Research Article An Effective Computational

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Advances in Mechanical Engineering Article ID 340726

Research Article An Effective Computational Approach for the Numerical Simulation of Elasto-/Viscoplastic Solid Materials Fabio De Angelis Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy Correspondence should be addressed to Fabio De Angelis; [email protected] Received 19 September 2014; Accepted 26 November 2014 Academic Editor: Hung Nguyen-Xuan Copyright © Fabio De Angelis. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The effects of different loading programs on the elasto-/viscoplastic behavior of rate-sensitive materials are analyzed with specific numerical examples. An appropriate solution scheme and a consistent tangent operator are applied which are capable of being adopted for general computational procedures. Numerical computations and results are reported which illustrate the ratedependence of the elasto-/viscoplastic constitutive model in use. In the numerical analysis the loading is applied by increasing the pressure and accordingly a nondimensional loading program parameter is introduced. In the numerical results the significance of the loading program is thus emphasized with reference to the nonlinear response of the elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior of solids.

1. Introduction The variational formulation of boundary value problems governed by linear and nonlinear operators is a problem which is of interest in many fields of theoretical mechanics. A comprehensive presentation is reported, for example, by Vainberg [1] and by Oden and Reddy [2]. Nevertheless in recent times an increasing interest has been devoted in the literature to the statement of variational principles able to extend to elastoplasticity the variational formulations holding in linear elasticity and to provide valid mathematical bases to the development of computational algorithms. These efforts are shown by precursor works due to Capurso [3] and to Capurso and Maier [4]. More recently contributions may be quoted due to Simo et al. [5], Simo [6], Maier and Novati [7], and Reddy and Martin [8]. The nonlinear and nonsmooth model problem in elasto-/ viscoplasticity is governed by nonlinear field equations and internal and external constraint equations ruled by multivalued operators. In such cases the recourse to the tools of subdifferential calculus appears to be advantageous since it allows presenting a sound variational formulation of the evolutive elasto-/viscoplastic problem in a general and compact framework; see, for example, De Angelis [9].

In the present paper we focus attention on the elastic/viscoplastic model problem and the related integration procedure. In elastoplasticity the system of variational inequalities is associated with a class of return mapping algorithms based on the generalized midpoint rule. Application of this operator split methodology is based on an elastic prediction and a plastic correction phase; see, for example, Nagtegaal [10], Ortiz and Popov [11], and Simo and Taylor [12]. Considerations on the stability of the generalized midpoint rule integration algorithms are reported by Ortiz and Popov [11] and by Simo [6] for elastoplasticity and by Hughes and Taylor [13] and Simo and Govindjee [14] for viscoplasticity. The accuracy analysis and the use of generalized midpoint rule algorithms have been analyzed in detail by Ortiz and Popov [11]. The need for a connection between the local algorithmic integration of the constitutive equations and the global structural problem was first indicated by Nagtegaal [10] and then developed by Simo and Taylor [12] by the introduction of the consistent tangent operator which results in a quadratic rate of asymptotic convergence for the computational procedure. The derivation of a class of return mapping algorithms associated with the system of variational inequalities in viscoplasticity is not a minor problem with respect to

