~ ~ ~~ ~~
VOLUME 1: ESSENTIALS
M. A. Crisfield
FEA Professor of Computational Mechanics Department of Aeronautics Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine London, UK
. New York 
Brisbane
Toronto
. Singapore
Copyright
$3 1991 by John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Bafins Lane, Chichester West Sussex PO19 IUD, England
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 101580012, USA Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, G.P.O. Box 859, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 1LI, Canada John Wiley & Sons (SEA) Pte Ltd, 37 Jalan Pemimpin 0504, Block B, Union Industrial Building, Singapore 2057
Crisfield, M. A. Nonlinear finite element analysis of solids and structures / M. A. Crisfield. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1. Essentials. ISBN 0 471 92956 5 (v. I); 0 471 92996 4 (disk) 1. Structural analysis (Engineering)Data processing. 2. Finite element methodData processing. I. Title. TA647.C75 1991 90278 15 624.1'7 1 dc20 CI P
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by Thomson Press (India) Ltd., New Delhi, India Printed in Great Britain by Courier International, East Killbride
Contents
Preface Notation
xi
xiii
1
1
1
12
10
13
14 15 16
A simple example with two variables 1 3 1 Exact solutions 1 3 2 The use of virtual work 1 3 3 An energy basis Special notation List of books on (or related to) nonlinear finite elements References to early work on nonlinear finite elements
13
16
18 19
19 20 20
23
23 26
27 29 30 31 32 34 35
36
37
NewtonRaphson method
24 1 242
Program NONLTB Flowchart and computer listing for subroutine ITER
39
39 41
25
A flowchart and computer program for an incrementaViterative solution procedure using full or modified NewtonRaphson iterations
251 Program NONLTC
V
44
45
vi
26 Problems for analysis
261
CONTENTS
48
48 49 49 49 49 50 51 51 52 54 55
Single variable with spring 2 6 1 1 Incremental solution using program NONLTA 2 6 1 2 Iterative solution using program NONLTB 2 6 1 3 Incremental/iterative solution using program NONLTC Single variable no spring Perfect buckling with two variables Imperfect 'buckling with two variades 2 6 4 1 Pure incremental solution using program NONLTA 2 6 4 2 An incremental/\terative solution using program NONLTC with small increments 2 6 4 3 An incremental/iterative solution using program NONLTC with large increments 2 6 4 4 An incremental/iterative solution using program NONLTC with displacement control
27 28
56 56
57
57
58 59 59 60 61
3.2
62
63
65
65 68 69 70 72 73
An alternative formulation using a rotated engineering strain An alternative formulation using a rotated logstrain An alternative corotational formulation using engineering strain Space truss elements Midpoint incremental strain updates Fortran subroutines for general truss elements
3.9.1 Subroutine ELEMENT 3.9.2 Subroutine INPUT 3.9.3 Subroutine FORCE
75 76
77
80 82 85
a5 a7 88
90
90 90 90 91 93 94 96 98 100
CONTENTS
vii
102 103
104
105 107 107 110 116
118 119 110 113 108 109
4.3 Transformations and rotations 4 3 1 Transformations to a new set of axes 4.4 Greens strain
441 442 4 32
A rigidbody rotation
Virtual work expressions using Green s strain Work expressions using von Karman s nonlinear straindisplacement relqtionships for a plate
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.1 1 4.12 4.13 4.14
Almansis strain The true or Cauchy stress Summarising the different stress and strain measures The polardecomposition theorem
481
Ari example
Green and Almansi strains in terms of the principal stretches A simple description of the second PiolaKirchhoff stress Corotational stresses and strains More on constitutive laws Special notation References
136
136
137 139 140 142
52
53 54
Implenientation of the total Lagrangian method 5 2 1 With dn elastoplastic or hypoelastic material The updated Lagrangian formulation Implementation of the updated Lagrangian method
5 4 1 Incremental formulation involving updating after convergence 5 4 2 A total formulation for an elastic response 5 4 3 An approximate incremental formulation
144
144
146 147
147 140 149
55 56
150 151
6 Basic plasticity
6 1 Introduction 6 2 Stress updating incremental or iterative strains? 6 3 The standard elastoplastic modular matrix for an elastic/perfectly plastic von Mises material under plane stress
631
Nonassociative plasticity
152
152 154
156
158
64
Introducing hardening
159
viii
6 4 1 Isotropic strain hardening 6 4 2 Isotropic work hardening 6 4 3 Kinematic hardening
CONTENTS
159 160 161
65 66
162
164 165
166
67 68
178
178 180
Splitting the deviatoric from the volumetric components A combined formulation Plane strain and axial symmetry Plane stress 6 8 2 1 A consistent tangent modular matrix for plane stress Intersection point A forwardEuler integration Subincrements Correction or return to the yield surface BackwardEuler return 6 9 5 1 General method 6 9 5 2 Specific planestress method Consistent and inconsistent tangents 6 9 6 1 Solution using the general method 6 9 6 2 Solution using the specific planestress method
181
181 181 184
69
Numerical examples
69 1 692 693 694 695
696
185
185 185 188 189 189 189 190 191 191 192
193
195
196 197
201
20 1
205 205 206 208 210
72
21 1
21 3 21 3 214 21 5 216 21 7 21 7 21 9
73 74
A simple corotational element using Timoshenko beam theory An alternative element using Reissner's beam theory
21 9 22 1
CONTENTS
74 1
The introduction of shape functions and extension to a general isoparametric element
ix
223
8 Shells
81
A range of shallow shells 8 1 1 Straindisplacement relationships 8 1 2 Stressstrain relatiomhips 8 1 3 Shape functions 8 1 4 Virtual work and the internal force vector 8 1 5 The tangent stiffness matrix 8 1 6 Numerical integration matching shape functions and 'locking 8 1 7 Extensions to the shallowshell formulation A degeneratecontinuum element using a total Lagrangian formulation 8 2 1 The tangent stiffness matrix Special notation References
234
236
236 238 239 240 24 1 242 242 246
82 83 84
243
247 249
252
253 254
254 258 259 261 26 1 263 264
93
266
266 271 273 274 275
94
276
276 278 280 282 285
94 1
286
288 288 289 289 290
96
29 1
292 294 296 298 299
CONTENTS
964
Flowchart and Fortran subroutine. for routine SCALUP 9 6 4 1 Fortran for routine SCALUP Flowchart and Fortran for subroutine NEXINC 9 6 5 1 Fortran for subroutine NEXINC
965
97 98
307 31 0
31 1 31 2 313
99
31 4
314 31 4 316 31 7 31 9 322 323
9 10 Further work o n solution procedures 9 11 Special notation 9 12 References Appendix Lobatto rules for numerical integration Subject index Author index
336
341
Preface
This book was originally intended as a sequal to my book Finite Elements and Solution Proc.t.dures,fhrStructural Anufysis, Vol 1 Linear Analysis, Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1986. However, as the writing progressed, it became clear that the range of contents was becoming much wider and that it would be more appropriate to start a totally new book. Indeed, in the later stages of writing, it became clear that this book should itself be divided into two volumes; the present one on essentials and a future one on advanced topics. The latter is now largely drafted so there should be no further changes in plan! Some years back, I discussed the idea of writing a book on nonlinear finite elements with a colleague who was much better qualified than I to write such a book. He argued that it was too formidable a task and asked relevant but esoteric questions such as What framework would one use for nonconservative systems? Perhaps foolishly, I ignored his warnings, but 1 am, nonetheless, very aware of the daunting task of writing a definitive work on nonlinear analysis and have not even attempted such a project. Instead, the books are attempts to bring together some concepts behind the various strands of work on nonlinear finite elements with which I have been involved. This involvement has been on both the engineering and research sides with an emphasis on the production of practical solutions. Consequently, the book has an engineering rather than a mathematical bias and the developments are closely wedded to computer applications. Indeed, many of the ideas are illustrated with a simple nonlinear finite element computer program for which Fortran listings, data and solutions are included (floppy disks with the Fortran source and data files are obtainable from the publisher by use of the enclosed card). Because some readers will not wish to get actively involved in computer programming, these computer programs and subroutines are also represented by flowcharts so that the logic can be followed without the finer detail. Before describing the contents of the books, one should ask Why further books on nonlinear finite elements and for whom are they aimed? An answer to the first question is that, although there are many good books on linear finite elements, there are relatively few which concentrate on nonlinear analysis (other books are discussed in Section 1. I). A further reason is provided by the rapidly increasing computer power and increasingly userfriendly computer packages that have brought the potential advantages of nonlinear analysis to many engineers. One such advantage is the ability to make important savings in comparison with linear elastic analysis by allowing, for example, for plastic redistribution. Another is the ability to directly
xi
xii
PREFACE
simulate the collapse behaviour of a structure, thereby reducing (but not eliminating) the heavy cost of physical experiments. While these advantages are there for the taking, in comparison with linear analysis, there is an even greater danger of the blackbox syndrome. To avoid the potential dangers, an engineer using, for example, a nonlinear finite element computer program to compute the collapse strength of a thinplated steel structure should be aware of the main subject areas associated with the response. These include structural mechanics, plasticity and stability theory. In addition, he should be aware of how such topics are handled in a computer program and what are the potential limitations. Textbooks are, of course, available on most of these topics and the potential user of a nonlinear finite element computer program should study such books. However, specialist texts do not often cover their topics with a specific view to their potential use in a numerical computer program. It is this emphasis that the present books hope to bring to areas such as plasticity and stability theory. Potential users of nonlinear finite element programs can be found in the aircraft, automobile, offshore and power industries as well as in general manufacturing, and it is hoped that engineers in such industries will be interested in these books. In addition, it should be relevant to engineering research workers and software developers. The present volume is aimed to cover the area between work appropriate to finalyear undergraduates, and more advanced work, involving some of the latest research. The second volume will concentrate further on the latter. It has already been indicated that the intention is to adopt an engineering approach and, to this end, the book starts with three chapters on truss elements. This might seem excessive! However, these simple elements can be used, as in Chapter 1, to introduce the main ideas of geometric nonlinearity and, as in Chapter 2, to provide a framework for a nonlinear finite element computer program that displays most of the main features of more sophisticated programs. In Chapter 3, these same truss elements have been used to introduce the idea of different strain measures and also concepts such as total Lagrangian, updated Lagrangian and corotational procedures. Chapters 4 and 5 extend these ideas to continua, which Chapter 4 being devoted to continuum mechanics and Chapter 5 to the finite element discretisation. I originally intended to avoid all use of tensor notation but, as work progressed, realised that this was almost impossible. Hence from Chapter 4 onwards some use is made of tensor notation but often in conjunction with an alternative matrix and vector form. Chapter 6 is devoted to plasticity with an emphasis on J,, metal plasticity (von Mises) and isotropic hardening. New concepts such as the consistent tangent are fully covered. Chapter 7 is concerned with beams and rods in a twodimensional framework. It starts with a shallowarch formulation and leads on to deepformulations using a number of different methods including a degeneratecontinuum approach with the total Lagrangian procedure and various corotational formulations. Chapter 8 extends some of these ideas (the shallow and degeneratecontinuum, total Lagrangian formulations) to shells. Finally, Chapter 9 discusses some of the more advanced solution procedures for nonlinear analysis such as line searches, quasiNewton and acceleration techniques, arclength methods, automatic increments and restarts. These techniques are introduce into the simple computer program developed in Chapters 2 and 3 and are
PREFACE
xiii
then applied to a range of problems using truss elements to illustrate such responses as limit points, bifurcations, snapthroughs and snapbacks. It is intended that Volume 2 should continue straight on from Volume 1 with, for example, Chapter 10 being devoted to more continuum mechanics. Among the subjects to be covered in this volume are the following: hyperelasticity, rubber, large strains with and without plasticity, kinematic hardening, yield criteria with volume effects, large rotations, threedimensional beams and rods, more on shells, stability theory and more on solution procedures.
REFERENCES
At the end of each chapter, we will include a section giving the references for that chapter. Within the text, the reference will be cited using, for example, [B3] which refers to the third reference with the first author having a name starting with the letter B. If, in a subsequent chapter, the same paper is referred to again, it would be referred to using, for example, CB3.41 which means that it can be found in the References at the end of Chapter 4.
NOTATION
We will here give the main notation used in the book. Near the end of each chapter (just prior to the References) we will give the notation specific to that particular chapter.
General note on matrix/vector and/or tensor notation
For much of the work in this book, we will adopt basic matrix and vector notation where a matrix or vector will be written in bold. I t should be obvious, from the context, which is a matrix and which is a vector. In Chapters 46 and 8, tensor notation will also be used sometimes although, throughout the book, all work will be referred to rectangular cartesian coordinate systems (so that there are no differences between the CO and contravariant components of a tensor). Chapter 4 gives references to basic work on tensors. A vector is a firstorder tensor and a matrix is a secondorder tensor. If we use the direct tensor (or dyadic) notation, we can use the same convention as for matrices and vectors and use bold symbols. In some instances, we will adopt the suffix notation whereby we use suffixes to refer to the components of the tensor (or matrix or vector). For clarity, we will sometimes use a suffix on the (bold) tensor to indicate its order. These concepts are explained in more detail in Chapter 4, with the aid of examples.
Scalars
E e
= Youngs modulus =error
xiv
PREFACE
= yield
force or gradient of potential energy =shear modulus I = 2nd moment of area J =det(F) k = bulk modulus K, =tangent stiffness t =thickness U, U , w = displacements corresponding to coordinates x, y, z V = volume: dV = increment of volume; also V =virtual work Vi =internal virtual work V, =external virtual work x, y , z = rectangular coordinates i = shear strain c =strain p = shear modulus i . = loadlevel parameter v = Poisson's ratio <,7, i; nondimensional (natural) coordinates = fl =stress z =shear stress 4 =total potential energy =curvature
= outofbalance
1
,f g G
function
Subscripts
2 =second order 4 =fourth order cr = 'critical' (in relation to buckling) e =external ef = external (fixed) g =global i =internal n =new o =old t =tangential v =virtual
PREFACE
xv
Vectors
b = strain/nodaldisplacement vector d = displacements
e, = unit base vectors g = outofbalance forces (or gradient of total potential energy) h = shape functions p = nodal (generalised) displacement variables q = nodal (generalised)force variables corresponding to p E = strain (also, sometimes, a terisor see below) c = stress (also, sometimes, a tensor see below) s
Matrices or tensors
(A subscript 2 is sometimes added for a secondorder tensor (matrix) with a subscript 4 for a fourthorder tensor.)
B C
secondorder tensor (or identity matrix) matrix = constitutive matrices or tensors (with stress/strain moduli) D =diagonal matrix in LDL' H = shape function matrix I = identity matrix or sometimes fourthorder unit tensor K = tangent stifrness matrix K,, = initial stress or geometric stiffness matrix KO = linear stiffness matrix L = lower triangular matrix in LDL' factorisation hi, = Kronecker delta ( = 1 , i = j ; = 0, i # j ) E =strain
= strain/nodaldisplacement
= Unit
1.1
At the end of the present chapter (Section 1.5), we include a list of books either fully devoted to nonlinear finite elements or else containing significant sections on the subject. Of these books, probably the only one intended as an introduction is the book edited by Hinton and commissioned by the Nonlinear Working Group of NAFEMS (The National Agency of Finite Elements). The present book is aimed to start as an introduction but to move on to provide the level of detail that will generally not be found in the latter book. Later in this section, we will give a brief history of the early work on nonlinear finite elements with a selection of early references being provided at the end of the chapter. References to more recent work will be given at the end of the appropriate chapters. Following the brief history, we introduce the basic concepts of nonlinear finite element analysis. One could introduce these concepts either via material nonlinearity (say, using springs with nonlinear properties) or via geometric nonlinearity. I have decided to opt for the latter. Hence, in this chapter, we will move from a simple truss system with one degree of freedom to a system with two degrees of freedom. To simplify the equations, the shallowness assumption is adopted. These two simple systems allow the introduction of the basic concepts such as the outofbalance force vector and the tangent stiffness matrix. They also allow the introduction of the basic solution procedures such as the incremental approach and iterative techniques based on the NewtonRaphson method. These procedures are introduced firstly via the equations of equilibrium and compatibility and later via virtual work. The latter will provide the basis for most of the work on nonlineat finite elements.
1.1.1
A brief history
The earliest paper on nonlinear finite elements appears to be that by Turner et ul. [T2] which dates from 1960 and, significantly, stems from the aircraft industry. The
1
present review will cover material published within the next twelve years (up to and including 1972). Most of the other early work on geometric nonlinearity related primarily to the linear buckling problem and was undertaken by amongst others [H3, K I], Gallagher et al. [G I , G21. For genuine geometric nonlinearity, incremental procedures were originally adopted (by Turner et al. [T2] and Argyris [A2, A31) using the geometric stiffness matrix in conjunction with an updating of coordinates and, possibly, an initial displacement matrix [Dl, M1, M31. A similar approach was adopted with material nonlinearity [Z2, M61. In particular, for plasticity, the structural tangent stiffness matrix (relating increment of load to increments of displacement)incorporated a tangential modular matrix [PI, M4, Y I , Z 1,221 which related the increments of stress to the increments of strain. Unfortunately, the incremental (or forwardEuler) approach can lead to an unquantifiable buildup of error and, to counter this problem, NewtonRaphson iteration was used by, amongst others, Mallet and Marcal [M I ] and Oden [Ol]. Direct energy search [S2,M2] methods were also adopted. A modified NewtonRaphson procedure was also recommended by Oden [02], Haisler c t al. [HI] and Zienkiewicz [Z2]. In contrast to the full NewtonRaphson method, the stiffness matrix would not be continuously updated. A special form using the very initial, elastic stiffness matrix was referred to as the initial stress method [Zl] and much used with material nonlinearity. Acceleration procedures were also considered 21. The concept of combining incremental (predictor) and iterative (corrector) methods was introduced by Brebbia and Connor [B2] and Murray and Wilson [M8, M9] who thereby adopted a form of continuation method. Early work on nonlinear material analysis of plates and shells used simplified methods with sudden plastification [AI,BI]. Armen p t al. [A41 traced the elastoplastic interface while layered or numerically integrated procedures were adopted by, amongst others, Marcal ct al. [M5, M7] and Whang [Wl] combined material and geometric nonlinearity for plates initially involved perfect elastoplastic buckling [Tl, H21. One of the earliest fully combinations employed an approximate approach and was due to Murray and Wilson [MlO]. A more rigorous layered approach was applied to plates and shells by Marcal [M3, M51, Gerdeen et ul. [G3] and Striklin et nl. [S4]. Various procedures were used for integrating through the depth from a centroidal approach with fixed thickness layers [P2] to trapezoidal [M7] and Simpsons rule [S4]. To increase accuracy, subincrementswere introduced for plasticity by Nayak and Zienkiewicz [NI]. Early work involving limit points and snapthrough was due to Sharifi and Popov [S3] and Sabir and Lock [Sl].
1.2 A SIMPLE EXAMPLE FOR GEOMETRIC NONLINEARITY WITH ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM
Figure l.l(a) shows a bar of area A and Youngs modulus E that is subject to a load W so that it moves a distance U. From vertical equilibrium,
W = N sin 0 =
N(z
+ M)  N(z + NI) 1
S I M P L E E X A M P L E FOR G E O M E T R I C NONLINEARITY
tW
Initial configuration
(a)
4w
Initial configuration
(b)
stiffness, K ,
Figure 1.1 Simple problem with one degree of freedom. (a) bar a lone (b) bar with spring
where N is the axial force in the bar and it has been assumed that 0 is small. By Pythagorass theorem, the strain in the bar is
Although (1.5) is approximate, it can be used to illustrate nonlinear solution procedures that are valid in relation to a shallow truss theory. From ( I .5)? the force in the bar is given by
and, from (1 .l), the relationship between the load Wand the displacement, w is given by W=
EA
~
13
This relationship is plotted in Figure 1.2(a). If the bar is loaded with increasing  W, at point A (Figure 1.2(a)), it will suddenly snap to the new equilibrium state at point C. Dynamic effects would be involved so that there would be some oscillation about the latter point. Standard finite element procedures would allow the nonlinear equilibrium path to be traced until a point A just before point A, but at this stage the iterations would probably fail (although in some cases it may be possible to move directly to point Csee Chapter 9). Methods for overcoming this problem will be discussed in Chapter9. For the present, we will consider the basic techniques that can be used for the equilibrium curve, OA. For nonlinear analysis, the tangent stiffness matrix takes over the role of the stiffness matrix in linear analysis but now relates small changes in load to small changes in displacement. For the present example, this matrix degenerates to a scalar dW/dw and, from ( l . l ) , this quantity is given by
K,=
dW dw
(z+w)dN  I dw 1
N +I
(1.10) Equation (1.6) can be substituted into (1.10)so that K , becomes a direct function of the initial geometry and the displacement w. However, there are advantages in maintaining the form of (1.10) (or (1.9)), which is consistent with standard finite element formulations. If we forget that there is only one variable and refer to the constituent terms in (1.10) as matrices, then conventional finite element terminology would describe the first term as the linear stiffness matrix because it is only a function of the initial geometry. The second term would be called the initialdisplacement or initialslope matrix while the last term would be called the geometric or initialstress matrix. The initialdisplacement terms may be removed from the tangent stiffness matrix by introducing an updated coordinate system so that z = z + w. In these circumstances, equation (1.9) will only contain a linear term involving z as well as the initial stress term. The most obvious solution strategy for obtaining the loaddeflection response OA of Figure 1.2(a)is to adopt displacement control and, with the aid of (1.7) (or (1.6) and (1.1)) directly obtain W for a given w. Clearly this strategy will have no difficulty with the local limit point at A (Figure 1.2(a)) and would trace the complete equilibrium path OABCD. For systems with many degrees of freedom, displacement control is not so trivial. The method will be discussed further in Section 2.2.5. For the present we will consider load control so that the problem involves the computation of w for a given W.
w
EA
"1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0, 1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2 2.4 w
2.6 ~
(b)
Figure 1.2 Load/deflection relationships for simple onedimensional problem (a) Response for bar alone. (b) Set of responses for barspring system.
Before discussing a few basic solution strategies, some dimensions and properties will be given for the example of Figure l.l(b) so that these solution strategies can be illustrated with numbers. The spring in Figure l.l(b) has been added so that, if the stiffness K , is large enough, the limit point A of Figure 1.2(a) can be removed and the response modified to that shown in Figure 1.2 (b). The response of the bar is then governed by
EA W = (z2w
13
4~ Z W + + w 3 ) + K,w
(1.1 1)
which replaces equation (1.7). For the numerical examples, the following dimensions and properties have been chosen: E A = 5 x 1 0 7 N , z=25mm, 1=2500mm, KS=1.35N/mm, AW=7N (1.12)
where A W is the incremental load. For brevity, the units have been omitted from the following computations.
1.2.1 An incremental solution
An incremental (or Euler) solution scheme involves (Figures 1.2(a) and 1.3) repeated application of (1.13)
tz*
/
4
I
WP
Displacement, w
For the first step, wo and N o are set to zero so that, from (1.10): K O= L , 4 i  j l + K , 1 1 and hence
(1.15)
= 3.35
(1.14)
where A W (  7) is the applied incremental load. From (1.6), the corresponding axial force is given by
NI=EA
90
{(;)(:')
+ 2( 1
w1)2)
=  400.45.
(1.16)
80
70
60
U
J 0
50
40
30
20
10
0' 0
10
20
Deflection. w
30
40
50
60
to give
Awl = K
A W =
1 = 
 712.8695 =  2.4394
so that
~2
= w1
+ Aw
2.0896  2.4394 =
 4.5290
823.76.
(1.20)
Inevitably (Figures 1.3 and 1.4), the solution will drift from the true equilibrium curve. The lack of equilibrium is easily demonstrated by substituting the displacement w1 of (1.15) and the force N , of (1.16) into the equilibrium relationship of (1.1). Once allowance is made for the spring stiffness K,, this provides
(1.21)
=  3.6698  2.82 10

6.4908
(1.22)
A second solution strategy uses the wellknown NewtonRaphson iterative technique to solve (1.7) to obtain w for a given load W. To this end, (1.7) can be rewritten as
9=
EA
13
(z2w+ $zw
+ + W 3 )  W = 0.
(1.23)
+ dw
2 dw2
(1.24)
where terms such as dy,/dw imply dg/dw computed at position 0. Hence, given an initial estimate w, for which yo(wo) O , a better approximation is obtained by # neglecting the bracketed and higherorder terms in (1.24) and setting gn = 0. As a result (Figure 1.5) (1.25) and a new estimate for w is
w1 = W O
+ bw,.
(1.26)
Substitution of (1.25) into (1.24) with the bracketed term included shows that g, is proportional to g,. Hence the iterative procedure possess quadratic convergence. Following (1.26), the iterative process continues with (1.27) In contrast to the previous incremental solutions, the 6ws in (1.24)( 1.27) are iterative changes at the same fixed load level (Figure 1.5). Equations (1.25) and (1.27) require the derivative, dgldw, of the residual or outofbalance force, g. But (1.23) was derived from (1.7) which, in turn, came from (1.1) so that an alternative expression for g, based on (l.l), is (1.28) where W is the fixed external loading. Consequently: dy  ( z + w ) d N dw 1 dw
+ N1 = K ,
(1.29)
which coincides with (1.8) so that dgldw is the tangent stiffness term previously derived in (1.8). However, although dg/dw will be referred to as K , and, indeed, involves the same formulae ( ( I.8)(1 . lO)), there is an important distinction between (1.8), which is a genuine tangent to the equilibrium path ( W  w), and dgldw, which is to be used with an iterative procedure such as the NewtonRaphson technique. In the latter instance, K , = dg/dw does not necessarily relate to an equilibrium state since y relates to some trial w and is not zero until convergence has been achieved. Consequently, for equilibrium states relating to a stable point on the equilibrium path, such as points on the solid parts of the curve on Figure 1.6, K , = dW/dw will always be positive although K,=dg/dw, as used in an iterative procedure, may possibly be zero or
10
Load.
positive
negative. This is illustrated for the NewtonRaphson method in Figure 1.6. Once the problems are extended beyond one variable, the statement Kl will always be positive becomes Kl will always be positive definite while Kl may possibly be zero or negative becomes Kt may possibly be singular or indefinite.
1.2.3 Combined incremental/iterative solutions (full or modified NewtonRaphson or the initialstress method)
The iterative technique on its own can only provide a single point solution. In practice, we will often prefer to trace the complete load/deflection response (equilibrium path). T o this end, it is useful to combine the incremental and iterative solution procedures. The tangential incremental solution can then be used as a predictor which provides the starting solution, wo, for the iterative procedure. A good starting point can significantly improve the convergence of iterative procedures. Indeed it can lead to convergence where otherwise divergence would occur. Figure 1.7 illustrates the combination of an incremental predictor with NewtonRaphson iterations for a onedimensional problem. A numerical example will now be given which relates to the dimensions and properties of (1.12) and starts from the converged, exact, equilibrium point for W =  7 (point 1 in Figure 1.4). This point is given by
WI
=  2.2683,
N 1 =  433.08.
( I .30)
As a consequence of the inclusion of the linear spring, the outofbalance force term,
y, is given by
g = Wi(bar)
(1.31)
The term g(1.28) in (1.31) refers to equation (1.28). (Equation (1.23) could be used
11
Displacement, w
instead.) At the starting point, (1.30), the tangent stiffness is given by dy K , =  (1.9)+KS=1.4803+ 1.35 d U! so that the incremental (tangential predictorsolution) would give
W = W ~+
(1.32)
A w ~ = w ~ +Kt'AW=w,7/2.8306=
4.7415
(1.33) (1.34)
(1.35)
(1.36)
6~
so that the total deflection is
w=
=  0.6432/2.320 =  0.2773
 4.7415  0.2773
=  5.0188
12
and, from (1.27) and (1.40) (1.41) and the total deflection is
w=
 5.01 88  0.0032 =  5.0220.
( I .42)
To four decimal places, this solution is exact and the next iterative change (which From (1.33), the initial is probably affected by numerical roundoff) is  0.28 x error is
e,
= 4.741 5  5.0220 =  0.2805
(1.43) (1.44)
 0.28
to. Hence
(1.45)
which illustrates the quadratic convergence of the NewtonRaphson method. An obvious modification to this solution procedure involves the retention of the original (factorised) tangent stiffness. If the resulting modified NewtonRaphson (or mNR) iterations [02, Hl,Z2] are combined with an incremental procedure, the technique takes the form illustrated in Figure 1.8. Alternatively, one may only update K, periodically [Hl, 221. For example, the socalled K: (or K T I ) method would involve an update after one iteration [Z2]. Assuming the starting point of (1.30) the tangential solution would involve (1.32)( 1.34) as before. The resulting outofbalance force vector would be given by (1.35) but (1.36) would no longer be computed to form K,. Instead, the K , of (1.32)
Displacement,
13
Displacement, w
Figure 1.9 The initial stress method combined with an incremental solution.
6~
Thereafter 0.1210,
y=
 0.0239,
 0.6432/2.8303 =
 0.2273,
w=
 4.9688.
( 1.46)
6 w = 0.1210/2.8303= 0.04273,
W =
5.0115
 5.0200
(1.47) (1.48)
6~
=  0.0239/2.8303 =  0.00844,
w=
etc. In contrast to ( I .45), (1.49) which indicates the slower linear convergence of the modified NewtonRaphson method. However, in contrast to the full NR method, the modified technique requires less work at each iteration. In particular, the tangent stiffness matrix, K,, is neither reformed nor refactorised. The initial stress method of solution [Zl] (no relation to the initialstress matrix) takes the procedure one stage further and only uses the stiffness matrix from the very first incremental solution. The technique is illustrated in Figure 1.9.
pT= (U,w).
For this system, the strain of (1.5) is replaced by
E=
UI +
(;)( 5 ) + ;(
;)2.
(1.51)
14
ue
I 1Initial configuration
we
stiffness,
(The term ( ~ / 1 can be considered as negligible.) Resolving horizontally, ) ~ U , + N COS 8 2: U , + N while, resolving vertically, We=Nsin8+K,w2: These equations can be rewritten as
N(z
~
=0
( I .52)
(1.53)
+ w) + K,w.
where g is an 'outofbalance force vector', qi an internal force vector and qe the external force vector. The axial force, N, in (1.54) is simply given by N
= E A E (equation
(1.51)).
(1.55)
In order to produce a n incremental solution procedure, the internal force, qi, corresponding to the displacement, p, can be expanded by means of a truncated Taylor series, so that (1.56) Assuming perfect equilibrium at both the initial configuration p and the final configuration, p + Ap, equation (1.56) gives
and w,
(1.58)
aw,
d W
0 N/1 I 0 O
~i n \ r
15
with
p=
Z + W
(1.60)
The final matrix in (1.59) is the initialstress matrix. Clearly, the incremental procedure of Section 1.2.1 can be applied to this twodimensional system using the general form
A p = K, Aqe. (1.61)
Alternatively, the tangent stiffness matrix of (1.59) can also be related to the Newton Raphson iterative procedure and can be derived from a truncated Taylor series as in ( I .24). For two dimensions this gives
where K, is again given by (1.59). The NewtonRaphson solution procedure now involves
(1.63) We will firstly solve the perfect system, for which z (Figure 1.10) is zero. The applied load, W e ,will also be set to zero. In these circumstances, ( 1 .58) and ( I .59) give
(1.64)
The solution is
Au=
1 AUe, AE
~
Aw0
(1.65)
so that
u= 1 U, AE
~
w=o.
( I .66)
These solutions remain valid while ( K , + N / I ) is positive and the matrix K, is positive definite. However, when
N
= N,,=

IK,
( I .67)
at which K, becomes singular, Au and A w are indeterminate and the system buckles.
16
This example illustrates one particular use of the initialstress matrix. In general, for a perfect system (when the prebuckled path is linear or effectively linear), we can write
K, = KO+ AKt,
(1.69)
where KO is the standard linear stiffness matrix and K,, is the initialstress matrix when computed for a unit membrane stress field (in the present case, N = 1). The term A in (1.69) is the load factor that amplifies this initial stress field. As a consequence of (1.69), the buckling criterion becomes det(K,
+ AKt,) = 0
(1.70)
which is an eigenvalue problem. Numerical solutions for the imperfect system (with
z (Figure 1.10) # 0) will be given in Chapter 2. For the present, we will derive a set
of exact solutions.
1.3.1
Exact solutions
U
ucr 
).
or
(1.71)
(1.72) as well as

=  ucr
+ p(a + $ a 2 )
(1.73)
where
ucr
(1.74) and the buckling load, Ucr,and equivalent displacement, U,,, have been defined in (1.68). Equations (1.72) and (1.74) have been plotted in Figure 1.1 1 where the perfect solutions relate to the system of Figure 1.10 with z set to zero. The nondimensionalising factor, z,, in Figure l.lO(a) is the initial offset, z , for the imperfect system and any nonzero value for the perfect system. In plotting equation (1.73) in Figure 1.1l(a), the factor p of (1.74) has been set to 0.5 (i.e. as if using (1.12) but with K , = 4). The perfect solutions are stable up to point A from which the path AC (or AC in Figure 1.1 l(a)) is the postbuckling path. If the offset, z , in Figure 1.10 is nonzero, either the imperfect path E F or the equivalent path EF in Figure l.ll(a) will be followed, depending on the sign of z. At the same time, the load/shortening relationship will follow OD in Figure 1.1 l(b). While these paths are fairly obvious, the solutions G H (or GH) in Figure 1.1 l(a) and G H in Figure 1.1 l(b) are less obvious and could not be reached by a simple monotonic loading. Nonetheless they do
17
C
0
     # /
. 0
/It
/
1.8
1.61.4
~
U,,
1L
  _ F
. . \
/ /  
H
A
/
__F
/ /
/
/
0
0
0.6 \
0.4 \ \
0.2 0
1 I
/E 1.0

Perfect Imperfect
 8.0
\E 0 0
I .
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Perfect
3
c
G
0 (U
0
, 1.0
2.0
7.0
8.0
Figure 1.11 Load/deflection relationships for twovariable barspring problem: deflection; (b) shortening deflection.
transverse
18
represent equilibrium states and their presence can cause difficulties with the numerical solution procedures. This will be demonstrated in Chapter 2 where it will be shown that it is even possible to accidentally converage on the 'spurious upper equilibrium states'. Before leaving this section, we should note the inverted commas surrounding the word 'exact' in the title of this section. The solutions are exact solutions to the governing equations (1.54). However, the ltter were derived on the assumption of a small angle 8 in Figure 1.10.Clearly, this assumption will be violated as the deflection ratios in Figure 1.1 1 increase, even if it is valid when w is small.
1.3.2 The use of virtual work
In Section 1.2, the governing equations were derived directly from equilibrium. With a view to later work with the finite element method, we will now derive the out6fbalance force vector, g using virtual work instead. To this end, with the help of differentiation, the change in (1.51) can be expressed as
sc:=""+(I:">(")+[ 1 sw ) 2 ] . 1
2 1
h
(1.75)
For really small virtual changes, the last, higherorder, squarebracketed term in (1.75) is negligible and (1.76) where the subscript v means 'virtual'. The virtual work undertaken by the internal and external forces can now be expressed as
V=
06&,dV + K,wSW,
U , ~ U , W , ~ W , N 1 6 ~ + K,wGw, = ,
U , ~ U , W,~W,. (1.77)
v = gTspv
(1.78)
where 6pT = (du,, 6w,) and the vector g is of the form previously derived directly from equilibrium in (1.54). The principle of virtual work specifies that I/ should be zero for any arbitrary small virtual displacements, dp,. Hence (1.78) leads directly to the equilibrium equations of (1.54). Clearly, the tangent stiffness matrix, Kt, can be obtained, as before, by differentiating g. With a view to future developments, we will also relate the latter to the variation of the virtual work. In general, (1.78) can be expressed as
V=
JT
0
8%d V  qzsp,
(1.79)
SPECIAL NOTATION
19
from which
d V = 6pTdg = 6pT  6p = dp;K,dp. ag
aP
(1.80)
or
Q I =1 K , W ~ +  E A I 2 2
[  + (;)( 5> + ;(

!$2]2
 U,u  W,W.
(1.82)
If the loads U , and W e are held fixed, and the displacements u and w are subjected to small changes, d u and 6w (collectively dp),the energy moves from QI, to QIn, where
QI,=QI,+
or
(3
6p=QI,+gT6p
(1.83)
(1.84) The principle of stationary potential energy dictates that, for equilibrium, the change of energy, 4,  QIo, should be zero for arbitrary 6p (6u and dw). Hence equation (1 34) leads directly to the equilibrium equations of (1.54) (with N from (1.55)). Equation (1.83) shows that the 'outofbalance force vector' g, is the gradient of the potential energy. Hence the symbol g. The matrix K, = ag/ap is the second differential of QI and is known in the 'mathematicalprogramming literature' (see Chapter 9) as the Jacobian of g or the Hessian of QI.
1.4
SPECIAL NOTATION
A = area of bar e = error K , = spring stiffness N = axial force in bar u = axial displacement at end of bar U = force corresponding to u w = vertical displacement at end of bar W = force corresponding to w z = initial vertical offset of bar
20
strain in bar
REFERENCES
21
[H2] Harris, H. G. & Pifko, A. B., Elastoplastic buckling of stiffened rectangular plates, Proc. Svmp. on Appl. of Finite Element Meth. in Civil Engng., Vanderbilt Univ., ASCE, 207253 ( 1969). [H3] Holand, I. & Moan, T., The finite element in plate buckling, Finite Element Meth. in Stress Analysis, ed. 1. Holand et al., Tapir (1969). [Kl] Kapur, W. W. & Hartz, B. J., Stability of plates using the finite element method, Proc. ASCE, 1.Enyny. Mech., 92, EM2, 177195 (1966). [Ml] Mallet, R. H. & Marcal, P. V., Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures, Proc. A S C E , J . of Struct. Diu., 94, ST9, 208 12 105 (1968). [M2] Mallet, R. H. & Schmidt, L. A., Nonlinear structural analysis by energy search, Proc. ASCE, J . Struct. Diu., 93, ST3, 221234 (1967). [M3] Marcal, P. V. Finite element analysis of combined problems of nonlinear material and geometric behaviour, Proc. Am. Soc. Mech. Conf. on Comp. Approaches in Appl. Mech., (June 1969). [M4] Marcal, P. V. & King, I. P., Elasticplastic analysis of twodimensional stress systems by the finite element method, int. J . Mech. Sci., 9 (3), 143155 (1967). [M5] Marcal, P. V., Large deflection analysis of elasticplastic shells of revolution, Am. Inst. Aero. & Astro. J., 8, 16271634 (1970). [M6] Marcal, P. V., Finite element analysis with material nonlinearitiestheory and f practise, Recent Advances in Matrix Methods o Structural Analysis & Design, ed. R. H. Gallagher et al., The University of Alabama Press, pp. 257282 (1971). [M7] Marcal, P. V. & Pilgrim, W. R., A stiffness method for elastoplastic shells of revolution, J . Strain Analysis, 1 (4), 227242 (1966). [M8] Murray, D. W. & Wilson, E. L., Finite element postbuckling analysis of thin elastic plates, Proc. ASCE, J . Engine. Mech. Diu., 95, EM1, 143165 (1969). [M9] Murray, D. W. & Wilson, E. L., Finite element postbuckling analysis of thin elastic plates, .4m. Inst. qf Aero. & Astro. J., 7, 19151930 (1969). [Mlo] Murray, D. W. & Wilson, E. L., An approximate nonlinear analysis of thinplates, Proc. Air Force 2nd Con$ on Matrix Meth. in Struct. Mech., WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio (October 1968). [Nl] Nayak, G. C. & Zienkiewicz, 0.C., Elastoplastic stress analysis. A generalisation for various constitutive relationships including strain softening, Int. J . Num. Meth. in Engny., 5, 1 13 135 ( 1 972). 2) Nayak, G. C. & Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Note on the alphaconstant stiffness method of the analysis of nonlinear problems, Int. J . Num. Meth. in Enyng., 4, 579582 (1972). [Ol] Oden, J. T., Numerical formulation of nonlinear elasticity problems, Proc. ASCE, J . Struct. Diti., 93, ST3, paper 5290 ( 1 967). CO21 Oden, J. T., Finite element applications in nonlinear structural analysis, Proc. Con$ on Finite Element Meth., Vanderbilt University Tennessee (November 1969). [Pl] Pope, G., A discrete element method for analysis of plane elasticplastic stress problems, Royal Aircraft Estab. TR SM6510 (1965). [P2] Popov, E. P., Khojasteh Baht, M. & Yaghmai, S., Bending of circular plates of hardening materials, Int. J . Solids & Structs., 3, 975987 (1967). [Sl] Sabir, A. B. 62 Lock, A. C., The application of finite elements to the largedeflection geometrically nonlinear behaviour of cylindrical shells, Proc. Int. Conf. on Var. Meth. in Engng., Southampton Univ., Session VII, 6776 (September 1972). [S2] Schmidt, F. K., Bognor, F. K. & Fox, R. L., Finite deflection structural analysis using plate and shell discrete elements, Am. Inst. Aero. & Astro. J., 6(5), 781791 (1968). [S3] Sharifi, P. & Popov, E. P., Nonlinear buckling analysis of sandwich arches, Proc. ASCE, J . Engng. Mech. Div., 97, 1397141 1 (1971). [S4] Stricklin, J. A., Haisler, W. E. & Von Riseseman, W. A., Computation and solution procedures for nonlinear analysis by combined finite elementfinite difference methods, Compurers & Structures, 2, 955974 (1972). [Tl] Terazawa, K., Ueda, Y. & Matsuishi, M., Elastoplastic buckling of plates by finite element method, A S C E Annual Meeting and Nut. Meeting on Water Res. Engng., New Orleans, La., paper 845 (February 1969).
22
[T2] Turner, M. J., Dill, E. H., Martin, H. C. & Melosh, R. J., Large deflection of structures subject to heating and external load, J . Aero. Sci., 27, 97106 (1960). [W 11 Whange, B., Elastoplastic orthotropic plates and shells, Proc. Symp. on Appl. of Finite Element Methods in Civil Engng., Vandebilt University, ASCE 48 15 16 (1969). [Yl] Yamada, Y., Yoshimura, N., & Sakurai, T., Plastic stressstrain matrix and its application for the solution of elastoplastic problems by the finite element method, Znt. J . Mech. Sci., 10, 343354 (1968). [Zl] Zienkiewicz, 0.C., Valliapan, S. & King, I. P., Elastoplatic solutions of engineering problems. Initial stress, finite element approach, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 1, 75100 (1969). [Z2] Zienkiewicz, 0. C., T h e Finite Element in Engineering Science, McGrawHill, London (1971).
In Sections 1.2.13, we obtained numerical solutions for the simple bar/spring problem with one degree of freedom that is illustrated in Figure 1.1, We also proposed, in Figure 1.10, a simple example with two degrees of freedom. However, no numerical solutions were obtained for the latter problem. Once the number of variables is increased beyond one, it becomes tedious to obtain numerical solutions manually, and a simple computer program is more appropriate. Such a program will be of more use if its is written in a finite element context, so that different boundary conditions can be applied. So far, only indirect reference has been made to the finite element method. In this chapter, we will use the shallow truss theory of Section 1.2 to derive the finite element equations for a shallow truss element. We will then provide a set of Fortran subroutines which allows this element to be incorporated in a simple nonlinear finite element program. Flowcharts are given for an incremental formulation, a NewtonRaphson iterative procedure and, finally, a combined incremental/iterative technique that uses either the full or modified NewtonRaphson methods. Fortran programs, which incorporate the earlier subroutines, are then constructed around these flowcharts. Finally, the computer program is used to analyse a range of problems.
2.1
We will now use the shallow truss theory of Chapter 1 to derive the finite element equations for the shallow truss of Figure 2.1. The derivation will be closely related to the virtual work procedure of Section 1.3.2. Shortcuts could be used in the derivation but we will follow fairly conventional finite element procedures so that this example provides an introduction to the more complex finite element formulations that will follow. The element (Figure 2.1) has four degrees of freedom u 1 = p l , u2 = p 2 , w 1 = p 3 and w 2 = p4. Both the geometry and the displacements are defined with the aid of simple linear shape functions involving the nondimensional coordinate, 5, so
24
<=1 <=1
'\
' I
U1
Ft
7 l2
' t"'
\
that
(2.3)
d5
du
dud5
= Uz1/1
where the shorthand uZ1 has been used for u2  ul. In a similar fashion, dw =w,,/l dx Hence, from (2.3), dz = z2 111. dx
~
25
(equation (2.7)).
(2.8)
From (2.3), a change of strain, A&, corresponding to displacement changes Au and Aw is given by Ac:=dAu dx
+( +)
dz dx
where the final (higherorder) term in (2.9) becomes negligible as Aw gets very small. Using (2.5) and (2.6): (2.10)
(2.14)
In deriving (2.12)from (2. IO), the quadratic terms involving 8 ~ have been considered : ~ negligible. The virtual work equation can (see (1.77)) be expressed as
V
=
where qe are the external nodal forces corresponding to the nodal displacements, dp,. Because 8 6 , can be expressed, via (2.12), in terms of dp,, equation (2.15) can be rewritten as (2.16) where qi is the internal force vector, given by qi = a b d V = Nlb.
O ~ E d V  qTdp, = 0 ,
(2.15)
(2.17)
'This ordering would not be the most convenient for element assembly, but the ordering could easily be altered prior to such assembly.
26
For equilibrium, (2.16) should be satisfied for any virtual displacements. 6pv. Hence
g = q i.  q e = o
(2.18)
where g is the outofbalance force vector. From (1.80), K, = dg/dp and a truncated Taylor expansion of g, about an old configuration, g, gives
g,, = g,
+ %! 6p = g,,+ Kt6p.

