1
Nonlinear Static  1D Plasticity  Various Forms of Isotropic Hardening by Louie L. Yaw Walla Walla University Draft Date January 25, 2012
key words: plasticity, algorithms, nonlinear analysis, is otropic hardening, algorithmic tan gent modulus, elastoplastic tangent modulus, KuhnTucke r conditions, consistency param eter, internal hardening variable, equivalent plastic str ain, ﬂow rule, consistency condition, yield condition
1 Introduction
Metals loaded beyond the elastic limit deform plastically. It is often the goal in structural mechanics to model plastic deformations of such metals in a c omputational setting. Creating algorithms to model the combined eﬀect of elastic and plasti c deformations is not trivial. However, plasticity for the one dimensional case is a good int roduction to the concepts necessary to construct such algorithms. Hence, this article presents plasticity from a one dimensional point of view and derives algorithms for a varie ty of diﬀerent hardening models. It is the goal of this article to introduce students to algori thmic plasticity (nonlinear material) models and also pave the way for future learning in the area of three dimensional plasticity. One dimensional plasticity is helpful as an introduction an d as an intermediate step to ward more diﬃcult topics, but it is also practical for bar ele ments often modeled in structural analysis software. It is therefore worth noting that the information learned herein is useful for the implementation of plasticity by modifying a standar d linear truss analysis program. Only small strains are considered.
2 Elastic and plastic behavior
Material testing is often accomplished by tensile tests. Pl ots of stress versus strain are often created from tension tests. For many materials the plot of st ress versus strain is linear for stresses below a certain threshold called the yield stress. If the material is loaded beyond this point the material yields and begins to deform plastically. How the material deforms after passing the yield point varies from material to material. Fo r instance many materials exhibit hardening after reaching the yield limit. This hardening is exhibited by increasing resistance to load after yielding, but this increase in resistance is mu ch less than the resistance provided by the material before yielding. If hardening is present the post yield behavior exhibits both increasing elastic strain and increasing plastic strain. A variety of models are availabl e to try and simulate how the plastic strain increases with increasing stress. The post y ield behavior is often modeled by specifying how the yield stress evolves with increasing plastic strain. A variety of such models are shown in Figure 1. In the plots the yield point is sh own, σ _{y} = 30 ksi, and the hardening behavior is plotted based on the formulas shown. I t is important to note that the plots are of stress versus plastic strain. When plots of stre ss versus total strain are created
2
No Hardening − Perfect Plasticity
(a)
Quadratic Hardening Formula
(c)
Ramberg Osgood Formula
(e)
Linear Hardening
(b)
Voce Hardening Formula
(d)
Stress versus Strain − Linear Hardening
(f)
Figure 1: Plastic Strain Hardening Models ( σ _{y} = 30 ksi): (a) No Hardening  Perfect Plasticity, (b) Linear Hardening, (c) Quadratic Hardening, ( d) Voce Hardening, (e) Ramberg Osgood Hardening, (f) Stress versus total strain with linear hardening.
3
based on these models, the post yield behavior will look simi lar but will be diﬀerent since the post yield behavior also accounts for increasing elasti c strains. Hence, for example, in the case of Figure 1(b) the post yield slope is called the plas tic modulus. Whereas a plot of stress versus total strain using linear hardening, Figure 1 (f), has a post yield slope that is called the elastoplastic modulus and it is not the same as the plastic modulus. Because of hardening the yield point has increased and as a result more e lastic strain exists due to the higher yield point. Hence, for hardening materials, increas e in plastic strain is accompanied with increase in elastic strain. In later sections the derivation of the elastoplastic modulus is illustrated for the models given.
3 Deﬁnitions
Basic terminology helpful for understanding the concepts i nvolved in modeling plasticity is presented in this section. The deﬁnitions given are not exha ustive, but provide at least the basic ideas. Some of the terms are easy to deﬁne clearly. Othe r terms can be deﬁned but are better understood after working with the material in following sections. The notation used closely follows that given by Simo and Hughes [6]. Brief deﬁnitions of the most important terminology are as fo llows. Elastic strain, ε ^{e} , is any strain that takes place before exceeding the yield stres s. However, it is important to note that, for hardening materials, elastic strain is incre asing during post yield also. Hence, strain that is removed during unloading is a better deﬁnitio n of elastic strain. Plastic strain, ε ^{p} , is permanent strain that remains after unloading. Total st rain is the sum of elastic strain and plastic strain, ε = ε ^{e} + ε ^{p} . Any time plastic strains are taking place it follows that plastic ﬂow is taking place. When hardening occurs the value of the yield stress changes. For this reason, plasticity models use internal hardening variables as a means for keeping track of accumulated hardening. For isotropic hardening, h ardening accumulates if plastic strain is positive or negative, hence the internal hardenin g variable keeps track of the total change in plastic strain. Therefore, the isotropic interna l hardening variable α is called the equivalent plastic strain. A yield condition (a function) i s used to mathematically identify when yielding happens. Often in the literature the yield con dition is denoted