Limit Shakedown Analysis

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2011)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/nme.3317
Computation of limit and shakedown loads using a node-based
smoothed nite element method
H. Nguyen-Xuan
1,2,
*
,
, T. Rabczuk
3
, T. Nguyen-Thoi
1,2
, T. N. Tran
4
and
N. Nguyen-Thanh
3
1
Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Mathematics & Computer Science, University of Science HCM,
227 Nguyen Van Cu, Dist. 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Division of Computational Mechanics, Ton Duc Thang University, 98 Ngo Tat To St., War 19, Binh Thanh Dist.,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
3
Institute of Structural Mechanics (ISM), Bauhaus-University Weimar, Germany
4
Labor fr Biomechanik, Fachhochschule Aachen, Campus Jlich Ginsterweg 1, D-52428 Jlich, Germany
SUMMARY
This paper presents a novel numerical procedure for computing limit and shakedown loads of structures
using a node-based smoothed FEM in combination with a primaldual algorithm. An associated primal
dual form based on the von Mises yield criterion is adopted. The primal-dual algorithm together with a
Newton-like iteration are then used to solve this associated primaldual form to determine simultaneously
both approximate upper and quasi-lower bounds of the plastic collapse limit and the shakedown limit. The
present formulation uses only linear approximations and its implementation into nite element programs is
quite simple. Several numerical examples are given to show the reliability, accuracy, and generality of the
present formulation compared with other available methods. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 10 March 2011; Revised 23 May 2011; Accepted 26 August 2011
KEY WORDS: nite element method; limit analysis; node-based smoothed nite element method
(NS-FEM); primaldual algorithm; shakedown analysis; strain smoothing
1. INTRODUCTION
In practical applications using the fully compatible FEM, the three-node linear triangular element
(T3) and four-node linear tetrahedral element (T4) are preferred by many engineers because of their
simplicity, robustness, less demand on the smoothness of the solution, and efciency of adaptive
mesh renements for solutions of desired accuracy. However, the fully compatible FEM models
using T3 and T4 elements still possess certain inherent drawbacks: (i) they overestimate exces-
sively the system stiffness matrix, which leads to poor accuracy in both displacement and stress
solutions, and (ii) they are subjected to locking in the problems with bending domination and
incompressible materials.
In the effort to develop nite element technology, Liu et al. have combined the strain smoothing
technique [1] used in meshfree methods into the FEM to formulate a cell/element-based smoothed
FEM (SFEM or CS-FEM) [27]. Applying this strain smoothing technique on smoothing domains
will help to soften the over-stiffness of the lower-order FEM model, and hence can improve signif-
icantly the accuracy of solutions in both displacement and stress. In the CS-FEM, the smoothing
domains are based on the quadrilateral elements, and each element can be further subdivided into
*Correspondence to: Nguyen-Xuan Hung, Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Mathematics & Computer Science,
University of Science HCM, 227 Nguyen Van Cu, Dist. 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
E-mail: nxhung@hcmus.edu.vn
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
H. NGUYEN-XUAN ET AL.
one or some quadrilateral smoothing domains, as shown in Figure 1. The CS-FEM has been studied
theoretically in [35], and further extended to the general n-sided polygonal elements (nSFEM or
nCS-FEM) [6], dynamic analyses [7], incompressible materials using selective integration [8, 9],
plate and shell analyses [1012], fracture mechanics problems [13, 14], and limit analysis [15].
In the attempts to improve the performance of T3 and T4 elements, Liu et al. then extended the
cell/element-based idea of smoothing domains in the CS-FEM to node-based, edge-based, face-
based, and partly node-based ones with different applications to give, respectively, a node-based
smoothed FEM (NS-FEM) [1622, 30], an edge-based smoothed FEM (ES-FEM) [2327, 30], and
a face-based smoothed FEM (FS-FEM) [2830]. Similar to the standard FEM, these smoothed FEM
(S-FEM) models also use a mesh of elements. However, the S-FEM models evaluate the weak form
based on smoothing domains created from the entities of the element mesh such as nodes(Figure 2),
edges (Figure 3), or faces (Figure 4). These smoothing domains hence cover parts of adjacent ele-
ments. They are linearly independent and ensure stability and convergence of the S-FEM models.
Because of the use of different smoothing domains, the softening effect of strain smoothing tech-
nique on the over-stiffness of the standard FEM model will be different. Therefore, each of the
S-FEM models has different properties, advantages, and disadvantages [30].
: field nodes
x
1
5
8
y
(c)
1
x
7
4
9
(a)
y
4
: added nodes to form the smoothing domains
2 1
2
6
3
2
4
(d)
1
3
4
(b)
2
3
5
3
6
Figure 1. Division of quadrilateral element into the smoothing domains (SDs) in the CS-FEM-Q4 by con-
necting the mid-segment points of opposite segments of smoothing domains: (a) 1 SD; (b) 2 SDs; (c) 4 SDs;
and (d) 8 SDs.
: field node : centroid of triangle : mid-edge point
k
(k)
(k)
Figure 2. Triangular elements and the smoothing domains C
.k/
(shaded areas) associated with nodes in the
NS-FEM-T3.
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
NS-FEM FOR LIMIT AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES
smoothing domains
associated with
inner edge
smoothing domain associated
with boundary edge
: centroid of triangles : field node
Figure 3. Triangular elements and the smoothing domains (shaded areas) associated with edges in the
ES-FEM-T3.
: central point of elements (H, I)
interface k (BCD)
: field node
T4 element 1 (ABCD)
A
B
D
H
I
C
T4 element 2 (BCDE)
(BCDIH)
associated with interface k
smoothed domain
E
Figure 4. Tetrahedral elements and the smoothing domains (shaded areas) associated with face k in the
FS-FEM-T4.
It was proved that the S-FEM models are variationally consistent based on the modied two-
eld HellingerReissner principle. However, only unknowns of the eld displacement (master eld)
appear in the discretized algebraic system of equations. Therefore, it is, in general, very much dif-
ferent from the so-called mixed FEM formulation [31, 32], where stresses (or strains) may also be
unknowns (or also master elds). More details for a general and rigorous theoretical framework
related to properties, accuracy, and convergence rates of the S-FEM models have been recently
studied in [33].
Among these S-FEM models, the NS-FEM [1621] shows some interesting properties that are
very effective for solving nonlinear problems in solid mechanics: (i) volumetric locking is signi-
cantly alleviated; (ii) it possesses super-accurate and super-convergent properties of stress solutions;
and (iii) the stress at nodes can be computed directly from the displacement solution without using
any post-process. The third property is similar to using just one Gauss point to compute the stress
at nodes. The NS-FEM is hence a very convenient method for conducting the nonlinear computa-
tional algorithm using the stress at nodes and is more computationally efcient and simpler than
the standard FEM using the stresses at Gauss points located inside the element. On the basis of
these crucial properties, the NS-FEM was then extended to analyze the visco-elastoplasticity prob-
lems in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) solids [19], fracture mechanics [20],
DOI: 10.1002/nme
and plates [21, 22]. In this paper, the NS-FEM is further formulated for the limit and shake-
down analysis of solid mechanics problems made of elasticperfectly plastic material. Recall that
the extension of S-FEM approaches to limit and the shakedown analysis of 2D structures has
already been investigated in previous contributions [14, 22]. In [14], a formula to compute the
plastic collapse limit factor was relied on the CS-FEM in which the smoothing domains were cre-
ated based on elements, and each element was then subdivided into one or several quadrilateral
smoothing domains. In [22], we used the ES-FEM in which the smoothing domains were cre-
ated based on the edges of the elements to obtain the plastic collapse limit factor. Therefore, the
present approach in which the smoothing domains are obtained based on the nodes of the elements
is basically different from the CS-FEM and ES-FEM models. The NS-FEM is particularly more
general than the CS-FEM and ES-FEM because the NS-FEM can solve for both 2D and 3D prob-
lems of the limit and shakedown analyses, while the CS-FEM and ES-FEM are only available for
2D problems.
Limit and shakedown analysis has been a well-known tool for assessing the safety load factor
of engineering structures. These load factors can be derived from upper bound and lower bound
approaches. The upper bound shakedown analysis is based on Koiters kinematic theorem [34]
(a kinematically admissible displacement eld) to determine the minimum load factor, and the lower
bound shakedown analysis is based on Melans static theorem [35] (a statically admissible stress
eld) to determine the maximum load factor. However, the analytical methods to solve these two
approaches are not available for the general problems in engineering practice [36, 37]. Therefore,
various numerical methods that involve continuous, semi-continuous [38] or truly discontinuous
[39, 40] approximations of the relevant elds have been developed. The numerical methods, such
as nite elements [4174], boundary elements [7577], and meshfree methods [7880] have been
devised to deal with limit and shakedown problems.
Once the displacement and stress elds of a numerical method are approximated and the upper
and lower bound theorems are employed, limit and shakedown analysis becomes a nonlinear opti-
mization problem of minimizing a sum of Euclidean norms subject to linear constraints [57].
Unfortunately, the objective function (the sum of Euclidean norms) in the associated optimiza-
tion problem is only differentiable in the plastic regions, whereas available optimization algorithms
require its gradients to be denite everywhere. Various techniques have been proposed in the litera-
ture to overcome this singularity problem [5458]. One of the most robust and efcient algorithms
to overcome this difculty is the primaldual interior-point method presented by Andersen and
coworkers [57, 58] and implemented in commercial codes such as the MOSEK software package
[59]. It was also shown that the interior point algorithms are very effective optimization tools for the
limit analysis of structures [6062]. Furthermore, the primaldual interior-point algorithm together
with the Newton method can lead to very accurate results in limit and shakedown analysis [63, 64],
in which the primaldual algorithm is merged into kinematically admissible nite elements. In this
primaldual algorithm, a yield criterion is combined with a nonlinear optimization procedure to
evaluate both the upper and lower bounds of the plastic collapse limit and the shakedown limit.
In addition, when a Newton-like iteration was used in the primaldual algorithm, the upper and
quasi-lower bounds of the load factor converged rapidly to the exact solution [64].
In this paper, a novel numerical procedure that uses a node-based smoothed FEM (NS-FEM) in
combination with a primaldual algorithm is presented to evaluate the limit and shakedown load
factors for solid mechanics problems made of elasticperfectly plastic material. First, an NS-FEM
formulation of a primal problem, which is the nonlinear minimization problem of an objective
function (as a sum of Euclidean norms) subject to linear constraints, is set up and a dual prob-
lem of the primal problem is then introduced. Next, an associated primaldual form based on the
von Mises yield criterion is formulated. Finally, the primaldual algorithm is combined with a
Newton-like iteration to solve the associated primaldual form to determine simultaneously both
the approximate upper and quasi-lower bounds of the plastic collapse limit and the shakedown
limit. Several numerical examples are used to demonstrate the accuracy and effectiveness of the
present method.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
2. BRIEF ON THE NS-FEM FOR ELASTICITY
2.1. A brief on the formulation of NS-FEM
Consider a J-dimensional problem domain of C R
d
(J = 1, 2 or 3 for 1D, 2D, or 3D, respec-
tively) bounded by a Lipschitz continuous boundary I. The problem domain can be discretized into
N
el
nnel node linear elements (two-node elements for 1D, three-node triangular elements for 2D,
and four-node tetrahedral elements for 3D), which can be created in the same way as in the standard
FEM [32]. The displacement eld u
h
can be utilized from linear nite elements, but the integration
required in the Galerkin weak form is now performed based on the nodes, and the strain smoothing
technique [1] is adopted. In such a nodal integration process, the problem domain Cis again divided
into N
n
smoothing domains associated with nodes such that C=
N
n
kD1
C
.k/
and C
.i/
C
.j/
=0,
i = . For example, for triangular elements, the smoothing domain C
.k/
associated with the node
k is created by connecting sequentially the mid-edge points to the centroids of the surrounding tri-
angular elements of the node k as shown in Figure 2. As a result, each triangular element will be
subdivided into three quadrilaterals of equal area and each quadrilateral is connected to the nearest
node. The smoothing domain C
.k/
associated with the node k is then created by combining the
nearest quadrilaterals of the elements surrounding node k [16].
Using the node-based smoothing operation to smooth the compatible strain
h
=V
s
u
h
on the
smoothing domain C
.k/
associated with node k, the strain in the Galerkin weak form now becomes
the smoothed strain N
k
that can be viewed as an assumed strain eld on C
.k/
N
k
=
_
.k/
h
(x)
k
(x)dC=
_
.k/
V
s
u
h
(x)
k
(x)dC, (1)
where
k
(x) is a given smoothing function that satises unity property
_
.k/
k
(x)dC=1. (2)
By using the constant smoothing function
k
(x) =
_
1,V
.k/
x C
.k/
.
0 x C
.k/
(3)
The assumed strain eld in Equation (1) becomes
N
k
=
1
V
.k/
_
.k/
V
s
u
h
(x)dC, (4)
where V
.k/
is the volume
of the smoothing domain C

