RESEARCH PAPERS

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF RETURN MAPPING SCHEMES IN ELASTO-PLASTIC FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATIONS FOR ISOTROPIC AND KINEMATIC HARDENING
By MOOSA ESMAEILI * ANDREAS CHSNER **
* School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, UK. ** Deportment of Applied Mechanics, University of Technology of Malaysia, Malaysia.

ABSTRACT Elasto-plastic constitutive equations are integrated in the framework of nonlinear finite element techniques based on so-called predictor corrector schemes. An Introduction of material nonlinearities (elasto-plastic behaviour) applied in the framework of finite element analysis. The restriction to the one-dimensional case facilities significantly the mathematical notation while the steps remain the same as in the general three dimensional cases. In addition, the entire solution procedure can be easily observed in the classical stress-strain diagram. The concept of the predictor corrector scheme is presented for the case of isotropic, kinematic and combined hardening. Numerical examples illustrate the influence of different boundary conditions for different hardening laws. Keywords: Finite Element Method, Plasticity, Numerical Simulation, Predictor-Corrector Procedure, Return-Mapping Schemes, Isotropic Hardening, Kinematic Hardening. INTRODUCTION The introduction of linear-elastic finite element techniques can be regarded nowadays as a standard subject in mechanical, civil and aerospace engineering degree programs. However, the consideration of nonlinearities such as elasto-plastic material behaviour in finite element techniques is still not so established in the academic curriculums. The reason might be that the demands on the constitutive laws are much higher since the elastic law must be extended to the plastic part which usually involves the consideration of a yield condition, a flow rule and a hardening rule. On the other hand, a nonlinear system of equations is obtained which requires the application of iterative solutions schemes such as the Newton-Raphson method. Furthermore, stress paths in generalised coordinate systems (e.g. a principal stress system) are difficult to represent. Thus, the consideration of material nonlinearities in the framework of the finite element method requires some input from continuum mechanics and higher engineering mathematics. Furthermore, the mathematical notation in the three dimensional case might be difficult on the first glance. Nevertheless, there are excellent textbooks on the market which introduce this topic and cover the general case. Probably the first textbook which covers the topic of finite elements and plasticity was written by Owen and Hinton in 1980 [1]. Later on, several specialised textbooks were written for example by Crisfield in 1991 and 1997 [2,3] and Simo and Hughes in 1998 [4]. The more recent textbooks on that topic were written by Belytschko et al. in 2000 [5], Dunne and Petrinic in 2005 [6] and de Souza et al. in 2008 [7]. Many more textbooks which are not cited here cover the topic of plasticity and finite elements in specialised chapters. Furthermore, to determine the Lemaitre damage model for ductile material, the authors presented similar algorithm in [8] It should be noted that the above mentioned textbooks partially refer to the one-dimensional case. However, the information is often scattered over the entire textbook or the authors move quickly to the general case. A consequent introduction of the general concept of plasticity in the framework of the finite element method based on onedimensional stress and strain states may help to overcome this problem and facilitate the understanding of the general three-dimensional case. For this purpose, a onedimensional model case is considered which does not

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

17

RESEARCH PAPERS
show any contraction perpendicular to the loading direction. This is a simplification to real uniaxial loading cases where a specimen would show a deformation perpendicular to the loading direction. However, this simplification makes the entire mathematical description of the problem much simpler while the basic steps do not change. To further simplify and make the entire derivations more transparent, matrices are in the following analytically inverted and functional derivatives are analytically calculated. This is different to real finite element codes where such inversions and derivates are numerically determined. The following sections summarises briefly the continuum mechanical description of elasto-plastic behaviour. Chapter 2 introduces the integration of the elasto-plastic constitutive equation based on so-called predictor corrector schemes. It is important to highlight here that the concept is introduced as in the general three-dimensional case but on the level of one-dimensional stress and strain states. This formalism is of course not required if someone is only interested in the solution of the problem. For a given strain state, the engineering stress-strain diagram allows to conclude to the acting stress state and vice versa. However, the main idea of the approach is to provide the basis for an easy understanding of the more complicated three-dimensional case. Numerical examples are presented in chapter 3. These examples can be programmed and the results can be traced in stress-strain coordinate system. 1. Continuum Mechanics of Elasto-plastic Material Behaviour Under the classical assumptions of small strains and linear relationship between the second-order strain tensor e ij and the stress tensor s ij, the elastic strain-stress relation is given by the generalised Hookes law 1+ n n 1 e s d = Cijkl s (1) ij = ij ijs kk kl , E 1 + n Where E is Youngs modulus, Cijkl the fourth-order elastic compliance tensor and
ij

e = E-1s .