8P
(2.19)
(2.20)
From (2.8) and (2.12):
(2.21)
Hence,
or
ab K, = EAlbbT + 1N ~dP
(2.22)
(2.23)
B P2
P2
This is the matrix equivalent of (1.9) with the second matrix being the initial stress matrix. Equation (1.9) can be recovered by setting
u 1 = w 1 = zI= u2 = 0,
w2 = w
and
z 2 = z.
(2.24)
2.2
We will now provide a set of Fortran subroutines to enable the solution of the simple barspring problems of Chapter 1 and others to be discussed in Section 2.6 and Chapters 3 and 9. In its most general form, the adopted barspring system is that shown in Figure 2.2, with the bar element of Figure 2.1 being surrounded by up to four linear earthed springs and one horizontal linear spring, connecting variables 1 and 5. For many of the problems the linear spring E<,, will be omitted; however, the potential to include this spring allows the solution of the complete range of NAFEMS barspring problems [C 1, D 11 which include both snapthroughs and snapbacks (Chapter 9). In relation to Figure 2.2, for the shallow truss elements, there is assumed to be no effective difference between x 2 1 and 1. The following subroutines are not designed for maximum computer efficiency but rather to illustrate the basic concepts. To a considerable extent, the subroutines are selfexplanatory. However, a brief synopsis will be given above each routine. The
27
Figure 2.2 Barspring system. (a) Bar element with springs; (b) variables.
computer programs of Sections 2.35 will incorporate these subroutines to produce programs for the analysis of shallow trusses. These computer programs are also designed to incorporate the deeptruss elements of Chapter 3 and hence the present subroutines will include some dummy variables that will only be used for the deep trusses.
2.2.1
Subroutine ELEMENT
This subroutine forms the internal force vector Fl(4) (using equation (2.17)) and/or the element tangent stiffness matrix AKT(4,4) (using equation (2.23)) for the shallow truss element. Only the upper triangle is formed but the full 4 x 4 structure is used.
1 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C SUBROUTINE ELEMENT (FI,AKT,AN,X,Z,P,E,ARA,AL,IWRIT,IWR,IMOD, IDUM,ADUMI ,ADUM2) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ELEMENT IMOD= 1 COMPUTES INT. LD. VECT. FI IMOD=2 COMPUTES TAN. STIFF. AKT IMOD = 3 COMPUTES BOTH AN=lNPUT TOTAL FORCE IN BAR Z = INPUT =Z COORD VECTOR P=lNPUT=TOTAL DISP. VECTOR AL = INPUT = LENGTH OF ELEMENT EA=lNPUT=YOUNGS MOD AND ARA (INPUT)=AREA OF ELEMENT IF IWRIT.NE.0 WRITES OUT FI AND/OR AKT ON CHANNEL IWR IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (A H,OZ) FI(4) P( DIMENS10N AKT (4,4), ,Z ( 2 ) , 4) ,X (2)
28
C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM A = E*ARA EAL = EAIAL 221 = Z ( 2 )  Z ( I ) w21 = P(4)  P(3) BET = (221 W21 )/AL
C
C
IF (IMOD.NE.2) THEN COMPUTES INT. FORCE VECT. (SEE (2.17)) FI(1)= 1.DO Fl(2) =  1.DO Fl(3) = BET Fl(4) = BET DO 1 1=1,4 1 FI(I) =AN*FI(I) IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1000) (FI(I),I=l,4) 1000 FORMAT(/,IX,'INT. FORCE VECT. FOR TRUSS EL IS1,/,lX,4G13.5) ENDIF ENDIF IF (IMOD.NE.l) THEN COMPUTES TAN STIFF. MATRIX (UPPER TRIANGLE) (SEE (2.23)) AKT(I,l)=l.DO AKT( 1,2) =  1.DO AKT( 1,3) = BET AKT(1!4) = BET AKT(2,2) = 1.DO AKT(2,3) =  BET AKT(2,4) = BET AKT(3,3) = BET*BET AKT(3,4) = AKT(3,3) AKT(4,4) = BET*BET DO 12 1=1,4 DO 12 J=1,4 12 AKT(I,J) =EAL*AKT(I,J) NOW ADD GEOM. OR INlT STRESS MATRIX (SEE (2.23)) ANL=AN/AL AKT(3,3) = AKT(3,3) +ANL AKT(3,4) = AKT(3,4) ANL AKT(4,4) = AKT(4,4) ANL IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRIT (IWR,1001) 1001 FORMAT(/,lX, 'TAN. STIFF. MATRIX FOR TRUSS EL. IS',/) DO 14 1=1,4 14 WRITE (IWR,67) (AKT(I,J),J = 1,4) 67 FORMAT (1X,7G13.5) ENDIF
C C C
C C C
C
C
29
2.2.2
Subroutine INPUT
This subroutine inputs the data for the geometry, properties, boundary conditions and loading (for sample data see Section 2.6.1.1). The first variable, NV, defines the number of variables (4 or 5). If NV is four the spring K,, of Figure 2.2 is omitted. The subroutine also inputs A, and AL, the length of the bar. An initial force in the bar (usually zero), N o , is also input. For consistency with some of the work in Chapter 3 which includes large strains, the variable EA is subdivided into E and A (the variable ARA although for the current work this subdivision is unnecessary. The subroutine requires the z coordinates of nodes 1 and 2 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). In addition, a fixed external load (or displacement) vector, qe= QFI(NV) and a boundary condition counter, IBC(NV) are input. The constituent terms of these vectors relate to the four or five degrees of freedom (Figure 2.2). Considering firstly standard load control, QFI(I) will contain a load (possibly zero) if the variable, I, is free. It will be zero if the variable, I, is constrained to zero. Simultaneously, IBC(I) will be set to zero if the variable is free or to unity if the variable is constrained to zero. To apply displacement control, QFI(I) is set to the magnitude of the fixed prescribed displacement (to be incremented), while IBC(I) is set to  1 (see Section 2.2.5 and the example in Section 2.6.4.4). The routine inputs the number of linear 'earthed springs' (NDSPup to four) followed by the degreeoffreedom numbers (IDSP(I), I = 1,NDSP) and the equivalent spring stiffnesses (AKSP(I),I = 1,NDSP). Finally, if NV is five, the subroutine inputs the stiffness of spring K,, (AK15) which connects variables 1 and 5 (Figure 2.2).
1 2 SUBROUTINE INPUT (E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,lBC,IRE,lWR,AK14S,ID14S, NDSP,NV,AK15, ADUMI ,IDUM) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS READS INPUT FOR TRUSS ELEMENT IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH, 0Z) DIMENSlON X(2),Z(2) ,QFI(NV),IBC(NV),AKI4S(4),ID14S(4) C READ (IRE,*) NV.EA,AL,ANIT E=EA ARA = 1 .DO WRITE (IWR, 1000) NV,EA,AL,ANIT 1000 FORMAT(/,IX,'NV= NO. OF VARBLS. =',15,/,1X, 1 'EA=',G13.5,/,1X, 2 'AL=EL. LENGTH=',G13.5,1X, 'ANIT = INIT. FORCE = ',G13.5) 3 IF (NV.NE.4.AND.NV.NE.5) STOP 'INPUT 1000' READ (IRE,*) Z(I),Z(2) WRITE (IWR,1001) Z(l),Z(2) 1001 FORMAT(/,IX,'Z COORD OF NODE 1 =',G13.5,1X, 1 'Z COORD OF NODE 2=',G13.5) READ (IRE,*) (QFI(I),I=t,NV) WRITE (IWR,1002) (QFI(I),I= 1,NV)
C C C C
30
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM 1002 FORMAT(/,lX, 'FIXED LOAD OR DISP. VECTOR,QFI =',/,IX,5G13.5) WRITE (IWR, 1008) 1008 FORMAT(/,IX, 'IF IBC(I)SEE BELOW = O , VARIABLE = A LOAD',/,lX,  I , VARIABLE = A DISP.') 'IF IBC(I)SEE BELOW= 2 READ (IRE,*) (IBC(I),I= 1 ,NV) WRITE (IWR,1003) (IBC(I),I= 1,NV) 1003 FORMAT(/,IX,'BOUND.COND. COUNTER, IBC',/,IX, '=O, FREE: = 1 , REST. TO ZERO: =  1 REST. TO NONZERO',/,lX, 1 2 515) READ (IRE,*) NDSP IF (NDSP.NE.0) THEN READ (IRE,*) (ID14S(l),l= 1,NDSP) READ (IRE,*) (AK14S(I),I= 1,NDSP) DO 40 I = 1,NDSP WRITE (IWR,1004) AK14S(I), ID14S(I) 1004 FORMAT(/,lX, 'LINEAR SPRING OF STIFFNESS',Gl3.5,/,1X, 1 'ADDED AT VAR. NO. ',15) 40 CONTINUE ENDIF
C IF (NV.EQ.5) THEN READ (IRE,*) AK15 WRITE (IWR,1005) AK15 1005 FORMAT(/,IX, 'LINEAR SPRING BETWEEN VARBLS. 1 and 5 OF STIFF ', 1 G13.5) ENDIF C RETURN END
C C C C
31
This subroutine puts the element stiffness matrix AKTE(4,4) into the structure stiffness matrix AKTS(NV,NV) (with NV=4 or 5), adds in the 'earthed springs' (if NDSP>O) and, if NV = 5, the linear spring between variables 1 and 5. Depending on the input mode parameter, IMOD, the subroutine may alternatively, or also, apply similar operations to the internal forces FI.
1
C C C C C C C C C C C
FOR IMOD=2 OR 3 PUTS ELSTIFF MATRIX AKTE(4,4) INTO STRUCT. STIFF AKTS(NV,NV) IF NV=5, ALSO ADDS IN LINEAR SPRING AK15 BETWEEN VARBLS. 1&5 ALSO ADDS IN NDSP EARTHED LINEAR SPRINGS FOR VARBLS. 14 USING PROPERTIES IN AK14S(4) AND DEGS. OF F. IN IDSPS(4) THROUGHOUT ONLY WORKS WITH UPPER TRIANGLE FOR IMOD=I OR 3 MODIFIES INTERNAL FORCE VECT., FI, TO INCLUDE EFFECTS FROM VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS USING TOTAL DISPS., PT. IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) NV,NV),ID14S(4),AK14S(4) DIMENSION AKTE(4,4),AKTS( DIMENSION FI(NV,)PT(NV)
C C C IF (IMOD.NE.2) THEN MODIFY FORCES IF (INDSP.NE.0) THEN FOR EARTHED SPRINGS DO 40 I = 1 ,NDSP IDS = ID14S(I) FI(IDS)= FI(IDS) +AK14S(I)*PT(IDS) 40 CONTINUE ENDIF
IF (NV.EQ.5) THEN MODIFY FOR SPRING BETWEEN VARBLS. 1 AND 5 FI(1) = FI(1) AK15*(PT(1)  PT(5)) F1(5)=AK15*(  P T ( l ) + P T ( 5 ) ) ENDIF
C C
C
ENDIF
32
C C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM IF (IMOD.NE.l) THEN WORK O N STIFFNESS MATRIX: CLEAR STRUCT. STIFFNESS MATRIX DO 10 I = l , N V DO 11 J = I , N V 11 AKTS(I,J) =O.DO 10 CONTINUE INSERT EL. STIFFNESS MATRIX DO 20 1=1,4 DO 21 J=1,4 21 AKTS(I,J) = AKTE(I,J) 20 CONTINUE SPRING BETWEEN VARBLS. 1&5 IF (NV.EQ.5) THEN AKTS( 1, 1) = AKTS( 1, I ) AK 15 AKTS( 1,5)= AKTS( 1,5) AK15 AKTS(5,5) = AKTS(5,5) AK15 ENDIF
C C
C C
C C
EARTHED SPRINGS FOR VARBLS. 14. IF (NDSP.NE.0) THEN DO 30 I = 1 ,NDSP IDS= ID14S(I) AKTS( I DS,I DS) = AKTS( IDS,I DS) AK 14S( I) 30 CONTINUE ENDIF
C IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1001) 1001 FORMAT(/,IX, FULL STRUCT. TAN. STIFF. IS,/) DO 50 I = 1,NV 50 WRITE (IWR,67) (AKTS(I,J),J = 1 ,NV) 67 FORMAT(1X,7G13.5) ENDIF C ENDIF C RETURN END
2.2.5
The tangent stiffness equations can be assumed to be of the form (2.25) where subscript f means free and subscript p means prescribed. (In practice, the ordering need not be of the form of (2.25).) Considering, firstly the case where the
33
displacements pp are constrained to zero, subroutine BCON effectively alters (2.25) to become (2.26a) This is achieved in subroutine BCON by setting the leading diagonal term of K = AKT(J,J)to unity if the boundary condition counter IBC(J) is unity (see Section 2.2.2). In addition, the remainder of the Jth row and column are set to zero. Hence a dummy equation is introduced (similar, in concept, to the second row of (2.26a)). (It is assumed that no loads are applied at constrained nodes.) If the displacements, pp, are to be constrained to nonzero values, instead of (2.26a) (2.25) is conceptually altered to (2.26b) These modifications are applied within subroutine BCON although, as previously discussed, the variables are not necessarily partitioned into the ordering of pT = (p:, In practice, the procedure of (2.26b) will cover the procedure of (2.26a) where pp = 0 and there is no need to distinguished between restrained variables (with pp = 0) and prescribed variables (with pp 0). Hence the same procedure is applied whether the boundary condition counter, IBC(J) is 1 or  1. The distinction is introduced for clarity in the input and for use with some of the more advanced solution procedures of Chapter 9.
PE).
SUBROUTINE BCON(AK,IBC,N,F,IWRIT,IWR) APPLIES B. CONDS. TO MATRIX AK AS WELL AS ALTERING LOAD VECTOR, F FOR PRESC. DISPS. BY SETTING DlAG = 1 . AND ROW AND COL TO ZERO IN REST. USES COUNTER IBC WHICH IS 0 IF FREE, 1 IF REST. TO ZERO,  1 IF REST. TO NONZERO VALUE. ON ENTRY F HAS LOADS FOR FREE VARIABLES AND DISPS. FOR REST. (POSSIBLY ZERO) VARIABLES. ON EXIT THE LATTER ARE UNCHANGED BUT LOADS ARE ALTERED IMPLICT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH, DIMENSIONS IBC(N) DIMENSION AK(N,N),F(N) C IPRS = 0 DO 10 I = I , N II = IBC(I) IF (II.LT.0) lPRS= 1 IF (II.NE.0) AK(I,I) = 1.DO IF (1.EQ.N) GO TO 10 DO 20 J = 1 +1,N JJ = IBC(J) IF (II.EQ.O.AND.JJ.EQ.0) G O TO 20 ABOVE BOTH FREE, BELOW BOTH REST. IF (II.NE.O.AND.JJ.NE.0) GO TO 25
0Z)
34 C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM BELOW I REST OR PRESC. IF (II.NE.0) THEN F(J) = F(J) AK(I,J)*F(I) BELOW J REST OR PRESC ELSE F(I) = F(I) AK(I,J)*F(J) ENDIF 25 AK(I,J) =O.DO 20 CONTINUE 10 CONTINUE IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1000) FORMAT(/,IX, STIFF. MAT. AFTER B.CONDS. IS,/) DO 30 I = I , N WRITE (IWR, 67) (AK(I,J),J= 1,N) IF (IPRS.EQ.l) WRITE (IWR,1001) F FORMAT(/,iX, MODIFIED LOAD VECTOR AFTER B CONDS. IS ,/,IX5G13.4) FORMAT(1X,7G12.5) ENDIF RETURN END
1000
30
1001
67
C
2.2.6
Subroutine CROUT
Conceptually, subroutine CROUT applies the Crout factorisation [ C 2 ] to the tangent stiffness matrix, K,. Here, L is a lower triangular matrix with unit terms on the leading diagonal and D is a diagonal matrix containing the pivots. In practice, the routine is entered with AK(N,N) containing the upper triangle of K, and exits with AK(N,N) containing LT while a vector D ( N ) exists with the diagonal pivots.
SUBROUTINE CROUT(AK,D,N,IWRIT,IWR) C C C C INPUTS AK(N,N); OUTPUTS UPPER TRIANGLE IN AK AND DlAG PIVOTS IN D(N)
I M P LICIT DO U B LE P REC IS10N ( AH ,OZ) DIMENSION AK(N,N),D(N)
C
D(1) = A K ( I , I ) DO 1 J = 2 , N DO 2 I = I , J  I A=AK(I,J) IF (I.EQ.1) GO TO 2 DO 3 L = l , 11 3 A = A  AK(L,J)*AK(L,I) 2 AK(I,J) = A DO 4 I = l , J  I 4 AK (I,J ) = AK ( I,J)/A K (I,I) DO 5 L = I , J  1
A SET OF FORTRAN SUBROUTINES 5 AK(J,J) = AK(J,J) AK(L,J)*AK(L,J)*AK(L,J) 1 D(J) =AK(J,J) C IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,lOOO) FORMAT(/,lX, 'FACTORISED MATRIX IS',/) DO 10 I = l , N WRITE (IWR,67) (AK(I,J),J= 1,N) FORMAT(1X,7G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1001) FORMAT(/,lX, 'DIAG. PIVOTS ARE',/) WRITE (IWR,67) (D(l),l= 1,N) ENDIF RETURN END
35
1000 10 67 1001
2.2.7
Subroutine SOLVCR
This subroutine applies forward and backward substitution on the vector Q using the previously obtained LDLTfactors (in AK and Dsee Section 2.2.6). Hence Q enters as a load vector and exits as a displacement vector so that the routine obtains:
q=K,'q
SUBROUTINE SO LVC R (AK,D ,Q,N, IW R IT,IWR) C C C APPLIES FORWARD AND BACK CROUT SUBS ON Q IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) DIMENSION AK(N,N),D(N),Q(N) C C FORWARD SUBS. DO 1 J=2,N DO 2 L = l , J  1 2 Q(J) = Q(J)  AK(L,J)*Q(L) 1 CONTINUE IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1000) ( Q ( l ) , l = 1,N) 1000 FORMAT(/,lX,'DISP.INCS AFTER FORWARD SUBS. ARE',/, 1 1X,7G 12.5) ENDIF BACK SUBS. DO 3 I = l , N 3 Q(I) = Q(I)/D(I)
(2.28)
C C
C
DO 4 JJ =2,N J = N +2JJ DO 5 L = I , J  1 5 Q(L) Q(L)  AK(L,J)?Q(J) 4 CONTINUE
=T
36
C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1001) (Q(I),I= 1,N) 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,DISP INCS. AFTER BACKWARD SUBS. ARE,/, 1 1X,7G12.5) ENDlF
C
RETURN END
Call INPUT obtain the geometry, properties, fixed loading, qef the boundary conditions counter, IBC and spring stiffness parameters
I
I
I
[
Aq = Qef Call ELEMENT which gives K, = fn.(N,z,EA,l,p) for the truss el. Call ELSTRUC which puts the el. stiff. matrix into the struct. stiff. matrix and modifies for earthed (and other) linear springs
Call BCON which applies the boundary conditions. Call GROUT which computes K, = LDLT. Call SOLVCR which computes Ap = K, Aq using the previously computed LDLTfactors
37
vector
(2.29)
where qef is a fixed external load vector that is input in subroutine INPUT and ; is 1 the loadlevel parameter. For the present, we will work with fixed increments so that, in addition to qef, the program inputs the loadincrement factor, AA. A flowchart for the incremental solution is given in Figure 2.3 and a computer program (NON LTA) follows.
2.3.1
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Program NONLTA
PROGRAM NONLTA PERFORMS NONLIN. INCREMENTAL SOLN. FOR TRUSS NV= NO. OF VARIABLES (4 OR 5) QFI =FIXED LOAD VECTOR IBC =B. COND. COUNTER (0= FREE, 1 = FIXED) Z = C COORDS O F NODES QlNC = INC. LOAD VECTOR PT = TOTAL DISP. VECTOR AKTS = STRUCT. TAN. STIFF. MATRIX AKTE = ELEMENT TAN. STIFF. MATRIX FI (NOT USED HERE) =INTERNAL FORCES D = DIAGONAL PIVOTS FROM LDL (TRAN) FACTORISATION ID14S=VAR. NOS. (1 4) AT WHICH LIN EARTHED SPRINGS A K l 4 S = EQUIV. LINEAR SPRING STIFFNESSES AK15=LlNEAR SPRING STIFF BETWEEN VARBLS. 1 and 5 (IF NV=5) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) DIM ENSlON QFI (5),IBC(5),Z(2) ,QINC(5) ,PT(5) ,AKTE(4,4) DIM ENS10 N FI(5), D(5),AK14S(4),ID 14S( 4) ,AKTS(25) ,X(2) ARRAY X ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS IRE=5 IWR=6 OPEN (UNIT=5,FILE=' ') OPEN (UNIT=G,FILE=' ')
C C
C CALL INPUT(E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,IBC,IRE,lWR,AKl4S,ID14S,NDSP, 1 NV,AK 15, 2 POISS,ITYEL) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS BELOW RELEVANT TO DEEP TRUSS BUT LEAVE FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ALN = A L ARN =ARA READ (IRE,*) FACI,NINC,IWRIT WRITE (IWR,1000) FACI, NINC,IWRIT
C C
38
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM 1000 FORMAT(/,IX, 'INCREMENTAL LOAD FACTOR= ',G13.5,/,1X, 1 'NO. OF INC. (NINC)= ',15,/,1X, 2 'WRITE CONTROL (IWRIT) = ',15,/,3X, 3 'O= LIMITED ; 1 =FULL')
C AN = ANlT FACT = O.DO DO 5 I = l , N V 5 PT(I) = 0.DO C C DO 100 INC = 1,NINC FACT = FACT FACl WRITE (IWR,1001) INC,FACT 1001 FORMAT(//,IX,'INC= ',15,'LD. FACTOR= ',G13.5) DO 10 I = l , N V 10 QINC(I) = FACI*QFI(I)
C C
C C
BELOW FORMS EL. TAN. STIFF MATRIX AKT CALL ELEMENT (FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL,lWRlT,lWR,2, 1 ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS CALL ELSTRUC(AKTE,AKTS, NV,AK15,ID 14S,AK14S,NDSP,FI,PT, 1 2, IWRIT,I W R) ABOVE PUTS EL.STIFF AKTE IN STRUC STIFF AKTS AND ADDS EFFECTS OF VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS CALL BCON(AKTS,lBC,NV,QINC,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE APPLIES B. CONDITIONS CALL CROUT(AKTS,D,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE FORMS LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION INTO AKT AND D CALL SO LVC R ( AKTS, D,QINC,NV,IWRIT,I W R) ABOVE SOLVES EQNS. AND GETS INC. DISPS IN QIN DO 20 I = 1,NV 20 PT(I)=PT(I)+QINC(I) ABOVE UPDATES TOTAL DISPS. WRITE (6,1002) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1002 FORMAT(/,IX, 'TOTAL DISPS. ARE',/,lX,5G13.5)
C C C C C C C
C C
C C
C C
BELOW FORMS TOTAL FORCE IN BAR CALL FORCE(AN,ANIT,E,ARA,AL,X,Z,PT,IWRIT,IWR, 1 ITYEL,ARN,ALN,POISS) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS 100 CONTINUE STOP 'NONLTA' END
NEWTONRAPHSON METHOD
39
2.4 A FLOWCHART AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR AN ITERATIVE SOLUTION USING THE NEWTONRAPHSON METHOD
A computer program for an iterative solution can be generated by extending the concepts of Sections 1.2.2 and 1.3. Because an iterative procedure is being adopted, a convergence criterion must be introduced. A detailed discussion on convergence criteria will be given in Section 9.5.4. In the meantime, we will adopt a simple force criterion whereby,
(2.30)
where g is the outofbalance force vector and qe is the current total external load vector while r is the reaction vector (with nonzero values where the displacements are constrained). The introduction of the r terms in (2.30) allows the procedure to work when displacement control is adopted and the external load vector, qe, is zero. (In very rare circumstances, under displacement control, 11 r I/ may be zero; hence the alternative convergence criterion included in subroutine ITER (Section 2.4.2) and its flowchart (Figure 2.4, Section 2.4.2).) Typical values for p lie between 0.001 and 0.01 although a tighter tolerance might be required for displacement control because r will generally have terms for each component so that, with the same p, (2.30b) will be less severe than (2.30a). The reactions, r, are simply computed as being equal to the internal forces, qi (see (2.17)), at the constrained variables. In practice, in subroutine ITER (see Section 2.4.2), r is set to qi for all variables. Hence, for the early iterations, r will include the outofbalance forces at the free variables but, as the solution procedure converges, these terms will tend to zero. For the master segment of the computer program (NONLTBsee below), we simply read in, as before, the geometric data and properties as well as the fixed external load vector, qef, via subroutine INPUT. In addition, we input a starting trial vector, p,, = PT(NV) (possibly zero), and the required convergence tolerance, p (see (2.30)). Finally, the program calls a subroutine ITER (see Section 2.4.2) which performs the NewtonRaphson iterations until convergence is achieved. A flowchart for this subroutine is given in Figure 2.4. The subroutine is designed to operate with the general incremental/iterative strategy of the next section. Hence it allows either full or modified NR iterations. However, only the former may be used with the program NONLTB.
2.4.1
C C C
Program NONLTB
PROGRAM NONLTB PERFORMS NEWTONRAPHSON ITERATION FROM STARTING PREDICTOR, PT NV=NO. OF VARIABLES (4 OR 5)
40
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM IBC = B. COND. COUNTER (0= FREE, 1 = FIXED) Z = Z COORDS OF NODES PT = TOTAL DISP. VECTOR ID14S=VAR. NOS. (14) AT WHICH LINEAR EARTHED SPRINGS AK14S = EQUIV. LINEAR SPRING STIFFNESSES QFI =TOTAL LOAD VECTOR AKTS = STRUCT. STIFF. MATRIX AK15=LIN SPRING STIFF. BETWEEN VARBLS. 1 AND 5 (IF NV=5) FI = INTERNAL FORCE VECTOR GM=OUTOFBALANCE FORCE VECTOR REAC = REACTIONS X = X COORDS ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DAT2/AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) COMMON /DAT/ X(2),Z(2),E,ARA,AL,ID14S(4),AK14S(4),NDSP,ANIT,AK15 COMMON /DAT2/ ARN, POISS,ALN,ITY EL DIMENSION QFI (5),IBC(5),PT(5),AKTS(25),D(5) ,GM(5),Fl(5) DIMENSION REAC(5)
C IRE=5 IWR=6 OPEN (UNIT=5,FILE=' OPEN (UNIT=6,Fll.E=' C CALL INPUT(E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,IBC,IRE,lWR,AKl4S,ID14S,NDSP, 1 NV,AKl 5 2 POISS,ITYEL) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS BELOW RELEVANT TO DEEP TRUSS BUT LEAVE FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ALN = A L ARN =ARA
') ')
C C
C READ (IRE*) (PT(I),I=l,NV) WRITE (IWR,2000) (PT(I),I=I,NV) 2000 FORMAT(/,IX,2STARTING PREDICTOR DISPS ARE',/,1X,6G 12.5) READ (IRE*) BETOK,IWRIT WRITE (IWR,2001) BETOK,IWRIT 2001 FORMAT(/,l X,'CONV. TOL FACTOR, BETOK = ',Gl2.5,/,1X, 2 'DIAGNOSTIC WRITE CONTROL(IWRIT) = ',15,/,3X, 3 'O=NO ; l = Y E S ' ) C SET TO NEWTONRAPHSON ITERATIONS ITERTY = 1 C CALL ITER(PT,AN,BETOK,QFI,IBC,IWRIT,IWR,AKTS,D,ITERTY,NV, 1 GM,FI,REAC) C WRITE (IWR,1004), (PT('I,I = 1 ,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/,lX,'FINAL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS ARE',/,l X5G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1006) (REAC(I),I= 1,NV)
NEWTONRAPHSON METHOD 1006 FORMAT(/,lX,'FINAL REACTIONS ARE',/,l XSG12.5) WRITE (IWR.1005) AN 1005 FORMAT(/,IX, 'AXIAL FORCE IN BAR IS ',G12.5) STP 'NONLTB' END
41
2.4.2
Set max. number of iterations, NITMAX. Begin iterative loop, ITE = 1, NITMAX
I .
Call BCON which applies the boundary conditions. Call CROUT which computes K, = LDLT
c
I
Call SOLVCR which computes 6p =  K, 'g using the previously computed LDLT factors P=P+6P
@
Figure 2.4 Flowchart for subroutine ITER which performs equilibrium iterations and can be used with program NONLTB (NR iteration) or NONLTC (combined incremental/iteratlve) solution
42
1
S UBRO UTINE ITER( PT,A N,BE T 0K,QEX,IBC,IW R IT,IW R,AKTS, D, ITERY,NV, G M,FI,REAC)
INPUTS PREDICTOR DISPS. PT(NV) AND EXT. FORCE VECTOR QEX(NV) ALSO BETOK = CONV. TOL, IBC = B. CON COUNTER ITERATES TO EQUILIBRIUM: OUTPUTS NEW PT AND FORCE IN BAR,AN IF ITERTY (INPUT)=l USES FULL NR, = 2 USES MOD NR IN LATTER CASE, AKTS AND D INPUT AS CROUT FACTORS (D = PIVOTS) LOCAL ARRAY I AKTE=EL. STIFF. MATRIX S ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DAT2/AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) COMMON /DAT/ X(2),Z(2),E,ARA,AL,ID14S(4),AK14S(4),NDSP,ANIT,AK15 COMMON /DAT2/ ARN,POISS,ALN,ITYEL DIMENSlON PT(NV),QEX(NV),IBC(NV),REAC(NV) DIMENSION FI(NV),GM(NV),AKTS(NV,NV),D(NV),AKTE(4,4)
C C C C C C C C C
C SMALL ~ 0 .D  2 1 NlTMAX = 16 IMOD = 1 IF (ITERTY.EQ.1) IMOD = 3 C DO 100 ITE=l,NITMAX C IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,l005) ITE 1005 FORMAT(/,IX,'ITERATIVE LOOP WITH ITE = ',l5) BELOW CALCS FORCE IN BAR (AN) C CALL FORCE(AN,ANIT,E,ARA,AL,X,Z,PT,IWRIT,IWR, ITYEL,ARN,ALN,POISS) C ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOWTRUSS C ABOVE CALCS FORCE IN BAR, AN: BELOW TAN STIFF AKT C (IF NR) AND INT. FORCE VECT. FI C CALL ELEMENT(FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL,IWRIT,IWR~IMOD, ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C C BELOW PUTS EL. STIFF. MAT., AKTE, IN STR. STIFF., AKTS AND C ADDS IN EFFECTS OF VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS (IF NR) C ALSO MODIFIES INT. FORCE VECT. FI FOR SPRING EFFECTS C CALL ELSTRUC(AKTE,AKTS,NV,AKl5,ID14S,AK14S,NDSP,FI,PT, I M OD,IW R IT,IW R) C BELOW FORMS GM =OUTOFBALANCE FORCE VECTOR C AND REACTION VECTOR C DO 10 I=l,NV GM(I) =O.DO REAC(I) = FI(I) IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN GM(I) = QEX(I)  FI(I) ENDIF
NEWTONRAPHSON METHOD 10 CONTINUE 67 FORMAT(6G13.5) 47 FORMAT(5I5) OVERWRITE SPRING REACTION TERMS IF (NDSP.NE.0) THEN DO 50 I = 1,NDSP 50 REAC(ID14S( I)) =  AK14S( I)*PT(ID 14S(I)) ENDIF BELOW CHECKS CONVERGENCE FNORM = O.DO GNORM=O.DO RNORM =O.DO IDSP=O DO 20 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) FNORM = FNORM QEX(I)*QEX(I) IF (lBC(l).EQ.1) IDSP=l RNORM = RNORM REAC(I)*REAC(I) 20 GNORM =GNORM GM(I)*GM(I) FNORM = DSQRT(FN0RM) GNORM = DSQRT(GN0RM) RNORM = DSQRT(RN0RM) BAS = MAX(FNORM,SMALL) BELOW DISP. CONTROL IF (IDSP.EQ.l) BAS = MAX(RNORM,SMALL) BET = GNORM/BAS ITEM = ITE  1 WRITE (IWR,1001) ITEM,BET 1001 FORMAT/,lX,'ITERN. NO.= ',l5,' CONV. FAC.= ',G13.5) IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1003) (GM(I),I= 1,NV) 1003 FORMAT(/,lX,'OUTOFBAL. FORCE VECTOR = ',/,l X,4G13.5) IF (BET.LE.BETOK) GO TO 200
43
+ +
IF (ITERTY.EQ.1) THEN CALL BCON(AKTS,lE3C,NV,GM,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE APPLIES B. CONDITIONS CALL CROUT(AKTS,D,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE FORMS LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION INTO AKTS AND D ENDIF CALL SOLVCR(AKTS,D,GM,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE KETS ITER. DISP. CHANGE IN GM DO 30 I = l , N V IF (IBC(l).EQ.O) THEN PT(I) = PT(I) GM(I) ELSE PT(I) = QEX(1) ENDIF 30 CO NTlNUE ABOVE UPDATES DISPS.
44
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/,l X,TOTAL DISPS ARE,/,IX,6G13.5)
C 100 CONTl N UE C WRITE (IWR,1002) 1002 FORMAT(/,IX,FAILED TO CONVERGE****) STOP ITER 100 C 200 CONTINUE RETURN END
2.5 A FLOWCHART AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR AN INCREMENTAL/ITERATIVE SOLUTION PROCEDURE USING FULL OR MODIFIED NEWTONRAPHSON ITERATIONS
A computer program for a combined incremental/iterative solution can be generated by extending the concepts of Sections 1.2.3 and 1.3. The master program NONLTC (see below) is very similar to the incremental program NONLTA (see, Section 2.3 and Figure 2.3) because it involves the generation of an incremental predictor prior to the application, via subroutine ITER (see Section 2.4 and Figure 2.3), of equilibrium iterations. The latter may be full or modified NewtonRaphson depending on a parameter, ITERTY, that is input in program NONLTC. Figure 2.5 gives a flowchart for t.his program. Immediately after the beginning of the main incremental loop, the flowchart contains Aq AAqe, (  g)*
(2.31)
The term in brackets is omitted (and a comment statement included in program NONLTC) if a pure incremental predictor is adopted. Generally, it is better to include the bracketed  g term because this ensures that the outofbalance forces from the previous increment are included at the start of the current increment. Hence (2.32) Clearly, if a very tight convergence tolerance is adopted, there will be no difference between the two formulations. If a very coarse convergence tolerance is adopted, no real iterations will be performed in subroutine ITER and a selfcorrecting incremental formulation will be produced [H 1.13. However, the term selfcorrecting is too strong for, although the procedure does make some allowance for the outofbalance forces from the previous increment, it does not ensure a genuine equilibrium solution. The reader may like to try this out by applying a coarse con:rergence tolerance (high BETOK as input to program NONLTC) to the singlevariable problem of Figure I .l. The pure incremental solution to this problem was obtained in Section 1.2.1 and is given in Figure 1.4. It will be found that a selfcorrecting incremental formulation will only marginally improve the solution.
a=
45
Call INPUT obtain the geometry, properties, fixed loading, qef, the boundary conditions counter, IBC and spring stiffness parameters
I
~
qe = 1qef ; Aq AAqef (  g) Call ELEMENT which gives K, = fn.(N,z,EA,l,p) for the truss el. Call ELSTRUC which puts the el. stiff. matrix into the struct. stiff. matrix and modifies for earthed (and other) linear springs
I
A = 1 + AA
Call BCON which applies the boundary conditions. Call CROUT which computes K, = LDLT. Call SOLVCR which computes Ap = Kt Aq
Figure 2.5 Flowchart for a combined IncrernentaViterative solution procedure using either full or
modified NewtonRaphson iterations.
2.5.1
C C C C C C C C C
Program NONLTC
PROGRAM NONLTC PERFORMS NONLIN. INCREMENTAL/ITERATIVE SOLN. FOR TRUSS NV = NO. OF VARIABLES(4 OR 5) QFI =FIXED LOAD VECTOR IBC = B. COND. COUNTER (0= FREE, 1 = FIXED) Z = Z COORDS OF NODES QlNC = INC. LOAD VECTOR PT=TOTAL DISP. VECTOR QEX=TOTAL (EXTERNAL) LOAD VECTOR
46
C C C C C C C C C C C C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM AKTS = STR. TAN. STIFF. MATRIX AKTE = ELE. TAN. STIFF. MATRIX FI =INTERNAL FORCES D = DIAGONAL PIVOTS FROM LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION ID14S=VAR. NOS. (14) AT WHICH LINEAR EARTHED SPRINGS AK14S= EQUIV. LINEAR SPRING STIFFNESS AK15=LIN SPRING STIFF. BETWEEN VARBS. 1 AND 5 (IF NV=5) GM =OUTOFBALANCE FORCES REAC = REACTIONS X = X COORDS ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DAT2/ANDARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) COMMON /DAT/ X(2),Z(2),E,ARA,AL,ID14S(4),AK14S(4),NDSP,ANIT,AK15 COMMON /DAT2/ ARN,POISS,ALN,ITYEL DIMENSION QFl(5),lBC(5),QINC(5),PT(5),AKTE(4,4) DIMENSlON FI(5),D(5) ,QEX(5) ,GM (5),AKTS(25) ,REAC(5)
C IRE=5 IWR=6 OPEN (UNIT=5,FILE=' OPEN (UNIT=G,FILE=' C 1 2 C C CALL INPUT(E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,lBC,IRE,lWR,AKl4S,ID14S,NDSP, NV,AK15, POISS,ITY EL) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS BELOW RELEVANT TO DEEP TRUSS BUT LEAVE FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ALN = A L ARN =ARA
') ')
C READ (IRE,*) FACI,NINC,IWRIT WRITE (IWR,I000) FACI,NINC,IWRIT 1000 FORMAT(/,lX,'INCREMENTALLOAD FACTOR =',G13.4,/,1X, 1 'NO. OF INCS. (NINC) = ',l5,/,1X, 2 'WRITE CONTROL (IWRIT) = ' , I 5/13X, 3 'O= LIMITED; 1 =FULL') READ (IRE.*)BETOK,ITERTY WRITE (IWR,1003) BETOK,ITERTY 1003 FORMAT(/,lX,'CONV. TOL FACTOR, BETOK = ',G13.5,/, 1 1X,'ITERATIVE SOLN. TYPE, ITERTY = ',l5,/, 2 5X,'=1, FULL NR; =2,MOD. NR') AN = ANlT FACT = O.DO DO 5 I=I,NV GM(I) =O.DO 5 PT(I)=O.DO C C DO 100 INC= 1,NINC FACT = FACT FACl
MODIFIED NEWTONRAPHSON ITERATIONS FACl IS INC LOAD FACTOR, FACT IS TOTAL WRITE (IWR, 1001) INC,FACT 1001 FORMAT(//,I X,'INC = ',l5, 'LD. FACTOR = ',G12.5) DO 10 I = l , N V QEX(I)= FACT*QFI(I) QINC(I) = FACI*QFI(I) C USE BELOW COMMENT LINE INSTEAD OF ABOVE TO INCLUDE C ALLOWANCE FOR PREVIOUS O.B. FORCES QINC(I) = FACI*QFI(I)+GM(I) C 10 CONTINUE C C BELOW FORMS EL. TAN. STIFF MATRIX AKTE CALL ELEMENT (FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL,lWRlT,lWR,2, 1 ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C BELOW PUTS EL. STIFF. AKTE IN STRUCT. STIFF. AKTS C AND ADDS EFFECT OF VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS C CALL ELSTRUC (AKTE,AKTS,NV,AKl5,IDI 4S,AK14S,NDSP,FI,PT, 1 2,1WRIT,IWR) C C CALL BCON (AKTS,IBC,NV,QINC,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE APPLIES B. CONDITIONS C CALL CROUT(AKTS,D,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE FORMS LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION INTO AKTS AND D C BELOW CHECKS FOR NEGATIVE PIVOTS C NEG=O DO 30 I = 1,NV IF (D(I).LT.O.DO) NEG = NEG 1 30 CONTINUE IF (NEG.GT.0) WRITE (IWR,1007) NEG 1007 FORMAT(/,IX'***WARNING NO. OF NEG. PIVOTS = ',15) C CALL SOLVCR(AKTS,D,QlNC,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE SOLVES EQNS. AND GETS INC. DISPS IN QIN C C DO 20 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN PT(I)=PT(I) QINC(I) ELSE PT(I) = QEX(I) ENDIF 20 CONTl NUE C ABOVE UPDATES TOTAL DISPS. C WRITE (IWR,1002) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1002 FORMAT(/,lX,'TOTAL DISPS. AFTER TAN. SOLN ARE',/,lX,7G13.5) C C BELOW ITERATES TO EQUILIBRIUM CALL ITER(PT,AN,BETOK,QEX,IBC,IWRIT,IWR,AKTS,D,ITERTY,NV, 1 GM,FI,REAC) C
47
48
C
FORTRAN COMPUTER PROGRAM WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/.l X'FINAL TOTAL DISPLACEMENT ARE',/,l X,6G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1006) (REAC(I),I = 1 ,NV) 1006 FORMAT(/lX,'FINAL REACTIONS ARE',/,lX,5G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1005) AN 1005 FORMAT(/,IX'AXIAL FORCE IN BAR IS', G12.5)
2.6
In this section, we will give the data for and describe the results from a number of barspring problems that can be solved with the aid of the previous computer programs. In a few instances, we will also give truncated versions of the output. In addition to the present problems, the reader can, of course, devise those of his own. The present problems are all based on the dimensions and properties of (1.12), so that
EA
=5 x
to7, 1 = 2500.
(2.33)
2.6.1
The following data relates to the singlevariable problem of Section 1.2 (see 1.12)) and Figure 1.1 with z = zZ1= 25 and K , = K , , = 1.35. The expected response is that shown in Figure 1.4. For this problem, the variables 1, 2 and 3 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) are constrained to zero and a spring (of magnitude 1.35) is provided at variable 4. A negative loading is incremented at variable 4.
2.6.1.1 Incremental solution using program NONLTA
The following data leads to 12 increments of a pure incremental solution which should illustrate the drift from equilibrium shown in Figure 1.4 and detailed for 2 increments in Section 1.2.1. 4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33); solution as in Section 1.1.1 0. 25. ; z = z Z 1= 25. 0. 0. 0. 7. ; vert. load at variable 4 (node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only free at variable 4 1 4 1.35 ; earthed spring of 1.35 at variable 4 1. 12 1 ; AA= 1, 12 incs., write control on
49
With a starting value of zero, program NONLTB takes five NewtonRaphson iterations to obtain an equilibrium solution of w 2 = p 4 =  28.39 for a load of 4 4 = 35. 4 0. 0. 1
1
50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) and Figure 1.1 25. ; z = z Z 1= 25. 0. 0. 35. ; load of 35 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 0 ; only free at variable 4
4 1.35 ; earthed spring of 1.35 at variable 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; starting vector for NR iteration 0.001 1 ; conv. tol., beta; write control on
With a fixed loading of q,,(4) =  7, four increments with AA = 2 (leading to a final loading of  28) are applied. Using full NewtonRaphson (data as below), the number of iterations for the four increments are 2,2,4,2 while with modified NewtonRaphson iterations (data as below apart from changing the last variable from unity to zero), the first three increments require 5,9,4 iterations respectively and the fourth fails to converge. 4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) and Figure 1.1 0. 25. ; z = z Z 1 = 2 5 . 0. 0. 0. 7.0 ; load of 7 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free I 4 1.35 ; earthed spring of 1.35 at variable 4 2. 4 0 ; 4 incs. of Ail = 1.0 each 0.001 I ; Conv. tol., beta, of 0.001; full NR
2.6.2
When the spring is removed, the 'exact' (the inverted commas are required because the solution is only exact within the context of shallowtruss theory) solution is governed by (1.1 1) with K , = 0. In particular, the response is that shown in Figure 1.2(a) with ' = E A ( z / ~= 50 as the nondimensionalising factor. The following data relates % l )~ to the use of program NONLTC to obtain a loadcontrolled solution with increments of 0.1 w. 4 50000000. 2500.0. ; data as in (2.33) and Figure l.l(a), response 1.2(a) 0. 25. ; z = z~~ = 25.
50
0. 0. 0. 50.0 ; load of 50 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free 0 ; no springs 0.1 3 0 ; 3 incs. of AA = 0.1 each, write control off 0.001 1 ; Conv. tol. beta, of 0.001; full NR;
Using full NR (as in the data above), the required number of iterations were 2,39,1. The 39 iterationst were required to jump over the limit points from a nondimensional load (see Figure 1.2(a)) of = 0.1 to one of = 0.2. When the iterative procedure was changed to modified NewtonRaphson (by changing the 1 to a zero in the last data line above) 5, iterations were required for the first increment, and for the second, which encompasses the limit points, no convergence was obtained within 100 iterations. In contrast to the previous difficulties, no problems are encountered when displacement control is used to analyse this problem. The following data relates to the application of seven increments of Aw, = Aw = 0.32, which allows the complete response in Figure 1.2(a) to be traced. For this problem, the displacement controlled solution is, in fact, trivial with not only no iterations but also no real equation solving.
(w)
4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) and Figure l.l(a), response 1.2(a) 0. 25. ; z = z~~ = 25. 0. 0. 0.  25.0 ; disp. of  25 (  z ) at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1  1 ; variable 4 has presc. disp., restrained 0 ; no springs 0.3 7 0 ; 7 incs. of A i = 0.3 each, write control off 0.001 1 ; Conv. tol. beta, of 0.001; full NR 2.6.3
Perfect buckling with two variables
The following data relates to the twovariable problem of Section 1.3 and Figure 1.1 with the data as in (2.33) with a spring stiffness, K , = K,, = 4 and z = z Z 1 = 0 so that the truss element is flat. In these circumstances, the critical buckling load is given (see (1.68)) by U,,
= l K , = 2500 x
4 = 10,.
(2.34)
This load is applied to the incremental/iterative program NONLTC as q,(4) with increments of Ak = 0.4 using the following data: 4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) with K , = K,, = 4 0.0 0.0 z = z 2 1 = 0 (perfect) 10000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; horizontal LHS buckling load (at q l ) 0 1 1 0 ; only LHS horiz. ( p l ) and RHS vert ( p , ) disps. free 1 4 4.00 ; earthed spring of 4.0 at RHS vertical variable (no. 4)
'To obtain these 39 iterations, NITMAX in subroutine ITER must be increased to, say, 101.
51
0.4 5 1 ; 5 incs. with AA = 0.4 ( x crit. buckl. ld.), write contrl. on 0.001 1 ; Conv. tol., fl of 0.001, full NR
As anticipated, no iterations are required because the system remains flat and no outofbalance forces are generated. Increment 3 takes the solution beyond the buckling load to U = 1.2Uc, and this can be detected by the negative pivot in the LDLTfactorisation at the start of increment 4. The procedure then continues to climb the unstable equilibrium path (Figure 1.1 1). In fact, for this somewhat trivial problem, the negative pivots are obvious from the original tangent stiffness matrices which are of diagonal form, i.e. increment 2 (1= 0.8) leads to
and, from (1.64), the tangent stiffness matrix at the start of increment 3 is
=[
UI
2000. 0. 0. 0.81
(2.36)
12000.
(2.37)
and the tangent stiffness matrix at the start of increment 4 is (2.38) It might be thought that the solutions would not continue to climb the unstable path if iterations are actually applied because these iterations will force the solution off the unstable path. The reader can easily amend the program to ensure one iteration at each increment even if the solution has converged. He or she will find that this has no effect and the unstable path is still followed.
2.6.4
As discussed in Section 1.3, the bifurcation in the previous problem can be removed by introducing an imperfection. In particular, we will set z = z21 = 25 so that, in relation to the exact solutions of Section 1.2.1, of (1.74) = 0.5 and the possible equilibrium paths are shown in Figure 1.11.
2.6.4.1 Pure incremental solution using program NON LTA
The following data leads to the application of five increments, each with A U / U c ,= 0.3, using a pure incremental solution procedure.
50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) with K , = Ks4 = 4 0. 25.0 ; z = z Z 1= 25.
4
52
10000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; horizontal LHS critical buckling load (at q l ) 0 1 1 0 ; only LHS horiz. ( p l ) and RHS vert (p,) disp. free 1 4 4.00 ; earthed spring of 4.0 at RHS. vertical variable (no. 4) 0.3 5 0 ; 5 incs. with AA = 0.3 ( x crit. buckl. ld.), write contr, off The resulting solutions are shown as squares in Figure 2.6. The drift from equilibrium can be clearly seen.
2.6.4.2 An incrementalliterative solution using program NON LTC with small increments
The following data leads to the circles on Figure 2.6 which effectively lie on the exact curves (see Section 1.3.1). 4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) with K , = K,, = 4 0. 25.0 ; Z = Z , ~ =25. 10000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; horizontal LHS critical buckling load (at q l ) 0 1 1 0 ; only LHS horiz. ( p l ) and RHS vert ( p , ) disps. free 1 4 4.00 ; earthed spring of 4.0 at RHS vertical (no. 4) 0.3 3 1 ; 3 incs. with AA = 0.3 ( x crit. buckl. ld.), write contr. on 0.001 1 ; Conv. tol., beta of 0.001, full NR The required number of iterations (using the full NR method) was 2,3,5. A truncated form of the output for the first increment of this problem is given below. The truncation has mainly involved only giving the response for the two active variables, a, = p , = u1 and a, = p4 = w2 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Even without the computer program, the reader should be able to follow these results in conjunction with the theory of Sections 1.3 or 2.1 so as to understand the basis of the NewtonRaphson method for a twovariable geometrically nonlinear problem. When studying these results, the spring stiffness (4.0)must be added for K , , and the equivalent term of 4 . 0 W 2 must be added in to the outofbalance force vectort:
INC= 1 LD. FACTOR= TAN. STIFF. MATRIX IS* 20000.  200.00 .ooooo 6.0000 DlSP INCS. ARE
.30000
7.5000
SOLN ARE
7.5000
7.5000
*Only the upper triangle of the printed tangent stiffness matrix is correct.
53
(a)
,
/
/ 2.2
2.0
1.8
I I I \ \
1.6
1.o
O4
0.2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
7 8 w+z
2
10
2.4 2.2
El Incremental solution
2.0
0 small increments
_li_ UC,
A
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.o
incremental/iterative solutions
0.e 0.6
0.4
 /  
02
U3
03
(25.34)
0.2
I
Figure 2.6 Solutions for twovariable barspring problem: (a) transverse deflection; (b) shortening
54
OUTOFBAL. FORCE VECTOR= 225.00 6.0750 ; CONV. FAC. = .75027E01 TAN. STIFF. MATRIX IS 20000.  260.00 .ooooo 6.2700 DlSP INCS. ARE .51734E01 3.1 142
TOTAL DlSPS ARE .27673 10.614 BEGIN ITERATIVE LOOP WITH IT= AXIAL FORCE AN =
 2961.2
OUTOFBAL. FORCE VECTOR = 38.793 .27235; CONV. FAC.=.12931E01 TAN. STIFF. MAT. IS 20000.  284.91 .ooooo 6.8743 DlSP INCS. ARE .33577E02 .99547E01
TOTAL DlSPS ARE .28009 10.714 BEGIN ITERATIVE LOOP WITH ITE= AXIAL FORCE AN=
3000.0
OUTOFBAL. FORCE VECTOR = .97842E03; CONV. FAG. = ,13217E04 .39639E01 FINAL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS ARE .28009 10.714 FINAL REACTIONS ARE 3000.0  42.855 AXIAL FORCE IN BAR I S 3000.0
Although the iterations are terminated within the iterative loop with ITE = 3, we have classified this increment as requiring two iterations. For, although the tangent stiffness matrix has been reformed for ITE = 3, it has not been used to solve for a new set of iterative displacements, because having computed the outofbalance forces, the convergence factor has been found to be less than the required tolerance ( p = 0.001see (2.30)).
2.6.4.3 An incrementalliterative solution using program NONLTC with large increments
To some degree, we have been assisted in obtaining the previous solutions by knowing the answer! In particular, this knowledge helped guide our choice of initial increment.
55
As an early illustration of the possible pitfalls of nonlinear analysis, we will now resolve this problem using increment of AA = U / U c ,= 1.2. The results, which relate to the following data, are shown as the triangles in Figure 2.6.
4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.23) with K , = K,, = 4 0. 25.0 ; z = z~~ = 25. 10000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; horizontal LHS critical buckling load (at q l ) 0 1 1 0 ; only LHS horiz. ( p l ) and RHS vert (p4) disps. free 1 4 4.00 ; earthed spring of 4.0 at RHS vertical variable (no. 4) 1.2 2 0 ; 3 incs. with AA = 1.2 ( x crit. buckl. ld.), write contr. on 0.0001 1 ; Conv. tol., beta of 0.001, full NR
It will be seen that we have converged on to and stayed on the wrong equilibrium path! Luckily, there are warning signs. In particular, on factorising the stiffness matrix following convergence to point 1, the LDLTfactorisation indicates one negative pivot. The tangent stiffness is notpositive definite because, as in the simpler example of Section 2.6.2, we have passed a bifurcation point (more strictly, we have crossed a stable equilibrium line). The situation can be more confusing because negative pivots can also be caused by passing limit points (see Chapter 9). The number of full NewtonRaphson iterations to obtain the triangles in Figure 2.6 were 6 and 5.
2.6.4.4 An incrementalliterative solution using program NON LTC with displacement control
Instead of applying load control, we can apply displacement control at variable 1 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The critical buckling displacement, U , , is then
U,, =
1 U,, AE
= 0.5.
(2.39)
Applying increments of A2 = 3.0 = Au/u,, to this problem requires the following data which gives the solutions depicted by the inverted triangles in Figure 2.6. The results effectively lie on the exact equilibrium curves: 4 50000000. 2500. 0. ; data as in (2.33) with K , = K,, = 4 0. 25.0 ; z = z Z 1= 25. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; horizontal LHS critical buckling displacement (at p l )  1 1 1 0 ; only RHS vert ( p , ) disps. free, LHS horiz. disp. ( p l ) prescribed
1
4 4.00 ; earthed spring of 4.0 at RHS vertical variable (no. 4) 3.0 3 I ; 3 incs. with A i = 3.0 ( x crit. buckl. disp.), write contr. on 0.00001 1 ; Conv. tol., beta of 0.00001, full NR The required number of iterations (using the full NewtonRaphson method) for the three increments were 3,3,2.
56
2.7
SPECIAL NOTATION
A = area of bar K , = spring stiffness N = axial force in bar r = reaction vector u = axial (xdirection) displacement in bar (function of x) u l , u2 = nodal displacements for bar in xdirection 1.4,~ = U ,  U , (similar convention for w21 and z 2 , ) U , , U , = nodal forces corresponding to U , , u2 w = vertical ( z direction) displacement in bar wl, = nodal displacements for bar in zdirection w2 W , , W2 = nodal forces corresponding to U,, w 2 z = initial vertical offset of bar zl, z2 = nodal values of z 1 = initial length of bar /? = geometric factor (equation (2.14)) or convergence tolerance factor (equation (2.30)) E = axial strain in bar
Subscripts
f = free p = prescribed
2.8
REFERENCES
[Cl] Crisfield, M. A., Duxbury, P. G. & Hunt, G. W., Benchmark tests for geometric nonlinearity, National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards Report SPNGL ( 1987) [C2] Crisfield, M. A., Finite Elements und Solution Procedures for Structural Analysis, Vol. 1: Linear analysis, Pineridge Press, Swansea ( 1986). [Dl] Duxbury, P. G., Crisfield, M. A. & Hunt, G. W., Benchmark tests for geometric nonlinearity, Computers & Structures, 33 ( l ) , 2129 (1981).
The developments of Chapters 1 and 2 have all been based on the shallowtruss strain relationships of (1.51) and (2.3). In the present chapter, we will consider a number of alternative strain measures that remain valid when the truss element is deep. In Sections 3.38, the new strain measures are used to derive finite element equations for a truss element. The detail is provided, not because of the intrinsic importance of truss elements, but rather because they provide a simple means of introducing some of the concepts that will later be used for continua or beams and shells. These concepts include total Lagrangian and updated Lagrangian techniques, corotational formulations, as well as equivalent constitutive laws. In Section 3.9, we provide three Fortran subroutines which will allow the computer program of Chapter 2 to be applied to deep truss elements using the various strain measures. Section 3.10 gives a range of problems for which data and, in some instances, results are given.
or
57
58
1JArea A,
 Initial configuratlon
where (3.1) is related to the final configuration with volume, V, and (3.2) is related to the initial configuration with volume, V,. (The clash of symbols with I/ representing both the virtual work and the volume should cause no difficulties because the form of use should be obvious from the context.) The relationships in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 will be derived from the latter equation. 3.1 .I
measures the strain along the rotating bar so that the direction of changing. From Figure 3.1,
is continuously (3.4)
1, = ( ( z + w)2 + x
Hence, from (3.3) and (3.4),
y =( 2 2
+x
y = ( Z 2 z 2
+1 y 2 .
Substitution from (3.5) (with a virtual &,,) into (3.2) and integration over the original volume of the element leads to
where the subscript E means Engineering. Assuming a fixed Evalue, the relationship between the load, 4, and the deflection, w, is given by
q E = EA,(z
(3.7)
Both here and frequently, during future work, we will talk of rotated strain or stress. Such measures can be assumed to relate to a coordinate system that continuously rotates with the bar. Alternatively they can be thought of as the stresses or strains
59
in the bar once the latter has been rigidly rotated back to its original position. Further work on these concepts will follow in Chapters 4 and 7.
3.1.2 Greens strain
so that, if
where cG is known as Greens strain. It is related to the rotated engineering strain of (3.3) via
EG
= EE(1
+ +EE).
(3.10)
From (3.4) and (3.9), (3.11) Hence from (3.2) (using the virtual form of (3.1 1)) (3.12) When generalised to a continuum (Chapter 4), the stress oG is referred to as the second PiolaKirchhoff stress. Using a fixed Evalue, from (3.12),
q G = EA,(z 
+ w ) ( 2 z w+ w 2 ) EAZ(2ZW  w 2 ) 21,

__
 .
21,
(3.13)
It will be noted that equation (3.13) is of a simpler form than (3.7). When the strains are small, 1, 2: 1, and from (3.8) and (3.9), the two strain measures coincide. In addition, the equilibrium relationships of (3.6) and (3.12) coincide. Hence, for small strains, the two load/deflection relationships of (3.7) and (3.13) coincide.
3.1.3
A rotated logstrain
For large strains, the adopted strain measure is often taken as the logstrain, which is basically of an incremental form, so that
BE=
61 1
(3.14)
60
where 1 is in the current configuration. Hence (3.15) which can be related to the previous strain measures ((3.3) and (3.9)) via
EL = log,(
&E) =
+ log,( 1 + 2&G).
(3.16)
z
4
(3.17)
Instead of using (3.2), it is now appropriate to adopt (3.1), which relates to the final configuration. However, for the present, we will assume no volume change, so that there is no difference between (3.1) and (3.2). In these circumstances, (3.14) and (3.17) can be substituted into (3.1) (or (3.2)) to give (3.18) If a fixed Evalue is assumed, the relationship between the load, q, and the deflection, w, is given by
For small strains, the logstrain solutions coincide with the previous solutions involving rotated engineering strain (Section 3.1.1) and Greens strain (Section 3.1.2).
3.1.4
It has been indicated that the logstrain formulation could be used for large strains. Hence for this formulation, we could include the effects of the changing volume. In these circumstances, we need to consider strain changes at right angles to the axis of the bar of magnitude  v&. Hence
so that
A + d A = A ( l vd&)22:A(1 2vds)
+ +
qL = ~ t 2 log, 2((2+ w ) + x )
~
EA,(z
+ W)l,
rz >_______
w :
(3.19)
x2
(3.20) (3.21)
OF FREEDOM
61
so that:
12V
(3.24)
and the formulation of Section 3.1.3, which assumed Vn= V, is only strictly valid for v = 0.5. Substitution from (3.14), (3.17) and (3.24) into (3.1) gives (3.25)
L
in place of (3.18). If a fixed Evalue is assumed, (3.25) leads to the load/deflection relationship
9L=A,(z
+ w)liv

2( ( z + 4
x2)il +2vv2
__
log,
(3.26)
Solutions relating to a constant area can, from (3.23), be obtained by setting v = 0 or to the previous solution for a constant volume (Section 3.1.3), by setting v = i.
3.1.5
(3.27)
where d is the true stress in the bar. (In a continuum context, the true stress is often referred to as the Cauchy stresssee Chapter 4.) Equation (3.27) can be compared to equations (3.6), (3.12), (3.18) and (3.25) for the same load values, 9 (i.e. removing the subscripts on 4). Comparing the first form of (3.25) (with A, rather than A,) with (3.27) shows that
fsL
= a
(3.28)
and hence the logstress, oL,is the true stress. If (3.6) is compared with (3.27), (3.29) while comparison of (3.12) with (3.27) gives (3.30) Figure 3.2 plots the solutions to (3.7), (3.13) and (3.19) for the bar of Figure 3.1 with a fixed E value and the properties
.4: = 2500,
A, = 100,
E = 5 x 105,
z = 2500.
(3.31)
The solution with the rotated engineering strain is only a little more flexible than that obtained with the logstrain. However, Greens strain leads to a significantly
62

1/11 I///
II
 1000
12
2000
%\3OOO
4000
55)OO
6000
3
45
area)
volume)
\
67
'
/
more flexible response. All three solutions coincide in the early stages where the strains are small. If the rise, z , in Figure 3.1 were made small enough, the strains would remain small for the complete load/deflection response and all three solutions would coincide for the complete response. In the latter circumstances, while the angle 8 in Figure 1.1 remained small, the solutions would coincide with those of Section 1.1 and Figure 1.2(a).
(3.32)
1
63
and, assuming (throughout) a fixed Evalue, (3.33) where E is the engineering strain. Using (3.2), in conjunction with the Greens strain of (3.9), gives (3.34)
qG=A,E
= A,E(*
+F)(E+
+E2)
(3.35)
while, for the logstrain, (3.1) and (3.24) can be used to produce
q L = ADL
= A,(
:y)
2v
CTL
(3.36) (3.37)
qL
EAO
(1
E)2V
log,( 1 + E).
(3.38)
so that, from equilibrium, (3.27)(3.29) again apply. The load/deflection relationships (3.33), (3.35) and (3.37) are plotted in Figure 3.4 for a bar with
1,
= 2500,
A, = 100,
E = 5 x 10.
(3.39)
Figure 3.4 demonstrates the potential unsuitability of Greens strain for work with large strains (unless appropriate modifications are made to the CTE relationships). In particular, in compression, the formulation (see (3.35)) gives zero stress at F =  1 and  2 and artificial limit points at E=  1 & 1/J3. In contrast, the solution obtained with the engineering strain does not differ significantly (Figure 3.4) from that obtained with the logstrain provided the strains are only moderately large. It should be emphasised that the relationships in Figures 3.2 and 3.4 were obtained by assuming a constant Evalue. The same load/deflection relationship could be obtained for each of the strain measures if the secant Evalues were made functions of the strains, so that from (3.33), (3.35) and (3.37), (3.40) We will return to this trivial example in Volume 2 when considering large strains in a more general environment.
3.2.1 Almansis strain
Before leaving this example we will introduce Almansis strain, which is often quoted
_L
E = 0.5
I200
 1000
E
800
=  0.25
600
r l
E = 0.5
1200
EIO
_
a
/
16
65
in the literature (if less often used). This strain is given by (3.41) and is often quoted as being conjugate to the true (or Cauchy  see Chapter 5) stress. The author finds this statement a little confusing for reasons that will be illustrated here. From (3.41), the variation of cA can be obtained as (3.42) where E is the engineering strain (see (3.33)). Introducing equation (3.42) into the virtual work relationship of (3.2) gives (3.43) which, when compared with the equilibriumbased true stress relationship of (3.38), shows that (3.44) Hence the use of the Almansi strain does not lead to the relationship cA= 0. Rather, as already demonstrated in Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.5, the true stress is work conjugate to the log strain with variation cSc=61,/1, (see Section 4.6 for the continuum equivalent). It has already been noted that there is no effective difference between any of the previous strain measures when the strains are small. This finding also relates to the Almansi strain. In these circumstances, it may be useful, for computational convenience, to use the Almansi strain (see Section 3.3.6).
66
X(U)
between P, and Q,. As the truss experiences deformation, points A, and the adjacent B, move to A,, and B,, respectively. During this process, the position vector, r,, of point A, moves to the position vector, r,, of A,, where:
r,
and, in two dimensions,
= r,
+U
uT= ( U ,
w).
rT = (x, z ) ,
x = x' = x + p = x + p , ,
XT = ('
1 7 '2 17 z2
where the initial coordinates x (or x,, but the subscript o will often be omitted) are
7
u2,
w 1 7
w2).
(Note the nonstandard ordering of the components of p and see the footnote on page 25.) In Figures 3.5 and 3.6, we have introduced the nondimensional coordinate, <, for use with standard finite element shape functions. However, we will initially avoid the use of such shape functions which are not strictly necessary for these simple elements. By Pythagoras' theorem, the initial length of the element is given by where and
(3.50)
(3.51) (3.52)
In (3.50), we have, for compatibility with later developments using shape functions (Section 3.3.4),introduced the original 'length parameter', a,, which is half the original
67
length, 1,. For the current length, l,, the equivalent of (3.50) is
1: = 4a:
=(x21
(3.53)
and
symmetric 0 I 1
0
1 1
1~
(3.56)
(3.57)
4a0
>((x21 + p2 1
+ ;APT, Ap2 1 )
1 b(p)TAp+ ApTAAp
2a,
=(b,
1 + b , ( ~ ) ) ~ A p,ApTAAp= + 2E
(3.58)
68
where (compare (3.56)) (3.59) Comparing (3.58) with a Taylor series expansion for A&,
(3.60)
we can see that (l/ct:)A is the second partial derivative of E with respect to the displacements, p or the first partial derivative of b with respect to p. For a small virtual displacement, with 6pv instead of Ap, the last term in (3.58) becomes negligible and (3.61)
3.3.2
The principle of virtual work (Sections 1.3.2, 2.1 and 3.1) can now be used to provide internal nodal forces, qi, that are in a weighted average sense CC2.21, in equilibrium with a set of stresses, 0,that relate to total displacements, p. To this end, using (3.611,
crGbdVo
(3.62)
where C, involves a 'summation' over the elements. For the following developments, we will drop this summation sign and hence will only directly deal with force vectors or stiffness matrices at the element level. The 'merging process' to the structural level is identical to that adopted for linear analysis CC2.21. The straindisplacement vector b in (3.62) is given by (3.61) (with (3.56) and (3.59)) while the subscript G on cr follows the work of Section 3.1.5, where it was shown that we must take note of the type of stress. The stress crG is the stress that is work conjugate to the Green strain (laterChapter 4to be called the second PiolaKirch hoff stress). Equation (3.62) must stand for arbitrary 6pv and hence using (3.61), (3.56) and (3.59),
Using (3.62), the procedure for computing the internal forces, qi, from a set of nodal displacements, p, is as follows:
(1) compute the strain from (3.54) or (3.55); (2) compute the stress, crG (here, constant over the element), assuming a linear material response from crG = E E ;
69
(3) compute the internal forces, qi, from (3.63) with b, and b2 being defined in (3.56) and (3.59).
3.3.3
From (2.20) and (3.63) (3.64) Using (3.64) and the nonvirtual form of (3.61)
~ = E(b, + b , ( ~ ) =~ ) Eb(p)T. aP From (3.64) and (3.65), the first term of (3.64) can be written as
aP
=E
ac
~
(3.65)
2a0A0b 
aa
where
aP
= 2Eu,A,bbT = K,,
+ K,,
(3.66)
EA : Ktl = 2EA0a0b1b = ~ c ( x ) c ( x ) ~
Kt2 = 2EAa,[b1 b :
+ b2by + b,bfl=
8a0
(3.67) (3.68)
Ktza + &T2a
+ Kt2,.
Equation (3.67) provides the standard linear stiffness matrix while (3.68) gives the initial displacement (or slope) matrix (compare (1.10)). The geometric or initialstress matrix (Section 1.2) comes from the second term in (3.64). Noting that, of the constituents of b (see (3.58))only b2 is a function of p, from (3.64) and (3.59)
1
symmetric

aP
3P
a0
x21z21 x21z21
X2lZ21
z;1
 4 1
4 1
(3.70)
(3.71)
70
symmetric (3.72)
with the final tangent stiffness matrix being given by (3.73) The internal force vector, qi, tangent stiffness matrix, Kt, and strain/displacement relationships that have just been derived can be incorporated into a computer program using a very similar procedure to that adopted for a shallowtruss theory in Chapter 2. (This is discussed further in Section 3.9.) The technique is known as total Lagrangian because all measures are related back to the initial configuration. While the detail has been given in relation to a twodimensional analysis, the concepts are equally valid in three dimensionssee Section 3.7.
3.3.4 Using shape functions
While shape functions are unnecessary for the current elements, with a view to more complex elements, it is useful to apply them. To this end, in relation to Figure 3.5, we define the incremental vector, dr, along A,B, as dr,
= 2d t
dr
dt
(3.74)
where r, was given in (3.46). In a similar fashion, the new incremental vector is, with the aid of (3.45), (3.75) where
U
where for the current simple elements, 2a, is the final length of the bar. In a similar fashion, the length of dr, is (3.77) where, again for the current element, 2a, is the original length of the bar. From (3.9), the Greens strain can be expressed as
F
d r i  drf ~ 2dr:
(3.78)
TRUSS ELEMENT
71
Substitution from (3.76) and (3.77) into (3.78) gives (3.79) and an increment, A& relating to a displacement increment Au, can be expressed as
A&=
Idr:dAu a;d<
~~
(3.80)
For the displacementbased finite element method, shape functions are used to relate both the geometry and the displacements to nodal values so that, in relation to Figure 3.6, simple linear expansions give
(3.82)
where the vector, p, contains the nodal displacements as given in (3.49). Differentiation of (3.81) gives (3.83) while differentiation of (3.82) gives (3.84)
so that, from (3.79),
(3.85)
where the explicit form of b, has already been given in (3.56) and of the matrix A in (3.57). From (3.80) (or (3.85))
(3.86)
72
where the explicit form of b,(p) has been given in (3.59). The virtual strain then follows as in (3.61) and one can proceed, as in Section 3.3.1, to apply virtual work as in (3.62) to obtain the internal force vector qi as in (3.63). Using the shape function approach, in performing the integrals in (3.63), one would apply
The derivation of the tangent stiffness matrix follows as in (3.64) but to maintain the shape function approach, one would write (3.88) which coincides with (3.64) and leads, as before, to (3.73).
3.3.5
Alternative expressions involving updated coordinates
L s i
d V, = A, dr,
=
A,a, d( = 2A,cr0.
(3.87)
r,=r,+u
(3.89)
where the first expression relates to nodal variables (Figure 3.6) while the second relates to a general point (see Figure 3.5). Using these updated coordinates, the strain increment of (3.58) can be reexpressed as 1 1 AE = b, ( x ) ~ A ~ ApTAAp = + 1 ~ ( x ) ~ + p ApTAAp A 2a0 4% 2a0
~ ~
,
(3.90)
where c(x) follows the same form as the c(x) and c(p) vectors defined in (3.56) and (3.59). In place of (3.61), the virtual strain can be expressed as
bcV= b, (x)Tbpv.
(3.91)
Using (3.91), an alternative expression to (3.63) can easily be derived for the internal forces, qi, whereby
(3.92)
In comparison with (3.63), there is now no q:2 term. Again using updated coordinates, K,, ((3.67) and (3.70)) as well as Kt2 ((3.68), (3.71) and (3.72)) can be combined to give (3.93)
73
or
.ql