.k/
and is calculated by
V
.k/
=
_
.k/
dC=
1
J 1
N
.k/
e
jD1
V
.j/
e
, (5)
where N
.k/
e
is the number of elements around the node k and V
.j/
e
is the volume of the
th
element
around the node k.
In terms of nodal displacement vectors d
I
, the smoothing strains N
k
can be written as
N
k
=
I2N
.k/
n
B
I
(x
k
)d
I
, (6)
This term may be regarded as the length for 1D, the area for 2D and the volume for 3D.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
where N
.k/
n
is the number of nodes that are directly connected to node k as shown in Figure 2,
and

B
I
(x
k
) is the smoothed strain-displacement matrix on the domain C
.k/
, which is calculated
numerically by an assembly process similar to the standard FEM
B
I
(x
k
) =
1
V
.k/
N
.k/
e
jD1
1
J 1
V
.j/
e
B
e
j
, (7)
in which matrix B
e
j
=
I2S
e
j
B
I
is the compatible strain-displacement matrix for the
th
element
around the node k. It is assembled from the compatible strain-displacement matrices B
I
(x) of nodes
in the set S
e
j
which contains nnel nodes of the
th
linear element. Because linear elements are used,
the entries of B
e
j
are constants and therefore

B
I
(x
k
) are also constants.
The smoothed stiffness matrix

K of the system is then assembled by a similar process as in
the FEM
K
IJ
=
N
n
kD1
K
.k/
IJ
, (8)
where

K
.k/
IJ
is the smoothed stiffness matrix associated with node k and is calculated by
K
.k/
IJ
=
_
.k/
B
T
I
C
B
J
dC=

B
T
I
C
B
J
V
.k/
(9)
Note that because the smoothed strains N
k
in Equation (1) are constants, the stresses N
k
= C N
k
are also constants in the smoothing domain C
.k/
.
2.2. Variational formulation of the NS-FEM
In this section, we show that the variational basis of the NS-FEM can be derived from the modied
HellingerReissner variational principle [32]. The HellingerReissner variational principle, where
the stress eld and the displacement eld u are often considered as two independent elds, is
written as
HR
(, u) =
_
T
V
s
u
1
2
T
C
1
b
T
u
_
dC
_
t
T
udI. (10)
In the discretization form of a problem domain, Equation (10) can be expressed in a summation
over all the smoothing domains as follows:
HR
(, u) =
N
n
kD1
_
_
.k/
_
T
V
s
u
1
2
T
C
1
_
dC
_
.k/
b
T
udC
_
.k/
t
t
T
udI
_
, (11)
where b is the body force and I
.k/
t
is the portion of the element boundary over which prescribed
surface tractions
t are applied.
If the stress eld is now expressed through the stressstrain relation as =DN
k
, the rst term
in the right-hand side of Equation (11) becomes
_
.k/
_
T
V
s
u
1
2
T
C
1
_
dC= N
T
k
C
_
.k/
V
s
udC