(2)

The three essentials ingredients of plastic analysis are the yield criterion, the flow rule and the hardening rule Armen [9]. The yield criterion relates the state of stress to the onset of yielding. The flow rule relates the state of stress s ij to the corresponding increments of plastic strain when an increment of plastic flow occurs. The hardening rule describes how the yield criterion is modified by straining beyond initial yield. The yield criterion for an isotropic material can generally be expressed in the case of combined hardening as

F( s ,a = 0 ij , k ij )

(3)

Where k is the isotropic hardening parameter and a ij are the kinematic hardening parameters (so-called backstress tensor), respectively. The elastic relation (1) prevails while F < 0. When the stresses are such that F = 0, yielding begins or is already in progress. The case of F > 0 is physically not possible for rate independent materials. For a one-dimensional state, Eq. (3) reads as

F( s ,k ,a = 0 )

(4)

The flow rule is stated in terms of a function Q, which is described in units of stress, and is called the plastic potential. With dl a scalar called plastic multiplier, the plastic strain increments are given by
Q pl del d ij = s ij

(5)

The flow rule is said to be associated if Q= F, otherwise it is nonassociated. Hardening can be modelled as isotropic (i.e. initial yield surface expands uniformly without distortion and translation as plastic flow occurs) or as kinematic (i.e. initial yield surface translates as a rigid body in the stress space, maintaining its size, shape and orientation), or in combination. The contribution of isotropic hardening is considered by the evolution of the experimentally determined flow curve (yield stress), i.e. k = k(k ), (6)

while the contribution of kinematic hardening can be (7)

n is Poissons ratio. The symbol d introduced by a correction of the stress tensor as: s (s aij ) represents the Kronecker tensor (d is equal to 1 if i = j, and 0 ij ij ij

if i j). In a pure uniaxial stress and strain state, this relationship is simplified to the one-dimensional Hookes law in the form

The internal variable which describes isotropic hardening

pl can be the effective plastic strain, eff , (so-called strain

pl pl e hardening; one-dimensional case: eff = ) or the specific

18

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS
plasticwork,

wpl,

(so-called work hardening; onepl pl

which is defined as the slope in a diagram yield stress over

pl isotropic hardening variable: Epl = Epl(e )). Since the stiffness

s de dimensional case: w = ). In the case of a uniaxial

state, the yield criterion (4) can be written as: F = |s -a | - k(k ) = 0. derived as for the one-dimensional case as:
F dpl = dl = dl sgn ( s a ) s

matrix is now a function of the nodal displacement, i.e. Ke = (8) Ke(ue), iterative methods are usually employed to solve the system of equations given in (12). Let us consider now in the following the case of a single rod (9) element which is fixed at node 1 (u1 = 0) and at node 2 subjected to a prescribed displacement boundary condition u. For this case, Eq. (12) is simplified to

Based on this formulation, the associated flow rule can be

Where sgn is the signum function (sgn(+s ) = +1; sgn(-s )= -1; sgn(0) = 0). To complete the set of equations, it is still required to state the evolution equations for the internal variables

u 2 = u

(13)

k and a . Assuming

strain hardening, the

Thus, all nodal displacements (u1 and u2) are immediately

known for each step (increment) and a real solution evolution equation for the isotropic hardening parameter k procedure for Eq. (12) is not required. In a postcan be expressed under consideration of the associated flow rule (6) for the case of combined hardening as:
pl dk = de = dl sgn ( s a ) = dl (10)

computational step (post-processing), the constant strain in the rod element can be calculated based on [10, 11]

It should be noted here that in the case of pure isotropic hardening, parameter

a is equal

to zero in Eq. (10). A

Which can be further simplified under consideration of the boundary condition at node 1 (D u1=1 ). The total values of displacement and strain can be obtained by summing up the incremental values given in Eq. (13) and (14). Based on the given strain increment D e , the remaining field variables
pl (s , e , k , a ) can be updated based on the algorithms

1 e = u2 u1 ) ( L

(14)

common approach to model the kinematic hardening parameter a is based on Prager s kinematic rule [4] where the evolution equation is given as:
pl da == Hde Hdl sgn ( s a )

(11)

where H is the kinematic hardening modulus. 2. Finite Element Procedures 2.1 The principal finite element equation for rod elements and its solution procedure in the elastic-plastic range In an elastic-plastic analysis, the constitutive relationship depends on the deformation history and an incremental approach is required where the applied load is added in increments step by step. Therefore, the principal finite element equation for a one-dimensional rod element with linear shape functions (two nodes) [10, 11] can be written in the case of elastic-plastic analysis as:
% 1 1 u1 F1 AE = 1 1 u F2 L 2

introduced in section 2.2 and 2.3. Let us have in the following a look on the case that a single force F2 is acting at node 2. Thus, Eq. (12) is simplified to:
% AE u2 = F2 L