Downloaded from ade.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

2

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

the rate-independent one. In this regard Zienkiewicz and Cormeau [15] discussed integration procedures and considered time step restrictions for the Euler forward difference method in quasi-static elasto/viscoplasticity. Hughes and Taylor [13] reconsidered the application of implicit methods by the use of an algorithmic procedure which requires the inversion of a compliance matrix. Integration algorithms for viscoplastic models involving nonsmooth yield surfaces are reported by Simo et al. [5], while stability properties of algorithms are investigated by Simo [6] and Simo and Govindjee [14]. Significant attempts of integration procedures for viscoplastic models are also found in Ju [16], where a closed form expression of an algorithmic compliance tensor is derived. For the solution of stiff equations arising in low-rate-sensitive materials Perić [17] proposed a perturbation method, while the linearization of the algorithm is performed by a systematic application of the directional derivative formula. A procedure for general yield criteria was presented by Alfano et al. [18]. Models including nonlinear kinematic hardening behavior and integration procedures applied for complex material models were analyzed in detail by Chaboche and Cailletaud [19]. A face-based smoothed finite element method was discussed by Nguyen-Thoi et al. [20] to improve the accuracy and convergence rate of the existing standard finite element method for the solid mechanics problems. The method was further extended to more complicated viscoelastoplastic analyses of 3D solids using the von-Mises yield function and the Prandtl-Reuss flow rule. A node-based smoothed finite element method was also proposed by Nguyen-Thoi et al. [21] for the solid mechanics problems. The system stiffness matrix was computed using the smoothed strains over the smoothing domains associated with nodes of the element mesh. The material behavior included perfect viscoelastoplasticity and viscoelastoplasticity with isotropic hardening and linear kinematic hardening. A dual formulation with displacements and stresses as the main variables was performed. In the numerical procedure the stress variables were eliminated and the problem became only displacement-dependent. An edge-based smoothed finite element method using triangular elements was also recently proposed by Nguyen-Thoi et al. [22] to improve the accuracy and convergence rate of the existing standard finite element method for the elastic solid mechanics problems. In the paper the edge-based smoothed finite element method was extended to more complicated viscoelastoplastic analyses using the von-Mises yield function and the Prandtl-Reuss flow rule. A scaled boundary polygon formulation was furtherly proposed by Ooi et al. [23] to model elastoplastic material responses in structures. The polygons showed flexible mesh generation and accurate solutions capabilities, especially for problems with cracks and notches. Within this approach standard finite element procedures were used to formulate the stiffness matrix and the residual load vector. The nonlinear material constitutive matrix and the internal stresses were approximated locally in each polygon by a polynomial function. In the present paper we refer to the class of elasto/viscoplastic material behavior often denoted in the literature by rate-sensitive materials; see, for example, Naghdi and

Murch [24], Perzyna [25], and Skrzypek and Hetnarski [26], where it is assumed that viscous effects are exhibited beyond the elastic range. The numerical resolution of the evolutive problem for the adopted constitutive model is performed by following a procedure initially suggested by Simo [27] and by extending it with the use of a tangent operator which encompasses the case of yield functions of arbitrary type. Another characteristical feature of the presented procedure is that it applies to different elasto-/viscoplastic constitutive models by suitably specializing the flow function of the adopted constitutive model. In the numerical analysis the loading is performed by increasing the pressure and accordingly a nondimensional loading program parameter is introduced in order to account for the effects of the loading rate. In the numerical results the significance of the loading program and the significance of the rate of the prescribed loading are thus emphasized with reference to the nonlinear response of the elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior of solids. Numerical applications and computational results are finally reported for a typical benchmark problem in order to illustrate the effectiveness and robustness of the adopted integration procedure.

2. Continuum Problem of Evolution Let Ω ⊂ R𝑛 , 1 ≤ 𝑛 ≤ 3, be the reference configuration of body B with particles identified by a position vector x ∈ Ω relative to a Cartesian coordinate system. We indicate with T ⊂ R+ the time interval of interest and with V the space of displacements, D the strain space, and S the dual stress space. Let us indicate with u : Ω × T → V the displacement vector and with 𝜎 : Ω × T → S the stress tensor. The compatible strain tensor is defined as 𝜀(u) = ∇𝑠 (u) : Ω × T → D, where ∇𝑠 is the symmetric part of the gradient. In the analysis we consider quasi-static deformations and viscous effects are assumed to show beyond the elastic range; see, for example, Naghdi and Murch [24]. Thus we refer to the class of rate-sensitive materials; see, for example, Skrzypek and Hetnarski [26], and for a survey account see Lemaitre and Chaboche [28]. We assume an additive decomposition of total strain 𝜀 into the elastic and inelastic parts. Accordingly, we denote by 𝜀vp = 𝜀−𝜀𝑒 the viscoplastic strain, where combined viscous and plastic effects are represented. A dual pair of kinematic 𝛼 = (𝛼kin , 𝛼iso ) ∈ X×R and static 𝜒 = (𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) ∈ X󸀠 × R internal variables are considered in order to represent hardening behavior, where, respectively, 𝛼iso ∈ R and 𝜒iso ∈ R model isotropic hardening and 𝛼kin ∈ X and 𝜒kin ∈ X󸀠 model kinematic hardening, with X and X󸀠 being dual spaces. Static and kinematic internal variables are associated with the relation 𝜒 = H𝛼, where H = diag[Hkin , 𝐻iso ] is the hardening matrix. The convex elastic domain E is assumed to be characterized by means of a convex yield function 𝑓(𝜎, 𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) so that E = {(𝜎, 𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) ∈ S × X󸀠 × R : 𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) ≤ 0} . (1) def



