Sei sulla pagina 1di 30

COMPUTER METHODS IN APPLIED MECHANICS AND ENGINEERING 74 (1989) 177-206 NORTH-HOLLAND

COMPLEMENTARY MIXED FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATIONS FOR

ELASTOPLASTICITY

J.C. SIMO and J.G. KENNEDY

Applied Mechanics Division, Stanford University, CA 94305, U.S.A.

R.L. TAYLOR

Department of Cit~l Engineering, Universityof California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.

Received 17 December 1987 Revised manuscript recieved 11 October 1988

A global formulation of the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is systematically exploited to construct complementary mixed finite element formulations for elastoplasticity. Completely general return ~apping integration algorithms are obtained as Euler-Lagrange equations of a temporally discret~ed Lagrangian functional. The flow rule is no longer enforced point-wise, but rather at the element level in a weak fashion that couples all Gauss points within an element. The resulting algorithms can be linearized exactly in closed-form for an arbitrary functional form of the yield condition and hardening law. The present approach enables one to extend successful superconvergent quadrilaterals to elastoplastic analysis. Numerical simulations involvint; plane-stress elastoplasticity are presented.

Introduction

Over the past ten years, a general methodology for the formulation of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive equations has been developed, which finds its point of departure in the radial return algorithm of Wilkins [1] for plane strain J2-flow theory. From a computational perspective, considerable work has been devoted to the accuracy analysis of this basic algorithm, see [2, 3], and its extensions to more general plasticity models, see [4-10]. Currently, these algorithms are viewed as a class of product formula algorithms emanating from an elastic-plastic operator split. Within this framework, consistency is enforced by means of a closest-point-projection of an elastic predictor state onto the elastic domain. In [11, 12], this point of view is exploited to develop general purpose algorithms capable of accommodating arbitrary functional forms of the flow rule, hardening law and yield condition. From a mathematical perspective, an independent development in a rather general setting starts with the work of Moreau [13], who coined the expression catching up algorithms. Unfortunately, it is fair to say that, with the exception of the work of Nguyen [14], this and subsequent formal developments, see [15] or [16], have passed largely unnoted in the computational literature. Implementations of existing return mapping algorithms rely crucially on the view of the discrete elastoplastic problem of evolution as a strain driven problem. As a result, within the

0045-7825/89/\$3.50 © 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

178

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

framework of displacement-like finite element formulations, plastic loading is tested indepen- dently at each quadrature point of the element, and an independent return mapping algorithm

is performed at each of the quadrature points for given incremental displacements. Effective-

ly, such an algorithmic treatment corresponds to a strain space formulation of elastoplasticity, where total and plastic strains are the independent variables, while the stress is regarded as a dependent variable which is computed from the ~lastic strains by means of the stress-strain relations. In contrast to this view, a sizable body of the mathematical literature on plasticity has been concerned with the formulation of the elastoplastic problem with the stress field as the independent variable, the so-called stress problem, see [15-18, 21]. Mathematically, this problem is considerably simpler than the strain-problem which requires careful definition of

the smoothness of the strain field, the so-called space of bounded deformations, and elaborate tools of convex analysis, see [23, 46] for a comprehensive review. In this paper, we explore an alternative algorithmic treatment in which stress and displacements are independent fields and are interpolated independently through a mixed

variational formulation of the Hellinger-Reissner type. The central issue addressed here is not simply the derivation of a mixed formulation of the elastoplastic problem, indeed many such formulations exist, but rather the precise development and implicit implementation of the algorithmic structure associated with the discrete mixed problem. Our development hinges on

a variational formulation of elastoplasticity based on the principle of maximum plastic

dissipation, often credited to Von Mises (see [24]), and weU-known to be equivalent to normality. This principle plays a central role in the mathematical treatment of the elastoplastic problem by methods of convex analysis, as in [15, 16, 25-27, 45]. Following standard procedures, we obtain a complementary variational formulation of the continuum elastoplastic problem by a Legendre transformation that introduces the stress tensor as a basic independent variable. The novelty in the present approach lies in our subsequent algorithmic treatment of this functional, which is transformed into a time-discrete functional by means of an implicit backward-Euler difference scheme. We then show that the first variation of this discrete functional yields the weak form of the appropriate retui'n mapping algorithm formulated in stress space, along with the discrete algorithmic versions of the hardening law and the consistency condition. By introducing finite element interpolations for the stress and the displacement fields, we obtain a discrete optimization problem which can be solved by convex mathematical programming techniques. In particular, we consider the solution procedure by the classical Newton method in detail. This leads to the extension to the present context of the notion of consistent elastoplastic tangent moduli proposed in [6]. From a computational standpoint, the present formulation results in a finite element architecture that is substantially different from current algorithmic implementations. The fundamental difference is that the plastic return mapping algorithm can no longer be formulated independently at each Gauss point, in contrast with displacement-like methods. Here, the closest-point-projection iteration that restores consistency is performed at the global element level and involves all the Gauss points within the element. The present approach enables one to extend successful mixed finite element interpolations formulated within the framework of the Hellinger-Reissner principle to the elastoplastic regime. As an application, we consider an interpolation recently proposed by Plan and Sumihara [28], which is highly insensitive to mesh distortion, free from locking in plane-strain quasi-incompressible elasticity, and appears to yield superconvergent results in bending dominated problems.

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

1.

Variational

formulation

of plasticity

179

The variational formulation of plasticity considered in this paper relies crucially on the principle of maximum plastic dissipation, often credited to Von Mises (see [24, p. 60]), and subsequently considered by several authors, e.g. [29, 44]. For recent discussions within the context of finite strains see [30-33].

1.1. The principle of maximum plastic dissipation; local form

We summarize the basic results needed in our variational formulation of plasticity. Further details in a somewhat more restricted context are given in [34]. According to ~e principle of maximum plastic dissipation, the actual state is the one among all possible admissible states (i.e., states that satisfy the yield condition) that maximizes plastic dissipation. A precise formulation goes as follows. Assume the existence of a Helmholtz free energy function, ~(e t, e p, at), of the form

,,

ja,

(1.1)

Here, et := V'u t is the strain tensor, e p is the plastic strain tensor, and at is a vector of suitable internal plastic variables, all evaluated at time t. Here, VSut denotes the symmetric part of the displacement gradient. Next, via the Legendre transformation1, introduce the internal variable vector qt,

so that

O(q,)

:=

-

~(,~,)

-

~,.

q,,

(~.2a)

q~ = -O,,~(at),

a t -

-aq@(¢).

(1.2b)

Observe that qt = -O, ~(e t, e p, a t) may

conjugate to at. By definition, the local plastic dissipation is given by

be interpreted as the thermodynamic force (affinity)

Dp[e,,

e,", ~,;

,~,P, ,~,] :=

-

aci,(e,, EP, a,)

0e p

. ~_

'

a~Ce,, eP, ,~,)

0a

• 4,.

(1.3a)

Standard arguments exploiting the Clausius-Duhem inequality (along with the assumption that unloading is elastic) show that the stress tensor is given by o"t = O~/aEt-Vqt(et-eP). It then follows from (1.1-3a) that

(1.3b)

Let the yield function be defined in stress space by 0(o', q) = 0. The admissible set of stress states, then, in the convex set defined as

1Introduction of this parameterization is essential to obtain a symmetric discrete return mapping algorithm and algorithmic elastoplastic tangent moduli in Section 3.

180

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

~,,q := {(d', ~) ER6 x Rq I 4~(&, #)~<0}.

(1.4)

Denoting by o', and q, the actual states of stress and internal variables, the principle of maximum plastic dissipation is equivalent to the statement that, for given (~, &t),

Dp(~r,, q,; ~p, ,~,)I> Dp(,~, #; ~,~,

or, equivalently,

,~,)

v(~, #)E ~,,

(~rt, q,) = arg[

max

(o',#)EKuq

{DP(&,~; ~P, &t)}].