(15)

Since the modulus depends now on the deformation, an iterative solution procedure is required. Applying a NewtonRaphson scheme [11], Eq. (15) can be written in the form of a residuum as:

% AE A % r= u2 F2 = E u2 ) u 2 F2 = 0 (16) ( L L

A Taylor series expansion of the last equation and (12) neglecting higher order expressions result in the following statement:
r i+ 1) i ) ( r u2 = r u( + d u 2 ) + (17) ( 2 u2
( i)

Where D ui and D Fi indicate the incremental displacements % and loads, respectively. The modulus E is in the elastic range of the simulation equal to Youngs modulus E. In the plastic range, the so-called elastic-plastic modulus E (e ) must be used instead. This modulus is obtained as the slope in the plastic part of the stress-strain diagram (and should not be confused with the so-called plastic modulus Epl
elpl

( ) ( )
( i+ 1)

Where

d u2 ) = u2 u2 (
given by:

( i)
th

(18)

and the so-called tangent stiffness in the i iteration step is

r i) ( KT = u2
( i)

(19)

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

19

RESEARCH PAPERS
Thus, Eq. (16) can be written as:
% ( AE ( i) ( i) ( i) i) d u2 ) KT = r u2 = F u2 ( L which can be finally written as: ( i+ 1) ( i) L u 2 = F % AE

Based on the stress state at the end of the pervious (20) increment (n) and the given strain increment D e n, the filed variables (e.g. Stress s n+1) must be calculated for each (21) increment (n+1) at each integration point (Gauss point), cf. Figure 2. To this end, it is required to numerically integrate the differential form of the explicit constitutive behaviour. Explicit integration schemes, such as the forward-Euler procedure, are however inaccurate and under circumstances instable since a global error can be accumulated, Crisfield [2]. Instead of explicit integration schemes, so-called predictor-corrector algorithms (cf. (22) (23) Figure 3) which consists of an initial explicit elastic-predictor step, involving a deviation away from the yield surface, and a plastic-corrector step (implicit correction) which returns the stress to the updated yield surface. Let us illustrate the general concept for the case of isotropic hardening first. Under assumption of pure linear-elastic material behaviour, the elastic predictor is used to calculate the trial state (so-called trial stress):

( )

% In the elastic range, the modulus E is equal to Youngs

modulus E. In the case of linear hardening, the modulus is in the fully plastic range equal to Eelpl = const. The elastic plastic transition range, i.e. the range when the last pure elastic step occurred (step n) and the simulations enters the plastic range, the following scheme (iteration index j) can be used to iteratively calculate the next step n + 1:

% E = E
s s n+ 1 n % E = j) ( e e n+ 1n
j) (

for j = 0 , for j> 0.

where for j > 0 the definition of a secant modulus is used, cf. Figure 1 a). This linearisation in the form of the secant modulus implies that the nonlinear term in Eq. (19), i.e.
( ) % % ( r ( AE i)AE i) = K = + u2 u2 T L u2 L
i nonlinear

(24)

can be discarded from the tangent stiffness and this specific method is sometimes called the generalised Newton-Raphson method [1]. The same definition of a secant modulus can be applied if the stress-strain curve is nonlinear in the plastic range (Eelpl=Eelpl(e )), cf. Figure 1 b). In this case, the step n is the last known state in the plastic range. 2.2 Integration of Rate Equation Compared to a pure linear-elastic finite element simulation, the computation of the plastic material behaviour can no more be performed in a single step since there is no more a unique relationship between stress and strain [1]. The load must be incrementally applied and a nonlinear system of equations has to be solved in each increment (e.g. based on a Newton-Raphson algorithm).

Figure 2. Schematic Representation of the Integration Algorithm for Plastic Material Behaviour in the Finite Element Method [4,14]

Figure 1. Definition of the average E : a) Elastic-Plastic Transition Region; b) Nonlinear Plastic Regime

Figure 3. Schematic Representation of the Integration Algorithm in the Stress-strain Diagram [4]

20

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS
trial s s En n+ 1 = n +
el predictor s n

(25)

The total strain increment can be expressed with the trial stress state according to Figure 3 as:
1 trial e e e Es s ( n = n+ 1n = n+ 1 n)

The corresponding hardening state corresponds to the state of the pervious increment. Thus, it is assumed that the load step is pure elastic, i.e. without plastic deformation and thus, without hardening:

(34)