3

A general class of viscoplastic hardening materials arises when the yield function is expressed in the following form:

if 𝑥 ≤ 0. In these assumptions a regularized form of the potential function has the expression

𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) = 𝐹 (𝜎 − 𝜒kin ) − 𝜅 (𝜒iso ) ,

1 + def ̇ vp Lvp 𝜂 (Γ) = − ⟨Γ, E ⟩ + 𝑔 (𝑓 (Γ)) , 𝜂

(2)

where 𝜅(𝜒iso ) is a material hardening parameter. In the sequel we resort to the compact notation introduced by Halphen and Nguyen [29] for the generalized standard material model, so that strains and kinematic internal variables, as well as the corresponding dual ones, are collected in suitably defined generalized variables: E = (𝜀, o) , Evp = (𝜀vp , −𝛼) ,

E𝑒 = (𝜀𝑒 , 𝛼) , Σ = (𝜎, 𝜒) .

(3)

The generalized kinematic and static variables are, respec̃ = D × X × R and tively, defined in the product spaces D S̃ = S × X󸀠 × R. By indicating with Π∗ (Γ) a viscoplastic convex potential, the evolutive problem in viscoplasticity is expressed as optimality condition of the convex potential function: Lvp (Γ) = − ⟨Γ, Ė vp ⟩ + Π∗ (Γ) , def

(4)

where the symbol ⟨⋅, ⋅⟩ represents a nondegenerate bilinear form acting on dual spaces, Γ = (𝜏, q) ∈ S̃ indicates a generic generalized stress, and the relevant value at the solution is denoted by Σ = (𝜎, 𝜒). The optimality condition for the potential thus implies 0 ∈ [𝜕Lvp (Γ)](Σ) ⇐⇒ Ė vp ∈ 𝜕Π∗ (Σ) ,

(5)

which represents the evolutive law of the viscoplastic strain and of the kinematic internal variables. The above equation is expressed in subdifferential form (see, e.g., Hiriart-Urruty and Lemaréchal [30]), so that the multivaluedness of the viscoplastic evolutive problem is suitably taken into account. The conjugate of the viscoplastic potential is defined as the viscoplastic dissipation and it is expressed by Dvp (Ė vp ) = sup {⟨Γ, Ė vp ⟩ − Π∗ (Γ)} . ̃ Γ∈S

(6)

Consequently the evolutive law (5)2 may be expressed in the equivalent inverse form: Σ ∈ 𝜕Dvp (Ė vp ) ,

(7)

and both (5) 2 and (7) are also equivalently expressed in the form of Fenchel’s equality: Π∗ (Σ) + Dvp (Ė vp ) = ⟨Σ, Ė vp ⟩ .

(9)

where 𝜂 > 0 is a penalty parameter, which in viscoplasticity has the meaning of a viscosity coefficient. The viscoplastic dissipation is thus expressed in the regularized form: 1 + ̇ vp ̇ vp Dvp 𝜂 (E ) = sup {⟨Γ, E ⟩ − 𝑔 (𝑓 (Γ))} . 𝜂 ̃ Γ∈S

(10)

Accordingly the viscoplastic problem is considered in the literature as a penalty regularization of the plastic problem and the solution Σ𝜂 of the regularized problem tends to the solution Σ of the constrained plastic problem for 𝜂 → 0+ (Luenberger [32]). Different expressions of the viscoplastic evolutive equations are obtained by specializing the penalty function. For example, when the penalty function 𝑔+ is chosen to be in the form { 1 𝑥2 𝑔 = {2 {0 + def

for 𝑥 ≥ 0 for 𝑥 < 0,

(11)

the derivative is given by 𝑑𝑔+ (𝑥)/𝑑𝑥 = ⟨𝑥⟩, where the MacAuley bracket ⟨⋅⟩ is defined as ⟨𝑥⟩ = (𝑥 + |𝑥|)/2. Nonlinear viscous effects are modelled by assuming a flow function Φ(𝑥) such that 𝑑𝑔+ (𝑥)/𝑑𝑥 = ⟨Φ(𝑥)⟩. Accordingly, by recalling expression (9), the optimality condition of the unconstrained problem yields in the regularized form 0 ∈ [𝜕Lvp 𝜂 (Γ)]