(1.5)

(1.6)

The fundamental significance of this principle lies in the following proposition.

PROPOSITION 1.1. Maximum plastic dissipation implies normality of the flow rule in stress space, a potential form of the hardening law, and loading/unloading conditions in Kuhn- Tucker form.

PROOF. First one recasts (1.6) into a minimum problem merely by reversing the sign, that is

(~rt, q,)= arg[

man.

(&,#)EK~,q

{-DP(~, ~; ~P tit)}].

(1.7)

Next, one reformulates (1.7) as an unconstrained problem by means of the Lagrange multiplier technique. Accordingly, consider the cone

K p"= {By E L'(a) 18~~>0}.

(t.8)

Introduce the Lagrangian functional associated with (1.7) defined as

lip "= -DP( ~, #; ~P, ~,) + Y6(#,

where # E K p. The standard Kuhn-Tucker in terms of the Lagrangian (1.9), and are

a[p

0~r

a~_p

Oq -

~" ÷ #,0.6(,T,, q,)=o

&' + ~,,Oq~(O',, q,) =0,

#),

(1.9)

optimality conditions for (1.7) are then formulated given by (see, e.g., [35, p. 314] or [36, p. 724])

(1.1Oa)

(1.10b)

1,t~>0,

0(o't,q,)~0

and

~,tff(¢t, qt)-6.

(1.10c)

These conditions yield the statement of normality of the flow rule, the potential form of the hardening law, and the loading/unloading conditions. (The consistency condition ~ = 0 also

I-1

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

181

REMARK 1.1. It follows from (1.2b) that dtt = -O:qO(qt)#t. ing law (1.10b) can be rephrased in the equivalent form

4,=-.i,,[02,o(q,)l-'oj,(o.,,

q,),

Consequently, the local harden-

(1.11)

which serves to define the generalized hardening moduli h(~r, q). If one postulates a quadratic form for O(qt) , i.e., O(q,) = ½q,.D-lq,, then [~2q0]-1-D is constant.

1.2. Complementary variational formulations of elastoplasticity

The complementary variational formulation of elastoplasticity is obtained through two steps: (i) A global formulation of the principle of maximum plastic dissipation, followed by (ii) a Legendre transformation that eliminates the strain tensor e, in favor of the stress tensor ~rt as an independent variable.

 1.2.1. Notation Let us start by introducing the space of kinematically admissible variations (virtual

displacements) defined for simplicity as 2

v:=

{,~. n->R' l HE[H*(n)] ~ ; ~/la.n=0},

(1.12)

where N ~<3 is the spatial dimension, HI(/~) denotes the space of functions with derivatives bounded in energy, and 0.n C On is the part of On, the boundary of the body/] C R N, where the displacement field if specified as u,[o n = ~. In addition, we let 0~,/~ C On to be part of the boundary where the stress vector ~s specified as ¢,n]o~a = t. Next, we introduce the total energy functional, at time t,

ill

D

II(u,, et, e~, at):= fn ~(e,, e~, at) d/] + IIext(u,),

where

no,t(u,)

:=

-

pb

. u, dn

-

f,

ul]

l.

u, dr

(1•13a)

(1.13b)

is the potential energy of the external loading and pb is the body force•

1.2.2•

Complementary energy functional

A mixed formulation in which the strain tensor e, is replaced by the stress tensor ut as an

independent variable is obtained by introducing the Legendre transformation of q'(e,- eP), i.e.,

where

• (t,-

x(crt)

is

the

-x(¢,) +

[e,-

complementary stored

energy function•

We then

(1.14)

have the standard

2This assumption is not realistic. A more appropriate functional framework is the space of bounded deforma- tions (see Temam [23]).

J

182

relations

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

V~(E,- e,p) = ~r,,

Vx(~rt) = e,-

~P,.

(1.15)

By substitution of (1.2a) and (1.14) ~nto (1.1) and inserting the resu?~ into II(ut, ~.t, ~.P,at) defined by (1.13a) we obtain the complementary functional

ll(u,o',eP

q)t "=

L {-X{,~:)-O(q)-o~'q+o':[VSu-e,P]},dn+Ilext(U,),

where ut

--

I] •

V, (o't, qt) EO(~gqand r~text(~t) is defined by (1.13b).

1.2.3.

Variational characterization of plastic response

(1.16)

As shown below, a variational characterization of the evolution of plastic flow in stress space is accomplished by introducing the Lagrangian functional associated with the plastic dissipation over the entire body ~2 C R 3. From the local expression (1.3b) for the plastic dissipation, by appending the constraint through a Lagrange parameter as in Proposition 1.1, we obtain

"= fo

,,,

+

q,

.

-

( ,,,

,

q , ) ] tin,

(1.17)

where ~,,E K p is the Lagrange parameter, in physical terms the plastic consistency parameter, and K p is the proper positive cone defined by (1.8).

2.

Discrete variational problem

To derive discrete governing equations we first construct the discrete complementary functional by integrating the dissipation functional Lp over the time interval [0, t,,+l] C R+ with a backward-Euler difference scheme. Then, discrete variational equations are obtained as Euler-Lagrange equations of the discretized functional. Explicitly, the discrete complemen- tary functional for elastoplasticity is defined as

l=l(u, o', e p, q)[. "= l](u,

o', e p, q)l.+t

+

ftn +i

jr,,

Lp d~',

(2.1a)

which is a discrete statement of the first law of thermodynamics for isothermal quasi-static problems. That is, (2.1a) may be interpreted in physical terms as follows

Potential energy[, = Potential energyl, +t + Dissipationl~ +t.

(2.1b)

One should also note that the second law of thermodynamics (or Kelvin's dissipation

inequality) implies Dissipationl~ +t ~0. we define

Making use of a backward-Euler difference scheme,

f t'+t

jtn

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

183

LPdT

"----"

f~

[On+1

" (~n+l

"P-£P)-ATn+lt~(O.n+l,

qn+l)+qn+l.(Ol'+l-Oln)]d,("~

(2.2)

where ATn+I := '~n+l -- q/n"By substituting (2.2) into (2.1a) the potential energy II" at time t" becomes a function of the state variables at t'+l, which we shall denote by the symbol 0-n+,- Accordingly, substitution of (2.2) and (1.16) into (2.1a) yields the explicit expression

~''+1"----f~[--X(°''+I)- O(qn+l)- a"'qn+l- A~'+I~/)'+I] da

+ fo [~r"+l:(VSu'+l- ep)]da + IIext(Un+l) •

(2.3)

Enforcement of the stationarity conditions for (2.3) through application of the directional derivative formula3 leads to the following discrete Euler-Lagrange equations for the variables

(o',

q) E K,,q,

AT E

K p and

u with

u -

Dff.'+l

t"

" 1~ --- JD

[On+ 1" VSl~ -

ti E

V:

pb

" ~] da

-

t"

Ja

gn

DO_'+, • 8~

-

f~ 8o': [(V'u -eP)

-

8¢X(~r'+,) -

[" ~ dr = 0

A%+,8~4}'+,1 da

=

O,

(2.4a)

(2.4b)

DB.,,+1"8q = fn

Bq.[-Oq@(q'+ 1) "~"{~qO(q~) -- AT,,+ lOq~tn+l] da

=

O,

(2.4c)

DB.'+I "By = fo

~(o',,+,,q,,+z)SydKt •O.

These four variational equations hold for any ~EV,

By E K p.

(2.4d)

8~rE[L2(n)] 6, 8qE[L2(n)] q and

REMARKS 2.1

and the internal variables a'+l at the current

time t.+, are no longer present in variational equations (2.4). Equation (2.4b-d) may be viewed as the weak form of the following closest point projection algorithm formulated in

stress space:

P

(1) Note that the plastic strain tensor e'+x

e'P+ 1 --

f"p "1" A~

'+lOtr~(O'n+l,

q'+l)

,

~lf'+ 1 ---1Or" "b ATn+10~q0(O''+l

, q'+l)

in which (eP+1, an+,) are eliminated by means of the complementary relations

E'+I

=vsu.