by f . It typically includes the current level of stress minus the ini tial yield stress added to a function of α which describes the type of hardening. Examples of yield con ditions are provided later in this paper. As plastic strain takes place, α is updated and changes, the yield condition f is calculated and is either a negative value or a positive val ue. If it is negative the current level of stress is below yield and only elastic strains are in creasing. If it is positive the current level of stress is above the yield stress and (with th e presence of hardening) elastic and plastic strains are increasing. However, in actuality f > 0 is not allowed and requires calculation of the amount of plastic ﬂow and how the hardenin g level evolves such that f = 0 is achieved. This is accomplished by solving for a consisten cy parameter γ , which allows a means for determining the level of plastic ﬂow and hardening such that the condition f = 0 is satisﬁed. The variable γ is called the consistency parameter because it is deteremin ed so that all relevant variables are consistent with the require ment that f = 0 when plastic ﬂow is taking place. This is a rather involved process and is diﬃcul t to describe in words. The whole process of elastic loading and unloading or elastoplastic loading and unloading requires a
4
careful mathematical description. This has led researcher s to use KuhnTucker conditions. The KuhnTucker conditions are γ ≥ 0, f ( σ ) ≤ 0, and γf ( σ ) = 0. These conditions or rules are used to construct the mathematical algorithms which mod el the process of plastic ﬂow (for a more in depth discussion the reader is referred to Simo and Hughes [6]). A consistency
˙
condition is also used and is written as γ f = 0, if f = 0. The sign function is often used in the mathematics of plasticity algorithms. The function takes any variable and returns − 1 if the variable is negative and +1 if the variable is positive. P lasticity algorithms are often used
in ﬁnite element analysis programs to model nonlinear mater ial behavior. In such cases the ﬁnite element analysis program is incremental in nature. Ea ch new load increment increases stress levels, strain levels and displacements. Hence, duri ng each of these increments the plasticity algorithm is used at the element level in the anal ysis program. At the beginning of each increment (or load step) it is not known whether the new l evel of stress causes yielding (in a particular element) or not. For this reason it is initia lly assumed that the incremental
stress is elastic. In the plasticity algorithms, the result ing new stress level is termed a trial stress. This trial stress is plugged into the yield conditio n f and the rules of the algorithm are followed as necessary. In the course of the algorithm the correct new stress level is determined (ie, the trial stress is corrected if the stress i ncrement was not entirely elastic). In some derivations given in this paper derivatives with res pect to time such as ^{d}^{α} = α˙ are used. However, the type of material models described in this p aper are rate independent, so it may seem odd to take derivatives with respect to time. Hen ce, in this setting the interpretation of derivatives with respect to time really m ean changes with respect to a load step or load increment in a ﬁnite element analysis program. For example, if the current value of the internal variable α is α _{n} then during the load increment the variable may increase by a n amount ∆ α such that the new value of α is α _{n} _{+}_{1} = α _{n} +∆ α . In this example ∆ α is analogous to α˙ . Another way to look at this is to say that (in a rate independent material model) a load increment is like a time increment. This is the reason deriva tives with respect to time are used in the literature even in rate independent material models. In some theoretical derivations
γ is used to denote the consistency parameter. However, in the p lasticity model algorithms
∆ γ is used to denote the consistency paramenter. Otherwise, th ere is no diﬀerence between
γ and ∆ γ used in this paper. For the 1D plasticity case the algorithmi c tangent modulus
is equivalent to the elastoplastic modulus. In higher dime nsions this is not true. For some plasticity models the yield function is complicated enough that algebraically solving for the consistency parameter is not possible and hence it must be so lved for using NewtonRaphson iterations. In this process, in order to preserve the second order rate of convergence of the NewtonRaphson method (which is likely also taking place at t he global level of the nonlinear ﬁnite element program) it is necessary to have a consistent variation (or derivative) of stress with respect to the total strain. To get such a consistent var iation it is necessary to take the derivative of the algorithmic stress with respect to the tot al strain variable. The algorithmic
tangent modulus is speciﬁcally derived by taking the deriva tive ^{∂}^{σ}
= C _{+}_{1} . This is a
derivative of the algorithmic stress and hence results in th e algorithmic tangent modulus,
dt
(
k )
n
+1
(
k )
n
∂ε
(
k )
n +1
C _{+}_{1} . How plastic strain evolves in plasticity algorithms is call ed a ﬂow rule. In this paper
n
(
k )
df
the ﬂow rule takes the form ε˙ ^{p} = γ _{d}_{σ} = γsign ( σ ). The isotropic hardening law takes the form α˙ = ∆ α = γ .
5
4 1D Plasticity General Isotropic Hardening
The algorithmic pieces of one dimensional plasticity with a general expression for isotropic hardening is presented next. The derivations and notation c losely follows that given by [6].
4.1 Derivation of ElastoPlastic Tangent Modulus
As usual the modulus of elasticity is E , the equivalent plastic strain is α and the total strain is deﬁned as
ε = ε ^{p} + ε ^{e} . 
(4.1) 
Stress is linear elastic when f < 0 and is calculated as 