(Σ)

⇐⇒ Ė vp ∈

1 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (Σ))⟩ 𝜕𝑓 (Σ) , 𝜂

(12)

which represents the evolutive law for the Perzyna [25] viscoplastic constitutive model expressed in subdifferential form. A standard choice of the flow function for linear viscous effects is Φ(𝑓) = 𝑓. Other proposed expressions of the flow function for nonlinear viscous effects are reported, for example, by Skrzypek and Hetnarski [26]. The interpretation of the evolutive problem in viscoplasticity as optimality condition of a convex optimization problem appears to be convenient to supply the viscoplastic structural problem with a complete variational formulation (see, e.g., De Angelis [9, 33]) and it is ideally suited for the development of numerical algorithms in finite element applications.

(8)

By considering the classical penalty regularization procedure (Yosida [31]) the constrained optimization problem related to the plastic model is phrased as an unconstrained problem. Let 𝑔+ (𝑥) be a penalty function of the constraint 𝑓(Γ) satisfying the conditions: 𝑔+ (𝑥) is continuous in [0, ∞), 𝑔+ (𝑥) ≥ 0 and convex in [0, ∞), 𝑔+ (𝑥) = 0 if and only

3. Numerical Solution Procedure Let the time interval of interest T ⊂ R+ be specified as [0, 𝑇]. At time 𝑡𝑛 ∈ [0, 𝑇] the total and viscoplastic strain fields and the internal variables are assumed to be known. For a prescribed increment of the displacement field Δu, the basic problem is to update the unknown fields at time 𝑡𝑛+1 ∈ [0, 𝑇]


4


in a manner consistent with the evolutive equation (12) 2 , which for convenience is reported below in components: 𝜀̇vp =

𝜕𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒) 1 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ , 𝜂 𝜕𝜎

−𝛼̇ kin =

𝜕𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒) 1 , ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ 𝜂 𝜕𝜒kin

−𝛼̇iso =

𝜕𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒) 1 . ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ 𝜂 𝜕𝜒iso

where n𝑛+1 = 𝑑𝜎 𝑓𝑛+1 = 𝜉𝑛+1 /‖𝜉𝑛+1 ‖ and a time step dependent viscoplastic multiplier has been introduced as vp

𝛾𝑛+1 =

(13)

1 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎𝑛+1 , 𝛽𝑛+1 , 𝜅𝑛+1 ))⟩ Δ𝑡, 𝜂

(17)

with Δ𝑡 = 𝑡𝑛+1 − 𝑡𝑛 . An elastic prediction-plastic correction scheme yields the following trial values: s𝑡𝑛+1 = 2𝐺 (^𝑛+1 − ^𝑛vp ) ,

𝜉𝑡𝑛+1 = s𝑡𝑛+1 − 𝛽𝑛 ,

(18)

def

A von-Mises yield criterion with linear hardening is considered in the form 󵄩 󵄩 𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒kin , 𝜒iso ) = 󵄩󵄩󵄩s − 𝜒kin 󵄩󵄩󵄩 − 𝜅 (𝜒iso )

s𝑛+1 = s𝑡𝑛+1 − 2𝐺𝛾𝑛+1 n𝑛+1 , vp

2 = ‖𝜉‖ − √ (𝜎𝑦𝑜 + 𝜒iso ) ≤ 0, 3 def

where ^ = dev 𝜀 is the strain deviator and 𝐺 denotes the shear modulus. The stress deviator and the relative stress are accordingly expressed at time 𝑡𝑛+1 by

(14)

def

where s = dev 𝜎 is the stress deviator, 𝜉 = s − 𝜒kin is the relative stress, 𝜅(𝜒iso ) = √2/3(𝜎𝑦𝑜 + 𝜒iso ) represents the current radius of the yield surface in the deviatoric plane, and 𝜎𝑦𝑜 denotes the uniaxial yield stress of the virgin material. For def

simplicity of notation we also set 𝛽 = 𝜒kin for the back stress. In the assumption of linear hardening behavior, the static internal variable related to isotropic hardening is specified as 𝜒iso = 𝐻iso 𝛼iso , where the dual kinematic internal variable def