.ql
x z ; ;
symmetric
X ; i
x ;
z ;
zi ;
Zf1
=K[I,
z;1
(3.94)
Xk1Zk1
x;lz;l
while the geometric stiffness matrix of (3.69) is unaltered. Consequently, if an updated coordinate system is adopted, both the internal force vector (3.92) and the tangent stiffness matrix (3.94) involve the standard linear terms although these are related to the new coordinates. However, the linear tangent stiffness matrix must always be supplemented by the geometric or initial stress matrix. The introduction of updated coordinates can simply be considered as an alternative way of expressing the Greenstrain system which avoids the b2(p) terms and hence ommits qi2(3.63) and Ktza(3.71) and Kt2b(3.72). 3.3.6 An updated Lagrangian formulation
The procedure in Section 3.3.5 is simply an alternative way of writing the previous total Lagrangian formulation, but it is very closely related to a socalled updated Lagrangian formulation. Using such a technique, after the coordinates had been updated using (3.89), the datum would be reset so that the new configuration would become the old configuration (0). Before proceeding to the next increment or iteration, the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (oGin the notation of Section 3.1), which related to the old configuration, must be converted to true stresses relating to the new configuration so that, from (3.30), (3.95) at which stage, with respect to the new configuration, the displacements p are zero and we must use a, and A,. With these differences, we may use the standard total Lagrangian formulae of Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. Hence, from (3.63) (with p = 0), the internal force vector is given by (3.96) Substituting from (3.95) into (3.92) leads to (3.96) so that the updated Lagrangian procedure leads to an identical internal force vector to that obtained with the standard total Lagrangian formulation. In a similar fashion, the tangent stiffness matrix would, from (3.73) with p = 0, be given by
K,, =
EA,
8U
2 A,o c(~)c(x)~ A.
an
(3.97)
The second term in (3.97) gives the geometric stiffness matrix which, with a from
74
(3.95) coincides with (3.69). However, the first term only corresponds with (3.94) if (3.98) where both of the Evalues in (3.98) are tangential, but E' is appropriate to the updated Lagrangian formulation while E relates to the total Lagrangian procedure. From the considerations of Section 3.2, we should not be surprised that different Evalues are required if different formulations are to give the same answers. However, as before, for small strains, there is no need either to introduce the tangent E transformations of (3.98) or the stress measure transformations of (3.95). Both the previous (Section 3.3.5) use of updated coordinates in a total Lagrangian framework and the present updated Lagrangian formulation avoid the b,(p) terms and hence omit qi2 (3.73) and Ktza(3.71) and K,,, (3.72). We have so far introduced an updated Lagrangian formulation whereby all measures are related to the current updated configuration. However, the Greenstrain measure of (3.55) is related to the initial configuration. Using (3.59) and (3.89), this expression can be restated in terms of the current coordinates so that
Neither (3.99) nor (3.100) is fully related to the current configuration because of the terms a,. However, we can generalise the expression in (3.41) for the Almansi strain to obtain a strain measure involving a,. In comparison to (3.78), the Almansi strain involves (3.101) Substituting from (3.76) and (3.77) into (3.101) gives
which is identical to (3.100) apart from having a,s rather than a,s in the denominator. A similar relationship would follow (via (3.53) and (3.50)) for the Almansi form of (3.99) for which a,s would appear in the denominator. As shown in Section 3.2, we can expect the same answers from the two measures provided the strains (but not necessarily the rotations) are small. Further discussion on the total and updated Lagrangian formulations will be given in a continuum context in Chapters 5. Before moving to alternative strain measures, we should emphasise that the updating system that has been discussed here and in
AN ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION
75
Section 3.3.5 involves updated but unrotated coordinates. We will later discuss rotated coordinates.
= (X
+ P)~A(x p) = x~Ax +
(3.104)
From (3.103) and (3.104), (3.105) where we have used the relationship,
c(x)= 4Ax
(3.106)
(see (3.59)for an identical relationship between c(p)and 4Ap). Hence, from the principle of virtual work, (3.107) where (3.108) Equation (3.107) can be compared with the Greens strain solution of (3.92). In order to obtain the tangent stiffness matrix, (3.107) is differentiated so that (3.109) where the first two terms have parallels in (3.64). From (3.105), (3.110)
76
8a; a,
~
c(x)c(x)T =
EA,A~
Sa?
~~
c(x)c(x)T
(3.1 1 1 )
q1 (3.93). of
(3.112)
GAOL3
(3.114)
If 2 (3.108) is assumed to be unity, the present formulation gives identical equations to the Greens strain formulation of Section 3.3, apart from the Kto2 matrix of (3.1 14) which has no counterpart in the Greens strain formulation. In applying a formulation based on a rotated engineering strain, equation (3.103) is an inaccurate way of computing the strain because it involves the small difference between two relatively large numbers. It is computationally better to relate the engineering strain of (3.103) to the Green strain of (3.54), so that (3.1 15)
= log,(
:I).
(3.1 16)
In (3.1 16) and throughout this section, a subscript, L, for log is implied on all the stress and strain terms. With the aid of (3.104), (3.1 16) can be differentiated to give (3.117) where A is given by (3.108) and (3~/dp)(3.105) the relationship in (3.105) for the is engineering strain.
77
Hence, applying the principle of virtual work in relation to the current configuration,
qi =
j. iTp
d I:?
(3.118)
In deriving the last expression in (3.I 18), it has been assumed, from (3.24), that (3.119)
By including this relationship, we include both the solution for no volume change (with I = 0.5) and volume change ( v # 0.5). Differentiation of (3.1 18) follows the lines previously adopted in Section 3.4 and leads to
(3.120) (3.121)
In the above equation and throughout this section a subscript E for engineering will be implied but omitted on all strain and stress measures. Equation (3.123) is obvious but it could be derived by relating the shapefunction approaches of the previous sections to the local coordinate system. Following from (3.123), the principle of virtual work gives
qi, = 2aocId Vo = A 0 q .
(3.124)
78
(3.125)
where the transformation matrix, T, relates the local displacements, pl to the global cartesian displacements, p, so that
(3.126) The terms c and s in (3.126) are cos 8 and sin 8 respectively, where 8 is illustrated in Figure 3.7. If TT is multiplied by cl from (3.123), it can be shown that
TTcl=
1
~
2En
~(x)
(3.127)
where c(x)is given in (3.92). Hence substitution into (3.125) gives (3.128) which coincides with (3.107),which was obtained with the aid of fixed coordinates. We could now proceed to differentiate (3.128) to obtain the tangent stiffness matrix given by the components (3.11 l), (3.1 13) and (3.1 14). However, we will instead adopt the spirit of the corotational approach and firstly differentiate (3.124) to obtain a local tangent stiffness matrix. From (3.123) and (3.124) this gives
( 3.129)
In order to relate this local stiffness matrix to the fixed cartesian coordinate system,
x(4
79
(3.125) can be differentiated to give (3.130) where use has been made of (3.126). Substitution from (3.127) into the first of the two stiffness terms in (3.130) gives
EA K,, = c(x)c(x)~
8cl;
C, I
(3.131)
which coincides with (3.11 1). In order to deal with the second stiffness term in (3.130), the T matrix in (3.126) can be differentiated so that
6TT=
s
! :
0
c
;]do.
s
(3.132)
From Figure 3.8, a unit vector normal to the rotating element is given by (3.133) which is orthogonal to the truss vector, xi 1 . The infinitesimal relative displacement vector (Figure 3.8) can be expressed as (3.134) Resolving this vector in the direction n gives a scalar length: (3.135)
6a
mx
Figure 3.8 Small movement from new configuration.
80
Hence, using (3.124) and (3.132), the second stiffness term in (3.130) is given by
z;1
0 0
xkl
Zi1
(3.137)
8cri
= __
Zi1Xi1
ZFl
z;lx;l
z;&
x?~
X;z1
6 p = KJp.
x1 ; 2
(3.138)
It can easily be shown that the matrix K,, in (3.138) coincides with the sum of Ktnl and Kta2from (3.1 13) and (3.1 14). Hence, identical solutions are produced by the two formulations using (a) a fixed cartesian system and (b) a rotating (corotational) coordinate system. A similar correspondence can be shown for the logstrain formulation.
3.7
The detailed workings of the previous sections have related to the planar truss element of Figure 3.6 and 3.7. However, the theory is readily extendible to the space truss element of Figure 3.9. In these circumstances, the vectors rand U of(3.46) become rT = (x, y, z),
XT = b l , X 2 , Y l , Y 2 , Z l , Z 2 )
uT= (U,U , w )
pT= (U17 U 2 7 01,
(3.139)
(3.140)
Allowing for these new definitions, most of the formulae in Section 3.3.1 remain valid, although the matrix A of (3.57) becomes
1
1
symmetric 1 0 0 0 0
1
A=
I 4
0 0 0 0
1
1 0 0 1 0 0  1 1
(3.141)
81
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.9 Spacetruss element: (a) initial coordinates: (b) updated ( x , q, z) and corotated ( x , , y,, z,) coordinates.
For the Greens strain formulation, (3.63) remains valid for the internal force vector while (3.94) and (3.69) (but with A from (3.141)) still apply for the tangent stiffness matrix. However, in (3.94), the vector c(x)of (3.92) must be extended to or
C(X)T=(x;l,x;, y;,,y;1, z;l,z;J c ( x ) = 2 U  e l ( 1 ) , e1W, e1(2), el(2), e 1(3),e (3)). 1
I T
(3.142) (3.143)
The alternative form of (3.142) given in (3.143) employs the local unit base vector e, (Figure 3.9) and will be used in later developments. In the latter equation, el(l), for example, is the component of the unit vector e, in the x (or 1 ) direction. With the extended definitions of (3.141) and (3.142), the formulae in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 remain valid for space truss elements. For the corotated formulation of Section 3.6, the threedimensional equivalent of the transformation matrix TTgiven in (3.126) is best expressed in terms of the three local unit base vectors e,, e2, e3 shown in Figure 3.9 (although it will be shown later that, for truss elements, there is no need to explicitly compute e2 and e3). Hence, in place of (3.125) and (3.126),
edl)
1 1
0 . 0 0
(3.144)
Clearly, only the first two columns (involving e,Figure 3.9) in the TT matrix of (3.144) are required both in the above and in the threedimensional equivalent of the first stiffness term in (3.130). The threedimensional equivalent of the second stiffness
82
0 0
del
6p2, = FT6p.
The e, vector (Figure 3.9(b)) can be written as
(3.145a)
a,6~,,= x*AGp= $ c ( ~ ) ~ G p
Hence, using (3.143),
(3.148)
ACJ 1 c(x)c(x)~ 6p 6qi = 2  (Fel)(Fe,)TJ6p [FFT = 2% which corresponds with the combination of (3.1 13) and (3.1 14).
(3.150)
3.8
The Greenstrain increment of (3.58) and (3.80) can be rewritten as (3.151) where xL1 and r,, = r, + U relate to the configuration at the beginning of the increment prior to the imposition of an incremental displacement, Au. In direct terms of the
83
C(X $ A P ) ~ A P= bl (xm)TAp 4a0 4ao where c(xm)is a midpoint geometric vector, given by
AC =
+
1
c(x,)~A~ =
<
1
(3.152)
c(x,)~=(X;~
XI
and the and zcoordinates in (3.153) relate to the updated coordinates at the beginning of the increment. Equation (3.152) is of the form of a linear strain increment (i.e. similar to b:Ap in (3.58)), yet it is exact. A similar approach can be applied to the other strain measures so that, in relation to (3.103),
1 d(r, iAu)TdAu 1 1 AEE y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ ( x , ) ~ A= eiAp p aoam d< dt 4a00rm 2a0
~~
(3.154)
where (Figure 3.10), em is a unit vector relating to the midpoint configuration. In relation to the logstrain relationship of (3.1 16),
1 d(r, + i A ~ ) ~ d A u 1 1 AcL 2 ___   = <~(x,)~Ap = eiAp. a: dc d[ 4am 2am
_ I
(3.155)
In contrast to (3.152) which is exact, (3.154) and (3.155), which involve the midpoint
2
1
( c1
Figure 3.10 Midpoint incremental procedures: (a) vectors and displacements; (b) lengths; (c) under
a rigidbody rotation.
84
length parameter a,, are approximate. For example, Figure 3.1 1 illustrates the approximations inherent in using (3.155) to integrate the simple stretching of a bar. For this illustration, the increment has been assumed to start from the initial configuration with length 1, = 2a,, although in general a succession of midpoint incremental approximations would be used. Nonetheless, (3.154) and (3.155) are easy to compute since they are in the form of simple linear strain terms. In addition, they
tj +
I ,
=lo+u
u/2
(c 1
Figure3.11 Midpoint procedure for bar under uniaxial load: (a) Bar; (b) Exact integration of j%(d//I=loge(/n//o) Approx. integration of jk(d//I) = u / ( / ~ u/2) (c)
FORTRAN SUBROUTINES
85
give zero strain when the incremental displacements Ap relate to a rigidbody rotation (Figure 3.10(c)). For the present truss elements, there is little to be gained by using an incremental midpoint algorithm for updating the strains, since an exact solution using total strains can easily be obtained. However, the midpoint incremental algorithms can be very useful for more complex structures such as shells or continua subject to large strains.
Subroutine ELEMENT
The following subroutine should be used in place of the subroutine ELEMENT of Section 2.2.1
1
SUBROUTINE ELEMENT (FI,AKT,AN,X,Z,P,E,ARA,ALO,IWRIT,IWR,IMOD, ITY,ALN,ARN) FOR GENERAL TRUSS ELEMENT IMOD = 1 COMPUTES INT. LD. VECT. FI IMOD=2 COMPUTES TAN. STIFF. AKT IMOD=3 COMPUTES BOTH AN=lNPUT TOTAL FORCE IN BAR Z=INPUT=Z COORD VECTOR; X=INPUT=X COORDS P = INPUT =TOTAL DISP. VECTOR ALO = INPUT=ORIGINAL LENGTH OF ELEMENT; ALN(IN) = NEW LENGTH E = INPUT = YOUNGS MOD: ARN = INPUT= CURRENT AREA I T Y = I , GREEN: =2, ENG., =3, LOG: = 4 LOG WITH VOL CHANGE
C C C
C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C
IF (ITY.EQ.3) POlSS =0.5DO ALAM =ALO/ALN X21 D =X(2)  X( 1) P(2)  P( 1) 221 D = Z(2) Z(1) P(4)P(3)
C
IF (IMOD.NE.2) THEN
06
C C C
TRUSS ELEMENTS AND SOLUTIONS COMPUTES INT. FORCE VECTOR SEE (3.92) FOR GREEN; (3.107) FOR ROTATED ENGNG., (3.118) FOR LOGSTRAIN CON =AN/ALO IF (ITY.GT.l) CON =ALAM*CON FI(1) CON*X21 D Fl(2) =  FI(1) F1(3)= CON*Z21D Fl(4) =  Fl(3) IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR, 1000) (FI(I),I= 1,4) 1000 FORMAT(/,lX,'INT. FORCE VECT. FOR TRUSS EL IS ',/,lX,4G13.5) ENDIF ENDIF
C C C C IF (IMOD.NE.l) THEN COMPUTES TAN STIFF. MATRIX (UPPER TRIANGLE) SEE (3.92) FOR C C(1)= X21D C(2) = X21 D C(3) = 221 D C(4) = 221 D EA = E*ARN CON1 = 1./(ALO**3) IF (ITY.EQ.l) CON1 = EA*CONl IF (ITY.EQ.2) CON1 =ALAM*ALAM*CONl*(EAAN*ALAM) IF (ITY.GE.3) CON1 =CONl*ALAM**4*(EA(l .ODO+0.5DO*POISS)*AN) SEE (3.93) FOR GREEN, (3.111) AND (3.114) FOR ROTATED ENGNG., SEE (3.120) AND (3.122) FOR LOGSTRAIN DO 3 1=1,4 DO 3 J = l,4 3 AKT(I,J) = CON1*C(I)*C(J) CON2=AN/ALO IF (ITY.GE.2) CON2 = CON2*ALAM SEE (3.69) FOR GREEN, (3.113) FOR ROTATED ENGNG., (3.121) FOR LOGSTRAIN AKT( 1, l )= AKT( 1, l ) CON2 AKT( 1,2) = AKT( 1,2) CON2 AKT(2,2) =AKT(2,2) CON2 AKT(3,3) =AKT(3,3) CON2 AKT(3,4) =AKT(3,4)  CON2 AKT(4,4) = AKT(4,4) CON2
C C
C C
+ +
IF (IWRIT.NE.0) THEN WRITE (IWR,1001) 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,'TAN. STIFF. MATRIX FOR TRUSS EL. IS',/) DO 14 1=1,4 14 WRITE (IWR,67) (AKT(I,J),J= 1,4) 67 FORMAT(lX,7Gl3.5) ENDIF
a7
3.9.2
Subroutine INPUT
This subroutine should be used in place of subroutine INPUT of Section 2.2.2. In addition to the previous data which relates to the barspring system of Figure 2.2, this routine inputs the type of strain measure (via the parameter ITYE). Also, in contrast to the work of the previous section, the initial area of the element, A,, is required as well as the Evalue, E . Also, Poisson's ratio is required although, in practice, it is not used unless the specified type of nonlinearity is 'Iogstrain with volume changes' (ITYE = 4). (Solutions obtained using the log strain without volume changes (ITYE = 3) should be the same as those obtained with v = 0.5 and ITYE = 4.)
SUBROUTINE INPUT(E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,lBC,IRE,lWR,AKl4S,ID14S, NDSP,NV,AK15, 2 PO ISS,ITY E)
1
C C C
READS INPUT FOR DEEP TRUSS ELEMENT IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) 0 (2), I ID DIMENS1 N X( 2),Z Q F (NV), IBC(NV),AK 14S( 4), 14s (4)
C
READ (IRE,*) NV,ITYE,E,ARA,POISS,ANlT WRITE (IWR,lOOO) NV,E,ARA,POISS,ANIT 1000 FORMAT(/,lX,'NV = NO. OF VARBLS. = ',l5,/,1X, 1 'E= ',G13.5,/,1X, 2 'ARA=EL. INIT. AREA= ',G13.5,/,1X, 3 'POISS = ',G13.5,/,1 X, 3 'ANIT = INIT. FORCE = ',G13.5) WRITE (6,1101) ITYE 1101 FORMAT(/,lX,'ELEMENT TYPE= ',l5,/, 1 3X,'= 1, GREENS STRAIN',/, 2 3X,' = 2, ENGNG. STRAIN',/, 3 3X,'=3, LOG STRAIN',/, 4 3X,'=4, LOG STRAIN WITH VOLUME CHANGES') IF (NV.NE.4.AND.NV.NE.5)STOP 'INPUT 1000' READ (IRE,*) X(l),X(2) READ (IRE,*) Z ( l ) , Z ( 2 ) WRITE (IWR,1001) X(I),X(2) 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,'X COORD OF NODE 1 ',G13.5,1X, 1 'X COORD OF NODE 2 = ',G13.5) WRITE (IWR,1006) Z(l),Z(2) 1006 FORMAT(/,IX,'Z COORD OF NODE 1 ',G13.5,lX, 1 'Z COORD OF NODE 2= ',G13.5) AL=(X(2)X(1))**2+(2(2)2(1))**2 AL = DSQRT(AL)
88
TRUSS ELEMENTS AND SOLUTIONS READ (IRE,*) (QFI(I),I= 1,NV) WRITE (IWR,1002) (QFI(I),I= 1,NV) 1002 FORMAT(/,IX,'FIXED LOAD OR DISP. VECTOR,QFI = ' , / , lX5G13.5) WRITE (IWR,1008) VARIABLE = A LOAD',/,IX, 1008 FORMAT(/,IX,'IF IBC(I)SEE BELOW0, 'IF IBC(I)SEE BELOW=  1 , VARIABLE=A DISP.') 2 READ (IRE,*) (IBC(I),I= 1,NV) WRITE (IWR,1003) (lBC(l),I= 1,NV) 1003 FORMAT(/,IX,'BOUND. COND. COUNTER, lEC'3/,l X, 1 '=O, FREE: = 1, REST. TO ZERO: =  1 REST. TO NONZERO',/,lX, 2 515) READ (IRE,*) NDSP IF (NDSP.NE.0) THEN READ (IRE,*) (ID14S(l),l= 1,NDSP) READ (IRE,") (AKl4S(l),l= 1,NDSP) DO 40 I = 1,NDSP WRITE (IWR,1004) AK14S(l),lD14S(I) 1004 FORMAT(/lX,'LINEAR SPRING OF STIFFNESS ',G13.5,/,1X, 1 'ADDED AT VAR. NO. ',E) 40 CONTINUE ENDIF
C
IF (NV.EQ.5) THEN READ (IRE,*) AK15 WRITE (IWR,1005) AK15 1005 FORMAT(/,lX,'LINEAR SPRING BETWEEN VARBLS. 1 AND 5 OF STIFF ', 1 G13.5) ENDIF
C RETURN END
FORTRAN SUBROUTINES C C C ITY = 1 , GREEN'S STRAIN, = 2 ENGNG. STRAIN, = 3 LOGSTRAIN = 4 LOGSTRAIN WITH VOLUME CHANGE
IMPLlClT DO UBLE PRECISION( AH ,0Z) DIMENSION Z 2),P (4),X(2),B1(4) (
89
C C
COMPUTES NEW LENGTH X21 D = X( 2)  X( 1) P(2)  P(1) 221 D = Z(2)  Z( 1) P(4)  P(3) ALN = X21 D*X21D 221 D*Z21D ALN = SQRT(ALN)
+ + +
C
C
C C C
IF (ITY.LE.2) THEN GREEN OR ENG. STRAIN x21 =X(2)X(I) 221 = Z ( 2 )  Z ( I ) U21 =P(2)P(1) w21 = P(4)  P(3) AL02 = ALO*ALO SEE (3.56) FOR B1 B1(1)= X21/AL02 B1(2)= B1(1) 61 (3) = Z21/AL02 61 (4)  61 (3) EGR =O.DO LINEAR PART OF GREEN STRAIN (SEE (3.55)) DO 1 1=1,4 1 EGR=EGR+Bl(I)*P(I) ADDIN NONLIN PART (SEE (3.55) OR (3.54)) EGR=EGR+0.5*(U21*U21 +W21*W21)/AL02 EST = EGR SEE (3.115) FOR ROTATED ENGNG. STRAIN IF (ITY.EQ.2) EST = 2.*ALO*EGR/(ALN ALO)
ELSE LOGSTRAIN (SEE (3.116)) EST = ALOG(ALN/ALO) ENDIF ARN =ARO IF (ITY.EQ.4) THEN ALLOWS FOR VOLUME CHANGE (SEE (3.23)) POW =2.DO*POISS RAT = ALO/ALN ARN = ARO*RAT**POW ENDIF AN = ANlT
C C
+ E*ARN*EST
90
1 2 RETURN END
TRUSS ELEMENTS AND SOLUTIONS lX,'NEW LENGTH, ALN = ',G13.4,/, IX,'NEW AREA, ARN= ',G13.4)
C C
3.10
The following problems mainly relate to the NAFEMS (National Agency of Finite Elements) tests [C1.2,D1.2]. The problem numbers will be related to those used in the latter document. i.e. 3.10.4 will refer to NAFEMS Example 4. Whenever exact solutions are given, they will relate to the 'rotated engineering strain'. Apart from the problems headed 'large strain', there should be little difference between the solutions obtained with the different strain measures. For a number of problems, although the exact governing equations are given, the detail of their solution, which involved the use of Laguerre's method, is not included here. Full details are given in cC1.21 as are tabulated solutions including both the primary and secondary equilibrium paths. Similar responses related to a simple structure can be found in [Pl].
3.10.1
Bar under uniaxial load (large strain)
This is the problem previously discussed in Section 3.2 and defined in (3.39) and Figure 3.3. The responses are as shown in Figure 3.4. The following data relates to a solution using Green's strain for the compressive regime. It is obtained using displacement control so that no structural equations are solved.
4 1 500000. 100. 0. 0. ; NV,ITYE(Green),E,ARA,POIS,ANIT, 0. 2500. ; xcoords. 0. 0.00 : zcoords. 0.  1000. 0. 0. ; fixed displ. vector 1  1 1 1 ; Bdry condn. code. 0 ; no earthed springs 0.2 6 0 ; load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 1 ; convergence tol., iteration. type (NR)
3.10.2 Rotating bar
This problem has previously been used in Chapters 1 and 2 and involves the configuration of Figure 3.12(a) with K,, = 0 and a negative loading 9,.
3.10.2.1 Deep truss (large strains) (Example 2.1)
This is the problem previously discussed in Section 3.1.5 and defined in (3.31) and Figure 3.12(a). The responses are as shown in Figure 3.2.
*
PROBLEMS FOR ANALYSIS
Load q4
91
_
disp,p,
(a)
Figure 3.12 Configurations for barspring problems: (a) single degree of freedom; (b) two degrees of freedom; (c) three degrees of freedom.
Data for a displacementcontrolled solution using a rotated logstrain with Poisson's ratio of 0.5 (constant volume) is given below:
4 4 500000. 100. 0.5 0.0 ; NV,ITYE=Log,E,ARA,POIS,ANIT, 0. 2500. ; xcoords. 0. 2500. ; zcoords. 0. 0. 0.  1000. ; fixed displ. vector 1 1 1 1 ; Bdry. condn. code
0 ; no earthed springs 0.5 12 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 1 ; convergence tol., iterative type (NR)
3.10.2.2 Shallow truss (small strains) (Example 2.2)
This problem is identical to that of 3.10.2.1 apart from the provision of a lower 'eccentricity's0 that z of Figure 3.12(a) is 25. With such an eccentricity, the response
92
will be close to that of the shallow truss of Sections 1 . 1 (Figure 1.2) and 2.6.2. In contrast to the shallow solution of (( 1.1 l), the exact load/deflection relationship, assuming a rotated engineering strain, is ([Cl.2)) (3.156) where
a = z/x
(3.157)
and the symbols are from Figure 3.12(a)) while the bar implies that the variable has been nondimensionalised with respect .to x (Figure 3.12(a)) i.e. p4 = p4/x. Also, for the current problem, K , , = 0. This spring term has been included in order to provide the solution for the following problem. The following data relates to a loadcontrolled solution using the modified NewtonRaphson method, for which the solutions are the points shown in Figure 3.1 3.
4 2 50000000. 1. 0. 0. ; NV, ITYE (rot. eng.), E, ARA, POIS, ANlT 0. 2500. ; xcoords. 0. 25. ; zcoords. 0. 0. 0.  1.0 ; load of  1.0 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free 0 ; no earthed springs 1.9 6 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 2 ; Convergence tol., Iterative type (mNR)
Table 3.1 compares the iterative performance of the mNR solution with that obtained (by changing the 2 to a 1 in the last line of the previous data) for the NR method.
I6
93
Method
mNR NR
6
fail fail
2
1
2
1
3 1
3 2
12
it was unable to take the jump from point 5 to point 6. For this trivial, onedimensional problem, the solution could be obtained by displacementcontrol. Other methods will be discussed in Chapter 9.
Although the full NR method gave a better performance than the mNR method,
3.10.3
For this problem (Figure 3.12(a)), a linear spring, K,, = 1.125 has been added so that the response is continuously hardening although with a softening and then a stiffening region. The response will be a little stiffer than that shown in Figure 1.2 for K , = EAz2/213.(Here, K , rr 1 . 1 2 5 E A ~ ~ / 2 The )load/deflection response is governed 1~. by Equation (3.156). The following data relates to a loadcontrolled solution using the full NR method and produced the points on Figure 3.14.
4 2 50000000. 1. 0. 0. ; NV, ITYE (rot. eng.), E, ARA, POIS, ANlT 0. 2500. ; xcoords. 0. 25. ; zcoords.
Vertical deflection, p4
1
94
3 1
3 1
3 2
5 2
10 2
fail
0. 0. 0.  1.0 ; load of  1 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free 1 one earthed spring 4 at variable 4 1.125 ; of magnitude 1.125 6. 7 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 1 ; Convergence tol., Iterative type (NR)
Table 3.2 compares the iterative performance of the full NR solution with that obtained (by changing the 1 to a 2 in the last line of the previous data) for the modified NR method.
3.10.4
This problem is very similar to that discussed in Section 1.3 and further in Section 2.6.3. The configuration is that shown in Figure 3.12(b) with z = 0 and
E A , = 5 x 107,
x = 2500.
(3.158)
In addition, K,, = 1.5 so that, from (1.68), the buckling load is 3750. In reality, the length term 1 in (1.67) and (1.68) should be the current, rather than the original length. Hence
( 2:)
1
(3.159)
+ K240)1= f 0 K , , 1 +
EAO
( :::)

z f,K,,
(3.160)
where we have introduced the notation (3.161) to represent the stiffness of the rotating bar elements in Figures 3.12(a)(c). (The approximation sign in (3.160) relates to the configurations used for these examples.) Figure 1.1 1 plotted the fundamental and postbuckling paths for a perfect shallow truss. Figure 3.15 plots the equivalent solutions for a rotated engineering strain. In contrast to the shallow formulation, the current formulation leads to a falling or
95
Postbuckling paths
\
. ..
, Hardening
softening postbuckling path. However, this path can be made to harden by the addition of the spring K , , in Figure 3.12(b). In addition the response (now at variable 5 see Figure 3.12(c)) can be made to snap back by adding a spring K,, so that the problem has three variables. I t can be shown that the critical buckling load relating to Figure 3.12(b) (with z = 0 and .Y = I,) is
(3.162)
where the approximation again relates to the configurations adopted for the current examples. Equation (3.162) also applies to q5cr, the critical buckling load for the perfect form of the configuration in Figure 3.12(c) (with z = 0 so that x = (,). Without the provision for postbuckling analysis (see Volume 2), the computer program will only be able to follow the basic fundamental path OAB of Figure 3.15. However, as discussed in Sections I .3 and 2.6.3, the instability of the solution beyond the bifurcation point (point A, Figure 3.15) should be apparent from the presence of a negative pivot following the LDLT factorisation of the tangent stiffness matrix for equilibrium points on the portion A B of Figure 3.15. While the current computer program may be unable to trace the postbuckling paths such as ACD or ACD (this would only be indirectly possible by adopting a very small imperfection, z or a small destabilising lateral force at q4), it is nonetheless worth briefly discussing the alternative paths in Figure 3.15. In particular, we will concentrate on the system of Figure 3.12(a) (with z = 0 ) with K,, = 0, for which the solution under displacement control (with monotonically increasing p 1 in Figures 3.12(b) and 3.13) may be assumed to follow the path OA until bifurcation, at which point it may follow either AC or AC. The bar then follows the configurations illustrated in Figure 3.16. Assuming that CC is horizontal and has P = 0, point C in
96
0 and A
D, E and F
Points on Figure 3 15
Figure 3.16 Barspring configurations in relation to the softening solution in Figure 3.15.
Figure 3.15 relates to the configuration (ii) in Figure 3.16 with b lying vertically above a and so that there is no force in the bar and no loading, q 5 . However, at this stage there is a considerable force in the compressed spring Ks4, so that when the deflection, p l , is taken beyond this configuration (with point a of Figure 3.12(b) now to the right of point b), a compressive stress is required in the bar element and hence a negative force, q 5 . The equilibrium path therefore follows CD in Figure 3.15. At point D, points b and a (Figure 3.12(b)) now lie on a horizontal line but with point a to the right of point b. This configuration is illustrated in Figure 3.16(iii). From this stage onwards, q5 is stretching the bar. Up to point E in Figure 3.15, this stretching is merely reducing the compression already in the bar while from point E to point F the bar is pulled into tension.
3.10.5
Limit point with two variables (Example 5)
An imperfection is added to the previous example by setting z = 2 5 so that the bifurcation is eliminated. Assuming shallow truss theory, the response for this structure is that previously described in Section 1.3.1 and illustrated in Figure 1.1 1. When the theory is extended beyond the shallow truss assumptions, the response becomes that illustrated by the dotted lines in Figure 3.17, where the primary imperfect path is the true path that should be followed by an increasing shortening ( p l ) and the secondary (or complementary) imperfect path is the equivalent alternative equilibrium state to that discussed in Section 1.3.1 and reached when large increments were adopted in Section 2.6.4.3. For the current deep truss theory, the primary imperfect path has a limit point beyond which the load q1 reduces. Using Pythagorass theorem, from Figure 3.12(b) in conjunction with (3.157) and (3.161), the force in the bar is given by N
= Ksb(((P4
+ a)2+ (1 
P1)2)2 
(1
a2)li2)X
= K s b ( q  (1
+ a2)12)x
(3.163)
P R O B L E M S FOR ANALYSIS
97
where the bar again indicates that the variable has been nondimensionalised with respect to .Y (Figure 3.12(b)). The exact equilibrium equations can be obtained from equilibrium by resolving vertically and horizontally. This will be shown in the next section, which involves a generalisation of the present problem. For the NAFEMS problems, load control was firstly adopted with constant increments of A q , = 760 and should have produced the points marked 15 on
98
~
Method
1 5 2
mNR NR
8 2
fail 3
7*
5*
Figure 3.18. In practice, the modified NewtonRaphson method was successful for only the first two increments, while the full NewtonRaphson method easily achieved solutions for steps 14 (see Table 3.3).The data for the latter solution is given below. 4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV, ITYE (rot. eng.), E, ARA, POIS, ANlT 0. 2500. ; xcoords. 0. 25. ; zcoords. 760. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed load vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry. condn. code 1 ; one earthed spring 4 ; at Variable 4 1.5 ; of magnitude 1.5 1.0 6 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 I ; Convergence tol., iterative type (NR) Knowing that Step 5 would take the solution to q , = 3800, while the critical buckling load for the perfect solution (see Section 3.10.4) was 3750, trouble could be anticipated on Step 5 . Indeed, even with the full NR method, convergence was not achieved using Greens strain while convergence to the wrong path (point 5* in Figure 3.1 8) was obtained with the rotating engineering strain. Displacement control with large steps of Apl =250 gave satisfactory solutions with full NR but failure with mNR (from the very first step). Reducing the step size to Apl =0.3 gave converged solutions with either solution procedure. Further work on this example will be given in Section 9.9.5.
3.10.6
For this problem, a spring K,, = 2.0 was added so that the limit points were removed and the response was continuously hardening (Figure 3. IS and 3.19). Using a similar procedure to that of Section 1.3 (see equation (1.54)), we can resolve firstly horizontally and then vertically to obtain the equilibrium equations:
(3.165)
99
Primary path
where 8 relates to the displaced configuration (Figures 1.1 and 3.1) and use has been made of (3.162), (3.167) and (3.161). With load control, and steps of Aq, = 1100, the mNR method was only successful only for Step 1, while the full NR method had difficulties from Step 4 onwards. With Greens strain, convergence was not achieved within a specified maximum of 12 iterations while with the rotated engineering strain, Steps 46 ended on the wrong equilibrium path (see Figure 3.19). The data for the latter solution is given below and the convergence characteristics in Table 3.4: 4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITY E = Engng.,E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1100. 0. 0. 0. ; Fixed load vector, loading at variable 1 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry condn. code; rest. at varbls. 2 and 3 2 ; Two earthed springs 1 4 ; At varbls. 1 and 4 2.0 1.5 ; of mag 2.0 and 1.5 respectively 1.0 6 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 1 21 0 ; Convergence tol., iterative type (NR)
If the imperfection, z, is reduced from 25 to 2.5, both strain measures will lead to solutions that swap branches onto the wrong equilibrium path from Step 4 onwards. With all these solutions in which such branchswapping has occurred there is a potential warning in that a negative pivot is found on the LDLT factorisation for points on the wrong path. This warning will be output by the computer program (see Section 2.5). When applying displacement control with steps of Ap, = 500, the
100
Method
8 2 2
5
5
5*
fail
3*
5*
mNR method failed from the first step while the full NR method gave satisfactory solutions.
3.10.7
Snapback (Example 7)
By adding a third spring (Figure 3.12(c)) it is possible to create a snapback. The governing equilibrium equations are then given by (3.165) in conjunction with
gl =Ncos8+Kslpl
= K,b
(1  Pl)(cp  (1
cp
 p5)  q
_._______
+ ct2)12)x+ KS1p,xK,5(p1
5 =  Ks5(P1  P5)x
qgX
+Ks5(pl  P S I
p5)~=0
(3.166) (3.167)
g5 =  K s 5 ( p 1
O.
4500
3000
s
1500
 1500
/
 3000
   Complementary path
Figure 3.20 Solution points for Example 7.
101
For the numerical example, the geometry was maintained as before with z = 25, but the adopted spring stiffnesses were K,, = 0.25, K,,
=
1.5,
K,,
1.0.
(3.168)
From (3.162)the critical buckling load is again approximately 3750 (see Section 3.10.4). In this situation, the relationship between the load, q,, and the shortening displacement, p s , is that shown in Figures 3.15 and 3.20. Adopting load control, with increment of Aq5 = 700, the solution should involve Steps 16 shown on that figure. However, the mNR method achieved convergence only up to point 2 (see Table 3.4), while the full NR method was successful for the first five steps but then either failed to converge within the specified maximum number of iterations (with Greens strain) or converged onto the wrong equilibrium path (point 6*with rotated engineering strain). The data for the latter solution is given below.
5 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITYE=Engng.,E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords.
0. 0. 0. 0. 700. Fixed load vector, loading at variable 5 0 1 1 0 0 ; Bdry code; rest. at varbls. 2 and 3 2 ; Two earthed springs 1 4 ; At varbls. 1 and 4 0.25 1.5 ; of mag 0.25 and 1.5 respectively 1.0 ; linear spring of stiff 1 .O between variables 1 and 5 1.0 7 0 ; Load inc. factor, no. of incs., write control 0.001 1 ; Convergence tol., iterative type (NR)
With hindsight, this is not surprising because between Steps 5 ( q 5 = 3500) and Steps 6 ( q , = 4200), the solution passes the critical buckling load of 3750. Displacement controlled solutions with Ap, = 1000 failed on Step 2 with mNR. With full NR, from Step 4 onwards, the Greens strain solutions again failed to converge within the specified maximum number of steps while the rotated engineering strain converged onto the wrong path. Cutting the step size with displacement control did not overcome the difficulties because of the snapback. However, it will be shown in Chapter 9 that these problems can easily be overcome using a modified form of displacement control called the arclength method.
Table 3.5 Iterative performance for Problem 3.10.7 (see Figures 3.12(c) and 3.20) (Aq, = 700).
2 7 2 2
5 2 2
4 4
~
5 9
9* fail
~
3*
102
U 1,
U21 = U2  U 1
w = vertical ( z direction) displacement at end of bar (Section 3.1) wl, w2 = nodal displacements for bar in zdirection
w21= w2  W 1
x = horizontal length (Sections 3.1 and 3.10) x , ,x2 = nodal values of x x21 = x,  x,
x = x = vector of initial nodal coordinates (3.48) , x= x = vector of current nodal coordinates (3.47) , xZ1= vector (3.52) (or equivalent in 3D) x = vector of coordinates at midincrement (see (3.153)) ,
REFERENCES
103
z = initial vertical offset at end of bar (Sections 3.1 and 3.10) + w (Section 3.1) zl, z2 = nodal values of z
2 =z
x21
=2 2 21 = current
I, I,
d true stress =
strain in bar strain i length ratio (see (3.108)) = 6, = angular orientation of bar <p = nondimensional constant (see (3.163))
E
t ?
= axial
= engineering
Subscripts
A = Almansi E = engineering G = Green 1 = local L = log o = old or original n = new or current
Superscripts

= quantity
3.12
REFERENCES
[PI] Pecknold, D. A., Ghaboussi, J. & Healey, T. J., Snapthrough and bifurcation in a simple structure, J . Engng. Mech., 111 ( 7 ) ,909922 (1985).
The previous chapters have all been related to onedimensional problems. Before moving on to two and threedimensional problems, we will include a chapter on basic continuum mechanics. Many specialist texts are available either directly on continuum mechanics [H 1, M 1, M3, M4, S1, W2] or containing basic background information in relation to elasticity [Tl, L1, G l ] or mechanics of solids [B3, Wl]. The present chapter will be far less rigorous and is intended to introduce sufficient continuum mechanics for the following chapters which concentrate on the finite element discretisation or solution procedures. It should also pave the way for some of the more advanced work in Volume 2. This chapter starts by introducing both vector and tensor [Y 11 notations for stress and strain. In the first instance, the tensor form is introduced simply as a matrix. In the early sections, the distinction between the vector and tensor forms will be indicated by adding a subscript 2 (second order tensor) on the latter. This procedure will later be dropped as the distinction becomes obvious. Indicial notation is also introduced although for many developments such notation is completely avoided. Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 provide the basis for the finite element work of Chapter 5 which uses the total Lagrangian formulations. Section 4.3 involves transformations between one coordinate system and another (not required for the main theme of Chapter 5 ) while Sections 4.5 and 4.6 introduces the Cauchy stress and hence are strictly required for updated Lagrangian formulations which are also considered in Chapter 5. Section 4.7 briefly discusses the relationship between the various stress and strain measures while Section 4.8 introduces the polar decomposition which is used in Section 4.9 to relate the Green and Almansi strains to the principal stretches and in Section 4.10 to give a simple explanation of the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses. Section 4.1 1 gives a very brief overview of constitutive models with the aim that the finite element work of Chapter 5 should make sense in relation to concepts such as plasticity, although this subject will not be treated in detail until later (Chapter 6). The reader wishing to get straight into finite element work with only the minimum continuum mechanics could try reading only Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4.
104
105
4.1
or by a matrix
O11 O21 O3l O12 O22 O32 O13 O23 Q33
where the subscript 2 on cr is used to distinguish this twodimensional representation from the onedimensional vector representation of (4.1). The matrix, b2, in (4.2) can be represented using either letters or numbers. In either case, there are only six independent quantities since, from rotational equilibrium, for example, c 1 2 z,, = = oZ1 zPx. The quantity c2in (4.2)is more than a matrix, it is a tensor which transforms = 1 to new axes according to certain laws [Y 1, M 1 which will be discussed in Section 4.3. With the stresses being expressed by (4.1), the strains at the same point can be expressed as
ET = (Exx,
Eyy, Ezz, Y x y , Y x z , Y y z ) *
(4.3)
where again there are only six independent quantities and the tensor is symmetric.
106
yxz=
(+ a,>. dz
au aw
cp
au aw
Y y z = ((72 + ;y).
(4.5)
It should be noted that the tensor shearstrains in (4.4) are half the engineering shear strains in (4.3).(The symbol y is used for the latter.) This ensures that both notations can be used to express the (linear) strain energy, cp, per unit volume via scalar products so that
=id& q b 2 : E 2 =
(4.6)
where the oT&involves the familiar dot (or inner product) and the contraction symbol: implies a similar scalar product with every term in (r2 being multiplied by its , equivalent term in E ~ i.e. from (4.2) and (4.4):
cp = i ( ~ x x E x , + O.~~,,Y,,
(4.7)
The stress tensor notation allows the stresses to be very simply related to equilibrating external forces (Figure 4.2) via
where A,, A , and A, are the components of the area A (Figure 4.2) in the directions x,y,z. If the area A is unity, (4.8) becomes (4.9) where n is the unit normal vector (Figure 4.2) and t is the vector of equilibrating external tractions per unit area.
b2n= t
Figure 4.2 Relationship between the external forces, F = At and the stresses: (a) forces and areas;
(b) stresses o n face A,.
STRESSSTRAIN RELATIONSHIPS
107
4.2
STRESSSTRAIN RELATIONSHIPS
For a linear elastic, isotropic, material, the stresses and strains are related by
(1 v)
v
V
( 1 v)
v
(1  v ) +(l  2v)
$( 1  2v)
+( 1  2v)
(4.10)
where E is Youngs modulus and v is Poissons ratio. Equation (4.10) can be reexpressed as
d = CE 2
(4.1 1) (4.12)
= Cq:E2
where C, is the equivalent fourdimensional or fourthorder tensor [ Y l ] to the twodimensional matrix C, in (4.1 1). Rather than attempt to visualise a fourdimensional tensor, many tensor equations can be viewed in terms of vectors with nine terms (three repeating), so that
bT= ( g x . x ,
gyy,
gZz, zXy,f X z , f Y z ,
fXy, f X z ,
T ~ ~ )
(4.13) (4.14)
and
ET = (Exx, Eyy,
EZZ,
o.5yyz).
Using such vectors, the connecting twodimensional C2 would contain the same upper threebythree submatrix as in (4.10) but the remaining diagonal terms would be doubled.
4.2.1
The threedimensional formulation (Figure 4.1) can be simply reduced to twodimensions (Figure 4.3) by setting
fx,
= f,, = yx, = y y z = 0
(4.15)
108
@(Qb
BASIC CONTINUUM MECHANICS
Z
(E,
= 0);
(4.16) For axial symmetry (Figures (4.3(c)), oz can be taken as the hoop stress with z = 13, while for plane strain, E , is set to zero. For plane stress, equations (4.16)are supplemented by, 6,= 0 and (4.16)reduces to (4.17)
4.2.2
An alternative form of the elastic stressstrain laws involves a decomposition of both the stresses and strains into their volumetric (or meansubscript m) and deviatoric (subscript d) components. This decomposition is best applied with the tensor stress and strain measures, so that for the stresses
where the deviatoric stresses 6 2 d are often written as s. For the strains,
STRESSSTRAIN RELATIONSHIPS
109
(4.21)
and
(4.22)
where the shear modulus p (often written as G) and bulk modulus, k, are related to E and v via [Tl]:
p=
E~ . 2(1 + v )
~= , E k 3(1  2 ~ )
(4.23)
4.2.3
+2p2 + 2PE2.
where the operation trace (or tr) involves summing the diagonal elements. Hence in (4.25),
(4.27)
Here, 1 and p are the Lame constants. With suffix notation, (4.27) becomes
aij = A 6 i j & k k
f 2P&ij
(4.28)
where is the Kronecker delta ( = 1, i = j ; = 0, i # j ). (All of the work in this chapter will be related to a rectangular cartesian reference frame so that all indices can be written as subscripts, there being no distinction, for such a system, between CO and contravariant components. The latter will be considered in Volume 2.) A1ternativel y, we can write
aij= CijklEkl
(4.29)
where C i j k r are the components of a fourthorder tensor (C,) which, assuming linearelastic isotropic conditions (as in (4.28))is given by
Cijkl
=p ( 6 i k 6 j[
dil6jk)
A6ijdkI
(4.30) (4.3I )
C=C4=2pI +R(101)=2pI,+~(12012)
where, as indicated, the subscripts which relate to the order of the tensor are usually omitted. In equation (4.31),the symbol 0 means tensor product. The symbol I is in
110
some work reserved exclusively for the fourthorder unit tensor (as in (4.31)) with 1 being used for the secondorder unit tensor. We will sometimes follow this procedure but may also use I more conventionally as the secondorder unit tensor or unit matrix,
4.3
We have already mentioned in Section 4.1 that the stress tensor, c2,transforms in certain special ways to changes of axes and rotations. For most of this section, the stresses will be written in matrix or tensor notation and the subscript 2 will be dropped.
4.3.1
In this section, a line element or stress tensor will remain fixed but be represented in relation to a new set of axes. Starting in two dimensions (Figure4.4), the line element r can either be represented in globalcoordinates as rg or in local coordinates
4 Ya
(b)
Figure 4.4 Different axes for transformations: (a) local and global; (b) old and new.
111
r, = Tr,
where, for two dimensions, cos0 sin0 e : cosO]=[eT]
(4.32)
T = [ sin0
(4.33)
and e, and e2 are the unit vectors of the x I  , y,axes (Figure 4.4(a)) expressed in relation to the global coordinates and, hence, for example,
xI = r[( 1) = cos Ox,
+ sin 0 y,
(4.34)
.I![=
(4.35)
(4.36)
Using the vector representation of stress in two dimensions, the equivalent expression to (4.36) is c2 s2 2sc s2 c2 2sc (4.37) ssc sc (c2  s 2 ) where c = cos 19 and s = sin 0. This relationship is easily proved using the simple stress block of Figure 4.5. (The reader may also like to verify (most easily in two dimensions) that (4.37) corresponds to (4.36)) Physically, the stress remain the same but their

4%
Figure 4.5 Stresses in local and global coordinate systems.
112
components change because they are now written with regard to a new set of axes. It is easy to show that T is an orthogonal matrix such that
T  =TT
(4.38)
Instead of considering local and global axes, we could consider new and old (local) axes (Figure 4.4(b)). In this case, the same vector r (Figure 4.4(b)) can be expressed either in relation to the initial (global) coordinates or with respect to either of the two local coordinate systems so that while and hence and
r,
r,
rn = T,TTr,
6, = T G , T ~
6,
where 6, contains the components of stress with respect to the new local system and with respect to the old local system. In two dimensions (Figure 4.4(b)),
T=
cos6
 sin 6
sin8 cos 0 1
[
=
e:,e,, ei,e,,
e:,e20 eTne2,
where e,, and e2, are the unit base vectors of the old local system (written with respect to the global system) and e,, and e2n the same for the new local system. (In are confirming (4.43) the reader should note the transposes on the es in the definition of T in (4.33).) From Figure 4.4(b),
= T,T:
(4.43)
cos(a + 8) sin ( a + 0)
e,,
 sin
cos a
e2n =
(4.44)
 sin (a
+ 8) cos ( a + 0)
(4.45)
eroeln eToe2 cos ( a + @cos a + sin (a + 6) sin a = cos 6 = = er,e2, =  cos a sin ( a + 8) + sin a cos (a + 6) =  sin 8
=  sin a cos (a
eqoel
and (4.43) is confirmed. For three dimensions, the transformation matrix, T, is easily extended from (4.43) to give
113
= Ti,&,
(4.51)
where the 'n' and '0' (for new and old) have been moved to be superscripts so as to ease the congestion. In a similar fashion, the strains can be expressed as
&:j
= Ti,Tjb&&,
&yj = T , i T b j & : b .
would (using (4.5 I ) and the second part of (4.52)with cdkl instead of ijab) transform to
0:j
= Cyjkl&il
where
d I : '
= Tia
T j b T k c T l d c,"bcd
(4.55)
4.3.2
A rigidbody rotation
In the previous section, the line element remained fixed but was related to different sets of axes: in the present, the line element, r, will be physically rotated from r, to r, (Figure 4.6). We can then write:
r,
cos0 sin8
= Rr,
(4.56)
R=[
sin0 cos0
where e, and e2 are the unit vectors caused by the rotation of the original x and y vectors, i , = (1,O) and i2 = (0,l). In three dimensions,
= Ce,,e,l
(4.57)
ei = Rii,
with the obvious extension of i l  3 and
i = 1,3
(4.58) (4.59)
(4.60)
R = re,, e2,e31.
A comparison of (4.41) and (4.33) with (4.56) and (4.57) shows that
R = T ~
where T is the transformation matrix of the previous section and R is the current rotation matrix. Equation (4.60) applies whether the rotation involves two or three dimensions. In general, if a vector r, (Figure 4.7) is rotated through 0 degrees to r,, the 'global' coordinate axes can be thought of as also rotating through 8 to 'local' axes (Figure 4.7). Clearly, r, with respect to the 'global' system (i.e. r0,J equals r, with respect to the
114
Figure 4.6 Applying a rotation: (a) with x = x,, y = y o ; (b) with x # x,,
y # y,.
y'
yg
115
(4.61) (4.62)
Hence, equation (4.60) is confirmed. In a similar fashion, if a set of stress in the global coordinate system is rotated through 6 degrees (Figure 4.Q which corresponds to the use of the rotation matrix of (4.56) and (4.57), the global system can be assumed to have rotated through 8 (or, more generally, via R). Clearly, the new stress with respect to the local system, c,,,, are equal to the old stress with respect to the global system, G , , ~ .The components of the new stresses, c , , ~ in the old, global system (i.e. c,,J are (from (4.36) with T , changed to TTbecause we are moving from local to global rather than global to local):
%g
= T T ~ n ,= T T ~ o , g T O , , ~ R ~ . lT =R
(4.63)
Equation (4.63) defines a new stressstate, o,,~,caused by a rotation, R, of the stressed body while the coordinate system (g) remains fixed. In contrast, the earlier equation (4.36) involves a change of the axis system within which the stresses are represented, while the stressed body remained fixed. In the following, all terms will be related to global coordinates. If, in these circumstances, a set of old and new axes, e, and e,, are given by with also
i = 1,3
ro = %r
= R,Rzr, = R , r
representing rotations of any vector r into the two frames, it follows that
r,
where R represents the rotation from one frame to the other. From (4.59)and (4.66),
R = e,,e:,
+ ezneiO e3,e:o. +
116
4.4
GREEN'S STRAIN
The strains in (4.5) are related to small deflections. In Sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.1 we derived a convenient strain measure for describing strains in a bar when the deflections were large. These techniques can be generalised to a continuum so that (Figure 4.9) in place of (3.9), dr;
 dr," = dx2  dX2 = 2dXTE2dX
(4.68)
where dr; = dx2 is the squared final length of a line element originally of squared length dr," = dX2. The matrix E2 then defines the 'GreenLagrange' (usually just referred to as Green) strain tensor which is valid for large deflections and replaces the smalldeflection tensor, c2 of (4.4) with components obtained from (4.5). The matrix E2 measures the strain in an element dX as the original coordinates of a point X are moved to new coordinates x by the addition of displacements U, i.e. x=x+u (see Figure 4.9). The latter equation can be differentiated to give
(4.70)
(4.69)
or:
~
ax
ay
ax
dx = F d X =
ax az  ax
~
1+
ay ay
(4.71)
where F is the deformation gradient and the matrix, D, in (4.71) is the displacementderivative matrix:
D=
GREENS STRAIN
117
+ D][I + D]  I
(4.73) (4.74)
= i[FTF  I] = i[D
+ DT]+ $DTD.
The first term in (4.74) is a linear function of the displacement derivatives and corresponds exactly to the smalldisplacement matrix g 2 of (4.4), with (4.5) for the individual terms. From (4.72) and (4.73), the vector strain E can be expressed as
Z ax
! 2
ay
((
(ax (>> ax
+
+
;!)2
(( ( !((az (
+ +
(g)>
(4.75) Clearly (4.74) is a neater representation. If we apply a rigidbody rotation so that, from (4.56), dx = RdX and we compare the solution with (4.71), we can observe that, for such a rigid rotation D = R  I .
118
Substitution into (4.74), then leads (after noting that RTR = I ) to E, = O and, consequently, the Green strains are zero as a result of rigidbody rotation. However, if we neglect the iDTDterm in (4.74) and effectively use a linear strain measure which is equivalent to the linear strain E , of (4.4) and ( 4 3 , we would obtain:
~2
$[R
+ RT]
which is not zero. Consider the twodimensional case and let show that:
E,
= (COS 6 
1)I
62 I 2
The stress measure that is conjugate the Greens strain tensor is the second PiolaKirchhoff stress tensor, S,, or its vector equivalent S. Following the developments of Chapters 2 and 3, the finite element formulation usually spring from a virtual work expression. Using the Greens strain, such an expression is given by r r (4.76) V = Vi V e = STdEvdVo V e = S2:dE.,,2dV0 Ve where Ve is the external virtual work (see Sections 3.12 and 3.3 for similar developments with the truss element). With the aid of differentiation, from (4.73), the change in Greens strain can be obtained as
dE,
= i[dD
(4.77) (4.78)
The dD terms are simply obtained from (4.72) by replacing du/aX by ddu/dX, etc. The final bracketed terms (marked h) become negligible when the infinitesimal, virtual changes are applied and
~ = ,+ F ~ ~ D ,6 ~ : ~ . 4
(4.79)
As shown in Chapter 2 and 3, the tangent stiffness matrix can be obtained from the variation of the virtual work expression I/. From (4.76), this leads to
6(dEv2)= $[SDTSD
+ SDT6Dv]
(4.81)
GREENS STRAIN
119
If we assume that the changes in second PiolaKirchhoff stress, 6 can be related s to the changes in Greens strain SE via:
6 = Ct26E, s
SS,
= Ct4:6E2
(4.82)
where the first form involves a matrix or second order constitutive tensor, C2, while the second form involves a fourth order constitutive tensor, C4 (see Section 4.2). From (4.80)( 4.82), 6V = (SEV2:Ct4:SE2S:6DT6D)dVo= (6ETCt26E ST6(6Q2))dV0. (4.83) The equations of this section are sufficient for the derivation of a total Lagrangian finite element formulation for a continuum (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2). 4.4.2 Work expressions using von Karmans nonlinear straindisplacement relationships for a plate The membrane part of von Karmans straindisplacement relationships for moderately largedeflection analysis can be considered as a special case of the Green strain. If, for a plate in the xy plane, the inplane strain terms, (au/aX) and dv/dX) etc., are considered negligible, the Green strain vector of (4.75) degenerates to
! w 2(a ax
E=
(4.84)
which are von Kirmans equations [Vl, T2] for the membrane strains. The latter can be modified to Marguerres equations [M2,T2] for use with shallow shells (Chapter 8). Differentiation of (4.84) leads to a degenerated form of (4.79), whereby
;? () E
6E =
+
h
(4.85)
As with (4.77), the higher order (marked h) terms in (4.85) becomes negligible when the infinitesimal virtual displacements are involved. One final expression, S(S&), is
required (see 4.83) before we have the basis for a finite element formulation (Chapter 8).
120
From (4.85),
S(6Ev)=
(4.86)
d V = j SSTSEv

(4.87)
where
 1
(4.88) and in (4.87), for convenience, we have mixed vector and tensor notation. The equations in this section provide the basis for the derivation of a shallowshell element (see Section 8.1).
4.5
ALMANSI'S STRAIN
In Section 3.2.1, we introduced Almansi's strain (also sometimes called the Eulerian strain) for a onedimensional truss element. The continuum extension of (3.41) can be written as d r i  dro = d X 2  d X  2dxTAdx 2 (4.89) which can be contrasted with (4.68) for Green's strain. In order to compute the Almansi strain, A, the original lengthincrement vector, dX, must now be related to the final lengthincrement vector, dx, using the inverse of (4.70) or (4.71), so that (4.90) The last relationship in (4.90) follows from (4.69) with au/ax being of the same form as D = &/dX in (4.72). Substitution from (4.90) into (4.89) gives (4.91) in place of (4.74).The strain measure can be related to the Green strain, E, of (4.74)via
F T A F= +[FTF I]
= E.
(4.92)
THE TRUE
OR CAUCHY
STRESS
121
4.6
If, in a finite element context, we adopt an updated coordinate system (as in Sections 3.3.6 and 5.3), but maintain the directions of the original rectangular cartesian system, we will need to use a stress measure that relates to this new (or current) system. Even if we adopt a Green strain second PiolaKirchhoff system (as in Section 4.4) we may wish to interpret our final stresses in relation to the final geometry because (Figure 4.10) without additional knowledge concerning the deformations, the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses are difficult to interpret. In either case, the solution involves the Cauchy or true stress, 6, which is the tensor equivalent of the 'true' stress ' ' introduced in Section 3.1.5. o, In very simple terms, the Cauchy stress is force/final area rather than force/original area and is related to the current configuration, while the second PiolaKirchhoff stress (workconjugate to the Green's strain) relates to the original configuration. For the rest of the chapter, we will omit the subscript 2 implying tensor or matrix since we will usually use this notation rather than the vector forms for stress and strain. In Section 3.1.5, it was shown that the true stress was work conjugate to the virtual strain measure &/I (see (3.14)). The equivalent continuum form is
(4.93)
J
1
Figure 4.10 Cauchy and second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (a) initial unloaded state, ( b ) loaded
state with Cauchy stresses, (c) unloaded state with second PiolaKirchhoff stresses
122
BASIC C O N T I N U U M M E C H A N I C S
where x contains the current coordinates. This strain measure is effectively in the form of a small 'engineering strain', but related to the current configuration. It is sometimes known as the linear Almansi strain increment or linear Euler strain increment but, as will be discussed later, it is not the virtual variation of the Almansi strain (4.91) but is more closely related (as for the trusssee Section 3.1.5) to a logstrain measure (Volume 2). The strain measure in (4.93) is also known as the RivlinErikson rate of Almansi strain [Bl]. In order to relate the Cauchy stress to the second PiolaKirchhoff stress, we now adopt equivalent work concepts, so that
Vi =
where a is the Cauchy stress. We can relate the current incremental volume dV to the old volume dV, via d V = dx dy dz = J dX d Y d Z = J dVo where:
J
= det(F) = det
(4.94)
(4.95) (4.96)
(The twodimensional form of this relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.1 1 with an initial element of side dX, d Y being moved to an element with sides dx,, dx,, so that
(3