+1

-

0.x(~.+

1

)

'

a.+~ = -0,O(q.+,)

3The directionalderivative formula takes the form

 , (2.5) (2.6)

d

Df'Bm:=~

I

~--o

f.(

¢z + a8o~,

).

184

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

A main implication discussed below is that within the present stress based framework one can

no longer obtain perfectly plastic behavior, since in the absence of hardening the elastoplastic

problem becomes ill-posed in stress space. (2) If equations (2.4b-d) are enforced point-wise one recovers the displacement model. Within the stress based variational framework presented in Section 3, the consistency condition and hardening law are enforced point-wise, but the flow rule is enforced in a weak sense. Alternatively, the consistency condition and hardening law may be enforced in a weak sense as discussed in the Appendix. A related approach within the restricted framework of J2-plasticity is recently discussed in [37]. Weak enforcement of the flow rule, on the other

hand, leads to a closest-point-projection iteration which is no longer performed independently

at each Gauss point as in typical displacement implementations, but rather is performed in a

global element iteration that couples all the quadrature points within an element, as is discussed below. (3) By resorting to a Hu-Washizu type of variational formulation, it is possible to enforce point-wise the flow rule, hardening law and consistency condition while, at the same tim~, obtaining a weak formulation of the stress-strain relations. In fact, this is the proper variational setting of assumed stress methods widely used in current inelastic calculations. We refer to [38] for a detailed account.

3.

Mixed finite element formulation

The mixed finite element formulation discussed below will be based on discontinuous stress interpolations over the elements that define the finite element discretization. Our motivation for this approach is quite explicit. Although the developments that follow are general, the actual implementation o~tlined in Section 4 for plane stress is based on a discontinuous stress interpolation proposed by Pian and Sumihara [28]. This interpolation does not exhibit "locking" behavior in the incompressible limit for plane strain and is highly insensitive to mesh distortion.

3.1. Approximation; discrete Kuhn- Tucker conditions

We consider discontinuous stress interpolations defined by the finite dimensional approx- imating subspace

s

--

I

= S<x)g,

g

e Rm}.

(3.1)

Here, S : n e-, R6 × Rmare (6 x m) prescribed local functions. An explicit construction of Sh is discussed in Section 4. As discussed in Remark 2.1(2), within the four field variational framework provided by (2.3) and (2.4), q,+~, AT,+~~ K p are additional fields which may be defined point-wise over the element or interpolated through the weak forms (2.4c, d). Here, we consider the former approximation scheme and replace (2.4d) with the standard discrete Kuhn-Tucker conditions

 (3.2a) AT.+ (3.2b)

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

185

Sim~'llarly, point-wise enforcement of (2.4c) yields the discrete hardening law

-o,o(e.+,) + o,O(q~)= a~+,o,#,(~r.+,, q.+,) .

(3.3)

3.2. Structure of the general return mapping

Within the context of the discontinuous approximation (3.1) for o', a general solution strategy proceeds as follows. Equations (2.4b), (3.2a) and (3.3) are solved at the element level to obtain o'n+l, A3',+1 and qn+l for a given strain VSUn+lwhich, subsequently, are substituted into the momentum balance equation (2.4a). To formulate the discrete problem resulting from (2.4b), (3.2a) and (3.3) after substitution of the interpolation (3.1), we introduce the following notation

r

Ee(~n+l) :---JQest(x)O~rX(S(X)#~n+I)da

,

(3.4a)

 L(/3n+1,qn+1,3'n+i):= fa, St(x)a~¢Orn+1,qn+1)3'n+1(X)da, (3.4b) Etrialn+1:m fae st(x)[Vsun+I - ep] d~, (3.4~)

where, hereafter, 3',+1 is used in place of the more appropriate symbol A3'n+ 1. In the case of plastic loading within the element (i.e., 3'n+1> 0), equations (2.4b), (3.2a) and (3.3) then yield the discrete problem

R(~,

q, 3')n+1

: --'--

-Ee(~n+l)- L(~n+l,

qn+l,3'n+1)+ l~trial ~"n+l ----0

o~O(q.+,) - a,O( q.) + v~+,o,¢(~+,, q~+,)= o,

3'.+xO(S/3n+'J,qn+1)= 0,

 , (3.5a) (3.5b) (3.5c)

where 3', +1 ~ 0 and 0n +1 ~<0. The system (3.5) constitutes the appropriate return mapping for the elastoplastic problem. As a consequence of the discontinuous stress interpolation (3.1), (3.5) may be solved (locally) at the element level for/3n+1, 7n+1 and qn+l. A general algorithm for the solution of (3.5) for an arbitrary form of the yield function O(zr, q) is given below.

3.3. Numericalsolution strategy;general yield condition

The solution of (3.5) at the element level may be accomplished by a systematic application of Newton's method as follows. We regard (3.5a, c) as a nonlinear system of equations in/3n+ 1 and Y,,+I in which qn+l is treated as a function of both /3n+1 and 7n+1 through (3.5b). A separate Newton iteration for qn+l is then performed on (3.5b) once /3n+1 and 3'n+1 are determined. The linearized system corresponding to (3.5a, c) is obtained through a systematic application of the directional derivative formula and (at each time step t,+l) takes the form

o = R¢*)+ ~d I~--oR(P(*) + a A~(*~, V(*) + a A3'(*))

(3.6a)

186 J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

or, equivalently

0-

R(,) _

[~(k)]-I

A~[](k) _ fo eStN(k) AT(*)(X) d~.

(3.6b)

 0= &(*)+ ~aaI,~=od ~('B(k)+ a A~ (k), T (*) + a AT(k) ) (3.6c) or, equivalently, 0-- 0 (k) + N(k)'s Aft (k) - [0qc~(k)]t [02qqO.4_T(k)C~2q~(k)]-l[Oq~(k)] AT(k) ' (3.6d)

where the superscript (k) refers to the iteration index in the local Newton iteration and

=(~,+,,

¢.~(k÷1~

A(') (k) :----"' ,n+l

~(k)

--(']n+l

'

(3.7)

[~(k)]-l.

s

:=

--" fo est[O2¢x + T02o~ -- T 2Oo.q~[C~2

-

2

"'

+

2qqe "[" TO2qq~]-102qtro](k)s d~'~ ,

(k)

At each step (k) of the Newton iteration, the linear system (3.6b, d) is solved for Aa(~') and

"-'/"n +1

AT,+~.(k) A separate Newton iteration for ~,,÷:,.(,) is then performed. Details of the step-by-step solution algorithm for this general problem can be found in [39]. Observe that the symmetry

of -.+t='<*)in (3.7) leads to a symmetric return mapping algorithm on the element level as well as symmetric algorithmic elastoplastic tangent moduli (see Section 3.5) on the global level.

3.4.

Numerical solution strategy; model problem

To illustrate the numerical solution of system (3.5), we consider a simple model problem.

3.4. I. Formulation of model problem

 We consider plane stress elastoplasticity with a Von-Mises yield criterion and linear isotropic hardening formulated in terms of the equivalent plastic strain q = #P, i.e., ~(o', q) := f(o') - ~3~ g(q), (3.8a) (3.8b) g( q) := orr + H' q . (3.8c)

Here ¢rr > 0 and H' > 0 are material constants. Following [7], we define the function f(zr) as

f(o.):-~[o.teo.]

