
1. Evolution equation f o r the stress T:
"~ =  e . [ b  D P ] ,
(12)
D p = x/~2~PN,
(13)
~1 = 3 ~ ( T ' / # ) ,
(14)
0 = ~/(3/2)T'.T;
(15)
with
where
6P = f ( 0 , s ) .
(16)
(17)
Note that after transformation, the evolution equation for stress involves only the
material time derivative of i" instead of the more complicated Jaumann derivative of
T. Such a transformation has previously been used by REED a ATLtmI [1983] and NAGTEGAAL& VELDPAU$ [1984] (see also, HUGHES [1984]; WEaER [1988]). Nagtegaal and
Veldpaus call the bartransformed quantities "rotationneutralized" quantities. Regardless of terminology, after transformation the constitutive equations take on a simple
form which greatly aids the timeintegration procedure.
A procedure for integrating the evolution eqns 02) and (17) over a generic time increment of length 4 t in an incrememal finite element analysis is presented here. Previously,
we have defined the current configuration of the body as the configuration at time t,
526
A . M . L us~ et al.
and the subsequent configuration as the configuration at time 7". For this section it is
more convenient to make the following identifications
tgI ~
ln+ 1 E
ts
7",
Accordingly, subscripts 'n' and 'n + 1' on variables indicate that the variables are evaluated at times t~ and t.+~, respectively.
It is assumed that the initial state (T.,s~) is known, with T~ = T~ (see eqns (9) and
(10)). Our goal then is to determine the state (Tn+~,s.+~), and thus march the solution
forward in time. Using eqns (10), (12), (13), and (17) we obtain:
(18)
s~+l = sn +
tn+l
(19)
s dt.
1
Here Qn+l is the rotation of the configuration at time t.+~ relative to the configuration
at time t~. It is given by the solution to the initialvalue problem of eqns (8)and (9),
evaluated at time tn+l.
Using the Euler backward m e t h o d o f integration, the isotropy of ,g, and assuming
that l~ is constant across a time increment, the solution of eqns (18) and (19)may be
written as
(20)
Atg(#~+l,Sn+l),
(21)
(22)
T~ ~ Q~+IT .Q~+l,
r
(23)
s~+l = s . +
where
with
and
AE E Q.+t
If,
D dt
t.
(24)
The rotation Qn+, and the strain increment AE are computed from the configurations of the body at tn and t~+j since these are the only data. Here, without going into
Timeintegration procedure
527
the details of the computations of these quantities from the incremental kinematics, we
suppose that in the constitutive timeintegration routine of a displacementbased finite
element program, 1". and zl E are provided as inputs (we will come back to this point
in Section V). Thus, T]+~ can be calculated directly at the beginning of the solution
process. To update the state variables using (20) and (21), we need to calculate Nn+t,
~+~ =f(#.+~,s.+~) and s.+t. We show next that N.+I is known in terms of T,~+~, and
hence it is also known at the beginning of the solution process. Therefore, the timeintegration problem reduces to determining s.+~ and #.+1.
Taking the deviatoric part of (20), using T;,+, = 2 ~ 0 . + ~ N.+~ and rearranging, we
obtain
(25)
T.+,/IIT.+,II
= 3~(T.+t/an+,).
(26)
where
8,~+1  ~/(3/2)T.+x
*'
. T n*'
+I.
(27)
(28)
where
~n+l " 0n+l/O',~+l
(29)
By analogy to the radialreturn method for the classical J2 flow theory, the factor r/.+l
may be called the "radialreturn" factor.
Next, from the deviatoric part of (20) we obtain
(30)
Thus, from (21) and (30) the problem reduces to solving for s.+l and O.+l from the
pair of scalar equations
(31)
(32)
In the Appendix we suggest a twolevel iterative method for obtaining the solution for
a large class of functions f and g.
528
A. 5,1. LUSHet
al.
o.+t
~(3/2) .+l"T.+l.
Atg(O,,.l,s.+l)
= O,
o.+l + 3#zltf(#.+1,S.+l)
= O.
~.
#.+I 
~n+l
~n+l/ffn+l
(1";,+1  ~';,).
Here we note that the right hand side is the elastic deviatoric strain increment, which
is bounded and generally very small. Therefore, we expect that 9~+1 " D' as At
increases. But physically, this is the precise behavior of the constitutive equations in the
Timeintegration procedure
529
case of constant s. To see this, note that we can rewrite the bartransformed evolution
equation for the deviatoric stress as follows:
This is recognized as a firstorder, nonlinear, ordinary differential equation, with positive coefficients and (for a constant D' across a time step) a constant "forcing term"
on the right side. For typical functions f , the solution of this equation with arbitrary
initial conditions consists of a rapid asymptotic approach to the steadystate stress T~
at which B p = D' and ~' = 0, with no overshoot or oscillations because this is a first
order differential equation. Experience with this equation indicates that the asymptotic approach B p ~ D' is very close as long as A t is large enough to give a strain increment A E ' ( ~ A tD') that exceeds significantly the elastic strain increment (T~  i",.') /
2~, where T; is the initial value of T' for the above differential equation. Thus, it may
be concluded that the Euler backward result for [)~+~ approaches the analytical behavior for large strain increments, and therefore the Euler backward result for stress Tn+~
must also approach the exact solution because the plastic stretching is a direct function
of stress in the case of constant s. This conclusion is consistent with the observations
made by HuGH~S ~, TA:O_OR [1978].