[i] [i]
ax
ax
dX x
where i3 is the unit vector orthogonal to the xy plane.) Substitution from (4.95) into (4.94) gives
I(a)
(b)
Figure 4.11 Twodimensional areas: (a) initial element; (b) final element.
123
where
T=JC
(4.99)
is known as the Kirchhoff or nominal stress. In order to complete the relationship between the stress measures, c and S, we must establish a relationship between the virtual strain measures, BE, (see (4.93) and 6E, (see (4.79)) as used in (4.98). To this end, with the aid of (4.70) and (4.72), (4. loo) Substituting from (4.100) into (4.79) and comparing the result with (4.93) leads to
6E, = FT6&,F.
Substitution from (4.101) into (4.98) gives
(4.101)
The last relationship in (4.102) can be derived by noting the symmetry of S and BE, and twice making use of the matrix relationship
m:cT C A : B = B C : A ~ . = ~
1 J
(4.103)
Hence, the final relationships between the true, Cauchy stresses and the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses are given by
c = F
SF~
(4.104) (4.105)
or
S =J F  ' O F  ~ .
At this point, we should reemphasise an issue first raised in Section 3.2.1. The Cauchy stress, C , is work conjugate to the virtual strain measure of (4.93). This term is not the virtual variation of the Almansi strain. In this sense, one should not really consider the Cauchy stress as being conjugate to the Almansi strain. Indeed from (4.91), one can show that (4.106) Although we have specifically omitted dynamics from the scope of this book, a stricter derivation of the previous equations requires the introduction of a time measure with a superimposed dot representing differentiation with respect to time. Because a lot of published work introduces this time element, we will give a brief summary at this stage. The strainrate tensor, t, can then be considered as:
& = 
1 8& dt
(4.107)
(strictly in the limit). As already indicated, the Euler strain increment, 8~ (see (4.93)), is related to the current geometry x rather than the original geometry, X. Hence there
124
are no 'initial displacement (D) terms' as in (4.77) and 8~ takes a similar form to the engineering strain increment, so that (4.108) where i: is often referred to as the rate of deformation tensor or velocity strain tensor. It is a function of L, where (4.109) and v is the velocity. L is known as the velocity gradient. Equation (4.109) is of a similar form to (4.72) and in component form involves
(4.110)
l, = $[FTF 3,
+ FTFv]
(4.112) Hence
= FTBVF
(4.113)
which, with (4.107),coincides with (4.101).If the 8 ~ and 8E, terms in (4.101)are now , replaced by iV and Ev respectively, (4.104)and (4.105)can be derived as before.
(4.115)
125
Figure 4.12 Areas in the initial and final threedimensional configurations: (a) initial; (b) final.
with J being given by (4.96). Equation (4.1 15) is known as Nanson's formula. Substitution into (4.1 14) gives P = JaF* = FS (4.1 16) where the last expression in (4.116) is obtained with the aid of (4.104). The first PiolaKirchhoff stress, P, which is nonsymmetric, is workconjugate to the infinitesimal virtual displacement gradient, SD, (related to (4.72)). This can be demonstrated with the aid of (4.76) and (4.79), i.e.
Vi=
S:SE,dV,=i
S:[FTSD,+SD~F]d~
= JS: [FTSD,]
We can now summarise the relationship between the various stress and strain measures using the principle of virtual power which is effectively equivalent to the principle of virtual work, but with virtual velocities instead of virtual displacements. Using the principle,
(4.1 17)
P = FS = [I
+ D]S = det(F)aFWT
the second PiolaKirchhoff stress: S = det(F)F  ' c F  ~ the true or Cauchy stress: the Kirchhoff or nominal stress:
1 a =  F S F ~
det(F)
z = det(F)a = FSFT.
126
The stress tensors S, P and z are workconjugate to their complementary virtual strain measures dE,, 6Dv(or Fv)and i, (or d ~ , )in relation to the original volume V,,while the Cauchy stress, 6, conjugate to i, (or 6 ~ , in relation to the final volume V . is )
4.8
THE POLARDECOMPOSITIONTHEOREM
The polar decomposition theorem is useful for ( 1 ) largestrain and largerotation applications and ( 2 ) applications with corotational or convective coordinates [B2]. It can also be used to provide a simple physical explanation of the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses. The theorem states that the deformation gradient of (4.71) can be decomposed (Figures 4.13 and 4.14) into a set of stretches followed by a rigid rotation.
[Flc
B
= ( 1 , l )
1.  1 )
1. 1 )
1
N :
J*
1
AB = 2.0 AB CD = 0 5 CD
AB
= AB
Nl =  (  1 , l )
J 2
127
The stretches involve (Figure 4.13) (5.123) and are followed Figure 4.13) by the rotation (4.124) and hence (4.125) Equally (Figure 4.13), the rotation can be followed by the stretch and hence
(4.126)
We will usually use the first part of (4.126) and will often omit the subscript R (for right). For the simple twodimensional example of Figure 4.13,
,=,UR=[:
A]=[l
1
][ ].
2 0 0 1
(4.127)
In general, the decomposition is more complicated (Figure 4.14), because the principal stretch directions must be computed. In Figure 4.14, the material is sheared and then rotated. In relation to the original body, the principal directions involve AB (or AB) and CD (or CD)and have unit vectors given by
1 N i = {l,l}. (4.128) N: = { } J 2 The N, direction is stretched by a factor of 2.0 and the N, direction by a factor of 0.5 (i.e. compressed). hence, the stretch matrix, U, can be written as
:A[ 3
(4.129)
F=Ru=[:
A]
(4.130)
The concepts should become clearer once the theory has been formalised. In (4.74) and (4.91), we introduced the strain measures E (Green) and A (Almansi). A more direct stretching measure is given by (4.131)
so that
(4.132)
128
where (4.133) is a unit vector in the direction of dX. The stretch measure, L, will be unity for a rigid body rot ation. It is useful to vary the directions of N and find the principal stretch values and their corresponding directions. To this end, consider the functional
q5 = NTFTFN a(NTN 1)
(4.134)
where a is a Lagrangian multiplier provided to ensure that N remains a unit vector. For 84 = 0, variations with respect to N give
[FTF aI]N 
= 0.
(4.135)
Premultiplying (4.135) by NT and comparing with (4.132) shows that a = L2 and hence (4.135) gives
(4.136)
where the last relationship follows from (4.126) (dropping the subscript R) having noted that R is a rotation matrix so that RT = R  . Equation (4.136) is an eigenvalue problem from which L ;Is and hence 1 L3 can be obtained along with the : principal directions N I  N3. Hence, we can write
+ AiN2Nz + A:N3Ni
= Q(N)Diag(A2)Q(N)T (4.137)
contains the eigenvectors N N3. These eigenvectors can be used to express the stretch matrix, U in terms of L113 and N1N3 via
U = LININT + A2N2N:
Q
(4.139)
[U  LI]N
= 0.
(4.140)
Clearly (4.139) is compatible with (4.137). The eigenvectors or principal stretch directions N1N3 satisfy NTN2 = NTN3 = N:N3 = 0 and define a rectangular orthogonal system of unit vectors referred to as the Lagrangian triad or material axes. The equivalent of (4.133) in the current (spatial) configuration is
n=
dx dx (dxTdx)12 Jldxll
(4.141)
129
From (4.141), (4.70) and (4.133), (4.142) Substitution from (4.142) into (4.136) gives
i F T n A3F 'n = 0.
Multiplying (4.143) by (l/A)F (assuming i 0) gives #
(4.143) (4.144)
[FF'
A21]n = [VV'
i21]n
where for the second relationship in (4.144), we have used the VR decomposition in (4.126). Equation (4.144) is the spatial equivalent of (4.136) while the equivalents of (4.139) and (4.140) are V = i l n l n r + &n,nz and
(4.145) (4.146)
[V  RI]n
The unit vectors nln3 define the 'Eulerian triad'. Because the rotation matrix, R, defines the movement from N, to n,, from (4.67), it is given by
R = Q(n)Q(NT.
Hence, from (4.126), (4.139) and (4.147):
(4.147)
F = RU = Q(n)Diag(i)Q(N)'= AlnlN:
4.8.1
+ i2n2N: + A3n3NJ.
(4.148)
Example
To help understand these concepts, it may help the reader to return to the example of Figure 4.14. A question could be formulated as follows. Given
(4.149)
calculate, in order, (a) F and FTF (b) AT,A;, N1,N, from the eigenvalue problem of (4.136) (c) U from (4.139) (d) U ' indirectly from (4.139) using U  ' =  N1 N : +  l
21
1 N2N:=Q(N)Diag(
!)Q(N)'
A
(4.150)
130
(e).R from (4.126) via R = FU(f) a n ) and hence n, and n2 using (4.147) so that a n ) = RQ(N) (g) the stretch V from (4.145). The solutions have already been given in Figure 4.14 and (4.127)(4.130). Although the information has already been obtained could also compute (h) FTTand hence A:, A;, N l , N 2from the eigenvalue problem of (4.144).
'.
(4.151)
while the Almansi strains (see (4.89) and (3.41)) can be written as (4.152) and using (4.74) for E, and (4.137) for FTF,
(4.153)
where we have used the orthogonality of QjN) so that aN)Q(N)'=I. Equation (4.153) confirms (4.151) and shows that the directions of the principal Green strain coincide with the Lagrangian (or material) triad, N1N3. In a similar fashion, using (4.91) for the Almansi strain, A and (4.145) for V,
k2 1
(4.154)
which not only confirms (4.152) but also shows that the directions of the principal Almansi strain coincide with the Eulerian (or spatial) triad, nln3. Suppose a Green strain, E,, is created by a stretch U, followed by a rotation R, (see Figures 4.13 and 4.14) while E, is created by U being followed by R2. It follows from (4.74) and (4.126) that
and is therefore unaltered by a rotation change from R 1 to R2. The same conclusion can be drawn by observing that the material triad, N1N3 is unaltered by R and hence from the righthand side of (4.153), E is unaltered. In contrast, from (4.147), the Eulerian triad, a n ) , does change with R and hence the Almansi strain does change as a result of a rigid rotation.
COROTATIONAL S T R E S S E S A N D STRAINS
131
F  R.
Because of (4.157),
J = det (F)E 1.
Hence, given a second PiolaKirchhoff stress, S, obtained from the Green strain in fixed (global) axes, the latter can be converted to a Cauchy stress (still related to fixed, global, axes) so that with the aid of (4.104), (4.157) and (4.158),
6,= RSR'.
(4.159)
This stress can now be related to the new (local) rotated axes via (4.36) so that with T' = R (see (4.60)),
6 , R'O,R = R'RSR'R =
s.
(4.160)
Hence, for small strains, the second PiolaKirchhoff stress can be interpreted as the Cauchy stress related to axes that rotate with the material.
4.11
Although the coincidence with the second PiolaKirchhoff stress is valid only for small strains, the concept of a 'rotated Cauchy stress' is also useful for shell analysis [B2]. Figure 4.15 illustrates the ideas. Suppose the stress state in Figure 4.15(a) is rotated to the state in Figure 4.15(c). Clearly, in local coordinates, the state is unchanged. However, from Mohr's circle (Figure 4.15(d)), the stress state in global coordinates is as shown in Figure 4.15(e).
YI
1U  l 
YZx1
't
12 1
1/2
4112
:I
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a
(e)
Figure 4.15 Some concepts with rotating coordinates: (a) 6,; (b) R; (c) c,, Mohr's circle; ( e )ag (d)
132
This relationship can, alternatively, be found from the use of (4.160) so that
cr,=Rcr,RT=1[ 2 1
:][ ][
1 0 0 0
1
I=[
1
1 1 1 2 1 1
].
(4.161)
If we assume that cr, (Figure 4.15(e)) is now a given Cauchy stress, a corotated stress, q,related to the rotated system (Figure 4,15(c)) can be computed via
c1= TC,T~ R ~ G , R . =
(4.162)
Hence, this corotated stress can either be thought of as the original Cauchy stress, cr, expressed in local coordinates that rotate with the body or, alternatively, as the original stresses, erg, still related to global coordinates but rotated by RT (see 4.63)) i.e. rotated back to the original configuration (as in Figure 4.15(a)) via RT.
4.12
In the present books, we will be mainly concerned with three types of stressstain law: (a) (b) (c) (d) linear elastic hyperelastic hypoelastic elastoplastic.
We have already discussed (a) in Section 4.2. A chapter of Volume 2 will be devoted to (b) while Chapter 6 of the current volume and further chapters of Volume 2 will be devoted to plasticity. Here we will give a very brief summary of the different relationships providing only sufficient detail to enable an understanding of the following Chapter 5 on finite elements and continua. Hyperelastic models are essentially higherorder forms of linear elastic models in which the stresses are some functions of the total strains or stretches [Dl]. The obvious example of a hyperelastic material is rubber. If we consider a Green elastic materials this total relationship is derivable from an elastic potential. If the strain energy/unit volume can be expressed as cp, then the change of strain energy is (4.163) while the stresses can be obtained from
cp =
pep=
Jcr:d.
(4.164)
via (4.165) and the tangent relationship follows from a further differentiation, so that (4.166)
M O R E ON CONSTITUTIVE LAWS
133
(We might have written 6a and 8~ rather than 6 and i.)As a consequence of (4.166), C, will be symmetric (&p/dxdy = acp/dy). A onedimensional example could involve a secondorder parabolic relationship for o so that =f(c) = E( where
E,
E 
Z0)
(4.167)
while from (4.166) (4.169) This illustrates that the C, matrix is generally not constant (see also Sections 3.2). Within a finite element context, we will need the C, matrix (as in (4.82) or (4.166)) for the structural tangent stiffness matrix, but the total stresses and hence the internal force vector will, for a hyperelastic material, come directly from (4.165) and not from the integration of the rate equation of the form of (4.166). In contrast, for hypoelastic materials [Dl], we have no such total relationships and are forced to start with a rate (or incremental) relationship of the form:
6 = Ct6,
6a = C,6&
(4.170)
in which C, (which may or may not be constant) will be given. Such relationships are often used for geomechanical materials. For a hypoelastic material, the C, matrix is not only required for the structural tangent stiffness matrix but also it must be integrated (at the Gausspoint level) to obtain the total stresses and hence the internal force vector. On applying a closed cycle of strain (which ends up with a total strain of zero), a hyperelastic model will give zero stress. This does not necessarily follow for a hypoelastic model (as will be discussed further in Volume 2). The reader will be aware of the main aspects of plasticity which is treated in Chapter 6. For the present we need merely state that plasticity leads to a rateform of constitutive law along the lines of (4.170). Generally, the tangent C, matrix will not only be a function of some material parameters but also of the current stresses and possibly internal variables (see Section 6.4.1). The previous comments on hypoelastic materials apply also to plasticity. We have so far not mentioned the issue of large or small strains. Hyperelastic materials such as rubber inevitably involve large strains. Some metal plasticity also involves large strains. Many previous finite element formulations effectively treated such matters via hypoelastic relationships coupled with plasticity, so that the integration of the rate equations was relevant both in relationship to plasticity and to the largestrain rate measures (as will be discussed in Volume 2). Before leaving this section we should reemphasise the observation drawn in Section 3.2 that to obtain the same solution with different stress and strain measures, the stressstrain laws will need to be changed. This issue is discussed further in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.
134
4.13
SPECIAL NOTATION
1 (or 12) = unit secondorder tensor (see (4.30) and (4.31)) e,,e2,e3 = orthogonal unit vectors A = vector area with components A,, A,, A, (Section 4.1) A = Almanis strain (see (4.91)) C2, = second and fourthorder constitutive tensor (or matrices) C, D = displacementderivative matrix (see (4.72)) E = Greens strain (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes E,) F = external force vector (Section 4. I ) F = deformation gradient (see (4.71)) I = unit fourthorder tensor (see (4.30) and (4.31)) or (sometimes) unit matrix (or secondorder tensor) J = det (F) k = bulk modulus L = velocity gradient (see (4.1 10)) n = unit normal vector (Section 4.1) n,, n2,n3 = unit vectors defining directions of principal stretch in final configuration (defines the Eulerian triad) N = n in initial configuration (Section 4.7) NI,N2,N3 = unit vectors defining directions of principal stretch in initial configuration (defines the Lagrangian triad) P = first PiolaKirchhoff stresses Q = orthogonal matrix containing principal directions, Ns or ns r = line element R = rotation matrix S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes S,) t = vector of equilibrating external tractions/unit area (Section 4.1) T = transformation matrix U = displacements U (sometimes U,) = rightstretch matrix (from polar decomposition) UL= leftstretch matrix (sometimes V) V = leftstretch matrix (from polar decomposition) x = final coordinates (x = X U) X = initial coordinates y X Y , etc. = shear strains = ~ ~ , /= cI2/2 2 E = mean strain , E = vector or tensor of strains (latter sometimes g2) or e) = deviatoric strains zd (or i = Lames constant (Section 4.2.3) b i= stretch scalar (see 4.13 1)) p = shear modulus om = mean stress c = stress (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes c2); note: c is sometimes used specifically for the Cauchy stress c2d s) = deviatoric stresses (or
REFERENCES
135
or nominal stresses
cp = strain energy
Subscripts
g = global 1 = local n = new o = old
4.14
REFERENCES
[B 1 Belytschko, T., An overview of semidiscretization and time integration procedures, 1 Compututional Methods,for Transient Problems, ed. T. Belytschko et al., NorthHolland, Amsterdam, p. 165 ( 1 983). [B2] Belytschko, T. & Hseih, J., Nonlinear transient finite element analysis with convected coordinates, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 7, 255271 (1973). [B3] Bisplinghoff, R. L. Mar, J. M. & Pian, T. H. H., Statics o Dclfbrmuhle Solids, f AddisonWesley, Reading, Mass. (1 965). [D 13 Desai, C. S. & Siriwardane, H. J., Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials, Prentice Hall (1984). [Gl] Green, A. E. & Zerna, W., Theoretical Elasticity, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1954). [H 13 Hunter, S. C., Mechanics c?f Continuous Mediu, 2nd edition, Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1 983). [Ll] Love, A. E. H., A Treutise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th edition, Dover, New York (1944). [Ml] Malvern, L. E., Introduction t o the Mechanics of u Continuous Medium, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs ( I 969). [M2] Marguerre, K., Zur theorie der gekrummten platte grosser formanderung, Proc. Fifih lnt. Congress of Appl. Mech., Wiley, New York (1938). [M3] Mase, G. E., Theory and Problems oj Continuum mechanics, Schaums Outline Series, McGrawHill, New York (1970). [M4] Mattiasson, K., Continuum mechanics principles for large deformation problems in solid and structural mechanics, Pub. 81.6, Dept. of Struct. Mech., Chalmers University, Sweden ( 1981). [Sl] Spencer, A. J. M., Continuum Mechanics, Longmans, HongKong ( 1980). [Tl] Timoshenko, S. & Goodier, J. N., Theory uf Elasticity, 2nd edition, McGrawHill, New York (1951). [T2] Timoshenko, S. P. & WoinowskyKrieger, S., Theory of Plutes und Shells, McGrawHill ( 1 959). [V 13 Von Karman, T., Festigkeitsprobleme im maschinenbau, Encyklopudie der Mathematishen Wissenschqfren, IV/4, C, pp. 3 1 I 385 ( 1910). [W 11 Wempner, G., Mechanics @Solids,McGrawHill, New York ( 1 973). [W2] Wood, R., Lecture notes on nonlinear continuum mechanics and associated finite element formulations, Dept. of Civil Engng., University of Swansea (1986). [Yl] Young, E. C., Vector and Tensor Analysis, Marcel Decker, New York (1978).
E,
= i[FTF  I] = i[D
+ DT]+ iDTD
(5.1)
(5.2)
137
where the squarebracketed higherorder terms vanish in the case of infinitesimal, virtual changes. From (4.76), the virtual work can be expressed as
where V, contains the virtual work performed by the external loads. Both the tensor and vector forms are included in (5.3) (see (Section 4.1)) because they will both be required in the following. In equations (5.1)(5.3), we have adopted the approach, introduced in the early part of Chapter 4, whereby a subscript 2 (second order) is introduced for the tensor (or matrix) stress and strain forms in order to distinguish them from the vector forms (which have no sufix). We will often, later, drop the subscript, 2, because it should be obvious from the context which form is being used. In particular, the tensor form will be required when the contraction symbol, :, is used (see discussion below equation (4.6))while the vector form will be associated with the transpose, T (see equation (5.3)). Equation (5.3) will allow the formation of the outofbalance force vector, g, while to form the tangent stiffness matrix, we can (but do not have tosee Section 5.1.2) use the change in (5.3). From (4.83), this is given by
where, for future convenience, we have used the vector form for the first term and the tensor form for the second.
(5.4)
5.1.1
Element formulation
We will firstly consider a twodimensional formulation in which the displacements and v are related to nodal values U and v via shape functions h which involve the nondimensional coordinates 5 and q, so that
U U = h(5, v ) ~ u , U = h(5, v ) ~ v .
(5.5)
In the standard isoparametric manner, the shape functions are also used to relate the coordinates x and y to nodal coordinates x and y. Then at any point (in particular, a Gauss point), the Jacobian is obtained as
lr,!
a
; =J[;j.
a
and equivalent terms so that a vectorised form of the displacement derivative tensor,
138
D. can be obtained as
 J  l ( l , 1)h:
+ Jl(1,2)h;
OT
e=
where p contains the full vector of nodal displacement. (See the footnote on page 25 regarding the ordering of the variables). A similar equation relates 66 (equivalent to SD) to Sp so that 68 = G6p (5.9) and we can add the subscript 'v' for virtual to both SO and Sp in (5.9). Using (5.8), the Green's strain of (5.1) can be written in vector form (see (4.75)) as
E = E, + E,,
(5.10)
or where
E = E, + E,,
= CH
++ ~ ( e )  ~ e
(5.11 )
(5.12)
The change in Green's strain (5.2) can be expressed in vector form as
SE = SE, + +(e)68
+ ;SA(e)e + o(6e2)
(5.13)
where SE, is as E, in (5.10) but with terms such as a6u/dx in place of du/dx. From the expression for A(8) in (5.10)' it is clear the SA will be A(S8), which is of the same form as A(8) in (5.10) but again with du/ax replaced by dSu/dx, etc. Because it can
139
be shown that
A(60)0 = A(0)60
equation (5.13) can be reexpressed as
(5.14)
(5.15)
(5.17)
5.1.2
From (1.80) (5.21) or from (5.4) and (5.16) and (5.17): 6V = 6p:K,6p = 6p;(Kt1
+ K,,)Sp = 6pT
BH,(p)C,(S)B,,dV,Sp
S:6DT6DdVo. (5.22)
(5.23)
140
where K,, is the geometric or initial stress contribution to the tangent stiffness matrix (see also Sections 1.3 and 2.1). Equation (5.23) can be reexpressed as
r
ax
d6U
6P:Kt,6P
dY d6V
ax
d6V
(5.24) From (5.9) (in real and virtual form), it follows that
6p;fKt,6p = dp;
Hence, from (5.22) and (5.25), the full tangent stiffness matrix is
K, = K,,
+ K,, =
We have just derived the tangent stiffness matrix by starting (see (5.4)) with the continuum form of the change in virtual work (derived in Section 4.4.1). We can instead work directly from the discretised outofbalance or internal force vectors in (5.19). Using this approach, the change of the internal force vector q,, in (5.19) is given by
6qi = (B:,6S
GTSGdVo 6p.
(5.25)
(B&I)C,B,,(~) GTsG)dVo.
(5.26)
The first term of (5.27) leads directly to the standard tangent stiffness matrix, Ktl (see (5.26)), while the second leads to the geometric stiffness matrix. Considering the expression for B,, in (5.16), it is clear that the changes in both H (see (5.12)) and G (see (5.8)) are zero. (For the latter observation, one should note that J in (5.6) involves the initial, fixed, coordinates.) We are left with a change to A@) which, as previously discussed, is A(60). It is then easy to show that: 6B:,S
= A(68)TS SS0 = SG6p =
+ GB:,S)dVo.
(5.27)
(5.28)
where S is given in (5.24). In conjunction with (5.27), (5.28) leads to the geometric tangent stiffness matrix, K,, previously derived in (5.24).
5.1.3
141
= (U,v, W)T
(5.30)
so that the G matrix takes a very similar form to that of (5.8) but instead, for example, the second row would read
OT)
(5.31 )
where 5, q, ( are the three nondimensional coordinates. In place of the terms in (5. lO), (5.32) and the matrix, H, of (5.12) is replaced by
H=
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0
(5.33)
(5.34)
s=
s o 0 O S 0 [o 0 s
(5.36)
142
5.1.4
An axisymmetric membrane
We will now consider a special form of continuuman axisymmetric membraneand will derive the finite element equations for a simple twonoded element (Figure 5.1) using a total Lagrangian formulation. We could derive such an element by specialising the general formulation of Sections 5. I . 13 but instead will restart from first principles. The element has much in common with the total Lagrangian truss element of Section 3.3. In particular, the displacements and radius, R = x , are interpolated via
u = h T u = 1( 1  5
2 1+5
)T(::),
w=hTw,
R=hTR.
(5.37)
As for the twodimensional formulation of Sections 5.1.12, we will assume that the vector of total displacements can be written as pT= (uT, T ) . w The strain along the membrane, E,, is precisely the same as the strain, E, of Section 3.3. Hence, from that chapter (in particular, equation (3.55)), or directly from (5.37), we can write
(5.38) where I, is the final length of the element, I, = 2a, is the original length and (see (3.56)):
bT
= (
44
 X217X21,
z21,z21)
(5.39) in (5.38)
x(4
is given by
A = l4
I;; ;
1  1 0
143
0 . 1
(5.40)
1
Ne have used the symbol A here in contrast to the symbo A in (3.57) ctecause of the alternative use in this chapter of Asee (5.10)) Also (see (3.61)):
6El = b:Sp
+ b;Sp
= b,l(p)T6p
(5.41)
ul,
etc.): (5.42)
The second strain, E,, is the hoop strain which is given by (5.43) The terms c, and c, are the final and original circumferential lengths. From the adopted shape function, we can write
E,, = u/R = dTp=
1 (1 2R
<,I
+ <,O,O)Tp;
=(1
6E2, = dT6p.
(5.44)
+ E,,)6E,,
+ E,,)dT6p.
(5.45)
(5.46)
(5.47)
where the vector S contains the two second PiolaKirchhoff stresses corresponding to the Green strains E , and E , respectively. Also. d V, = 2m0R(<)~, d< (5.48) where r, is the (initial) thickness. The tangent stiffness matrix follows from differentiation of (5.47), which leads to an equation of the form of (5.27) with K,, as in (5.26) and C, as the 2 x 2 tangential modular matrix relating the small changes in S to the small changes in E (see Volume 2 for a C, matrix appropriate to a rubber membrane). The geometric stiffness matrix
144
K,,, follows from the 6B2,S term in (5.27) so that, using (5.46),
(5.49) from which, with the aid of (5.41) and (5.42) for db,,/i?p) (noting that b, in (5.41) is constant) and (5.44) for 6E,, SIAdVo+ S2ddTdVo where A has been defined in (5.40).
(5.50)
As already discussed in Section 4.10 with an elastoplastic or hypoelastic material, the stressstrain relationships take a rate or incremental form (see (4.170)) which, for the present purposes, can be considered to involve
AS = C,(So)AE
or
AS = fn (So, AE)
(5.51)
where C, would not only be a function of the material properties but also of the current stresses, S. Strictly, the material relationship will involve rates or very small changes (as in (4.170)). T o overcome this problem, some form of integration procedure (Chapter 6) would be used at the Gausspoint level in order that AScould be computed from AE. Hence, the righthand form in (5.51) would apply. In these circumstances, the new stresses, S,, would be obtained from
sl = s o + As(AE(Ap)) t
(5.52)
where So are the old stresses stored at the end of the last converged increment and AS would be computed from AE where AE is the incremental strain. (The reason for working with incremental rather than iterative strains is discussed at the beginning
145
of the next chapter.) The incremental strain, AE, would be computed from the total incremental displacements obtained from the predictor, Ap, in conjuction with a number of iterative changes, Sp,, Sp,, etc., so that Ap=ApO+6pl + S P ~ +  . * (5.53)
(or from the difference p,  p, with p, as the current total displacement and po as the displacements at the end of the previous increment).
Enter with: p, = old displs. at end of last inc. P, = new displs. following predictor soln. So= old stresses at end of last inc. E, = old Green strains from end of last inc.
Call MATERIAL (p,, So,E,, mat. properties, S,, E,) which: ( 1 ) computes E, = fn. (p,) (2) computes AS = fn. (So,  E,) E, (3) S, = So+ AS
7= p o + S p I pn
So S,; E,, = E, Go to next inc.
= I
146
(5.54)
where the total strains E, and E,, would be computed using the procedure described in the previous section. The old Green strain, E,, might well be stored along with the old second PiolaKirchhoff stress, S,. Alternatively, AE could be computed directly from (5.2) (with As instead of 6s). But it would be essential to include the higherorder bracketed term, so that
(5.55)
with the components of D (for F) and AD being computed from (5.8). To minimise the accumulation of roundoff error, (5.54) might be preferred to (5.55). Figure 5.2 gives a flowchart containing one possible scheme. This chart can be considered to relate to the iterative subroutine ITER of Section 2.4.2 and would be entered following an incremental (predictor solution) which would have obtained Apo and hence p,, = p, + Apo.
5.3
It has been shown in Section 3.3.6, for truss elements, that it is relatively simple to change a total Lagrangian formulation to an updated Lagrangian formulation. A very similar procedure can be used for continuum elements. As pointed out in Section 3.3.6, if used in its piire form, the procedure should lead to the same solution as that of the total Lagrangian technique (see also [B2]). Gains in computational efficiency appear possible but it will be argued that, to take full advantage, approximations are required. Nonetheless, the updated Lagrangian procedure is often quoted and hence it is worth studying. Also there may be advantages for noncontinuum applications such as shells when the two formulations could differ as a result of different shape function approximations. The essence of the updated Lagrangian procedure is that the reference system would be periodically updated so that
x=x+p
(5.56)
where x contains the 'new' (current coordinates) that are to be used as the new reference configuration. (Recall that in Section 5.1, we have been using this symbol x for the initial coordinates where strictly we should have used X.) Having updated the coordinates, we require the stresses with respect to the current configuration. As discussed in Sections 3.3.6 and 4.6, the relevant stresses with respect to the current configuration are 'true' or Cauchy stresses. Hence we must modify the previous second PiolaKirchhoff stresses from the previous configuration to Cauchy stresses using (4.104) (details will be given in the next section). With respect to the current configuration, the displacement, p, are zero and hence, in place of (5.19), we have the simpler
g = B,(x)'a d Vn  q,.
(5.57)
147
Depending on the precise manner in which we apply the updates, the stresses c in (5.57) may, as indicated, be Cauchy stresses or they may be second PiolaKirchhoff stresses with respect to the new configuration (details in the next section). In a similar manner, the tangent stiffness matrix of (5.26) would become
K, = (B:C;B,
+ GT6G)dVn
(5.58)
with B,(x) replacing B,,(X,p). In computing C from (5.8) (and, hence, B, from (5.15) and (5.16)), the Jacobian matrix J (5.6) would, for the total Lagrangian formulation, always involve the initial geometry, i.e. J(X), while in the updated procedure, it would involve J(x). In a similar fashion, the dV, terms in (5.19) and (5.26) would involve det(J(X)) while in (5.57) and (5.58), the dV, term would involve det(J(x))d( dldy. From the work on truss elements in Section 3.3.6, it can be inferred that the tangent modular matrix for the updated Lagrangian formulation procedure should strictly differ from that for total Lagrangian formulation. For this reason, the prime has been added to the C, matrix in (5.58). Again, as discussed in Section 3.3.6, such a modification is unnecessary if the strains are small.
Having converged with a set of second PiolaKirchhoff stresses, S, these stresses would be transformed to Cauchy stresses relating to the new configuration using (4.104) so that
1
C=
det(F)
FSFT
(5.59)
where (5.60) with Au (and equivalent nodal values, Ap) are incremental displacements from the
148
x,
X, = X ,
x + PO.
This would now become the new reference configuration 0 (i.e. via x, = x,). Equation (5.58) would now be used for the tangent stiffness matrix, K,. (With regard to the new fixed reference configuration, the Cauchy stresses and second PiolaKirchhoff stresses at the start of the increment would coincide because with Ap = 0, F of (5.60) would equal I.) This computation would involve J(x,). With the reference configuration kept fixed, the incremental green strain would be computed from, say, (5.55) and the stresses at the beginning of the increment would be updated to those at the end of the increment via
S, = 6, + AS(AE(Ap))
(5.63)
which replaces (5.52) with the minor change that 6, are the old Cauchy stresses previously obtained via (5.59). The outofbalance forces would then be computed from (5.19) (although now related to a reference configuration at the beginning of the increment). Using this procedure, the advantage whereby (5.57) uses B, instead of B,, (as in (5.19)) would not be gained. Also, if full NewtonRaphson iterations were used, K, would, in a similar fashion, need to be computed from a form similar to (5.26). Hence for the remainder of the increment, there would be little difference between the total and updated Lagrangian formulation except that the latter would use x, (referring to the configuration at the beginning of the increment) instead of X as the reference configuration.
5.4.2
In a total formulation, the reference configuration could always be the updated configuration so that advantages could be taken of (5.57) and (5.58). Strictly, a total formulation should follow similar lines to those described in the previous section so that S = CE should be followed by (5.59) with F = I + D(p)involving the total nodal displacements, p. Equations (5.57) and (5.58) would then be used for the outofbalance forces and tangent stiffness matrix, in each case using the Jacobian, J(x,) = J(X + p). If the modular matrix, C, is isotropic and small strains (but, possibly large rotations) are considered, the transformation of (5.59) can be avoided [B2] and, instead, the Almansi strain (see Section 4.5) can be adopted so that
d
CE,
(5.64)
where E, are the Almansi strains of (4.91) (the symbol E , is now being used in place of the symbol A in Chapter 4 because A now has an alternative use (see (5.10)). The Almansi strain, E,, relates to the current configuration and, in place of (5. lO), is given by
149
This formulation would not give identical solutions to those obtained from a total Lagrangian formulation with S = CE but they would be very similar if the strains were small and C were isotropic. In these circumstances, the directions of principal stress and strain coincide and hence starting with a formulation based on Green's strain, from Section 4.9, we can write (5.66) where E,  are the three principle Green strains and, for example,
If the strains are small, det(F) 'c 1, and the stretch, U, is approximately the identity matrix (see (4.156)) so that F 2: R (see (4.1j7) and with the aid of (5.59) and (4.147)
But, when the strains are small (and the stretches nearly unity), the principal Green strains E i are approximately equal to the principal Almansi strains E , ~because via (4.151) and (4.152): (5.69) Hence replacing E ,  3 with
E,,  3
which, again assuming that the directions of principal stress and strain coincide, leads via (4.154) to (5.64). Hence, effectively the same results would be obtained from using S = CE as G = CE,without introducing any transformations to the material modular matrices.
5.4.3
We can, in an approximate manner, extend this procedure to an incremental formulation so that we again use the cheaper (5.57) and (5.58) instead of (5.19) and (5.26) and also avoid the use of the transformation (5.59). To this end, we replace (5.63) with G = 6, AC(&~" = 6, + Ao(A&,). (5.71)
Here
E,,
are the old (probably stored) Almansi strains at the last converged
150
configuration, cr, is the old (stored) Cauchy stress related to this configuration while E,, is the current Almansi strain. However, for both this procedure and that of the previous section, neither the internal force vector nor the tangent stiffness matrix would be fully consistent with the stress updating. Hence the iterative performance might possibly suffer a little in comparison with the 'purer' total Lagrangian formulation of Section 5.1.
5.5
SPECIAL NOTATION
A(@= matrix containing displacement derivatives (see (5.10) A = special matrix (see (5.40)) (Section 5.1.4) bnl= vector connecting 6E1 to 6p (Section 5.1.4) B, =matrix connecting 6E, to 6p B,, = matrix connecting 6E to 6p d = vector relating linear part of E2 to 6p (Section 5.1.4) D = displacementderivative matrix (see (4.72)) E, = Green's strain along axisymmetric membrane
or (5.34))
(Section 5.1.4) Green's strain for axisymmetric membrane (Section 5.1.4) E=Green's strain (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes E2) El = linear part of Green's strain E,, = nonlinear part of Green's strain F = deformation gradient (see (4.7 1)) G = matrix connecting 0 to p (see (5.8)) h,, h, = vectors containing derivatives with respect to 5 and q of shape function vector, h H = Boolean matrix (see (5.12) or (5.33)) I = unit matrix J = Jacobian matrix (see (5.6)) I,, 1, = old and new lengths (Section 5.1.4) n,, n, n3 = unit vectors defining directions of principal stretch in , final configuration (defines the Eulerian triad) N I ,N2,N3 = unit vectors defining directions of principal stretch in initial configuration (defines the Lagrangian triad) p = nodal displacements ordering of 2D continuum element is pT=, )'v ' U ( ordering of 3D continuum element is p = , v', w') ' ' U ( ordering of axisymmetric element is p = (uT,w') ' Q = orthogonal matrix containing principal directions, Ns or ns R = radius (Section 5.1.4) S , , S, = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses corresponding to strains E , and E , (Section 5.1.4)
E,
= hoop
REFERENCES
151
S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes S,) S = matrix containing second Piola Kirchhoff stresses
(see (5.24) or (5.36)) sometimes specifically xdirection nodal displacements v = ydirection nodal displacements w = zdirection nodal displacements x(with components x, y, z) = initial coordinates in Sections 5. I and 5.2 (sometimes used for nodal values) x(with components x,y, z) = final coordinates (x = X + U) in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 (sometimes used for nodal values) X (with components X , Y , Z ) = initial coordinates (in Sections 5.3 and 5.4) a, = length parameter relating to initial configuration (!J2) (Section 5.1.4) E, = Almansi strain 8 = displacement derivatives in vector form (see (5.8) or (5.29)) A = stretch scalar (see (4.131)) c = Cauchy stress (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes c 2 )
U = displacements,
5.6
REFERENCES
[Bl] Bathe, K. J., Ramm, E. & Wilson, E., Finite element formulations for large deformation dynamic analysis, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 9, 353386 (1975). [B2] Bathe, K. J., Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Anulvsis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs ( 1982). [Zl] Zienkiewicz, 0.C., T h e Finite Element Method, 3rd edition, McGrawHill, London (1977).
6
6.1
Basic plasticity
INTRODUCTION
Books on plasticity can be found elsewhere [H2, M7, M10,52, P1, H5,N3,C2,11, Sl] and a review of recent developments in [D4]. The main objective of the present chapter is to concentrate on those aspects that relate to a numerical solution. In particular, we will be mainly thinking of the finite element method but many of the concepts also apply to other discretisation procedures such as finite differences. Books and manuals in this category can be found in [04, S5, C2, D2). The last :WO references relate primarily to geomechanical materials. In contrast, the present chapter will concentrate on the von Mises yield criterion [Vl,V2], although much of the work will be general and applicable to other yield functions. (Other yield criteria will be treate in more detail in Volume 2.) Reviews on numerical work on plasticity can be found in [A3, W1, W3, D3] while the workshop proceedings 31, although now a little outofdate, gives a range of interesting papers and discussions. In the present chapter, only isotropic hardening will be treated in any depth (with kinematic and mixed hardening being considered in Volume 2) while the flow rules will generally be assumed to be associative. Because the plastic flow rules are incremental in nature [H2], elastoplastic problems, should strictly be solved using small equilibrium steps. For, no matter how accurately we may, within an increment, satisfy the flow rules and keep to the yield surface, the solution is only in equilibrium at the end of each increment after the equilibrium iterations (Chapters 13,5) (see Section 6.2 for further discussion). Nonetheless, very acceptable solutions have often been obtained with large steps. In keeping with the main, static, theme of the book, we will not consider the timedependent viscoplasticity [04, W 1,231 but should note that viscoplastic approaches have been used with a pseudotime, to analyse timeindependent elastoplasticity [Z3,04]. In relation to such elastoplasticity, having reached equilibrium at point A (Figure 6.1) on the effective stress/strain curve, the next step may continue to flow plastically to point B or else to unload elastically to C. Clearly, the two paths have very different stiffnesses. If it is known that the loads are to be reversed at point A, the elastoplastic tangent stiffness matrix should not be used for the next increment and the elastic stiffness matrix should be used instead. But, in the absence of prior knowledge on load reversals, it will generally be assumed that plastic flow will continue and that the tangent stiffness relates to AB. However, even for monotonically increasing loads, certain areas of the structure can unload. In such
152
INTRODUCTION
153
circumstances, it is generally left to the iterative correction procedure (Chapters 13,5) to discover those areas that are unloading. However, if it is suspected that much unloading is occurring, it may be beneficial to revert to the elastic stiffness matrix and adopt a solution procedure based on the initial stress method (see Section 1.2.3 and Figure 1.9). For problems involving combined geometric and material nonlinearity, no data is then provided on the stability of the solution (Chapter 9 and Volume 2). In general, there are three separate roles for the plasticity algorithms of a finite element code. These roles are: ( 1 ) the formation of the standard tangent modular matrix CP1.1, M4.1,Y 1.1,21.1,22.1] for use in the incremental tangent stiffness matrix of the structure or for use with the integration of the the stress/strain laws (see (3) below); (2) the formation of a consistent tangent modular matrix for use with Newton Raphson iterations; (3) the integration of the stress/strain laws to update the stresses.
As already briefly discussed in Sections 4.12 and 5.2.1, with material nonlinearity, the structural tangent stiffness matrix takes the form
8G
=
c,.
(6.2)
The initial stress matrix in (6.1) only exists if geometric nonlinearity is included. As previously discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, with such geometric nonlinearity, we must specify the type of stress measure being used. However, for the present chapter, this issue will be avoided. If certain forms of stress updating are adopted, it is possible to derive a consistent tangent modular matrix, C,,, that is consistent with the numerical technique used for the stress updating. In general terms, the concept related to a consistent linearisation were discussed in [H7]. The ideas appear to have been
154
BASIC PLASTICITY
first applied to plasticity by Simo and Taylor [S6] and Runesson & Samuelsson [R3] (with subsequent work in [S6, S7, S5, A l , J1, H 1, B3, C4, M81). In comparison with the use of the standard tangential modular matrix, the consistent tangent leads to a significantly faster convergence rate when the NewtonRaphson algorithm is used for the equilibrium iterations. Most of the work in this chapter will be presented from an engineering approach, starting from the early tangential modular matrices [P1.l, M4.1, Y 1.1, Z 1.1,22.1] and leading on, via the implicit integration procedures, to the consistent tangent matrices. Some of this work can also be approached [M6,SS,Sl,R3] from a more rigorous mathematical programming basis [M I , M 10, S9] (often with identical results). These issues will be briefly discussed in Section 6.10 which can be considered as an Appendix to this chapter. Before detailing the derivation of the standard tangent modular matrix, Ct, we will briefly discuss an important aspect of stress updating that has been omitted from many books on finite elements and plasticity.
STRESS UPDATING
4
0
155
A
0
&
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.2 Onedimensional illustration of the alternative updating stategies. (a) updating strategy, A, (b) updating strategy, B.
Using the incremental strains Compute the iterative dsplacements, 6p, using, for example, 6p =  Kt g. Update the incremental displacements (from the last converged equilibrium state) using Ap, = Ap, + 6p, where Apo are the incremental displacements at the end of the last iteration. Compute the incremental strains, A&, from the incremental displacements, Ap, using A&= fn(Ap). Compute the incremental stresses using, A = C,(a)A&or, preferably, by integrating a the rate equations. Update the stresses using, a, = a, + A where a, are the old stresses at the end a of the last increment. Strategy A is not recommended as it may lead to spurious unloading during the iterations. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 6.2(a)in which point A represents a converged equilibrium state. The tangential incremental solution then takes the stress to point B. At this stage, the iteative process produces a negative iterative displacement and hence a negative iterative strain. As a consequence, the stress will spuriously unload to point C (Figure 6.2(a)). These issues were discussed in [K 1, C3] and the two different schemes have been compared by Marques [M4]. In the context of combined material and geometric nonlinearity, Bushnell [B4] divorced the geometric nonlinearity from the elastoplastic formulation by performing equilibrium iterations on the former with fixed C, matrices before changing them to conform with the new converged stresses. This procedure was repeated until the complete system converged. Little [Ll] adopted a simpler but similar strategy to remove the material effects from the geometric effects. These procedures could become rather expensive for large problems. In addition, the true equilibrium path will not be followed during the iterations. This true path can be more closely (but still not exactly) followed if strategy B is adopted. Using this procedure, the incremental stress is simply recomputed from the new incremental strain which, in relation to Figure 6.2(b), is still positive and hence the stress/strain configuration moves from point A to point B. The main advantages of
156
BASIC PLASTICITY
Final incremental s o h
strategy B are gained because the stresses are always updated from the stresses at the end of the last increment. These stresses are in equilibrium. This point is further illustrated in Figure 6.3. The true final strain increment is O D and by always working with incremental strains, the intermediate steps OA, OB, OC all lie reasonably close to this strain. In contrast, with strategy A, the steps AB,BC,CD, etc., may lie in entirely different directions. Nyssen 41 advocates a modified form of strategy A because he argues that strategy B uses too much work in integrating the rate equations (Section 6.6). Certainly, if subincrementation is adopted (Section 6.6.4), strategy B will require the same number of subincrements for the later as for the earlier iterations even although the iterative strains will be considerably smaller. The modification to strategy A, proposed by Nyssen 41, involves incremental reversibility and allows plastic unloading within an increment so that an unloaded point is only defined as elastic for the next increment. Hence, the rule of no plastic unloading is only applied in a piecewise incremental manner. Nyssen further modified this strategy by adding the proviso that such unloading was only allowed until the plastic work done becomes again equal to its value at the beginning of the considered increment. While there may be some justification for a modified strategy A when subincrements are used, there would appear to be none with a backward Euler integration scheme (Section 6.6.6) coupled with a consistent tangent (Section 6.7). In summary, the author strongly recommends strategy B (see also Dodds [D3]).
6.3 THE STANDARD ELASTOPLASTIC MODULAR MATRIX FOR AN ELASTWPERFECTLY PLASTIC VON MISES MATERIAL UNDER PLANE STRESS
In some senses, plane stress is one of the more difficult stress states. The complexities will be discussed in Section 6.8.2. In the meantime, plane stress will be used to introduce plasticity calculations simply because it involves fewer components. However, the prime aim is to develop the general form of the matrix, vector and tensor equations which will also apply to more general stress states. We will start with the simple planestress version of the von Mises ,[Vl, V2] yield function:
157
Figure 6.4 The von Mises yield criterion under principal stress (a,= o x ,a2 = a,) and planestress
conditions.
(, T
(6.4)
where (Figure 6.4), the vector a is normal to the yield surface and is a positive constant usually referred to as the plastic strainrate multiplier. (Note that with the present notation, i?f/i?ais a column vector.) In equation (6.4) and generally during this chapter, we are using the rate form denoted by a dot. However, as discussed in Section 4.6, we are not considering dynamic effects so that we have a pseudotime and indeed the dotted quantities can be simply considered as small changes which we have in the past often designated via Ss (strictly, SE = d St, but we will often loosely refer to i: as a small change). In addition to (6.4), the stress changes are related to the strain changes via
(.167[
v 1
1 v
1.
0 0 ( 1 v)/2
158
Equation (6.5) relates the small changes in stress (or more strictly stress rates) to the small changes in elastic strain (or more strictly elastic strain rates), ie= it iP. In this equation and throughout the chapter, the subscript t will sometimes be dropped from the total strain changes (or total strain rates). A negative plastic strainrate multiplier, iwould imply plastic unloading from , the yield surface. The latter cannot occur and, consequently, any negative, i s should be replaced by zero so that elastic unloading occurs (see also Section 6.10). For plastic flow to occur, the stresses must remain on the yield surface and hence
In equation (6.7), we have adopted an approach that we will use often in the chapter, and have given both the vector and tensor forms although only the former relates directly to the precise forms in (6.4)(6.6). Generally, we will not use (as in Chapters 4 and 5) subscripts such as 2 to indicate the order of the tensor. It should be obvious from the context which form is being used. In particular the use of the contraction symbol: will indicate the tensor form (see discussion below equation (4.6)) while the use of the symbol T for transpose will imply the use of a vector. The situation described by (6.7) is illustrated in Figure 6.4 and shows that, for plastic flow, the stress changes, 6, are instantaneously moving tangentially to the surface with 6 being orthogonal to the vector a. Hence a is normal to the surface and the flow rules (equation (6.4)) invoke normality. In order to find the plastic strainrate multiplier, i,equation (6.5) is premultiplied by the flow vector aT and, using equation (6.7)
where C, is the tangential modular matrix (or fourthorder tensor in the final form in (6.9)) which is not only a function of E and v but also, via a, a function of the current stresses, c.This matrix can now be used in finite element expressions such as (6.1) to form the element and hence the structure tangent stiffness matrix. A numerical example involving the computation of the elastoplastic modular matrix of (6.9) is given in Section 6.9.2.
6.3.1
Nonassociative plasticity
Before introducing hardening, we should make a brief mention of nonassociative plasticity, which is mainly relevant to geomechanical materials such as soils. For such materials, experiments show that the flow direction is not usually normal to the yield surface, f . However, it can be considered as normal to some second function, g, known as the plastic potential. It then follows that in place of (6.4), Ep = i(ag/da) = i b
INTRODUCING HARDENING
159
rather than ;a where, unless the plasticity is associative, b #a. With this difference, the basic formulation follows that in the previous section, but in place of (6.8),
A=
:
aTCi aTCb
c,= c( I 
3;).
6.4
INTRODUCING HARDENING
Although we will introduce the concepts of hardening with specific reference to the planestress plasticity that we have just introduced, the concepts are equally valid in relation to general stress states. Indeed the equations remain valid for such general states (such as the threedimensional plasticity to be introduced in Section 6.5). The only item specific to planestress plasticity is the precise form of the equivalent plastic strain.
6.4.1
Hardening can be introduced by changing the fixed yield stress, C T ~ , in equation (6.3) to a variable stress, oo(cps),so that
.f = Oc  ~ , ( C p J .
The variable yield stress is now a function of the equivalent plastic strain: r Fps = Cbc,, = ips which is accumulated from the equivalent plastic strain rates,
6,, =
(6.10)
(6.11 )
J 3
gx gy+ ipxipp; j p x y ) 2 * + +
(6.12)
Under uniaxial tension, U ipp iPz  +gpx so that there is no plastic volume , , = = change and i j p s = tpr while crc = (T, = ( T ~ Consequently, the relationship between CT, . and E,, can be taken from the uniaxial stress/plastic strain relationship. In particular, we will require ?o,/?cp5 which, from Figure 6.5, is given by (6.13) Once hardening is introduced, the tangency condition of equation (6.7)is modified to (6.14)
160
A
BASIC PLASTICITY
t3
ll
t
Slope E ,
(6.15)
For the present von Mises yield criterion, B(a)= I , but for other criteria, this may not be so. Substituting from (6.15) into (6.14) gives
= aTk  H
S = aT6  ~ = 0. ~ j
(6.16)
A=
(6.17)
&=Ct=C
aaTC aTCa+ A
) (
=
1 a:C:a+ A
(6.18)
For linear hardening, A is (via H in (6.13)) a single measurable constant. For nonlinear hardening, A will vary with E,, (and possibly other quantifies)indeed, more generally, 0, (or A ) will vary with E,,. The equivalent plastic strain can be considered as an internal variable as it is internal to the response [Zl, M3, M61. Using this terminology, only the directly measurable total stresses and total strains are external. However, the plastic strains are required in order to define the response of the body. Following the introduction of the flow rules and the hardening hypothesis, in the previous developments one was left with one internal variable, gPs, to define the behaviour. The hardening behaviour was a function of this internal variable. For a more complex material, one may require more internal variables [M6].
6.4.2 Isotropic work hardening
Work hardening [H2] is more generally applicable than strain hardening. With work
INTRODUCING HARDENING
161
.f = a e  .,(wp>
where Wp is the plastic work, which is given by
n n n
(6.19)
(6.20) where ipo the onedimensional plastic strain rate and the plastic work rate is is
(6.21)
(6.22) where
A =
HaTa Ha:a
0 0
(6.23)
0 0
is the hardening constant for use in equations (6.17) and (6.18). If the yield function can be written in a similar form to equation (6.3), so thatfis a homogeneous function of order one, it is easily shown (Eulers theorem [H2]) that
3,f 1
do
o = aTo= a : o = 6,.
(6.24)
Hence A = H (equation (6.13))and for von Mises yield function (with B (equation (6.15) = l), strain hardening and work hardening formulations coincide. This is not always the case.
6.4.3
Kinematic hardening
For seismic problems or lowcycle fatigue, the induced cyclic loading may involve relatively small plastic strains. In these circumstances, the Bauschinger effect [H2) may be significant. Assuming a linear hardening this effect is illustrated for a onedimensional problem in Figure 6.6. Here, the yielding in tension has lowered the compressive strength, so that
(a a ) = & a,
(6.25)
where a is the kinematic shift of the centre of the yield surface. As a result of this shift, with a, being fixed (see Figure 6.6), the uniaxial stress a hardens.
162
BASIC PLASTICITY
I
Figure 6.6 Onedimensional illustration of kinematic hardening.
The Bauschinger effect [H2] cannot be treated by the methods of Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 which involve isotropic hardening and one must introduce kinematic hardening [P2,22] or a n overlay [B 1, OS] or an equivalent [M9] model. These issues are discussed in Volume 2.
6.5
For the general threedimensional case, the von Mises yield criterion is
1
J 2
[a (,
 oYI2 (fly 
gZl2 (0, + 
+ 6(7iY+ 7$ + ?,)I
00
12
 o0
= J3[+(sf
= J;(sTLs)12
 (To = &(s:s)12
 (To
(6.26)
where L=[ 1
1
2
2
(6.27)
and (6.28)
163
to3
In
are the deviatoric stresses previously defined in Section 4.2.2. They may also be written in tensor form (see (4.18) and in this case (see the last form in (6.26)) there is no need for the L matrix. The threedimensional von Mises yield criterion is plotted in principal stress space in Figure 6.7 where the stress vector a is decomposed into a volumetric component (along the axis iT = (1, 1 , l ) ) and a deviatoric component, s. From (6.26), the radius of the von Mises cylinder is clearly J$CJ,. For threedimensional plasticity, the equivalent plastic strain rate is given by*
ips J:[iix =
12
= $(d3
P :dP)
= Jx(it 3
:itP )12
(6.29)
where it, are the deviatoric plastic strains (in tensor formsee stresses and strains are connected (see (4.10)) by
(4.19)).The elastic
\I
(1v)
v
(1  v )
or
a=C&
*With d,,
= ipz =
or
a=C:&.
(6.3I )
164
BASIC PLASTICITY
aa
as
20,
S.
(6.33)
(6.34) With these new definitions of 6, E, C and a, an identical formulation to that of Sections 6.26.4 produces equation (6.17) for' and (6.18) for C,.
6.5.1
Splitting the update into volumetric and deviatoric parts
With a view to later developments on the 'radial return' method (Section 6.6.7), it is useful to split the stress update into volumetric and deviatoric components. (Background information was given in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.) To this end, (6.30) and (6.32)can be used to show (see also [D 11) that (using the matrix and vector forms) (6.35) and aTCa= a:C:a = 3p. Hence substitution into (6.18) gives (6.36)
In addition, the total strain rate, 6 , can be split (see also Section 4.2.2) into
1 1
. = F, .
0 0
I+
ti = im + 6 j
(6.38)
165
+ iy+ iJ3
=.$jTi:
(6.39)
k=i,l+i!
(6.40)
where 1 is the secondorder unit tensor (or identity matrix) which is often written as I. Equation (6.30) can be used to show that, using the matrix and vector forms, C = 3kimj+ 2&'e E or using the equivalent tensor forms (see also (4.21) and (4.22)),
C:k = 3 k l + 2pe
(6.41a) (6.41b)
where k is the bulk modulus (Section 4.2.2). In addition, from the definition of s in (6.32) and of j and e in (6.38), sTj= 0. Hence the first, matrix and vector, form in (6.37) can be modified to (6.42)
In (6.44), 1 is the secondorder unit tensor while I is the fourthorder unit tensorsee (4.31). Using the notation and procedure of Section 4.2.2, the C, tensor in (6.44) can be written as (6.45a)
while, taking account of (6.42), from (6.43), the matrix and vector form is (6.45b)
166
BASIC PLASTICITY
The latter is easily confirmed, with the aid of (6.42), by multiplying C, from (6.45b) by i from (6.40).
6.6
Some issues relating to the integration of the flow rules have already been discussed in Section 6.2. If the stress and strain increments were very small, we could effectively proceed by applying the previous tangential formulae with terms like i: being replaced by terms like 8~ and use the strain updating scheme of Strategy B as discussed in Section 6.2. However, the strain and subsequent stress changes will not be infinitesimally small and, as a consequence, errors would accumulate just as they would under a pure incremental or forwardEuler scheme at the structural level (see Chapter 1). Consequently, an uncorrected forwardEuler procedure at the Gausspoint level would lead to an unsafe drift from the yield surface. In the same way as a pure incremental (tangential) procedure leads to a violation of equilibrium at the structural level (Chapter 1) so an equivalent tangential (forwardEuler) procedure leads to a violation of the yield criterion at the Gausspoint level. Before addressing the problem of finite increment sizes, we should note that, even if the increments were infinitesimally small, it would be computationally inefficient to use the tangent modular matrix, C,, to compute stress rates ir. Instead of using equation (6.18), it would be more efficient to separately use (6.17) to compute fi and hence knowing a = df/&, to compute ir from the general form in (6.5) (This is illustrated in the numerical example of Section 6.9.2.) With infinitesimal strain increments it would then only be necessary to update the equivalent plastic strain, cpsusing equations (6.11) and (6.12)(or (6.15))before proceeding to the next increment. However, the strain increments will not be infinitesimal and as a consequence, we cannot replace terms like i: with terms like AE although we can use 8~ where SE is infinitesimally small. For the von Mises yield criterion, we can however add a higherorder term and replace (6.7) by
da da Af=aTAa+$AaTTAa=a:Aa+:Aa::Aa da aa
where differentiation of (6.32) gives
(6.46)
2
1 1
1
2
1
1 1
2 6 6 6
1 aaT.
c e
(6.47)
It is clear that the omission of the secondorder terms in (6.46) will lead to error. We will later discuss methods which directly employ the secondorder information. If we simply calculate a = af/da at the beginning of the increment and use equation (6.17)to compute AA, we adopt a forwardEuler scheme which is bound to lead to stresses that lie outside the yield surface at the end of the increment (see Figure 6.8
167
and the numerical example in Section 6.9.2). Unless steps are taken to return the stresses to the yield surface or in some other way to ensure that the stresses remain at least very close to the surface, errors are bound to accumulate and the computed collapse load will generally be overpredicted. There would appear to be three alternative procedures which can be used, either individually or in combinations to overcome this problem. They are:
(1) Add a return to the yield surface to the forwardEuler scheme. (2) Use subincrements [H6, N l . l , 22.1, S8,04, M4, B4, N4). (3) Use some form of backward or midpoint Euler scheme [W2, K2, K3,02, S3, B3).
In each case, the aim is to update the stresses at a Gauss point given (a) the old stresses, strains and equivalent plastic strains and (b) the new strains. For all procedures, the first step is to use an elastic relationship to update the stresses. If these updated stresses are found to lie within the yield surface, the material at the Gauss point is assumed to have either remained elastic or to have unloaded elastically from the yield surface. In these circumstances, there is no need to integrate the rate equations. However, if the elastic stresses are outside the yield surface, we need to adopt one of the integration procedures. Recent work has seen increasing use of the backwardEuler scheme without subincrementation (Sections 6.6.6 and 6.6.7). This method is popular because, for the von Mises yield criterion, it takes a particularly simple form and, in addition, it allows the generation of a consistent tangent modular matrix (Section 6.7) which ensures quadratic convergence (see Section 1.2.3) for the overall structural iterations when the full NewtonRaphson method is adopted. Nonetheless, for some complicated yield criteria when coupled with complex hardening laws, the backwardEuler
168
BASIC PLASTICITY
procedure is difficult to implement and hence techniques such as subincrementations may still be relevant.
6.6.1
A number, but not all, of the integration procedures require the location of the intersection [B2] of the elastic stress vector with the yield surface (Figure 6.9(a)). In such circumstances, we require
f(ox MAC,)= 0
+ Ace) > 0
For some yield surfaces, this problem can be solved exactly. For example, with the von Mises yield function, we can use the A matrix in (6.47) to reexpress the yield function (6.26) in squared form as
f2
= 0, 0 +oTAa 0, 0.  ,= =
(6.5 1)
CT,(CT~)~  0%=
(6.52)
where the 0, terms are simply the equivalent stress terms of (6.26). We require the positive root of (6.52). A numerical example is given in Section 6.9.1. Alternatively, for a general yield function we can use a truncated Taylor series with a as the only variable to set up an iterative scheme. Such a scheme might start with an initial estimate:
a, = . f x
f n Jx
(6.53)
and then use the truncated Taylor series: (6.54) to give a first change in a, 6a,. In applying (6.54), the old yield function value,f,,, would for the iteration be computed from the stresses o = ox + a,Ao, with f, being computed from these same stresses. The scalar a would then be updated using x 1 = a, + 6a, while a second iteration would involve
6M,=
 1
aTAo,
~
f l
(6.55)
169
(b)
Figure 6.9 The forwardEuler procedure: (a) Locating the intersection print, A; (b) Moving tangentialy from A to C (and (later) correcting to D).
170
BASIC PLASTICITY
ox + ctAoe, the remaining portion of the strain increment, which is (1  a)A.a, can be treated in an elastoplastic manner. 6.6.2 Two alternative predictors
We have already indicated that we may need some scheme to return the stresses to the yield surface following an initial predictor. The standard predictor CO41 is the forwardEuler procedure which follows from (6.5)by replacing the rates with As so that:
A o = CA& A2 Ca = Aoe  A i Ca
(6.56)
where we are now moving from the intersection point A (Figure 6.9(b)) so that A c e is now the elastic increment after reaching the yield surface (i.e. (1  a) times the Ace in (6.48) or Figure 6.9(a)). In relation to Figure 6.9(b))
oc = oA
(6.57)
and the step can be interpreted as giving an elastic step from the intersection point A to B followed by a plastic return that is orthogonal to the yield surface at A. (To fully justify the pictorial representation in figures such as 6.9, the C matrix must be thought of as an identity matrix.) An alternative predictor (Figure 6.10) uses the normal at the elastic trial point, B and hence avoids the necessity of computing the intersection point, A. A firstorder Taylor exapansion about point B gives
=f
ac
AA A
(6.58)
acps
f,
>0
171
where the hardening parameter A has been defined in equations (6.13) and (6.16)(with B = 1). Equation (6.58) has used the incremental form of equation (6.5) with A&= 0 because the total strain A&has already been applied in moving from point X to point B (Figure 6.10). If the new yieldfunction valuef, is to be zero, equation (6.58)gives (6.59) , , where a and A are computed at B (Figure 6.10) and the final stresses, c are given by
c ,
= cB  AI Ca,.
(6.60)
This method (for which a numerical example is given in Section 6.9.5.1) can be viewed as a form of backwardEuler scheme although, unlike the full backwardEuler procedure (Section 6.6.6), the final stresses at C will not always lie on the yield surface (see Figure 6.10). However, for the threedimensional von Mises criterion (with linear hardening), the present method coincides with the wellknown radial return algorithm [W 1, K2, K3,02] which is a special form of the backwardEuler procedure. This relationship will be explored in Section 6.6.7. 6.6.3
Returning to the yield surface
In general, both of the previous methods produce stresses that lie outside the yield surface. It is now possible to simply scale the stresses at C (Figure 6.9(b) or 6.10) by a factor r until the yield surface f becomes zero [02]. However, this technique, which should not be confused with the radial return method (Section 6.6.7) which gives a radial return in deuiatoric space, will generally involve an elastic component and is not recommended. An alternative technique [01,C3], can be viewed as an extension of the previous backwardEuler predictor and has been related to opcrator splitting by Ortiz and Simo [Ol]. Using this approach, the total strains are kept fixed while additional plastic strains are introduced in order to relax the stresses on to the yield surface. To this end, equation (6.60) can be repeated at point C (Figure 6.9(b) or 6.10) so that
q, = c ,