σ = Eε ^{e} = E ( ε − ε ^{p} ) 
(4.2) 
Kinematic hardening is neglected and the ﬂow rule is assumed as 

ε˙ ^{p} = γsign ( σ ) . 
(4.3) 
The yield condition is deﬁned as follows: 

f ( σ ) =  σ  − G ( α ) 
(4.4) 
,where G ( α ) is a yield stress function which includes the type of isotro pic hardening, which is possibly a function of α . The customary KuhnTucker conditions apply ( γ ≥ 0, f ( σ ) ≤ 0,
˙
and γf ( σ ) = 0). If f ( σ ) is to be zero the consistency condition requires that γ f ( σ ) = 0.
˙
Hence, when γ > 0, f = 0 so that by the chain rule
f = ^{∂}^{f}
˙
∂σ
∂f ∂G ∂α
∂σ ∂t ^{+} ∂G ∂α ∂t
= 0 .
(4.5)
Inserting each partial derivative into the above formula gi ves
˙
f
= sign ( σ ) σ˙ + ( − 1) ^{∂}^{G} ∂α α˙ = 0 .
(4.6)
Recall that α˙ = γ , σ˙ = E ( ε˙ − ε˙ ^{p} ) and ε˙ ^{p} = γsign ( σ ). Substituting this information into (4.6) yields
(4.7)
f = sign ( σ ) E ( ε˙ − γsign ( σ )) − ^{∂}^{G} γ = 0 .
˙
∂α
Recognizing that ( sign ( σ )) ^{2} = 1 and solving for γ gives
_{γ} _{=} sign ( σ ) E ε˙
E + ^{∂}^{G}
.
∂α
(4.8)
With the above results in hand the elastoplastic tangent mo dulus, C _{e}_{p} = ^{d}^{σ} , is found as follows. Observe that σ˙ = ^{d}^{σ} ε˙ . Then using (4.2), (4.3) and (4.8) yields
dε
dε
σ˙ = E ( ε˙ − ε˙ ^{p} ) = E ( ε˙ − γsign ( σ )) = E ( ε˙ − ^{(} ^{s}^{i}^{g}^{n} ^{(} ^{σ} ^{)}^{)} ^{2} ^{E} ^{ε}^{˙} ) .
E + ^{∂}^{G}
∂α
(4.9)
6
Upon simpliﬁcation the stress rate becomes
σ˙ = E −
^{E} ^{2}
ε˙ =
By inspection of (4.10) the elastoplastic tangent modulus is
C ep =
ε.˙ 
(4.10) 
(4.11) 
4.2 Development of algorithmic ingredients for 1D plasticity with general isotropic hardening
Consider now the algorithmic ingredients for a 1D plasticity problem. Suppose that a strain
increment is provided so that a new total strain, ε , is given. From this information a trial
value of the yield condition, f
> 0 then a plastic step has occurred. For a
plastic step, the problem is to ﬁnd σ _{n} _{+}_{1} , α _{n} _{+}_{1} such that f ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} , α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) = 0 and ∆ γ > 0.
Having this information then allows calculation of ε _{n} ^{p} _{+}_{1} , which is the new total plastic strain.
To derive an algorithm for a typical plastic step ﬁrst expres s σ _{n} _{+}_{1} as a function of σ ∆ γ as follows:
and
≤ 0 the strain is elastic and the
solution is trivial. If on the other hand f
trial
n
+1
, is calculated. If f
n
trial
n
+1
trial
+1
trial
n +1
σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = E ( ε _{n} _{+}_{1} − ε ^{p}
n +1 ^{)}
= E ( ε _{n} _{+}_{1} − ε _{n} ^{p} ) − E ( ε ^{p}
= E ( ε _{n} _{+}_{1} − ε _{n} ^{p} ) − E ε˙ ^{p}
= σ
n +1 ^{−} ^{ε} ^{p}
n
n
+1
trial
n +1
− E ∆ γsign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} ) .
)
(4.12)
Assuming that the correct value of ∆ γ > 0 can be found for the current plastic step, all the quantities are calculated as
(4.13a)
(4.13b)
(4.13c)
(4.13d)
The set of equations (4.13) are solved in terms of the trial el astic state (see Figure 2) as follows:
(4.14)
,which is rearranged to give
(4.15)
Now, since ∆ γ and E are greater than zero, for the above equation to be valid the following two conditions must be true
trial
n +1
σ n +1 = σ
ε
^{p} n +1 ^{=} ^{ε} ^{p}
− ∆ γEsign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} )
_{n} + ∆ γsign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} )
α _{n} _{+}_{1} = α _{n} + ∆ γ
f _{n} _{+}_{1} ≡  σ _{n} _{+}_{1}  − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) = 0 .
trial
n
+1