1/2 ,

(3.9)

,[2,

-1

2

0 0

Observe that for

sequently, (3.8b) becomes linear in ~, and takes the form

this choice 0~,f= [o "te ~r] -~/2 P o', and, by construction, ]]0~,fH = 1. Con-

1. C. Simo et el., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

187

Note that the Legendre transformation (1.2) is unnecessary in the ease of a single scalar internal variable since a symmetric algorithm emanates directly from a formulation in q. We complete our model problem by further assuming that the elastic response is linear, that is

X(lflr) "=

Io't

c-lo

" ,

(3.10)

where C := [O2~X(o')] -1 is the elasticity tensor, assumed to be constant (and point-wise stable, i.e. g' t> llgll 2, for some constant a >0).

3.4.2. Return mapping algorithm

Because of the linearity assumption on the elastic response, Ee(/3.+ 1)= Hell.+1 is linear in gl,,+1, with H e defined as

H" "= fn, s'(x)c-ls(x)

da

.

(3.11)

In addition, the discrete yield function 4}(er.+1, q. +1) becomes linear in 3'.+1 (recall that ,/. +1is used in place of the more appropriate symbol Ay.+ 1) due to the linearity of the hardening law. As a result, in the ease of plastic loading within the given element (i.e.T.+I >0), (3.5a-c) yield the following discrete return mapping problem,

Rn+l

"ffi -H

17trial ~

~1.+1- L(~.+I, T;,+I) + --,,+~

~.+1 := f(er,,+,)- ~

K(q.)-

3ZH'T,,+;=0,

0

 , (3.12a) (3.12b)

where backward-Euler integration has been used on (3.8b) to yield the following linear discrete hardening law

q.+l- qn = Vr] %+1.

.(k)

Linearization of (3.12a) about the state (fl, T, q).+l yields

where

n+t m [H

-1

]-1

J-r n+lJ

:=

H e +

f

ja,

~t~2

[(k)

~,

v tr~ Jn+

l

~.

(k) l'-~

,Tn+

l lat j

'sdal''

.I.+1

d~'~

.

 (3.13) Aft

(3.14b)

The system (3.12) may be solved effectively for/3,+1 • Rm and T,+I E R by the algorithm summarized in Boxes 1 and 2. Observe that this algorithm can be phrased as an elastic predictor/plastic corrector solution scheme. However, in sharp contrast with displacement formulations, see for instance [6, 7], the return mapping algorithm cannot be formulated independently at each Gauss point. If yielding occurs at any Gauss point, the return mapping in Box 2 is conducted over the entire element. The following remarks concerning the procedure summarized in Boxes 1 and 2 should be noted.

188 J.C. Simo et a!., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

Box 1 Integration algorithm. Elastic predictor. Model problem

(i)

Initialization (k = 0):

H e := fo s,(x)c,s¢x) d£~ ,

(ii)

~trial ~"n + 1 :

fn,

S

'

(x)[

VS

u,,+l -

Calculate elastic predictor:

#(0)

jgle-l~trial

aa

a.~n+ 1

eP] d•

(iii) Check for yielding at the element:

f(S(xs)#'°))

IF ~¢°)(Xs) ~<0 for all x 8 E ~2, THEN Elastic Process; EXIT

ELSE Plastic Process; GO TO Box 2

ENDIF.

REMARKS 3.1

(1) In Boxes 1 and 2, the notation (.)(k), Xt8 and N8 refer to the following:

(.)(k)

/.

k

~(k)

In+l

,

xs := x E

Ns := number of Gauss points in/~,,

f~:= domain associated with element e.

n e at Gauss point g,

(2) In addition, the notation (@) stands for the Macauley bracket of @, i.e., (@)= @ if @>0, and (O}ffi0 if ~<0. (3) Integration over ~, is evaluated via Gauss quadrature of the form

fn x(x)dn

:=

~

g--1

[X(x)LsJsWg,

(3.15)

where W. is the Gauss weight and Js is the Jacobian of the isoparametric

J8 :ffidet I0qt(~)/0~]xg, where W(~) is defined in Section 4. (4) The crucial role played by the discrete Kuhn-Tucker condition in step (iv) of Box 2 should be noted. (5) The present complementary formulation is ill-posed for perfect plasticity (H' =0), as suggested by the factor 1/H' appearing in Box 2.

mapping at x s, i.e.

3.5.

Displacement approximation; residual and tangent operator

We derive the appropriate expressions for the residual force vector and the tangent stiffness

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

189

Box 2 Integration algorithm. Plastic corrector. Model problem

(iv) Enforce discrete Kuhn/Tucker conditions to compute 3,(k):

1

'Y~)=~H'--'-; ('~'k'(xe))'

g=l""'Ne'

I,~,:= {ge

,Ng} [g(k)(xs)>O) .

(v) Compute constitutiveresidualand check convergence:

(vi)

(vii)

L (k):-

R(k)

2_

2

[st(x)a~ffk)Ls~(sk)']sWg,

_He~(k) -- L(t) + j~trial ,

IF IIR"°II > TOL THEN

Compute consistent tangents and get Ap(k):

[~(,)]-t

&.8(.) =

:=

(,

H •

+

~.

g¢lact

[s a

t

2

(k)

f

s]

(k)

~.:,w,,

--(k))-,

+ IH--";

~'

[\$t(O'f(k))(a"f(k))t\$]'J~We

Update/3 (k) and compute ~(k+~):

#(k+,) = p(h) + Ap("),

~(k)(Xe):-- f(S(xs)p ~) -

~

SET k = k + 1 and GO

ELSE

TO (iv)

K(q,,(X.)),

g

=

1,

.,

Ne

(viii) SET

q.+,(=.)

e,,+,(x.}

ENDIF,

EXIT.

= q.(~.)

+ ~

"v.,,(~.),

?,,+,(xe)a.f,,+,(

.)

,

R(')"

matrix emanating from the weak form of momentum balance (2.4a). Assume a C°(n) displacement approximation defined by

v" :- { h

e [C°(n)]N I

=

re.

~,

A=1

}

NA(x)SdA, 8d A e. RN C I7.

(3.16)

By introducing the [N × (N × Nen)] matrix of shape functions N := [Nl(x)l"" fcNen(X)l],

where 1 is the (N × N) unit matrix, and setting 8d t "--[Sdtl "

• . 8dN~,],

t

we obtain

190 J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

~hJo"= N(x)Sd,

V s ~

h

JOe

B(x)Bd,

(3.17)

where, following standard notation (see e.g. [40]), we have denoted by B "= V'N.

3.5.1. Residual force vector

With the above displacement interpolation the weak form of momentum balance (2.4a)

takes the form

 E D[.+, .~h= ~ a h ' where a~ = 8dt[R~-f~]. (3.18) ell

The vector f~ gives the element contribution to the external loading (emanating from H,,t(u)). On the other hand, the element internal force vector, Re, is given by

Re "= fl~ Bt(x)o'n+l d~'~ -" Gtpn+l

where we have set

G "- fn. St(x)B(x) dn.

,

(3.19)

(3.20)

Note that the element internal force vector R, becomes completely determined from (3.19) once/]~.~ is obtained, from a given strain e,+~ ffiV'u, by the return mapping algorithm in Box 1 and Bvx 2.

3.5.2. Consistent tangent stiffness matrix

The element tangent stiffness matrix is obtained by (exact) linearization of the weak forms (2.4) through a systematic application of the directional derivative formula. This, in turn, involvea the linearization of (3.19) and the linearization of the algorithm in Boxes I and 2 as follows. Here, we regard all the fields (t r, q, y) as functions of uhE V h. Then, for any incremental displacement field AuhE V h such that Auh := N(x)Adn+l, the directional deriva-

tive of the discrete weak form Ge(d,+~) is computed as

d

d~

~-o

a.(d.+,

+.