2 vp 𝜉𝑛+1 = 𝜉𝑡𝑛+1 − (2𝐺 + 𝐻kin ) 𝛾𝑛+1 n𝑛+1 , 3 whereas the trial value of the yield function is given by 󵄩 def 󵄩 𝑡 𝑓𝑛+1 = 󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩𝜉𝑡𝑛+1 󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩 − 𝜅𝑛 .

def

𝜀̇vp =

1 = ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ n, 𝜂 𝜉 2 1 2 𝛽̇ = 𝐻kin 𝜀̇vp = ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ 𝐻kin 3 𝜂 3 ‖𝜉‖ =

𝑓𝑛+1 = Φ−1 (

vp

=

(15)

which can be solved for 𝛾𝑛+1 by a Newton iteration scheme. In addition, at the end of the time step it is as follows: 𝜉𝑡 n𝑛+1 = 󵄩󵄩 𝑛+1 󵄩. 󵄩󵄩𝜉𝑡𝑛+1 󵄩󵄩󵄩 󵄩 󵄩

vp

2 vp vp √ 𝛾𝑛+1 𝑒𝑛+1 = 𝑒vp , 𝑛 + 3

2 vp 𝛽𝑛+1 = 𝛽𝑛 + 𝐻kin 𝛾𝑛+1 n𝑛+1 , 3 2 vp 𝜅𝑛+1 = 𝜅𝑛 + 𝐻iso 𝛾𝑛+1 , 3

(23)

The values of the variables are consequently updated according to (16) and (19), while the stress tensor is evaluated as

A fully implicit integration scheme yields the following discrete forms of the evolutive equations: vp

(22)

vp

2 1 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ √ . 𝜂 3

𝜀𝑛+1 = 𝜀vp 𝑛 + 𝛾𝑛+1 n𝑛+1 ,

(21)

By taking the dot product of relation (19) 2 with n𝑛+1 and 𝑡 and 𝑓𝑛+1 the recalling (14) and the above expressions of 𝑓𝑛+1 following nonlinear equation is obtained:

1 2 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ 𝐻kin n, 𝜂 3 𝑒̇

𝜂 vp 𝛾 ). Δ𝑡 𝑛+1

2 2 󵄩 󵄩 vp (󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩𝜉𝑡𝑛+1 󵄩󵄩󵄩󵄩 − 𝜅𝑛 ) − (2𝐺 + 𝐻kin + 𝐻iso ) 𝛾𝑛+1 3 3 𝜂 vp = Φ−1 ( 𝛾𝑛+1 ) , Δ𝑡

1 𝜉 ⟨Φ (𝑓 (𝜎, 𝜒))⟩ 𝜂 ‖𝜉‖

(20)

𝑡 ≤ 0, the step is elastic and the values of the If 𝑓𝑛+1 unknowns at the end of the time step are set equal to the trial vp 𝑡 > 0, the viscoplastic multiplier 𝛾𝑛+1 and the values. If 𝑓𝑛+1 normal n𝑛+1 are to be evaluated. By inverting relation (17) it follows that

𝛼iso is represented by the equivalent viscoplastic strain 𝑒vp = 𝑡 ∫0 √2/3‖𝜀̇vp ‖d𝑡.

By setting the normal to the yield surface as n = 𝑑𝜎 𝑓 = 𝜉/‖𝜉‖, the evolutive laws may thus be expressed in components by

(19)

(16)

vp

𝜎𝑛+1 = Cvp (𝜀𝑛+1 − 𝜀𝑛+1 ) .

(24)

In the adopted numerical solution procedure a viscoplastic tangent operator Cvp has been utilized [18]. This operator holds for arbitrary yield criteria and for different viscoplastic constitutive models. Thus an enhancement relative to other procedures is obtained; see, for example, [5]. For more details, see also De Angelis [33].