sign ( σ
trial
n
+1
 σ _{n} _{+}_{1}  sign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} ) =  σ
) − ∆ γEsign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} )
trial
+1

sign ( σ
trial
n
+1
) .
[  σ _{n} _{+}_{1}  + ∆ γE ] sign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} ) =  σ
n
sign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} ) = sign ( σ
.
 σ _{n} _{+}_{1}  + ∆ γE =  σ
n
trial
+1

trial
n +1
) 
(4.16a) 
(4.16b) 
7
σ
ε
Figure 2: Return mapping from trial elastic state.
It remains to ﬁnd the consistency parameter ∆ γ > 0 from the discrete consistency condition (4.13)d. Hence, using (4.16)b and (4.13)d yields
f _{n} _{+}_{1} =  σ
 σ
 σ
=
=
trial
n +1
trial
n
trial
n
+1
+1
=
f
n
trial
+1
 − ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} )
 − ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) − G ( α _{n} ) + G ( α _{n} )
 − G ( α _{n} ) − ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) + G ( α _{n} )
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) + G ( α _{n} ) = 0 .
(4.17)
The last line of (4.17) is often a nonlinear equation in terms of ∆ γ and must be solved by a NewtonRaphson procedure. Once ∆ γ is known using (4.16)a in (4.13)abc gives
σ n +1 = σ
trial
n
+1
− ∆ γEsign ( σ
ε ^{p}
n +1 ^{=} ^{ε} ^{p}
_{n} + ∆ γsign ( σ
trial
n
+1
)
trial
n
+1
α _{n} _{+}_{1} = α _{n} + ∆ γ.
Note also that (4.18)a may be rewritten as
σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = 1 − ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E}

σ
trial
n
+1
 ^{σ}
trial n +1 ^{.}
) 
(4.18a) 
(4.18b) 

(4.18c) 

(4.19) 
8
4.3 The Algorithmic Tangent Modulus
Before summarizing the algorithm, the consistent or algorithmic tangent modulus is derived. The algorithmic tangent modulus is
C
n +1 = ^{∂}^{σ}
∂ε
k )
(
n
+1
(
k )
k )
n +1
(
.
(4.20)
In the following derivation the superscript k is omitted. Some preliminary results are ob
tained for the derivation. First, diﬀerentiate the trial st ress σ
trial
n +1
to get
∂σ
trial
n
+1
∂ε _{n}
+1 = E.
Next, obtain ^{∂} ^{(}^{∆} ^{γ} ^{)} by realizing that (4.8) implies the following:
∂ε n +1
(4.21)
γ _{=} sign ( σ ) E _{⇒} ∂ (∆ γ ) _{=} sign ( σ
ε˙
trial
n +1
) E
E + ^{∂}^{G}
∂α
∂ε n +1
E +
∂G .
∂α
n +1
(4.22)
The above observation that leads to (4.22) is not rigorous an d is not the standard way to obtain it (however, it is easier than the rigorous approach, below, and seems to also work in higher dimensions). A more rigorous approach described i n [6] is to start with the scalar consistency condition. For example, use the ﬁrst line of (4. 17) set equal to zero, rearrange
the equation, use implicit diﬀerentiation with the chain ru le as needed and solve for ^{∂} ^{(}^{∆} ^{γ} ^{)} as
follows:
(4.23)
∂ε n +1

σ
trial
n
+1
 − ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) = 0
∂
(∆ γ )
∂ε n +1
E + ^{∂}^{G}
∂α n +1
∂α n +1
∂
(∆ γ )
∂ (∆ γ ) _{=} ∂  σ
trial
n
+1

∂ε n +1
∂ε n +1
∂
(∆ γ )
∂ε n +1
E +
∂G +1 _{(}_{1}_{)} ∂ (∆ γ )
∂α _{n}
∂ε n +1
= sign ( σ
trial
n
+1
) E
∂
(∆ γ )
∂ε n +1 ^{(} ^{E} ^{+}
∂G
_{∂}_{α} _{n} +1 ) = sign ( σ _{n} _{+}_{1} ) E
trial
∂ (∆ γ ) _{=} sign ( σ
∂ε n +1
trial
n +1
) E
E +
∂G
∂α n +1
(4.24)
(4.25)
(4.26)
(4.27)
Now, with the above results, diﬀerentiate (4.18)a with respe ct to ε _{n} _{+}_{1} to get
∂σ n
+1
∂ε n
+1
 ^{} ∂σ 
trial 
∂ 
( 
− σ 
∆ γE  trial 
) 

n 
+1 
n 
+1 

 
trial n +1 
∂ε 
n 
+1 
+ 
∂ε n +1 
σ
= 1 − ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E}
σ
trial
n
+1
.
(4.28)
To simplify (4.28), by using (4.21) and (4.22), ﬁnd
∂
(
−
∆ γE
σ
trial
n
+1