'

 (3.21) Thus, the element tangent stiffness matrix is given by K~'=Gt[OlJn+l/dn+l]. The matrix

[~t3n+l/~d,+l] i,~ obtained by linearization of the discrete system (3.5). To this end, from (3.4c) and (3.20) we first observe that

Etrialn+l ~--"Gd~+l

w

fo e

S(x)e p dl~

~

~ik7trial

a-*n+ |

= G .

(3.22)

Y.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed fini:e element formulations

191

For simplicity, hereafter we restrict our attention to the model problem. Differentiation of (3.12a, b) then yields

,-,-

1

~

(~n+l

=,,+x #d.+ t

~t. Jne S Ou.(~tn+1 (~dn+l

f

t

#7,,+~ dn=

a/],+l

[a,,.f]t\$ 8d.+t

2

07,+1=0,

3 H' 8d.+~

 6;, (3.23a) (3.23b)

where ~+1 is defined by (3.14b). Solving (3.23b) for [Oy~+llad.+l]and substituting in (3.23a)

yields

a.s,,+, = [=

,

+

3

f,,.

S (oo.(k,,+l)(a~.ck,,+,) S d13

t

t

1-1

G.

(3.24)

Finally, by inserting (3.24) into (3.21) one obtains the expression of the element tangent stiffness in the form

S'(a,,¢k,,+x)(O=,ck,,+x)tSdfJ]-I G.

(3.25)

REMARK 3.2. The tangent stiffness for (3.5) is found by differentiation of (3.5a, c), again considering q. +1 as a function of both/3,, +1 and % +1 via (3.5b), and proceeding along the same lines as above to obtain ([39])

~--"o[-,~n+l

-- fo

~n+

¢.+, :- 1/[(0.¢)'(0',,e

is t ~T'n+l~rn+ t 1s dD

+

-1

G,

(3.26)

where ~.+t and N.+t are defined in (3.7). Notethat Ke in (3.26) is symmetric for arbitrary

functional forms of the yield criterion (3.2) and hardening law (3.3).

Global expressions for the residual force vector and the tangent stiffness matrix are obtained through the standard assembly procedure.

4. Application and numerical simulations

We consider stress interpolations for a quadrilateral element with bi=linear isoparametric interpolation for the displacement field. The stress interpolation is a modification of that proposed by Pian and Sumihara [28]. For linear isotropic elasticity the resulting element appears to be optimal. Its performance under distortion and in the nearly incompressible limit is excellent. The proposed modification enables one to achieve all the computational advan- tages reported in [41]. The performance of this element, 11owever, appears to be superior to that obtained with the interpolation proposed by these authors.

192

4.1.

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

Stress interpolation for a quadrilateral element

Let g~eC R2 be a typical quadrilateral element with nodes x A E R 2 (A = 1,2,3, 4), and denote by qt. g] --->g~e the isoparametric mapping, where g] : = [- 1, 1] x [- 1, 1]. We have

 t~ ~ b --->~,(~) = ~, A=I fc~(~)x~ , (4.1) where ~A(~) are the standard bilinear interpolation functions on the unit square/]. Let

.~ "= qt(0)

centroid, i.e.,

be the centroid of /~e and /~ the Jacobian of the isoparametric mapping at I!he

o,t,(~) ]

[Pl

P~]

(4.2)

Define ~rh(~) as the stress tensor tr convected by the constant mapping #, that is ~.h := l~-lO.l~-t. We consider a stress interpolation, discontinuous between elements, and defined in terms of five parameters as

,,

h

----'/'o+A(~ 2-

~2)[0

1

(4.3)

where %h, A, B are constant and ~' are defined by the expression fa, (~'- ~')d~ = O. The interpolation for the stress tensor ¢ is defined by mere transformation (push-forward) of (4.3) with F. Replacing ~.h by the alternative constant matrix tr~ :- l~.~t, the final result may be expressed in reduced matrix notation as (recall that x = ~(~))

0.11

0.22

0.12

h

= [I1(6

~-

~2)a,

I(¢' -

~')a2]g-S(x)O,,

(4.4)

where I:= Diag[1, 1, 1] is the (3 x 3) unit matrix, tS~is the (5 x 1) vector of stress parameters, and at, a2 are constant (5 × 1) vectors defined in terms of the components of 1~ as

a, := [(~',y (~)" (~:,)l-'-'',

REMARKS

4.1

(4.5)

(1) The stress interpolation outlined above is obtained from that proposed by Plan and

i = 1, 2. For linear elasticity where the tangent

elasticities C are constant, this modification results in a block diagonal weighted compliance matrix H ~-1, i.e.,

Sumihara [28], by replacing fi with (~:i- ~),

H~-J

_

"vol(/'Je)C -1

0[3×2] ]

(4.6)

J.C. Simo et aL, Complementary mixed finite element ~ormulations

193

where O-1 is a (2 x 2) matrix. Thus, He can be inverted in closed form. For the elastoplastic case this computational advantage is lost, even if a~,, f(o') is constant, as in the case of the Von Mises yield condition. (2) It can be easily seen that the interpolation outlined above passes the mixed patch test in the form recently discussed by Zienkiewicz et al. [42]. In particular, the one element test with minimum displacement constraints gives 2 × 4 - 3 = 5 displacement degrees of freedom, which is the number of free stress parameters/3.

"4.2. Numerical simulations, extension of a perforated plate

Two numerical examples are considered to demonstrate the applicability of the new variational formulation of elastoplasticity as well as the reliable performance of the corre- sponding numerical implementation. All calculations are performed on a Convex C1 computer by inplementing the algorithm shown in Boxes 1 and 2 in an enhanced version of the nonlinear finite element computer program FEAP, developed by R.L. Taylor, and described in [40, Chapter 24].

4.2.1. Exter&~ionof a perforated plate

A perforated plate characterized by the plane stress/,_-flow material model in Section 3.4 with isotropic hardening is considered first. Displacement controlled boundary conditions are imposed, as depicted in Fig. 1 and the material properties are: Young's modulus E- 70, Posson's ratio v-0.2, uniaxial tensile yield stress K0 -0.243, hardening modulus H'-0.2. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the load-displacement curves (load calculated from nodal reactions), predicted from the mixed formulation and the standard displacement formulation, each using an identical mesh of 4-node quadrilaterals. The plane stress version of the classical radial return employed here is due to Simo and Taylor [6]. The mixed formulation provides more accurate load-displacement predictions than the displacement formulation as seen by comparison of the solutions for the 72 element mesh and the 722 element mesh. Aside from the added compliance of the mixed solution, however we observe that the load-displacement curves are in good agreement for the two formulations.

18

.4

ttt

I_

r

t

t.~

lllll

I0

J

~1

a

194

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

o,

2.2

2.0 ""

1.8-

1.6-

1.4-

S.

 1.2 " 1.0 " 0,8 " • • • • • ,, (a) Oispl. method, 722 elmts (b) Mixed method, 722 elmts (¢) Displ. method, 72 elrn;s {d) Mixed ,method,72 elmts 0.6 u u t 0 2 4 6 8

Displacement

Fig. 2. Load-displacementcurvesfor perforated plate with: (a) 722 element mesh, displacementformulation;(b) 722 elementmesh, mixedformulation;(c) 72 elementmesh,displacementformulation;(d) 72 elementmesh, mixed

formulation.

Figures 3-6

compare

the

evolution

of

the plastic zones

predicted

by

the

mixed and

displacement formulations, again using an identical mesh of 4-node quadrilaterals for each. Specifically, the figures contain contour plots of ~ values, where

• =

f(o')

X.V~'~ K0

Ko := [K(q)]q_o.