5 250

We consider the problem of an infinitely long internally pressurized thick-walled cylinder subject to an increasing internal pressure; see, for example, Ortiz et al. [34]. The boundary value problem is assumed to be in a state of planestrain. The cylinder is characterized by an internal radius of 100 mm and an external radius of 200 mm. In the example 4node bilinear isoparametric quadrilateral elements have been used and, for symmetry reasons, only 1/4 of the cylinder is considered. The present numerical algorithmic scheme has been implemented into the finite element analysis program (FEAP); see Zienkiewicz et al. [35] and Taylor [36]. The adopted finite element mesh consists of 221 nodes and 192 elements. The adopted material properties are elastic modulus 𝐸 = 2.1 ⋅ 105 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ] = 0.3, yield limit 𝜎𝑦𝑜 = 240 MPa, and hardening moduli 𝐻kin = 𝐻iso = 0 MPa. In the analysis 𝐽2 material behavior is assumed by a viscoplastic constitutive law of the Perzyna-type. Loading is performed by linearly increasing the internal pressure 𝑝 up to the final maximum value 𝑝𝑜 = 192 MPa which results, for the rateindependent perfectly plastic behavior, in a full plasticization of the cylinder. For modeling the elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior and the related rate-dependent effects, a nondimensional loading program parameter 𝜏 is introduced as

200 150 𝜏=

100

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Radial displacement × 10−2 (mm)

90

Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)

Figure 1: Pressure versus radial displacement for a loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0. 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30

𝜏=

0.20

tR Δp =0 𝜎y Δt

0.10 0.00

0

20

(25)

which takes into account the loading rate Δ𝑝/Δ𝑡 and the intrinsic properties of the material by means of the relaxation time 𝑡𝑅 = 𝜂/2𝐺 and the yield stress 𝜎𝑦𝑜 . During the loading process the plastic strains appear at first in correspondance with the internal radius of the cylinder. By increasing the internal pressure the plastic interface evolves from the cylindrical surface corresponding to the internal radius to the cylindrical surface corresponding to the external radius. The pressure versus radial displacement curve is plotted in Figure 1 for a value of the loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0, which corresponds to an elastic perfectly plastic material behavior. In Figure 2 for a static loading program corresponding to 𝜏 = 0 the maximum equivalent plastic strain is plotted as a function of the radial displacement. In Figure 3 the maximum equivalent plastic strain is plotted as a function of the internal pressure for 𝜏 = 0. The effectiveness of the present numerical approach is clearly shown by comparing the above results, related to a loading rate parameter 𝜏 = 0, with the analytical solution of the thick-walled cylinder subject to increasing internal pressure which is provided by Prager and Hodge Jr. [37] for the elastic perfectly plastic behavior. The excellent correspondance between the herein reported numerical results and the analytical results present in the literature illustrates the robustness and soundness of the proposed computational approach. This correspondance between numerical results and analytical solution validates the proposed numerical procedure.

tR Δp =0 𝜎y Δt

50

40

60


80

100

Figure 2: Maximum equivalent plastic strain versus radial displacement for a loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0. Maximum equivalent plastic strain (%)

𝑡 Δ𝑝 , 𝜏= 𝑅 𝜎𝑦𝑜 Δ𝑡

Pressure (MPa)

4. Computational Results

0.90 0.80 0.70

𝜏=

0.60

tR Δp =0 𝜎y Δt

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

0

50

100 150 Pressure (MPa)

200

250

Figure 3: Maximum equivalent plastic strain versus internal pressure for a loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0.

For an elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior the pressure versus radial displacement curves are plotted in Figure 4 for different values of the loading program parameter 𝜏 at constant material properties, that is, for different values of the prescribed loading rate. The rate-independent elastoplastic behavior is correctly recovered for 𝜏 = 0, with a static imposition of the load, whereas the elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior is described by the curves characterized by nonnull values of


6

Advances in Mechanical Engineering Finite element analysis program

1000 900 𝜏=

Pressure (MPa)

800 700

1000

tR Δp 𝜎y Δt

10

600 500

1

400

10−1 10−2 10−3 𝜏=0

300 200 100 0

0

20

40

60


80

Figure 4: Pressure versus radial displacement for different values of the loading program parameter 𝜏.

𝜏, corresponding to nonnull values of the prescribed loading rate. For a higher prescribed loading rate it may be observed in Figure 4 that a higher pressure is required for the yielding of the material relative to the case of static loading; see, for example, Skrzypek and Hetnarski [26] and Lemaitre and Chaboche [28]. In Figure 5 the contour plot of the equivalent plastic strain is illustrated by showing the evolution of the plastic interface for an increasing value of the internal pressure 𝑝 = 0.98𝑝𝑜 and a loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0. The solution strategy is well suited to be applied to different yield criteria and different constitutive models with the appropriate modifications, thus enhancing other procedures; see, for example, [5, 14].