)
∂ε n +1
_{=} ∂ ( − ∆ γ )
E
∂ε n +1

σ
trial
n
+1
_{}
trial _{} − 1
n
+ ( − ∆ γE ) ^{∂} ^{} ^{σ} ∂ε n +1
+1
_{=}
− E ^{2}
sign ( σ
trial
n +1
)
E +
∂G
σ
trial
∂α n +1

n +1

+ ( − ∆ γE )
− 1
_{} _{2} sign ( σ
 σ
trial
n +1
trial
n +1
) E.
(4.29)
9
Substitute the result of (4.29) into (4.28) and use (4.22) to obtain
∂σ n +1
∂ε n +1
^{} _{1} _{−} ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E}  ^{} _{E} _{−} E ^{2} sign ( σ

σ
trial
n
+1
_{−} ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E} ^{2} _{−} σ

trial
n
+1

( E +
E ^{2}  σ
∂G
∂α _{n}
trial
n
+1
trial
n
+1
)
σ
trial
n
+1
_{+} ∆ γE ^{2} sign ( σ

σ
trial
n
+1
trial
n
+1

trial
n
+1
)
σ
trial
n
+1
=
_{+}_{1} )  σ

trial
n
+1



^{2}
 _{+} ∆ γE ^{2}  σ σ
trial
n
+1
= E
( E +
∂G
_{+}_{1} )  σ
∂α _{n}
trial
n
+1

^{2}
= E − ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E} ^{2} −
 σ
trial
n +1

=
=
E
∂G
∂α n +1
E +
∂G
∂α n +1
_{E} ∂G
∂α
E
+ ^{∂}^{G}
∂α
.
^{E} ^{2}
_{+} ∆ γE ^{2}

E +
∂G
σ
trial
∂α n +1

n +1
(4.30)
Therefore, in the 1D case, the algorithmic tangent modulus i s equivalent to the elasto plastic tangent modulus, that is
C _{e}_{p} = C
n +1 = ^{∂}^{σ}
∂ε
( k )
n +1
(
k )
( k )
n +1
=
In higher dimensions they are not equivalent.
(4.31)
4.4 Summary of results
With all of the above in hand it is possible to summarize the al gorithm for 1D plasticity with general isotropic hardening. The algorithm is summari zed in Box 4.1.
5 Examples of diﬀerent types of isotropic hardening
Using the results of section 4.4, diﬀerent types of hardening functions used to create the yield stress function G ( α ) are examined. The diﬀerent cases presented below provide a broad sampling of hardening models used for materials. Thes e cases also demonstrate the actual implementation of the plasticity algorithm of Box 4. 1. The yield stress function and its derivative are susbtituted into the algorithm for ge neral isotropic hardening at the appropriate locations. These algorithms advance the solut ion variables from their current values at step n to their values at step n +1. The resulting algorithm is summarized in a box for each case given below. After observing the variety of exam ples given below it is hoped that the reader can then tackle any case.
5.1 Perfect Plasticity (no hardening)
For this case there is no hardening. The yield stress functio n is G ( α ) = σ _{y} and therefore = 0. The algorithm is summarized in Box 5.1. Note that the varia ble α is not needed for this case of perfect plasticity. In this case, in step 4 of the algorithm, the consistency parameter, ∆ γ , is directly solved for algebraically.
∂G
∂α
10
1. Start with stored known variables {ε _{n} , ε _{n} ^{p} , α _{n} }.
2. An increment of strain gives ε _{n} _{+}_{1} = ε _{n} + ∆ ε _{n} .
3. Compute the elastic trial stress, the trial value for the y ield function and test for plastic loading.
trial 
= E ( ε _{n} _{+}_{1} − ε ^{p} n 
) 