(4.7)

The legend .shown in Fig. 3 applies to all of Figs. 3-6. In each figure, the plastic zone is characterized by ~k ~ 1.0. Again, the mixed formulation gives somewhat better (more flexible) results than the displacement formulation. With a 72 element mesh, the mixed formulation is better able to predict the semicircular elastic region neighboring (x, y) = (10, 0) as shown for = 0.15. Aside from this added accuracy, the yield zones predicted by the two formulations are in good agreement. As expected, the rate of convergence exhibited by the global Newton iteration is excellent, as shown in Tables 1-4. In discussing the rate of global convergence for this problem, it is important to recognize two facts. Firstly, Tables 1-4 suggest that the radius of covergence for this problem is such that quadratic convergence is attained only for energy norms below 10-6. Secondly, as the mesh becomes more refined for either formulation, the rate of global convergence experiences some degradation, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. Consequently, since the mixed problem is more flexible than the displacement problem for a

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

l-'-1
~ < .90
.90 <
~)< 1.0
!i Ii
1.o

Fig. 3. Yield zone evolution for displacement formulation with 722 elements. (a) ~-0.15.

ti = 3.15.

(d)

ti = 4.65.

(e)

ti = 6.15.

(b)

 195 ti-1.65. (c)

Table

Global Newton iteration energy norm convergence rate for displacement formulation, 722 element mesh

1

 1 5 10 17 Iteration (~ -- 0.03) (~2 - 0.15) (ti --- 2.65) (ri -- 6.15) 1 0.905e + 00 0.929e + 00 0.258e + 03 0.257e + 03 2 0.214e - 04 0.120e - 04 0.150e - 02 0.996e - 03 3 0.124e - 05 0.449e - 06 0.827e - 04 0.238e - 04 4 0.831e - 08 0.A.A~A.e-- 08 0.303e - 05 0.149e - 06 5 O. 133e - 13 0.680e - 12 0.730e - 07 0.916e - 07 6 O.190e- 24 0.228e- 19 0.535e- 11 0.211e- 09 7 ~ 0.226e- 30 0.717e- 19 0.177e- 14 8 m n 0.406e - 28 0.135e - 24

196

J.C. Simo e: al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

[~
~ <
.90 < ~ <
.90
1.0
BI II
1.o

Fig. 4. Yield zone evolution for displacement formulation with 72 elements. (a) ii - 0.15. (b) Ii -- 1.65. (c) ii = 3.15.

 (d) ti =4.65. (e) ti = 6.15. Table 2 Global Newton iteration energy norm convergence rate for displacement formulation, 72 element mesh Load step

1

5

10

17

 Iteration (~ = 0.03) (~ = 0.15) (~ ffi 2.65) (~ ffi 6.15) 1 0.270e + 00 0.294e + 00 0.817e + 02 0.717e + 02 2 0.111e - 04 0.104e - 04 0.138e - 02 0.628e - 03 3 0.119e - 05 0.177e - 07 0.705e - 04 0.4~ ~e - 05 4 0.233e - 09 0.305e - 12 0.623e - 06 0.637e - 09 5 0.161e - 16 0.258e - 21 0.124e - 09 0.269e - 16 6 0,127e - 30 0.217e - 31 0.240e - 16 0.273e - 29 7 -- -- 0.662e - 29
J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations
197
\$ < .90
.90 < \$ < 1.0
/
1.o
Fig. 5. Yield zone evolution for mixed formulation with 722 elements. (a) Ii--0.15. (b) ti-
1.65.
(c) ti-
3.15.
(d)
ti - 4.65.
(e)
ri = 6.15.
Table
3
Global
Newton
iteration
energy
norm
convergence
rate
for mixed formulation,
722 element
mesh
step
1
5
10
17
Iteration
(ti -- 0.03)
(ti -- 0.15)
(ti -
2.65)
(~ = 6.15)
1
0.897e + 00
0.921e + 00
0.256e + 03
0.245e + 03
2
0.220e
-
04
0.217e -
04
0.831e -
03
0.185e -
03
3
0.175e
-
05
0.196e
-
05
0.683e
-
02
O. 156e
-
04
4
0.449e -
07
0.883e -
07
0.753e -
04
0.189e -
05
5
0.320e -
13
0.719e -
10
0.871e -
05
0.951e -
07
6
0.559e -
23
0.125e -
15
0,275e -
06
0.375e -
11
7
m
0.483e --27
0.176e -
07
0.210e -
18
8
m
~
0.192e -
11
0.164e -
25
9
~
~
0.578e-
19
10
--
m
0.255e -
26
--
198
J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations
r-]
~ < .9o
.9o
<
<
1.o
B
¢> 1.0
Fig. 6.
Yield zone evolution for mixed formulation with 72 elemeats.
(a)
ii = 0.15.
(b)
6
=
1.65.
(c)
6 =
3.15.
(d)
6
-
4.65.
(e)
6 -
6.15.
Table 4
Global Newton iteration energy norm convergence rate for mixed formulation, 72 element mesh
1
5
10
17
Iteration
(6 = 0.03)
(6
-
f). 15)
(6
-
2.65)
(6
-
6.15)
1
0.264e + 00
0.288e + 00
0.800e + 02
0.779e + 02
2
0.222e -
04
0.164e -
04
0.970e -
03
0.196e -
03
3
0.2b0e
-
~
0.165e -
06
0.797e -
04
0.139e -
05
4
0.332e -
08
0r 645e
-
1]
0,755e -
06
0.278e -
09
5
0.228e
-
14
0.956e -
20
0.222e -
09
0.210e -
16
6
0.172e -
26
0.116e -
29
0.320e -
16
0.564e -
27

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite elementformulations

199

given mesh, the mixed problem converges slower than the displacement problem when the same mesh is used. One should note, however, that within a global Newton iteration, the mixed formulation typically requires less computational effort than the displacement formula- tion, since the mixed method performs the plastic return mapping only once within a plastic element, whereas in the displacement method the return mapping is performed four times (once at each Gauss point).

4.2.2.

Bending of a tapered beam

In this example we consider a tapered beam with elastoplastic response characterized by

plane stress J2-flow with isotropic hardening. The elastic version of this problem is often referred to in the literature as Cook's Membrane Problem". We impose load controlled"

boundary

conditions,

as depicted in Fig.

1

7, and assume

the following material properties:

2~
,
,
'
'
'
'
2O
\$ fSSS
.S
"
"
"
"
"
"
/
/"
¢./
/
/
s
i
]
AssumedStressFormulationIll
]
DisplacementFormulation
i
i
i
i
,
I
,
I
,
I
;0
.,5
~'0
0 o
15
20
Elements per Side -
n

i

35

Fig. 8. Displacementof the top, right corner versus the number of elements per side in the finite element mesh for the (a) assumed stress formulation, and the (b) displacement formulation. Equal numbers of elements in the

horizontal and vertical directions are ,~oa tt,.,.,,,,.h

,s,

a ~ww~n,ev~L.

~

200

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

Young's modulus E = 70, Poisson's ratio v =0.3333, uniaxial tensile yield stress K0 =0.243, hardening modulus H' = 0.2. The loading is increased in increments of AF = 0.1 until a final value of F = 1.8 is reached, which corresponds to a state in which nearly the entire specimen is plastic (except for two small elastic zones in the lower left and upper fight comers). Figure 8 shows the vertical displacement of the top fight node plotted versus number of elements per side, at a load level of F = 1.8, computed with the proposed mixed for~nulation and the standard 4-node bilinear isoparametric displacement formulation with the usual "strain driven" return mapping algorithm. As demonstrated in Fig. 8, for this problem, the displacement formulation exhibits a significant degradation in accuracy over the mixed formulation. In particular, the mixed formulation solution with 64 elements is more accurate . than the displacement formulation solution with 1024 elements.