5. Conclusions In the present paper a procedure for the numerical analysis of elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior has been illustrated. An evaluation of the effects of the different loading programs on the nonlinear analysis of elasto-/viscoplastic materials is reported. An appropriate solution strategy is adopted which is well suited to be applied for general cases with the convenient modifications on the procedure. In the present paper, differently from other previous analyses, for example, De Angelis et al. [38] and De Angelis and Cancellara [39], the loading is applied by increasing the pressure rather than by increasing the prescribed displacements. Accordingly, a suitable nondimensional loading program parameter has been introduced. The present paper represents a natural evolution of the analysis presented by De Angelis and Cancellara [40], where the effects of the loading procedures in the nonlinear inelastic behavior of solid materials have also been introduced. An appropriate computational algorithmic scheme has been presented for the simulation of the elasto-/viscoplastic material behavior of solids. The proposed computational approach properly reduces to the inviscid limit for null viscosity parameter. A suitable solution algorithm and a

Equivalent plastic strain 0.0000E + 00

1.6021E − 03

4.0053E − 04

2.0027E − 03

8.0106E − 04

2.4032E − 03

1.2016E − 03

2.8037E − 03

Figure 5: Contour plot of the equivalent plastic strain showing the evolution of the plastic interface for an increasing value of the internal pressure 𝑝 = 0.98𝑝𝑜 and a loading program parameter 𝜏 = 0.

consistent tangent operator have been applied which can be adopted for general computational procedures and different viscoplastic constitutive models by suitably specifying the flow function of the elasto-/viscoplastic constitutive model in use. The consequences of different loading programs on the nonlinear behavior of elasto-/viscoplastic materials have been analyzed in detail with the appropriate numerical examples. Numerical computations and results have been finally reported so that the rate-dependency of the elasto-/ viscoplastic constitutive model has been described and the influence of the loading rate on the nonlinear elasto-/ viscoplastic material behavior has been illustrated with specific numerical examples.

Conflict of Interests The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References [1] M. M. Vainberg, Variational Methods for the Study of Nonlinear Operators, Holden-Day, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 1964. [2] J. T. Oden and J. N. Reddy, Variational Methods in Theoretical Mechanics, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2nd edition, 1983.



7

[3] M. Capurso, “Principi di minimo per la soluzione incrementale dei problemi elastoplastici,” Parte I e II, Rend. Acc. Naz . Lincei, XLVI, May, 1969, (Italian). [4] M. Capurso and G. Maier, “Incremental elastoplastic analysis and quadratic optimization,” Meccanica, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 107– 116, 1970. [5] J. C. Simo, J. G. Kennedy, and S. Govindjee, “Nonsmooth multisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/unloading conditions and numerical algorithms,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 2161–2185, 1988. [6] J. C. Simo, “Nonlinear stability of the time-discrete variational problem of evolution in nonlinear heat conduction, plasticity and viscoplasticity,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 111–131, 1991. [7] G. Maier and G. Novati, “Extremum theorems for finitestep backward-difference analysis of elastic-plastic nonlinearly hardening solids,” International Journal of Plasticity, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1990. [8] B. D. Reddy and J. B. Martin, “Algorithms for the solution of internal variable problems in plasticity,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 253–273, 1991. [9] F. De Angelis, “An internal variable variational formulation of viscoplasticity,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 190, no. 1-2, pp. 35–54, 2000. [10] J. C. Nagtegaal, “On the implementation of inelastic constitutive equations with special reference to large deformation problems,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 93, pp. 253–273, 1982. [11] M. Ortiz and E. P. Popov, “Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1561–1576, 1985. [12] J. C. Simo and R. L. Taylor, “Consistent tangent operators for rate-independent elastoplasticity,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 101–118, 1985. [13] T. J. R. Hughes and R. L. Taylor, “Unconditionally stable algorithms for quasi-static elasto/visco-plastic finite element analysis,” Computers and Structures, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 169–173, 1978. [14] J. C. Simo and S. Govindjee, “Non-linear B-stability and symmetry preserving return mapping algorithms for plasticity and viscoplasticity,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 151–176, 1991. [15] O. C. Zienkiewicz and I. C. Cormeau, “Visco-plasticity— plasticity and Creep, a unified numerical solution approach,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 821–845, 1974. [16] J. W. Ju, “Consistent tangent moduli for a class of viscoplasticity,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 116, no. 8, pp. 1764–1779, 1990. [17] D. Perić, “On a class of constitutive equations in viscoplasticity: formulation and computational issues,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1365–1393, 1993. [18] G. Alfano, F. D. Angelis, and L. Rosati, “General solution procedures in elasto/viscoplasticity,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 190, no. 39, pp. 5123–5147, 2001.