DN
k
V
.k/
1
2
N
T
k
CN
k
V
.k/
=
1
2
N
T
k
CN
k
V
.k/
. (12)
Substituting Equation (12) into Equation (11), we obtain the two-eld mixed principle based on
the smoothed strain N " and the displacement u as
HR
(N , u) =
N
s
kD1
_
1
2
N
T
k
CN
k
V
.k/
.k/
b
T
udC
_
.k/
t
t
T
udI
_
, (13)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
which can be considered as a special case of the mixed approach based on an assumed strain method
[31]. This is because the present method only uses the displacements (one master eld) as unknowns
and the assumed strains are then dened by Equation (1), which can be expressed simply over only
displacement unknowns in Equation (6). It also implies that the NS-FEM has a foundation from the
HellingerReissner variational principle, and it is variationally consistent [33].
2.3. A brief of properties of NS-FEM
The following properties of the NS-FEM were presented in [16, 17]. In this paper, we only recall the
main points that are effective for solving nonlinear problems in solid mechanics:
Property 1: NS-FEM can effectively alleviate volumetric locking.
Property 2: NS-FEM possesses super-accurate and super-convergent properties of stress
solutions.
Property 3: NS-FEM can directly compute the stress at nodes from the displacement solution
without using any post-processes.
The third property is similar to using just one Gauss point to compute the stress at nodes.
The NS-FEM is hence very convenient for conducting the nonlinear computational algorithm using
the stress at nodes and is more computationally efcient and simpler than the standard FEM using
the stresses at Gauss points located inside the element. The next section therefore attempts to further
formulate the NS-FEM for the limit and shakedown analysis of structures made of elasticperfectly
plastic material. Note that linear nite elements (FEM-T3) have been shown to not be efcient for
the primaldual algorithm while the following NS-FEM formulation, which is also built from linear
nite elements, works very well in nding the bounds of the load factor. In addition, it was recently
shown by numerical examples for elastic results in [17, 33] that the NS-FEMproduces more accurate
stresses and higher convergence rates (in the energy error norm) than the ES-FEM model. Hence, in
this paper, it will be also conrmed by numerical studies that the NS-FEM model can provide better
solutions than the ES-FEM for the limit and shakedown analysis.
3. AN NS-FEM FORMULATION OF PRIMAL AND DUAL PROBLEMS IN LIMIT AND
SHAKEDOWN ANALYSIS
Let 1 be a convex polyhedral load domain that contains a special loading path consisting of all load
vertices

1
i
(i =1, . . . , m) of 1 [53, 64], where m is the number of load vertices. In the conforming
FEM, the kinematical compatible conditions are satised. Hence, a strict dual bound of the plastic
collapse limit and the shakedown limit is achieved. However, in the NS-FEM, where the smoothing
technique is used, the compatibility requirement is relaxed somewhat. It is therefore impossible to
obtain strict dual formulations. This means the solutions obtained using the present method is only
considered to be approximate upper and quasi-lower solutions. Let
E
be the ctitious elastic stress
vector. According to Koiters theorem [34], the upper bound shakedown limit, which is smaller
to the low cycle fatigue limit and the ratcheting limit, may be found by minimizing the following
optimization problem [63]:
C
=min
m
iD1
_
D
p
(
P
N
ik
)dC (a)
subjected to :
_
_
^N
k
=
m
iD1
P
N
ik
, in C (b)
^u
k
=0, on I
u
(c)
D
v
P
N
ik
=0, (d)
m
iD1
_
P
N
T
ik
E
k
_
.,

1
i
_
dC=1, (e)
(14)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
where D
p
(
P
N
ik
) is the plastic dissipation power per unit domain. The third constraint,
Equation (14d), ensures that the incompressibility condition must be satised on all smoothing
domains C
.k/
and at all load vertices i . D
v
has the form
D
v
=
_
_
1 1 0
1 1 0
0 0 0
_
_
for plane strain problems, and
D
v
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_
_
for 3D problems. (15)
By applying the strain smoothing technique on the smoothing domains associated with nodes
in the NS-FEM presented in Section 2 and using von Mises yield criterion, Equation (14) can be
expressed through the discretized form of smoothing domains as follows:
C
=min
m
iD1
N
n
kD1
V
.k/
_
2
3
o
y
_
P
N
T
ik
D
P
N
ik
c
2
0
(a)
subjected to :
_
_
m
iD1
P
N
ik
=

B
k
u, Vk =1, N
n
(b)
D
v
P
N
ik
=0, Vk =1, N
n
, Vi =1, m (c)
m
iD1
N
n
kD1
V
.k/
P
N
T
ik
E
ik
=1, (d)
(16)
where o
y
is the yield stress and c
2
0
is a small positive number that ensures that the objective function
is differentiable everywhere [57, 58], D is a diagonal square matrix with the following form:
D =Ji ag
_
1 1
1
2
_
for 2D problems, and
D =Ji ag
_
1 1 1
1
2
1
2
1
2
_
for 3D problems. (17)
For the sake of simplicity, some new notations are introduced
e
ik
=V
.k/
D
1=2
P
N
ik
, t
ik
=D
1=2
E
ik
,

B
k
=V
.k/
D
1=2
B
k
(18)
where e
ik
, t
ik
,

B
i
are the new strain rate vector, new ctitious elastic stress vector, and new strain
matrix, respectively. By substituting Equation (18) into Equation (16), we obtain a simplied version
of the upper bound shakedown analysis (primal problem)
C
=min
m
iD1
N
n
kD1
_
2
3
o
y
_
e
T
ik
e
ik
c
2
(a)
subjected to :
_
_
m
iD1
e
ik

B
k
u =0, Vk =1, N
n
(b)
D
v
e
ik
=0, Vk =1, N
n
, Vi =1, m (c)
m
iD1
N
n
kD1
e
T
ik
t
ik
1 =0, (d)
(19)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
where c =V
.k/
c
0
is also a small positive number.
The Lagrange function associated with the primal problem (19) can be written as
1 =
N
n
kD1
_
m
iD1
_
2
3
o
y
_
e
T
ik
e
ik
c
2
iD1
T
ik
D
v
e
ik