Consider next what happens when s evolves during the increment. The Euler backward result for sn+~ will have some error because the function g generally varies during an increment, whereas a constant value is assumed in using eqn (21). Although
eqn (20) still gives the DP+~ ~ D' as A t increases, this only suffices to give the correct
direction for the stress 1";,+~. The magnitude of this stress will generally be slightly in
error due to the approximate solution for s~+~. As will be shown in Section V, this
error may be controlled by limiting the size of the equivalent tensile plastic strain increments, where the equivalent tensile plastic strain is defined, as usual, by
~P(t) =
~0t ~P dt.
In typical "implicit" finite element procedures which use such nonlinear constitutive
models, the discretized (weak form of the) balance equation for linear momentum generates an estimated incremental motion which is used to calculate the integration point
values of the stress T and the deformation resistance s at the end of the increment. If
these stresses do not satisfy the momentum balance equation at the end of the increment, then the estimated incremental motion is revised and new end of increment
stresses are calculated; iteration continues until the momentum balance equation is satisfied to within acceptable tolerances. For a Newton type iterative method for revising the
estimated incremental motion, one needs to compute a consistent Jacobian matrix. As
emphasized by H u o ~ s [1984], Jacobian matrices are used only in the search for the
incremental motion that leads to satisfaction of the momentum balance equation, but
in the end have no effect on the accuracy of the solution. However, in order to achieve
the quadratic convergence which is characteristic of Newton's method, it is important
530
A.M. Lush et aL
to evaluate this linearized form accurately (NAGTEGAAL& VELDPAUS [1984], StMo ~ TAYLOR [1985]). In this section we calculate the constitutive contribution
e ( r ) =
0
T(r)
OzlE
(33)
to the Jacobian matrix for a global Newton type equilibrium iteration scheme.
From (20),
e ( r ) = 0AE0T*(r)  (x/6t~zlt) N ( r ) 0  ~
~P(r) + ~P(r) ~
N(r)
].
(34)
Using (22), (26), and (27) straightforward calculations using the approximation: that
Q ( r ) is not influenced by a variation in AE, give
T*(r) ~ .~,
(35)
0
6*(r) = 3 ~ M ( r ) ,
OAE
(36)
OAE
N(r) ( ~
t [2~(~  ( 1 / 3 ) 1 @ 1)  N ( r ) @ M ( r ) ] ,
(37)
where
M ( r ) m ~ [ N ( r ) ] = 2/xN(r).
(38)
(39)
The quantity dO(r) is obtained by linearizing (31) and (32) and solving the resulting pair
of equations. This gives
(40)
dO(r) = c ( r ) d # * ( r ) ,
where
(bill
c(r) = [a~ + a~\~/)
~,
(41)
2As shown by WEnER[1988], in order to compute a fully consistent Jacobian, the variation in Q(T) with
AE should be taken into account. However, for purposes of implementing our algorithm in ABAQUS, we
have had to make this approximation becausethe complete kinematic information required to implement the
exact Jacobian is not available to the user.
Timeintegration procedure
531
with
at "
1+
31~At~o fl,,
(42)
0
a2 = 3t~at ~s f l 
(43)
0
bl = At ~~ gl,,
(44)
b2  I 
(45)
t O gl,
Substituting for d#(r) from (40) into (39), solving for dlP(r) and using (36) we obtain
OAE
~u(r) =
(46)
atl3#(l  c(r))t I
Finally, substituting (35), (37), and (46) into (34), using (38) and rearranging, we
obtain
~ ( r ) = ,l~(r)  ( 3 / 2 ) g ( r )  I M ( r ) M ( r ) ,
(47)
where
~ ( r ) = 2/2(r)(9  ( 1 / 3 ) 1 1) + xl 1,
(48)
~(r) = ,7(r)t~,
(49)
(
7/(r)  [1
3~At~P(T)
8(r)
+ 3
p(7)
'
gtr)'=(~~)l~tr)c(r)l,
(51)
M ( r ) = ~.[N(r)] = 2/~N(r).
(52)
Note that ~(7) is the radialreturn factor defined in eqn (29). For programming purposes
it is useful to rewrite ~ ( r ) as
e ( r ) = 2t~(r)~l + {K  ( 2 / 3 ) M r ) l l 1  2t~l~(r)  c ( r ) l N ( r ) N ( r ) .
