MODELING OF CONCRETE MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES Kaspar Willam

University of Colorado at Boulder

Class Meeting #5: Integration of Constitutive Equations Structural Equilibrium: Incremental Tangent Stiness and Residual Force Iteration Radial Return Method: Elastic Predictor-Plastic Corrector Strategy Algorithmic Tangent Operator: Consistent Tangent with Backward Constitutive Integration

Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

STRUCTURAL EQUILIBRIUM Out-of-Balance Force Calculation: Out-of Balance Residual Forces: Internal Forces: F int = External Forces: F ext = Rate of Equilibrium: B t dV =
e V e V e e

u R (u ) = F int F ext 0

B t dV V N tb dV + V
e

N tt dS S

N tb dV +
e S

N tt dS

1. Incremental Methods of Numerical Integration: Path-following continuation strategies to advance solution within t = tn+1 tn (a) Explicit Euler Forward Approach: Forward tangent stiness strategy (should include out-of-balance equilibrium corrections to control drift). (b) Implicit Euler Backward Approach: Backward tangent stiness (requires iteration for calculating tangent stiness at end of increment; Heuns method at midstep, and Runge-Kutta h/o methods at intermediate stages).

INCREMENTAL SOLVERS Euler Forward Integration: Classical Tangent stiness approach Internal forces: F ext =
e

B t dV V

Tangential Material Law: = E tan Tangential Stiness Relationship: K tanu = F Incremental Format: where K tan =
e un+1 u K tandu un V

B tE tanB dV

= F n+1 F n
e

Euler Forward Integration: K n = tan

B tE n B dV tan V

F K n u = F where E n = E tan(tn) tan u tan Note: Uncontrolled drift of response path if no equilibrium corrections are included at each load step.
Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

2. ITERATIVE SOLVERS Picard direct substitution iteration vs Newton-Raphson iteration within t = tn+1 tn Robustness Issues: Range and Rate of Convergence? Newton-Raphson Residual Force Iteration: u R (u ) = 0

Truncated Taylor Series Expansion of the residual R around u i1 yields R (u )i = R (u )i1 + ( u u u Letting R (u i) = 0 solve R R i1 i u ) [u ui1] u u

R R i1 i u Ru ) [u u i1] = R (u )i1 u u

Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

NEWTON-RAPHSON EQUILIBRIUM ITERATION Assuming conservative external forces: Chain rule of dierentiation leads to u d = E tand = E tan B du such that
d u du R R u u

B t d dV u V du

d d u d du

= E tan B .

Tangent stiness matrix provides Jacobian of N-R residual iteration,

R R u u

= K tan where K tan =

B tE tanB dV V

Newton-Raphson Equilibrium Iteration: Ru K i1[u i u i1] = R (u )i1 tan u For i=1, the starting conditions for the rst iteration cycle are, K n [u 1 u n] = F n+1 tan u
V

B t n

First iteration cycle coincides with Euler forward step, whereby each equilibrium iteration requires updating the tangential stiness matrix. Note: Diculties near limit point when det K tan 0

RADIAL RETURN METHOD OF J2-PLASTICITY I 1 1 2 s) = s : s Y = 0 F (s 2 3 Associated Plastic Flow Rule: F p = s where m = =s s s Plastic Consistency Condition: = F : s = s : s = 0 F s s Deviatoric Stress Rate: s s = 2G [e ep] = 2G [e s ] Plastic Multiplier: s :e = s :s Mises Yield Function:

RADIAL RETURN METHOD OF J2-PLASTICITY II Incremental Format: s e s s = 2G [e s ] Elastic Predictor-Plastic Corrector Split: e (a) Elastic Predictor: s trial = s n + 2Ge s s (b) Plastic Corrector: s n+1 = s trial 2Gs trial = [1 2G]s trial
1 2 Full Consistency: Fn+1 = 2s n+1 : s n+1 1 Y = 0 3

Quadratic equation for computing plastic multiplier 1 =? and 2 =? 1 2 1 s s s s [s trial 2Gs trial ] : [s trial 2Gs trial ] = Y 2 3 Plastic Multiplier: min =
1 2G [1

2 Y 3 trial :trial ]

Radial Return: represents closest point projection of the trial stress state onto the yield surface. Final stress state is the scaled-back trial stress, s n+1 = 2 Y s trial 3 s trial : s trial

GENERAL FORMAT OF PLASTIC RETURN METHOD Incremental Format: m = E : [ m ] Elastic Predictor-Plastic Corrector Split: (a) Elastic Predictor: trial = n + E : E (b) Plastic Corrector: n+1 = trial E : m E Full Consistency: Fn+1 = F ( n + E : E : m ) = 0 (i) Explicit Format: m = m n (or evaluate m at m = m c or m = m trial ) Use N-R for solving =? for a given direction of plastic return e.g. m = m n. m (i) Implicit Format: m = m n+ where 0 < 1 (m = m n+1 for BEM). E Fn+1 = F ( n + E : E : m n+) = 0 Use N-R for solving =? in addition to unknown m = m n+
Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

ALGORITHMIC TANGENT STIFFNESS Consistent Tangent vs Continuum Tangent: Uniaxial Example: = Etan where Etan
E 0 = E0[1 ] hence = 0[1 e 0 ] 0

n+1 Fully Implicit Euler Backward Integration: Etan = Etan in t = tn+1 tn,

n+1

n+1 ][ = n + E0[1 0
n+1

n+1

Algorithmic Tangent Stiness: Relates d d

n+1

to d n+1 at tn+1
alg Etan 1
E 1+ 0 0

alg Etan d n+1

where
Etan Etan
alg

E0[1

n+1 0 ]

0 1 + E0

Ratio of Tangent Stiness Properties:

0.7

Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

ALGORITHMIC TANGENT STIFFNESS OF J2-PLASTICITY Incremental Form of Elastic-Plastic Split: s e s s = 2G [e s ] Fully Implicit Euler Backward Integration: for t = tn+1 tn, e s s n+1 = s n + 2G[e n+1 e n] 2Gs n+1 s e Relating ds n+1 to de n+1 at tn+1, dierentiation yields, s e s s ds n+1 = 2G de n+1 d2Gs n+1 2Gds n+1 Algorithmic Tangent Stiness Relationship: s ds n+1 = 2G s n+1 s n+1 I e [I ] : de n+1 1 + 2G s n+1 : s n+1
alg G tan G cont tan

Ratio of Tangent Stiness Properties:

1 1+2G

s s when ||s n+1|| ||s n||.

Class #5 Concrete Modeling, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, August 20-28, 2007

CONCLUDING REMARKS Main Lessons from Class # 5: Nonlinear Solvers: Forward Euler method introduces drift from true response path. Newton-Raphson Iteration exhibits convergence diculties when K tan 0 (ill-conditioning). CPPM for Computational Plasticity: Analytical Radial Return solution available for J2-plasticity and Drucker-Prager. Generalization leads to explicit and implicit plastic return strategies which are nowadays combined with the incremental hardening and incremental stress residuals in a monolithic Newton strategy. Algorithmic vs Continuum Tangent: For quadratic convergence tangent operator must be consistent with integration of constitutive equations. The algorithmic tangent compares to secant stiness in increments which are truly nite.