T
k
_
m
iD1
e
ik

B
k
u
__
_
N
n
kD1
m
iD1
e
T
ik
t
ik
1
_
, (20)
in which
ik
,
k
, are Lagrange multipliers that take on the role of generalized stresses. As shown
in [63], the dual problem of the primal problem (19) can be derived based on the Lagrange function
(20), and has the following form:
=max (a)
subjected to :
_
_
[
ik

k
t
ik
[ 6
_
2
3
o
y
(b)
N
n
kD1
B
T
k
k
=0 (c)
(21)
where [[ denotes the Euclidean norm, that is, [[ =(
T
)
1=2
.
The form (21) is also exactly the discretized form of the lower bound shakedown problem formu-
lated by Melans static theorem, while the Lagrange function (20) is an essential intermediate form
to lead to the dual problem (21).
Note that the constraints (b), (c), and (d) in the primal problem (19) are related to kinematic
variables, while the constraints (b) and (c) in the dual problem (21) are related to static variables.
Solving the primal problem (19) with kinematic variables will lead to an upper bound solution,
while solving the dual problem (21) with static variables will lead to a lower bound solution. These
upper and lower bounds are well known in the limit and shakedown analyses using FEM [45].
It is also noted that when the number of load vertices m=1, the problems (19) and (21) of
shakedown analyses are reduced to those of limit analyses.
4. A PRIMALDUAL ALGORITHM FOR LIMIT AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSIS
In principle, to obtain both upper and lower bounds, it is necessary to solve both primal and dual
problems independently. This requires a high computational cost. In addition, it takes more involve-
ment to deal with the dual problem (21) related to the static variables [63]. In this section, we thus
simplify the primal and dual algorithms [63, 64] using the NS-FEM model to obtain both approx-
imate upper and quasi-lower bounds simultaneously by solving only the associated primaldual
form. The algorithm thus helps to reduce the computational cost signicantly and avoid the difcul-
ties related to the dual problem (21). In addition, our numerical approach is quite simple because of
the use of just one Gauss point to compute the stress at nodes, which are also the smoothing domains.
It was shown that the NS-FEMgains super-accurate and super-convergent solutions dened by nodal
stresses. Hence, it is very efcient for conducting limit and shakedown nonlinear problems.
We introduce briey the associated primaldual form that has been shown to be more convenient
for large-scale optimization problems [57, 58, 64]. Now, a penalty function is used to eliminate the
rst two constraints in Equation (19) as follows:
1 =
N
n
kD1
_
_
_
m
iD1
_
e
T
ik
e
ik
c
2
c
2
m
iD1
e
T
ik
D
v
e
ik

c
2
_
m
iD1
e
ik

B
k
u
_
T
_
m
iD1
e
ik

B
k
u
_
_
_
_
,
(22)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
where c is a penalty parameter xed at 1e+10. Using Equation (22), the corresponding Lagrange
function of Equation (19) becomes
1 =1
_
N
n
kD1
m
iD1
e
T
ik
t
ik
1
_
. (23)
Similar to Equation (20), the Lagrange function (23) is also an essential intermediate form that
leads to the dual problem (21). Therefore, Equation (23) can be called associated primaldual
form.
By employing the Newton method to solve the KarushKuhnTucker (KKT) optimality condi-
tions of the Lagrangian function in Equation (23), we obtain the Newton directions d u, d e
ik
, d
ik
,
d
k
and d, which ensure that a suitable step along them will lead to a decrease in the objective
function of the primal problem (19) and to an increase in the objective function of the dual problem
(21). If the relative improvement between two steps is smaller than a given constant, the algorithm
stops and leads to the limit load factor
lim
. More details of the computational algorithm can be
found in [27].
It is noted that the assumed strains using the strain smoothing operator dened in Equation (1)
relax the compatibility somewhat. Therefore, a strict upper bound cannot be ensured in general. In
addition, the dual problem (21) is constructed from the primal problem (19) with Lagrange multipli-
ers. Hence, a strict lower bound also cannot be guaranteed. Thus, the present method only provides
approximate upper and quasi-lower solutions of the plastic collapse limit and the shakedown limit.
However, because only one Gaussian point is required for each smoothing domain in which strain
rates are constant, the ow rule (or incompressibility condition in plane strain) is guaranteed to be
satised everywhere in the problem domain. Therefore, the upper and lower bounds derived from
the present method can still be reasonably considered as reliable bounds to the exact value.
5. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section, we examine the performance of the present primaldual shakedown algorithm using
the NS-FEM through a series of numerical examples. Various numerical examples are given to
compute both limit and shakedown load factors for structures. The structure can be discretized into
a mesh of T3 and T4 elements, and the present formulation corresponding to mesh types can be
termed as NS-FEM-T3 and NS-FEM-T4, respectively. For each test case, some existing analyti-
cal and numerical solutions found in literature are briey presented and compared. In addition, the
results derived from the NS-FEM are also compared with those obtained from the ES-FEM model,
which was found to be one of very effective and reliable numerical models using three-node linear
triangular elements [27]. Note that the NS-FEM and ES-FEM results given in Tables I and II were
obtained by averaging its upper and lower bound values at the nal iteration.
5.1. Square plate with a central circular hole: convergence study of limit load factor
The rst example deals with a square plate with a central circular hole, which is subjected to
biaxial uniform loads 1
1
, 1
2
, as shown in Figure 5(a). The given data is assumed as follows:
1 =2.1 10
5
MPa, v =0.3, o
y
=200 MPa. The ratio between the diameter of the hole and the
side length of the plate is 0.2 (1,1 =0.2). This problem has then become the benchmark for vari-
ous numerical models. Because of its symmetry, one-fourth of the plate is modeled and discretized
into 512 triangular elements (289 nodes) and 1850 tetrahedral elements (624 nodes) as shown in
Figures 5(b) and 10(b), respectively.
The aim of this example is to verify the convergence of NS-FEM solutions in comparison with
those of the FEM and ES-FEM. With 1
2
=0, 1
1

_
0, o
y
_
and 1,1 =0.2, the analytical solution
of the limit load factor using plane stress hypothesis and von Mises yield criterion was obtained by
Gaydon and McCrum [37] as
lim
=(1 1,1) o
y
=0.8o
y
. (24)
DOI: 10.1002/nme
Table I. The limit load factor of the NS-FEM in comparison with those of other methods for the square
plate with a central circular hole.
Load cases
Authors and methods 1
1
=1
2
1
2
=1
1
,2 1
2
=0
Belytschko [43], equilibrium FE (LB) N/A N/A 0.780
Nguyen and Palgen [45], equilibrium FE (LB) 0.704 N/A 0.564
Genna [46], nonlinear inequality approach (LB) N/A N/A 0.793
Gross-Weege [50], reduced basis technique (LB) 0.882 0.891 0.782
Chen et al. [78], EFG (LB) 0.874 0.899 0.798
Corradi and Zavelani [44], linear programming approach (LB) 0.767 N/A 0.691
Vu [63], dual algorithm (UB) 0.895 N/A N/A
Zouain et al. [66], mixed model 0.894 0.911 0.803
Zhang et al. [76] (3D case), BEM (LB) 0.889 0.898 0.784
Zhang et al. [76] (2D case), BEM (LB) 0.893 0.907 0.789
Tran et al. [27], dual algorithm 0.896 0.912 0.805
Present (NS-FEM-T3), dual algorithm 0.894 0.911 0.802
Analytical [37] N/A N/A 0.8
Analytical [37], LB 0.894 N/A N/A
Analytical [37], UB 0.924 N/A N/A
LB, lower bound; UB, upper bound.
Table II. The limit load factor of the NS-FEM in comparison with those of other methods for thin square
slabs with three different cutouts.
Model
(a) Circular (b) Square (c) Crack
Authors and methods cut-out cut-out cut-out
Zhang et al. [75], BEM (LB) 0.754 0.747 0.514
Belytschko and Hodge [42], equilibrium FE (LB) 0.793 0.693 0.498
Chen et al. [78], EFG (LB) 0.798 0.736 0.513
Zhang et al. [47], iteration algorithm (UB) 0.824 0.764 0.534
Numerical solutions obtained for FEM, ES-FEM, and NS-FEM models versus the increasing vari-
ation of elements are shown in Figure 6. From these results, it can be observed that all numerical
limit load factors converge to the exact one and NS-FEM can produce more accurate solutions than
FEM, mixed model [66], and ES-FEM.
The convergence rate is also illustrated in Figure 7. It can be observed that both NS-FEM and ES-
FEM methods yield a super-convergent behaviour of the plastic limit load factor. This conrms that
the super-convergence of solutions using S-FEM models can be obtained for plastic limit analysis
problems. Furthermore, the NS-FEM exhibits the most accurate results.
Figure 8 illustrates the limit load domains using the NS-FEM and several other methods. It can
be seen that NS-FEM solutions agree very well with those of the lower bound approach in [43, 50]
and the upper bound approach in [52]. Note that the ES-FEM also shows very accurate results for
this problem.
Table I further shows the limit load factor of the NS-FEM in comparison with those of other
methods. It can again be seen that the NS-FEM solutions agree very well with those of the other
existing FEM and meshfree models. In particular, the NS-FEM produces solutions that are very
close to those of the mixed formulation in [66], and even achieves higher accuracy in the load case
1
2
= 0, even though our model uses only 544 DOFs compared with 2014 DOFs in [66]. For the
3D model, it can also be seen that the results of the present element show very good agreement with
other available ones.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
(b)
Figure 5. Square plate with a central circular hole: (a) full model subjected to biaxial uniform loads and
(b) its quarter model with symmetric conditions imposed on the left and bottom edges, and the nite element
discretization using 512 three-node linear triangular elements.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0.8
0.805
0.81
0.815
0.82
0.825
0.83
0.835
Number of elements
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Exact sol.
Mixed model
FEMT3
ESFEMT3
NSFEMT3
Figure 6. Convergence of limit load factor (with 1
2
= 0) of the NS-FEM-T3 in comparison with those of
other methods for the square plate with a central circular hole.
5.2. Thin square slabs with three different cutouts subjected to tension: accuracy study of limit
load factor
We next assess the performance of the NS-FEM via the limit analysis of the thin square slabs with
three different cutouts (circular, square, and crack cutouts) subjected to tension, as shown in Figure 9
DOI: 10.1002/nme
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
log
10
(h)
l
o
g
1
0
(
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
r
r
o
r