6&Ca,
(6.61) (6.62)
where
If the resulting yield function at D (Figure 6.9(b) or 6.10) is insufficiently small, further relaxation can be applied. The final process leads to
An = C A& Ai,Ca,  6A,Cau  6R,Ca, (6.63)
where, for the forwardEuler procedure (Figure 6.9(b)), a, is the normal at the intersection A while, for the backwardEuler predictor, a, is the normal at B (Figure 6.10). The method is illustrated via a numerical example in Section 6.9.4.
172
BASIC PLASTICITY
Figure 6.11 Reducing the drift via subincrements (with later correction to E)
6.6.4
Subincrementation
Instead of introducing some artificial return to the yield surface, the errors that are introduced by the forwardEuler tangential scheme can be significantly reduced by subincrementation [H6, N4, S3, S8, B4, M41. Using such a technique (Figure 6.1 l), the incremental strain A&is divided into m substeps each of q A&, where q = l/m and the standard forwardEuler, tangential procedure is applied (at the Gausspoint level) at each step. Some workers [N4,S8] use a twostep Euler procedure to estimate the error produced by the standard Euler technique and hence to compute the required number of steps. Such a twostep scheme starts with a standard step:
CBI = C A
+ CtAA&= + ACI
6 A
and then recomputes the step using the average tangential modular matrix, so that
6B2
=CA
where
A c ~ CtB, A&. =
Consequently, an estimate of the error is 6C = 6 B 2 = ;(A02  AC,).
Nyssen 41 uses this error estimate, 66, to propose the following measure for the truncation error in f for one step:
e = 2a,(Aa)/a,.
(6.68)
173
He then argues that the total error will be roughly l/m times the error for a single step if m subincrements are used. Hence the required number of substeps to give a tolerance of /) in f is (6.69) where he suggests a value of 0.05 for p. Equation (6.46) would indicate that the truncation error in the standard Euler scheme is proportional to the square of the length of the stress increment AG. Hence, it could be argued that (6.70) would be more appropriate. Sloans work [SS] suggests such a scheme, although he works with the Euclidean norm rather than with oe and computes the required reduction factor, q, as:
4 =o.*(
Pllall It A 6 It