Introducing the last equation and the flow rule according to Eq. (9) into Eq. (33), the final state can be obtained in dependence of the trial stress state as: (35)

k = k

tr ial n+ 1 n

(26)

Dependent on the location of the trial state in the stress space, the yield condition allows to distinguish two elemental states: The stress is in the elastic range or on the yield surface (valid stress state, cf. Figure 3):

s = s l sgn ( s ) n+ 1E
trial n+ 1 n+ 1

Depending on the point for the evaluation of the function sgn(), different methods can be obtained to calculate the initial value for the plastic corrector and to iteratively determine the final state. To obtain the initial value for the plastic corrector, sgn() can be either evaluated in the trial stress state (Backward-Euler) or on the yield surface (Forward-Euler; for the transition from the elastic to the plastic range, this is the initial yield stress). Evaluating the function sgn() during the iteration in the final state ensures that the normal rule is fulfiled in the final state. For this implicit Backward-Euler algorithm (also known a Closest-PointProjection (CPP)), Simo and Hughes [4], it is required to calculate higher order derivatives in the general threedimensional case. For the so-called cutting plane algorithm, Simo and Oritz [12], the function sgn() is evaluated for the stress state of the ith iteration step. The function sgn() is for the midpoint rule in both states, i.e. the final state and on the yield surface, evaluated and equally weighted. The evaluation of the sgn() only on the yield surface yields the semi-implicit Backward-Euler algorithm, Moran, Ortiz and Shih [13], which requires only the determination of first order derivatives. The different
State for evaluation of sgn(s) Initial value for corrector
tri al tri al Trial state sl on the flow n+ n+ 1 1E s gn( s n+ 1)

F( s , k 0 )
trial trial n+ 1 n+ 1

(27)

In this case, the trial state can be taken as the new stress and hardening state since it corresponds to the real state:
trial s s n+ 1 = n+ 1 trial k k n+ 1= n+ 1

(28) (29)

Finally, one can move to the next load increment. The stress state is outside the yield surface (invalid stress state, cf. Figure 3)
trial trial F( s , k > 0 n+ 1 n+ 1)

(30)

In this case, the second part of the algorithm calculates from the invalid state a valid state on the yield surface (F (s n+1, k n+1)=0 ). The required stress difference
pl trial s = s s n+ 1 n+ 1

(31)

is called the plastic corrector. Alternative expressions for the predictor corrector method are return mapping or catching-up. In the following, the authors are going to have a closer look on the return mapping procedure. Detailed descriptions of the general case can be found in Simo and Hughes [4]; Belytschko, Liu and Moran [5]; Crisfield [2,3]; de Souza Neto, Peri and Owen [7]. The difference between the initial and target state (stress increment)

s n+ 1 acc. Eq. (22)

Curve

trial s l n+ 1 n+ 1 Esgn(s n)

During iteration Final state

s l s (Full.-impl. Backward-Euler alg. n+ 1Esgn ( n+ 1)

tria l s l E sgn ( s (Semi.-impl. n+ 1 n+ 1 n)

tri al n+ 1

Closest-Point-Projection)

s s s n = n+ 1 n

(32)

On the flow curve

Backward-Euler alg.)

results according to Hookes law from the elastic part of the strain increment which can be obtained as the different between the total strain increment and the plastic part as:

n+ sg n ( s + Esgn ( s Final state and sl n+ 1 1E n) n+ 1) 2 on flow curve (midpoint-rule) i) trial ( iteration step Stress state of ith s l n+ 1 n+ 1 Esgn s (Cutting-Plane algorithm)

t ri al

( )

se E n = E( ee n) n = nel pl

(33)

Table 1. Summary of Predictor-Corrector Algorithms [15]

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

21

RESEARCH PAPERS
approaches are summarized in Table 1. Considering the dependency of the yield condition on the hardening variable, requires the application of a further equation to describe the hardening. The following incremental relationships for the determination of the hardening variable can be obtained from the evolution equation (10): vector function m which is composed of the residual functions. Furthermore, it is useful to collect all variables in a single variable vector v:
rs v) ( s r v m( v) R3 R3 ) = ( ) , v = k ( k rF ( v) l
m ( ( i+ 1) ( v( = v i) v i) m (v i ) ) v
1

(40)

k k l n+ 1 = n + n+ 1

(36)

The root is found by a Newton iteration (iteration index: i) [4]: (41)

Finally, it should be noted that three of the integration procedures given in Table 1 can be summarised based on the following equation:
trial s sl n+ 1h sgn ( s + h sgn ( s (37) [ ] ) n+ 1 = n+ 1 1E ( n) n+ 1)