i
n

c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e

l
o
a
d
)
FEMT3
ESFEMT3
NSFEMT3
1.01
1.44
1.53
Figure 7. Convergence rate of limit load factor (with 1
2
= 0) of the NS-FEM-T3 in comparison with those
of FEM-T3 and ES-FEM-T3 methods for the square plate with a central circular hole.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
P
1
/
s
P
2
/
s
NSFEMT3
ESFEMT3
Belytschko, lower bound
HF Chen et al, upper bound
GrossWeege, lower bound
NSFEMT3
Figure 8. The limit load domain of the NS-FEM-T3 in comparison with those of other methods for the
square plate with a central circular hole.
a) circular cutout b) square cutout c) crack cutout
Figure 9. Thin square slabs with three different cut-outs.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
[42]. The given data are selected as in Section 5.1. This plane stress problem has been solved numer-
ically by nite element [42, 47], BEM [75], and recently by the element-free Galerkin method [78].
Because of their symmetry, only the quadrants of three slabs are modeled and their discretizations
using three-node linear triangular elements are shown in Figure 10.
Table II shows the limit load factors of the NS-FEM in comparison with those of several different
limit analysis approaches, and Figure 11 illustrates simultaneously both the upper and lower bounds
of the limit load factors for three cases of slabs. Using the primaldual algorithm, all the upper and
lower bounds for three cases of slabs in Figure 11 converge rapidly to the solutions given in Table II.
Moreover, NS-FEM-T3 solutions are slightly more accurate than those of ES-FEM-T3.
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
(a)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
0.2
0.4
(b)
Circular cutout
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
(c)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
0.2
0.4
(d)
Square cutout
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
(e)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
0.2
0.4
(f)
Crack cutout
Figure 10. Finite element discretization using three-node linear triangular and four-node linear tetrahedral
elements for thin square slabs with three different cut-outs.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a) circular
cutout
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Zhang et al., BEM (LB)
Belytschko, Equilibrium FE (LB)
Chen et al., EFG (LB)
Zhang et al., Displacement FE (UB)
NSFEMT3, Primal approach
NSFEMT3, Dual approach
ESFEMT3, Primal approach
ESFEMT3, Dual approach
NSFEMT3
NSFEMT3
(b) square
cutout
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
NSFEMT3
NSFEMT3
(c) crack
cutout
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Figure 11. Convergence of limit load factors using the NS-FEM-T3 solution in comparison with those of
other methods for thin square slabs with three different cut-outs: (a) circular; (b) square; and (c) crack.
Also from Figure 11 and Table II, it can be seen that the solutions of the NS-FEM are lower than
those of the upper bound models and higher than those of the lower bound approaches. This implies
that the NS-FEM can produce results that are closer to the exact value than several other methods
in the literature.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
5.3. Asymmetrical cantilever model
Consider a clamped tapered cantilever subjected to an in-plane shearing load stress, as shown in
Figure 12(a). The given data is assumed as follows: 1 =2.1 10
5
MPa, v =0.3, o
y
=
_
3 MPa.
The problem domain is modeled and discretized into 1152 triangular elements (625 nodes) and 3456
tetrahedral elements (1082 nodes), as shown in Figures 12(b) and (c), respectively. The exact solu-
tion of this problemis unknown. The reference value found in [73] was 0.68504, which was obtained
by averaging upper and lower bounds at the last adaptive renement step. This problem was then
investigated in [15] using the CS-FEM-Q4 scheme, which led to the solution of 0.6852. Figure 13
plots the limit load factors of ES-FEM and NS-FEM using the primaldual algorithm. The obtained
solutions are reasonable in comparison with the reference value. For instance, in comparison with
the reference value, the present approach using the NS-FEM-T4 model produces an approximate
upper bound of 0.6857 (more than 0.096%) and a quasi-lower bound of 0.6832 (less than 0.269%)
at the last iteration.
(a)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(b)
(c)
c)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0.2
0.4
Figure 12. Asymmetrical cantilever problem: (a) 3D model; (b) 2D mesh; and (c) 3D mesh.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
2 4 6 8 10 12
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Ref sol.
Figure 13. The limit load factor of asymmetrical cantilever problem.
Table III. Elastic shakedown load factors for the square plate problem with a central circular hole with
21,1 =0.2 subjected to independently varying loads.
Authors and methods 1
1
=1
2
1
2
=1
1
,2 1
2
=0
Nguyen and Palgen [45], equilibrium FE (LB) 0.431 0.514 0.557
Belytschko [43], equilibrium FE (LB) 0.431 0.501 0.571
Zhang [49], LB 0.431 0.514 0.596
Zhang et al. [76] (3D case), LB 0.467 0.538 0.634
Zhang et al. [76] (2D case), LB 0.477 0.549 0.647
Genna [46], nonlinear inequality approach (LB) 0.478 0.566 0.653
Liu et al. [77], BEM (LB) 0.477 0.549 0.647
Gross-Weege [50], reduced basis technique (LB) 0.446 0.524 0.614
Zhang [49], upper bound 0.453 0.539 0.624
Corradi and Zavelani [44], linear programming approach (UB) 0.504 0.579 0.654
Carvelli et al. [53], UB 0.518 6.07 0.696
Zhang and Raad [65], eigen-mode method 0.494 N/A 0.574
Zouain et al. [66], mixed approach 0.429 0.500 0.594
Krabbenhft et al. [68], adaptive approach 0.430 0.499 0.595
Garcea et al. [67], iterative method 0.438 0.508 0.604
Present (NS-FEM-T3) 0.439 0.508 0.601
Present (NS-FEM-T4) 0.428 0.495 0.588
5.4. Square plate with a central circular hole: convergence and accuracy study of shakedown
load factor
Now we perform the shakedown analysis for the square plate problem with a central circular hole, as
shown in Section 5.1, by using the NS-FEM-T3 and NS-FEM-T4. The exact solution of this prob-
lem is not available and the rst numerical study on this problem was performed by Belytschko and
Hodge [43]. Many authors have then chosen this benchmark as a numerical base to verify numerical
shakedown approaches. Among these numerical approaches, an adaptive nite element formulation
by Krabbenhft et al. [68] was found to be the most effective.
Table III shows the numerical results of elastic shakedown load factors of the NS-FEM in com-
parison with other methods. It can be seen that the numerical results show a relatively large scatter.
In general, NS-FEM results agree well with the available numerical results. As compared with
the adaptive solution in [68], the difference is about 0.5% to 2.2%, 0.8% to 1.7%, and 0.8% to
1.1% for load cases of 1
1
=1
2
, 1
2
=1
1
,2, and 1
2
=0, respectively. These errors are quite small
DOI: 10.1002/nme
and reasonable, even though we only use the uniform mesh of three-node linear triangular ele-
ments. Therefore, NS-FEM is very promising in providing a simple and effective tool for limit and
shakedown analyses of structures in applications.
5.5. Grooved rectangular plate subjected to varying tension and bending
This example considers a grooved rectangular plate subjected to in-plane tension
N
and bending
M
(Figure 14(a)). The load domain is dened by
M