li2
(6.71)
where he advocates 103104 for p. Equations (6.70) and (6.71) are of the same form because 4 is inversely proportional to m. In practice, Sloan takes his procedure beyond the simple computation of a number of subincrements. Instead, at each subincrement, he uses equation (6.71) to indicate whether or not the current substep needs to be reduced further. In addition, he uses the twostep Euler scheme (equations (6.64)(6.66)) at each substep. In contrast to most other workers, Sloan does not combine his substepping with a technique, such as that of Section 6.6.3, to return the stresses to the yield surface. Even if subincrementation is used, it is probably wise to introduce such a correction either at the end of each substep or at the end of the increment (Figure 6.1 1 from D to E). Other schemes have been proposed [B4, N4,53] for estimating the number of subincrements. For instance, Marques [M4], proposes a Fortantype algorithm whereby
(6.72a) (6.72b)
m 2 = STEP 2 = P2ae(oHaA)/oe(oA). 
(6.72~)
Equation (6.72b) is designed to limit the radial movement from the yield surface while equation (6.72~) designed to limit the tangential movement. is f The simplest form o subincrementation is illustrated by way of a numerical example in Section 6.9.3.
6.6.5 Generalised trapezoidal or midpoint algorithms
Ortiz and Popov CO21 have shown that a number of different integration algorithms can be included in the generalised algorithm:
174
BASIC PLASTICITY
or
AEp f C
= AiCa((1  V b ,
+ V%)l
 60C(EpsB
(6.74b)
= 6eC(6C)
 oOC(EpsC) = 6eC(QC)
+ AEps(AEp))
(6.75)
where (Figure 6.12(a))A is the starting point and C the final point on the yield surface. If 21 = 0, equations (6.74a) and (6.74b) coincide and we obtain the previous explicit, forwardEuler, tangential algorithm. However, as we have already discussed, this algorithm does not directly lead to stresses that satisfy the yield criterion and hence equation (6.75) is not satisfied. If T,I = 1, we produce a backwardEuler or closest point algorithm (see Sections 6.6.6 and 6.6.10). A slightly modified version of this algorithm was discussed in Section 6.6.2. However, in contrast to the situation of Figure 6.9(b), the full backwardEuler scheme involves a vector a, that is normal to the yield surface at the final position C (Figure 6.12(b)) for which the stresses, cC, satisfy (6.75). Except in special circumstances (see Section 6.6.7), a, cannot be directly computed from data at A or B (Figure 6.12(a)). Hence an iterative procedure must be used at the Gausspoint level to solve the nonlinear equations (6.73)(6.75). This process will be described in more detail in Section 6.6.6.
Figure 6.12 General and backwardEuler returns: (a) the flow vectors aAand a,; (b) backwardEuler return from inside the yield surface; (c) threedimensional backwardEuler return.
175
For 0 < q < 1, either equations (6.74(a)) or (6.74(b)) may be used for the plastic flow. In the former instance, a generalised trapezoidal rule is produced while the latter gives a generalised midpoint rule. For q = i, the former procedure coincides with Rice and Traceys meannormal procedure [R2] which was devised for the threedimensional von Mises yield criterion with perfect plasticity. This method involves a simple modification to the basic forwardEuler procedure. Specifically, it takes (6.76) where aB is normal to the enlarged yield surface at the trial elastic position, B (Figure 6.10) in conjunction with the condition
+(aA+ a,)TAc = 0
(6.77)
in place of the incremental form of (6.7). For the threedimensional von Mises yield criterion with perfect plasticity, this procedure ensures that the final stresses lie on the yield surface and no Gausspoint level iterations are required. For the von Mises yield criterion with linear hardening, the generalised trapezoidal (equation (6.74a)) and midpoint (equation (6.74b)) rules coincide [02]. More generally, Ortiz and Popov CO21 preferred the generalised midpoint rule and, in particular, q = t. However, they showed that for large steps, the ( q = l), backwardEuler scheme is better. It should also be noted that only with q = 1, is it unnecessary to compute the intersection point of the elastic predictor with the yield surface, i.e.
176
for y < 1, oAin equation (6.73) must be on the yield surface whereas for y = 1, oA is not required (see Figure 6.12(b)). 6.6.6
A backwardEuler return
(6.78)
which can be obtained from (6.73) and (6.74) with q = 1. A starting estimate for oc can be obtained from the second method of Section 6.6.2. Generally this starting estimate will not satisfy the yield function and further iterations will be required because the normal at the trial position B (Figure 6.10) will not generally equal the final normal. In order to derive such an iterative loop, a vector, r, can be set up to represent the difference between the current stresses and the backwardEuler stresses, i.e.
r = c  ( 0 ,  A i Ca,)
(6.79)
and iterations are introduced to reduce r to (almost) zero while the final stresses should satisfy the yield criterion, f = 0. With the trial elastic stresses, s, being kept fixed, a truncated Taylor expansion can be applied to equation (6.79) so as to produce a new residual, rn, where
da rn=ro+b+iCa+A;lC  6
do
~
(6.80)
(r,
Ca) =
Q  'r0  iQ'Ca,
(6.81)
Also, a truncated Taylor series on the yield function (6.75) gives (in a similar fashion to (6.58)): (6.82)
(6.83)
Consequently, (6.81) can be solved to obtain the iterative stress change, 6. Also, from (6.19, the iterative change in the equivalent plastic strain is
ips B(o)i =
(6.84)
where, for many yield functicns, B(a) = 1. A numerical example involving this general backwardEuler return is given in Section 6.9.5.1.
177
(6.85)
where the elastic stresses, cB,at B (Figure 6.12) have been split into volumetric (om,j) and deviatoric (s,) components (see also (6.38) for j). With the aid of (6.35), (6.85) becomes
ec = cmCj sc = omRj + +
(6.86)
Because sRhas no component in the direction j (no volumetric component because of (6.42)), it follows that cmc cmR = and
s, = CXS,
=(1 
.);,
3pAi
(6.87)
These deviatoric stresses must satisfy the yield criterion of (6.75) so that (using (6.26) in either vector or tensor form for the yield function):
f, = ce,(Sc)  o . o C ( ~ p s C )= X o e H  o . o , ( ~ p s C ) .
Using (6.87) for (recallingsee
(6.88) (6.89)
Y, with
+ A' A E ~ <=)
.fH
(311
fR
(3p
+ A ' ) Ail = 0
Ail =
+ A')
(6.90)
Substituting from (6.36) into (6.59) gives the same relationship as above. Hence the current procedure which was designed to satisfy the yield function at the final position (via (6.88)) coincides (for the von Mises criterion) with the predictor in Section 6.6.2 based on a truncated Taylor series of the yield function at the 'trial position', B. The reason is that (6.87) defines a 'radial return' in deviatoric space (see Figure 6.12(c) which shows a crosssection of the von Mises cylinder of Figure 6.7). If s, = rsB,then from the yield function of (6.26), oeC zceBand hence, from (6.32), =
a, = aH.
(6.91)
178
BASIC PLASTICITY
cc = G m H j + asg,
cx =
3P.fH (3P + 4 G e R
(6.92)
which takes an even simpler form without hardening. For the tensor form, one need simply replace j in (6.92) by 1. With nonlinear hardening, the return is still radial in deviatoric space and again relates to (6.87). However, (6.90) can be longer be used for A2 although with A = A ; = A ; it can give a starting value for a scalar NewtonRaphson iteration. This scalar iteration relates to the satisfaction ofthe yield function (6.88) with A2 as the only variable. A truncated Taylor series then leads to
where the subscript n means new and o means old. The term = HL0 (see (6.16) with B = 1) is the slope of the uniaxial stress/plastic strain relationship (see (6.13)) at the old trial value of the equivalent plastic strain, cpsco.
6.7
Simo and Taylor [S4] and Runesson and Samuelsson [R3] derived a tangent modular matrix that is fully consistent with the backwardEuler integration algorithm of Section 6.6.7. (Other work on the consistent tangent approach can be found in [SSS7, AI, J 1, H 1, B3, C4, R 1, M81.) As a consequence of the consistency, the use of the consistent tangent modular matrix significantly improves the convergence characteristics of the overall equilibrium iterations if a NewtonRaphson scheme is used for the latter. Standard techniques would use the modular matrix of (6.18) which is inconsistent with the backwardEuler integrations scheme (or any other effective integration schemes unless the increment sizes are infinitesimal) and hence destroys the quadratic convergence inherent in the NewtonRaphson method. We will now give two derivations for consistent tangent relationships; one based on the general backwardEuler return of Section 6.6.6 and the other based on the specialised radial return of Section 6.6.7. For the von Mises yield criterion, the two techniques lead to exactly equivalent formulations.
6.7.1
We will firstly follow on from the radial return of Section 6.6.7. To this end, it is most convenient to work with the tensor forms for stress and strain but we will also give (sometimes on the same line) the matrix and vector forms. The former will involve the contraction symbol: while the latter will involve inner products designated via the T symbol for transpose. From (6.87), the basic return was (6.94)
179
where with linear hardening A i is given by (6.90) while for nonlinear hardening, it would be obtained from the iterative procedure described at the end of the last section. To obtain a consistent tangent, we differentiate (6.94) to obtain
s,
= as,
(6.95a)
+ is,.
(6.95b)
In (6.95), we have used the linear elastic relationship of (6.41) (see also (4.21) and (4.22)) and have also used the basic return algorithm of (6.78) for the relationship e, = eB (the movement from B to C being entirely governed by AA and a, = aB). From (6.94),
& =  3 p i + 3pAIc 6 _ _
GeH
efl
O~ZR
=(1:9j+ (1  4 ~ A J OeR
~
(jeR
(6.96)
We must now ensure that we remain on the yield surface at C, by differentiating (6.88) to obtain:
fc = c i ~ , ,
+ a6eB  A L i = 0
(6.98)
where A: is the tangential hardening parameter at C. Substituting from (6.96) into (6.98) gives
6e, (3p
+ A$
=0
(6.99)
ci = 2ppsB :e , = 2pps;e,
(6.102)
= Knowing, from (6.94),that sc = asBand hence ceC ao,,,.equations (6.101) and (6.102) can easily be reexpressed to contain sc and geC instead of s, and ceR. Combining (6.102) with the volumetric contribution (as in (6.43) and (6.44)) and using the notation of Section 4.2.2 (with 1 as a secondorder unit tensor and I as a fourthorder unit tensor), leads to a consistent tangent modular tensor:
c, =
k  ~ 01 ) + 2 p ( d  p s , @ s B ) (1 2:)
(6.103a)
180
BASIC PLASTICITY
c,=
k  __ (j) j
+ 2p(aL
 BSHSi).
(6.103b)
It is instructive to compare (6.102) with the equivalent inconsistent relationship in (6.43) or (6.44). Considering, for simplicity, the case with no hardening so that A = 0, the inconsistent form is (from (6.44)) (6.104) while, from (6.102), the consistent form is
S=2p! I
S:S
0s):e.
(6.105)
For the radial return of (6.87), the scalar a can be significantly less than unity and hence the inconsistent relationship can differ appreciably from the consistent form and hence destroy the favourable quadratic convergence characteristics of the full NewtonRaphson method. From the discussions of Chapter 1, this inconsistency would not affect the final answers (provided Strategy B of Section 6.2 is used) but will affect the convergence rate. In order to gain the potential benefits of the consistent tangent, the author believes it is important to use line searches (see Section 9.2) for the early iterations before the iterative procedure reaches the bowl of Newton convergence. During these early iterations, the structural model is deciding which Gauss points are elastic, which unload, which remain plastic and which become plastic. 6.7.2
A combined formulation
A consistent tangent modular matrix can be derived without splitting the stresses and strains into volumetric and deviatoric components. Such a matrix can be derived even when the backwardEuler algorithm does not degenerate to a radial return in deviatoric space. The derivation of a more general form of the consistent tangent modular matrix is therefore relevant to a wider range of yield criteria. Returning to the conventional matrix notation, the standard backwardEuler algorithm can be expressed (see (6.78)) as c = cR A K a
(6.106)
where we are dropping the suffix C relating to the current configuration following the return (see Figure 6.12(b)) so that if a variable has no suffix it is assumed to relate to this configuration. The suffix B in (6.106) shows that cRare the elastic trial stresses (Figure 6.12(b)). Differentiation of (6.106) gives
6 = C : k a  A X C
da
ae
~
(6.107)
where the last term in equation (6.107) is omitted from the derivation of the standard
181
tangent modular matrix. From equation (6.107), C(i: i a ) = Q'C(i:  ia) = R(i:  E',a)
(6.108)
where the Q matrix has appeared before in relation to the backwardEuler return (see (6.81)). To remain on the yield surface, .f should be zero, and hence from (6.16) aTci= aTRi iaTRa  A'R = 0 and hence
(6.1 10)
(6.109)
In deriving equation (6.1 lO), account has been taken of the symmetry of R. This symmetry can be proved with the aid of the symmetries of C and da/da and the relationship
A  'B = (B  'A)  l .
(6.1 11)
In contrast to the consistent tangent matrix, the standard tangent modular matrix is derived by setting A2 to zero in equation (6.107). In this situation, the matrix da/da is unused. A numerical example involving the consistent tangent modular matrix of (6.1 10) is given in Section 6.9.6.1.
6.8
6.8.1
The threedimensional formulations of Sections 6.56.7 can be simply reduced to two , , dimensions by setting ,z = z = y x z = y,, = 0 so that equations (6.30) reduce to E (1 + v)(l 2v)
~~~
where the subscript 4 relates to the four stress and strain components. For axial symmetry (Figure 4.3), oZ can be taken as the hoop stress, while for plane strain, E, is set to zero.
6.8.2
Plane stress
IV
(1  v)
v
+(l
 2v)
=C4E4
(6.1 12)
We have already described (Section 6.3) a forwardEuler formulation for planestress problems in which a,=0. I t has been argued that, for such problems, a
1a2
BASIC PLASTICITY
backwardEuler scheme is impossible, or at least very difficult. However, it can be achieved [Jl, S6, S7) without too much difficulty. Before describing such a formulation, we will redrive the forwardEuler relationships (Section 6.3) starting from the four stresses and strains of equation (6.112). In the previous developments (Section 6.3), we assumed that the response could be related to the threecomponent forms of (6.3) and (6.5). We will now prove the validity of these assumptions. To this end, with fixed elastic properties, we can, from (6.112) write the fourparameter equivalent of (6.5) as
6,
=
(6.1 13)
where a, contains the first four terms from (6.32) and C, comes from (6.112). From (6.36) (6.114) so that (6.17) gives (6.115) Because 6,= 0, the third row of equation (6.1 13) (with C, from (6.112)) gives (6.1 16) After some algebra, if (6.1 16) is substituted into (6.1 1 9 , (6.117) where C, is the threeparameter C matrix of (6.6) and a, is the threedimensional normal vector of (6.4). Further substitution for from (6.117) and 8, from (6.116) can be applied to (6.113) to give (6.18) with C as C, and a as a,. Apart from showing that the two schemes produce identical results, this derivation illustrates that the elastic rate bZe,which comes from the third row of (6.113) (see also (6.1 12) when the plastic strain rate, ZZp, is set to zero), is nonzero while the complete 6, is zero. Hence, there would appear to be difficulties in applying a backwardEuler integration scheme. Using such an approach and starting from (6.78) with C from (6.1 12) leads to
oXc= o X A
 oY)C
(6.1 18)
OeC
(6.120) (6.121)
183
where
E =
(1
+ v)(1
 2v)
(6.I 22)
and the bars over Acx, AE,, and Ayxy indicate that these are known quantities while, operating within a normal threeparameter planestress environment, AE= unknown. is However, the latter term can be computed from (6.121). After some manipulation, substitution into (6.118) and (6.1 19) gives, in conjunction with (6.120),
cc = cA
+ C A6  AiCa,
= cB AiCa,
(6.123)
where all vectors and matrices involve three components (see (6.6) for C and (6.4) for a). Hence there is no need to be concerned that the algorithm returns from four stresses at B to three stresses at points A and C (Figure 6.12). Instead, we can simply operate on the threeterm equations (6.123). This could be achieved using the return of Section 6.6.6 and the consistent tangent of Section 6.7.2. However, as shown by Jetteur [Jl] and Simo et al. [S6,S7], a rather simpler return can be produced. To this end, equations (6.123) can be expanded and manipulated to give (6.124)
opB where oxB, and z,,~ are known, and for convenience we write
Aib= AL/uec.
(6.127) (6.138)
For planestress conditions, the effective stress of (6.3) can be reexpressed via
of = +((OX
OJ2
+ 3(o,  aJ2 + 1 2 2 3
For the following, it is simplest to work with the squared form of the yield function, + a), etc., gives ,, (6.129)
where
(6.130)
and
c , = (a,+ cJ;,
(6.131)
Equation (6.129) is nonlinear in AA and may be solved with the aid of a scalar NewtonRaphson iteration derived from the truncated Taylor series: (6.132) where, as before, the subscript o means old while the subscript n means new. Without
184
BASIC PLASTICITY
With hardening, we can obtain i = ( AAoec)/oec (6.127) and can supplement i from (6.129) with y = 03  O& = 0. The iterative process is then applied to the latter in conjunction with (6.129) and updates both AA and oec.
6.8.2.1 A consistent tangent modular matrix for plane stress
Following the return of the previous section, a consistent tangent modular matrix could be computed using the general procedure of Section 6.7.2. However, a number of simplifications can be made [J 1, S6). Differentiation of (6.124)(6.126) gives
(6.134)
(6.135) (6.136)
from which
6 = R(i:  Aa)
(6.137) (6.138)
where and
a T =  arT __ =
Oe
20,
2(1  v ) A ,
_____+
E E
E
2(1  v ) A ,
A2
P
I1 A2
2(1 v)A1
0
A2
E + P 2(1  v ) A , A2
0
0
PIA2 O
1.
(6.139)
Equation (6.137) is of the same form as (6.108) and hence, assuming no hardening, the constituent tangent modular matrix is given by (6.1 10) with R from (6.139) but with a from (6.138) replacing a. With hardening we can use (6.1 10) with R from (6.139) provided A is replaced by A( 1  AAA). The method is illustrated via a numerical example in Section 6.9.6.2. Extensions of these concepts to shell analysis have been given by Ramm and Matzenmiller [Rl].
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
185
6.9
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
A range of benchmark tests for plasticity has been given in [H3, H41. In this section, we will provide handbased numerical computations using the various techniques developed in the previous sections. These numerical examples will all be related to the planestress yield function of Figure 6.13. Assuming that we are working in principle stress space with y,,, = zXy= 0, from (6.3), with crl = cr, and o2 = cry, the yield function is
 0,
= 0.
(6.140) (6.141)
a, = 200 N/mm2.
6.9.1
Intersection point
(6.142)
apply an elastic increment Aa, relating to a strain increment of AcT = (0.0009,0.0009) (6.143)
and compute the intersection point A in Figure 6.13 and hence the ratio a of equation (6.48) which ensures that f(ax + cxAa,) = 0. Solution From (6.140), the initial stresses, ox in (6.142) give fx =  25.64 and, from (6.140), a,(a,) = 174.4. From (6.143), the elastic incremental stresses are Aacf = (180,180) so that a,(Aa,) = 180. Equation (6.52) then provides the quadratic equation 32 400a2 + 7200a  9600 = 0
a , = 0.444,
G C =  0.667 ~
(6.144) (6.145)
for the intersection point a. The roots of (6.144) are which give the intersection points A and A on Figure 6.13(a).The required intersection point is at A for which the stresses are a = (200,O). : A forward Euler integration scheme would then proceed to apply the ratio (1  a) = 0.667 of the strain increment of (6.143) in an elastoplastic manner. The reader might like to try using the iterative procedure of Section 6.6.1 instead of the direct solution given above.
6.9.2
A forwardEuler integration
Question Assume that we have computed the intersection point, A, with stresses
a = (200,O). ;
(6.146)
240 107
I f ?
240 . g 2
240
120l2O1 80
120
80
40
40
40
0
40
80
120
Cl
280
320
360
400
0
 40  80  120  160  200
240 I
280 1
320
360
400 I
 200
(c)
Figure 6.13 Numerical examples: (a) Computing the intersection print; (b) a forwardEuler step from A to C and (later) a correction to D; (c) using two subincrements; (d) a backwardEuler return.
188
BASIC PLASTICITY
(6.147)
Solution We will firstly obtain a solution by computing the tangent modular matrix at point A (Figure 6.13(b)). From (6.4), a: = (1.0, 0.5)
so that in (6.9), (6.148)
=200000[ 1 0 0 1
I[
 80 000 
1[
a,=aA+AaA=aA+CtAA~=( 200
)+(
lz:)=(
200 000
(6.149)
260 ,,o)
(6.150)
which as shown in Figure 6.13(b) lies outside the yield surface. A more computationally efficient solution would involve: Compute 63, from (6.8) (but with As instead of dots) so that with a from (6.148) and AE from (6.147), (6.151) Compute A o A from (6.5) (again with As instead of dots) to give
6.9.3
Subincrements
Question Repeat the solution of 6.9.2 but use two subincrements and plot the solution. Solution From (6.147), the subincremental steps are, AE = (0.00025,O.O025). For the first subincrement, using a similar procedure to that in (6.151) but with half the step size gives AA =0.0001. Hence the equivalent of (6.152) gives AaA =(30,60). Graphically, this takes the solution to point B in Figure 6.13(c) with aB = (230,60). At this stage, for the second subincrement, we have from (6.4), aT= (0.9679,  0.2662)
(6.153) so that the incremental form of (6.8) gives AA = 0.000 174 and, using the incremental
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
189
form of (6.5),
AcrB = CA& AA Ca =
(io)
0.000174(
 100000
2ooooo) =
(i::;)
(6.154)
and the final stress at C of Figure (6.13(c)) is (246.3, 119.2). Clearly, in comparison with the procedure of Section 6.9.2 (Figure 6.13(b)), the use of subincrements has reduced the drift from the yield surface.
6.9.4
Question Using the procedure of Section 6.6.3, return the final stresses obtained in Section 6.9.2, i.e. crT = (260,120) to the yield surface. Solution In relation to Figure 6.13(b), from (6.140), the yield function at C is fc = 25.39, while a: = (0.8874,  0.044 37). Hence in (6.62), 6R, = 25.39/157 900 = 0.000 161 and from (6.61), an improved solution is
( T = ~
crc
 6i,.
Ca, = (;~:)o*ooo161(
28.54
231.5 (6.155)
 1.43)=(121.4)
which is illustrated in Figure 6.13(b). As a result of this correction the yield function has been reduced from 25.39 to 0.531. The reader might try applying one further iteration.
6.9.5 BackwardEuler return
Question Starting from point X in Figure 6.13(d) (see equation (6.142)), apply a backwardEuler return, appropriate to an elastic increment of
AcT = (0.0014,0.0014).
(6.156)
Firstly use the general procedure of Section 6.6.6 and then the special plane stress form of Section 6.8.2.
6.9.5.1 General method
Solution We start with the second predictor in Section 6.6.2. To this end (see Figure 6.1 3(d)), we firstly obtain the elastic increments ACF:= (280,280) so that the stresses at point B in Figure 6.13(d) are
C F = ~
(400,200)
(6.157)
while the a vector is aB= (0.866,O) and the yield function is f B = 146.4. Hence, from (6.59), A2 = 146.4/150000 = 0.000976 and hence, from (6.60), cc = cB AA Ca,
=
(i:)
0.000 976(
173200
) (2oo )
=
230.9 .
(6.158)
190
BASIC PLASTJCITY
We now apply the backwardEuler corrector of Section 6.6.6 for which we require a, = (0.6031,0.3893) and f c = 17.13. From (6.79), we now have
Using (6.81),
(6.159)
[[:
+ 0.000976 x 200000
0.002 93  0.003 39
 0.003 39
0.003 9 1
11
(6.160) (6.161)
while in (6.81)
& = QQlroiQlCa=
(
>=(
2*53)
(6.162)
 47.92
so that, at the end of the iteration, the uew point C is given by 0; = (233.5,152.1), fc = 5.256, A2 = 0.001 06. This point is plotted on Figure 6.13(d) as point D. The reader might like to try a further iteration which leads to
= (226.3, 153.6),
f c = 0.0927,
A2 = 0.001 160
(6.163)
A more efficient return can be made by applying the special planestress return of Section 6.8.2 from the trial solution of (6.158). To this end, with r = 1 from (6.130), from (6.131) and (6.157), we obtain
C, = 360000 C2 = 120000. (6.164) To start the iterative procedure, we will compute AA' from (6.127) using the AIu value in (6.158) (0.000976) and the geCvalue relating to the stresses, cC, (6.158) so that in
(6.165)
= 8273.
(6.166)
NUMERICAL E X A M P L E S
191
?G
c)f
 100000
(
~
(6.167)
= 0.1 133e  5.
(6.168)
Hence the updated A i value is 0.4495e  5 t0.1 133e  5 = 0.5629e  5 and, from (6.129),
.f;= 40 997  40 000 = 997.
(6.169)
This corresponds to a yield function value in the standard form of (6.140)of,f = 2.477. Another iteration is hardly necessary but leads to
AI= 997  0.5432e10
~ ~
= 0.180e  6
(6.170)
so that the final A i l value is 0.5809e5 which, from (6.127), corresponds to an unscaled AA value of
A 2 = 0.5809e  5 ,
(6.171) (6.172)
Substituting for A i from (6.171) into (6.124)(6.126) leads to the final stresses as
0:
for which f = 0.1 7e  4 and f 2 = 0.678e  2. The stresses in (6.172) are very close to those obtained in (6.163) and are plotted as point E in Figure 6.13(d). 6.9.6
Consistent and inconsistent tangents
Question From the point obtained at the end of the previous section with stresses given by (6.172) and plastic multipliers given by (6.17l), compute (i) the inconsistent tangent and (ii) the consistent tangent ready for use in a structural NewtonRaphson iteration. From (6.4), we have a?= (0.7478,0.2010)
so that in (6.9), the inconsistent tangent modular matrix is given by
(6.173)
 0.5014e5
aaTC
0.1865e6
(6.174)
Using the general method of Section 6.7.2 for the consistent approach, we firstly use (6.108)with Aj from (6.171) and ?a/% from (6.47) to compute
192
1.512 = 0.7558
[(: [
 0.003 252
0.004 798
1
(6.175)
2.1 15
R =Q  ~ C = so that in (6.1IO),
][
200 000 0.1610e6 0.5753e5 0 200000] = 0.5753e5 0.1 M e 6 (6.176) 0.1742e11 0.8732e10 0.8732e10 0.4378e10
 0.2044e5
;: 5: 4 e :
0.7602e5
(6.177)
As already pointed out in Section 6.8.2.1, one can devise a more economical way of computing the consistent tangent for the plane stress case [Jl,S6,S7]. To this end, we compute a' from (6.138) as
a'T= i(20,
= (149.6,40.20).
(6.178)
In order to compute R, we require A , and A , from (6.124) and (6.125), which with AA' from (6.171) are given by
(6.179)
R=[
so that using (6.1 10) but with a' instead of a (see Section 6.8.2.1),
C,,=R
I
aaTR aTRa)
0.9970e5 0.2679e5   1 _ _ [0.2556e15 0.1281e15 0.2679e5 0.9970e5 0.27 13e10 0.128 1e 15 0.6424e 14
. 
 0.2044e5 ;: 4: 5 e :
0.7602e5
(6.180)
193
6.10
The links between plasticity and mathematical programming can be found in [SS, M1, S1, R3,53, M5, M10, SS]. The present developments follow closely those in [SS, M5, R31. For simplicity, the work will be related to perfect plasticity. Extensions to include hardening can be found in the previous references. An essential prerequisite to the understanding of this section is some basic knowledge on constrained optimisation with inequalities; in particular the use of Lagrangian functions, Lagrangian multipliers and the KuhnTucker conditions. Good books covering these topics are due to Fletcher [Fl] and Luenberger [L2]. We will start with the principle of maximum plastic work which Hill [H2] attributes to von Mises [Vl]. This principle firstly requires that the stresses must be restricted by the yield surface and, secondly, requires that they should be such as to maximise the increment (or rate) of plastic work, i.e.
.f(4 0. G
max{w=aTi,).
Using standard techniques of mathematical programming [F 1, L2], we firstly turn the maximum into a minimum by changing ci/ to  ci/ and, secondly, create a Lagrangian function by adding a Lagrangian multiplier itimes the constraint of (6.181a), so that
(6.182)
. f ( 4G 0
R 30
if (a) 0. =
The 'complementarity condition' (6.184~) requires that either the yield function is zero or is zero and there is no plastic flow. Equation (6.183) is the flow rule, (6.184a) the yield criterion, and (6.184b) the condition for a 'positive plastic strainrate multiplier'. All of these conditions have been considered before in the earlier developments of Section 6.3. There is one further condition that can be derived from the principle of maximum plastic work (equation (6.18 I)). This is the essential 'convexity' [FI, L2] of the yield surface. To prove this, we must rewrite (6.181b) as a*T&, aT&, 3 or
(a a*)=&,< 0,
(6.185a) (6.185b)
where a* are the actual stresses that maximise the plastic work rate, I ' $, and a are
194
BASIC PLASTICITY
any other admissible stresses (satisfying (6.181a)). (Note that many workers [SS, R3, S1, M5] use z and CT in place of the current c and c*.)Because of the flow rule (6.183) and the condition of nonnegative (6.I84b), (6.185b) can be reexpressed as
(6.186)
which is illustrated in Figure 6.14 and ensures that the region contained by .f is 'convex' [F 1, L21. By writing the plastic strain rate, ip,as the difference between the total strain rate, i, and the elastic rate, ie= C'ir, we can rewrite (6.185b) in the form
(d  c*)'r(& 

'ir)
< 0.
(6.187)
which is a 'variational inequality' which has been used as the starting point of some numerical developments in plasticity. Yet another alternative to the principle of maximum plastic work (6.18l), is provided by adopting a complementary energy form [M5] with
2 min (( L k r c  '6  b T t )
(6.188)
(6.189)
in place of (6.181b). In (6.189), the total strain rate, i, is fixed and the stress rates, ir, are variables. Adding the constraint of (6.18121) leads, instead of (6.182), to a Lagrangian:
L @ j ) = tir'c l6  irTi i , f ( d ) +
(6.190)
195
along with the other KuhnTucker conditions of (6.184). In equation (6.191) we have used the flowrule relationship of (6.183) which then leads in (6.191) to the standard additive decomposition into elastic and plastic strains. The converse is equally true. 6.10.1
We will now derive the backwardEuler procedure of Section 6.6.6, by starting from an incremental form of (6.189) to which we add the constant (i AE are fixed), or +AE'CAE, which does not affect the minimisation process [M5]. It follows that the function to minimise is F . where
+ +At.'C
AE
 Ac]
(6.192a) (6.192b)
G
= $ [ ~ , l ~ ( 0
F = +(a,  c C ) rC
or).
In the step from (6.192b) to (6.192c), we add and subtract terms E, = C  ' a which involve the elastic strains, E ~ and total stresses at the beginning of the increment. , The stresses oelt the elastic 'trial stresses' given by are
cell G~ = Q =
(6.193)
In the final step in (6.192) (and in (6.193)) we have also introduced the subscripts B and C which relate to Figure 6.12 and the earlier developments of Sections 6.6.5 and 6.6.6. Maintaining this notation, we now have to minimise (6.192e) with the final stresses, a,, as the variables and with the yield surface constraint (now with an equality because we are assuming plastic flow) being applied at the end via .f'(oc) 0. Hence = the Lagrangian equivalent to the minimisation of (6.192e) is
L(G,,AI)= $(c,  c , ) ~ C '(OR  c C )
+ Aj,f(oC).
(6.194)
where we are introducing more of the notation of Sections 6.6.5 and 6.6.6 with a = df/da. Equation (6.195) provides the backwardEuler relationship:
ac = oB  A;. Ca,
. (6.196)
previously given in (6.78). From (6.192e), F can be identified as the scaled, squared length between point B
196
BASIC PLASTICITY
(the elastic trial point) and C (the final point satisfying the yield function). It follows that ac (as given by (6.196)) is the closestpoint projection onto the yield surface in the energy norm,
 %)I
(6.197)
6.1 1
SPECIAL NOTATION
1 (or 1,) = unit secondorder tensor (see (4.30) and (4.31))
a = af/aa which is defined here as a column vector
A = hardening parameter ( = HB) A 1 , A , = scalars for planestress analysis (see (6.124) and (6.125)) A = special matrix within aa/da (see (6.47))
B(a) = stress parameter (see (6.15)) C,, C, = stress parameters for planestress analysis (see (6.131)) C, = tangential constitutive tensor (or matrix), C,, = consistent tangential constitutive tensor (or matrix) C, = constitutive matrix with three stress components; C4= constitutive matrix with four stress components (Section 6.8) e = deviatoric strains
E (1 v)(l  2v) f = yield function y x y , etc. = engineering shear strain = ~ ~ , , / 2 H = hardening parameter I = unit fourthorder tensor (see (4.30) and (4.31)) or (sometimes) unit matrix (or secondorder tensor) j= ( I , 1,1,O,O,O) J , = second stress deviator invariant k = bulk modulus L= Lagrangian function (Section 6.10) L = special matrix (see (6.27)) required for use with vector stress and strain forms
E =
r=
REFERENCES
197
)
im = mean strain rate E = vector or tensor of strains (the latter is sometimes written as E ~ i: = strain rate it= total strain rate (the subscript t is often dropped) i,,= plastic strain rate &d (or &2d ore) = deviatoric strains A = plastic strainrate multiplier p = shear modulus oe = effective stress oo= yield stress o,,, = mean stress c = stress (as vector or tensor; the latter is sometimes written as cz) 6 =stress rate zxy, etc. = shear stress
Subscripts e = effective, elastic n = new o = old p = plastic
6.12
REFERENCES
[A 11 A B A Q U S  Theory manual, Vers. 4.6, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, providence, Rhode Island, USA (1984). [A21 Argyris, J. H., Vaz, L. E. & Willam, K. J., Improved solution methods for rate problems, Comp. Math. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 16, 231277 (1978). [A31 Armen, H., Assumptions, models and computational methods for plasticity, Computers & Structures, 10, 161174 (1979). [Bl] Besseling, J. F., A theory of elastic, plastic, and creep deformations of an initially isotropic material showing anisotropic strainhardening, creep recovery and secondary creep, J A M , 24, 529536 (1958). [B2] Bicanic, N. P., Exact evaluation of contact stress state in computational elastoplasticity, Engineering Comp., 6,6773 ( 1 989). [B3] Braudel, H. J., Abouaf, M. & Chenot, J. L., An implicit and incremental formulation for the solution of elastoplastic problems by the finite element method, Computers and Structures, 22 (3,8018 14 (1 986). [B4] Bushnell, D., A strategy for the solution of problems involving large deflections, plasticity and creep, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 10, 1343 I356 (1976). [Cl] Caddemi, S. & Martin, J. B., Convergence of the NewtonRaphson algorithm in incremental elasticplastic finite element analysis, Computational Plasticity: Models, Sotware & Applications, Vol. 1, ed. D. R. J. Owen er al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 2748 (1989). [C2] Chen, W. F., Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, McGrawHill, New York (1984). [CS] Crisfield, M. A., Numerical analysis of structures, Detlelopments in Thinwalled Structures 1, ed. J. Rhodes et al., Applied Science, pp. 235 284 (1981). [C4] Crisfield, M. A., Consistent schemes for plasticity computation with the NewtonRaphson method, Computational Plasticity: Models, Software and Applications, Part 1, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 133259 (1987).
198
[Dl] De Borst, R., Nonlinear analysis of frictional materials, Ph.D. Thesis, Inst. T N O for Building Materials and Structures, Delft (1986). [DZ] Desai, C. S. & Siriwardane, H. J., Constitutive Law.s,fiw Engineering Materials, Prentice Hall (1984). [D3] Dodds, R. H., Numerical techniques for plasticity computations in finite element analysis, Computers & Struct., 26(5), 767779 (1987). [D4] Drucker, D. C., Conventional and unconventional plastic response and representation, Appl. Mech. Rev., 41 (4), 15 1  167 ( 1988). [Fl] Fletcher, R., Practical Methods qf Optimisutioiz, 2nd edition, Wiley ( I 987). [Hl] Hibbitt, H. D., Some issues in numerical simulation of the nonlinear response of metal shells, Proc. F E M S A '86 Symp. on Finite Element Methods in South Africa, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (February 1986). [H2] Hill, R., T h e Mathcmatic*al Theor)?of Plasticity, Oxford University Press (1 950). [H3] Hinton, E., Hellen, T. K. & Lyons, L. P. R., On elastoplastic benchmark philosophies, Compututionul Plasticity: Models, Sofibure and Applications, ed. D. R. J. Owen et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 389408 ( 1 989). [H4] Hinton, E, & Ezzat, M. H., Fundamental tests for two and threedimensional, small strain. elastoplastic finite element analysis, National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards Report SSEPT, (1987). [H5] Hodge, P. G., Plastic Anulysis of'Structurc>.s,McGrawHill ( 1 959). [H6] Huftington, N. G., Numerical analysis of elastoplastic stress, Memorandum Report No. 2006, Ballistic Res. Labs., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (1969). [H7] Hughes, T. J. R. & Pister, K. S., Consistent linearisation in mechanics of solids and structures, Comp. & Struct., 8, 391397 (1978). [I 11 Ilyushin, A. A., Plastic.itbdef'orniutions elustoplastiques (transated from Russian in French), Editions Eyrolles, Paris, (1956). [J 11 Jetteur, P., Implicit integration algorithm for elastioplasticity in plane stress analysis, Engineerin0 Computations, 3(3), 25 1253 (1986). [JZ] Johnson, W. & Mellor, P. B., Engineering Plasticity, Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1983) [J3] Johnson, C., A mixed finite element method for plasticity problems with hardening, S I A M J . Num. Anal., 14, 575584 (1977). [Kl] Key, S. W., Stone, C. M. & Krieg, R. D., A solution strategy for the quasistatic largedeformation, inelastic response of axisymmetric solids, EuropelUS Workshop on Nonlineur Fiizitr Element Anulysis in Structural Mechunics, Bochum (1980). [K2] Krieg, R. D. & Krieg, D. B., Accuracies of numerical solution methods for the elasticperfectly platic model, Truns. A S M E , 510515 (November 1977). [K3] Kreig, R. D. & Key, S. M., Implementation of a time independent plasticity theory into structural computer programs, Constitutive Equutions in Viscoplasticity: Computcitionul and Engineering Aspects, AM D20, ed. J. A. Stricklin et al., ASME, New York, pp. 125 138 ( 1976). [Ll] Little, G. H., Rapid analysis of plate collapse by liveenergy minimisation, Int. J . Mech. Sci., 19, 725743 (1977). [L2) Luenberger, D. G., Linear and Nonlineur Programming, 2nd edition, AddisonWesley, Reading, Mass. ( 1984). [Ml] Maeir, G. & Nappi, A., On the unified framework provided by mathematical programming to plasticity, Mechanics of' Materials Behaviour, ed. G. J. Dvorak et al., Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 253273 (1983). [M2] Martin, J. B. & Bird, W. W., Integration along the path of loading in elasticplastic problems, Engineering Computations, 5. 2 17223 ( I 988). [M3] Martin, J. B., An internal variable approach to the formulation of finite element problems in plasticity, Physical Nonlineurities in Structural Analysis, ed. J. Holt et al., SpringerVerlag, pp. 165 176 ( 1981 ). [M4] Marques, J. M. M. C., Stress computation in elastoplasticity, Engineering Computations, 1, 4251 (1984). [M5] Matthies, H. G., A decomposition method for the integration of the elasticplastic rate problem, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 28, 1  1 1 (1989).
REFERENCES
199
[M6] Matthies, H., The rate problem for complex material behaviour with internal variables, Computcitional Plasticity: hlodt~ls, SqfiMure & Applicutions, Vol. 1. ed. D. R . J. Owen et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 2748 (1989). [M7] Mendelson, A., Plasticity: Theory und Application, McMillan, New York ( 1968). [M8] Mitchell, <;. P. & Owen, D. R. J., Numerical solutions for elastic plastic problems, Engineering Computations, 5(4), 274284 ( 1988). [M9] Mroz, Z., An attempt to describe the behaviour of metals under cyclic loads using a more general workhardening model, Acta Mechanicu, 7(2 3), 199 2 12 ( 1969). [M 101 Martin, J. B., Plasticity ~ ~Fundamt~rztu1.s und Genrrccl Results, The M IT Press,  Cam bridge, Mass., London ( 1975). 11 Nagtegal, J. C., On the implementation of inelastic constitutive equations with special reference to large deformation problems, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engng.. 33, 469484 ( 1982). 2) Neal, R. G., 7 h e Plastic Methods cfStructura1 Analysis, Chapman Hall, London ( 1963). 31 NematNasser, S. (ed.), Theoretical foundation for largescale computations for nonlinear material behaviour, Proc. Workshop, Evanston, Illinois, 1983, Martinus Nijhoff. Dordrecht (1984). 41 Nyssen, C., An efficient and accurate iterative method allowing large incremental steps to solve elastoplastic problems, Computers & Strucfurccs, 13, 63 7 1 ( 1981 ). [Ol] Ortiz, M. & Simo, J . C., An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations, lnt. J . N u m . Meth. Enyng., 23,353 366 (1986). [02] Ortiz, M. & Popov, E. P., Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations, l n t . J . Num. Meth. Enyng., 21(9), 1561 1576 (1985). [03] Ortiz, M., Pinsky, P. M. & Taylor, R. L., Operator split methods for the numerical solution of the elastoplastic dynamic problem, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Enyny., 39, 137 157 ( 1983). CO41 Owen, D. R. J. & Hinton, E., Finitr Elements in Plusticitj~Theory und Pructice, Pineridge Press, Swansea ( 1980). [OS] Owen, D. R. J., Prakahs, A. & Zienkiewicz, 0.C., Finite element analysis of nonlinear composite materials by use of overlay systems, Int. J . Num. Moth. Engncj., 4, 125 1 1267 ( 1974). [Pl] Prager, W., Introduction t o Plusticeity, AddisonWesley ( 1 959). [P2] Prager, W., A new method of analysing stress and strains in workhardening plastic solids, J . Applied Mechmics, 23, 493 496 ( 1956). [R 13 Ramm, E. & Matzenmiller, A., Consistent linearization in elastoplastic shell analysis, Enginrwing Computations, 5(4), 289 299 ( 1988). [R2] Rice, J . R . & Tracey, D. M., Computation fracture mechanics, Proc. Symp. Nuni. Meth. Struct. Mech., ed. S. J . Fenves. Academic Press, p. 585 (1973). [R3] Runesson, K. & Samuelsson, A., Aspects on numerical techniques in small deformation plasticity, NUMETA 85, Numcricul Methods in Engineerin!/: Theory iind Applicutions, ed. J . Middleton et NI., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, pp. 3377348 (1985). [R4] Runesson, K., Samuelsson, A. & Bernspang, L., Numerical techniques in plasticity including solution advancement control, lnt. J . N u m . Meth. Engngj., 22,769788( 1 986). [Sl] Samuelsson, A. & Froier, M., Finite elements in plasticitya variational inequality approach, MAFELAP 111, ed. J . R. Whiteman, Academic Press, New York (1979). [S2] Save, M. A. & Massonet, C., Plrtstic Anulysis Lind Design of Plut~.s.Shells atnd Discs, NorthHolland, Amsterdam ( 1972). [S3] Schreyer, H. L., Kulak, R. F. & Kramer, J. M., Accurate numerical solutions for elastoplastic models, A S M E J o u r n d of PrcJssure Vessc4 T c ~ c ~ h n o l o g 101, 226 234 ~*, ( 1979). [S4] Simo, J. C. & Taylor, R. J., Consistent tangent operators for rateindependent elastoplasticity, Comp. Merh. Applicd Mec*hunicsund Engny., 48, 101 1 18 (1985). [SS] Simo. J. C. & Hughes, T. J. R., Elustoplasticitjv c i t i d Visc.opliistic.it!, ~ Cotnputcctionul Aspects, to be published. [S6] Simo. J. C. & Taylor, R. L., A return mapping algorithm for plane stress elastoplasticity, Int. J . Nun]. Meth. Engny., 22, 649 670 (1986).
~ ~ ~
200
BASIC PLASTICITY
[S7] Simo, J. C. & Govindjee, S., Exact closedform solution of the return mapping algorithm in plane stress elastoviscoplasticity, Enoineering Computations, 5(3),254258 ( 1988). [SS] Sloan, S. W., Substepping schemes for the numerical integration of elastoplastic stressstrain relations, Int. J . N u m . Meth. Engng., 24,893912 ( 1 987). [S9] Strang, G., Matthies, H. & Temam, R., Mathematical and computational methods in plasticity, Vuriutiotzul Methods in the Mechanics of Solids, ed. S. NematNasser, Pergamon Press, Oxford ( 1980). [Tl] Tracey, D. M. & Freese, C. E., Adaptive load incrementation in elastoplastic finite element analysis, Comp. & Struct., 13, 4553 (1981). [Vl] Von Mises, R., Mechanik der plastischen Formanderung von Kristallen, Z . Angew. Math. Mech., 8(3), 161 185 ( 1928). [V2] Von Mises, R., Mechanik der festen Korper im plastisch deformablen Zustand, Gotting Nachr. Math. Phys. K1, 582592 (1913). [W 1) Waszczyszyn, Z., Computational methods and plasticity, Report LR583, Tech. Univ. Delft, Faculty of Aerospace (February 1989). [W2] Wilkins, M. L., Calculation of elasticplastic flow, Methods of Computational Physics, Vol. 3, ed. B. Alder et a!., Academic Press (1964). [W3] Willam, K. J., Recent issues in computational plasticity, Computational Plasticity; Models, Software & Applications, ed. D. R. J. Owen et al., Part 2, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 13531378 (1989). [Zl] Ziegler, H., A n Introduction t o 7hermodynamics, NorthHolland, Amsterdam (1983). [Z2] Ziegler, H., A modification of Pragers rule, Quarterly ofApp1. Math., 17,5565 (1959). [Z3] Zienkiewicz, 0. C. & Cormeau, I. C., Viscoplasticity, plasticity and creep in elastic solidsa unified numerical solution approach, In[. J . Num. Meth. Engny., 8, 82 1845 ( 1974).
Much work has been devoted to finite element methods for beam and rod elements A acting in a twodimensional plane [B2B4,C3C5,El,Hl,H2,KI,M2,01,W3,W4]. significant proportion of this work has involved the total and updated Lagrangian which methods [B2.5,Bl,B4,C4,EI,FI,H2,Kl,M2,W3,W4] have already been considered in Chapter 3 for trusses and Chapter 5 for continuum elements. Beam elements for twodimensional analysis are not only of interest in their own right but also in a didactic role. With this in mind, we will begin this chapter by following on from the work of Chapters 1 and 2 and will adopt a shallowarch formulation CC4,CSJ which is a degenerate form of total Lagrangian technique. We will later introduce a corotational approach which can be considered as an extension of the procedure adopted for trusses in Section 3.6 which used a 'rotated engineering strain'. Finally, in Section 7.5, we will consider a degeneratecontinuum approach using the total Lagrangian formulation [B2S,Bl,S4,W4]. This work can be considered as a natural extension of the work in Chapter 5 on continua and a precursor to the work in Chapter 8 on degeneratecontinuum shells. We should note that some work on arch and ring elements has involved interpolations for tangential and transverse displacements (in relation to the curved arch) [PI]. We will not consider these approaches in the present chapter because in relation to shell analysis (Chapter 8), most successful elements use interpolations in relation to fixed orthogonal axes.
7.1
A SHALLOWARCH FORMULATION
We will firstly consider an initially flat element as shown in Figure 7.1. From Chapter 4, equation (4.84), the axial strain in the xdirection can, using a degenerated form of the Green strain, be expressed (see also (2.3)) as
201
202
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
I\
(b)
Figure 7.1 An initially flat shallowarch element: (a) coordinates and nodes; ( b ) detail.
Assuming plane sections remain plane, the displacement in the xdirection, distance z , from the centroid is given (see Figure 7.l(b)) by
U,
at
where x is the curvature. For an initially curved element (Figure 7.2), equation (7.3) must be modified to
E,
= dii
+1
dx
((
d(z+w) d\)
(:!))
 z ld2w = E T.
+ z,x.
dx
(7.4)
A SHALLOWARCH FORMULATION
203
r =r
I
1
1
I <=O
r 
5=1
* x(u)
= (SE;
+ z,6xv = 4dx
d(S6,
+Z
l b
Substitution into (7.9, followed by integration through the depth, zl, leads to
where, for convenience, we are writing w = w + z and the stress resultants in (7.7)are
N=
At this stage, the finite element shape functions can be introduced so that
gxdzl,
M=
o,zldzl.
(7.9) Using a thinbeam, Kirchhoff assumption (as here), the lowestorder function we can use for w is a cubic CC2.21. For the present, we will adopt a quadratic, hierarchical function for ii CC2.21 but will later (Section 7.1.3) consider in more detail the issue of appropriate, matching, functions. With the chosen function, we have (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2),
U = hTu,
w =hiw,
z =hiz.
In relation to these equations nodes 1 and 2 are the endnodes (Figures 7.1 and 7.2) while node q is a central node at which the hierarchical midside displacement Auq
204
(q for quadratic) acts. (The superscript will often be omitted from the nodal values of U, but it should be noted that all nodal uvalues refer to displacement at the reference plane.) The more basic linear displacement function for ii can be obtained by setting Auq to zero. The nodal values Ox, and Ox2 are the nodal values of dw/dx and are variables, while the nodal quantities a,, and ax2 are fixed nodal values of dz/dx which, along with the fixed nodal quantities z1 and z2, define the initial configuration of the element. With a view to the computation of the strains, differentiation of (7.9) leads to (7.14) 6(t2 1) w=bZw,

dz
dx
=bEz
(7.15)
(7.16)
so that, in (7.4),
F = bau
434 + 1)
where w= w + z. Hence, knowing the nodal displacements, U and w, the strain E, of (7.4) can be computed at any depth, z l . Assuming, for the present elastic properties, N and M in (7.8) can be reexpressed as N = EAE,
A = EIx. 4
+ $(b:w)2
i(b:z)2
(7.17)
(7.18)
The shapefunction relationships of (7.9) relate to total displacements but identical expressions apply for the virtual displacements and hence substitution into (7.6)gives
BE,,
= BE,
+ z,Bx,
= brdu,
+ (b:w)b%6wv + z ~ c ~ B w , .
(7.19)
= UBU
where the usual internal force vector, qi, can be written as with
U i = Nb,dX Wi = (N(b:w)b,
s s
q = (U, W)
+ Mc)dx.
(7.22b)
A SHALLOWARCH FORMULATION
205
U,
In (7.20)(7.22), the internal forces Ui correspond to the nodal displacements, in (7.10) and the forces, Wi to the nodal displacements, w in (7.11a).
7.1.1 The tangent stiffness matrix
The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained in the usual manner by differentiation of the internal force vector. To this end, it is most convenient to work in terms of submatrices, so that
(7.23)
LaU
aw
J
(7.24a) (7.24b)
Then, from (7.21)and (7.22) with the aid of(7.18)and the nonvirtual form of (7.19),
dM
ww
i3W
= j(ElccT
+ EA(biw)2bwbi+ Nbwb:)dx
(7.24~)
where the last term in (7.24~) be identified as the initial stress matrix. can
7.1.2
Introduction of material nonlinearity or eccentricity
6 M = E l 6x.
(7.25)
More generally, the tangent Evalue at depth zl will not be E but, say, using (7.8) and (7.3).
so that,
E(&+ 2, Sx)dz, =
s* s s* s
E dz, SE+
I%,
dzl 6 x = EA 6F+ EX 6 x
(7.26)
Ez;dzl 6 x = EX 6F+ El 6 x .
(7.27)
Even if the material is elastic so that = E, the crosscoupling term, EX, is zero only if the reference plane from which zl (Figures 7.1 and 7.2) is measured is at the centroid.
206
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
Figure 7.3 Schemes for numerical integration through the depth (fivepoint): (a) Gaussian; (b) Lobatto.
K,,
For nonlinear materials, in obtaining EA, E X and EI from (7.26) and (7.27), one must integrate through the depth of the beam. Numerical integration is usually adopted with the stresses and other relevant variables (such as the plastic strain) being stored at integration points through the depth. Hence at the integration points (see Figure 7.3) one may compute the tangent Evalues, I?, from the stored stresses, and plastic strains. With plane sections remaining plane, it is unnecessary to store the strains at the integration points through the depth since the strains are completely defined, from (7.4), by F and 2. This approach can be easily extended to shells (see Section 8.1.2). Burgoynne and the author [BSI believe that the best procedure for the throughthickness integration is either standard Gaussian integration or the Lobatto rule, using, say, five points, if the material is nonlinear. Two Gaussian points are adequate for a linear response although, of course, the integration can then be performed explicitly. In contrast to the Gaussian rule (Figure 7.3(a)), the Lobatto rule has points on the surface (7.3(b)).While the positioning and weights for Gaussian integration are given in many textbooks the Lobatto values are not. Hence the latter are given in the Appendix.
7.1.3 Numerical integration and specific shape functions
s s
J
(7.28) (7.29)
+ EX(b%w)(b,cT cb;) +
dx.
(7.30)
As already discussed, with the adopted Kirchhoff bending theory, we cannot use a lowerorder function for w than the cubic adopted in (7.9) and (7.13). In contrast, we
A SHALLOWARCH FORMULATION
207
could, with respect to the continuity requirements, adopt any functions, from linear upwards, for U. Strictly, from (7.1), with a cubic w, we require a quintic U [Dl,C2.2] in order to balance the unctions and thus ensure that we can represent a constant membrane strain and, in particular, the zero membrane strain associated with inextensional bending. Such a quintic element would be extremely cumbersome, particularly when extended to shells. Instead of using such an element, we can use a number of techniques to remove or, at least ameliorate, the membrane locking [S3,C4,C2.2, M21. If we adopt the lowest possible, linear, function for U, then one solution is to use a single point, reduced integration for the membrane strain, E, in (7.4) [M2]. Alternatively, one could adopt linear functions for w and z with respect to the membrane strain, E, although a cubic w for the curvature, x [G2. I , M21. These devices might appear a little ad hoc. Certainly, they will lead to deformation modes involving w that lead to no membrane strain. However, the bending energy should ensure that there are no mechanisms. Also these methods can be put on a more rigorous footing via the Hu Washizu variational principle [W 1, C2.23 with a constant membrane strain. (More discussion on this theme will be given in Section 7.1S.) latter would effectively involve replacing the membrane strain, E from (7.4), The with an effective membrane strain, Eeff, so that
Ceff = 1 j c d x .
(7.31)
Using the basic linear function for U (with AU, = 0), with the shape function of (7.10)(7.13), this would lead to (7.32) where we are using the subscript 21 to denote the difference between the variables at nodes 1 and 2, i.e. ii2 = U 2  U , . One problem with the adoption of a linear U is that, in association with the quadratic dw/dx stemming from the cubic w,the terms in (7.2) do not match. Consequently (ignoring the nonlinear (dw/dx)2 term), we have a solution that even for bendingdominant problems [C7] depends on the chosen reference plane (at which U acts). Hence, with eccentricity (so that E X in (7.26)and (7.27)are nonzero), we can produce overstiff solutions [G 1, C2.2, C7). As indicated in Section 7. I .2, effective eccentricity can be induced by material nonlinearity [C7]. Returning to membrane locking, if instead of using (7.31) or (7.32), we adopt the full functions, it is essential to use (at least) a quadratic function for U and include the AU, term to limit the selfstraining (see also the more detailed discussion in Section 7.1. S ) . If this quadratic term is not included, the solutions will be dramatically overstiff [C4). With this quadratic term included, if the integration of the internal force and tangent stiffness matrices is performed using twopoint Gaussian integration, very reasonable solutions are obtained. The stresses must, of course, also be sampled at these reduced integration stations CC2.2).
208
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
7.1.4
Instead of directly introducing the Kirchhoff hypothesis, we can adopt a Timoshenko beam formulation which includes shear deformation [Tl, C2.21. As a consequence, the rotation of the normal, 8 becomes a separate variable (Figure 7.4) and the curvature is given by x = d$/dx, while the shearing virtual work: (7.33) must be added to (7.7) (with Q as the transverse shear force). We will adopt quadratic hierarchical functions for both U,w and 6, so that
U=hlfu,
w=h;w,
8=hiO
(7.34) (7.35)
It should be noted that the nodal rotational variables are now of the opposite sign to those adopted for the Kirchhoff formulation (currently they are the rotations of the normal (Figure 7.4) while before (see (7.11) and Figure 7.1) they were (dw/dx)s). Differentiation of U (7.34)leads to (7.14)while differentiation of w and 8 in (7.34)gives dw =b;w, dx
d0 = bit3 dx

(7.36)
where b, = b, = b, (7.14). (Although we are here using the same shape functions for all of the variables, we will keep the subscripts to help with an understanding of the equations.) Using (7.36), the shear strain and curvature are given by
dw  = bT, W+hie, dx
x = d8 = biO.
dx

(7.37)
Consequently, from (7.7) and (7.33) (compare (7.20))the internal virtual work becomes
Vi = N(blf6uv
(7.38)
(7.39)
fl
Current normal
A SHALLOWARCH FORMULATION
209
where the Ti terms are workconjugate to the nodal variables, 8. The components of qi are given by
U i = Nb,dx Wi = (N(b,w)b,
s s s
(7.40)
+ Qbw)dx
(7.41) (7.42)
(7.43) where, from (7.40)(7.42) and with the aid of (7.17), (7.28), (7.29) and (7.37), the submatrices are given by (7.44a) (7.44b) (7.44c)
=J
KO, =
(EA(b,w)2bwbi GAb,b, +
+ Nbwb:)dx
(7.44d)
K,, = S(.EX(b;w)b,
ax + GAb, a0
= {(EX(b:w)b,b:
I( ax +
Elb,;ig
+ GAb,h,)dx
(7.44e)
= s(Elb,b;
dx + GAh,h;)dx.
(7.44f)
The NbwbT, term in (7.44d) is the initial stress or geometric stiffness matrix. In (7.44d)(7.44f), the GA terms should include a shapefunction factor for shear ($ for a rectangular section) [C2].
210
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
7.1.5 Specific shape functions, order of integration and shearlocking Very acceptable solutions are achieved when the proposed quadratic shape functions are used in conjunction with twopoint Gaussian integration. However, if the lengthtothickness ratio becomes very high, shearlocking can occur CC2.21. This limitation can be overcome by forcing the shear strain to be effectively constant (with x) and constraining out the Awq term so that CC2.21
Aw,
I (02  01). 8
(7.45)
In these circumstances, the final element has U , w and 0 at the end nodes and Au and A8 at the midelement node, q. The constrainingout can be effected once the full stiffness matrix is formed but it is better to modify the b, function. We could eliminate all midelement variables, by setting AQq to zero (thus giving a linear bending moment) and constraining out AU, in order to provide a constant membrane strain. This would lead to a very similar solution to that obtained with only linear functions if onepoint integration for all of the terms. This relationship was first raised in Section 7.1.3 and will now be amplified. For simplicity, we will start with the membrane straindisplacement relationship in (7.3) rather than that of (7.4) which relates to an initially curved member. (The theory is easily modified to cover the latter.) Assuming a Timoshenko beam formulation as in the previous section, w may be taken as a quadratic. In these circumstances, from (7.3), to be able to reproduce a constant E, U must strictly be a cubic. Using hierarchical displacement functions CC2.21, this can be provided via (7.46) where we have added to (7.9), (7.10) and (7.12) a hierarchical cubic function which is zero at 5 = 0 and AUc at = i.We can now substitute (7.46) and the quadratic function of (7.34) and (7.35) for w into (7.3) to find an expression for F. The expression is simplified by using nondimensional displacements, z2 = U / l and $ = w / l and can be expressed as
<
F = (Gzl
+ iG:l + YAGc)
4[(AG,
+ G 2 1 A G q )+ SC2(A$:
 2AG,).
(7.47) (7.48)
(7.49) AG c = 2 q = [!.02 1. 1 2 8 21 The squarebracketed values at the end of equations (7.48) and (7.49) stem from the introduction of (7.45). If we actually impose (7.48) and (7.49) as constraints and eliminate A&, and AGc, we are left with (7.50) An identical expression would be obtained (more simply) via the use of (7.31) using
211
the quadratic w function and linear U function (with no introduction of AUq and AU,). In contrast, the use of a singlepoint integration would (see (7.47) with A$, = ACc = 0) lead to (7.51) The latter expression could also be obtained by using a linear function for w in the membrane strain (see earlier discussion in Section 7.1.3). The difference between (7.50) and (7.51) will vanish as the mesh is refined and Aw, tends to zero. Under constant curvature, equation (7.32) for the Kirchhoff element of Sections 7.17.1.3 would again lead to (7.50). If we do not apply any averaging on the membrane strain, it is essential to include a quadratic membrane displacement, U. From (7.47), with AUq included, the shape functions will allow a membrane strain field with no 5 term. Without a cubic (A&) term, we are strictly left with an unmatched quadratic term due to Aw, (see (7.47)) and hence cannot fully recover a constant membrane state. However, an unmatched quadratic term is far less serious than an unmatched linear term (as would arise, without averaging, if we did not include a quadratic, AGq). Consider, firstly, a solution starting with a cubic U, followed by the imposition of the constraint of (7.49) to eliminate AGC. As an alternative, consider a solution obtained with only a quadratic U . It is not difficult to show (using (7.47)) that both solutions give exactly the same Hence, membrane strain, E, at the twopoint Gaussian integrations stations, 5 = if we adopt twopoint Gaussian integration and use a quadratic U, we can effectively recover a constant membrane strain. In the limit, as the element reaches a state of constant curvature, the cubic w function of the Kirchhoff element of Sections 7.17.1.3 will become a quadratic and, in these, circumstances, the previous arguments will apply equally to that element. As previously discussed in Section 7.1.3, the eccentricity issue [C7] is also relevant to the choice of matching shape functions.
d. i
212
displacement (or engineering) relationship can be applied (Locally shallow strain terms can be addedsee Section 7.2.7.) Although corotational procedures have often been applied, they have not always been approached in a fully consistent manner particularly with regard to the generation of the tangent stiffness matrix. The key element in such a consistent derivation is the introduction of the variation of the localglobal transformation matrices. This was recognised by Oran [OI, 0 2 1 who derived some elegant corotational formulations for beams and rods. (He also included beamcolumn terms which may have somewhat obscured the corotational basis.)
U,.
Initial configuration
<
213
There has recently been a resurgence of interest in corotational formulations for both threedimensional beams and shells [ R I , C6, NI]. These issues will be addressed in Volume 2. In this section, we will derive a twodimensional corotational beam element using Kirchhoff theory. The element will be firstly described using simple engineering concepts without resource to shape functions. Throughout, the subscript, I , will be used for local coordinates (see Figures 7.5 and 7.6) while if no subscript is given, the variable can be taken to be global and relating to the fixed orthogonal axes. The formulation has much in common with that of Oran [Ol, 02).
7.2.1
The stretching side of the element formulation follows that given for the truss element of Sections 3.4 and (more directly) 3.6, which was derived using a rotated engineering strain. Using this approach (see Figure 7.5), the local straininducing extension is
U1 = I ,  10 = m 2 1
+ d 2 1 ) T ( ( X 2 1 + d21))12 (x:Ix21)12
(7.52)
where the subscript 21 has the previous meaning with x 2 1= x 2  x , , where x 1 and x2 are the initial position vectors of nodes 1 and 2. In practice, (7.52) is badly conditioned and it is better to adopt (7.53) from which can be derived (see also Section 3.8), the midpoint formula [B2]
3
(7.54)
Using the initial basic form for the element, the axial strain is assumed constant as u,/Io and the axial force is given by N
7.2.2
= EAuJl,.
(7.55)
The standard engineering beamtheory relationships are assumed to apply in the local system so that with the local transverse displacements being zero (Figure 7.6): (7.56) where Ol1 and 8,, are the local slopes, (dwldx), (see Figure 7.6) in the corotating frame. These slopes are given by 8,, = 8,
 o!
 OIlo,
6)12
= 8,
a
 O,Z0
(7.57)
where o! defines the rigid rotation of the bar (Figure 7.6) and O l l 0 and 8120are the initial local slopes. The rigid rotation, a, can be found using the crossproduct of the
214
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
unit vectors along the bar in its initial and final configuration via
s = sinix =
1
101,
(x2' x ( x ~d Z 1 ) = ~ )
1
101,
(x21w21 z21u21). 
(7.58)
Or, alternatively, using the inner product relationship: (7.59) Provided 1 a 1 < n, one can decide which formula to use by deciding in which quadrant the beam lies, i.e.
a = s i n  ' s i f ( s > O and c 3 0 ) or ( s d 0 and c > O ) a=cos'cif(s~Oandc,<O)
(7.60)
a=cos'cif(s<Oandc<O). The previous relationships fail if 1 ~ 1 > n. However, in most circumstances, it is 1 possible to extend the range to 271. To this end, we need to know the direction (clockwise or anticlockwise) in which the element has rotated. Then, knowing both c and s, we can uniquely find the quadrant in which the element lies. The direction of the rotation can be obtained from the sign of the (total) nodal rotations. More generally, in three dimensions, one can use quarternions to uniquely update a nodal triadsee [C6, S2] and Volume 2.
7.2.3
In order to apply the principal of virtual work, we need to differentiate (7.52) (or (7.54)). An alternative, but completely equivalent, geometric approach follows from
215
(7.61) zid,, sin /j "2 1 where e , is the unit vector lying along the current configuration of the bar (Figure 7.7) and x i 1 = x2 + d,, . In future we will refer to cos [ as c' and sin /I as s . j Equation (7.61) can be reexpressed as
cos p
Yzidll
= in( _,
.Y;l
du, = (  c,
 s, 0, c,
s, O)Sp = r'6p
(7.62)
where the components of zip are the infinitesimal displacement changes at the nodes with p ordered as
pr = (u1, M'1,01, u 2 , w 2 , w
(7.63) (7.64)
e = (  s, T
( 3 )
and hence (see Figure 7.7), a small rigid rotation from the current configuration is given by
ha=
I
1"
e;zidzl
(7.65)
1
In
(s, c', 0,  s ,
c',
1 0)Sp = zTzip.
In
(7.66)
Hence the complete vector of local 'strain producing' displacement changes is given by (7.68)
7.2.4
Equating the internal virtual work in both the local and global systems and making use of the virtual form of (7.68), we can write
Vi = 6p:qi = N 8uIv
+M
(7.69) (7.70)
M 1, M 2 ) .
Equation (7.69) must apply for any arbitrary 6pv and hence the global internal force
216
qi = BTqli
(7.71)
which is readily computed once the stress resultants, qli, are known from (7.55) and (7.56). 7.2.5
The tangent stiffness matrix
Differentiation of (7.71) leads to (7.72) 6qi = BT6qlj+ 6Bl M , 6B2 + M , 6B3 = Kt16p + Kt06p, where B,, for instance, denotes the second column of BT (from (7.68)). Assuming linear material behaviour, differentiation of (7.55) and (7.56) leads to (7.73) where r is the radius of gyration. Using (7.73), the first term on the righthand side of (7.72) is easily computed as
Ktl = BTCIB
(7.74)
which is the standard tangent stiffness matrix. The geometric stiffness matrix comes from the last three terms in (7.72). From (7.66) and (7.62), differentiation of the first column of BT (see (7.68)) leads to
6B,
= 6r = Spz
(7.75)
with z from (7.66). But from Figure 7.6, Sg = 6a and hence, from (7.75) and (7.66),
(7.76)
6B,
From (7.67) and (7.68), 6B, stiffness matrix is given by
= 6B,
1 ,(rzT 1,
+ zrT)6p.
(7.78)
217
7.2.6
A more conventional finite element formulation would introduce shape functions. To this end, the local displacement, u l ( < ) would be expressed as
U,(<)
with
= # + <)U,
(7.80a) (7.80b)
x, = +( 1
+ <)i0
(7.81)
while the local transverse displacement would be given by the conventional cubic (but with w, being zero at the two endsFigure 7.6). Hence (7.82) Differentiation of (7.82) leads to (7.83) and further differentiation to (7.84) From (7.8 ), the axial strain is constant and hence the axial force s given by (7.55). The (local bending moment is obtained from (7.84) as
I =
EZX = EIbTBl
(7.85)
and hence the internal virtual work follows from (7.81) and (7.84) as
Vi = qF6pv =
s,:"(
M6zV N
EZbbTOldx, (7.86)
from which (7.87) On account of the definitions of M , and M 2 in (7.56), (7.87) coincides with (7.69) and hence, as anticipated, the internal force vector, qi of (7.71), is the same under the two formulations. It follows that the stiffness matrix, (7.79), will also coincide.
7.2.7
Equation (7.55) was based on the approximation that the axial strain in the bar is equal to the relative axial deformation of the two ends divided by the original axial
218
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
length. Such an assumption does not allow for any straining caused by the beam shape departing from a straight line (see Figure 7.6). Such an effect can be simply introduced by introducing the local shallowarch terms (Section 7.1) [B3] or by invoking Green's strain (see (4.75)), relative to the corotating system. The latter is more general and will be developed here. Assuming for the present that the bar is initially straight, with the aid of (4.79, (7.81) and (7.83), we have (7.88) If the shallow arch equations Lire used, the $ ( u J ( , ) ~ term in (7.88) would be neglected. As already discussed in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.5, unless extra variables are provided for u l , only a constant axial strain can be accommodated and hence one should adopt (7.31) to modity (7.88) to give (7.89)
so that the last term in (7.88) is changed to take its average value. On performing the integration, (7.89) becomes
(7.90) 4]el. 2 10 Alternatively, it might be better to provide shallow terms relating to the state under constant curvature. From (7.50) we would then have
E,[ =

1 0
+I(
1
(7.90a)
It should be noted that, in the limit, as the mesh is refined, any of these additional terms (above U [ / ( , ) will vanish. For the present developments, we will work from (7.90),but there should be no difficulty in adapting the equations to relate to (7.90a). With a view to the virtual work, (7.90) can be differentiated to give (with the aid of (7.61) and (7.67)).
and following (7.69)(7.71), the internal force vector, qi, is given by (7.71) with qli defined by (7.70) and B by (7.92). The tangent stiffness matrix is obtained by differentiating (7.71) so that, in place of (7.79), we have
K , = K,,
(7.93)
219
where C, was given in (7.73) and the initial stress matrix is given by
7.2.8
Some observations
The workings of the previous section have assumed that the bar was initially straigh rather than curved. If the latter applies, one may simply modify (7.88) to give (7.96 where the last term in (7.96) includes the effects of the initial local slopes ( Q l 0 ) . The formulation including the higherorder terms gives, as expected, more accurate results than the basic corotational formulation [Cl]. However, this is achieved at some cost. In particular, once the higherorder terms are included, :he formulation seems to be more badly conditioned and some convergence difficulties occur [Cl]. (It is possible that these difficulties may be ameliorated by using a development based on (7.90a) rather than (7.90).)However, as the mesh is refined, there should be little difference between the two formulations, both in terms of accuracy and convergence characteristics. For linear buckling problems with coarse meshes, the extra terms would be required.
where
IX
is, as before, the rigid rotation given by (7.58)(7.60). The minus signs in
220
,/ /
Final configuration
(7.97) and (7.98) are required in order to maintain the sign convention adopted for the shallowarch formulation of Section 7.1.4. (Note that the 8,s in Figure 7.4 and 7.8 are of opposite sign.) For simplicity, in (7.97) and (7.98), we have ignored the influence of any initial 8, terms although the latter are easily introduced. From (7.97) and (7.98) and using (7.62) and (7.66), in place of (7.68), we have
(7.99) where r and z have been given in (7.62) and (7.66). Consequently, the internal virtual work is given by
Vi = 6p:qi = /,,qE6E,,
= 6p;BTqli
(7.100)
where the local internal forces are and the (global) internal force vector is given by
qi = B'qli
(7.102) (7.103)
+ M SB, + Q SB,)
where SB,, for example, is the differential of the second column of BT, given in (7.99).
221
6q,, =
so that the first term of (7.103) gives the standard tangent stiffness matrix as
[:T
6M
K,,
I
1 0
BTC,B.
(7. I 05)
T o form the geometric stiffness matrix, differentiation of the columns of BT (given in (7.99)) leads to SB, =SB,(equation (7.76)), 6B, =0, SB,
=
M = EIx
El
1 0
(0,  0 , )
(7.108)
where the rotations of the nodal normals, (I1 and 0, are shown in Figure 7.9. In order to define the axial and shear strains, we require the orthogonal unit vectors, t , and t,, at the central Gauss point (Figure 7.9). These are related to the average normal rotation
(Iav = 0.5 (0, + 0,)
(7.109)
(7.1 10)
via
ty = (cos day,sin Q,, ),
tz = (  sin (Iav,(Iav). cos
+d,,
(7.1 1 1 )
222
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
normal at
node 1
Figure 7.9 Current configuration for arch element using Reissner's theory.
where, as before, we use the notation x 2 1= x2  x l , etc., and x describes the initial coordinates while d describes the total nodal displacements and (see Figure 7.5), x' = x + d describes the current coordinates. Using these terms, the strains can be expressed as (7.112) where r is as in (7.62) but with
s = sin d,,,
Also, the shear strain, y , is given by
c = COS 1 9 ~ " .
(7.113)
(7.1 14) where zT = (s,  c, 0, s, c, 0) with s and c being given by (7.1 13). An explanation of these strain measures can be found from Figure 7.9. In particular,
x i 1 = lnel
(7.1 15)
where e, is the unit vector along the tangent. Hence, from (7.1 12),
1 cl = (ln(eTtl) I,) 10
1
1,
( I , cos  I,)
(7.1 16)
y=
I"&
1 0
1 2 
I, sin /3
1 0
(7.1 17)
As p + 0, equation (7.1 16) coincides with the previous 'rotated engineering strain' while, again with /3 + 0 and I , 4I,, equation (7.1 17) gives y P [I which again corresponds with the previous measure for the shear strain.
223
To obtain the infinitesimal strain changes, we differentiate (7.108), (7.1 12) and (7.1 14) to give
l,cjE, =
[l::;]
I , 67.
=[
0 0
rT c2sT 1 0 0
ZT
+ CIST
=BTGp
(7.1 18)
=  0.5(1,
+ uI)
(7.1 19)
=  0.51,
(7.120) (7.121)
= 0.5711,.
As usual, to compute the internal force vector, we start with the (internal) virtual work:
Vi = hp:qi
= 1,q;
Sclv= Gp:BTqli
(7.122) (7.123)
where
qi = ( N , M , Q)
and we have used (7.1 18) for S E ~ .For arbitrary 6pv, from 7.122), the internal force vector is given by
qi = BTqli
(7.124)
with B from (7.1 18). To obtain the tangent stiffness matrix differentiation of (7.124) leads to
hq, = BTSq,,
(7.125)
where hB,, for example, is the differential of the second column of BT (given in (7.1 18)). Using (7.104), the first term in (7.125) leads to (7.105) with B from (7.1 18). To form the geometric stiffness matrix, differentiation of the columns of BT (given in (7.1 18)) leads to
(7.126) (7.127)
(5B, = 0 and
SB, =  +(srT6p+ rscjp)
Substitution into (7.125) gives
 ic2ssTSp.
(7.128)
7.4.1 The introduction of shape functions and extension to a general isoparametric element
The previous work can be extended to cover a general isoparametric formulation using the same functions (h) for the geometry (.Y and z ) and each of the displacements ( U ,U and 0). In these circumstances, we require the length parameter, x (see Section 3.3.4), at the Gauss point. This parameter, which relates to the initial geometry
224
(and hence remains fixed at a particular Gauss point), is given by (7.129) where (7.130) and x and z have the nodal values of x and z respectively. In place of equations (7.108), (7.1 12) and (7.1 14), the strains become
x=
E=
1
CI
hF9
t,
(7.131) 1 (7.132)
1 ,dx
~
and
d5
(7.133) where x relates to the current nodal geometry, i.e. x=x+d (7.134) and the unit vectors t, and t2 relate to the particular point (usually the Gauss point), (, and are obtained from (7.110) but using 0 at ( (via the shape functions and the nodal OS) instead of Oav. Differentiation of (7.131)(7.133) gives the strain changes at any point ( as
rT + c2sT
ad&, = ct [:]=[O
h,(l)
ZT
+ CIST
0 0 hS(2)
and
=B6p
(7.135)
j),
s=sinO dx dc
and
$=
hTO
= t :
=  cx(1
+ 1)
dx with
sT= (O,O, h(l), 0,0, h(2), 0,. . .).
225
In (7.135) the ordering of the nodal variables would follow a n extension from (7.63). With the aid of (7.135), the (internal) virtual work is given by (7.142) where qli is given by (7.123) and relates to a particular point internal force vector, q i , is given by
Following closely the procedure of Section 7.4, the tangent stiffness matrix becomes
+ rsT)
The theory can be applied to any order of clement. F o r linear shapc functions. it will lead to the same clcment as that of Section 7.4 provided onepoint Gaussian integration is adopted.
226
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
Following standard degeneratecontinuum techniques, the geometry can be interpolated (see Figure 7.10) via
.Y
where
hi(<).fi+
(7.145) (7.146)
v,(ucoscp)"
cosq,,u,cosq,, . . . )
contains the .udirection components (see Figure 7.10) the director vectors, v. In a of similar fashion.
~7
c I Z ~ ( ; ) ~ V+~
(7.147)
where vv(usin c p ) is a similar vector to that in (7.146) with sines instead of cosines. but The vec'tors X and y in (7.145) (7.147) and contain the nodal .Y and J' coordinates of the element centreline. To be consistent with (7.145) (7.147). displacements, I I and I  can be interand the polated in a similar manner, so that
U =
13
 cos
q,i)
(7.148a)
( 7. I 48b)
where cpOi are the initial values of 'pi and Ui and Fi are the nodal displacements of the centreline. At any Gauss point (<,[), we can obtain
where J is the standard Jacobian (see (5.6)) relating to the initial geometry and, for example, from (7. I4Xa),
(7.1 50)
Having obtained the shape function and their derivatives, the procedure follows closely that already given in Section 5.1 for the twodimensional continuum. In particular, from (5.10) (5.12), the Green strains are given by
?U
r7 1:
?Y .
U . ' (
E=
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
+ 2I
(7.151)
227
6E = B,,(p)Gp = [H
where (see (7.151) for 0):
+ A(e)]C 6p
(7.152) (7.153)
se = G csp
6pT = @UT, SVT, ScpT)
and for the full continuum case, G was given by (5.8). For the present degenerate continuum, the nodal variables in 6p are ordered as
(7.154)
where 6u contains the nodal values of 6U, bv the nodal values of 66 and 6cp the nodal values of 6cp (see the footnote on page 25 regarding the ordering of the variables). In order to obtain 68 (see (7.151) for e), we require from (7.148),
(7.155) (7.156)
with a similar matrix for D(acoscp). In order to obtain the matrix G in (7.153), we must differentiate (7.155) and (7.156) so that, considering (7.155), (7.158) and d6U
;i l
(7.159)
2J'(I, l)hr

OT OT
1 25  '(2,l)h; OT 2
OT
2 J  ' ( l , 1)hl
25  '(2, l)he
[]=C6p
(7.160)
228
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
with b,
=
+ J  '(2,2)h)
+ A(e)lTSd V,,
(7.165)
d V, = det (J) d l d[
(7.166)
and S are the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses of (5.20). In Section 5.1.2, it was shown that the continuum tangent stiffness matrix of (5.26) could be obtained either from the continuum form of the variation of the virtual work (as in (5.4) from (4.83)) or by direct differentiation of the internal force vector. In the current degenerate case, it is important to adopt the latter procedure in order to be fully consistent with the kinematic assumptions inherent in the model. To this end, differentiation of (7.165) where
6qi = (B:, 6 s
where the Ct matrix in (7.168) relates 6 to 6E and should reflect the planestress s assumption. This issue is discussed further in Section 8.2.1 which deals with shells. The K,, and K,, terms in (7.167) are given by
+ 6B%,S)dVo =
=
6~ + [KO,
+ KO*] 6~
(7.167)
B:,CtBn,dV,
GT[H
(7.168)
while
GT6A(8)TSd V, = K,, 6p
(7.169)
6GT[H
+ A(e)lTSd V, = K026p.
(7.170)
K,, = CTSGdVo
which is of the same form as K,, in (5.26) with S from (5.24). There is no full continuum equivalent of KO,. Indeed, this matrix would be missed if one worked directly from the continuum form of the variation of the virtual work
(7.171)
SPECIAL NOTATION
229
where
) ; ) ;
+ s, au
dY
aY
+ sxax
au
av
ax
and differentiation of the first column of GT in (7.160) gives 6G ', etc. It is not difficult to show that, for k = 1,4, (7.177)
where Dk are diagonal matrices with the ith term being given by
D3(i,i)= ;((J'(l,
l)hCi+J'(1,2)hi)aisincpi
D4(i,i)
7.6
SPECIAL NOTATION
a, = thickness at node i (Section 7.5) A =area of beam A = matrix (7.67) connecting 68, with 6p (Section 7.2) A(8) = matrix of displacementderivatives ((7.151) in Section 7.5) b = vector connecting curvature, to 8, (7.84) b, = differential of h, with respect to x b, = differential of h, with respect to x B = matrix connecting 6p, or 1,6~,to 6 p ((7.68) or (7.92) for Kirchhoff theory; (7.99) for Timoshenko theory; (7.118) for Reissner theory) c = cos fi (Section 7.2.3), = cos 8 (Section 7.4.1) c = vector relating curvature, x, to w C, = local constitutive matrix d = displacement vector
x,
230
= d,  d,; di = displacement vector at node i e , = unit vector between nodes of beam element e, = unit vector orthogonal to e, E = Greens strain (Section 7.5) G = matrix connecting 68 (displacement derivatives) to 6p (Section 7.5) h, = shape function vector for U displacement h, = shape function vector for w displacement h, = shape function vector for 8 H = Boolean matrix (Section 7.5) I = second moment of area 1 = initial length of beam element (between nodes) in Section 7.1 I, = initial length of beam element, I , = current length M  = bending moment in beam M , = internal bending moment in local system at node I; at node 2 N = axial force in beam p = vector of nodal displacements ordering such that pT = (uT, wT) in Sections 7.17.1.3 ordering such that pT = (U=, wT, OT) in Section 7.1.4 ordering as in (7.63) for Sections 7.24 ordering as in (63) for Section 7.5 Q = transverse shear force r = radius of gyration r = special geometry vector (7.62) s = sin p (Section 7.2.3), = sin 0 (Section 7.4.1) s = vector connecting 8, to the nodal values, 8, (Section 7.2.6) s = special vector (7.1 19) for Reissner theory S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (Section 7.5) t,, t, = unit vectors for Section 7.4 T = vector of nodal forces corresponding to 8 (Section 7.1.4) U = axial displacement at reference plane U = vector of inplane nodal displacements at reference plane (U) U = nodal forces corresponding to U v i = unit director vectors at node i (Section 7.5)
d,
a,
x=x+d %=vector containing nodal values of x at element centreline (Section 7.5) ?=vector containing nodal values of y at element centreline (Section 7.5) z = vector of initial outofplane variables (7. I 1 b) for Section 7.1 z = special geometry vector (7.66) for Sections 7.2 and 7.3
REFERENCES
231
x = rigidbody rotation angle of beam (Sections 7.1 and 7.2) x = 'length parameter' (7.129) in Section 7.4.1 E , = dz/d.u p = final orientation angle for beam element (Section 7.2) 0 = dw/ds for Kirchhoff theory 0 = rotation of normal for Timoshenko theory 0 = rotation parameters (Figure 7.9) for Reissner theory 0, = 8 in local frame with O , , and 1 9 ,at nodes; Ollo and f1120 are initial values of O r , ~ and Orz respectively 0, = dw/dx 6 = nodal values of 8 6 = vector form of displacement derivatives as in (7.151 ) (Section 7.5) 'pi angular orientation of vi (Section 7.5) = 'pia = initial orientation of vi (Section 7.5) 6cp = vector of nodal values of cjcp (Section 7.5) = curvature (Section 7. I ) x = curvature vector (Section 7.2)
Subscript
= 'at
= quantity
7.7
REFERENCES
[All Argyris, J. H., Balmer, H., Doltsinis, J. St., Dunne, P. C., Haaae, M., Klieber, M., Malejannakis, G. A., Mlejenek. J. P., Muller, M. & Scharpf, D. W., Finite element method the natural approach, Comp. Meth. A p p l . M 4 . & Engqclng.. 17/18, 1 106 (1979). [Bl] Bathe, K. J. & Bolourchi, S., Large displacement analysis of threedimensional beam structures, l n t . J . Ntrm. Meth. EnHng., 14, 961 986 (1975). [B2] Belytschko, T. & Hseih, B. J., Nonlinear transient finite element analysis with convected coordinates, l n t . J . N u m . Moth. Engmi., 7, 255271 (1973). [B3] Belytschko, T. & Glaum, L. W., Applications ofhigher order corotational stretch theories to nonlinear finite element analysis, Computers & Structrrres, 10, 175 I82 ( 1979). [B4] Brink, K. & Kratzig, W. B., Geometrically correct formulations for curved finite bar elements under large deformations, Nonlineur Finite li'lrmcwt A n d ~ ~ . 5 i .i s Structural n i\ilechmics, ed. W. Wunderlich r t 111.. SpringerVerlag, Berlin. pp. 236 256 ( 198 I ). [BSI Burgoynne, C. & Crisfield, M. A., Numerical integration strategy for plates and shells, l n t . J . N u m . Meth. Engng., 105121 (1990). [C 11 Cole, G., Consistent corotational formulations for geometrically nonlinear beam elements with special reference to large rotations, Ph.D. Thesis, Kingston Polytechnic, Surrey ( 1990).