Where
0) ( trial s s 1 n+ ( 0) ( 0 ) v = k = k n ( 0) 0 l

(42)
m v matrix

Where parameter h takes then values of 1, 0 or 0.5. 2.3 Numerical schemes 2.3.1 Isotropic Hardening This return mapping algorithm calculates the closest point projection of the trial state onto the yield surface in the complementary energy. It is not as one could assume the calculation of the geometrical closest point. The basis of this procedure is the assumption that the plastic work takes its maximum for a given strain state. Together with the elemental request that the final stress state must be located on the yield surface, the return mapping algorithm can be understood as the solution of a optimisation problem (maximum of plastic work) under a convex constraint (final stress state must be on the yield surface) [4]. The procedure is implicit for the calculation of the function sgn() since the evaluation is performed for the final state n + 1. Closest Point Projection (CPP) or fully implicit Backward Euler algorithmare common expressions for this stress update procedure. In the final state (n + 1), the equations
trial s sl n+ E sgn ( s n+ 1= n+ 1 1 n+ 1)

can be used as an initial value. The Jacobian derivatives of Eqs. (39) as:
rs rs rs 1 s k l E0 sgn ( s ) m ra ra ra ( s ,k , l ) = = 0 1 1 v s k l k r r r sgn ( s - 0 ) F F F k s k l

of

the residual functions is obtained from the partial

(43)

In addition to the fulfillment of the plasticity equations (38)1 to (38)3 in each integration point, the global equilibrium must be fulfilled. To be able to apply the Newton iteration for this task, it is required even for small strains in the general three-dimensional case to derive the appropriate elastoplastic tangent modulus, P . Wriggers [14]. The consistent elasto-plastic modulus results for the one-dimensional case as:
s s elpl n+ 1 n En + 1 == e e n+ 1 n+ 1
m which v

(44) has to be

The inversion of the Jacobian matrix Newton iteration gives:

m11 m12 1 m = m21 m22 v n+ 1 m31 m32

evaluated in the converged state of the above mentioned

dk dk sgn ( s s )sgn ( ) m13 dk dk E 1 m23 = sgn ( s ) 1 E dk E+ m33 1 dk 1 n+ 1 dks sgn ( E E ) dk n+ 1

(45)

For the special case of linear isotropic hardening, we have

pl pl = = E = const. where E is the kinematic hardening dk

dk

k k l n+ 1= n + n+ 1 F n+ sk k( = 0 1= n+ 1 n+ 1) Are fulfilled. However, a residuum r

1

modulus. (38) remains for each of As an alternative solution approach, the constitutive relations can be combined to obtain a single nonlinear equation to solve this problem. To this end, let us introduce the internal variable according to Eq. (38)2 in the yield (39) condition (38)3 to obtain:
trial trial Fn+ l = s l s k( k l 0 (46) 1( n++ 1, D n 1) n+ 1 n+ 1Esgn ( n+ 1) n += n+ 1)

these equations outside the final state:

1 trial

rs s = E E sl sgn ( s 0 ,k , ls ( ) ) the equation for the stress update (38)1 and the update of n+ 1 + rk k l = k + k 0l ,V () n + rF ( s ,k = s k (k ) 0 )
Thus, the final stress and hardening state is the root of a

22

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS
It should be noted here that in the derivation of the last equation the fact was used that the updated and trial stress are co-linear: sgn(s n+1) = sgn . Equation (45) can be expressed for arbitrary D l in the form of a residuum rF as:
trial trial rF ( l = s l E sgn ( s k( k l 0 (47) ) ) n+ 1 n+ 1 ) n +

HE E Esgn () s a 1 H sgn () s a HE Esgn ()() s a sgn s a 1

(57)

n+ 1

2.3.3 Combined Hardening The case of combined hardening, i.e. a simultaneous consideration of isotropic and kinematic hardening, requires the combination of the two set of equations given in (39) and (53). The resulting four residua equations are given by: 1 1 trial rs s ,,, k a ls = EEsl sgn () s a 0 ( ) n+ 1 +
rk k , l = k + k l 0 () n + ra s ,, a l = a + a H l sgn () s a 0 ( ) n + rF ( s ,k ,a = s a k (k ) 0 )

A Taylor series expression of first order, i.e.

rF ( i+ 1) ( i ) rF l = rF l + ( d l + = 0 ) (48) V l ( i+ 1) ( i) l = l l ( ) With d gives finally the numerical scheme
( i)

( ) ( )

to solve this equation:

( i+ 1)

In the last equation, the following two relationships can be applied:

rF l = s l Esgn ( s k k l ) n+
trial n+ 1 trial n+ 1

( i) l = l + . rF l l

1 ( i) rF ( i)

( )
( i)

(49)

(58)