(53)
Note that as A t , 0, e , . When the time step is sufficiently large, the difference
between these two moduli can be substantial. Use o f the moduli d~ instead o f the moduli
e in the Newton procedure can lead to very slow convergence.
532
A . M . Lush et al.
close to 1.0 by adjusting the size of the time increments. After an equilibrium solution
for a time increment/tt, = tn+~  t~ was found, the value of R was checked to determine whether this solution would be accepted. If R was greater than 1.25, then the solution was rejected and a new time increment was clone that was smaller by the factor
(0.85/R). If R _< 1.25, then the solution was accepted and the value of R was used to
determine the first trial size for the next time increment. The following algorithm was
used:
If 0.8 < R < 1.25 then At,+~ = Ate~R;
if 0.5 < R < 0.8 then Atn+l = 1.25At.;
if
Timeintegration procedure
533
A second modification to the STATIC procedure in ABAQUS concerned the preliminary iteration that was done for each increment. In this preliminary iteration, ABAQUS
determines the global stiffness matrix that is used to calculate the kinematical estimate
for the first iteration. As part of the procedure, ABAQUS calculates a small trial solution for the kinematical increment in order to establish the loading direction at each integration point. The loading directions are then used for determining the material point
Jacobians. For the example calculations presented here, it was not necessary to use these
preliminary loading directions. Instead, we determined the required Jacobian by extrapolating from the previous increment to approximate the parameters in eqn (53). An
appreciable reduction in computational expense was achieved by suppressing the
kinematic calculation in the preliminary iteration. The extrapolation Jacobian was
obtained by approximating the parameter 7/(~) by
n ( r ) ~ 0 ( t ) / { e ( t )
+ 3~At~P(t)}.
If $(t) was small enough for SP(t) to be negligible, then it was assumed that ~(~')  1.
Equation (41) was used to evaluate c(r), although the parameters am, a2, bm, and b2
defined in eqns (42) through (45) were evaluated using the derivatives of f and g at the
beginning of the increment, instead of at the end. Finally, it was assumed that the direction N(r) was the same as N(t).
Specific constitutive f u n c t i o n s
The specific constitutive functions f and g used in our example problems are the following isothermal version of the functions for high temperature deformations proposed
recently by BaowN, K ~ A~Am~ [1989]:
gP = f ( O , s ) = A[sinh(~O/s)] m/.,
and
= g(O,s) = h(O,s)f(O,s).
The function h had two possible expressions, depending on whether s is less than or
greater than a saturation value s* given by
$* = g [ $ P l A } n.
In both expressions, the functional dependence of h upon a comes from its appearance
in s*. For our example calculations, we have used the data given in Table 1 for Al
1100O at 400C taken from Bnow~, ~
a ANAND [1989].
534
A . M . Lush e t a / .
Material Parameter
Value
4.75 10 ~ sec ~
0.23348
29.7 MP a
1115.6 MP a
1.3
18.92 MPa
0.07049
20.2 G P a
66.0 G P a
7.0
so
ho
a
n
25
20
e,,,
15
Reference
10
O ,
0.0
Euler backward:
2~; s t r a i n
Euler backward:
10~. s t r a i n
inc.
inc.
, , , , , , , , I , , , , t , , , l l . . , J t J , , , I , , , J , , J t l
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Strain
Fig. 1. Uniaxial tension results for A L 11004) at 673 K with a constant strain rate of O.01/sec.
Timeintegration procedure
535
the plastic strain increments were around 70 times the elastic strain for the 270 case, and
around 350 times the elastic strain for the 10070 case. The small errors observed in Fig. 1
are due primarily to the approximate integration of ~ given by eqn (21). For example,
in the accurate reference calculation the average value of $ during the first 10070 of strain
history was 0.649 MPa/sec, whereas for the first increment in the calculation with 10070
strain increments, the calculated value g(e,+~ ,s,+t) was only 0.497 MPa/sec. Consequently, the change in s during the first increment of the 10070 case was in error by
23.3070, leading to a 4.2070 error in s,+l which in turn led to a similar error in the stress
magnitude e,+l. Based on the results in Fig. 1, a 2070 limit on equivalent plastic tensile
strain increments was chosen for all subsequent calculations in this paper to ensure that
accurate results were obtained.
As described in the Appendix, a twolevel iterative procedure was used to solve
eqns (31) and (32) for all calculations in this paper. It worked especially well for the
constant strain rate uniaxial calculations. As listed in Table 2, for the 2070 case in Fig. 1,
an average of 1.7 Level 1 iterations were required per increment, with a maximum of
3. In addition, an average of 1.1 Level 2 iterations were required for each Level 1 iteration, with a maximum of 3. For the 10070 case in Fig. 1, an average of 2.7 Level I iterations were required per increment, with a maximum of 4, and an average of 1.3 Level
2 iterations were required for each Level 1 iteration, with a maximum of 2. Note that
only 4 Level 1 iterations, each requiring at most 2 Level 2 iterations, were required when
a 10% plastic strain increment was taken starting from a stressfree state. Note also that
only one iteration was required at both levels for many increments in the 2070 case. This
means that the forward gradient starting estimates were accurate enough in these increments. It may be concluded that the iterative scheme performed very efficiently for this
problem.