_
0, o
y
_
,
N

_
0, o
y
_
(31)
First, limit analysis of this problem for pure tension load case,
N
=0,
M
=0 has been studied
by several authors such as Prager and Hodge [36], Casciaro and Cascini [41], and Yan [51]. Further
investigations for a more complicated case with
N
= 0,
M
= 0 were then reported by Vu [63]
and Tran et al. [27, 72]. The structure is discretized into 720 three-node triangular elements (T3) as
shown in Figure 14(b). The following data are used: 1 = 250 mm, 1 = 41, 1 = 2.1 10
5
MPa,
v =0.3, o
y
=116.2 MPa.
Table IV shows the limit load factor for constant pure tension case,
N
= o
y
,
M
= 0 of the
NS-FEM in comparison with those of other methods. It can be seen that NS-FEM solutions agree
well with the other existing solutions for both plane stress and plane strain assumptions. On the
basis of the von Mises yield criterion, it can also be seen that the NS-FEM can produce solutions
belonging to the reliable interval of the analytical approach by Yan [51].
Limit and shakedown analysis is also investigated for the case of having both in-plane tension and
bending. Figure 15 shows the convergence of limit and shakedown load factors of the NS-FEM in
comparison with those of ES-FEM [27]. In the case of limit analysis, the load factors of the ES-FEM
and NS-FEM are, respectively, 0.3003 and 0.2966, which are quite close to the 0.30498 obtained
by Tran [72]. In the case of shakedown analysis, the load factors of ES-FEM and NS-FEM are,
respectively, 0.23461 and 0.22477, which are also quite close to the 0.23494 obtained by Vu [63].
The NS-FEM results are slightly more accurate than those of the upper bounds in [63, 72].
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
(a) (b)
Figure 14. A grooved rectangular plate subjected to in-plane tension
N
and bending
M
: (a) model
including loads and boundary conditions and (b) nite element discretization using 720 three-node linear
triangular elements.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
Table IV. Limit load factor for constant pure tension case,
N
=o
y
,
M
=0, of the grooved rectangular
plate.
Plane stress Plane strain Nature of solution Yield criterion
Prager and Hodge [36] 0.500 0.6300.695 analytical Tresca
Casciaro and Cascini [41] 0.568 0.699 numerical von Mises
Yan [51] 0.5000.577 0.7270.800 analytical von Mises
Yan [51] 0.558 0.769 numerical von Mises
Vu [63] 0.557 0.7990.802 numerical von Mises
Tran [72] 0.572 numerical von Mises
Tran et al. [27] 0.562 0.768 numerical von Mises
NS-FEM-T3 0.559 0.734 numerical von Mises
(a) limit analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
(b) shakedown
analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Figure 15. Convergence of load factors for the grooved rectangular plate.
5.6. A symmetric continuous beam
The last problem is a symmetric continuous beam subjected to two independent loads depicted in
Figure 16. The material parameters are: 1 = 1.8 10
5
MPa, v = 0.3, o
y
= 100 MPa. The load
domains were chosen analogously as in [67]: 1.2 MPa 6
1
6 2.0 MPa, 0 6
2
6 1.0MPa. The
nite element discretization using 1200 (T3) elements is described in Figure 16(b). The limit and
shakedown values are presented in Table V. It can be seen that the shakedown factor is different
from the alternating plasticity value. Hence, nonadaptation occurs because of incremental plasticity
(ratcheting), as already pointed out in [67]. The convergence of limit and shakedown load factors
DOI: 10.1002/nme
(a)
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
(b)
Figure 16. Symmetric continuous beam: (a) the geometry and (b) nite element discretization using 1200
three-node linear triangular elements.
Table V. Limit and shakedown load factor for the symmetric continuous beam.
Limit analysis Shakedown analysis
(
1
,
2
) (2, 0) (0, 1) (1.2, 1) (2, 1) Alternating Ratcheting
[MPa] plasticity
[67] 3.280 8.718 5.467 3.280 5.304 3.244
ES-FEM-T3 3.402 9.192 5.720 3.386 5.451 3.373
NS-FEM-T3 3.297 8.722 5.493 3.296 4.914 3.259
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Iterations
L
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
Primal approach Limit
Dual approach Limit
Primal approach Shakedown
Dual approach Shakedown
Garcea et al. Shakedown
Chen et al. Shakedown
Figure 17. Continuous beam: convergence of limit and shakedown load factors in comparison with those of
two other methods.
in comparison with those of two other methods are described in Figure 17. The obtained solutions
agree well with the published results in [67, 79]. Finally, Table VI closes the shakedown solutions
of this problem with various load domains.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
Table VI. Shakedown load factor of the symmetric continuous beam with various
load domains.
Shakedown load factor
Case Load domain (MPa) [67] [79] Present
1 1.2 6
1
62.0 3.244 3.297 3.259
06
2
61.0
2 0 6
1
62.0 2.174 2.036
0.66
2
61.0
3 0 6
1
62.0 2.152 2.016
0 6
2
61.0
6. CONCLUSIONS
A simple and effective numerical procedure for limit and shakedown analysis of structures using
the NS-FEM has been investigated in this paper. A primaldual algorithm based on the von Mises
yield criterion and a Newton iterative method were combined to determine simultaneously both
approximate upper and quasi-lower bounds of the plastic collapse limit and the shakedown limit by
solving only the associated primaldual form. The numerical solutions of predicting both limit and
shakedown load factors were obtained for structures Through the problems tested, some concluding
remarks can be made as follows:
(1) The NS-FEM uses only three DOFs at each vertex node without additional DOFs. In addition,
the stress is computed directly from the displacement solutions without using any post-
process in the NS-FEM. This is similar to using just one Gauss point to compute the stress
at nodes, which are also the smoothing domains. This not only guarantees a minimum num-
ber of the total variables in the resulting optimization problem, but also helps to increase
computational efciency of the NS-FEM.
(2) At each iteration, both the quasi-lower bound and the approximate upper bound were calcu-
lated simultaneously with no extra computational cost. This calculation is thus promising
in providing an effective tool to estimate the accuracy of the solution and to ensure the
convergence of the present formulation.
(3) By using the Newton iterative method, the nonlinear optimization analysis is reduced to some
iterations of the linear elastic analyses and hence there is no limit in practical applications.
In addition, the actual Newton directions updated at each iteration will ensure the kinematical
conditions of the displacements to be satised automatically.
(4) Numerical solutions of the NS-FEM are, in general, closer to the exact solutions than
the results of the ES-FEM and show good agreement with several results available in
the literature. Also, the present approach behaves much better than the ES-FEM with
incompressibility.
(5) The extension of the NS-FEM formulation to the limit and shakedown analysis of 3D
problems is straightforward, while the ES-FEM is only available for 2D problems.
(6) Although the 3D problems tested here are extruded by 2D cases, the present formulation is
general and hence can perform well for more complicated 3D structures.
However, the present algorithm still remains a limitation when solving large-scale problems that
are increasing in engineering practice using our present package. It is therefore very useful to asso-
ciate the proposed procedure with the MOSEK software package. It would also be interesting to
associate the present method with an adaptive local renement procedure to enhance the accuracy
of solutions at a suitable cost.
In addition to the above discussions, the authors believe that the method presented herein can be
very promising to:
(1) improve the load factor solution of limit and shakedown problems with strong discontinu-
ities [8183] in fracture structures by coupling the NS-FEM to the extended FEM (XFEM)
[8486]; and
DOI: 10.1002/nme
(2) apply the NS-FEM to a staggered gradient elasticity formulation for the accounting of the
effects of microstructure of materials and structures [87, 88].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The support of the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED;