( )
( i)
i

( i)

( )(50)
i

The same vector notation as in Eq. (40) or (54) can be introduced which gives the following 4-component vector function

and
drF dk trial ( i) trial tria l = sgn sl E sgn ( s Esgn ( s n+ 1 n+ 1 ) n+ 1) dl dl

) ( )

(51)

where the following simplification can be applied:

trial ( i) trial trial (52) sgn s l E sgn ( s Esgn ( s = E n+ 1 n+ 1 ) n+ 1 )

) (

rs v) ( s rk v) ( k m( v) R R ) = ,v = ( ra v) a ( l r v ) F (
4 4

(59)

2.3.2 Kinematic Hardening In the case of kinematic hardening, the system of residua equations reads as:
1 1 trial rs s , l ,a = Es Esl sgn () s a 0 ( ) n+ 1 +

with initial values of:

0) ( trial s s 1 n+ ( 0 ) k k ( 0) n v = = ( 0 ) a a n 0) ( 0 l

(60)

The Jacobian matrix is now given by the following 4 X 4 matrix

rs rs rs rs s k a l rk rk rk rk m s k a l ( s ,k ,a , l ) = v r r r r aa a a s k a l rF rF rF rF s k a l
1 E0 0 sgn () s a 0 1 0 1 = 0 0 1 Hsgn () s a dk sgn () s a -sgn () s a 0 dk

ra a , l ,s = a + a Hl sgn () s a 0 ( ) n + rF ( s ,k = s a k 0 )
as
rs v) ( s 3 3 ra v) m( v) R R ) = ( ,v = a ( rF ( v) l

(53)

which can be arranged in vector in a similar way to Eq. (40) (54)

(61)

Where the initial value of v can be taken as:

trial s s 1 n+ 0) ( 0 ) v( = a = a n 0 ( ) 0 l 0) (

(55)
m of v

To apply the Newton scheme given in Eq. (41), the Jacobian matrix calculated as the residual functions can be

which can be still symbolically inverted to obtain:

m11 m12 1 m21 m22 m = m32 v n+ 1 m31 m41 m42 m13 m23 m33 m43 m14 m24 1 = dk m34 E + H+ dk m44
n+ 1

rs rs rs s a l m ra ra ra s ,a , l = = ( ) v s a l rF rF rF s a l
1 E 0 sgn () s a = 1 Hsgn () s a 0 sgn () s a -sgn () s a 0

dk dk + H E Esgn () s aE E sgn () s a dk dk Esgn () s aE + H sgn s a 1 ( ) () dk dk HE sgn () s a E+ Hsgn () s a dk d k dk Esgn () s a sgn () s a 1 dk n+ 1

(63)

3. Numerical Examples (56) Let us consider in the following an idealised tensile test to illustrate the derived numerical schemes. The schematic representation of the problem is shown in Figure 4 where

and the inverse is finally given in symbolic notation by:

m11 m12 1 m = m21 m22 v n+ 1 m31 m32 m13 1 m23 = E+ H m33 n+ 1

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

23

RESEARCH PAPERS

(a)

Figure 4. Schematic Representation of a Unloaded and Loaded Ideal Tensile Specimen

the geometric dimensions of the unloaded and loaded specimen are shown. In addition, the common boundary conditions, i.e. force boundary condition (F) and displacement boundary condition (u) are indicated. It is important to remind that an idealised tensile sample is assumed where the specimen deforms only in its longitudinal direction (i.e. the x-direction as shown in Figure 4) and does not show any contraction perpendicular to the loading direction. Such a problem can be solved based on the rod element which is described in section 2.1. Let us first consider the case of linear isotropic hardening (cf. section 2.3.1) under different types of boundary conditions. The implemented material parameters are summarised in Table 2. The effect of different boundary conditions, cf. Figure 5, on the stress strain diagram is illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 a) shows the case of a symmetric displacement boundary condition (cf. Figure 5 a) with |umax| = |umin| = 0.008 m. As can be seen, the absolute value of the stress is increasing in the plastic range and after an entire cycle, the stresses for example in the first quadrant are higher than in the initial loading. The symmetric boundary conditions causes that
Young's modulus in Mpa Poisson's ratio Linear isotropic hardening modulus in Mpa Flow curve in Mpa Linear kinematic hardening modulus in Mpa E = 70000 n = 0.3 Epl = 7000 k() = 350+12900-1250002 H = 7000

Figure 5. Definition of the Different Boundary Conditions: a) Displacement umin = -umax; b) Displacement | umin | < umax; c) Force | Fmin | > Fmax

the stress strain cycling is bounded by the same absolute strain value on the positive and negative strain axis. Figure 6 b) shows the results of a slightly different displacement boundary condition (cf. Figure 5 a) with umax = 0.008 m and umin = -0.0031 m. The negative displacement value with |umax| > |umin| was chosen in such a way that the stress