Figure 2 presents the uniaxial stressstrain result obtained for an example problem
in which three abrupt strain rate changes occurred. The strain rate was initially 0.001
sec  t , jumping to 0.01 sec t after 10070 strain had accumulated, and again to 0.1 sec ~
after 20% strain had accumulated. Finally, the strain rate was abruptly decreased to
0.001 sec ~ after 3070 strain had accumulated. For comparison, an extremely accurate
reference curve that was obtained by using an explicit Euler forward timeintegration
procedure and approximately 40000 time increments is included in Fig. 2. It is seen that
the Euler backward result is quite accurate. This problem was a good test of the automatic timestepping algorithm. Each time the strain rate was increased, the first attempt
Table 2. Statistics for the constitutive level iterations at material points for the example calculations
Level 1 iterations
per
increment
Level 2 iterations
per
Level 1 iteration
1.7 ave
3 max
1.1 ave
3 max
2.7 ave
4 max
1.3 ave
2 max
Upsetting
1.1 ave
3 max
1.6 ave
6 max
Planestrain forging
1.1 ave
5 max
1.9 ave
6 max
Calculation
536
A.M. LUSHet aL
30
.........
25
~=.00l/sec
I .........
I .........
I
I
I
I
~=.01/sec
I .........
I
I ~=.001/sec
~=.l/sec
15
I0
5
0
'
0,0
'
'
'
'
0.!
0.2
0.3
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
0.4
Strain
Fig. 2. Uniaxial tension results with abrupt strain rate changes for AL 1100O at 673 K.
at the next increment resulted in a plastic strain increment that was too large, and the
increment had to be redone. On the other hand, when the strain rate was decreased by
a factor of 100, the automatic timestepping algorithm could only increase the increment
size by 50070 with each successive increment. Consequently, it took 13 increments for the
algorithm to adjust the increment size appropriately.
Upset f o r g i n g e x a m p l e
4These elements in ABAQUS address the problem of meshlockingin (near) incompressible situations by
using the method of NAGI~G.~I.,PARKS~, RICE[1974].
Timeintegration procedure
AX
lS
OUTER
rlI DOLE
537
SURFACE
PLANE
Figure 4 shows the history of total die force versus die displacement for this calculation. An experimental result is included in the figure for comparison. Apart from the
initial loadup region, the agreement is excellent. The discrepancy between the calculated
and the experimental force/stroke curves in the initial regions is because the experimental data are the raw data, and it has not been corrected for the loadtrain compliance.
Note that jumps in die force occur in the calculated result whenever new nodes came
in contact with the die.
Figure 5 shows the deformed finite element mesh superposed on the undeformed mesh
after 59% height reduction. The billet is seen to have expanded radially by a considerable amount. Five elements have folded over and come in contact with the die.
Figure 6 shows contours of equivalent tensile plastic strain after 59% upsetting. A
"dead zone" with less equivalent plastic strain is seen in the upper left portion of the
mesh. It results from constrained radial flow due to frictional forces from the die. A
zone of more intense plastic flow is seen in the upper right corner of the mesh. This was
ABAOUS
i
0
I
4
I
Die
I
6
sRxoke
i

I
8
10
12
mm
Fig. 4. Die force versus die stroke for axisymmetric upsetting of an AL 1100 billet at 673 K.
538
A, M. Lush et al.
..
O
I
'
I
I
T
I
, . . . . .
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
I
l
I
l
1
l
1
~+~~+'++++4
J , * l l l l l * t l
, o l l , l o o l ~ l
~+o+++++4
t t I D l l l , l * l
I * * l * l l t t * l
~+++++4
I
F++~I4~I~IN
l
~
l
~+++"+++4
 l l ,  * * l l l ,
i , i J l * * l , J a
Fig. 5. Results for the upsetting problem after 59% height reduction.
X.D.
UCH.UE
1
2
3
4
0.0
0.2:
0.4
0.6
5
8
0.8
1L.O
1.2
1.4
8
9
10
11
1.8
I.B
2.0
][ D .
URL.I.E
2
3
4
S
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
:B
38.
39.
10
49.
11
4,1.
associated with foldover o f the elements at the corner. Figure 7 shows contours o f the
deformation resistance s after 59% upsetting. A region o f softer material is seen at the
upper left in the figure, corresponding to the dead zone.