5. Concluding remarks

We have presented a discrete mixed variational formulation of plasticity based on the principle of maximum plastic dissipation. The relevant variational principle is simply the discrete statement of the first law of thermodynamics over an arbitrary time-step [tn, tn+~]. Explicitly, we express the potential energy at time tn as the sum of the potential energy at time tn+~ plus the plastic dissipation during [t~, t~+~]. Integration of the dissipation over [t~, t,,+~] with a backward-Euler algorithm yields a discrete Lagrangian whose Euler-Lagrange equa- tions are precisely the momentum balance, the flow rule, the hardening law and the consistency condition, where the latter three characterize a general closest-point-projection algorithm. This results in a discrete optimization problem, formulated in stress space, the solution of which has been considered in detail. Concerning this solution procedure, the following remarks are noteworthy. (i) Within the context of mixed finite element formulations with independent stress interpolations, the plastic return mapping algorithm can no longer be formulated independent- ly at each Gauss point. The closest-point-projection that restores plastic consistency must be performed at the global element level, and involves all the Gauss points within the element. This is in sharp contrast with traditional displacement-like formulations for which the return mapping algorithm is performed independently at each quadrature t~oint.

(ii) The notion of consistent elastoplastic tangent moduli, [6], also carries over to the

present stress-space algorithmic framework. As in displacement-like formulations, these moduli are obtained by consistent linearization of the return mapping algorithm. We have shown that a closed-form expression can be obtained for arbitrary functional forms of the yield condition and hardening law.

(iii) A main motivation for the present study is the extension to the elastoplastic regime of recently proposed mixed formulations. The present developments are applicable to any mixed finite element formulation of the Hellinger-Reissner type. In particular, as an application, we have considered an interpolation recently proposed by Pian and Sumihara [28], which is highly

appears to yield super'convergent results for bending

dominated problems.

insensitive to

mesh

distorsion

and

(iv) The present framework carries over to the elastoplastic analysis of plates and shells.

Recent work, [43], indicates that successful mixed interpolations for the membrane and

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulatio,,.s

201

bending fields can be developed within the context of a Hellinger-Reissner variational setting. As demonstrated in the numerical simulations, use of the traditional displacement formula- tion of elastoplasticity over the present mixed formulation may lead to significant degradation in the accuracy of the calculations for certain classes of problems, particularly those entailing mesh distortion.

Appendix A. Weak enforcement of the consistency condition

As noted previously, within the variational framework provided by (2.3) and (2.4), the consistency parameter A~, E K p can be spatially interpolated within the element. To this end, we introduce the approximating set

K p' -- {A~ hEL2(n)! A~/ h[ne = Ft(x)Ye,

eye ~Rs

and

Ye ~0},

(A.I)

where we have used the standard notation % ~>0 if and only if all the components are positive,

i.e. ~,~ I>0 for A-~ 1,2,

prescribed set of functions FA : n,--, R+, (A - 1, s), is positive, that is,

,s. In addition, to ensure that KPhc K p we require that the

,

FA(X)>~O Vxen,

and

Afl,

~.,s.

(A.2)

Since by assumption YeA~>0 for A = 1,2,

A7 E

defined by (3.1).

, K p are required. The stresses again are represented by the discontinuous interpolations

s, (A.2) implies that ATh ffi FA(X)7~ ~>0, so that

A. 1. Discrete Kuhn- Tucker conditions

0.

We

+t : -

recall

that

the

consistency

parameter

A3,.+t E K ph,

and

the

yield

0(or. +1, q. +1) (with zr. +1E S h) must satisfy the Kuhn-Tucker conditions

function

(A.3)

The discrete counterpart of these conditions, which result from the spatial approximation (2.3) and (2.4) is obtained as follows. First, introduce the notation

f

6.+,(x):= r(x)c,(s(x)IJ.+,,q.+,)d•.

(A.4)

Clearly, since ~b.÷~~<0 and FA(x)>~O,for A = 1,2,

that this means ~.A+I(X)~<0 for A = 1, Kuhn-Tucker conditions

,m, it follows that ~,;÷i~<0. (Recall

,m). In summary we have the following discrete

~n+l~ 0 '

~n+l~O

'

o

~tn+1~n+1 ~

0

,

(A.5)

which govern approximation (A.1) and (A.2).

202

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

REMARK A.1.

It appears that requirement (A.2) on the approximation may be relaxed to

the weaker condition

fn FA(x)dfJ>~O

for A = 1,2,

,s.

(A.6a)

This condition also leads to the same discrete Kuhn-Tucker conditions (A.5), as the following estimate shows:

OA"= fa. F+~(x), df~ ~<[max:~a~ok(x)] fae FA(X)df~ <-0.

(A.6b)

The last inequality holds because of (A.6a) and the fact that 0 ~<0 for all x E n,.

REMARK A.2.

It is interesting to observe that the variational setting emanating from (2.4)

also determines a discrete--interpolatedmyield function given by

(~n+l(X) ,'~- rt(x)y-l~n+i

,

Y "~- fn er(x)rt(x) da ,

(A.7)

where 0,,.~ is defined by (A.4). To see this, simply note from (2.4d) that

fa, Ay.+,0.+,(x)dn= 7:+, fo.rr' dar-'

'Io

= v.+,

e

fa"

q.+,)dn

q).+l dl'~

- fn. A%+,ck(o',+~, q,+,) d/].

Thus, ~,.l(x) satisfies (2.4d).

A.2.

Structure of return mapping

(A.8)

Withi:a the context of the discontinuous approxima~tions (3.1), (A.1) and (A.2) for the stress tensor cr and the consistency parameter Ay, respectively, a general solution strategy proceeds as follows. Equations (2.4b, d) are solved at the element level to obtain stresses o',,+1 for a given strain VZu.,l which, subsequently, are substituted into the momentum balance equation (2.4a). To formulate the discrete problem resulting from (2.4b, d) after subsitution of the interpo- lations (3.1), (A.1) and (A.2), we introduce the following notation

E~(/3"+1) "- fn, S'(x)O,, X(S(x) lJ,,. ~) dn ,

L<p.+,)

".+,~"i" :=

=

f,

s

St(x)[V su.+ 1-

e.p] d£~ .

(A.9)

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

203

Equations (2.4b, d) then yield the discrete problem

e

,)-L(p.+,)v (p

,

+=

i~?trial

,

t

7.+1~.+1 =0,

lp.+1~>0.

=o,

(A.IO)

A general algorithm can be developed for the solution of problem (A.10) for an arbitrary form

of the yield function ~(o', q) and generalized hardening moduli h(o', q). For concreteness, however, we shall again restrict ourselves to the particular form discussed in the model

problem.

A.3. Numericalsolution strategy

To illustrate the numerical solution of system (A.10), we again consider the model problem discussed in Section 3.4, where, for linear elastic response, Ee(gl~.l) = Hell,,+1 is linear in /3,. t, with H e defined in (3.11) and

Y := fQer(x)rt(x) d/].

(A.11)

The discrete yield vector 0~+1defined by (A.4) also becomes linear in Y~+ldue to the linearity

of the hardening law, i.e.,

~,,+1 :ffifo, l'(x)[f(S(x)[3"+t) - X/]~K(eP)] d,O -

~H'Y1~,+~.

(A.12)

The discrete system (A.10) now reduces to a nonlinear equation in/3,.t E R m, which can be solved systematically using Newton's method. The step-by-step return mapping algorithm closely resembles that in Box 1 and Box 2 and may be found in [39]. The tangent stiffness for this case then becomes

Ke =

Gt

L'"+t = ~H; L"+IY L"+I

r ~

1

1

_t

t

-1

G

where G is defined in (3.20).

(A.13)

To complete the foregoing finite element interpolation, we consider the following choice for

r(x),

¢eh,

(A.14)

where ~A E S], A = 1,2,3, 4, are the Gauss points in natural coordinates, 8(.) denotes the delta function and ~ = qr,l(x). Clearly, (A.14) is the simplest choice that satisfies the

x ffi qt(~), as required. In fact, Y becomes a diagonal matrix since

condition rA(X)30, for

204

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

YAs=f~ ~(~- _Ea)8(g- ~s)S(~)d~ 1d~2 =/~A8 J(ga),

(A.15)

where J(~A) is the Jacobian of the isopara_metric mapping evaluated at ~:A and a 2 × 2 quadrature is used (W8 = 1). Also note that ~ defined by (A.12) becomes

~A ~- ~A

-

2

t

(A.16)

Therefore, denoting by fA := f(S(~:,~)/3),

~/A = (fA - V~ K(e.P))/}H'.