Grant No. 107.02-2010.05) is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Chen JS, Wu CT, Yoon S, You Y. A stabilized conforming nodal integration for Galerkin mesh-free methods.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2001; 50:435466.
2. Liu GR, Dai KY, Nguyen-Thoi T. A smoothed nite element for mechanics problems. Computational Mechanics
2007; 39:859877.
3. Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T, Dai KY, Lam KY. Theoretical aspects of the smoothed nite element method (SFEM).
4. Nguyen-Xuan H, Bordas S, Nguyen-Dang H. Smooth nite element methods: Convergence, accuracy and properties.
5. Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T, Nguyen-Xuan H, Dai KY, Lam KY. On the essence and the evaluation of the shape func-
tions for the smoothed nite element method(SFEM). International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2009; 77:18631869.
6. Dai KY, Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T. An n-sided polygonal smoothed nite element method (nSFEM) for solid
mechanics. Finite Element Analysis and Design 2007; 43:847860.
7. Dai KY, Liu GR. Free and forced vibration analysis using the smoothed nite element method (SFEM). Journal of
Sound and Vibration 2007; 301:803820.
8. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Dai KY, Lam KY. Selective Smoothed Finite Element Method. Tsinghua Science and
Technology 2007; 12(5):497508.
9. Nguyen-Xuan H, Bordas S, Nguyen-Dang H. Addressing volumetric locking and instabilities by selective integration
in smoothed nite elements. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 2009; 25:1934.
10. Nguyen-Xuan H, Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Debongnie JF. A smoothed nite element method for plate analysis.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008; 197:11841203.
11. Nguyen-Thanh N, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H, Bordas S. A smoothed nite element method for shell analysis.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008; 198:165177.
12. Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Thoi T. A stabilized smoothed nite element method for free vibration analysis of
Mindlin-Reissner plates. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 2009; 25(8):882906.
13. Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen Vinh P, Natarajan S, Bog T, Do Minh Q, Nguyen Vinh H. Strain
smoothing in FEM and XFEM. Computers and Structures 2010; 88(2324):14191443.
14. Bordas S, Natarajan S, Kerfriden P, Augarde CE, Mahapatra DR, Rabczuk T, Pont SD. On the performance of strain
smoothing for quadratic and enriched nite element approximations (XFEM/GFEM/PUFEM). International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2011; 86(45):637666.
15. Le CV, Nguyen-Xuan H, Askes H, Bordas S, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Vinh H. A cell-based smoothed nite ele-
ment method for kinematic limit analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2010;
88(12):16511674.
16. Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T, Nguyen-Xuan H, Lam KY. A node-based smoothed nite element method (NS-FEM) for
upper bound solutions to solid mechanics problems. Computers and Structures 2009; 87:1426.
17. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Nguyen-Xuan H. Additional properties of the node-based smoothed nite element method
(NS-FEM) for solid mechanics problems. International Journal of Computational Methods 2009; 6:633666.
18. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen Tran C. Adaptive analysis using the node-based smoothed nite
element method (NS-FEM). Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 2010; 27(2):198218.
19. Nguyen-Thoi T, Vu-Do HC, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Xuan H. A node-based smoothed nite element method (NS-FEM)
for upper bound solution to visco-elastoplastic analyses of solids using triangular and tetrahedral meshes. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2010; 199:30053027.
20. Liu GR, Chen L, Nguyen-Thoi T, Zeng K, Zhang GY. A novel singular node-based smoothed nite element
method (NS-FEM) for upper bound solutions of fracture problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering 2010; 83(11):14661497.
21. Nguyen-Xuan H, Rabczuk T, Nguyen-Thanh N, Nguyen-Thoi T, Bordas S. A node-based smoothed nite ele-
ment method with stabilized discrete shear gap technique for analysis of ReissnerMindlin plates. Computational
Mechanics 2010; 46(5):679701.
22. Nguyen-Xuan H, Tran LV, Nguyen-Thoi T, Vu-Do HC. Analysis of functionally graded plates using an edge-based
smoothed nite element method. Composite Structures 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.04.028. in press.
23. Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T, Lam KY. An edge-based smoothed nite element method (ES-FEM) for static, free and
forced vibration analyses of solids. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2009; 320:11001130.
24. Nguyen-Xuan H, Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T, Nguyen Tran C. An edge-based smoothed nite element method (ES-
FEM) for analysis of two-dimensional piezoelectric structures. Smart and Material Structures 2009; 18(6):065015.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
25. Nguyen-Xuan H, Liu GR, Thai-Hoang C, Nguyen-Thoi T. An edge-based smoothed nite element method with stabi-
lized discrete shear gap technique for analysis of Reissner-Mindlin plates. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering 2010; 199:471489.
26. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Vu Do HC, Nguyen-Xuan H. An edge-based smoothed nite element method (ES-FEM)
for visco-elastoplastic analyses of 2D solids using triangular mesh. Computational Mechanics 2009; 45:2344.
27. Tran TN, Liu GR, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Thoi T. An edge-based smoothed nite element method for primal-dual
shakedown analysis of structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2010; 82:917938.
28. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Lam KY. A face-based smoothed nite element method (FS-FEM) for 3D linear and non-
linear solid mechanics problems using 4-node tetrahedral elements. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2009; 78(3):324353.
29. Nguyen-Thoi T, Liu GR, Vu Do HC, Nguyen-Xuan H. A face-based smoothed nite element method (FS-FEM)
for visco-elastoplastic analyses of 3D solids using tetrahedral mesh. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 2009; 198(4144):34793498.
30. Liu GR, Nguyen-Thoi T. Smoothed Finite Element Methods. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: NewYork, 2010.
31. Simo JC, Hughes TJR. On the variational foundation of assumed strain methods. ASME Journal of Applied
Mechanics 1986; 53:5154.
32. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The nite element method, (5th edn), Vol. 1. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, 2000.
33. Liu GR, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Thoi T. Atheoretical study on NS/ES-FEM: properties, accuracy and convergence
rates. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2010; 84:12221256.
34. Koiter WT. General theorems for elastic plastic solids. In Progress in Solid Mechanics, Sneddon IN, Hill R (eds).
Nord-Holland: Amsterdam, 1960. 165221.
35. Melan E. Theorie statisch unbestimmter Systeme aus ideal plastischem. Baustoff. Sitzber. Akad. Wiss, Wien IIa 1936;
145:195218.
36. Prager W, Hodge PGJr. Theory of perfectly plastic solids. Wiley: New York, 1951.
37. Gaydon FA, McCrum AW. A theoretical investigation of the yield point loading of a square plate with a central
circular hole. Journal of Mechanics and Physics Solids 1951; 2:156169.
38. Krabbenhoft K, Lyamin AV, Hjiaj M, Sloan SW. A new discontinuous upper bound limit analysis formulation.
39. Smith CC, Gilbert M. Application of Discontinuity Layout Optimization to Plane Plasticity Problems. Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2007; 463:24612484.
40. Gilbert M, Smith CC, Pritchard TJ. Masonry arch analysis using discontinuity layout optimization. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering and Computational Mechanics 2010; 163(3):155166.