232
TWODIMENSIONAL FORMULATIONS
[C2] Cowper, G. R., The shear coefficient in Timoshenkos beam theory, J . Appl. Mech., 33, 335340 ( 1966). [C3) Crisfield, M. A. & Cole, G., Corotational beam elements for two and threedimensional nonlinear analysis, Discretisution Methods in Structurul Mechanics, ed. G. Kuhn et al., SpringerVerlag, pp. 1 15 124 ( 1989). [C4] Crisfield, M. A. & Puthli, R . S., Approximations in the nonlinear analysis of thin plated structures, Finite E1emcwt.s in Nonlinear Mrchmics, Vol. I, ed. P. G. Bergan et al., Tapir Press, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 373392 (1978). [CS] Crisfield, M. A. Largedeflection elastoplastic buckling analysis of eccentrically stiffened plates using finite elements, Transport & Road Research Laboratory Report, LR 725, Crowthorne, Berks., England ( 1 976). [C6] Crisfield, M. A., A consistent corotational formulation for nonlinear, threedimensional beam elements, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 81, 131 150 (1990). [C7] Crisfield, M. A., The eccentricity issue in the design of beam, plate and shell elements, Communications in Appl. Num. Meth., 7, 4756 (1991). [Dl] Dawe, D. J., Some higher order elements for arches and shells, Finite ElementsJbr Thin Shells and Curved Memhers, ed. D. G. Ashwell ot al., Wiley, London, pp. 131  153 (1976). [El] Epstein, M. & Murray, D. W., Large deformation inplane analysis of thin walled beams, Computers and S t r u c t u r ~ ~6,, 19 ( 1976). s [Fl] Frey, F. & Cescotto, S., Some new aspects of the incremental total Lagrangian description in nonlinear analysis, Finite Elements in Nonlinear Structural Mechanics, Tapir, Trondheim ( 1978). [Gl] Gupta, A. K. & Ma, P. S., Error in eccentric beam formulation, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 11, 1473 1477 (1977). [Hl] Hsiao, K. M. & Hou, F. Y., Nonlinear finite element analysis of elastic frames, Computers und Structures, 26, 693 701 (1987). [H2] Haefner, L. & Willam, K. J., Large deflection formulations of a simple beam element including shear deformations, Engineering Cornpututions, 1, 359 368 ( 1984). [K 11 Karamanlidis, D., Honecker, A. & Knothe, K., Large deflection finite element analysis of pre and postcritical response of thin elastic frames, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structurul Mechanics, ed. W. Wunderlich tt al., SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 21 7235 ( 1981). [M 11 Mattiason, K., On the corotational finite element formulation for large deformation problems, Pub. 83: 1, Dept. of Structural Mechanics, Chalmers Univ. of Technology (1 983). [M2] Moan, T. & Soreide, T., Analysis of stiffened plates considering nonlinear material and geometric behaviour, Proc. World Cong. on Fiizitc Element Methods in Struct. Mech., ed. J. Robinson, Bournemouth, England, Vol. 11, pp. 14.1 14.28 (1975). [Nl] NourOmid, B. & Rankin, C . C., Finite rotation analysis and consistent linearisation using projectors, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engng. (to be published). [Ol] Oran, C. & Kassimali, A., Large deformations of framed structures under static and dynamic loads, Computers & Structs., 6, 539547 ( 1976). [02] Oran, C., Tangent stiffness in space frames, Proc. A S C E , J . Struct. Dic., 99, ST6,973985 (1973). [Pl] Prathap, G., The curved beam/deep arch/finite ring element revisited, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 21, 389 407 (1985). [Rl] Rankin, C. C. & Brogan, F. A., An element independent corotational procedure for the treatment of large rotations, Collapse Anulysis 01 Structures, ed. L. H. Sobel & K. Thomas, A S M E , New York, 85100 (1984). [R2] Reissner, E., On onedimensional, largedisplacement, finitestrain beam theory, Stud. A p p l . Math., 52, 8795 (1973). [Sl] Simo, J. C., A finite strain beam formulation. The three dimensional dynamic problem: Part 1 , Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engng., 49, 5570 (1985). [S2) Simo, J. C. & VuQuoc, L., A threedimensional finite strain rod model: Part 2: Computational aspects, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engng., 58, 791 16 (1986). [S3] Stolarski, H. & Belytschko, T., Membrane locking and reduced integration for curved elements, J . Appl. Mrch., 49, I72 I76 (1982).
~
REFERENCES
233
[S4] Surana, K. S., Geometrically nonlinear formulation for twodimensional curved beam elements, Computers & Structures, 17, 105 114 (1983). [Tl] Timoshenko, S., On the correction for shear of the differential equation for transverse vibration of prismatic bars, Phil. Mug., 41, 744746 (1921). [T2] Tang, S. C., Yeung, K. S. & Chon, C. T., On the tangent stiffness matrix in a convected coordinate system, Computers & Structures, 12, 849856 (1980). [W 11 Washizu, K., Vuriutionul Methods in Elu~tic~itv Plusticity, 2nd edition, Pergamon und Press, Oxford (1975). [W2] Wempner, G., Finite elements, finite rotations and small strains of flexible shells, Int. J . Solids & S t r u m . , 5, 1 17 153 ( 1969). [W3] Wen, R. K. & Rahimzadeh, J., Nonlinear elastic frame analysis by finite element, Proc. A S C E , J . Struct. D ~ v . 109(8), 1952197 1 (1 983). , [W4] Wood, R. D. & Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis of beams, frames, arches and axisymmetric shells, Computers & Structures, 7, 725735 (1977).
Shells
Calladine [Cl] gives an ineresting review of the developments of theories for shell structures. We are here specifically concerned with finite element analysis. For linear analysis, some of the earliest work involved facet formulations [C3,22]. This concept was extended to nonlinear analysis by Horrigmoe and Bergan [Hl] using a corotational approach (although in the paper, [H 11, the term updated Lagrangian was used). Another early facet formulation, using a corotational approach, was given by Backlund [Bl] who used the Morley triangle [M4] which has midside rotational connectors. As discussed in the previous chapter, a corotational approach can be suppelemented by the addition of local shallow shell terms from Marguerres theory CM2.41. Such procedures have been applied to shells by, amongst others, Jetteur ot al. [J2,J3] and Stolarski et al. [S7]. Probably the majority of work on nonlinear shell elements has followed on from the linear work of Ahmad et crl. [ A l l using the degeneratecontinuum approach with a total or updated Lagrangian formulation CW4.7, B2.5, B2, D1, F1, S4, S8, M2, P2, R1, R2, D1, H2] or using some incremental (rate) form of strain measure [H3, L1, B3B6, S5S6] (often related to the corotational approach [B6]). As with linear analysis, problems occur with shear locking and, again as with linear analysis, these can be ameliorated by various forms of (selective) reduced integration. [Zl, P3, H3, H5, B3, B4, B6, S6). Alternatively, substitute shapefunctions can be used (possibly in reltion to the covariant strain components [DI, H2, 511). Membrane locking (see Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.5) can also occur and, again reduced integration [B3, B4, B6, S6] or substitute functions (possibly via stress projection [B7]) [H2, B7, S6] can help. Alternatively (or additionally), some form of corotational (rate) strain measure may be used at the integration points [B6, S61. Reduced integration can lead to problems with mechanisms. These can be overcome using some form of stabilisation technique [IB3, B5]. The isoparametric degeneratecontinuum approach adopts shape functions for the components of displacement in a fixed rectangular cartesian system. Consequently, it allows the exact satisfaction of the rigidbody modes even when the planesection constraint is applied in the throughthickness direction CC2.21. However, this is achieved only when the continuum approach is adopted throughout and the various shapefunction manipulations involving the Jacobian are applied at all of the integration points including those in the throughthickness direction. Considerable savings in computer time can be achieved by using the throughthickness integration only for the treatment of material nonlinearity. In
234
SHELLS
235
relation t0.a beam (although not, specifically, in relation to a degeneratecontinuum approach), the ideas were discussed in Section 7.1.2. In order to introduce such a technique one must work with membrane strains, E, and curvatures, x, and the corresponding stress resultants, N and M. In relation to linear analysis, a simple procedure was advocated by Zienkiewicz et ul. [Zl] for divorcing the throughthickness integration from the main shapefunction procedure. As noted in [Il, C2.2, C9, M21, the simple approach of [Zl] can lead to stressing under rigidbody movement (although this drawback should vanish in the limit as the mesh is refined). Milford and Schnobrich have proposed a solution [M2] involving a truncated Taylor series for the inverse Jacobian. Much further work has followed with an emphasis on nonlinear analysis and the development of a continuumbased resultant form [SS, S6, Ll, B31. As with linear analysis, an important issue in relation to the design of nonlinear shell elements is that of the sixth degree of freedom or drilling rotation. In a conventional formulation for a membrane plate, we have locally five degrees of freedom including two (outofplane) rotations. If some form of coordinate transformation is adopted (say between local and global coordinates), we can then end up with six degrees of freedom at the structural level (now with three rotations). If all of the elements lie in the same plane, a mechanism results. To overcome this problem, Zienkiewicz suggested a fictitious spring stiffness relating to the (local) inplane rotations CZ2.11. (An alternative formulation using a form of integrated spring stiffness has recently been suggested by Providos [P4] and has been found to give good results.) While the fictitious spring approach may work adequately for linear problems, there are more dangers with nonlinear analysis when, with material nonlinearity, the stiffnesses of the elements can vary significantly. It is possible for a smooth shell to work with only five variables by setting up some averaged system at the nodes with respect to which the outofplane rotations are taken. This approach was suggested, in relation to a facet analysis by Horrigmoe and Bergan [Hl]. Also, as will be shown in Section 8.2, it is possible to work with only five variables for a total Lagrangian continuum formulation. In this work, which follows that of Ramm and Matzenmiller [R2], the two rotation variables are not rotations in the true sense but rather define the orientation of the director (which is of unit length). In order to encompass both smooth and nonsmooth shells, some formulations use five degrees of freedom for the smooth regions and six for those involving junctions [C12]. This of course leads to complexities in the housekeeping. An alternative that is currently receiving much research interest is to always use six variables, with the local inplane rotation being included as a true rather than a fictitious connector [A3, C2, 52, 53, B8, N1, Tl]. When rotations are used as variables, we also have to consider their noncommutativity when they become large [A4]. This issue is even more relevant to threedimensional beams and rods and will be considered in Volume 2. This brief review of previous work on nonlinear shell analysis has inevitably been somewhat cursory. Some recent papers that have not been discussed can be found in [SlS3, P1, W21. The reader might also refer to the review paper by Wempner [Wl] and the books edited by Hughes and Hinton CH4). The present chapter will concentrate on two procedures for nonlinear shell analysis;
236
SHELLS
firstly a shallowshell formulation and secondly the degeneratecontinuum approach. The former follows on directly from the work on beams in Section 7.1. An important class of problems that can be treated by the shallowshell formulation is that of imperfect steel plates. Such plates (often stiffened) form the main components of a wide range of structures from bridges to dock gates and ship decks. Appropriate nonlinear analysis usually requires a combination of geometric and material effects. The author has applied such analyses, using the shallowshell formulation, to both stiffened and unstiffened imperfect plates with a view to the assessment of the strength of bridges CC3.6, C7, C8, C10, C113. While the range of application of the shallowshell approach is a little limited, along with the shallowarch formulations of Section 7.1, they have an important teaching role. Also, as indicated in Section 8.1.7, their range of application can be extended. The second area covered in this chapter is that of the degeneratecontinuum approach. As already discussed, there has been a mass of research work in this area and there are still many problems to be overcome. In the present chapter, we will concentrate on one aspect only, that of consistency in relation to a total Lagrangian approach. The earliest approaches CB2.5, B2, R 1) discretised the problem after setting up the continuum expressions involving the tangent stiffness matrix. As a consequence, they did not produce a consistent tangent stiffness matrix. This limitation was partly corrected by Surana [SS] and, later, in an unambiguous manner, by Ramm and Matzenmiller [R2]. The presentation in this chapter will be closely related to the latter.
8.1
In this section, we will extend the shallowarch formulation of Section 7.1 to a shallow shell. In contrast to Section 7.1, where we started with a Kirchhoff formulation, we will here directly introduce shear deformation at the very start and thus adopt a form of MindlinReissner analysis [M2, R2, C2.21. This formulation will provide a starting point even when we exclude shear deformation and adopt a form of Kirchhoff bending because, following the work in [CS, C6, C2.21, we will introduce the latter using a form of discrete Kirchhoff hypothesis.
8.1 .I
Straindisplacement relationships
From the assumption that plane sections remain plane, we can extend (7.3) (see also (4.84)) to give E = E Z,X = E, E,, z , ~ (8.1)
+ +
au
ax
where the E terms relate to the reference plane (possibly but not necessarily, the centre of the shell) and
du
where U and
U
a6
au
dxdydy
(8.2)
are the inplane displacements at the reference plane and (see (7.4)
A RANGE OF S H A L L O W S H E L L S
237
and (4.84)),
(8.3)
where z is the initial vertical coordinate of the shell reference plane and w the subsequent deformation (see Figure 8.1 where the variables 8, and 8, refer to the rotations of the normal). Using the MindlinReissner approach, the curvatures are given by
Equation (8.4) takes a very similar form to (8.2). For the virtual work, we also require the virtual form of (8.1) which is (see also (4.85)):
dE,
= dEv
+ z,6xv
= dE,,
+ T ~ s + zl6xV= 6E,, + ,
where bE,, and 6x, take similar forms to (8.2) and (8.4) respectively. The vertical shear strains will be expressed in standard form as
238
SHELLS
8.1.2
Stressstrain relationships
Using a similar procedure to that adopted for the arch (Section 7.1.2), we will not necessarily assume that the reference plane is at the centre of the section. We will also allow for the possibility of material nonlinearity so that the stressstrain relationships at any depth zI are taken to be tangential, so that
where 6ST= (6Sx, 6S,, 6Sx,) are the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses at any depth zl. In the last relationship in (8.7), we have written C, using the linearelastic, isotropic relationship for planestress conditions (Section 4.2.1). With plasticity, we would, instead, use the tangential elastoplastic modular matrix (preferably consistentsee Section 6.8.2.1) under conditions of plane stress. Using a very similar procedure to that adopted in one dimension in equations (7.26) and (7.27), we now integrate (8.7) through the thickness zz to obtain the relationships for the stress resultants as 6N = 6 dz, = C,(6E + z,GX)dz, s
j s
Equations (8.8) and (8.9) define the membrane constitutive matrix, C,, the bending constitutive matrix, C, and the crosscoupling matrix, Cmb.All three of these matrices should be considered as tangential although, to save space, the subscript t has been dropped. A discussion of the numerical integrations in (8.8) and (8.9) has already been given for the onedimensional case in Section 7.1.2. The arguments remain valid for the present twodimensional analyses. To supplement (8.8) and (8.9), we will assume tangential vertical shear relationships of the form
SQ =
I(
di,)dz, dz,,
= C,Gy =
($7.
(8.10)
In the last relationship in (8.10)we have assumed a linearelastic, isotropic relationship with ct as the shear factor (usually taken as 2 or 7t2/12 CC2.71). The author has applied (8.10) to the analysis of concrete bridges using an approximate nonlinear relationship for the shear stiffnesses [CS].
239
8.1.3
Shape functions
The present shallow shell theory can be applied with a range of different elements with different shape functions. We will here concentrate on applications involving (a) standard isoparametric functions related to a standard Mindlin  Reissner formulation, and (b) a 'constrained Mindlin Reismer' [C6,C2.2] and (c) a 'discrete Kirchhoff formulation [CS,C2.2] adopted by the author. In the latter cases ((b) and (c)),only an outline is given, the precise form of the constraints having already been described for linear applications in the references given previously. For all of these analyses, one can assume that the five variables U, fi, w, 0, and 8, are initially expanded using the same hierarchical shape functions (so would the initial geometry) so that
U = hTU,
V = hTV, cv = hTW;
0,
= hT6,,
O,, = hT8,.
(8.1 1 )
For the present purposes, one can consider these functions to be either serendipity (8noded) or Lagrangian (9noded)see Figure 8.2. Also, it is most convenient to think of the shape functions as being of a hierarchical form CC2.21 so that the midside and central variables are 'relative' and can therefore more easily be constrained out at some later time. Collectively, the nodal variables (U, V, w, O,, 0,) will, as usual, be referred to as p. For some algebraic expressions it is also useful to refer to the membrane nodal displacements U and V, collectively as pm and the normal rotations 0, and 0, collectively as pe. Using these shape functions, we can use the Jacobian in the standard way to obtain
E, = B,p,,
dE, = B,dp,
(8.12) (8.13)
=T
Bhp,,
6~ = Bb6pO
where with the same shape functions for U, U, Ox and O,, B, and Bb will take the same form. Also the slopes, s (see (8.6)) and slope changes,'hs, can be obtained as
s = B,w,
6s = B , ~ w
s y = so + 6s = H sp,
(8.14)
o + s = H sp, + B,W,
+ B, bw
(8.15)
where the H matrix in (8.15) is simply composed of terms from the shape functions
'I A
240
SHELLS
(8.16)
The only nonlinearity in the relationships of (8.13), (8.15) and (8.16) is in (8.16) and comes from the T matrix which, from (8.5) and via (8.14), is a function of the current nodal displacements, w. Further discussion on the issue of matching shape functions and numerical integration will be given in Section 8.1.5.
8.1.4
(8.17)
Substituting from the virtual forms of (8.13), (8.15) and (8.16) into (8.17) gives
V = (qT,i6pm qtiSW
where the subvectors of the internal force vector, qi are given by (8.19a) (8.19b)
=
+ qii6p,i) dA,
 q%Spv
(8.18)
(B:M
+ HTQ)dA,.
(8.19~)
With a view to future developments, it is useful to reexpress the strain change/nodal displacement relationships of (8.13), (8.15 ) and (8.16) as
6 x = B, 6p
6y = B,, 6p
6E = B,(p) 6p.
If a standard MindlinReissner relationship were adopted the B matrices in (8.20)(8.22) would follow directly from (8.13), (8.15) and (8.16) and, for example, the B, matrix obtained from (8.13) would imply only connections between 6 x and the 6p, terms. However, in moving from (8.13), (8.15) and (8.16) we could with either the constrained MindlinReissner or discrete Kirchhoff formulations, constrain out the midside hierarchical nodal Aws to be functions of the nodal 19s [CS, C6, C2.21. Hence, in these circumstances, there would be coupling between 6 x and the nodal 6p,s while the Aws would be dummy terms (see CC2.21). For the discrete Kirchhoff element, we would also constrain out the 68s CC2.21. For the current formulation to be general, we will assume that any constraints have been applied in producing the B matrices
241
in (8.20)(8.22) and will also adopt the general (possibly constrained) form
6s = B, 6p
(8.23)
in place of (8.14). Using (8.20)(8.23), the virtual work of (8.17) and (8.18) would be replaced by
I/ =
 q:
6pv (8.24)
(8.25)
8.1.5
The tangent stiffness matrix follows in the normal way by differentiation of (8.25), so that 6qi = (B,(p)= 6 N
Substituting from (8.8)(8.10) and (8.20)(8.22) into the first term in (8.26) gives
+ BF 6M + BT 6Q)dA, +
Ki1=j[
$1
b; [
] [!:
]*CIA,
(8.27)
The geometric stiffness matrix, K,, comes (see (8.26)) from the variation of B, of (8.22). It is easier to derive this matrix by firstly reverting to the subvector forms of qi in (8.19a)( 8. I ~ c ) ,from which the only term not stemming from variations of N, M or Q (which lead to (8.27)) comes from (8.19b) as
(8.28)
N2=[
Nx
N X Y
(8.29)
In (8.28), use has been made of (8.5) for T and (8.14) for 6s. The K,, matrix in (8.28) could equally be derived directly from the continuum form as in (4.87)and (4.88)via
6 V = bsJN2SsdA,.
Allowing for any possible displacement constraints that may lead to (8.23) rather than (8.14), the complete tangent stiffness matrix becomes
(8.30)
K, = K,,(8.27) + B:N,B,dA,.
(8.31)
242
SHELLS
8.1.6
We have already considered the introduction of various techniques to avoid shear locking (see also CC2.21 for more detail in relation to the present elements). As previously discussed in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.5, we must also consider membrane locking. From these earlier discussions, we know that in order to avoid or, at the least, limit, such locking, we must use, at least, quadratic expansions (serendipity or Lagrangian) for the inplane displacements, U and F. (Allman [A21 has given polynomial expressions for U and 5 which are strictly required in order to recover all admissible states of constant strain with the von Karman equations CV1.41 when w is expanded as a quadratic so as to represent the constant curvature states.) When coupled with twobytwo integration, the resulting configuration has been found, by the author, to give good results for a wide range of problems [CS,Cll]. An alternative approach, using only linear shape functions for U and C, could involve an extension of the methods suggested in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.5 for arch elements. One approach would simply involve the use of singlepoint integration for the membrane strain terms CM2.71. Alternatively (see equations (7.3l ) , (7.32) and (7.50)), the membrane strains could be replaced by constant, averaged values. For the twodimensional shell, rather than the onedimensional beam, it is not immediately obvious how to apply such a technique. For a constant strain triangle, Stolarski et al. [S7] (followed by Jetteur and Frey [J2,J3] ) applied the previous onedimensional relationships along the sides of the triangles. For a triangle with constant strain, the membrane strain vector, E, can easily be related to these three axial strains. An extension of these ideas to quadrilaterals has been given by Jetteur and Frey [J2,53]. Before leaving this section, we should note that the eccentricity issue (see Section 7.1.3 and CC7.71) is also relevant to the choice of matching shape functions. I t is most relevant in relation to the provision of eccentric stiffeners, but also affects the attached plate or shell element, particularly in the presence of material non 1i nea ri t y [C 7.71.
8.1.7
The simplest way of extending the range of the shallowshell formulation is to initially define a set of local flat surfaces with respect to which the shallowshallow equations are defined. Prior to assembly of the overall systems, standard coordinate transformations can be applied. With triangular elements and with quadrilaterals for a cylindrical shell [C4] these facet systems are easily defined. For quadrilaterals with a general shell, some form of weighted averaging is required to define this surface [H I , J2,J3, N 11. In a nonlinear environment, if the shallowshell equations (and transformations) are always related to the initial locally flat system, the resulting formulation will be valid for deformations involving small rotations from the initial configuration. Morley [M5] and Providas [P4] have used a similar approach (but with the von Karman rather than thc Marguerre relationships) in conjunction with Morleys triangular element [M4] which has midside rotational connectors. The limitation to small rotations from the initial configuration can be removed by adopting a corotational formulation for the local flat surfaces (facets) in conjunction
A DEGENERATECONTINUUM ELEMENT
243
with a locally shallow formulation using the Marguerre equations. (These ideas have been discussed in relation to arches in Section 7.2.7.) Such an approach has been applied by Jetteur and Frey [J2,53] and Stolarski et al. [S7].
where and q are the nondimensional coordinates in the plane of the shell and [ the nondimensional coordinate in the thickness direction. The position vector, f in (8.32) relates to the centroidal or reference surface while Ar is in the direction of the
<
244
SHELLS
(U for
director (through the thickness). At the nodes, the coordinates of the reference surface are given by ii, while the through thickness, director vectors are Ari = aivi, where (Figure 8.3) ai is the thickness and vi the unit vector in the thickness direction. The vector vi is defined by tw o parameters $i and (ui (Figure 8.4), where
vi =
In Figure 8.4, OA represents the unit vector v with $ as the angle between this vector and the xaxis. OB is the projection of v (OA) on to the y  z plane while cr) defines the angle between this projection and the yaxis. The relationship in Figure 8.4 and (8.33) is not a unique way of defining the unit vector, vi other possibilities exist but with vi of unit length they should involve two parameters. For consistency with (8.32), the deflections,
i I
sin$coscci sin $ sin t o
(8.33)
dT = ( U , 0,~
follow as where
d = d + Ad =
t )
(8.34)
hiui(vi via)
1h i ( < ,q)di +
(8.35) (8.36)
v = (cos tji0, $io cos qo, $io sin wi0) : sin sin
and $io, cuio are the initial values of $ and cu at node i and di contains the nodal values of the deflections at the reference surface (see (8.34) for d). Assuming di and vi are known, the Green strain can be computed from (5.1 1 ) with H from (5.33) and A(8) from (5.34). The vector 8 (see (5.29)) of displacement gradients can be computed from the components of dd/dx, 8d/dy,3d/3z with the latter being computed using the usual Jacobian terms J (see CC2.21) in conjunction with the
A DEGENERATECONTINUUM ELEMENT
245
, 21 E ;
=
(U
h,Ui(Vi  Vi0)
(8.39)
where, as usual, h:i is the partial differential of hi with respect to is. Differentiaion of (8.35) leads to
CSU
= h (<, q)'SU 
+ ihTD
sin $) S+
where SU contain the nodal displacement changes of U,& the nodal displacement changes in F and S the nodal displacement changes in ti', while h+ contains the W nodal changes in the +s (see Figure 8.4) and 60 contains he nodal changes in the cos (see Figure 8.4). Collectively, these nodal displacement changes can be combined as
6p1 = (U, &'
d v r , hT, d+I,
(hd)
(8.43)
(see the footnote on page25 regarding the ordering of the variables). The matrices such as D(u sin $) in (8.40)(8.42)are diagonal and take the form previously discussed for the twodimensional 'arch' in Section 7.5 (see equation (7.157)). Using (8.37) (8.42), the change in the displacement gradients 68 (see (5.29),
C =1 s e
sp = c a p .
(8.45)
In equation (8.45),
+ J  ' ( k ,2)h,)
(8.46) (8.47)
b,
246
SHELLS
(8.48) (8.49)
(8.50)
With the new definition of (8.45) for G, (5.33) for H, and (5.34) for A@), equation (5.19) defines the internal force vector, qi.
+ K u l + KO2
(8.51)
with K,, being defined by (7.168). Special treatment is required for the effective modular matrix C, which will be discussed later. The geometric stiffness matrix K,, is given, as for the continuum formulation, by (5.25) (although with G from (8.45)) with S being given by (5.36). For the second contribution to the geometric stiffness matrix, in place of the arch equation of (7.172), we now have
(8.52)
where F(k) is the kth component of the vector:
F = [H
+ A(O)]S
0
(8.53)
with S from (5.35). Differentiation of the kth column of GT(from (8.45)) gives 6Gk6p, where it can be shown that
0 0 0
(8.54)
0 0 0 Dlk 0 0 0 D2k
D2k D3k
where D l k , D,, and D3kare diagonal matrices with (i, i)th terms which involve z1  3 from (8.48) and are given by the following equations: for k
=
1,3:
(8.55)
for k = 4,6:
Dlk(i, =  aisin t,bi cos wi zk 3(i) i) D2Ji, i) =  aicos $i sin coi zk 3 ( i ) D3,Ji,i) =  ui sin t,hi cos uiz k  3(i)
(8.56)
SPECIAL NOTATION
247
for k
= 7,9:
Dl,(i, i) =  q s i n $isin(oiz,6(i) D2,(i,i) = ai cos $i coi z,  6(i) cos D3k( i) =  ai sin $i ccii zk 6 ( i). i, sin
(8.57)
In forming the standard tangent stiffness matrix, K,, (see (7.168)), the constitutive matrix (or tensor), C,, should include the planestress constraint that there be no stress in the initial thickness direction. At a particular (Gauss) point c,q, the unit vector, e3, in this direction can be computed from
e3 =
Ar0
I1 Aro I1
with Aro =
1hiuivio
(8.58)
(see (8.32) for Ar). To find the unit vectors e , and e,, orthogonal to e 3 (Figure 8.3), one can use procedures similar to those used in linear analysis [C2.2,22.1]. Assuming a linear material response, the local material modular matrix is given by

CI =
E
(1  v 2 )
1 \ I 0 0 0 / ' l o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O A 0
o o o o $ 4
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
$4
(8.59)
0
where A = $(l  11). To transform to global coordinates (for use in 7.168), the tensor relationship of (4.55) can be used with Cz,,, relating to CI and C t k lto the global C, in (7.168). The T tensor in (4.55) would be T,, = TZ, where the matrix form of T,, is given by (see (4.35)): (8.60) In order to produce an effective degenerate continuum shell element, the present theory must be supplemented by techniques to avoid 'shear' and 'membrane' locking. Also, for an efficient solution, the throughthickness integration should be divorced from the main calculations involving the Jacobians and shape functions. These concepts have been briefly discussed in the introduction and will be considered further in Volume 2.
8.3
SPECIAL NOTATION
ai = nodal 'thicknesses' (Section 8.2) ak,b,, c,, d,, f, = vectors for defining G (see (8.45)) (Section 8.2) A(8) = matrix containing displacement derivatives (see (5.34))(Section 8.2) B, = matrix connecting E, to pm (Section 8.1) B, = matrix connecting x to pe (Section 8.1) B, = matrix connecting the slopes, s, to w (Section 8.1)
248
SHELLS
C,,
B, = modified B matrices after applying constraints (Section 8.1) B, = B matrix connecting 6E to 6p (Section 8.1) B, = B matrix connecting Sx to 6p (Section 8.1) B, = B matrix connecting 6y to Sp (Section 8.1) b and Cmb submatrices (membrane, bending and coupling) of tangential = constitutive matrix, C, (Section 8.1) d = displacement vector (Section 8.2) d = displacement vector relating to reference surface (Section 8.2) D = diagonal matrices (see (7.157)) (Section 8.2) e,, e2,e3 = triad of orthogonal unit vectors at Gausspoint with e, in thickness direction (Section 8.2) E = strains (Section 8.1) E = shallowshell strains at reference plane (Section 8.1) E, = linear part of E (Section 8.1) Enl= nonlinear part of E (Section 8.1) G = shear modulus F = H + A())see (8.53) (Section 8.2) G = matrix connecting 60 to Sp (Section 8.2) hg, h, = derivatives w.r.t 4 and V,I of shape function vector, h (Section 8.2) H = shapefunction matrix (see 8.15) (Section 8.1) H = Boolean matrix (see (5.33)) (Section 8.2) M = vector of bending moments (Section 8.1) N = vector of inplane stress resultants (Section 8.1) N, = matrix of inplane stress resultants (see (8.29)) (Section 8.1) p = nodal displacement; for Section 8.1, pT = (UT, VT, wT, )I, 0;) =
P, = matrix relating 6Gk to 6p (see (8.54)) (Section 8.2) Q = transverse shear forces (Section 8.1) r = position vector (Section 8.2) F = position vector of reference surface (Section 8.2) s = vector containing slopes, dw/dx and c3w/dy (Section 8.1) S = Second PiolaKirchhoff stresses corresponding to E (Section 8.1) S = Second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (Section 8.2) T = matrix of slopes (see (8.5)) (Section 8.1) U = U (xdirection) displacement at reference plane (Section 8.1) U = nodal values of U (Section 8.1) U = U (ydirection) displacement at reference plane (Section 8.1) V = nodal values of U (Section 8.1) vi = nodal unit director vectors (Section 8.2) vio = nodal unit director vectors in initial configuration (Section 8.2) w = nodal values of w (Section 8.1) X,y, Z = nodal values of x, y  and z coordinates of reference surface (Section 8.2) zk = vector used to define G (see (8.48)) (Section 8.2) y = vector of shear strains (Section 8.1) Ox, 8, = rotations of the normal (Section 8.1) 0 = vector containing 8, and 8, (Section 8.1)
(PZ7 WT7
Pi)
REFERENCES
249
8 = vector containing displacement derivatives (see (8.44))(Section 8.2) 8, = nodal values of 8, (Section 8.1) 8, = nodal values of 8, (Section 8.1) $i, = nodal parameter defining orientation of vi (Section 8.2) ui $io, cuio = nodal parameter defining orientation of vio (Section 8.2) x = curvatures (Section 8.1) S\l/ = vector containing nodal values of h$ (Section 8.2) 6u, = vector containing nodal values of 601 (Section 8.2)
8.4
REFERENCES
[A1 J Ahmad, S., Irons, B. M. & Zienkiewicz, 0.C., Analysis of thick and thin shell structures by curved elements, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 2, 419451 (1970). [A21 Allman, D. J., Improved finite element models for the large displacement bending and postbuckling analysis of thin plates, Int. J . Solids & Structs., 18, 737762 (1982). [A31 Allman, D. J., The constant strain triangle with drilling rotations: a simple prospect for f shell analysis, The Mathematics o Finite Elements and Applications, Mafelap 1987, Vol. VI, ed. J. R. Whiteman, Academic Press, pp. 233240 (1987). [A41 Argyris, J., An excursion into large rotations, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engny., 32, pp. 85155 (1982). [B 1 Backlund, J., Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures, Ph.D. Thesis. Chalmers 1 Univ., Gottenburg, Sweden (1 973). [B2] Bathe, KJ. & Bolourchi, S., A geometric and material nonlinear plate and shell element, Computers & Structs., 11, 2348 (1980). [B3] Belytschko, T., Wong, B.L. & Chiang, HY., Improvements in loworder shell elements for explicit transient analysis, Proc. Symp. on Anal. and Comp. Models for Shells, ed. A. K. Noor, ASME, New York (1989). [B4] Belytschko, T. & Lin, J. I., Explicit algorithms for the nonlinear dynamics of shells, Computer Meth. Applied Mech. Enyny, 42, 225251 (1984). [BSI Belytschko, T., Wong, B. L. & Stolarski, H., Assumed strain stabilization procedure for the 9node Lagrange shell element, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engny., 28, 385414 (1989). [B6] Belytschko, T., Lin, J. & Tsay, CS., Explicit algorithms for the nonlinear dynamics of shells, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyng., 42, 225251 (1984). [B7] Belytschko, T., Stolarski, H., Liu, W. K., Carpenter, N. & Ong, J.SJ., Stress projection for membrane and shear locking in shell finite elements, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyng., 51, 221258 (1985). [BSI Bergan, P. G. & Felippa, C. A., Efficient implementation of a triangular membrane element with drilling freedoms, Finite Element Methods for Plate and Shell Structures, ed. T.J.R. Hughes et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 128152 (1986). [Cl] Calladine, C. R., The theory of thin shell structures, 18881988, Proc. Instn. Mech. Enyrs., 202, 42 (1988). [C2] Carpenter, N., Stolarski, H. & Belytschko, T., A flat triangular shell element with improved membrane interpolation. Comm. Appl. Num. Meth., 1, 161  168 (1 985). [C3] Clough, R. W. & Tocher, J. L., Analysis of thin arch dams by the finite element method, Proc. Symp. Theory qf Arch Darns, Southampton University (1964). [C4) Crisfield, M. A., Linear and nonlinear finite element analysis of cylindrical shells, Transport & Road Res. Lab. Report LR 987, Crowthorne, Berks., England (1981). [CS] Crisfield, M. A., A fournoded thinplate bending element using shear constraintsa modified version of Lyons' element, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyng., 38, 93120 (1 983). [C6] Crisfield, M. A., A quadratic Mindlin element using shearconstraints, Comp. & Struct., 18, 833 852 (1984).
250
SHELLS
[C7] Crisfield, M. A., Fullrange analysis of steel plates and stiffened plating under uniaxial compression, Proc. Instn. Ciu. Engrs., 59, Part 2, 595624 (1975). [CS] Crisfield, M. A. & Wills, J., Numerical analysis of a halfscale beam and slab bridge deck, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Computer Aided Anulysis und Design of Concrete Structures, ed. N. Bicanic, Pineridge, Swansea, Vol. I , pp. 365378 (1990) [C9] Crisfield, M. A., Explicit integration and the isoparametric arch and shell elements, Comm. A p p l . Num. Meth., 2, 181187 (1986). [C 101 Crisfield, M. A., Largedeflection elastoplastic buckling analysis of plates using finite elements, Transport & Road Res. Lab. Report LR 593 (1973). [ C l l ] Crisfield, M. A., Numerical methods for the nonlinear analysis of bridges, Comp. & Structs., 30, 637644 ( 1 988). [C 121 Crisfield, M. A., Shearconstraints and foldedplated structures, Engng. Comp., 2, 237246 (1985). [Dl] Dvorkin, E. N. & Bathe, K. J., A continuum mechanics based fournode shell element for general nonlinear analysis, Engng. Comp. 1, 7788 ( I 984). [Fl] Frey, F. & Cescotto, S., Some new aspects of the incremental total Lagrangian description in nonlinear analysis, Int. Conf. Finite Elements in Nonlinear Mechanics Vol. 1, Geilo, Norway, 5.15.20 ( 1977). [HI] Horrigmoe, G. & Bergan, P. G., nonlinear analysis of freeform shells by flat finite elements, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyny., 16, 1135 (1978). [H2] Huang, H. C. & Hinton, E., Lagrangian and serendipity plate and shell elements through thick and thin, Finite Element Methods,for Plute und Shell Structures, ed. T.J.R. Hughes et al., Pineridge Swansea, pp. 4661 (1986). [H3] Hughes, T. J. R. & Liu, W. K., Nonlinear finite element analysis of shells: Part 1, threedimensional shells, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 26, 331362 (1981). [H4] Hughes, T. J. R. & Hinton, E. (eds.), Finite Element Methods for Plate and Shell Structures, Vol. 1 : Element Technology; Vol. 2: Formulution and Algorithms, Pineridge, Swansea ( 1986). [H5] Hughes, T. J. R., T h e Finite Element Method: Lineur Static und Dynamic Finite Element Analysis, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs (1987). [ I l l Irons, B. M. & Ahmad, S., 7echniques of Finite Elements, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, U.K. (1980). [Jl] Jang, J. & Pinsky, P. M., An assumed covariant strain based 9noded shell element Int. J . N U M .Meth. Engng., 24, 2389241 1 (1987). [J2] Jetteur, P. & Frey, F., A four node Marguerre element for nonlinear shell analysis Enyng. Comput., 3, 276282 (1986). [J3] Jetteur, P., Improvement of the Quadrangular Jet Shell Element for a Particular Class of Shell Problems, IREM Internal Report 87/1, Feb., 1987. [Ll] Liu, W. K., Law, E. S., Lam, D. & Belytschko, T. ResultantStress degenerateshell element, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enqng., 55, 259300 (1986). [Ml] Macneal, R. H., The evolution of lower order plate and shell elements in MSCINASTRAN, Finite Element Methods for Plute and Shell Structures, Vol. 1: Element Technology, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 85 127 ( 1986). [M2] Milford, R. V. & Schnobrich, W. C., Degenerated isoparametric finite elements using explicit integration, Int. J . Num. Meth. Enyny., 23, 133 I54 (1986). [M3] Mindlin, R. D., Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates, J . A p p l . Mech., 18, 3138 (1951), [M4] Morley, The constantmoment platebending element, J . Strain Anulysis, 6,2024 (197 1). [M5] Morley, L. S. D. Geometrically Nonlinear Constant Moment Triangular Which Passes the von Karman Patch Test, Tech. Report, BTCOM 89/4, Brunnel University (July 1989). [N 11 Nygard, M. K., The free formulation for nonlinear finite elements with applications to shells, Report 862, Div. of Struct. Mechs., The University of Trondheim Norway (1986). [Pl] Parisch, H., An Investigation of a Finite Rotation Four Node Shell Element, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Enyny. (to be published). [P2] Parisch, H., Large displacements of shells including material nonlinearities, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Enyny., 27, 183 2 14 (198 1 ).
REFERENCES
251
[P3] Pawsey, S. E. & Clough, R. W., Improved numerical integration of thick shell finite elements, Znt. Num. Meth. Engng., 3, 545586 (1971). [P4] Providos, E., O n the Geometrically Nonlinear Constant Moment Triangle (with a note on drilling rotations), Ph.D Thesis, Brunel University (1990). [Rl] Ramm, E., A plate/shell element for large deflections and rotations, USGermany Symp. on 'Formulations and Computational Algorithms in Finite Element Analysis, MITPress (1976). [R2] Ramm, E. & Matzenmiller, A., Large deformation shell analysis based on the degenerate concept, Finite Element Methods f o r Plate and Shell Structures, ed. T. J. R. Hughes et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 365393 (1986). [R3] Reissner, E., The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates, J . Appl. Mech., 12, 1.691.77 (1945). [Sl] Simo, J. C. & Fox D. D. O n a stress resultant geometrically exact shell model. Part I: Formulation and optimal parametrization, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 72, 267304 (1989). [S2] Simo, J. C., Fox, D. D. & Rafai, M. S. On a stress resultant geometrically exact shell model. Part 11: The linear theory; computational aspects, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics Lind Engineering, 73, 5392 ( 1 989). [S3] Simo, J. C., Fox, D. D. & Rafai, M. S., O n a stress resultant geometrically exact shell model. Part 111: Computational aspects of the nonlinear theory, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 79, 2170 (1990). [S4] Stander, N., Matzenmiller, A. & Ramm, E. An assessment of assumed strain methods in finite element rotation shell analysis Engineering Computations, 6, 5866 ( 1989). [SS] Stanley, G. M., Continuumbased shell elements, Stanford University, Ph.D. Thesis, also Lockheed Report LMSCF035839 (1985). [S6] Stanley, G. M., Park, K. C. & Hughes, T. J. R., Continuumbased resultant shell elements, Finite Element Methods ,for Plate and Shelf Structures, ed. T. J. R. Hughes et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 1 45 (1 986). & [S7] Stolarski, H., Belytschko, T., Carpenter, N. Kennedy, J. M. A simple triangular curved shell element for collapse analysis, Engng. Comp., 1, 210218 (1984). [SS] Surana, K. S., Geometrically nonlinear formulations for the curved shell elements, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Enyng., 19, 353386 (1983). [Tl] Taylor, R. L. & Simo, J. C., Bending and membrane elements for analysis of thick and thin shells, Proc. N U M E T A '85, Swansea, 587591 (1985). [Wl] Wempner, G. Mechanics and finite elements of shells, Appl. Mech., 42, 129142 (1989) [W2] Wriggers, P. & Gruttmann, F. Thin shell with finite rotations theory and finite element formulation, Analytical and Computational Models ofShells, ed. Noor, A. K., Belytschko, T. and Simo, J. C., ASME, CED, Vol. 3, pp. 135159 (1989). [Zl] Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Taylor, R. L. & Too, J. M., Reduced integration techniques in general analysis of plates and shells, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 3, 275290 (1971). [Z2] Zienkiewicz, 0. C. Parekh, C. J. & King, I. P., Arch dams analysed by a linear finite element shell solution program, Proc. Symp. Arch Dams, Znts. Ciu. Engrs., London (1968).
The solution procedure developed in Chapters 13 involved a combination of incremental load or displacement control coupled with full or modified NewtonRaphson iterations. Some history relating to the early introduction of these techniques was discussed in Section 1.1 with references (up to 1972) being given in Section 1.6. Further work following similar developments can be found in [S7, B7, C201. Although these techniques still provide the basis for most nonlinear finite element computer programs, additional sophistications are required to produce effective, robust solution algorithms. In this chapter, we will describe a number of these procedures with emphasis on those techniques that I have found to be the most advantageous in practical nonlinear calculations. References to other work will be given throughout but in the final Section 9.10, a summary is given of solution procedures that have not been covered earlier. Some of these will be considered in depth in Volume 2. The first topic to be discussed is that of line searches. This technique is widely used within mathematical programming. There are a whole range of procedures that have been developed within this field which are extremely relevant to nonlinear finite element analysis (see also the quasiNewton and acceleration techniques of Sections 9.7 and 9.8). Good books on this topic are due to Fletcher [F7], Luenberger [L2] and Wolfe [WS]. A weakness of the full NewtonRaphson method is the high cost of each iteration. As discussed in Chapter 1, this can be reduced by adopting the modified NewtonRaphson method. However, the convergence rate is then rather poor. A compromise involves the quasiNewton techniques [F7, L3, W6, DS] which are discussed in this chapter along with a set of acceleration methods which are closely related. Apart from these techniques which stem from mathematical programming, the other procedures that will be discussed in this chapter are related to the mathematical field of continuation techniques [R3, R4, R6, R7, U 1, C171 although, in relation to finite elements, they were often developed quite independently by engineers. It has already been indicated in Chapter 1 that continuation techniques are aimed at tracing a complete pathfor structures, an equilibrium path. It has also been shown in Chapter 1 that, when applying such techniques, severe difficulties can be encountered with limit points where the load/deflection response becomes horizontal (or vertical
252
253
for displacement control). In the present chapter, emphasis will be placed on arclength techniques for solving these problems. These techniques were originally introduced (in relation to mechanics) by Riks [R8, R9] and Wempner [WS] and later modified by a number of authors. Other techniques required for a robust continuation method largely relate to the automatic selection of a suitable increment size as well as the automatic reduction of this step when trouble is encountered. In addition, restart facilities should be introduced because, despite ones best attempts at automation, user intervention is often required. Throughout the chapter, the theoretical concepts are related directly to computer applications by the amendment of the simple nonlinear finite element computer program originally developed in Chapters 23. The reader is given the same advice as in these chapters; if he or she does not wish to get involved in the full detail of the computer implementation, it should suffice to study the flowcharts rather than the Fortran listings. In Section 9.9, the enhanced computer program is used to reanalyse the NAFEMS problems [D I .2, C1.21 originally introduced in Chapter 3. These examples are used to illustrate the application of all of the new techniques from line searches to automatic increment reduction and the use of restarts.
9.1
An energy basis for nonlinear structural analysis was briefly discussed in Section 1.3.3.
One important advantage of adopting such a viewpoint is that it allows the introduction of various solution algorithms developed in the field of mathematical programming or unconstrained optimisation [Fl, L1, W 13. Strictly, such techniques are not applicable to many structural problems such as those involving plasticity in which there is no elastic potential and the solution is pathdependent. Nonetheless, we can still beneficially adopt solution algorithms that stem from an energy approach even when the latter is not strictly applicable. With this in mind, we will now restate in general terms the energy concepts of Section 1.3.3. The problem of (elastic) nonlinear analysis can be viewed as that of minimising the total potential energy 4 which is a function of the total displacements, p. A truncated Taylor series then leads to
dI,(p+6p)=4,(p)+ 84) 6 p + 1 6 p T d 2 ? 3 p + .. dp 2 (!p2
where the subscript n means new while o means old. As indicated in Section 1.3.3, ( d $ / i ? ~ )can be identified as the outofbalance forces or gradient, g, of the total ~ potential energy, while r724)jiip2 is the tangent stiffness matrix. It follows that (9.1) can be reexpressed as:
where the principle of stationary total potential energy requires that, for equilibrium
254
at p,
g(p) = __ = 0
WT
dP
(9.3)
while for the energy to be a minimum and for the equilibrium state to be stable,
at the equilibrium point. Hence K, should, for stable equilibrium, be positive define at the equilibrium point.
9.2
9.2.1
LINE SEARCHES
Theory
The linesearch technique is an important feature of most numerical techniques for unconstrained optimisation and can be used with a wide range of iterative solution procedures. Detailed discussion is given in [F7, L3, W6, G4, C 161. Using such a technique, one would obtain a direction from an iterative procedure such as (in the present context) the modified NewtonRaphson iteration, i.e. where K,would be the tangent stiffness matrix at the end of the previous increment. The displacements would then be updated according to
P" = P O + V J P
(9.6)
where po would be the fixed displacements at the end of the previous iteration and Sp the fixed direction obtained from (9.5). For the simple iterative procedures of Chapters 13, the scalar q in (9.6) would be set to unity. With the introduction of line searches, the scalar, q, becomes the iterative 'step length' which, for the line search, is the only variable. To derive the necessary conditions for 4 to be a minimum at a particular value of q, we replace (9.1) with an equivalent Taylor expansion about the solution at q, i.e.
(9.7)
where use has been made of (9.3) and (9.6). For the solution at y to be stationary, we require that
In both (9.7) and (9.8), g has been written as a function of y because (see (9.6)), po and 6p are fixed. A search to satisfy equation (9.8) should find the step length, q, at which the angle a in Figure 9.1, is zero. From (9.8) and Figure 9.1, the slope, tancx,
LINE SEARCHES
255
tan
 S,) =
I 4
4.
at q = 0 is s,), where
so = s(q = 0) = GpTg(q= 0) = 6pTgo
(9.9)
where go is the outofbalance force vector at the end of the previous iteration. Zf we are adopting the modified Newton Raphson method as in (9.9, it follows that
s o = gl'Klg 0 t
0
 6 p T K 6t  P
(9.10)
where K, is the tangent stiffness matrix at the last converged equilibrium state. Assuming that the latter is a stable state, K, will be positivedefinite and hence s o in (9.10) will be negative and the energy direction will, as illustrated in Figure 9.1, be 'downhill'. If the full NewtonRaphson method were applied, (9.5) and (9.10)would still apply but, in place of K,,from the last converged equilibrium state, we should use K,, as computed from the last iterative solution, po. Because the displacements, po relate to the last iteration and not an equilibrium state, one cannot use stability of the equilibrium state to infer that K,, is positivedefinite and there is no guarantee that, with the full NR method, so will be negative and the current iterative direction will be in a downhill energy direction. Various techniques have been devised for directly modifying K, or otherwise changing the iterative procedure to ensure that it is positive definite [F7, L3, A2, Bl]. These techniques are usually aimed to converge on another state which is stable (with positive definite Kt). However, often in structural analysis,
256
the situation is more complex because (see Section 9.3.1) we do not always aim at a stable equilibrium state. For the present, we will simply assume that so (see (9.9)) is negative and that we can apply a standard downhill line search. If this line search were to be exact, we would be looking for the smallest positive yvalue to make s ( q ) (see (9.8)) zero. In practice, it is inefficient to apply an exact line search and, instead, we apply a slack line search with the aim of making the modulus of s(y) small in comparison with the modulus of so, i.e. (9.11) where PISis the linesearch tolerance. From the authors experience, a suitable value for PIS of the order of 0.8. The situation depicted in (9.1 I ) is illustrated in Figure 9.1. is For mathematical programming, (9.11) would be supplemented by a condition ensuring a sufficient reduction in 4 which would involve the energy itself and not just the slopes, s [F7, L3,G4]. In most finite element systems, we do not have the energy and hence we cannot apply this last condition. Also with plasticity, this quantity is questionable. Nonetheless, it would probably be very valuable for finite element computer programs to compute an estimate of 4. This can be very economically produced at the Gausspoint level (as part of the stress updating) via (9.12) where w includes the weighting and area contribution, (T, are the current stresses, (T, the stresses at the last converged equilibrium state and AE the strain increment (from the last converged equilibrium state). The author introduced such a procedure into a finite element system and used both the energy terms and slopes, s, with a cubic interpolation procedure in order to estimate the required step length, y. However, preliminary studies indicated that the resulting technique was very susceptible to roundoff error [CS]. Hence, for the present, we will avoid the use of 4 and assume only the existence of the slopes, s, which can be easily computed (see (9.8) and (9.9)) from the inner product of the outofbalance forces g and iterative displacement direction, 6p. We will also assume that we are including nonsmooth nonlinearity resulting from, say, plasticity or, more extremely, concrete cracking. In these circumstances, it is simplest to apply a simple bracketed interpolation procedure as illustrated in Figure 9.2, which relates to real computations on reinforced concrete beams and slabs that were performed by the author (C161. To produce the results in this figure, the line searches have been applied with a very tight tolerance (small PISin (9.1 1)). In practice such a tight tolerance would not be used. The main features of the procedure are illustrated in Figure 9.2(a). Having computed g in the standard way with q l = y = 1, the inner product, s1 = s(q = l), of (9.8) was computed and related to the inner product of (9.9), so, (with y = 0) in order to obtain the ratio r(y) of (9.11). This ratio was about  1.4 and is plotted as point 1 in Figure 9.2(a). Linear interpolation between point 0 and 1 then involved (9.13)
LINE SEARCHES
257
___
s 10
30 40
O:,
(c)
Figure 9.2 Examples showing Iinesearches: (a) interpolated, (b) extrapolated, (c) limited extrapolation.
indicating a new estimate for the step length ( q 2 )of about 0.42. The outofbalance force and inner product in (9.8) was then recomputed to give a ratio r ( q ) (see (9.11 ) ) of about 0.7. This solution is plotted as point 2 in Figure 9.2(a). In practice, with PISin (9.11) being set to 0.8, this point would be deemed acceptable and the linesearch procedure would be completed and the next iteration begun. Purely for illustration purposes, the procedure was continued with interpolation between point 0 and 2 in Figure 9.2(a), which leads to point 3 and, following interpolation between points 0 and 3, to point 4. A generalisation of (9.13), relevant to the procedure in Figure 9.2(a), would be (9.14) This process involves an interpolation between the current slope and the slope at q = 0. Such a procedure will not always be appropriate. Figure 9.2(b) shows that extrapolation can be used instead of interpolation while Figure 9.2(c) shows that this extrapolation should not be taken too far and that a maximum amplification (10 in Figure 9.2(c))should be allowed. In a similar fashion, it is wise to introduce a minimum steplength, qmin. In Figure 9.2(c), the final interpolation to obtain point 3 is between point 1 and point 2 and therefore does not fit in with the procedure of (9.14).Instead the interpolation is performed between the point (2) with a negative ratio r = s ( q ) / s o and the nearest point (1) with a positive ratio. This approach can be extended so as to involve the smallest q value with a negative ratio.
258
Before detailing an algorithm to implement a linesearch procedure, it should be emphasised that, for many iterations, the first 'trial' step length of q = 1 would immediately satisfy the linesearch tolerance. For example, in Figure 9.2(b), the ratio r of (9.11) corresponding to point 1 (with q = I ) was about 0.6. With a tolerance factor, /3,$ in (9.1 I ) of 0.8, this solution would have been deemed satisfactory. Hence, no extra residual (or outofbalance force vector) calculations would be required on account of the linesearch procedure. The only extra work, in comparison with a formulation without line searches, would, in these circumstances, be the calculation of the inner product of (9.8) (with q = I). In comparison with the other work, this work is almost negligible.
9.2.2
The previous ideas are incorporated in the flowchart of Figure 9.3 and the following Fortran subroutine. The aim is to use linear interpolation as in Figure9.2(a) and 9.2(c). However, this can only be applied once one has obtained in step length, q, relating to a negative ratio, Y (see (9.11)). I n the absence of such a step length, the
with positive r
!I+
+0 . w 
q+)
1
LINE SEARCHES
259
algorithm adopts extrapolation as in Figure 9.2(b) or, if the extrapolation goes too far (Figure 9.2(c)), simple steplength amplification using an input maximum amplification factor, amp. The latter is illustrated in Figure 9 4 ~ ) . The algorithm is aimed at computing q i + l after entering with a new step length, pii, and equivalent ratio, ri. Additional input is amp, the maximum amplification factor, qmaxa, maximum allowed step length and, gminu, minimum allowed step the the length as well a s ICO,a counter that is normally zero but is set to unity once the maximum or minimum allowable step length is reached. The subroutine sets ICO to two once the maximum allowable step length has been reached twice. In these circumstances, the computer program resorts to increment reduction (see Section 9.5. I).
9.2.2.1 Fortran subroutine SEARCH
The following FORTRAN subroutine implements the algorithm illustrated in the previous flowchart. The step lengths, q, are stored in ETA with corresponding ratios, I (see (9.1 I)), in PRODR. These vectors are initially set up to contain
1
ETA (27)
2 1
s(q = I )
7 0
PRODR(r)
The routine is not optimised for efficiency so that, for example, searches are made through previous values to obtain a step length with a negative ratio. However, for practical sized problems, the time spent in computing the step length is almost negligible in comparison with the time required for the computation of a new outofbalance force vector, g ( q ) .
1
SUBROUTINE SEARCH (ILS,PRODR,ETA,AMP,ETMXA,ETMNA,IWRIT IWR.ICO,NLSMXP) PERFORMS LINE LOCAL LINESEARCH TO GET STEP LENGTH IN ETA (ILS+2) ETA 1 ILS HAS PREVIOUS STEP LENGTHS (ETA(1 ) =O.,ETA(2) = 1 .) WITH EQUIVALENT INNERPRODUCT RATIOS IN PRODR, (PRODR( 1) == 1 . ) AMP HAS MAX AMP. FACTOR FOR STEP LENGTH, ETMXA AND ETMNA HAVE MAX AND MIN ALLOWED STEP LENGTHS ICO ENTERS=I IF MAX OR MIN STEP LENGTH USED O N PREVIOUS SEARCH EXITS SET TO 1 IF USED ON PRESENT SEARCH OR 2 IF ALSO USED ON LAST SEARCH IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) DIMENSION PRODR(NLSMXP).ETA(NLSMXP)
C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C C C
OBTAIN INEG = N O OF PREVIOUS SL WITH NEG. RATIO NEAREST TO ORIGIN AS WELL AS MAX PREVIOUS STEP LENGTH, ETMAXP IF NO NEGATIVE PRODUCTS, INEG ENDS AS 999
260 C
MORE ADVANCED SOLUTION PROCEDURES INEG = 999 ETANEG = 1.D5 ETMAXP = 0.DO DO 10 I = I , I L S + l IF (ETA(I).GT.ETMAXP) ETMAXP = ETA(I) IF (PRODR(I).GE.O.DO) G O TO 10 IF (ETA(I).GT.ETANEG) G O TO 10 ETANEG = ETA(I) INEG =I 10 CONTINUE
C C C C
BELOW NOW ALLOWS INTERPOLATION IF (INEG.NE.999) THEN FIND IPOS=NO O F PREVIOUS SL WITH POS RATIO THAT IS CLOSEST TO INEG (BUT WITH SMALLER SL) IPOS = 1 D O 20 I = l , I L S + I IF (PRODR(I).LT.O.DO) GO TO 20 IF (ETA(I.).GT.ETA(INEG)) G O TO 20 IF (ETA(I).LT.ETA(IPOS)) G O TO 20 IPOS = I 20 CONTINUE
C C
INTERPOLATE TO GET SL ETAINT ETAINT = PRODR( INEG)*ETA(lPOS)PRODR(lPOS)*ETA( INEG) ETAlNT ETAINT/(PRODR(INEG)PRODR(lP0S) ) ALTERNATIVELY GET ETAALT ENSURING A REASONABLE CHANGE C ETAALT= ETA(IP0S) +0.2*(ETA(INEG)ETA(IPOS) ) C TAKE MAX IF (ETAINT.LT.ETAALT) ETAINT = ETAALT C OR MIN STEP LENGTH IF (ETAINT.LT.ETMNA) THEN ETAINT = ETMNA IF (ICO.EQ.1) THEN IC0=2 WRITE (IWR,1010) 1010 FORMAT(/,IX,'MIN STEPLENGTH REACHED TWICE') ELSEIF (ICO.EQ.0) THEN ICO=1 ENDIF ENDIF C ETA(ILS+2)=ETAlNT IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) THEN WRITE (IWR,1001) (ETA(I),I= 1,ILS+2) 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,'LS PARAMETERS',/,IX,'ETAS ',(6G11.3) ) WRITE(IWR,1002) (PRODR(I),I= 1,ILS+ 1 ) 1002 FORMAT(/,1X,'RATIOS',(6G11.3)) ENDIF RETURN
LINE SEARCHES C C C
261
BELOW WITH EXTRAPOLATION ELSE IF (INEG.EQ.999) THEN SET MAX TEMP STEP LENGTH C ETMXT = AMP*ETMAXP IF (ETMXT.GT.ETMXA) ETMXT = ETMXA EXTRAP. BETWEEN CURRENT AND PREVIOUS C ETAEXT=PRODR(ILS+ l)*ETA(ILS)PRODR(ILS)*ETA(ILS+ 1) ETAEXT= ETAEXT/(PRODR(ILS 1)PRODR(ILS) ) ETA(ILS 2) = ETAEXT C ACCEPT IF ETAEXT WITHIN LIMITS IF (ETAEXT.LE.O.DO.OR.ETAEXT.GT.ETMXT) ETA(ILS 2) = ETMXT IF (ETA(ILS 2).EQ.ETMXA.AND.ICO.EQ.l) THEN WRITE (IWR,1003) 1003 FORMAT(/,l X,' MAX STEPLENGTH AGAIN') C STOP 'SEARCH 1003' ICO = 2 RETURN ENDIF IF (ETA(ILS 2).EQ.ETMAXA) ICO = 1 IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) THEN WRITE (IWR,1001) (ETA(I),I= l,ILS+2) WRITE (IWR,1002) (PRODR(I),I=l,ILS+ 1) ENDIF ENDIF RETURN END
9.2.3
We will now outline a procedure whereby the computer programs of Chapters 2 and 3 could be modified to include line searches using the previous subroutine SEARCH. In Sections 9.4.2 and 9.6, we will give a modified computer program that includes not only line searches but also the arclength method, automatic increment sizes, accelerations and automatic increment reduction. In order to introduce all these options, a number of changes have had to be made to the structure of the original programs. At the present stage, we will merely outline the way in which the programs of Chapters 2 and 3 could be most simply modified to introduce line searches. The reader might like to make these changes himself (or herself) or might, at this stage, prefer to simply follow the ideas and wait until Sections 9.4.2and 9.6 before considering detailed implementation. In order to incorporate the previous subroutine within the finite element computer program of Chapters 2 and 3, we must firstly input the linesearch parameters.
9.2.3.1 input
In order to achieve this with the minimum disruption to the previous programs, we can introduce a COMMON block, DATLS into both the main program NONLTC of
262
Set max. number of iterations, NITMAX Set linesearch switch ILFAIL = 0 *** Begin iterative loop, ITE = 1, NITMAX
If (ITE = 1 or NLSMX = 0 (noline searches) or ILFAIL = 1 (uphill))** call FORCE which computes N = fn. ( E A , I, z, p) Call ELEMENT and compute the internal force vector, q i , for the truss If full NR iterations, also compute K, Call ELSTRUC which modifies qi for the effects of the linear springs and, if full NR, puts the elements stiffness matrix into the struct. stiff. matrix and modifies for the effects of linear springs
Compute the outofbalance force vector,  g = qe  qi and store go = g*** create reaction vector, r = qi except at earthed springs where ri =  KSipi
Call BCON which applies the bound. conditions Call CROUT which computes K, = LDLT Call SOLVCR which computes 6p =  K 1 g using the previously computed LDLT factors p=p+csp
(STdP)
Figure 9.4 Flowchart for subrouttne ITER when miodlfled to include line searches
LINE SEARCHES
263
Section 2.5.1 and into the main iterative routine ITER of Section 2.4.2. This block is
C3MMON/DATLS/NLSMX,PERMLS, AMPMX, ETMXA,ETMNA,GO(S)
where the constants will become apparent from the following and GO(5) will contain the initial (for any iteration) outofbalance force vector, go (at rl = 0). In addition the input line:
READ (IRE,*) BETOK,ITERTY
and accompanying output line of program NONLTC (see Section 2.5.1) can be amended to the following
READ (IRE,*) BETOK,ITERTY,NLSMX WRITE (IWR,1003) BETOK,ITERTY,NLSMX 1003 FORMAT(/,lX.'CONV.TOL FACTOR, BETOK= ',G13.5./, 1 1X,'ITERATIVE SOLN. TYPE, ITERTY = ',l5>/, 2 5X,'= 1 , FULL NR; =2,MOD. NR',/, 3 lX,'MAX. NO. OF LSEARCHES= ',l5) BELOW SPECIFIC TO LINE SEARCHES C IF (NLSMX.NE.0) THEN READ (IRE, *) PERMLS, AMPMX, ETMXA, ETMNA WRITE (IWR, 1009) PERMLS, AMPMX, ETMXA, ETMNA 100s FORMAT(/, I X , 'LINE SEARCH PARAMS ARE',/, 3X, 'TOLERANCE O N RATIO, PERMLS = ',G13.4/, 1 2 3X, 'MAX. AMP AT ANY STEP, AMPMX = ',G13.4,/, 3X, 'MAX. TOTAL STEPLENGTH, ETMXA 1'G13.4,/, 3 3X, 'MIN. TOTAL STEPLENGTH, EXTMNA = ',G13.4) 4
Figure 2.4 contains the flowchart for subroutine ITER which iterates, at the structural level, to equilibrium. In order to introduce line searches, this flowchart can be altered as indicated in Figure 9.4 where the asterisked sections relate to the changes. Apart from the introduction of the COMMON block DATLS (see Section 9.2.3.1), the changes to the subroutine ITER of Section 2.4.2 could involve: ( 1 ) At the very start, setting ILFAIL = 0 (2) Inserting before CALL FORCE,
IF (ITE.EQ.1.OR.NLSMX.EQ.O.OR.ILFAIL.EQ.I )
This avoids the recomputation of the internal force vectors immediately after a call to the line search loop (via CALL ISLOOP). (3) Replacing the DO 10 loop to form the outofbalance force vector with:
C C C BELOW FORMS G M =OUTOFBALANCE FORCE VECTOR AND REACTION VECTOR IN ADDITION NOW SAVES GO FOR LINE SEARCHES DO 10 I = I , N V GM(I) =; 0 DO
264
REAC(I) = FI(I) IF(I BC (I). EQ.0) TH EN G M ( I ) = QEX( I)FI( I) ENDIF GO(I)= GM(I) 10 CONTINUE
where the amendments have been underlined. (4) Just below the DO 30 loop to have:
C C ABOVE UPDATES DISPS. IF (NLSMX.NE.0) CALL LSLOOP(PT,GM,IBC,IWRIT,IWR,ITERTY,NV, 1 FI,QEX,AKTS,AKTE,D) IF (ILFAIL.EQ.2) STOP C C
IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV)
In the above, we have called a subroutine =LSLOOP which calls subroutine SEARCH (see Section 9.2.2.1) and performs the linesearch loop at the structural level. In the flowchart which is given in Figure 9.5, q is the vector ETA of Section 9.2.2 and r is the vector = PRODR containing the ratios r of (9.1 I). These arrays must be defined in subroutine = LSLOOP which, via the common /DATLS/ of Section 9.2.2.1 also has access to the array = G O = go formed in subroutine = ITER (see Section 9.2.3.2). This routine returns to ITER with ILFAIL = 0 if the linesearch procedure has been satisfactory. If the iterative direction is uphill (see Section 9.2.1), it returns with ILFAIL = 1 and ITER continues using the default step length of 1 (having abandoned the line search). If the linesearch procedure Fdils, ILFAIL is set to 2 and on the return to ITER, the safest option would be to STOP (see the flowchart in Figure 9.4). Later (in Section 9.5.1 and 9.6.5), we will instead adopt automatic increment reduction. A Fortran subroutine relating to a slightly modified form of the above will be given in Section 9.4.2.1. It has already been pointed out in Section 9.2.1 that, for many iterations, the introduction of the linesearch algorithm (with a slack tolerance) will introduce very little extra work. This point can be checked by studying the flowcharts of Figures 9.4 and 9.5. They show that if, on the first application of the satisfaction check in Figure 9.5 (with 1 = l), the linesearch tolerance is satisfied, the extra computational work in comparison with a standard NR or mNR procedure only involves the computation of s,(y = 0) and s(y = 1). The advantage of introducing the linesearch technique is that the ratio r (9.1 I ) gives a very effective indication of whether or not it is safe to proceed directly to the next iteration. In very many instances, with slack line searches and PIS(see (9.11 ) ) rr 0.8, the tolerance check of (9.11) will be satisfied within the linesearch loop of Figure 9.5 with I = 1 so that no extra residual (or outofbalance force) calculations are required. However, when Irl > PIS, without the linesearch facility, the iterative procedure to enforce equilibrium will often diverge.
LINE SEARCHES
265
Compute disps. at end of last iter., p, = p  6p Compute so = 6pTg,, if positive, set ILFAIL = 1 and RETURN Set q(1)= qo = 0, q(2) = 1 and equiv. ratio r(1) = 1 Set q = q(2) and ICO = O
1
Begin 1search loop, ITE(1) = 1, NITMAX
4
Call FORCE which computes N = fn.(EA,l,z,p) Call ELEMENT to compute the int. force vector, qi(q) for the truss Call ELSTRUC which modifies qi for the effects of the linear springs Compute s(q) = 6pT(q, 9) = 6pTg(q) , and ratio r ( l + 1) = s(q)/so
@ i L
01 or 1
266
267
Dvnamic
Displacement
Displacement
Displacement
Figure 9.6 Various load/deflection curves: (a) snapthrough; (b) snapback; (c) 'brittle' collapse;
(d) 'ductile' collapse
05
5
& "
U
04 03
0 
E
Q 0
02
F 01
0 0 1
02
a c ,
03
04
Figure 9.7
JVVV
z,
 2500 E
 Experimental
collapse load
[C211
2000c Q
U
CrJ
1500
n
_o 
simply
supported boundaries
Displacements at bearings
Figure 9.8 Idealisation and computed responses for steel boxgirder diaphragm (with experimental collapse load).
269
(iv) Even if A is the only maximum, it may be necessary to move to point B (just beyond the maximum) because (a) This confirms that we have indeed just passed a limitpoint. Many analysts simply apply further load increments until the solution procedure fails to conkergc (say applying the increment to level Y in Figure 9.6(c))and then assume that this iterative fdilure reflects a structural failure. Sadly, iterative failure can occur for other reasons and this approach is not recommended. Even to establish the plateau in Figure 9.6(d),load control is inappropriate. (b) Having converged on a point such as B, it is then possible to investigate (preferably with the aid of graphics) the structural state (stresses, strains, deflections, plastic Lows, etc.) at B in order to gain insight into the mechanism or c;iuse of the structural failure. ( v ) Figure 9.6(d) illustrates the type of load deflection response, stemming from an elastic/perfectly plastic, geometrically linear analysis. For this type of problem, the load corresponding to the plateau could also be obtained via a plastic mechanism or yieldline method. With standard load control, i t would be very difficult to reproduce this limit load and, without converging on a point such as B (Figure 9.6(d)), it would be impossible to fully establish the mechanism. With the aid of the arclength method, the author has used the finite element method to obtain plastic mechanism solutions for reinforced concrete structures [Cl 81.
Before discussing the detail of the arclength and other related methods, one should mention standard displacement control for which a solution algorithm has already been given in Section 2.2.5. For many problems. it is possible to use such a technique to obtain, for example, the complete solid line in Figure 9.6(a). By and large, this technique can be applied when an equivalent displacementcontrol could be used in an experiment. There are, however, occasions when this is difficult or impossible. For example, one may wish to obtain the scalar multiple of an abnormal vehicle loading on a bridge in which the abnormal loading involved a set of, say, sixteen wheel loads of equal magnitude [Cl 131 (or some other fixed loading pattern figure 9.9). Other examples include structures for which the response involves a snapback behaviour as illustrated in Figure 9.6(b). Such a response is typical of shell structures. Figure 9.7 shows the loaddeflection response that was computed by the author for the response of a thin cylindrical shell subjcct to a central point load [Cl 1). The solution obtained by the author involved the arclength method coupled with automatic increments (see Section 9.5). The solution by Sabir and Lock [Sl.l] was obtained by switching from load to displacement control. Another example involves the largedeflection elastoplastic analysis of the stiffened diaphragm from a boxgirder bridge which was analysed by the author [Cl 1,C21]. Because of the limited computer power, an elastic substructuring technique was combined with some structural idealisations [Cl 1,C20] so that only the diaphragm was analysed in a nonlinear manner (Figure 9.8). In order to bracket the experimental behaviour, two extreme boundary conditions were applied to the outofplane deflections at the edges of the diaphragm. For analysis A (curve A, Figure 9.8), the boundaries were assumed to be simply supported, while for analysis B (curve B, Figure 9.8), they were assumed to be encastre. (The solution for analysis A has been
270

F,
1
E
200
I ,
50
100 350 Deflection (mm)

400
450
Figure 9.9 Computed response for prestressed concrete bridge (with experimental collapse load).
offset from the origin in Figure 9.8 in order to avoid interference with the solution curve for analysis B.) For both analyses, the structure was loaded by incrementing prescribed displacements across bearings and combining this displacement control with the arclength method. In addition the length increments (see Section 9.3.2) were automatically computed (see Section 9.5). As illustrated in Figure 9.8, the resulting solutions bracketed the experimental collapse load. Solution A resulted in a snapback form of response which could not be obtained without the addition of the arclength constraint (Section 9.3.2). With ordinary displacement control, a point was reached at which numerical convergence could not be obtained. At this stage, because of the suddenness of the softening (Figure 9.8), a maximum load was not properly defined. It was this example that led to the authors work on the arclength procedure. On switching the emphasis of my work from steel to concrete structures [C14, C151, I was surprised to find that snapthrough and snapback responses were equally relevant to concrete structures. Figure 9.9 shows an example involving the analysis of a prestressed beamandslab bridge [C 141 for which the numerical solution clearly exhibits snapthroughs and local maxima. (The strange blip in the solution was, at the time, attributed to a defect in the arclength method. i t now seems likely that the phenomenon was caused by the solution procedure assuming that a negative pivot in the factorised K, was associated with a limit point when it was probably caused by a bifurcation associated with material instability [C 121.) Other work with concrete softening has encountered snapbacks [C 14, D5]. Procedures for directly computing the critical points have been discussed in [M5, R7, E2, F51. From an engineering viewpoint, the precise computation of limit points does not seem to be of major importancea continuation solution passing over the point will usually locate the point to sufficient engineering accuracy (plasticity will often limit the increment size). On the other hand, it may be important to locate
271
bifurcation points with reasonable accuracy, in order to be able to switch to the postbuckling path (see Section 9.10).
9.3.2
As a starting point to various continuation methods, we can write the equilibrium equations as (9.15) . g(p, 1) = qi(P)  4 e f = 0
where qi are the internal forces which are functions of the displacements, p, the vector qef is a fixed external loading vector and the scalar iis a loadlevel parameter that multiplies qef.Equation (9.15 ) defines a state of proportional loading in which the loading pattern is kept fixed. Nonproportional loading will be discussed in Section 9.5.3. In Section 9.5, we will introduce a simple method whereby the scalar loading parameter, i may be automatically incremented thus producing a loadcontrolled , continuation method. However, as already discussed, the major limitation of load control is that, near a limit point, there may be no intersection between the equilibrium path of (9.15)and the plane i= constant which represents the next load level. Various , forms of arclength methods have stemmed from the original work of Riks [R8, R9] and Wempner [WS] who aimed to find the intersection of (9.15) with s = constant, where s is the arc length, defined by:
s=
[ds
(9.16) (9.17)
and The scaling parameter $ is required in (9.17) because the load contribution depends on the adopted scaling between the load and displacement terms. Having introduced the arclength, s, one may attempt to directly solve
g(s) qi(p ( ~ ) ) jv(S)qef= 0
(9.18)
using a higherorder ODE method [W3]. However, with this approach it is often very difficult to successfully limit the drift from equilibrium and hence predictorcorrector methods are usually used. For load control, these would involve the techniques of Chapters 1 3 with an incremental, tangential, predictor being followed by NewtonRaphson or modified NewtonRaphson iterations which act as correctors. For the arclength methods, one would effectively replace the differential form of (9.17) with an incremental form:
U
= (ApTAp
+ A;v2$2qTfqef) A12 = 0 
(9.19)
where Al is the fixed radius of the desired intersection (see Figure 9.10 where for brevity we have written qef as q) which is an approximation to the incremental arc length. The vector Ap and scalar A i are incremental (not iterative, for which we will us 6s) and relate back to the last converged equilibrium state (see Figure 9.10). The main essence of the arclength methods is that the load parameter, 3., becomes
272
/I
Figure 91 Spherical arclength procedure and notation for one degree of freedom system (with .0 $ = 1).
a variable. Hence, together with the n displacement variables, we have a total of n 1 variables. To solve for these, we have the n equilibrium equations of (9.15) and the one constraint equation of (9.19). Following Riks [R8, R9] and Wempner [W5], we can solve for these n + 1 variables by directly applying the NewtonRaphson method to (9.15) and (9.19). From our previous developments, the NewtonRaphson method is best introduced via a truncated Taylor series with the subscript n meaning new and o meaning old. From (9.15) and (9.19) this leads to (9.20a)
Equations (9.20a) and (9.20b) can be combined and, after setting g, and a, to zero, solved for 6p and 6;l, giving (9.21) The augmented Jacobian or stiffness matrix within the square brackets in (9.21) remains nonsingular even when Kt = ag/dp is singular. (Equations of the form of (9.21) are also known as bordered equations [R14]. Other interesting structural
273
uses of bordered equations have been given by Kroplin et ul. [K7, K9, K101). Equations (9.21) can be used directly to find the changes 6 p and 6 i . However, in contrast to K,, the augmented stiffness matrix in (9.21)is neither symmetric nor banded.
9.3.2.1 The 'spherical arclength' method
Instead of solving (9.21), one may directly introduce the constraint of (9.20b) by following Batoz and Dhatt [B4] for displacement control at a single point (see Section 9.3.2.3). To this end, the iterative displacement, Zip, is split into two parts. Hence the Newton change at the new unknown load level, in L,,+ Z i i , becomes =
(9.22)
One can work with either of the forms on the far righthand side of (9.22). The penultimate form involves a complete split into internal forces, qi, and external forces, ,iqef, while the final form can be expressed as (9.23) with 6p, = K, I Q e r . Using this form, Sp is the iterative change that would stem from the standard loadcontrolled Newton Raphson method (at a fixed load level, io), while 6p, is the displacement vector corresponding to the fixed load vector, qef. If the modified NewtonRaphson method is adopted, Zip, must be computed for the initial 'predictor' (Section 9.4.3) step but (because K , is fixed) does not change during the iterations. Having obtained 6 p from (9.23) (with 6R still unknown), the new incremental displacements are
+ Sp + 6R 6p,
(9.24)
where 6 L is the only unknown. It can be found from the constraint of (9.19), which can be reexpressed as (9.25) Substitution from (9.24) for Ap,, into (9.25) leads to the scalar quadratic equation:
a , 6L2
where
+ u,ZiA + u j = 0
a1 = 6 ~ : 6 ~+ +2q:rqef t
a2
~ ~ P , ( A + ,SP) + 2AAo+2qzfqef P
a3 = (Ape
+ ZiP)T(Apo+ 6p)
 A12
+ Albi$2q:rqef
which can be solved for dA so that, from (9.24), the complete change is defined. (The issue of the choice of root will be discussed in Section 9.4.1.) In contrast to the use of (9.2.1), this technique only requires the inversion (or, in practice, factorisation) of the banded symmetric tangent stiffness matrix, K,. In theory, the method suffers from the limitation that, precisely at the limit point, K, will be singular and the equations cannot be solved. In reality, the author has not found this to be a significant problem, because one appears never to arrive precisely at the limit point (see also [B4]).
274
Nonetheless, a number of authors have addressed the issue of stabilising the stiffness matrix near to limit points. Riks and Rankin [R14] have proposed two techniques, one of which requires knowledge of the lowest eigenmode of K,. Felippa [Fl, F2] has combined a partitioning device of Rheinboldt [R6] with the original fictitious spring approach of Sharifi and Popov CS3.11. As already discussed, in the mathematical programming literature there are approaches to modify K, in the presence of uphill directions [F7, L31. These methods must also be relevant. We have not yet discussed the scaling parameter, $, in the constraints of (9.19) and (9.25). Both the author [Cl I ] and Ramm [ R l , R2] independently concluded that, for practical problems involving a realistic number of variables, the loading terms (those involving $) had little effect and hence advocated setting $ to zero. As a result, the constraint should be considered as cylindrical rather than spherical. This cylindrical constraint will be adopted in the detailed treatment of Section 9.4. Padovan and Arechaga [Pl] and Park [P7] proposed adopting a variable $ which is large in the initial stages (so that the technique then tends towards load control) and small when the limit points is approached. In Section 9.5.2, we will discuss a procedure that produces a similar effect by switching to arclength control as the limit point is reached. Felippa [FI, F2] and Simo et al. [SS] have taken the scaling or weighting further by replacing the ApTAp term in (9.19) ApTS Ap, where one suggestion for the scaling matrix S in Diag (K,). Weighting schemes have also been advocated by de Borst [D5] and Gierlinski and GravesSmith [G3]. At this stage, it would be a good idea to describe the progress of the arclength method in relation to Figure 9.10 (where, for brevity, we have written q instead of qef). Having converged on the equilibrium point ( p,, dOqef), incremental, tangential an predictor ( A p l , AAl) would be computed (see Section 9.4.3 for further details on the predictor) leading to the point ( p l , Alqef). The first iteration would then use (9.26) and (9.27) with the old Ap, as Apl and the old A i , as A i l to obtain dp, and di,, after which the updating procedure (see 9.24)) would lead to Ap,
= ApI
+ dp,,
Ai,
= AA,
+di1.
(9.28)
When added to the displacements, p, and load level, A,, at the end of the previous increment this process would lead to the point (p,, AA2qef)in Figure 9.10. The next iteration would then reapply (9.26) and (9.27) with the old value Ap, as Ap2 and the old AA, as AA2 to obtain Sp, and S i 2 , after which the updating procedure would lead to Ap3 = Ap, + 6p2 and AA3 = AA, + hi,. The iterations would cease once the convergence criterion (see Section 9.5.4) was satisfied.
9.3.2.2 Linearised arclength methods
A number of authors [R 1, R2, R8, R9, W5, S2, F9, F 121 have advocated linearised forms of arclength method. From (9.20b), we can write
(9.29) where a, is the old value of the arclength mismatch (see (9.19)). If a, is taken as zero, we have Ramms approach [R 1, R2] which ensures that the iterative change (dp, dA$qef) is orthogonal to the secant change (Ape, AA0+qef) (see Figure 9.1 l(b)).
275
*Displacement
/
(b)
Displacement
(a)