This calculation required 167 increments and a total solution time o f 4900 seconds on
a Data General MVI0000 machine. A n average o f 2.1 global iterations per increment
was required in this calculation to obtain the converged solution. It was not necessary
to repeat any increments due to excessive plastic strain increments or nonconvergence
o f the global iterations, although 6 global iterations were required for the first time
increment in the calculation, during which 13 nodes came in contact with the upper die.
Timeintegrationprocedure
539
The average value of the control measure R for the increments in this calculation was
0.96, indicating that the automatic timestepping algorithm was controlling the calculation very effectively. Statistics of the constitutive level iterations for this problem are
given in Table 2. It may be concluded that the ratedependent solution procedure described in this paper worked very well for this problem.
section.
circular to cruciformcross
540
A . M . LUSH e t ul.
RFACE
p.
W
S'~IMETRY
try in the specimen and dies. Accordingly, only one quadrant of the specimen was
modeled, as shown in Fig. 9. A total of 96 ABAQUS type CPESR elements were used
for the model. These are eightnoded plane strain elements with "reduced" (2 x 2 Gaussian) integration. [These elements in ABAQUS address the problem of meshlocking in
(near) incompressible situations by using reduced integration of the hydrostatic pressure.] The die was modeled as a translating rigid surface. Contact conditions between
specimen and die were modeled by covering the outer surface of the specimen with
planestrain interface elements (ABAQUS type IRS22), which prevented penetration of
the die surface. Preliminary studies showed that the friction coefficient between the billet
and dies was close to zero with the lubricant used. Therefore, contact in the finite element calculations was modeled as frictionless. The specified value for maximum increments in equivalent tensile plastic strain was 270. The complete calculation required 19
hours on a Data General MV10000 computer. A total of 485 time increments were taken
to simulate the forging process. Figure 10 compares the die load versus stroke result for
20
ABAOUS
Z
t5
10
o
Die s t r o k e  m m
Fig. 10. Die force versus die stroke for planestrain forging of an A L I 100 billet at 673 K.
Timeintegration procedure
541
this calculation with the experimental data. Overall, the agreement between the measured and predicted die load is very good.
Figure 11 shows the finite element mesh after several stages of deformation. Until
around 4 mm of stroke, the material flow is seen to be predominantly horizontal. When
the die becomes filled in this direction, the flow pattern changes and the load is seen to
rise in Fig. 10. Horizontal die filling occurred at a slightly smaller die stroke in the experiment than in the finite element calculation, but this can be attributed to slight imperfections in the die shape and asymmetry in the flow, which were not modeled. Frictional
effects associated with breakdown of the lubricant layer as a result of large sliding
motions may also have contributed to the discrepancy between the calculated and measured die force versus stroke curves. Contours of equivalent plastic tensile strain after
5.43 mm die stroke are shown in Fig. 12. Contours of internal variable s after 5.43 mm
STROKE
1.G0
mm
STROKE
2.00
mm
STROKE
3. Sg
mm
STROKE
4.QB
mm
STROKE
5. RQ
mm
STROKE
5.43
mm
Fig. 11. Finite element mesh after several stages of deformation for the planestrain forging problem.
542
A . M . Lush e t a / .
1
2
3
4
5
6
8. Q
Q.4
0.8
1.2:
l.E
2.8
Fig. 12. Contours of equivalent plastic tensile strain after 5.43 mm die stroke in the planestrain forging
problem.
die stroke are shown in Fig. 13. Note that two solid lines are included in Figs. 12 and
13 to indicate the boundaries within the element mesh across which the mesh density was
changed.
Referring to Fig. 11 again, the elements in the region where flash is being produced
are seen to be severely distorted. Clearly, the calculation would have benefitted from
a remeshing operation. In the flash region the plastic flow rate is very high causing the
allowable time step to be very small. Consequently, 447o of the increments were
required to complete the last 1.43 mm of stroke.
This calculation was a good test of the timeintegration procedure. Statistics for the
constitutive level integrations are given in Table 2. The number of iterations taken at
each level are small, and this illustrates the rapid convergence of the twolevel iteration
scheme in a nontrivial problem.
It is important to note that ABAQUS encountered some difficulties with the global
iterations for this problem. A total of 43 increments had to be repeated with smaller
42.
4S.
4a.
~=1.
4S
Fig. 13. Contours of internal variable s after 5.43 mm die stroke in the planestrain forging problem.
Timeintegration procedure
543
REFERENCES
1964
1966
1970
1971
1974
1974
1975
1975
WILKINS, M.L., "Calculation of ElasticPlastic Flow," in ALDER el al. (eds.), Methods in Computational Physics, 3, Academic Press, New York.
GIt~N, J.J., "Progress in the Microdynamical Theory of Plasticity,"in Proceedings of the Fifth
National Congress of Applied Mechanics, ASME, pp. 385403.
RICE, J.R., "On the Structure of StressStrain Relations for TimeDependent Plastic Deformations
in Metals," ASME J. Applied Mech., 37, 728.