41. Casciaro R, Cascini L. A mixed formulation and mixed nite elements for limit analysis. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 1982; 18:211243.
42. Belytschko T, Hodge PG. Plane stress limit analysis by nite element. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division
1970; 96:931944.
43. Belytschko T. Plane stress shakedown analysis by nite elements. International Journal of Mechanic Sciences 1972;
14:619625.
44. Corradi L, Zavelani A. A linear programming approach to shakedown analysis of structures. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1974; 3:3753.
45. Nguyen DH, Palgen L. Shakedown analysis by displacement method and equilibrium nite elements. Proceedings
of SMIRT-5, Berlin, 1979. Paper L3/3.
46. Genna F. A nonlinear inequality, nite element approach to the direct computation of shakedown load safety factors.
International Journal of Mechanics and Sciences 1988; 30:769789.
47. Zhang P, Lu MW, Hwang KC. A mathematical programming algorithm for limit analysis. Acta Mechanics Sinica
1991; 7:267274.
48. Stein E, Zhang G. Shakedown with nonlinear strain-hardening including structural computation using nite element
method. International Journal of Plasticity 1992; 8:131.
49. Zhang G. Einspielen und dessen numerische Behandlung von Flachentragwerken aus ideal plastischem bzw.
Kinematisch verfestingendemMaterial, Berich-nr. F92/i. Institut fr Mechanik, University Hannover, 1995.
50. Gross-Weege J. On the numerical assessment of the safety factor of elasto-plastic structures under variable loading.
International Journal of Mechanics and Sciences 1997; 39:417433.
51. Yan AM. Contribution to the direct limit state analysis of plastied and cracked structures. Dissertation, Universit
de Lige, Belgium, 1997.
52. Chen HF, Liu YH, Cen ZZ, Xu BY. On the solution of limit load and reference stress of 3-D structures under
multi-loading systems. Engineering Structures 1999; 21:530537.
53. Carvelli V, Cen ZZ, Liu Y, Maier G. Shakedown analysis of defective pressure vessels by a kinematic approaches.
Archive of Applied Mechanics 1999; 69:751764.
54. Huh H, Yang WH. A general algorithm for limit solutions of plane stress problems. Journal of Solids and Structures
1991; 28:727738.
55. Zouain N, Herskovits J, Borges LA, Feijoo RA. An iterative algorithm for limit analysis with nonlinear yield
functions. Journal of Solids and Structures 1993; 30:13971417.
56. Heitzer M, Staat M. FEM-computation of load carrying capacity of highly loaded passive components by direct
methods. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1999; 193(3):349358.
DOI: 10.1002/nme
57. Andersen KD, Christiansen E, Conn AR, Overton ML. An efcient primal-dual interior-point method for minimizing
a sum of Euclidean norms. SIAM Journal of Science Computation 2000; 22:243262.
58. Andersen ED, Roos C, Terlaky T. On implementing a primal-dual interior-point method for conic quadratic
programming. Math Program 2003; 95:249277.
59. The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual, 2009. Available from: http://www.mosek.com.MosekApS,
Version5.0edition.
60. Pastor J, Thai TH, Francescato P. Interior point optimization and limit analysis: an application. Communications in
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2003; 19:779785.
61. Francescato P, Pastor J, Riveill-Reydet B. Ductile failure of cylindrically porous materials. Part I: plane stress
problem and experimental results. European Journal of Mechanics-A/solids 2004; 23(2):181190.
62. Pastor J, Francescato P, Trillat M, Loute E, Rousselier G. Ductile failure of cylindrically porous materials. Part II:
other cases of symmetry. European Journal of Mechanics-A/solids 2004; 23(2):191201.
63. Vu DK. Dual Limit and Shakedown analysis of structures. Dissertation, Universit de Lige, Belgium, 2001.
64. Vu DK, Yan AM, Nguyen DH. A primal-dual algorithm for shakedown analysis of structure. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2004; 193:46634674.
65. Zhang T, Raad L. An eigen-mode method in kinematic shakedown analysis. International Journal of Plasticity 2002;
18:7190.
66. Zouain Z, Borges L, Silveira JL. An algorithm for shakedown analysis with nonlinear yield functions. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2002; 191:24632481.
67. Garcea G, Armentano G, Petrolo S, Casciaro R. Finite element shakedown analysis of two-dimensional structures.
68. Krabbenhft K, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Bounds to shakedown loads for a class of deviatoric plasticity models.
Computational Mechanics 2007; 39:879888.
69. Tran TN, Kreiig R, Vu DK, Staat M. Upper bound limit and shakedown analysis of shells using the exact Ilyushin
yield surface. Computers and Structures 2008; 86(1718):16831695.
70. Tran TN, Kreiig R, Staat M. Probabilistic limit and shakedown analysis of thin shells. Structural Safety 2009;
31(1):118.
71. Marti K. Limit load and shakedown analysis of plastic structures under stochastic uncertainty. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008; 198(1):4251.
72. Tran TN. Limit and shakedown analysis of plates and shells including uncertainties. Dissertation, Technische
Universitt Chemnitz, Germany, 2008. Available from: http://archiv.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/2008/0025.
73. Ciria H, Peraire J, Bonet J. Mesh adaptive computation of upper and lower bounds in limit analysis. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2008; 75:899944.
74. Le CV, Nguyen-Xuan H, Nguyen-Dang H. Upper and lower bounds limit analysis of plates using FEM and
second-order cone programming. Computers and Structures 2010; 88:6573.
75. Zhang XF, Liu YH, Zhao YN, Cen Z. Lower bound limit analysis by the symmetric Galerkin boundary element
method and the complex method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2002; 191:19671982.
76. Zhang Z, Liu Y, Cen Z. Boundary element methods for lower bound limit and shakedown analysis. Engineering
Analysis with Boundary Elements 2004; 28:905917.
77. Liu Y, Zhang XZ, Cen Z. Lower bound shakedown analysis by the symmetric Galerkin boundary element method.
International Journal of Plasticity 2005; 21:2142.
78. Chen S, Liu Y, Cen Z. Lower-bound limit analysis by using the EFG method and non-linear programming.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2008; 74(3):3914157.
79. Chen S, Liu Y, Cen Z. Lower bound shakedown analysis by using the element free Galerkin method and non-linear
programming. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008; 197(4548):39113921.
80. Le CV, Gilbert M, Askes H. Limit analysis of plates using the EFG method and second-order cone programming.
81. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: a simplied meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2004; 61(13):23162343.
82. Rabczuk T, Areias PMA, Belytschko T. A meshfree thin shell method for non-linear dynamic fracture. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2007; 72(5):524548.
83. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large eformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2007; 196(2930):27772799.
84. Bordas S, Nguyen PV, Dunant C, Guidoum A, Nguyen-Dang H. An extended nite element library. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2007; 71(6):703732.
85. Bordas S, Duot M. Derivative recovery and a posteriori error estimate for extended nite elements. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2007; 196(3536):33813399.
86. Menk A, Bordas S. A robust preconditioning technique for the extended nite element method. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2011; 85(13):16091632.
87. Askes H, Aifantis EC. Finite element analysis with staggered gradient elasticity. Computers and Structures 2008;
86:12661279.
88. Askes H, Aifantis EC. Gradient elasticity in statics and dynamics: An overview of formulations, length scale identi-
cation procedures, nite element implementations and new results. International Journal of Solids and Structures
2011; 48(13):19621990.
DOI: 10.1002/nme

Limit Shakedown Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Limit Shakedown Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (2011)

of the smoothing domain C

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen