EDITOR
JEAN LEMAITRE
Universit# Paris 6 LMTCachan Cachan Cedex France
ACADEMIC PRESS
A Harcourt Science and Technology Company
Boston
This book is printed on acidflee paper. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission to make copies of any part of the work should be mailed to the following address: Permissions Department, Harcourt, Inc., 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, Florida, 328876777. ACADEMIC PRESS A Division of Harcourt, Inc. 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 921014495, USA http ://www.academicpress, com Academic Press Harcourt Place, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BY, UK http ://www.aca demicpress, corn Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2001089698
Set International Standard Book Number: 0124433413 Volume 1 International Standard Book Number: 0124433421 Volume 2 International Standard Book Number: 012443343X Volume 3 International Standard Book Number: 0124433448
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
DEFORMATIONS OF MATERIALS
1
Chapter 1 Background on mechanics of materials Chapter 2 Elasticity, viscoelasticity Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 VOLUME II Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 VOLUME III Chapter 9 Yield limit Plasticity Viscoplasticity FAILURES OF MATERIALS Continuous damage Cracking and fracture Friction and wear MULTIPHYSICS BEHAVIORS Multiphysics coupled behaviors
vi
Contents
CHAPTER
15 30
CHAPTER
2
71 75 84 91 95
Elasticity, viscoelasticity
2.1 Introduction to elasticity and viscoelasticity
J. Lemaitre
107 117
CHAPTER
3
127
Yield limit
3.1 Introduction to yield limits
J. Lemaitre
Contents
3.6 A generalized limit criterion with application to strength, yielding, and damage of isotropic materials
H. Altenbach
175 187
CHAPTER
4
197
Plasticity
4.1 Introduction to plasticity
J. Lemaitre
199
204
4.4 Cyclic plasticity model with nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardening: No LIKH model
D. Marquis
213
4.5 Muhisurface hardening model for monotonic and cyclic response of metals
Z. Mroz
223
232
viii 4.7 4.8 4.9 Kinematic hardening rule for biaxial ratcheting
H. Ishikawa, K. Sasaki
Contents
Plasticity of polymers
J. M. Haudin, B. Monasse
274 281
CHAPTER 5
Viscoplasticity
5.1 5.2 Introduction to viscoplasticity
J. Lemaitre
301
303
5.3
308
5.4
318 326
5.5 5.6
Inelastic compressible and incompressible, isotropic, smallstrain viscoplasticity theory based on overstress (VBO)
E. Krempl, K. Ho
336
Contents
ix
5.7
An outline of the BodnerPartom (BP) unified constitutive equations for elasticviscoplastic behavior
S. Bodner
349
5.8
Unified model of cyclic viscoplasticity based on the nonlinear kinematic hardening rule
J. L. Chaboche
5.9
5.11 Physically based rate and temperaturedependent constitutive models for metals
S. NematNasser
387 398
6
411 413
Continuous damage
6.1 6.2 6.3 Introduction to continuous damage
J. Lemaitre
Anisotropic damage
C. L. Chow, Y. Wei
The Rousselier model for porous metal plasticity and ductile fracture
G. Rousselier
436 446
6.7
Contents
6.8 6.9
453
457
464 472
525
Brittle fracture
D. Franc~ois
Contents
xi 577 582
Delamination of coatings
H. M. Jensen
587
7.9
597 611
622
633 645
661
CHAPTER 8
Friction a n d w e a r
8.1 8.2 8.3 Introduction to friction and wear
J. Lemaitre
Models of friction
A. Savkoor
Contents
760
768
777 787
CHAPTER 9
795
797
835
849
Contents
xiii 856
9.8 9.9
Hydrogen attack
E. van der Giessen, S. Schl6gl
Hydrogen transport and interaction with material deformation: Implications for fracture
P Sofronis
864 875
884
896 905
915
9.15 Constitutive equations of a shape memory alloy under complex loading conditions
M. Tokuda
CHAPTER 1 0
957 959
Contents
1015
10.8
10.9
CHAPTER 1 1
Geomaterials
11.1 11.2 11.3 Introduction to geomaterials
J. Lemaitre
1075 1076
1084
Contents
XV
11.4 11.5
1093
1107 1118
11.6 11.7
Linear poroelasticity
J. W. Rudnicki
1126
11.8
1134
11.9
1146
11.10 A generalized plasticity model for dynamic behavior of sand, including liquefaction
M. Pastor, O. C. Zienkiewicz, A. H. C. Chan
1155 1164
11.12 Lattice model for fracture analysis of brittle disordered materials like concrete and rock
J. G. M. van Mier
1171
Index
1179
FOREWORD
We know that there is an abundance of models for particular materials and for specific types of mechanical responses. Indeed, both the developers of models and their users sometimes criticize this situation, for different reasons. The presence of different models that attempt to describe the same material and response is due not only to the personal style of their inventors, but also to a desirable element of competition that drives the progress in the field. Given this situation, the selection of the proper constitutive model from all the available ones can be difficult for users or even materials modelers when they are not experts in the field. This Handbook is the first attempt to organize a wide range of models and to provide assistance in model selection and actual application. Endusers will find here either potential models relevent for their application and ready to be used for the problem at hand, or an entrance to the specific technical literature for more details. Recognizing the breadth of the field as well as the unavoidable personal touch of each approach, Jean Lemaitre has chosen to include in this Handbook the writings of as many as 130 authors. Drawing on his wide experience developing and using constitutive models for many materials, he has addressed his worldwide network of colleagues, all experts in their pertinent subject, to accomplish this difficult task. Yet, even though the Handbook covers an unprecedented range of materials and types of behavior, it is only a sample of currently available models, and other choices would have been possible. Indeed, more choices will become possible as the development of novel and improved material models continues.
Erik van der Giessen Koiter Institute Delft Delft University of Technology The Netherlands xvi
INTRODUCTION
Why a Handbook of models? Handbooks are often compilations of characteristic numbers related to wellestablished laws or formulae that are ready to apply. In this case of the behavior of materials, no unique law exists for any phenomenon, especially in the range of nonlinear phenomena. This is why we use the term model instead of law. During the past thirty years many models have been proposed, each of them having its own domain of validity. This proliferation is partly due to advances in computers. It is now possible to numerically simulate the "inservice life" of structures subjected to plasticity, fatigue, crack propagation, shock waves and aging for safety and economy purposes. The time has come to try to classify, compare, and validate these models to help users to select the most appropriate model for their applications. How is the Handbook organized? All solid materials are considered, including metals, alloys, ceramics, polymers, composites, concrete, wood, rubber, geomaterials such as rocks, soils, sand, clay, and biomaterials. But the Handbook is organized first by phenomena because most engineering mesomodels apply to different materials. 9 In the first volume: "Deformation of Materials," the first chapter is an attempt to give general methodologies in the "art" of modeling with special emphasis, on domains of validity in order to help in the choice of models, in the selection of the appropriate materials for each specific application, and in the consideration of the socalled "size effect" in engineering structures. Chapter 2 to 5 deal, respectively, with elasticity and viscoelasticity, yield limit, plasticity, and viscoplasticity. 9 The second volume is devoted to "Failure of Materials": continuous damage in Chapter 6, cracking and fracture in Chapter 7, friction and wear in Chapter 8. 9 In the third volume "Multiphysics Behaviors" are assembled. The different possible couplings are described in Chapter 9. Chapters 10 and 11 are devoted to special classes of materials: composites and
xvii
xviii
Introduction
geomaterials, respectively, because they each corresponds to a particular modeling typed and moreover to a selforganized community of people. 9 In each chapter the different sections written by different authors describe one model with its domain of validity, its background, its formulation, the identification of material parameters for as many materials as possible, some advice on implementation or use of the model, and some references. The order of the sections follows as much as possible from physical and micromechanical oriented models to more phenomenological and engineering oriented ones. How to use the Handbook? 9 Search by phenomena: This is the normal order of the Handbook described in the "Contents". 9 Search by model name: Unfortunately, not all models have a name, and some of them have several. Look in the list of contributors, where the names of all authors are given. 9 Search by type of application: Each chapter begins with a chapter introduction in which a few words are written on each section. If you do not find exactly what you are looking for, please remember that the best model is the simplest which gives you what you need and nothing more! In case of any difficulty, get in touch with the author(s), whose address is given after the title of each section. Some personal comments. This Handbook has been initiated by the editor of "Academic Press" who gave me much freedom to organize the book. It took me two years to prepare the contents, to obtain the agreement of more than 100 authors, to ask for manuscripts, to ask again and again (and again for some of them!) to review and to obtain the final material. It was an exciting experience for which all actors must be thanked: the editors Z. Ruder, G. Franklin, and M. Filion, all the authors who are still my friends, my colleagues and friends from the LMTCachan who often advised me on subjects and authors and particularly Erik van der Giessen, who helped me in the selection of the subjects, who corrected the chapter introductions, and who agreed to write the foreword, Catherine Genin who was so kind and so efficient with letters, fax, email, telephone, disks and manuscripts and answered so many questions in order to obtain the materials in due time. I must also mention Annie, my wife, who accepted 117 articles on the table at home!
CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the section of authors' contributions. ELIAS C. AIFANTIS (4.12), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54006 Greece, and Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan HOLM ALTENBACH (3.6), Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften, MartinLutherUniversitat HalleWittenberg, D06099 Halle (Saale), Germany E ARCHAMBAULT (9.12), Laboratoire de Science et GSnie des Mat~riaux et de M~tallurgie, UMR 7584 CNRS/INPL, Ecole des Mines de Nancy, Parc de Saurupt, 54042 Nancy Cedex, France ELLEN M. ARRUDA (5.12), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan C. BATHIAS (6.11), Laboratoire de M~canique de la Rupture, CNAM/ITMA, 2 rue Conte, 75003 Paris, France ZDENEK P. BAZANT (1.3), Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA AHMED BENALLAL (4.11, 9.2), Laboratoire de M~canique et Technologie, ENS de Cachan/CNRS/Universit~ Paris 6, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan, France ALBRECHT BERTRAM (5.2), OttovonGuerickeUniversity Magdeburg, Universit/~tsplatz 2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany YVES BERTHIER (8.2), Laboratoire de M~canique des Contacts, UMR CNRSINSA de Lyon 5514, Batiment 113, 20, Avenue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
xix
XX
Contributors
B. J. BESSON (7.8), Ecole des Mines de Paris, Centre des Mat~riaux, UMR CNRS 7533, BP 87, 91003 Evry Cedex, France J. E BESSELING (5.5), j.f.besseling@wbmt.tudelft.nl M. BERVEILLER (4.2), Laboratoire de Physique et M&anique des Mat~riaux, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 Metz Cedex, France RENt~ BILLARDON (9.16), ENS de Cachan/CNRS/Universit~ Paris 6, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France SOL R. BODNER (5.7), Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel MARY C. BOYCE (5.12), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA YVES BRECHET (1.2), L.T.EC.M. BP75, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, 38402 St Martin d'Heres Cedex, France DAVID BROEK (7.14), 263 Dogwood Lane, Westerville, Ohio, USA HUY DUONG BUI (7.3, 8.5), Laboratoire de M&anique des Solicles, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France Electricit4 de France, R&D, Clamart, France ALAIN BURR (10.7), Laboratoire de PhysicoChimie Structurale et Macromol&ulaire, UMR 7615, ESPCI, 10 rue Vauquelin, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France ESTEBAN P. BUSSO (9.7), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College, University of London, London, SW7 2BX, United Kingdom GEORGES CAILLETAUD (5.3), Centre des Mat4riaux de l't~cole des Mines de Paris, UMR CNRS 7633, BP 87, F91003 Evry Cedex, France VALTER CARVELLI (10.8), Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University (Politecnico) of Milan, Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy SERGE CESCOTTO (4.3, 9.3), D4partement MSM, Universit4 de Liege, 1, chemin des Chevreuils bfit.B52/3, 4000 Liege, Belgique J. L. CHABOCHE (5.8), O.N.E.R.A., DMSE, BP 72, 92322 ChStillon Cedex, France and LASMIS, Troyes University of Technology, BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France A. H. C. CHAN (11.10), School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
Contributors
xxi
C.L. CHOW (6.4), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of MichiganDearborn TRAIAN CICONE (8.4), Dept. of Machine Elements and Tribology, Polytechnic University of Bucharest, Romania N.D. CRISTESCU (2.3), 231 Aerospace Building, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida OLIVIER COUSSY (11.7), Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, France STEPHEN C. COWIN (10.10), New York Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, The City College, New York CHRISTIAN CUNAT (2.6, 9.17), LEMTA, UMR CNRS 7563, ENSEM INPL 2, avenue de la ForetdeHaye, 54500 VandoeuvrelesNancy, France PATRICK DANGLA (11.7), Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, France FI~LIX DARVE (11.2), EINP Grenoble, L3SBP 53 38041 Grenoble, France YANNIS E DAFALIAS (4.8, 11.11), Civil and Environmental Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. S. DENIS (9.12), Laboratoire de Science et G~nie des Mat~riaux et de M~tallurgie, UMR 7584 CNRS/INPL, Ecole des Mines de Nancy, Parc de Saurupt, 54042 Nancy Cedex, France CHANDRA S. DESAI (9.10), Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA RODRIGUE DESMORAT (6.14, 6.15), Universite Paris 6LMS, 8, Rue du Capitaine Scott, F75015 Paris, France MARTA DRAGONLOUISET (8.5), Laboratoire de M~canique des Solides, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France DANIEL C. DRUCKER (3.2, 3.7), Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics Engineering Service, University of Florida, 231 Aerospace Building, Gainesville, Florida 32611 GEORGE J. DVORAK (10.5), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York L. DUCHENE (4.3), D6partement MSM, Universit8 de Liege, 1, chemin des chevreuils b~t.B52/3, 4000 Liege, Belgique FERNAND ELLYIN (5.10), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
xxii
Contributors
E D. FISCHER (9.13), Montanuniversit. at Leoben, FranzJosefStrasse 18, A8700 Leoben, Austria DOMINIQUE FRAN~;OIS (7.5), 12cole Centrale de Paris, ChfitenayMalabry, F92 295, France JEAN FRIS.NE (8.4), Laboratoire de M~canique des Solides, Universit~ de Poitiers, France E. GAUTIER (9.12), Laboratoire de Science et G~nie des Mat~riaux et de M~tallurgie, UMR 7584 CNRS/INPL, t~cole des Mines de Nancy, Parc de Saurupt, 54042 Nancy Cedex, France A. GODINAS (4.3), D~partement MSM, Universit~ de Liege, 1, chemin des Chevreuils bfit.B52/3, 4000 Liege, Belgium DIETMAR GROSS (7.6), Institute of Mechanics, TU Darmstadt, Hochschulstrasse 1, D 64289 Darmstadt ANNE MARIE HABRAKEN (4.3, 9.3), D~partement MSM, Universit~ de Liege, 1, chemin des Chevreuils b~t.B52/3, 4000 Liege, Belgique JEANMARC HAUDIN (4.9), CEMEF BP 207, 06904 Sophia Antipolis, France D. R. HAYHURST (9.4), Department of Mechanical Engineering, UMIST, P 9 Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, United Kingdom FRANCOIS HILD (7.4, 10.7), LMTCachan, 61 avenue du Pr4sident Wilson, F94235 Cachan Cedex, France LAURENT HIRSINGER (9.16), ENS de Cachan/CNRS/Universit4 Paris 6, 61 avenue du Pr4sident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France K. HO (5.6), Yeungnam University, Korea GERHARD A. HOLZAPFEL (10.11), Institute for Structural Analysis, Computational Biomechanics, Graz University of Technology, 8010 Graz, Austria KOZO IKEGAMI (2.5), Tokyo Denki University, KandaNishikicho 22, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 1018457, Japan TATSUO INOUE (9.11), Department of Energy Conversion Science, Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, YoshidaHonmachi, Sakyoku, Kyoto, Japan HIROMASA ISHIKAWA (4.7), Hokkaido University, N13, W8, Kitaku, Sapporo 0608628, Japan
Contributors
xxiii
HENRIK MYHRE JENSEN (7.7), Department of Solid Mechanics, 404, Technical University of Denmark, DK2800 Lyngby, Denmark KOJI KATO (8.7), Tohoku University, AramakiAzaAoba 01, Sendal 9808579, Japan JANUSZ R. KLEPACZKO (4.10), Metz University, Laboratory of Physics and Mechanics of Materials, lie du Saulcy, 57045 Met7, France W. G. KNAUSS (7.13), California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California DUSAN KRAJCINOVIC (6.3), Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona E. KREMPL (5.6), Mechanics of Materials Laboratory, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
TADEUSZ KURTYKA (3.5), C E R N 
PIERRE LADEVI~ZE (10.6), LMTCachan, ENS de Cachan/CNRSAJniversit6 Paris 6, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France FREDERICK A. LECKIE (10.7), Department of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, California JB. LEBLOND (7.3, 9.14), Laboratoire de Mod~lisation en M~canique, Universit~ de Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France JEAN LEMAITRE (1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.14, 6.15, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 11.1), Universit~ Paris 6, LMTCachan, 61, avenue du Pr6sident Wilson, F94235 Cachan Cedex, France GIULIO MAIER (10.8), Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University (Politecnico) of Milan, Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy DIDIER MARQUIS (4.4), Laboratoire de M~canique et Technologie, Ecole Normale Sup~rieure de Cachan, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94230 Cachan, France MAJID T. MANZARI (11.11), Department of Mechanics, National Technical University of Athens, 15773, Hellas, and Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California JACKY MAZARS (6.13, 7.2), LMTCachan, Ecole Normale Superieure de Cachan, 61, avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan, France and L35Institut National Polytechniquede Grenoble, F38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
xxiv
Contributors
FREDERIC MESLIN (10.9), LMTCachan, ENS de Cachan, Universit6 Paris 6, 61 avenue du Pr6sident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France ALAIN MOLINARI (5.4), Laboratoire de Physique et M&anique des Mat6riaux, l~cole Nationale d'Ing4nieurs, Universit~ de Metz, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 MetzCedex, France BERNARD MONASSE (4.9), CEMEF BP 207, 06904 Sophia Antipolis, France HAEL MUGHRABI (7.11), Universit~it ErlangenNfirnberg, Institut f~lr Werkstoffwissenschaften, Martensstr. 5, D91058 Erlangen, Germany N. STALINMULLER (7.3), Laboratoire de M4canique des Solides, 12cole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France Z. MROZ (4.5), Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Warsaw, Poland SUMIO MURAKAMI (6.7), Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 4648603 Japan ROBERTO NOVA (11.9), Milan University of Technology (Politecnico), Department of Structural Engineering, Milan, Italy A. NEEDLEMAN (6.5), Brown University, Division of Engineering, Providence, Rhode Island and Department of Mechanical Engineering, Solid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark SIA NEMATNASSER (5.11, 11.5), Center of Excellence for Advanced Materials, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego, California R. W. OGDEN (2.2, 2.4), Department of Mathematics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QW, United Kingdom NOBUTADA OHNO (4.6), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nagoya University, Chikusaku, Nagoya 4648603, Japan J. URGEN OLSCHEWSKI (5.2), BAMV2, Unter den Eichen 87, 12200 Berlin, Germany FLORENCE OSSART (9.16), ENS de Cachan/CNRS/Universit~ Paris 6, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France M. PASTOR (11.10), Centro de Estudios y Experimentaci6n de Obras P~blicas and ETS de Ingenieros de Caminos, Madrid, Spain PIOTR PERZYNA (9.5), Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences, Swir 21, 00049 Warsaw, Poland
Contributors
XXV
GILLES PIJAUDIERCABOT (6.13), Laboratoire de G~nie Civil de Nantes SaintNazaire, t~cole Centrale de Nantes, BP 92101, F44321 Nantes Cedex 03, France A. PINEAU (7.8), ]~cole des Mines de Paris, Centre des Mat~riaux, UMR CNRS 7533, BP 87, 91003 Evry Cedex, France ARNAUD POITOU (10.9), LMTCachan, ENS de Cachan, Universit8 Paris 6, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France RACHID RAHOUADJ (2.6, 9.17), LEMTA, UMR CNRS 7563, ENSEM INPL 2, Avenue de la For~tdeHaye, 54500 Vandoeuvrel~sNancy, France MICHEL RAOUS (8.6), Laboratoire de Mecanique et d'Acoustique, 31, chemin Joseph Aiguier, 13402 Marseille Cedex 20, France GILLES ROUSSELIER (6.6), EDF/R&D Division, Les Renardi~res, 77818 MoretsurLoing Cedex, France J. W. RUDNICKI (11.6), Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA KATSUHIKO SASAKI (4.7), Hokkaido University, N13, W8, Kitaku, Sapporo 0608628, Japan A. R. SAVKOOR (8.3), Vehicle Research Laboratory, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands R. A. SCHAPERY (2.7), Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas ROBERT SCHIRRER (6.12), Institut Charles Sadron, 6 rue Boussingault, F67083 Strasbourg, France SABINE M. SCHLOGL (9.8), Koiter Institute Delft, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands B. A. SCHREFLER (11.8), Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padua, Italy L. SIMONI (11.8), Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padua, Italy PETROS SOFRONIS (9.9), Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, 104 South Wright Street, Urbana, Illinois DARRELL SOCIE (6.8), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois CLAUDE STOLZ (8.5), Laboratoire de M~canique des Solides, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France
XXVi
Contributors
PIERRE M. SUQUET (10.3), LMA/CNRS, 31 Chemin Joseph Aiguier, 13402, Marseille, Cedex 20, France ALBERTO TALIERCIO (10.8), Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University (Politecnico) of Milan, Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy EIICHI TANAKA (5.9), Department of MechanoInformatics and Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya 4648603, Japan MASATAKA TOKUDA (9.15), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mie University, Kamihama 1515 Tsu 5148507, Japan V. TVI~RGAARD (6.5), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Solid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark K. DANG VAN (6.9), Laboratoire de Mechanique des Solid, l~cole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France ERIK VAN DER GIESSEN (9.8, 10.2), University of Groningen, Applied Physics, Micromechanics of Materials, Nyenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands P. VAN HOUTTE (3.3), Department MTM, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B3000 Leuven, Belgium J. G. M. VAN MIER (11.12), Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and GeoSciences, Delft, The Netherlands IOANNIS VARDOULAKIS (11.4), National Technical University of Athens, Greece GEORGE Z. VOYIADJIS (9.4), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana MICHAEL WAUTERS (9.3), MSM1, Chemin des Chevreuils B52/3 4000 Liege, Belgium YONG WEI (6.4), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of MichiganDearborn, USA J. R. WILLIS (10.4), Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom A. TOSHIMITSU YOKOBORI, JR. (7.9), Fracture Research Institute, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aoba 01 Aramaki, Aobaku Sendaishi 9808579, Japan
Contributors
xxvii
TAKEO YOKOBORI (7.10), School of Science and Engineering, Teikyo University, Utsunomiya, Toyosatodai 3202551, Japan XING ZHANG (7.12), Division 508, Department of Flight Vehicle Design and Applied Mechanics, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100083, China JUN ZHAO (7.12), Division 508, Department of Flight Vehicle Design and Applied Mechanics, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100083, China Y. ZHU (9.3), ANSYS Inc., Houston, Texas O. C. ZIENKIEWICZ (11.10), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Wales at Swansea, United Kingdom MICHA ZYCZKOWSKI (3.4), Cracow University of Technology, ul. Warszawska 24, PL31155 Krak6w, Poland
CHAPTER
SECTION
1.1
Background O I l Modeling
JEAN LEMAITRE
UniversitY. Paris 6, LMTCachan, 61 avenue du Pr&ident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France
Contents 1.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Observations and Choice of Variables . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2.1 Scale of observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2.2 Internal Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.1 State Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.2 Dissipative Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4.1 Qualitative Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4.2 Quantitative Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 Validity Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6 Choice of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.7 Numerical Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 11 13 13 14
14
1.1.1
INTRODUCTION
M o d e l i n g , as has a l r e a d y b e e n said for m e c h a n i c s , m a y be c o n s i d e r e d "a science, a t e c h n i q u e , a n d an art." It is s c i e n c e b e c a u s e it is the p r o c e s s by w h i c h o b s e r v a t i o n s can be p u t in a logical m a t h e m a t i c a l f r a m e w o r k in o r d e r to r e p r o d u c e or s i m u l a t e r e l a t e d p h e n o m e n a . In m e c h a n i c s of m a t e r i a l s c o n s t i t u t i v e e q u a t i o n s relate l o a d i n g s as stresses, t e m p e r a t u r e , etc. to effects as strains, d a m a g e , fracture, wear, etc.
Handbook of Materials BehaviorModels. ISBN 0124433413.
Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Lemaitre
It is a technique because it uses tools such as mathematics, thermodynamics, computers, and experiments to build close form models and to obtain numerical values for the parameters that are used in structure calculations to predict the behavior of structures in the service or forming process, etc., safety and optimal design being the main motivations. It is an art because the sensibility of the scientist plays an important role. Except for linear phenomena, there is not unique way to build a model from a set of observations and test results. Furthermore, the mathematical structure of the model may depend upon its use. This is interesting from the human point of view. But it is sometimes difficult to select the proper model for a given application. The simplest is often the more efficient event, even if it is not the most accurate.
1.1.2
OF VARIABLES First of all, in mechanics of materials, a model does not exist for itself; it exists in connection with a purpose. If it is the macroscopic behavior of mechanical components of structures that is being considered, the basic tool is the mechanics of continuous media, which deals with the following: 1. Strain, a secondorder tensor related to the displacement ff of two points: 9 Euler's tensor ~ for small perturbations. 1
~ ij ~ ( u i j 3t uj , i )
(1)
In practice, the hypothesis of "small" strain may be applied if it is below about 10%. 9 GreenLagrange tensor A (among others) for large perturbations, if F is the tangent linear transformation which transforms under deformation a point M0 of the initial configuration into M of the actual configuration.
1 _v (M0) (2) _
(_vT_v  1)
9 Cauchy stress tensor _a for small perturbations, checking the equilibrium with the internal forces density f and the inertia forces pff,
d2R
crijo + fi  oiii
with/ii  dtT
(3)
S _  det(F_)~_F_ r
3. Temperature T. These three variables are functions of the time t.
(4)
1.1.2.1
SCALE OF OBSERVATION
From the mathematical point of view, strains and stresses are defined on a material point, but the real materials are not continuous. Physically, strain and stress represent averages on a fictitious volume element called the representative volume element (RVE) or mesoscale. To give a subjective order of magnitude of a characteristic length, it can be 0.1 mm for metallic materials; 1 mm for polymers; 1 0 m m for woods; 100 mm for concrete. It is below these scales that observations must be done to detect the micromechanisms involved in modeling: 9 slips in crystals for plasticity of metals; 9 decohesions of sand particles by breaking of atomic bonds of cement for damage in concrete; 9 rupture of microparticles in wear; 9 etc. These are observations at a microscale. It is more or less an "art" to decide at which microscale the main mechanism responsible for a mesoscopic phenomenon occurs. For example, theories of plasticity have been developed at a mesoscale by phenomenological considerations, at a microscale when dealing with irreversible slips, and now at an atomic scale when modeling the movements of dislocations. At any rate, one's first priority is to observe phenomena and to select the representative mechanism which can be put into a mathematical framework
Lemaitre
of homogenization to give variables at a mesoscale compatible with the mechanics of continuous media.
1.1.2.2
INTERNALVARIABLES
When the purpose is structural calculations with sets of constitutive equations, it is logical to consider that each main mechanism should have its own variable. For example, the total strain _8 is directly observable and defines the external state of the representative volume element (RVE), but for a better definition of the internal state of the RVE it is convenient to look at what happens during loading and unloading of the RVE to define an elastic strain ee and a plastic strain e_P such as
e P ~j  ~j + ~;
(5)
The elastic strain represents the reversible movements of atoms, and the plastic strain corresponds to an average of irreversible slips. All variables which define the internal state of the RVE are called internal variables. They should result from observations at a microscale and from a homogenization process: 9 isotropic hardening in metals related to the density of dislocations; 9 kinematic hardening related to the internal residual microstresses at the level of crystals; 9 damage related to the density of defects; 9 etc. How many do we need? As many as the number of phenomena taken into consideration, but the smallest is the best. Finally, the local state method postulates that the considered thermodynamic state is completely defined by the actual values of the corresponding state variables: observable and internal.
1.1.3 FORMULATION
The thermodynamics of irreversible processes is a general framework that is easy to use to formulate constitutive equations. It is a logical guide for incorporating observations and experimental results and a set of rules for avoiding incompatibilities. The first principle is the energy balance: If e is the specific internal energy, p the density, co the volume density of internal heat produced by external
(6)
where the sommation convention of Enstein applies. The second principle states that the entropy production i must be larger or equal to the heat received divided by the temperature Ps >
T ,i
(7)
If ~ = e  Ts is the Helmholtz specific free energy (this is the energy in the RVE which can eventually be recovered),
(8)
This is the ClausiusDuhem inequality, which corresponds to the positiveness of the dissipated energy and which has to be fulfilled by any model for all possible evolutions.
1.1.3.1 STATEPOTENTIAL
The state potential allows for the derivation of the state laws and the definition of the associate variables or driving forces associated with the state variables VK tO define the energy involved in each phenomenon. Choosing the Helmholtz free energy ~, it is a function of all state variables concave with respect to the temperature and convex with respect to all other VK, 0 = O(~, T , f , f , . . . or in classical elastoplasticity
O = O ( F , ~_p, r , . . . v ~ . . .)
VK...)
(9)
(10)
The state laws derive from this potential to ensure that the second principle is always fulfilled.
a ij fiPij  ~_~ p
~ K "V K
T q~r,~ > 0
(11)
oo ~J  P oe~
o~
S ~
(12)
(13)
OT
Lemaitre
00
cr~j  p 0 ~ O0 AK  p OVK
(14)
(15)
Each variable AK is the main cause of variation of the state variable VK. In other words, the constitutive equations of the phenomenon represented by VK will be primarily a function of its associated variable and eventually from others.
VK  g K ( . . . A K . . . )
(16)
They also allow us to take as the state potential the Gibbs energy dual of the Helmholtz energy by the LegendreFenchel transform ~* = ~* (_~,s,...AK...) (17)
1.1.3.2
DISSIPATIVE POTENTIAL
To define the gK function of the kinetic equations, a second potential is postulated. It is a function of the associate variables, and convex to ensure that the second principle is fulfilled. It can also be a function of the state variables but taken only as parameters. q)  q~(K,...AK..., gracl T;e_.e, T , . . . V K . . . ) The kinetic laws of evolution of the internal state variables derive from
.p _ Oq)
(18)
eij  Oaij
(19)
% _
&o
OAK
(z0)
~
(21)
0grad T
Unfortunately, for phenomena which do not depend explicitly upon the time, this function (p is not differentiable. The flux variables are defined by the subdifferential of q~. If F is the criterion function whose the convex F  0 is
1.1 B a c k g r o u n d o n M o d e l i n g
if if
F<0+kP0 F  0 ~/~_P=/=0
(22)
.p_ OF/.
gij ~
vK = 
if
F0
and
lb0
(23)
OF ,{ OAK
} if F<0 or F<0 (24)
gij "r  0
"P0
This is the generalized normality rule of standard materials for which ~. is the multiplier calculated by the consistancy condition f  0, f  0.
1.1.4 IDENTIFICATION
The set of constitutive equations is fully defined if the two potentials ~ and ~0 take appropriate close forms: this is the qualitative identification. The numerical response of the constitutive equations to any input is obtained if the materials parameters take the appropriate values: this is the quantitative identification.
1.1.4.1
QUALITATIVE IDENTIFICATION
Assume an interest in several phenomena for which q internal variables have been identified. Which functions should one choose for J/(~e, e_P,T, V 1 . . . Vq) and q0(cr,A1... Aq, grad Y;~ ~, T, V1. . . Vq)? If a phenomenon is known as linear, the corresponding potentials are positive definite quadratic functions. For linear elasticity, for example, 1
(25)
where p is the density and E the Hooke tensor. If two phenomena I and J are known to be coupled, the corresponding potentials should verify
m
9 a state coupling: 020/OVIc~Vj r 0 9 or an evolution coupling: 02qo/OViOVj ~ 0 If no coupling occurs 02d//c3V~OVj  0 and 02qo/OVxOVj  O.
10
Lemaitre
ODO~ # 0
1 ~e  ~pp EijkZg~jg~Z"HI (D)
02~
(26)
(27)
~e  ~pEijkz~ij~l + H2(D)
that is, c926/c9Dc%~  0
(29)
0G
For nonlinear phenomena, often power functions are used, but for phenomena which asymptotically saturate, exponential functions are preferred. Often this choice is subjective. Nevertheless, micromechanics analysis may yield logical functions with regard to the micromechanisms introduced at microscale. It consists of the calculation of the energy involved in a RVE by a proper integration or an average of the elementary energies corresponding to the micromechanisms considered. Qualitative experiments are used to point out the tendencies of evolution, but they do not concern the potentials in themselves because simple direct measurements of energy is not possible. Measurements concern the evolution of variables: strain as a function of stress, crack length as a function of time, etc. This means that the potentials are identified from an integration of what is observed. For example, an observation of the secondary creep plastic strain rate as a nonlinear function of the applied stress in creep tests given by the phenomenological Norton law ~ p  (o/K) N is introduced in the dissipative potential as q~ 1
if some multiaxial experiments show that the von Mises criterion is fulfilled (r~r is the yon Mises equivalent stress).
11
When a model is being used, all material parameters do not have the same importance for the results: a small variation of some of them may change the results by a large amount, whereas a large variation of others has a small influence. For example, a numerical sensibility analysis on the parameters cry, K, and M on the shape of the stressstrain curve, graph of the simple model of uniaxial plasticity
+ K4/
(32)
shows that the more sensible parameter is Cry;by taking an approximate value of M ( M = 3 , 4 , 5 ) , it is always possible to adjust K in order to have a satisfactory agreement. But a good correlation with the set of available data does not prove that the model is able to give satisfactory results for cases far away from the tests used for the identification. Before any quantitative identification of a model is made, it is advisable to perform a sensibility analysis in order to classify by increasing order of sensibility the parameters, M, K, cry here for example, and to proceed as follows: 1.1.4.2.2 Rough Estimation of Parameters From all known data, make a first estimation of the parameters using all approximations in the model in order to have the same number of unknowns as the number of pieces of information. Eventually, take values of parameters corresponding to materials that are close in their chemical composition.
12
Lemaitre
Continue with the same example of the preceding plasticity model for a mild steel for which cry is known as 300 MPa. If the ultimate stress cru is known as 400 MPa for a plastic strain to rupture epu ~ 0.20, then taking M = 1 allows one to find K ~ 500 MPa. These approximate values of the parameters may be taken as a starting solution of an optimization process.
1.1.4.2.3 Optimization Procedure If now more experimental results are available, an optimization procedure may be performed to minimize the difference between the test data and the prediction of those tests by the full numerical resolution of the model. The leastsquare method is advantageously used. Unfortunately, in the range of nonlinear models, the minimization of the error function may have several solutions due to local minima or fiat variations for which the gradient methods converge extremely slowly. This is why the starting solution should be as close as possible to the optimized solution and why one should give different weight factors to the parameters in order "to help" the numerical procedure: small weight factors to less sensible parameters.
1.1.4.2.4 Validation The process is not finished until the model has been applied and compared to special tests which have not been used for the identification. Of course, the model should be applied to the identification cases, but this is only for checking the identification procedure. These validation tests must be as close as possible to the case considered for applications, and as far as possible from the identification tests m close or far in the sense of variables. For example: 9 biaxial tests if the tests of identification were uniaxial; 9 nonisothermal tests if the tests of identification were conducted at constant temperature; 9 tests with gradient of stress or of other variables; 9 different time scales;
9 etc.
The comparison between validation tests and prediction gives concrete ideas about the applicability of the models from the point of view of accuracy and robustness.
13
14
1.1.7 NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION
Lemaitre
The last activity in modeling is the numerical use of the models. Most of them, in mechanics of materials, are nonlinear and incremental procedures are used together with iterations. For example, in plasticity: 9 In a first step the incremental strain field is calculated by means of the kinetic equations from momentum equations. 9 The second step concerns the integration of the constitutive equations to obtain the increments of the state variables and their new values. 9 The third step consists in checking the momentum balance equation for the actual stresses; if violated the iteration process goes to step 1 until a given accuracy is obtained. The NewtonRaphson method is often used. Implicit scheme in quasistatic conditions or explicit scheme in dynamic conditions are used until the end of the loading history or if a divergence appears as a loss of ellipticity or a strain localization characteristic of softening behavior.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashby, M., and Jones, D. (1987). Engineering Materials, vols. 1 and 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Francois, D., Pineau, A., and Zaoui, A. (1998). Mechanical Behavior of Materials, vols. 1 and 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J. L. (1995). Mechanics of Solid Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SECTION
1.2
Contents 1.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Databases: The Need for a Hierarchical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Comparing Materials: The Performance Index Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 The Design Procedure: Screening, Ranking, and Further Information, the Problem of Multiple Criteria Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.5 Materials Selection and Materials Development: The Role of Modeling . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.6 Process Selection: Structuring the Expertise .. 1.2.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 16 19
22 24 26 26 28
1.2.1 I N T R O D U C T I O N
Designing efficiently for structural applications requires both a proper dimensioning of the structure (involving as a basic tool finite element calculations) and an appropriate choice of the materials and the process used to give them the most suitable shape. The variety of materials available to the engineer (about 80,000), as well as the complex set of requirements which define the most appropriate material, lead to a multicriteria optimization problem which is in no way a trivial one. In recent years, systematic methods for materials and process selection have been developed [14] and
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
15
16
Brechet
implemented into selection softwares [57] which ideally aim at selecting the best materials early enough in the design procedure so that the best design can be adequately chosen. This selection guide is most crucial at the early stages of design: there would be no hope of efficiently implementing a polymer matrix composite solution on a design initially developed for a metallic solution. Selecting the most appropriate materials is a task which should be done at the very beginning of the design procedure and all along the various steps, from conceptual design to detail design through embodiment design. The coupling with other design tools should at the very least provide finite element codes with constitutive behavior for the materials which appear the most promising. A more ambitious program, yet to be implemented, is to interface these elements with expert systems which would guide the designer toward shapes or processes more suited to a given class of materials, and which ultimately would help to redesign the component in an iterative manner according to the materials selection. These methods require databases of materials and tools to objectively compare materials for a given set of requirements. The amount of modeling needed in these methods is still quite elementary. In the present paper, we will focus on the tools used to compare materials rather than on their implementation as computer software. The modeling involved in the performance index method (Section 1.2.2) is standard strength of materials. The search for an optimal solution sometimes requires more refined optimization techniques (Section 1.2.3). We will outline in Section 1.2.4 the possible use of micromechanics and optimization methods in the development of materials with the aim of meeting a giving set of requirements. In Section 1.2.5 we will illustrate the need to structure and store the expertise in process selection, and will outline the need for modeling in this area.
1.2.2 DATABASES: T H E N E E D F O R A HIERARCHICAL APPROACH Material selection methods are facing a dilemma: the structure of the databases and the selection tools have to be as general as possible to be easily adaptable to a variety of situation. But this general structure is bound to fail when the selection problem is very specific (such as, for instance, selecting cast alloys). The methodology for materials selection presented in this paper is a compromise in this dilemma. We will present first the generic approach, and then some specific applications. The idea is always to go from the
17
most generic approach to the most specific one. In order to do so, the materials databases have to be organized in a hierarchical manner so that the selection at a given level orients the designer toward a more specific tool. Depending on the stages of design at which one considers the question of materials selection, the level of information required will be different [1]. In the very early stages, all possible materials should be considered, and therefore a database involving all the materials classes is needed. Accordingly, at this level of generality, the properties will be stored as ranges with relatively low precision. When the design procedure proceeds, more and more detailed information is needed on a smaller number of materials classes. Properties more specific to, say, polymers (such as the water intake or the flammability) might be referred to in the set of requirements. In the last stages of design, a very limited number of materials, and finally one material and a provider, have to be selected: at this level, very precise properties suitable for dimensioning the structure are needed. This progressive increase in specialization motivates a hierarchical approach to databases used in materials selection tools: instead of storing all the possible properties for a huge number of materials, which is bound to lead to a database loaded with missing information, the choice has been to develop a series of databases incorporating each a few hundreds of materials. The generic database comprises metals, polymers, ceramics, composites, and natural materials. Specialized databases have been developed for steels, light alloys, polymers, composites, and woods. More specialized databases coupling the materials and the processes (such as cast alloys, or polymer matrix composites) can then be developed, but their format is different from the previous databases. The set of requirements for structural applications is very versatile. Of course, mechanical properties are important (such as elastic moduli, yield stresses, fracture stresses, or toughness). These properties can be stored as numerical values. But very often, information such as the possibility of getting the materials as plates or tubes, the possibility of painting or joining it with other materials, or its resistance to the environment which can be potentially chemically aggressive, are also important. All the databases currently developed contain numerical information, qualitative estimates, and boolean evaluations. More recent tools [6] also allow one to store not only numbers, but also curves (such as creep curves for polymers, at a given temperature under a given strength). When a continuum set of data has to be stored, such as creep curves or corrosion rates, being able to rely on a model with a limited number of parameters (such as Norton's law for creep) considerably increases the efficiency of the storing procedure. For a database to be usable for selection purposes, it should be complete (sometimes needing
18
Brechet
some estimation procedure), it should not overemphasize one material with respect to the others, and it should contain data which are meaningful for all the materials in the database. The databases used in materials selection are of two types: either they list the materials which are possible candidates, or they store the elements from which the possible candidates are made. The first case is rather simple: provided a correct evaluation function is defined, the ranking of the candidates can be done by simple screening of the database. The second case, for instance, when the database lists the resins and the fibers involved in making a composite material, requires both micromechanical tools to evaluate the properties of the materials from the properties of its components, and also more subtle numerical methods that are able to deal with a much larger (virtually infinite) set of possible candidates. Steepest gradient methods, simulated annealing, and genetic algorithms are possible solutions for these complex optimization problems. In principle, one should try to select materials and processes simultaneously, since it is very often in terms of competition between various couples (materials/processes) that the selection problem finally appears: should one make an aiplane wing joining components obtained from mediumthickness plates of aluminum alloys, or should one machine the wing components inside a thick plate of a less quench sensitive alloy the wing together with the stiffeners? The coupling between processes and materials properties is still very poorly taken into account in the current selection procedures. Processes are also selected from databases of attributes for the different processes (such as the size of the components, the dimensional accuracy, or the materials accessible to a given process). The databases for process attributes have the same structure as the ones for materials, and the same hierarchical organization, and information can be numeric, qualitative, or boolean. Beside the variety of properties (for materials) and attributes (for processes) involved in a selection procedure, depending on the stage of selection, one is either confronted with a very open end set of requirements, or with always the same set of questions. In the first situation, one needs a very versatile tool, but because of combinatoric explosion, one cannot afford to deal with questions involving interactions that are too complex between various aspects, (such as "this shape, for this alloy, assuming this minimal dimension, is prone during casting to exhibit hot tearing"). On the other hand, when the selection becomes very focused (such as selection of joining methods), the set of requirements to be fulfilled has basically always the same format: it can be stored as a "predefined questionnaire" which allows more refined questions to be asked since they are in a limited number.
19
1.2.3 COMPARING MATERIALS: THE PERFORMANCE INDEX METHOD The databases are the hard core of the selection procedure: up to a certain point they can be cast in a standard format, which has been used in CMS, CPS, and CES software. When selection reaches a high degree of specialization, more specific formats have to be implemented, and a questionnaire approach rather than an "openend selection" might be more efficient. But a database would be of little use without an evaluation tool able to compare the different materials. Simple modeling allows one to build such a tool, but the price to be paid is that dimensioning of the structure using this method is very crude. One has to keep in mind that the aim is to identify the materials for which accurate structural mechanics calculations will have to be performed later on. Each set of requirements has to be structured in a systematic manner: What are the constraints? What are the free and the imposed variables? What is the objective? For instance, one might look for a tie for which the length L is prescribed and the section S is free (free and imposed dimensions), which shouldn't yield under a prescribed load P (constraints), and which should be of minimum weight (objective). The stress which should not exceed the yield stress is P  < ay (1) SThe mass of the component to be minimized is
M = p.L.s (2)
The constraint not to yield imposes a minimum value for the section S. The mass of the component is accordingly at least equal to
Therefore, the material which will minimize the mass of the component will be the one which maximizes the "performance index" I:
I =ay
P
(4)
This very simple derivation illustrates the method for obtaining performance indices: write the constraint and the objectives, eliminate the free variable, and identify the combination of materials properties which measures the efficiency of materials for a couple (constraints/objectives). These performance indices have now been derived for many situations corresponding to simple geometry (bars, plates, shells, beams) loading in simple modes (tension, torsion, bending), for simple constraints (do not yield, prescribed
20
Brechet
stiffness, do n o t b u c k l e . . . ) , a n d for v a r i o u s objectives ( m i n i m u m w e i g h t , m i n i m u m v o l u m e , m i n i m u m cost). T h e y h a v e b e e n e x t e n d e d to t h e r m a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . T h e w a y to derive a p e r f o r m a n c e i n d e x for a real s i t u a t i o n is to: s i m p l i f y the g e o m e t r y a n d the l o a d i n g ; i d e n t i f y the free variables; m a k e e x p l i c i t the c o n s t r a i n t u s i n g s i m p l e m e c h a n i c s ; w r i t e d o w n the objective; a n d
TABLE 1.2.1 Classical performance indices for mechanical design for strength or stiffness at minimum weight. Objective Minimize the mass Minimize the mass Minimize the mass Minimize the mass Minimize the mass Shape Tie Beam Beam Plate Plate Loading Tension Bending Bending Bending Compression Internal pressure Constraint Stiffness and length prescribed, section free Stiffness, shape and length fixed, section free Stiffness, width and length fixed, height free Stiffness length width fixed, thickness free Buckling load fixed, length width fixed, thickness free Imposed maximum elastic strain, thickness of the shell free Performance index
Stiffness design with a minimal mass E/p E1/2/p E1/3/p E1/3/p E1/3/p
Cylinder
E/p
Cylinder
Internal pressure
ae/p
21
Table 1.2.1 gives some standard performance indices currently used in mechanical design. Many others have been derived, both for mechanical and thermomechanical loading [ 1,4]. A simple way to use the performance index is with the socalled selection maps shown in Figure 1.2.1: on a logarithmic scale the lines corresponding to equal performances are straight lines whose slopes depend on the exponents entering the performance index. Figure 1.2.1 shows one of these maps used for stiff components at minimum mass. Materials for stiff ties should maximize E/p, materials for stiff beams should maximize E1/2/p, and materials for stiff plates should maximize E1/3/p. These performance indices have a drawback, however: they are concerned with timeindependent design, the component is made so that it
1000
1. ModulusDensity
MFA:INH}I
t, f
(p'~ 89
tlO
"/ Composites
'En~i,needn~
/
f
"0 0
J"
3x10 a
1.0
t HDPE
m
r
LDPE
0.1
~/
..s
~_..~
rV I ~
1.0
Elastomers /
/r
.3xlo =
,/
0.01;. i
"/. 1
0.3
,I
t,,I
,, "=
Cl
I I
10
80
Density, p (Mg/m3)
FIGURE 1.2.1 Selection map for stiff light design [1].
22
Brechet
should fulfill its function when it starts being used, and it is assumed it will be so for the rest of its life. Of course, this is rarely the case, and one often has to design for a finite lifetime. As a consequence, for instance, in designing for creep resistance or corrosion resistance, a new set of performance indices involving rate equations (for creep or corrosion) has been developed [8,9]. The performance indices then depend not only on the materials properties, but also on operating conditions such as the load, or the dimensions, or the expected lifetime. For instance, largescale boilers are generally made out of steel, whereas smallscale boilers are often made in copper. In principle, finite lifetime design is possible within the framework of performance indices, but the data available to effectively apply the method are much more difficult to gather systematically.
23
3. For the remaining candidates that are able to fulfill the set of requirements efficiently, further information is often needed concerning corrosion rates, wear rates, or possible surface treatments. These pieces of information are scattered in the literature, and efficient wordsearching methods are required to help with this step. At the same step, the local conditions, or the availability of the different possible materials, will also be a concern. The three steps in the selection procedure are also a way to structure process selection. The screening stage will rely on attributes such as the size of the component and the materials from which it is made. The ranking step will need a rough comparative economic evaluation of the various processes, involving the batch size and the production rate. The last step will depend on the availability of the tooling and the will to invest. It appears from these various aspects of the selection procedure that a key issue is to build a "value function" that is able to provide one with a fair comparison of the different possible solutions. The performance index method is the first step in building this value function. The second step is to deal with the multicriteria nature of the selection process. This multicriteria aspect can be conveniently classified in two categories: it might be a multiconstraint problem, or a multiobjective problem (in any real situations, it is both!). In a multiconstraint problem (such as designing a component which should neither yield nor fail in fatigue), the problem is to identify the limiting constraint. In order to do so, further knowledge on the load and the dimensions is needed. A systematic method called "coupled equations" [10] allows one to deal with this problem. In a multiobjective problem (such as designing a component at minimum weight and minimum cost), one needs to identify an "exchange coefficient" [10] between the two objectives, for instance, how much the user is ready to pay for saving weight. These exchange coefficients can be either obtained from a value analysis of the product or from the analysis of existing solutions [4]. They allow one to compute a value function, which is the tool needed to rank the possible solutions. Both the value analysis and the coupled equation method provide one with an objective treatment of the multiple criteria optimization. However, they require extra information compared to the simple performance index method. When this information is not available, one needs to make use of methods involving judgments. The most popular one is the "weight coefficients method," which attributes to each criteria a percentage of importance. The materials are then compared to an existing solution. It must be stressed that the value function so constructed depends on the choice of both the weighting factors and the reference material. Weighting factors are difficult to evaluate; moreover, multiple criteria often lead to no solution at all
24
Brechet
due to an excessive severity. Multiple optimization also implies the idea of compromise between the various requirements. For this reason, algorithms involving fuzzy logic methods [3] have been developed to deal with the intrinsic fuzziness of the requirements (two values will be given, one above which the satisfaction is complete, one under which the material will be rejected). Proposed situations at the margin of full satisfaction will be proposed for evaluation, and the value function will be constructed so that it will give, for the same questions, the same evaluation as the user. This technique bypasses the difficulty in giving a priori value coefficients, since they are then estimated from the evaluationproposed solutions. However, these methods still involve judgments (though in a controlled manner), and, when possible, the objective methods should be preferred. Once the value function is available, the selection problem becomes an optimization one. When the database is finite, the optimization can be performed by a simple screening of all the available solutions. The method has been extended to the optimal design of multimaterials components such as sandwich structures [11, 12]. The aim is then to simultaneously select the skin, the core, and the geometry for a set of requirements involving stiffness and strength, constraints on the thickness, objectives on the minimization of the weight, or the cost. For single criteria selection, an analytical method was derived [13]. For multiple criteria, such a method is no longer available, and the selection requires one to compute the properties of a sandwich from the properties of its components and its geometry, and to compare all the possible choices. In order to find the optimal solution, a genetic algorithm was used. The principle is to generate a population of sandwiches whose "genes" are the materials and the geometry. New sandwiches are generated, either by mutation or by crossover between existing individuals, and the population is kept constant in size by keeping the individuals alive with a greater probability when their efficiency (measured by the value function) is greater. In such a way, the algorithm converges very rapidly to a very good solution.
1.2.5 M A T E R I A L S S E L E C T I O N A N D M A T E R I A L S DEVELOPMENT: THE ROLE OF MODELING In the previous sections, we were interested in selecting materials and processes to fulfil a set of requirements. The only modeling needed at this stage is a simplified estimation of the mechanical behavior of the component, together with a clear identification of the constraints and the objectives. The value function allowing one to estimate the efficiency
25
of the different solutions is itself a simple linear combination of the performance indices corresponding to the dominant constraints identified by a predimensioning. However, the same method has been applied to identify suitable materials whose development would fulfill the requirements. Composite materials are especially suitable for this exercise because their value relies partly on the possibility of tayloring them for application [14,15]. In order to design a composite material, one has to identify the best choice for the matrix, for the reinforcement, for the architecture of the reinforcement and its volume fraction, and for the process to realize the component (which might be limited by the shape to be realized). One needs relations, either empirical or based on micromechanics models, between the properties of the components of the composite and the properties of the material itself. Usually, the process itself influences the properties obtained, which are lower than the properties of the ideal composite that micromechanics models would provide. One could think of introducing this feature in the modeling through interface properties, but it is generally more convenient to store the information as "knockdown factors" on properties associated with a triplet matrix/reinforcement/process. Another application of materials selection methods using mechanical modeling is the optimal design of glass compositions for a given set of requirements: since the properties are, within a certain range, linearly related to the composition, optimization techniques such as a simplex algorithm are well adapted to this problem. When a continuous variable, such as the characteristics of a heat treatment for an alloy, is available and is provided, either through metallurgical modeling or through empirical correlation, the properties can be given as a function of this variable, and materials selection methods are efficient to design the best treatment to be applied to fit a set of requirements. However, the explicit models available for relations between processes and properties are relatively few. Recent developments using Neural networks to identify hidden correlation in databases of materials can also be applied and coupled to selection methods in order to design the best transformation processes. Another recent development in selection methods aims at reverting the problem, that is, finding potential applications for new materials [4, 16, 17]. Several strategies have been identified: for instance, one can explore a database of applications (defined by a set of requirements and existing solutions) and find the applications for which the new material is better than the existing solutions. Another technique is to identify the performance indices for which the new material seems better than usual materials, and from there, to find out the applications for which these performance indices are relevant criteria.
Brechet
In addition to selection by attributes of the process, which is efficient in the first stages of selection, when one is confronted with a more specific problem, such as selection of a definite cast aluminium alloy or a definite extruded wrought alloy, or selection of a secondary process such as joining or surface treatments, one is faced with the need to store expertise. For instance, for selection of cast aluminium [3, 18] alloys, the key issue is not to define the performance index; the key issue is to select the alloy which will be possible to cast without defects. Mold filling and hot tearing are the central concerns in this problem. The ability to fill a mold or to cast a component without cracks depends on the alloy, on the geometry of the mold, and on the type of casting. Ideally, one would wish to have models to deal with this question. In real life, hot tearing criteria are not quantitatively reliable, moldfilling criteria are totally empirical, and moreover, the properties of the cast alloy are dependent on the solidification conditions, that is, on the thickness of the component. These dependences are part of what is known as expertise. The simplest way to store this expertise is build the set of requirements according to a predefined questionnaire corresponding to the expert behavior. The second option is to mimic the general tendency identified by the expert by a simple mathematical function (for instance, capturing the tendency to increased hot tearing with thinner parts of the component) and to tune the coefficients of these functions by comparing the results of selection by a software with the results known from the case studies available to the expert. Along these lines, selection methods for cast alloys [18], extruded alloys [19], joining methods [20,21], and surface treatments [4,22] have been developed to capture various expertises. Clearly, modeling is still needed to rationalize the empirical rules commonly used (such as the shapes which can be extruded or cast), or to evaluate the cost of a process (for instance, for joining by laser, or for a surface treatment one needs to find the best operating temperature, power, speed, etc.).
1.2.7 CONCLUSIONS The selection methods briefly presented in this chapter are recent developments. The use of modeling in these approaches is still in its infancy. In the last ten years, general methods and software have been developed to select materials, to select processes, and to deal with multidesign element conception and with multicriteria set of requirements.
1.2 Materials and Process Selection Methods TABLE 1.2.2 Name of the software CMS
27
Selection softwares developed following the guidelines of the present paper. Objectives of the software Materials selection, graphical selection using maps; many databases, generic or specialized Process selection, graphical method Materials and process selection, databases for materials, for processes and links between databases Materials selection, multicriteria and fuzzy logicbased selection algorithm Materials and process selection for multidesign element conceptions; expert system to guide and analyze the elaboration of requirements Selection of cast aluminium alloys; databases: alloys/processes/geometry Design of polymerbased composites; databases: resin, reinforcements, processes, and compatibilities Optimization of sandwich structures; genetic algorithm coupled with fuzzy logic Optimization of glass compositions; simplex coupled with fuzzy logic Selection of joining methods; databases: processes and shapes Selection of surface treatments; database: processes/materials/objectives Evaluation of exchange coefficients from existing solutions Investigation of possible applications for a new material Property of SaintGobain Property of Pechiney; expertise on casting processes, design rules Comments/status Commercially available
CPS CES
Commercially available Commercially available; constructor facility for development of dedicated databases Commercially available; development of specialized databases
Fuzzymat
CAMD
Fuzzycast
Fuzzycomposites
Astek
Property of CETIM
STS
VCE
MAPS
28
Brechet
Table 1.2.2 gives a list of selection tools developed along the philosophy described in this chapter. These generic methods have been specialized to various classes of materials and processes. In special situations, a coupling with modeling made possible the use of the present methods to develop new materials or new structures (composites, sandwich structures). For specific processes (casting, joining, extrusions, surface treatments), the selection procedure developed was closer to an expert system, following a predefined questionnaire. Various methods of finding applications for a new material have been put forward. Up to now, the choice has been to rely on empirical knowledge when available, and to keep the selection procedure as transparent and as objective as possible. The main reason for this paper to be included in a book on models in mechanics is to express the need now to couple more closely modeling to design so that one may go beyond empirical correlation and optimize both the choice of materials and their future development.
REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
12.
Ashby, M. (1999). Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Butterworth Heinemann editor. Esawi, A. (1994) PhD thesis, Cambridge University. Bassetti, D. (1998) PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. Landru, D. (2000) PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. Granta Design, Cambridge Selection softwares: CMS (1995), CPS (1997), CES (1999). Bassetti, Grenoble, Fuzzymat v3.0 (1997). Software for materials selection. Landru, D., and Brechet, Y. Grenoble, (1999). CAMD. Ashby, M., and Brechet, Y. Time Dependant Design (to be published). Brechet, Y., Ashby, M., and Salvo, L. (2000). Methodes de choix des materiaux et des procedes, Presses Universitaires de Lausanne. Ashby, M., (1997). ASTMSTP 1311, 45, Computerization and Networking of Materials Databases, Nishijima, S., and Iwata, S., eds. Bassetti, D., Brechet, Y., Heiberg, G., Lingorski, I., Jantzen, A., Pechambert, P., and Salvo, L. (1998). Materiaux et Techniques 5:31. Deocon, J., Salvo, L., Lemoine, P., Landru, D., Brechet, Y., and Leriche, R. (1999). Metal Foams and Porous Metal Structures, Banhardt, J., Ashby, M., and Fleck, N., eds., MIT Verlag Publishing, p. 325. Gibson, L., and Ashby, M. (1999). Cellular solids, Cambridge University Press. Pechambert, P., Bassetti, D., Brechet, Y., and Salvo, L. (1996). ICCM7, London IOM, 283. Bassetti, D., Brechet, Y., Heiberg, G., Lingorski, I., Pechambert, P., and Salvo, L. (1998). Composite Design for Performance, p. 88, Nicholson, P., ed., Lake Louise. Landru, D., Brechet, Y. (1996). Colloque Franco espagnol, p. 41, Yavari, R., ed., Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. Landru, D., Ashby, M., and Brechet, Y. Finding New Applications for a Material (to be published). Lovatt, A., Bassetti, D., Shercliff, H., and Brechet Y. (1999). Int. Journal Cast Metals Research 12: 211. Heiberg, G., Brechet, Y., Roven, H., and Jensrud, O. Materials and Design (in press, 2000).
29
20. Lebacq, C., Jeggy, T., Brecht, Y., and Salvo, L. (1998). Materiaux et Techniques 5: 39. 21. Lebacq, C., Brechet, Y., Jeggy, T., Salvo, L., and Shercliff, H. (2000). Selection of joining methods. Submitted to Materials and Design. 22. Landru, D., Esawi, A., Brechet, Y., and Ashby, M. (2000). Selection of surface treatments (to be published).
SECTION
1.3
Contents 1.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 History of Size Effect up to Weibull . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 Weibull Statistical Size Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.5 QuasiBrittle Size Effect Bridging Plasticity and LEFM, and its History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6 Size Effect Mechanism: Stress Redistribution
32 34 38 40
and Energy Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 1.3.6.1 Scaling for Failure at Crack Initiation.. 43 1.3.6.2 Scaling for Failures with a Long Crack or Notch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6.3 Size Effect on Postpeak Softening and Ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6.4 Asymptotic Analysis of Size Effect by Equivalent LEFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.6.5 Size Effect Method for Measuring Material Constants and RCurve . . . . . . . 1.3.6.6 Critical Cracktip Opening Displacement, 6C~OD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 1.3.7 Extensions, Ramifications, and Applications .. 50 1.3.7.1 Size Effects in Compression F r a c t u r e . . 50 49 47 48 44
*Thanks to the permission of Springer Verlag, Berlin, this article is reprinted from Archives of Applied Mechanics (IngenieurArchiv) 69, 703725. A section on the reverse size effect in buckling of sea ice has been added, and some minor updates have been made. The figures are the same.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
30
1.3 Size Effect on Structural Strength Fracturing Truss Model for Concrete and Boreholes in Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.3 Kink Bands in Fiber Composites . . . . . 1.3.7.4 Size Effects in Sea Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.5 Reverse Size Effect in Buckling of Floating Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.6 Influence of Crack Separation Rate, Creep, and Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.7 Size Effect in Fatigue Crack Growth.. 1.3.7.8 Size Effect for Cohesive Crack Model and Crack Band Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.9 Size Effect via Nonlocal, Gradient, or Discrete Element Models . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.10 Nonlocal Statistical Generalization of the Weibull Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.8 Other Size Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.8.1 Hypothesis of Fractal Origin of Size Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.8.2 Boundary Layer, Singularity, and Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.9 Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.7.2
31
51 52 52 54 55 56 56 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 62
The article attempts a broad review of the problem of size effect or scaling of failure, which has recently come to the forefront of attention because of its importance for concrete and geotechnical engineering, geomechanics, and arctic ice engineering, as well as in designing large loadbearing parts made of advanced ceramics and composites, e.g., for aircraft or ships. First the main results of the Weibull statistical theory of r a n d o m strength are briefly s u m m a r i z e d and its applicability and limitations described. In this theory as well as plasticity, elasticity with a strength limit, and linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), the size effect is a simple power law because no characteristic size or length is present. Attention is then focused on the deterministic size effect in quasibrittle materials which, because of the existence of a nonnegligible material length characterizing the size of the fracture process zone, represents the bridging between the simple powerlaw size effects of plasticity and of LEFM. The energetic theory of quasibrittle size effect in the bridging region is explained, and then a host of
32
Ba~.ant
recent refinements, extensions, and ramifications are discussed. Comments on other types of size effect, including that which might be associated with the fractal geometry of fracture, are also made. The historical development of the size effect theories is outlined, and the recent trends of research are emphasized.
1.3.1
INTRODUCTION
The size effect is a problem of scaling, which is central to every physical theory. In fluid mechanics research, the problem of scaling continuously played a prominent role for over a hundred years. In solid mechanics research, though, the attention to scaling had many interruptions and became intense only during the last decade. Not surprisingly, the modern studies of nonclassical size effect, begun in the 1970s, were stimulated by the problems of concrete structures, for which there inevitably is a large gap between the scales of large structures (e.g., dams, reactor containments, bridges) and the scales of laboratory tests. This gap involves in such structures about one order of magnitude (even in the rare cases when a fullscale test is carried out, it is impossible to acquire a sufficient statistical basis on the full scale). The question of size effect recently became a crucial consideration in the efforts to use advanced fiber composites and sandwiches for large ship hulls, bulkheads, decks, stacks, and masts, as well as for large loadbearing fuselage panels. The scaling problems are even greater in geotechnical engineering, arctic engineering, and geomechanics. In analyzing the safety of an excavation wall or a tunnel, the risk of a mountain slide, the risk of slip of a fault in the earth crust, or the force exerted on an oil platform in the Arctic by a moving milesize ice floe, the scale jump from the laboratory spans many orders of magnitude. In most mechanical and aerospace engineering, on the other hand, the problem of scaling has been less pressing because the structural components can usually be tested at full size. It must be recognized, however, that even in that case the scaling implied by the theory must be correct. Scaling is the most fundamental characteristics of any physical theory. If the scaling properties of a theory are incorrect, the theory itself is incorrect. The size effect in solid mechanics is understood as the effect of the characteristic structure size (dimension) D on the nominal strength c~N of structure when geometrically similar structures are compared. The nominal stress (or strength, in case of maximum load) is defined as crN = cNP/bD or cNP/D2 for two or threedimensional similarity, respectively; P = load
33
(or load parameter), b structure thickness, and cN arbitrary coefficient chosen for convenience (normally cN1). So crN is not a real stress but a load parameter having the dimension of stress. The definition of D can be arbitrary (e.g., the beam depth or halfdepth, the beam span, the diagonal dimension, etc.) because it does not matter for comparing geometrically similar structures. The basic scaling laws in physics are power laws in terms of D, for which no characteristics size (or length) exists. The classical Weibull [113] theory of statistical size effect caused by randomness of material strength is of this type. During the 1970s it was found that a major deterministic size effect, overwhelming the statistical size effect, can be caused by stress redistributions caused by stable propagation of fracture or damage and the inherent energy release. The law of the deterministic stable effect provides a way of bridging two different power laws applicable in two adjacent size ranges. The structure size at which this bridging transition occurs represents a characteristic size. The material for which this new kind of size effect was identified first, and studied in the greatest depth and with the largest experimental effort by far, is concrete. In general, a size effect that bridges the smallscale power law for nonbrittle (plastic, ductile) behavior and the largescale power law for brittle behavior signals the presence of a certain nonnegligible characteristics length of the material. This length, which represents the quintessential property of quasibrittle materials, characterizes the typical size of material inhomogeneities or the fracture process zone (FPZ). Aside from concrete, other quasibrittle materials include rocks, cement mortars, ice (especially sea ice), consolidated snow, tough fiber composites and particulate composites, toughened ceramics, fiberreinforced concretes, dental cements, bone and cartilage, biological shells, stiff clays, cemented sands, grouted soils, coal, paper, wood, wood particle board, various refractories and filled elastomers, and some special tough metal alloys. Keen interest in the size effect and scaling is now emerging for various "hightech" applications of these materials. Quasibrittle behavior can be attained by creating or enhancing material inhomogeneities. Such behavior is desirable because it endows the structure made from a material incapable of plastic yielding with a significant energy absorption capability. Long ago, civil engineers subconsciously but correctly engineered concrete structures to achieve and enhance quasibrittle characteristics. Most modern "hightech" materials achieve quasibrittle characteristics in much the same way by means of inclusions, embedded reinforcement, and intentional microcracking (as in transformation toughening of ceramics, analogous to shrinkage microcracking of concrete). In effect, they emulate concrete.
34
Ba~.ant
In materials science, an inverse size effect spanning several orders of magnitude must be tackled in passing from normal laboratory tests of material strength to microelectronic components and micromechanisms. A material that follows linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) on the scale of laboratory specimens of sizes from 1 to 10cm may exhibit quasibrittle or even ductile (plastic) failure on the micrometer scale. The purpose of this article is to present a brief review of the basic results and their history. For an indepth review with several hundred literature references, the recent article by Ba~.ant and Chen [18] may be consulted. A full exposition of most of the material reviewed here is found in the recent book by Ba~.ant and Planas [32], henceforth simply referenced as [BP]. The problem of scale bridging in the micromechanics of materials, e.g., the relation of dislocation theory to continuum plasticity, is beyond the scope of this review (it is treated in this volume by Hutchinson).
1.3.2 HISTORY OF SIZE EFFECT UP TO WEIBULL Speculations about the size effect can be traced back to Leonardo da Vinci in the 16th century [118]. He observed that "among cords of equal thickness the longest is the least strong," and proposed that "a cord is so much stronger as it is shorter," implying inverse proportionality. A century later, Galileo Galilei [64], the inventor of the concept of stress, argued that Leonardo's size effect cannot be true. He further discussed the effect of the size of an animal on the shape of its bones, remarking that bulkiness of bones is the weakness of the giants. A major idea was spawned by Mariotte [82]. Based on his extensive experiments, he observed that "a long rope and a short one always support the same weight unless that in a long rope there may happen to be some faulty place in which it will break sooner than in a shorter," and proposed the principle of "the inequality of matter whose absolute resistance is less in one place than another." In other words, the larger the structure, the greater is the probability of encountering in it an element of low strength. This is the basic idea of the statistical theory of size effect. Despite no lack of attention, not much progress was achieved for two and half centuries, until the remarkable work of Griffith [66], the founder of fracture mechanics. He showed experimentally that the nominal strength of glass fibers was raised from 42,300 psi to 491,000 psi when the diameter decreased from 0.0042 in. to 0.00013 in., and concluded that "the weakness of isotropic solids ... is due to the presence of discontinuities or flaws . . . . The
35
effective strength of technical materials could be increased 10 or 20 times at least if these flaws could be eliminated." In Griffith's view, however, the flaws or cracks at the moment of failure were still only microscopic; their random distribution controlled the macroscopic strength of the material but did not invalidate the concept of strength. Thus, Griffith discovered the physical basis of Mariotte's statistical idea but not a new kind of size effect. The statistical theory of size effect began to emerge after Peirce [92] formulated the weakestlink model for a chain and introduced the extreme value statistics which was originated by Tippett [107] and Fr~chet [57] and completely described by Fischer and Tippett [58], who derived the Weibull distribution and proved that it represents the distribution of the minimum of any set of very many random variables that have a threshold and approach the threshold asymptotically as a power function of any positive exponent. Refinements were made by von Mises [108] and others (see also [62, 63,103,56]. The capstone of the statistical theory of strength was laid by Weibull [113] (also [114116]). On a heuristic and experimental basis, he concluded that the tail distribution of low strength values with an extremely small probability could not be adequately represented by any of the previously known distributions and assumed the cumulative probability distribution of the strength of a small material element to be a power function of the strength difference form a finite or zero threshold. The resulting distribution of minimum strength, which was the same as that derived by Fischer and Tippet [58] in a completely different context, came to be known as the Weibull distribution. Others [62,103] later offered a theoretical justification by means of a statistical distribution of microscopic flaws or microcracks. Refinements and applications to metals and ceramics (fatigue embrittlement, cleavage toughness of steels at a low and brittleductile transition temperatures, evaluation of scatter of fracture toughness data) have continued until today [37, 56, 77, 101]. Applications of Weibull's theory to fatigue embrittled metals and to ceramics have been researched thoroughly [75, 76]. Applications to concrete, where the size effect has been of the greatest concern, have been studied by Zaitsev and Wittmann [122], Mihashi and Izumi [88], Wittmann and Zaitsev [121], Zech and Wittmann [123], Mihashi [84], Mihashi and Izumi [85] Carpinteri [41,42], and others. Until about 1985, most mechanicians paid almost no attention to the possibility of a deterministic size effect. Whenever a size effect was detected in tests, it was automatically assumed to be statistical, and thus its study was supposed to belong to statisticians rather than mechanicians. The reason probably was that no size effect is exhibited by the classical continuum mechanics in which the failure criterion is written in terms of stresses and strains (elasticity with strength limit, plasticity and viscoplasticity, as well as fracture mechanics of bodies containing only microscopic cracks or
36
Ba~.ant
flaws) [8]. The subject was not even mentioned by S. P. Timoshenko in 1953 in his m o n u m e n t a l History of the Strength of Materials. The attitude, however, changed drastically in the 1980s. In consequence of the wellfunded research in concrete structures for nuclear power plants, theories exhibiting a deterministic size effect have developed. We will discuss it later.
~P
lfi , I
log CN
4I + , ....I
D'
log D
Largesize
Plasticity
~
/'I
/ CN = B ft' (1 +~oo)v2
......
"'~~"q~ Smallsize [',,~~ asymptotic I " , , , ~ Pexpansl~ Z ' ",.J \<'x,, \ X ~c/
. ]
1~2
FIGURE 1.3.1 a. Top left: Geometrically similar structures of different sizes, b. Top right: Power scaling laws. c. Bottom. Size effect law for quasibrittle failures bridging the power law of plasticity (horizontal asymptote) and the power law of LEFM (inclined asymptote).
37
where u is the chosen unit of measurement (e.g., 1 m, i mm). We imagine three structure sizes 1, D, and D' (Figure 1.3.1a). If we take size 1 as the reference size, the responses for sizes D and D' are Y = f ( D ) and Y' = f ( D ' ) . However, since there is no characteristic length, we can also take size D as the reference size. Consequently, the equation
f(D')/f(D) = f(D'/D)
(1)
must hold ([8, 18]; for fluid mechanics [2, 102]). This is a functional equation for the unknown scaling law f(D). It has one and only one solution, namely, the power law: f(D) = (D/c1) ~ (2)
where s = constant and c1 is a constant which is always implied as a unit of length measurement (e.g., i m, i mm). Note that Cl cancels out of Eq. 2 when the power function (Eq. 1) is substituted. On the other hand, when, for instance, f ( D ) = log(D/Cl), Eq. 1 is not satisfied and the unit of measurement, cl, does not cancel out. So, the logarithmic scaling could be possible only if the system possessed a characteristic length related to Cl. The power scaling must apply for every physical theory in which there is no characteristic length. In solid mechanics such failure theories include elasticity with a strength limit, elastoplasticity, and viscoplasticity, as well as LEFM (for which the FPZ is assumed shrunken into a point). To determine exponent s, the failure criterion of the material must be taken into account. For elasticity with a strength limit (strength theory), or plasticity (or elastoplasticity) with a yield surface expressed in terms of stresses or strains, or both, one finds that s = 0 when response Y represents the stress or strain (for example, the maximum stress, or the stress at certain homologous points, or the nominal stress at failure) [8]. Thus, if there is no characteristic dimension, all geometrically similar structures of different sizes must fail at the same nominal stress. By convention, this came to be known as the case of no size effect. In LEFM, on the other hand, s =  1 / 2 (for nominal strength), provided that the geometrically similar structures with geometrically similar cracks or notches are considered. This may be generally demonstrated with the help of Rice's Jintegral [8]. If log ~N is plotted versus log D, the power law is a straight line (Figure 1.3.1b). For plasticity, or elasticity with a strength limit, the exponent of the power law vanishes, i.e., the slope of this line is 0, while for LEFM the slope is 112 [8]. An emerging "hot" subject is the quasibrittle materials and structures, for which the size effect bridges these two power laws.
38
Ba~.ant
It is interesting to note that the critical stress for elastic buckling of beams, frames, and plates exhibits also no size effect, i.e., is the same for geometrically similar structures of different sizes. However, this is not true for beams on elastic foundation [ 16].
P1
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
O I
I ,,/ ,1 ~1
I I i 9 i !
t I0 \ I i , i I

I I ' ii I i
l
",
" ' "
FIGURE 1.3.2 a. Left: Chain with many links of random strength, b. Right top: Failure probability of a small element, c. Right bottom: Structures with many microcracks of different probabilities to become critical.
39
stresses (i = 1,2,3) and Pl(cr)= failure probability (cumulative) of the smallest possible test specimen of volume V0 (or representative volume of the material) subject to uniaxial tensile stress a;
Pl ( a )


au
SO
(4)
[113] where m, so, O"1 = material constants (m = Weibull modulus, usually between 5 and 50; so = scale parameter; a~ = strength threshold, which may usually be taken as 0) and V0reference volume understood as the volume of specimens on which c(a) was measured. For specimens under uniform uniaxial stress (and a, = 0), Eqs. 3 and 4 lead to the following simple expressions for the mean and coefficient of variation of the nominal strength: 8"N  s0r(1 + m~)(Vo/V) 1/m co  [F(1 4 2m~)/F2(1 + m ~)  1] 1/2 (Sa) (sb)
where F is the gamma function. Since co depends only on m, it is often used for determining m from the observed statistical scatter of strength of identical test specimens. The expression for ~'N includes the effect of volume V which depends on size D. In general, for structures with nonuniform multidimensional stress, the size effect of Weibull theory (for err ~ 0) is of the type
aN ~ D nalm
(6)
where nd= 1, 2, or 3 for uni, two or threedimensional similarity. In view of Eq. 5, the value a w  aN(V/Vo) ~/~ for a uniformly stressed specimen can be adopted as a sizeindependent stress measure called the Weibull stress. Taking this viewpoint, Beremin [37] proposed taking into account the nonuniform stress in a large cracktip plastic zone by the socalled Weibull stress:
_ (r)
O'W
Ii V0
where Vi (i  1, 2 , . . . Nw) are elements of the plastic zone having maximum principal stress o'ii. Ruggieri and Dodds [101] replaced the sum in Eq. 5 by an integral; see also Lei et al. [77]. Equation 7, however, considers only the cracktip plastic zone whose size which is almost independent of D. Consequently, Eq. 7 is applicable only if the crack at the moment of failure is not yet macroscopic, still being negligible compared to structural dimensions.
40
Ba~.ant
As far as quasibrittle structures are concerned, applications of the classic Weibull theory face a number of serious objections: 1. The fact that in Eq. 6 the size effect is a power law implies the absence of any characteristic length. But this cannot be true if the size of material inhomogeneities is not negligible compared to the structure size D. 2. The energy release due to stress redistributions caused by macroscopic FPZ or stable crack growth before Pmax gives rise to a deterministic size effect which is ignored. Thus the Weibull theory is valid only if the structure fails as soon as a microscopic crack becomes macroscopic. 3. Every structure is mathematically equivalent to a uniaxially stressed bar (or chain, Fig. 1.3.2), which means that no information on the structural geometry and failure mechanism is taken into account [36]. 4. The size effect differences between two and threedimensional similarity (na = 2 or 3) are predicted much too large. 5. Many tests of quasibrittle materials (e.g., diagonal shear failure of reinforced concrete beams) show a much stronger size effect than predicted by the Weibull theory ([BP]). (Please see the review [9]). 6. The classical theory neglects the spatial correlations of material failure probabilities of neighboring elements caused by nonlocal properties of damage evolution (while generalizations based on some phenomenological loadsharing hypotheses have been divorced from mechanics). 7. When Eq. 5 is fitted to the test data on statistical scatter for specimens of one size (V = const.) and when Eq. 6 is fitted to the mean test data on the effect of size or V (of unnotched plain concrete specimens), the optimum values of Weibull exponent m are very different, namely, m = 12 and m = 24, respectively [28]. If the theory were applicable, these values would have to coincide. In view of these limitations, among concrete structures Weibull theory appears applicable to some extremely thick plain (unreinforced) structures, e.g., the flexure of an arch dam acting as a horizontal beam (but not for vertical bending of arch dams or gravity dams because large vertical compressive stresses cause long cracks to grow stably before the maximum load). Most other plain concrete structures are not thick enough to prevent the deterministic size effect from dominating. Steel or fiber reinforcement prevents it as well. 1.3.5 QUASIBRITTLE SIZE EFFECT BRIDGING P L A S T I C I T Y A N D LEFM, A N D ITS H I S T O R Y Qausibrittle materials are those that obey on a small scale the theory of plasticity (or strength theory), characterized by material strength or yield
41
limit ~r0, and on a large scale the LEFM, characterized by fracture energy Gf. While plasticity alone, as well as LEFM alone, possesses no characteristic length, the combination of both, which must be considered for the bridging of plasticity and LEFM, does. Combination of or0 and Gf yields Irwin's (1958) [69a] characteristic length (material length):
g0 = EGy
(8)
which approximately characterizes the size of the FPZ (E = Young's elastic modulus). So the key to the deterministic quasibrittle size effect is a combination of the concept of strength or yield with fracture mechanics. In dynamics, this further implies the existence of a characteristic time (material time):
~o = g o / v
(9)
representing the time a wave of velocity v takes to propagate the distance g0. After LEFM was first applied to concrete [72], it was found to disagree with test results [74, 78,111,112]. Leicester [78] tested geometrically similar notched beams of different sizes, fitted the results by a power law, aN o( D", and observed that the optimum n was less than 1/2, the value required by LEFM. The power law with a reduced exponent of course fits the test data in the central part of the transitional size range well but does not provide the bridging of the ductile and LEFM size effects. An attempt was made to explain the reduced exponent value by notches of a finite angle, which, however, is objectionable for two reasons: (i) notches of a finite angle cannot propagate (rather, a crack must emanate from the notch tip), and (ii) the singular stress field of finiteangle notches gives a zero flux of energy into the notch tip. Like Weibull theory, Leicester's power law also implied the nonexistence of a characteristic length (see Ba~ant and Chen [18], Eqs. 13), which cannot be the case for concrete because of the large size of its inhomogeneities. More extensive tests of notched geometrically similar concrete beams of different sizes were carried out by Walsh [111, 112]. Although he did not attempt a mathematical formulation, he was first to make the doubly logarithmic plot of nominal strength versus size and observe that it is was transitional between plasticity and LEFM. An important advance was made by Hillerborg et al. [68] (also Peterson [93]). Inspired by the softening and plastic FPZ models of Barenblatt [2, 3] and Dugdale [55], they formulated the cohesive (or fictitious) crack model characterized by a softening stressdisplacement law for the crack opening and showed by finite element calculations that the failures of unnotched plain concrete beams in bending exhibit a deterministic size effect, in agreement with tests of the modulus of rupture.
42
Ba~.ant
Analyzing distributed (smeared) cracking damage, Ba~.ant [4] demonstrated that its localization into a crack band engenders a deterministic size effect on the postpeak deflections and energy dissipation of structures. The effect of the crack band is approximately equivalent to that of a long fracture with a sizable FPZ at the tip. Subsequently, using an approximate energy release analysis, Ba~.ant [5] derived for the quasibrittle size effect in structures failing after large stable crack growth the following approximate size effect law: aN  Bao 1 4 Doo FaR (10)
or more generally"
aN  Ba0 1 +
FaR
(11)
in which r, B = positive dimensionless constants; Do = constant representing the transitional size (at which the power laws of plasticity and LEFM intersect); and Do and B characterize the structure geometry. Usually constant aR = 0, except when there is a residual crackbridging stress ar outside the FPZ (as in fiber composites), or when at large sizes some plastic mechanism acting in parallel emerges and becomes dominant (as in the Brazilian splitcylinder test). Equation 10 was shown to be closely followed by the numerical results for the crack band model [4, 30] as well as for the nonlocal continuum damage models, which are capable of realistically simulating the localization of strainsoftening damage and avoiding spurious mesh sensitivity. Beginning in the mid1980s, the interest in the quasibrittle size effect of concrete structures surged enormously and many researchers made noteworthy contributions, including Planas and Elices [9496], Petersson [93], and Carpinteri [41]. The size effect has recently become a major theme at conferences on concrete fracture [7, 35, 86, 87,120]. Measurements of the size effect on Pmax were shown to offer a simple way to determine the fracture characteristics of quasibrittle materials, including the fracture energy, the effective FPZ length, and the (geometry dependent) Rcurve.
1.3.6 SIZE EFFECT MECHANISM: STRESS REDISTRIBUTION AND ENERGY RELEASE Let us now describe the gist of the deterministic quasibrittle size effect. LEFM applies when the FPZ is negligibly small compared to structural dimension D and can be considered as a point. Thus the LEFM solutions can be obtained by methods of elasticity. The salient characteristic of quasibrittle
43
materials is that there exists a sizable FPZ with distributed cracking or other softening damage that is not negligibly small compared to structural dimension D. This makes the problem nonlinear, although approximately equivalent LEFM solutions can be applied unless FPZ reaches near the structure boundaries. The existence of a large FPZ means that the distance between the tip of the actual (tractionfree) crack and the tip of the equivalent LEFM crack at Pmax is equal to a certain characteristics length cf (roughly one half of the FPZ size) that is not negligible compared to D. This causes a nonnegligible macroscopic stress redistribution with energy release from the structure. With respect to the fracture length a0 (distance from the mouth of notch or crack to the beginning of the FPZ), two basic cases may now be distinguished: (i) a0 = 0, which means that Pmax o c c u r s at the initiation of macroscopic fracture propagation, and (ii) a0 is finite and not negligible compared to D, which means that Pmax o c c u r s after large stable fracture growth.
1.3.6.1
An example of the first case is the modulus of rupture test, which consists in the bending of a simply supported beam of span L with a rectangular cross section of depth D and width b, subjected to concentrated load P; the maximum load is not decided by the stress al  3PL/2bD 2 at the tensile face, but by the stress value 8 roughly at distance cf/2 from the tensile face / (which is at the middle of FPZ). Because 8  al  a ] c f / 2 where a x  stress g r a d i e n t  2 a l / D , and also because ~  a  i n t r i n s i c tensile strength of the material, the failure condition F  a0 yields P/bD  aN  a0/(1  Db/D) where D b  (3L/2D)cf, which is a constant because for geometrically similar beams L / D  constant. This expression, however, is unacceptable for D _< Db. But since the derivation is valid only for small enough cf/D, one may replace it by the following asymptotically equivalent size effect formula: (12)
aN  a0
1+
which happens to be acceptable for the whole range of D (including D ~ 0); r is any positive constant. The values r = 1 or 2 have been used for concrete [12], while r ~ 1.45 is optimum according to Ba~ant and Novfik's latest analysis of test data at Northwestern University [28, 29].
44
1 . 3 . 6 . 2 SCALING FOR FAILURES WITH A LONG CRACK OR NOTCH
Ba~.ant
Let us now give a simple explanation of the second case of structures failing only after stable formation of large cracks, or notched fracture specimens. Failures of this type, exhibiting a strong size effect ([BP], [19, 21, 65, 69, 83, 104, 110]) are typical of reinforced concrete structures or fiber composites [119], and are also exhibited by some unreinforced structures (e.g., dams, due to the effect of vertical compression, or floating ice plates in the Arctic). Consider the rectangular panel in Figure 1.3.3, which is initially under a uniform stress equal to ~rN. Introduction of a crack of length a with a FPZ of a certain length and width h may be approximately imagined to relieve the stress, and thus release the strain energy, from the shaded triangles on the flanks of the crack band shown in Figure 1.3.3. The slope k of the effective boundary of the stress relief zone need not be determined; what is important is that k is independent of the size D. For the usual ranges of interest, the length of the crack at maximum load may normally be assumed approximately proportional to the structure size D, while the size h of the FPZ is essentially a constant, related to the inhomogeneity size in the material. This has been verified for many cases by experiments (showing similar failure modes for small and large specimens) and finite element solutions based on crack band, cohesive, or nonlocal models. The stress reduction in the triangular zones of areas ka2/2 (Fig. 1.3.3) causes (for the case b  1) the energy release Ida 2x(ka2/2)cr2/2E. The stress drop within the crack band of width h causes further energy release
._o2 L_o
~ h ~FIGURE 1.3.3 Approximatezones of stress relief due to fracture.
45
Ub ha~2/E. The total energy dissipated by the fracture is W  aGf, where Gf is the fracture energy, a material property representing the energy dissipated per unit area of the fracture surface. Energy balance during static failure requires that O(Ua+ Ub)/Oa aw/aa. Setting a  D(a/D) where a/D is approximately a constant if the failures for different structure sizes are geometrically similar, the solution of the last equation for gma;N yields Ba~ant's [5] approximate size effect law in Eq. 10 with ~ R  0 (Fig. 1.3.1 c). More rigorous derivations of this law, applicable to arbitrary structure geometry, have been given in terms of asymptotic analysis based on equivalent LEFM [10] or on Rice's pathindependent Jintegral [32]. This law has also been verified by nonlocal finite element analysis and by random particle (or discrete element) models. The experimental verifications, among which the earliest is found in the famous Walsh's [111, 112] tests of notched concrete beams, have by now become abundant (e.g., Fig. 1.3.4). For very large sizes (D >> Do), the size effect law in Eq. 10 reduces to the power law ~rN c~ D 1/2, which represents the size effect of LEFM (for geometrically similar large cracks) and corresponds to the inclined asymptote of slope  1 / 2 in Figure 1.3.1c. For very small sizes (D << Do), this law reduces to aN  constant, which corresponds to the horizontal asymptote and means that there is no size effect, as in plastic limit analysis. The ratio f i  D/Do is called the brittleness number of a structure. For fl + oo the structure is perfectly brittle (i.e., follows LEFM), in which case the size effect is the strongest possible, while for fl+ 0 the structure is nonbrittle (or ductile, plastic), in which case there is no size effect. Quasibrittle structures are those for which 0.1 _< fi <_ 10, in which case the size effect represents a smooth transition (or interpolation) that bridges the power law size effects for the two asymptotic cases. The law (Eq. 10) has the character of asymptotic matching and serves to provide the bridging of scales. In the quasibrittle range, the stress analysis is of course nonlinear, calling for the cohesive crack model or the crack band model (which are mutually almost equivalent), or some of the nonlocal damage models. The meaning of the term quasibrittle is relative. If the size of a quasibrittle structure becomes sufficiently large compared to material inhomogeneities, the structure becomes perfectly brittle (for concrete structures, only the global fracture of a large dam is describable by LEFM), and if the size becomes sufficiently small, the structure becomes nonbrittle (plastic, ductile) because the FPZ extends over the whole cross section of the structure (thus a micromachine or a miniature electronic device made of silicone or finegrained ceramic may be quasibrittle or nonbrittle).
46
Limestone Plasticity
o
Ba~.ant
',2
0.1
0.1
; o.2
t
x
(1991),,,
BaJant, Gettn and Kozemi , X
\~.
~'
\" B~t, Daniel and Li l t \ '~
0.5 Si02 c e r a m i c
0
0.6
.~_
0 Z Z
 o
o .
0.4
1,0
o
I
1.5
/
%
I , I
(1995)
0.5
40
80
0 ............. 9
0 ""
0.1
m
""'.
2
1
"Kink band
0.2
Slanted
notch
'",O
0.3 
0.25
0.50
0.7E
FIGURE 1.3.4 Top: Comparisons of size effect law with Mode 1 test data obtained by various investigators using notched specimens of different materials. Bottom: Size effect in compression kinkband failures of geometrically similar notched carbonPEEK specimens [ ].
1.3 Size Effect on Structural Strength 1.3.6.3 SIZE EFFECT ON POSTPEAK SOFTENING
47
AND DUCTILITY The plots of nominal stress versus the relative structure deflection (normalized so as to make the initial slope in Figure 1.3.5 sizeindependent) have, for small and large structures, the shapes indicated in Figure 1.3.5. Apart from the size effect on Pmax, there is also a size effect on the shape of the postpeak descending loaddeflection curve. For small structures the postpeak curves descend slowly, for larger structures steeper, and for sufficiently large structures they may exhibit a snapback, that is, a change of slope from negative to positive. If a structure is loaded under displacement control through an elastic device with spring constant Cs, it loses stability and fails at the point where the loaddeflection diagram first attains the slope Cs (if ever); Figure 1.3.5. The ratio of the deflection at these points to the elastic deflection characterizes the ductility of the structure. As is apparent from the figure,
ON
Small
~Large
~ . I
"~Larger
,.
Rel.deft.
FIGURE 1.3.5 Loaddeflectioncurves of quasibrittle structures of different sizes, scaled to the same initial slope.
48
Ba~.ant
small quasibrittle structures have a large ductility, whereas large quasibrittle structures have small ductility. The areas under the loaddeflection curves in Figure 1.3.5 characterize the energy absorption. The capability of a quasibrittle structure to absorb energy decreases, in relative terms, as the structure size increases. The size effect on energy absorption capability is important for blast loads and impact. The progressive steepening of the postpeak curves in Figure 1.3.5 with increasing size and the development of a snapback can be most simply described by the series coupling model, which assumes that the response of a structure may be at least approximately modeled by the series coupling of the cohesive crack or damage zone with a spring characterizing the elastic unloading of the rest of the structure (Ba~.ant and Cedolin [17], Sec. 13.2).
1 . 3 . 6 . 4 ASYMPTOTIC ANALYSIS OF SIZE EFFECT BY EQUIVALENT LEFM To obtain simple approximate size effect formulae that give a complete prediction of the failure load, including the effect of geometrical shape of the structure, equivalent LEFM may be used. In this approach the tip of the equivalent LEFM (sharp) crack is assumed to lie approximately a distance cf ahead of the tip of the tractionfree crack or notch, cf being a constant (representing roughly one half of the length of the FPZ ahead of the tip. Two cases are relatively simple: (i) If a large crack grows stably prior to Pmax o r if there is a long notch,
O'N =
and (ii) if
Pmax o c c u r s
(13)
ON
(14)
[10, 12] where the primes denote derivatives; g(~o)  KII,/aND and 7(~0) 2 2 2 2 Ki,,/cryD are dimensionless energy release functions of LEFM of e  ao/D where a0 = length of notch or crack up to the beginning of the FPZ; KII,, KI~ = stress intensity factors for load P and for loading by uniform residual crackbridging stress at, respectively; cry > 0 for tensile fracture, but a v r 0 in the case of compression fracture in concrete, kink band propagation in fiber composites, and tensile fracture of composites reinforced by fibers short
49
enough to undergo frictional pullout rather than breakage. The asymptotic behavior of Eq. 13 for D  + oo is of the LEFM type, a N  Cry o( D 1/2 Equation 14 approaches for D + oo a finite asymptotic value. So does Eq. 13 if fir > 0.
1.3.6.5
MATERIAL CONSTANTS AND RCURVE Comparison of Eq. 13 with Eq. 10 yields the relations: Do  cfg'(a0)/g(0~0)
B~ro  Crov/EGf/cfg'(cZo)
(15)
Therefore, by fitting Eq. 10 with aR = 0 to the values of aN measured on test specimens of different sizes with a sufficiently broad range of brittleness numbers fl = D/Do, the values of Gf and cf can be identified [20,31]. The fitting can be done best by using the LevenbergMarquardt nonlinear optimization algorithm, but it can also be accomplished by a (properly weighted) linear regression of cr~2 versus D. The specimens do not have to be geometrically similar, although when they are the evaluation is simpler and the error smaller. The lower the scatter of test results, the narrower is the minimum necessary range of fl (for concrete and fiber composites, the size range 1:4 is the minimum). The size effect method of measuring fracture characteristics has been adopted for an international standard recommendation for concrete ([99], [BP] Sec. 6.3), and has also been verified and used for various rocks, ceramics, orthotropic fiberpolymer composites, sea ice, wood, tough metals, and other quasibrittle materials. The advantage of the size effect method is that the tests, requiring only the maximum loads, are foolproof and easy to carry out. With regard to the cohesive crack model, note that the size effect method gives the energy value corresponding to the area under the initial tangent of the softening stressdisplacement curve, rather than the total area under the curve. The size effect method also permits determining the Rcurve (resistance curve) of the quasibrittle material a curve that represents the apparent variation of fracture energy with crack extension for which LEFM becomes approximately equivalent to the actual material with a large FPZ. The Rcurve, which (in contrast to the classical Rcurve definition) depends on the specimen geometry, can be obtained as the envelope of the curves of the energy release rate at P = Pmax (for each size) versus the crack extension for specimens of various sizes. In general, this can easily be done numerically,
50
Ba~.ant
and if the size effect law has the form in Eq. 10 with err = 0, a parametric analytical expression for the Rcurve exists ([20], [BP] Sec. 6.4). The fracture model implied by the size effect law in Eq. 10 or Eq. 13 has one independent characteristic length, cf, representing about one half of the FPZ length. Because of Eq. 15, the value of g0 is implied by cf if ~r0 is known. The value of cf controls the size Do at the center of the bridging region (intersection of the powerlaw asymptotes in Figure 1.3.1c, and cr0 or Gf controls a vertical shift of the size effect curve at constant Do. The location of the largesize asymptote depends only on Kc and geometry, and the location of the smallsize asymptote depends only on or0 and geometry.
1.3.6.6
DISPLACEMENT~
~CTOD
The quasibrittle size effect, bridging plasticity and LEFM, can also be simulated by the fracture models characterized by the critical stress intensity factor Kc (fracture toughness) and 6crop; for metals see Wells [117] and Cottrell [50], and for concrete Jenq and Shah [70]. Jenq and Shah's model, called the twoparameter fracture model, has been shown to give essentially the same results as the Rcurve derived from the size effect law in Eq. 10 with Cra = 0. The models are in practice equivalent because
Kc V/~
~CrOD (llrc)v/8GfcflE
(16)
Using these formulae, the values of Kc and 6C~ODcan be easily identified by fitting the size effect law (Eq. 10) to the measured Pmaxvalues. Like the size effect law in Eq. 10 with ~rR = 0, the twoparameter model has only one independent characteristic length, g0  Kc2/~ 9If cr0 is known, then 6crop is not an independent length because cf is implied by g0 and 6crop then follows from Eq. 16.
Loading by high compressive stress without sufficient lateral confining stresses leads to damage in the form of axial splitting microcracks engendered
51
by pores, inclusions, or inclined slip planes. This damage localizes into a band that propagates either axially or laterally. For axial propagation, the energy release from the band drives the formation of the axial splitting fracture, and since this energy is proportional to the length of the band, there is no size effect. For lateral propagation, the stress in the zones on the sides of the damage band gets reduced, which causes an energy release that grows in proportion to D 2, while the energy consumed and dissipated in the band grows in proportion to D. The mismatch of energy release rates inevitably engenders a deterministic size effect of the quasibrittle type, analogous to the size effect associated with tensile fracture. In consequence of the size effect, failure by lateral propagation must prevail over the failure by axial propagation if a certain critical size is exceeded. The size effect can again be approximately described by the equivalent LEFM. This leads to Eq. 13 in which err is determined by analysis of the microbuckling in the laterally propagating band of axial splitting cracks. The spacing s of these cracks is in Eq. 13 assumed to be dictated by material inhomogeneities. However, if the spacing is not dictated and is such that it minimizes erN, then the size effect gets modified as
erN m C D  2 / 5 q_ eroo
(17)
([BP] Sec. 10.5.11) where C, eroo = constants, the approximate values of which have been calculated for the breakout of boreholes in rock.
1 . 3 . 7 . 2 FRACTURING TRUSS MODEL FOR CONCRETE AND BOREHOLES IN ROCK Propagation of compression fracture is what appears to control the maximum load in diagonal shear failure of reinforced concrete beams with or without stirrups, for which a very strong size effect has been demonstrated experimentally [9,21, 69, 71, 91, 98,104, 109,110]. A long diagonal tension crack grows stably under shear loading until the concrete near its tip gets crushed as a result of parallel compression stresses. A simplified formula for the size effect can be obtained by energetic modification of the classical truss model (strutandtie model) [9]. The explosive breakout of boreholes (or mining stopes) in rock under very high pressures is known to also exhibit size effect, as revealed by the tests of Carter [47], Carter et al. [48], Haimson and Herrick [67], and Nesetova and Lajtai [90]. An approximate analytical solution can be obtained by exploiting Eschelby's theorem for eigenstresses in elliptical inclusions [27].
Ba~.ant
A kink band, in which axial shearsplitting cracks develop between fibers which undergo microbuckling, is one typical mode of compression failure of composites or laminates with uniaxial fiber reinforcement. This failure mode, whose theory was begun by Rosen [100] and Argon [1], was until recently treated by the theory of plasticity, which implies no size effect. Recent experimental and theoretical studies [40], however, revealed that the kink band propagates sideway like a crack and the stress on the flanks of the band gets reduced to a certain residual value, which is here denoted as t~y and can be estimated by the classical plasticity approach of Budiansky [39]. The cracklike behavior implies a size effect, which is demonstrated (Ba~.ant et al. [22, 24]) by the latest laboratory tests of notched carbonPEEK specimens (Fig. 1.3.4); these tests also demonstrated the possibility of a stable growth of a long kink band, which was achieved by rotational restraint at the ends). There are again two types of size effect, depending on whether Pmax is reached (i) when the FPZ of the kink band is attached to a smooth surface or (ii) or when there exists either a notch or a long segment of kink band in which the stress has been reduced to ay. Equations 13 and 14, respectively, approximately describe the size effects for these two basic cases; in this case Gf now plays the role of fracture energy of the kink band (area below the stresscontraction curve of the kink bank and above the ay value), and cf the role of the FPZ of the kink band, which is assumed to be approximately constant, governed by material properties. The aforementioned carbonPEEK tests also confirm that case (ii), in which a long kink band grows stably prior to Pm~x, is possible (in those tests, this is by virtue of a lateral shift of the compression resultant in wide notched prismatic specimens with ends restrained against rotation).
1.3.7.4
Normal laboratory specimens of sea ice exhibit no notch sensitivity. Therefore, the failure of sea ice has been thought to be well described by plastic limit analysis, which exhibits no size effect [73,106]. This perception, however, changed drastically after Dempsey carried out in 1993 on the Arctic Ocean size effect tests of floating notched square specimens with an unprecedented, recordbreaking size range (with square sides ranging from 0.5 m to 80m!) [52, 53, 89]. It is now clear that floating sea ice plates are quasibrittle and their size effect on the scale of 100 m approaches that of LEFM. Among other things,
53
Dempsey's major experimental result explains why the measured forces exerted by moving ice on a fixed oil platform are one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the predictions of plastic limit analysis based on the laboratory strength of ice. The size effect law in Eq. 10 with aR = 0, or in Eq. 13 (with ar = 0), agree with these results well, permitting the values of Gf and cf of sea ice to be extracted by linear regression of the Pmax data. The value of cf is in the order of meters (which can be explained by inhomogeneities such as brine pockets and channels, as well as preexisting thermal cracks, bottom roughness of the plate, warm and cold spots due to alternating snow drifts, etc.). Information on the size effect in sea ice can also be extracted from acoustic measurements [80]. Rapid cooling in the Arctic can produce in the floating plate bending moments large enough to cause fracture. According to plasticity or elasticity with a strength limit, the critical temperature difference A Tcr across the plate would have to be independent of plate thickness D. Fracture analysis, however, indicated a quasibrittle size effect. Curiously, its asymptotic form is not ATcr O( Dl/2 but ATcr o( D 3/8 (18)
The reason is that D is not a characteristic dimension in the plane of the boundary value problem of plate bending; rather, it is the flexural wavelength of a plate on elastic foundation, which is proportional t o D 4/3 rather than D. It seems that Eq. 18 may explain why long cracks of length 10 to 100 km, which suddenly form in the fall in the Arctic ice cover, often run through thick ice floes and do not follow the thinly refrozen water leads around the floes. In analyzing the vertical penetration of floating ice plate (load capacity for heavy objects on ice, or the maximum force P required for penetration from below), one must take into account that bending cracks are reached only through part of the thickness, their ligaments transmitting compressive forces, which produces a dome effect. Because, at maximum load, this partthrough bending crack (of a variable depth profile) is growing vertically, the asymptotic size effect is n o t P / D 2  fiN OC. D 3/8 [105] but aN (x D 1/2. This was determined by a simplified analytical solution (with a uniform crack depth) by Dempsey et al. [54], and confirmed by a detailed numerical solution with a variable crack depth profile [23]. The latter also led to an approximate prediction formula for the entire practical range of D, which is of the type of Eq. 10 with aN = 0. This formula was shown to agree with the existing field tests [59, 60, 81].
54
Ba~.ant
1 . 3 . 7 . 5 REVERSE SIZE EFFECT IN BUCKLING OF FLOATING ICE An interesting anomalous case is the size effect on the critical stress for elastic buckling of floating ice, i.e., a beam or plate on Winkler foundation. Consider floating ice pushing against an obstacle of size d in the horizontal direction. Dimensional analysis [102] suffices to determine the form of the buckling formula and the scaling. There are five variables in the problem, h = ice plate thickness, P~, Et, p, h, d, and the solution must be have the form F(Pcr,Et, p,h,d,)=O, where Per = force applied on the obstacle, p = specific weight of sea water (or foundation modulus), and E ' = E/(1  v2), v being the Poisson ratio. There are, however, only two independent physical dimensions in the problem, namely, the length and the force. Therefore, according to Buckingham's 1I theorem of dimensional analysis [102], the solution must be expressible in terms of 5  2 , i.e., 3 dimensionless parameters. They may be taken as Po./E'hd, x/~/E'h, and d/h, where D = Eth3/12 = cylindrical stiffness of the ice plate. If the ice is treated as elastic, P~r/E~hd must be proportional to x/~/E~h and d/h. Denoting aNcr = Pcr/hd which represents the nominal buckling strength (or the average critical stress applied on the obstacle by the moving ice plate), we conclude that the buckling solution must have the form
rrN~ K(d/h) X / ~ ~
(19)
where K is a dimensionless parameter depending on d/h as well as the boundary conditions. The interesting property of Eq. 19 is that aNc~ increases, rather than decreases, with ice thickness h. So there is a reverse size effect. Consequently, the buckling of the ice plate can control the force exerted on a stationary structure only when the plate is sufficiently thin. The reason for the reverse size effect is that the buckling wavelength (the distance between the inflexion points of the deflection profile), which is Lcr g(D/P) 1/4 (as follows from dimensional analysis or nondimensionalization of the differential equation of plate buckling), is not proportional to h; rather, Lo./hoch 1/4, i.e., Lo. decreases with h. This contrasts with the structural buckling problems of columns, frames, and plates, in which Lcr is proportional to the structure size. Although the axisymmetric buckling of a cylindrical shell under axial compression is a problem analogous to the beam on elastic foundation, the reverse size effect does not exist because the equivalent foundation modulus is not a constant. Therefore, Eq. (reflcr) must apply to it as well. Since the lowest critical stress for nonaxisymmetric buckling loads is nearly equal to
55
that for the axisymmetric mode, the reverse size effect given by Eq. 19 must also apply.
_.
G vp v 
(20)
where v = w a v e velocity. Consequently, any rate dependence in the constitutive law implies a size effect (and a nonlocal behavior as well). There
56
Ba~.ant
is, however, an important difference. Unlike the size effect associated with g0 or cf, the viscosityinduced size effect (as well as the width of damage localization zones) is not timeindependent. It varies with the rates of loading and deformation of the structure and vanishes as the rates drop to zero. For this reason, an artificial viscosity or rate effect can approximate the nonviscous size effect and localization only within a narrow range of time delays and rates, but not generally.
1.3.7.7
Cracks slowly grow under fatigue (repeated) loading. This is for metals and ceramics described by the Paris (or ParisErdogan) law, which states that plot of the logarithm of the crack length increment per cycle versus the amplitude of the stress intensity factor is a rising straight line. For quasibrittle material it turns out that a size increase causes this straight line to shift to the right, the shift being derivable from the size effect law in Eq. 10 ([BP] Sec. 11.7).
1 . 3 . 7 . 8 SIZE EFFECT FOR COHESIVE CRACK MODEL AND CRACK BAND MODEL
The cohesive (or fictitious) crack model (called by Hillerborg et al. [68] and Petersson [93] the fictitious crack model) is more accurate yet less simple than the equivalent LEFM. It is based on the hypothesis that there exists a unique decreasing function w  g(~) relating the crack opening displacement w (separation of crack faces) to the crack bridging stress cr in the FPZ. The obvious way to determine the size effect is to solve Pmax by numerical integration for stepbystep loading [93]. The size effect plot, however, can be solved directly if one inverts the problem, searching the size D for which a given relative crack length 0~ a/D corresponds to Pmax. This leads to the equations [25, 79]
D
P max
where

the first represents an eigenvalue problem for a homogeneous Fredholm integral equation, with D as the eigenvalue and v({) as the eigenfunction;  x / D , x  coordinate along the crack (Fig. 1.3.6); ~  a/D, O~o ao/D;
57
a, a0 = total crack length and tractionfree crack length (or notch length); and C ~(~, ~'), C ~P(~) = compliance functions of structure for crack surface force and given load P. Choosing a sequence of avalues, for each one of them obtains from Eq. 21 the corresponding values of D and Pmax. These results have also been generalized to obtain directly the load and displacement corresponding, on the loaddeflection curve, to a point with any given tangential stiffness, including the displacement at the snapback point which characterizes the ductility of the structure. The cohesive crack model possesses at least one, but for concrete typically two, independent characteristic lengths: go  EGf/~2 and *fl  EGF/a02 where GF  area under the entire softening stressdisplacement curve cr = f(w), and Gf = area under the initial tangent to this curve, which is equal to GF only if the curve is simplified as linear (typically GF~ 2Gf). The bilinear stressdisplacement law used for concrete involves further parameters of the length dimension the opening displacement wf when the stress is reduced to zero, and the displacement at the change of slope. Their values are implied by Gf, G> Cro and the stress at the change of slope. The scatter of size effect measurements within a practicable size range (up to 1:30) normally does not permit identifying more than one characteristic length (measurements of postpeak behavior are used for that purpose). Vice versa, when only the maximum loads of structures in the bridging region between plasticity and LEFM are of interest, hardly more than one characteristic length (namely, cf) is needed.
P,u
. . . .
r
J
I
,>
w D
FIGURE 1.3.6
58
Ba~.ant
The crack band model, which is easier to implement and is used in commercial codes (e.g., DIANA, SBETA) [49], is, for localized cracking or fracture, nearly equivalent to the cohesive crack model ([BP], [97]), provided that the effective (average) transverse strain in the crack band is taken as ey = w / h where h is the width of the band. All that has been said about the cohesive crack model also applies to the crack band model. Width h, of course, represents an additional characteristic length, ~4   h. It matters only when the cracking is not localized but distributed (e.g., due to the effect of dense and strong enough reinforcement), and it governs the spacings of parallel cracks. Their minimum spacing cannot be unambiguously captured by the cohesive crack model.
1 . 3 . 7 . 9 SIZE EFFECT VIA NONLOCAL, GRADIENT~ OR DISCRETE ELEMENT MODELS The hypostatic feature of any model capable of bridging the power law size effects of plasticity and LEFM is the presence of some characteristic length, g. In the equivalent LEFM associated with the size effect law in Eq. 10, cf serves as a characteristic length of the material, although this length can equivalently be identified with 8CrOD in WellsCottrell or JenqShah models, or with the crack opening wf at which the stress in the cohesive crack model (or crack band model) is reduced to zero (for size effect analysis with the cohesive crack model, see [BP] and Ba~.ant and Li [251). In the integraltype nonlocal continuum damage models, ~ represents the effective size of the representative volume of the material, which in turn plays the role of the effective size of the averaging domain in nonlocal material models. In the secondgradient nonlocal damage models, which may be derived as an approximation of the nonlocal damage models, a material length is involved in the relation of the strain to its Laplacian. In damage simulation by the discrete element (or random particle) models, the material length is represented by the statistical average of particle size. The existence of g in these models engenders a quasibrittle size effect that bridges the powerlaw size effects of plasticity and LEFM and follows closely Eq. 10 with ~rN = 0, as documented by numerous finite element simulations. It also poses a lower bound on the energy dissipation during failure, prevents spurious excessive localization of softening continuum damage, and eliminates spurious mesh sensitivity ([BP], ch. 13). These important subjects will not be discussed here any further because there exists a recent extensive review [18].
59
THEORY
Two cases need to be distinguished: (a) The front of the fracture that causes failure can be at only one place in the structure, or (b) the front can lie, with different probabilities, at many different places. The former case occurs when a long crack whose path is dictated by fracture mechanics grows before the m a x i m u m load, or if a notch is cut in a test specimen. The latter case occurs when the maximum load is achieved at the initiation of fracture growth. In both cases, the existence of a large FPZ calls for a modification of the Weibull concept: The failure probability P1 at a given point of the continuous structure depends not on the local stress at that point, but on the nonlocal strain, which is calculated as the average of the local strains within the neighborhood of the point constituting the representative volume of the material. The nonlocal approach broadens the applicability of the Weibull concept to the case of notches or long cracks, for which the existence of cracktip singularity causes the classical Weibull probability integral to diverge at realistic mvalues (in cleavage fracture of metals, the problem of crack singularity has been circumvented differently m by dividing the cracktip plastic zone into small elements and superposing their Weibull contributions [77]). Using the nonlocal Weibull theory, one can show that the proper statistical generalizations of Eq. 10 (with aR = 0 ) and Eq. 12 having the correct asymptotic forms for D+ oo, D  + 0, and m  + oo are (Fig. 1.3.7): Case (a)" Case (b)" aN

Bo'o(fl2maIm +/~r)l/2r
f l  D/Do
~  Db/D
(22) (23)
where it is assumed that rna< m, which is normally the case. The first formula, which was obtained for r = 1 by Ba~.ant and Xi [36] and refined for n ~ 1 by Planas, has the property that the statistical influence on the size effect disappears asymptotically for large D. The reason is that, for long cracks or notches with stress singularity, a significant contribution to the Weibull probability integral comes only from the FPZ, whose size does not vary much with D. The second formula has the property that the statistical influence asymptotically disappears for small sizes. The reason is that the FPZ occupies much of the structure volume. Numerical analyses of test data for concrete show that the size ranges in which the statistical influence on the size effect in case (a) as well as (b) would be significant do not lie within the range of practical interest. Thus the deterministic size effect dominates and its statistical correction in Eqs. 22 and
60
z
Ba~.ant
0")
a
D
0 Z
log D
h. r
~ . _
log D
FIGURE 1.3.7 Scaling laws according to nonlocal generalization of Weibull theory for failures after long stable crack growth (top) or a crack initiation (right).
23 may be ignored for concrete, except in the rare situations where the deterministic size effect vanishes, which occurs rarely (e.g., for centric tension of an unreinforced bar).
61
v/A1 q(A2/D)
(24)
where A1, A2= constants. There are, however, four objections to the fractal theory [11 ]: (i) A mechanical analysis (of either invasive or lacunar fractals) predicts a different size effect trend than Eq. 24, disagreeing with experimental observations. (ii) The fractality of the final fracture surface should not matter because typically about 99% of energy is dissipated by microcracks and frictional slips on the sides of this surface. (iii) The fractal theory does not predict how A1 and A2 should depend on the geometry of the structure, which makes the MFSL not too useful for design application. (iv) The MFSL is a special case of the second formula in Eq. 12 for r = 2, which logically follows from fracture mechanics;
A1  EGf /cfg'(O)
A2  EGfg"(O)/2cf[g'(O)] 3
(25)
[12]. Unlike fractality, the fracture explanation of Eq. 24 has the advantage that, by virtue of these formulae, the geometry dependence of the size effect coefficients can be determined.
1.3.8.2
AND DIFFUSION Aside from the statistical and quasibrittle size effects, there are three further types of size effect that influence the nominal strength: 1. The boundary layer effect, which is due to material heterogeneity (i.e., the fact that the surface layer of heterogeneous material such as concrete has a different composition because the aggregates cannot protrude through the surface), and to the Poisson effect (i.e., the fact that a plane strain state on planes parallel to the surface can exist in the core of the test specimen but not at its surface). 2. The existence of a threedimensional stress singularity at the intersection of crack edge with a surface, which is also caused by the Poisson effect ([BP], Sec. 1.3). This causes the portion of the FPZ near the surface to behave differently from that in the interior. 3. The timedependent size effects caused by diffusion phenomena such as the transport of heat or the transport of moisture and chemical agents in porous solids (this is manifested, e.g., in the effect of size on shrinkage and drying creep, due to size dependence of the drying halftime) and its effect on shrinkage cracking [96].
Ba~.ant
Substantial though the recent progress has been, the undersl[anding of the scaling problems of solid mechanics is nevertheless far from complete. Mastering the size effect that bridges different behaviors on adjacent scales in the microstructure of material will be contingent upon the development of realistic material models that possess a material length (or characteristic length). The theory of nonlocal continuum damage will have to move beyond the present phenomenological approach based on isotropic spatial averaging, and take into account the directional and tensorial interactions between the effects causing nonlocality. A statistical description of such interactions will have to be developed. Discrete element models of the microstructure of fracturing or damaging materials will be needed to shed more light on the mechanics of what is actually happening inside the material and separate the important processes from the unimportant ones.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Preparation of the present review article was supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant N0001491J1109 to Northwestem University, monitored by Dr. Yapa D. S. Rajapakse.
63
9. Ba~.ant, Z. P (1997a). Fracturing truss model: Size effect in shear failure of reinforced concrete. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE 123 (12): 12761288. 10. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1997b). Scaling of quasibrittle fracture: Asymptotic analysis. Int. J. Fracture 83 (1): 1940. 11. Ba~.ant, Z. P (1997c). Scaling of quasibrittle fracture: Hypotheses of invasive and lacunar fractality, their critique and Weibull connection. Int. J. Fracture 83 (1): 4165. 12. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1998). Size effect in tensile and compression fracture of concrete structures: Computational modeling and design. Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (3rd Int. Conf., FraMCos3, held in Gifu, Japan), H. Mihashi and K. Rokugo, eds., Aedificatio Publishers, Freiburg, Germany, 19051922. 13. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1999). Structural stability. International Journal of Solids and Structures 37 (200): 5567; special issue of invited review articles on Solid Mechanics edited by G. J. Dvorak for U.S. Nat. Comm. on Theor. and Appl. Mech., publ. as a book by Elsevier Science, Ltd. 14. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1999). Size effect. International Journal of Solids and Structures 37 (200): 6980; special issue of invited review articles on Solid Mechanics edited by G. J. Dvorak for U.S. Nat. Comm. on Theor. and Appl. Mech., Publ. as a book by Elsevier Science, Ltd. 15. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1999). Size effect on structural strength: A review. Archives of Applied Mechanics, pp. 703725, vol. 69, Berlin: IngenieurArchiv, Springer Verlag. 16. Ba~.ant, Z. P. (2000). Scaling laws for brittle failure of sea ice, Preprints, IUTAM Syrup. on Scaling Laws in Ice Mechanics (Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, June), J. P Dempsey, H. H. Shen, and L. H. Shapiro, eds., Paper No. 3, pp. 123. 17. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Cedolin, L. (1991). Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories (textbook and reference volume), New York: Oxford University Press. 18. Ba~.ant, Z. P, and Chen, E.P. (1997). Scaling of structural failure. Applied Mechanics Reviews, ASME 50 (10): 593627. 19. Ba~.ant, Z. P, Daniel I. M., and Li, Zhengzhi (1996). Size effect and fracture characteristics of composite laminates. ASME J. of Engrg. Materials and Technology 118 (3): 317324. 20. Ba~.ant, Z. P, and Kazemi, M. T. (1990). Size effect in fracture of ceramics and its use to determine fracture energy and effective process zone length. J. American Ceramic Society 73 (7): 18411853. 21. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). Size effect on diagonal shear failure of beams without stirrups. ACI Structural Journal 88 (3): 268276. 22. Ba~.ant, Z. P, Kim, J.J. H., Daniel, I. M., BecqGiraudon, E., and Zi, G. (1999). Size effect on compression strength of fiber composites failing by kink band propagation. Int. J. of fracture (special issue on Fracture Scaling, edited by Z. P. Ba~.ant and Y. D. S. Rajapakse) (June), 95: 103141. 23. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Kim, J.J. H. (1998). Size effect in penetration of sea ice plate with partthrough cracks. I. Theory. J. of Engrg. Mech., ASCE 124 (12): 13101315; II. Results, ibid., 13161324. 24. Ba~.ant, Z. P., Kim, J.J. H., Daniel, I. M., BecqGiraudon, E., and Zi, G. (1999). Size effect on compression strength of fiber composites failing by kink band propagation. Int. J. of Fracture, in press. 25. Ba~,ant, Z. P, and Li, YuanNeng (1997). Stability of cohesive crack model: Part I n Energy principles. Tran. ASME, J. Applied Mechanics 62: 959964; Part II n Eigenvalue analysis of size effect on strength and ductility of structures, ibid. 62: 965969. 26. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Li, YuanNeng (1997). Cohesive crack with ratedependent opening and viscoelasticity: I. Mathematical model and scaling. Int. J. Fracture 86 (3): 247265.
64
Ba~ant
27. Ba~.ant, Z. P., Lin, EB., and Lippmann, H. (1993). Fracture energy release and size effect in borehole breakout. Int. Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 17: 114. 28. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Novhk, D. (2000). Probabilistic nonlocal theory for quasibrittle fracture initiation and size effect. I. Theory, and II. Application. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE 126 (2): 166174 and 175185. 29. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Novhk, D. (2000). Energeticstatistical size effect in quasibrittle materials. ACI Materials Journal 97 (3): 381392. 30. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Oh, B.H. (1983). Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Materials and Structures (RILEM, Paris) 16: 155177. 31. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Pfeiffer, P. A. (1987). Determination of fracture energy from size effect and brittleness number. ACI Materials J. 84: 463480. 32. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Planas, J. (1998). Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 33. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Pfeiffer, P. A. (1987). Determination of fracture energy from size effect and brittleness number. ACI Materials J. 84: 463480. 34. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Vitek, J. L. (1999). Compound size effect in composite beams with softening connectors. I. Energy approach, and II. Differential equations and behavior. J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE 125 (11): 13081314 and 13151322. 35. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Rajapakse, Y. D. S., ed. (1999). Fracture Scaling, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers (special issue of Int. J. Fracture), (June), 95: 1433. 36. Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Xi, Y. (1991). Statistical size effect in quasibrittle structures: II. Nonlocal theory. ASCE J. Engineering Mechanics 117 (11): 26232640. 37. Beremin, E M. (1983). A local criterion for cleavage fracture of a nuclear pressure vessel steel. Metallurgy Transactions A, 14: 22772287. 38. Bhat, S. U. (1990). Modeling of size effect in ice mechanics using fractal concepts. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 112: 370376. 39. Budiansky, B. (1983). Micromechanics. Computers and Structures 16 (14): 312. 40. Budiansky, B., Fleck, N. A., and Amazigo, J. C. (1997). On kinkband propagation in fiber composites. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46 (9): 16371635. 41. Carpinteri, A. (1986). Mechanical damage and crack growth in concrete, Dordrecht, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff B Kluwer. 42. Carpinteri, A. (1989). Decrease of apparent tensile and bending strength with specimen size: Two different explanations based on fracture mechanics. Int. J. Solids Struct. 25 (4): 407429. 43. Carpinteri, A. (1994a). Fractal nature of material microstructure and size effects on apparent mechanical properties. Mechanics of Materials 18: 89101. 44. Carpinteri, A. (1994b). Scaling laws and renormalization groups for strength and toughness of disordered materials. Int. J. Solids and Struct. 31: 291302. 45. Carpinteri, A., Chiaia, B., and Ferro, G. (1994). Multifractal scaling law for the nominal strength variation of concrete structures, in Size Effect in Concrete Structures (Proc., Japan Concrete Institute International Workshop, held in Sendai, Japan, 1993), pp. 193206, M. Mihashi, H. Okamura and Z.P. Ba~.ant eds., London, New York: E & FN Spon. 46. Carpinteri, A., and Chiaia, B. (1995). Multifractal scaling law for the fracture energy variation of concrete structures, in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (Proceedings of FraMCoS2, held at ETH, Zfirich), pp. 581596, E H. Wittmann, Freiburg: Aedificati6 Publishers. 47. Carter, B. C. (1992). Size and stress gradient effects on fracture around cavities. Rock Mech. and Rock Engng. (Springer) 25 (3): 167186. 48. Carter, B. C., Lajtai, E. Z., and Yuan, Y. (1992). Tensile fracture from circular cavities loaded in compression. Int. J. Fracture 57: 221236.
65
49. Cervenka, V., and Pukl, R. (1994). SBETA analysis of size effect in concrete structures, in Size Effect in Concrete Structures, pp. 323333, H. Mihashi, H. Okamura, and Z. P. Ba~.ant, eds., London: E & FN Spon. 50. Cottrell, A. H. (1963). Iron and Steel Institute Special Report 69: 281. 51. da Vinci, L. (1500s)   s e e The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (1945), Edward McCurdy, London (p. 546); and Les Manuscrits de L~onard de Vinci, trans, in French by C. RavaissonMollien, Institut de France (188191), vol. 3. 52. Dempsey, J. E, Adamson, R. M., and Mulmule, S. V. (1995a). Largescale insitu fracture of ice. in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, vol. 1 (Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Fracture Mech. of Concrete Structures [FraMCoS2], held at ETH, Ziirich), pp. 575684, E H. Wittmann, ed., Freiburg: Aedificati6 Publishers. 53. Dempsey, J. E, Adamson, R. M., and Mulmule, S. V. (1999). Scale effect on the insitu tensile strength and failure of firstyear sea ice at Resolute, NWR. Int. J. Fracture (special issue on Fracture Scaling, Z. P. Ba~.ant and Y. D. S. Rajapakse, eds.), 95: 325345. 54. Dempsey, J. P., Slepyan, L. I., and Shekhtman, I. I. (1995b). Radial cracking with closure. Int. J. Fracture 73 (3): 233261. 55. Dugdale, D. S. (1960). Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 8: 100108. 56. Evans, A. G. (1978). A general approach for the statistical analysis of multiaxial fracture. J. Am. Ceramic Soc. 61: 302308. 57. Fr~chet, M. (1927). Sur la loi de probabilit~ de l'~cart maximum. Ann. Soc. Polon. Math. 6: 93. 58. Fisher, R. A., and Tippett, L. H. C. (1928). Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest and smallest member of a sample. Proc., Cambridge Philosophical Society 24: 180190. 59. Frankenstein, E. G. (1963). Load test data for lake ice sheet. Technical Report 89, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire. 60. Frankenstein, E. G. (1966). Strength of ice sheets. Proc., Conf. on Ice Pressures against Struct.; Tech. Memor. No. 92, NRCC No. 9851, Laval University, Quebec, National Research Council of Canada, Canada, pp. 7987. 61. Freudenthal, A. M. (1956). Physical and statistical aspects of fatigue, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, pp. 117157, vol. 4, New York: Academic Press. 62. Freudenthal, A. M. (1956). Statistical approach to brittle fracture, Chapter 6 in Fracture, vol. 2, pp. 591619, H. Liebowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press. 63. Freudenthal, A. M., and Gumbell, E. J. (1956). Physical and statistical aspects of fatigue, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, pp. 117157, vol. 4, New York: Academic Press. 64. Galileo, Galilei Linceo (1638). Discorsi i Demostrazioni Matematiche intorno/L due Nuove Scienze, Elsevirii, Leiden; English trans, by T. Weston, London (1730), pp. 178181. 65. Gettu, R., Ba~.ant, Z. P., and Karr, M. E. (1990). Fracture properties and brittleness of highstrength concrete. ACI Materials Journal 87 (Nov.Dec.): 608618. 66. Griffith, A. A. (1921). The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans. 221A: 179180. 67. Haimson, B. C., and Herrick, C. G. (1989). Insitu stress calculation from borehole breakout experimental studies. Proc., 26th U.S. Syrup. on Rock Mech., 12071218. 68. Hillerborg, A., Mod~er, M., and Petersson, P. E. (1976). Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement and Concrete Research 6: 773782. 69. Iguro, M., Shiyoa, T., Nojiri, Y., and Akiyama, H. (1985). Experimental studies on shear strength of large reinforced concrete beams under uniformly distributed load. Concrete
66
Ba~.ant
Library International, Japan Soc. of Civil Engrs. No. 5: 137154. (translation of 1984 article in Proc. JSCE). 69a. Irwin, G. R. (1958). Fracture. In Handbuck der Physik 6 (Fl~gge, ed.) Springer Verlag, Berlin, 551590. 70. Jenq, Y. S., and Shah, S. P. (1985). A two parameter fracture model for concrete. J. Engrg. Mech. ASCE, 111 (4): 12271241. 71. Kani, G. N. J. (1967). Basic facts concerning shear failure. ACI Journal, Proceeding 64 (3, March): 128141. 72. Kaplan, M.E (1961). Crack propagation and the fracture concrete, ACIJ. 58, No. 11. 73. Kerr, A. D. (1996). Bearing capacity of floating ice covers subjected to static, moving, and oscillatory loads. Appl. Mech. Reviews, ASME 49 (11): 463476. 74. Kesler, C. E., Naus, D. J., and Lott, J. L. (1971). Fracture mechanics   Its applicability to concrete, Proc. Int. Conf. on the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, pp. 113124, vol. 4, Kyoto, The Soc. of Mater. Sci. 75. Kittl, P., and Diaz, G. (1988). Weibull's fracture statistics, or probabilistic strength of materials: State of the art. Res Mechanica. 24: 99207. 76. Kittl, P., and Diaz, G. (1990). Size effect on fracture strength in the probabilistic strength of materials. Reliability Engrg. Sys. Saf. 28: 921. 77. Lei, Y., O'Dowd, N. P., Busso, E. P., and Webster, G. A. (1998). Weibull stress solutions for 2D cracks in elastic and elasticplastic materials. Int. J. Fracture 89: 245268. 78. Leicester, R. H. (1969). The size effect of notches. Proc., 2nd Australasian Conf. on Mech. of Struct. Mater., Melbourne, pp. 4.14.20. 79. Li, YuanNeng, and Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1997). Cohesive crack with ratedependent opening and viscoelasticity: II. Numerical algorithm, behavior and size effect. Int. J. Fracture 86 (3): 267288. 80. Li, Zhengzhi, and Ba~.ant, Z. P. (1998). Acoustic emissions in fracturing sea ice plate simulated by particle system. J. Engrg. Mech. ASCE 124 (1): 6979. 81. Lichtenberger, G. J., Jones, J. w., Stegall, R. D., and Zadow, D. W. (1974). Static ice loading tests, Resolute Bay m Winter 1973/74. APOA Project No. 64, Rep. No. 745B7414, (CREEL Bib. No. 343095), Rechardson, Texas: Sunoco Sci. and Technol. 82. Mariotte, E. (1686). TraitS. du mouvement des eaux, posthumously edited by M. de la Hire; Engl. trans, by J. T. Desvaguliers, London (1718), p. 249; also Mariotte's collected works, 2nd ed., The Hague (1740). 83. Marti, P. (1989). Size effect in doublepunch tests on concrete cylinders. ACI Materials Journal 86 (6): 597601. 84. Mihashi, H. (1983). Stochastic theory for fracture of concrete, in Fracture Mechanics of Concrete, pp. 301339, E H. Wittmann, ed., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. 85. Mihashi, H, and Izumi, M. (1977). Stochastic theory for concrete fracture. Cem. Concr. Res. 7: 411422. 86. Mihashi, H., Okamura, H., and Ba~ant, Z. P., eds., (1994). Size Effect in Concrete Structures (Proc., Japan Concrete Institute Intern. Workshop held in Sendai, Japan, Oct. 31Nov. 2, 1995), London, New York: E & FN Spon. 87. Mihashi, H., and Rokugo, K., eds. (1998). Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (Proc., 3rd Int. Conf., FraMCoS3, held in Gifu, Japan), Freiburg: Aedificatio Publishers. 88. Mihashi, H., and Zaitsev, J. W. (1981). Statistical nature of crack propagation, Section 42 in Report to RILEM TC 50 ~ FMC, E H. Wittmann, ed. 89. Mulmule, S. V., Dempsey, J. P., and Adamson, R. M. (1995). Largescale insitu ice fracture experiments. Part II: Modeling efforts. Ice Mechanics ~ 1995 (ASME Joint Appl. Mechanics
67
90. 91.
92. 93.
94.
95. 96.
101.
and Materials Summer Conf., held at University of California, Los Angeles, June), AMDMD '95, New York: Am. Soc. of Mech. Engrs. Nesetova, V., and Lajtai, E. Z. (1973). Fracture from compressive stress concentration around elastic flaws. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 10: 265284. Okamura, H., and Maekawa, K. (1994). Experimental study of size effect in concrete structures, in Size Effect in Concrete Structures, pp. 324, H. Mihashi, H. Okamura, and Z. P. Ba~.ant, eds., London: E & FN Spon (Proc. of JCI Intern. Workshop held in Sendai, Japan, 1993). Peirce, E T. (1926). J. Textile Inst. 17: 355. Petersson, P.E. (1981). Crack growth and development of fracture zones in plain concrete and similar materials. Report TVBM1006, Div. of Building Materials, Lund Inst. of Tech., Lund, Sweden. Planas, J., and Elices, M. (1988). Conceptual and experimental problems in the determination of the fracture energy of concrete. Proc. Int. Workshop on Fracture Toughness and Fracture Energy, Test Methods of Concrete and Rock. Tohoku Univ., Sendai, Japan, pp. 203212. Planas, J., and Elices, M. (1989). In Cracking and Damage, pp. 462476, J. Mazars and Z. P. Ba~.ant, eds., London: Elsevier. Planas, J., and Elices, M. (1993). Drying shrinkage effects on the modulus of rupture, in Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete (Proc., 5th Int. RILEM Symp., Barcelona), pp. 357368, Z. P. Ba~.ant and I. Carol, eds., London: E & FN Spon. Planas, J., Elices, M., and Guinea, G. V. (1983). Cohesive cracks vs. nonlocal models: Closing the gap. Int. J. Fracture 63 (2): 173187. Reinhardt, H. W. (1981). Massstabseinfluss bei Schubversuchen im Licht der Bruchmechanik. Beton and Stahlbetonbau (Berlin), No. 1, pp. 1921. RILEM Recommendation (1990). Size effect method for determining fracture energy and process zone of concrete. Materials and Structures 23: 461465. Rosen, B. W. (1965). Mechanics of composite strengthening, Fiber Composite Materials, Am. Soc. for Metals Seminar, Chapter 3, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, pp. 3775. Ruggieri, C., and Dodds, R. H. (1996). Transferability model for brittle fracture including constraint and ductile tearing effects   in probabilistic approach, Int. J. Fracture 79: 309340. Sedov, L. I. (1959). Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics, New York: Academic Press. Selected Papers by Alfred M. Freudenthal (1981). Am. Soc. of Civil Engrs., New York. Shioya, Y., and Akiyama, H. (1994). Application to design of size effect in reinforced concrete structures, in Size Effect in Concrete Structures (Proc. of Intern. Workshop in Sendai, 1993), pp. 409416, H. Mihashi, H. Okamura, and Z. P. Ba~ant, eds., London: E & FN Spon. Slepyan, L.I. (1990). Modeling of fracture of sheet ice. Izvestia AN SSSR, Mekh. Tverd. Tela 25 (2): 151157. Sodhi, D. S. (1995). Breakthrough loads of floating ice sheets. J. Cold Regions Engrg., ASCE 9 (1): 420. Tippett, L. H. C. (1925). On the extreme individuals and the range of samples. Biornetrika 17: 364. von Mises. R. (1936). La distribution de la plus grande de n valeurs. Rev. Math. Union Interbalcanique 1: 1. Walraven, J., and Lehwalter (1994). Size effects in short beams loaded in shear. ACI Structural Journal 91 (5): 585593.
68
Ba~.ant
110. Walraven, J. (1995). Size effects: their nature and their recognition in building codes. Studi e Ricerche (Politecnico di Milano) 16: 113134. 111. Walsh, P. E (1972). Fracture of plain concrete. Indian Concrete Journal 46, No. 11. 112. Walsh, P. E (1976). Crack initiation in plain concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research 28: 3741. 113. Weibull, W (1939). The phenomenon of rupture in solids. Proc., Royal Swedish Institute of Engineering Research (Ingenioersvetenskaps Akad. Handl.) 153, Stockholm, 155. 114. Weibull, W (1949). A statistical representation of fatigue failures in solids. Proc., Roy. Inst. of Techn. No. 27. 115. Weibull, W. (1951). A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl. Mech., ASME, 18. 116. Weibull, W. (1956). Basic aspects of fatigue, in Proc., Colloquium on Fatigue, Stockholm: SpringerVerlag. 117. Wells, A. A. (1961). Unstable crack propagation in metalscleavage and fast fracture. Syrup. on Crack Propagation. Cranfield, 1: 210230. 118. Williams, E. (1957). Some observations of Leonardo, Galileo, Mariotte and others relative to size effect, Annals of Science 13: 2329. 119. Wisnom, M. R. (1992). The relationship between tensile and flexural strength of unidirectional composite. J. Composite Materials 26: 11731180. 120. Wittmann, E H., ed. (1995). Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Fracture Mech. of Concrete and Concrete Structures [FraMCoS2]), held at ETH, Zurich), pp. 515534, Freiburg: Aedificatio Publishers. 121. Wittmann, E H., and Zaitsev, Yu.V. (1981). Crack propagation and fracture of composite materials such as concrete, in Proc., 5th. Int. Conf. on Fracture (ICF5), Cannes. 122. Zaitsev, J. W., and Wittmann, E H. (1974). A statistical approach to the study of the mechanical behavior of porous materials under multiaxial state of stress, in Proc. of the 1973 Symp. on Mechanical Behavior on Materials, Kyoto, Japan. 123. Zech, B., and Wittmann, E H. (1977). A complex study on the reliability assessment of the containment of a PWR, Part II. Probabilistic approach to describe the behavior of materials. in Trans. 4th Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, pp. 114, vol. H, J1/11, T. A. Jaeger and B. A. Boley, eds., Brussels: European Communities.
CHAPTER
SECTION
2.1
For all solid materials there is a domain in stress space in which strains are reversible due to small relative movements of atoms. For many materials like metals, ceramics, concrete, wood and polymers, in a small range of strains, the hypotheses of isotropy and linearity are good enough for many engineering purposes. Then the classical Hooke's law of elasticity applies. It can be derived from a quadratic form of the state potential, depending on two parameters characteristics of each material: the Young's modulus E and the Poisson's ratio v. 1 ~k*  2pAijkl(E'v)0"ij0"kl 0~t* l+v E v ~ crkka~j (1)
e~j  p 0a ~
ao
(2)
E and v are identified from tensile tests either in statics or dynamics. A great deal of accuracy is needed in the measurement of the longitudinal and transverse strains (6e ~ +106 in absolute value). When structural calculations are performed under the approximation of plane stress (thin sheets) or plane strain (thick sheets), it is convenient to write these conditions in the constitutive equation.
9 Plane
stress
(033 
Sym
0 l+v E
i lll
~22
(3)
0"12
71
72
9 Plane
Lemaitre
strain
0.22
0.12
Sym
2 + 2/~
2#
01i 111
0
822
(4)
812
For orthotropic materials having three planes of symmetry, nine independent parameters are needed: three tension moduli El, E2, E3 in the orthotropic directions, three shear moduli G12, G23, G31, and three contraction ratios v12, v23, v31. In the frame of orthotropy:
811
1
v12
E1 1
v13
E1 23
0.11
0 0
0
1
0 0
0
0 0
0 0"22
E1 822
E2
833

E2
1
0"33
(5)
E3 ] 823 2G23
0
1
0 0
0"23
Sym
831 i
2G31 1
2G12
O"31
812
0"12 _
Nonlinear elasticity in large deformations is described in Section 2.2, with applications for porous materials in Section 2.3 and for elastomers in Section 2.4. Thermoelasticity takes into account the stresses and strains induced by thermal expansion with dilatation coefficient ~. For small variations of temperature 0 for which the elasticity parameters may be considered as constant:
sO = l+v v E 0./j  ~ 0.khcS/j+ a06/j (6)
For large variations of temperature, E, v, and a will vary. In rate formulations, such as are needed in elastoviscoplasticity, for example, the
73
~v =
ev  g e ~ a v + ~0av + b0
~v  F0
~ a v + N 0av 0
(7)
Viscoelasticity considers in addition a dissipative phenomenon due to "internal friction," such as between molecules in polymers or between cells in wood. Here again, isotropy, linearity, and small strains allow for simple models. Quadratric functions for the state potential and the dissipative potential lead to either KelvinVoigt or Maxwell's models, depending upon the partition of stress or strains in a reversible part and in an irreversible part. They are described in detail for the onedimensional case in Section 2.5 and recalled here in three dimensions. 9 KelvinVoigt model:
(8)
Here 2 and/.z are Lame's coefficients at steady state, and 0x and 0~ are two time parameters responsible for viscosity. These four coefficients may be identified from creep tests in tension and shear. 9 Maxwell model:
9 1 + v (rij + giJ = E ~
E
(rkk +
r2 /
aij
(9)
Here E and v are Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio at steady state, and rl and r2 are two other time parameters. It is a fluidlike model: equilibrium at constant stress does not exist. In fact, a more general way to write linear viscoelastic constitutive models is through the functional formulation by the convolution product as any linear system. The hereditary integral is described in detail for the onedimensional case, together with its use by the Laplace transform, in Section 2.5.
'?'ij(t)
fo'
(10)
[J(t)] is the creep functions matrix, and Ao~l are the eventual stress steps. The dual formulation introduces the relaxation functions matrix JR(t)]
O'ij(t) 
/o t Rijkl(t
RijklAgPkkl
(11)
9 either J(t), the creep function in tension, is identified from a creep test at constant stress; J ( t ) = g ( t ) / r and K, the second function, from the
74
creep function in shear. This leads to
Lemaitre
~,ij
( J + K) 
Dcrij _ K (~ij Dz wz
(12)
where  stands for the convolution product and D for the distribution derivative, taking into account the stress steps. 9 or M(t), the relaxation function in shear, and L(t), a function deduced from M and from a relaxation test in tension R(t) = ~r(t)/~; L(t) = M ( R  2 M ) / ( 3 M  R) ~0  L 
D( ekk ) 6~j Dr
+ 2M 
D~3ij
dr
(13)
All of this is for linear behavior. A nonlinear model is described in Section 2.6, and interaction with damage is described in Section 2.7.
SECTION
2.2
Contents 2.2.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Stress and Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Material Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 Constrained Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 BoundaryValue Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75 75 76 77 78 80 81 82
2.2.1 VALIDITY
The theory of nonlinear elasticity is applicable to materials, such as rubberlike solids and certain soft biological tissues, which are capable of u n d e r g o i n g large elastic deformations. More details of the theory and its applications can be found in Beatty [1] and Ogden [3].
2.2.2 DEFORMATION
For a continuous body, a reference configuration, denoted by ~r, is identified and 0 ~ r denotes the b o u n d a r y of ~ r . Points in ~ r are labeled by their position vectors X relative to some origin. The body is deformed quasistatically from ~ r SO that it occupies a new configuration, denoted ~ , with
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0o124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
75
76
Ogden
boundary 0~. This is the current or deformed configuration of the body. The deformation is represented by the mapping Z::~r ~ ~ , SO that x = z(X) XC~r (1)
where x is the position vector of the point X in ~ . The mapping X is called the deformation from ~ r tO ~ , and Z is required to be onetoone and to satisfy appropriate regularity conditions. For simplicity, we consider only Cartesian coordinate systems and let X and x, respectively, have coordinates X~ and x~, where ~, i C { 1, 2, 3}, so that xizi(X~). Greek and Roman indices refer, respectively, to ~ r and ~ , and the usual summation convention for repeated indices is used. The deformation gradient tensor, denoted E is given by F = Grad
x
Fia = OXi/OXo~
(2)
Grad being the gradient operator in Nr. Local invertibility of Z and its inverse requires that 0 < J = det F < oo wherein the notation J is defined. The deformation gradient has the (unique) polar decompositions F = RU = VR (4) where R is a proper orthogonal tensor and U, V are positive definite and symmetric tensors. Respectively, U and V are called the right and left stretch tensors. They may be put in the spectral forms
3 3
(3)
ui=1
 ul,I
v
Z
i=1
,vl,I  vl,I
where v (i) = Ru (i), i C {1,2,3}, 2i are the principal stretches, u (i) the unit eigenvectors of U (the Lagrangian principal axes), v (i) those of V (the Eulerian principal axes), and  denotes the tensor product. It follows from Eq. 3 that J =/~1,~2,~3 9 The right and left CauchyGreen deformation tensors, denoted C and B, respectively, are defined by C = FTF = U 2 B = FF ~ = V 2 (6)
2.2.3
Let
Pr and p be the mass densities in Nr and N, respectively. The mass conservation equation has the form
Pr = pJ
(7)
77
The Cauchy stress tensor, denoted g, and the nominal stress tensor, denoted S, are related by S = jFlo The equation of equilibrium may be written in the equivalent forms div ~ + pb = 0 Div S + Prb = 0 (9) (8)
where div and Div denote the divergence operators in ~ and ~r, respectively, and b denotes the body force per unit mass. In components, the second equation in Eq. 9 is
OS~i
c3X~
t IOrbi = 0
(10)
Balance of the moments of the forces acting on the body yields simply a t = ~, equivalently S TFT= FS. The Lagrangian formulation based on the use of S and Eq. 10, with X as the independent variable, is used henceforth.
2.2.4
ELASTICITY
The constitutive equation of an elastic material is given in the equivalent forms S  H(F)    ~
oqW
(F)
( ~  G(F) j1FH(F)
(11)
where H is a tensorvalued function, defined on the space of deformation gradients E W is a scalar function of F and the symmetric tensorvalued function G is defined by the latter equation in Eq. 11. In general, the form of H depends on the choice of reference configuration and it is referred to as the response function of the material relative to Nr associated with S. For a given ~r, therefore, the stress in ~ at a (material) point X depends only on the deformation gradient at X. A material whose constitutive law has the form of Eq. 11 is generally referred to as a hyperelastic material and W is called a strainenergy function (or storedenergy function). In components, the first part of Eq. 11 has the form S~i = cgW/cgFi~, which provides the convention for ordering of the indices in the partial derivative with respect to E If W and the stress vanish in N'r, so that W(I)  0 OW OF (I)  O (12)
where I is the identity and O the zero tensor, then Nr is called a natural
configuration.
78
Ogden
Suppose that a rigidbody deformation x* = Qx + c is superimposed on the deformation x = z(X), where Q and c are constants, Q being a rotation tensor and c a translation vector. The resulting deformation gradient, F* say, is given by F*  QF. The elastic stored energy is required to be independent of superimposed rigid deformations, and it follows that W(QF) = W(F) (13)
for all rotations Q. A strainenergy function satisfying this requirement is said to be objective. Use of the polar decomposition (Eq. 4) and the choice Q   R ~ in Eq. 13 shows that W ( F ) = W(U). Thus, W depends on F only through the stretch tensor U and may therefore be defined on the class of positive definite symmetric tensors. We write
(14) is related to S by
for all deformation gradients F'. The set of tensors P for which Eq. 15 holds forms a multiplicative group, called the symmetry group of the material relative to Mr. This group characterizes the physical symmetry properties of the material. For isotropic elastic materials, for which the symmetry group is the proper orthogonal group, we have W(FQ) = W(F) (16)
for all rotations Q. Since the Q's appearing in Eqs. 13 and 16 are independent, the combination of these two equations yields W(QUQ 1) = W(U) (17)
79
for all rotations Q. Equation 17 states that W is an isotropic function of U. It follows from the spectral decomposition (Eq. 5) that W depends on U only through the principal stretches 21, 22, and 23 and is symmetric in these stretches. For an isotropic elastic material, ~ is coaxial with V, and we may write = aoI + or where a0,
R1,
+ 0r B2
(18)
Or

2i~/2
(~W
213
_1/2(0W
~ 1 + I1~2
OW)
0{2  213
1/20W
c912
(19)
and W is now regarded as a function of I1, I2, and I3, the principal invariants of B defined by
I1

S
~
i=1
tiu (0  v (i)
o
i=l
o'iv(i)  v (i)
(23)
where r~i, i c { 1, 2, 3} are the principal Cauchy stresses and ti the principal Blot stresses, connected by
(24)
Let the unit vector M be a preferred direction in the reference configuration of the material, i.e., a direction for which the material response is indifferent to arbitrary rotations about the direction and to replacement of M by M. Such a material can be characterized by a strain energy which depends on F and the tensor M  M [2,4,5] Thus, we write W(F, M  M). The required symmetry (transverse isotropy) reduces W to dependence on the five invariants
I1, 12, 13, 14 = M. (CM)
15 = M  ( C 2 M )
(25)
where I1, I2, and/3 are defined in Eqs. 2022. The resulting nominal stress tensor is given by S = 2WIF ~ + 2W2(Ili  C)F ~ + 213W3F1 + 2W4M  FM + 2Ws(M  FCM + CM  FM) where Wi = cgW/cgli, i = 1 , . . . , 5. (26)
80
Ogden
When there are two families of fibers corresponding to two preferred directions in the reference configuration, M and M ~ say, then, in addition to Eq. 25, the strain energy depends on the invariants 16  M ~" (CM ~) 17 = M t" (C2M I) 18 = M. (CM ~) (27)
and also on M. M ~ (which does not depend on the deformation); see Spencer [4,5] for details. The nominal stress tensor can be calculated in a similar way to Eq. 26.
2.2.6
CONSTRAINED
MATERIALS
An internal constraint, given in the form C ( F ) = 0 , must be satisfied for all possible deformation gradients E where C is a scalar function. Two commonly used constraints are incompressibility and inextensibility, for which, respectively, C(F) = detF  1 C(F) = M(F~FM)  1 (28)
where the unit vector M is the direction of inextensibility in ~r. Since any constraint is unaffected by a superimposed rigid deformation, C must be an objective scalar function, so that C(QF) = C(F) for all rotations Q. Any stress normal to the hypersurface C(F) = 0 in the (ninedimensional) space of deformation gradients does no work in any (virtual) incremental deformation compatible with the constraint. The stress is therefore determined by the constitutive law in Eq. 11 only to within an additive contribution parallel to the normal. Thus, for a constrained material, the stressdeformation relation in Eq. 11 is replaced by
OC
OW
OC
(29)
where q is an arbitrary (Lagrange) multiplier. The term in q is referred to as the constraint stress since it arises from the constraint and is not otherwise derivable from the material properties. For incompressibility and inextensibility we have S   ~ + qF 1
OW
S   ~ + 2qM  FM
OW
(30)
respectively. For an incompressible material the Blot and Cauchy stresses are given by TOW c3U pU1 detU1 (31)
81
and
o 
F~  pI F
OW
det F  1
(32)
where q has been replaced by p, which is called an arbitrary hydrostatic pressure. The term in ~0 in Eq. 18 is absorbed into p, and I3 = 1 in the remaining terms in Eq. 18. For an incompressible isotropic material the principal components of Eqs. 31 and 32 yield
ow
ti = o02i p,~?X
ow
O'i  '~i ~~  P (33)
respectively, subject to 212223 = 1. For an incompressible transversely isotropic material with preferred direction M, the dependence on 13 is omitted and the Cauchy stress tensor is given by o =  pI + 2WIB + 2 W 2 ( I 1 B  B 2) + 2W4FM  FM + 2Ws(FM  BFM + BFM  FM) (34)
For a material with two preferred directions, M and M/, the Cauchy stress tensor for an incompressible material is o =  pI + 2WIB + 2W2 (11B  B2) + 2W4FM  FM + 2Ws(FM Q BFM + BFM  FM) + 2W6FM'  FM' + 2W7(FM'  BFM' + BFM'  FM') + W8(FM  FM' + FM'  FM) where the notation Wi = OW/OIi now applies for i = 1, 2, 4 , . . . , 8. (35)
+ Prb  0
F  Grad x
x
z(X)
X C Nr
(36)
Typical boundary conditions in nonlinear elasticity are x = ~(X) on c9~ S ~ N  z(F,X) on O~f (37) (38)
where r and z are specified functions, N is the unit outward normal to 0~r, and 0 ~ and 0 ~ f are complementary parts of 0 ~ . In general, z may depend
82
Ogden
on the deformation through E For a deadload traction "c is independent of E For a hydrostatic pressure boundary condition, Eq. 38 has the form
JPFrN
on c9~'~
(39)
Equations 3638 constitute the basic boundaryvalue problem in nonlinear elasticity. In components, the equilibrium equation in Eq. 36 is written
(40)
(41)
When coupled with suitable boundary conditions, Eq. 41 forms a system of quasilinear partial differential equations for xi = zi(X~). The coefficients ~ffoci~j are, in general, nonlinear functions of the components of the deformation gradient. For incompressible materials the corresponding equations are obtained by substituting the first part of Eq. 30 into the second part of Eq. 9 to give
d~j
det(OxiOX~)  1
(42)
where the coefficients are again given by Eq. 41. In order to solve a boundaryvalue problem, a specific form of W needs to be given. The form of W chosen will depend on the particular material considered and on mathematical requirements relating to the properties of the equations, an example of which is the strong ellipticity condition. Equations 40 are said to be strongly elliptic if the inequality
d~i~jmimjN~N~ > 0
(43)
holds for all nonzero vectors m and N. Note that Eq. 43 is independent of any boundary conditions. For an incompressible material, the strong ellipticity condition associated with Eq. 42 again has the form of Eq. 43, but the incompressibility constraint now imposes the restriction m . (FrN) = 0 on m and N.
REFERENCES 1. Beatty, M. E (1987). Topics in finite elasticity: Hyperelasticity of rubber, elastomers and biological tissues n with examples. Appl. Mech. Rev. 40; 16991734. 2. Holzapfel, G. A. (2000). Nonlinear Solid Mechanics. Chichester: Wiley.
83
3. Ogden, R. W. (1997). Nonlinear Elastic Deformations. New York: Dover Publications. 4. Spencer, A. J. M. (1972). Deformations of FibreReinforced Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5. Spencer, A. J. M. (1984). Constitutive theory for strongly anisotropic solids. In Continuum Theory of the Mechanics of FibreReinforced Composites, CISM Courses and Lectures No. 282, pp. 132, Spencer, A. J. M., ed., Wien: SpringerVerlag.
SECTION
2.3
of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida
Contents 2.3.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Identification of the Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84 85 85 88 90
2.3.1 VALIDITY
The methods used to determine the elasticity of porous materials a n d / o r particulate materials as geomaterials or powderlike materials are distinct from those used with, say, metals. The reason is that such materials possess pores and/or microcracks. For various stress states these may either open or close, thus influencing the values of the elastic parameters. Also, the stressstrain curves for such materials are strongly loadingratedependent, starting from the smallest applied stresses, and creep (generally any timedependent phenomena) is exhibited from the smallest applied stresses (see Fig. 2.3.1 for schist, showing three uniaxial stressstrain curves for three loading rates and a creep curve [1]). Thus information concerning the magnitude of the elastic parameters cannot be obtained: 9 from the initial slope of the stressstrain curves, since these are loadingratedependent; 9 by the often used "chord" procedure, obviously; 9 from the unloading slopes, since significant hysteresis loops are generally present. 84
Handbook of Materials BehaviorModels. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
85
i i i i I
60
[MPa] 50 
ot
E ~I
/ j
0.49
40
.,It"
/
20 / u /
//
/
,=" /
/
IV"

,'.
12 days
~
/./
~" ,,..
/
/
," ,"
11 /i
~.
3~f
0
6
I "I
,..
SCmST
I I I I , I
// 0.1
0
FIGURE
0.2
r~ [%]
0.7
2.3.1 Uniaxial stressstrain curves for schist for various loading rates, showing time influence on the entire stressstrain curves and failure (stars mark the failure points).
2.3.2
FORMULATION
materials
can be expressed
as "instantaneous
D  2~ +
(1
3~<
20
lll(tr:f)l
(1)
where G and K are the elastic parameters that are not constant, D is the strain rate tensor, T is the stress tensor, is the trace operator, and 1 is the unit tensor. Besides the elastic properties described by Eq. 1, some other mechanical properties can be described by additional terms to be added to Eq. 1. For isotropic geomaterials the elastic parameters are expected to depend on stress invariants and, perhaps, on some damage parameters, since during loading some pores and microcracks may close or open, thus influencing the elastic parameters.
tr( )
dynamic procedure,
86
Cristescu
elastic (seismic) extended body/longitudinal and transverse waves, which are traveling in the body. If both these waves are recorded, then the instantaneous response is of the form of Eq. 1. The elastic parameters are obtained from Kp Vp~
where vs is the velocity of propagation of the shearing waves, vv the velocity of the longitudinal waves, and p the density. The static procedure takes into account that the constitutive equations for geomaterials are strongly timedependent. Thus, in triaxial tests performed under constant confining pressure ~r, after loading up to a desired stress state 1: (octahedral shearing stress), one is keeping the stress constant for a certain time period tc [2, 3]. During this time period the rock is creeping. When the strain rates recorded during creep become small enough, one is performing an unloadingreloading cycle (see Fig. 2.3.2). From the slopes (1 1 )  1 ( 1 1 ) 1
(3)
of these unloadingreloading curves one can determine the elastic parameters. For each geomaterial, if the time tc is chosen so that the subsequent unloading is performed in a comparatively much shorter time interval, no significant interference between creep and unloading phenomena will take place. An example for schist is shown in Figure 2.3.3, obtained in a triaxial test with five unloadingreloading cycles.
y
t ~ 0
st
~t
9K
6G
v/Z__
Transvcrs~ strain ~2
Axial Strain E1
FIGURE 2.3.2 Static procedures to determine the elastic parameters from partial unloading processes preceded by shortterm creep.
87
I'' I i l
[MPal
(3' 3
30
2o
Io
y 0
#i
0.001 0
aB=22.5 M P a
!
0.001 0.002
0.003
FIGURE 2.3.3 Stressstrain curves obtained in triaxial tests on shale; the unloadings follow a period of creep of several minutes.
If only a partial unloading is performed (one third or even one quarter of the total stress, and sometimes even less), the unloading and reloading follow quite closely straight lines that practically coincide. If a hysteresis loop is still recorded, it means that the time tc was chosen too short. The reason for performing only a partial unloading is that the specimen is quite "thick" and as such the stress state in the specimen is not really uniaxial. During complete unloading, additional phenomena due to the "thickness" of the specimen will be involved, including, e.g., kinematic hardening in the opposite direction, etc. Similar results can be obtained if, instead of keeping the stress constant, one is keeping the axial strain constant for some time period during which the axial stress is relaxing. Afterwards, when the stress rate becomes relatively small, an unloadingreloading is applied to determine of the elastic parameters. This procedure is easy to apply mainly for particulate materials (sand, soils, etc.) when standard (Karman) threeaxial testing devices are used and the elastic parameters follow from K= 3 Ael + 2Ae2
1 Az
C = 2 Ael  Ae2
Az
(4)
where A is the variation of stress and elastic strains during the unloadingreloading cycle. The same method is used to determine the bulk modulus K in hydrostatic tests when the formula to be used is
K =
Aa At;v
(5)
with ~ the mean stress and ev the volumetric strain. Generally, K is increasing with ~ and reaching an asymptotic constant value when ~ is increasing very much and all pores and microcracks are closed
88
Cristescu
under this high pressure. The variation of the elastic parameters with z is more involved: when z increases but is still under the compressibility/ dilatancy boundary, the elastic parameters are increasing. For higher values, above this boundary, the elastic parameters are decreasing. Thus their variation is related to the variation of irreversible volumetric strain, which, in turn, is describing the evolution of the pores and microcracks existing in the geomaterial. That is why the compressibility/dilatancy boundary plays the role of reference configuration for the values of the elastic parameters; so long as the loading path (increasing a and/or z) is in the compressibility domain, the elastic parameters are increasing, whereas if the loading path is in the dilatancy domain (increasing z under constant a), the elastic parameters are decreasing. If stress is kept constant and strain is varying by creep, in the compressibility domain volumetric creep produces a closing of pores and microcracks and thus the elastic parameters increase, and vice versa in the dilatancy domain. Thus, for each value of a the maximum values of the elastic parameters are reached on the compressibility/dilatancy boundary.
2.3.4 EXAMPLES As an example, for rock salt in uniaxial stress tests, the variation of the elastic moduli G and K with the axial stress O"1 is s h o w n in Figure 2.3.4 [4]. The variation of G and K is very similar to that of the irreversible volumetric
~k,a, (MPa) o" (MPa) l
20
18
(OD
(K)
20
18
16 14 12 10
8 6 4
m
16 14 12
I0 8 6 
}
1
4 2
i A "31
$ (MPa)
I0
FIGURE 2.3.4 Variationof the elastic parameters K and G and of irreversible volumetric strain in monotonic uniaxial tests.
89
~d
~days
20
18
24 22
(G')
(K) ~.68
~.66
2422 "
20
16
k,~
10"61 18
14 12
16 14 12 10 A = 0.27  0 . 5 ~
8
A =0.12 A=0.
A=0~2_~
10 8 4
4 2
o
1 2 3
_o.17
K,G x 10.3
I I I I
o
/ ]
! !
f
r x 104
~ t ~._
8(MPa)
10
12%"
FIGURE 2.3.5 Variation in time of the elastic parameters and of irreversible volumetric strain in uniaxial creep tests.
strain e~/. If stress is increased in steps, and if after each increase the stress in kept constant for two days, the elastic parameters are varying during volumetric creep, as shown in Figure 2.3.5. Here A is the ratio of the applied stress and the strength in uniaxial compression ac = 17.88 MPa. Again, a similarity with the variation of e~ is quite evident. Figure 2.3.6 shows for a different kind of rock salt the variation of the elastic velocities ve and vs in true triaxial tests under confining pressure pc = 5MPa (data by Popp, Schuhze, and Kern [5]). Again, these velocities increase in the compressibility domain, reach their maxima on the compressibility/dilatancy boundary, and then decrease in the dilatancy domain. For shale, and the conventional (Karman) triaxial tests shown in Figure 2.3.3, the values of E and G for the five unloadingreloading cycles shown are: E = 9.9, 24.7, 29.0, 26.3, and 22.3GPa, respectively, while G = 4.4, 10.7, 12.1, 10.4, and 8.5 GPa. For granite, the variation of K with a is given as [2]
/ (:o)
KoKI 1
if a < a0
(6)
Ko, if a _~ ao
with K0  59 GPa, K1  48 GPa, and a0  0.344 GPa, the limit pressure when all pores are expected to be closed.
90
90 . . . . . 30
Cristescu
lol
100
~" 50] /
~" 30.
10. '
............~ 4 1 ~ i ~ .........:..:.,4,.~~
2o
lo
9 98 ~
,"
0 5 10 15 Pc
(MPa)
20
25
30
35
40
o.s
.97 1.s
FIGURE 2.3.6 The maximum of Vs takes place at the compressibility/dilatancy boundary (figures and hachured strip); changes of vp and Vs as a function of strain ( ~   1 0 5 s I, Pc  5 Mpa, T = 30 ~ C), showing that the maxima are at the onset of dilatancy. (Reprinted with permission from Popp, T., Kern, H., and Schultze, O., in press, Permeation and development of dilatancy and permeability in rock salt, in N. D. Cristescu and H. R. Hardy, Jr., eds., Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Mechanical Behavior of Salt, Mecasalt V, Bucharest, 911, August 1999, Trans Tech. Publ., Clausthal.)
(7) w i t h K c~ = 1 x 10 7 kPa the constant value toward w h i c h the b u l k m o d u l u s tends at high pressures, ~ = 10 7, b    1 . 2 x 10 4, a n d Pa  I kPa. Also for a l u m i n a p o w d e r we have
E ( a ) := E ~  Pail e x p (  d a )
(8)
with E ~ = 7 x 105 kPa, fl = 6.95 x 105, a n d d = 0.002. For the shale s h o w n in Figure 2.3.3, the variation of K with a for 0 < a < 45 MPa is K(r~) "  0 . 7 8 r 2 + 65.32rr  369 (9)
REFERENCES
1. Cristescu, N. (1986). Damage and failure of viscoplastic rocklike materials. Int. J. Plasticity 2 (2): 189204. 2. Cristescu, N. (1989). Rock Rheology, Kluver Academic Publishing. 3. Cristescu, N. D., and Hunsche, U. (1998). Time Effects in Rock Mechanics, Wiley. 4. Ani, M., and Cristescu N. D. (2000). The effect of volumetric strain on elastic parameters for rock salt. Mechanics of CohesiveFrictional Materials 5 (2): 113124. 5. Popp, T., Schultze, O., and Kern, H. (2001). Permeation and development of dilatancy and permeability in rock salt, in The Mechanical Behavior of Salt (5th Conference on Mechanical Behavior of Salt), Cristescu, N. D., and Hardy, Jr., H. Reginald, eds., Balkema.
SECTION
2.4
Elastomer Models
R. W. OGDEN
Department of Mathematics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QW, UK
Contents 2.4.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Identification of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 How to Use It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.6 Table of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91 91 93 93 94 94 94
2.4.1 VALIDITY
Many rubberlike solids can be treated as isotropic and incompressible elastic materials to a high degree of approximation. Here the mechanical properties of such solids are described through the use of an isotropic elastic strainenergy function in the context of finite deformations. For general background on finite elasticity, we refer to Ogden [5].
2.4.2 BACKGROUND
Locally, the finite deformation of a material can be described in terms of the three principal stretches, denoted by 21, 22, and 23. For an incompressible material these satisfy the constraint
/~1/~2/~3o
(1)
The material is isotropic relative to an unstressed u n d e f o r m e d (natural) configuration, and its elastic properties are characterized in terms of a
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 01244334131
Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
91
92
Ogden
strainenergy function W(,~1,~,2,,~3) per unit volume, where W depends symmetrically on the stretches subject to Eq. 1. The principal Cauchy stresses associated with this deformation are given by 0"i  2i o,r
cgW
p,
i C { 1, 2, 3}
(2)
where p is an arbitrary hydrostatic pressure (Lagrange multiplier). By regarding two of the stretches as independent and treating the strain energy as a function of these through the definition W ( 2 1 , 2 2 )  W(21,22,211221), we obtain crl cr3  21 0~1
oW
oW
(3)
021022 (1, 1)
02*
(4)
where # is the shear modulus in the natural configuration. The equations in Eq. 3 are unaffected by superposition of an arbitrary hydrostatic stress. Thus, in determining the characteristics of lye, and hence those of W, it suffices to set 0"3 = 0 in Eq. 3, so that o~ o~ (5)
Biaxial experiments in which 21,22 and o1,0"2 are measured then provide data for the determination of ~fr Biaxial deformation of a thin sheet where the deformation corresponds effectively to a state of plane stress, or the combined extension and inflation of a thinwalled (membranelike) tube with closed ends provide suitable tests. In the latter case the governing equations are written P*  211221 c9~Yr 022 __cgW_ _1 oq* F*  0 2 1 2 22211 (~'~2 (6)
where P* = PR/H, P is the inflating pressure, H the undeformed membrane thickness, and R the corresponding radius of the tube, while F* = F/2rrRH, with F the axial force on the membrane (note that the pressure contributes to the total load on the ends of the tube). Here 21 is the axial stretch and 22 the azimuthal stretch in the membrane.
2.4 E l a s t o m e r M o d e l s
93
OF THE MODEL
2.4.3
DESCRIPTION
A specific model which fits very well the available data on various rubbers is that defined by
N
W  Z
n=l
(7)
where #, and an are material constants and N is a positive integer, which for many practical purposes may be taken as 2 or 3 [3]. For consistency with Eq. 4 we must have
N
Z
n=l
1 , . . . ,N.
(8)
and in practice it is usual to take/.t,,0~, > 0 for each n In respect of Eq. 7, the equations in Eq. 3 become
N N
 ~")
(9)
2.4.4
IDENTIFICATION
OF PARAMETERS
Biaxial experiments with a3 = 0 indicate that the shapes of the curves of a l  or2 plotted against /~1 a r e essentially independent of 22 for many rubbers. Thus the shape may be determined by the pure shear test with 2 2 = 1, s o t h a t
N N
al
a2
Z
n=l
#n(21"  1)
a2
~
n=l
~,(23 n  1)
(10)
for 21 >_ 1, 23 _< 1. The shift factor to be added to the first equation in Eq. 10 when 22 differs from 1 is
N
(11)
Information on both the shape and shift obtained from experiments at fixed 22 then suffice to determine the material parameters, as described in detail in References [3] or [4]. Data from the extension and inflation of a tube can be studied on this basis by considering the combination of equations in Eq. 6 in the form cgW cgW 1 2 ,rl  a2  ~1 ~  & ~  ~1/~  ~ ~2,ZlP ~
(12)
94
Ogden
2.4.5 HOW T O U S E T H E S T R A I N  E N E R G Y
FUNCTION The strainenergy function is incorporated in m a n y commercial Finite E l e m e n t (FE) software packages, such as ABAQUS and MARC, and can be used in terms of principal stretches and principal stresses in the FE solution of boundaryvalue problems.
2.4.6
TABLE OF PARAMETERS
Values of the parameters corresponding to a threeterm form of Eq. 7 are n o w given in respect of two different but representative vulcanized natural rubbers. The first is the material used by Jones and Treloar [2]:
(Z1   1 . 3 ,
~2 = 4.0, ~3 =  2 . 0 ,
]A1   0.69, #2  0.01, #3   0 . 0 1 2 2 N m m 2 The second is the material used by James et al. [1], the material constants having been obtained by Treloar and Riding [6]:
0~1   0 . 7 0 7 ,
~2 = 2.9, ~3 =  2 . 6 2 ,
]A1
0.941, #2  0.093, #3   0 . 0 0 2 9 N m m 2
For detailed descriptions of the rubbers concerned, reference should be m a d e to these papers.
REFERENCES
1. James, A. G., Green, A., and Simpson, G. M. (1975). Strain energy functions of rubber. I. Characterization of gum vulcanizates. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 19: 20332058. 2. Jones, D. E, and Treloar, L. R. G. (1975). The properties of rubber in pure homogeneous strain. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 8: 12851304. 3. Ogden, R. W. (1982). Elastic deformations of rubberlike solids, in Mechanics of Solids (Rodney Hill 60th Anniversary Volume) pp. 499537, Hopkins, H. G., and Sevell, M. J., eds., Pergamon Press. 4. Ogden, R. W. (1986). Recent advances in the phenomenological theory of rubber elasticity. Rubber Chem. Technol. 59: 361383. 5. Ogden, R. W. (1997). NonLinear Elastic Deformations, Dover Publications. 6. Treloar, L. R. G., and Riding, G. (1979). A nonGaussian theory for rubber in biaxial strain. I. Mechanical properties. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A369: 261280.
SECTION
2.5
Background on Viscoelasticity
Kozo IKEGAMI
Tokyo Denki University, KandaNishikicho 22, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 1018457, Japan
Contents 2.5.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.5.2 Mechanical Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.5.3 Static Viscoelastic Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.5.4 Dynamic Viscoelastic Deformation . . . . . . . . . 100 2.5.5 Hereditary Integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 2.5.6 Viscoelastic Constitutive Equation by the Laplace Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 2.5.7 Correspondence Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.5.1 VALIDITY
F u n d a m e n t a l deformation of materials is classified into three types: elastic, plastic, and viscous deformations. Polymetric material shows t i m e  d e p e n d e n t properties even at r o o m temperature. Deformation of metallic materials is also t i m e  d e p e n d e n t at high temperature. The theory of viscoelasticity can be applied to represent elastic and viscous deformations exhibiting timed e p e n d e n t properties. This paper offers an outline of the linear theory of viscoelasticity.
95
96
O"
Ikegami
1
a a
linear theory of viscoelasticity. The constitutive equations between stress a and stress e of the spring and dashpot are, respectively, as follows: o"  ke de o"  r/~~
(1)
where the notations k and r/are elastic and viscous constants, respectively. Stress of spring elements is linearly related with strain. Stress of dashpot elements is related with strain differentiated by time t, and the constitutive relation is timedependent. Linear viscoelastic deformation is represented by the constitutive equations combining spring and dashpot elements. For example, the constitutive equations of the series model of spring and dashpot elements shown in Figure 2.5.2 is as follows: r/d~ de
(2)
This is called the Maxwell model. The constitutive equation of the parallel model of spring and dashpot elements shown in Figure 2.5.3 is as follows: de cr  ke + t / ~ This is called the Voigt or Kelvin model. (3)
97
C;
FIGURE2.5.2 Maxwellmodel.
There are many variations of constitutive equations giving linear viscoelastic deformation by using different numbers of spring and dashpot elements. Their constitutive equations are generally represented by the following ordinary differential equation:
dr d2 cr dn cr poor + Pl ~ q P2   ~ + . . . if P,, dt n
&
d2~
d"~
(4)
= qo~ + q l  ~ + q 2  ~ + . . . + q. dt"
The coefficients p and q of Eq. 4 give the characteristic properties of linear viscoelastic deformation and take different values according to the number of spring and dashpot elements of the viscoelastic mechanical model.
98
Ikegami
t E
k
FIGURE 2.5.3
2.5.3 STATIC VISCOELASTIC DEFORMATION There are two functions representing static viscoelastic deformation; one is creep compliance, and another is the relaxation modulus. Creep compliance is defined by strain variations under constant unit stress. This is obtained by solving Eqs. 2 or 3 for step input of unit stress. For the Maxwell model and the Voigt model, their creep compliances are represented, respectively, by the following expressions. For the Maxwell model, the creep compliance is g + + 1
(5)
where zM = JT/k, and this is denoted as relaxation time. For the Voigt model, the creep compliance is ~kI1exp(~)1k[1exp ( ~) (6)
where ZK q/k, and this is denoted as retardation time. Creep deformations of the Maxwell and Voigt models are illustrated in Figures 2.5.4 and 2.5.5, respectively. Creep strain of the Maxwell model
99
1/k
0
FIGURE 2.5.4
1/k
0
FIGURE 2.5.5
100
Ikegami
increases linearly with respect to time duration. The Voigt model exhibits saturated creep strain for a long time. The relaxation modulus is defined by stress variations under constant unit strain. This is obtained by solving Eqs. 2 or 3 for step input of unit strain. For the Maxwell and Voigt models, their relaxation moduli are represented by the following expressions, respectively. For the Maxwell model,
)
For the Voigt model,
o ~ k /8/
Relaxation behaviors of the Maxwell and Voigt models are illustrated in Figures 2.5.6 and 2.5.7, respectively. Applied stress is relaxed by Maxwell model, but stress relaxation dose not appear in Voigt model.
I
k
0
FIGURE 2.5.6
101
0
FIGURE 2.5.7
The viscoelastic effect causes delayed phase phenomena between input and output responses. Viscoelastic responses for changing stress or strain are defined by complex compliance or modulus, respectively. The dynamic viscoelastic responses are represented by a complex function due to the phase difference between input and output. Complex compliance J, of the Maxwell model is obtained by calculating changing strain for cyclically changing stress with unit amplitude. Substituting changing complex stress ~  exp(icot), where i is an imaginary unit and co is the frequency of changing stress, into Eq. 2, complex compliance J , is obtained as follows: . J* . k . i cot/
1 i
.k
(9)
where the real part J ' = 1 / k is denoted as storage compliance, and the imaginary part J" = 1/kco'cM is denoted as loss compliance. The complex modulus Y, of the Maxwell model is similarly obtained by calculating the complex changing stress for the complex changing strain
102
e  exp(icot) as follows:
+ ik  Y' ttY"
Ikegami
1 + (cozu) 2
1 + (cozu) 2
(10)
where Y'k((cozM)2/(1 + (cozu)2))and Y "  k ( c o z u / ( 1 + (cozu)2)). The notations Y~ and Y" are denoted as dynamic modulus and dynamic loss, respectively. The phase difference ~ between input strain and output stress is given by Y" tan6      y1
1
(_DT M
(11)
This is called mechanical loss. Similarly, the complex compliance and the modulus of the Voigt model are able to be obtained. The complex compliance is
J*  k
1[
1 + (COZK)   i ~ 1 + (COZK) 2 2
I xE ]
 k 1 + (coz/()2
(12)
where,' 1 I J" 11 1[
 k 1 + (COZK) and 2 The complex modulus is
Y ,  k +
]
(13)
iCOZK =
Y~ + iY"
~0tJ ( t 
t' )   ~ dt'
dtTl
(14)
103
or(t)
/
o"0
d cr '
t'
t'+dt'
Hereditary integral.
FIGURE 2.5.8
(15)
fO
(16)
(17)
2.5.6 VISCOELASTIC CONSTITUTIVE E Q U A T I O N BY T H E L A P L A C E TRANSFORMATION The constitutive equation of viscoelastic deformation is the ordinary differential equation as given by Eq. 4. That is,
dktr Pk ~  ~
k=O
dke, qk dt k
(18)
k=O
Ikegami
(19)
where P 
/=o
dk pkd~ and Q 
m dk ~ qk 9 k=0 dtk
(20)
where 5 and ~ are transformed stress and strain, and s is the variable of the Laplace transformation. Equation 20 is written by using the Laplace transformed operators of time derivatives 15 and Q as follows: Q_ cr = =~ P
_
(21)
Comparing Eq. 21 with Hooke's law in one dimension, the coefficient ~//5 corresponds to Young's modulus of linear elastic deformation. This fact implies that linear viscoelastic deformation is transformed into elastic deformation in the Laplace transformed state.
2.5.7 CORRESPONDENCE
PRINCIPLE
In the previous section, viscoelastic deformation in the onedimensional state was able to be represented by elastic deformation through the Laplace transformation. This can apply to threedimensional viscoelastic deformation. The constitutive relations of linear viscoelastic deformation are divided into the relations between hydrostatic pressure and dilatation, and between deviatoric stress and strain. The relation between hydrostatic pressure and dilatation is represented by m
k=0
d %
k !
n
k=0
" dhe//
(22)
(231
where P "  k=0p ~  ~ and Q " = k=0 q~ ~i In Eq. 22 hydrostatic pressure is ~ ~ ~. (1/3) crii and dilatation is eii.
105
_1"
dk~!. U
k=0
qk
(24)
 Q' ,5
m dk ~
(25)
where P ' 
~ p!~ ~
k0
and Q ' 
k=0
! are rrij and r ~ respectively. The Laplace transformations of Eqs. 22 and 24 are written, respectively, as follows: /3,,ryii  Q"~/, where P "  f'"(s) and Q ! !  Q"cr(s), and
P (Yij  QEij
I ! 
(26)
lI
(27)
where 1B, 1B!(s) and Q !  Q'(s). The linear elastic constitutive relations between hydrostatic pressure and dilatation and between deviatoric stress and strain are represented as follows: r r i i  3K~ii cr/j  2G~/j
! !
(28) (29)
Comparing Eq. 17 with Eq. 19, and Eq. 18 with Eq. 20, the transformed viscoelastic operators correspond to elastic constants as follows: @
3K _
p!!
(30)
2G =  p!
(31)
where K and G are volumetric coefficient and shear modulus, respectively. For isotropic elastic deformation, volumetric coefficient K and shear modulus G are connected with Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio v as follows: G2(1+v) (32)
E K  3(1  2v)
(33)
106
lkegami
Using Eqs. 3033, Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio are connected with the Laplace transformed coefficient of linear viscoelastic deformation as follows:
3QtQ II E
2/St~tl + / 5 I ~
p, Q,, _ p,, Q,
(34)
v 
(35)
Linear viscoelastic deformation corresponds to linear elastic deformation through Eqs. 3031 and Eqs. 3435. This is called the correspondence principle between linear viscoelastic deformation and linear elastic deformation. The linear viscoelastic problem is the transformed linear elastic problem in the Laplace transformed state. Therefore, the linear viscoelastic problem is able to be solved as a linear elastic problem in the Laplace transformed state, and then the elastic constants of solved solutions are replaced with the Laplace transformed operator of Eqs. 3031 and Eqs. 3435 by using the correspondence principle. The solutions replaced the elastic constants become the solution of the linear viscoelastic problem by inversing the Laplace transformation.
REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Bland, D. R. (1960). Theory of Linear Viscoelasticity, Pergamon Press. Ferry, J. D. (1960). Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers, John Wiley & Sons. Reiner, M. (1960). Deformation, Strain and Flow, H. K. Lewis & Co. Fll~ge, W. (1967). Viscoelasticity, Blaisdell Publishing Company. Christensen, R. M. (1971). Theory of Viscoelasticity: An Introduction, Academic Press. Drozdov, A. D. (1998). Mechanics of Viscoelastic Solids, John Wiley & Sons.
SECTION
2.6
Contents 2.6.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Background of the DNLR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2.1 Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes and Constitutive Laws... 2.6.2.2 Kinetics and Complementary Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2.3 Constitutive Equations of the DNLR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Description of the Model in the Case of Mechanical Solicitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 Identification of the Parameters . . . . . . . . . 2.6.5 How to Use It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.6 Table of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
116
2.6.1 VALIDITY
We will f o r m u l a t e a viscoelastic m o d e l i n g for p o l y m e r s in the t e m p e r a t u r e r a n g e of glass transition. This physical m o d e l i n g m a y be a p p l i e d u s i n g integral or differential forms. Its f u n d a m e n t a l basis c o m e s from a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the Gibbs relation, a n d leads to a f o r m u l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i v e laws i n v o l v i n g c o n t r o l a n d i n t e r n a l t h e r m o d y n a m i c variables. T h e latter m u s t t r a d u c e
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
107
108
different microstructural rearrangements. In practice, both modal analysis and fluctuation theory are well adapted to the study of the irreversible transformations. Such a general formulation also permits us to consider various nonlinearities as functions of material specificities and applied perturbations. To clarify the present modeling, called "the distribution of nonlinear relaxations" (DNLR), we will consider the viscoelastic behavior in the simple case of small applied perturbations near the thermodynamic equilibrium. In addition, we will focus our attention upon the nonlinearities induced by temperature and frequency perturbations.
As mentioned, the present irreversible thermodynamics is based on a generalization of the fundamental Gibbs equation to systems evolving outside equilibrium. Note that Coleman and Gurtin [1], have also applied this postulate in the framework of rational thermodynamics. At first, a set of internal variables (generalized vector denoted z) is introduced to describe the microstructural state. The generalized Gibbs relation combines the two laws of thermodynamics into a single one, i.e., the internal energy potential:
e = e(s,
~, n,... ;~)
(1)
which depends on overall state variables, including the specific entropy, s. Furthermore, with the positivity of the entropy production being always respected, one obtains for open systems:
7a7
dAis
T~
_js . V ~  ~~jk . V ~ h +
k=l
n.~
> 0
(2)
where the nonequilibrium thermodynamic forces may be separated into two groups: (i) the gradient ones, such as the gradient of temperature ~TT, and the gradient of generalized chemical potential V/~h; and (ii) The generalized forces A, or affinities as defined by De Donder [2] for chemical reactions, which characterize the nonequilibrium state of a uniform medium. The vectors js, jh, and ~ correspond to the dual, fluxes, or ratetype variables. To simplify the formulation of the constitutive laws, we will now consider the behavior of a uniform representative volume element (RVE without any
109
gradient), thus:
~
A.~ > 0
(3)
The equilibrium or relaxed state (denoted by the index r) is currently described by a suitable thermodynamic potential ( ~ ) obtained via the Legendre transformation of Eq. 1 with respect to the control or state variable (7) In this particular state, the set of internal variables is completely governed by (7):
Our first hypothesis [3] states that it is always possible to define a thermodynamic potential g, only as a function of 7 and z, even for systems outside equilibrium: g,  g,(~; z) (5)
Then, we assume that the constitutive equations may be obtained as functions of the first partial derivatives of this potential with respect to the dual variables, and depend consequently on both control and internal variables; i.e., fl  fl(7; z) and A  A(7; z). In fact, this description is consistent with the principle of equipresence, as postulated in rational thermodynamics. Therefore, the thermodynamic potential becomes in a differential form:
q m=l j=l
Thus the time evolution of the global response, fl, obeys a nonlinear differential equation involving both the applied perturbation 7 and the internal variable z (generalized vector)" /}  aU. 9 + b.~: A   t b . 9  g.s
(7a)
(7b)
This differential system resumes in a general and condensed form the announced constitutive relationships. The symmetrical matrix a u  c92g,/c97c37 is the matrix of Tisza, and the symmetrical matrix g  c92g,/&c3z traduces the interaction between the dissipation processes [3]. The rectangular matrix b c32g,/cqzc97 expresses the coupling effect between the state variables and the dissipation variables. In other respects, the equilibrium state classically imposes the thermodynamic forces and their rate to be zero; i.e., A  0 and A  0. From Eq. 7b we find, for any equilibrium state, that the internal variables' evolution results directly from the variation of the control variables: :~r _ _g1 .tb. ~ (8)
110
Rahouadj and
Cunat
and its time integration for transformation near equilibrium leads to the simple linear relationship A =  g ( z  z r) where g is assumed to be constant. 2.6.2.2 KINETICS AND COMPLEMENTARY LAWS (10)
To solve the preceding three equations (7ab, 10), with the unknown variables being fl, z, z r, and A, one has to get further information about the kinetic relations between the nonequilibrium driving forces A and their fluxes ~. 2.6.2.2.1 FirstOrder Nonlinear Kinetics and Relaxation Times We know that the kinetic relations are not submitted to the same thermodynamic constraints as the constitutive ones. Thus we shall consider for simplicity an affine relation between fluxes and forces. Note that this wellknown modeling, early established by Onsager, Casimir, Meixner, de Donder, De Groot, and Mazur, is only valid in the vicinity of equilibrium: ~L.A and hence, with Eq. 10: = L.g.(zz r) = T 1 . ( z  Zr) (12) (11)
According to this nonlinear kinetics, Meixner [4] has judiciously suggested a base change in which the relaxation time operator z is diagonal. Here, we consider this base, which also represents a normal base for the dissipation modes. In what follows, the relaxation spectrum will be explicitly defined on this normal base. To extend this kinetic modeling to nonequilibrium transformations, which is the object of the nonlinear Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes (TIP), we also suggest referring to Eq. 12 but with variable relaxation times. Indeed, each relaxation time is inversely proportional to the jump frequency, v, and to the probability pj = exp(AF~'r/RT) of overcoming a free energy barrier, AF+'r. It follows that the relaxation time of the process j may be written:
z~  1Iv exp(AF~'r/RT)
(13)
where the symbol (+) denotes the activated state, and the index (r) refers to the activation barrier of the Representative Elementary Volume (REV) near the equilibrium.
111
The reference jump frequency, v0 = kBT/h, has been estimated from Guggenheim's theory, which considers elementary movements of translation at the atomic level. The parameters h, ks, and r represent the constants of Plank, Boltzmann, and of the perfect gas, respectively, and T is the absolute temperature. It seems natural to assume that the frequency of the microscopic rearrangements is mainly governed by the applied perturbation rate, ~), through a shift function a(~):
v = uo/a('~)
(14)
Assuming now that the variation of the activation energy for each process is governed by the evolution of the overall set of internal variables leads us to the following approximation of first order: AF+

AF/'r + K z . ( Z  z r)
(15)
In the particular case of a viscoelastic behavior, this variation of the free energy becomes negligible. The temperature dependence obviously intervenes into the basic definition of the activation energy as
(16)
where the internal energy AE +'r is supposed to be the same for all processes. It follows that we may define another important shift function, noted a(T), which accounts for the effect of temperature. According to the Arrhenius approximation, AE +'r being quasiconstant, this shift function verifies the following relation: In(a;) a(T, Tref)   AE+'r(1/T 1/Tref)
(17)
where T r e f is a reference temperature. For many polymers near the glass transition, this last shift function obeys the WLF empiric law developed by William, Landel, and Ferry [5]: ln(a;) = C l ( T  Tref)/[c2 + ( T  Tref)] In summary, the relaxation times can be generally expressed as
Tj(T) = T;(Tref)a(T , Tref) a(~) a(z, z r)
(18)
(19)
and the shift function a(z, Zr) becomes negligible in viscoelasticity. 2.6.2.2.2 Form of the Relaxation Spectrum near the Equilibrium We now examine the distribution of the relaxation modes evolving during the solicitation. In fact, this applied solicitation, 7, induces a state of fluctuations which may be approximately compared to the corresponding equilibrium one. According to Prigogine [6], these fluctuations obey the equipartition of the entropy production. Therefore, we can deduce the expected distribution in
B1/)jl/z[
/  ' " j = l V "
(20)
where z; is the relaxation time of the process j, pO its relative weight in the overall spectrum, and n the number of dissipation processes [3]. As a first approximation, the continuous spectrum defined by Eq. 20 may be described with only two parameters: the longest relaxation time corresponding to the fundamental mode, and the spectrum width. Note that a regular numerical discretization of the relaxation time scale using a sufficiently high number n of dissipation modes, e.g., 30, gives a sufficient accuracy.
2.6.2.3
Combining Eqs. 7a and 12 gives, whatever the chosen kinetics, ]~aU.~ b.(z zr).z~ 1 a u .~ (]~ /t~). z~ 1
_ _ _ _ _
(21a)
To simplify the notation, z~ will be denoted z. In a similar form and after introducing each process contribution in the base defined above, one has
p1
j1
Tj
where the indices u and r denote the instantaneous and the relaxed values, respectively. Now we shall examine the dynamic response due to sinusoidally varying perturbations 7n = 7~ where co is the applied frequency, and i 2 =  1 , i.e., ) ; ,  icoT,. The response is obtained by integrating the above differential relationship. Evidently, the main problem encountered in the numerical integration consists in using a time step that must be consistent with the applied frequency and the shortest time of relaxation. Furthermore, a convenient possibility for very small perturbations is to assume that the corresponding response is periodic and out of phase:
fin  flOexp(icot + ~)
and
fin

icofln
(22)
where ~0is the phase angle. In fact, such relations are representative of various physical properties as shown by Kramers [7] and Kronig [8]. The coefficients of the matrices of Tisza, a" and a r, and the relaxation times, l:j, may be dependent on temperature and/or frequency. In uniaxial
113
tests of mechanical damping, these Tisza's coefficients correspond to the storage and loss modulus E t (or G t) and E" (or G'), respectively.
2.6.3
DESCRIPTION
CASE OF MECHANICAL
We consider a mechanical solicitation under an imposed strain e. Here, the perturbation 7 and the response fl are respectively denoted e and a. According to Eqs. 19 and 21b, the stress rate response, 66, may be finally written
~j=l
d ~ . ~_
~Jp~ a~'~
.= a(~) a(e, er) a(r,
rrer)zj(rref)
(23)
(24)
j1
1 + icozo
(25)
(26)
j=l
1 4 (D2(TG)2
(27)
2.6.4 IDENTIFICATION
OF THE PARAMETERS
The crucial problem in vibration experiments concerns the accurate determination of the viscoelastic parameters over a broad range of frequency. Generally, to avoid this difficulty one has recourse to the appropriate principle of equivalence between temperature and frequency, assuming implicitly identical microstructural states. A detailed analysis of the literature has brought us to a narrow comparison of the empirical model of Havriliak and
114
Negami (HN) [9] with the DNLR. The HN approach appears to be successful for a wide variety of polymers; it combines the advantages of the previous modeling of Cole and Cole [10] and of Davidson and Cole [11]. For pure shear stress the response given by this HN approach is
1
(28)
where G~IN, G~IN, ~, and /3 are empirical parameters. Thus the real and imaginary components are, respectively,
Gt
r _ G~N) G~_tNJr(GHN
COS(riO)
[1 + 2CO"V~tNCOS(0OZ/2)+ (D2a152~ (29)
Gt'
__
(GHN _ _ GHN) u r
sin(riO)
[1 + 2CO~r~tNCOS(0CTr/2)+ (D2~'~2~]/J/2 (30)
The function 0 is defined by 0  tani (1 c~~tSN ~ ) / 2 sin(~ ~ + CO~ COS(0r / 2),] I:~iN (31)
Eqs. 28 to 30 are respectively compared to Eqs. 25 to 27 in order to establish a correspondence between the relaxation times of the two models: log('cOr)  1og('rHN) qjA/n } 0 (32)
where  A, and n are a scale parameter, the number of decades of the spectrum, and the number of processes, respectively. A precise empirical connection is obtained by identifying the shift function for the time scale with the relation v ~  a(~)r~ r  a(co)r~ ~  (tan(/30)~v~r \ (D'~HN ,] (33)
This involves a progressive evolution of the difference of modulus as a function of the applied frequency:
(G r G u) 
(OhN 
GhN)f G
(34)
(353
115
i08
I0~
107
lift
m(nz)
I I I 1 t I
102
10
20
......
......
Log 03(Hz)
40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 20 FIGURE 2.6.2 Theoretical simulations of the shift function a(co) and offo for PTMG.*
* PTMG: poly (tetramethylene ether) glycol; MIDI: 4,4'diphenylmethane diisocyanate; DMPD: 2,2dimethyl1, 3propanediol with a density of 1.074g/cm 3, and glass transition Tg = 40~
116
with A = 6, a scale parameter  equal to  5 . 6 , and 50 relaxation times. The parameters G~N  2.14 MPa, G~N  Gu  1859 MPa, ~I~N 1.649 10  7 s , c z  0.5709 and f l  0.0363 allow us to calculate the shift function a(co) and the function fo which is necessary to estimate the difference between the relaxed and nonrelaxed modulus, taking into account the experimental conditions. Figure 2.6.1 illustrates the calculated viscoelastic response, which is superposed to HN's one. The function fo and the shift function a(co) illustrate the nonlinearities introduced in the DNLR modeling (Fig. 2.6.2).
REFERENCES
1. Coleman, B. D., and Gurtin, M. (1967). J. Chem. Phys. 47 (2): 597. 2. De Donder, T. (1920). Lecon de thermodynamique et de chimie physique, Paris: GauthiersVillars. 3. Cunat, C. (1996). Rev. Gcn. Therm. 35: 680685. 4. Meixner, J. Z. (1949). Naturforsch., Vol. 4a, p. 504. 5. William, M. L., Landel, R. E, and Ferry, J. D. (1955). The temperature dependence of relaxation mechanisms in amorphous polymers and other glassforming liquids. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 77: 3701. 6. Prigogine, I. (1968). Introduction h la thermodynamique des processus irr~versibles, Paris: Dunod. 7. Kramers, H. A. (1927). Atti. Congr. dei Fisici, Como, 545. 8. Kronig, R. (1926). J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 12: 547. 9. Havriliak, S., and Negami, S. (1966). J. Polym. Sci., Part C, No. 14, ed. R. E Boyer, 99. 10. Cole, K. S., and Cole, R. H. (1941). J. Chem. Phys. 9: 341. 11. Davidson, D. W., and Cole, R. H. (1950). J. Chem. Phys. 18: 1417. 12. Hartmann, B., Lee, G. E, and Lee, J. D. (1994). J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 95 (1).
SECTION
2.7
Contents 2.7.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.4 Identification of the Material Functions and Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
117 118
119
121
123 123
2.7.1 VALIDITY
This paper describes a homogenized constitutive model for viscoelastic materials with constant or growing distributed damage. Included are threedimensional constitutive equations and equations of evolution for damage parameters (internal state variables, ISVs) which are measures of damage. Anisotropy may exist without damage or may develop as a result of damage. For timeindependent damage, the specific model covered here is that for a linearly viscoelastic, thermorheologically simple material in which all hereditary effects are expressed through a convolution integral with one creep or relaxation function of reduced time; nonlinear effects of transient crack face contact and friction are excluded. More general cases that account for intrinsic nonlinear viscoelastic and viscoplastic effects as well as thermorheologically complex behavior and multiple relaxation functions are published elsewhere [ 10].
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
117
118
2.7.2 BACKGROUND
Schapery
As background to the model with timedependent damage, consider first the constitutive equation with constant damage, in which e and rr represent the strain and stress tensors, respectively,
= {Sdcr} + ~r
(1)
where S is a fully symmetric, fourth order creep compliance tensor and el is the strain tensor due to temperature and moisture (and other absorbed substances which affect the strains). The braces are abbreviated notation for a linear hereditary integral. Although the most general form could be used, allowing for general aging effects, for notational simplicity we shall use the familiar form for thermorheologically simple materials,
{ fdg} f (~  ~')  ~ dt' 
/ol
(2)
~
/o dt"/ar[~r(t")]
~' ~(t')
(3)
Also, at(T) is the temperaturedependent shift factor. If the temperature is constant in time, then ~  ~' = ( t  t')/ar. Physical aging [12] may be taken into account by introducing explicit time dependence in at; i.e., use ar = a t ( T , t") in Eq. 3. The effect of plasticizers, such as moisture, may also be included in at. When Eq. 2 is used with Eq. 1, f and g are components of the creep compliance and stress tensors, respectively. In certain important cases, the creep compliance components are proportional to one function of time,
S = kD
(4)
where k is a constant, dimensionless tensor and D = D(~) is a creep compliance (taken here to be that obtained under a uniaxial stress state). Isotropic materials with a constant Poisson's ratio satisfy Eq. 4. If such a material has mechanically rigid reinforcements and/or holes (of any shape), it is easily shown by dimensional analysis that its homogenized constitutive equation satisfies Eq. 4; in this case the stress and strain tensors in Eq. 1 should be interpreted as volumeaveraged quantities [2]. The Poisson's ratio for polymers at temperatures which are not close to their glasstransition temperature, Tg, is nearly constant; except at time or rate extremes, somewhat above Tg Poisson's ratio is essentially one half, while below Tg it is commonly in the range 0.350.40 [5].
119
e = {Dd(ka)} + er
The inverse is
(5)
= k,{Ed8}  ki{Ede, r}
(6)
{DdE} = {EdD} = 1
(7)
In relating solutions of elastic and viscoelastic boundary value problems, and for later use with growing damage, it is helpful to introduce the dimensionless quantities
_ 1E{ Ea }
4  ~~{Eder }
u R  ~~{Edu}
(8)
where ER is an arbitrary constant with dimensions of modulus, called the reference modulus; also, ee and e~ are socalled pseudostrains and u R is the pseudodisplacement. Equation 6 becomes
o Ce R Ce~
(9)
where C =_ ERkI is like an elastic modulus tensor; its elements are called pseudomoduli. Equation 9 reduces to the equation for an elastic material by taking E = ER; it reduces to the constitutive equation for a viscous material if E is proportional to a Dirac delta function of ~. The inverse of Eq. 9 gives the pseudostrain eR in terms of stress,
R eR _ So + er
(10)
2.7.3
DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
The correspondence principle (CPII in Schapery [6, 8]), which relates elastic and viscoelastic solutions shows that Eqs. 110 remain valid, under assumption Eq. 4, with damage growth when the damage consists of cracks whose faces are either unloaded or have loading that is proportional to the external loads. With growing damage k, C, and S are timedependent because they are functions of one or more damagerelated ISVs; the strain ~r may also depend on damage. The fourthorder tensor k must remain inside the convolution integral in Eq. 5, just as shown. This position is required by the correspondence principle. The elasticlike Eqs. 9 and 10 come from Eq. 5, and thus have the appropriate form with growing damage. However, with healing
12 0
Schapery
of cracks, pseudostresses replace pseudostrains because k must appear outside the convolution integral in Eq. 5 [8]. The simplification in Eq. 4 is not needed when damage and crackface contact (if any) are independent of time. In this case, regardless of the number of different timedependent components of the compliance tensor, the standard correspondence principle and relatively simple methods of analysis [5] may be used to predict effects of damage on local and global mechanical states. The damage evolution equations are based on viscoelastic crack growth equations or, in a more general context, on nonequilibrium thermodynamic equations. Specifically, let W R and W~ denote pseudostrain energy density and pseudocomplementary strain energy density, respectively,
wR
1   ~C(F_, R   e R ) ( e R   e R )  
(11)
W~  l~oo + ~ a + v
so that W~ =  W R + ae R and
(12)
(13)
cgWR OeR
eR = cgW~ Oo
(14)
The function F is a function of damage and physical variables that cause residual stresses such as temperature and moisture. For later use in Section 2.7.4, assume the damage is fully defined by a set of scalar ISVs, Sp (p =1, 2,... P) instead of tensor ISVs. Thermodynamic forces, which are like energy release rates, are introduced,
fP or
cgWa OSp
(15)
fp
cgW~ cgSe
(16)
where the equality of these derivatives follows directly from the total differential of Eq. 13. Although more general forms could be used, the evolution equations for ,Sp  dSp/d~ are assumed in the form
Sp  Sp(Sq, fp)
(17)
121
in which Sp may depend on one or more Sq ( q  1,... P), but on only one force fp. The entropy production rate due to damage is nonnegative if
~_,fpSp ~ 0
p
(18)
thus satisfying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is assumed that when ]fp] is less than some threshold value, then Sp  O. Observe that even when the stress vanishes, there may be damage growth due to F. According to Eqs. 12 and 16, cgW~ 1 c9S c9~ 0F (19)
which does not vanish when ~  o, unless cgF/cgSp  O. The use of tensor ISVs is discussed and compared with scalar ISVs by Schapery [10]. The equations in this section are equally valid for tensor and scalar ISVs.
OF THE MATERIAL
AND PARAMETERS
The model outlined above is based on thermorheologically simple behavior in that reduced time is used throughout, including damage evolution (Eq. 17). In studies of particlereinforced rubber [4], this simplicity was found, implying that even the microcrack growth rate behavior was affected by temperature only through viscoelastic behavior of the rubber. If the damage growth is affected differently by temperature (and plasticizers), then explicit dependence may be introduced in the rate (Eq. 17). In the discussion that follows, complete thermorheological simplicity is assumed. The behavior of particlereinforced rubber [1,4] and asphalt concrete [3] has been characterized using a power law when fp > o,
Sp  ( f p ) %
(20)
where 0~p is a positive constant. (For the rubber composite two ISVs, with C~1  4.5 and 0~2 = 6, were used for uniaxial and multiaxial behavior, whereas for asphalt one ISV, with 0~= 2.5, was used for uniaxial behavior.) A coefficient depending on Sp may be included in Eq. 20; but it does not really generalize the equation because a simple change of the variable Sp may be used to eliminate the coefficient.
122
Schapery
Only an outline of the identification process is given here, but details are provided by Park et al. [3] for uniaxial behavior and by Park and Schapery [4] and Ha and Schapery [1] for multiaxial behavior. Schapery and Sicking [11] and Schapery [9] discuss the model's use for fiber composites. The effects of ~r and F are neglected here. (a) The first step is to obtain the linear viscoelastic relaxation modulus E(~) and shift factor a~ for the undamaged state. This may be done using any standard method, such as uniaxial constant strain rate tests at a series of rates and temperatures. Alternatively, for example, uniaxial creep tests may be used to find D(~), after which E(~) is derived from Eq. 7. (b) Constant strain rate (or stress rate) tests of specimens taken to failure at a series of rates or temperatures may be conveniently used to obtain the additional data needed for identification of the model. (However, depending on the complexity of the material and intended use of the model, unloading and reloading tests may be needed [7].) Constant strain rate tests often are preferred over constant stress rate tests because meaningful post stresspeak behavior (prior to significant strain localization) may be found from the former tests. For isothermal, constant strain rate, R, tests, the input is R t  / ~ , where RRa~ and ~  t / a ~ . Inasmuch as the model does not depend on temperature when reduced time is used, all stress vs. reduced time response curves depend on only one input parameter /~ regardless of temperature. Thus, one may obtain a complete identification of the model from a series of tests over a range of/~ using one temperature and different rates or one rate and different temperatures; both types of tests may be needed in practice for/~ to cover a sufficiently broad range. One should, however, conduct at least a small number of both types of tests to check the thermorheologically simple assumption. (c) Convert all experimental values of displacements and strains from step (b) tests to pseudoquantities using Eq. 8. This removes intrinsic viscoelastic effects, thus enabling all subsequent identification steps to be those for a linear elastic material with ratedependent damage. If controlled strain (stress) tests are used, then one would employ wR(w R) in the identification. However, mixed variables may be input test parameters, such as constant strain rate tests of specimens in a test chamber at a series of specified pressures [4]. In this case it is convenient to use mixed pseudoenergy functions in terms of strain and stress variables. Appropriate energy functions may be easily constructed using methods based on linear elasticity theory. (d) The procedure for finding the exponent a and pseudo Young's modulus in terms of one damage parameter is given by Park et al. [3]. After this, the
123
remaining pseudomoduli or compliances may be found in terms of one or more ISVs, as described by Park and Schapery [4] using constant strain rate tests of bar specimens under several confining pressures. The material employed by them was initially isotropic, but it became transversely isotropic as a result of damage. Identification of the full set of five pseudomoduli and the pseudostrain energy function, as functions of two ISVs, is detailed by Ha and Schapery [1].
REFERENCES
1. Ha, K., and Schapery, R. A. (1998). A threedimensional viscoelastic constitutive model for particulate composites with growing damage and its experimental validation. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35: 34973517. 2. Hashin, Z. (1983). Analysis of composite materials   a survey. Journal of Applied Mechanics 105: 481505. 3. Park, S. W., Kim, Y. R., and Schapery, R. A. (1996). A viscoelastic continuum damage model and its application to uniaxial behavior of asphalt concrete. Mechanics of Materials 24: 241255. 4. Park, S. W., and Schapery, R. A. (1997). A viscoelastic constitutive model for particulate composites with growing damage. International Journal of Solids and Structures 34: 931947. 5. Schapery, R. A. (1974). Viscoelastic behavior and analysis of composite materials, in Mechanics of Composite Materials, pp. 85168, vol. 2, Sendeckyi, G. P., ed., New York: Academic. 6. Schapery, R. A. (1981). On viscoelastic deformation and failure behavior of composite materials with distributed flaws, in 1981 Advances in Aerospace Structures and Materials, pp. 520, Wang, S. S., and Renton, W. J., eds., ASME, AD01. 7. Schapery, R. A. (1982). Models for damage growth and fracture in nonlinear viscoelastic particulate composites, in: Proc. Ninth U.S. National Congress of Applied Mechanics, Book No. H00228, pp. 237245, Pao, Y. H., ed., New York: ASME.
124
Schapery
8. Schapery, R. A. (1984). Correspondence principles and a generalized J integral for large deformation and fracture analysis of viscoelastic media, in: International Journal of Fracture 25: 195223. 9. Schapery, R. A. (1997). Constitutive equations for special linear viscoelastic composites with growing damage, in Advances in Fracture Research, pp. 30193027, Karihaloo, B. L., Mai, Y.W., Ripley, M. I., and Ritchie, R. O., eds., Pergamon. 10. Schapery, R. A. (1999). Nonlinear viscoelastic and viscoplastic constitutive equations with growing damage. International Journal of Fracture 97: 3366. 11. Schapery, R. A., and Sicking, D. L. (1995). On nonlinear constitutive equations for elastic and viscoelastic composites with growing damage, in Mechanical Behavior of Materials, pp. 4576, Bakker, A., ed., Delft: Delft University Press. 12. Struik, L. C. E. (1978). Physical Aging in Amorphous Polymers and Other Materials, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
SECTION
Yield Limit
SECTION
3.1
Universit~ Paris 6, LMTCachan, 61 avenue du Pr&ident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France
Almost all materials have a range of loading below which the only mechanism of strain is reversible movements of atoms giving rise to the mesoscopic phenomenon of elasticity. The limit above which permanent or irreversible strains exist is most often related to stress and is called yield stress. It is not easy to measure the yield stress of a material because it depends upon the value of the offset of permanent strain allowed to detect that this irreversible strain ~p begins to exist: 9 In engineering, a value of ep = 0.2 x 1 0  2 is usually taken to define the yield stress cry(0.2.). This means that at this level of stress the permanent strain is of the order of magnitude of the elastic strain. This is acceptable for comparing materials or for the perfect plasticity scheme. 9 But in modeling plasticity or viscoplasticity this definition is generally not acceptable. A much smaller value must be taken to predict the small values of plastic strains which may occur in structure analysis. A fraction of the elastic strain is a better definition, for example, Cry = ~r%=o.1~0. The point is that different models of plasticity may use different values of the yield stress for the same material! More details are given in Section 3.2. When "the" value of the yield stress from a tension test is known, the problem is often to compare it with a two or threedimensional state of stress to know if a part of a structure is loaded in its elastic range or not. The corresponding scalar function of the stress components is called a yield criterion. Many yield criteria have been proposed, depending upon the properties of the materials and the purpose.
Handbook of Materials BehaviorModels. ISBN0124433413.
Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 127
128
Lemaitre
Isotropic criteria are described in Section 3.2, with the von Mises criterion being widely used in structures calculation through its equivalent stress aeq.
O'eq _ _
a Da D ij ij
0 "D
aij
aHbij.
SECTION
3.2
An elastic perfectly plastic stressstrain curve in simple tension or in simple shear is the simplest picture of material behavior from which to begin this discussion of yield limit criteria. This idealized response is linear elastic up to a yield limit at which large plastic deformation occurs at constant stress. All reasonable definitions of yield limit, such as the initial departure from linearity or a very small or a moderate or a fairly large plastic strain offset, give the same value. Much of early and present plasticity theory and its use in analysis and design springs from this picture, which appears to match the appreciable plastic deformation at the lower yield point observed in tests on standard tension specimens of mild steel. The actual abrupt jump in strain at the much higher upper yield point, which can be exhibited in a carefully performed test on a wellprepared annealed and homogeneous specimen, is hidden by inhomogeneity, appreciable residual stress, and not quite central loading of the usual specimen. A macroscopic stable quasistatic perfectly plastic response at the lower yield point may be appropriately assumed for mild steel in limit analysis and design and other aspects of structural engineering practice because the unstable dynamic response, the highly local jump from the upper yield point to appreciable plastic deformation at the lower yield point, is almost completely masked. In contrast, the initial stressstrain curve for most workhardening structural metals or alloys in simple tension or simple shear also plots as an elastic straight line in the beginning stage but then deviates only gradually from linear elastic, slowly getting flatter as the plastic response grows with increasing stress. Upon full or partial unloading from any state of stress and subsequent reloading, the behavior is essentially linear elastic until plastic deformation resumes, and the stressstrain curve then follows the curve that would have been followed in the absence of unloading. (Fig. 3.2.1).
Handbookof MaterialsBehaviorModels.ISBN 0124433413.
Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 129
130
Largeoffset% Moderateoffset%
Small offset % !
/ / /
Dmc~r
%
/ / /
Strain FIGURE 3.2.1 Perfectplasticity and workhardening. Yield limit defined by small, moderate, or large offset or as by Taylor and Quinney. The concept of an initial or a subsequently established yield limit for the typical workhardening response involves both idealization and definition. A key element of the idealization is that the response of the material to stress levels below the current yield limit is purely elastic on loading, as it is to at least moderate unloading and subsequent reloading up to the current yield limit. However, we know that large numbers of mobile dislocations will be present, some of which will move under the smallest increase or decrease of stress in the nominally elastic range. The macroscopic strain produced by this dislocation motion on the atomic scale is small, but it is measurable with the advanced instrumentation now available. Idealizing the response by ignoring these and otherwise produced very small inelastic strains is almost always permissible, both in engineering practice for elastic or elasticplastic structural analysis and design and in the usual description of the macroscopic behavior of the material in the laboratory. Idealization of materials of construction as timeindependent in the vicinity of room temperature and below likewise ignores the small inelastic strain changes over time that do occur but that are not significant over the times of interest for the materials employed. The most convenient definition of an initial or subsequent yield limit normally follows from the choice of a value of plastic deformation that is meaningful for the applications in mind and that is consistently measurable. The use of the familiar 0.002 offset for the initial yield limit in tension certainly satisfies the need for material quality control, with its reproducibility and agreement among laboratories in the test community, but is likely to be considered much too large by a factor of 100 or more by those members of the experimental plasticity community interested in many of the interesting and important details of macroscopic elasticplastic behavior. At room
131
temperature and below, loading into the plastic range and then moderate unloading leaves most structural metals in a workhardened state with stressstrain plots for reloading usually showing a close to sharp departure from linearity when the new yield limit is reached. A small offset definition of yield then will give reproducible results, in contrast to the difficulty of its use for the initial curve in the unhardened state. Some materials do exhibit visible rounding of the stressstrain curve for reloading, the more so the fuller the prior unloading. A moderate offset definition of yield then avoids disagreement, but ignores possibly significant behavior. Broadening the picture from the simple tension or simple shear curve to general states of stress and strain is straightforward. The initial yield limit and subsequent or current yield limits are replaced by an initial yield limit function of stress and subsequent or current yield functions, each of which may be represented by a surface in stress space. The straight line elastic range generalizes to the region of stress space enclosed by the current yield surface. Subsequent changes of stress represented by motion of the stress point within the current yield surface cause purely elastic changes in strain and do not affect the current yield surface at all in the idealized material. Plastic strain in addition to elastic occurs only when the stress point moves out beyond the current yield surface. However, only one point on the yield surface is given by the current yield point in simple tension or in simple shear. The appropriate generalization from one dimension or two to the nine dimensions of stress (six are independent) is far from unique. Each material is different and will have different carryovers from one or two dimensions. Experiment alone can provide answers, and even experiments cannot cover all the possibilities. Assumptions are also needed whose validity can be tested only partially by comparing the actual behavior observed with the consequences predicted by the assumed generalization. In view of the essentially infinite complexity of the inelastic behavior of real materials and their permissible idealizations, isotropy (independence of material orientation) provides a simple and appealing hypothesis from which to start. The idealization of an isotropic material does serve as an excellent representation for the purely elastic macroscopic behavior of many polycrystalline metals and alloys, despite the often strongly anisotropic response of their individual crystals or grains. A sufficiently large assemblage of such anisotropic grains with sufficiently varied orientations of the crystalline planes will exhibit an isotropic elastic response on the macroscale of many grain diameters, because there will be no favored orientation. It was natural to carry over the simplicity of isotropy to yield limit criteria when the mathematical theory of plasticity was being developed. Tresca had shown experimentally that plastic deformation took place when a limiting shear stress was exceeded. A maximum shear stress limit criterion
13 2
a2
Drucker
FIGURE 3.2.2
Tresca hexagon, Mises or J2 ellipse, and intermediate curve for plane stress.
independent of orientation is an isotropic criterion that plots as the familiar hexagon in the twodimensional principal stress space of plane stress and as a hexagonal prism in threedimensional principal stress space with its axis equally inclined to the three principal stress axes. It is a good first approximation to physical reality and became accepted as the best simple representation of the yield limit for metals and alloys. Mises, as an applied mathematician, did not take issue with this consensus but for analytic convenience preferred that a smooth surface be employed instead (Fig. 3.2.2). In the purely elastic range, stress determines strain and vice versa. At each stage of plastic deformation, it is the increment in strain, or rate of strain, that is determined by the increment in stress, or rate of stress, for a given state of stress at yield. In an analogy to potential functions that governed many other types of physical behavior, Mises proposed a normality rule, the yield function expressed in terms of stress serving as a potential function for the increment or rate of plastic strain. At each value of stress at yield (in pictorial terms, the stress point lies on the yield surface in stress space), the plastic strain rate or increment is given by a scalar multiple of the derivative of the yield function with respect to stress (the strain rate or increment vector in the strain space superposed on the stress space is normal to the yield surface at the stress point). The three principal stresses al, a2, a3 and their orientation in the material provide a complete description of the state of stress. For an isotropic material, the yield limit surface is determined by the values of the principal stresses without regard to their orientation. Each combination of them, such as the
133
m a x i m u m shear stress, is also an invariant of the stress field. With the knowledge that shear stress is the primary driver of plastic deformation, it is reasonable to do what is always permissible, to consider any state of stress at a material point as a hydrostatic tension equal to the mean normal stress plus the stress deviator, which is a general representation of shear stress. This leads naturally to the choice of the three independent invariants of stress as the sum of the principal stresses J1 = o ' 1  +  0 " 2 + 0"3 or O'kk and the two additional invariants J2, J3 that appear in the cubic equation for the determination of the three principal stress deviators from the nine components of the stress deviation si) = ai)  ( 6 k k / 3 ) 6 i j . The principal stress deviators (Sl, s2, s3), just like the principal stresses themselves, are independent of the arbitrary choice of the rectangular Cartesian axes for the stress components. Therefore, when the coefficient of the cubic term in the equation is set as unity, the remaining coefficients and the remaining term are invariants, the same for all choices of axes. These invariants are the quadratic coefficient of the linear term, the second invariant of the stress deviation tensor,
J2 [ ( a l  ~2) 2 + (~2  ~3) 2 + a3  a l ) 2 1 / 6 (s21 + s 2 + s32)/2 or s~jsj~/2
and the third invariant of the stress deviation tensor, which is cubic in stress,
J3 [(2o1 02 03)(202 03 o1)(203
or
s~jsjkSk~/3
o1
a2)]/27
(s 3 + s 3 + s 3 ) / 3
The coefficient of the quadratic term, the sum of the principal values, or the equivalent of J1 in the cubic for principal stress, is zero for the deviator. Any other invariant of stress can be shown to be a combination of J1, J2, and J3. J2 is the simplest isotropic smooth function of shear stress. It also has a number of physical interpretations that appeal strongly to many who are not enamored of purely mathematical arguments. Among these are the mean of the squares of the principal shears and the square of the octahedral shear stress, the shear stress on the planes whose normals make equal angles with the three principal directions of stress. Probably the most compelling of all is that postulating a limiting value of J2 for the purely elastic range is the same as postulating that plastic deformation will ensue when the elastic energy of distortion or shear strain energy exceeds a critical value. Appealing and useful as any such interpretation may be, it should be kept in mind that none are based firmly on physical laws. When J2 is set equal to a constant to match the yield point in a onedimensional test, it plots as an ellipse for plane stress and as a circular cylinder in threedimensional principal stress space. This choice is known now as the Mises criterion of yield, although Mises himself recognized that far more
134
Drucker
general isotropic forms existed and did not restrict his normality rule to the second invariant form alone (Fig. 3.2.3). Although the assumption of isotropy of the initial and subsequent yield limits is mathematically convenient, it does not usually represent physical reality when any of the customary definitions of the onset of initial or of additional plastic strain are employed. It takes considerable effort to produce a structural metal or alloy that is initially isotropic in its inelastic response. Osgood obtained such a structural aluminum alloy from ALCOA. In a very interesting set of experiments on thinwalled tubes under proportional or radial loading obtained by increasing tension and interior pressure in constant ratio, he showed good correlation of the data with both the maximum shear stress criterion of Tresca and the second invariant of the stress deviation tensor of Mises. The experiments were performed with great care so that it was possible for me at a little later time to show that although each fit the experiments within 10%, neither provided the most appropriate match for the data. The actual isotropic shear stress criterion lay about halfway between these two basic forms. A simple combination of the second and the third invariant of the stress deviation tensor, J23  2.25J~, did correlate all the data remarkably well. Interesting and significant as this result is, the more important point is that initial isotropy is lost once significant plastic deformation occurs. The picture of isotropic hardening, subsequent yield surfaces, being simply enlarged versions of the initial yield surface, is unreal despite its ability to correlate the results of radial loading tests on initially isotropic material. Structural metals and alloys are quite anisotropic in their initial and subsequent plastic response
a2
L i I  ~ I
lli
Ii
FIGURE 3.2.3
135
as defined by any of the usual definitions of yielding, including the moderately large 0.2% or 0.002 plastic strain offset. The mechanical treatment given prior to use often involves appreciable plastic deformation, both cold and hot. Such plastically deformed metal is highly likely to have directional properties to start as well as the related difference in the stressstrain curves in tension and compression exhibited by Bauschinger over 100 years ago. A workhardening metal subjected to shear in one sense will have a raised yield stress for that sense and a lowered yield stress for reverse shear, much as loading in tension will produce a raised yield stress in tension and a lowered one in compression. Furthermore, structural metals and alloys generally come with appreciable initial or residual stresses because of their prior thermal or mechanical treatment. The degree of anisotropy induced by plastic deformation is very large when very much smaller deviations from elastic response than 0.002 are taken to define the onset of plastic deformation. With 1000 times greater sensitivity, some reverse plastic deformation often will be picked up upon unloading a plastically deformed material to zero stress. The diameter of each current yield surface so defined is a small fraction of the current yield value in simple shear, and the shape of each current yield surface is far from the Tresca or Mises or any other isotropic criterion. At 100 times greater sensitivity still, the diameter of any yield surface so defined shrinks to zero. At the other extreme, when interest is focused on large plastic deformations of 1% (0.01) or more, initial isotropy and isotropic hardening obeying the Mises criterion provide a crude but not unreasonable approximation. Bauschinger and allied crosseffects, the changes of shape of successive yield surfaces and the motion of their centers, so prominent when small offset definitions are employed, almost disappear from view along with the plastic strains that occur as the stress point moves about inside the current Mises ellipse. Plastic deformation of single crystals and polycrystalline metals and alloys is caused primarily by shear stress that exceeds the purely elastic carrying capacity. Schmid's "law" for single crystals states that the shear stress on the plane of slip governs. The shear stress needed for the common ductile structural metals is in fact independent of the normal stress on the planes of slip under most circumstances with the normal stress of the order of the yield stress. However, at extremely high hydrostatic pressure, Bridgman did find a 10% increase in the shear stress needed, an increase he thought was expected from the compaction of the atomic structure, but not very significant for the theory of plasticity. On the other hand, hydrostatic pressure, or normal stress on shear planes, does have an appreciable effect on polymeric materials, as would be expected from their much more open molecular arrangements. Furthermore, the ratio of shear stress to normal stress on the plane of slip is well known to be the
136
Drucker
controlling variable for simple frictional materials and not surprisingly plays a strong role in soils and other granular media. When it is permissible and useful to carry over expressions for plastic deformation to such materials, an isotropic criterion of yield must include the hydrostatic pressure in addition to measures of shear stress. The most general isotropic criterion then will be a function of the first invariant of the stress tensor (the sum of the principal stresses) along with the second invariant of the stress deviation tensor (the Mises criterion) and its third invariant. The simplest of these forms, f  ~J1 q_j~/2, now termed the DruckerPrager criterion with ~ constant, gives a linear increase of the required (mean) shear with added hydrostatic pressure. It is represented by a right circular cone in principal stress space. The apex of the cone is at the origin (zero stress) for a cohesionless material and lies on the triaxial tension line for a material with cohesion. The Tresca, or maximum shear stress criterion, may be modified similarly to give a linear variation of the maximum shear stress with hydrostatic pressure. It plots as a regular sixsided pyramid in principal stress space. A MohrCoulomb material, which postulates the frictional criterion of a limiting shear stress on the plane of slip proportional to the normal stress on that plane, is frequently used as a model for granular material. It also is represented by a sixsided pyramid in principal stress space, but its crosssection by a plane perpendicular to the axis is not a regular hexagon. Nonlinear instead of linear variation of shear stress with normal stress or pressure can be accommodated simply. Greater realism within the idealization of isotropy can be provided by a moving yield limit cap over the open end of the yield limit cone or pyramid in principal stress space. The cap permits matching of consolidation under hydrostatic pressure and under pressure plus moderate shear. It also can be employed to reduce the undesirably high volumetric expansion otherwise produced in each of the openended models of behavior by normality of the plastic strain increment to the current yield limit surface. These and other related topics are discussed clearly in "Soil Plasticity Theory and Implementation" by W. E Chen and G. Y. Baladi (Elsevier, 1985) and in the followup volume, "Nonlinear Analysis in Soil Mechanics" by W. E Chen and E. Mizuno (Elsevier, 1990). The simplicity of isotropic initial yield limits and subsequent yield limits (isotropic hardening) is a great help in computation and in obtaining a crude but very useful picture of the plastic response. However, good agreement in detail with what will actually happen when a structure or a specimen deforms in the plastic range requires much more realistic yield limits, as described in the other sections of this chapter and in subsequent chapters.
SECTION
3.3
Contents
3.3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Quantitative measurement of the texture. 3.3.2.1 Desired Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.2 Calculation of ODF from Pole Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.3 Determination of ODF by Single Grain Orientation Measurements .. 3.3.2.4 Sample Homogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.5 Discretization of the ODF . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Cconstitutive model for polycrystals with texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.1 Plastic Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.2 Crystal Plasticity Model . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3.3 Exploitation of the Constitutive Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
137 139
3.3.1 BACKGROUND
This s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s m e t h o d s that are suitable for d e r i v i n g the yield locus of a p o l y c r y s t a l l i n e m a t e r i a l from a physical m e a s u r e m e n t of its c r y s t a l l o g r a p h i c texture. In principle, these m e t h o d s are l i m i t e d to s i n g l e  p h a s e m a t e r i a l s in a n n e a l e d c o n d i t i o n , w i t h e q u i a x e d grains sufficiently small as to n e g l e c t m a t e r i a l h e t e r o g e n e i t y at the scale at w h i c h one w a n t s to use the yield locus.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
137
138
Van Houtte
Strain rate sensitivity is supposed to be positive or negative but small enough in absolute value so that the exponent ktc3 log ~r/~ log ~ (with cr the flow stress and ~ the strain rate) can be sufficiently well approximated by the value zero. For materials like steel and aluminium and their alloys, this holds from room temperature up to about 200~ in which range experimental measurements of # yield values between 0.05 and +0.05, depending on alloy content, temperature, and strain rate. These experimental values are rarely published but can be found in the   often confidential m files of industrial companies and research institutions. Methods as described in the present chapter have almost exclusively been applied to fcc, bcc, and hcp metals, although in principle they could be used with any type of ductile polycrystalline material. Typical applications are anisotropic finite element (FE)based simulations of metalforming processes, mainly sheet metal forming (car body parts, can stock, etc.) but also rolling and wire drawing. The purpose of such FE simulations is to predict the final shape and dimensions of the product, forming limits (failure), springback and/or residual stress, final texture and final grain size. Sometimes the yield locus models are applied to cases for which, strictly speaking, they have not been intended, such as materials which already have been deformed before. The results must then be judged with care but may still be valid, the induced error being smaller than errors resulting from other sources. One may wonder, why bother about deriving a yield locus from a crystallographic texture the hard way, instead of determining the coefficients of a Hilltype anisotropic yield locus (or another type of simple analytical yield locus expression) by fitting them to some tensile test data? The answer consists of two parts: 9 simple analytical yield locus expressions are never versatile enough to describe the true yield loci of engineering materials; 9 during routine FE simulations of a forming problem, the FE code may submit very unexpected multiaxial loading cases to the constitutive material model, which cannot possibly have been explored beforehand by mechanical tests. The topic of the present section is too complicated to be described in a few pages of equations and a few tables. Instead, I will explain which types of software or other tools are needed, and to which important aspects attention should be paid. Often references will not be made to the earliest original papers on the topic, but rather to comprehensive books such as Reference [1] or to review papers. This has intentionally been done to make it easier for students and practiceoriented readers to collect the necessary papers.
139
For the industrial applications mentioned previously, the ultimate quality criterion is quantitative agreement between FE predictions and the actual behavior of the material studied. This can only be achieved if the greatest possible care is given to the quantitative measurement of the initial texture, which is the topic of the next section.
Yield locus calculation is a special case of the calculation of physical properties from a material with crystallographic texture [1]. Let g be the crystallite orientation, and q(g) some property which depends on it. The simplest possible micromacro transition is one for which the macroscopic value qm of the property is given by a weighted average: qm/f(g)q(g)dg (1)
in which the weighing factor f(g) is the "orientation distribution function" (ODF) which describes the texture of the polycrystal [23]. The crystallite orientation g may be conceived as a tensorial quantity [4], but it is most often expressed as a set of three Euler angles representing the rotation from an external reference system ("sample reference system") to a crystal reference system (the ( 1 0 0 ) axes in the case of fcc or bcc metals) [23]. The three Euler angles (991, ~, and (02 in Bunge's notation) are then denoted by the single symbol g. The averaging formula above is the simplest possible micromacro transition; so at the very least, the texture must be known under the form of an ODF f(g) The ODF itself may be known as a discrete function in Euler space, or as a Fourier series [23]: L
e=O
M(O N(O
Z E E
#=1 v=l
L is the maximum degree of the series expansion. The angular resolution that :.//V can be achieved by this series expansion is roughly 160~ Tr (g)is a harmonic function of degree ( of the three Euler angles. C~~ is a Fourier coefficient. In principle, the property q(g) can also be described as #v a Fourier series expansion with coefficients qe [2]. In that case, the average
Van Houtte
M(e) N(e)
#=I
,~v
f=O
2~,+1 ~
Zqe
v=l
pv
C~v
(3)
in which qe is the complex conjugated of qe [2]. This expression is helpful for the study of the angular resolution required for the ODE Suppose that the Fourier coefficients of the property q(g) are all zero for f _> Lq. In that case, L in the above equation can be reduced to Lq, which sets the desired angular resolution for the ODF (see above) but also strongly limits the number of multiplications and additions required to evaluate the expression. For elastic problems, Lq is as low as 4. For problems related to yield loci of fcc or bcc pv metals, L need not be chosen higher than 12, the qe taking very low values for f > 12. As a result, Eq. 3 allows for an incredible gain in calculation time when evaluating integrals such as Eq. 1.
3.3.2.2
CALCULATION OF O D F
Companies like Bruker, Inel, Philips, Seifert, and others sell xray equipment for the measurement of "pole figures" which characterise the crystallographic texture of the material. (They can also be measured using neutron diffraction.) A pole figure is not an ODF; it is necessary to measure several pole figures for each material and then combine them by means of appropriate software in order to obtain the ODF [23]. Such software can also be purchased from these companies, or it can be obtained from university laboratories that have developed their own. In the latter case, the texture goniometer and its control unit must be capable of exporting pole figure files in a format that can be read by the user. Other important points are as follows: 1. A high angular resolution is NOT required (5 ~ is sufficient), as long as no intense pole figure peaks are completely "missed." If this is a problem, a sufficiently wide xray beam should be used. 2. Great care must be given to various "corrections" to be applied to pole figure data. These are: a. Background subtraction. This means that part of the intensity measured in each direction is ascribed to "background radiation" and is removed from the signal for further processing. All commercial pole figure measuring systems contain some procedure for background subtraction. However, it is sometimes not good enough. The effect of subtracting too much or too less background, combined with subsequent data processing to generate an ODE amounts to effectively redistributing
141
intensity of the strong texture components into the random component or vice versa. All Ccoefficients of the ODF will be erroneous, including those of low rank ~e, and the value of all texturerelated properties will be wrongly estimated, irrespective of the angular resolution that is needed for the property considered. So one should thoroughly study the procedure for background correction contained in the standard software, and if it is not good enough, replace it with a sound procedure. Even better is to physically remove background radiation by, using, for example a set of Soller slits combined with a monochromator in the diffracted beam [5]. b. Defocusing correction. A good method is the one based on a pole figure measurement of a good powder sample with random texture. Here, also, the standard procedure provided with a commercial system should be evaluated with care. 3. Number of pole figures. For fcc metals, it is highly recommended that one measure four pole figures, namely, {1 1 1 }, {2 0 0 }, {2 2 0}, and {3 1 1 }. For bcc metals, these are {1 1 0}, {200}, {1 1 2}, and {103}. It is possible to work with three pole figures only if they are completely measured (inclination range from 0 ~ to 90~ which is rarely the case. Normally they are measured using the Schulz reflection method (0 ~ to 80 ~ range) [67]. In that case, four pole figures are recommended if quantitative applications are aimed at. The software used to convert the pole figures into an ODF should have a ghost correction procedure [3] if plastic properties are to be calculated. If that is not done, no information can be obtained about Ccoefficients of odd rank 2. It has been said in the preceding that, for cubic materials, the series expansion degree L (see Eq. (2)) should not be lower than 12 if plastic properties are to be calculated. Now in cubic materials, the first nonzero odd /zv Ccoefficients (or, for that matter, qe coefficients) which are encountered in Eq. 3 appear at ~e= 9, so they cannot be neglected. The pole figure to ODF conversion method may be based on the harmonic method or not [3], but at least, once the ODF is obtained, it is advantageous to convert it into a Ccoefficient representation, so that Eq. 3 can be used.
3.3.2.3
DETERMINATION OF O D F
BY SINGLE GRAIN
ORIENTATION MEASUREMENTS An alternative method of texture determination consists of directly measuring the orientation of a large number of single grains of the polycrystalline material. This can be done by various methods. By far the most convenient of these makes use of an automated system of orientation determination using
142
Van Houtte
"electron back scattering diffraction" (EBSD) in a scanning electron microscope ([6] pp. 171176, [8]). The electron beam of the microscope is automatically positioned on a series of points at the surface of a sample. At each point, an EBSD pattern is generated, recorded, and analyzed by a computer, leading to a set of Euler angles describing the local crystallite orientation. Several commercial companies offer systems like this. At the present date, these systems offer a spatial resolution of about 0.5 gm, an angular resolution in Euler space better than 1~ and the time to measure one orientation is about i sec. It is expected that in the near future this time will go down by a factor of 5 or more. The determination of an ODF is only one of the many possible applications of these instruments. It requires the acquisition of 10,000 or more single grain orientations. So with present technology, it takes 3 to 12 hours (depending on the number on measurements desired) to measure an ODE an automated job that can be done during the night. A list of 10,000 to 50,000 sets of Euler angles is obtained, which can be converted into a continuous ODF described by Ccoefficients. The method has several advantages compared to pole figure measurements. Since the ODF is directly measured, pole figure to ODF conversion is not necessary. Also, both the even and the odd part of the ODF are directly obtained; as a result, no ghost correction is needed. The various pole figure corrections discussed in the previous section are not needed either. However, the method has some drawbacks: 9 The grain size should be at least 0.5 gm, although in the foreseeable future this may go down to 0.1 gm. 9 Material with a high dislocation density (after plastic straining) cannot be studied; however, in most cases, the problem can be solved by giving the material a prudent recovery treatment. 9 The purchase and maintenance of the equipment (including a dedicated scanning electron microscope) are more expensive than those of a texture goniometer using xray diffraction, though not that much.
3.3.2.4
SAMPLE HOMOGENEITY
It is frequently observed that the texture of the sample is not homogeneous. In the case of sheet material, the texture may vary with distance from the surface. It is wise to check for this phenomenon by doing texture measurements at various depths (after removal of part of the surface). If a texture gradient indeed exists, it is recommended to do several measurements and construct an average, or to perform texture measurements on crosssections or oblique sections, after which the measured texture must of course
143
be rotated. Universitydeveloped texture software packages often contain routines for performing these operations (averaging several textures, rotating of textures).
3.3.2.5
DISCRETIZATION OF THE O D F
It is possible that in the applications that will follow (see next section), one intends to implement Eq. 1 by means of Ccoefficients, using Eq. 3; in that case, it is not necessary to convert the measured ODF into a set of weighted discrete orientations. However, in the opposite case, such a procedure will be required. The set of discrete orientations can then be used by some software that models the plastic response of the material. The procedure used for the discretization must then satisfy a few important conditions: Sample symmetry should NOT be used to reduce the number of orientations in the set, unless one is sufficiently experienced to avoid mistakes when calculating the plastic properties. The method should be "unbiased." This requires some explaining. Suppose that one wants to compute an average value of a texturerelated property by means of Eq. 1. Let qm be the "true value" obtained by using a nondiscretized ODE and ~lm the value obtained from the discretised ODE Normally ~lm will be different from qm. However, it is said that elm is "unbiased" (using terminology from statistics) when its "expected value" (i.e., its most probable a priori value) is equal to q=. Whether that will be the case or not depends on the discretization procedure and on the formula to calculate elm When both are known, one can formulate a "statistical theorem" stating that ~lm is unbiased, and try to demonstrate it. To the knowledge of the author, for only one discretization method has such proof ever been published, namely, for the "statistical method," one of the two discretization methods explained in Reference [9]. In addition, the theorem also holds for a discretization method in which one would look at the intensity of the ODF f(g) for all points gi in Euler space on a 5 ~ grid, retain all these points in the discretization, and give them a weighting factor f(gi)sin ~i ((I)i is one of the Euler angles used by Bunge [2]). However, a commonly used discretization method consists in retaining only those grid orientations in the discrete set for which f(gi) > a, a being some threshold value between 0 and 1. This latter method is biased, and will lead to systematic errors on any ~lm value. Such ~lm values are unsuited for predictions of plastic properties.
144 3.3.3 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL FOR POLYCRYSTALS WITH TEXTURE 3.3.3.1 PLASTIC POTENTIALS
Van Houtte
The concept of a "plastic potential" seems most suitable to performing the micromacro transition and to carrying the information about the plastic anisotropy of the material from the micromechanical model (based on crystal plasticity and on texture data) to the application, which could, for example, be a FE model for a forming process, or a model for predicting the forming limit of a sheet material. Plastic potentials have been developed both for stress space and for strain rate space (see, for example, Reference [10]). The discussion here will be limited to the latter case, because it makes a simple micromacro transition possible. Let tIJm(D) be such plastic potential. Its numerical value is equal to ~rm, the macroscopic rate of plastic work per unit volume. D is the plastic strain rate. Elastic strains are neglected in this formulation. The Cauchy stress S which corrresponds to D is given by [101: 0qJm
S/j v aDij (4)
with
ltIJ m
01ffflm/c3Dij
(5)
D ij
v = 1 in the case of rateindependent plasticity, whereas for simple power lawbased viscoplastic material models: v =
1
1+#
(6)
in which # = 0 log a / 0 log ~ as in Section 3.3.1. A similar plastic potential can also be defined for individual crystallites. It would be denoted as W(d), d being the local strain rate. If a means is available for computing Wm(D) for a polycrystal with texture, then Eq. 4 can in principle be used to construct a constitutive model for the plastic behavior of the material. The Taylor theory ([ 11], [ 12] p. 371) provides a very convenient means computing tIJm(D) for a polycrystal with texture, since qJm is equal to the rate of plastic work per unit volume. This theory assumes that the local plastic strain rate d is uniform in each crystallite and equal to the macroscopic plastic strain rate D. It is known that in that case, the macroscopic rate of plastic work per unit volume Wm simply is the weighted average of the local rates of plastic work of all crystallites. The latter
145
are denoted by W; in the Taylor theory, they depend on the macroscopic strain rate D (as is the case with Wm) and on the crystal orientation g. It is seen that W(g) takes the role of q(g) in Eq. 1 and X/Cmthat of q,,. Both are simple scalars, but they do depend on D. For each value of D, X/Cmcan be calculated from the texture using Eq. 1 or Eq. 3, provided that W(g) is known. In the next section, we will discuss how X/C(g) can be obtained from D using a crystal plasticity model. Note that the simple micromacro transition that is presented here cannot be applied when the Taylor assumption is replaced by a more complex one, such as the set of assumptions used in selfconsistent models [13]. The use of such models may lead to a somewhat more precise prediction of the yield locus, especially in the case of noncubic materials. 9 However, this advantage will be completely lost if the recommendations in Section 3.3.1 are not scrupulously followed. 9 Certain techniques which in the case of the Taylor assumption can greatly reduce the computing time, such as the use of Fourier coefficients, can no longer be applied. This is particularly unpleasant in industrial applications involving largescale FE modeling.
3.3.3.2
In this text, it is assumed that one wants to obtain a yield locus, not that one wants to simulate deformation textures. The latter case deserves a long discussion of its own, not in the least because a truly general, reliable, and quantitative model for deformation texture prediction does not yet exist (see, for example, the discussion in Reference [14]).
3.3.3.2.1 The BishopHill Theory The problem that must be solved is to calculate the local rate of plastic work for a crystallite with a given orientation g and for a given local strain rate d. Because of the Taylor assumption, d  D, normally one would now express D with respect to the reference system x c of the crystal lattice of the given crystallite ((1 0 0) axes in the case of a cubic metal), leading to a matrix D~. The following formula is used for the transformation from the sample frame to the crystal lattice frame (note: a superscript c indicates that a tensor is described in the crystal lattice frame):
D~ tiktjlDkz
(7)
146 in which
[,,j] 
Van Houtte
sin (~1 sin ~o2 cos (I) sin tpl cos cp2 cos (I)
sin (~1 cos ~2 ~ cos (ill s i n q~2 cos (I) sin q~l sin~~ + cos q91 costP2 cos (I) tpl s i n (I)
cos
(8)
q)l, (I), and r are the Euler angles that describe the orientation of the crystal lattice [2]. In the stressstrain space associated with the x c frame, D~j in general represents a strain rate vector without special properties (i.e., it is not parallel with one of the stress axes, or perpendicular to it, etc.). In such case, the classical rateindependent BishopHill theory for the plastic deformation of crystallites states that the deviatoric stress a~j needed to achieve this plastic strain rate will be one of a finite number of deviatoric stress states, called "vertices" [11,12]. These vertices depend on the nature of the slip systems available in the material, as well as on the ratios between the critical resolved shear stresses on these slip systems (CRSS ratios). In deviatoric stress space, the yield locus of the crystallite has the shape of a hyperpolyhedron defined by the previously mentioned vertices (Fig. 3.3.1). The strain rate vector that corresponds to a stress that is somewhere on a facet of this hyperpolyhedron (not on one of the edges of the facet) is normal to the facet. Since there is only a finite number of facets, there is only a finite number of such directions, whereas there are oo4directions possible in deviatoric stressstrain space. Hence the probability that D~j would have such direction is infinitesimal. For deviatoric stress states which are at the intersection of two facets, the strain rate vector must be normal to that line, in the sense that the unit vector which defines its direction must be a positive linear combination of the unit vectors normal to the two facets. So, for each such intersection, there a r e c o 1 such directions, whereas there are oo4directions possible for D~j. Again, the probability that D~j would have such direction is infinitesimal. This argument can be adapted for all higherorder intersections between facet planes, except when the intersection is a single point, i.e., a vertex stress. Only in that case, the probability that D~j would have such direction is not infinitesimal. All this can be summarized as follows. According to the BishopHill theory, based on the generalized Schmid law, the deviatoric stress state which corresponds to a prescribed D~j normally is one of a finite number of vertex stresses, except in some special cases. The probability that such a special case occurs is infinitesimal. (This conclusion is true in the present context, i.e., the use of a single crystal yield locus to solve the Taylor theory. It would not
147
o3
FIGURE 3.3.1 Closed yield locus of a "faceteye" type as it would appear in a threedimensional stress space. A BishopHill yield locus of a crystallite is of this type, but in fivedimensional deviatoric stress space.
necessarily be true in other applications, such as the use of a single crystal yield locus to solve the interaction equation of a selfconsistent model.) Bishop and Hill [15] and Kocks [16] have published the list of the 56 vertex stresses which exist for fcc metals that deform by {1 1 1} (1 1 0) slip with the same critical resolved shear stress on all slip systems. For bcc metals with {1 1 0 }{112 }( 1 1 0 ~ slip systems, there are 216 vertex stresses, which can be obtained from the present author, who has developed software that can automatically generate all vertices for any set of slip systems and any set of critical resolved shear stresses. cV Let ~7ij represent such a vertex (for fcc metals, V is an index between 1 and 56). Using Hill's Maximum Work Principle, it can now be stated that the c c deviatoric stress aij which corresponds to a given plastic strain rate Dij i s a vertex stress, and it is such that
{7 ij D ij ~ o ij IJ ij
(9)
for all V. Finding the right value of V then comes down to selecting from the _cv,,c cV list of vertex stresses the crij which maximizes oij *'ij It is an easy and an cV extremely fast operation for a computer. The value found for aij is now called ~r~, and the rate of plastic work per unit volume in the crystallite is given by
"D (10)
in which the stress tensor ~ is a parameter which does not change when D undergoes infinitesimal variations. Its value is known in the crystal lattice
Van Houtte
thitlja~!
(11)
Since a is a constant with respect to D, W can indeed be regarded as a plastic potential for individual crystallite. As explained in Section 3.3.3.1, the macroscopic plastic potential kI'/m then is the weighted average of ~z for all crystallites, using the ODF f(g) as weighting function. The macroscopic stress is then in principle given by Eq. 4 with v1 (rateindependent case), but it can easily be shown (by elaborating the equation) that the macroscopic stress is simply given by
Sij = (aij)m
(12)
in which (aij)m is the weighted average of aij for all crystallites. This finally makes it possible to calculate the macroscopic stress from the plastic strain rate, which in principle is sufficient to obtain the yield locus.
3.3.3.2.2 Rounding the Yield Locus The crystallite yield locus described in the previous section may be as correct as can be obtained from present theoretical knowledge combined with the usual lack of knowledge of material data such as current values of the critical resolved shear stresses on the individual slip systems. However, it has sharp corners and edges and fiat surfaces, and this is sometimes reflected in the macroscopic yield locus as well, which may feature regions with very strong curvature and other regions with very low curvature, especially for materials with strong texture. This may become a source of numerical instability in certain applications, such as FE codes which are notorious for becoming unstable when a somewhat exotic constitutive material law is used. The fundamental solution to this problem is of course to improve the stability of FE codes so that they can digest true material behavior, but in the meantime, we may have to try to substitute the sharpedged single crystal yield locus by a more rounded one. This can be achieved by using the following yield locus for an individual crystallite [ 17]:
/~+1
#'+ 1
as
 1
(13)
In this equation, #~ does not stand for the strain rate sensitivity, since the equation is still intended for a rateindependent material. ~s is the resolved shear stress acting on slip system s and as such a function of the macroscopic stress S ([11], [12] p. 333). The plastic strain rates are related to the S in the usual way through the normality rule. ~0 is a constant (with a value close to
149
the critical resolved shear stress) and the as are the CRSS ratios. It can be shown that for 12' ~ 0 this yield locus tends toward the edgy BishopHill yield locus; for low values of 12' such as 0.02, the yield locus is still a good approximation of the BishopHill yield locus, but the corners and edges are rounded with a short radius of curvature. The larger 12' is, the more rounded the yield locus becomes, and the more it will differ from the BishopHill yield locus. This method, however, has some serious drawbacks. For a given crystallite, it allows for a straightforward calculation of the plastic strain rate from the stress. However, for the application at hand, we must find the stress from the plastic strain rate. This can only be done by an iterative procedure. It is difficult to make software for this that is completely stable, especially for low values of 12'. The required calculation time is one or several orders of magnitude larger than for the BishopHill method. For the rest, Eq. 12 can still be used to perform the micromacro transition.
3.3.3.2.3 The Viscoplastic Model The viscoplastic model ([12], p. 358 and pp. 363365) for crystallites is also frequently used to obtain a rounded yield locus. Strictly speaking, a yield locus does not exist in this case (see following). This model can be developed from a plastic potential (for an individual crystallite) in stress space:
~s'~01
(~+i)
~b(cr) in Eq. 14 has the value of ~/, the rate of plastic work per unit volume in the crystallite; ?0 is a constant with the nature of a slip rate; 12is the strain rate sensitivity exponent as explained in Section 3.3.1 1:0 and as have the same meaning as in Eq. 13; and ~:s is the resolved shear stress acting on slip system s and as such a function of the local stress or. The local strain rates are obtained as follows [10]:
d~j 
~ 04, 12 + 1 c~r
(15)
This leads to the usual formulae of the viscoplastic model ([12] p. 358). It is seen that Eq. 14 is almost the same as Eq. 13; only the interpretation is different. Whereas Eq. 13 leads to a rounded yield locus that approaches the BishopHill yield locus when 12'~ 0, the equation ~b(cr)=constant defines an equipotential surface in stress space which tends to the BishopHill yield locus when/2 ~ 0. It then becomes clear that the value of/2 will control
150
Van H o u t t e
the radius of curvature of the vertices of the yield locusequipotential surface. A user of FE software would want to have some control on this radius of curvature, in order to keep the FE algorithms stable. But one does not have the right to finetune # if one takes it seriously that it is the strain rate sensitivity exponent: in that case, it should be experimentally determined, and whichever value comes out should be used. Note that for numerical reasons, a negative value would make the use of the viscoplastic model totally impossible. This would be the case for certain temperature and strain rate ranges of several important aluminium alloys (with Mg atoms in solid solutions) and steel alloys (mainly IF steels). Therefore, when for practical reasons one decided to abandon the idea that # should be equal to an experimentally determined strain rate sensitivity exponent, it would be scientifically more honest to use Eq. 13 instead of Eq. 14, and, if needed, devise a different means incorporate strain rate sensitivity into the model. From a computational point of view, this method features the same problems as the previous one (Section 3.3.3.2.2), and it uses similar algorithms for solution. The local stresses cr are calculated from D by an iterative procedure (after identification of D with d in Eq. 15). Eq. 12 is then used for the micromacro transition.
3.3.3.3
3.3.3.3.1 Direct Exploitation Quite often, FE or other applications can be organized so that the constitutive model for the polycrystalline material with texture has only to provide answers to one type of question: "What is the stress S, when the plastic strain rate D is given ?" In that case, Eq. 12 can be used in direct combination with one of the three models for crystal plasticity, operating on a set of discrete weighted crystallite orientations which represent the texture of the material. However, this may be too costly in computing time, since one needs for cubic metals about 2000 crystallite orientations in the set to obtain an acceptable accuracy; for lower lattice symmetries, this number is much higher. Therefore, it may be advantageous to use a precalculated database, although this makes it more difficult to simulate texture evolution.
This discussion will be limited to the rateindependent case. It will first be explained how the macroscopic plastic potential I'IJ m c a n be precalculated for
151
a large number of directions in strain rate space. Then it will be explained how an analytical expression can be constructed that fits these data. This makes it possible to use Eq. 4 for frequent (and fast) calculations of S from D in a FE or other application.
3.3.3.3.2.1 Calculation of
~'1 m
In Section 3.3.3.1, it was said that kI/m is equal to the macroscopic rate of plastic work. It can always be written in the following form [10]: ~Pm(D) = [[D][ Hm(a) in which [IDII and
D a =
(16)
v/DijDi)
(17)
IIDII
(18)
a represents a direction in strain rate space. Hm(a) is a [unction which only depends on the direction of D, not on its length. In a similar way, a plastic potential W can be constructed for a crystallite with an orientation g: ~g(g, d) = [[d[[ H(g, a) (19)
Since we use the Taylor assumption, d = D and the macroscopic plastic potential kl/m is equal to (qJ)m, the average over all crystallite orientations of qJ, using the ODF as weighting function. This then leads to
(20)
This equation is of the same type as Eq. 1. A certain number of calculations should now be done once and for all, without using the texture of the polycrystal. For a given type of material, a crystal plasticity model should be used to produce a H(g, a) function for each direction a taken from a set which represents all directions in stressstrain space with a given angular resolution. To do so, it is in principle possible to use the model for d = a, and calculate X/r (Eq. 10) for every crystallite orientation on a grid in Euler space. H(g, a) then simply is equal to the values found for X/(. Convert each H(g, a) function into Fouriercoefficients HfV(a) [2] so that, in the future, Eq. 3 can be used instead of Eq. 1. In principle, these Fouriercoefficients establish the database. It is exploited as follows: Once the Ccoefficients of the texture are known, Eq. 3 is used to calculate Hm for all directions a of the discrete set. So the function Hm(a) in Eq. 16 is known in a numerical form for a large number of directions a. In principle the
15 2
Van Houtte
m a c r o s c o p i c plastic potential kI'/m is n o w k n o w n ; it represents the textured e p e n d e n t m o d e l for the plastic a n i s o t r o p y of the material. The w o r k described in this section seems a formidable task, since there are a b o u t 50,000 directions a in deviatoric s t r e s s  s t r a i n space using an angular r e s o l u t i o n of 10 ~ However, the w o r k can be o p t i m i z e d to a very large extent, w h i c h leads to surprisingly s h o r t calculation times [4].
[aij]; i.e.,
the two
(~'1/~cl
FIGURE 3.3.2 Yieldlocus of an A13004 alloy that has been coldrolled. The stresses and strain rates are expressed with respect to coordinate axes which make angles of 45 ~ and 135~ to the rolling direction. 0110"22section of the yield locus in nondeviatoric stress space. 0"33= 0 for this section, as well as the shear stresses. The yield locus is calculated from the texture, using a precalculated database describing the plastic anisotropy of fcc metals.
153
9 Hm(a) can then be written as a polynomial of the nth order. It is recommended to set n=6. In practice, only the fifth and the sixthorder terms are necessary, because all atensors are normalized (Eq. 18):
Hm(a)  Fvqrsuapaqarasau +Gvqrsuvapaqarasauav
(21)
The coefficients Fvqr~, and Gpqrsuv have to be found by leastsquaresfitting [18], or they can be found by more clever methods [19]. Note that the fifthorder coefficients Fpqr~, are zero for materials which have a centralsymmetric yield locus. Equation 16 combined with Eq. 21 has been used to implement texturebased plastic anisotropy in FE simulations of sheet metal forming. The results are quite encouraging, although there are some drawbacks [1820]. Figure 3.3.2 shows an example of a yield locus obtained by this method.
REFERENCES
1. Kocks, U. E, Tom~, C. N., and Wenk, H.R. (1998). Texture and Anisotropy: Preferred Orientations in Polycrystals and Their Effect on Material Properties, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Bunge, H. J. (1982). Texture Analysis in Materials Science London: Butterworth. 3. Kallend, J. S. (1998). Determination of the orientation distribution from pole figure data, in [1], pp. 102125. 4. Van Houtte, P. (2001). Fast calculation of average Taylor factors and Mandel spins for all possible strain modes. International Journal of Plasticity, 17; 807818. 5. Van Acker, K., and Van Houtte, P. (1998). The effect of Soller slit and monochromator used for background reduction in texture measurements. Textures and Microstructures 30; 133143. 6. Wenk, H.R. (1998). Pole Figure measurements with diffraction techniques, in [1], pp. 126177. 7. Hatherly, M., and Hutchinson, W. B. (1979). An Introduction to Textures in Materials, Monograph Nr. 5, London: The Institution of Metallurgists. 8. Wright, S. I. (1993). A review of automated orientation imaging microscopy (OIM). J. ComputerAssisted Microscopy 5; 207221. 9. Toth, L. S., and Van Houtte, P. (1992). Discretization techniques for orientation distribution functions. Textures and Microstructures 19; 229244. 10. Van Houtte, P. (1994). Application of plastic potentials to strain rate sensitive and insensitive anisotropic materials. Int. J. Plasticity 10; 719748. 11. Aernoudt, E., Van Houtte, P. and Leffers, T. (1993). Deformation and textures of metals at large strains, in: Plastic Deformation and Fracture of Materials pp. 89136, Mughrabi, H. ed., vol. 6 of Materials Science and Technology: A Comprehensive Treatment, (R. W. Cahn, P. Haasen, and E. J. Kramer, eds., Weinheim: VCH. 12. Kocks, U. E (1998). Kinematics and kinetics of plasticity, in [1], pp. 326389. 13. Tom~, C. N. and Canova, G. R. (1998). Selfconsistent modeling of heterogeneous plasticity, in [ 1], pp. 466511. 14. Van Houtte, P., Delannay, L., and Samajdar, I. (1999). Quantitative prediction of cold rolling textures in lowcarbon steel by means of the LAMEL model. Textures and Microstructures 31; 109149.
154
Van Houtte
15. Bishop, J. E W., and Hill, R. (1951). A theoretical derivation of the plastic properties of a polycrystalline facecentred metal. Philos. Mag. 42; 12981307. 16. Kocks, U. E (1970). The relation between polycrystal deformation and single crystal deformation. Metall. Trans. 1; 11211143.
17. Van Houtte, P., and Rabet, L. (1997). Generalisation of the relaxed constraints models for the prediction of deformation textures. Revue de M~tallurgieCIT/Science et G~ie des, Mat~riaux 94; 14831494. 18. Van Bael, A. (1994). Anisotropic Yield Loci Derived from Crystallographic Data and their Application in FiniteElement Simulations of Plastic Forming Processes, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. MTM, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. 19. Arminjon, M., Bacroix, B., Imbault, D., and Raphanel, J. L. (1994). A fourthorder plastic potential for anisotropic metals and its analytical calculation from the texture function. Acta Mech. 107; 3351. 20. Van Houtte, P., Van Bael, A., and Winters, J. (1995). The incorporation of texturebased yield loci into elastoplastic finite element programs. Textures and Microstructures 24; 255272.
SECTION
3.4
Contents 3.4.1 Three Approaches to Formulation of Anisotropic Yield Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Generalizations of the HuberMisesHencky Yield Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Generalizations of the Tresca Yield Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Generalizations of the Burzyfiski Yield Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5 Generalizations of the Hershey "Power Yield Condition". ............................... 3.4.6 Polynomial Yield Conditions for Planar Orthotropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.7 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 162 163 164 159 158 157 155
3.4.1 T H R E E A P P R O A C H E S T O F O R M U L A T I O N OF ANISOTROPIC YIELD CONDITIONS In uniaxial tension perfect plasticity is defined by the equation crx/cr0 = 1 during the process; ~r0 denotes here the yieldpoint stress in the direction x. Conditions of perfect plasticity, or briefly yield conditions, for isotropic materials in the general threedimensional case can be written as a simple generalization of the preceding equation; namely, Crx is replaced by certain functions of stress invariants.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
155
156
ZYcz~ows~
At least three approaches are used to generalize isotropic yield conditions to the materials showing innate (for example, in monocrystals) or acquired (for example, straininduced) anisotropy. First, the stress invariants are replaced by simultaneous (common) invariants of the stress tensor and of the material (or structural) tensors of plastic anisotropy, for example,
(1)
where H~j, 1I~jkl, 1I@zm,, ... denote tensors of plastic anisotropy and Einstein's summation convention holds. It should be noted that the invariants shown in Eq. 1 are the simplest, but by no means general. For example, two tensors of the second order have 10 irreducible polynomial invariants; besides 3 invariants of aij and 3 of H~j, there exist 4 simultaneous invariants H~jcr~j, H~jajkcrhl, 1I~jHjkcrkl, and H~jHjkahzal~, and only the first of them is shown in Eq. 1. The number of irreducible invariants of H@I and ~r~jamounts to 28 (plus the invariants of H@I itself, less important for construction of yield conditions) [1]. A detailed discussion on invariant formulation of anisotropic yield conditions is given by Rogers [21. Second, a certain transformed or modified stress tensor may be introduced. For example, Sobotka [31 and Boehler and Sawczuk [41 proposed independently to introduce the tensor
~ij 
AijklCrhl
with
(2)
where Aijkl is also a certain tensor of anisotropy, and postulated the wellknown isotropic yield conditions to hold for anisotropic materials as well if aij are replaced by Fi). In many cases this approach proves useful, but it is less general than Eq. 1" for example, secondorder material tensors may be obtained here from Ai)kl just by contraction, whereas in Eq. 1 they are independent. Mean transformed stress equals
4. = ~pp  ~AppkZ.hl
and deviatoric transformed stress
(3)
(4)
Another approach resulting in a nonlinear transformation of various anisotropic yield surfaces into a hypershere in fivedimensional Ilyushin's space was proposed by Zyczkowski and Kurtyka [5]. The third way, with the strongest physical background, is to postulate a certain physical quantity in an anisotropic material to be constant when reaching the yieldpoint stress (for example, the elastic energy), and then to express strains in terms of stresses and assume this function to be constant
157
during a perfectly plastic process. This way, typical for isotropic materials, is rather seldom used in the case of anisotropy. Yield conditions for anisotropic materials are usually formulated as certain generalizations of the relevant conditions for isotropic materials. Therefore, they will be classified here according to the types of isotropic conditions that are subject to generalization.
with
(5)
These symmetry conditions reduce the number of moduli to 21. Further, the additional requirement of independence of Eq. 5 on the mean stress am reduces the number of moduli to 15. In this case, making use of the transformation Eq. 2, we can write Eq. 5 in the form
SijSij 
2k 2
(6)
Mises [6] also gives some energy considerations: Eq. 6 corresponds at the beginning of yielding to constant distortion energy, though in the general anisotropic case energy cannot be decomposed into pure distortion energy and pure volumetric energy. Change of signs of all stresses in Eqs. 5 or 6 does not change the expression as a whole; hence the materials described by these equations are isosensitive [7], or without strengthdifferential effect [8]. Equation 5 takes a much simpler form in the case of orthogonal anisotropy, called briefly orthotropy. Then there exist three mutually perpendicular principal directions of the tensor Flijhl. Choosing the reference frame x y z in such a way as to obtain its coincidence with the principal axes of orthotropy, we eliminate nine terms of the type axr.xy (in engineering notation) and three terms of the type "Cxy'Cy and in Eq. 5 only nine terms z, remain. Further, if we require the independence of the yield condition on the mean stress am, then three additional conditions must be satisfied, and Eq. 5 takes the form
F(ay  @)2 + G(az _ ax)2 + H(ax  ay) 2 + 2LZ2z + 2MZ2zx+ 2Nz 2  1 (7)
The notation in Eq. 7 is due to Hill [9], who considered this condition in detail. Equation 7 will be called here "the first Hill's yield condition." The moduli F, G, H, L, M, N can be expressed in terms of the yieldpoint stresses in uniaxial tension (or compression) in the directions x, y, z, denoted
158
TABLE 3.4.1 C o n s t a n t s in Hill's Yield C o n d i t i o n Eq. 7 F (MPa 2) Pure a l u m i n u m sheets 1.090 x 10 4 G (MPa 2) 1.457 10 4 H (MPa 2) 1.530 10 4
ZYCZKOWSKI
1
c  ~ ~ ~ox
1)
G
1
M  2~2
(8)
.~
~o~y G
N2%
In the particular case of plane stress, which is very important for engineering applications (e.g., in rolled sheets), 0"z "Czx "Cyz 0 and we obtain a fourparameter equation 2 0"y 1 1
._} 0"27 0___. 0"~y 02x~x_~_ __ __
1 ~z
l:xy
0x0y "}   T,~xy
(9)
Experimental data for rolled pure aluminum sheets obtained by Klepaczko [10] are gathered in Table 3.4.1 (x is rolling direction, y is transverse direction; in the planar case under consideration, L and M were not measured; units are converted from mm4/kG 2 to MPa2).
OF THE TRESCA
The generalizations of the Tresca (principal shear) yield condition to anisotropic materials are very simple but only in a particular case: if general anisotropy is restricted to orthotropy and the principal directions of the stress state and of the orthotropy coincide. The corresponding system of six linear equations, taking into account the possible anisosensitivity of the material (strengthdifferential effect), was first derived in 1958 by Hu [11 ], and then independently by Ivlev and Capurso (see [7])" ~ +   = 1 ooi+ rr030"1   0"2
.
0"1   0"2
0"2   0"3
(10)
~ 1
0"2   0"3
0"01
0"03+
3.4 A n i s o t r o p i c Yield C o n d i t i o n s
159
and the remaining four equations are obtained by cyclic permutation of the indices both for stresses and for plastic moduli. The symbols 001+, 001denote here positive yieldpoint stresses in tension and in compression along the axis "1", respectively, and so on. Another generalization of the Tresca yield condition, also allowing for anisosensitivity, was proposed by Berman and Hodge [12]"
01
m
03
a
03  01
=1, =1,
0"2
03
b
03  02
=1 =1
~ = 1 c 01  02 ~ = 1 f
02
01
(11)
The relation between the positive moduli a, b , . . . , f, and the moduli 001+, 001, ... depends on algebraic ordering of the first set. For example, if a > b > c > d > e > f , we obtain 001+=f, 002+=c, 003+=e, 001=d, 002=f, 003=b (12)
It means that an additional constraint a 0 1 +  002 is imposed, and the constant a cannot be determined from uniaxial tests in principal directions.
(13)
which was later u s e d  in its general form or in confined f o r m s  by many authors more or less independently as a yield condition. Historical notes are given by Zyczkowski [7]. The symbol ae denotes here the HuberMisesHencky effective stress. Equation 13 describes in the space of principal stresses an ellipsoid, a paraboloid, a cone, or a cylinder. Direct generalization of Eq. 13 to anisotropic materials may be written, for example, by using transformed stresses #ij (2, 3, 4) with just one anisotropy t e n s o r Aijkl
3
~a
Aokt

~AppklC~ij Aijqr

ttqrt~ij aklaqr
(14)
(AppkZ~kl) 2 + 5App~lGkl  1
A more general yield condition of this type was derived by Betten [1], who used two independent material tensors.
160
Z~cz~ows~
Another generalization, using several anisotropy tensors, was proposed by Goldenblat and Kopnov [14,15]:
(l'[ij(Tij) ~ "n (1'Iijkl(Tij~kl) f3 AV (l[ijklmn~ij(Tkl(Tmn) 7 ~ . . .   1 t
(15)
where ~, ]3, 7,.. are arbitrary exponents, but the authors proposed to assume ~ = 1,/3 = 1/2, 7 = 1 / 3 , . . . (then the homogeneity of the function on the lefthand side is assured). They discussed in detail the case
rli)~ri) + v/rlijhl~ri)akl = 1
(16)
which may be regarded as a certain generalization of the PragerDrucker cone. The monograph [15] gives the method of experimental evaluation of the moduli ri O and 1Iijkl and many working formulae for particular cases. Assuming in Eq. 15 ~ = ]~ = 1, we obtain a material characterized, in general, by 6 + 2 1   2 7 material constants (in view of symmetry requirements imposed on II ). Additional restriction of independence from the mean stress Crm reduces the number of constants to 5+ 1520; this case was considered in detail by Szczepifiski [16]. On the other hand, restriction to orthotropy reduces the number of constants to 3 + 9  12, [ 17]. If we impose both restrictions simultaneously, the number of constants amounts 2 + 6  8. Making use of the extended Hill's notation Eq. 7, we obtain, in this case [ 18],
F(O'y   O'z)2[  G ( o " z   0"x) 2 q 
H(o" x  Cry) 2
(17)
This condition is particularly useful for describing the properties of composites, and its particular form restricted to planar a n i s o t r o p y  to rolled sheet metals. In the latter case the anisotropy is acquired because of previous deformation, and anisosensitivity is mainly due to the Bauschinger effect.
3.4.5
GENERALIZATIONS
OF THE HERSHEY
"POWER YIELD CONDITION" Hershey [19] proposed in 1954 the following "power yield condition" for isotropic materials, expressed in terms of principal stresses:
]0" 1   0"2[m~[0"2   0"3[mnt[0"3   0"1[ m  
2o'~"  2o'~"
(18)
161
where ab denotes the yieldpoint stress in equibiaxial tension, and m ~> 1 is not necessarily an integer. The cylindrical surface Eq. 18 for m = 2 and m = 4 turns into the HuberMisesHencky cylinder, and for m  1 and m ~ oo into the Tresca hexagonal prism. Numerous papers generalize Eq. 18 to anisotropy, mostly to planar orthotropy, which is important, for example, for the description of yielding of rolled sheets. Hill [20] suggested the following generalization of Eq. 18 for planar orthotropy: gl0"11m_+_fl0zlm_+_hl01
_ _
021m_+_C/1201__ 02[m_+_b[202
where f + g + a + b + 2mc = 1 (second Hill's yield condition). Earlier, Hosford had discussed a particular case of this condition, namely, a = b = c = 0. Equation 19 has six free material constants, m, f, g, h, a, b. Another, more complicated generalization of Eq. 18, proposed by Hill [21] for planar orthotropy, is of the form
1(~1
with four material constants m, h, k, l (third Hill's yield condition). When m   2 , Eq. 20 turns into the first Hill's yield condition Eq. 7 in different notation. Barlat and Lian [22] considered the case of different axes of orthotropy and of the stress state. They proposed the following yield condition: a[[K1  K2lm+[K1 q K2[m] q (2  a)]2K2[m= 20~" where K1 = 2 ' K2 0x 2 h0y. +p2,rxy2 (22) (21)
with four dimensionless material constants m, a, h, p. Numerical values of these constants are given by Barlat et al. [23] for a rolled aluminum alloy sheet 2008T4 with the thickness 1.24 mm and composition (in weight %) 0.60 Si, 0.13 Fe, 0.93 Cu, 0.06 Mn, and 0.40 Mg; they obtained m  8, a  1.24, h   1.15, p = 1.02, under the assumption that x, y, z denote, in turn, the rolling, transverse, and normal directions. In the previously mentioned paper [23], Barlat et al. also proposed a generalization of Hershey's yield condition Eq. 18 to the general case of triaxial stress state in an orthotropic material, if the principal directions of the stress state and of orthotropy do not coincide. In this case all six stress components appear, one has to solve a cubic equation to find the principal stresses, and the final yield condition takes the following compound form (via
162
TABLE 3.4.2 Material 2008T4 2024T3 Coefficients of the functions in Eqs. 2325 m 11 8 a 1.222 1.378 b 1.013 1.044 c 0.985 0.955 f 1.0 1.0 g 1.0 1.0
Z C K WV YZO Sa
h 1.0 1.210
Cardano's formulae):
(312) m/2
2 cos~
2 cos
20
3re 6
)m(
+
2 c o s ~ 6
2og'
(23)
where
1 12  ~4{[a(ay  a z )  c(rrx  ay)] 2 + [C(ax  Cry)  b(o" z  ax)] 2
1 2 + [ b ( a z  ax)  a ( a y  az)] 2} + ~( f 2 z 2 z + g 2Zzx + h 2 z 2 ) 1 13  ~~[C(ax  Cry)  b ( a z  ax)][a(ay  a z )  C(ax  ay)] x[b(az  ax)  a(ay  az) ] v
o~) _
+fghzyzZvcz
+ [a(~y 
1 ~{[C(ax
C(~x 
rry)b(az
ax)]
2 Z ;2z ,
with seven dimensionless constants m, a, b, c, f, g, h. Table 3.4.2 gives their numerical values for rolled aluminum alloy sheets, namely, for 2008T4 defined previously, and for 2024T3 with the thickness 0.30mm and composition (in weight %) < 0.50 Si, < 0.50 Fe, 4.40 Cu, 0.60 Mn, 1.50 Mg [231.
FOR
Some authors propose anisotropic yield conditions in the form of a polynomial, usually of the third or fourth degree.
3.4 Anisotropic Yield Conditions TABLE 3.4.3 Material Alkilled steel Cu(1/4)H Coefficients of the Function Eq. 26 Divided by A1 A1 1.0 1.0 A2 2.60 1.80 A3 3.75 2.68 A4 2.79 2.20 A5 0.991 1.203 A6 6.29 6.58 A7 7.72 5.51 A8 6.33 6.71
163
A9 8.96 11.48
Gotoh [24] proposed for orthotropic materials the following fourthdegree yield condition: 3 2 2 4 A10"x++A20x0"y if A30"x0"y + A4 o"x@ + A50y (26) 2 2 + A9r~y 1 + (A60"x + A70"x0"y + A80";)rxy 2 with nine material constants A1, A2, . . . , A9. Numerical values of these constants were found experimentally by the author for commercial Alkilled steel and Cu(1/4)H rolled sheets, 0.8 mm in thickness, with the notation of axes as given previously. They are quoted in Table 3.4.3. Detailed comparisons with quadratic yield condition were also provided. Hill [25] proposed a planar yield condition for orthotropic sheets in the form of a thirddegree polynomial expressed in terms of principal stresses acting along the inplane axes of orthotropy. It was called by the author "a userfriendly theory of orthotropic plasticity" (fourth Hill's yield condition): F~+
(p+q)
~ =
(27)
where 0Ol, ao2, and 0b denote, in turn, yieldpoint stresses in uniaxial tension in directions "1" and "2" and in equibiaxial tension. Dimensionless constants p and q are free (to be determined from experiments), whereas c must satisfy the equation c 1 1 1 = 4 (28) 2
O010"02 0"~1 0"22 0"b
3.4.7 FINAL REMARKS Averaged (homogenized) properties of structurally anisotropic materials (reinforced, ribbed, perforated) often show an even more significant dependence on the direction than naturally anisotropic ones. In the case of structural plastic anisotropy, two typical approaches may be distinguished: either a purely formal, phenomenological application of the general anisotropic yield conditions, discussed in the previous sections, or a more detailed analysis of the structure combined with a homogenization process.
164
Z~z~ow~,
S o m e e x a m p l e s of the latter a p p r o a c h will be g i v e n in the c h a p t e r d e v o t e d to heterogeneous media. L i t e r a t u r e d e v o t e d to a n i s o t r o p i c yield c o n d i t i o n s is v e r y a m p l e ; n u m e r o u s a d d i t i o n a l r e f e r e n c e s are g i v e n in R e f e r e n c e [7]. M o r e o v e r , m a n y e x p e r i m e n t a l data are p r e s e n t e d b y I k e g a m i [26].
REFERENCES
1. Betten, J. (1988). Applications of tensor functions to the formulation of yield criteria for anisotropic materials. Int. J. Plasticity 4: 2946. 2. Rogers, T. G. (1990). Yield criteria, flow rules, and hardening in anisotropic plasticity, in Yielding, Damage, and Failure of Anisotropic Solids, pp. 5379, Boehler, J. P., ed., London: Mechanical Engineering Publications. 3. Sobotka, Z. (1969). Theorie des plastischen Fliessens von anisotropen K6rpern. Z. Angew. Math. Mechanik 49: 2532. 4. Boehler, J. P., and Sawczuk, A. (1970). Equilibre limite des sols anisotropes. J. de M&anique 9: 533. 5. 2;yczkowski, M., and Kurtyka, T. (1990). A description of distortional plastic hardening of anisotropic materials, in Yielding, Damage, and Failure of Anisotropic Solids, pp. 97111, Boehler, J. P., ed., London: Mechanical Engineering Publications. 6. Mises, R. (1928). Mechanik der plastischen Form~inderung von Kristallen. Z. Angew. Math. Mechanik 8: 161185. 7. Zyczkowski, M. (1981). Combined Loadings in the Theory of Plasticity, Alphen aan den Rijn: m Warszawa, Nijhoff m PWN. 8. Drucker, D. C. (1973). Plasticity theory, strengthdifferential (SD) phenomenon, and volume expansion in metals and plastics. Metall. Trans. 4: 667673. 9. Hill, R. (1948). Theory of yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proc. Royal Soc. A193: 281297. 10. Klepaczko, J. (1969). O pewnym przypadku anizotropii. Mechanika Teoretyczna i Stosowana 7: 155163. 11. Hu, L. W. (1958). Modified Tresca's yield condition and associated flow rules for anisotropic materials and its applications. J. Franklin Inst. 265: 187204. 12. Berman, I., and Hodge, P. G., Jr. (1959). A general theory of piecewise linear plasticity for initially anisotropic materials. Archiwum Mechaniki Stosowanej 11: 513540. 13. Burzyfiski, W. (1929). 0ber die Anstrengungshypothesen. Schweiz. Bauz. 94: 259263. 14. Goldenblat, I. I., and Kopnov, V. A. (1966). A generalized theory of plastic flow of anisotropic media (in Russian), in Stroitelnaya Mekhanika (Rabinovich Anniversary Volume), pp. 307319, Streletsky, N. S., et al., ed., Moskva Izdat: Lit. po Stroitelstvu. 15. Goldenblat, I. I., and Kopnov, V. A. (1968). Yield and Strength Criteria for Structural Materials (in Russian), Moskva: Mashinostroyenye. 16. Szczepifiski, W. (1992). On deformationinduced plastic anisotropy of sheet metals. Archiwum Mechaniki Stosowanej 44: 663698. 17. Tsai, S. W., and Wu, E. M. (1971). A general theory of strength for anisotropic materials. J. Compos. Mater. 5: 5880. 18. Ota, T., Shindo, A., and Fukuoka, H. (1959). A consideration on anisotropic yield criterion, in Proc. 9th Jap. Nat. Congr. Appl. Mech., pp. 117120.
165
19. Hershey, A. V. (1954). The plasticity of an isotropic aggregate of anisotropic facecentered cubic crystals. J. Appl. Mech. 21: 241249. 20. Hill, R. (1979). Theoretical plasticity of textured aggregates. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 85: 179. 21. Hill, R. (1990). Constitutive modelling of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 38: 405. 22. Barlat, E, and Lian, J. (1989). Plastic behavior and stretchability of sheet metals. Int. J. Plasticity 5: 5166. 23. Barlat, E, Lege, D. J., and Brem, J. C. (1991). A sixcomponent yield function for anisotropic materials. Int. J. Plasticity 7: 693712. 24. Gotoh, M. (1977). A theory of plastic anisotropy based on a yield function of fourth order. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 19: 505520. 25. Hill, R. (1993). A userfriendly theory of orthotropic plasticity in sheet metals. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 35: 1925. 26. Ikegami, K. (1982). Experimental plasticity on the anisotropy of metals, in Mechanical Behaviour of Anisotropic Solids, pp. 201242, Boehler, J. P. ed., Alphen aan den Rijn: Nijhoff.
SECTION
3.5
Contents 3.5.1 Background and Validity of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Formulation of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 How to use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4.1 Use of the model as a Yield Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4.2 Use of the Model as a Hardening Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
167
yield surface distortions. These effects are, however, systematically observed in experiments and may be essential for some important applications, such as for a correct modeling of the multiaxial ratcheting under nonproportional loadings. Several distortional models have therefore been proposed [16] to describe the yield surface distortions and to introduce the corresponding distortional hardening rules; however, there is as yet no widely accepted theory of this type applicable to engineering problems. Such models are thus addressed mainly to experimentalists and need further investigations. This is also the case of the distortional model presented in this paper, which has the advantage of providing a quite general description and a simple geometrical interpretation of the distortional effects. Here, the model is mainly presented as a distortional yield condition and is only outlined as a hardening rule, where it needs further experimental specification. The model is formulated for initially isotropic J2 materials [7] but may be generalized to a wider class of pressureinsensitive "deviatoric materials" [8, 9 ]. As a hardening rule [ 10, 11], the model follows classical relations of rateindependent elastoplasticity for small plastic strains.
3.5.2 FORMULATION
OF THE MODEL
The primary idea of the present model is to have the initial yield condition described by a hypersphere and to consider various transformations of such a hypersphere. The model is therefore conveniently formulated using vectorial representations of stress and straintype deviators in the auxiliary fivedimensional Ilyushin's vector spaces [12]. In what follows, index notation will be used. For the sake of clarity, Latin indices will refer to physical coordinates (i, j , . . . , = 1, 2, 3), and Greek indices will be reserved for the coordinates of Ilyushin's vector spaces (o~, fi,..., = 1, 2 , . . . , 5). In these spaces the stress deviator S = {sij} will be represented as a stress vector a = {a~} with the components a~ defined here as: (1)
' \2 '
In such a space the Hubervon Mises yield condition sijsij  2a2/3 (where a0 stands for the yield stress in uniaxial tension) is described by a hypersphere with the radius R0 = a0;
,o (2)
168
Kurtyka
g22 , 83  ~ e 1 2 ,
84  ~ g 2 3 ,
85  ~ { 3 3 1
(3)
and may be decomposed into its elastic and plastic part; ~ = ~e + ~p. The present distortional model may be treated as a generalization of the kinematicanisotropic hardening models described by the quadratic yield condition
v 
=0
(4)
where C@1 is a fourthorder tensor of plastic anisotropy and aij is a deviatoric translation tensor (or back stress). In the vector stress space (Eq. 1) this condition is mapped (under usual symmetry conditions imposed on the anisotropy tensor) by a hyperellipsoidal surface, described by the quadratic form
F = C~,8(a~  ao~)(a~  a~)  1 = 0
(5)
with the symmetric matrix C  { C~/~} corresponding to the tensor C = {Cijhz} (its components divided by the common factor 2a02/3) and the translation vector a = {a~} representing the translation deviator. The present model is based on a simple geometrical generalization of the hyperellipsoidal surface, illustrated for a twodimensional case in Figure 3.5.1. The hyperellipsoid is treated here as a surface resulting from a projective mapping of five concentric hyperspheres with five (generally distinct) radii R~, and with five orthogonal projective directions coinciding with the directions of the eigenvectors of the matrix C, being also directions of the elliptic deformation of the yield surface, Figure 3.5.1a. A nonelliptic distortion of the surface is obtained by allowing the hyperspheres to be nonconcentric (Fig. 3.5.1b), with their centers translated with respect to the origin of the moving reference frame F~. These translations are described by five stresstype parameters m distortional vectors d(~). In the general case of such a surface, their directions may be arbitrary. However, as shown in Reference [13], experimental distortions of subsequent yield surfaces are sufficiently well described by a special, simplified case in which the distortional vectors are coaxial with the corresponding (i.e., having the same index a ) axes ~ . This reduces the distortional parameters to five scalar parameters denoted d~   the nonzero components of the five vectors d(~) in the moving reference frame F~.
FIGURE 3.5.1 Distortional model of subsequent yield surfaces (b) as a generalization of quadratic surfaces (a).
Kurtyka
For this simplified case of distortion the yield surface equation, expressed in terms of its geometrical parameters, is formally identical to that of the quadratic surface (Eq. 5); however, the matrix C is now a functional matrix, with the diagonal matrix of "eigenvalues" D = diag(Dy~) depending on stress components: C./~  Q~.Q~/~D(~), with
2 D(~)  R~ + 2d(~,)Q(y),~(a,~  a~)  d~,
(6)
where indices in brackets are labels, ( 7 ) = 7, which are not subject to summation. In these formulae Q = {Qy~} is an orthogonal matrix describing rotation of the moving frame F~. In this coordinate system the equation of the distortional yield surface may be presented in the following "canonical" form:
5 "2
a~
0r
10,
with
c~Q~(a~a~)
(7)
where F~ denote the components of the "active stress vector" ( a  a) in the moving frame. The preceeding yield surface model is characterized by the following set of geometrical parameters: Q, a, R~, d~, containing the rotation matrix Q (with 10 independent components), one vector parameter m the back stress a (with 5 components), and 10 scalar parameters R~, d~. The surface of this type is defined if R2 ___d2, and smooth if R2 > d2. Its convexity has been proven at least in a twodimensional case [7]. Invariant aspects of the model and the equivalence between tensorial and vectorial formulations are treated in Reference [14]. In its most general form, with all R~ distinct and all d~ different from zero, the model accounts for quite general asymmetric distortions observed for nonproportional loading paths. In the case of proportional loads, the yield surface equation is largely simplified, since in this case the yield surface, at least for the initial Hubervon Mises material, should be rotationally symmetric with respect to the loading direction (Ilyushin's postulate of isotropy). This implies d~ = 0, R~ = R0 for 0~= 2, 3, 4, 5. In this case the rotation matrix Q is fully defined by any unit vector collinear with the loading direction, e.g., by e = a/]a] = ~P/]~P] . . . . , and the matrix C may be expressed as:
+ + (8)
where 6~ is a unit matrix. This expression may be treated as a generalization of the BaltovSawczuk tensor of plastic anisotropy for the case of the distortional model, which is defined here by only four parameters: ]a[, R1, R0, dl.
171
The model may, first of all, be used to approximate experimental yield surfaces. Most frequently this will be done for the yield surfaces investigated in twodimensional subspaces of the stress space (Eq. 1). In this case the distortional model corresponding to general, nonproportional loads is defined by seven parameters; e.g., for the al, a3 tensiontorsion plane these are al, a3, R1, R3, dl, d3, q~, where q) is the angle of rotation of the moving reference frame, defining the rotation matrix. These parameters may be identified using the numerical method of leastsquares approximation described in Reference [13]. A sufficient number of experimental points of the yield surface, obtained in multiaxial tests, is necessary to perform the identification. As shown in [13], the model describes with good accuracy the experimental yield loci obtained for various materials and for different experimental definitions of yielding, both for proportional and nonproportional loading paths. Two examples are shown in Figure 3.5.2, corresponding to two experimental methods of yield surface determination, investigated either during the loading process (method of partial unloading, Figure 3.5.2a) or after complete unloading (Fig. 3.5.2b). The model may also be used as an anisotropic yield condition for the materials with previous plastic working (e.g., after rolling [9]).
3.5.4.2
Two approaches may be outlined here. First, we may choose as hardening variables the geometrical parameters of the yield surface, discussed previously, and specify separate evolution equations describing translation, rotation, size changes, and distortions of the yield surface. General and some specified forms of such evolution equations, as well as the corresponding stressstrain relations for this case, have been presented in Reference [10] and applied in Reference [11] to the simulation of Bui's experimental results shown in Figure 3.5.2b. The second approach, still to be explored, may be termed "tensorial" and consists in looking for a global evolution equation defining the parameters contained in the matrix C in the distortional yield condition. The matrix C itself is not convenient for this purpose, but may be presented as an inverse of a certain matrix N, C~/~  N~~ 1, with
N ~  Q~Q~D(~)
(9)
FIGURE 3.5.2 The distortional model as bestfit to experimental yield surfaces of pure aluminum for nonproportional tensiontorsion load paths. Experimental points according to (a) Phillips and Tang [15]  load path OAA'BC, (b) Bui [161  torsion under constant compression, load path tangent to the initial yield surface.
173
representing a secondorder tensor in the stress vector space (corresponding to a fourthorder tensor in physical coordinates) and linear in stress components. This tensor may be presented in the general form
( 1 O)
where the secondorder tensor A~fl (fourthorder tensor in physical coordinates) contains isotropic and affine anisotropic effects, and the thirdorder tensor B~fl~, (sixthorder tensor in physical coordinates) is responsible for the distortional effects. In this approach, the evolution equations must be specified for these two tensors. As a hint and "prototype" for these evolution equations, one may take the expression for the tensor N corresponding to the case of proportional loading, where it can be derived from Eq. 8 in the following finite form: N~fl = k16~fl + k2e~efl + k3(a~  a~,)e~efle~, (11)
where kl, k2, k3 ~ three scalar functions describing isotropic, affine, and distortional effects are related to the geometrical parameters; k l  R~, k 2  R1  R ~  dl k 3  2dl, and should be specified from experiz z, ments. In this second approach to the formulation of the distortional hardening rule, further investigations should be directed toward a differential or integral generalization of this expression that is valid for general nonproportional loading paths and is combined with a relevant translation rule for the back stress. Some proposals of such generalizations, formulated for other distortional models (c.f. [5, 6]), could be reexamined in the context of the present model.
REFERENCES
1. Williams, J. E, and Svensson, N.L. (1971). A rationally based yield criterion for work hardening materials. Meccanica 6(2): 104114. 2. Shiratori, E., Ikegami, K., and Yoshida, E (1979). Analysis of stressstrain relations by use of an anisotropic hardening plastic potential. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 27: 213229. 3. Ortiz, M. and Popov, E. P. (1983). Distortional hardening rules for metal plasticity. Trans. ASCE, J. Eng. Mech. 109: 10421057. 4. Helling, D. E., and Miller A. K. (1987). The incorporation of yield surface distortion into a unified constitutive model. Acta Mechanica, Part I 69: 923, Part II 72:3953 (1988). 5. Watanabe, O. (1987). Anisotropic hardening law of plasticity using an internal time concept (deformations of yield surfaces). Jap. Soc. Mech. Eng., Int. J. 30(264): 912920. 6. Voyiadjis, G. Z., and Foroozesh, M. (1990). Anisotropic distortional yield model. J. Appl. Mech. 57: 537547. 7. Kurtyka, T., and Zyczkowski, M. (1985). A geometric description of distortional plastic hardening of deviatoric materials. Arch. Mech. 37(4): 383395. 8. Kurtyka, T., and Zyczkowski, M. (1984). Generalized Ilyushin's spaces for a more adequate description of plastic hardening. Acta Mechanica 52, 113.
174
Kurtyka
9. Zyczkowski, M., and Kurtyka, T. (1990). A description of distortional plastic hardening of anisotropic materials, in Yielding, Damage and Failure of Anisotropic Solids, pp. 97111, Boehler, J. P., ed., London: MEP. 10. Kurtyka, T., and Zyczkowski, M. (1996). Evolution equations for distortional plastic hardening. Int. J. Plasticity 12(2): 191213. 11. Zyczkowski, M., Kurtyka, T., and Wasik, K. (1995). Integration of evolution equations for distortional plastic hardening. Math. Modelling and Scientific Computing 5(24): 257. 12. Ilyushin, A. A. (1963). Plasticity (in Russian), Moskva: Izd. AN SSSR. 13. Kurtyka, T. (1988). Parameter identification of a distortional model of subsequent yield surfaces. Arch. Mech. 40(4): 433454. 14. Kurtyka, T. (1990). Invariant formulation of a distortional model of plastic hardening. Mech. Teor. Stos. 28: 115131. 15. Phillips, A., and Tang, J. L. (1972). The effect of loading path on the yield surface at elevated temperatures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 8: 463474. 16. Bui, H. D. (1966). Ecrouissage des M&aux. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 262: 401404.
SECTION
3.6
A Generalized Limit Criterion with Application to Strength, Yielding, and Damage of Isotropic Materials
HOLM ALTENBACH Fachbereich Ingenieurwissenschaften, MartinLutherUniversitdt HalleWittenberg, D06099 Halle (Saale), Germany
Contents 3.6.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Description of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.4 Identification of the parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.5 How to use the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.6 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
175
176
3.6.1 VALIDITY This is generalized equivalent stress criterion that is valid for materials in the brittle or ductile state and that can be used to describe the beginning of
yielding, loss of strength or damage in structural elements, granular materials, and so forth, that a r e subjected to multiaxial stress states. The criterion is presented for isotropic materials and the case of m o n o t o n i c loading conditions at constant temperatures. In addition, the t i m e  i n d e p e n d e n t behavior is presumed. Finally, from the presented generalized criterion various special cases can be d e d u c e d and the limits of their applicability can be defined.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
175
17 6 3.6.2 BACKGROUND
Ahenbach
The use of traditional engineering materials at elevated exploitation conditions as well as the use of new materials (e.g., composites or special alloys) requires the reformulation of the traditional limit criteria based on the equivalent stress formulations. With the help of the equivalent stress, one can compare critical multiaxial stress states in structural elements with the results of mostly uniaxial materials tests. On the other hand, a general expression based on some physical principles, etc., cannot be found. This is the reason for the great number of engineering proposals which are established in the literature. In uniaxial stress states, the material properties, such as the yield stress point cry or the ultimative strength cry, are characteristics which allow one to obtain, e.g., the beginning of yielding or the loss of strength. Both can be obtained from the stressstrain curve (mostly the engineering stresses and the engineering strains). In multiaxial (combined) stress states, we have to define an equivalent stress criterion. Considering that both the material properties characterizing the limit state cry, cry, etc., are scalars for the comparison certain criterion must be introduced mathematically. The criterion can be generally expressed as
f(crij;Ch)
=0
(1)
The function f is a scalarvalued, nonnegative, homogeneous function. Note that the function f is a function of the stress tensor crij (i, j = 1, 2, 3) and several material constants Ck (k = 1, . . . , n) for fitting available data from tests. The main experimental information is based on data derived from simple tests under the condition of atmospheric pressure and loaded in tension, compression, and torsion (main tests in mechanical testing materials). On the basis of these tests, it is impossible to give recommendations about the equivalent stress value if the materials are, working, e.g., under hydrostatic pressure conditions or if the level and the kind of stress state have a significant influence on the material behavior. Experimental data demonstrating such behavior are reported, for instance, in Reference [1]. Equivalent stress expressions for isotropic materials are introduced by various authors. In general, they have the following form: f (r r r G) = 0
(2)
where cri (i = I, II, III) are three independent invariants of the stress tensor. There is no unique answer to the question of what kind of invariants must be introduced: the principal stresses of the HaighWestergaard coordinates, etc. Examples of such invariants are presented, e.g., in References [1, 3, 6].
177
~q ___~
(3)
where aeq is the equivalent stress and a7 denotes a critical material properties (limit value) estimated in the tension test. With the help of the introduced inequality, we describe the equivalence between the uniaxial and the complex material behavior. If aeq < or7 the structural element works, e.g., in the elastic range (no plasticity) or we cannot obtain any failure. If r   O"T we assume the limit state for the given material. Assuming isotropic behavior, the equivalent stress depends on the stress tensor invariants only. Taking into account the various possibilities for defining the stress tensor invariants below, we consider the following invariants (HaighWestergaard coordinates): 9 the first invariant of the stress tensor I1 ~ r 9 the von Mises stress arm = V/3/2sijsij with sij the stress deviator; and 9 the angle of the stress state ~ with sin 3~   ( 9 / 2 ) Sij Sjk Ski/CTv3M, ]~] ~ n/6. With respect to the introduced invariants, the equivalent stress expression can be suggested [2]: following generalized (4)
 '~1 CYvM sin~ + 22CrvMCOS~ + 23 arm +/~411 ~ 2511 sin~ + 2611 COS~
The 2m (m = 1, . . . , 6) are scalar parameters which should be determined experimentally. Note that the generalized equivalent stress is sensitive, e.g., to the influence of the hydrostatic pressure and the stress state (for instance, tension or compression). The classical equivalent stress the von Mises stress can be deduced if ,~3 = 1 and all other ,~m are vanishing. Assuming the parameters to be constant, the proposed model is restricted by monotonic loading, in addition, hardening behavior cannot be modeled.
178
Let us introduce three basic tests of the material testing: 9 uniaxial tension o11   0 . T ; 9 uniaxial compression 0"11     0  C ; and 9 torsion O"12 D "~T.
Ahenbach
Here 0c and zr are the limit values of the material in the case of compression or torsion. In addition, we can introduce tests reflecting the complex behavior. The introduction of such tests is not unique and depends on the experimental facilities. Here we consider the following tests: 9 thinwalled tubular specimen under inside pressure with the stresses
20"11   0"22 ~ 0"R;
9 biaxial tension (thinwalled tubular specimen loaded by inside pressure and uniaxial tensile force) with the stresses 011 = F / A + 0.~/2, 022 = 0.~; and 9 uniaxial tension superposed by hydrostatic pressure with the stresses 0"11 = F / A  q, 0"22 = 0"33 =  q . 0R is the limit of the circumferential stress which can be calculated from 0R  p R / h , p is the inside limit pressure, and R, h are the radius of the middle surface and the thickness of the thinwalled tubular specimen. In the next test, 0c is the limit of the circumferential stress, F is the tensile force, and A denotes the cross section area of the thinwalled tubular specimen. In this test a special combination of the uniaxial force and the pressure must be fulfilled: 0  1 1  0 " 2 2  0. with 0,  p R / h . For the third test the following condition must be valid: 0 . 1 1  2 / 3 0  * * , 0 " 2 2  0 " 3 3   1 / 3 0 . * * with 0  * *  3q (q denotes the hydrostatic pressure). The last condition guarantees that the first invariant vanishes. For comparison we calculate for each test the invariants I1, 0"vM, and ~. Finally, we put these values in the expression of the equivalent stress. For example, in the case of uniaxial tension we obtain I1 0"T, 0 " v M  0"T, ~ = re/6, and
,~1 v/3
,~5 V5
(5)
Providing the same calculations for all other tests, we get six equations (algebraic with respect to the unknown parameters 2m) containing six known material properties identified by independent tests. The solution of this
179
24
\ aR
25  2
(

rr
0"**
1+
(7 y
24+v/3
2
(6)
21   1 + m + 224 + v/326
OC
/~3 =
( aT v ~ \ 2O'..
aT
TT
Note that, in the case of other tests for complex stress states, we obtain values of the unknown 2m that are different from the presented solution.
(7)
At the same setting 23 = 1 and all other 2m = 0, we obtain the special criterion from the general form if we take into account that a ; = ay. From the solution of our system of equations we can now calculate with respect to the given
180
Ahenbach
values of ,~m in the case of HMH some relations for the material properties
O ' T   O'T  o"C o, O'T ~ 1, o, ,
~
oR
v~ ,
2
~  ~ "~T
(8)
If these relations are fulfilled, we can conclude that the Hubervon MisesHencky equivalent stress is valid. In other words, if we obtain these combinations of limit values in tests, the use of the Hubervon MisesHencky equivalent stress can be recommended; otherwise we have to consider another expression for the equivalent stress. In Table 3.6.1 various criteria are
TABLE 3.6.1 Values of the Parameters ~,i, i = 1 , . . . , 6 in the Generalized Criterion in the Case of Particular Criteia
Criterion
;tl
22
23
24
,~5
26
HMH
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 2
1
0 1
1
0 0
0
0 0
0
 51 g
1
1+~ 3
4 (1 4 v)
12~ 3
Twoparameter criteria Mo
BM
_lx 3
0
v~(z+l) 3 0
0 l+z
2
1z
~2 a~/ 1z
3 2
o
0 0
o
0 0
CP PL Sa
0 z1 3 0
o
v~(1Z)
v~
3 g
0
x/~(I+z)
o 0
0 0
2f(1
~ b2
(.1
 ~3)
o b3
0 0 0
0 0 0
(2c2  Cl  c3)
4(C1C3)
C4
1 (cl + c2 + c3) d2
0 d3
0 d4
Ta
dl
3.6 A Generalized
Limit Criterion
181
presented as special cases of the sixparameterequivalent stress given here. From the Table 3.6.2. one can get other information: the combinations of the material's limit values for which the special expressions of the equivalent stress can be recommended. In both tables the following abbreviations are used: 9 HMH for the H u b e r  v o n MisesHencky criterion
0eq ~ 0vM
9 CTV for the C o u l o m b  T r e s c a  d e Saint Venant criterion Tmax  1(01  03) 9 Ma for the Mariotte criterion
1 0eq  01 ~(02 4 03)
or
0eq  
01   03
O'T 7cc
9 DP for the DruckerPrager criterion (r/ ~r for recalculation of the criterion) ~/~ v5 v5~+1
Tmax  
SijSij Jr
TABLE 3.6.2 Restrictions for the Material Characteristics in the Case of Particular Criteia
Criterion
9
OC
E I
TT
E I
UR
E L
O.
L L a.s
V ' 3
2
3
2
4
1
1
1 1
2 3
1
1 2
a
1
GL
0
1 2
1
4
Sd
VB
&
2
&
2v 2
1 1v
5
6
1+v
5 ( 1 + v)
Twoparameter criteria Mo 1
v%l+x)+3(1x) 4
1
%
BM
CP
PL
Sa K
TABLE
3.6.2 (continued)

>
or ZT
K
.
Criterion
vc
Q
OR
EL
0.
LX
0 . .
6
C
Threeparameter criteria
Fourparameter criteria
i.
184
Altenbach
 2)0"2  20"3
o'r
with
al
with
 bl 4 v ~ b 2 + 2b3 = 2
with
c~+fl+71
with
C1 A t  C 4  1
TABLE Material
3.6.3
High=strength cast iron Wrought iron Grey cast iron High=strength steel Metal ceramics (tungsten carbide based) Graphite Glass Note that in the case of HMH or the CTV criterion cr~/crc must be 1.
4 .
TABLE Material
3.6.4 Ultimative Strength in Tension, Compression, and Torsion for Grey Cast Iron 141 GG15 GG20 GG25 250350 840 290 0.300.42 0.861.21 GG30 300400 960 345 0.310.42 0.871.16 GG35 350450 1080 400 0.320.42 0.880.013
3.
Ferritdperlite Perlite 150250 200300 600 720 170 230 9 0.250.42 0.280.42 UT ac 0.881.47 0.871.30 7T Note that in the case of the HMH or the CTV criterion g T / z T  & = 1.73 or 2. Structure Ultimative strength (tension), N/mm2 Ultimative strength (compression), Nlmm2 Ultimative strength (torsion), ~ / m m ~
186
9 Ta for the T a r a s e n k o c r i t e r i o n
Altenbach
with
Here 0i, i  1, 2, 3 denote the principal stresses (01 ~ 02 ~ 03) which can be expressed by the introduced invariants as follows"
01 ~ 20vMsin(~ + ~ ) + I1
~ 02 m
I1
(9)
Note the restrictions of introduced parameters are included with respect to the experimental facilities (here with respect to the proposed tests).
3.6.6 PARAMETERS
Tables 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 present experimental data for some materials for which the generalized limit state criterion can be used.
REFERENCES
1. Altenbach, H., Altenbach, J., and Zolochevsky, A. (1995). Erweiterte Deformationsmodelle und Versagenskriterien der Werkstoffmechanik, Stuttgart: Deutscher Verlag ffir Grundstoffindustrie. 2. Altenbach, H., and Zolochevsky, A. (1996). A generalized failure criterion for threedimensional behavior of isotropic materials. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 54(1): 7590. 3. Chen, W., and Han, D. (1988). Plasticity for Structural Engineers. New York et al.: Springer. 4. Deutsches Institut fiir Normung, NormenausschuB GieBereiwesen: DIN 1691GuBeisen mit Lamellengraphit (Graugu~) (Mai 1985). 5. Lebedev, A., Koval'chuk, B., Giginyak, E, and Lamashevsky, V. (1983). Mechanical Properties of Engineering Materials at Complex Stress States, Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 6. Zyczkowski, M. (1981). Combined Loadings in the Theory of Plasticity, Warszawa: PWNnPolish scientific publisher.
SECTION3
As discussed briefly in the section on isotropic yield criteria, the yield condition of a ductile metal or alloy is a matter of definition and then idealization as well. Inhomogeneity of test specimens at the grain level, stress concentrations produced by inclusions and other discontinuities on the microscale, and the presence of large numbers of mobile dislocations all combine to produce small but detectable plastic strain at an early stage of loading. The yield limit, expressed as a yield stress for uniaxial or shear loading or as a yield function in stress space for more general loading, is then determined by an offset of strain or deformation per unit length, or by an alternative definition that gives a similar result. When the offset chosen is of the size of the elastic strain, the yield limit is a stress level beyond which the macroscopic plastic deformation that occurs is widespread and at most weakly constrained by the elastic response of neighboring or distant regions. In this conventional and useful approach to stressstrain relations, what is labeled as pointwise behavior actually is the loaddeformation behavior of a small unit block of material containing a sufficient number of grains to average out their quite different elastic and plastic responses along with the many disturbances on the microscale. The large initial and fabrication stresses present in most ductile structures similarly induce some highly contained but observable local plastic deformation on the macroscale well within what is nominally the purely elastic range of response. As at the specimen level, a useful yield load condition at the structural level is defined by a deflection or deformation offset for the plastically deforming regions of the size of the elastic response. It appropriately ignores not only the contained plastic action on the microscale but also the early stages of the macroscopic plastic response in one or more regions, a plastic response that initially is strongly constrained by the almost purely elastic response of neighboring material. The yield limit so defined is reached when enough regions deforming plastically are no longer so
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
187
188
Drucker
constrained by the remaining elastic regions nearby or far away that a plastic (really elasticplastic) deformation mechanism can operate. A very useful picture for placing such a yield condition in proper perspective is provided by plastic limit analysis. When the material is idealized as rigidperfectly plastic, the elastic strains go to zero (infinite modulus) and the material does not workharden in the plastic range. No deformation at all then takes place until the loads applied to the structure reach the limit condition and excessive deformation or collapse occurs. With the more realistic idealization of the material as elasticperfectly plastic, and (as is customary and almost always permissible) the equations of equilibrium are satisfied in a fixed configuration, the same limit values and purely plastic collapse mechanism apply because the stress everywhere remains unchanged during collapse. An initially stressfree elasticperfectly plastic homogeneous straight beam of rectangular cross section b x h under pure moment M serves as illustration. As the moment is increased from zero within the purely elastic range, the bending stress induced is linear with the distance from the neutral axis. The yield limit stress Oy(= a0)will be reached at the extreme fiber when the moment M reaches My = aobh2/6. Any appreciable initial stress present will produce yield much earlier at one extreme fiber or the other. More and more of the beam goes plastic as the moment is increased beyond the yield value. The early plastic response is strongly constrained by the elastic response of the remaining fibers. A further increase of the bending moment to 11aobh2/48 will still leave an elastic restraining core of half the depth of the beam. Full plasticity with only an asymptotic vestige of purely elastic constraint requires that M reach its limit of M0 = aobh2/4. This limit moment is 50% greater than My, the moment at first yield in the absence of initial stress, which in turn is greater than the moment producing yield in a beam with initial stress. The momentcurvature plot for the elasticperfectly plastic material idealization only asymptotically flattens to zero slope at the limit moment as shown (Fig. 3.7.1). For an elasticworkhardening material, the momentcurvature plot in the plastic range continues upward and looks like the stressstrain curve but with a much earlier and more rounded transition from the initial high elastic slope below initial yield ay at My = aybh2/6 to the very much flatter elasticplastic at larger M. Just as the stressstrain curve in tension may be idealized as elastic or perfectly plastic at a limit stress equal to the offset yield stress a0 > ay, the momentcurvature picture also can be so idealized at a limit moment M0 defined by an appropriate curvature offset of the size of the elastic curvature. Mo = aobh2/4 will be a fair approximation. Under a general transverse loading, the moment will vary along the beam. Like the plot of moment vs. curvature, a loaddeflection curve for a statically
189
Mo
Curvature
FIGURE 3.7.1 Moment vs. curvature for an elastic or perfectly plastic material and a workhardening material.
indeterminate beam also looks like a stressstrain curve but with a still earlier and more gradual transition from the high slope elastic response to the relatively fiat plastic response. The first reaching of the yield stress cry at the extreme fiber at the most highly stressed cross section will be even less visible. The yield load, defined by a deflection offset of the size of the elastic response, will not be reached until enough cross sections are sufficiently close to fully plastic that the response of the beam would be almost that of a mechanism with plastic hinges. For example, under a uniformly distributed load q per unit length, a fixedended initially stressfree beam of length L and uniform cross section b h will reach the initial yield stress Cry for the material at the extreme fibers at the fixed end when the bending moment there, qL2/12, reaches crybh2/6. As the load is increased further, the bending moments everywhere along the beam increase and more and more of the cross sections at and near the ends go plastic. When the end cross sections are fully plastic, at a bending moment of M0, the response away from the ends will still be primarily elastic. Not until the center section also reaches M0 and can operate as a (workhardening) plastic hinge is a fully plastic mechanism possible. In the perfectly plastic limit of no workhardening, when the limit moment M0 is reached at the center and both ends, the loaddeflection curve for the beam goes fiat. The limit load q0, given exactly by qoL2/16 = M0 = crobh2/4 for the perfectly plastic idealization, is twice the load calculated to produce first yield. With workhardening, the limit moment M0 for plastic yielding across the full depth of the beam not only is well above crybh2/4, but somewhat exceeds crobh2/4. As the load is increased, the end moments
190
Drucker
increase above their limit value for full plasticity on the cross section so that the effective limit condition for the beam is not reached until this increase in moment resistance due to workhardening also is overcome. Despite all this complexity, the limit load calculated for perfectly plastic response with M0 = ~robh2/4 is a crude but not unreasonable measure of the yield load for the workhardening beam as defined by an offset in the loaddeflection plot of the size of the elastic deflection. The effect of shear force V on the limit condition can become important when beams are very short or are loaded in some unusual way. When shear forces are significant, they do reduce the limit moment and have an effect on the momentcurvature relation in the plastic range. It is not strictly correct to replace the simple limit moment condition of M  M0 with a single limiting curve in combined moment and shear force space. The interaction of shear and moment for each beam is different for different loading and support conditions as well as for different yield limit criteria. For Ibeams and WFbeams it is easiest to use the simplification that the flanges take the bending and the web carries the shear and so that they bypass the interaction. For a rectangular cross section, although the interaction curves do change somewhat with the loading and support conditions, the one relation M / M o 1  ( V / V o ) 4 is not a bad approximation for all, where Vo  ~robh/2 when the Tresca criterion of yield is chosen. Most often the effect of the shear is small enough to be ignored. When detailed loaddeflection calculations are required, they can be obtained by computation with momentcurvature relations determined directly by experiment or by full calculation from appropriate uniaxial stressstrain curves and knowledge of the initial state of stress. On rare occasions it may be desirable to obtain the history of stress and strain at some critical point in a structure rather than dealing with generalized stresses and strains such as moment and curvature. As computers and programs for their use become more and more powerful, it becomes easier and easier to calculate the stress produced at each point by the application of loads to a perfectly elastic threedimensional body of complex geometry. With knowledge of the initial stress and the state of the material everywhere (or the assumption of zero initial stress everywhere at zero load), and completely specified geometry of structure and loading, the onset of yield can be determined for any yield criterion that is chosen. However, accurate computation of the subsequent history of the state of stress and strain under increasing load in the plastic range is difficult and timeconsuming with even the simplest yield criterion and flow rule. Furthermore, our knowledge of the stressstrain behavior of any material rarely if ever is complete enough to place much credence in the details of the results of such computations with the most elaborate of criteria chosen to match the data available. Fortunately, approximations that employ
191
such concepts as offset yield criteria and plastic limit loads are satisfactory for analysis and design under most circumstances. An alternative approach is to replace the elasticplastic behavior with a nonlinear elastic behavior that matches the stressstrain curve for increasing loading in simple tension or shear. This pseudoplastic assumption goes under the name of deformation or total theory of plasticity and can give useful results when the significant stresses everywhere continue to increase as the load on the structure or element increases. It is far less demanding computationally than the simplest of genuine plasticity approaches when calculations are made of local stresses, strains, and displacements. When the body is a structure composed of such elements as beams, plates, and shells, the use of beam theory, plate theory, and shell theory makes for great simplification over a true threedimensional approach and provides a very good assessment of first yield and of yield limit conditions. For plates and shells, the analysis is in terms of generalized stresses such as bending moments, twisting moments, and membrane normal and shear forces per unit length of middle surface. Corresponding kinematic quantities or generalized strains are curvature, twist, and membrane extensional and shear strains. The usual linear elastic calculations have many valuable uses. However, the initial yield they predict is unrealistic unless initial stress, elastic stress concentrations at connections and changes of section, and imperfect geometry of structure and loading are taken into account. Also, as for the rectangular beam, little of importance happens when a point on the surface of a ductile plates or shell yields. There usually is so much constraint in the elasticplastic regime that deviation from linear elastic response remains small at the considerably higher load when a yield moment is first reached at one or more cross sections located at some point or along some line in the middle surface. Again the replacement of workhardening by perfect plasticity at an appropriate offset yield level and of elasticplastic calculations by plastic limit theory permits a reasonable estimate of yield limit loads to be obtained fairly easily, along with a clear picture of the essence of the response. An alternative analysis based upon the substitution of nonlinear elasticity (deformation theory) for plasticity (flow theory) also is computationally tractable and may provide some useful insight. The usual plate analysis considers bending moments Mx and My and twisting moments MxyMyx per unit length of middle surface, or their curvilinear coordinate counterparts, with inplane or membrane forces taken as zero. Transverse shear does not appear in elementary plate analysis or in the traditional limit condition. The moments produce a state of plane stress parallel to the middle surface at each point of the plate. Initial, highly constrained, yield at the top and bottom of the plate and the much later condition of full plasticity throughout the depth of the plate therefore are
19 2
Drucker
governed by the same criteria as for plane stress with 6Mx/h 2 or 4Mx/h 2 replacing ax, and similar replacement of My for ay, and Mxy for axy. On the assumption of initially isotropic material with isotropic hardening, the picture of yield limit curves in the twodimensional principal bending moment space M1 vs. M2 is just like the picture in twodimensional principal stress space, concentric Mises ellipses or Tresca hexagons or something between them. In the threedimensional space (Mx, My, Mxy) it becomes a set of concentric surfaces. Its section by the plane My = 0 or by Mx = 0 is a concentric set of ellipses with major to minor axes in a 2 to 1 ratio for the Tresca and a square root of 3 ratio for the Mises, just as for the plot of one normal stress ax or ay vs. shear stress axy. Adding membrane forces to the bending and twisting moment components adds greatly to the complexity of the yield condition. Membrane forces do occur in plates but can usually be ignored as secondary quantities, unless the plates are subject to special inplane loading or undergo large deflections. However, one or more will be among the primary quantities for shells under load. In general, the plastic as well as the elastic analysis and design of shells requires consideration of six components of generalized stress, the three membrane force components along with the three moment components whose principal axes need not coincide with those of the membrane forces. Except for a few important simple geometries and loadings, precise stepbystep computation of the generalized strains (curvatures and inplane strains) and displacements under changing load in the plastic range is very timeconsuming, even with the assumption of zero initial stress and initial isotropy along with isotropic workhardening. As discussed for the beam, a reasonable estimate of a yield load condition (corresponding to a deflection offset of the size of the elastic deflection) may be obtained from limit analysis with a perfectly plastic yield limit surface for the six components of generalized stress. In principle, such a yield limit surface may be determined by experiment with appropriate offset of elastic magnitude for the generalized strains, a far from trivial extension of the previously described determination of M0 from a momentcurvature experiment. The extension of the calculation of M0 = aobh2/4 for a beam is a far more attractive option. For a plate or shell element (the beam is a special case), the desired perfectly plastic yield limit surface in generalized stress space is determined by the perfectly plastic yield limit stress surface in conventional stress space that is selected. Each combination of generalized plastic strains gives a linear variation of plastic strains through the thickness of the plate or shell element. These local plastic strains determine the local states of limit stress from which the generalized stresses corresponding to each choice of generalized plastic strains can be computed directly. The resulting yield limit surface in six dimensions and its two and three
193
dimensional sections as well are likely to be of quite complicated geometry and not well suited for computation. Upper and lower bounding surfaces (circumscribed or inscribed figures) or some reasonable approximation to simplify the computations often are employed instead. Unless the geometry and the loading are very simple, computation of the details of the loaddeflection behavior of workhardening plates and shells is a very long and tedious incremental process with the most tractable of elasticplastic relations between generalized stress and strain. When the path of loading leads to continually increasing (generalized) stresses in the most important regions, replacement of the elasticplastic response by a nonlinear elastic relation between generalized stresses and generalized strains may provide a useful alternative means of computation of loaddeflection relations. A number of limit load solutions for rotationally symmetric plates and shells under axially symmetric loading can be obtained directly from substitution of the yield limit condition in the equations of equilibrium without explicit consideration of the geometry of the deformation. These "statically determinate" examples are of direct use and may be of help in estimating limit loads for more complicated problems. A plate of radius R and uniform thickness h supported by a concentric circular ring of radius a and subjected to a radially symmetric transverse load provides a simple instructive example. The differential equation of equilibrium relating the radial and the circumferential bending moments per unit length (the generalized stresses) to the loads is an ordinary differential equation in the radius r. When the region of the plate within the supporting ring is fully plastic, the yield condition that is chosen gives the radial moment in terms of the circumferential moment. The resulting onedimensional equilibrium equation in the circumferential moment may be integrated (numerically if necessary) outwards from the plastically isotropic center of the plate where the bending moment per unit length is M0 on all transverse planes. With the offset yield strength in simple tension a0 taken as the yield limit for the perfectly plastic idealization, M0  aoh2/4. When the transverse loading is a uniform pressure p over the radius a and the Tresca (maximum shear stress) criterion is chosen, the yield limit pressure P0 ranges from 6Mo/a2 for R/a = 1 (simply supported at r  a) to 1.88 times as much for a fixed support when R/a is equal to or greater than the natural log base e(=2.718). The overhang region deforms plastically in the intermediate range but remains rigid during collapse when R/a exceeds e. A long thin cylindrical shell of radius R and wall thickness h deforming plastically under axisymmetric outward radial loading was the first plastic shell problem studied. It is similarly "statically determinate." The yield limit curve in the twodimensional generalized stress space of circumferential force per unit axial length (in general not acting at the middle surface) and axial
194
Drucker
bending moment per unit of circumference is obtained easily from any isotropic yield limit in twodimensional stress space. Substitution for the circumferential force in the equation of equilibrium gives an ordinary differential equation for the axial moment which can be solved analytically or integrated numerically. I chose the Tresca yield condition for convenience and determined the plastic yield limit for an outward ring loading of P per unit length of circumference to be 1.82 Cro(h/R)(Rh) 1/2. For a band of uniform outward pressure p per unit of area over a length 2c that is large compared with the characteristic length of the shell, (Rh)1/2, the plastic limit pressure is reached when the hoop stress pR/h over the central portion of the loaded region reaches cr0. For a narrow band of uniform pressure, 2c much less than (R/h) 1/2, the plastic yield limit P  p(2c) is increased over the plastic limit for a concentrated ring loading by only one fourth of 2c(croh/R). The next level of complexity involves the threedimensional picture of yield limit surfaces and plastic limit loads for an axisymmetric pressureloaded shell with two components of membrane force and one active moment. A thin cylindrical vessel with a thin torispherical head subject to interior pressure was analyzed by Shield and Drucker, who employed a hexagonal prism approximation for the yield limit surface for simplicity, based on a Tresca yield condition. We explained the very worrisome catastrophic fractures that occurred in large storage tanks by showing that plastic limit loads were exceeded when thin vessels were designed according to rules that are entirely satisfactory for boilers and other thick pressure vessels. Socalled brittle fracture is all too likely in structures of ordinary steel at or below near freezing temperatures when limit loads are exceeded. The smoother but more complex yield limit surface in three dimensions for a perfectly plastic material obeying the Mises yield condition was given by Onat and Prager. For still more complicated loadings and shell geometries, the limit surface exists in a higher dimensional space. With a very few exceptions, yield load limits for shells cannot be determined exactly even when highly simplified yield limit surfaces in generalized stress space are chosen and powerful techniques of computation are employed. Plates are far simpler than shells, but they too are generally too difficult. Limit loads based upon perfect plasticity do provide reasonable approximations to the desired yield loads. They in turn can be approximated using either or both the upper (kinematic) and lower bound (equilibrium) theorems.
CHAPTER
Plasticity
SECTION
q.1
I n t r o d u c t i o n to
Plasticity
JEAN LEMAITRE
Universit~ Paris 6, LMTCachan, 61 avenue du PrEsident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France Plasticity is the process by which solids change their shape in equilibrium with loading and permanently after unloading. This behavior is not explicitly related to time. In metals it is due to irreversible movements of dislocations inducing slips. The corresponding plastic or permanent strains may be very large in comparison to elastic strains: up to several hundred times in metal forming. However, they do not modify the phenomenon of elasticity related only to relative movements of atoms. The main features of plastic deformations are as follows:
9 The existence of a yield stress (~y in pure tension) below which a variation of stresses induces only elastic deformations (see Chapter 3). P 9 Plastic incompressibility. The plastic strains eij do not involve any volume change (which is not the case for the elastic strains).
gkk
v 0
(1)
Furthermore, to a large extent, they are not sensitive to pressure or hydrostatic stress: a~ = akk/3. This allows one to write the constitutive equations of plasticity as a function of the stress deviator.
(2)
9 In three dimensions the yield function which represents the yield phenomenon plays a major role because it is used as a potential, the loading function f, to derive the plastic strain rate ~/~ through the normality rule
(3)
197
198
Lemaitre
being the plastic multiplier determined by the consistency condition f=0. The existence of hardening, i.e., the actual yield stress as, is always associated with the highest level of stress which has been applied, Cry being the initial yield stress, f = 0 means that the state of stress has reached the largest previous value, f  0 means that the state of stress increases and induces the same increase of the yield stress. Often, plasticity models differ by the choice of hardening variables. A simple hardening law for slip at the level of single crystals can describe realistic hardening of polycrystalline materials after appropriate homogenization over many differently oriented crystals. Examples of such homogenization procedures are the selfconsistent model (Section 4.2) or the finite element method (Section 4.3). The phenomenological method based directly on the thermodynamics of irreversible processes introduces a scalar variable of isotropic hardening and a tensorial variable of kinematic hardening (Section 4.4) or more through multisurface theory (Section 4.5). Nevertheless, it is not enough when modeling additional phenomena such as recovery and racheting, which need more complex kinematic hardening rules (see Sections 4.6 and 4.7). Large deformations needed for metal forming are described in Section 4.8. All previous sections are more or less devoted to metals; the special case of the plasticity of polymers may be found in Section 4.9. In usual plasticity, the strain rate plays little role, but this is not the case in dynamic plasticity if the strain rate is above 10 or 100 SI, as in car crashes or highspeed perforations. Then the stress is an increasing function of the strain rate in some way similar to viscoplasticity (see Section 4.10). When softening occurs, as in the large strain range or by coupling with damage, the phenomenon of localization may occur (Section 4.11). The width of the resulting shear bands and some effects of the microstructure may be captured by the introduction of strain gradients (see Section 4.12).
SECTION
4.2
Contents 4.2.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1 SingleCrystal Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2 Integral Equation for ~(r) and v~(r) .... 4.2.2.3 SelfConsistent Approximation . . . . . . . . 4..2.3 How to Use a SelfConsistent Model . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 VALIDITY
The selfconsistent model constitutes a simple way of predicting the effective behavior of inhomogeneous media, especially for metallic polycrystals, for which it may be considered a "good" approximation. In the case of elastoplasticity, selfconsistent modeling allows one to take into account texture transformations, development of secondorder internal stresses, intragranular hardening, and so forth. All these p h e n o m e n a are strongly pathdependent.
4.2.2 B A C K G R O U N D
4.2.2.1 SINGLECRYSTAL BEHAVIOR
The single crystal behavior is specified for mechanisms like crystallographic slip on slip systems (g) with n g and m g the unit slip plane and slip
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
199
200
Berveiller
direction vectors, respectively. If ~g denotes the slip rate on system g, the corresponding plastic strain rate in the case of multislip is given by
gq/g with
g
l(mgin~4m~nig )
with
s,jg
 l (m~n~" "  m _ n i g) ~ _
(2)
From the definition of the intrinsic dissipation d = aij~,Pij, the resolved shear stress rg = aijR~ on a slip system appears as the driving force for the flux ~g. The dynamics of slip are assumed to follow the Schmid law, which defines a critical shear stress rg as depending on the amount of slip ~h on all the systems. One arrives at the following flow rules" ~go ~g  0 ~g>o ifzg<z g if l:g  ~:c and ig < ig g if~:gl: g a n d i g  i g
(3)
if
Iqghgh
(4)
The elastoplastic tangent moduli 1 defined by 6 ( r )  l ( r ) ' ~ . ( r ) is obtained from the following additional equations where C are the elastic moduli:
(5)
~p 
~~R9
One obtains
lijhl  Cijhz  ~
g,h
(6)
where M gh is the inverse of pgh _ Hgh 4 RpqCpq,.sR,.hs. g The apparently simple tensor 1 is, in fact, complicated since it depends on the active slip systems, on the stress state as well as the loading path. For polycrystals or polyphased materials, 1 depends on the orientation of the local lattices.
201
4.2.2.2
The polycrystal is submitted at its external boundary to a velocity fi(r) = (/~ 4  ~ / ) : x so that the overall strain and spin rates /~ 4 W are uniform. A given/~ 4 ~ / i s responsible for local fields +(r) and 6(r), which have to satisfy equilibrium condtions compatibility relations constitutive equations
(rijj = 0
1
(7)
(8)
(9)
A fictitious homogeneous medium with tangent moduli L~ is introduced, leading to fluctuations al satisfying
81(r) = l(r)  L~
Equilibrium and constitutive Eqs. 79 yield to a Naviertype equation: 0 9 LijkzUk,lj 4 ( cSlijkZkkl),j   0
(10)
(11)
which is transformed into an integral equation thanks to the Green tensor G O of the homogeneous medium: ~(r) = E + ~ r ~ ( r  r') 9al(r') 9~(r')dV' (12)
(13)
where F s and F A are the symmetrical and antisymmetrical parts of the modified Green functions, defined from the usual Green function G o by
Fijk' =
2 (Gi~
4 Gj~
and
The solution of the integral Eq. 12 allows one to calculate the strain rate concentration tensor A(r) and then the effective tangent moduli of the VER by Le= l: A. Eq. 13 allows one to calculate the local total and elastic spin (v~ and w~) needed for the evolution of the lattices orientation.
4.2.2.3
SELFCONSISTENT APPROXIMATION
The exact solution of Eq. 12 is not easy to get in the general case, and various approximations are introduced.
202
BerveiUer
The TaylorLin model assumes that ~ =/~ and v~  W so that L e = l. In order to build the selfconsistent model, the elementary problem of an inhomogeneous and ellipsoidal inclusion with volume Vi and tangent moduli li within a homogeneous matrix with moduli L~ has to be solved. From Eq. 12, one gets
 E+ f
I. ~
Jv i
(14)
It is well known from Eshelby [3] that ~ is uniform inside an ellipsoidal inclusion, so that the solution of Eq. 14 is given by
~i E ~ Tii : (l i  L0): ~i
(15)
where the interaction tensor T ii depends only on the shape of the inclusion and the tangent moduli L~ The selfconsistent approximation of Eq. 12 is obtained with a tangent moduli L~ of the reference medium that is chosen equal to the effective medium L e so that the consistency condition c5l : ~  0 or L~  Le is satisfied.
4.2.3 HOW TO USE A SELFCONSISTENT MODEL In the case of metallic polycrystals, the development or use of a selfconsistent model requires the following: 9 the characterization of the microstructure: shape, size, and orientation of the grains (represented by ellipsoidal inclusions), orientation of the lattices (initial texture); 9 the definition of (isotropic or anisotropic) elastic moduli of the single crystal; 9 the definition of the mechanisms: number and orientation of the slip systems, associated Burgers vector, and the parameters describing the inelastic behavior: initial critical shear stress, elements of the hardening matrix. Some of these values are well established from metallographic experiments on single crystals. Other material parameters can be measured on single crystals or identified by inverse methods using experimental results on a polycrystal.
REFERENCES 1. Berveiller, M., and Zaoui, A. (1979).J. Mech. Phys. Solids 26: 325344. 2. Berveiller, M., and Zaoui A. (1984).J. Engng. Mat. Technology 106: 295298.
203
Eshelby, J.D. (1957). Proc. R. Soc. (London) 241: 376396. Hill, R. (1965). J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 13: 89101. Lipinski, P., Krier, J., and Berveiller, M. (1990). Rev. Phys. Appl. 25: 361388. Lipinski, P., Berveiller, M. Reubrez, E., and Morreale, J. (1995). Arch. Applied Mech. 65: 231311.
SECTION
4 .3
Contents 4.3.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Description of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3.1 StressStrain Interpolation Model . . . . . 4.3.3.2 Stress Integration Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3.3 Implementation of the Texture Updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Identification of the Material Parameters . . . . 4.3.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
204 205 206 206 208 208 209 210 212 212
4.3.1 VALIDITY
This model predicts the anisotropic plastic behavior of metals on the basis of their crystallographic texture. It is dedicated to polycrystalline materials. Starting from the initial texture of the material, the model computes the texture updating due to plastic strain and takes it into account to define plastic behavior during the whole finite element simulation. At this stage, the model is available for facecentered (f.c.c.) and bodycentred cubic (b.c.c.) metals but can be adapted to hexagonal compact lattices. Beneath this plastic model, a powertype isotropic hardening law and an isotropic elastic behavior are implemented.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
204
205
4.3.2 FORMULATION
In order to take the texture of the material into account during a finite element simulation, we use the full constraint (FC) Taylor model, which is summarized in text following. The velocity gradient L defined into a single crystal (which is assumed to be the same as the macroscopic one in an FC model) can be decomposed in a slipinduced part and in a rate of crystal lattice rotation coL"
__k  K s 9Ys + ~x. (1)
where Ks are matrices constructed from the slip plane and the slip direction of each slip system, and 9s is the associated slip rate. Einstein summation is applied on s, representing one slip system. The velocity gradient may be split into a deviatoric strain rate and a rate of rigid body rotation:
{ ~  sym(L)  As. fs
(2)
~_  shw(I_)  ~ ~ +~_L
(DP
(3)
(4)
~Ls <
A=s ' ~
< ~ + s
(5)
C where ~:___sare the socalled critical resolved shear stresses. Equal signs hold for plastic deformation, while the inequalities delimit the elastic domain. Several different combinations of slip rates may achieve the prescribed strain rate according to Eq. 2. Taylor's principle states that only the one which minimizes the frictional power dissipation in the slip systems is chosen:
Pz  ~ " I f s l  min
(6)
In order to solve the minimization defined in Eq. 6 with the constraint of Eq. 2, we use a linear programming algorithm which computes the slip rates Ys and gives the microscopic stress [5].
206
Habraken
The macroscopic stress of the polycrystal is computed by averaging the microscopic stress on each crystal. In addition to providing the crystal lattice rotation for each crystal, the Taylor model also allows for the texture updating.
4.3.3 DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
The method based on the Taylor assumptions described in the previous paragraph is able to compute the elastic limit in the deviatoric stress space for a particular prescribed strain rate; this is in fact one point of the yield locus. To use it in a finite element code, we have developed an approach where the yield locus is obtained by interpolation between points computed by the Taylor model. In order to reduce the amount of computation, our model does not know the whole yield locus; only the interesting part of it is computed. So, only this small part will be updated during texture evolution. In the first stage, the interesting part of the yield locus was represented by a set of hyperplanes, each one being a plane defined in the fivedimensional deviatoric stress space. As has been shown [1], the yield locus discontinuities bred by this very simple interpolation method result in convergence problems in the finite element code. That is the reason why a second method has been developed. For that second approach, no yield locus is defined and a direct stressstrain interpolation between Taylor points is achieved. In this case, the stress and the plastic strain rate continuity conditions are fulfilled, but, since there is no yield locus formulation, a particular stress integration scheme has to be used.
4.3.3.1
This model is particular in the sense that it does not use a yield locus formulation, neither for the interpolation nor in the stress integration scheme. We use a linear stressstrain interpolation, described by Eq. 7.
o" 1: . C , u (7)
In this equation, _~ is a fivedimensional vector containing the deviatoric part of the stress; the hydrostatic part is elastically computed according to Hooke's law. The fivedimensional vector u is the deviatoric plastic strain rate direction; it is a unit vector. The ~ is a scalar describing the workhardening according to the exponential relationship of Eq. 8, Where the strength
4.3 A n i s o t r o p i c E l a s t o p l a s t i c M o d e l Based on T e x t u r e
207
coefficient K, the offset F ~ and the hardening exponent n are material parameters fitted to experimental data and F is the polycrystal induced slip. The z is used as the common critical resolved shear stress for all the slip systems in the Taylor model.
 K. (r ~ + r)" (8)
The interpolation is included in the matrix C of Eq. 7 and is based on the following method. We assume five directions: _ui (i=1,..., 5), advisedly chosen in the deviatoric strain rate space and the associated deviatoric stresses r (i=1,..., 5) lying on the yield surface according to the Taylor model. These points will define the interpolation domain and will be called stress nodes. The size of the interpolation domain is characterized by the angle between the stress nodes and is a very important parameter for the model. Additionally, we compute the contravariant vectors ssi and u u i defined by Eqs. 9 and 10.
ss~o c~j 
a~j
(9)
u u i e uj  aij
(10)
With the use of those contravariant vectors we define intrinsic coordinates in the interpolation domain for any stress vector or* by projection according to Eq. 11 and for any plastic strain rate direction u* with Eq. 12.
rli   or* 9 ssi rli u* 9 uui
(11) (12)
The most important property of our stressstrain interpolation states that if the stress if* and the plastic strain rate direction u* physically correspond to the same point, then the intrinsic coordinates/']i computed for or* (Eq. 11) or for u* (Eq. 12) are equal. The interpolation is achieved with the use of those intrinsic coordinates to compute the stress or the strain rate with a common formulation: o  ~
i
r/i 9 / cr
(13)
u  ~
i
~/i" u/
(14)
Putting together Eqs. 12 and 13 and the workhardening coefficient, we can compute the stress associated with a plastic strain rate direction and get the expression of the interpolation matrix C:
T, " ~ ~7i 9 U l l i 9 ~_
i
=C
(15)
208
Habraken
As long as the interpolation is achieved in the domain delimited by the five stress nodes, all the five t]i must remain between 0 and 1. When one of the five /]i becomes negative, it means that the current stress is out of the domain and an updating of the stress nodes must take place. The first applied updating method consists in finding five new stress nodes defining a new domain that contains the current stress direction. The improved updating method makes use of the adjacent domain. Therefore, only one new stress node is computed with the Taylor model, and four of the five old stress nodes are kept for the interpolation. The main advantages of this method are that it requires only one (instead of five) Taylor model call for an updating and it improves the continuity of the resulting yield locus and the continuity of its normal. A drawback is that it can only be used when the adjacent domain contains the current stress and then gives rise to positive intrinsic coordinates. This condition is satisfied when the stress evolves smoothly, which is often the case during a finite element simulation.
4.3.3.2
As already mentioned, the stress integration scheme implemented with the stressstrain interpolation method is completely different from the classical radial return with elastic predictor; the main ideas are summarized in Figure 4.3.1, where, obviously, no yield locus formulation is used. As has been observed during several finite element simulations, this stress integration scheme is well adapted for a local yield locus description and induces a reasonable number updating processes of the interpolation domain.
4.3.3.3
In this model, not only is the texture used to predict the plastic behavior of the material, but the strain history of each integration point is taken into account in order to update the texture. The main ideas of the implementation are summarized in Figure 4.3.2. It should be noticed that the constitutive law is based on the interpolation method described earlier and on the Taylor model applied on the actual set of crystallographic orientations. These orientations are represented with the help of the Euler angles ranging from 0 to 360 ~ for (o1 and from 0 to 90 ~ for (o and (o2 so as to take crystal cubic symmetry into account but not the sample symmetry. A second loop on the elements and on the integration points has been added to achieve texture updating only on converged time steps.
209
Compute a 1st approximation of the plastic strain rate direction: u..U_approx I,, Compute the final stress state: (~B according to Uapprox and the input data
~v
)._
lEnd
FIGURE
During a large finite element simulation, it is not reasonable to achieve a texture updating for each integration point and at the end of each time step. That is why an updating criterion must be used to reduce computation time. This is still under investigation; at this stage, an updating occurs after a predefined number of time steps. A criterion based on a maximum cumulated plastic strain will also be examined. The lattice rotation of each crystal coL is computed with the Taylor model by subtracting the slipinduced spin coP from the rigid body rotation co included in the strain history. This can be directly deduced from the Taylor rotation composition equation (Eq. 3).
210
Initial Texture Data
Habraken
"13 "o
?
o o
o tD ta ta
Loop on the Steps Loop on the Iterations Loop on the Elements Loop on the Integration Points [~ Constitutive Law
m
m
"!1
m .
tD
3
o
o
2nd Loop on the Elements and Integration Points IE~ Test if texture updating is necessary N ~> Updating process of the Set of Crystallographic Orientations according the strain history
F I G U R E 4.3.2
Flowchart
The initial texture of the material can be measured with a xray method. It is characterized by the Ccoefficients of the orientation distribution function, and a representative set of crystallographic orientations must be computed from the measured texture [4]. Finally, the permitted slip systems of the crystal lattice must be introduced in the Taylor model data. For b.c.c, metals, we use the 24 {1 1 0} (1 1 1) and {1 1 2} (1 1 1) slip systems; for f.c.c, metals, the 12 {1 1 1} ~1 1 0) permitted slip systems are imposed.
211
....~
.........~ ~ , .............
~ ! , ..............
~";:"~" ....................
~
"'~...........
.............. ............... ~
6 different
cases
:~:., .............
I
l .t................ ...........
................................... ~'..~
~.... ....
~i~, ~. ~..'~'~",~:~ ........... ................
for 2 steels)
........
10
100
1000
10000
First, it needs a large computation time. Indeed, when a new interpolation domain must be computed or when texture updating takes place, the Taylor model is called for each crystallographic orientation of the representative set and this can occur at each integration point of the finite element mesh. Figure 4.3.3 shows that the number of those orientations should not be smaller than 2000 in order to be accurate (mean error smaller than 1%), and the number of integration points can also be very high, depending on the structure to model. It should also be noted that this model needs a lot of disk space because one must store the three Euler angles of each crystallographic orientation; furthermore, since the texture evolution can be different from one point to another, one must store those orientations for each integration point. In order to achieve the texture updating, the strain history of each integration point must also be stored. For the interpolation method, the five points (7i  _[/i (i=1,..., 5) computed by the Taylor model must also be stored in internal variable between the updating processes of the domain. The last particular point of this model is that a second loop on the elements and integration points (see Fig. 4.3.2) is required when the time step is converged to perform texture updating. So, a subroutine devoted to texture updating has been added in the finite element code.
212 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h e r e s e a r c h t e a m of P r o f e s s o r P a u l Van H o u t t e providing us with the texture analysis modules.
Habraken
is a c k n o w l e d g e d
for
REFERENCES
1. Duch~ne, L., Godinas, A., and Habraken, A. M. (1999). Metal Plastic Behaviour Linked to Texture Analysis and FEM Method, Proc. 4 th Int. Conf.: NUMISHEET'99. 2. Duch~ne, L., Godinas, A., and Habraken, A. M. (1999). Texture Effects on Steel Sheet Behaviour Under Large Strain Simulations, Proc. 12 th Int. Conf.: ICOTOM'12. 3. Munhoven, S., Habraken, A. M., Van Bael, A., and Winters, J. (1996). Anisotropic Finite Element Analysis Based on Texture, Proc. 3 ra Int. Conf.: NUMISHEET'96, pp. 112119. 4. Toth, L. S., and Van Houtte, P. (1992). Discretization techniques for orientation distribution function. Textures and Microstructures 19: 229244. 5. Van Houtte, P. (1988). A comprehensive mathematical formulation of an extended TaylorBishopHill model featuring relaxed constraints, the RenouardWintenberger theory and a strain rate sensitivity model. Textures and Microstructures 8, 9: 313350. 6. Winters, J. (1996). Ph. D. Thesis, Kathoulieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
SECTION
4.4
Cyclic Plasticity Model with Nonlinear Isotropic and Kinematic Hardenings: NoLIKH Model
DIDIER MARQUIS
Laboratoire de M~canique et Technologie, Ecole Normale Sup~rieure de Cachan, 61 avenue du Pr~.sident Wilson, 94230 Cachan, France
Contents 4.4.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 O n e  D i m e n s i o n a l Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.1 Strain Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.2 Elastic d o m a i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.3 Nonlinear Isotropic Hardening Rule (NoIH Rule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.4 nonlinear kinematic hardening Rule (NoKH Rule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2.5 Flow Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 T h r e e  D i m e n s i o n a l Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.1 Strain Partition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.2 Elastic D o m a i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.3 Nonlinear Isotropic Hardening Rule (NoIH Rule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.4 Nonlinear Kinematic Hardening Rule (NoKH Rule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3.5 Flow Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 P r o c e d u r e of Material C o n s t a n t s Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4.1 Identification from the Steady State Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4.2 Identification of the Material Constant b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 4.4.4.3 Identification of the Material Constant 221
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
214 214 214 215 215 216 217 217 218 218 218 219 219 220 220
213
214
Marquis
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This model was developed at the end of the 1970s to take into account the elasticity and cyclic plasticity of metals. A purely elastic behavior domain is assumed. The evolutions of this domain are driven by the plastic flow. Its size is governed by a socalled nonlinear isotropic hardening rule. Its position is governed by a socalled nonlinear kinematic hardening rule. This rule was introduced in a simple form by Armstrong and Frederick in 1966 and has been used extensively by Chaboche since 1976 to build different models to describe cyclic viscoplasticity and cyclic plasticity. The tension curve predicted by this model describes the nonlinear behavior in tension and the Bauschinger effect along a reverse loading (see Figure 4.4.1).
4 . 4 . 2 . 1 STRAIN PARTITION The total strain is split in two parts: the elastic strain related to the stress through the elastic law and the plastic strain. ~ = ~e+ ~p, ~ being the total
%+R
ay+R
FIGURE 4.4.1 Stressstraincurve predicted by the NoLIKHmodel, Crybeing the yield stress; X being the kinematic hardening stress ; and R being the isotropic hardening stress.
215
strain, ee being the elastic strain, and eP being the plastic strain. The elastic strain is related to the stress through the elastic law: a  Ee, a being the stress and E being the Young's modulus.
4 . 4 . 2 . 2 ELASTIC DOMAIN The elastic domain is defined through a yield function f. This function depends on the stress, the kinematic hardening stress X, and the isotropic stress R.
f lax
ayR
The elastic domain is defined by the stress domain so that the yield function is negative (Fig. 4.4.2).
4 . 4 . 2 . 3 NONLINEAR ISOTROPIC HARDENING RULE ( N o I H RULE) The driving force for the evolution of the size of the elastic domain is the plastic strain. More specifically, it has been shown that the accumulated plastic strain p is the right variable to be used to describe the cyclic plastic behavior. This variable p is defined through its rate. The nonlinear isotropic hardening rule is given in a differential (or incremental) form:/~ = ]~P[; notation: ~ = dx/dt total derivative with respect to time; and/~  b(Q  R)p, b being a material constant and Q being a material constant; Q is the isotropic stress limit. The evolution rate of R depends on b. The asymptotic level of R for large values of p is given by Q.
216 The integrated form of the isotropic rule is R  Q(1  e x p (  b . p ) ) with the initial condition R(0)  0 .
Marquis
4.4.2.4 (NoKH
The driving force for the evolution of the position of the elastic domain is the plastic strain. The nonlinear kinematic hardening rule of the NoLIKH model is given by a differential equation:
2 c~p 
~(p)Xp
where C is a material constant and V(p) is a material function depending on p. ?(P)  )'o~  (~'~  7o)exp(coP) The constant co gives the rate of evolution of the function 7. Vo~ is a material constant: Vo~ = limp__,oo V(p); co is a material constant. The study of the NoKH rule shows that the value of the kinematic stress is b o u n d e d between two opposite limits. The NoKH rule leads to a hysteretic behavior between the kinematic stress X and the plastic strain (see Fig. 4.4.3). The initial value of X before any plastic flow is 0.
X / / / i /
~'/
1
~P
FIGURE 4.4.3
XeP
4.4 NoLIKH m o d e l
217
4 . 4 . 2 . 5 FLOW RULE The flow rule gives the evolution of the plastic strain. The driving force is the stress. The plastic strain does not change if the stress is within the elastic domain or if the stress is at the yield limit (f = 0) and the loading is reversed (unloading condition): kP = 0 iff < 0 or iff = 0 and ]a  X].6 < 0. Note that the NoIH rule and the NoKH rule lead to ~P=O=~/5=Oandl~=Oand)(=O. Then, if f < O or if f = O and ] a  X].6< O, the behavior is purely elastic. If the stress is at the yield limit and for a loading condition, then the plastic strain rate is given by
~pC  7(p).X.sign(a  X) + b(Q  R)
if f 
0and ] a  X . d
_> 0
Note that the preceding flow rule is such that, after a plastic strain increment, the stress remains at the yield limit. This flow rule is deduced from the condition called the consistency condition: f  0. Table 4.4.1 summarizes the onedimensional model.
TABLE 4.4.1 S u m m a r y of the O n e  D i m e n s i o n a l NoLIKH Model. Strain partition Yield function Flow rule
~P  F, = f e nt  F,p
f=
aXayR
C  ~,(p).X.sign(a  X) + b(Q  R)
2 = c~p 
~(p)Xp
Marquis
The total strain tensor is split in two parts: the elastic strain tensor and the plastic strain tensor.
4.4.3.2
ELASTIC DOMAIN
The elastic domain is given by a von Misestype equation. A v o n Mises equivalent effective stress is defined as
,,,j  3o k, ,j
with c~ij the Kronecker symbol: bij  I if i = j and 5 0 = 0 if i fi j. Xij is the kinematic stress tensor. The yield function is given b y f  (or  X)e q  Cry  R, and the elastic domain is defined by f < 0.
4.4.3.3 (NoIH
The driving force is the accumulated plastic strain p. This strain is defined through its rate: ./ .p .p V 3 ~ij~iJ
With this new definition of p, the nonlinear isotropic rule (NoIH rule) is unchanged./~ = b(Q  R)/~, with b, Q being material constants.
219
4.4.3.5 F L O W RULE
The driving force of this rule is the effective stress tensor. The plastic strain does not change if the stress is within the elastic domain or if the stress is at the yield limit (f = 0) and the loading is reversed (unloading).  0 iff < 0 or iff  0 and laij  Xijl.dij < 0 A geometric interpretation of the loadingunloading condition is given in Figure 4.4.4. If the stress is at the yield limit and for a loading condition, the plastic rate is given by
rr~  Xij + R) 2
i f f  0 and (akDt  Xkl).~kl ~ O. The preceding flow rule is deduced from the consistency condition: f = 0. Table 4.4.2 summarizes the threedimensional model.
ading
xi. ~ i ~
U~adin~~
FIGURE 4.4.4 Geometric interpretation of the loadingunloading condition in the deviatoric stress plane. The scalar product given by the condition is positive on one side of the tangent line to the yield limit and negative on the other side.
220
TABLE 4.4.2 Summary of the Threedimensional NoLIKH Model. Strain partition
f  (a  X)e q ~y R
Marquis
( ~  xk,). ~
Z
,~  x,j
= 0 if f < 0 or if f = 0 and laij  Xijl.dij < 0 NoIH rule NoKH rule with y(p) = Yor  (Yoo Vo)exp (top) Initial conditions If ~P  0 then X = 0 and p  0 R = Q(1  exp(b.p))with/~ = V 3 " ~
4.4.4.1 CYCLE
The first step of the material constant identification uses a steady state cycle after a strain cycling. The strain amplitude has to be chosen close to the strain amplitude encountered by the material under the actual loading (see Fig. 4.4.5). Figure 4.4.5 defines a procedure to determine some material constant. F r o m the stress strain loop given in Figure 4.4.5a, the value of the Young's m o d u l u s is defined and the stressplastic strain loop is deduced in Figure 4.4.5b. From this loop, the size of the elastic domain is deduced. As the value of p is very high at the steady state, this size is 2 ( Q + Cry). If from a standard tension test the value of Cry is deduced, then the value of Q is given. The Xep loop is deduced by a simple translation rule. From this loop, the material constant C is given by the tangent shape to the curve at X = 0. Through an estimation of the asymptotic value of X, it is possible to deduce 700.
221
li ~+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)
FIGURE 4.4.5 Identification steps, a. Steady state cycle in the cr~ plane, b. Steady state cycle in the cr~p plane, c. Steady state cycle in the X~p plane.
From this first step, assuming that C~yis known, it is possible to get E, Q, C and 7oo
4.4.4.2
The material constant b gives the evolution of the elastic domain along the cycling. Figure 4.4.6 gives the steps for deducing the material constant b. The value of b is deduced from the slope of the tangent at the R  p curve for p = 0. At this point, the value of the slope is bQ, and then b can be deduced.
4 . 4 . 4 . 3 IDENTIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL CONSTANT ~Y0 A first estimation of the constant 70 can be given through the examination of the successive loops along the cycling of the strain. Some typical configurations are given at Figure 4.4.7.
222
R~
o"
Marquis
2(R(p)~(~y) Ep
,. p
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4.4.6 Identification steps of b. a. Determination of R (p) through the determination of the elastic domain of different cycles (possible choices N=5, 10, 20, and 50). b. Rp curve.
o"
L y
Ep
J
(a)
I,t~) FIGURE 4.4.7 Typical cyclic curves, a. In this case, the different loops are deduced through a translation along the rr axis. It is typical Of a cyclic isotropic hardening. In this case the kinematic hardening does not change along the cycling. Then Y0 = Yo~. b. In this case, the different hardening curves are not parallel. This is an indication of a significant contribution of the kinematic hardening to the cyclic hardening. In this case the material constant Y0 has to be taken as greater than 7oo. A first try for the value of co can be around 10.
SECTION
4.5
Contents 4.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 4.5.2 Multisurface Hardening Model Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 4.5.2.1 Discrete Set of Loading Surfaces... 224 4.5.2.2 Continuous Description of Field of Hardening Moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 4.5.3 Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
4.5.1
INTRODUCTION
The quantitative description of inelastic material response under a variety of loading conditions poses a challenging task in formulating constitutive models. The extensive experimental data provide an input toward more accurate model formulations aimed at the quantitative simulation of deformational response for complex loading histories. In particular, such effects as strain amplitudedependent hardening, ratcheting for nonsymmetric cycles, nonproportional hardening, etc., should be incorporated into the model. The multisurface hardening model was originally proposed by Mr6z [1,2] for metals and was next extended to soils [3]. A set of nested surfaces is assumed to represent the field of hardening moduli, and the evolution of
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
223
224
Mr6z
surfaces occurring in the course of plastic straining represents the material stiffness variation. The memory of specific loading events is then naturally incorporated into the model through the position of centers of consecutive surfaces. The subsequent developments used either two or an infinite number of surfaces, thus providing continuous variation of hardening moduli [47]. Extensive review of models of this kind can be found in the articles by Mr6z [8] and Ohno [9].
MODEL
The multisurface formulation is based on the concept of nested surfaces corresponding to different hardening moduli. The active loading surface is assumed to translate toward the consecutive external surface, so when the stress point reaches this surface, both surfaces are tangential and the contacted surface becomes the active surface. In classical theory of plasticity, the concept of the yield surface is widely used. The yield surface specifies the interior elastic domain and incremental loadingunloading conditions. For elastoplastic deformation processes we can also introduce the response surfaces representing the measures of developed plastic deformation, such as accumulated plastic strain, plastic work, or hardening moduli. Since the hardening modulus occurs explicitly in the constitutive equation, its specification is most convenient. Assume the yield condition in the form F (~ = f(a"  o~  a (~ = 0 (~ and the associated flow rule
(1)
,_lOS(OS ) N.,ior
o
F(o _
. >o
(3)
/~p _ ~n~rn 1
F(O)   0
~rn   8 . n > O
where n denotes the unit normal vector to the yield surface at the stress point and Ctn = 8" n denotes the projection of the stress rate vector on n. The
225
K  n N~
I~Pl
(/~p. /~p) 89
(4)
so in the uniaxial case the modulus K is proportional to the tangent modulus of the stressplastic strain curve. The back stress is denoted by ~(0) and the yield limit by a (~ Assume further that the state of hardening is specified not only by the yield condition but also by a set of nesting surfaces of constant hardening moduli K0, K1,K2, ..., K, defined by Eq. 4, where K0 denotes the hardening modulus on the yield surface and Ki a r e referred to particular surfaces
F (i)   f ( a  or(i)) 
a (i)2  0
(5)
where ~(i) denotes the back stress associated with the i  t h surface and a (i) specifies the size of the surface. The set of equations in Eq. 5, specify the internal irreversibility domains and together with the yield condition constitute a field of hardening moduli in the stress space. Once the stress state along the evolution path reaches the respective nesting surface, the hardening modulus changes discontinuously, and instead of Eq. 3, we have
/~P  ~  ~ n6., F (~

F (1)
. . .   F (i)   O,
~"
n (i) > 0
(6)
From proportional loading and unloading tests the hardening field can be identified. In fact, instead of plotting conventional yield surfaces defined by the assumed value of plastic strain, more meaningful information can be produced by specifying the field of hardening moduli, since this field indicates the stiffness anisotropy of the material and its variation. Consider first the case of proportional loading, for instance, tension and compression. Approximate the stressstrain curve by linear segments 01, 12, 23, 34, along which the tangent modulus is constant (Figure 4.5.1a). In the stress space this approximation can be visualized by introducing surfaces F (~   0 , F (1)   O , . . . , F (i)   0 defining the regions of constant hardening moduli in the stress space. When the stress point moving from 0 reaches the surface F (~  0 at 1, the yield surface starts to translate with the stress point toward a point 2, and from 2 the two surfaces F (~  0 and F (1)   0 move together until a point 3 is reached. Fig. 4.5.1b presents the field of hardening moduli after reaching the point 3. During unloading and reverse loading the surfaces translate backwards, and at 3 / the symmetric configuration with respect to 3 is obtained (Figure 4.5.1c). It is seen that when surfaces do not expand but only translate, the Masing hardening rule is obtained. For nonproportional loading it is assumed that the surfaces F (~  0, F (1) 0, F (2)  0 . . . do not intersect but consecutively contact and push each
226
Mr6z
3'
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIGURE 4.5.1 Piecewise linear approximation of the stressstrain curve and the respective loading surfaces, a. Loadingunloading curve, b. Nested surfaces at the loading point 3. c. Nested surfaces at the unloading point 3'.
other. For convex, similar surfaces this is achieved by postulating that the instantaneous motion of the stress point P corresponding to F 0) = 0 is directed to the point R on F (1+1) ~ 0 with the same normal as that at P. Similarly, when F (~ = 0 and F (1)   0 are tangential to each other at P, the translation of P occurs along PR where R is an associated point on F (2) = 0 corresponding to the same normal. The position of the associated point R is determined from the proportionality relation for any two similar surfaces F 0) = 0 and F (l+1)   0; thus
aO) t a p
(1)

0~(l))
(7)
227
(a)
FIGURE 4.5.2 Translation path KL, b.
(b) rule of loading surfaces, a. and the cyclic loading program along
and the vector fl, connecting P and R, is expressed as (cf. Figure 4.5.2a)
PR
~  a 0 ) l [ (~
(8)
The relative motion of P with respect to R is assumed to occur along PR; that
is,
) (9)
where fi is a scalar factor 9 Since 9 (z) d(z) tre  dr(z) + (a (z) _ a(z))~O~ and
(10)
otO+1))d(a~l)l)
(11)
~(z) _ ~(z+]) + ~p +
(12)
and the scalar fi can be determined from the consistency condition F 0 )  1 ~(Z)0. When all surfaces F ( ~ F ( 1 )  0 , . . . F 0  1 )  0 are in contact with the surface F (l)  0 and move with the stress point P, their
Mr6z
a(pk) _ or(k)
O'(z) p
_ 0~(z)

a(k)
a(z),
k
0, 1, 2 , . . . 1
(13)
Figure 2b presents the case when the stress component al oscillates between the values at K and L with fixed component a2. Now, the yield and subsequent nesting surfaces will translate with the stress point between K and L, so the steady cyclic state corresponds to progressing accumulation of the plastic strain component ~2 after each stress cycle.
4 . 5 . 2 . 2 CONTINUOUS DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OF HARDENING MODULI Let us now discuss a limit case of the muhisurface hardening rule by assuming that there is an infinite number of nesting surfaces specifying the field of hardening moduli. Referring to Figure 3, assume that in the loading process OA the stress point has moved into the elasticplastic region and reached the exterior surface Fm ~O. At A all surfaces F (k) = 0, k = 0, 1,... m  1 are tangential to the surface Fm = 0 . If the loading process continues, the subsequent incremental response loading surface will be specified by the active surface Fm = 0 and the hardening modulus ascribed to this surface. Therefore all surfaces F (h) = 0, k  0, 1, . . . m  1 will be passive and do not
0"2
2
Fm=0
EI.r
ol
ok/
2'
pv
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4.5.3 Continuous description of field of hardening moduli, a. In the stress space, b. Loadingunloading curve.
229
enter the material description. Consider now the unloading process A  B . A t B the surface FI1 tangential to Fm = 0 at A is the active loading surface. Let us note that, knowing the position B, the center and the diameter of the active loading surface Fll = 0 are specified. During the subsequent loading event, such as A  B , for which the stress path is directed into the interior of the domain enclosed by Fm ~ 0, there is no need to trace the positions of all surfaces; only the active loading surface passing through B should be determined. When the loading path at B changes its orientation and follows BCD, a new loading event commences for which the active loading surface F12 = 0 is tangential at B to Ell  0 with its center on OIB. Thus at D, after the loading history OABD, only three surfaces characterize the previous history and are stored in the material memory: the maximal loading surface F m   0 , the first loading surface Fll = 0, and the second loading surface F12  0. When the stress point on B  C  D reaches D, the surface Fl2 = 0 coincides with the surface Fll = 0 and the second loading event is erased from the material memory. Similarly, when the stress point reaches E, the loading path ABE is erased from the material memory and the state of material is represented by the maximal loading surface Fm  O. Considering the first loading event and assuming the equations of F~ = 0 and Fll = 0 in the form
Fm = f (a  oc(m))  a (m)2 = 0
(14)
and
FII f(cl o[ (I)) 0 "(I)2  0
(15)
(16)
for the loading path AB, the following relations occur: a(z) aA _~(1) _ (a.A_ 0c(m))a ~
from which 0c and a d) are determined once the position of the stress point B d) on Fll = 0 is specified. Similarly, for the second loading event, the active loading surface F12 = 0 is specified from similar relations. Assume that the hardening modulus on the active loading surface FI = 0 depends on the ratio of semidiameters of maximal loading and active surfaces with respect to the diameter of the yield surface; thus K  K(r/),
a(z) r/a(m)_ a(~ a(o) (17)
It is seen that 1/= 0 when a d) = a (~ and 1/= 1 when ad) = a(m). The variation of K can be described by the relation
KKm+A
(18)
230
Mr6z
~1
F,=O
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4.5.4 Twosurface description of field of hardening moduli, a. Configuration of surfaces, b. Stressstrain curve.
where A and p are the material parameters and Km denotes the value of K on the maximal loading surface. Consider now the other particular case when there are only two surfaces F 0  0 and Fz = 0 and the hardening modulus varies with the distance c~ between the surfaces F0 = 0 and F z  0. Assume that this distance is measured by the length P R (Figure 4.5.4). The maximal value of ~ is ~m = a (z)  a (~ for the first loading and (~m   2(0"(l)  o'(~ for subsequent unloading from the surface Fz  0, whereas the minimal value equals (~min   0. Assume that the hardening modulus K takes an infinite or very large value for c~ ~m and K  Kz for f i  0 that is at the contact between two surfaces. The variation of K can be , for instance, expressed by the relation KKz+a
~m_~
(19)
where a and m are material parameters and ~m is the maximal value of c~ from the previous deformation history. Fig. 4 shows the loading, unloading, and reloading curves generated by this description. When the stress point reaches the surface Fz = 0, the subsequent response is described by the hardening modulus Kz. When Kz is constant, a linear hardening curve is obtained; when Kz = 0, the surface F z  0 is a limit surface. The nonlinear variation of the hardening moduli for the twosurface model was discussed by Dafalias and Popow [4] and independently by Krieg [7].
231
4.5.3 C O N C L U D I N G REMARKS
The present brief exposition provides the foundation for more refined formulations of multisurface constitutive models aimed at describing the cyclic response of metals, accounting for such effects as transient and steady state cyclic response, nonproportional hardening, memory of maximal prestress, ratcheting, etc. [8]. The fundamental model parameters are generated from uniaxial cyclic loading tests. However, additional parameters are to be introduced when transient states and nonproportional hardening effects are quantitatively simulated, cf. [10].
REFERENCES
1. Mr6z, Z. (1967). On the description of anisotropic workhardening. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 15: 163175. 2. Mr6z, Z. (1969). An attempt to describe the behaviour of metals under cyclic loads using a more general workhardening model. Acta Mechanica 7: 199212. 3. Mrdz, Z., Norris, V. A., and Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1978). An anisotropic hardening model for soils and its application to cyclic loading. Int. J. Num. Arch. Meth. Geomech. 2: 202221. 4. Dafalias, Y., and Popov, E. P. (1976). Plastic internal variable formalism of cyclic plasticity. J. Appl. Mech. 98: 645651. 5. Mrdz, Z. (1981). On generalized kinematic hardening rule with memory of maximal prestress. J. Mech. Appl. 5: 241259. 6. Trampczynski, W., and Mrdz, Z. (1992). Anisotropic hardening model and its application to cyclic loading. Int. J. Plasticity 8: 925946. 7. Krieg, R. D. (1975). A practical twosurface plasticity theory. J. Appl. Mech. 42: 641646. 8. Mrdz, Z. (1986). Phenomenological constitutive models for metals, in Modeling of Small Deformation of Metals, Zarka, J., and Gittus, J., eds., Elsevier Science Publishing. 9. Ohno, N. (1990). Recent topics in constitutive modeling of cyclic plasticity and viscoplasticity. ASME Appl. Mech. Rev. 43: 283295. 10. Mrdz, Z., and Rodzik, P. (1996). On multisurface and integral description of anisotropic hardening evolution of metals. Eur. J. Mech., A/Solids 15: 128.
SECTION
4.6
Contents 4.6.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3 Description of the Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.4 Identification of the Material Parameters .... 4.6.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.5.1 Installation in Constitutive Models... 4.6.5.2 Implementation in FEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.6 Table of Material Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6.1 VALIDITY
This is a kinematic hardening rule that enables us to represent multilinear, as well as nonlinear, stressstrain relations under cyclic loading. This rule, which is formulated by introducing a critical state in dynamic recovery, is capable of simulating well ratcheting and cyclic stress relaxation. Moreover, the rule has the advantage of allowing us to determine very easily the material parameters. A rateindependent constitutive model of plasticity based on this kinematic hardening rule is implemented in a commercially available FEM software by utilizing the implicit integration equation and consistent tangent modulus derived for the model, though the rule itself is valid for both rateindependent and ratedependent materials.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All fights of reproduction in any form reserved.
232
4.6 Kinetic Hardening Rule with Critical State of Dynamic Recovery 4.6.2 FORMULATION
233
We consider strain hardening and dynamic recovery for formulating the evolution equation of back stress ~ [1], and we suppose that ~ consists of several parts, i.e., ~  ~ ~Zi [ 2 ] . Let ai be the deviatoric part of ~i. Let us assume that the dynamic recovery of ai has a critical state j~  0, in which the dynamic recovery of ai is activated so fully that ai cannot develop beyond the surface fi = 0 [3]. This surface, which is similar to the yield surface of perfectly plastic materials, is defined to be a hypersphere of radius ri in the space of ai as
fi  ~ ai " ai  r2i  O.
(1)
Then, we may consider an evolution equation of ai which has two kinds of dynamic recovery terms, the term becoming active in the critical state and the term operating irrespective of this state. By using of Heaviside's step function H and Macauley's bracket ( ), such an evolution equation of ai can be expressed as [4]
where (') indicates the differentiation with respect to time, ~i and #i are material parameters, p denotes accumulating plastic strain rate
and )~i is determined to have the following form using the conditions fi = 0 and f i  O:
(4)
The first term in the righthand side in Eq. 2 expresses strain hardening, whereas the second and third terms deal with the dynamic recovery of ai. The second term H ( f i ) { J , i ) a i allows the dynamic recovery of ai to be activated so fully in the critical state j]  0 that Eq. 2 can satisfy f i  0 when j~  0 and 2i > 0. The third term #iaip, on the other hand, operates simply at all times in proportion to ai and p. Equation 2 has two special cases, #i = 0 and #i = 1. If #i = 0, Eq. 2 is reduced to the first version of the Ohno and Wang rule [3],
234
Ohno
~T
::,
/ ," Z s iLL  ' 0 i
0
FIGURE 4.6.1
1/~i
~P
On the other hand, if /2i = 1, ai never reaches the critical state j~ = 0 (Fig. 4.6.1), so that Eq. 2 becomes the Armstrong and Frederick rule [1], t i i = (i(3ri~,Paip) (6)
If ri is not constant, Eq. 2 can be extended to the following form, which satisfies fi  0 when Ji  0 and ,~i > 0 [4]" hi = (i
rii~p  H(j~)()~i)ai/~iaip
+ai
Fi
(7)
4.6.3
DESCRIPTION
OF THE RULE
To describe some fundamental features of Eq. 2, we now consider uniaxial loading. A uniaxial form of Eq. 2 is
where j]  cti  r/2 and J~i i~Po~i/ri  ~,I~Pl. 2 For monotonic tensile loading, Eq. 8 is reduced to
~i = ~ (i(ri  lai~i)e, p,
(9)
I
which has the solution
O~
oq=ri[1(1
1  exp(lai(ie, P) \ lai
(10)
235
This tensile change of 0~i, which has a corner at o~i Fi, is illustrated in Figure 4.6.1. Two special cases of//i = 0 and //i 1 are dealt with in the figure as well. When//i = 0 , Eq. 9 represents the bilinear change of ~i, such as
oq = r i [ 1 (1~i~3P}]
(11)
In this case, therefore, ~ reaches the critical state only asymptotically; in other words, the critical state does not become active at all. Figure 4.6.2 shows the monotonic tensile change of back stress 0~obtained by superposing ~1 to ~M. As illustrated in the figure, if 0 < #i < 1, the ~ versus eP relation has corners, since each ~ versus eP relation has a corner under tensile loading. Especially if #i = 0, the ~ versus eP relation is multilinear, as shown by the dotted line in Figure 4.6.2. Thus [i and ri are related with the coordinates of corners of the multilinear ~ versus eP relation as follows [5]: 1
~(i) 0~(i)  0~(i 1) (il)
eli)
0~(i+  0~(i) 1) (i+1)
(13)
where ~(o)  0 and 0qo)  0. Figure 4.6.3 illustrates the effect of #~ on the shape of ~ versus ~P hysteresis loops as well as on ratcheting under cyclic loading. Let us remember that Eq. 2 has two kinds of dynamic recovery terms, i.e., the term becoming active
a(3)
0~(2)
~ I.....
a = ~.~a i
..................... ~..........
....:
..~...:;"
,
,
I
.............. /4=0
O < P i <1
a(l)
___o:
"
~176176176176 I
~3
FIGURE 4.6.2
236
Ohno
O[max
amin
(a) ~,li  0
~[~mflx
O[min (b) 0 < / 1 i < 1 F I G U R E 4.6.3 Hysteresis loops of back stress 0~ and plastic strain ep u n d e r uniaxial cycling b e t w e e n 0~ma a n d 0~mi a. ]/i  0. b. 0 < ]/i ~ 1. x n.
in the critical state j~ = 0 and that operating at all times in proportion to ai and p. The former causes the 0~ versus ep hysteresis loops to be closed multilinearly under uniaxial cyclic loading, as shown in Figure 4.6.3a. On the other hand, the latter makes the 0~versus eP hysteresis loops open to induce ratcheting. Thus the smaller ]/i is set, the less opening Eq. 2 gives to the hysteresis loops, resulting in smaller ratcheting.
OF THE MATERIAL
Equations 13 and 14 help us to determine the material parameters ~i and ri. Especially if both isotropic hardening and rate dependence are negligible, they
237
O'(1)~ 0"(o)
can be determined immediately by multilinearly approximating a monotonic tensile curve (Fig. 4.6.4) and using Eqs. 13 and 14 with g(i) replaced by cr(i), i.e., Eq. 13 and
where or(0) indicates initial yield stress. Even if rate dependence must be taken into account under negligible isotropic hardening, ~i and ri can be determined easily as follows: By assuming an appropriate viscoplastic equation kP = G ( a  ~), the ~ versus ~P relation is estimated from monotonic tensile experiments done at several strain rates, and then the ~ versus ~P relation identified is multilinearly approximated to use Eqs. 13 and 14, by which (i and ri are determined. If isotropic hardening is not negligible, the material parameter ri may change with plastic deformation. In this case, it is necessary to assume an appropriate function for each ri to simulate experiments. The material parameters #i (i = 1, 2 , . . . , M) are determined so as to simulate well uniaxial and/or multiaxial ratcheting experiments, though a constant can be assigned to all ~i. If it is not necessary to consider ratcheting and cyclic stress relaxation, we can take either #i = 0 or ~i = 1.
The present kinematic hardening model can be used as a translation rule of yield surfaces and viscoplastic potentials. For rateindependent materials, we
238
may employ the following yield surface, which translates and expands:
3 (s  a ) ' ( s  a)  y2 _ 0
Ohno
(16)
where s denotes the deviatoric part of stress ~r, and Y indicates the size of the yield surface. Then, on the basis of the normality rule, the plastic strain rate can be expressed as /:p where n be E' 
3(~'n> n
2 EP
(17)
+ ~
i= 1
~,r, 1 Fi
tt, + H(~)
ri
#,
/1/
(18)
For ratedependent materials, on the other hand, we may assume 2 where cr ef f  [ ( 3 / 2 ) ( s  a ) ' ( s indicates drag stress. D
4.6.5.2
IMPLEMENTATIONIN FEM
For the rateindependent constitutive model mentioned in Section 4.6.5.1, an implicit integration equation and a consistent tangent modulus are available, so that the constitutive model is implemented using a user subroutine UMAT in ABAQUS [6]. The integration equation, which is based on return mapping, allows us to take large strain increments without sacrificing accuracy, especially if ]A is equal or close to zero. The consistent tangent modulus, i which is derived for a general form of strain hardening and dynamic recovery of back stress, affords the parabolic convergence in solving the nonlinear equilibrium equation in FEM. These provide high efficiency and stability in computation in FEM, not only for isothermal but also for non isothermal problems.
4.6 Kinetic Hardening Rule with Critical State of Dynamic Recovery TABLE 4.6.1 Values of Material Parameter ~i. Material 316 stainless steel Modified 9CrlMo steel IN738LC 1018 and 1026 carbon steels Temperature R.T. 550~ 850~ R.T.
239
~i
and cyclic stress relaxation usually occur but much more slowly than the predictions based on the Armstrong and Frederick rule. For the material parameters ~i and ri, no example is given here, since they can be determined very easily from experiments (Section 4.6.4).
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, P. J., and Frederick, C. O. (1966). A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect. CEGB Report RD/B/N731, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Berkeley, UK. 2. Chaboche, J. L., and Rousselier, G. (1983). On the plastic and viscoplastic constitutive equations. ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 105: 153164. 3. Ohno, N., and Wang, J.D. (1993). Kinematic hardening rules with critical state of dynamic recovery. Int. J. Plasticity 9: 375403. 4. Ohno, N., and AbdelKarim, M. (2000). Uniaxial ratchetting of 316FR steel at room temperature. Part II: constitutive modeling and simulation. ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 122: 3541. 5. Jiang, Y., and Kurath, P. (1996). Characteristics of the ArmstrongFrederick type plasticity models. Int. J. Plasticity 12: 387415. 6. Kobayashi, M., and Ohno, N. (1999). A return mapping algorithm for the strain hardening/ dynamic recovery type of kinematic hardening models in Trans. 15th Int. Conf. on Struct. Mech. in Reactor Technol., Vol. II, pp. 165176, Korean Nuclear Society.
SECTION
4.7
Contents 4.7.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.4 Identification of the Material Parameter . . . . 4.7.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.6 Table of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7.1 VALIDITY
A kinematic hardening rule introduced here is valid for biaxial ratcheting deformation of metals. The hardening rule employs memory effects of back stress, and it controls the biaxial ratcheting strain.
4.7.2 FORMULATION
Combining the von Mises stress hardening form with the kinematic hardening, the following yield function is chosen for cyclically stable material at temperature T: 1 f  ~ c~j~ (~j  ~ j ) ( o ~  ~ ) 1  ~ R2 (~ , T) 0

(1)
where Cokl is the plasticdeformationinduced anisotropic coefficient tensor of fourth rank, aij and a/j are stress and the center of the yield surface, or back stress, R is the flow stress, and ~c is the hardening or softening 240
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
241
parameter. Associated with Eq. 1, the modified LevyMises equation of cyclic plasticity is obtained from the normality of plastic strain increment to yield surface,
a4 
(2)
where d~ and d ~P are the plastic strain increment and the equivalent plastic increment, respectively. The Ziegler type of assumption, which is used as the evolution equation of the back stress, is modified by employing the memorization of the back stress. The modified Ziegler type of assumption is expressed by
d~ij  (aij  ~,j)d/z +
n,jg(p~)
(3)
where nijg(pc) denotes the memorization of the back stress induced during preloading, and g(pc) is the function of the accumulated plastic strain Pc until the previous inversion of loading, g(pc) is assumed to be expressed by g(pc)  ~0 { 1  ~exp (  c ~ ) ) and ~0 in Eq. 4 is assumed to be expressed by
~0  ~ / 2 ~hz~z
(4)
(5)
vJ In Eqs. 4 and 5, ~, r and ( are material constants, and nij in Eq. 3 denotes the unit normal vector to the yield surface expressed by
C~jkl(~kz  ~kz)
~'J  / 3
(6)
Using the consistency condition df  0 from Eq. 1, the evolution of the back stress increment is represented by 2R2 d~,j g~ C~m~(am~  ~mn)(da~  n~g(p~)) (a,j  ~,j)}
dR
(7)
where dWP is the modified plastic work increment. The hardening and softening parameter is reasonably assumed to be a scalar proportional to the modified plastic work.
(8)
To represent the roundness of the stressstrain curve and to drive the nonlinear plastic modulus simply, the following power law is
242
employed: ~p O"
K~
(v)
~
m(n)
(9)
where E is Young's modulus and K is a material constant. ~ in Eq. 9 is the equivalent stress measured from the current center of the yield surface and expressed by ~ = ~/(2/3)Cijh, (aij  aij)(ak, ak,). The quantities of ao(,,) and m(,,) in Eq. 9 are th4 reference stress at the proof strain ~0  500 I~m/m and the exponent of hardening in the uniaxial stress state. They are expressed by
(10)
mOO : m ( o o ) { 1  f l e x p (  P ~ ) }
In addition, R can be assumed to be expressed by R(,) = R(oo) 1  2exp 77z
(11)
(12)
In Eqs. 11 and 12, Pc is the accumulated plastic strain until the previous inversion of loading; Pa in Eq. 12 is the accumulated plastic strain at the current stage. In Eqs. 1012, ~ro(oo), ~, Co, m(oo), fl, Cl, R(oo), 2, and c2 are material constants prescribed by the history of loading or effected by a strain path memory. These material constants are determined from some basic experiments.
d~t
B~
k
2R2 .
+ 2c~{&
243
_R(~176 R c2 x (Godo" +
2R 2 .
2Ct~sd~ +
_
(13)
where B = (3e,o/2cro(,,))(m(,,)+ 1), cr = crt at a n d s = r  0q with kinematic back stresses at and ~xs. de,Pt, d7t', do~t, and do~s are the axial plastic strain increment, the shear plastic strain increment, the axial back stress increment, and the shear back stress increment, respectively. Ct, Cts, and Cs are anisotropic coefficients.
(14)
where cry and l:y are axial and shear yield stresses determined as the stress at 50/.tm/m proof strain. O is the angle of rotation of the subsequent yield surface, and the value of the angle is 0 ~ The yield stresses can be determined from the yield surface shown in Figure 4.7.1 which shows, for example, the yield surface in the case of the biaxial ratcheting due to cyclic shear straining with a strain amplitude of AT/x/3 = 0.5% superimposed on an axial stress of 100 MPa. The deformation of the yield surface during the biaxial ratcheting can be assumed to be
244
.""
~
150
"" ,~ 9
/" 9 ./// /
"~""" O
 
"" ~"
",
"\
.
150
100
50
50
100
150
a,,
.
MPa
.so
/ j,," .....+I i. / /
~,/
I /
~/d
~.. ....
~..~. 9
.~.
150 .~.
.../"
; From proportional
loading
. . . . .
; I n i t i a l y i e l d surface
FIGURE4.7.1 Yield'surface during biaxial ratcheting. such that: 1. the shear yield stress decreases with an increase in the number of cycles, while the axial yield stress remains the initial yield stress; 2. the yield surface does not rotate; 3. the shear yield stress during the biaxial ratcheting can be calculated by the following equations:
245
......__,..J
oJ
 0.5
0.25
Shear strain
0.25 q,/d3, %
0.5
(a) experiment
1.5
=,.___......._
2 < 0.5
 0.5
 0.25
Shear
0
strain
025 "l(/,133, %
0.5
(b) simulation FIGURE 4.7.2 Biaxial ratcheting strain vs. shear strain.
246
TABLE 4.7.1
Material Parameters for Type 304 Stainless Steel, Temperature 20~ CO R(oo) ~ (MPa) C2 m(1) m(2) m(oo) 13 3.5 3.5
C1
C3
0.07 0.1 9
0.07 0 . 0 8  2 e 5 50 1
REFERENCES
1. Ishikawa, H., Sasaki, K., and Nakagawa, T. (1994). JSME Int. J. Series A 37(4): 347354. 2. Ishikawa, H., and Sasaki, K. (1998). Int. J. Plasticity 14(7): 627646.
SECTION
4.8
Contents 4.8.1 Basic Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.1.1 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.1.2 Constitutive Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.2 Numerical Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.30rthotropic, Kinematic, and Isotropic Hardening Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.3.1 Analytical Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.3.2 Model Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . 8 . 1 . 1 KINEMATICS
The multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient F into elastic and plastic parts is expressed by
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
247
248
F=FeF p
Dahlias
(1)
The velocity gradient at the intermediate plastically deformed configuration is given by ~pFp 1 _ (~pFp 1)s + (~:pFp 1)a  D~ + (FPFp1 )a (2) where subscripts s and a mean symmetric and antisymmetric, respectively. The DP is the plastic rate of deformation. The plastic material spin (FPFp1)a o can be decomposed in two parts as (~:vFp1)a  s176 Wp +(3) where (2) i and W/p are the pair of constitutive and plastic spins, respectively, associated with a tensorial internal variable Ai. The s i is the spin with respect to which the constitutive corotational rate of Ai will be expressed in the sequel. In general, there are as many pairs of constitutive and plastic spins as there are Ails. The intermediate configuration is determined within an arbitrary rigid body rotation without loss of generality. A particularly useful choice employed in the sequel is that of the spinless configuration [1], which is defined by (see Eq. 3) (FPFp1)a = 0 =~ o i   W/p (4)
4.8.1.2
C ONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS
4.8.1.2.1 Elastic If ~ /  r e, Ai, ki) is the elastic strain energy per unit mass, which is function of the elastic Green strain tensor E e  (1/2)(FeTF e  I), ki and Ai, hyperelasticity is obtained by II[FeIFr eT  Po  ~ (5)
where ~ is the Cauchy stress at the current configuration, rl the second PiolaKirchhoff stress, and Po the density at the spinless intermediate configuration. 4.8.1.2.2 Plastic A state H, ki, and Ai is plastic if it satisfies the analytical expression
(6)
249
the case of rate dependence, the dynamic yield surface expression of Eq. 6 depends also on a scalarvalued measure of the rate of deformation. The following rate equations are now postulated at the spinless configuration (recall Eqs. 2 and 4)
DP  [:PF p1 o
,INPo(H, A,,
k~)
(7)
(8)
(9) (10)
2 ( A ,  ~ A , + Ai~2f)
(no sum on i)
where Eq. 9 follows from the constitutive corotational rate Ai c  A i  oiAi + Aioi = 2Ai(II, Ai, ki) (no sum on 0, the choice of the spinless configuration (toi =  W i p) and Eq. 8. The 2 is the plastic multiplier (loading index, for plasticity, and overstress function, for viscoplasticity). Invariance requirements under superposed rigid body rotation render all constitutive functions ~, f, NPo, ~/P, k/, and 2~ki isotropic in their tensorial arguments 11 and A i .
e~ e 1 (1/2)(Fn+lFn+ _
ir,+l
po(O~///OEz).+I
250
Dafalias
(llf)
(11g)
where/~,I n), k/ , and n7 9 are functions of n(') , AI"), and kl") of the nth step, (") (') and the 62 is chosen as the primary unknown to be determined from Eq. 11g. Observe that throughout the development of theory and numerical implementation, no need for a specific corotational or convected stress rate arises. This is because the choice of a stress rate is not a fundamental constitutive ingredient in hyperelastoplasticity [ 1].
4.8.3
ORTHOTROPIC,
KINEMATIC, MODEL
AND
ISOTROPIC 4.8.3.1
HARDENING
ANALYTICALDESCRIPTION
A specific constitutive model will be presented within the foregoing framework of theory and implementation. It will be most appropriate for the large inelastic deformation of materials which already exhibit a strong orthotropic texture because of previous manufacturing processes, such as sheet metals. The elastic response (Eq. 5), is left upon the user. A linear elastic orthotropic or even isotropic relation can be a good approximation if plastic strains are very large compared to elastic. With the notation S for the deviatoric part of If, A for a deviatoric backstress tensor, S  S  A for the effective deviatoric stress, and Ai  Ni @ Ni ( i  1, 2, no sum) with Ni unit vectors along two of the three orthotropic directions at the spinless configuration, Hill's quadratic yield criterion can be written in terms of invariants [3] as f(L + M  N)trS 2 + 2 ( N  L)tr(S2A1) + 2 ( N  M)tr(S2A2) + (4G + F + H  2M)tr2(gA1) + (4F + G + H  2L)tr2(SA2) + 2(2F + 2G  H + N  m  t)tr(gal)tr(gA2)  k 2  0 where F, G, H, L, M, N are the orthotropic parameters of Hill [4]. The scalarvalued internal variable k is a measure of the size of the yield surface. The tensorvalued internal variables are the A, A1, and A2. The NP is defined by o the normality rule, and according to Pereda et al. [5] takes the form (compared to [5] notice a small correction in Eq. 13d). (12)
251
N~ 
~H
 (4)1

q~3A1+ ~b4A2
(13a)
(4/3)[(N
L)tr(.SA1) + ( N  M)tr(SA2)];
= 2(L + M  N)
(13b)
4)3 = 2 ( F + 4 G + H  2 M ) t r ( S a l )
+ 2(2G + 2F  H  M  L +
N)tr(SA2) (13c)
(13e)
For the evolution of the backstress A the ArmstrongFrederick evanescent memory rule will be used, for which the constitutive corotational rate reads A c  hDP c[(2/3)(trDeo2)]l/2A 2~t, in terms of two constants h and c. o Based on Eq. 7, it follows that  hNP  c[(2/3)(trNpo2)]t/2A ~ (14)
The Ai (i = 1, 2) are purely orientational internal variables; therefore, it follows that A c = 0, which yields A1 = ~t2 = 0 (15)
If the anisotropic parameters F  N vary independently, one must be able to define their evolution equations from experiments. If for simplicity one assumes that they maintain their initial value, it remains only to determine the variation of k, that is, the isotropic hardening part. It can be described by a scalarvalued evanescent memory rule such.as k _ ( H  C k ) [ ( 2 / 3 ) t r ( D P o 2 ) ] l / 2 , in terms of two constants H and C. From k = 2k and Eq. 7 it follows that
( H  Ck)[(2/3)tr(NPoo2)] 1/2
(16)
It remains to specify the plastic spins W~  2 f ~ and We  2f~P for the backstress A and orientational tensors A1 and A2, respectively. Dafalias [6,7] and Loret [8] proposed the expression W~ = r/A(ADP DPoA ), which in o conjunction with Eqs. 7 and 8 yields
~"~P 
/']A(ANPo  NPoA)
(17)
where NP is obtained from Eq. 13. Combining the conclusions reached in the o works of Dafalias [911], Zbib and Aifantis [12], Kuroda [13], and Levitas [14], one can propose to render Wp a function of the non coaxiality between
252
Dafalias
g  S  A and DP i.e., WP = t/(gDPo  DPog). From Eqs. 7 and 13, it follows o, after some algebra that [ 11]
~"~P M(SNPo  NoPS)  t/[(Z(F 4 4G + H  2M)tr(SA1)
+ 2(2F + 2G  H + N  L  M)tr(gAz))(SA1  Alg) + (2(6 + 4F + H  2L)tr(gA2) + 2(2F + 2G  H + N  C  M)tr(gA1)) (SA2  A2S) 4 2 ( N  L)(S2A1  AIS 2) 4 2 ( N  M)(S2A2  A2S2)] If S is co axial with theorthotropicdirections Ni ( i  1, 2,3), one has the spectral representation S  SIAl 4 $2A2 4 $3 ( I  (A1 4 A2)), where Si (1 = 1,2,3) are the principal values of S. Since A1A2 = A2A1 = 0 it follows from Eq. 17 that f~P  0 in this case. In general, there may be other stress directions besides the orthotropic ones for which f~P = 0, [11].
(18)
4.8.3.2
MODEL CONSTANTS
Equations 1218 provide all necessary information in closed form for the numerical implementation of Eqs. 11, with the only exception the specification of ~ for the hyperelastic relation, which is left up to the reader. The model constants associated with the use of the model are for the large part conventional. To be more specific, one has the following groups of such constants.
4.8.3.2.1
Elastic Constants
The choice of ~ will imply a set of elastic constants. For the simplifying assumption of linear isotropic elasticity, one needs only an elastic modulus and a Poisson's ratio.
4.8.3.2.2
Anisotropic
Coefficients
The values of FN entering Eq. 12 depend on the degree of orthotropic intensity and its evolution for a given material. Their interpretation in regards to yield stresses in different directions can be found in Hill [4]. This can be used to determine their values experimentally.
253
4.8.3.2.3
Kinematic Hardening
In reference to Eq. 14, one needs the values of h and c by a procedure which is standard in evanescent memory models. Notice that h/c represents a saturation measure for the back stress.
4.8.3.2.4
Isotropic Hardening
Similarly, in reference to Eq. 16, one needs the values of H and C. The ratio H/C is the saturation value of the isotropic hardening variable k.
4.8.3.2.5
4.8.3.2.5.1 For Kinematic Hardening The value of r/a in Eq. 17 influences the saturation level of the shear stress in simple shear loading. Its determination is not straightforward, and the reader is referred to Dafalias [7] for further details.
4.8.3.2.5.2 For orthotropic reorientation Finally, the value of 1/ in Eq. 18 will be of cardinal importance when orthotropic reorientation takes place. In a recent work [11], it was found that when setting r/rl'/[(2/3)trS2] 1/2 at the absence of kinematic hardening, values of r / '   1 0 0 ,  2 0 0 ,  3 0 0 can simulate successfully the orthotropic reorientation measured experimentally when orthotropic sheet metal samples are stretched in different directions, [15].
REFERENCES
1. Dafalias, Y. E (1998). The plastic spin: Necessity or redundancy? Int. J. Plasticity 14: 909931. 2. Aravas, N. (1994). Finitestrain anisotropic plasticity and the plastic spin. Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2: 483504. 3. Dafalias, Y. E, and Rashid, M. M. (1989). The effect of plastic spin on anisotropic material behavior. Int. J. Plasticity 5: 227246. 4. Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University Press. 5. Pereda, J. J., Aravas, N., and Bassani, J. L. (1993). Finite deformations of anisotropic polymers. Mechanics of Materials 15: 320.
254
Dahlias
6. Dafalias, Y. E (1983). Corotational rates for kinematic hardening at large plastic deformations. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 50: 561565. 7. Dafalias, Y. E (1985). The plastic spin. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 52: 865871. 8. Loret B. (1983). On the effect of plastic rotation on the finite deformation of anisotropic elastoplastic materials. Mechanics of Materials 2: 287304. 9. Dafalias, Y. E (1993). On the evolution of structure variables in anisotropic yield criteria at large plastic transformations, in Proc. CNRS Intern. Colloquium No. 351, VillarddeLans, June 1983, in Failure Criteria of Structured Media, Boehler, J.P. ed., Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. 10. Dafalias, Y. E (1984). A missing link in the formulation and numerical implementation of finite transformation elastoplasticity, in Constitutive Equations: Macro and Computational Aspects, in ASME Special Publication, Willam, K. J. ed., pp. 2540. 11. Dafalias, Y. E (2000). Orientational evolution of plastic orthotropy in sheet metals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 48: 22312255.. 12. Zbib, H. M., and Aifantis, E. C. (1988). On the concept of relative and plastic spins and its implications to large deformation theories, I and II. Acta Mechanica 75: 1533, 3556. 13. Kuroda, M. (1997). Interpretation of the behavior of metals under large plastic shear deformations: A macroscopic approach. Int. J. Plasticity 13: 359383. 14. Levitas, V. I. (1998). A new look at the problem of plastic spin based on stability analysis. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46: 557590. 15. Kim, K. H,. and Yin, J.J. (1997). Evolution of anisotropy under plane stress. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45, 841851.
SECTION
4.9
Plasticity of Polymers
JEANMARC HAUDIN, BERNARDMONASSE
CEMEF  BP 207, 06904 Sophia Antipolis, France
Contents 4.9.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 4.9.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 4.9.3 Description of the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 4.9.3.1 Yield Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 4.9.3.2 Overall Constitutive Equations . . . . 258 4.9.3.3 Discussion and Further Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 4.9.4 Identification of Rheological Parameters .. 261 4.9.4.1 OneDimensional Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 4.9.4.2 Generalization to Three Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.9.4.3 Extension to Complex Loading and High Strain Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.9.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
4.9.1
VALIDITY
Plasticity of polymers refers to large deformations of a m o r p h o u s polymers in a temperature range below and near the glass transition temperature Tg, and of semicrystalline polymers below their melting temperature Tin. In such conditions, the mechanical behavior can be, in a first step, characterized by a n o m i n a l stressstrain curve, as obtained in a classical tensile test (Figure 4.9.1): ~N = F/So, eN = A L / L o , where E AL, So, and Lo are the load, the elongation, the initial section, and the initial length of the specimen, respectively. After an elastic and viscoelastic range I, in which the deformation is h o m o g e n e o u s and essentially reversible, the n o m i n a l stress reaches a m a x i m u m (yield point). Beyond this m a x i m u m , necking occurs and ON
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
255
256
III
IV
FIGURE.4.9.1. Nominalstressstrain curve of a ductile polymer. decreases (stage II). Afterwards, the neck stabilizes and its shoulders propagate until they reach the specimen heads (stage III). Then, the deformation is homogeneous again till rupture occurs (zone IV). In comparison with metals, the term plastic behavior concerns stages II to IV, in which a permanent deformation is observed after unloading and remains at the time scale of the experiments. Plasticity of polymers exhibits a number of specific features. First, deformation is generally heterogeneous because of the occurrence of necking or shearbands. Therefore, the nominal curve of Figure 4.9.1 does not reflect the "true" mechanical behavior. Then, deformation is largely reversible. In the case of amorphous polymers, it can be completely recovered by annealing above Tg. Finally, the mechanical behavior is very sensitive to previous thermomechanical history (e.g., annealing prior to deformation), deformation path (induced anisotropy), and hydrostatic pressure.
4.9.2 BACKGROUND
In crystalline materials, plasticity is interpreted in terms of the motion of linear defects or dislocations. Taking into account some similarities in the relationships between shear yield stress and modulus, many researchers have identified the elementary mechanism of plasticity in glassy polymers as the thermal activation of structural defects analogous to dislocations. Furthermore, polymers are viscoelastic materials, which generally exhibit several mechanical relaxations. Therefore, the existing models are based on two or three of the following ingredients: defects or sheared microdomains, thermal activation helped by applied stress, and viscoelastic transitions [6].
257
Semicrystalline polymers are very often deformed when the amorphous phase is in the rubberlike state. This mobility of the amorphous component allows, at the beginning of deformation, relative displacements of the crystalline lamellae (interlamellar slip, interlamella separation). Then, plastic deformation of polymer crystals takes place, essentially by crystallographic slip. At large strains, the lamellar crystals are broken into smaller crystalline blocks connected by amorphous fragments of molecules. This lamellartomicrofibrillar transformation occurs in the macroscopic neck. The ultimate step is the extension of the amorphous network. Consequently, the deformation of the crystalline phase can be modeled using micromacro approaches based on slip mechanisms, whereas strainhardening at high strain can be treated with a rubber elasticity formalism. When the amorphous phase is in the glassy state, deformation combines the specific mechanisms of the amorphous and crystalline phases described previously.
From the physical ingredients listed in Section 4.9.2, many authors have focused their analysis on the yield behavior of glassy polymers. Only two examples will be considered here. The work of BauwensCrowet is not based on the concept of dislocations but on the thermal activation of viscoelastic transitions. In a temperature range where a single molecular process is involved, the yield stress O'y as a function of temperature T and strain rate + is represented by O'y k [ l n ( ~ ) ~ T g  V + ] or k  ko exp ( Q  oyV) kW (1)
which corresponds to an Eyring equation with two adjustable parameters: the activation energy Q and the activation volume V. k is the Boltzmann constant. The interpretation of yield stress in terms of elementary relaxations has been developed by Perez [8] in a sophisticated model involving the stressassisted activation of collective molecular movements related to fl transition. This analysis is consistent with the dislocation approach, since these molecular movements are confined in sheared microdomains. The model is able to predict the complex modulus in the whole temperature range of e and fl transitions, to describe the yield behavior, and to give access to the stressstrain curves as a function of temperature and strain rate.
258
4.9.3.2 OVERALL CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS
These equations are generally onedimensional and intend to represent the whole true stress vs. true strain curve. Some of them consider only the plastic behavior, whereas in many cases all the strain components are integrated into the same formalism. They are either fully phenomenological, or more or less based on physical models presented in Section 4.9.2. They can be classified into three categories: 9 Multiplicative laws: or(e, 8) = K v F(e) G(8) 9 Additive laws: or(e, 8) = F(e) + G(8) 9 Differential laws: do/de = D(e, k) The o denotes the stress, 8 the strain rate, and e  fo 8(u) du the accumulated strain. Kp is a scale factor.
(2)
where the temperature dependence of Kp is described by an Arrhenius law: Kp = K e x p ( a / T ) . F(e) consists of three terms:
9 V(e)= [1exp(we)], which describes the initial elasticviscoelastic part
of the curve; 9 C(e)= [l+c exp(be)] to account for the stress peak observed at the yield when the amorphous phase is glassy; 9 H(e)= exp(he") for the hardening at high strain; n is generally close to 2, the value proposed in the initial version of the theory. The strainrate sensitivity G(8) is represented by a power law. This equation is well adapted for tension. For other types of loading (simple shear, compression, multiaxial impact, etc.) the following expressions are preferred for H(e): simple shear simple shear multiaxial impact H(e) = exp(he) H(~)  1 + h~ H(e) = 1 + hlg+h2 ~2 (3) (4) (5)
259
as based on the decomposition (activation of the elementary stress ai(g) (strainhardening Andrews and Ward, G'Sell and
oi(~)
o* (/;)
= Kl[exp(2e)  e x p (  e ) ]  m In ~o where the expression of the internal stress ai(e) derives from the rubber elasticity theory. Other additive laws can be found in the literature. For polycarbonate (PC), one can mention: 9 the BelcadiParisot law, modified to take into account the strainrate sensitivity
= as + a o ( e x p ( e / e c )  1) + fl In
(7)
where the elastic component Crel obeys Hooke's law and the second term describes the stress maximum at the yield. 4.9.3.2.3 Differential Laws The VestAmoedoLee law, proposed for amorphous polymers like PC, is based on a rheological model consisting of a Hookean spring (modulus E) in series with three parallel elements (yield element, Eyring dashpot, rubber elasticity element). This leads to the differential equation
d__~ &=E
K sinh
1+ V
(')
~o
~b~
(93
260
where ~bo and Cl characterize the stress distribution in the parallel elements, K and V are related to the Eyring dashpot, and Kl[exp(2e)exp(e)] is the rubber elasticity term. In the differential G'SellJonas model [4], the strain is decomposed into an elastic part related to the stress through the modulus E and into a plastic component. Plastic deformation is due to the creation and propagation of dislocationtype defects. The constitutive equation is written d7 E 1   7 exp ee (10)
kT
where the internal stress oi(8 ) is described by the complete equation derived from rubber elasticity models: cri(e) = K1 [exp(2e)exp(e)] + K2 [exp(e)exp(2~)] (11)
and o~ is the constant effective stress after the transient yield behavior. In its original version, the model is temperature and strain rateindependent, but these dependences can be introduced.
4.9.3.3
The principal merit of the analytical multiplicative and additive laws is their ability to describe, at given strain rate and temperature, the stressstrain curve in a simple mathematical formalism. They can be easily implemented in computer codes, especially in the multiplicative case. Nevertheless, they suffer from their empirical or semiempirical character. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for physically based models. For amorphous polymers, the G'SellJonas differential model can be considered as a first attempt, but the stress determination requires a numerical integration and this law is not easily usable in computer simulations. In the same way, Perez's model [8], which correctly predicts the yield behavior and the beginning of plastic deformation, would be fully operational if it were completed by an entropic strainhardening law. Once more, the stressstrain curve is calculated numerically. Concerning semicrystalline polymers, the plastic behavior of the crystalline phase can be predicted using models developed for metals (e.g., modified Sachs model or selfconsistent model). They must be combined with approaches based on rubber elasticity to account for the extension of amorphous chains at high strain. Thanks to these models, the prediction of the macroscopic mechanical behavior from microscopic processes becomes possible in simple cases.
261 OF RHEOLOGICAL
4.9.4
IDENTIFICATION
The identification of the rheological parameters of the overall constitutive equations presented in Section 4.9.3.2 is generally performed in mechanical tests corresponding in principle to a simple loading: tension, compression, and shear. Nevertheless, a number of problems have to be overcome. The first one is to prevent selfheating, which imposes one to work at a low strain rate (typically g _< 10 3 s 1). A major problem is the inhomogeneity of the deformation observed in many tests (see introduction). A solution is either to find homogeneous (e.g., planestrain compression of thin films) or quasihomogeneous (e.g., compression of cylinders with appropriate dimensions) conditions or to consider a mesoscopic scale where the deformation is assumed to be locally uniform (uniaxial tension, simple shear). For instance, in videocontrolled tensile tests, the deformation of hourglassshaped specimens is followed by a video camera. Necking occurs in the minimum section, and the system measures in real time the minimum diameter D, the local radius of curvature Rc, and the load E The true stress, strain, and strain rate are then

4F
O"
/1:D2 1 + 
1 In 1 +
e
21n
(__~)
8
2 dD D dt
(12)
The stress 4F/rcD 2 is corrected for triaxiality effects using the Bridgman factor. Finally, the tests should be performed at constant strain rate g. This is possible in videocontrolled tensile tests by monitoring the crosshead velocity from diameter measurements. The numerical values of the rheological coefficients can be determined from true stressstrain curves either "by hand" from a careful analysis of the different regions of the curves, or as a whole using optimization programs based on the leastsquare method. More recently, inverse methods combining a direct model for the simulation of the test by the finite element method and an optimization module for minimizing the differences between predicted and measured physical data have been employed [10].
262
4.9.4.2 GENERALIZATION TO THREE DIMENSIONS
The generalization of onedimensional laws to threedimensional situations requires the definition of equivalent quantities (stress, strain and strain rate) associated with yield criteria. Incompressible and isotropic criteria (Tresca, von Mises) have been used in the literature, but this raises two categories of problems: 9 The mechanical behavior of solid polymers is very pressuredependent. Whatever the polymer, the yield stress strongly increases with hydrostatic pressure. It implies that symmetrical criteria in the stress space cannot predict the yield stress under different deformation paths. Conversely, nonsymmetrical criteria such as MohrCoulomb or pressuremodified von Mises criteria seem to be able to describe the stress at yield, which has been checked on a limited number of polymers. 9 An important anisotropy is developed at high strain, strongly depending on the deformation path: it is higher in tension than under compression or shear. Micromacro approaches are able to interpret these phenomena in simple cases, but they are not yet available for engineering applications. Inverse methods provide an alternative solution.
4 . 9 . 4 . 3 EXTENSION TO COMPLEX LOADING AND HIGH STRAIN RATES In many practical cases, e.g., in impact tests or during the thermoforming process, the material experiences both complex loading and high strain rates. It has been shown previously that 9 Constitutive equations are determined in laboratory experiments in simple loading conditions and at low strain rates. 9 The induced anisotropy is strongly dependent on the deformation path. Micromacro approaches are able to predict this anisotropic behavior, but only in limited cases and with important calculations. Therefore, the idea is to select a test in which matter is supposed to be strained in conditions close to those encountered in the actual application. From experiments performed using this test and for a given mathematical form of the constitutive equation, the rheological coefficients can be identified thanks to an inverse method [10].
263
4.9.5 RESULTS
Table 4.9.1 gives the values of the coefficients of the simplified Eq. 1
o Kp[1 
e x p (  w e ) ] exp(he2)/; m
(i')
for different types of loading (uniaxial tension, uniaxial compression) and various polymers: polyethylene (PE) [1], polypropylene (PP) [3], poly(oxymethylene) (POM) [7], polyamide 66 (PA 66). For PE, the values given for m take into account its variations with e, and for w its variations as a function of ~. For other polymers, these values have been averaged. Bisilliat and Billon [2] have s h o w n that for PC b o t h the phenomenological 0 law Eq. 8 and the physicallybased G'SellJonas differential law Eq. 10 were able to describe the stressstrain curve u n d e r uniaxial tension, including the stress peak at the yield transition. The numerical values of the coefficients of these laws at 20~ are given in Tables 4.9.2 and 4.9.3. For multiaxial impact, Tillier and Billon [9] have used the modified G'SellJonas multiplicative equation
cr  Kv[1 
(13)
and identified the numerical values of the coefficients using an inverse m e t h o d (Table 4.9.4).
TABLE 4.9.1 Rheological Coefficients for Different Types of Loading and Various Polymers. G'SellJonas Muhiplicative Law Eq. 1' Polymer PE Test Tension 22 60 20 80 110 130 150 115 165 25 100 230 46 25 63.6 17.4 9.1 7.5 4.5 70.3 10.3 122 70 23
Temperature (~
20
Kp (MPa Sm)
65
h 0.48 0.41 0.43 0.52 0.36 0.39 0.45 0.40 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
m 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.082 0.047 0.029 0.040 0.034 0.110 0.056 0.021 0.021 0.021
PP
Tension
POM PA 66
Compression Compression
45 68 22 50 20 30 31 32 33 26 23 34 45 22 7 15
264
TABLE 4.9.2 K (MPas m) 5.33 0 Constitutive Equation for PC at 20~ a (K 1) 749 0 270
Uniaxial
W/h 38.7
r (MPa) 65
a2 0.05
K1 (MPa) 60
K2 (MPa)  80
2300
hi 1.04
h2 0.325
m 0.045
106.8
REFERENCES
1. AlyHelal, N. A. (1982). Etude et simulation du d4veloppement de la striction dans le poly4thyl~ne ~ haute densit4, th~se, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy. 2. Bisilliat, M. L. (1997). Comportement m4canique d'un polycarbonate ~ grande vitesse de sollicitation. Etude exp4rimentale et simulation, th~se, Ecole des Mines de Paris. 3. Duffo, P., Monasse, B., Haudin, J. M., G'Sell, C. and Dahoun, A. (1995). Rheology of polypropylene in the solid state. J. Mater. Sci. 30: 701711. 4. G'Sell C. and Jonas, J. J. (1981). Yield and transient effects during the plastic deformation of solid polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 16: 19561974. 5. G'Sell, C. (1988). Instabilit4s de d4formation pendant l'4tirage des polym~res solides. Rev. Phys. Appl. 23: 10851101. 6. G'Sell, C. and Haudin, J. M. (1995). Introduction h la m~canique des polym~res, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre l~s Nancy. 7. Haudin, J. M., Monasse, B., Valla, T. and Glommeau, S. (1995). Numerical simulation of polymer forging: How to determine the rheological coefficients. Intern. Polym. Process. 10: 179185. 8. Perez, J. (1992). Physique et m4canique des polym~res amorphes, Lavoisier Tec et Doc, Paris. 9. Tillier, Y. (1998). Identification par analyse inverse du comportement m4canique des polym~res solides. Applications aux sollicitations multiaxiales et rapides, th~se, Ecole des Mines de Paris 10. Tillier, Y., Massoni, E. and Billon, N. (1998). Inverse method for the characterization of mechanical behavior of polymers under biaxial high velocity loading, in Computational Mechanics. New Trends and Applications, Proc. 4 th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, BuenosAires.
SECTION
4.10
Contents 4.10.1 Range of Strain Rates a n d F u n d a m e n t a l s .. 265 4 . 1 0 . 2 I n s t a n t a n e o u s Rate Sensitivity a n d Rate Sensitivity of Strain H a r d e n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 1 0 . 3 The F o r m a l i s m in M o d e r n C o n s t i t u t i v e Modeling ................................. 4 . 1 0 . 4 Identification of M i c r o s t r u c t u r e . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.5 O n e  p a r a m e t e r M o d e l of M i c r o s t r u c t u r a l Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 1 0 . 6 Recent A p p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 71 272 273 268 270 266
4.10.1 RANGE OF STRAIN RATES AND FUNDAMENTALS Dynamic plasticity in its general definition covers several decimal orders in strain rate, typically from 10E4 1/S (quasistatic case) to 10E6 1/S (highvelocity impact). Since plastic flow is a kinetic process, in general, the level of stress at constant microstructure depends on both strain rate and temperature. The lowtemperature micromechanisms involved in dynamic plasticity operate typically from OK up to about 0.5 of the melting point. The microstrucuture can be defined in many ways; one possibility is to use the concept of internal state variables (one or more than one) [ 1], which take into account a microstructural evolution. Since the density of moving defects per
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
265
266
Klepaczko
unit volume that take part in plastic deformation is very large, it is convenient to operate by mean quantities; however, they are not precisely defined by statistical means. Such an approach is called rational phenomenology, represented in this paper. The architecture of physical laws used is called the formalism. The constitutive formalisms are a powerful tools for formulating physically based rate and temperaturedependent constitutive models.
4.10.2
INSTANTANEOUS
Over the years numerous experimental data have been accumulated, too many to mention, which clearly demonstrate the existence of socalled strain rate history and temperature history ,effects [13]. Those effects have been observed for both metals and alloys as well as for single crystals [4]. The typical behavior in two common lattice structures, FCC and HCP, for temperatures less than about half of the melting temperature, is shown in Figure 4.10.1 [5]. According to the schematized responses to strain rate or temperature changes from 1'i to l~r or from Ti to Tr, an instantaneous elastic response is observed as an increment of shear stress A~:s; this is the path ABCD in Figure 4.10.1a. The same happens when temperature is abruptly decreased, as is shown in the lower part of Figure 4.10.1a i.e., the path ABCD. Decrease of from l'i to l~r or increase of T from Ti to Tr produces responses shown in Figure 4.10.1b. Independently, whether a metal is deformed with a jump of strain rate or 1"is changed with a temporary unloading, the result is similar, as is shown in Figure 4.10.1. In this paper notation of the shear strain will be as follows: F = tan 7, where 7 is the shear angle, and the time derivative:  d F / d t . It is evident that the strain rate or temperature history effects are due to a somewhat different physics of strain hardening at different strain rates or temperatures. The significance of the incremental tests lies in the fact that they provide values of flow stress at two different strain rates with virtually the same microstructure. In conclusion, A~s (path BC in Fig. 4.10.1) is the measure of instantaneous rate sensitivity at constant microstructure. The entire stress difference Avs 4 Avh refers to the same initial strain 1'i but to two slightly different microstructures, and consequently Al:h is the result of deformation history. The total increment of stress AI: = A~s 4 Al:h can be determined from the tests with two constant strain rates or temperatures. It is obvious that A~h can be associated with rate sensitivity of strain hardening.
267
?i<'i',; ri>T,
T:T r
b
' ~
~>'Pr ; Ti~rr
T:Ti
= YY',
iBt'~T:? ~Yp
);'i
I 
~L' 
,Yr
Yp
FIGURE 4.10.1
Yp
This rather loose term emphasizes the dependence of strain hardening on strain rate. The following three general definitions for strain rate sensitivity of flow stress can be introduced (Eq. 1). The definitions are referred to shear deformation; however, they are also valid in case of tension or compression. All rate sensitivities are defined as instantaneous quantities determined with jump tests [1]: fl+  (c~r/a log f')r,SfR;
r/~  (a'C/af")f,SfR
(1)
where fi is the rate sensitivity, m is the logarithmic rate sensitivity, and r/is the viscosity. The complete set of the rate sensitivities is fl, m, r/. The total rate sensitivities can be determined at two constant strain rates and the instantaneous values from jump tests [1]. For both cases, fl~, m+, r/+ and fi~, m~, r/r can be determined, respectively, for shear and tension/compression. All those quantities are interrelated, as is shown in Table 4.10.1.
268
TABLE 4.10.1 Rate sensitivity
m~ ~ ~ ~
Klepaczko
*m
1 T T
*[3,
rl,
l/r, 1
F/~
T T
1/["
Rate sensitivity ma = *m 1 *fla 1/ rr
1
t/ty
T
~ tic ~ a/~ T T 1 1/~
T 1
4.10.3 T H E F O R M A L I S M IN M O D E R N
CONSTITUTIVE MODELING The socalled formalism in constitutive modeling is a set of assumptions formulated on the notions of materials science. In view of the complexity and diversity of dislocation behavior, the formalism, or the "architecture" of the constitutive relations, may differ depending how many particular microprocesses of plastic deformation are taken into consideration. Plastic flow of metals is determined on the atomic scale by the motion of defects (mainly dislocations). Since the defects are multiplied during plastic deformation, the strain hardening develops. On the other side the plastic flow is a kinetic process. Such an approach leads to a specific constitutive modeling. The formalism presented here had been introduced some time ago [5], and further developments have been reported later [1, 6, 7, 8]. The formalism differs from that proposed later by Mecking and Kocks [9] and by Estrin and Mecking [10], and applied recently to high strain rate plasticity [11]. The thermal activation strain rate analysis is employed for both the kinetics of glide and the kinetics of structural evolution. Three main factors contribute to the actual level of flow stress: strain, strain rate, and temperature. The evolution of the effective stress is associated with glide kinetics and short transients of flow stress (instantaneous rate sensitivity) [12], and the evolution of the internal stress is coupled with the formation history of the microstructure (ratesensitive strain hardening). The model takes into account the evolution of the mean dislocation density, mobile dislocation density, formation of dislocation cells, the effect of grain diameter, and
269
formation of twins. As a result, a quantitative description of strain rate history and temperature history effects in FCC, BCC, and HCP lattices can be accomplished. More recent numerical simulations have demonstrated the capabilities of the model. It has also been shown that at high strain rates (103S1 ~ F < 106S1) an excessive dislocation generation occurs in FCC metals which leads to a substantial increase of the mechanical threshold (the flow stress in absence of the thermal vibration of the lattice, i.e., at temperatures near the absolute zero). The notion is adopted that plastic deformation in shear is the fundamental mode of deformation. Another fundamental assumption is partition of the flow stress r into the effective stress ru and the internal stress r*; thus r  z~ + z * or in tension/compression a  a~ + a* (2)
The assumption of additiveness according to Eq. 2 implies the existence of two sets of obstacles opposing the dislocation movements [13]. The first one, associated with the internal stress zu, is due to strong obstacles to dislocation motion like cell walls, grain walls, twins, etc. The secondary defects, while more numerous, like forest dislocations, Peierls barriers, and second phase particles, are supposed to be weak obstacles, and they can be overcome by moving dislocations with the assistance of thermal vibration of crystalline lattice. Those obstacles produce the effective stress z*. The kinetics of defect (dislocation) movements interrelates at constant microstructure, characterized by j state variables sj, the instantaneous value of effective stress z*, and the instantaneous plastic strain rate F. The expression for this process can be written as
["
or after inversion

V i
(3)
(4)
where vi is the frequency factor, AGi is the free energy of activation, T is the absolute temperature, and k is Boltzmann constant. The subscript i indicates the ith, so far unspecified, thermally activated micromechanism of plastic deformation. Generally AG depends on the effective stress r* in a nonlinear manner [1,13]. Note that only plastic strain and plastic strain rate enter into equations. The internal stress zu must be also rate and temperaturedependent via dynamic recovery processes, i.e., relaxation of longrange internal stresses due to dislocation annihilation and rearrangements of obstacles to dislocation motion. Thus the internal stress is
~  f~ {sj[h(f',r)]}STR
(5)
270
Klepaczko
It is assumed that the recovery processes leading to a structural evolution may be thermally activated. It is the source of temperature and strain rate dependence of zu.. Both strain rate and temperature enter into Eqs. 4 and 5 in the functional form
"CsTaf~{s),[h(F,
(6)
where h(]~, T) indicates that the internal state variables.sj do depend on the history of F and T defined more exactly as F(F) and T(F). Consequently, the plastic response of a material is divided into two logic steps: the flow stress z
depends on the current structure, defined by sj state variables and also on the current values of 1" and T, and next the structure evolves with plastic strain. This is the fundamental assumption of the model. Both components of stress in Eq. 6 are written for a current state characterized by sj state variables. Since the microstructure undergoes an evolution, and the state of microstructure is defined by j variables, the microstructure evolution is assumed in the form of a set of j differential equations of the first order d s j / d F  fj[Sk, F(F), T(F)], k  1 . . . ,j. (7)
A solution of the set defined by Eq. 7 provides current values of sj to be introduced into Eq. 6. Thus the flow stress can be calculated for any deformation history.
4.10.4
IDENTIFICATION
OF
MICROSTRUCTURE Flow stress or yield stress in polycrystalline metals and alloys can be related to characteristic spacing of obstacles to dislocation motion associated with a particular microstructure [13]. A range of characteristic spacing is possible. The following four are assumed as a satisfactory choice for the internal state variables: the microstructure is characterized by the mean distance L between forest dislocations, the mean value of a dislocation cell d, the mean value of a grain diameter D, and the mean distance between twins A Each of those obstacles to dislocation motion will contribute to the total value of the internal stress ~:u. An explicit expression for ~u can be written as [1,8]
"r,p  llgbp 1/2 Jro~2/t
" "
+e3//
+e412
(8)
where # is the shear modulus, ~1 "~4 are constants which characterize dislocation/obstacle strength, b is the modulus of Burgers vector, the mean spacing between forest dislocations can be defined as L  1/V/fl, and 5 is an exponent which is equal to 1 for onedimensional characteristic spacing L and
271
6 = 1/2 for twodimensional spacings (d, D, A). A more detailed characterization of all variables p, d, D, and A can be found elsewhere [1, 6, 8]. The first three terms in Eq. 8 are related, respectively, to dislocation/ dislocation interaction, evolution of subgrain, and the effect of grain diameter the so called HallPetch term [1]. It is well known that at low temperatures and at very high strain rates some metals and alloys produce deformation twins. Thus the fourth term in Eq. 8 accounts for twin formation as a dislocation obstacle at the beginning of a certain strain level, usually F ~ 0.08, dislocations form cells with linear dimension d. Generally, the evolution of d(p) intensifies strain hardening with a larger effect at small strains.
Common to all recent microstructurerelated models is that the set sj of internal state variables is reduced to a single structure parameter which can be identified as the mean dislocation density p [1, 5  8 , 12]. A general form of the differential equation for structural evolution can be written as [5]
d p / d r  Mg(p, F )  Ma(p, F, T)
(9)
where the difference M4f = Mg  Ma is the effective coefficient of dislocation multiplication [5, 14]. Once M4f is known in an explicit form, one can predict the current value of plastic strain F that will be accumulated in any process of deformation by integrating Eq. 9. A simple evolutionary relation has been proposed in [6]
ha = k0(F/F0) 2m~
(10)
The initial condition for M, that is, M MII if F = 0, is satisfied automaticall.y when p = P0; P0 is the initial dislocation density. The solution for p with F and T as parameters yields the following relation: P = P0 + ka(F, Y){1  e x p [ k a ( F , T)F]} (11)
Introduction of the solution for p(Eq. 11) and expression for ka into Eq. 11 yields the final form for the ~u. The effects of d, D, and A in this contribution are neglected. The second component of the flow stress, that is, r*, can found in the explicit form using the generalized Arrhenius relation (Eq. 3). The frequency factor v, is defined as vi = Pmb2VD, where p,, is the mobile dislocation density and VD is the Debye frequency ( ~ 1013s1). It is usually assumed for FCC and HCP structures that Pm = fP, where f is the fraction of the total dislocation density, f < 1, and typicallyf ~ 10 3. For BCC metals the
272
Klepaczko
evolution of Pm is more complex; f is not a constant but varies, causing, for example, the upper and lower yield point and Luders bands. Inversion of the Arrhenius relation yields the explicit expression for ~*
I
where "c~ is the threshold stress at 0 K. For FCC and HCP structures the threshold stress depends on the dislocation density, whereas for BCC structures it is approximately constant this is the Peierls stress barrier [1, 6, 13]. Application of this formalism leads to the explicit form of the constitutive relation with F and 7" as parameters, r(f', T )  r~(F, 1")+ z * (F, T), thus
4.10.6
RECENT APPLICATIONS
The formalism in constitutive modeling with one state variable as the mean dislocation density p has been applied so far many times, and the results of numerical calculations have been reported in several papers [1, 3, 8, 12, 15] for both FCC and BCC structures. The two state variable model with evolution Pi and Pm, where Pi and Pm are, respectively, the immobile and mobile dislocation density, has recently been applied to calculate short and long transients for aluminum [12]. Those simulations for A1 in the form of ~(F) curves at different temperatures along with incremental changes of f~ do show relatively good agreement with experimental observations. Concerning FCC pure metals, numerical simulations of strain rate history effects were reported in Reference [6]. They more or less exactly depict experimental results for polycrystals of A1 deformed at different temperatures with jumps in strain rate [1, 6, 8]. Stressstrain curves for Armco iron and 1020 steel have been reported for a wide range of strain rates in References [6, 7, 8, 16]. An agreement with experimental data was achieved for shear strains, F <0.4, with a simple evolution equation without annihilation. A more realistic evolution equation, in the simplified form of Eq 14, was applied to model strain hardening and ratesensitive plastic flow for XC18 steel (approximately AISI 1018) [15]. A complete set of material constants for this steel is given also in Reference [15]. The identification of material constants in the model for the range of dynamic strain aging temperatures, via experiments on XC18 steel, was reported in [7].
273
In general, the formalism permits calculations of viscoplastic responses to different deformation histories for FCC, BCC, and HCP relatively pure metals and metallurgically stable alloys. It is flexible enough to include a variety of effects on flow stress at different strain rates and temperatures.
REFERENCES
1. Klepaczko, J. R. (1988). A general approach to rate sensitivity and constitutive modeling of FCC and BCC metals, in Impact: Effects of Fast Transient Loadings, p. 3, Guman, W. J., et al., eds., Rotterdam: Balkema. 2. Klepaczko, J. R., Frantz, R. A., and Duffy, J. (1977). History effects in polycrystalline FCC metals subjected to rapid changes in strain rate and temperature. Engng. Trans. 25: 3. 3. Duffy, J. (1983). Strainrate history effects and dislocation structure, in Material Behavior Under High Stress and Ultrahigh Loading Rates, p. 21, Mescall, J., and Weiss, eds., New York: Plenum Press. 4. Morrone, A. A., and Duffy, J. (1986). Strain Rate and Temperature Effects During Dynamic
Deformation of Polycrystalline and Monocrystalline High Purity Aluminum Including TEM Studies, MRL Brown University Report, Providence.
5. Klepaczko, J. R. (1975). Thermally activated flow and strainrate history effects for some polycrystalline FCC metals. Materials Sci. Engng. 18: 121. 6. Klepaczko, J. R. (1987). Modeling of structural evolution at medium and high strain rates, in Constitutive Relations and Their Physical Basis, Proc. 8th Ris6 Symposium, p. 387, Ris6, Roskilde, Danmark. 7. Zeghib, N. E., and Klepaczko, J. R. (1966). Work hardening of mild steel within dynamic strain ageing temperatures. J. Materials Sci. 31: 6085. 8. Klepaczko,J. R. (1991). Physicalstate variables: The key to constitutive modeling in dynamic plasticity. Nuclear Engng and Design 127: 103. 9. Mecking, H., and Kocks, U. E (1981). Kinetics of flow and strain hardening. Acta Metall. 29: 1865. 10. Estrin, Y., and Mecking, H. (1984). A unified phenomenological description of work hardening and creep based on oneparameter models. Acta Metall. 32: 57. 11. Follansbee, P. S., and Kocks, U. E (1988). A constitutive description of the deformation of copper based on the use of the mechanical threshold stress as an internal state variable. Acta Metall. 36: 81. 12. Klepaczko, J. R. (1992). Short and long transients in dynamic plasticity of metals, modeling and experimental facts, in ShockWave and HighStrainRate Phenomena in Materials, p. 147, Meyers, M. A., Murr, L. A., and Staudhammer K. P., eds., New York: M. Dekker. 13. Kocks, U. E, Argon, A. S., and Ashby, M. E (1975). Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Slip, Oxford: Pergamon Press. 14. Gilman, J. J. (1969). Micromechanics of Flow of Solids, New York: McGrawHill. 15. Klepaczko, J. R., and Rezaig, B. (1996). A numerical study of adiabatic shear banding in mild steel by dislocation mechanics based constitutive relations. Mech. of Materials 24: 125. 16. Klepaczko, J. R. (1984). An engineering model for yielding and plastic flow of ferritic steels, in High Energy Rate Fabrication, p. 45, New York: ASME.
SECTION
.ll
Laboratoire de M~canique et Technologie, ENS de Cachan/CNRS/Universit~ Paris 6, 61 avenue du PrEsident Wilson, 94235 Cachan, France
Contents 4.11.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.2 Method of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.3.1 N (or ~ ) Has Distinct Eigenvalues. 4.11.3.2 N and ~ Have Both a Double Eigenvalue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.1 SCOPE
We give in this paper closedform expressions for the critical conditions at localization and the orientations of the corresponding plane for general rateindependent constitutive equations of the form Fif f < O o r f  0 and f < O ~0_'~ LHF~~ and f  0 (1)
where c~ is the stress tensor, g the strain tensor, and l_ the tangent modulus. In Eq. 1, f is the yield function, ~ and [3 are secondorder tensors assumed throughout to be coaxial, H = h + ~:I:l: [3 is a scalar parameter, and F is the elastic tensor assumed, throughout to be isotropic (with Lam~ constants 2 and /~); h is the socalled hardening modulus. The dot is differentiation with respect to time. It is convenient to introduce the deviatoric and hydrostatic parts of 0~ and [3 such that cz = a + pl, [3 = b 4ql with p = 1/3 tr(oO and q = 1/3 tr([3). Localization is understood in the classical sense, i.e.. as an
Handbook of Materials BehaviorModels. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
274
275
instability of the inelastic deformation, and is described as a bifurcation into modes involving jumps of the velocity gradient across a planar band of normal n. The general localization condition reads det (n.H.n) <_ 0 [131.
4.11.2
METHOD
OF SOLUTION
We use here a geometrical method to solve in closed form the localization condition. This can also be done using Lagrange multipliers as proposed by Bigoni and Hueckel [4]. The localization condition for model (1) takes the form (see [5])
1
H~(2 + 2/0 <_ (2 + 2~)4[((a + b).n)((a + b).n)  ((a  b ) n ) ( ( a  b)n)]  (2 +/.z)~[(n(a + b)n) 2  (n(a  b)n) 2] +/_zp +2 qn(a + b)n

(2)
Introducing the tensors N = a + b and M = a  b, then the respective magnitudes T+ and T_, and the respective normal components 2+, 2_ of the generalized stress vectors N.n and M.n in the n direction, defined by 22+ = n.N.n, T+ = (N.n).(N.n), s the localiztion condition becomes 4/x(2 + 2#) _< H(2 + 2/x)(T+  T_)  ( 2 + 2/x)(2 2  22_) 4 ~/[(Z+ 4 p 4 q)2 _ (s 4 P _ q)]2 (4) = n.M.n, T_ = (M.n).(M.n) (3)
In the (Z+, T+) plane ( in the (Z_, T_) plane), by elementary Mohr analysis, a given direction n is represented by a point lying in an admissible area T+ (in an area T_) and corresponding exactly to the classical admissible area in the Mohr diagrams associated with N and M. When denoting by Np (p = 1, 2, 3) and by Mp (p = 1, 2, 3) the eigenvalues of N and M, respectively, and by Xp their common eigenvectors, classical formulae in Mohr analysis show that the components ni of n in the principal frames of N and M satisfy, respectively,
T+ 4 NiX+ + NjNk  (ni)2(Ni  Nj)(Ni  Nk) T_ + Mis + MjMk  (ni)2(Mi Mj)(Mi Mk)
(5) (6)
where (i, j, k) is a triplet with distinct numbers belonging to the set (1,2,3). We denote by Hc the critical value of H at localization.
Benallal
4.11.3.1
~ (OR ~)
When the eigenvalues of ~ (or those of ~ ) are distinct, the admissible area T+ (or T_) is a triangle (see Fig. 4.11.1.); moreover, one can compute from Eqs. 5 (or 6) the components of n, and then by Eq. 3 one can compute ~_ and T_ as functions of ~+ and T+ (or ~+ and T+ as functions of ~_ and T_) and upon substitution in the localization condition Eq. 4, end up with an expression involving only ~+ and T+ (or ~_ and T_ only). Clearly, localization will occur when the domain D+ (D_) represented by this inequality meets in the (~+, T+) plane ( in the (~_, T_) plane) the admissible triangular area T+ (T_) defined previously. Depending on the constitutive behavior at hand, localization can occur at the beginning of the inelastic process or only after a finite period of this process. In the
FIGURE 4.11.1 Geometrical interpretation of the localisation condition in the (~+, T+) plane. The admissible domain in this plane is the triangular area T+. The domain representing the localization condition Eq. 2 is delimited by the hyperbola C+.
4.11 C o n d i t i o n s for L o c a l i z a t i o n
277
first case, the critical conditions are trivially given by the initial inelastic state; from now on we consider only the second case, where they are obtained by the instant when the curve C+ delimiting D+ intersects for the first time the admissible area T+. This may happen when C+ (which is a hyperbola in our case) touches T+ at one of its vertices (in which case the normal to the localization plane is a principal direction of ~l and M), or when it becomes tangent to one of its sides ( in which case the normal to the localization plane lies in a principal plane of N and ~ ) . Therefore, it is concluded that the normal to a potential plane of localization lies always in a common principal plane of ~ and g4]. It remains then to consider the case where ~J and M have both a double eigenvalue, since because of their deviatoric nature, they cannot have a triple one. This case will be examined in Section 4.11.2. Now that the potential planes have been obtained, the critical conditions at localization must be obtained. Denote by (i, j, k) a triplet of distinct number belonging to the set (1, 2, 3). Let us assume that n lies in the principal plane spanned by xi and xj and call 0 the angle between xi and n (e c [0, re]). Computing Z + , T+, Z_ and T_, substituting the result in Eq. 4 with equality to get H, and maximizing H with respect to 0, one gets the stationnarity condition:
(Ni  Nj)sin 20[(2 +/2)cos 2 0 ( N i  Nj)  l l { N i q Nj if 2(p + q)}]
=
(7)
This stationnarity condition has two solutions: either sin 20 = 0 and the corresponding normals to the localization plane are the principal directions xi or xj leading to the value hi or hj given by
hi
4[L~ q2g)
32 ( (  2 ~ 4#+
+ (p + q)(Mj  Mk)  (p  q)(Nj  Nk) 4/~[(Nj  Nk) 2  (Mj  Mk) 2] and a similar one for hi. cos 20 =
}2
(Nj  Nk)2  (Mj  Mk) 2
l.Z {Ni + Nj + 2(p + q)}(N,  Nj)  {M, + Mj + 2(p  q)}(M,  Mj) 2+/2
(9)
Benallal
Nj)} (10)
[Nk(Mi
Nj)] 2 }
1 ( N i  Nj) z  ( M i  Mj) z
This expression is of course valid only if  1 < cos 20 < 1. The critical value hc of h at localization corresponds to the normal n leading to the greatest value of h. Using Eqs. 8 and 10, one can determine the domain of validity of each of the expressions hp and hp_q, p, q  1, 2, 3. These results, too long to be reported here (see [5] for more details) are summarized in Table 4.11.1.
4.11.3.2 N AND ~/~ HAVE BOTH A DOUBLE EIGENVALUE Let (i+, j+, k+) and (i, j  , k) be two triplets of distinct numbers belonging to the set (1, 2, 3). When N and ~ have both a double eigenvalue associated with the principal directions xi+, xj+ and xi, xj, we have Ni+ = Nj+1/2Nh+ and Mi+ = Mj+ = 1/2Mh+. The domains T+ and T_ degenerate to two segments, the equations of which are, respectively, 1_ T_ ~MkE1  ~(Mk)_2  0and T+  zl vNk+E+  1 (Nk+ )2  0 and Eqs. 5 and 6 using also Eq. 11 allow are to compute only
,,2
(11)
2s 1 3Nk+ t~(nk
2
2 E_ 3Mh_
1 3
(12)
When the directions Xk+, xk coincide, it is still possible to compute via Eqs. 11,8 and 12 T_ and s as functions of T+ and s only (or T+ and s as functions of T_ and s only ) since one has s  Mh/211  3(nk+)2], T_ = (Mh)2/411 + 3(nh+) 2] and similar relations for T+ and s Therefore, we can work, for instance, in the (T+, s plane and with the same arguments as previously stated; it is found that localization will occur when C+ touches the
TABLE
# 0 and a  b # 0
2_ Nk = &a+
3 2M~ = &a3
+
w
N, = f  o +
3
23
M, = &a2
#J )
N, = f  g + 3 2MI = io3
2
fr El
&
z
i
A, 2 0, B Z 5 0. Bjt 5 0 A,@; 2 A,~BI, h,, L AJkB$ + 4A,k(Btk 1) 0 A, > 0, A,k > 0 B,, 2 0, B,k L 0 or A,, > 0, A,k i 0 B,, 2 0, A,k(B,, 1) L 0 or A , 10, A,k I 0 B , 5  1 , Btk 1  1 A@:, + 4Akt(Bkt 1) 5 0
?L
G
ntj
n~ r ,
nE
r,
+ >
h,
n, n E n,,
~f A ,
=0
n~ n,k ~fA,k = 0
+ b and a  b, T,,
IS
the plane spanned by n, and nl. T,IS the cone with axls n, and angle
5 glven by:
diMk

 Z ( P  4))(Mz  M,l  2(Nk  Z(P + q))(N,  NI)] 2 ( ~ P)(N,  N,)'  (M,  M,)']
*
A,,
p{(Mh 2
=
Z(P  q))(MI  Mi)  (Nk  2 ( p + q ) ) ( N ,  NJ]} xi 2(2 + P)(N,  N,)'  (M,  MI)'] (M,

(N,  N )
Mi)', B 
:'
 4 )  (Nk  2 ( p + q ) ) ( N , N I ) )
280
Benallal
segment T+ at one of its extremities or becomes tangent to it. It is concluded that the normal to the localization plane is either the common principal direction associated with the simple eigenvalue (when the tangency point is (T+ = 0, ~+ = Nk+), or an arbitrary direction in the common principal plane associated to the double eigenvalue ( when T +   0 , 2E+ = Ni+ = Nj+), or a direction belonging to the cone the axis of which is the common principal direction ( tangency to the segment T+ but not at its extremities) with angle ~ such that (cos ~ ) 2 = (nk+)2 = (nk_)2, the righthand sides being computed by Eq. 12 with E+ and E_ corresponding to the tangency point of the curve C+ with the segment T+. The corresponding values of h are still given by Eqs. 8 and 10, and the critical conditions are also summarized in Table 4.11.1. W h e n the directions x/+, Xk do not coincide, it is not possible to work in the (T+, E+) plane or in the (T_, s plane. The alternative is to use Eq. Eq. 11, compute T+ and T_, and upon substitution in the localization condition, end up with an equation involving only E+ and E_. A similar geometrical analysis can then be performed in the plane (E+, s where the localization condition is seen to be represented again by a hyperbola H. The admissible area in this plane.is easily obtained by regiving that the components of the unit normal to the localization plane nk, nk+ (given by Eq. 12) and the third one (nkk+)   1   ( n k + ) 2   ( n k  ) 2 along the axis orthogonal to both xk+ and Xk, be comprised between 0 and 1, i.e., 2]E+ 1 2 E_ 0<+ < 1 0<+ 3Nk+ 3   ' 3Mk1 1 < 1 0< 3 ' 3 2E+
3Nk.
2 E_ < 1 3Mk
(13)
This is again a triangular area and localization occurs when the hyperbola H meets this domain at one of its vertices or becomes tangent to any of its sides. In this case, it is concluded that the situation is exactly the same as when N or M has distinct eigenvalues and all the results of Section 4.11.1 hold true.
REFERENCES 1. Rudnicki,J. W. and Rice,J. R. (1975). Conditions for localization of deformation in pressuresensitive dilatant materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 23: 371394. 2. Rice,J. R. and Rudnicki, J. W. (1980). A note on some features of the theory of localization of deformation. Int. J. Solids Struct. Vol. 16: 597605. 3. Borre G. and Maier G. (1989). Meccanica 24: 3641. 4. Bigoni, D. and Hueckel, T. (1991). Uniqueness and localisation. I. Associative and nonassociative elastoplasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 28: 197213. 5. Benallal, A. and Comi, C. (1996). Localization analysis via a geometrical method. Int. J. Solids Struct.
SECTION
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
ELIAS C. AIFANTIS Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54006 Greece, and Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan
Contents 4.12.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12.3. Elementary Gradient Plasticity Models . . . . 4.12.3.1 Gradient Deformation Model 1 (Symmetric Stress [2,3,23]) . . . . . . . 4.12.3.2 Gradient Deformation Model 2 (Asymmetric Stress [17,18,25]) .... 4.12.3.3 Gradient Flow Model 3 (Symmetric Stress [2,3,23]) . . . . . . . 4.12.3.4 Gradient Flow Model 4 (Asymmetric Stress [17,18,25]) . . . . 4.12.3.5 Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12.4 Size Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12.5 Forming Limit Diagrams (FLDs) . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
281 282 283 283 284 285 286 287 288 293 294 296
4.12.1 VALIDITY
W h e n the scale of observation and the resolution of the experimental apparatus are comparable to the size of the evolving microstructure, conventional plasticity theory may not be capable of describing plastic flow and capturing the associated heterogeneity and scale effects. Typical examples of questions that remain u n a n s w e r e d or partially answered by standard models, including deformation, flow, and internal variable theories of plasticity, are (i) the determination of widths and spacings of shear bands; (ii) the determination of velocities of Liiders and PortevinChatelier bands; (iii) the d e p e n d e n c e of yield stress in torsion and b e n d i n g on
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
281
282
Aifantis
specimen size; (iv) the dependence of yield strength of composites on particle reinforcement size; and (v) the dependence of hardness on indenter dimensions, as well as the dependence of interracial failure of multilayer coatings on film thickness. These questions can be addressed by modifying the yield or flow stress of classical plasticity theory to include additional strain gradient terms to model phenomenologically the heterogeneous character of plastic flow. The newly introduced phenomenological coefficients may be interpreted on the basis of the underlying microscopic mechanisms of plastic deformation, and they can also be determined independently from mechanical tests especially designed to measure spatial characteristics of shear bands and size effects.
4.12.2 BACKGROUND The interest in higherorder gradient theories has been revived recently among researchers in solid mechanics and materials science because of the ability of the higherorder terms to model phenomena not previously captured by standard elasticity, plasticity, and dislocation theories that do not involve an internal length scale in their constitutive structure. An account of current work on gradient theory at various scales of observation ranging from nano and micro scales to meso and macro scales can be found in a recent review by Aifantis [1] and references quoted therein. As first discussed by Aifantis [2,3], the initial motivation for introducing gradient theory was the need for determining the width of shear bands and the wavelength of persistent slip bands, as well as the problem of meshsize dependence in finite element solutions when the material enters into the strain softening regime. These issues were later considered in detail by Aifantis and coworkers [47], as well as by others [816] who produced variants of the initial model and elaborated upon numerical [8,9,11,15] and thermodynamic [1216] aspects. Another set of problems pertaining to strain gradient hardening and size effects in torsion and indentation was identified by Fleck et al. [7,8], who introduced another gradient plasticity model to interpret the related experimental observations. This model or variations of it were adopted by a number of investigators [1922] to consider plasticity problems at the micron scale and to interpret size effects observed in particle reinforced composites and indentation tests. More details on the aforementioned two basic gradient plasticity approaches can be found in the review articles by Aifantis [23,24] and Fleck/Hutchinson [25]. It is emphasized that even though both of these approaches are based on a gradient modification of a scalar equation (the yield
4.12 GradientPlasticity
283
condition) by incorporating gradient effects through the second invariant of the plastic strain tensor (effective or equivalent strain), the stress tensor remains symmetric in the first approach, and it becomes asymmetric in the second one. This is mainly because gradient effects are directly introduced through gradients of plastic strain in the first approach, and through gradients of plastic rotation in the second one. Physically, this was motivated by strain incompatibilities associated with necessary geometric dislocations in the second approach, while it can be attributed to inhomogeneous strain transport through mobile dislocations in the first approach. It is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of the mathematical structure of the two theories, the associated boundary conditions, and the experimental determination of the gradient phenomenological coefficients. However, gradient plasticity theory is still at its beginnings, and one should not expect a general model to be invented for use in the vast number of applications at the micron and nano scales. In this connection, the point of view is advanced that a variety of gradient models may be used according to the particular situation at hand; in analogy, for example, to the variety of standard constitutive models that are commonly employed in conventional applications where heterogeneity and scale effects are not of interest.
4.12.3.1
(SYMMETRICSTRESS [2,3,23])
This simple form of gradient modification of the deformation theory of plasticity involves the incorporation of the Laplacian of the effective or equivalent plastic strain in the expression for the effective or equivalent stress, i.e., = ~c(~)  cK72~ (1)
284
Aifantis
where the equivalent stress F and the equivalent plastic strain ~ are defined, as usual, by the relations F ~ .2S,jS,j, e . . . . . EijEij , with ~c(~)denoting the usual homogeneous part of tlow stress, c being a phenomenological gradient coefficient, Sij being the deviatoric stress tensor, and Eij denoting the deviatoric strain tensor which, for incompressible plastic deformation (ekk = 0), equals the strain tensor gij. By assuming the equivalent work condition Sij &ij = F6~, we obtain from the previous equations the following gradientdependent stressstrain relations:

2F
(2)
which should be supplemented by appropriate boundary conditions for the solution of boundary value problems.
4 . 1 2 . 3 . 2 GRADIENT DEFORMATION MODEL 2 (ASYMMETRIC STRESS [ 17,18,25]) In contrast to the previous "symmetric stress" gradient deformation theory of plasticity, Fleck et al. [17,18,25] have proposed a Cosserattype "asymmetric stress" strain gradient plasticity theory. In this theory the stress tensor is aij 4zij, with aij denoting the symmetric part and zij denoting the antisymmetric part ; the relevant equilibrium equations are (aji 4 ~ji),j = 0 and ~jk 4 ~eijklmpi,p O, with mij denoting the deviatoric part of the couple stress tensor, whose hydrostatic part does not enter into the equilibrium equations and is therefore taken to vanish. In analogy to the previous symmetric stress model, the equivalent work condition is postulated in the 1 form aw  SijtSEij 4 mijtS)(.j i  ~.,tS~, where Eij  8ij  ~(ui,j 4 Uj,i), with ehh  0 denoting the usual strain tensor and Zij = <k&e,k denoting the curvature tensor, while the equivalent stress and strain measures (g, F) are defined by the relations e  V/~2+ e2~2, 8 ~/~eijgij, ~  ~/2~,ij)(,ij, with e denoting an internal length and E = dw(~)/d~ = ~c(~). It then follows that 2K(~)E 2K(~)
(3)
with s V/t~2 + L'2rh2, #  v/3SijSij/2, and r h  v/3mijmij/2. With appropriate extra boundary conditions (e.g., for m/j), boundary value problems can be solved.
4.12 GradientPlasticity
4.12.3.3 GRADIENT FLOW MODEL 3 (SYMMETRIC STRESS [2,3,23])
285
This simple gradient modification of the flow theory of plasticity (the flow counterpart of Model 1) involves the incorporation of the Laplacian of equivalent shear plastic strain 7 (note that for convenience 7 is used instead of g in accordance with the notation previously adopted in related literature) in the yield condition, i.e., F  ~  (K(7) cV2?)  0 (4)
where the equivalent shear stress z and equivalent shear strain rate ? are defined as usual by z  v/xsijsij;?  fgdt; 3) ~/2~k~. The corresponding associated flow rule reads
F_,ij ?~Tj~ij:=>8ij
(5)
The relevant elastic strain increment k~e  ~.ke  ~e is determined by Hooke's law, which may be written in the form dij=C~jke(~.ke~r C~jke  23ij3ke + G(3ik@ + 3ie3jh),with (2, G) denoting the Lam~ constants. The plastic multiplier 9 in the flow rule given by Eq. 5 satisfies the following loadingunloading conditions:
_
.p
(6)
9  V29  ~ C ijkeF,k(
(7)
where H   h + SijC~keSke/4"c 2  h + G and h  c~c(?)/c~7. Equation 7 is a differential equation for 9 in contrast to the classical plasticity case (c = 0) where 9 is determined from an algebraic equation. Various procedures have been developed for evaluating Eq. 7 in relation to the solution of elastoplastic boundary value problems. For example, in the method of Muhlhaus and Aifantis [5], 9 is treated as an additional independent variable and Eq. 7 as an additional field equation, whereas necessary extra boundary conditions are deduced from an appropriate variational principle. To this end, the following generalized incremental potential functional ~'(1~i, 9)is defined
lfB (
.Sij"~ e (
.Skr
~,
286
Aifantis
1 with ~ [ 9 1  2fB {h72+ cVg. Vg} dV. The applied tractions ti act on surface ~tB and displacementtype boundary conditions are prescribed ~uB= ~B~tB. By assuming that for 9 > 0, ~  = 0 at equilibrium arbitrary infinitesimal variations of [fi, 9] and with 66i = 0 on GB, following relations are derived:
f JB (rij'j~f'lidVJ~t[B[~ijlljti] (~(,lidA0
fBfSij e 9 H9 qcV29} ,~9d V ~~~Cijkfgk~,0 (9)
f~epB
It is noted that Eq. 9 (first equation) leads back to the stress equilibrium relations and the standard tractiontype boundary condition; the second equation leads back to the consistency condition; the third leads to a nonstandard boundary condition along the elasticplastic boundary ~epB. The second of the conditions in the third equation is automatically satisfied on ~ B . These equations provide the basic framework for the corresponding finite element implementation as followed, for example, by de Borst and Muhlhaus [9].
4 . 1 2 . 3 . 4 GRADIENT FLOW MODEL 4 (ASYMMETRIC STRESS [ 1 7 , 1 8 , 2 5 ]) For completeness, we provide a condensed summary of this model (the flow counterpart of Model 2) for which the starting point is the replacement of the standard deviatoric Cauchy stress by a 13dimensional stress vector s = (S O, ~elmji) comprising the five components of the deviatoric symmetric stress tensor Sij and the eight components of the deviatoric couple stress tensor glmji, as well as the introduction of a 13dimensional plastic strain rate vector t~p  (~, t'~/~)comprising the five components of the plastic strain rate "P tensor eij and the eight components of the plastic curvature tensor t'~/~. The yield condition reads
~)(~, r ) = x  r = o
(10)
where
denotes
v/3SijSij +3vgZmijmij
the uniaxial flow stress and Z  X / ~ Z . Z V/G2 q~'2/'~12 is the overall effective stress. The
/..
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
287
with the hardening rate h being chosen so that the uniaxial homogeneous tensile response is reproduced. The plastic work rate per unit volume is as 9 p before ivP  Siji?,p [mjixijp _ E . 1~  Z/~v where the overall effective plastic .p strain rate is defined as E.P E / h  v/}E v. EP ~/}~eij + ~ ez~p~p~j~j_
_
V/(~p)2 + ( ~ ) 2 ,

~Xij ~j is the effective plastic curvature rate. It then turns out that the
.p __ 3 Sij f~ eiJ  2h Z, ef(p _ 3 elmji f~
flow rule Eq. 11 can be decomposed into the following equations: (12)
2h
stress rate
Z,
~; can be obtained as
where
the
overall
effective
.
rate through a higherorder elasticity theory, but further details on this issue are omitted for brevity.
4.12.3.5 GENERALIZATIONS
Various generalizations or variations of these models have been proposed by the developers of these theories and their coworkers, as well as by other authors [26,27]. The purpose of the present introductory paper does not justify a review of them. Nevertheless, a few remarks are useful for the subsequent sections of the paper. We note that a straightforward generalization of the symmetric stress model is r  ~c(7)  c* (V?. VT)~cV27 (13)
which was suggested at the same time as the original symmetric stress gradient theory. It is noted that two gradient coefficients are now introduced to incorporate the effects of both first and second strain gradients, and the coefficient m is usually taken equal to 1. Similarly, the asymmetric stress model has been generalized to include both stretch gradients and curvatures through, for example, the relationship
22 F 2  ~EoEi 4 f2.(1).(1) _Jr_tPcs.~)(,ij)(,i j l'lijk 'lijk j
(14)
288
Aifantis
(3) where l]ijk   llk,ij   ~a(1) ~ (2) + 1]ijk refer to the orthogonal decomposition of 'lijk 'lijk the displacement gradient [25] and (/~1,~cs) denote two independent internal lengths. The corresponding stress components are then obtained from the relations Sij  ~w(~)/~Eij, mijh  ~w(~)/~]l) ). In this connection, it is pointed out that a recent elegant variant of the asymmetric stress model has been advanced by Gao et al. [21,22]. This is based on an expression for the effective stress of the form F = cryv/f2(~) + ~rT,where F   ayf(~:) for the nongradient case, ~ = I/2~.ijF~+j, and r7  1 ~V/~lijh~lijh. The
/
hardening length scale is obtained as r ~ 0.5(G/ay)2bVJ ~ 5 ltm, with G denoting the shear modulus and b the magnitude of Burger's vector. The previously listed flow stress expression and the resulting model of mechanismbased gradient plasticity (MSG) is motivated by Taylor workhardening theory and recent indentation experiments [19], and rests upon certain assumptions to relate the deformation behavior between "microscale" and "mesoscale" material elements. It follows from the variety of strain gradient plasticity models discussed in this section that the search for a unified gradient plasticity theory may not be a reasonable task to undertake. Rather, different models may be used according to the particular application at hand. The form of these models should not only depend on the underlying physical mechanism of plastic deformation but also on the mathematical simplicity and robustness of numerical implementation. Accordingly, different internal lengths may be involved, and the associated gradient coefficients need to be determined from appropriate experiments. This view is further supported in the following two sections, where we focus on the symmetric stress gradient plasticity theory only and illustrate how it can be used to interpret size effects (Section 4.12.4) and to derive forming limit diagrams (Section 4.12.5).
4.12.4
SIZE EFFECTS
In this section we elaborate on the interpretation of size effects in torsion and bending of solid bars by using a gradient modification of the strength of materials approach. This modification amounts to employing a gradientdependent flow stress of the type of Eq. 13, i.e.
"~ = /~(~) + C1(~7~ 9~7~) 1/2  C2~72~
(15)
The rest of the hypotheses (i.e, strain distribution, definitions of equivalent stress and strain, Hooke's law for the elastic strains, and moment vs. stress distribution relation) remain the same as in the standard mechanics of materials approach. Then, on the basis of Eq. 15 with ~c(?)= z0 ~ 0.5a0 to
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
289
denote a perfectly plastic behavior for the homogeneous response, it turns out that an explicit expression for the dependence of the initial yield stress Y (first occurring at the outer surface of the bar where the elasticplastic boundary first appears; Y = GTswith G denoting shear modulus and 7s surface strain) on the size (radius ~ or height h) of the specimen's crosssection is obtained as follows:
r ( ~ )  % ~2 + (c2/G)
(c]/G)e
'
Y f h )  ao ( h / 2 ) h /2
(16)
for torsion and bending, respectively. Figure 4.12.1a,b shows the fitting of experimental results obtained for the size dependence of the yield stress Y on the radius ~ of cylindrical bars subjected to torsion (J. L. M. Morrison, Proc. Inst. of Mech. Eng., vol. 142, pp. 193223, 1939) and on the height h of rectangular beams subjected to bending (C. W. Richards, Proc. Am. Soc. Testing Mats., vol. 58, pp. 955970, 1958). As already indicated, 0:o, ao) denote the yield stress in shear and tension for homogeneously deforming specimens. Also, in the case of bending, r is replaced by the axial stress a, ~c(7) is replaced by a0, and Cl is replaced by ~1, which measures the gradient effect of the axial strain e with E denoting Young's modulus; i.e., a superimposed bar is added to the gradient coefficient when the constitutive equation is expressed in terms
. , 9 , . , . , , 9 , .
0.62
Y(oQo.6o
Go
0.58
o~
cl/E=1.28mm
2801
0.54 o 0.52 0
i , 9 , 9 ,
240!

'
10
12
14
(a)
(x (mm)
. , . , . , .
(b)
, . , . , .
2~
M/~)~3
600
(MPa)
400
3O g i n [
20~ = 1 7 0 g n ~
(c)
%'.0
'
0.2
'
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
7s
FIGURE 4.12.1 Quantitative comparison between theory and experiment: (a) Yielding behavior in torsion. (b) Yielding behavior in pure bending. (c) Hardening behavior in torsion.
290
Aifantis
of instead of 7. The effect of the c2term vanishes identically in the case of bending. Similarly, for the interpretation of the recent experimental results on increased torsional hardening with decreased wire diameter reported by Fleck et al. [17], Eq. 15 is replaced by z = ~0 + ky"+ ~ynl~72]j; i.e., a powerhardening behavior is assumed for the homogeneous response and a similar behavior is assumed for the gradient coefficient, which is now straindependent. The corresponding expression for the sizedependent torque (M) vs. surface shear strain (7s) reads M ~= 2re + 7s3 + 1 + n+ 1~2 ;1~'e(17)
The fitting of the experimental data by this expression is shown graphically in Figure 4.12.1c. The values of the standard parameters n and k are obtained from tension data as n = 0.23 and k = 117 MPa. The value of the internal length parameter g is 5.1~tm for the (170, 30, 15)~tmdiameter wires, and 4.1 l.tm for the (20, 12)~tmdiameter wires. The value of the initial stress z0 is zero for all cases except for the 12~tmdiameter wire for which z0 ~ 58 MPa. The corresponding internal length estimated by Fleck et al. through their asymmetric stress strain gradient theory is of the order of 2.65.1 ~tm. These findings, in themselves, suggest that a lot more work is required to determine the gradient coefficients, their possible dependence on strain, and the most convenient form of gradient dependence of the flow stress on plastic shear strain (and possibly its rate) to be used in particular applications. In connection with these findings, reference is made to a recently published article by Stolken and Evans [20] where the asymmetric stress strain gradient plasticity model of Fleck and Hutchinson is used to interpret the observed size effect in bending of thin foils. This problem can also be discussed by using symmetric stress strain gradient models of the type of Eq. 15. In fact, by employing a gradientdependent strain energy density formulation which allows a direct comparison of the aforementioned two approaches, one may consider the form w  w(e)+ Cl]~7/3[]62[~7e] 2 where w ( e )  e[3Epe + 4 X ~ o _ ] / 8 is the homogeneous part of the strain energy density, with g denoting the equivalent strain, ~c being the curvature, and (Cl,C2) being gradient coefficients. The assumed expression for the homogeneous part of the strain energy density is the same as in Stolken and Evans [20], with Ep denoting plastic modulus (hardening coefficient) and E0 effective yield strength. Finally, by using the relation M = dW/dtr ( W = fA wdA) for the applied moment, we can obtain a moment (M) vs. surface strain (es) relation depicted with solid lines in Figure 4.12.2a. The dotted lines correspond to the prediction of the FleckHutchinson theory
(2/x/3) ly I
(a) Fitting of Stolken and Evans [20] thin foil bending experimental results with the symmetric stress and FIGURE 4.12.2 asymmetric stress strain gradient models. (b). Calculated yield stress (0.2% offset) vs. particle size for an AlSiMg metal matrix composite, showing gradient plasticity solutions for different gradient coefficients c, and for a dislocationbased model. The values off indicate particle volume fraction. From Zhu, Zbib, and Aifantis 1281.
292
Aifantis
employed by Stolken and Evans [201 for a value of their internal length lc = 6.2 gm. There is a departure of this prediction from the one reported in the aforementioned article of Stolken and Evans due to an error in their procedure when rescaling the moment and computing the corresponding theoretical values. The internal lengths ll and 12 appearing in Figure 4.12.2a are defined by ll = Cl/~o and 12 = v/c2/Ep. A more rigorous (as contrasted to the previously described mechanics of materials approach) boundary value problem approach implemented by finite element analysis has been used by Zhu, Zbib, and Aifantis [28] for interpreting size effects in metal matrix composites. It was found that the strength of metal matrix composites decreases with increasing particle size of reinforcement under constant volume fraction for all three materials studied: A1SiMg, A1A1202, and A1TiB2. The results of the gradient theory were in agreement with both existing experimental data and available microscopic dislocation models for these materials, as shown in Figure 4.12.2b. The solutions are cumbersome and were evaluated numerically by employing a gradient plasticity model based on Eq. 1. In concluding this section on size effects, reference is made to an open problem of increasing current interest: namely, the determination of hardness and related mechanical properties from indentation tests where the size of the indenter varies from the micrometer to the nanometer regime. A deeper understanding of the mechanics and physics associated with the contact and penetration phenomena in such small volumes is important from both the scientific and technological points of view, with implications ranging from device miniaturization and computer disk drive manufacturing to magnetic recording and tribological effects on piston wear. Quite interesting phenomena, including discontinuous yielding and sizedependent hardness, have been reported recently in such smallvolume regimes. Size effects, in particular, have been observed as the indenter diameter D is reduced from 20 gm to about 2 I.tm. The gradient dependent form of the flow stress given by Eq. 15 can be utilized, in principle, to provide an explanation for the dependence of hardness on the size of the indenter. By taking H to be proportional to the yield stress a(H ,~ 3a; Tabor's relation), we have [29] H = H0 +
c1]V~)]s
(18)
where H0 is the hardness in the absence of gradient effects. By approximating y with an average value equal to 2h/D (where h is the indenter's depth and D is the equivalent indenter's diameter) and using the rough estimates Vy ,, 2y/D, V27 ~ 4y/D 2, we can obtain from Eq. 18 a plot of H vs. D where the values of the gradient coefficients Cl and c2 are adjusted to fit the experimental data reported, for example, by Nix and Gao [19]. The results are
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
293
FIGURE 4.12.3 Fitting the experimental results of sizedependent hardness H vs. D according to the gradientdependent constitutive equation Eq. 18 for (a) Cu (111) and (b) Ag (110) single crystals.
shown in Figure 4.12.3 with the parameters (H0, C1, C2) taking the values (0.595 GPa, 2500N/m, 0.414 10 3N) for Figure 4.12.3a and (0.37GPa, 853 N/m, 0.164 103N) for Figure 4.12.3b.
4.12.5 FORMING LIMIT DIAGRAMS (FLDS) In this section the applicability of gradient plasticity theory to predicting spatial instability phenomena in manufacturingrelated processes at the macroscale is presented. In particular, it is shown how gradient theory can help in improving the construction of forming limit diagrams (FLDs) for sheet metals. Some initial results on this topic were reported by Aifantis [29], and a detailed treatment can be found in a recent doctoral dissertation by Zhu [301. A physical picture of localized neck formation in sheet metal forming is depicted in Figure 4.12.4. A central goal is to avoid the occurrence of necking by operating in a safe regime of the applied strains during the forming process. This leads to defining corresponding FLDs. For sheet metal forming processes, a vertextype theory of plasticity of the form [3]
D ij =
7 r  7~ ,
2~i
(7iJ k 2. c ,j
7__6.!.
(19)
may be used to describe the deformation. The quantities (Do, aij) denote the strain rate and stress components, (1:,7) denote, as usual, the equivalent shear stress and shear strain, a dot denotes time differentiation, and a prime denotes deviatoric component. A gradientdependent flow stress expression is
294
Aifantis
FIGURE 4.12.4 Localized neck formation in sheet metal forming (ac). Schematics of the sheet/inclined neck and the forming limit diagram (d,e).
with the hardening modulus h (h=~K(7)/~7, K ( 7 ) = h 7 ") given by h = hn7 n1. For plane stress conditions (rT33 = 0) and proportional loading (fl = D22/D11 ~const) a standard bifurcation analysis gives the following expressions for the shear band (or localized neck) angle Oc~ and the critical strain 7or:
fl < 0 =~ Oc,.  a r c t a n x / ~ ;
7~ 
2nf(fi) 1 + fl
(21)
ilK0 =~ 0 o r  0;
7c~ =
(22)
where f ( f l )  V/1 + fl + f12. These relations hold for the case c  0, while more complex results are obtained for the case c 7~ 0, which, however, do not greatly affect the predictions of localized neck orientation. The obtained FLDs which correspond to the two cases c = 0 and c ~ 0, are given in Figure 4.12.5. More details on this topic, the use of Hill's anisotropic yield criterion, including gradient terms, and the effect of strain path can be found in the aforementioned doctoral dissertation [30].
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
295
140
I Ak
! l
'
'
C:
120 (/~ L
! o
~'~Ex
",
.i~rimental
t
results
"~
so

O C~" O
AIR
m
9
 
.~~
o~o
fl.lO
o~.~~= '"
.
=" o~b_
~ , ,
~ o~=,i ~
40
20
0~
......... I
I. .0.10
i g.OO,
..
I 0.31
,.
! 030
,. 0.~
(a)
~0
0.21)
O 40
(UO
20
20
40
60
Minor
Strain
180 "  " I ' I " I '
(b)
I " I " I " I
Engineering
" "
minor
strain
'6~
~ =
~
:1o
'1"
: I 9
Aff,~ct~d
! d
~
o
140
,20
,oo
~t.
: I 'r.~,r,,,~.,
;: c q 2 = 3 O M P a
Fructured
_._1
ols
o~b
60 
\
I 9I , I .
A~A~
~'~
~
'
~ I , I , 0 10 20
 30
9 I , 40
 50
40302010
i
I
60
(c)
80.00 70.00 ~ 60.00 l ' 1 ' I
9
Engineering
' i ' [
minor
140.00 120.00
strain
9 "
Io
I"
AJcceptable AfY,~ctod
~="re~
.$
I~,00 "~ 80,00
Io 9 O 9
e ~ 50.00
t
I+. ~
Ao%
.
O0 0 ~ 0
.~, 40.00
~a~ 30.00 "~ 20.00 20.00 10.~
30.00
, I , , , , I ...... I ,,, I ,
0oB
"
~.~
40.II)
1
, , I ,
0.00
(d)
20.00
10.00
0.00
I0.00
~.00
30.00
40.(10
20.00 ~
0.~
'
II
, I , I , I ,
20.00
10.00
60.00
80.(I
(e)
FIGURE 4.12.5 Predicted and experimental FLDs for (a) Aluminum 2036T4, c = 0; (b) AKsteel, c = 0; and (c) AKsteel, c r 0. Comparison [301 of predicted and experimental results (Hecker 1975) of FLDs for (d) 2036T4 Aluminum and (e) AKsteel using Hilrs anisotropic yield criterion.
296
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Aifantis
The support of the General Secretariat for Research and Technology of Greece, the TMR Program of EU, and the U.S. National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. The help of my graduate students X. Zhu and I. Tsagrakis with the fitting of some of the experimental data and of my undergraduate student D. Dodou with the typing and proofreading of the manuscript is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Aifantis, E. C. (1999). Gradient deformation models at nano, micro and macro scales. J. Engng. Mat. Tech. 121: 189202. 2. Aifantis, E. C. (1984). On the microstructural origin of certain inelastic models. J. Mat. Engng. Tech. 106: 326330. 3. Aifantis, E. C. (1987). The physics of plastic deformation. Int. J. Plasticity 3: 211247. 4. Zbib, H.M. and Aifantis, E. C. (1989). A gradientdependent flow theory of plasticity: Application to metal and soil instabilities. Appl. Mech. Rev. 42: 295304. 5. Muhlhaus, H. B. and Aifantis, E. C. (1991). A variational principle for gradient plasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 28(7): 845857. 6. Vardoulakis, I. and Aifantis, E. C. (1991). A gradient flow theory of plasticity for granular materials. Acta Mech. 87: 197217. 7. Zbib, H. M. and Aifantis, E. C. (1992). On the gradientdependent theory of plasticity and shear banding. Acta Mech. 92: 209225. 8. Belytschko, T. and Lasry, D. (1988). Localization limiters in transient problems. Int. J. Solids Struct. 24: 581597. 9. de Borst, R. and Muhlhaus, H. B. (1992). Gradientdependent plasticity: Formulation and algorithmic aspects. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 35: 521539. 10. Vardoulakis, I. and Frantziskonis, G. (1992). Microstructure in kinematic hardening plasticity. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 11: 467486. 11. Tomita, Y. (1994). Simulations of plastic instabilities in solid mechanics. Appl. Mech. Rev. 47: 171205. 12. Maugin, G. A. and Muschik, W. (1994). Thermodynamics with internal variables, Part I: General concepts. Part II: Applications. J. NonEquil. Thermodynamics 19: 217249, 250289. 13. Valanis, K. C. (1996). A gradient theory of internal variables. Acta Mech. 116: 114. 14. Polizzotto, C. and Borino, G. (1998). A thermodynamicsbased formulation of gradientdependent plasticity. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 17: 741761. 15. Menzel, A. and Steinmann, P. (2000). On the continuum formulation of higher gradient plasticity for single and polycrystals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48: 17771796. 16. Gurtin, M. E. (2000). On the plasticity of single crystals: Free energy, microforces, plastic strain gradients. J. Mech. Phys. Sol. 48: 9891036. 17. Fleck, N. A., Muller, G. M., Ashby, M. E and Hutchinson, J. W. (1994). Strain gradient plasticity: Theory and experiment. Acta Metall. Mater. 42: 475487. 18. Fleck, N. A. and Hutchinson, J. W. (1993). A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41: 18251857.
4.12
Gradient Plasticity
297
19. Nix, W. P. and Gao, H. (1998). Indentation size effects in crystalline materials: A law for strain gradient plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46: 411425. 20. Stolken, J. S. and Evans, A. G. (1998). A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity length scale. Acta Mater. 46: 51095115. 21. Gao, H., Huang, Y., Nix, W. D. and Hutchinson, J. W. (1999). Mechanismbased strain gradient plasticity   I. Theory. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47: 12391263. 22. Huang, Y., Gao, H., Nix, W. D. and Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Mechanismbased strain gradient plasticity   II. Analysis. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48: 99128. 23. Aifantis, E. C. (1992), On the role of gradients on the localization of deformation and fracture. Int. J. Engng. Sci. 30: 12791299. 24. Aifantis, E. C. (1995). Pattern formation in plasticity. Int. J. Engng. Sci. 33: 21612178. 25. Fleck, N. A. and Hutchinson, J. W (1997). Strain gradient plasticity, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, pp. 295361, Hutchinson, J.W., and Wu, T.W, eds. 26. Acharya, A. and Bassani, J. L. (1996). On nonlocal flow theories that preserve the classical structure of incremental boundary value problems, in IUYAM Symposium on Micromechanics of Plasticity and Damage of Multiphase Materials, pp. 39, Pineau, A., and Zaoui, A. eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer academic Publishers. 27. Acharya, A. and Bassani, J. L. (2000). Lattice incompatibility and a gradient theory of crystal plasticity. Int. J. Mech. Sol. 48: 15651595. 28. Zhu, H. T., Zbib, H. M. and Aifantis, E. C. (1997). Strain gradients and continuum modeling of size effect in metal matrix composites. Acta Mech. 121: 165176. 29. Aifantis, E. C. (1998). Recent progress on gradient theory and applications, in Material Instabilities in Solids, pp. 53548, de Borst, R., and van der Giessen, E., eds., ChichesterNew York: Wiley. 30. Zhu, X. H. (1999). Theoretical Analysis of Sheet Metal Formability. PhD. Dissertation, Michigan Technological University.
CHAPTER
Viscoplasticity
SECTION
5.1
Introduction to Viscoplasticity
JEAN LEMAITRE
Universit~ Paris 6, LMTCachan, 61 avenue du Pr&ident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France
dependent, irreversible (inelastic) strains. The deformation of essentially all metals is, to a certain extent, timedependent. This dependence, however, becomes more pronounced at temperatures exceeding a third of the material's melting point. At the microscale, two different mechanisms may be responsible for the material's rate dependency. One mechanism pertains to vacancy formation and grain boundary sliding, which are essential processes in creep (under constant stress) and stress relaxation (under constant strain) phenomena. The second is the slipinduced plastic deformation due to the motion and multiplication of dislocations. At temperatures suitably below the melting point, dislocations overcome their shortrange barriers through their thermal activation, which is a ratecontrolling phenomenon. In addition, the interaction of moving dislocations with phonons and, at low temperatures, with electrons results in a viscous drag on the dislocations, affecting the overall viscoplasticity of crystalline solids. In polymers, viscoplasticity occurs in both crystallites and amorphous phases; the crystalline phases experience slip, whereas the amorphous phases experience chain segment rotations against the resistance of weak intermolecular interactions. In elastoviscoplasticity, elasticity and strain hardening are phenomena identical to those observed in plasticity. Therefore, the models are of the same nature, and only a viscosity function is added. Often this is the Norton's power law, which relates the secondary constant plastic strain rate kp to the applied stress ~ through two temperaturedependent material parameters 2(r), N(~)
This 1929 isotropic model has been much improved and sometimes replaced by an exponential function to take into account the anisotropy in single
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
301
302
Lemaitre
crystals (see Sections 5.2 and 5.3) or to homogenize what happens in polycrystalline materials (see Sections 5.4 and 5.5). The difficulty in modeling is to distinguish the part of the stress which is responsible for strain hardening from the part contributing to the viscosity. There are several methods: the overstress is introduced in Section 5.6, no yield condition is required in Section 5.7, nonlinear isotropic and kinematic hardenings are applied in Sections 5.8 and 5.9, and a yield and memory surface is used in Section 5.10. Over suitable ranges of deformation, rate, and temperature, the viscoplastic response of many crystalline solids stems from the motion of dislocations. The resulting stressstrain relations are then dependent on the strain rate and strongly upon variations of temperature, which is another difficulty (see Section 5.11). Finally, the special case of polymers is described in Section 5.12. An essential feature of numerical calculations in elastoviscoplastic structures is the time wise in time incremental procedure different from that is used in plasticity. It is always difficult to choose, automatically or not, the time increment that ensures the convergence of the calculation (see Sections 5.7, 5.8, and 5.10).
SECTION
5.2
Contents 5.2.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Identification of the Material Parameters .... 5.2.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1
VALIDITY
The model describes the behavior of cubic singlecrystalline superalloys in the hightemperature regime under monotonous creep conditions in their primary and secondary creep phase.
5.2.2
BACKGROUND
For many technical applications, especially in the high temperature regime, singlecrystalline components show an improved damage and fatigue resistance in comparison to polycrystals. However, the description of the thermomechanical behavior becomes much more complicated for single crystals because of their genuine anisotropy. The creep compliance for some superalloys differs by one or two orders of magnitude with respect to their
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
303
304 D cy
..d
Bertram and O l s c h e w s k i
!
!
o"
K
FIGURE 5.2.1
crystallographic orientation. The designer has to take into account this effect, as well as the strong nonlinearity of the relation between force and creep rate. For the creep modeling of single crystals two conceptually different approaches exist. One is to use slip system kinematics and onedimensional creep equations for each of them. The other is phenomenological and based on tensor function representations for the description of the anisotropy. The latter approach has the advantage of being simpler in numerical implementation and wider with respect to the physical creep mechanisms to be included in the description, since they are not limited to slip systemdominated creep. The creep behavior in its primary and secondary phase can be described by a threedimensional and nonlinear generalization of a rheological model with two springs and two dampers (Fig. 5.2.1). The onedimensional constitutive law is given by the ordinary differential equation
e 44 ~ + e 4 D~a  ~ e, 4 ( C 4 K )'~
where ~ is the strain, a is the stress, C and K are elasticities, and D and R are viscosities. The nonlinearity is taken into account by the dependence of the viscosities on the stresses in the following form:
D = Do exp (  B a ) R  Ro exp (  B a )
with positive material constants Do, Ro, and B. Note that D and R are constant during monotonous creep tests.
5.2.3
DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
In the threedimensional case we generalize the preceding differential equation by means of the projection method described in References [1, 2].
305
T;'+
Ki
) E ; ' , i   1, 2,
with the three cubic subspace projections of the strain tensor to a crystallographic vector base: 1 0 0
E2
I 1 i11ool i1ool
El   1 / 3 tr(E) 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0
822 0  1/3 tr(E) 0 1 0 0 833 0 0 1 I 0 812 813 1 812 0 823 813 823 0
E3 
with tr(E) = 811 Jr822 + 833. The projections Ti of the stresses c~ij are obtained in an analogous form. These differential equations of second order can be reduced to a system of first order by introducing a stresslike tensor of internal variables S which is decomposed analogously into three parts S1, $2, $3, by 1 S i '   K i 0 t [E;(s) ~T Ti (s)] as We obtain the following evolution equations:
E~
C i _t_ K i
T~ +
~
~ Ci
~
T/
~ S i
Ki
306
the nine cubic invariants Jj
Bertram and O l s c h e w s k i
with positive material constants Doi, Roi, aij, i = 1, 2 , 3 , j = 1 , . . . , 9. It turns out that the following invariants already give a sufficient accuracy:
J5 = 0120"23013
+ + + + +
5.2.4
IDENTIFICATION
OF THE
MATERIAL PARAMETERS In the present model, the following material constants appear: 9 Elasticities: Ci, Ki, i = 1, 2, 3 9 Viscosities: Doi, Roi, ~ij, i = 2, 3, j  2 , 4, 5, 6 If we assume that all inelastic deformations are isochoric, we get D~1  R~  0 => Do1  Ro)  0. 1 Therefore, the coefficients a lj, j = 1 , . . . , 9 are irrelevant and can be set equal to 1. When subjecting the material to resonance tests, the dynamic elastic constants Ci Ki, i = 1, 2, 3, can be determined [5, 6]. The other constants can be identified by minimizing the distance between experimental tests and the response calculated by the model. It is desirable for this purpose to have creep data within the relevant load range from single crystals for a widely distributed set of orientations. This leads to an inverse problem of nonlinear parameter identification. The identification has been done for three superalloys: SRR99, CMSX4, and CMSX6.
307
[3]. 46.764 GPa 156.436 GPa 1.10735 109 h GPa 374842 h GPa
K1 = 461.153 GPa D1 = 1020 h GPa R1 = 1 0 2 0 h G P a 0{22 = 12.4347 GPa 1 o~24 = 1.7874 10 3 GPa 2 o~25 = 4.1673 10 2 GPa 3 ~26 = 3.1164 10 4 GPa 3
C2 = 42.559 GPa K2 = 28.071 GPa D2 = 2.5042 107 h GPa R2 = 1.4714 109 h GPa 0{32  0.24928 GPa 1 0{34 = 41.783 GPa 2 o~35 = 4.0697 10 3 GPa 3 o~36 = 5.0154 GPa 3
C3 = K3 = D3 = R3 =
5.2.5
The entire model is given with respect to a crystallographic basis. It is capable of describing the creep behavior under monotonous loads in its primary and secondary phases. There exist extensions of the model to include the tertiary creep phase (damage) [79].
REFERENCES
1. Bertram, A., and Olschewski, J. (1991). Formulation of anisotropic linear viscoelastic constitutive laws by a projection method, in High Temperature Constitutive Modeling: Theory and Application, pp. 129137, ASME, MD vol. 26, AMD vol. 121, Freed, A., and Walker, K. P., eds. 2. Bertram, A., and Olschewski, J. (1993). Zur Formulierung linearer anelastischer Stoffgleichungen mit Hilfe einer Projektionsmethode. Zeit. ang. Math. Mech. 73 (45): T401T403. 3. Bertram, A., and Olschewski, J. (1996). Anisotropic creep modeling of the single crystal superalloy SRR99. Comp. Mat. Sci. 5: 1216. 4. Bertram, A., and Olschewski, J. (1995). Computational modeling of anisotropic materials under creep conditions. Math. Modelling Sci. Comp. 5 (24): 100109. 5. Han, J., Bertram, A., Olschewski, J., Hermann, J. W., and Sockel, H.G. (1994). Identification of crystal orientation by resonance measurements. Zeit. ang. Math. Mech. 74 (4): T322T325. 6. Bertram, A., Han, J., Olschewski, J., and Sockel, H.G. (1994). Identification of elastic constants and orientation of single crystals by resonance measurements and FEanalysis, in Twenty Years of Finite Element Analysis: Review and Future Prospects. Special Issue of Int. J. Computer Appl. Techn. 7 (3/4): 284291. 7. Qi, W, and Bertram, A. (1997). Anisotropic creep damage modeling of single crystal superalloys. Technische Mechanik 17 (4): 313322. 8. Qi, W, and Bertram, A. (1998). Damage modeling of the single crystal superalloy SRR99 under monotonous creep. Comp. Mat. Sci. 13: 132141. 9. Qi, w , and Bertram, A. (1999). Anisotropic continuum damage modeling for EC.C.single crystals at high temperatures. Int. J. Plasticity 15 (11): 11971215.
SECTION
5.3
Centre des Mat~riaux de l'Ecole des Mines de Paris, UMR CNRS 7633, BP 87, F91003 Evry Cedex, France
Contents 5.3.1 General Presentation and Validity Domain.. 5.3.2 Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Equations for Practical Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Identification of the Material Parameters . . . . 5.3.5 Numerical Implementation in Finite Element Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.6 Remark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1
GENERAL
PRESENTATION
AND
VALIDITY
DOMAIN
In most of the single crystals, the p r e d o m i n a n t deformation m e c h a n i s m is plastic slip. F r o m a mechanical point of view, that means that the plastic strain rate of the material is the result of a sum of plastic strain rate coming from each active slip system. Depending on temperature range, plasticity can be either timeindependent or timedependent, but for each case the critical variable is the resolved shear stress. For small perturbations, the following definitions are valid: Strain rate decomposition: ~  ~e +
~p
(1)
Orientation tensor: m s
_
~(,~se 1
r~s + r~s e~
~)
(2)
308
Handbook of Materials BehaviorModels. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
309
mS9 s
S
(3)
(4)
The elastic part of the strain rate ~e is computed using the classical elasticity law respecting the symmetries of the single crystal. Some of the variables in the equations are indexed by s, which denotes a given slip system defined by the normal to the slip plane ffs and the slip direction n~s. These definitions are very general, since they only describe the "geometry" of the deformation mechanism. The constitutive equations have then to be written to correlate the resolved shear stress vs and the slip rate on each slip system 9s. During the deformation of the material, a rotation of the slip planes takes place (about one degree for 1% deformation), leading to a modification of the m s tensor for active systems. This can be taken into account in a "small rotation" formalism, the rotation being modeled by the antisymmetric part of the tensorial product r~s  ffs. On the other hand, more general expressions that are valid for large transformations can be read in classical papers [1, 2]. Twinning is another crystallographic deformation mode, in which a zone of the material is submitted to an apparent rotation and extension with respect to its initial position, which produces a given deformation tensor. The resulting strain can be modeled in the present formalism using a predefined value for m s and replacing 9s by a term depending on the twinned volume fraction [3]. On the other hand, the influence of climb can be represented by a term including the tensorial product ffs  ffs. According to the crystallographic phase of the material and to the temperature domain, one or several slip system families must be introduced. For FCC materials, the most common family is octahedral slip ({ 111} planes, (110) directions), but cubic slip ({001} planes, (110)directions)can also be found [4]. In the case of BCC materials, where no slip plane is present, a simple solution consists in considering {110} planes, and (111) directions. The case of HCP materials is much more complex. Several families are usually active according to the value of the ratio c/a (a being length of the prism side, c height of the prism) with respect to the theoretical value for perfect network, x/~/3: 9 for materials having a low c/a value (zirconium, magnesium, titanium) prismatic plane is predominant; 9 for materials having a high c/a value (zinc, cadmium), basal slip is the most active. In both cases, pyramidal slip can also be observed.
310
Cailletaud
FIGURE 5.3.1
Examples of slip planes are shown in Figure 5.3.1 for FCC materials (Fig. 5.3.1a) and HCP materials (Fig. 5.3.1b).
5.3.2 FORMULATION The framework of thermodynamics can be used for a rigorous formulation of the hardening of the material, but several strategies can be used for choosing the potential [5,6]. In the following, the state variables are the elastic strain (tensor), a vector storing the isotropic variables on each slip system (components p~), and a vector for the kinematic variables (components c~). The size of these vectors is equal to N, the number of slip systems in the model. The treatment of the elastic part is classical and is not reported here. The "inelastic part" of free energy is chosen so that the corresponding hardening variables linearly depend on the state variables:
r s  roi~ bi~i ~ s x S = c I ~s (6)
hsrfl r
(5)
The terms hsr are the components of the interaction matrix which characterizes both selfhardening (diagonal terms) and crosshardening between the different systems [7]. The model then uses a classical formalism, introducing for each system s a threshold fs and two evolution equations: fs = [~  xS[ r ~ fis = b~(1 _ bipS) : / s  bs ( sign ('cs xS)dIxs'~cI ,,] (7) (8)
(9)
311
The full definition is achieved when the value of the accumulated slip rate bS= 19~1 is defined. For a viscoplastic model, a simple power function can be chosen: kl
s/.i
(10)
Most of the viscoplastic crystallographic models for single crystals use a "Norton law" for each slip system so that all the slip systems are active. The predominant systems are just found numerically because of the nonlinear character of the equations. In the present case, a true threshold is introduced, so that the numerical behavior of the model is better. On the other hand, the strain rate sensitivity can be adjusted using suitable values of the corresponding coefficients hi and ni (low values of ki). A timeindependent version of the model can also be proposed: a rule has then to be specified to determine the active slip systems for a prescribed external load. In the preceding equations, it has been assumed that all the slip systems of a given family present the same behavior, so that the coefficients are indexed with I, and not s, I denoting the family of the system s. The initial resolved shear stress is roi, the hardening capability is defined by QI and bi, and the kinematic hardening by ci and dI. The viscosity is characterized by ki and hi. The next section describes the identification method.
5.3.3 EQUATIONS
The model can be simplified and treated exactly like a classical macroscopic model. For an explicit integration, the starting point is the actual state of stress and internal variables. The values of vs can be used instead of p~ for the practical calculations. The calculations consist then of the following steps: 9 compute 9 knowing rate (Eq. 9 compute the actual value of the hardening variables (Eq. 11); ~ on each slip system, compute the accumulated viscoplastic slip 12) and the evolution of the hardening (Eq. 13); the inelastic strain rate (Eq. 14).
In these equations, the index I has been dropped for the sake of brevity; the two types of isotropic hardening correspond to a part with the interaction matrix (index 1) and a part introducing selfhardening only (index 2). Note that a system will be active provided that its resolved shear stress z s is greater than x s + r ~ or less than x ~  r ~. The present formulation gives a saturation of
Cailletaud
h~(1  e~}
+ Q~{1 
~~}
(11)
(13) (14)
5.3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL PARAMETERS The model has been mainly used for modeling cyclic loadings in Nibase superalloys. Other materials have also been investigated, like copper, alloy 600, zircaloy, or zinc. Basically, it does not differ very much from a classical viscoplastic model with isotropic and kinematic hardening, so that the tests needed for the identification include: 9 cyclic tests for discriminating between isotropic and kinematic hardening and for evaluating the cyclic hardening or softening; 9 tests at various strain rates to characterize the viscous effect; 9 creep or relaxation test. In addition, specific tests must be made: (1) When several system families may be active, the loading directions must be chosen so that each family is excited. (2) In order to know better the value of the terms in the interaction matrix, nonradial loading paths should be realized to evaluate the socalled latent hardening. When these tests are absent, the two opposite solutions consist in choosing either a diagonal matrix hsr=6sr (Kronecker ~) or an "isotropic" hardening, hsr = 1. The most difficult challenge is to affect a value to the crosshardening between two families. These terms have to be chosen after a discussion with the metallurgists. The identification process needs a numerical implementation of the model because, for a given orientation, the result in terms of strain rates is the result of a collection of individual slip contributions, and the real specimen orientation must be used (a small misorientation can change the initially active slip systems and may drastically influence the material response). Nevertheless, the model can be reduced to very simple expressions in the case of multiple slip, when several systems are equivalent. For example, if M slip
313
systems (among N) are equivalent for a pure tension loading under the stress cr, the Schmid factor being m, the inelastic strain rate in the tension direction can be written:
~P
Mm~ s 
MmlmO
mx~
r)n
(15)
withK 
m (raM)l~ n'
X 
' rtl
(16)
For the case of FCC materials, it can easily be observed that a tension in the direction {001} will activate octahedral slip systems (m = 1 / v ~ , M = 8), and that a tension along {111} will activate preferentially cubic slip (m = v/2/3, M = 6) (depending on the respective value of the critical resolved shear stress for each f a m i l y . . . ) . This fact can be used to separate the action of the two families, since the model provides a different expression of the tensile curve for each tensile direction. The corresponding values for octahedral and cubic slip systems are reported in Table 5.3.1 (note that the exponent is the same for the crystallographic and the classical approach).
TABLE 5.3.1 Equivalencebetween the Crystallographic Model and a Classical Approach in Pure Tension. Coefficient Value for multiple slip (m, M) Value for 001 tension Value for 111 tension
K
R0
Q
x/6k
3k
2(n+3)/2n
m(Mm)1/n
ro m
m
(8/V/6)1/n
v/6r0
~Q
3ro
v~
3Q
b 2v~
b mM
~b 8
C D
c Mm 2
a Mm
3c 4
v~a 8
3c 4
a 2x/2
314
Cailletaud
IN
The integration of these constitutive equations in a finite element code is classical. For each integration point, the method can be either an explicit method, like RungeKutta, or an implicit method, like a 0method. For each case, the vector of the internal variables is built with the components of ~e, the N values of ~s, and the N values of vs. For the 0method, the residual vector consists of three types of equations, the first coming from the strain decomposition (Eq. 17), the second from isotropic hardening (Eq. 18), and the third from kinematic hardening (Eq. 19).
.Re  Ae.. Ae..  ~ e
5
A v S m s sign ('c  x s) s
(i 7)

<lex
l r
(18)
(19)
The unknowns are Aee, Avs, A~s. The system can be solved by a Newton method, so that the consistent tangent matrix is given numerically [8].
5.3.6 REMARK Many mistakes have been made in the recent literature concerning the behavior of single crystals. The most classical error consists in considering a cubic version of the Hill criterion for the description of cubic single crystals. Since this version introduces only one adjustable coefficient, it can only be fitted for describing the difference between a tension along 001 and a tension along 111, for instance. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with a general formulation, since the group of cubic symmetries contains a large number of invariants which are not represented by Hill's formulation [9]. For instance, such a model does not represent the large heterogeneities which can be observed during the torsion of thin tubes [9]. This effect is illustrated in Figure 5.3.2, which also shows the evolution of yield surface in tensionshear when two slip families are present: according to the ratio of tension to shear, the initial plasticity is not observed at the same location in the tube. A "cubic Hill" criterion predicts that plasticity is uniform along the circumference.
315
FIGURE 5.3.2 Location of the plastic zones at the onset of plastic flow for two sheartension ratios, a. r/~r = v/3. b. ~/~r = 1. c. Yield surface in (110) and (110) regions.
316
TABLE 5.3.2 Table of Parameters.
Cailletaud
ro
Q1
bl
Q2
b2
octa
10
3600(a)
0.7
2200
(a) 0~  ~s _ dOsbS, with ~s = 0.2 + 0.8 e x p  2 3 v s s SC 16, 950 ~C 3.9 3.7 96,500 4.4 2.7 77,000 CMSX2, 650~ 400 3700 20,000 380 2400 50,000 CMSX2, 950 ~ 120,000 40,000
octa cube
700 1172
4.7 2.4
4.6 17.3
1050 1056
octa cube
220 100
10 10
390 387
1000 1000
octa cube
920 540
4.6 4.6
70 54
0 0
1400 540
octa cube
88 96
15 15
245 377
3200 560
octa cube
517 707
5 5
69 47
0 0
21,600 90,500
2110 1130
octa cube
490 360
4.1 4.1
29 47
0 0
100,000 4,000
1600 850
octa
20
10
80
130
 140
octa prism
50 81
25 8.8
Au4G, Room temperature* 25 30 5,000 Zr702, 200~ * 6.1 5.6 10 1,330 70 Zy4, Room 17.6 20 62.2 169 temperature* 103 100,000 17 4,000 94 101
200 67
1600 850
Units: MPa, s. 1 The sign (*) indicates that the model has been used for modeling polycrystal plasticity, in a polycrystalline aggregate. The coefficients are then valid for one grain more than for a single crystal.
317
hi9  hl,ll
h58 =
hs,lO
h67 =
h69 = h6,12 
h7,11 =h8,11 =
h 9 , 1 0 = h 9 , 1 2   H 5  4 . 7 5
h i 8 = h i , 1 2   h2,11   h 3 5 = h 3 9 = h 4 7   h 4 , 1 0   h 5 9 = h6,11 =
h7,1o=
h8,12  H6 = 5
diagonal matrix
hsr ~ 1
diagonal matrix
REFERENCES
1. Mandel, J. (1973). Equations constitutives et directeurs dans les milieux plastiques et viscoplastiques. Int. J. Solids Struct. 9: 725740. 2. Asaro, R. J. J. (1983). Crystal plasticity. J. Appl. Mech. 50: 921934. 3. Staroselsky, A., and Anand, L. (1998). Inelastic deformation of f.c.c, materials by slip and twinning. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46: 671696. 4. Nouailhas, D., Pacou, D., Cailletaud, G., Hanriot, E, and R~my, L. (1994). Experimental study of the anisotropic behaviour of the CMSX2 single crystal superalloy under tensiontorsion loadings, in "Advances in Multiaxial Fatigue", ASTM STP 1191, pp. 244258, eds. Mc Dowell, D. L., and Ellis, R. 5. M&ic, L., Poubanne, P., and Cailletaud, G. (1991). Single crystal modeling for structural calculations. Part 1: Model presentation. J. Engng. Mat. Technol. 113: 162170. 6. Forest, S., Cailletaud, G., and Sievert, R. (1997). A Cosserat theory for elastoviscoplastic single crystals at finite deformation. Archives of Mechanics 49 (4): 705736. 7. Brown, T. J., and Kocks, U. E (1966). Latent hardening in aluminium. Acta Metall. 14: 8798. 8. Besson, J., Le Riche, R., Foerch, R., and Cailletaud, G. (1998). Objectoriented programming applied to the finite element method. Part 2. Application to material behaviors. Revue Europ&nne des F.l~ments Finis 7 (5)" 567588. 9. Cailletaud, G., and Nouailhas, D. (1995). Tensiontorsion behavior of singlecrystal superalloys: Experiment and finite element analysis. Int. J. Plasticity 11 (4): 451470.
SECTION
Contents 5.4.1 Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 General Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Polycrystal Averaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Discussion of the Averaging Schemes . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1
NOTATIONS
Vectors and secondorder tensors are underlined by a single bar: e.g., x_, _d are the position vector and the strain rate tensor. Fourthorder tensors are underlined by a double bar: A. Cartesian notations are used, and the convention of s u m m a t i o n on the repeated indices is adopted. The double contracted products between secondorder tensors or between fourth and secondorder tensors are respectively defined as
a_ " b__ aob j` (A" a_)0  A i j h l a l k
318
319
5.4.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND This paper describes polycrystal averaging for timedependent behaviors. Large deformations are considered, and the model is aimed at describing the overall stressstrain response together with the evolution of the internal structure of the material (hardening of individual crystals, crystallographic texture, and grain morphology). Polycrystal averaging is based on several basic steps: 1. choice of a representative volume element (RVE) containing a large ensemble of grains statistically representative of the polycrystal; 2. characterization of the deformation mechanisms and of the constitutive law of individual grains; 3. description of the initial crystallographic texture (distribution of lattice orientations) and of the initial morphological texture (grain's shape and orientation of the principal geometrical axes); 4. grain interaction model; 5. evolution laws for the crystallographic and morphological textures. The averaging scheme presented in following text assumes that the deformation remains uniform within grains and ignores all deformation heterogeneities such as shear bands and dislocation cells. Despite these simplifications, it is worth noting that the proposed averaging scheme is quite successful in decribing the texture evolution and the overall plastic response. We consider a viscoplastic material constituted by a statistical homogeneous distribution of crystals. Elastic deformations are neglected. Each individual crystal (c), is governed by the following flow law: Of(c)
dij = Osij (s)
(1)
where d O is the strain rate tensor, sOis the deviatoric Cauchy stress tensor, and f(c) is a strictly convex potential; see Reference [4] for details. The viscoplastic flow is assumed to be volumepreserving; therefore:
dii  tr( d)  0 (2)
Since the potential f(c) is strictly convex, the flow law (Eq. 1) can be inverted into
sij =
Og(c) (d)
Odij
(3)
320
Molinari
where g(C) is the strictly convex function conjugated to f(c) via the Legendre transform: g(_d)  sup [s_"_df(s_)]
s
(4)
The macroscopic strain rate potential F(S_) can be defined as the volume average of the local potentials [1]"
f
<fic)>
(5)
(6)
where S_ and _D are the macroscopic Cauchy stress and strain rate tensors, respectively. They are related to the microscopic stress and strain rate by volume averaging:
S_ (s)
(7)
p  (d>
Similarly, the macroscopic stress potential is defined by
(8) (9)
and we have
OG Sij  ~jij (_D)
(10)
The problem addressed in this article is determining the macroscopic overall material response in terms of the local behavior of the phases. In other words, we would like to determine the macroscopic flow law (Eq. 6) from Eq. 1, or to determine the law (Eq. 10) from Eq. 3. The difficult step in the homogenization process is to calculate the local strain rates _d as a function of the macroscopic strain rate _D:
_d _d(_D)
(11)
If the localization law (Eq. 1 i) is determined, the macroscopic stress potential is precisely defined from Eq. 9
O(D)
(12)
(13)
321
we can derive the macroscopic strain rate potential" F(S_) (f(s_(S_)) (14)
5.4.3
POLYCRYSTAL AVERAGING
In a polycrystalline material, grains with the same chemical composition, same shape, and orientation of the principal geometrical axes, and same crystallographic orientation can be considered as defining a particular phase. If the spatial distribution of the different phases presents a large degree of disorder, the classical selfconsistent scheme is appropriate to get an approximate solution of the localization problems (Eq. 11 or 13). In the selfconsistent scheme it is assumed that the phase (c) can be represented by an ellipsoid F having the properties of phase (c); F is embedded in an infinite uniform matrix having the overall properties of the aggregate (to be determined in a consistent way). The matrix is called the homogeneous equivalent medium (HEM). We shall address a localization problem a little more general than Eq. 11. The overall velocity gradient
OV _L c3x
i
(15)
is applied at the remote boundaries of the aggregate; _V is the macroscopic velocity field, and x_ is the position vector. The macroscopic strain rate _D and rotation rate El are the symmetric and antisymmetric part of _L. We are interested in the determination of the velocity gradient l_ in the ellipsoid Ic, in c terms of L. The solution of the inclusion problem (ellipsoidal inclusion embedded in an infinite homogeneous matrix) has been obtained in a closed form by Eshelby in the case of linear elastic materials. For nonlinear material behavior, an approximate solution of the "nonlinear" inclusion problem can be obtained by using a linearization procedure. The method consists in approximating the material behavior by an affine response in a certain range of strain rates. Grain's interaction is described by the following interaction laws [3]" sf  S_ [A=~ coc  ~  B~  (P~ 9(p~ (_d  _D) ~ (_d  _D) c (16) (17)
322
Molinari
where s_c is the deviatoric Cauchy stress in the crystal (c). The macroscopic deviatoric stress _S is the volume average of the local stresses
s_
Zs< _ <
with fc being the volume fraction of grain (c). _d and coc are the symmetric and c antisymmetric part of the local velocity gradient lf. A ~ is a macroscopic stiffness viscoplastic modulus (fourthorder tensor) which depends on the macroscopic strain rate _D. Different choices of A~ are possible, depending on the type of linearization used. To each choice ofA ~ is associated a different model [7]. p0 and B~ are _ _ fourthorder tensors depending on A and on the shape of the inclusion (c). ~ The interaction laws (Eqs. 16 and 17) are obtained by using a Green function technique [3, 4]. Green functions G~m and Hm associated with the modulus A ~ are defined by
A~jklG~m,lj(X_  x_I) F Hm,i(x_  x_I) Jr (~im(~(x_  x_I)  0
(18) (19)
and
Hm  0 at infinity
(20)
The Green function _/_/0 does not appear in the interaction laws (Eqs. 16 and 17); however it is a necessary ingredient for calculating the local hydrostatic pressure in terms of the macroscopic pressure. The tensors p0 and B~ are defined as
m E
pOhl _ o with
1 1 o
0 o
0 o
(21) (22)

_ Tjilk )
r h,j  i
(23)
To obtain these results, a linearization procedure was used consisting in somehow replacing the nonlinear response of the HEM in the vicinity of the "working" strain rate _Dby an a[fine approximation (Fig. 5.4.1). The nonlinear response of the HEM 0G D* S* 06 (_D*) (24)
323
IS* = _ __a~
* + S o(__D) I
s_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80(8)
8D
_D_D D
FIGURE 5.4.1 Linearization of the macroscopic constitutive law DD*+ S* = OG/OD_* (D*) in __ the vicinity of the macroscopic strain rate D. Depending on the definition of the macroscopic viscoplastic stiffness modulus A_ different averaging schemes are defined. The backextrapolated ~ stress is defined by the relationship in Eq. 26.
(25)
(26)
A possible choice for A__ consists in taking the incremental tangent macro~ scopic modulus as defined by the incremental selfconsistent scheme [1], see also [6, 7]"
d o  a_'g  (_a(~)~g [_~ + _P~g. (a (~)~g  aug)] ~) 9([K + _P~g" (_a(~)'~  a_'~)] ~) (27)
where __a (c)tg is the tangent modulus at the crystal level defined as a(c)tg(d_C~= 02g(C)/c3_dQd, g(C) being the stress potential of the crystal (c) ( s /  0 g ~ / 0 4 ) ( s /  0g~/0_a). _P~g is playing, with respect to A__ the role of tg, p0 with respect to A ~ K is the fourthorder tensor defined by K~jk~ 1 / 2 ( G a j z + a , a j k )  1/3a,j&z. The solution of the localization problem is obtained as follows. Assume that at a given stage of the calculations an approximation of A__ is obtained. Then, using the interaction law (Eq. 16), tg where A __+ A__tg,p0 ___+ptg, and S_ + ~fcs_ c, together with the constitutive law 0_ s c = sf(_d~), a set of N nonlinear equations (N: number of grains) is obtained from which _d can be calculated in each crystal (c). From these values of d ~, ~ new estimates of __a (c)tg a r e calculated. Then by solving the implicit equation (Eq. 27) a new estimate of A tg is obtained. Iterations are continued until
m m
324
Molinari
convergence is achieved. When _d is calculated, the rate of rotation coc c of the crystal (c) is given by Eq. 17. The localization problem has been solved now for a given material state (given grain's morphology, crystallographic texture, and resistance stresses of the slip systems). In the next time increment, the material state is updated, and a new localization problem has to be addressed [4]. Other choices are possible for A~ For instance, considering powerlaw materials with uniform strain rate sensitivity m, a simple relationship exists between the tangent and the secant modulus: As  limA tg (the notation ~=tg used for the macroscopic tangent modulus is changed with respect to Eq. 27 because the approach and the results are different). The interaction model associated with the choice A~ ~=tg_ mA=S and the use of the relationship _ _ ' S_ Ag"_D in the interaction law (Eq. 16), define another type of tangent approach [2, 4]. A family of averaging schemes can be obtained by considering the choice A~ r/A_ where ~/ is a positive scalar. It can be shown that tg,_ P~ therefore, the interaction law (Eq. 16) has the form:
$7c __ ~_ __ ~(A.~tg _ ptg,). (dC _ D).
In the limiting cases where ~/+ 0 and ~/+ ce, the static model (stress uniformity: s f  _S) and the Taylor model (strain uniformity: _d  _D) are ~ retrieved. The secant (resp. tangent) selfconsistent approach corresponds to ~I 1/m (resp. 1 /  1).
5.4.4 DISCUSSION OF THE AVERAGING SCHEMES The tangent selfconsistent schemes (A~ A or A~ A= predict softer tg_ tg) grain interactions than the Taylor scheme, which assumes strain uniformity. As a consequence, the average number of active systems per grain is about two or three for the tangent selfconsistent scheme, while it is closer to five for Taylor averaging. When a crystal has soft deformation mechanisms together with hard ones (as, for example, in HCP metals), the selfconsistent model favors soft systems, while it is not so in general for the Taylor model. This has important consequences with respect to texture predictions. Sometimes less than five deformation mechanisms are available in each grain, the single crystal yield surface being then nonclosed. The standard Taylor averaging cannot be used in that case, while the selfconsistent scheme is still operant. Grain shape evolution is modeled in a natural way in the selfconsistent scheme via the tensor _p0 appearing in the interaction law. Changes in the
325
grain's aspect ratio, which have important consequences for texture predictions, can be followed in a continuous way during the process. It is worth mentioning that the Taylor scheme can be modified into the Relaxed Constraint Taylor model to account for the existence of fiat parallel grains, but the continuous evolution of the grain's shape can hardly be described in that model. Finally, although the Taylor model satisfies compatibility but not equilibrium, it is of note that, in the selfconsistent approach, equilibrium and compatibility are not accounted for between individual grains but are satisfied in the solution of the inclusion problem. Therefore, equilibrium and compatibility are somehow satisfied "in average" between a grain and the surroundings. Many applications of the foregoing averaging schemes, in particular of the tangent selfconsistent approach, have been developed for FCC, BCC, and HCP metals, semicrystalline polymers, and geological materials such as rocks and ice; for a review see Molinari [4, 7]. These schemes have been successful in describing the overall stressstrain response together with the evolution of the internal structure of polycrystalline materials (texture evolution). Elasticity being neglected, applications are restricted to m o n o t o n o u s loading and large deformations. A discussion of averaging methods, including elastic effects, can be found in Molinari et al. [5].
REFERENCES 1. Hutchinson, J. W. (1976). Bounds and selfconsistent estimate for creep of polycrystalline materials. Proc. Roy. Soc. A348: 101. 2. Lebensohn, R. A., and Tom~, C. N. (1993). A selfconsistent anisotropic approach for the simulation of plastic deformation and texture development of polycrystals: Application to zirconium alloys. Acta Metall. Mater. 41: 26112624. 3. Molinari, A., Canova, G. R., and Ahzi, S. (1987). A selfconsistent approach of the large deformation polycrystal viscoplasticity. Acta Metall. 35: 29832994. 4. Molinari, A. (1997). Self consistent modelling of plastic and viscoplastic polycrystalline materials, in CISM Lecture Notes., pp. 173246, Teodosiu, C., ed., Springer Verlag. 5. Molinari, A., Ahzi, S., and Kouddane, R. (1997). On the selfconsistent modeling of elasticplastic behavior of polycrystals. Mech. of Materials 26: 4362. 6. Masson, R., and Zaoui, A. (1999). Micromechanicsbased modeling of plastic polycrystals: An affine formulation. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 7. Molinari, A. (1999). Extensions of the selfconsistent tangent model. Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 7: 683697.
SECTION
5.5
Contents 5.5.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Determination of the Model Parameters .... 5.5.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1
VALIDITY
In the course of a fast breeder project in a period of approximately ten years a large number of experiments have been performed on tubular specimens, which were loaded in combinations of tension and compression, torsion, and internal pressure along carefully selected stress and strain paths. During this loading the strain rate was kept nearly constant, and the experiments were restricted to strains of a few percent. The materials tested were austenitic and ferritic stainless steels. As in earlier but far less numerous experiments on A1Alloy specimens, it was concluded that the fraction model gives a quite accurate description for almost all loading histories considered. In particular, no evidence was found in any of the tests that the yield surface may develop corners or vertices in the course of loading [3]. Much less successful has been the application of the fraction model in the creep range. In modeling creep deformation, the deficiencies of the mathematical model do not constitute the problem as much as the large scatter that is found in experimental creep data. Tests under uniaxial stress with step loadings on MgAlloy specimens have shown less reproducibility than a sensible application of a complex model would require [4].
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright O 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
326
327
5.5.2 BACKGROUND In elastic deformation the distribution of the internal energy on a microscopic scale is irrelevant to the macroscopic deformation problem. Thus the internal energy can be replaced by the internal energy of a fictitious homogeneous elastic continuum. In inelastic deformation, however, the dissipation of energy cannot in general be replaced by the dissipation in a homogeneous continuum. In the real material, inelastic deformation mechanisms are initiated at certain points and will spread in subsequent loading over the whole volume in the neighborhood of a material point of the continuum. In the fraction model the inhomogeneous energy dissipation is discretized in a phenomenological manner by conceiving the material to be composed of a limited number of portions, which can be represented by subelements of an element of volume dV, all subjected to the deformation of the continuum, but each with its own dissipative properties. Thus the history of an inelastic deformation process is recorded in terms of fraction stresses constituting the thermodynamic internal or hidden state variables and determining by their weighted sum the macroscopic stress tensor. From its initial formulation [1, 2] it has been stressed that the fractions are not to be identified as grains. As to linear rheological models, two or more Maxwell models in parallel can be interpreted as a fraction model [5]. Also, Melan's kinematic hardening model, advocated by Prager (who added the adjective kinematic to it), is contained in the fraction model. The combination of one ideally plastic or hardening fraction with one purely elastic fraction gives a kinematic hardening model with a consistent shift rule for the yield surface, as required by Ziegler [51.
5.5.3 DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
The fraction model of a solid is based upon the concept of a socalled natural reference state, with respect to which changes in internal energy in thermodynamic state space can be defined by an invariant function of elastic strains and entropy. For a finite, possibly very small, neighborhood of a material point of the continuum model the geometrical configuration of the elementary particles of the real material in relation to each other is assumed to differ from the configuration in the natural reference state by a linear transformation of line elements in that point:
dr = Fedr
(1)
Here r is the position vector and d~ is the vector of the infinitesimal lineelement, which only in the case of purely elastic behavior is integrable to the
3 28
Besseling
position vector ~ in the undeformed state. In the case of purely elastic behavior, the vector ~ and the initial position vector ro are identical. In general, the lineelement d~ will, however, change its length and orientation by inelastic deformation. The elastic d e f o r m a t i o n tensor, acting as objective (with respect to the material) state variable in the internal energy function, is defined by
d r o d r  d~o d~  2d~o 07ed~), rle  1 (FerFe _ I)
(2)
The rate at which locally d~ changes with time is characterized in the physical space by a tensor A v"
d~  Avd~ ~ d i '  F v ~  l & + V~Avv~ldr  (L~+LP)dr
(3)
The velocity g r a d i e n t tensor L has been split into an elastic and an inelastic part. Also, the rate of deformation tensor D and the s p i n t e n s o r ~2 may be split into an elastic and an inelastic part:
De
1  ~ (L ~+Le~ ), o~  89 +L~ ~) (L~ LET), np __ 1 ( L P _ L P T )
~,'~e __ 1 ( L e 
(4)
We have
~e __ FeTDeFe D e _ D  D p
(5)
In the fraction model an element of volume is divided into N portions of size ~h, each with its own elastic deformation tensor r/eh and its own dissipation process, leading to a Dph. The rate of deformation tensor D remains the rate of deformation tensor of the fictitious continuum. Denoting the temperature by T, the mass density by p, the internal energy per unit mass by e, and the free energy per unit mass by f, we have for each fraction
p f k = p e k  Ts, p f k = pfk(qek, T)
(6)
The fraction stresses crh are expressed in terms of the free energy by crk  p \0r/e kf (7)
determinin~ the macroscopic stress tensor ~ by their sum with the volume fractions ~ " as weighting factors:
N N
 Z
1 1
(8)
For changes of the state variables T and a k only rate equations can be given because of the thermodynamic irreversibility of the inelastic deformation and heat conduction processes. In the fraction model the energy dissipation per
5.5 F r a c t i o n M o d e l s for I n e l a s t i c D e f o r m a t i o n
329
unit volume, q), is the weighted sum of the dissipation functions of the N fractions:
N
 Z
1
r)
(9)
In inelastic deformation the energy dissipation is the amount of work per unit volume that is transformed into heat. For the rate of change of the temperature, we then have from Fourier's law of heat conduction with cv for the specific heat:
(10)
The scalar product of internal state variables and rates of inelastic deformation gives the rate of energy dissipation. Since the symmetric stress tensors crk contribute to the energy dissipation solely through the symmetric inelastic deformation rates Dph, it would be necessary to introduce additional state variables, producing dissipation with the skew symmetric tensor f~P in order that this tensor may differ from the zero tensor. In the fraction model the tensor f~P is taken to be the zero tensor and the constitutive equations for the tensors D pk are formulated in terms of energy dissipation functions q0k:
(,oh 
(11)
Here the weighted sum of the tensors T k determines the stress tensor of Cauchy, T, that occurs in the equations of motion of the continuum. The tensors T k are state variables in state space, not subjected to the equations of motion that apply in the physical space.
N N
 Z
1
 Z
1
/12)
For a solid that permits a thermodynamic description, change of volume is according to experiments a purely elastic phenomenon. Hence tr D p k = tr l:lPk  0 and only the deviator of the stress tensors,
T a  T 
c r  (tr cr)I
(13)
contributes to the energy dissipation. of Tah and a ak. If the fraction has an function of the stresses through the thereby the required invariance with
Then D pk and tjph must be proper duals isotropic behavior, the function r is a invariants of the stress tensor and has respect to rotation. Then we have in
) 1
Oq~k
(14)
oqT
a tensor with the required duality properties. In case a fraction would have anisotropic behavior, the energy dissipation must be considered to be a
330
Besseling
function of the objective stresses crh and the derivatives of cpk with respect to crah provide the proper duality for the tensor/jph. The constitutive equations for the inelastic deformation of one fraction are presented for the general case. The superscript k, denoting the fraction, will be omitted. In terms of a yield function @ with a yield stress rrr, 9  @(or, crF) the dissipation function is defined by (15)
(16)
' ~d~a
acra
(17)
Experiments with metal specimens show that at a certain stress level the dissipation rate starts to increase very rapidly, such that very high rates of strain have to be imposed for a small increase of stress. This implies a high nonlinearity of the dissipation function at these stress levels. A dissipation function with this type of high nonlinearity leads to great difficulties in numerical simulations of the inelastic deformation process. From the start of the theory of plasticity, a discontinuity in the constitutive description in the form of a yield surface has been introduced, by which these difficulties are overcome. The yield function defines a closed surface in stress deviator space, limiting the stress states that can be reached, 0z@z1 (18)
The value  1 for 9 corresponds to zero stress. The energy dissipation must be positive, and the dissipation function is defined such that it is equal to zero for + fl = 0. The parameter /3 introduces a threshold for the stresses, below which no energy dissipation takes place. For ~ = 1 this is the state of zero stress. We have 0<fl<l, cp>0 for ~+fl>0, else cp0 (19)
331
the compression modulus C, and the coefficient of cubic thermal expansion e, the rates of stress are defined by the following: ifr else if and else +=0: 6=(o~~
Ih~'il cC~tI,
9 + fl > 0:
(21)
Here h is a small positive or negative hardening coefficient that determines the change of the yield stress in plastic deformation. From the consistency condition r 0 follows h ~adad, 0 ~~ + ~ dF  0 (22)
When the material behavior is simulated by a number of fractions with different values for the yield stresses cry, with different values for the threshold values fl, and possibly with different values for the hardening coefficients h, the typical anisotropic, memorysensitive characteristics of inelastic deformation are described by the model.
5.5.4
DETERMINATION
OF THE
MODEL PARAMETERS The validation experiments have mainly been restricted to materials which in their annealed state could be considered to have isotropic properties. Furthermore, these experiments did encompass strains not larger than a few percentage points in nearly timeindependent plastic deformation. Here the determination of the model parameters will be discussed for this particular application. For small strains the stresses T h and ~rk are related by the orthogonal transformation R. It represents the rotation of the neighborhood of the material point of the continuum with respect to the initial configuration T k = RakR r. Because of the isotropic properties of the fractions, the fourthorder tensors ~ and ~ , as well as the yield function 9 and thereby the dissipation function ~0, are invariant under rotation. The von Mises yield condition is based upon the stress invariant Jz  89 (od)Z. We have with the tr shear modulus G 3J2 ( I )   cr~F1, o  G//~d + C( l t r t /  ~(T  To))I (23)
332
Besseling
In view of its limited significance in the envisioned applications, a simple dissipation function suffices: qo ~,(T).sin h (0.88137 ~ + fl) (24)
In this expression 7(T) contains the temperature dependence of the creep process. Since sin h 0.88137 = 1.0000, the dissipation rate of a fraction upon reaching the yield surface is equal to 7(T). Because of the linear term in the series expansion of this function, it proves to be much more suitable for the description of stress relaxation effects than the wellknown power law of creep. For the higher power values the relaxation rate decreases too rapidly with the value of the excess stress 9 4//. There remains the determination of the number N of fractions, their weighting factors 6k, the values of their yield stresses 0~, the hardening coefficients hi, and the values of their threshold values ilk. Simple tests on tensile specimens may provide the necessary data. If more than four fractions are taken, a smoother representation of the stressstrain diagram is obtained, but the accuracy of the simulation of complex stress histories will not be greatly enhanced in terms of predicted stress values. Furthermore, the model is not very sensitive to the precise location of the breakpoints on the model stressstrain diagram that mark the onset of yielding of one more fraction. This is, of course, a property that is essential for the usefulness of the model. The determination of the model parameters for timeindependent plasticity is best illustrated for an experimental stressstrain diagram approximated by the RambergOsgood formula with material parameters E, 03, m.
=
0"3 0"3
(25)
We specify the breakpoints by their values for the secant modulus Es, denoting the breakpoints with subscript p. For 0"p  EsP~/pwe have
;:
1)1
(27)
The value of 03 corresponds to the secant modulus, which has a value of 0.7E. Usually a good choice for the breakpoints is given by the following values of the secant moduli:
Table 5.5.1 shows the successive determination of the breakpoints and of the values for ~k and a). The yield stresses a~ are the initial values of the flow stresses @ of the various fractions, which are subject to change because of
333
p
1 2 3 4 5
Ef/E
0.98 0.85 0.7 0.4 0.1
~/~
0.713 0.906 1 1.140 1.403
E~,/~
(0.728) 1.066 1.429 2.873 14.025
A~/(EA~)
0.547 0.259 0.103 0.023 ~ h = 0.020
k
1 2 3 4
2~=~ 0 n
0.498 0.783 0.927 1
0~
0.498 0.285 0.144 0.073
~,~/~
0.713 1.091 1.495 3.139
isotropic hardening. This isotropic hardening may, in a first estimate, be described by the same value h for all fractions. The values of h k do not greatly affect the values of O k and ~), but they are essential because of the cumulative effect of the isotropic hardening. An estimate for h is needed for the determination of the values of Ok. A further refinement of the model with different values for h k is mainly of value for cyclic loading. With the aid of the wellknown relations
G __
~3
2(1 + v) \ ~3
0 ~
3
1  A~/(EzX~) 1  ~(1  > / A ~ / ( E A ~ )
(28)
(1  h) ~
These expressions show that in the case of incompressibility ( v  1) the volume fractions follow directly from the slope of the stressstrain curve between breakpoints, while the initial yield stresses of the fractions are given by the strain at the breakpoints, multiplied by the elastic modulus. Note that for the slope of the curve from p = 1 to p = 2 the line is taken to start on the elastic part of the diagram. The value of Eql/a3 is not used. Even far below the true creep range of temperatures, inelastic material behavior may be accompanied by strong strain rate effects (differences in predicted stress values of the order of 10%). In the tensile test a considerable drop in stress can occur if the loading of a specimen is interrupted at constant strain for several minutes. In a first approximation the drop in stress in such a relaxation period turns out to be more or less constant for the whole range of stress over the inelastic part of the tensile curve. Based upon this observation,
334
TABLE 5.5.2 k 1 2 3 4 ~kk(1  h k) 0.489 0.279 0.141 0.072 Iterative Determination of Hardening Coefficients. h k//h4 0 0.1557 0.322 1 h En=l
Besseling
I~nhn/h4
the threshold stress value for each fraction may put equal to the yield stress, diminished by this drop of stress, Aa. The values of fl then follow from
Usually, for a good correspondence between the experimental curves for cyclic loading and the curves according to the fraction model, an adjustment of the hardening coefficients h k for the various fractions is needed. This adjustment is best carried out if the values are chosen such that the curve for the first reversed loading is well represented. Often good results are obtained with values for hk which are proportional to the difference between the yield limit ay of the fraction k and the yield limit of the first fraction. Obviously, this k implies h I   0, and as a result, the initial yield surface does not expand, leading to a pronounced Bauschinger effect and followed by a rapidly increasing hardening. For unequal values of h k the determination of their values is best solved by an iterative process. For the data from the RambergOsgood formula considered in Table 5.5.1, this iterative process is illustrated in Table 5.5.2. The values of ~k (1  h k) remain constant in the iteration process, since they determine the slope between breakpoints. Their values are given by ~kh(1  h) in accordance with the values of Table 5.5.1. After the values of h k have been calculated by running down the first column and up the second column of each iteration, the new values for @k follow from the known values of ~kk (1  hi). Sufficient accuracy was obtained in two steps.
5.5.5 HOW TO USE THE MODEL Any finite element analysis of inelastic deformation problems will introduce the constitutive equations of the material in sampling (or integration) points
335
of the elements. If these points are material points of the continuum, as they, in case of small strains, usually will be, the fraction model equations may be directly applied. Of course, for each sampling point in which inelastic deformation has occurred, the history of the internal state variables must be recorded. The history of the variables of all fractions that have contributed to inelastic deformation must be traced by storing the values of the fraction stresses with the model parameters. In the case of large deformations, the mesh of finite elements has to be redefined in a continuous or discontinuous process, but in either case the problem of keeping track of the material points of the c o n t i n u u m with their history arises.
REFERENCES
1. Besseling,J. E (1953). A theory of flow for anisotropic hardening in plastic deformation of an initially isotropic material. Nat. Aero. Res. Inst., Amsterdam, report $410. 2. Besseling, J. E (1958). A theory of elastic, plastic and creep deformations of an initially isotropic material. J. Appl. Mech. 25: 529536. 3. Besseling,J. E (1985). Models of metal plasticity: Theory and experiment, in Plasticity Today, pp. 97114., Sawczuk, A., and Bianchi, G., eds., Elsevier Applied Science Publishing. 4. Lambermont,J. H., and Besseling,J. E (1970). An experimental and theoretical investigation of creep, in Creep in Structures, pp. 3863, Hult, Jan, ed., SpringerVerlag. 5. Besseling, J. E, and Giessen, E. van der. (1994). Mathematical Modelling of Inelastic Deformation, Chapman & Hall, 324 pages.
SECTION
5.6
Inelastic Compressible and Incompressible, Isotropic, Small Strain Viscoplasticity Theory Based on Overstress (VBO)
E. KREMPL1 and K. HO 2 1Mechanics of Materials Laboratory,
Troy, New York 2yeungnam University, Korea Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Contents 5.6.1 General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Isotropic VBO Model for Inelastic Compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Reduction to a Simplified, Isothermal, Incompressible Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 The Determination of VBO Constants from Constant Strain Rate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
336
5.6
337
that "the current behavior of a material is determined by its current state and the current loading conditions" (italics added by the present authors). A properly designed specimen represents the material and serves as the integrator of all the micromechanisms. From these responses the continuum model has to be synthesized. It is clear that an experimentbased approach captures the physics of material behavior; after all, acting micromechanisms are deduced from similar, if not identical, tests. The aim is to create an experimentbased, physical, small strain model that can be exercised like a real, servocontrolled testing machine with strain measurement on the gage section. A time integration program for a system of stiff, ordinary differential equations [5] is the numerical testing machine. VBO has been used at low, high, and variable temperatures with one basic formulation. A static recovery term becomes negligible for low homologous temperature. Terms that are present for variable temperature equal zero when the temperature is constant. Creep and plasticity are not separately formulated. All material constants are allowed to vary with temperature. To efficiently utilize the available space, provide an overview, and have the equations collected in one place, Boxes are used. A nomenclature listing, Box 5.6.1, precedes the display of the coupled, nonlinear differential equations in Box 5.6.2 for inelastic compressibility. Inelastic incompressibility is introduced in Box 5.6.3, where a simplified tensorial and a uniaxial VBO are derived from the general theory.
338
BOX 5.6.1 Nomenclature
Krempl and Ho
Coefficient of thermal expansion Rate sensitivity coefficient Shape function, 1 > ~ > Et/E Decreasing or constant, Eqs. 3, 11 Rate of deformation, true strain rate tensor
gl 1 ~g22
1/time
Axial and transverse components of true strain rate in a uniaxial test Constants for normalization Strain beyond which the asymptotic solution applies approximately Effective inelastic rate of deformation,
1/ time
~0~g 0
.in
1 / time No dimension
1 / time
/tr(~.in~.in)
 1/
V i 7 ~~,
Eqs. 2, 10
Overstress invariant, Eqs. 2, 9 Inelastic Poisson's ratio, 0 < t / < 0.5, constant Variable, total Poisson's ratio Elastic Poisson's ratio, constant True (Cauchy) stress tensor Isotropic stress
Stress No dimension
Ac Ai,Af
Constant, controls the speed with which saturation is reached Initial and final value of A
Stress
339
Stress Stress
Elastic modulus, tangent modulus at maximum strain of interest based on total strain rate Tangent modulus based on inelastic strain rate l~tE/(1~) Flow function, positive, increasing, F[0] = 0; see k. Dimensionless flow function F e9in F 0^
F.t
Stress
1/time
Curve fit of data, P = F[F/D]  F[0] Kinematic stress tensor Equilibrium stress tensor, Eqs. 3, 11 Effective equilibrium stress Identity Viscosity function, positive decreasing, k[0] r 0, F = F / ( E k ) , Eqs. 2, 10 Static recovery function, positive, increasing True (Cauchy) stress deviator tensor Temperature Time Material time derivative of x
1/ time
( )a
[ ]
340
Krempl and Ho
VBO is based on the standard linear solid [14, 17]. The spring in front of the Kelvin element remains linear but the Kelvin element itself becomes nonlinear. The viscosity of the dashpot is represented by a nonlinear, decreasing function of the overstress. The "spring" of the Kelvin element has nonlinear and hysteretic properties. Although the actual responses of the standard linear solid and of VBO can be vastly different, some general properties remain the same. The existence of longtime asymptotic solutions for constant loading rate can be offered as an example. Also, in both models infinite time is required to reach the equilibrium stress in a relaxation experiment. BOX 5.6.2 Flow Law d(.l+v
_ m
v
Y
(tr(~))l +
l+r/ Ek[F/D]
viscosity function
rl
(tr(a
(~g)~m
EkEr/D]
g))I)
(1)
+ 0r
~th
Invariants
= LF =
(2)
function
(~;)t~ + ~
~ g
inelastic hardening
k[r/D] A 7/flF
~ /
nrs "Y 9
elastic hard.
dynamic recovery
+ (1  ~ ) f 
R[~]g
static recovery
(3)
ag
kinematic stress rate
IF]ag
(4)
5.6 Compressible and Incompressible, VBO BOX 5.6.3 Inelasticincompressible, isotropic VBO
341
Deviatoric, simplified, formulation, isothermal, ~/ 0.5, without static recovery ,~ _ ,~e7 + ~ (~e,) a_ ((1 + v ) / E ) i , tr ,~et = ((1  2v)/E)tr d
(6)
(7)
 2 Ek[ra/D]  2
rd _ r tr((s  gd)(s  gd));
ra
(s) (9)
(10)
?h  rd/Ek  F;
~_ r
tr(gagd)
~  r162
,~ ~
( ~g~ r~
Ek
gd_fa.)A + ( 1~)~'d
(11)
~  EtF [~l
s FJ
~~
(12)
Poisson's ratios based on strain rates The ratios v and ~/are constant and are limited by 0 _< v _< 0.5 and 0 _< ~/<_ 0.5. rl is variable q _ _ t2__ = vir/E + (n(~r  g)/(Ek[F/D])) A ~ olE + ((,~ g)l(Ek[r/D])) Uniaxial equations e [F~l'~g;r,~g (14)
(13)
g Af ) 
+ (1  ~)f
(15) (16)
wh~r~ ~ 
The flow law, Eq. 1, Box 5.6.2, consists of three parts: the elastic, the inelastic, and the thermal strain rates, which are added to obtain the total true strain rate. The elastic strain rate is given as a total time derivative to ensure a pathindependent elastic strain for variable temperature and temperaturedependent material properties [21, 22]. Naturally, for isothermal conditions
342
Krempl and Ho
the terms containing temperature rate as a multiplier vanish. The inelastic rate of deformation can be formulated using the viscosity function k[F/D] or the flow function F[F/D], see Eqs. 2 and 10 for their interrelation. The overstress invariant 1', the effective inelastic strain rate (rate of deformation) q~ and the effective equilibrium stress ~ are normalized to the uniaxial state of stress and are given in Eqs. 2, 9, and 10. In the absence of the static recovery term, the equilibrium stress evolves mostly in a rateindependent manner. The applied stress must be different from the equilibrium stress to affect inelastic deformation. The equilibrium stress can be thought of as a measure of the strength of the defect obstacles that have to be overcome. The growth law for the equilibrium stress g, Eq. 3, has elastic and inelastic hardening terms as well as a dynamic recovery term. The last term, the static recovery term, plays a significant role at high temperature and is zero at low temperature. The term containing f is introduced in Eq. 3 to ensure the existence of the asymptotic, longtime solution for any slope [16]. The growth law simulates the hardening/recovery format attributed to Bailey/Orowan [4]. Note that only this term contributes in a timedependent manner. The growth law for the kinematic stress is given in Eq. 4. The kinematic stress is the repository for modeling the Bauschinger effect and for modeling the slope of the stressstrain diagram at the maximum strain of interest. The constant inelastic Poisson's ratio r/complements the elastic Poisson's ratio v. The actual, variable Poisson's ratio see Eq. 13, can be easily calculated. When modeling solid polymer deformation [1, 6, 17] inelastic compressibility has to be accounted for. Following Lee and Krempl [21], who treated the anisotropic case, the formulation of Eq. 1 was arrived at by Ho [6]. The similarity of the expressions for the elastic and the inelastic strain rates is obvious. For r / = 0.5 the usual forms are obtained and are given in Box 5.6.3 for a simplified version. The compressible solution may be applied to cavitating, but otherwise incompressible, materials. In Eq. 3 the equilibrium stress growth law is written in terms of stresslike quantities. The formulation can also be given in terms of the strain rates by using their respective definitions, [16]. The first term on the right causes a nearly elastic growth with an initial slope of ~kE and establishes the quasielastic region. The second term is needed for variable temperature [22]. The next positive term represents the inelastic hardening, which is followed by the dynamic recovery term. The factor/~ in the dynamic recovery term of Eq. 3 and marked by nrs is zero for normal VBO. It is the repository for modeling zero and negative rate sensitivity and other unusual but important rate effects [79]. The modeling of different rate effects is a rather unique capability of VBO. The isotropic or rateindependent stress A primarily models cyclic hardening/softening. The simple formulation of the growth law given in
m
343
Eq. 5 is sufficient to demonstrate constant strain amplitude cyclic hardening or softening. For nonproportional loading extra hardening can be observed with some metals and alloys. For the modeling of such behaviors special growth laws are needed, e.g., [3, 29, 31].
5.6.3 REDUCTION TO A SIMPLIFIED, ISOTHERMAL, INCOMPRESSIBLE FORM The model given in Box 5.6.2 can be simplified and reduced to the usual inelastic incompressible, deviatoric formulation. It is further assumed that no isotropic hardening takes place and that static recovery terms are not operating. Only the equilibrium stress and the kinematic stress change. With these simplifications VBO models viscoplasticity with kinematic type hardening. Starting with Box 5.6.2, the following simplifications are introduced: 9 Inelastic Poisson's ratio is set to 7 = 0 . 5 to model inelastic incompressibility. 9 The equations are separated into hydrostatic and deviatoric parts. 9 The shape function ~ is reduced to a constant with the same name and the same limits as stated in Box 5.6.1. 9 The flow function F and five other constants (A, D, E, Et, and ~) are needed to describe the inelastic behavior with the simplified model when fl is set equal to zero. Following Majors [25], the simplified model has been proposed by Maciucescu et al. [24] and has been used by (Tachibana and Krempl [30]) for high homologous temperature applications. The simplified model is capable of modeling nonlinear rate sensitivity in strain and stresscontrolled loading, creep, relaxation, the Bauschinger effect, and cyclic neutral behavior.
5.6.4 THE DETERMINATION OF VBO CONSTANTS FROM CONSTANT STRAIN RATE DATA The simplified VBO is applied to test conditions where recovery effects are negligible. Therefore, Eqs. 1316 apply. Recent room temperature data by Khan and Liang [10] on bcc alloys cover a wide range of strain rates. Figure 5.6.1 shows stressstrain diagrams for a Ta2.5 W alloy with strain rates ranging from 10 6 to 1 1/s. The high static strain rate data show typical
344
Krempl and Ho
bcc behavior. The stressstrain curves are nearly equidistant in the flow stress region. The elastic modulus E and the tangent modulus Et at the maximum strain of interest can be directly obtained from the graph. For the determination of the flow function the relationships derived from the asymptotic solution and their interpretation are important, see Eqs. 1014 of Krempl [16]. While the model given in Box 5.6.3 is valid for every loading, the asymptotic solution applies when plastic flow is fully established, i.e., at strains ~ > 0.04 in Figure 5.6.1. The equilibrium stress g and the constant drag stress D have to be determined together with the flow function F. For nonlinear problems a normalized formulation is desirable. Accordingly, F  e0F where P is i, dimensionless and where e9 is an arbitrary constant with dimension of 0 reciprocal time. Substitution into Eq. 14 yields k / k 0  / ~ [ F / D ] where k i , = ~ ( 1  Et/E) has been used and where the arbitrary s0 is the total counterpart of %.'i" In determining the overstress, the unique evolution of g in the asymptotic region is factored in as well as the fact that the equilibrium curve is below the slowest stressstrain curve. The finite time endpoint of a relaxation test started at a strain ~ can be below the slowest stressstrain curve [19]. With these guides the equilibrium stress is estimated. Next the condition F I l l  1 is imposed. From actual stressstrain curves for various strain rates such as shown in Figure 5.6.1 the overstress at a given
9i n "
700
............................. ;
i
,~ 400
300
2OO
100
0.,,  l
A........... i ..................
............ i ..................
:
l ; "
] l
o i vs
OIE02
l/s
I
'
0 IE06 l/s
0.05
True
0.1
Strain
0.15
0.2
Figure 5.6.1 The influence of strain rate on the stressstrain diagrams of a Ta2.5W alloy at ambient temperature. The symbols are selected points taken off the original stressstrain diagrams in Figure 6 of Khan and Liang [10]. The thick lines are the numerical simulation of the influence of strain rate. The thin lines, top at a strain rate of 1000 1/s and bottom for 10 8 l/s, are extrapolations to demonstrate that VBO can model a large range of strain rates.
345
strain rate and a strain ~ in the flow stress region (~ > 0.04) is estimated. Here the overstress for the strain rate of 1 1/s was found to be equal to 246 MPa. These choices and the unity condition at the beginning of this paragraph yield D = 246 MPa and k0 = 1 1/s. Knowing D, Et, and the stress, the isotropic stress A can be easily calculated. Since the strain rates cover several decades but stresses do not, log(k/k0) = y is plotted as a function of the stress ratio F / D = x using an Excel trend line analysis or equivalent. It yields, in the present case, a linear polynomial approximation with R2=0.9969. The logplot cannot be extended to the strain rate origin. To satisfy F[0] = 0 we set F = g0(1  Et/E) (F [F/D]  F[0]) where P is the function obtained from the trend line analysis that has all the properties of F except that it is not exactly zero for zero argument. The constants are listed in Table 5.6.1. The value of ~ has to be determined next. Selecting a value and numerically integrating the constitutive equation is a good procedure. To avoid possible overshoots at the transition from quasielastic to inelastic behavior, ~ < . is recommended. It is also possible to tailor ~ so that "yield points" develop. Figure 5.6.1 shows such a yield point for the stressstrain curve of 1000 1/s. Examples of experimentally observed overshoots are given by Khan and Liang [10]. Numerical experiments using the data given in Table 5.6.1 were performed and the results are plotted in Figure 5.6.1 together with the experimental data. The correlation is very good. The same calculation was repeated with A = 170 MPa and D = 266 MPa with equally excellent results. There is no doubt that other values of A can be found that would match the stressstrain data. It appears that the stressstrain rate data are insufficient to determine the material constants of this "unified constitutive law" uniquely. Additional experiments of a different nature are needed to uniquely determine A (or D) and @. Creep or relaxation tests are potential candidates. Relaxation data are preferred since the strain rate range that can be obtained in a single run is exceptionally high [23, p. 264]. The task is then to determine both ~ and A so that the relaxation and the stressstrain data at
VBO Material Data for Ta2.5 W Alloy of Khan and Liang [10] E GPa 178 /~t MPa 660 ~0 1/s 1 0.4 F 
~o(i 
Et/E)(F[F/D]
F[O]),
i/s
log/~ = 7 . 2 7 8 ( F / D )
7.183
346
Krempl and Ho
700500600!!!!!!!!!!!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii j ii iii i
: 0
i400 .....................L o ! o i
300 200 100
0
......... =: ................. :o i
0.05
0.1
True Strain
0.15
0.2
Figure 5.6.2 Numerical simulations of a repeated strain rate change experiment using the data of Table 5.6.1. No strain rate history effect is modeled in the numerical and in the laboratory experiments. The numerical simulations exhibit over and undershoots, which Figure 15 of Khan and Liang [10] does not. However, they have been observed in other laboratory experiments.
various strain rates are modeled. This can be done when such data are available. Numerical repeated strain rate change experiments are shown in Figure 5.6.2. At the transition points over and undershoots are seen which are not found in the present data on Ta2.5 W; see Figure 14 of Khan and Liang [10]. Examples of overshoots are displayed in Figure 4 of the same paper for Ta. Neither the experimental nor the numerical results show a strain rate history effect.
REFERENCES
1. Bordonaro, C. M., and Krempl, E. (1992). The effect of strain rate on the deformation and relaxation behavior of Nylon 6/6 at room temperature. Polymer Engineering and Science 32: 10661072. 2. Cernocky, E. P., and Krempl, E. (1979). A nonlinear uniaxial integral constitutive equation incorporating rate effects, creep and relaxation. International Journal of NonLinear Mechanics 14: 183203. 3. Choi, S. H., and Krempl, E. (1993). Viscoplasticity Theory Based on Overstress: The Modeling of Biaxial Hardening Using Irreversible Plastic Strain, Advances in Multiaxial Fatigue San Francisco, American Society for Testing and Materials. 4. Gittus, J. (1975). Creep, Viscoelasticty and CreepRupture in Solids, New York: Halsted Press, a Divison of John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 5. Hindmarsh, A. C. (1983). ODEpack, a Systematized Collection of ODE Solvers. Scientific Computing. Amsterdam, North Holland: R. S. e. a. Stepleman. 6. Ho, K. (1998). Application of the Viscoplasticity Theory Based on Overstress to the Modeling of Dynamic Strain Aging of Metals and to Solid Polymers, Specifically Nylon 66. PhD Thesis,
347
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. 12.
17.
18. 19.
20.
21.
22.
23. 24.
Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering & Mechanics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. Ho, K., and Krempl, E. (1999). Extension of the viscoplasticity theory based on overstress (VBO) to capture nonstandard rate dependence in solids. International Journal of Plasticity (In press). Ho, K., and Krempl, E. (2000a). Modeling of positive, negative and zero rate sensitivity using the viscoplasticity theory based on overstress (VBO). Mechanics of TimeDependent Materials 4: 2142. Ho, K., and Krempl, E. (2000b). The modeling of unusual rate sensitivities inside and outside the dynamic strain aging regime. J. of Engineering Materials and Technology 123: 2835. Khan, A. S., and Liang, R. (1999). Behaviors of three BCC metal over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures: Experiments and modeling. International Journal of Plasticity 15 (10): 10891109. Kocks, U. E, et al. (1986). Physical and Phenomenological Plasticity, p. 56, Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory. Krempl, E. (1979). An experimental study of roomtemperature rate sensitivity creep and relaxation of AISI Type 304 Stainless Steel. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 27: 363385. Krempl, E. (1987). Models of viscoplasticity: Some comments on equilibrium (back) stress and drag stress. Acta Mechanica 69: 2542. Krempl, E. (1995). From the Standard Linear Solid to the Viscoplasticity Theory Based on Overstress, Computational Engineering Science, Hawaii: Springer. Krempl, E. (1995). The overstress dependence of the inelastic rate of deformation inferred from transient tests. Materials Science Research International 1 (1): 310. Krempl, E. (1996). A small strain viscoplasticity theory based on overstress, in Unified Constitutive Laws of Plastic Deformation, pp. 281318, Krausz, A., and Krausz, K., eds., San Diego: Academic Press. Krempl, E., and Ho, K. (2000). An overstress model for solid polymer deformation behavior applied to Nylon 66, in Time Dependent and Nonlinear Effects in Polymers and Composites STP 1357: 118137, Schapery, R. A., and Sun, C. T., eds., West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Krempl, E., and Kallianpur, V. V. (1985). The uniaxial unloading behavior of two engineering alloys at room temperature. Journal of Applied Mechanics 52: 654658. Krempl, E., and Nakamura, T. (1998). The influence of the equilibrium growth law formulation on the modeling of recently observed relaxation behaviors. JSME International Journal, Series A 41: 103111. Kujawski, D., et al. (1980). An experimental study of uniaxial creep, cyclic creep and relaxation of AISI Type 304 stainless steel at room temperature. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 28: 129148. Lee, K. D., and Krempl, E. (1991a). An orthotropic theory of viscoplasticity based on overstress for thermomechanical deformations. Internationhl Journal of Solids and Structures 27: 14451459. Lee, K. D., and Krempl, E. (1991). Uniaxial thermomechanical loading: Numerical experiments using the thermal viscoplasticity theory based on overstress. European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids 10: 173192. Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J.L. (1994). Mechanics of Solid Materials, Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Maciucescu, L., et al. (1999). Modeling the deformation behavior of a PnPb solder alloy using the simplified viscoplasticity theory based on overstress (VBO). Journal of Electronic
348
Krempl and Ho
25. Majors, P. S., and Krempl, E. (1994). The isotropic viscoplasticity theory based on overstress applied to the modeling of modified 9CrlMo steel at 538C. Materials Science and Engineering A186: 2334. 26. Malvern, L. E. (1951). Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 8: 405. 27. Malvern, L. E. (1951). The propagation of longitudinal waves of plastic deformation in a bar exhibiting a strain rate effect. Journal of Applied Mechanics 18: 203208. 28. Perzyna, P (1963). The constitutive equations for rate sensitive plastic materials. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics 20: 321332. 29. Ruggles, M. B., and Krempl, E. (1990). The interaction of cyclic hardening and ratchetting for AISI Type 304 stainless steel at room temperature   I Experiments and II Modeling with the viscoplasticity theory based on overstress. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 38: 575597. 30. Tachibana, Y., and Krempl, E. (1998). Modeling of high homologous temperature deformation behavior using the viscoplasticity theory based on overstress (VBO): Part III A simplified model. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 120: 193196. 31. Tanaka, E. (1994). A nonproportionality parameter and a cyclic viscoplastic model taking into account amplitude dependency and memory effects of isotropic hardening. European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids 13: 155173.
SECTION
5.7
An Outline of the BodnerPartom (BP) Unified Constitutive Equations for ElasticViscoplastic Behavior
SOL R. BODNER
TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel
Contents
Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Basic BP Model . . . . . . . . . Modifications of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of the Material Parameters . . . . Integration of Equations and Implementation into Computer Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.7 Table of Material Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3 5.7.4 5.7.5 5.7.6 349 350 350 353 353 355 355 356
5.7.1 VALIDITY
The BP m o d e l of isotropic elasticviscoplastic b e h a v i o r is i n t e n d e d to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the m a c r o s c o p i c r e s p o n s e of metals a n d metallic alloys to l o a d i n g over a very wide range of strain rates, t e m p e r a t u r e s , a n d l o a d i n g circumstances. It is an i n c r e m e n t a l t h e o r y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d c o n s t r a i n t s of c o n t i n u u m m e c h a n i c s a n d t h e r m o d y n a m i c s a n d is
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
349
350
Bodner
considered "unified" in that plasticity and creep are particular response characteristics based on a single inelastic strain rate variable. The model is also "unified" in a more general sense by not separating a fully elastic region from the overall response (no defined yield stress). A small strain formulation is presented here; extensions to large strains have been developed.
5.7.2 F O R M U L A T I O N The BP elasticviscoplastic constitutive equations do not require a yield criterion or loadingunloading conditions. As a consequence, the elastic and inelastic strain rate variables are generally nonzero throughout the deformation history, and the same equations apply for all circumstances. The macroscopic response properties indicated by the model include strain rate sensitivity and temperature dependence of inelastic deformation, stress saturation under imposed straining, isotropic and directional hardening for both monotonic and reversed loadings (e.g., the Bauschinger effect), primary and secondary creep (by including thermal recovery of hardening), and stress relaxation. Hardening corresponding to resistance to inelastic straining is treated by introducing load historydependent variables in the kinetic equation for the inelastic strain rate and by developing suitable evolution equations for their development with loading history. The basic set of equations described in Section 5.7.3 is applicable for many metals and loading conditions. For enhanced generality, a few modifications for special conditions have been proposed which are described in Section 5.7.4.
5.7.3 D E S C R I P T I O N O F T H E BASIC BP M O D E L ( F R O M [ 1, 21) a. Additivity of elastic and inelastic strain rates:
351
where sij is the deviatoric stress, sij = erij (1/3)akkaij, and 2 is a positive scalar function of stress, the overall hardening variable, and temperature, which can be treated implicitly. c. Expressions for the strain rate components:
/:~  (lIE)[(1 +
v)dij  VdkkSij]
(3)
which is Hooke's Law in rate form; and the proposed kinetic equation for inelastic deformation as a function of state quantities is
,~
 Do exp
(4)
Equation 4 is a general growth function that indicates that ~ is close to zero at low values of effective stress r~cff followed by a region of rapid growth leading to a saturation value. In Eq. 4, erdf is defined by ryeff [(3/2)sidsij] 1/2, n controls strain rate sensitivity, and Z is the overall scalar hardening variable. The quantity Do is the presumed limiting value of inelastic strain rate in shear and is usually set to be 108 sec 1, although a lower value, 104 sec 1, has been used in exercises at low strain rates ( < 10sec 1) to avoid possible numerical problems. Particular cases of uniaxial stress ~11 and simple shear z12 are
/:P1 
o1, f
Do exp  ~ \~11/ J
(5)
(6)
where ?12 and ~:12 are the engineering shear strain rate and stress. The hardening variable Z consists of isotropic and directional components, Z = ZI+ Z D, where Z ~ is due to resistance presumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the volume and Z D arises primarily on the developed slip planes of the materials and is therefore dependent on stress history and its current value. Evolution equations for their development are Z , ' ( t )  m,[Z1Z'(t)]~;Yp(t)A1ZI[ Z'(t)Z,Z2] r~ (7)
(8)
352
Bodner
which is the component of the directional hardening tensor flij in the direction of the current stress, uij, where

Z1
Vij(t)
(9)
(10)
and
Vii(t)  flij(t) /[flkl(t) flhl(t)] 1/2
(11)
which is the current direction of riO" For both components, the measure of hardening is the plastic work rate (,Vp  aije,~, and the second terms in Eqs. 7 and 9 represent thermal recovery of hardening with Z z  Z2 and flij  0 as minimum (annealed) values. (Use of Z1 in Eq. 9 is for dimensional purposes.) Initial values are ZI(o) = Zo and, if annealed, rio(O)  O, and the saturation value for Z I is Z1 and that for Z D is Z 3. From its definition, Eq. 8, Z D changes sign with stress reversal, with Z staying positive, and thereby accounts for the Bauschinger effect. The equations indicate stress saturation under imposed straining and secondary creep when Z I and Z D reach steady values. Temperature effects are treated implicitly through its influence on the material parameters. Higher temperatures generally lead to decreased values of n, which result in increased rate sensitivity and lower stressstrain curves. The hardening terms, Z0,Z1, etc., and the hardening rates m ~ , m 2 can be temperaturedependent, e.g. [29], while the terms in the thermal recovery functions, A1, A2, rl, r2, and the elastic constants are generally temperaturedependent. Numerical listings or functional forms for the temperature dependence of the material constants are therefore part of the characterization. Except for particular thermal history effects, such as those due to dynamic strain aging, the use of material constants at the current temperature obtained from isothermal test data is usually a valid procedure even under nonisothermal loading [3]. For the condition of only isotropic hardening without thermal recovery, the material constants reduce to n, Z0,Zl,ml with Do fixed and the elastic constants provided. In the case of uniaxial stress and constant plastic strain rate, the relevant Eqs. 5 and 7 could be integrated analytically [4]. An investigation on the thermodynamic consistency of the BP equations is described in Reference [26].
353
5.7.4 MODIFICATIONS
OF THE MODEL
a. Generalization of hardening rates for enhanced correspondence of stressstrain curves of strongly workhardening materials with test data [5], e.g., pure copper and aluminum"
(12) (13)
[
mxa  M a 1~
r t~eff) q] ]
(14)
where mla is the initial value of ml according to Eq. 12, ~eff is the effective "O (deviatoric) total strain rate, and eeff and q are additional material constants" this generalization is applicable for copper (and probably aluminum and iron) at very high strain rates, > 104 see1 [6]. c. Representation of possible increase of isotropic hardening due to nonproportional cyclic straining by the introduction of a measure of nonproportionality in Eq. 7 [2]. d. Representation of possible changes in the evolution equation for isotropic hardening due to repeated stress reversals, see Reference [7]. Note: repeated reversed loading conditions with nonzero mean stress could lead to ratcheting for some materials such as stainless steels; the method proposed by Ohno and Wang [27] could be adopted to Eq. 9 for representation of that effect. e. Introduction of continuum damage as a state variable [8] modification of kinetic Eqs. 46 by Z~Z(1co), 0_<co<l (15)
where co is a scalar load history dependent damage variable with a proposed evolution equation that is a function of stress and damage.
5.7.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL PARAMETERS Procedures have been developed by various investigators to obtain the material constants for the BP equations from test data. A method that is fairly direct and simple is described in References [9, 10]. First, most of the parameters at a given temperature can be obtained from monotonic uniaxial stressstrain curves over a range of strain rates for which thermal recovery of
354
Bodner
hardening is not effective. The parameters include those associated with directional hardening based on the observation that the rate of directional hardening m2 is usually significantly larger than that for isotropic hardening ml. As a consequence, directional hardening will saturate more rapidly and have greater influence in the low strain inelastic range, i.e., the region slightly beyond the essentially elastic range. The method involves determining the stressplastic strain relation from a uniaxial stressstrain curve at a constant applied strain rate and determining the quantity,
/I  0"11
1 dO'll dslP1
(16)
as a function of stress. The resulting curve is generally bilinear, with an upper slope m2 and a lower slope ml. The intersection of the extended curve with = 0 would be the saturation stress at which the total strain rate is equivalent to the plastic strain rate. From this information obtained at various applied strain rates, the parameter n could be obtained from the dependence of the saturation stress on plastic strain rate using Eq. 5. The constants Z0, Z1, Z3 can also be determined by this procedure. Recourse is then made to creep tests or very slow straining tests to obtain the parameters for the thermal recovery of hardening. It is noted that cyclic test data (with reversed loadings) are not required by the preceding procedure but could be used for checking and possible adjustments. Reliance on stress relaxation tests and tests involving rapid increases or decreases of applied strain rate are not recommended as references for obtaining material parameters for the BP equations. Relaxation tests cover only a limited range of strain rates, whereas strain rate jump tests involve complicated histories of elastic and inelastic strain rates. Those tests serve well for examining of the predictive capability of the equations. Some minor modifications of the preceding procedure are described in References [11, 22]. The parameter values obtained by these procedures are not necessarily unique unless further refined by the sophisticated methods of References [12, 13], but are usually suitable for practical purposes. In the early development of the BP equations, the factor [(n + 1)/n] appeared as a coefficient to the (Z2/Cr2eff)term in Eq. 4. Adjustment of the hardening parameters obtained from that equation with the equation of the present article is obtained by setting
(17)
where the Z i values are those derived from the equation with the factor (indicated by * in Table 5.7.1). The other material parameters are not affected by the factor.
355
TABLE 5.7.1
Material Parameters. References [9, 10] [17] [11] [19] [12] [11] [22] [18] [23 ]
Low strain rates ( < 1 sec1); Do = 104 sec 1 Ni base alloy, B1900 + Hf (RT to 1093~ Inconel 718 (650~ HastelloyX (RT to 538~ Astroloy (RT to 982~ Aluminum (high purity) (277~ * Aluminum alloy 8009 (RT to 275~ Aluminum alloy AMG6 (Russian) (RT to 400~ Zirconium alloy (Zr2.Swt% Nb) (250~ Eutectic solder, 63/37 Sn/Pb, (  4 0 to 100 ~C) High to very high strain rates (>10 sec1); D o 108sec 1 C1008 steel, HY100 steel, 1020 steel A16061T6, A17039T64 Nickel 200, W2tungsten, Armco iron (all at RT)
[24]
also in [ 16]
Copper (high purity) (RT) Copper (high purity) (RT to 800~ A533B steel (  6 0 to 175~
~ = 2000 S I )
*Kinetic equation containing factor as discussed in Section 5.7.5. Additional information on material parameters appears in a recent review of the BP equations [30].
356
REFERENCES
Bodner
1. Bodner, S. R., and Partom, Y. (1975). Constitutive equations for elasticviscoplastic strainhardening materials. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 42: 385389. 2. Bodner, S. R. (1987). Review of a unified elasticviscoplastic theory, in Unified Constitutive Equations for Creep and Plasticity, pp. 273301. Miller, A. K., ed., London: Elsevier Applied Science. 3. Chan, K. S., and Lindholm, U. S. (1990). Inelastic deformation under nonisothermal loading. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 112: 1525. 4. Merzer, A., and Bodner, S. R. (1979). Analytical formulation of a rate and temperature dependent stressstrain relation. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 101: 254257. 5. Khen, R., and Rubin, M. B. (1992). Analytical modelling of second order effects in large deformation plasticity. Int. J. Solid Structures 29: 22352258. 6. Bodner, S. R., and Rubin, M. B. (1994). Modeling of hardening at very high strain rates. J. Appl. Phys. 76(5): 27422747. 7. Bodner, S. R. (1991). Further development of a viscoplastic constitutive model for high temperature applications, in High Temperature Constitutive Modeling Theory and Application, pp. 175184, Freed, A. D., and Walker, K. P., eds., New York: Amer. Soc. Mech. Engin. 8. Bodner, S. R., and Chan, K. S. (1986). Modeling of continuum damage for application in elasticviscoplastic constitutive equations. Engng. Fract. Mechanics 25(5/6): 705712. 9. Chan, K. S., Bodner, S. R., and Lindholm, U. S. (1988). Phenomenological modeling of hardening and thermal recovery in metals. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 110: 18. 10. Chan, K. S., Lindholm, U. S., Bodner, S. R., and Walker, K. P. (1989). High temperature inelastic deformation under uniaxial loading: Theory and experiment. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 111: 345353. 11. Rowley, M. A., and Thornton, E. A. (1996). Constitutive modeling of the viscoplastic response of HastelloyX and aluminum alloy 8009. ASME J. Engng. Materials Tech. 118: 1927. 12. Mahnken, R., and Stein, E. (1996). Parameter identification for viscoplastic models based on analytical derivatives of a leastsquares functional and stability investigations. Int. J. Plasticity 12(4): 451479. 13. Fossum, A. E (1997). Parameter estimation for an internal variable model using nonlinear optimization and analytical/numerical response sensitivities. ASME J. Engng. Materials Tech. 119: 337345. 14. Tanaka, T. G., and Miller A. K. (1988). Development of a method for integrating timedependent constitutive equations with large, small or negative strain rate sensitivity. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 26: 24572485. 15. Rubin, M. B. (1989). A time integration procedure for large plastic deformation in elasticviscoplastic metals. J. Math. and Physics (ZAMP), 40: 846871. 16. Cook, W. H., Rajendran, A. M., and Grove, D. J. (1992). An efficient numerical implementation of the BodnerPartom model in the EPIC2 code. Eng. Fract. Mechs. 41(5): 607623. 17. Li, K., and Sharpe Jr., W. N. (1996). Viscoplastic behavior of a notch root at 650~ ISDG measurement and finite element modeling. ASME J. Engng. Materials Tech. 118: 8893. 18. Zeng, H., and Sharpe, W. N. (1997). Biaxial creep strains at notch roots Measurement and modeling. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 119: 4650. 19. Dexter, R.J., Chan, K. S., and Couts, W. H. (1991). Elasticviscoplastic finite element analysis of a forging die. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 33: 659674.
357
20. Zhu, Y. u and Cescotto, S. (1991). The finite element prediction of ductile fracture initiation in dynamic metalforming processes. J. Physique III, 1. 21. Nicholas, T., Kroupa, J. L. and Neu, R. W. (1993). Analysis of a [00/90 ~ metal matrix composite under thermomechanical fatigue loading. Composites Engineering, 3: 675689. 22. Senchenkov, I. K., and Tabieva, G. A. (1996). Determination of the parameters of the BodnerPartom model for thermoviscoplastic deformation of materials. Int. Appl. Mechs. 32(2): 132139. (Translated from Prikladnaya Mekhanika 32(2), 6472, Feb. 1996.) 23. Skipor, A. E, Harren, S. V., and Botsis J. (1996). On the constitutive response of 63/37 Sn/Pb eutectic solder. ASME J. Engng. Materials Tech. 118: 111. 24. Rajendran, A. M., Bless, S. J., and Dawicke, D. S. (1986). Evaluation of BodnerPartom model parameters at high strain rates. ASME J. Engng. Materials Techn. 108: 7580. 25. Dexter, R. J., and Chan, K. S. (1990). Viscoplastic characterization of A533B steel at high strain rates. ASME J. Pressure Vessel Techn. 112: 218224. 26. Bodner, S. R., and Lindenfeld, A. (1995). Constitutive modelling of the stored energy of cold work under cyclic loading. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 14(3): 333348. 27. Ohno, N., and Wang, J. D. (1993). Kinematic hardening rules with critical state of dynamic recovery, Part I: Formulation and basic features for ratchetting behavior, Part II: Application to experiments of ratchetting behavior. Int. J. Plasticity 9(3): 375403. 28. Rajendran, A. M., and Grove, D. J. (1987). BodnerPartom viscoplastic model in STEALTH finite difference code. AFWALTR864098, Materials Laboratory, WPAFB, OH, 45433. 29. Bodner, S. R., and Rajendran, A. M. (1996). On the strain rate and temperature dependence of hardening of copper, Proc. of the Conf. of the Amer. Physical Society, Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Seattle, Washington (1995), AIP Press, pp. 499502. 30. Bodner, S. R. (2000). Unified plasticity: An engineering approach, www.eJournalofmechanics.org
SECTION
5.8
Unified Model of Cyclic Viscoplasticity Based on the Nonlinear Kinematic Hardening Rule
j. L. CHABOCHE
O.N.E.R.A., DMSE, BP 72, 92322 Ch~tillon Cedex, France and LASMIS, Troyes University of Technology, BP 2060, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France
Contents 5.8.1 Domain of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.2 Formulation of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.3.1 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.4 Determination of the Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.1
DOMAIN
OF APPLICATION
The presented viscoplastic model pertains to the class of unified constitutive equations in which only one inelastic strain is considered as an i n d e p e n d e n t variable [1]. Such a theory is particularly useful for the inelastic analysis of c o m p o n e n t s or parts submitted to complex multiaxial and thermomechanical cyclic loadings. The use of only one plastic strain ep to describe rapid and slow inelastic deformation processes is an i m p o r t a n t simplification that is particularly useful u n d e r nonisothermal conditions. The viscoplastic formulation allows the stress state to overpass the purely elastic domain, introducing the viscous part of the stress (or the overstress). The ratei n d e p e n d e n t plasticity can still be m o d e l e d as a limiting case.
Handbookof MaterialsBehaviorModels.ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
358
359
These equations have been developed and applied essentially for metals and alloys, even though there are some capabilities to also model polymers through the limit case of a nonlinear viscoelastic model [2]. The domain of validity covers the whole range of temperatures between room temperature and very high temperatures, at least for situations where the material can be considered stable. Microstructural evolutions (phase changes, precipitations, aging) are not considered in the present article. The presented constitutive model can be exploited for monotonic or cyclic loading conditions or for more complex situations. Introducing static recovery effects at high temperature allows us to correctly describe pure relaxation and pure creep behaviors (including the secondary creep). The only aspects not covered here concern the special overhardening effects encountered under cyclic nonproportional loadings and the plastic strain range memorization effects that can take place in some metals and alloys that have a low stacking fault energy. These effects need additional variables and models [3, 4].
5.8.2 FORMULATION
OF THE MODEL
The model can be presented in a general thermodynamic framework using the notion of local state and a set of internal state variables for the description of the present state (reversible processes) and of the dissipative evolutions (inelastic processes and associated hardening effects). One defines a state potential (for example, the Helmholtz free energy) from which derives Hooke's law and the relationship between hardening variables and their conjugate forces. The existence of dissipative potentials allows us to derive in a consistent way all the rate equations for the internal variables associated with irreversible processes. This framework will not be recalled here (it can be found in Reference [5]). The principal state variables associated with viscoplasticity are the plastic strain itself and the hardening variables. The plastic strain ~ p is defined by the total strain partition in the case of small perturbations: ~  E e 4 E p, where and ~ e are, respectively, total and elastic strain (we do not consider here the thermal expansion). The hardening description combines kinematic and isotropic hardening. In the first case we use a set of secondrank tensors E i (associated with shortrange and longrange interactions at the level of the microstucture). The corresponding conjugate forces are the back stresses X i, whose sum X is considered as the current "center" of the elastic domain (at least when considering its intersection with the deviatoric plane). The isotropic hardening is considered an unique scalar r, to which is associated
360
Chaboche
the conjugate force R, the variation of the yield stress. The possibility for a drag stress evolution will also be considered for isotropic hardening. Therefore, kinematic hardening corresponds to a translation of the elastic domain in the stress space, though isotropic hardening corresponds to a change in its size. Each hardening variable obeys a similar evolution equation, within an hardeningdynamic recoverystatic recovery format, represented formally for the variable a:
(I)
The first term is the direct hardening associated with the plastic strain increment (and the corresponding increase of "obstacles" with the dislocation density increase), and the second one is the dynamic recovery effect, which is proportional to the variable a itself and to the plastic strain increment. This second term globally represents the annihilations of dislocations by cross slip, that take place without the influence of thermal activation. The last term, the static recovery, needs time to take place. It is thermally activated (much more important at high temperature) and represents rearrangements of dislocation microstructures by climbing mechanisms (and also possible recrystallisations).
5.8.3
DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
All equations are summarized in Table 5.8.1, on the left for their general anisotropic form, on the right in the particular case of uniaxial tensioncompression. They are written here for a constant temperature. The temperature dependency is discussed in Section 5.8.4. The different aspects and functions of the model are presented successively: 9 The part of the free energy corresponding to the stored energy is assumed to be quadratic in the hardening variables ~i and r. The same anisotropy is assumed for all hardening stiffnesses, with N i   C i N. Back stresses X i and yield stress change R derive from this energy.In the isotropic case, we have N  3Ia, where I a is the fourthrank identity tensor. 9 The yield surface is defined by Hill's criterion, with the generalized norm ][ a ]]n  (a" H" a) 1/2, which reduces to the von Mises yield criterion in the isotropic case, with II a I ]  ( 3 ~ . ~)1/2, where ~  a g Tr a ~ is the L I deviator of a. 9 The viscoplastic potential is normally taken as a power function off. In the viscoplasticity case f > 0 is the viscous stress or overstress. D is the drag stress, either a constant or depending on isotropic hardening (see
,..,
_
,"4
5.8 Unified Model of Cyclic Viscoplasticity TABLE 5.8.1 General and Uniaxial Forms of Constitutive Equations. Uniaxial
361
+ 1 bQr 2
fI~xll.Rk_<
Viscoplastic potential:
f=
aX
Rk<_O
D (f) n+l
~ = 77i
D (fln+l
n     n+ i +
fin + 1 \ 7 6 /
~. ( ~  x)
~p =/5 S i g n ( a  X)
e2pPll~_xi P  II ~p ,,~
Back stresses:
H
p= e.p
x = ~2~ c~ ~'~i
Rate independent kinematic hardening: ~ , = ~ p  ~ , ~ ~' F " Xip Back stress rate equations: 5(i = Ci N" i p  q57i N" F 9X ~/5 Static recovery of kinematic hardening:
~i = ~p  ~b~ 7
i = Ci i p  q57iX~ ~'p
~, _ (~,)
,)r
x,
Ix, I~
Mi
r: x,
~, =
362
Chaboche
following text). One finds the plastic strain rate modulus/~ by deriving f~ in terms of f ' p  0~2/c9f. A viscoplastic potential with two additive terms is also mentioned, with two exponents (fl > 1), that could be useful to limit the rate dependency in the large rate regime. The normality rule then gives the three expressions for the viscoplastic strain rate ~p. It is also shown that i b  ]]~plIH~. 9 The back stress, used to translate the elastic domain (and the equipotentials) in the stress space, is the sum of the individual ones: 9 The kinematic hardening rules write independently for each variable ~i. First we have indicated the rateindependent case, with the hardening and dynamic recovery terms. The fourthrank tensor F indicates the anisotropy of the dynamic recovery. It is replaced by 3 1 a in the isotropic case. The scalar function ~b is used to couple the kinematic hardening and the isotropic one (Marquis's format [6]). On the subsequent line we indicate the corresponding equations for each individual back stress X i. 9 The static recovery of kinematic variables is then introduced: (~i)~ denotes the rateindependent two first terms (the solution for high rate loadings). In the static recovery term a power function of ]] X~]]r = (X<F'X~)I/2 has been used, normalized by the high rate asymptotic value for the back stress Mi  Ci/Yi (for ~b  1). 9 The next line corresponds to the isotropic hardening, in terms of both rateindependent and static recovery terms. 9 The last line indicates the functions ~b(r) and D(r) used for introducing the effect of isotropic hardening on the backstress evolution equation and on the viscous stress (by means of the drag stress).
,..,
(2)
363
Such a decomposition clearly shows the respective contributions for isotropic hardening: R(r) for the size of the purely elastic domain and D(r) for the value of the viscous stress, which is depending on the plastic strain rate. The isotropic hardening also plays a role in the current tangent stiffness associated with kinematic hardening, by the function 4(r). 9 If necessary, it is possible to consider an elastic domain initially reduced to one point ( k  0) and to minimize the influence of isotropic hardening on the yield stress, giving a very low value to Q (but not zero, in order to still have the evolution of D(r) and 4}(r), because r is independent of Q: neglecting static recovery, it integrates in closed form to give r  l / b [ 1  exp(bp)]). 9 The evolution equations for the kinematic hardening variables ~i are valid even for varying temperature conditions (for any kind of temperature dependency for the parameters). Contrarily, the backstress rate equations must necessarily incorporate an additional term proportional to the temperature rate. This term is easily deduced from the thermodynamic potential by considering parameters Ci as depending on temperature when we express the time derivative of X i  C i N 9~i. 9 The nonlinear kinematic hardening rule generally induces a too important ratcheting effect under nonsymmetrical cyclic stress control (or meanstress relaxation under cyclic strain control). Introduction of a threshold in the dynamic recovery term allows for better descriptions (Reference [5]).
5.8.4 DETERMINATION
OF THE PARAMETERS
The model is designed to be fairly general for both monotonic and cyclic conditions at low or high temperatures. There are three main aspects of the model to be determined successively: (1) the rateindependent response (an advantage of this unified model is that it is applicable when not considering the strain rate effect), (2) the viscoplastic response (but without the static recovery), and finally, (3) the static recovery effects. In each case one can separate between initial (monotonic) and stabilized cyclic conditions. The test data can be chosen with great flexibility, depending of the set of influence we try to determine. Clearly, if we want a model to be used in cyclic conditions, we need cyclic tests. Obviously, if we want the effect of strain rate (viscoplastic model), we need tests where the strain rate has varied by a large amount (they can be creep or relaxation for monotonic as well as cyclic conditions). Clearly also, if we want to identify static recovery effects, we need longduration tests at high temperature (creep or relaxation or recovery tests).
Chaboche
1. Determination of hardening rules in a rateindependent scheme. We assume to have uniaxial monotonic and cyclic tests (with stressstrain responses at the stabilized cycle), all of them realized in approximately the same high strain rate regime (say, 10 3 to 10 2 si). From the cyclic curve, considering ip ~ Ct at the peak stresses, one can identify the following relation obtained by integrating the kinematic hardening models for uniaxial conditions:
Aa _ k* + Q + Zi_,   t a n h 7i ~ / 2 " 7i
V x Ci
Ae v
(3)
in which k* represents the sum k + (1 + aK)K[~1/n assumed to be constant approximately. Eventually 7i is replaced by 7i~boo = 7i/(1 + ax) if coupling between isotropic and kinematic hardening is considered. In practice, if we have a sufficient number of kinematic hardening models (three, for example), we can try to adjust k* + Q to be as small as possible. The third variable can be assumed to be linear (73 = 0), and the parameter C3 is adjusted as the tangent stiffness to the cyclic curve Ao  Aep for large strain ranges (2 or 3%. For the rapid kinematic hardening, we can take high values for 71 (typical values between 2000 and 10,000) to obtain a smooth transition between elastic regime and moderate plastic flow. C1, C2, ~'2 follow from the experimental data in the intermediate domain 0.02% <Aep < 1%. Then we determine the parameters Q, ax, and b from the monotonic data (same rate approximately) with the equation o  k* 4 Q[1  e x p (  b ep)] 4 . 7 (1 4 axb gv)[1  exp(viep)]
~Ci
(4)
where 1 + axb ep is a linearization of q~ for low values of the accumulated plastic strain. Let us recall that we have already determined k* 4 Q and Ci/ 7i(1 4 ax) from the stabilized cyclic curve, b is more correctly identified by plotting the normalized maximum stress as a function of the quantity p = 2NAe v in one (or several) cyclic tests, where N is the current number of cycles. A few iterations allow us to finally obtain all the parameters k*, Ci, ?i, Q, b, and ax. 2. Determination of the viscosity function. We now use the available data in strain rate ranges between, say, about 10 .6 s 1 and 10 .2 s 1. The cyclic and monotonic uniaxial equations reduce to
Ao
2
= ~
A crint
4 k 4 K(1 4 aK)g,p
1/n
(s)
365
Functions cri,,t(ep) and Ar are completely known from the previously determined parameters. In the monotonic case we have assumed a negligible evolution of the drag stress (that can be easily corrected). From the difference in the loglog plots of r  r~i,t  k and Ar~/2  &xi,,t/2  k versus ~p (for test values of k) one easily determines aK. Then, exponent n and the corresponding values of k and K are obtained by trial and error (or by a leastsquare method). Their determination is greatly facilitated if pure relaxation tests are available, either in monotonic or in cyclic conditions. 3. Determination of static recovery. We use data available in the low rate regimes (~p < 10 6 s 1) in the longduration creep or relaxation tests. In those regimes the static recovery effect appears to change drastically the loglog plot of c r  r as a function of ~p (with significant stress drops). It indicates the lowering of O'int due to an increased contribution of time recovery. By successive approximations one can determine the parameters that concern these recovery effects: rni, "ci, Qr, mr, and 7r, taking all of the others as fixed. The determination is improved if special recovery tests are available, where after cyclic stabilization, a significant hold duration at high temperature (100 h, for instance) is applied after unloading (with a very low load, maintained to prevent any increase or decrease of plastic strain), followed by the application of the same cyclic loading as previously.
5.8.5 HOW TO USE THE MODEL Implementation in finite element (FE) codes of such unified constitutive equations can now be considered a standard operation. This is done as a local process, the constitutive equations being necessary only at each individual finite element integration point (independent of the others in classical continuum mechanics). This model is available in several general purpose FE codes (it is impossible to give a list here). Two integration methods can be used in the framework of the implicit NewtonRaphson algorithm (to solve simultaneously the overall equilibrium and the nonlinear behavior): The simplest way is through an explicit RungeKutta fourthorder method, with a special substepping technique and automatic time step control. Only the rate equations have to be explicitly written; i.e., 5~ = Y(y, t), on the state variables y = {s p, E j, r}, where t indicates the current total local strain control supposed to be known from a given global iteration. The only disadvantage of this way is the inability to deliver explicitly the consistent tangent stiffness matrix that should enforce the best convergence of the implicit scheme.
366
Chaboche
9 The fully implicit, or semiimplicit integration procedure (0method), with the possibility to condense the determination to only one tensorial and one scalar equation [7], and eventually to only one scalar equation in the isotropic case. This method allows us to deliver the consistent tangent stiffness matrix, but it requires a number of lengthy explicit derivations (corresponding to the derivation of secondorder rates ~). The determination of model parameters as indicated in Section 5.8.4 shows that the notion of one constitutive equation (one set of parameters) for a given
Examples of Material Parameters for RateIndependent Behavior. T 20 20 20 20 350 550 700 800 900 1000 1100 20 20 600 600 ~
C1
280,000. 224,000. 666,000. 142,000. 91,000. 210,000. 678,000. 615,000. 362,500. 139,500. 41,000. 120,000. 162,400. 24,800. 87,700. MPa
71 1300. 400. 1800. 400. 350. 420. 1750. 1530. 1200. 940. 700. 2000. 2800. 300. 1300.
C2
72
ax
k*
225. 980. 505. 85. 350. 610. 530. 405. 236. 162. 120. 120. 185. 70. 89. MPa
Building steel 35NCD16 steel Nimonic 90 alloy Cobalt VO 795 TA6V alloy INCO 718 superalloy IN 100 superalloy " " " " 304 stainless steel 316 stainless steel " Z3CND1712 SPH
22000.
10.
60. 180. 20. 30. 35. 15. 10. 60. 60. 60. 104. MPa
1.
TABLE 5.8.3
Examples of Material Parameters for Viscoplastic Behavior. T 350 550 700 800 900 1000 1100 20 20 600 600 oc 40. 40. 28. 14. 9. 7.5 6.5 11. 24. 12. 24. MPa n K 190. 140. 580. 630. 490. 450. 420. 118. 151. 150. 116. (MPa, s) k 200. 500. 110. 80. 60. 30. 17. 70. 82. 6. 10. MPa
Material TA6V alloy INCO 718 superalloy IN 100 Superalloy " " " " 304 stainless steel 316 stainless steel " Z3CND1712 SPH
367
material is not necessarily representative of the true situation. Very often the material parameters should be depending on the considered application. The choice of the various functions and the parameter values should be appropriated with the range considered for the application: temperature domain, small or significant strains, monotonic or cyclic, strain rate domain, loadings with long holds or not, etc. Therefore, one should remember that the use without caution of a set of parameters given in the literature can lead to important misinterpretations. Tables 5.8.2 and 5.8.3 give some determined values, to be treated as examples.
REFERENCES
1. Chaboche, J. L. (1977). Sur l'utilisation des variables d'~tat interne pour la description de la viscoplasticit~ cyclique avec endommagement, in Probl~.mes Non Lin~aires de M~canique, pp. 137159. Symposium FrancoPolonais de Rh~ologie et M~canique, Cracovie. 2. Chaboche, J. L. (1997). Thermodynamic formulation of constitutive equations and application to the viscoplasticity and viscoplasticity of metals and polymers. Int. J. Solids Structures 34(18): 22392254. 3. Chaboche, J. L., DangVan, K., and Cordier, G. (1979). Modelization of the strain memory effect on the cyclic hardening of 316 stainless steel. Division L, Berlin, SMIRT 5. 4. Lemaitre, J., and Chaboche, J. L. (1985). M~canique des Mat~riaux Solides, Paris: Dunod. 5. Chaboche, J. L. (1996). Unified cyclic viscoplastic constitutive equations: Development, capabilities and thermodynamic framework, in Unified Constitutive Laws of Plastic Deformation, pp. 168, Krauss, A. S., and Krauss, K., eds., Academic Press. 6. Marquis, D. (1979). Etude th~orique et verification exp~rimentale d'un mod~.le de plasticit~ cyclique. Th~se de 3~me Cycle, Universit~ Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris 6. 7. Chaboche, J. L., and Cailletaud, G. (1996). Integration methods for complex plastic constitutive equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 133: 125155.
SECTION
5.9
Department of MechanoInformatics and Systems, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 4648603 Japan
Contents 5.9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.2 Formulation of a Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.2.1 Fundamental Assumptions . . . . . . . . 5.9.2.2 Constitutive Equation of Inelastic Strain Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 5.9.2.3 Evolution Equations of Kinematic Hardening Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 5.9.2.4 Structural Tensor and Nonproportionality Parameter . . . . . 371 5.9.2.5 Description of Amplitude Dependence of Cyclic Hardening.. 371 5.9.2.6 Evolution Equations of Isotropic Hardening Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3 Identification of Material Constants and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3.1 Identification by Use of Analytical Expressions of the Model . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3.2 Identification by Numerical Simulations of the Model . . . . . . . . . 5.9.3.3 Examples of Material Constants and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 3 76 375 373 373 372 369 369 369
368
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
369
5.9.1
INTRODUCTION
This viscoplastic constitutive model describes the behavior of both cyclic hardening and softening under proportional and nonproportional loading. The model is formulated by modifying the viscoplastic model proposed by Chaboche et al. [1]. A macroscopic structural tensor to represent an internal dislocation structure is first formulated, and a rational nonproportionality parameter is defined. Then internal variables to express the amplitude dependence of cyclic hardening are introduced. These variables are incorporated into the evolution equations of the isotropic hardening variable in order to describe the history dependence of cyclic hardening and softening. The identification of material constants and material functions is also discussed in detail.
5.9.2
FORMULATION
OF A MODEL
5.9.2.1 FUNDAMENTALASSUMPTIONS
The initial isotropy of a material is assumed. The rate of deformation tensor is separated into the sum of the elastic and the inelastic part. For brevity, a deviatoric tensor is expressed as a vector in a fivedimensional vector space of the von Mises type [2]. A set of orthonormal base vectors in the vector space is represented by n~ (~ = 1 , . . . , 5). In the following, a Greek index takes the value 1 , . . . , 5 and the summation convention on Greek indices is adopted. Then the component P~ of a vector P = P~n~ related to strain quantities or the component S~ of a vector S = S~n~ related to stress quantities is defined by the corresponding tensor component Pij or sij (i,j = 1 , . . . ,3) as follows:
(1)
P5  2p31/ x/3
$3 = v/3s12~ 54 = x/~$23,
S~ = v/Ss31
(2)
Tanaka
Based on the viscoplastic model [1], an inelastic strain rate t' and its magnitude/5 are expressed by
~, _ p (s  x) Isxl
(3)
p_ ( s xl k
K _Q)n
(4)
where S and X are the vectors related to the deviatoric stress tensor and the kinematic hardening variable, and Q is the isotropic hardening variable. The k, K, and n are material constants. The superposed dot on a variable indicates the material time derivative, and the symbols ] ] and ( ) denote the magnitude of a vector and the Macauley bracket defined by x 0 if x > O if x < O (5)
(x)
5 . 9 . 2 . 3 EVOLUTION EQUATIONS OF KINEMATIC HARDENING VARIABLES In this model, the nonlinear kinematic hardening rule [3] is adopted. The rate of X is represented by  X1 + X2 + X3 and their evolution equations are expressed as follows: (6)
~(1 = C l ( a l P  Xl/~)
(7)
~ = c:(a:~ x~P)
(8)
(9)
371
5 . 9 . 2 . 4 STRUCTURAL TENSOR AND NONPROPORTIONALITY PARAMETER Material hardening and softening behavior under cyclic loading is influenced by the shape and the amplitude of a cyclic strain path. To describe the path shape dependence, a macroscopic internal state variable C representing an internal dislocation structure is introduced. Based on the discussion in Reference [4], the variable C is represented by a secondrank tensor; i.e., C = C~/3n~  n/3 in the fivedimensional vector space (this tensor is a fourthrank tensor in the conventional threedimensional space), and its evolution equation is formulated as
r=
G(u  u  C)I6
(10)
where cc is a material constant, the symbol  indicates the tensor product, and u = u~n~ is the normalized inelastic strain rate vector defined by u = ~'/P (11)
In Eq. 10, u  u is the target value of C that represents the stabilized internal dislocation structure formed by the loading process u. By using C and u, a nonproportionality parameter A is defined by
(0<__A<I)
(12)
where the symbol (tr) and the superscript (T) indicate the trace and the transpose of a tensor, and the symbol (o) expresses the inner product of vectors. The component expression of A is given by
/C~C~
 u~C~C~u~
A V
(0_~A_~ 1)
(13)
This variable always takes the value zero in the case of proportional cycles, and is approximately l / v / 2 in the case of the nonproportional cycles with a circular strain path.
3 72
Tanaka
describes the center of the translation range of the inelastic strain P, and the relevant evolution equation is represented by
~I = r v ( P  r)l 6
(14)
where ry is a material constant. For example, in the case of uniaxial cycles of a constant strain amplitude with nonzero mean strain (the case of cyclic relaxation), the variable Y moves gradually from the initial location (usually the origin of the inelastic strain space) to the center of the inelastic strain range. The variable R to describe the mean radius of a cyclic strain path is defined by R = [ P  r[ In the case of circular cycles of amplitude A P / 2 , the AP/2. (15)
R is almost equal to
5.9.2.6
HARDENING VARIABLE
In this model the target value QH of the isotropic hardening variable is expressed by
QII = A [ q N ( R )  qI,(R)] + q e ( R )
(16)
where qN(R) and qI,(R) are the functions of R to describe the target values for the cases of nonproportional (A = 1) and proportional (A = 0 ) hardening, respectively. To take account of the memory effects of cyclic hardening and softening, a target value QL expressed by
QL  QH + CR(Qmax  QH} (17)
is also introduced, where cR is a material constant describing the ratio of permanent hardening, and Qmax is the maximum value of the isotropic hardening variable in the past. When cR equals unity, the memory effects are permanent, and when ce = 0, they are completely recoverable. The evolution equation of Qmax is described by
Qmax  (Q),
(18a) (18b)
Qmax = 0,
(19)
373
where d//and ds are the material constants describing the rates of hardening and softening, respectively.
5.9.3
IDENTIFICATION
OF MATERIAL
CONSTANTS
AND FUNCTIONS
This model has 14 material constants k, K, n, 6ll, 612, a3, Cl, C2, C3, dii, ds, CR, rr, co, and two material functions qe(R) and qN(R). These constants and functions are identified by using analytical expressions and numerical simulations of the model. In the following, the vector component in uniaxial cases is represented by the corresponding lightface character.
5.9.3.1
EXPRESSIONS OF THE MODEL The analytical expression of stress for monotonic uniaxial tension is
s  x + Q + k + Kf"~/"
(20)
In this equation, the rate effects are induced by the term KP 1/". Thus the values of K and n are evaluated by comparing the stress values at the equal inelastic strain value in the stressinelastic strain curves at several constant strain rates. The value of k is evaluated as the stress at P = 0 in the (S  KP1/,) versus P curve. The material constants of the kinematic hardening variables are determined in the following. The linear hardening part in the stressinelastic strain curve of monotonic tension is first assumed to be approximated by
X3 + Q = bP
(21)
The constant b is easily determined from the slope of the linear part. Then, we have
X 1 + X 2  S  (bP + k + KP 1/n)
(22)
The terms on the righthand side are evaluated by use of the stress in tension tests and the material constants identified previously, and the variables X1 and X2 are represented by Xi = a/{ 1  exp(cie)} (i = 1, 2) (23)
The constants al, a2, Cl, and c2 are estimated by fitting the value of the righthand side of Eq. 22 by Eq. 23.
3 74
Tanaka
In the saturated stage of cyclic hardening, the value of Q is almost constant, so 5(3 is approximated by 2K3  b[' (24)
In this case, the stress amplitude AS~2 of circular cycles of inelastic strain amplitude AP/2 with zero mean inelastic strain is represented by (AS/2)2_
aicike/2
+ k+
1 + (<AP/2) 2
(25)
where Qc is the saturated value of the isotropic hardening variable for the circular cycles. The material constants in Eq. 25 are already known, and thus the function value of Qc(AP/2) is evaluated by use of AS~2 obtained from the experiments. Furthermore, the shape of AS~2 versus P curve is mainly governed by the evolution of the isotropic hardening variable. Since Eq. 19 gives the analytical expression
(26)
the value dH is determined by fitting Eq. 26 to the experimental curve. Next, in the amplitude variation experiments of circular cycles, the target value QL in the subsequent cycles of smaller amplitude (AP2/2) after the saturated stage of cyclic hardening of larger amplitude (AP1/2) is specified by Eq. 17. Solving Eq. 17 for cR gives the relation
~L  ~H
cR = Qm x  QH
(27)
In this case, ~max = Qc(AP1/2) and QII= Qc(AP2/2), and the value of Qz. QII is the difference between the two saturated stress amplitudes of the circular cycles of AP2/2 with and without the preceding cycles of AP1/2. The constant ds is determined from the condition that the analytical expression for Eq. 19 for the softening, i.e.,
(28)
describes the AS~2 versus P curve in the cyclic softening process of amplitude decrease experiments. In this equation, P0 and Qc(AP1/2) are the values of the accumulated inelastic strain and the isotropic hardening variable at the end of the preceding cycles.
375
(29)
(30)
Then the value of the righthand side can be evaluated by using the experimental value of stress S and the values of k + KP 1/n and X1 + X2 identified previously. By using the analytical expression of R, i.e.,
R = { 1  e x p (  r y P ) }/ry
(31)
and by the numerical integration of Eqs. 1619, the value Q of the isotropic hardening variable in Eq. 30 can be evaluated, and the relation between X3 and inelastic strain P is determined from Eq. 30. The constants a3 and c3 are determined by the condition that the analytical expression of X3 that is given as i = 3 in Eq. 23 describes the preceding relation. Finally, the constant cc is determined by the simulation of nonproportional cycles such as the cruciform cycles that show intermediate hardening between the proportional and the circular cycles. Since all constants and functions except cc have already been identified, we can adjust the value of cc by comparing the simulation results of the nonproportional cycles with the saturated stress amplitude of the corresponding experimental results.
Tanaka
AND FUNCTIONS For reference we s h o w a set of material constants and functions identified for 316 stainless steel at r o o m t e m p e r a t u r e . The e x p e r i m e n t s of p r o p o r t i o n a l a n d n o n p r o p o r t i o n a l cycles were p e r f o r m e d by the p r e s e n t a u t h o r a n d c o w o r k e r s [5, 6]. The value of 3 x 105sec 1 is c h o s e n for the inelastic strain rate. The material constants and the functions are K = 92 MPa, n = 8, k = 75 MPa,
al =
125 MPa,
CR=0.4,
ry=40, cc=200
(MPa) (MPa)
(32)
The e x t e n s i o n of this m o d e l to the description of inelastic b e h a v i o r of 316 stainless steel in the range from r o o m t e m p e r a t u r e to 973 K is found in Reference [7]. It is found in References [4, 7] that this m o d e l can describe the cyclic h a r d e n i n g a n d softening b e h a v i o r of various c o m p l e x p r o p o r t i o n a l and n o n p r o p o r t i o n a l cycles with a m p l i t u d e variations a n d p a t h changes at r o o m and elevated t e m p e r a t u r e .
REFERENCES 1. Chaboche, J. L., and Rousselier, G. (1983). On the plastic and viscoplastic constitutive equations. Part 1: Rules developed with internal variables concept. Trans. ASME, J. Press. Vessel Technol. 105: 153. 2. Ilyushin, A. A. (1963). Plasticity, Moscow: Izd. Akad. Nauk (in Russian). 3. Armstrong, P. J., and Frederick, C. O. (1966). A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effects. CEGB. Report, RD/B/N731, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories. 4. Tanaka, E. (1994). A nonproportionality parameter and a cyclic viscoplastic constitutive model taking into account amplitude dependences and memory effects of isotropic hardening. European J. Mech., A/Solids 13: 155. 5. Tanaka, E., Murakami, S., and Ooka, M. (1985). Effects of plastic strain amplitudes on nonproportional cyclic plasticity. Acta Mechanica 57: 167. 6. Tanaka, E., Murakami, S., and Ooka, M. (1985). Effects of strain path shapes on nonproportional cyclic plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 33: 559. 7. Ohmi, Y., Tanaka, E., Murakami, S., Jincho, M., and Suzuki, T. (1995). Constitutive modeling of proportional/nonproportional cyclic plasticity for type 316 stainless steel applicable to a wide temperature range. Material Science Research International 1 (4): 247.
SECTION
5.10
Contents 5.10.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10.2 RateDependent Constitutive Model . . . . . . . 5.10.2.1 StressStrain Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10.2.2 Evolution of Centers of the Yield and Memory Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10.3 Numerical Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10.4 Illustrative Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.10.1
BACKGROUND
A number of engineering alloys, such as type 304 and 316 stainless steels and highstrength titanium alloys, exhibit ratedependent behavior even at ambient temperature; see Ellyin [2], who provides examples and references to experimental data. The main manifestations of rate dependency are loading rate sensitivity, creep, relaxation, and creepplasticity interaction. A constitutive relation for ratedependent materials, therefore, should be able to simulate the aforementioned behavior. Constitutive models in which all aspects of inelastic deformation such as plasticity, creep, and recovery are treated by one set of equations are generally referred to as "unified models." Examples of this type of constitutive relation are given in this chapter by a number of contributors, and an interested reader is encouraged to consult them for details. There is, however, experimental evidence that the effect of prior deformation on the subsequent creep or plastic deformation is quite different. For example, a plastic prestrain has a
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
377
378
Ellyin
greater contribution to the creep hardening than the same amount of creep prestrain [5]. This type of distinction cannot be accommodated by a unified creepplasticity model, since in these models creep and plastic strains are not separable from each other. The constitutive model to be described here is of a coupled nature, in the sense that the effect of prior creep on the subsequent plastic deformation is incorporated in the ratedependent elasticplastic constitutive relation. Similarly, the influence of plastic prestrain on the subsequent creep deformation is taken into account. Thus the framework for this constitutive model is based on the concept that any loading sequence can be predicted by two separate but coupled models. The ratedependent elastoplastic consti ~.,tive model for the creep deformation is given elsewhere [6, 7], and an interested reader is encouraged to consult these references.
5.10.2 RATEDEPENDENT
CONSTITUTIVE MODEL
The uniaxial stressstrain response at different strain rates has a characteristic feature which indicates an increase of yield stress with the increasing applied strain rate. Another feature of these curves is related to the change of the tangent modulus at the elasticplastic transition region with the loading rate change. To describe these observations in a multiaxial stress state, we introduce two types of hypersurfaces: a yield surface, ~by,which is the locus of the current elastic regime, and a stress memory surface, ~m, which defines the maximum equivalent stress, Creq,max, to which the material has been subjected in its previous history. The rate and historydependent yield surface is given by
~y
 S" S
3 2
_ q2
(~eq, lp)  0
(1)
in which g = 8  1/3 tr(8)l, and er = d  0~. The 9 and q specify the center and radius of the yield surface. The equivalent strain rate,/;eq   (2/34 4) 1/2 with 4  e  1/3 tr(e)l, and le  f ( 2 / 3 deP:deP) 1/2, is the accumulated plastic strain length. Note that herein bold letters indicate tensorial quantity. The evolution rule of the size of the yield surface is determined from
dq
cgq
cgq
(2)
379
lp] lp,
(3)
where geq'0iS a reference equivalent strain rate, usually taken to be the slowest one in the loading history. The accumulated plastic strain length, is used to describe cyclic strain hardening or softening phenomenon [2]. The stress memory surface, ~b~, is related to the maximum equivalent stress, ~ e q  ( 3 / 2 s " S) 1/2, experienced by the material during its past loading history. It is expressed by
~r~  ~ S "
~  R2(~
 0
(4)
in which g  ~  1~with 1/denoting the center and R the radius of the current memory surface. The evolution rules for the center of the yield surface, 0~, and that of the memory surface,//, will be described later on.
5.10.2.1 STRESSSTRAINRELATION
The total strain rate is decomposed into its elastic and plastic parts, i.e.,
~=g+~p
where i~
(5)
(6)
Ofy(~gfy
)
lp),
(7)
fy3g'g2
(8) which
In the preceding, Et is the current tangent modulus, E t   Et(o'eq , tTeq, is both rate and historydependent, similar to q in Eq. 3. Inverting Eqs. 57, the stress rate is given by
~ E 1+ ~ lol+ 1  2~ lol[(1 + ~)/E] + q gg ~
(9)
Depending on the relative position of the current stress point with respect to the yield and memory surfaces, three loading regimes are distinguished: (i) elastic loading, (ii) monotonic plastic loading, and (iii) plastic reloading.
380
Ellyin
Each of these loading regimes has a different evolution rule, which is described in text following. For a loading to be classified as the elastic loading, the stress point must be inside the current yield surface, or in the case of elastic unloading, s : d < 0. In either case, the stressstrain relation is specified by Eq. 6, or the first two terms on the righthand side of Eq. 9. In the case of monotonic plastic loading, s : 6 " > 0, and the current stress point is on the yield surface. However, if the equivalent stress value increases, the stress memory surface will expand but will remain tangent to the yield surface at the current stress point. This condition is expressed by
Ofu (a  ~) = 2 ~ ~ (a  fl)
&r
fm(a
&r
,8)  R 2 = 0
(i0)
fm(a
where f y ( a  ~ ) is defined by the second equation of Eq. 8 and ~) = 3 / 2 ~ : ~. For the proportional loading fl = 0. The plastic loading in which the current stress point is inside the stress memory is termed the plastic reloading. For this loading case the memory surface does not change; however, when there is a transition from elastic to plastic loading, the size of the yield surface would be dependent on the current equivalent strain rate; see Eq. 2. For the latter two plastic loadings, the calculation of the tangent modulus are different, and they will be explained in text following.
5.10.2.2
MEMORY SURFACES For the monotonic loading regime, the evolution rule for the center of the yield surface is given by O~ : / ~ ( a lim  a y) (11) and
o.li m ~ Rlim (o.li m _ ~g)
(12)
q where a y is the current stress point which is on the yield surface, and Rlim is a constant depicting the maximum limit of the stress memory surface radius. When Rlim>~q, then one approaches Ziegler's rule in which ~ll(~ry  ~ ) . The value of Et in Eq. 8 is calculated from a family of strain ratedependent stressstrain curves, based on the current equivalent stress value and strain rate. This will be explained later on. For the plastic reloading, the evolution of
381
the center of the yield surface is determined from  ti(tr m  trY) (13)
where trm is a point on the memory surface whose exterior normal is parallel to the normal at point try (see Fig. 5.10.1)"
R_
trm _ ,,,(try _ ~)
(14)
The calculation of the tangent modulus, Et, requires attention for this loading case. It is related to the ratio of two distances between three stress points, namely, the stress at which plastic reloading took place (point C in Fig. 5.10.1), the current stress point tr y and tr", determined according to Eq. 13. For any point in the stress space, we define a ratio, r 82 (15)
where 61 is the distance measured from the current stress point, try (point D in Fig. 5.10.1), to the corresponding point on the memory surface, trm (point E in the same figure), and 82 is the distance from the point of onset of reversed plastic flow (point C) to the current stress point, trY. The distance between
400

memorysurface
f
200 A
0 (2.
ZE
O ....
i
initialyield ~: & memorysurfaces
200
t
2oo !
400
4O0
I 200
i 400
(MPo)
FIGURE 5.10.1 Schematic representation of yield and memory surfaces for monotonic and reversed plastic loading.
382 two points (1) and (2) in the stress space is calculated from d  [((s)  (1)).((2)_ (1))]1/2
Ellyin
(16)
where(~ ) and (s are the deviatoric stress values at the two points. 2) Upon the determination of fi~ and c~2, the r value is calculated from Eq. 15. Then an equivalent stress corresponding to point D is determined from O'eq = (O'eq,max~ rq)/(1
+ r)
(17)
This is the value at which the tangent modulus is calculated from the uniaxial stressstrain curve at the current value of the strain rate. This procedure for calculating the tangent modulus during reversed loading has several advantages in comparison to previously proposed methods [1]. An accurate determination of tangent modulus is of considerable importance in cyclic loading and strain energy calculation. For a monotonic loading, the center of the memory surface remains fixed; i.e., ~  0. However, in the case of cyclic loading with a mean stress, the evolution rule of the center of the memory surface is given by
=
0p
cole
stress space, i.e.,
~m~.n =
(18)
w h e r e o"mean is defined as the geometric center of the cyclic stress path in the
it+T /t+T
~
dl
dl
(19)
J t
where T is the period of cyclic loading and dl is the differential length of the curve. Note that Eq. 17 is applied only during unloading case where the radius of the memory surface does not change. In addition to the transient hardening during cyclic loading, there is an extra hardening due to nonproportional loading; see Ellyin [2], where procedure for its determination is explained.
5.10.3
NUMERICAL
IMPLEMENTATION
A computer subroutine has been prepared for the numerical implementation of the constitutive model. In its most general form the model contains seven material constants, in addition to a required set of ratedependent uniaxial stressstrain curves. The following are determined from the latter set of stressstrain curves. Two elastic constants, E and v, are obtained from the elastic part of the stressstrain relations. The rate and historydependent constants, q q(~.eq, lp) and E t  Et(aeq,~.eq, lp), are determined from the family of
=
383
ratedependent stressstrain curves; see illustrative examples to follow. A twodimensional interpolation is used to obtain a continuous description of the dependency of the yield surface radius and tangent modulus on the equivalent strain rate, ~eq, and the accumulated plastic strain length, lp.
5.10.4 ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES The rateindependent version of the previously described constitutive model was programed and inserted into the usersupplied subroutine of ADINA Finite Element Computer Code. Various examples ranging from uniaxial to multiaxial monotonic and cyclic loading, for both proportional and nonproportional loading paths, are given in References [2, 4]. This subroutine is now available for commercial use and may be obtained by writing to the author. The ratedependent version has also been programed and can be implemented in any FEM Code which has an option for the usersupplied material model. Here a couple of representative examples of the model prediction and comparison with experimental results will be given. Figure 5.10.2 shows the experimental data and model predictions of uniaxial stressstrain curves for three different strain rates of a titanium alloy, TIMETAL 21S. For this
4ool
3OO
200
C/) 9 lw
8.3X10*
8 . 3 X I 0 s " 9 8 . 3 X I 0 s
,.
_Mode!Prediction
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
FIGURE 5.10.2 Experimental data and model prediction for titanium alloy TIMETAL 21S at 650~ temperature for three strain rates.
384
material, E = 8 6 6 0 0 MPa,
Ellyin
v = 0.34, Rlim  4 6 0 0 MPa, q(~eq) = 4 6 . 4 3 1 + 8.3 x 106 s  .1 Two e x a m p l e s of t a n g e n t
m o d u l u s v a r i a t i o n w i t h the effective stress at r e f e r e n c e s t r a i n rates, are g i v e n in Table 5.10.1. A f u r t h e r e x a m p l e is d e p i c t e d in F i g u r e 5.10.3. In this e x a m p l e , a type 3 0 4 stainless steel t u b u l a r s p e c i m e n was s u b j e c t e d to cyclic axial a n d differential
a)
0,/.
o . , 5
o:,s

'
(MPo)
G C~} . . . . . . . . . .
o.'~S
. f, r
o.~5 ' o"o C~Po)
FIGURE 5.10.3 Biaxial stressstrain response for the first 10 cycles at a fast strain rate 4 x 10 3 s 1. a. Strain path. b. Test results: (1) axial stress vs. axial strain, (2) tangential stress vs. tangential strain, (3) axial stresstangential stress trajectory, c. Model predictions [3].
385
O O 0G
F~ e~ e~
e~
e~
\
I
e~
ue~ eN
O ce~ G o O
o .~
O ~t" 00 o
o O ee~
c5~
o e~ ~" o O 00 O
v~
386
Ellyin
p r e s s u r e ( c o n s t a n t e x t e r n a l a n d cyclic i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e ) . T h e axial a n d t a n g e n t i a l strains (ea, et) w e r e c o n t r o l l e d , a n d t h e y v a r i e d in a n o n p r o p o r t i o n a l m a n n e r in a s q u a r e d i a m o n d p a t t e r n as s h o w n in F i g u r e 5.10.3a. T h e biaxial s t r e s s  s t r a i n r e s p o n s e a n d the stress t r a j e c t o r y for the first ten cycles are s h o w n in the figure for a s t r a i n rate of keq  4 x 10 3 s 1. It is s e e n t h a t for this fairly c o m p l i c a t e d l o a d i n g , the m o d e l p r e d i c t i o n is in v e r y g o o d a g r e e m e n t w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t a l results. T h e m a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s for this type 3 0 4 stainless steel w e r e [3] E  196,000 MPa, v  0.25, q~nit _ 75.7 MPa, q~t _ 122 MPa, and qinit(~:eq)  q0init[l+Cll~176 w i t h C1  0.153 a n d geq'0_ 6 10 5 S1.
The superscript "init" and "st" refer to the virgin and stable cyclic values of the cyclic stressstrain curves. The tangent modulus versus effective stress for the initial stressstrain curve at the reference strain rate is given in Table 5.10.1.
REFERENCES
1. Ellyin, E (1984). An anisotropic hardening rule for elastoplastic solids based on experimental observations. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 56: 499507. 2. Ellyin, E (1997). Fatigue Damage, Crack Growth and Life Prediction, London: Chapman & Hall. 3. Ellyin, E, Xia, Z., and Sasaski, K. (1993). Effect of rate and rate history on plastic deformation: Experiments and constitutive modeling. Int. J. Plasticity 9: 951959. 4. Ellyin, E, Xia, Z., and Wu, J. (1993). A new elastoplastic constitutive model inserted into usersupplied material model of ADINA. J. Computers Struct. 10: 283294. 5. Kawai, M., and Ohashi, Y. (1986). Creepplasticity interaction of austenitic stainless steels at elevated temperature. Proc. Int. Conf. On Creep, April 1986, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 454464. 6. Xia, z., and Ellyin, E (1991). A ratedependent inelastic constitutive model, Part II: Creep deformation including prior plastic strain effects. ASMEJ. Engng. Mater. Technol. 113: 324328. 7. Xia, Z., and Ellyin, E (1993). An experimental study on the effect of prior plastic straining on creep behavior of 304 stainless steel. ASME J. Engng. Mater. Technol. 115: 200203.
SECTION
5.11
Contents 5.11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.2 Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.3 Athermal Stress Component, Za . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.4 ViscousDrag Component, ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11.5 Thermally Activated Component, ~* . . . . . . 5.11.6 ThreeDimensional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11.1
INTRODUCTION
Guided by the concept of dislocation kinetics [3] and accompanied by systematic experimental investigation, a physically based model has been developed [47] for several polycrystalline metals. The model addresses the plastic deformation of metals in the range of temperatures and strain rates where diffusion and creep are not dominant, and plastic deformation occurs basically by the motion of dislocations. Here, we summarize this model, provide a table of typical values of the constitutive parameters, which have been experimentally evaluated, present a few typical comparative results, and show how the model can be used for
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
387
388
NematNasser
threedimensional computations. In what follows, z and ~ are the stress and the corresponding strain rate in a uniaxialstress compression test. When the model is used in a threedimensional setting, these quantities are the effective stress and the effective plastic strain rate, respectively; see Section 5.11.6.
5.11.2 MODEL DESCRIPTION It is assumed that plastic deformation occurs by the motion of dislocations and that the resistance to this motion corresponds to the flow stress. To simplify the interpretation of the experimental results, this stress is decomposed into three parts. One part, denoted by z*, is due to the shortrange barriers that dislocations may overcome through their thermal activation. These barriers may include the lattice itself (Peierls stress), point defects such as vacancies and selfinterstitials, other dislocations that intersect the slip planes, alloying elements, and solute atoms (interstitial and substitutional). The second part, za, is the athermal component, mainly due to longrange effects such as the elastic stress field of dislocation forests and grain boundaries. Finally, there is a remaining viscousdrag component, zd, which usually is important at high temperatures and high strain rates. Although the decomposition of the stress in this manner may be an oversimplification of a rather complex process [3], it has proved effective in interpreting the experimental results and in obtaining explicit constitutive relations of broad applicability. The flow stress is thus expressed as
z = za + zd + ' c *
(1)
The stress, z, is a function of the strain rate, ~, temperature, T, and some internal parameters that describe the microstructure. The microstructure here refers to the grain sizes, the distribution of secondphase particles or precipitates, and the distribution and density of dislocations. In general, the most commonly used microstructural parameter is the average dislocation density, p. The microstructure evolves differently for different histories of and T, affecting the current value of p, accordingly. 5 . 1 1 . 3 A T H E R M A L S T R E S S C O M P O N E N T , Za The athermal part, Za, of the flow stress, z, is independent of the current value of the strain rate, ~. The temperature effect on Za is only through the temperature dependence of the elastic moduli, especially the shear modulus, #(T) [8]. Linear elasticity suggests that Za should be proportional
5.11 Physically Based Rate and TemperatureDependent Constitutive Models to #(T). Hence,
389
= g(p,
(2)
where d6 is the average grain size, the dots stand for parameters associated with other impurities, and #0 is a reference value of the shear modulus. In a general loading, the strain 7 represents the effective plastic strain that is a monotonically increasing quantity in plastic deformation. In the present case, 7 defines the loading path in a uniaxialstress deformation mode, and is also a monotonically increasing quantity, since 9 > 0 (by definition, the strain rate is viewed as positive even in uniaxial compression tests). Therefore, it may be used as a load parameter to define the variation of the dislocation density, the average grain size, and other parameters which affect "ca, i.e., ra = g[P(V), d6(7),.. "]P(T)/~0 = g,(v)~'(r)/*'o (3)
Further, as a first approximation, we use a simple powerlaw representation of g(7) and choose an average value for #0 so that la(T)/la o ~ 1. Then, "ca may be written as
"ca = ao + a17 n + . . . ,
(4)
where ao, al, and n are free parameters which must be fixed experimentally. At high strain rates, ao may be neglected; i.e., ao ~ 0.
5.11.4
VISCOUSDRAG
COMPONENT,
"ca
It is experimentally observed that, even at very high temperatures where the thermal activation energy of the dislocations exceeds the shortrange energy barriers, the stress increases with increasing strain rate, especially when the strain rate exceeds about 1000/s. Figure 5.11.1 illustrates this for AL6XN stainless steel. It displays the flow stress for 0.001/s, 0 . l / s , and 3500/s strain rates, in terms of the temperature, for a common strain of 10%. From this figure, it is seen that the hightemperature flow stress at low strain rates (0.0010.i/s) is insensitive to the strain rate, but not at the high strain rate of 3500/s. This increased strainrate sensitivity is usually attributed to the electron and phonondrag effects on the mobile dislocations [912]. The viscousdrag stress, rd, is often related to the dislocation motion by "ca ~ MB~/b, where M is the Taylor factor, B is the drag coefficient, ~ is the average dislocation velocity, and b is the magnitude of the Burgers vector. Since ~ relates to the strain rate by 9 = PmbF;/M (where Pm is the mobile dislocation density), it follows that "ca=g[m2B/(Pmb2),9,T]. At high temperatures, and in the absence of creep, the flow stress is essentially
390
1400
NematNasser
AL6XN, 7 =
10%
1200
.,,,.
1000 500Is
800
600
400
 :iiiiii i i i i i i i i i i i i
i  i  ! i    i   i i I i i i i I i i i i I i I i i
200
200
400
800
1000
1200
FIGURE 5.11.1
"Cd  g[M2B/(Pmb2), ~]
To examine the effect of the viscous drag, consider the experimental results [13] for AL6XN stainless steel, plotted in Figure 5.11.2. From these data, it is seen that, when the strain rate exceeds about 1000/s, the flow stress increases rapidly. Experimental results of Reference [14] for tantalum show that the drag on dislocations is significant over a range of strain rates, from a few hundred to several thousand per second. Based on this [7], we set rd  mo[1  exp(e);)], a 
M2B
Pmb2zy
(6)
where m0 is a material constant which can be measured directly at a very high strain rate and high temperature, and B represents an effective damping coefficient affecting the dislocation motion. The value of ~ may be established empirically. It can be estimated that ~ = O(10 4) when ~ is measured per second. For ~ 1, we have "~d,.~mo~O, and for e ~ 1, we have rd "~ m0. These limiting cases may be used to simplify computations in threedimensional applications.
391
600
AL6XN, y = 10%
550
A
To = 1,000K
500 450
~ ." ,,o"/
ID
. . . . .
_.
,.
1,000
100,000
5.11.5
THERMALLY ACTIVATED z*
COMPONENT,
The thermally activated flow stress, z* in general, is a function of temperature, T, strain rate, ~, and the internal variables characterizing the microstructure of the shortrange barriers. This microstructure may evolve with the temperature and strain rate histories. To obtain a relation between ~, T, and z *, let AG be the energy that a dislocation must overcome by its thermal activation. Reference [3] suggests the following relation between AG and z* representing a typical barrier encountered by a dislocation: AGG0 1, O0e2fb (7)
where 0 < p _< 1 and 1 _< q _< 2 define the profile of the shortrange barrier to the dislocation, ~ is the stress above which the barrier is crossed by a dislocation without any assistance from thermal activation, and Go is the energy required for a dislocation to overcome the barrier solely by its thermal activation; 2 and g are the average effective barrier width and spacing,
392
respectively. We assume that ~ is related to AG by
NematNasser
where 7r = Pmbcoos here, k is the Bohzmann constant, and COo is the attempt frequency of a dislocation to overcome its shortrange barrier. From Eqs. 7 and 8, obtain 9* '~ 1 
~001n~r
(9)
References [15 and 3] suggest that p = 2//3 and q = 2 are suitable values for these parameters for many metals. NematNasser and coworkers have verified this suggestion for a number of metals, although other values may fit the experimental results better for certain cases; see Table 5.11.1 and Reference [ 14]. For some materials (e.g., fcc metals), the dislocations that intersect the slip planes are the most dominant shortrange barriers. To account for the microstructural evolution which affects the average dislocation spacing, ~, it is assumed in Reference [5], that ~ = ~.o/f(?,T), where ~0 is a reference (e.g., initial) average dislocation spacing. In view of Eqs. 79, this gives, for this class of metals, z~ T) and 7r
f(v,T)'
?o
with
zo
Go b2fo
and
7oPmbcoo~o (10)
It is reasonable to expect that the average dislocation density increases with straining (workhardening) and that it decreases with increasing temperature (annealing). Based on this observation, and guided by experimental results, we follow Reference [5] and assume that
f(?,T) l+a i
~mm
(ii)
TABLE 5.11.1 Constitutive Parameters for Indicated Commercially Pure Metal. Metal, bcc, f= 1 Tantalum Molybdenum Niobium Vanadium al(Mea) 473 720 440 342 n 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.15 P 2/3 2/3 2/3 1/2 q 2 2 2 2 T~ 1100 2450 1680 1260 k (K_I) Go 8.62 8.62 1.24 1.24 105 10~ 104 104 ~0(s1 ) 5 x 108 1.45 107 3.5 106 3.5 106
393
50O 4OO
398K" gSK
I00 0
0.1 . M~ .
0.2 .
0.5
0.6
0.7
16ooT . 1400
098K
0.00
0.05
0,10
0.15
0.20
True Strain
0.25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
600 ~ ~
6
. .
K
. .
500K
400
200
0,00
O.10
0.20
0.30
0,60
0,70
080
700
F
Im
6oo !
200 I00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0,15
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
FIGURE 5.11.3 Comparison between model predictions and experimental results for indicated metal and constitutive parameters given in Table 5.11.1.
394
NematNasser
where Tm is the melting temperature and the index m is a free parameter which m u s t be evaluated from the experimental data. Combining Eqs. 911, we arrive at the following expression for z*:
z*  z ~ 1 
 GooIn
. 7o
f(2, T)
for
T<T~
(12) 7m
b2go'
where
7obPmC~
f(Y,T)l+a
1
Tc is
given by
To
(13)
Note that z *  0 for T > To. Note also that, at high strain rates, the temperature of the sample increases due to heating t h r o u g h plastic work. This temperature change can be c o m p u t e d by AT zd7 (14)
PoCv
where P0 is the mass density, Cv is the t e m p e r a t u r e  d e p e n d e n t heat capacity, and fl,,~l is the fraction of the plastic w o r k used to heat the sample. At finite strains and high strain rates, it is s h o w n in Reference [16] that fl is essentially 1. For most bcc metals, the lattice provides the main source of the shortrange resistance to the dislocation motion. In this case, go = g = b, and hence a = 0 and f = 1 in Eq. (12). Table 5.11.1 gives typical values of the constitutive parameters for the indicated commercially pure bcc metals, and Figure 5.11.3 compares the model and experimental results. In these cases, the drag effect is neglected. Table 5.11.2 provides data
TABLE 5 . 1 1 . 2
Metal, p = 2/3, q= 2 OFHC Cu, annealed OFHC Cu, as received AL6XN Ti6A14V
k/Go
(K1) 4.9 105 4.9 x 105 6.6 x 105 6.2 X 105 9o(S1) 2 2
1010 101~
mo
(MPa) NA* NA* 140 NA* ~(s) NA* NA* 3 X 10 4 NA*
a m
20 1.8
0 0
5 1/2 2.4 1
395
for annealed OFHC copper, AL6XN stainless steel, and a titanium alloy. The corresponding comparison with the experimental results is shown in Figure 5.11.4 [17].
T /
OFHC Copper
.
~7
. ....
.
8,000/s
Ti64
2000
l"
. .~.,,,,~,.,..
77K
~" 1600 m
g
s"
296K
1200
~
800
_
798K
..... .....
400
3,700 s"
0.00
0.10
020
030
0.40
0.50
060
0.70
True Strain
2O0O
"~,
,=
0 " " : . . . . . . ' ' '
J/!
0.10 020 0.30 0.40 0.50
0.00
Tme Sb~in
FIGURE 5.11.4 Comparison between experimental and model results for indicated commercially pure metals and constitutive parameters given in Table 5.11.2.
396
NematNasser
5.11.6
THREEDIMENSIONAL
MODEL
Let ~ denote the deviatoric true stress tensor and DP the plastic deformation rate tensor. We define the effective stress and strain rates by
(3
"C  
)1/2
"e " "e , f~  
( 3 ) 1 / 2
De: D v
(15)
With f~(~,...) denoting the plastic potential [18, 19], we set 0f~ OP  7 c3~ For example, when f ~  v ~ 1:, we obtain
P
(16)
OP=7~,
#=
(17)
Here, ~ is given by Eqs. 8, 7, and 1. Since ~* = r  (l:a + l:d), and l:d is a function of ~, the expression for ~ is not explicit. Hence, when the drag resistance is significant, special numerical algorithms are necessary in the applications. Let L be the elasticity tensor, and ~o be the Jaumann rate of the stress tensor. The final constitutive equation then is
~o = L" (D  O p)
(18)
where D is the deformation rate tensor; see Reference [19] for more details.
REFERENCES
1. NematNasser, S., Okinaka, T., and Ni, U (1998). A physicallybased constitutive model for BCC crystals with application to polycrystalline tantalum. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46 (6): 10091038. 2. NematNasser, S., Ni, L., and Okinaka, T. (1998). A constitutive model for FCC crystals with application to polycrystalline OFHC copper. Mech. Mater. 30 (4): 325341. 3. Kocks, U. E, Argon, A. S., and Ashby, M. F. (1975). Thermodynamics and kinetics of slip, in Progress in Materials Science: Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Slip, p. 20, vol. 19, Oxford: Pergamon. 4. NematNasser, S., and Isaacs, J. B. (1997). Direct measurement of isothermal flow stress of metals at elevated temperatures and high strain rates with application to Ta and TaW alloys. Acta Mater. 45:907919. 5. NematNasser, S., and Li, Y. L. (1998). Flow stress of fcc polycrystals with application to OFHC CU. Acta Mater. 46: 565577. 6. NematNasser, S., Guo, W. G., and Liu, M. Q. (1999). Experimentallybased micromechanical modeling of dynamic response of molybdenum. Scripta Mater. 40: 859872. 7. NematNasser, S., and Guo, W.G. (2000). Highstrainrate response of commercially pure vanadium. Mech. Mater. 32: 243260.
397
8. Conrad, H. (1970). The athermal component of the flow stress in crystalline solids. Mater. Sci. Eng. 6: 260264. 9. Follansbee, P. S., and Weertman, J. (1982). On the question of flow stress at high strain rates controlled by dislocation viscous flow. Mech. Mater. 1: 345350. 10. Zerilli, E J., and Armstrong, R. W. (1992). The effect of dislocation drag on the stressstrain behavior of fcc metals. Acta Metall. Mater. 40: 18031808. 11. Chiem, C. Y. (1992). Material deformation at high strain rates, in Shockwave and HighStrainRate Phenomena in Materials, pp. 6985, Marca et al., eds., Marcel Dekker. 12. Regazzoni, G., Kocks, U. E, and Follansbee, P. S. (1987). Dislocation kinetics at high strain rates. Acta Metall. 35: 28652875. 13. NematNasser, S., Guo, W., and Kihl, D. (2001). Thermomechanical response of AL6XN stainless steel over a wide range of strain rates and temperatures. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, in press. 14. Kapoor, R., and NematNasser, S. (1999). Highrate deformation of single crystal tantalum: Temperature dependence and latent hardening. Scripta Mater. 40 (2): 159164. 15. Ono, K. (1968). Temperature dependence of dispersed barrier hardening. J. Appl. Phys. 39: 18031806. 16. Kapoor, R., and NematNasser, S. (1998). Determination of temperature rise during high strain rate deformation. Mech. Mater. 27 (1): 112. 17. NematNasser, S., Guo, W. G., and Cheng, J. Y. (1999). Mechanical properties and deformation mechanisms of a commercially pure titanium. Acta Mater. 47: 37053720. 18. Rice, J. R. (1970). On the structure of stressstrain relations for timedependent plastic deformation in metals. J. Appl. Mech. 37: 728737. 19. NematNasser, S. (1992). Phenomenological theories of elastoplasticity and strain localization at high strain rates. Appl. Mech. Rev. 45 (3): 519545.
SECTION
5.12
Contents 5.12.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.2 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.3 Identification of Material Properties . . . . . . . 5.12.4 Applications of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.4.1 Model Results for Simple States of Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12.4.2 Modeling Complex Deformation States and Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.12.1
BACKGROUND
The strainrate and temperaturedependent inelastic deformation of glassy polymers has important applications in solid phase forming processes near the glass transition temperature, such as blow molding and film stretching; in impact absorption during large strain deformations; and in microscale deformation processes such as crazing. We use established and speculated physics of amorphous polymer deformation together with continuum mechanics formulations of finite strain kinematics to develop and implement a threedimensional representation of the strainrate, temperature, and pressuredependent response of glassy polymers. The threedimensional constitutive model for glassy polymer deformation is a finite strain elasticviscoplastic adaptation of the standard linear solid
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
398
399
FIGURE 5.12.1
model from viscoelasticity. The elements of the glassy polymer model can be visualized in one dimension using the schematic in Figure5.12.1; this approach builds on the original onedimensional model of Haward and Thackray [13]. The model elements include (1) a linear spring used to characterize the initial response as elastic, acting in series with a Kelvin element which is a parallel arrangement of (2) a thermally activated viscoplastic dashpot used to represent the rate and temperaturedependent yield that monitors an isotropic resistance to chain segment rotation, and (3) a nonGaussian molecular network spring that models the molecular orientationinduced anisotropic strain hardening. Constitutive descriptions for each of these elements are summarized within the context of a general finite strain deformation framework.
5.12.2
DESCRIPTION
The representation of the kinematics begins with decomposition of the deformation gradient F  Vxx:
F = FeF p
where FP is the deformation gradient of the relaxed configuration obtained by elastically unloading to a stressfree state via F e1. The elastic component of the deformation gradient, F e, is restricted to be a stretch only. F e = V e U e. Note that this results in no loss of generality, as shown in Boyce et al. [7].
400
The velocity gradient, L, can be expressed as the sum of the symmetric tensor D, the rate of deformation, and the skewsymmetric tensor W, the spin, and is given as follows: L = FF 1 = D + W = Le + FeLPF e1 (2)
where the velocity gradient of the relaxed configuration, LP = FPF pl, may be represented in terms of its symmetric and skewsymmetric components: Lp = D p + W p (3)
where Wp is the plastic spin and DP is the rate of shape change in the relaxed configuration, which is constitutively prescribed through the characterization of the viscoplastic element. It may be shown, as in Boyce et al. [7], that Wp is algebraically prescribed without loss of generality as a result of the imposed symmetry on the elastic deformation gradient. The linear spring used to characterize the initial response of the material is constitutively characterized by the fourthorder tensor operator of elastic constants, ~oe: T  l~cpe[ln U e] (4) 3 where T is the Cauchy stress, (ln U e) is the Hencky strain, and J = det U e. The nonlinear rubber elasticity spring element introduces a convected network stress, T N, which captures the effect of orientationinduced strain hardening. The underlying macromolecular network orients with strain and has been found to be well modeled using the Arruda and Boyce [1] eightchain model of rubber elasticity. The network stress tensor (taken to be deviatoric) is given by
(5)
where B  FPFpr, and '~chain [1 tr B] 1/2 is the stretch on each chain in the network. The material properties describing the strainhardening characteristics are #R, the initial hardening modulus, and N, the number of rigid molecular units between entanglements. The Langevin function ~ is given by ~o(fl) _ coth(fl)  ~; fl (6)
and its inverse provides the functionality that as the chain stretch, '~,chain, approaches its limiting extensibility ( v ~ ) , the stress increases dramatically. Temperaturedependent strain hardening modeled by this element assumes that the thermally equilibrated number of chains per unit
401
volume follows:
n(O)  A  B exp
~~
(7)
where A represents the portion of the network that does not dissociate with strain and the term containing B represents the thermally dissociating network. Ea is the activation energy for thermal dissocation, R is the universal gas constant, and  is the absolute temperature. Mass is preserved, which provides n(174 constant [4]. The viscoplastic element describes the rate and temperaturedependent yield behavior. The effective shear stress on this element is found from the tensorial difference between the Cauchy stress, T, and the convected network stress, TN: 1 T*  T   FeTNFe~ (8)
J
T* is the driving stress state, i.e., the portion of the total stress which continues to activate plastic flow. The deviatoric component of the driving stress state is denoted T *~, and it can be expressed in terms of its magnitude, r, and its tensorial direction, N:
1 "c2
N ~T*'
(10)
The rate of shape change DP in the viscoplastic element is assumed to be aligned with the deviatoric driving stress state: D p = ~PN. (11) where ~P is the plastic shear strain rate, which ensues once isotropic barriers to chain segment rotation are overcome. The magnitude ~P is taken to depend on the relative values of the effective shear stress, r, and the athermal shear strength, s, according to the relation: 7P 7o exp 
[ ~xAS{
 (~)
~}]
(12)
where 7o is the preexponential factor proportional to the attempt frequency, As is the zero stress level activation energy, and k is Boltzmann's constant. Strain softening is modeled after Boyce et al. [6] by taking the athermal shear strength, s, to evolve from its initial annealed value, So0.077 p / ( 1  v) (where # is the elastic shear modulus, and v is Poisson's ratio), to a
402
TABLE 5.12.1 Material Properties.
Viscoplastic
Softening
Orientation hardening
E (MPa)
2300 3200
Y
0.33 0.33
~o (S1)
2 (1015) 2.8 (107)
As (S)
3.3 (10 19) 1.9 (10 19)
h (MPa)
500 315
so/Sss
0.78 0.87
#R (MPa)
18 8
N 2.8 2.1
where h is the softening slope. Pressure dependence is taken into account by adding the pressure contribution, ~p, to the athermal shear resistance, where p is the pressure and ~ is the pressuredependent coefficient of the material.
5.12.4 APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL 5 . 1 2 . 4 . 1 MODEL RESULTS FOR SIMPLE STATES OF DEFORMATION Figure 5.12.2 shows both experimental and constitutive model results for the cases of uniaxial compression and plane strain compression of PMMA. The material constants for the model are fit to the uniaxial compression data; the plane strain compression simulation is thus a true prediction. The model is found to capture the uniaxial compression data and then found to predict the plane strain compression data very well. This capability has also been shown on other amorphous polymers. The predictive capability demonstrates that the constitutive model contains the essential physics of the threedimensional anisotropic nature of the network deformation behavior.
403
200
5q U~
l
,____,,_<i....,:j i . .
~. $:'~< . . . "!" "'~" '
./
5q
100
I .
i .}
il
I
0.0
. . . . . . . . . . . . uniaxial data . . . . . . plane strain data ~~uniaxial eight chain .plane strain eight chain
0.5
1.0
1.5
TRUE STRAIN
FIGURE 5.12.2 Deformation statedependent response of PMMA at room temperature. (Reprinted from International Journal of Plasticity, Vol. 9, Arruda, E. M., and Boyce, M. C., Evolution of plastic anistropy in amorphous polymers during finite straining, pages 699720, 9 1993, with permission from Elsevier Science.)
Figure 5.12.3 depicts both experimental and model results for the temperature dependence of strain hardening in PMMA; the results show uniaxial compression true stress vs. true strain curves at different temperatures. The simulations considered the temperaturedependent representation of the network structure given in Eq. (7). Note that data are needed at two temperatures to obtain the temperaturedependent material constants; the third curve is a prediction. The strain hardening is found to be lower with increasing temperature and is well predicted by the model. This same model was used to simulate the rate dependence of PMMA as shown in Figure 5.12.4, where both experimental and model results are shown. The expected increase in initial yield stress with increase in strain rate is observed and predicted; however, note the greater amount of softening observed at the higher strain rate. The highest rate (  0 . l / s ) does not provide enough time for heat transfer to occur, and there is a rise in the material temperature during straining which produces thermal softening in addition to strain softening.
404
200
. . . .
" i
! ! ! I 1
~176
/ ./.
";
I"'I
25oc
...
../ ., "'~
.
CL,
&.,.,,I ..
.i'~:"
~.
. o.~
100
:':....~... .
....__
'~.'..,." ......
. . .
.~
:
.
il
0.0 0.5
TRUE STRAIN
,'//
." ./
1.0
FIGURE 5.12.3
Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 19, Arruda, E. M., Boyce, M. C., andJayachandran, R., pages 193212,
9 1995, with permission from Elsevier Science.)
The model considers the network orientation contributions to the total energy to be stored and not dissipated; therefore, only contributions from the driving stress act to generate heat. A full discussion is provided in Arruda et al. [4] as well as in Boyce, Montagut, and Argon [9]. The strong dependence of the stressstrain behavior on rate and temperature is particularly important in cases of processing polymers and designing polymer components for impact loading situations, where thermal softening can alter the expected deformation response of the material.
5 . 1 2 . 4 . 2 MODELING COMPLEX DEFORMATION STATES AND HISTORIES Inelastic deformation of polymeric materials, their products, and their processes typically involves inhomogeneous deformation the entire
405
' I I i
.  .
. 
0.1/s
O.O01/s
. . . . . .,
,'q,
u3 Dq 100
i.
/
....  ~
' "~ ~
>~...,...
.' ;
., ,:..:.... " ~
" .~ : _ , ~ "=
E~
! .......
,,,I
,,,i
0.0
T R U E STRAIN
0.5
1.0
FIGURE 5.12.4 Strain ratedependent response of PMMA at room temperature. (Reprinted from Mechanics of Materials, Vol. 19, Arruda, E. M., Boyce, M. C., and Jayachandran, R., pages 193212, 9 1995, with permission from Elsevier Science.)
specimen or product is not deforming in a uniform, homogeneous manner. The classic example is the necking and neck propagation behavior of polymers during a tension test. Such inhomogeneous deformation can now be analyzed in detail using accurate constitutive models together with the finite element method. Neck propagation has been investigated using this constitutive model in several studies, including Boyce and Arruda [8] on waisted bars, Boyce, Montagut, and Argon [9] on thermomechanically coupled cold drawing, Hasan [12] on both cylindrical bars (see Boyce and Haward [11]) and thin sheets, and Wu and van der Giessen [20] on plane strain tension. Numerous other problems have also been examined using this constitutive model together with the finite element method. Problems include simple shear experiments [10], and hydrostatic extrusion of polymer cylinders [5], and thermomechanically coupled compression [4], as well as indentation of
406
single and multilayered polymeric coatings [1416], micromechanics of filled polymers [18,19], and stress fields at blunt notches [17]. Such detailed simulations provide better understanding of specimen, product, and process behavior and can be utilized in the design and development of multiphase polymer materials, polymeric products, and polymerprocessing operations.
REFERENCES
1. Arruda, E. M., and Boyce, M. C. (1993). A threedimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41 (2): 389412. 2. Arruda, E. M., and Boyce, M. C. (1993). Evolution of plastic anisotropy in amorphous polymers during finite straining. Int. J. Plasticity 9: 697720. 3. Arruda, E. M., and Boyce, M. C. (1993). Effects of initial anisotropy on the finite strain deformation behavior of glassy polymers. Int. J. Plasticity 9: 783811. 4. Arruda, E. M., Boyce, M. C., and Jayachandran, R. (1995). Effects of strain rate, temperature and thermomechanical coupling on the finite strain deformation of glassy polymers. Mech. Mater. 19:193212. 5. Boyce, M. C., Parks, D. M. and Argon, A. S. (1988). Large inelastic deformation of glassy polymers, Part I: Rate dependent constitutive model. Mech. Mater. 7: 1534. 6. Boyce, M. C., Parks, D. M., and Argon, A. S. (1988). Large inelastic deformation of glassy polymers, Part II: Numerical simulation of hydrostatic extrusion. Mech. Mater. 7: 3547. 7. Boyce, M. C., Weber, G. G. and Parks, D. M. (1989). On the kinematics of finite strain plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 37: 647665. 8. Boyce, M. C., and Arruda, E. M. (1990). An experimental and analytical investigation of the large strain compressive and tensile response of glassy polymers. J. Polymer Engin. Sci. 30: 12881298. 9. Boyce, M. C., Montegut, E., and Argon, A. S. (1992). The effects of thermomechanical coupling on the cold drawing process in glassy polymers. Polymer Engin. Sci. 32: 10731085. 10. Boyce, M. C., Arruda, E. M., and Jayachandran, R. (1994). The large strain compression, tension and simple shear of polycarbonate. Polymer Engin. Sci. 34(9): 716725. 11. Boyce, M. C., and Haward, R. N. (1997). The post yield deformation of glassy polymers, in Physics of Glassy Polymers, Haward, R. N., and Young, R. J., eds., London: Chapman and Hall. 12. Hasan, O. A. (1994). Ph.D. Thesis, MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge: MA. 13. Haward, R. N., and Thackray, G. (1968). The use of a mathematical model to describe isothermal stressstrain curves in glassy thermoplastics. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Series A 302: 453472. 14. Jayachandran, R., Boyce, M. C., and Argon, A. S. (1993). Mechanics of the indentation test and its use to assess adhesion of polymeric coatings. J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 7: 813836. 15. Jayachandran, R., Boyce, M. C., and Argon, A. S. (1994). Thermomechanical analysis of indentation behavior of thin PMMA coatings. Journal of Computer Aided Materials Design 2: 2348. 16. Jayachandran, R., Boyce, M. C., and Argon, A. S. (1995). Design of multilayer polymeric coatings for indentation resistance. Journal of Computer Aided Materials Design 2: 151166.
407
17. Lai, J., and van der Giessen, E. (1997). A numerical study of cracktip plasticity in glassy polymers. Mech. Mater. 25: 183197. 18. Steenbrink, A. C., van der Giessen, E., and Wu, E D. (1997). Void growth in glassy polymers. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 45: 405437. 19. Socrate, S., and Boyce, M. C. (2000). Micromechanics of toughened polycarbonate. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48: 233273. 20. Wu, P. D., and van der Giessen, E. (1995). On neck propagation in amorphous glassy polymers under plane strain tension. Int. J. Plasticity 11: 211235.
CHAPTER
Continuous Damage
SECTION
6.1
mechanical strength because of loadings or thermal or chemical effects. It covers all related phenomena that occur from the virgin or reference state up to a mesocrack initiation. From a physical point of view, damage can originate from multiple causes: debonding of atoms, nucleation, or growth and coalescence of microcracks and microcavities. Despite the discontinuous nature of such processes at the microscale, continuous damage means a homogeneous modeling in which microcracks and microvoids are represented by a continuous variable in the sense of the mechanics of continuous media. Having said this, the scale at which this homogenization takes place needs to be established. Microscale is the size at which the elementary mechanisms occur, macroscale is the size of engineering structures which must not brake, and Mesoscale is the size for which the homogeneous constitutive equations are written: it is a material point in mathematics, a, "reasonable" representative volume element (RVE) in the mechanics of materials. Let us say, as an order of magnitude: 0.1 mm for metals = 1 mm for polymers and some composites 10 mm for wood and some composites ~ 100 mm for concrete Most of the models of continuous damage introduce a damage variable at the mesoscale related to the volume density p of microvoids (porosity or ductility) or more generally to the surface density D of defects (microcracks and
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
411
412
microvoids) in any plane of the RVE.
Lemaitre
~S defects ~So
O<D<I
6Vo and 6So being the volume size and the surface size of the RVE.
These variables represent the weakness of the materials, which yields a decrease in the elastic rigidity, in the actual yield stress, and in many other properties. This coupling is often introduced in elastic and plastic constitutive equations through the thermodynamics of irreversible processes. The evolution of p or D represents the deterioration of the materials up to mesofracture. At the mesoscale, damage is observed as different phenomenological phenomena, including:
9 Ductile damage in metals subjected to large plastic strain at low temperature: T(K)< ~ 1Tm, the melting temperature. See Sections 6.4,
6.5, 6.6, and 6.14.
9 Creep damage due to large plastic strain in metals subjected to elevated temperature: T(K) > ~ 1Tm. See Sections 6.7 and 6.14. 9 Fatigue damage due to repetitions of loading either above the yield stress, known as low cycle fatigue (see Sections 6.8 and 6.14), or below the yield stress, known as high cycle fatigue (see Sections 6.9, 6.10, and 6.15), and even in the gigacycle range (see Section 6.11).
9 Some materials need special treatment even if the same formalism applies. This is the case for the formation of crazes in polymers (see Section 6.12), for the large difference of strength in tension and compression of concrete (see Section 6.13), or for the debonding of interfaces in composites (see Chapter 10).
SECTION
6.2
Contents 6.2.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Identification of the Parameter cr~ . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 How to Use the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1
VALIDITY
This is a fracture criterion that is valid for brittle and quasibrittle materials but also for ductile materials as a first approximation for a quick estimation (at least much better than the von Mises equivalent stress criterion often used).
6.2.2
BACKGROUND
In the continuum theory of isotropic damage, a damage state variable D is introduced as the surface density of microcracks and microcavities. The thermodynamics of irreversible processes defines its associated variable Y, called the "energy density release rate" such that Y./~ is the power dissipated in the process of damage. With the concept of effective stress ai) r  D and the principle of strain equivalence, the Helmholtz state potential energy is written as

1

2 p EijhleiJGl(1  D) + . . .
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
413
414
Lemaitre
where p is the density, E/jkl is the elastic tensor, and ~ is the elastic strain tensor. Then
0~t' we
Y =  P oqD  l _ D
We being the total elastic strain energy density dWe  0ij&~. In the case of linear isotropic elasticity coupled with damage,
Off e
or
1 F v
00
0k k ~ . .
0ij
P ~j
~'ij =
1  D
E 1  D ''j
where E is the Young's modulus, v is the Poisson's ratio, and 6ij is the Kronecker operator.
2
0eq
We = 2E(1  D)
Rv
where 0~ is the stress deviator 0  ~  0~j 0n~j; an is the hydrostatic stress an  89 and R~ is the triaxiality function 0kk; Rv =2(1 + v) + 3(1  2v)(an/rrCq) 2
6.2.3
DESCRIPTION
OF THE MODEL
The damageequivalent stress is defined similarly to the plastic von Misesequivalent stress for plasticity as the onedimensional stress 0* which, for the same value of the damage, yields the same value of the elastic strain energy density as in the case of a threedimensional state. For the onedimensional
case:
0*
O]
0eq  0*
[a] 
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
a e2qRv
0H
0eq
1 =3
Rv= 1
2E(1 **D)
2F (1  D)
415
~7"  ~TeqP~v/2.
Since the variable Y associated w i t h the d a m a g e D is r e l a t e d to the elastic strain energy, it is p o s t u l a t e d that the fracture of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e v o l u m e e l e m e n t is g o v e r n e d by the total elastic strain e n e r g y density; that is, w h e n the d a m a g e  e q u i v a l e n t stress r e a c h e s the value of the u l t i m a t e stress at fracture in t e n s i o n (or c o m p r e s s i o n ) , ~ru is characteristic of each material. o'* ~ ou 0"*
Table of Parameters Temperature, ~ 20 20 20 20 600 20 593 550 20 20 20 20 o'u, MPa 458 412 790 760 650 950 700 1150 500 3 35 500
C 35 steel A 201 steel A 517 steel 316 st. steel 316 st. steel 304 st. steel 304 st. steel Inco 718 2024 A. alloy Concrete in tension Concrete in compression Ceramic alumina
416
Lemaitre
This fracture criterion, proportional to the von Mises equivalent stress, takes into account the important effect of the triaxiality ratio a~i/aeq by the triaxility function Rv. See Table 6.2.1 for values of au corresponding to some materials.
REFERENCE
1. Lemaitre,J. (1994 and 1996). A Course on Damage Mechanics, SpringermVerlag.
SECTION
6.3
Contents
6.3.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Description of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Identification of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Model Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 VALIDITY
The continuum models of damage evolution that are based on the micromechanics of damage are applicable to deformations during which the irreversible changes of microstructure are related primarily to the random site nucleation of microcracks and their stable growth. This class of deformation is typical of materials with inferior cohesive strength and (a) heterogeneous microstructure (such as composites) at any state of stress; or (b) all microstructures (including iron, carbon, many semiconductors, ceramics, epoxies, cement, rocks, bones, etc.) in the absence of longrange tensile stresses. These two materials are known as being damagetolerant and damagesensitive, respectively. The damage in the form of microcracks may be attributed to manufacturing processes, environmental causes (such as corrosion, low temperature), applied loads, etc.
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
417
Krajcinovic
Micromechanical models are deduced by the process of homogenization, during which the effective parameters of the material points of a continuum are derived by considering the volume of material, defined by a large number of microcracks embedded in homogeneous matrix, that is centered by the material point. The smallest volume for which a considered effective parameter of the volume does not depend on the exact locations of microdefects is known as the representative volume element (RVE). When the RVE is small enough to consider the applied macrostresses and strains to be uniform, the model is local. Assuming this to be the case, the relation between volumeaveraged stress and strains is
8ij  Sijmn~mn
(1)
where the bar above the symbol stands for the average over RVE and Sijmn is the compliance tensor of the damaged volume. Assuming that the all tensors in Eq. 1 are differentiable, the rate form of the stressstrain relation is
= + 
e
d
(2)
The dot above a symbol stands for the rates, and the superscripts e and d stand for elastic and damage. This assumption may be violated when normal stresses change the sign and a closed crack opens, or vice versa. Using positive and negative projection operators, the stresses and strain tensors are divided into positive and negative parts. Assuming that a scalar damage potential f~(F, S) exists and the normality rule is valid, the rate of the effective compliance may be derived from
Sijmn = 2 O ~ S) 0~"~(F,
where
1_ _ F=~aijam.
(3)
is the thermodynamic force (that drives damage evolution) conjugate to the selected internal v a r i a b l e Sijmn (effective compliance).
6.3.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL The damage (microcracks) density D is concealed within the effective compliance of the RVE. Since the exact locations and geometry of all microcracks cannot be determined at each material point (onto which the RVE was mapped) and for all instances, the selection of a "best" choice of damage parameters is somewhat arbitrary. The choice of the effective compliance Sijmn(D) is hereby prescribed for these reasons:
419
9 it can be relatively easily measured in the laboratory and in situ; and 9 it can be derived using methods of micromechanics.
Assume, for simplicity, that all microcracks are of pennyshaped geometry defined by their radius a and orientations (0, ~b) that are not correlated. Hence, the microcrack density function is w(a, O, dp) ~ O(a) + p(O, dp) (4) In this case the effective compliance of the RVE is
i,j== if=.

a0
2/=
o,
+,j=.
In Eq. 5, S~m, is the compliance of the pristine material, Fom,, is the normalized compliance attributed to a single crack, and co = N(a3), the BudianskiO'Connell damage parameter for an isotropic distribution of pennyshaped microcracks. Tensor ~/jm,, defined by the double integral in Eq. 5, generalizes the BudianskyO'Connell damage parameter to damages that are not isotropic. Analytical quadrature of Eq. 5 and closeform estimates of the effective compliance using one of the effective field models are available for dilute concentrations of pennyshaped cracks and linear slits in the reference provided below. Finally, the meanfield estimate (Eq. 5) of the effective compliance is based on many other assumptions. The most debatable assumption is that the released energy rate G is equal to the pathindependent integral J. Equation 5 defines the thermodynamic state under described assumptions in all points if the microcrack density function (Eq. 4) is known. If the affinity (the difference between the force F driving the damage evolution and the thermodynamic force resisting the damage evolution) is small, the considered irreversible process can be approximated by a temporal sequence of states equilibrated by forces F. In this case the macropotential ~2(F, S) can be, at least in principle, deduced from the micropotentials that regulate individual microcrack growths.
420
Krajcinovic
connection between the damage and fracture mechanics and may be used in the experimental measurements of damage needed to determine the model parameters. The task of identifying the macropotential from micropotentials is a nontrivial task that must reflect the statistical nature of the affinity as a microcrack grows through a material with a disordered microstructure.
REFERENCES
1. Kachanov, M. (1993). Elastic solids with many cracks and related problems, in Advances in Applied Mechanics, pp. 259443, vol. 29, Hutchinson, J., and Wu, T., eds., New York: Academic Press. 2. Krajcinovic, D. (1996). Damage Mechanics, NorthHolland Series in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, vol. 51, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 3. Mastilovic, S., and Krajcinovic, D. (1999). Highvelocityexpansion of a cavity within a brittle material. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47: 577610.
SECTION
6.4
Anisotropic Damage
C. L. CHOW and YONG WEI Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of MichiganDearborn
Contents 6.4.1 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 6.4.2 Background on Damage Variables . . . . . . . . . . 422 6.4.3 Description of DamageCoupled Constitutive Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 6.4.4 Identification of Damage Effect Tensor M and Damage Characteristic Tensor J . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 6.4.5 How to Use It by Numerical Simulation .... 428 6.4.6 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
6.4.1 VALIDITY The damage mechanics approach is based on the irreversible thermodynamics theory. In the last two decades, this theory has been widely applied to study the behavior of rocks, composite materials, and concrete, as well as ductile fracture, creep rupture, and fatigue failure of metals. One basic hypothesis in most damage models is that the damage can be viewed as a macroscopic state variable D, known as the internal state variable, by ignoring the details on the nucleation and growth of distributed microdefects in a material element. The success of a damage model to a large extent depends on the definition of the damage variable D that is related to the concept of effective stress tensor F introduced first by Kachanov [1] and developed thereafter by many others [2]. A scalar damage variable D was defined by Kachanov as the loss of an effective loadcarrying crosssectional area that is responsible for accelerating the tertiary creep strain rate. The concept has been used by researchers as the decrease of the elastic modulus in isotropic damage models. The
Handbook of Materials Behavior Models. ISBN 0124433413. Copyright 9 2001 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
421
422
Chow and
Wei
orientationindependent scalar damage variable was, however, subsequently found to be inaccurate, since it implies that Poisson's ratio does not change. Both theoretical analysis [3] and experimental measurement [4,5] have revealed substantial damageinduced changes in Poisson's ratio that are associated with the decrease of elastic modulus. In effect, an initially isotropic material such as AL2024T3 after gross plastic deformation has been experimentally observed to undergo anisotropic damage [8]. The deficiencies of scalar theories have therefore caused concern about their effectiveness in modeling material behaviors. In this section, several anisotropic damage models are presented. Damage variables are first introduced. Then the damagecoupled constitutive equations and the damage evolution equations are formulated within the framework of irreversible thermodynamics based on the Helmholtz free energy, the yield surface, and the damage surface. A distinct advantage of the damage models is their ability to be readily incorporated in the finite element analysis through a damagecoupled stiffness matrix. Finally, several applications of the damage models are presented to illustrate failure analysis in engineering structures subjected to either static and dynamic loading.
(i)
where M(D) is the damage effect tensor and I is the unit tensor. Selection of the damage variable tensor D may be based on the phenomenological or micromechanics approach. Currently, most of the micromechanics models are less ineffective for practical applications. This is primarily due to the difficulties associated with the determination of the microcrack distribution and the development of the evolution equation. Therefore, phenomenological approaches are emphasized within the framework of irreversible thermodynamics. Accordingly, the Helmholtz free energy 9 is postulated based on the principle of equivalent elastic energy that "the elastic energy of the
423
damaged material is the same in form as that of an undamaged material except that the stress is replaced by the effective stress," i.e.,
pW  WE +pWp = 8 9
1" e + pWp(q)
(2)
where p is the density, W E is the elastic energy, kI/p is the plastic part of free energy due to strain hardening, Co is the elastic tensor of the undamaged material, and q denotes a set of internal state variables for the strain hardening. With the definition of the effective stress in Eq. 1, the free energy can be derived in the Cauchy stress space as
p t p _ 89
cl.a
+ ptpp(q)
(3) (4)
M r :Co 1 :M
where C is the elastic tensor for damaged materials. Accordingly, the damage energy release rate tensor Y, or the conjugate to the damage variable, is defined as Y =  P 0D
ov
(5)
0tg = C  l . a
(6)
8e is the true strain tensor. For elastoplastic damaged materials, following the von Mises theory, the yield surface is postulated in terms of the effective stress as
(7)
~, =
{~'o
.~}~
(8)
Ho is the plastic characteristic tensor for undamaged material, Ro is the yield stress, p is the effective equivalent plastic strain, and R is the strainhardening threshold. In the Cauchy stresstrue strain space, Eq. 8 becomes
ap = 89 T. H" a a
H = M ~ ' H o 9M
(9)
424
C h o w a n d Wei
h
H0 =
h+f
f 0 0 0
f
f+g 0 0 0
0
0 2r 0 0
0
0 0 2m 0
0
0 0 0 2n (10)
g 0 0 0
where f, g, h, r, m, and n are parameters characterizing the current state of plastic anisotropy. For isotrop