RICE, J.R., "InelasticConstitutive Relations for Solids: An Internal Variable Theory. and Its Application to Metal Plasticity,"J. Mech. Physics of Solids, 19, 433.
N^G'rEo~o.t, J.C., PXRKS, D.M. and RJcE, J.R., "On Numerically Accurate Finite Element Solutions
in the Fully Plastic Range," Comp. Methods Applied Mech. Eng., 4, 153.
ZtENKIEWtCZ, O.C. and COP,ME^U, I.C., "Viscoplasticity, Plasticityand Creep in Elastic SolidsA Unified Numerical Solution Approach," Intl. J. Numerical Methods in Eng., 8, 821.
CORUE^U, I., "Numerical Stabilityin QuasiStatic ElastoViscoplasticity,"Intl. J. Numerical Methods in Eng., 9, 109.
RICE, J.R., "Continuum mechanics and thermodynamics of plasticityin relationto m/croscale deformation mechanisms," in ARC,ON, A,S. (ed.),Constitutive Equations in Plasticity,The M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 2379.
SFor plane stress problems, in which the outofplane strain components are not defined kinematically,
some modifications to the timeintegration procedure will be necessary.
544
1976
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1978
1978
1979
1980
1980
1980
1981
1982
1982
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
A . M . LUSHet at.
KRIEG,R.D. and KEY, S.W., "Implementation of a Timelndepeodent Plasticity Theory into Structural Computer Programs," in STRICKLtN,J.A. and SACZALSKI,K.J. (eds.), Constitutive Equations
in Viscoplasticity: Computational and Engineering Aspects, ASME AMD20, pp. 125137.
Kxmc, R.D., "Numerical integration of some new unified plasticitycreep formulations," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, paper M6/4.
Kg~G, R.D. and KR~G D.B., "Accuracies of Numerical Solution Methods for ElasticPerfectly Plastic
Model," ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 99, 510.
MILLER,A.K. and SHirt, C.F., "An Improved Method for Numerical Integration of Constitutive
Equations of the Work HardeningRecovery Type," ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, 99, 275.
SHIn, C.F., DELO~r~Zl, H.G., and MILLER,A.K., "A stable computational scheme for stiff timedependent constitutive equations," in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Structural
Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper L2/2.
ARGYRIS,J.H., VAZ, L.E., and W R . ~ , K.J., "Improved Solution Methods for Inelastic Rate Problems," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 16, 231.
HtrGm~s,T.J.R. and TAYLOR,R.L., "Unconditionally Stable Algorithms for QuasiStatic ElastoViscoPlastic Finite Element Analysis," Computers and Structures, 8, 169.
KAr~CHI,M.B., ZmNKmWICZ, O.C., and OWEN, D.R.J., "The ViscoPlastic Approach to Problems
of Plasticity and Creep Involving Geometric Nonlinear Effects," Intl. J. Numerical Methods in Eng.,
12, 169.
WiLttma, K.J., "Numerical Solution of Inelastic Rate Problems," Computers and Structures, 8, 511.
Scm~x~R, H.L., Ktn.aK, R.L., and KXAM~R,J.M., "Accurate Numerical Solutions for ElasticPlastic
Models," ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 101, 226.
HUCHES,T.J.R. and WtSGET, J., "Finite Rotation Effects in Numerical Integration of Rate Constitutive Equations Arising in LargeDeformation Analysis," Intl. J. for Numerical Methods in Eng.,
15, 1862.
KUMAR,V., MORJARIA,U., and MtJKHERJEE,S., "Numerical Integration of Some Stiff Constitutive
Models of Inelastic Deformation," ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 102, 92.
OwEs, D.R.J. and HIHTO.~, E., Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice, Pineridge Press
Ltd., Swansea, UK.
SNYDER,M.D. and BATHE, K.J., "A Solution Procedure for ThermoelasticPlastic and Creep Problems," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 64, 49.
TELLES,J.C.F. and BPa~ama, C.A., "Elastic/Viscoplastic Problems Using Boundary Elements," International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 24, 605.
ZIRtN,R.M. and KREMPL, E., "A Finite Element Timelntegration Method for the Theory of Viscoplasticity Based on Infinitesimal Total Strain," ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 104,
130.
REED,K.W. and ATLtml, S.N., "Analyses of Large Quasistatic Deformations of Inelastic Bodies by
a New HybridStress Finite Element Algorithm," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 39, 245.
TAYLOR,L.M. and BECKER, E.B., "Some Computational Aspects of Large Deformation RateDependent Plasticity Problems," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 41, 251.
CgASDRA,A. and Mtmm~1~.mE, S., "A Finite Element Analysis of Metal Forming Problems with an
ElasticViscoplastic Material Model," Intl. J. for Numerical Methods in Eng., 20, 1613.
Hmmrr, H.D., "ABAQUS/EPGEN, A General Purpose Finite Element Code with Emphasis on Nonlinear Applications," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 77, 271.