Table 2. Material Parameters Used for the Simulation [7]

24

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS
cycle passes through the origin of the stress-strain diagram, i.e. the plastic strain is zero in this part of the diagram. Figure 6 c) considers the case of a force boundary condition (cf. Figure 5 c) with Fmax = 4450 N and Fmin = -6190 N which was chosen in such a way that the same maximum and minimum strain is obtained as in case a). Since the load increment for each step is constant (D F = const.), fewer data points (each point is represented by a small circle) are calculated in the plastic loading range. Figure 6 d) shows the case of a force boundary condition with Fmax = 4450 N and Fmin = -5400 N which was chosen in such a way that the stress cycle passes through the origin of the stress-strain diagram, i.e. no plastic strain in this part of the diagram. Let us consider in the following the case of ideal plasticity which can be described based on the theory of isotropic hardening with a constant yield stress of k = 350 MPa, cf. Eq. (6). Imposing the same displacement boundary conditions as in case a), a stress-strain diagram as shown in Figure 7 a) is obtained where the cycle is bounded on the strain side by the same absolute value and on the stress side by the values of k. It should be noted here that the case of ideal plasticity with a force boundary condition fails in the plastic range since there is no more unique relationship between the given loading and the strain. Figure 7 b) illustrates the case of nonlinear isotropic hardening with a displacement boundary condition as in Figure 6 a). Compared to Figure 6 a), a similar stress-strain behaviour is obtained except the fact that the stress in the hardening range is nonlinearly

Figure 6. Stress-Strain Diagrams for the Case of Linear Isotropic Hardening

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

25

RESEARCH PAPERS
increasing. Figure 7 c) shows the case of nonlinear isotropic hardening with the same force boundary condition as in Figure 6 c). Due to the definition of the nonlinear hardening curve, the maximum stress in the first quadrant is reached at a lower strain compared to the case shown in Figure 6 c). The case of linear kinematic hardening (cf. Section 2.3.2) is shown in Figure 7 d) for a displacement boundary condition as in Figure 6 a). Since the linear kinematic hardening modulus H was equal to the linear isotropic hardening modulus Epl of Figure 6 a), the stress-strain values for the first cycle in the first quadrant are identical for the case of Figure 6 a) and Figure 7 d) and only in the compressive plastic regime a deviation between these two cases starts to develop. The case of combined hardening (cf. section 3.3.3) is shown in Figure 8 where the same displacement boundary condition as in Figure 7 a) was assigned to both cases. Figure 8 a) illustrates the case linear combined hardening while Figure 8 b) illustrates the case of nonlinear combined hardening. Under the chosen parameters, quite similar stress strain diagrams are obtained. The evolution of the internal hardening variables, i.e. k and a , is illustrated in Figure 9 for the cases of linear hardening. Figure 9 a) is given for isotropic hardening in the case of a force boundary condition (case as Figure 6 c) and shows the evolution of k and for comparison the evolution of the plastic strain. As can be seen, the internal isotropic
pl hardening variable (dk = |de |) is a variable which can only

Figure 7. Stress Strain Diagrams for the Cases of a) Ideal Plasticity; b) c) Nonlinear Isotropic Hardening; d) Linear Kinematic Hardening

26

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS

Figure 8. Stress Strain Diagrams for the Cases of a) Linear Combined Hardening; b) Nonlinear Combined Hardening

increase while the plastic strain can decrease and increase during a cycle. This is the reason why k is taken as the internal variable and
pl not e . The plastic strain for example can take during cyclic

loading several times a value of zero while k never forgets its history. Figure 9 b) shows the case for the displacement boundary condition which corresponds to Figure 6a). The evolution of the kinematic hardening variable (da =Hde ) is presented in Figure 9 c) for the case of linear kinematic hardening under a displacement boundary condition. This result corresponds to Figure 7 d). As can be seen, the kinematic hardening variable can change its sign as in the case of the plastic strain. As described in section 2.1, the transition between the
pl

Figure 9. Evolution of Plastic Strain and Internal Variable for a) Linear Isotropic Hardening with force Boundary Condition; b) Linear Isotropic Hardening with Displacement Boundary Condition; c) linear Kinematic Hardening With Displacement Boundary Condition

elastic and plastic range (cf. Figure 1) in the case of a force boundary condition needs some cycling in order to determine the final value of the secant modulus as given in Eq. (23). This evaluation of the modulus is shown in Figure 10 for the case of linear isotropic hardening and a force boundary condition (the corresponding stress-strain diagram is shown in Figure 6 c). Figure 10 a) illustrates the