One should note that, in the case that a 2 x 2 quadrature is used over 1~e(Ws = 1), the delta function interpolation (defined by (A.14)) as well as the bilinear interpolation of A~,.+I between Gauss points results in a formulation identical to that in Box 1 and 2.

the consistency parameter is determined simply as

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to M.S. Rifai for his help and comments on the subject of this paper, and his suggestion for the simulation in Fig. 8. S!lpport for this research was provided by a grant from the National Science Foundation. J.G. Kennedy was supported by a Fellowship from the Shell Development Company. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[11

[2]

[31

[41

[51

[6]

[7]

[81

[9]

[I0]

[111

M.L. Wilkins, Calculation of elastic-plastic flow, in: B. Alder, S. Fernback, M. Rottenberg, eds., Methods of Computational Physics3 (Academic Press, New York, 1964). R.D. Kriegand D.B. Krieg, Accuraciesof numerical solution methods"forthe elastic-perfectlyplastic model, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Tech. 99, 1977. H.L. Schreyer, R.L. Kulak and J.M. Krame,r, Accurate numericalsolutionsfor elastic-plasticmodels, ASME

J. Pressure Vessel Tech. 101 (1979) 226-334.

I.S. Sandier and D. Rubin, An algorithm and a modular subroutine for the cap model, Intemat. J. Numer. and Analyt. Methods Geomech. 3 (1979) 173-186.

M. Ortiz, and E.E Popov, Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive

equations, lnternat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 21 (!085) 1561-1576. J.C. Simo and R.L. Taylor, Consistent tangent operators for rate independent elasto-plasticity, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 48 (1985) 101-118. J.C. Simoand R.L. Taylor, A return mapping algmithm for plane stress elastoplasticity, Internat. J. Numer. Engrg. 22 (3) (1986) 649-670.

J.C. Simo and M. Ortiz, A unified approach to finite deformation elastoplasticity based on the use of hyperelastic constitutive equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 49 (1985) 221-245. J.C. Simo, J.W. Ju and R.L. Taylor, Softening response, completeness condition, and numerical algorithms for the cap model, Internat, J. Numer. Methods Engrg., to appear.

H. Matthies, A decomposition method for the integration of the elastic-plastic rate problem, lnternat. J.

Numer. Methods l~ngrg., to appear. J.C. Simo and T.J.R. Hughes, General return mapping algorithms for rate independent plasticity, in: C.S. Desai, E. Krempl, P.D. Kiousis, T. Kundu, eds., Constitutive Equations for E.ngineeringMaterials (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987) 221-231.

J.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulations

205

 [12] J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy and S. Govindjee, Non-smooth multisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/ Q.S. Nguyen, On the elastic-plastic initial-boundary value problem and its numerical integration, Internat. J. [13] [14] unloading conditions and numerical algorithms, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 26 (1988) 2161-2195. J.J. Moreau, Evolution problem associated with a moving convex set in a Hilbert space, J. Differential Equations 26 (1977) 347. Numer. Methods Engrg. 11 (1977) 817-832. [15] H. Matthies, Problems in plasticity and their finite element approximation, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of

[16]

Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1978.

P. Suquet, Existence et regularit6 de solutions des equations de al plasticit6 parfaite, (Existence and regularity

 [17] of solutions to perfect plasticity equations), These de 3e Cycle (Universit6 de Paris, 1978). G. Duva,~Jtand J.L. Lions, Les Inequations en Mechanique et en Physique (Dunod, Paris, 1972). [181 C. Johnson, Existency theorems for plasticity problems, J. Math. lures Appl. 55 (1976) 431-444. [19] C. Johnson, On finite element methods for plasticity problems, Numer. Math. 26 (1976) 79-84. [2O] C. Johnson, A mixed finite element for plasticity, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 14 (1977) 575-583. [21] C. Jofinson. On plasticity with hardening, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 62 (1978) 325-336. [22] H. Matthies and G. Strang, The solution of nonlinear finite element equations, Intemat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 14 (11) (1979) 1613-1626. [23] R. Temam, Mathematical problems in plasticity (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1985) (Translation of 1983 French original edition). [24] R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1950, last ed. 1983): [25] G. Maler, Quadratic programming and theory of elastic-perfectly plastic structures, Meccanica 3 (1968) 265-273. [26] O. Maier, A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplasticity with interacting yield planes, Meccanica 5 (1970) 54-56. [27] J.J. Moreau, Application of convex analysis to the treatment of elastoplastic systems, in: P. Germain and B. Nayroles, eds., Application~ of Methods of Functional Analysis to Problems in Mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 1976). [28] T. Pian and Sumihara, Rat,,~nal approach for assumed stress finite elements, Internat. J. Numer. Methods. Engrg. 20 (9) (1984) 1685--1695. [29] J. Mandel, Contribution theorique al'6tude de i'ecrouissage et des lois de I'~couleme~,tplastique, Proceedings

[3o1

[31]

[32]

[33]

P41

[351

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[4O]

[41]

llth International Congress Appl. Mech. (1964) 502-509.

 J. Lubliner, A maximum-dissipation principle in generalized plasticity, Acta Mech. 52 (1984) 225-237. J. Lubliner, Normality rules in large-deformation plasticity, Mech. of Mater. 5 (1986) 29-34.

J.C. Simo, A framework for finite strain elastoplasticity based on maximum plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decompositiu.~: Part I. Continuum formulation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 66 (2)

(1986) 199-219. J.C. Simo, A framework for finite strain elastoplasticity based on maximum plastic dissipation and the multiplicative decomposition. Part II. Computational aspects, Comput. Methods App|. Mech. Engrg. 68 (1) (1988) 1-31. J.C. Simo and T. Honein, Variational Formulation, Discrete Conservation Laws and Path-Domain Indepen- dent Integrals for Elasto-Vis~plasticity, to appear. D.G. Luenberger, Linear and Nonlinear Programming (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1984). G. Strang, Introduction to Applied Mathematics (Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Wellesley, 1986).

P. Pinsky, A finite element formulation for elastoplasticity based on a three field variational principle,

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 61 (1) (1987)41-60. J.C. Simo and T.J.R. Hughes, On the variational foundations of assumed strain methods, J. Appl. Mech. 53

(1) (1986) 51-54. J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy and R.L. Taylor, Complementary mixed finite element formulations for elastoplas- ticity, Report UCB/SEMM-87/09, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1987). O.C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method, Third Edition (McGraw-Hill, London, 1977).

T. Belytschko and W.E. Bachrach, Efficient implementation of quadrilaterals with high coarse-mesh accuracy,

Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 54 (1985) 279-301.

206

Y.C. Simo et al., Complementary mixed finite element formulatior~

[42] O.C. Zienkiewicz, R.L. Taylor and S. Nakazawa, The patch test for mixed methods, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 23 (1986) 1873-1883.

[43] J.C. Simo, D.D. Fox and M.S. Rifai, On a geometrically exact shell model. Part II. The linear theory; Computational aspects. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 73 (1) (1989) 53-92.

[44] J.

Thermodynamics (MacMillan, New York, 1974). [45] G. Strang, H. Matthies and R. Temam, Mathematical and computational methods in plasticity, in: S. Nemat-Nasser ed., Variational Methods in the Mechanics of Solids, (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980). [46] R. Temam and G. Strang, Functions of bounded deformation, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 75 (1980) 7-21.

Mandel, Thermodynamics and plasticity,

in: J.J.