[19] J. L. Chaboche and G. Cailletaud, “Integration methods for complex plastic constitutive equations,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 133, no. 1-2, pp. 125–155, 1996. [20] T. Nguyen-Thoi, G. R. Liu, H. C. Vu-Do, and H. NguyenXuan, “A face-based smoothed finite element method (FS-FEM) for visco-elastoplastic analyses of 3D solids using tetrahedral mesh,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 198, no. 41–44, pp. 3479–3498, 2009. [21] T. Nguyen-Thoi, H. C. Vu-Do, T. Rabczuk, and H. NguyenXuan, “A node-based smoothed finite element method (NSFEM) for upper bound solution to visco-elastoplastic analyses of solids using triangular and tetrahedral meshes,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 199, no. 45– 48, pp. 3005–3027, 2010. [22] T. Nguyen-Thoi, G. R. Liu, H. C. Vu-Do, and H. NguyenXuan, “An edge-based smoothed finite element method for visco-elastoplastic analyses of 2D solids using triangular mesh,” Computational Mechanics, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 23–44, 2009. [23] E. T. Ooi, C. Song, and F. Tin-Loi, “A scaled boundary polygon formulation for elasto-plastic analyses,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 268, pp. 905–937, 2014. [24] P. M. Naghdi and S. A. Murch, “On the mechanical behavior of viscoelastic/plastic solids,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 30, pp. 321–328, 1963. [25] P. Perzyna, “The constitutive equations for rate sensitive plastic materials,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, vol. 20, pp. 321– 332, 1962/1963. [26] J. J. Skrzypek and R. B. Hetnarski, Plasticity and Creep, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1993. [27] J. C. Simo, “Algorithms for static and dynamic multiplicative plasticity that preserve the classical return mapping schemes of the infinitesimal theory,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 61–112, 1992. [28] J. Lemaitre and J. L. Chaboche, Mechanics of Solids Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990. [29] B. Halphen and Q. S. Nguyen, “Sur les matériaux standards généralisés,” Journal de Mécanique, vol. 14, pp. 39–63, 1975. [30] J. B. Hiriart-Urruty and C. Lemaréchal, Convex Analysis and Minimization Algorithms, vol. 1-2, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1993. [31] K. Yosida, Functional Analysis, vol. 123 of Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 6th edition, 1980. [32] D. G. Luenberger, Introduction to Linear and Non-Linear Programming, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, USA, 1973. [33] F. De Angelis, Angelis, constitutive models and computational algorithms in elasto-viscoplasticity [Ph.D. thesis], University of Naples, Naples, Italy, 1998, (Italian). [34] M. Ortiz, P. M. Pinsky, and R. L. Taylor, “Operator split methods for the numerical solution of the elastoplastic dynamic problem,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 39, pp. 137–157, 1983. [35] O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, and D. D. Fox, The Finite Element Method for Solid and Structural Mechanics, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 7th edition, 2013. [36] R. L. Taylor, “FEAP—A Finite Element Analysis Program, User Manual (Vers: 8.4),” 2014, http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/feap. [37] W. Prager and P. G. Hodge Jr., Theory of Perfectly Plastic Solids, Dover Publications, New York, NY, USA, 1968.


8


[38] F. De Angelis, D. Cancellara, M. Modano, and M. Pasquino, “The consequence of different loading rates in elasto/viscoplasticity,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 2911–2916, 2011. [39] F. De Angelis and D. Cancellara, “Implications due to different loading programs in inelastic materials,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 422, pp. 726–733, 2012. [40] F. De Angelis and D. Cancellara, “Results of distinct modes of loading procedures in the nonlinear inelastic behaviour of solids,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 482–484, pp. 1004– 1011, 2012.