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

27

RESEARCH PAPERS
solution of the problem, there is no need for a predictor corrector concept for one-dimensional states since the stress strain curve gives normally the unique relation between stress and strain and one can determine immediately the stress if the strain is given or vice versa. However, the basic idea was to introduce the integration procedure as in the general case but explained on the idealised case of a one dimensional stress and strain state. This approach reveals the advantage that all the steps can be easily understood and traced in the classical stress strain diagram and the solution procedure can be easily realised by simple codes or by the application of commercial computer algebra systems. The principal features and procedure of the presented schemes do not change in the general three dimensional case. Again, only the mathematical notation must be adopted. Furthermore, any addition of a further internal variable (for example a scalar damage variable) results only in the addition of a further equation which increases the size of the final systems of equations by one.
Figure 10. Evolution of the Average Modulus E : a) Tensile Region; b) Compressive Region

It is believed that this one-dimensional approach facilitates the understanding of the three dimensional case and that the implementation of the presented schemes should be a good preparatory work for the handling of elasto-plastic problems in finite element codes. References [1]. Owen, D. R. J., & Hinton, E. (1980). Finite elements in plasticity: theory and practice. Swansea, Pineridge Press Limited. [2]. Crisfield, M. A. (1991). Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures (Vol. 1). Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. [3]. Crisfield, M. A. (1997). Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures (Vol. 2). Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. [4]. Simo, J. C., & Hughes, T. J. R. (1998). Computational Inelasticity. New York, Springer-Verlag. [5]. Belytschko, T. W. K., Liu, & Moran, B. (2000). Nonlinear finite elements for continua and structures. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. [6]. Dunne, F., & Petrinic, N. (2005). Introduction to

situation in the first quadrant of the stress strain diagram, i.e. the transition between the elastic and the plastic part in the tensile regime. Figure 10 b) illustrates a similar situation but now in the fourth quadrant of the stress strain diagram, i.e. in the tensile regime. As can be seen for both cases, convergence is achieved after few cycles. Conclusion The principal ingredients of classical plasticity theory as applied in finite element codes were introduced based on one-dimensional stress and strain states. This is a simplifying and idealised case but all the components of the plastic constitutive description can be introduced. In the general three dimensional case the same equations are required (i.e. a yield condition, a flow rule and a hardening rule) and only the mathematical description becomes more complicated. However, the conceptual approach remains the same. The integration scheme for the constitutive equations was based on the predictor corrector concept which is used in the three dimensional case. If one is interested in the simple

28

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

RESEARCH PAPERS
computational plasticity. Oxford, Oxford University Press. [7]. de Souza Neto, E. A., Peri, D., & Owen, D. R. J. (2008). Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications. Chichester John, Wiley & Sons. [8]. Esmaeili, M. and chsner, A. (2011). A onedimensional implementation of a coupled elasto-plastic model for ductile damage, Mat. Science and Eng. Tech. J., 42(5), 44445. [9]. Armen, H. (1979). Assumptions, models, and computational methods for plasticity, Comput. Struct., 10(1), 161-174. [10]. Reddy, J. N. (2006). An introduction to the finite element method. Singapore, McGraw Hill. [11]. Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., Plesha, M. E., & Witt, R. J. (2002). Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons. [12]. Simo, J. C., & Ortiz, M. (1985). A unified approach to finite deformation elasto plasticity based on the use of hyper elastic constitutive equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 49 , 221245. [13]. Moran, B., Ortiz M., & Shih, C. F. (1990). Formulation of implicit finite element methods for multiplicative finite deformation plasticity, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 29/3 (1990), 483514. [14]. Wriggers, P . (2001). Nichtlineare Finite-ElementMethoden. Berlin, Springer-Verlag. [15]. Merkel, M., chsner, A. (2010). Eindimensionale Finite Elemente Ein Einstieg in die Methode. Berlin, Springer.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Moosa Esmaeili is a Ph.D student within the School of Engineering at the University of Aberdeen, UK. He obtained his Master Degree in Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University of Malaysia, Malaysia (2011).

Andreas Ochsner is Professor in the Department of Applied Mechanics at the Technical University of Malaysia, Malaysia. Having obtained a Master Degree in Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Stuttgart (1997), Germany, he spent the time from 1997-2003 at the University of ErlangenNuremberg as a research and teaching assistant to obtain his Ph.D in Engineering Sciences. From 2003-2006, he worked as Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Head of the Cellular Metals Group affiliated with the University of Aveiro, Portugal.

i-managers Journal on Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 l No. 1 l November 2012 - January 2013

29