σ 
n +1 
trial 
=  σ 
trial 
 − G ( α _{n} ) 

f n 
+1 
n +1 
If f
n
trial
+1
≤ 0 then the load step is elastic
set σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = σ
set C _{e}_{p} = E
EXIT the algorithm
trial
n +1
Else f
n
trial
+1
> 0 and hence the load step is elastoplastic
proceed to step 4
4. Elastoplastic step
Using f
n
trial
+1
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) + G ( α _{n} ) = 0, solve for ∆ γ .
σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = 1 − ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E}
σ
trial
n
+1
 ^{σ}
trial
n +1
ε ^{p}
n +1 ^{=} ^{ε} ^{p}
_{n} + ∆ γsign ( σ
trial
n +1
)
α _{n} _{+}_{1} = α _{n} + ∆ γ
C ep =
EXIT the algorithm
Box 4.1: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With General Isotropic Harde ning
11
Box 5.1: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With No Hardening (Perfect Pla sticity)
12
5.2 Linear Hardening
Linear hardening is a fairly simple and common form. The yiel d stress function is G ( α ) = σ _{y} + Kα and therefore ^{∂}^{G} = K . The algorithm is summarized in Box 5.2. The consistency parameter, ∆ γ , is solved for using the last line of (4.17) as follows:
∂α
f
n
trial
+1
− ∆ γE − ( σ _{y} + Kα _{n} _{+}_{1} ) + ( σ _{y} + Kα _{n} )
=
=
=
f
n
f
n
f
n
trial
+1
trial
+1
trial
+1
−
−
−
∆ γE − σ _{y} − Kα _{n} _{+}_{1} + σ _{y} + Kα _{n} ∆ γE − K ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} − α _{n} ) ∆ γE − K (∆ γ ) = 0 .
(5.1)
From the last line of equation (5.1)
trial
∆ γ = E ^{f} +
n
+1
_{K} ,
(5.2)
which is indicated in step 4 of the algorithm given in Box 5.2.
5.3 Quadratic Hardening
The following case does not seem to be common or practical. However, it is an interesting case as an academic exercise. The yield stress function is G ( α ) = σ _{y} + E ( α − Qα ^{2} ) and therefore ^{∂}^{G} = E (1 − 2 Qα ). The algorithm is summarized in Box 5.3. The consistency parameter, ∆ γ , is solved for using the last line of (4.17) as follows:
∂α
(5.3)
Substitution of G into (5.3), some lengthy algebra and use of the relation ∆ γ = α _{n} _{+}_{1} − α _{n} results in
(5.4)
Finally, rearranging and collecting like terms gives
a (∆ γ ) ^{2} + b ∆ γ + c = 0 a = QE
(5.5)
trial
f
n
+1
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} _{+}_{1} ) + G ( α _{n} ) = 0 .
trial
f
n
+1
− ∆ γE − E ∆ γ + 2 α _{n} EQ ∆ γ + EQ (∆ γ ) ^{2} = 0 .
b = 2 α _{n} QE − 2 E
c = f
trial
n +1 ^{.}
Equation (5.5) is solved by using the quadratic equation
_{∆} _{γ} _{=} − b ± ^{√} b ^{2} − 4 ac
2
a
(5.6)
from which the positive root is chosen as the value for ∆ γ .
5.4 Exponential Hardening
Voce [7] proposed an exponential form of hardening. This ass umes that the hardening eventually reaches a speciﬁed saturation (or maximum) stre ss. In this case the yield stress function becomes G ( α ) = σ _{y} + ( σ _{u} − σ _{y} )(1 − e ^{−} ^{δ}^{α} ) and therefore ^{∂}^{G} = ( σ _{u} − σ _{y} ) δe ^{−} ^{δ}^{α} .
∂α
13
C ep = ^{E}^{K}
E
+ k
Box 5.2: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With Linear Isotropic Harden ing
14
1. Start with stored known variables {ε _{n} , ε _{n} ^{p} , α _{n} }.
2. An increment of strain gives ε _{n} _{+}_{1} = ε _{n} + ∆ ε _{n} .
3. Compute the elastic trial stress, the trial value for the y ield function and test for plastic loading.
trial 
= E ( ε _{n} _{+}_{1} − ε ^{p} n 
) 

σ 
n +1 
_{ε} p trial
+1
n
= ε ^{p}
n
α
trial
n +1
= α _{n}
trial 
=  σ 
trial 
2 

f n 
+1 
n +1 
 − ( σ _{y} + E ( α _{n} − Qα _{n} ))
If f
n
trial
+1
≤ 0 then the load step is elastic
set σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = σ
set C _{e}_{p} = E
EXIT the algorithm
trial
n +1
Else f
n
trial
+1
> 0 and hence the load step is elastoplastic
proceed to step 4
4. Elastoplastic step
Use the positive result of ∆ γ = ^{−} ^{b} ^{±} ^{√} ^{b} ^{2} ^{−} ^{4}^{a}^{c}
a = QE , b = 2 α _{n} QE − 2 E , c = f
2a
trial
n
+1
σ _{n} _{+}_{1} = 1 − ^{∆} ^{γ}^{E}
σ
trial
n
+1
 ^{σ}
trial
n +1
ε ^{p}
n +1 ^{=} ^{ε} ^{p}
_{n} + ∆ γsign ( σ
trial
n +1
)
α _{n} _{+}_{1} = α _{n} + ∆ γ
_{C} ep _{=} 2Qα _{n} _{+}_{1} E − E 2Qα _{n} _{+}_{1} − 2
EXIT the algorithm
Box 5.3: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With Quadratic Isotropic Har dening
15
C ep =
ECδe ^{−} ^{δ}^{α} ^{n}
^{+}^{1}
E + Cδe ^{−} ^{δ}^{α} ^{n} ^{+}^{1}
Box 5.4: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With Exponential Isotropic Hardening
16
1. Set ∆ γ = 0
2. Calculate R , where R = f
trial
+1
n
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} + ∆ γ ) + G ( α _{n} ),
and G ( α ) = σ _{y}
+ C (1 − e ^{−} ^{δ}^{α} )
3. Initialize variables set maxiter = 10 set k = 0, (the iteration counter) set tol = 10 ^{−} ^{5} set d _{g} = 0
4. WHILE  R  > tol and k < maxiter
dR γ _{=} _{−} _{E} _{−} _{C}_{δ}_{e} − δ ( α _{n} +∆ γ ))
d
∆
d _{g} = −
Update ∆ γ = ∆ γ + d _{g} Recalculate R = f
γ ^{} − 1 R
dR
d ∆
n
trial
+1
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} + ∆ γ ) + G ( α _{n} )
Update k = k + 1 END WHILE
5. END NewtonRaphson iterations
Box 5.5: NewtonRaphson iterations for exponential hardeni ng algorithm
17
5.5 RambergOsgood Hardening
A very common material hardening model for metals is the Ramb ergOsgood [5] model, the form of the equation used here is given by Kojic and Bathe [3]. The yield stress function is G ( α ) = σ _{y} + Cα ^{m} and therefore ^{∂}^{G} = mCα ^{m} ^{−} ^{1} .
∂α
Box 5.6: 1D Plasticity Algorithm With RambergOsgood Isotro pic Hardening
18
1. Set ∆ γ = 0
2. Calculate R , where R = f
trial
+1
n
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} + ∆ γ ) + G ( α _{n} ),
and G ( α ) = σ _{y} + Cα ^{m}
3. Initialize variables set maxiter = 10 set k = 0 (the iteration counter) set tol = 10 ^{−} ^{5} set d _{g} = 0
4. WHILE  R  > tol and k < maxiter
dR
d ∆
_{γ} = − E − mC ( α _{n} + ∆ γ ) ^{m} ^{−} ^{1}
d _{g} = −
Update ∆ γ = ∆ γ + d _{g} Recalculate R = f
γ ^{} − 1 R
dR
d ∆
n
trial
+1
− ∆ γE − G ( α _{n} + ∆ γ ) + G ( α _{n} )
Update k = k + 1 END WHILE
5. END NewtonRaphson iterations
Box 5.7: NewtonRaphson iterations for RambergOsgood hard ening algorithm
19
6 Computer Implementation and Results
A truss program is implemented in MATLAB which includes the po ssibility of plastic defor mations. Only small strains are considered in the implement ed program. Several examples are provided. In all cases only isotropic hardening is consi dered.
6.1 Outline of Computer Algorithm – Displacement Control
The following implicit algorithm uses NewtonRaphson itera tions within each speciﬁed dis placement increment to enforce global equilibrium for the t russ structure (see Clarke and Hancock [1] and Mcquire et al [4] for displacement control det ails). The speciﬁed displace ment increments are prescribed at a structure dof chosen by t he user. Typically this is the structure dof of maximum displacement in the chosen dof dire ction. In the algorithm pre sented, equal size displacement increments are used. The re ader is encouraged to note the speciﬁc locations where the 1D plasticity routines are intr oduced into the algorithm. With out the introduction of the plasticity algorithms the compu ter program would be linear. The algorithm proceeds as follows:
1. Deﬁne/initialize variables
• 
D 
_{m}_{a}_{x} = the user speciﬁed maximum displacement at dof q 

• 
ninc = the user speciﬁed number of displacement increments to rea ch D _{m}_{a}_{x} 

• 
∆¯u _{q} = D _{m}_{a}_{x} /ninc = the speciﬁed incremental displacement at dof q 

• 
F = the total vector of externally applied global nodal forces 

• 
F ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = the current externally applied global nodal force vector 

• 
λ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = the current load ratio, that is λ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} F = F ^{n} + d F = F ^{n} + dλ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} F = F ^{n} ^{+}^{1} , the load ratio starts out equal to zero 

• 
N = the vector of truss axial forces, axial force in truss eleme nt i is N _{i} 

• 
u = the vector of global nodal displacements, initially u = 0 

• 
x = the vector of nodal x coordinates in the undeformed conﬁguration 

• 
y = the vector of nodal y coordinates in the undeformed conﬁguration 

• 
L = the vector of truss element lengths based on the current u. L for truss element 

i 
is L _{i} = ^{} (( x _{2} + u _{x} _{2} ) − ( x _{1} + u _{x} _{1} )) ^{2} + (( y _{2} + u _{y} _{2} ) − ( y _{1} + u _{y} _{1} )) ^{2} . The original 

element lengths are saved in a vector L _{o} , where L _{o}_{i} = ^{} ( x _{2} − x _{1} ) ^{2} + ( y _{2} − y _{1} ) ^{2} . The subscripts 1 and 2 refer to node 1 and 2 respectively for a g iven truss element. 

• 
c and s = the vectors of cosines and sines for each truss element angl e based on the undeformed truss. 

• 
K = K _{M} , the assembled global tangent stiﬀness matrix, where K _{M} is the mate rial stiﬀness which evolves as plastic deformations accumu late in individual truss elements in the truss. 
20
• K _{s} = the modiﬁed global tangent stiﬀness matrix to account for s upports. Rows and columns associated with zero displacement dofs are set t o zero and the di agonal position is set to 1. Other (more eﬃcient) schemes are possible, but this proves simple to implement
• σ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = the vector of element axial stresses
+ ε _{n} ^{p} _{+}_{1} = the vector of total axial strain values for each element i,
. Note that this form of calculating strain is better conditio ned
• ε _{n} _{+}_{1} = ε
elast
n +1
where ε = ^{1}
L
o
L
L ^{2} − L ^{2}
o
+ L _{o}
for numerical calculations and is recommended by Crisﬁeld [ 2].
• ε _{n} ^{p} _{+}_{1} = the vector of total axial plastic strain values for each element i
_{•} _{C} n +1 ep
= the vector of elastoplastic moduli for each truss element i
• α ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = the vector of equivalent plastic strain variables α ment i
n +1
i for each truss ele
2. Start Loop over load increments (for n = 0 to ninc − 1).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Calculate global stiﬀness matrix K based on L _{o} , c, s and current value of C _{e}_{p} .
Modify K to account for supports and get K _{s} .
Calculate the incremental load ratio dλ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} . The incremental load ratio is calcu lated as follows. Calculate a displacement vector based on t he current stiﬀness,
F. Take from uˆ the displacement in the direction of dof q , that
is uˆ _{q} . Then dλ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = ∆¯u _{q} / uˆ _{q} . Update load ratio λ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = λ ^{n} + dλ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} .
Calculate the incremental force vector d F = dλ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} F.
that is uˆ = K 
− 
s 
1
(e) Solve for the incremental global nodal displacements d u = K
(f)
Update global nodal displacements, u ^{n} ^{+}^{1} = u ^{n} + d u
−
s
1
d
F
(g) Update ε _{i} = ^{1} on u ^{n} ^{+}^{1} .
(h)
L ^{2} − L ^{2}
L
o
L
+ L _{o}
o
for each element i and store in ε _{n} _{+}_{1} , note L here is based
n +1 _{,} _{σ} n +1 _{,} _{α} n +1 _{a}_{n}_{d} _{C} n +1 ep
Use chosen plasticity algorithm here to update ε ^{p}
(i)
Calculate the vector of new internal truss element axial forces N ^{n} ^{+}^{1} . For truss
element i the axial force is N
n
i
+1
= σ
n
i
+1
A
_{i} .
(j)
(k)
(l)
Construct the vector of internal global forces F ^{n} ^{+}^{1} based on N ^{n} ^{+}^{1} .
int
Calculate the residual R = λ ^{n} ^{+}^{1} F − F ^{n} ^{+}^{1} and modify the residual to account for the required supports.
Calculate the norm of the residual R = ^{√} R • R
int
(m) Iterate for equilibrium if necessary. Set up iteration variables.
• Iteration variable = k = 0
• tolerance = 10 ^{−} ^{6}
• maxiter = 100
• δ u = 0
• δλ = 0
21
(n)
• Save ε _{n} ^{p} _{+}_{1} and α ^{n} ^{+}^{1} as ε ^{p}
on +1 ^{a}^{n}^{d} ^{α} ^{n} ^{+}^{1}
o
Start Iterations while R > tolerance and k < maxiter
i. Calculate the new global stiﬀness K based on L _{o} , c, s and current value of
C ep .
ii. Modify the global stiﬀness to account for supports which gives K _{s}
(o)
iii. Calculate the load ratio correction δλ _{k} _{+}_{1} . The load ratio correction is calcu
F. From u˘ and uˆ extract
the component of displacement in the direction of dof q
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.