HUGHES,T.J.R., "Numerical Implementation of Constitutive Models: RateIndependent Deviatoric
Plasticity," in NEMATNAsSER,S., ASARO, R.J., and HEGEMmR,G.A. (eds.), Theoretical Foundation
for LargeScale Computations of Nonlinear Material Behavior, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp. 2957.
NAGTEGAAL,J.C. and VELDPAtrS,F.E., "On the Implementation of Finite Strain Plasticity Equations
in a Numerical Model," in P ~ ,
J.F.T., ZmNxm,aqcz, O.C., WooD, R.D., and ALEXANDER,J.M.
(eds.), Numerical Analysis of Forming Processes, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, pp. 351371.
PEIRCE,D., SHLH, C.F., and NEEDLe,N, A., " A Tangent Modulus Method for Rate Dependent
Solids," Computers and Structures, lg, 875.
A N ~ , L., "Constitutive Equations for HotWorking of Metals," International Journal of Plasticity,
!, 213.
ANAND,L., LUSH, A., BRmEHO, M.F., and PARKS, D.M., "A timeintegration procedure for a set
of internal variable type elastoviscoplastic constitutive equations," Report of Research in Mechanics of Materials, Department of Mechanical Engineering, M.I.T.
StMo, J.C. and TAYLOR, R.L., "Consistent Tangent Operators for RateIndependent Elastoplasticity," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 48, 101.
CO~DTS,D. and KOLLMANN,F.G., "An Implicit Time Integration Scheme for Inelastic Constitutive
Equations with Internal State Variables," Intl. J. for Numerical Methods in Eng., 23, 533.
NAGTEGAAL,J.C. and REBELO,N., "On the Development of a General Purpose Finite Element Pro
Timeintegration procedure
1986
1987
1988
1989
545
gram for Analysis of Forming Processes," in MArrL~SSOS, K., SAMUELSSOr~,A., WOOD, R.D., and
ZmNgmWlCZ, O.C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods
in Industrial Forming Processes, August 1986, 4149.
LusH, A.M. and ANAND, L., "Implicit timeintegration procedures for a set of internal variable constitutive equations for hotworking," in MA'r'nmsoN, K., SAMtmLSSON,A., WOOD, R.D., and Zn:~'Kmwtcz, O.C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Numerical Methods in
Industrial Forming Processes, August 1986, 131137.
TA.~X^,T.G. and MILLER, A.K., "Development of a Method for Integrating TimeDependent Constitutive Equations with Large, Small, or Negative Strain Rate Sensitivity," to be published.
WEmm, G., Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
BROWN,S.B., KIM, K.H., and A~A~rD, L., "An Internal Variable Constitutive Model for Hot Working of Metals," International Journal of Plasticity, 5, 95.
APPENDIX
= O,
(A.l)
and
6.+1  07~+1 + 3 1 x A t f ( # n + t , s n + l )
= 0
(A.2)
for determining s.+~ and 0.+1, where the subscript n designates that the quantity is evaluated at time t. and the subscript n + 1 designates that the quantity is evaluated at time
t.+~. In general, these equations can only be solved by iterative means. A twolevel
iteration scheme has been found to work well for all functions f and g that have been
tried by the authors. The main iterative loop, denoted Level 1, operates to solve eqn (A. 1)
for s.+,, as follows. First, an estimate is made for s.+l. Next, eqn (A.2) is solved to
find the value #.+t that is consistent with the estimate s.+t. Solution of eqn (A.2) is
done using a bounded NewtonRaphson iteration scheme, which is denoted Level 2. The
consistent pair (0.+~ ,S.+l) are substituted in eqn (A.1) to determine whether the error
is within the prescribed tolerance. If not, the estimate for s.+l is corrected using a
NewtonRaphson scheme and the procedure is repeated.
Initial estimates are needed for 0.+1 and s.+l to start the iterations. A forward gradient approximate solution of the two governing equations is used. The functionsfand
g are approximated by Taylor's series expansions about the beginning state (O.,s.),
i.e.,
af.
af.
f.+,  f. + ~
(a.,  ~.) + 7s. (s.+,  s.).
and
ag.
g.+,  g. + ~
8g.
546
A.M. Lusrl et aL
al  1 + 3t~At Of.
06.'
a.  3t~At Of'z'
"
Os,,
'
Og.
bl = At 36~'
and
b2  1  A t Og~
OS.
Level 1 iterations
The following steps are done for a generic iteration k, in which a trial value s~+l is
being tested for satisfaction of eqn (A.I).
Step I. Determine the value 6~+~ that satisfies eqn (A.2) by performing the Level 2
iterations. The derivative da,+~/ds,+
k
k ~ is also determined, where it is understood that #~+l is'viewed implicitly in Level 2 as being a function of s~+~.
Step 2. Determine the error Eft associated with the estimate s~+t:
E: = sL,
 s .  ,a t g L t,
where
g nk+ l ~
g(O~+t ,Sn+l)
k
Timeintegration procedure
547
E~
dE~/ds~+ l '
where
desk
1
snk+z+ A s k.
da~+~
~.k+l = #~+l + ~
~.+ l
dSk+ l
As k.
Level 2 iterations
The following steps are done for a generic Level 2 iteration i, where the value s~+~
(for iteration k in Level 1) is specified and the value #ff~.] is being tested for satisfaction
of eqn (A.2).
Step 1. Determine the error Eok'~ associated with ak,i
n+l
Eko,i = a.+l
k,i  O*+t + 3pAtfff$il,

where
fn~i __f ( #n~',, snk+,).
d#~+,
dS~+l
3tzAt(af~.',/as~+l)
1 + 3#At(Of~.il/O#.~ij)
548
A . M . Lush et al.
~ki
dE~'k i /don;
I
where
dEao,i
k,i 1
Of n+
k,C= 1 + 3t~At *k,'C"
dan+ I
O~n+t
Step 4. Based upon the sign of the NewtonRaphson correction, update either the
upper bound O,ppe, or the lower bound Glower for O~+~, and then calculate the
maximum allowable correction, as given by a quasibisection scheme. If
A o ~ < 0, then
Gupper ~ On+
~k,i I
and
k,i
1
k,i
A O m a x = 2 (Olwer   On+l).
and
k,i
~k,i
A O m a x ~ Guppe r   On+ 1.
k,i
k,i
= A amax.
Otherwise,
A{~ k,i ~__ A G Nk,i
R.
n+l
k , i +=l
~k i
A o k , i.
On~dl +
Each time the Level 2 iterations are performed, it is necessary to initialize the bounds
#up~r and #tower The initial lower bound atower is always zero. The initial upper bound
is determined as follows. Given that
Oup~r
for iteration k in Level 1 (with estimate s;,+~)
k
,S,+~)
are
both
positive,
it
follows
from eqn (A.2) that
#~+l and f(Ok+l k
k
"*
On+ I ~ Gtt+l,
(A.3)
Timeintegration procedure
549
and
f(#~+t,s~+l) < #'~+.___L
3#At"
(A.4)
Equation (A.3) gives an upper bound for #~+~ directly. Assuming that the function f
can be inverted, i.e.,
O= fI(~P,s),
[ #,:+1 s ~
(A.5)
The smaller of the bounds given by eqns (A.3) and (A.5) is used to initialize #upper.
Note that eqns (A.3) and (A.5) correspond to the limiting cases where elastic and plastic
strain increments dominate the response, respectively. In many cases the correct solution may be very close to one of these hounds. Therefore, when the Nex~onRaphson
correction is positive a sufficiently large correction is allowed by the bounding scheme
to place the next estimate ~,n+l
=k.i+l at the upper bound.
If the bounds are not enforced in Level 2, a large number of iterations could be
required because eqn (A.2) is very nonlinear for large strain increments and typical functions f. When an estimate on'k'i+~is too large, the NewtonRaphson correction is too
small, causing the iterations to converge very slowly from above. On the other hand,
when an estimate on+~'k'~is tOO small the NewtonRaphson correction is generally too
large, and the next iteration starts another slow convergence from above. It is these cases
with large strain increments for which eqn (A.5) provides an upper bound that is very
close to the correct solution, and the problems with slow convergence are eliminated.
If the function f c a n n o t be inverted, then #,~+~ is the only upper bound that is available, and a different iterative scheme should be used for Level 2. In this case, the expresk,i ~k,i and the new
sion for the error E~'i should be divided by the factor 1 + 3#Atf~n+i/On+l,
error tolerance ,,,msx'k'i,,n+~should be used. A different expression also results for dE~.i/
~k,i
don+~.
This modification increases the NewtonRaphson correction when the estimate
k.i 1 is too large, improving the convergence characteristics considerably.
On+
Many alternative procedures for solving the two governing equations were tried before
the procedure presented here was chosen. A twovariable NewtonRaphson method was
tried first, but the iterations often diverged unless very accurate initial estimates for
sn+~ and 5n+t were used. The above forward gradient approximate solution did not
provide sufficiently accurate initial estimates in many cases because the functionsfand
g were not well represented by the simple Taylor's series expansions. Much better convergence was obtained by using the forward gradient solution for sn+, together with a
consistent value for ~n+, that was calculated using the Level 2 iterative scheme. This
worked well because in general, the convergence problems resulted from poor initial estimates for an+j, and the Level 2 iterations provided a much improved initial estimate
for ~,,+,. Even with these improved starting values, it was still possible for the twovariable NewtonRaphson iterative procedure to diverge when the forward gradient
solution for sn+~ was not very accurate. In contrast, the twolevel iterative scheme presented in this appendix has performed well in all cases tested to date.