Figure 9.11 Linearised arclength methods: (a) the RiksWempner method; (b) Ramms method.
Using (9.23), this leads to (9.30) This technique is closely related to the original procedures due to Riks [R8, R9] and Wempner [WS] which, as illustrated in Figure 9.1 l(a), involve making the iterative change (Sp, SA$qer) orthogonal to the predictor solution (Ap,, AA,) (again with a,=O). The relevant formulae are simply obtained by replacing the old incremental (Ap,,AA,) with the initial predictor, (Ap,, AA,) in (9.29) and (9.30). A further variation has been given by Fried [F12] which uses (dp,, 1/($2q:rqer)) in place of (Ap,, AA,) with also U , = 0. In this approach, which is related to a procedure by Haselgrove [H2], the solution process does not depend on the predictor solution. The idea of including the U, terms in (9.29) and (9.30) is due to Schwiezerhof and Wriggers [S2] and Riks [RI I] with a further modification by Forde and Stiemer [F9]. The linearised versions are simpler than the spherical form of Section 9.3.2.1 because there is no issue of the choice of root in the solution to (9.26). However, the spherical form has the advantage that throughout the iterations the solution is alway aimed at the same point (although some improvements can be made, in this respect, to the linear forms by including the a, terms in (9.30)). Hence, it is more stable and can converge when the linearised form misses the equilibrium path [W4].
9.3.2.3 Generalised displacement control at a specific variable
All the methods described in this section may be considered as forms of generalised displacement control which can be applied although, physically, the problem does not involve displacements control. This has effectively been achieved with the spherical arclength method (with $ = 0) by constraining the Euclidean norm of the incremental displacement to a fixed quantity (equation (9.25)). Instead, following Batoz and Dhatt [B4], one may constrain the displacement increment at a particular variable
276
where Ap(k) is the kth (scalar) component from the vector Ap and Apk is the prescribed magnitude of the kth incremental displacement variable. Using, as before, (9.23) for the iterative change 6p, the constraint (9.31) then leads to (9.32) The tangential, predictor solution would simply be achieved by finding (9.33) with Kt as the tangent stiffness matrix at the beginning of the increment and then AA from
AA 6pt(k) = APk
(9.34)
where 6p,(k) is the kth (scalar) component from the vector 6pt. In contrast to standard displacement control (Section 2.2.5), the variable k would be one where, physically, there would be no real displacement control (and hence no reaction). Rheinoldt [R3,R6] has adopted this approach with the variable k being changed for each increment so as to relate to the largest tangential (predictor) component. Simons and Bergan [SSJ, expanding on the work of Powell and Simons [Pl 11 and Bergan and Mollestad [B 101, have advocated a hyperplane control method which effectively involves an extension of Batoz and Dhatts method with a weighted linear combination of individual specified displacements with, say, halfadozen key displacement variables and weights being specified by the user. A procedure lying between the arclength method and this hyperplane control has been proposed by Gierlinski and GravesSmith [G3].
We will now apply equations (9.26) and (9.27) (with $ = 0) which lie at the heart of the arclength method. However, we must firstly address the issue of finding an appropriate root to (9.26). The idea is to compute both solutions (6Al and d&) and
277
(9.35a) (9.35b)
and then to find which of Apn, and Apn2 lies closest to the old incremental direction Ap,. This should prevent the solution from doubling back on its tracks. This procedure can be implemented by finding the solution with the minimum angle between Apo and Ap, and hence the maximum cosine of the angle, using (9.36)
U1
= 6pT6p1
+ 6p)T(Apo+ Sp)
+ ApTAp,
+ 6p)
 A12
= APPPt
Call QSOLV with a , , a2 and a j to obtain 61v1and 6R2 and (possibly) dLlin=  a 3 / u 2 Also IFAIL = 0 with two roots, 1 with linear solution = 2 no real roots
I
p =p
+ 6 p = p + dp + 6A6p,
A = /+ 62 I
278
where we have used (9.24) for Apn. Assuming that we have computed 6 p = K;Ig,,, apt = KT1qef (9.37) a flowchart to implement (9.26), (9.27) (with t,b =0) and (9.36) is given as Figure 9.12. In the accompanying Fortran subroutine ARCLI , instead of Apo, we have PT which contains the current displacement, p and PTOL which contains the old total displacements at the end of the last increment. The difference between the two gives Apo. Also, at the end of the routine we update the total displacement rather than updating the incremental displacement, Ap. The subroutine ARCLI calls a routine QSOLV which solves the quadratic equation (9.26). The reader might prefer to introduce his own routine for this purpose. If, because a1 is very small (see (9.26) and (9.27)), the constraint relationship is effectively linear, we adopt the linear solution. If we can find no real roots to the constraint equation, we exit from ARCLI with the variable IFAIL set to 2 and (via subroutine NEXINCsee Sections 9.5.1 and 9.6.5), we cut the increment. Other remedies are possible [C6, C161.
9.4.1.1 Fortran subroutines ARCLI and QSOLV
SUBROUTINE ARCL1 (DT, DELBAR, PT, PTOL, IBC, NV, DL2, FACT, IFAIL) FOR ARCLENGTH SOLN DT =TANGENTIAL DlSP WITH FIXED LOADS DELBAR =TANGENTIAL DlSP WITH 0.6. FORCES PT=TOTAL DISPS PTOL=TOTAL DISPS AT END OF LAST INC DL2=DESlRED INC LENGTH SQUARED FACT=TOTAL LOAD FACTOR lFAlL=OUTPUT AS 2 IF NEED TO CUT INC. IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH, 0Z) DIMENSION DT(NV), DELBAR(NV), PT(NV), IBC(NV), PTOL(NV) C A1 =O.DO A 2 =O.DO A3= DL2 A4 =0.DO A5 = O.DO DO 10 I=1, NV IF (IBC(I).NE.l) THEN A1 =A1 +DT(I)*DT(I) DPBAR =PT(I)PTOL(I) DELBAR(1) A2 = A2 2.D0* DT(I)* DPBAR A3 = A3 DPBAR'DPBAR A4 = A4 DPBAR*(PT(I)PTOL(1)) A5 = A5 DT(I)* (PT(I)PTOL( I)) ENDIF 10 CONTINUE
C C C C C C C C C
+ + + +
279
C
CALL QSOLV(A1, A2, A3, RI, R2, RLIN, IFAIL) BELOW NEEDS INC. CUTTING IF (IFAIL.EQ.2) RETURN IF (IFAIL.EQ.1) THEN ONLY LINEAR SOLN. POSSIBLE C SOL = R1 ELSE1F(IFA1L.EQ.0) THEN COST1 = A4 A5*R1 COST2 = A4 A5*R2 SOL = RI IF (COST2.GT.COSTl) SOL =R2 ENDIF FACT = FACT +SOL DO 20 I=1, NV 20 PT(1) = PT(I) DELBAR(1) SOL*DT(I) RETURN END
+ +
C C C C C C
SUBROUTINE QSOLV(A1, A2, A3, RI, R2, RLIN, IFAIL) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH, 0Z) SOLVES QUADRATIC AI X**2 A2 X A3 IF A2.NE.0 LINEAR SOLN, A3/A2 in RLIN IF IFAIL OUT AS ZERO TWO REAL ROOTS IN R1, R2 IF IFAIL OUT AS UNITY A1 TENDS TO ZERO AND R1 OUT AS RLlN IF IFAIL OUT AS 2. NO REAL ROOTS
SMALL=l.DIO IFAIL = 0 IF (A2.NE.0) RLlN= A3/A2 FAC = A2*A24.DO**AI*A3 IF (FAC.LT.O.DO) THEN NO REAL ROOTS IFAIL = 2 RETURN ELSE REAL ROOTS FAC =DSQRT(FAC) IF (Al.EQ.O.DO) THEN IF (A2.NE.0) THEN RI =RLIN IFAIL =1 RETURN ELSE STOP QSOLV 1 A1 =O AND A 2  0 ENDIF ELSE
280 C
MORE ADVANCED SOLUTION PROCEDURES REAL ROOTS AND AA.NE.0 R l =  0.5D*(FAC BB)/AA R2 = 0.5DO*(FACBB)/AA ENDIF ENDIF RETURN END
9.4.2 Flowchart and Fortran subroutine for the main structural iterative loop (ITER)
The routine ARCLI of Section 9.4.1 will be called from the main iterative subroutine ITER that was initially introduced in Section 2.4.2 and, in outline, modified for line searches in Section 9.2.3.2. We will now further adapt this routine so that it can be used with either line searches or the arclength method (the combination of the two is discussed in [Cl91 and will be considered in Volume 2). Apart from the direct call to subroutine ARCLl, the main modification to the routine involves the use of g=qi;lq,, rather than, as before (Chapter 2), g = q i  q e where qe was the fixed external load vector relating to load level, 1.The vector q,, is the fixed loading vector (see Chapter 2) that was before (see Section 2.3.1) and is now called QFI. The loading parameter, A, is called FACT (total factor). Having introduced these changes, the final modified flowchart is shown in Figure 9.13.
If (ITE = 1 or NLSMX = 0 (no line searches) or ILFAIL = 1 (1s. uphill) call FORCE which computes N = fn. (EA,l,z,p) Call ELEMENT and compute the internal force vector, qi for the truss If full NR iterations, also compute K, Call ELSTRUC which modifies qi for the effects of the linear springs and, if full NR, put the element stiffness matrix into the struct. stiff. matrix and modify for the effects of linear springs
Compute the outofbalance force vector,  g ( G M )=  qi + Lqef(QFI) and store go = g if arc length (IARC = I), set dp, (DT) = qef(QFI) create reaction vector, r = qi except at earthed springs where ri =  &pi
281
No
Ig
I
new E. and new p
1 (arcI)
I
to modify 6p
282
The last box in the flowchart implements (with lAUTO= 1) automatic increment reduction if convergence is not achieved, if no real roots are found for the arclength constraint or if difficulties are encountered with the linesearch procedure. These issues are discussed further in Section 9.5. The flowchart also refers to a subroutine ACCEL (following the computations of Sp in subroutine SOLVCR). This subroutine applies an 'acceleration' to the modified NewtonRaphson method and is discussed in Section 9.8. The arclength procedure will work with either applied loadcontrol or displacement control. However, as implemented here, the latter can only be used with the full NR method and not the modified NR method. In the latter case, the new K, matrix is not formed and nor is dp, = Kt'q,,. However, with displacement control, we need the new K, matrix (or part of it) in order to produce the 'effective load vector' in subroutine BCON (see Section 2.2.5).
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
THE 'CYLINDRICAL ARCLENGTH' METHOD SLOL=I.DO DL2 = DL*DL IMOD = 1 IF (ITERTY.EQ.1) IMOD=3 C DO 100 ITE=l,NITMAX C IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1005) ITE 1005 FORMAT(/,lX,'ITERATIVE LOOP WITH ITE = ',E) IF (ITE.EQ.l.OR.NLSMX.EQ.O.OR.ILFAIL.EQ.l)THEN ILFAIL = 1 IF LS LOOP GAVE UPHILL C BELOW CALCS FORCE IN BAR (AN) C CALL FORCE(AN,ANIT,E,ARA,AL,X,Z,PT,IWRIT,IWR, 1 ITYEL,ARN,ALN,POISS) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C C ABOVE CALCS FORCE IN BAR, AN: BELOW TAN STIFF AKT C (IF NR) AND INT. FORCE VECT. FI C CALL ELEMENT(FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z.PT,E,ARA,AL,IWRIT,IWR,IMOD, 1 ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C C BELOW PUTS EL. STIFF. MAT., AKTE, IN STR. STIFF., AKTS AND C ADDS IN EFFECTS OF VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS (IN NR) C ALSO MODIFIES INT. FORCE VECT. FI FOR SPRING EFFECTS C CALL ELSTRUC(AKTE,AKTS,NV,AK15,ID14S,AK14S,NDSP,FI,PT, 1 IMOD,IWRIT, IWR) ENDIF C BELOW FORMS GM = OUTOFBALANCE FORCE VECTOR C AND REACTION VECTOR C IN ADDITION, NOW SAVES GO FOR LINE SEARCHES C DO 10 I = I , N V GM (I) = O.DO REAC(I) = FI(I) IF (IARC.EQ.l.AND.ITERTY.EQ.1) DT(I)=QFI(I) IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN GM(I) = FACT*QFI(I)FI(I) ENDIF GO(I)= GM(I) 10 CONTINUE 67 FORMAT(6G13.5) 47 FOR MAT(515) C OVERWRITE SPRING REACTION TERMS C IF (NDSP.NE.0) THEN DO 50 I = 1,NDSP 50 REAC(ID14S(I)) =  AK14S(I)*PT(ID14S(I)) ENDIF C BELOW CHECKS CONVERGENCE C
283
284
FNORM=O.DO GNORM =O.DO RNORM =O.DO INDSP=O DO 20 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) FNORM = FNORM QFI(I)*QFI(I) IF (IBC(I).EQ. 1) IDSP= 1 RNORM = RNORM REAC(I)*REAC(I) 20 GNORM =GNORM GM(I)*GM(I) FNROM = FACT*DSQRT(FNORM) GNORM = DSQRT(GN0RM) RNORM = DSQRT(RN0RM) BAS = MAX(FNORM,SMALL) C BELOW DISP. CONTROL IF (IDSP.EQ.1) BAS= MAX(RNORM,SMALL) BET = GNORMIBAS ITEM = ITE  1 WRITE (IWR,1001) ITEM,BET 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,'ITERN. NO. = ',IS,'CONV.FAC. = ',G13.5) IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1003) (GM(I),I= 1,NV) 1003 FORMAT(/,lX,'OUTOFBAL.FORCEVECTOR =',/,lX,6G13.5) IF (BET.LE.BETOK) GO TO 200 C C BELOW FOR FULL NR IF (ITERTY.EQ.1) THEN BELOW FOR ARCL ON LOADING TERM C IF (IARC.EQ.l) THEN CALL BCON(AKTS,lBC,NV,DT,IWRIT,IWR) ELSEIF (IARC.EQ.0) THEN C BELOW NONARC L CALL BCON(AKTS,lBC,NV,GM,IWRIT,IWR) C ABOVE APPLIES B. CONDITIONS ENDlF CALL CROUT (AKTS,D,NV,IWR IT,IWR) C ABOVE FORMS LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION INTO AKTS AND D ENDlF C IF (IA RC.EQ.1.AND.ITERTY.EQ.1) 1 CALL SOLVCR(AKTS,D,DT,NV,IWRIT,IWR) C ABOVE GIVES TANGENTIAL CHANGE DT DUE TO LOADING CALL SOLVCR(AKTS, D,G M,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE GETS ITER. DISP. CHANGE IN GM DUE TO O.B. FORCES C C IF (IARC.EQ.l) THEN CALL ARCLI (DT,GM,PT,PTOL,IBC,NV,DL2,FACT,IFAIL) IF (IFAIL.EQ.2) STOP 'ITER 30' C NO ROOTS TO ARCL CONSTRAINT C BELOW NON ARCL ELSEIF (IARC.EQ.0) THEN IF ACCEL., MODIFIES ITER. DISP. VECT., GM C IF (IACC.EQ.l)
+ +
THE CYLINDRICAL ARCLENGTH METHOD 1 CALL ACCEL(GM,GO,GOO,IBC,NV,DELO,SLOL,Rl C,R2C,ITE,IWRIT, 2 IWR) DO 30 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN PT(I)=PT(I)+GM(I) ELSE PT(I) = FACT*QFI(I) ENDIF 30 CONTINUE ABOVE UPDATES DISPS.
IF (NLSMX.NE.0) CALL LSLOOP(PT,GM,IBC,IWRIT,IWR~ITERTY,NV ,Fl,QFI,AKTS,AKTE,D,FACT,AN,SLOL,ILFAIL) IF (ILFAIL.EQ.2) GO TO 110 ENDIF
285
C C
C IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/,lX,TOTAL DISPS ARE,/,l X,6G13.5) C 100 CONTINUE C 110 WRITE (IWR,1002) ITE = NITMAX 1002 FORMAT(/,lX,FAILED TO CONVERGE OR L.S. TROUBLE****) IF (IAUTO.EQ.0) THEN STOP ITER 100 ELSE RETURN ENDIF C
200 CONTINUE
RETURN END
In the above subroutine, both the COMMON /ACEL/ and the call to subroutine ACCEL relate to an accelerated modified NewtonRaphson method that will be discussed in Section 9.8. 9.4.3
We have so far described the implementation of the spherical arclength method within the overall iterative loop for equilibrium but have not discussed in any detail the implementation of the predictor solution. Assuming, as before, the adoption of a forwardEuler tangential predictor, the latter is given by
where K, is the tangent stiffness matrix at the beginning of the increment. Substituting
286
(9.38) into the constraint of (9.25) (with $ = 0) gives (9.39) where AI is the given incremental length. Because of the plus or minus sign in (9.39) we have two possible predictors. Following [Cl 11, in the present work we will let s be + 1 when K, (at the beginning of the increment) is positive definite. In relation to the adopted solution procedure the latter will occur when all the terms in D, the diagonal matrix of the LDLTfactorisation of K, are positive. When one of these terms is negative, we have one negative pivot, which implies one negative eigenvalue for K,. This will occur when we have overcome a limit point (see Figure 9.6(a)) and we then set s to  1. Unfortunately, a negative pivot will also be found (see Sections 2.6.3, 3.10.4 and 9.9.4) when we have passed a bifurcation point rather than a limit point. Hence, as will be shown in Section 9.9.4, in the presence of a bifurcation, the present algorithm will lead to a solution that oscillates about this bifurcation point. If one simply wishes to continue following the unstable postbifurcation path, one may, instead of switching with a negative pivot in K,, switch when the predictor work increment, AqTAp becomes positive [C22, M2 M41. The latter is essentially the current stiffness parameter which will be discussed in Section 9.5.2. As shown in Section 9.9.4, this parameter does not respond to bifurcations. Ideally, however, one would prefer to automatically switch to the stable (or more stable) postbuckling path. These issues will be briefly discussed in Section 9.10 and, in more detail, in Volume 2. This volume will also consider the problems in which one encounters more than one negative pivot [C12, C15, M2M4]. For the present, the solution algorithm will automatically stop if more than one negative pivot is encountered on the factorisation of the tangent stiffness matrix at the beginning of an increment. (The author recommends that, until more advanced pathfollowing techniques are available within commercial finite element codes, a similar approach should be adopted therein. It should, of course, be possible to override this requirement and, with the aid of restarts (Section 9.5.5) and manual intervention, the problems may be overcome but the user should, at the very least, be made aware that he is treading in dangerous waters.) More sophisticated predictors can be used instead of the forwardEuler predictor of (9.38) [R13]. However, den Heijer and Rheinboldt ID71 have argued that higher order predictions are very rarely effective. In order to avoid duplication, we will not give the precise details of the predictor solution for the arclength method at this stage but will wait until Section 9.6, when we have discussed the provision of automatic increments and automatic increment reduction. For the nonlinear analysis of skeletal space structures, Kondoh and Atluri [K5] have adjusted the incremental length, A!, to be no greater than the step required to initiate local buckling.
AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS
287
factor, AL. (The solution algorithms of Chapters 2 and 3 were all based on the use of fixed, equal, increments (as input by FACl = AL).) A number of procedures have been advocated for calculating a changing increment size [D7, S 1, B7, B9, C 1 1, R 1, R21. Den Heijer and Rheinboldt [D7] relate the increment size to the curvature of the nonlinear path, with the latter requiring both the tangential predictor and the difference between the displacement vectors at the current and previous load levels. This procedure has much in common with a technique advocated by Bergan and Soreide [B9]. Later, Bergan and coworkers [B6, B7, DS] advocated an approach based on the current stiffness parameter, which will be discussed in Section 9.5.2. Following numerical experiments, they observed [BSI that both techniques led to nearly the same number of iterations being required to restore equilibrium. The author (Cl 1 ) advocated a procedure whereby this was aimed at directly. T o this end, the new increment factor, A& was set to (9.40) where AA, is the old increment factor for which I , iterations were required and I , is the input, desired, number of iterations (Zd 2 3). The parameter n was set to unity. Ramm [Rl, R2] suggested that n should be set to and this approach has since been adopted by the author and will be used here. This technique leads to the provision of small increments when the response is most nonlinear and large increments when the response is most linear. This simple technique can very easily be extended to the arclength method so that instead of (9.40) with n = i, we would have (9.41) where A(, and ALo are incremental lengths (Section 9.3.2). As well as inputting the desired number of increments, the user should provide a maximum and, possibly, a minimum increment size. (Note, however, that the provision of too high a minimum increment size can interfere with the incrementcutting procedure of Section 9.5.1.) The user of a nonlinear finite element computer program will (or should) usually have some idea of a suitable starting load increment so that once this is specified the technique of (9.40) (with the addition of maximum and minimum stepsizes) can lead to a fully automatic solution. However, the user will have little idea of an appropriate magnitude for a starting length increment, AI = d ( A p T A p ) . There are (at least) three possible solutions. The first is to apply a preliminary loadcontrolled step and from the output A / (this should be output even under load control) a suitable starting value can be estimated. Alternatively, the user may start by specifying a load increment AA. The incremental displacement vector, Ap, can then be computed from (9.38) and, via (9.39),a starting length increment, Al, can be obtained. This is one of the procedures adopted in the current computer program. A third, very useful, tactic is to apply standard load (or displacement) control for the early increments and only switch to arclength control once a limit point is approached. A procedure for automatically introducing such a switch is given in Section 9.5.2.
288
9.5.1
If convergence of the structural equilibrium iterations is not achieved within the specified number of iterations, a simple strategy is to cut the increment size. In the present computer program, we have introduced the simple algorithm A 1 . A ;Io or
An
A10
=Id
1 1
but
3 0.1 and
< 0.5
(9.42)
where p is the convergence factor of (2.30) and pd is the input, desired convergence factor (BETOK in the Fortran). Automatic increment cutting can be adopted in other situations [C6] such as the failure of the spherical or cylindrical arclength method to find real roots to the constraint equation [Cl 1, M2M4].
9.5.2 The current stiffness parameter and automatic switching to the arclength method
The current stiffness parameter [B6, B7, B8, B 101 is a very useful index to give some scalar measure of the degree of nonlinearity. In its unscaled form, it effectively measures the stiffness of the system as related to the tangential predictor, i.e. k = Aq/Ap, where Aq is the incremental applied load vector and Ap the resulting tangential displacements. However, because Aq and Ap are vectors, we must multiply the top and bottom by A p so that (9.43) where we have used Aq = A;Iqef and (9.38). For displacement control, instead of using the fixed load vector, qef in (9.43), we must use the effective fixed load vector as produced by the process of Section 2.2.5. To obtain the current stiffness parameter, C,, we simply scale the current kvalue by the initial kvalue, so that
c,= k .
ko
(9.44)
Bergan and coworkers [B6B8] advocated a technique for automatic incrementation whereby, instead of (9.40), they would place on the right handside of that equation, AC,,/Ac,, with ACSd as the desired change in current stiffness and ACso would be the previously achieved change. Many structures exhibit a response in which the structure softens as the load is applied (i.e. Figure 9.6(c)). In such situations, it is very useful to force the solution procedure to automatically switch from load (or displacement) control to arclength control as the limit point is reached (C, will be zero at the limit point). This can be achieved by introducing a value for the current stiffness parameter (say below which this switch is automatically introduced. Such a feature is included in the computer program to be described in Section 9.6.
c,)
AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS
289
A range of alternative or supplementary 'pathmeasuring parameters' has been advocated by Eriksson [E3]. 9.5.3
Nonproportional loading
Most of the solution procedures in this chapter have been based on the equilibrium relationship of (9.15) which implies a single loading (or displacing) vector, qef, is proportionally scaled via 3,. For many practical structural problems, this loading regime is too restrictive. For example, we often wish to apply the 'dead load' or 'selfweight' and then monotonically increase the live load. In other instances, a whole range of loading stages may be required [C18]. Fortunately, many such loading regimes can be applied by means of a series of loading sequences involving two loading vectors, one that will be scaled (the previous q e f )and one that will be fixed (qef).The external loading can then be represented by
qe
= Qef
+h e f
(9.45)
so that with these new definitions, the basic structure of the previous algorithms can be maintained. These modifications are not difficult to implement in a generalpurpose finite element system but, to avoid clouding the other issues, will be omitted from the present computer program.
9.5.4 Convergence criteria
In Section 2.4, we introduced a convergence criterion for the overall structural iterations that was effectively based on the magnitude of the Euclidean norm of outofbalance force vector, g. For the computer program to be given in Section 9.6, we will stick to this criterion. In the present section, we will briefly discuss some a1terna t ive criteria. Obvious alternatives involve the use of different norms such as 'the maximum norm'. Other alternatives involve some scaling so that, for example, in place of (2.30a) for load control, we could have (9.48) where S is a scaling matrix that could, for example, be used to ensure that, for a
290
problem involving rotational variables, all parameters had the same dimensions. In [C15], the author used S = C  , where C was the diagonal matrix containing the leading diagonal terms from the tangent stiffness matrix at the beginning of the increment. Instead of, or in addition to, forcebased convergence criteria, displacementbased criteria can be adopted so that, for example, we could have
IPPll
<PIIPIl
(9.49)
where dp are the iterative displacement changes and p the total displacements. As shown in [CS], the norm of the iterative displacement change can be very small while the outofbalance force norm is very large. Hence it is unwise to adopt a displacementbased criterion such as (9.49) on its own without supplementing it with some forcebased criterion. An apparently attractive alternative to force or displacement based convergence criteria is to use an energybased criterion of the form (9.50) There are various ways in which such a criterion could be introduced but the author believes they should be used with great caution. For example, suppose that, more specifically, we had
I6pTg,l = I  6PTK, 6Pl < BIPT%I
(9.51)
where the iterative change was 6p =  K, go. Equation (9.51 ) merely gives some measure of the stiffness of K,. Clearly as a limit point is approached, this can be small and yet the solution procedure may not have converged at all. (With a full NewtonRaphson iteration, away from equilibrium, K, may have no structural significance at all.) Alternatively, one could have (9.52) where we have introduced some of the notation of Section 9.1 on line searches. The criteria for dpTg, to be zero is merely the criterion for an exact line search. This can be achieved even by chance with a step length q = 1 and merely implies that a stationary energy position has been reached in the currmt iterntiue direction, 6p. This can, and frequently does, occur when the solutions is still a very long way from equilibrium. (A tentative thought; it appears that such energybased criteria are often used in dynamicssurely the same limitations apply.)
9.5.5 Restart facilities and the computation of the lowest eigenmode of K,
It almost goes without saying that a nonlinear finite element computer program should have restart facilities. Despite all efforts to introduce a fully robust system, there will be many occasions when it is necessary to restart using, say, a different iterative procedure. On some occasions, the author has found it necessary to retrack quite a few increments and restart with a tighter convergence tolerance in order to avoid eventual divergence. When even such measures fail, it is often extremely useful
291
at an equilibrium point beyond which no progress can be made, to compute and plot the lowest eigenmode of the system. The author has, in this way, discovered such diverse phenomena as (a) spurious mechanisms (b) errors in the computer program (c) errors in the input data [C6]. For the present computer program, we have included a very basic restart facility whereby (when using automatic increments), the solution can be restarted from the solution obtained at the end of the previous run. If one wishes to restart from an earlier position, one must firstly rerun the original problem with a reduced number of increments.
9.6
In this section, we will give both flowcharts and Fortran coding for the final complete computer program (apart from subroutine ACCELsee Section 9.8.2) which includes: line searches the spherical arclength method automatic increments automatic increment cutting the current stiffness parameter automatic switching to the arclength method acclerations to the mNR method (Section 9.8) restarts. Many of the subroutines have already been given. In particular, from Chapter 2, we require ELSTRUC BCON CROUT SOLVCR (2.2.4) (2.2.5) ( 2.2.6) (2.2.7)
Assuming that we are to use the general truss elements of Chapter 3 (rather than the shallow elements of Chapter 2, although these could be used), we also require from Chapter 3,
ELEMENT INPUT FORCE
(3.9.1) (3.9.2) (3.9.3) (9.2.2.1) (9.4.1.1) (9.4.1.1) (9.4.2.1) (9.6.I ) (9.6.2.1) (9.6.3.1)
From the present chapter we require SEARCH ARCLI QSOLV ITER LSLOOP INPUT2 NONLTD
292
SCALUP
NEXINC
ACCEL
where the last six routines have yet to be given. In Section 9.2.3.3, we gave a flowchart for the linesearch loop at the structural level. We did not then give the Fortran because this had to be related to the modified subroutine ITER which was altered in Section 9.4.2.1 to allow the introduction of the arclength method. We are now in a position to give the Fortran for LSLOOP. In relation to the flowchart of Section 9.2.3.3, the only significant change is the introduction of the outofbalance forces in the form g = qi  Rq,, (as in (9.15)) so that both qef (QFI) and 3, (FACT) are required.
9.6.1
C C C C C C C C C C C C
PERFORMS LINE SEARCH LOOP INPUTS TOTAL DISPS IN PT(NV), ITERATIVE CHANGE IN PBAR(NV) QFI =TOTAL EXTERNAL LOADING (UNFACTORED) G O = O L D O.B. FORCE VECTOR IBC=B.CON COUNTER, FI FOR INTERNAL FORCE VECT., = 2 USES MOD NR IF ITERTY (INPUT)=l USES FULLY NR, FACT=TOTAL LOAD FACTOR LEVEL ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DATA2/AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ILFAIL EXITS WITH ZERO IF O.K, 1 IF UPHILL (ABANDON L.S.) WITH 2 IF L.S. PROBLEMS (CUT INC IF IAUTO = 1 ) IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) COMMON /DAT/ X(2),Z(2),E,ARA,AL,ID14S(4),AK14S(4),NDSP,ANIT,AKI5 COMMON /DAT2/ ARN,POISS,ALN,ITYEL COMMON /DATLS/ N LSMX,PERM LS,AMPMX,ETMXA, ETM NA,G0(5) COMMON /AUTOINC/IAUTO,ITE,NITMAX,BET DIMENSION PT(NV),QFI(NV),IBC(NV) DIMENSION FI(NV),PBAR(NV),AKTS(NV,NV),AKTE(4,4),D(NV) DIM EN SION P R 00R ( 10) , ETA ( 10) , PTO ( 5)
C C C C
CHECK ON SIZE O F PRODR AND ETA IF (NLSMX.GT.8) STOP LSLOOP 1 PRODR AND ETA MUST BE OF DIM. GE. NLSMX+2 COMPUTE INNER PRODUCT AT START AND STOP IF POS. (UPHILL) SO = O.DO ILFAIL = 0 DO 10 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) SO=SO+ PBAR(I)*GO(I) CONTINUE IF (SO.GE.O.DO) THEN
THE UPDATED COMPUTER PROGRAM ILFAIL = 1 WRITE (IWR,1001) SO 1001 FORMAT(/,lX,'RETURNS BECAUSE START INNERPRODUCT UPHILL=',G13.5) RETURN ENDIF C C
293
C C C C C
PREPARE STARTING PRODUCT RATIOS, PRODR AND STEP LENGTHS, ETA PRODT( 1) = 1.DO ETA(1) =O.DO ETA(2) = 1.DO ICO=O ABOVE COUNTER WILL BECOME 1 WHEN MAX OR MIN SLENGTH IS REACHED OR 2 WHEN REACHED TWICE RUNNING GET FIXED TOTAL DISPS AT END OF LAST ITER IN PTO NOTE, FIXED ITER. DlSP CHANGE IN PBAR DO 20 I = 1,NV PTO(I)=O.DO IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN PTO(I) = PT(I)PBAR(I ENDIF 20 CONTINUE BEGIN LINESEARCH OOP DO 100 ILS= 1,NLSMX
C C C
IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1005) ILS 1005 FORMAT(/,lX,'LINESEARCH LOOP WITH ILS =',E) BELOW CALCS FORCE IN BAR (AN) C CALL FORCE(AN,ANIT,E,ARA,AL,X,Z,PT,IWRIT,IWR, 1 ITYEL,ARN,ALN,POISS) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C C ABOVE CALCS FORCE IN BAR, AN: BELOW INT. FORCE VECT, FI C CALL ELEMENT(FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL,lWRlT,lWR,l , 1 ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ABOVE ARGUMENTS NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS C C BELOW MODIFIES INT. FORCE VECT. FI FOR SPRING EFFECTS C CALL ELSTRUC (AKTE,AKTS,NV,AK 15,1D 14S,AK 14S,N DSP,FI,PT, 1 1,IWRIT,IWR) C C BELOW FORMS CURRENT INNERPROD RATIO SETA = O.DO D O 30 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) SETA= SETA PBAR(I)*(FI(I)FACT*QFI(I) ) 30 CONTINUE SETA = SETAISO PRODR(ILS 1) = SETA 67 FORMAT(6G 13.5)
294
47 FORMAT(5IS)
C C C C C
BELOW CHECKS FOR SATISFACTION OF LS TOLERANCE IF (ABS(SETA).LT.PERMLS) GO TO 300 CALL LS ROUTINE TO GET NEW ESTIMATE ETA IN ETA(ILS+2) CALL SEARCH(ILS,PRODR,ETA,AMPMX,ETMXA,ETMNA,IWRIT,IWR,ICO,NLSMS+2) IF (IC0.EQ.2) GO TO 110 GET CURRENT DISPS. DO 40 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN PT( I) = PTO(I) ETA(ILS 2)*PBAR(I) NDIF 40 CONTINUE
C 100 CONTINUE C WRITE (IWR,1002) 1002 FORMAT(/,l X,'MAX N O OF LSEARCHES EXCEEDED') 110 CONTINUE IF (IAUTO.EQ.0) THEN STOP 'LSLOOP 1002' ELSEIF (IAUTO.EQ.1) THEN ILFAIL = 2 RETURN ENDIF C 300 CONTINUE IF (ILS,GT.I) WRITE (IWR,1003) ILSl,ETA(ILS+ 1 ) 1003 FORMAT(/,1X,'LS, EXTRA RES. CALCS = ',l5,' SL = ',G 13.4) SLOL=ETA(ILS+ 1) BEFORE RETURNING TO ITER MUST COMPUTE TANGET STIFF IF C USING FULL NR ITERATION C IF (ITERTY.EQ.1) THEN CALL ELEMENT ( F I,AKTE ,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL, IWRIT,IW R ,2, ITYEL,ALN,ARN) 1 CALL ELSTRUC( AKTE,AKTS,NV,AKl5,ID14S,AK 14S,NDSP ,FI,PT, 1 2,IW R IT,IW R) ENDIF RETURN END
The final steplength, q, is output as =SLOL so that it can be used with the accelerated modified NewtonRaphson method (Section 9.8).
9.6.2
In the computer programs of Chapters 2 and 3, the incremental/iterative control parameters were input into the main program module, NONLTC (Section 2.5.1).
295
Because the present nonlinear control is more complex, we now introduce a separate subroutine. This subroutine, INPUT2, which is given in Section 9.6.2.1, is almost selfexplanatory (particularly when read in conjunction with the examples of Section 9.9). Nonetheless, we will here give some brief notes relating to the various input cards in that routine. Card 1 In the first card, the factor, is the initial value of A i . If the arclength method is to be adopted (IARC = 1) and the desired length, Aid, for the first increment on Card 6 is input as zero, A i = FACl is automatically converted to a length. NlNC is the desired number of increments (if the increment is cut, it will count as two increments). IWRlT Write control for extra information, 0 is off, 1 is on. IAUTO If the parameter IAUTO is set to unity, automatic increment sizes are computed. Such automatic increments must be used with the arclength method. If IAUTO is set to zero, equal increments of magnitude A i = FACl are adopted as in Chapters 2 and 3. is set to zero for load (or displacement control) and 1 for arclength control. IARC To start with load control and later switch (Section 9.5.2) IARC is input as 0. is usually set to zero but to I if the acceleration method of Section 9.8 is to IACC be used with the mN R method (not for arclength method). is set to zero for a standard solution and to I if the present solution is to IRES be restarted from an earlier solution (see Section 9.5.5). Whenever IAUTO is set to I , the program will, following the last increment, output an unformatted restart file RESOUT. In order to restart using this information, the file RESOUT must be copied to a file RESIN, which will be input if IRES is set to 1 . Whenever IAUTO = 1, the main (formatted) output will contain, at the end, the parameters that the automatic incrementing routine, NEXINC (see Section 9.6.5) would use for the next increment. In particular, these include some of the parameters required on Cards 3 and 4 below.
FAC I
to zero if no linesearches are required). Card 3 This card relates to the line searches and inputs the parameters discussed in Section 9.2.3.1. Note that, at present, line searches cannot be applied with the arclength method. (This facility will be introduced in Volumes 2.) Curd 4 This card relates to automatic increments (Section 9.5) and requires
I,,
AAmin,ISWCH.
296
(Note that the provision of too high a A i m i ncan interfere with the automatic increment cutting procedure.) With ISWCH = I , the algorithm will automatically switch to the arclength method using the procedure of Section 9.5.2, which requires Card 5. Card 5 The desired current stiffness parameter for switching
(cs).
Curd 6 If the arclength method is to be applied from the very start (IARC = l), this card requires
where AId is the desired length for the first increment and the other two factors are selfexplanatory. (Note that the provision of too high a Almincan interfere with the automatic increment cutting procedure.) If the parameters on this card are set to zero, the program will use the load parameters of Cards 1 and 4 to compute appropriate AI quantities.
Curd 7 This card relates to the cutouts required for the accelerated modified NewtonRaphson method (Section 9.8.1) which is activated if IACC (card 1 ) is set to unity.
I
C C
C C C C
297
C
READ ( IRE,*) B E T 0 K,ITERTY,N ITMAX, N LSMX WRITE (IWR, 1003) BETOK, ITERTY, NITMAX, NLSMX 1003 FORMAT(/,lX,'CONV. TOL FACTOR, BETOK = ',G 13.5,/, 1 lX,'ITERATIVE SOLN. TYPE, ITERTY = ',l5,/, 2 5X,'= 1 , FULL NR; =2, MOD. NRI,/, 3 1X,'MAX N O OF ITERATIONS = 3,/, 4 IX,'MAX NO. OF LSEARCHES=',15) C IF (ITERTY. EQ.l).OR.(IARC.EO.l)) THEN IF(IACC,EQ.l) STOP 'INPUT2 1009' NO ACCN. WITH FULL NR OR WITH ARCL ENDIF BELOW SPECIFIC TO LINE SEARCHES IF (NLSMX.NE.0) THEN READ (IRE,*) PERMLS,AMPMX,ETMXA,ETMNA WRITE ( I W R, 1009) PERM LS,AM P M X,ETMXA,ETM N A 1009 FORMAT(/,lX,'LINE SEARCH PARMS ARE',/, 1 3X,'TOLERANCE O N RATIO, PERMLS = ',G13.4,/, 2 3X,'MAX. AMP. AT ANY STEP, AMPMX = ',G 13.4,/, 3 3X,'MAX. TOTAL STEPLENGTH, ETMXA = ',G13.4,/, 4 3X,'MIN. TOTAL STEPLENGTH, ETMNA = ',G13.4) ENDIF BELOW SPECIFIC TO AUTOMATIC INCS. IF (IAUTO.EQ.1) THEN READ (IRE,*) IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH WRITE ( IW R,1008) IDES,FACMX,FAC M NIISWC H 1008 FORMAT(/,l X,'DATA FOR AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS',/, 1 lX,'DESIRED NO. OF ITERATIONS =',l5,/, 2 lX,'MAX. LOAD INC.= 'G13.4,/, 3 IX,'MIN. LOAD INC.= ',G13.4,/, 4 IX,'PARAM FOR ARCL, lSWCH= ',l5,/, 5 3X,'=O NO SWITCH, = 1 SWITCH') IF (ISWCH.EQ.1) THEN READ (IRE,*) CSTIFS WRITE (IWR,1004) CSTIFS 1004 FORMAT(/,lX,'SWITCHES TO ARCL WHEN CSTIF.LE.CSTIFS=',G13.4) ENDIF ENDIF BELOW SPECIFIC TO ARCL METHOD IF (IARC E Q . l ) THEN READ (IRE,*) DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN WRITE (IW R, 1005) D LDES,D L D MX,D LDMN
C C C
C C
C C
298
1005 FORMAT(/,lX,'FOR ARCLENGTH CONTROL',/, 1 3X,'DESIRED LENGTH INC., DLDES= ',G13.4,/, 2 3X,'MAX. LENGTH INC., DLMX=',G13.4,/, 3 3X,'MIN. LENGTH INC., DLMN =',G13.4,/,5>(. 4 'NOTE**, IF DLDES = DLMX= DLMN =O., USES LOAD INC FACT FOR 1ST INC') CHECKS NOT USING MOD NR WITH DISP. CONTROL C IDSP=O DO 10 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).LT.O) IDSP = 1 10 CONTINUE IF (IDSP.EQ.l .AND.ITERTY.EQ.2) THEN WRITE (IWR,lIOO) 1100 FORMAT(/,lX,'**STOPS,CANNOT HAVE PRESC DlSPS ARCL MOD. N.R') STOP 'INPUT2 1100' ENDIF ENDIF C BELOW SPECIFIC TO ACCELERATION C IF (IACC.EQ.1) THEN READ (IRE,*) RlC,R2C WRITE (IWR,1110) RlC,R2C 1110 FORMAT(/,lX,'CUTOFF PARAMS FOR ACCN. ARE',/, 1 'RlC=',G13.4,' R2C=',G13.4) ENDIF C RETURN END
9.6.3 Flowchart and Fortran subroutine for the main program Module NONLTD
The main program module NONLTD is a modification of the module NONLTC given in Section 2.5. A flowchart is given in Figure 9.14, while the Fortran is given in Section 9.6.3.1. Call INPUT to obtain the geometry, properties, fixed loading, qef (QFI) the bound. cond. counter, IBC and spring stiffness parameters
f i
If IRES = 1, readin unformatted restart file, RESIN
299
I
.~
1
Call ELEMENT which gives K, = fn.(N,z,EA,l,p) for the truss el. Call ELSTRUC which puts the el. stiff. matrix into the struct. stiff. matrix and modifies for earthed (and other) linear springs Call BCON which applies the boundary conditions. Call CROUT which computes K, = LDLT. Call SOLVCR which computes Gp,(DT) = K, 'qef Compute stiffness, k and current stiff, C, = k / k , NEG = no. of neg. pivs. and A1 = ()6pt )I (STOPS if NEG > 1) Call SCALUP which computes AA,Al, updates A and p Call ITER which iterates to equilibrium
I
If IAUTO = 1, output unformated file RESOUT and data useful for restart
300
PROGRAM NONLTD C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C THIS VERSION INCLUDES FULL AUTOINCS, LINESEARCHES, ARCL AND AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS (WITH INC. CUTTING) PERFORMS NONLIN. INCREMENTAL/ITERATIVE SOLN. FOR TRUSS NV= NO. OF VARIABLES (4 OR 5) QFI = FIXED LOAD VECTOR IBC=B. COND. COUNTER (0= FREE, 1 =FIXED) Z = Z COORDS OF NODES PT = TOTAL DISP. VECTOR PTOL=TOTAL DlSP VECTOR AT END OF LAST INC DT=TANGENT DlSP VECTOR FROM TOTAL LOAD (QFI) GO=OLD O.B. FORCE VECTOR (FOR LSEARCHES) AKTS = STR. TAN. STIFF. MATRIX AKTE = ELE. TAN. STIFF. MATRIX FI = INTERNAL FORCES D = DIAGONAL PIVOTS FROM LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION ID14S=VAR. NOS. (14) AT WHICH LINEAR EARTHED SPRINGS AK14S= EQUIV. LINEAR SPRING STIFFNESS AK15=LIN SPRING STIFF. BETWEEN VARBS. 1 AND 5 (IF NV=5) GM =WILL BE OUTOFBALANCE FORCES (IN SIR ITER) REAC = REACTIONS X = X COORDS FACT= TOTAL LOAD FACTOR, FACl= INC. LOAD FACTOR DL= INCREMENTAL LENGTH (DLDES = DESIRED VALUE) ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DATZ/ AND ARRAY X NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/DATLS/ FOR LSEARCHES ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/AUTOINC/ FOR AUTOINCS. ARGUMENTS IN COMMON/ACEL/ FOR ACCELERATED MOD NR. IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) COMMON /DAT/ X(2),Z(2),E,ARA,AL,IDI 4S(4),AK14S(4),NDSP,ANIT,AK15 COMMON /DAT2/ ARN,POISS,ALN,ITYEL COMMON /DATLS/ NLSMX,PERMLS,AMPMX,ETMXA,ETMNA,GO(5) COMMON /AUTOINC/ IAUTO,ITE,NITMAX,BET COMMON /ACEL/ DELO(5),GOO(5),1ACC,RlC,R2C DIMENSION QFl(5),IBC(5),DT(5),PT(5),AKTE(4,4) DIMENSION Fl(5),D(5),QEX(5),GM(5),AKTS(25),REAC(5) DIMENSION PTOL(5) C IRE=!? IWR=6 OPEN (UNIT=S,FILE= ) OPEN (UNIT=G,FILE= ) OPEN (UNIT= 17,FILE= RESIN,FORM = UNFORMATED) OPEN (UNIT= 18,FILE=RESOUT,FORM = UNFORMATED)
THE UPDATED COMPUTER PROGRAM C 1 2 C C CALL INPUT(E,ARA,AL,QFI,X,Z,ANIT,IBC,IRE,lWR,AKl4S,ID14S,NDSP, NV,AKl5, POISS,ITYEL) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS BELOW RELEVANT TO DEEP TRUSS BUT LEAVE FOR SHALLOW TRUSS AKN=AL ARN =ARA
301
C C
READS IN DATA FOR INC/ITERATIVE CONTROL CALL INPUT2(FACI,NINC,IARC,BETOK,ITERTY,IDES,FACMX,FACMN, 1 DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN,ISWCH.CSTIFS,IBC,NV,IRE,IWR,IWRIT,IRES) IF (IRES.EQ.0) THEN AN = ANlT FACT = O.DO DO 5 I = l , N V PT(I)=O.DO ELSEIF (IRES.EQ.l) THEN BELOW FOR RESTART FROM PREVIOUS RUN READ (17) AN,ALN.ARN,STIFI,FACT,PT CLOSE (UNIT = 17) ENDIF
C C DO 100 INC= 1,NINC WRITE (IWR,1001 ) INC FORMAT(//.l X,'INCREMENT NO. = ',E) DO 10 I = I , N V SAVE DISPS. PT IN PTOL PTOL(I) = PT(I) DT WILL BE TANGENTIAL DISPS DUE TO TOTAL LOAD QFI DT(I) =QFI(I) CONTINUE SAVE OLD FORCE FOR CUT INC AND OLD TOTAL LOAD LEVEL FACTOL = FACT ANOL=AN BELOW FORMS EL. TAN. STIFF MATRIX AKTE CALL ELEMENT (FI,AKTE,AN,X,Z,PT,E,ARA,AL,IWRIT,lWR,2, 1 ITYEL,ALN,ARN) ARGUMENTS IN LINE ABOVE NOT USED FOR SHALLOW TRUSS BELOW PUTS EL. STIFF. AKTE IN STRUCT. STIFF. AKTS AND ADDS EFFECT OF VARIOUS LINEAR SPRINGS CALL ELSTRUCT(AKTE,AKTS,NV,AK15,ID14S,AK14S,NDSP,FI,PT, 1 2,IWRIT.IWR)
1001 C C 10 C
C C
C C C
302 C C
MORE ADVANCED SOLUTION PROCEDURES BELOW PUTS EFFECTIVE TANGENT LOAD VECTOR, DT IN GM (FOR CUR STIFF) DO 15 I = l , N V 15 GM(I) =DT(I) CALL CROUT(AKTS,D,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE FORMS LDL(TRAN) FACTORISATION INTO AKTS AND D CALL SOLVCR(AKTS,D,DT,NV,IWRIT,IWR) ABOVE SOLVES EQNS. AND GETS TAN. DISPS IN DT (FOR UNSCALED LD) BELOW COMPUTES NO OF NEG PIVOTS AND PARAMS FOR CURRENT STIFF PARAM AND LENGTH INCS. STIFT = O.DO NEG=O DL =O.DO DO 20 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN STlFT=STlFT+ DT(I)*GM(I) DL = DL DT(I)*DT(I) IF (D(I).LT.O) NEG = NEGI ENDlF CONTINUE
C C C C C C
20 C C C
BELOW COMPUTES STIFFNESS, STlF AND CSTIF = RATIO OF VERY FIRST STIFFNESS STlF = STIFT/DL IF (INC.EQ.1.AND.IRES.EQ.O)STlFl =STlF CSTIF = STIF/STIFI DL = DSQRT(DL) WRITE (IWR,1010) CSTIF,NEG X, 1010 FORMAT(/,lX,CURRENT STIFF. FACTOR = ,G13.4,1 NO. OF NEG. PIVS.= ,l5) 1 IF (NEG.GT.l) THEN WRITE (IWR,1002) 1002 FORMAT(/,STOP BECAUSE NO OF NEG PIVS. GT. 1) STOP NONLTC 1002 ENDlF
C
1
C C
C IF (IARC.EQ.l) WRITE (IWR,1003) FACT FORMAT(/,lX, TOTAL LOAD FACTOR AFTER ARCL ADJUST= ,G13.4) WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/,lX, FINAL TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS ARE,/,lX,6G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1006) (REAC(I),I= 1 ,NV)
1003
THE UPDATED COMPUTER PROGRAM 1006 FORMAT(/,lX,'FINAL REACTIONS ARE',/,lX5G12.5) WRITE (IWR,1005) AN 1005 FORMAT(/,lX,'AXIALFORCE IN BAR IS',G12.5) BELOW COMPUTES INC. FACTORS FOR NEXT INCREMENT IF (IAUTO.EQ.1) THEN CALL NEXINC(IARC,ITE,NITMAX,FACI,FACMX,FACMN,DL,DLDES, 1DLDMX,DLDMN,BETOK,BET,PT,PTOL,AN,ANOL,NV,IDES,FACT,FACTOL) ENDIF
100
303
CONTINUE
IF (IAUTO.EQ.1) THEN WRITE (IWR,1007) FACI,FACMX,FACMN,DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN 1007 FORMAT(/,lX,'AT END OF RUN',/, 1 lX,'FACI= ',G13.4,'FACMX= ',G13.4,'FACMN= ',G13.4,/, 1X,'DLDES= ',G13.4,'DLDMX= ',G13.4,'DLDMN = ',G13.4) 2 WRITE RESTART TAPE WRITE (18) AN,ALN,ARN,STIFI,FACT,PT CLOSE (UNIT= 18) ENDIF
STOP 'NONLTC' END
9.6.4
This routine is called by program NONLTD (see last Section) following the computation of dp, = Kt'q,, in the array DT. Its main function is to compute A 2 and 61, and update and the displacements, p, following the predictor solution. The flow chart is given in Figure 9.15 and the Fortran in Section 9.6.4.1.
9.6.4.7 Fortran for routine SCALUP
1
SUBROUTINE SCALUP(IAUTO,IARC,NEG,FACI,FACT,DL,DLDES,PT,PTOL, DT,ISWCH,CSTIF,CSTIFS,NV,IWR,DLDMX,DLDMN) UPDATES TOTAL LOAD FACTOR, FACT VIA INC. FACTOR FACl AND OBTAINS INC LENGTH (POSSIBLY USING DESIRED VALUE) UPDATES TOTAL DISPS. IN PT IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) DIMENSION PT(NV),PTOL(NV),DT(NV)
IF (IAUTO.EQ.0) GO TO 100 BELOW AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS
C C C C
C C C C
can 1 switch
lAl=
1..
3, (FACT) = 3,
P = P O 1 + AA JP,
+ AA (FACI)
1001
IF ((IARC.EQ.0). AND. (CSTIF.LT.CSTIFS)) THEN IARC = 1 DLDES = D L DLDMX = !j.DO*DL DLDMN =0.01 DO*DL WRITE (IWR,1001) CSTIF,CSTIFS FORMAT(/,lX,'SWITCHED TO ARCL BECAUSE CSTlF = ',G13.4,/3X,
305
IF (IARC.EQ.0) THEN BELOW LOADCONTROL DL = FACI*DL ELSEIF (IARC.EQ.1) THEN BELOW ARCLENGTH CONTROL FIRSTLY SET UP LENGTHS IF NONE WERE GIVEN IF (DLDES.EQ.O.DO) THEN DLDES = FACI'DL DLDMX = 5.DO'DLDES DLDMN = 0.01'DLDES ENDIF COMPUTE INC LOAD FACTOR, FACl ASIGN = 1.DO IF (NEG.EQ.l) ASIGN= 1.DO IF (NEG.EQ.l) WRITE (IWR,1003) 1003 FORMAT(/,lX,'SWITCHING SIGN OF LOAD INCREMENT') FACl =ASIGN*(DLDES/DL) DL = DLDES ENDIF
CONTINUE FACT = FACT FACl WRITE (IWR,1002) FACT,FACI,DL 1002 FORMAT(/,lX, 'TOTAL LD FACTOR = ',G13.4,'INC FACTOR = ',G13.4, 1 'INC LENGTH = ',G13.4) DO 10 I = l , N V 10 PT(I) = PTOL(I) FACI*DT(I) WRITE (IWR,1004) (PT(I),I= 1,NV) 1004 FORMAT(/l X,'TOTAL DISPS.AFTER TANG.SOLN ARE',/,lX,7G 13.4) RETURN END 100
9.6.5
Subroutine NEXINC is called by the main module NONLTD (see Section 9.6.3) when IAUTO is unity in order to compute the parameters for the next increment. The routine implements the techniques discussed in Sections 9.5 and 9.5.1 and, in particular, equations (9.40)(9.42). The flowchart is given in Figure 9.16 and the Fortran in Section 9.6.5.1.
9.6.5.1 Fortran for subroutine NEXINC
1
SUBROUTINE NEXINC(IARC,ITE,NITMAX,FACI,FACMX,FACMN,DL,DLDES, DLDMX,DLDMN,BETOK,BET,PT,PTOL,AN,ANOL,NV,IDES,FACT,FACTOL) WITH AUTOMATIC INCREMENTS, COMPUTES FACTORS FOR NEXT INC
306
Did not converge Cut increment FAC = p / p d but (0.5 and)0.1 p = pol;N No,;AA = A  Aol # Aol = I
4
Did converge
_ A
FAC =
J() :
m
Id. control
arc1
C IMPLICIT DOUBLE PRECISION (AH,OZ) DIMENSION PT(NV),PTOL(NV) C C IF (ITE.GE.NITMAX) THEN DID NOT CONVERGE AT LAST INC, GET REDUCTION FACTOR, FAC FAC = BETOKIBET IF (FAC.GT.O.5DO) FAC =0.5DO IF (FAC.LT.O.1DO) FAC=0.1 DO RETURN DISPS AND FORCES TO VALUES BEFORE FAILED INC DO 30 I = l , N V PT(I) = PTOL(I) CONTINUE AN=ANOL FACI = FACTFACTOL FACT= FACTOL ELSE DID CONVERGE AT LAST INC., GET CHANGE FACTOR, FAC MAKE LARGE IF NO REAL ITERS O N LAST INC. FAC = 1OOO.DO IF (ITE.GT.l) THEN RlTER = ITE1 RIDES = IDES
30
C C
QUASINEWTON METHODS FAC = RIDES/RITER FAC = DSQRT( FAC) ENDIF ENDIF C C IF (IARC.EQ.0) THEN LOAD CONTROL FACl = FAC*FACI IF (FACI.GT.FACMX) FACl= FACMX IF (FACI.LT.FACMN) FACl= FACMN ELSEIF (IARC.EQ.l) THEN ARC LENGTH DLDES = FAC*DL IF (DLDES.GT.DLDMX) DLDES= DLDMX IF (DLDES.LT.DLDMN) DLDES = DLDMN ENDIF RETURN END
307
9.7
QUASINEWTON METHODS
In the fields of methametical programming and unconstrained optimisation, much work has been devoted to the development of quasiNewton solution procedures [F6, F7, L3, W6, B l l , B12, B13, D2, D3, D8, S4, G5] (also known as the variable metric method [D2]). A good review is given by Dennis and Moore [DS]. These quasiNewton methods resemble the NR technique but do not require the explicit reformation of the tangent stiffness matrix. Instead, the stiffness matrix, or its inverse (or its Cholesky factors [G4]) are continuously updated as the iterations proceed. One of the earliest applications of the quasiNewton method to finite elements involved linear analysis and was due to Fox and Stanton [FlO]. In order to explain the method, it is best to replace the previous 0 for old and n for newwith an iterative counter, i, so that in place of (9.6)the iterative update is (9.53) where, using a Newtonlike algorithm (as in (9.5)),
Spi =  K,: gi.
(9.54)
For a pure NewtonRaphson iteration K, in (9.54) would be the true tangent stiffness matrix computed from pi. With the quasiNewton methods, Ki, is instead an approximation that satisfies the quasiNewton equation:
q i  16pi= Ki_,yi
(9.55)
where
308
This equation is exactly satisfied for quadratic energy functions (linear structural analysis):
4 = +PTKP  q;fP
for which gi 1(Pi1)
(9.57)
:I:
1
= __
= Kpi
q e
(see (9.53)),
(9.58)
+ qi1)
= gi
+ yi = Kpi  Qe
= K*(pi
(The * multiplication sign has been used in the above to distinguish the following bracket from the 'function of' form.) Many formulae have been derived that produce Kis satisfying (9.55). One of the most successful is the rank2 BFGS update [F6, B12, S4] which can be written in the form
+ qi 16pi
 qe = gi 1
+ qi 1K 6pi
1.
(9.59)
(9.60) For the finite element method, the main difficulty with the quasiNewton methods relates to the banded nature of the finite element stiffness matrix. Conventional applications will destroy this banded nature (away from equilibrium). Fortunately, as shown by Matthies and Strang [Ml], an indirect form of solution can be adopted in which K i is not directly formed. (Mattheis and Strang's method is closely related to work in the mathematical programming literature by Buckley [B14], Nazareth [Nl] and Nocedal "21.) The method is used with an alternative, but equivalent, update to (9.60) whereby [M 1, B 1 11: KF = (I + w,vf)K~',(I + v , w ~= U:Ki_',Ui ) where (9.62) (9.63) and (9.64) It is not difficult to show that (9.61) satisfies (9.55). By substituting (9.55) into (9.64) one can show that a, is positive provided K, and K i p are positivedefinite. (Positivedefiniteness is a basic assumption with the BFGS method [F7, L31. For systems that are not necessarily positive definite (i.e. those beyond limit points as solved by the arclength method), it might be more appropriate to use a rank 1 update such as (9.61)
QUASINEWTON METHODS
309
that due to Davidon [D3] and Broyden [B13] or to Broyden as given by Dennis and Moore [Dslthe latter is unsymmetric and might therefore be appropriate for nonsymmetric systems such as those arising from nonassociative plasticity.) For positivedefinite systems, there are, in concept, no problems in taking the square root of ai in (9.63). Because (9.63) and (9.64) can be written in the more convenient form:
vi =  ( 1
with
+ a;'2qi ')gi
 gi
(9.66)
(9.67) In order to 'indirected' apply the quasiNewton technique, with i = 1, the iterative change of (9.54) and (9.61) is 6p1 =  KF 'g1 =  (I
(9.68)
which can be solved without directly computing K;', via (9.69) (9.70) and
6p' =  c , (v;cl)wl.
(9.71)
Having obtained 6pl, a linesearch would lead to q1 (which, with a slack line search, may well be unity) after which the procedure would continue with
+ v,wT)(I + v ~ w T ) ~ ,
(9.72)
which can again be solved indirectly without ever forming K,' or Kil. The main disadvantage of the method is the continued accumulation of more and more vectors that have to be stored. However, depending on the storage availability, one can discard old vectors and merely accumulate new ones. To avoid numerically dangerous updates, Matthies and Strang [M 13 recommend that the updates of (9.61) are omitted if an estimate of the increase in condition number of K  ' exceeds some tolerance, to1 ( N 105).From the work of Brodlie et al. [Bll], this leads to
where 1JvIIis the Euclidean norm of v and, for brevity, the subscript i on the vectors vi and wi in (9.63) (or (9.66)) and (9.62) have been omitted. Before leaving the quasiNewton methods, and moving to related iterative techniques, it is useful to derive a weaker form of the quasiNewton equation (9.55)
310
by multiplying both sides by g, and using (9.54), so that (9.74) ap;yi =  yli lap; lg,. In onedimension, this scalar relationship becomes the 'secant formula' illustrated in Figure 9.17. QuasiNewton methods have been applied to nonlinear finite elements by a number of workers [B3, P9, G2, H41.
9.8
In [C7, C9, C10, C13, C171, the author developed a range of 'faster modified NewtonRaphson iterations' or 'secantNewton techniques' which are closely related to the previous BFGS procedure. In particular, suppose we apply the technique of Section 9.7 but always discard all old updates except the current one. Hence, the iterative direction would from (9.54) and (9.61) take the form 6pi =  [I
+ wivfK0
'[I
+ viwf]gi
(9.75)
where KOis, say, the tangent stiffness matrix from the beginning of the increment so that if wi and vi were zero, we dould obtain the standard modified NewtonRaphson method. In these circumstances, it is easy to show that the iteration direction of Sp, of (9.54) can be written as
ap, = A ,a ;
+ Bq,
lap, 1
+ ca;,
(9.76) (9.77)
where
31 1
(9.79) (9.80)
The threevector iterative change in (9.76) can equally be derived from (9.54) and (9.60) with KO instead of K i  l . It is therefore directly derived from the BFGS quasiNewton formula and is a memoryless single cycle version of the Matthies and Strang BFGS procedure. It is also related to conjugategradientlike procedures by Shanno [S3] and others [B14, B15,Nl,N2]. A twovector update can be produced by making the approximation: (9.81) This leads to (9.82) where A is again given by (9.79) (with C from (9.78)) and by (9.83) (with A and C from (9.78) and (9.79)). The update of (9.82) is not directly derivable from the BFGS method but does satisfy the secant relationship of (9.74). Also, if KO in (9.77) is replaced by the identity matrix, then for a quadratic energy function, with exact line searches both of the updates of (9.76) and (9.82) correspond with the conjugategradient method. With KO as the tangent stiffness matrix at the beginning of the increment, the methods can be seen as forms of preconditioned conjugate gradient method [CS, C7, CS]. When seen in this light, they are closely related to the conjugateNewton method of Irons and Elsawaf [ I l l . It is work noting that numerical experiments [Cl 31 showed a good performance using only a singleparameter accelerator via (9.82), with A being taken from (9.79) and B being set to zero.
It has already been indicated in Section 9.7 that there are iterations for which it is better to avoid the quasiNewton update. These occasions also occur with the acceleration methods of Section 9.8 so that, in some circumstances, instead of using (9.76)or (9.82),one would use the standard modified Newton Raphson direction of
6pi = 66,
(9.84)
with 65, from (9.77). Purely on the basis of numerical experiments [CS], the author devised the cutout criteria whereby the accelerated iterations ((9.76) or (9.82)) are
312
or with (9.82),
(9.86a)
R,>>
iR2.
(9.86b)
Otherwise, the rnNR change of (9.84) is used instead. In the work of [CS], it was recommended that R , lies between 2 and 3 and R , between 0.3 and 1. Subsequent work suggested a higher cutoff with R , and for the present work, R , has been taken as 3.5 and R , as 0.3.
Yes
1
Figure 9.18 Flowchart for subroutine ACCEL.
313
C C
SET CUTOUT VALUES R l I = 1.DO/Rl C R2E =  0.5DO*R2C IF (ITE.EQ.l) GO TO 100 C BELOW REAL ACCN. BAS = 0.DO TOP =O.DO TOP2 = O.DO DO 10 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN BAS= BAS+ DELO(l)*(GO(l)GOO(1)) TOP =TOP DELO(I)*GO(I) TOP2= TOP2+ DPB(I)*(GO(l)GOO(1)) ENDIF 10 CONTl NUE IF (ABS(BAS).LT.O.D10) GO TO 100 C = TOP/BAS A = 1.DOC B =  C(A*TOP2/(SLOL*BAS)) IF (A.LT.RlI) GO TO 100 IF (A.GT.RlC) GO TO 100 RAT = B/A IF (RAT.LT.R2E) GO TO 100 IF (RAT.GT.R2C) GO To 100 DO 20 I = 1,NV IF (IBC(I).EQ.O) THEN DPB(I) =A*DPB(I) B*SLOL*DELO(I) ENDIF 20 CONTl NUE C END OF ACCN. UPDATE IF (IWRIT.EQ.1) WRITE (IWR,1007) A,B 1007 FORMAT(/,lX,'ACCN.WITH A = ',G13.4,' B = ',G13.4) C 100 CONTINUE STORE OLD VALUES C DO 30 I = l , N V IF (IBC(I).EQ.O)THEN
314
MORE ADVANCED SOLUTION PROCEDURES DELO(I) = DPB(I) GOO(1) = GO(I) ENDIF 30 CONTINUE RETURN END
9.9
In Section 3.10, we have already described a range of Benchmark tests for solution procedures for geometric nonlinearity that have been proposed by NAFEMS, the National Agency of Finite Elements cC1.2, D1.21. We have also applied the basic NewtonRaphson (NR) and modified NewtonRaphson (mNR) methods to these problems. To this end, we used the computer program of Chapter 2 in conjunction with the deeptruss routines of Section 3.9. This computer program only allowed fixed increments. In the present section, we will apply some of the more advanced solution procedures of this chapter to these same problems. In studying the results, it should be remembered that the solution algorithms have not been aimed specifically at these small problems but rather at more realistic largescaled problems. Hence, one cannot necessarily draw useful conclusions regarding the relative efficiency of the different methods from these small problems. Nonetheless, they should illustrate the main features. In addition, they provide valuable examples for checking ones understanding of the various techniques. If the reader has implemented the computer programs, he (or she) may find it very useful to follow the program through some of the examples using, say, an interactive debugger. He or she can, of course, experiment by trying different combinations of solution algorithm or, indeed, by solving different problems. Unless stated otherwise, the convergence criterion will be that of (2.30) with p = 0.001 while, if line searches are used the tolerance, PISof (9.11 ) will be set to 0.8. Also, the maximum number of iterations will be set to 21. 9.9.1 The problems
From Section 9.9.2 onwards, we will follow the convention whereby Section 9.9.x refers to the NAFEMS Example x. This procedure was followed in Section 3.10. It will be useful to return to the relevant subsection of Section 3.10 in order to recall the problems and their attributes. In order to avoid repetition, reference will be made to some of the figures (and tables) in that chapter. Figure 9.19 summarises the different tests and refers to relevant earlier work in the book. 9.9.2 Smallstrain, limitpoint example with one variable (Example 2.2) This example is illustrated in Figure 9.19(a) and was previously discussed in Section 3.10.2.2. Table 9.1 supplements that of Table 3.1 by including the effects of line searches and accelerations.
315
t/
P4
___)
4
I
P1
Figure 9.19 The range of examples: (a) Example 2 (see Figures 3.12(a), 3.13); (b) Example 3 (see Figures 3.12(a), 3.14); (c) Example 4 (see Figure 3.15); (d) Example 5 (Figures 3.12(b) 3.18); (e) Example 6 (Figures 3.12(b) 3.19); ( f ) Example 7 (see Figures 3.12(c) and 3.20).
316
Method
mNR mNR accn. mNR +l.s. NR NR 1.s
6
fail fail
2 2 2 1 1
3 2
3 2
3
1 1
3
2 2
12 4 12 3
3(3)
fail 17(7)
In the above table and for the rest of the chapter when giving results for a solution procedure with line searches, the figure in brackets will be the number of extra calculations of the outofbalance force vector, g, resulting from the use of the line searches. Hence in the above table, the addition of line searches to the mNR method allowed point 6 (Figure 3.13) to be reached via three iterations and three extra residual calculations. The following data is for the mNR method with line searches. 4 2 50000000. 1. 0. 0. ; NV, ITYE (rot eng.), ARA, POIS, ANlT 0. 2500. x coords. 0. 25. z coords. 0. 0. 0.  1.0 ; load of  1.0 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free 0 ; no earthed springs 1.9 6 0 0 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 2 21 6 ; BETOK,ITERTY(mNR),NITMAX,NLSMX 0.8 5.0 25. 0.01 PERMLS,AMPMX,ETMXA,ETMNA This problem could be successfully solved using either displacement control or the arclength method (effectivelythe same for this trivial problem with a single variable). 9.9.3 Hardening problem with one variable (Example 3)
For this problem, a linear spring, has been added (Figure 9.19(b))so that the response is continuously hardening although with a softer and then a stiffer region. On introducing the newer solution procedure, Table 3.2 becomes augmented to give Table 9.2. Data for the solution using the accelerated mNR method is given below: 4 2 50000000. 1 0. 0. ; NV, ITYE (rot. eng.), E, ARA, POIS, ANlT 0. 2500. x coords. 0. 25. z coords. 0. 0. 0.  1.0 ; load of  1 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free
317
Method
mNR mNR mNR NR
1
3 2 3 1
6
fail 9 3(1) 3
+ accn. + 1.s.
7(1) 2
3 6 2
This example can also be used to illustrate the use of automatic increments and automatic increment reduction. The following data relates to such a solution with the basic mNR method.
4 2 50000000. 1. 0. 0. 0. 2500. x coords.
; NV, ITYE (rot. eng.), E,ARA, POIS, ANlT
0. 25. z coords. 0. 0. 0.  1.0 ; load of  1 at variable 4 (vertical at node 2) 1 1 1 0 ; only variable 4 is free 1 one earthed spring 4 at variable 4 1.125 ; of magnitude 1.125 6. 30 0 1 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 2 10 0 ; BETOK,ITERTY NITMAX,NLSMX 3 8 0.5 0 ; IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH
(NITMAX) being set to 10 (see above data), the increments were automatically cut on
The results are plotted in Figure 9.20. With the maximum number of iterations two occasions (Figure 9.20).
9.9.4
The bifurcation problem (Figure 9.19(c)) has already been discussed in Sections 1.2, Section 2.6.3 and 3.10.4. In the present context, it is useful to apply the arclength method to this problem and to imagine that we did not know of the bifurcation. As a precursor to the arclength solution we might have applied a single load increment of 1000 which would give a length increment, A1 of 0.05. Suppose we then wished to start from the beginning with the arclength method with increments of A1 = 0.05. Appropriate data is given below.
318
Vertical displacement. p4
4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITYE(Engng.).E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 0.0 ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed LOAD vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 1 ; one earthed spring 4 ; at variable 4 1.5 ; of mag. 1.5 1.0 7 0 1 1 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 2 21 0 BETOK,ITERTY(mNR),NITMAX,NLSMX 3 1. 1. 0 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH 0.05 0.05 0.05 DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN
Because DLDES = Al,,, is specified as 0.05 on the last card, the load increment factors on the penultimate card are not used. The first increment would result in a 1value of 1 or, with the given loading, a load of 1000. Because AI,,, and Almi,, are also set to 0.05, the next increment would be of the same length, leading to A = 2 and then A = 3 and on the fourth increment 1= 4. At this stage, the critical buckling load of 3750 would have been passed and on factorising K, one negative pivot would be found. Hence the switching procedure in subroutine SCALUP (see Section 9.6.4) would reverse the sign for the next (fifth)increment leading to 1= 4  1 = 3 at which level K, would be positivedefinite so that the next increment would be positive. This
319
would continue with the solution oscillating about the critical buckling load. The reason for this behaviour has already been discussed in Section 9.4.3 and relates to a bifurcation point being mistaken for a limit point. It is worth observing from the solution to this problem that the current stiffness parameter (Section 9.5.2) does not respond at all to the bifurcation and remains at unity throughout the analysis. 9.9.5
Limit point with two variables
Problem 5 is illustrated in Figure 9.19(d) and has been discussed before in Section 3.10.5. Because it involves a limit point, it would seem a good example to illustrate the automatic switch to the arclength method. Appropriate data is given below: 4 2 50000000. 1 . 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITYE(Engng.).E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed LOAD vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 1 ; one earthed spring 4 ; at variable 4 1.5 ; of mag. 1.5 0.76 30 0 1 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 1 21 0 BETOK,ITERTY,NITMAX,NLSMX 3 1.0 0.1 1 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH 0.3 ; CSTIFS This data is designed to start under load control with a first increment of AA = 0.76 (leading to a load of 760), to apply automatic increments with a maximum factor of AA = 1 and a minimum of AA = 0.1. The solution should switch automatically (Section 9.5.2) to the arclength method once the current stiffness parameter reduces below 0.3. In order to record the solution, it is useful to plot an endon view of the solution in Figure 3.17, i.e. in the qlp4 plane (see Figure 3.12(b)). The results of the previous loadcontrolled solution (Section 3.10.5) are plotted as circles in Figure 9.21 and clearly indicate the branch switching. The triangles were obtained using the previous data and illustrate the success of the automatic switch to the arclength procedure on increment 4. The solution then proceeded without dificulty under arclength control until increment 26 (see Figure 9.21). At the following increment the solution switched to the secondary branch in the region Z on Figure 3.17 and then oscillated between points 26 and 27 (Figure 9.21). From the exact solutions CC1.21, we know of the second branch in this region and so, with this knowledge, the solution is at least believable although not desirable. Before giving a reason for this behaviour, we should explain how we continued on from point 26 (Figure 9.21) to obtain the correct solutions which are the squares in Figure 9.2 1. This was achieved by firstly rerunning the previous data but reducing the number of increments from 30 to 26. Hence the unformatted restart file, RESOUT was available for a restart from point 26. The data used to obtain the squares in Figure 9.21 is given below:
320
4T
3000
D
r
4
(8798,  17.5)
U 1 0
switch to arcI
2000
I
1000
 1000
1000
2OOo
3000 Deflection, p4
 1000
I
 2000
 3000
4000
I3
(27)
0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed LOAD vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 1 ; one earthed spring 4 ; at variable 4
321
1.5 ; of mag. 1.5 0.08583 10 0 I 1 0 1 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 I 21 0 BETOK,ITERTY,NITMAX,NLSMX 3 1.0 0.1 0 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH 10.0 10.0 0.5 DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN
This data forces the solution to start under arclength control with a length increment, AI of 10 and does not let the incremental length grow beyond this value. This increment compares with the value of AI = 370 that was used in going between the triangles 26 and 27 in Figure 9.21. As a result of this dramatic reduction in increment size, the squared points in Figure 9.21 were obtained (although off the graph, the seventh increment again introduced a branch switch). In explaining the strange behaviour associated with the previous branch switching, it is useful to return to the solutions in Figure 3. I5 which relate to the perfect system and to reconsider the explanation of these solutions that was originally given in Section 3.10.4 and is related to the system of Figure 3.12(b) or 9.19(d) (with z = 0). This explanation related the loaddeflection response OAC (or C) DEF (Figure 3.15) to the configurations in Figure 3.16. While the present analysis relates to an imperfect rather than a perfect system, the two are closely related (Figure 3.17). In relation to the current analysis, the low point in Figure 9.21 relates to point D in Figure 3.15 and the rising part to the line DEF. At point D in Figure 3.1 5, the configuration of the bar is as in Figure 3.16(iii) with point a now lying horizontally on the right of the pivot point b. The rising portion D E F in Figure 3.15 then involves further movement of the load point a to the right, thus reducing the compression in the bar and eventually taking it into tension. Movement downwards from point D, Figure 3.15 towards point G involves an unstable compression of the bar with the load point a now moving to the left. The differences between a small movement from D towards F and one towards G (Figure 3.15) are very minor in comparison with the total movements to reach that configuration. In particular, the movement p1 (Figure 9.19~) reach the configuration (iii) in Figure 3.16 is about 50000 or twice to the length of the bar. In these extreme circumstances, the two alternative solutions are, as far as the arclength method is concerned, very close together so that the method may converge on one or the other. In relation to Figure 3.18, which relates to the present imperfect system, the stable solution is towards point 5, while the unstable solution induces further compression towards point x. The solution with the triangle 27 in Figure 9.21 lies on the latter unstable equilibrium curve. Because it is unstable, a negative pivot was detected and hence the oscillation (Figure 9.21) between points 26 and 27. Clearly, the most sensible way to solve this problem is to use displacement control at the loading point. The following data relates to such a solution:
4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITYE(Engng),E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed Displ. vector
1
1
1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code
4 : at varbl. 4
322
1.5 ; of mag. 1.5 0.25 25 0 1 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 1 21 0 BETOK,ITERTY,NITMAX,NLSMX 3 0.25 0.05 0 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH This solution involves applying a first increment of Ap, = 250 and forcing subsequent displacement increments to be no larger. The results are plotted as the crosses in Figure 9.21.
9.9.6
This problem has previously been discussed in Section 3.10.6. In relation to the results for fixed loadincrements that were given in Table 3.4 and relate to Figure 3.19, the new solution procedures, such as line searches and accelerations, were not very successful. Successful solutions were obtained using the following data for a solution with automatic load increments and the mNR method with line searches although the increments became very small so that progress was very slow.
4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NVJTYE = Engng.,E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed LOAD Vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 2 ; Two earthed springs 1 4 ; At varbls. 1 and 4 2.0 1.5 ; of mag. 2.0 and 1.5 respectively 1.0 25 0 I 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 2 21 4 BETOK,ITERTY(mNR),NITMAX,NLSMX 0.8 5.0 25. 0.01 PERMLS,AMPMX,ETMXA,ETMNA 3 2.0 0.02 0 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH A solution was also obtained using the automatic switch to the arclength method via
4 2 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITYE = Engng.,E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; ?c coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 1000. 0. 0. 0. ; fixed LOAD Vector 0 1 1 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 2 ; Two earthed springs 1 4 ; At varbls. 1 and 4 2.0 1.5 ; of mag. 2.0 and 1.5 respectively 1.0 60 0 1 0 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 1 21 0 BETOK,ITERTY,NITMAX,NLSMX 3 2.0 0.02 I IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH 0.3 ; CSTIFS 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN
323
However, as with the previous example (9.9.5), branchswitching and oscillation occurred in the very late stages when the bar was almost fully inverted. Again, as with the previous example, the difficulties could be overcome via displacement control.
5 1 50000000. 1. 0.0 0.0 ; NV,ITY E = (Engng.),E,ARA,POIS,ANIT 0. 2500. ; x coords. 0. 25. ; z coords. 0. 0. 0. 0. 100. Fixed LOAD Vector, loading at variable 5 0 1 1 0 0 ; Bdry.condn. code 2 ; Two earthed springs 1 4 ; At varbls. 1 and 4 0.25 1.5 ; of mag 0.25 and 1.5 respectively 1.0 ; linear spring of stiff 1.0 between variables 1 and 5
400C
3000
2000
1000
J 0
1000
2000
3000
324
1.0 100 0 1 1 0 0 ; FACI,NINC,IWRIT,IAUTO,IARC,IACC,IRES 0.001 1 12 0 ; BETOK,ITERTY(NR),NITMAX,NLSMX 3 1. 1. 0 IDES,FACMX,FACMN,ISWCH 700. 3500. 10. ; DLDES,DLDMX,DLDMN
A preliminary analysis had indicated that an appropriate starting length increment would be AI = 700 which give a load change, Aqs of about 700 and a shortening, Aps also of about 700. The solution in Figure 9.22 shows some very small increments. As indicated in the data above, a total of one hundred increments were used.
9.10
Inevitably, a whole range of work on solution procedures has so far been omitted from this chapter. Papers with significant reviews on the subject can be found in [W2,C4, R7, R11, R12, Fl,C8,C17]. In this last section, we will now attempt to mention at least some of the work. Extensions will be given in Volume 2. In Section 9.3, we discussed the arclength and some related methods. A further related method, advocated by Bathe and Dvorkin [B2] uses, as a constraint, the constant increment of external work. With this approach, the predictor solution would (see also (9.38)) be governed by
A W = (3, iAAp)q:fApp
= AAp(3,
+ $AAP)q:$pt
(9.87)
where 2 is the loadlevel parameter at the end of the last increment and the work A W takes the place of the arc length, Al. For subsequent iterations, the iterative external work is set to zero via (see (9.23))
where A, is the old (at the end of the previous iteration) value of A. As with the spherical arclength method, (9.88) leads to a quadratic equation with two roots for the loadlevel change, 83, (compare (9.26) and (9.27)). In contrast to the arclength method, these roots will always be real. Consequently, some workers [BSI have advocated switching to the work procedure when no real roots are obtained with the arclength method. With the previous computer implementation of the arclength method, we have, in these circumstances, simply cut the length increment, Al. Bergan [B6] has advocated an approach involving the minimisation of the outofbalance force norm. Neither the author [CS] nor Clarke and Hancock [C4] found this method to be very successful when applied on its own. Eriksson [El] has recommended a procedure whereby the iterative change is decomposed to include separately a component involving the lowest eigenmode (see also [J2]). Near limit points, this component is damped. In earlier sections, we have separately discussed the arclength methods, line searches, quasiNewton and secantNewton methods. Clearly these procedures can be combined and the combination of arclength and acceleration techniques has been considered by the author [CS,Cl 1). A difficulty relates to the line searches which have to be enforced at a variable load level and may or may not be up hill [C16, C191. Much further work is required.
325
A further set of solution procedures can be derived from socalled homotopy of relaxation equations whereby the equilibrium equations g(p) = 0 (here assuming the load level R is fixed) are embedded in an extended equation of the form
where t can be considered as a pseudotime and as t ,CO, one obtains the desired solution g(p) = 0. These methods (said to be due to Davidenko [Dl]) have been much applied in both the mathematical [AI, G1, K3] and structural [P6, F2, F4] literatures. They have often been used with arclengthtype constraints and then have much in common with the previous continuation methods. A simplified variation of the method can be used to recover equilibrium from a state (related to a loading Aqef)at which g # 0 and from which standard methods fail to achieve convergence. The procedure is based on the observation that this solution is in equilibrium with a modified external loading, qef= iqef + g. Hence, we may restart the analysis procedure working with two load vectors following the lines of (9.49, so that
qe = Q e f )
+ P q e f ) = (h.f  Pg. + g)
(9.90)
In order to apply this loading qef is kept fixed while the new loading scalar, P, (usually written as A) is incremented fron zero to unity in order to recover an equilibrium During this process, the whole state related to the original intended loading (Asef). range of solution strategies can be adopted, including, for example, automatic incrementation and line searches. In this basic form, the process can only be applied with elastic materials. The homotopy methods obviously have some links with a range of structural methods derived from the dynamic analogy [01,D4, K8). One of these is the form of dynamic relaxation as originally proposed by Otter and Day [Ot, D4] which has been applied to both linar [C3] and nonlinear [F13] structural problems. In this form a diagonalised mass matrix is used and, in relation to the solution of linear equations, the method can be viewed [CS] as a secondorder Jacobi or Richardson process [Fl 11. Such a method is only one of a range of iterative methods (without a stiffness matrix) that can be used to solve both linear and nonlinear equations. Similar methods include conjugate gradients [H3, P10, F8, CS] and the Lanczos method [Ll,P8]. As for linear problems, a difficulty with such methods can be their slow convergence rates with badly conditioned problems (such as shells) and a range of preconditioning techniques have been used [K4, J1, H5, H6, C5, P17, P2, N5, Cl]. These preconditioning techniques can be viewed as providing an approximate, easily factorisable stiffness marix [CS]. For nonlinear structural problems, the iterative solution techniques can be embedded in an innerouter loop whereby the outer loop is a form of Newton procedure for the nonlinearities while the inner loop involves the iterative solution of the linear equations 4, P3, P4, P51. Because of the outer loop, the inner loop need not be solved accurately for the early outer iterations. We have already indicated the difficulties that the arclength method (and other methods) encounters with fiburcation points. There has been a mass of literature on
326
the basic theory and numerical procedures [K I , K3, P5,Tl T4, A4, D6, M5, Ul]. (The review by Ulrich [U 11 gives 1568 papers on numerical methods for continuation and bifurcation problems!) Techniques for their implementation in finite element codes have been given in [W7, W8, A3, R 10, R 1 I , R 12, K6] but, again, further work is required. A further set of techniques that should be mentioned are the perturbation and reduced basis techniques in which various methods are used to provide a reduced number of basis vectors with which the nonlinear analysis can work [C2, H I , A5,N3]. Clearly as the solution path is traced, these reduced basis vectors must be updated.
9.11
SPECIAL NOTATION
ui = scalar for quasiNewton update (see (9.64)) C, = current stiffness parameter (see (9.44))
I , = desired number of iterations I, = number of iterations for old (previous) increment KO= old fixed tangent stiffness matrix (Section 9.8) qef = fixed external load vector (usually to be incremented via a scalar A) ijef = fixed external load vector that will not be incremented (see (9.45)) qi = internal nodal forces r = line search ratio (see (9.1 I ) ) s = energy slope = t@/dq (Section 9.2) or arclength distance (Section 9.3) s,=satq=O vi = vector for quasiNewton update (see (9.63)) wi = vector for quasiNewton update (see (9.62)) f l = convergence tolerance (see (2.30)) ( j l s = linesearch tolerance (see (9.1 1)) Y = g,  go 6 p = iterative displacement change 6;. =  Kg. 6p, = tangential displacement change (see (9.23)) 6p = iterative displacement change AI = incremental arc length Ap = incremental displacement change (from last converged equilibrium state) 6A = iterative change in i , AA = incremental change in j. A = scalar loadlevel parameter q = step length for line search $ = scaling parameter for arclength constraint (see (9.19))
0 1
Subscripts
n = new o = old
REFERENCES
327
9.12 REFERENCES
[AI] Allgower, E. L., A survey of homotopy methods for smooth mappings, Lecture Notes in Mathc.mutic  Numerical Solution o/' Nonlincw Eyuutions, ed. E. L. Allgower et ui., SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 2 29 ( I98 I ) [A21 Allman, D. J., A n iterative method to locate minima of a function of several variables, Royal Aircraft Estab. Tech. Report 84038 ( 1 984). [A31 Allman, D. J., Calculation of the stable equilibrium paths of discrete conservative systems with singular points, Royal Aircraft Estab. Tech. Report 86053, (1986); also Computers & Structures, 32, I045 1054 ( 1989). [A41 Allman, D. J., On the general theory of the stability of equilibrium of discrete conservative systems, Acvwzuutical Journui, 29 35 (January 1989). [AS] Almroth, B. O., Stern, P. & Brogan, F. A., Automated choice of global shape functions in structural analysis. A I A A J., 16, 525528 (1978). [Bl] Bartholomew, P., A simple iterative method for the minimisation of an unconstrained function of many variables, Royal Aircraft Estab., Tech. Memo MAT/STR 1021, Farnborough, Hants. (1983). [B2] Bathe, K.J. & Dvorkin, E. N., On the automatic solution of nonlinear finite element equations, Computers & Structures, 17, 871 879 (1983). [B3] Bathe, K.J. & Cimento, A. P., Some practical procedures for the solution of nonlinear finite element equations, Comp. Meth. Appl. M w h . & Engng., 22, 59 85 (1980)(BFGS). [B4] Batoz, J. L. & Dhatt, G., Incremental displacement algorithms for nonlinear problems, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 14, 1262 1266 (1979). (General disp. control.) [BSI Belleni, P. X. & Chulya, A., A n improved automatic incremental algoithm for the efficient solution of nonlinear finite element equations, Computers & Structures, 26, 99.110 (1987). [B6] Bergan, P. G., Solution algorithms for nonlinear structural problems, Engineering Applicutions o f t h e Finite Element Method, Computus, 13.I 13.39 (1979); also Computer & Structures, 12, 497 509 (1980). [B7] Bergan, P. G. & Soreide, T., Solution of large displacement and instability problems using the current stiffness parameter, Finite Elements in Noniincwr Mechanics, Tapir Press, 647669 ( 1978). Horrigmoe, G., Krakeland, B. & Soreide, T. H., Solution techniques for [BSI Bergan, P. G., nonlinear finite element problems, Int. J . Num. Meth. Enqng., 12, 1677 1696 (1978). [B9] Bergan, P. < & Soreide, T., A comparative study of different numerical techniques as . ; . applied to a nonlinear structural problem, Comp. Meth. Appl. M c ~ h & Engng., 2, 185201 (1973). [BlO] Bergan, P. G. & Mollestad, E., Static and dynamic solution strategies in nonlinear analysis, Numericul Methods j b r Nonlincw Problems, Vol. 2.. ed. C. Taylor et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 3 I7 ( I 984). [ S l l ] Brodlie, K. W., Gourlay, A. R. & Greenstadt, J., Rankone and ranktwo corrections to positive definite matrices expressed in product form, J . Inst. Muth. Appl., 11, 73 82 (1 973). [B12] Broyden. C. G., The convergence of a doublerank minimisation 2: the new algorithm, J . Inst. Muth. Appl., 6, 222 231 (1970) (BFGS). [Bl3] Broyden, C. G., QuasiNewton methods and their application to function minimisation, Muth. Comp., 21, 368 381 (1967) (rankone). [B14] Buckley, A. G., A combined conjugategradient quasiNewton minimisation algorithm, Muth. P rogrumm., 15, 200 2 10 ( 1 978). [Bl5] Buckley, A. & Lenir, A., QNlike variable storage conjugate gradients, Muth. P rogrumming, 27, I 55 175, ( 1 983). [C 1) Carey, G. '. & BoNan, J., Elementbyelement preconditioned conjugate gradient al gor i t h m fo r com press ib le fl o w, I n no cu t i w M c' t hods ,fiw N on iineu r Pro b iems, Pi n e r i d ge , Swansea, pp. 41 49 (1984). [C2] Carnoy. E., Postbuckling analysis of elastic structures by the finite element method, Comp. M e t h . Appl. Mech. & Engng.. 23, 143 174 ( 1980).
~~
328
[C3J Cassel, A. C., Shells of revolution under arbitrary loading and the use of ficititious densities in dynamic relaxation, Proc. Inst. Ciu. Eizyrs., 45, 6578 (1970). [C4] Clarke, M. J. & Hancock, G. J., A study of incrementaliterative strategies for nonlinear analysis, lnt. J . Num. Meth. Enyng., 29, 13651391 (1990). [CS] Crisfield, M. A., Finite Elements und Solution Procedures.for Structural Analysis, Vol 1: Linear Analysis, Pineridge Press, Swansea ( 1986). [C6] Crisfield, M. A. & Wills, J., Criteria for a reliable nonlinear finite element system, Reliuhility of Methods ,for Engineering Anulysis, ed. K. J. Bathe et ul., Pineridge press, Swansea, pp. 159 1 79 ( 1986). [C7] Crisfield, M. A., Incremental/iterative solution procedures for nonlinear structural analysis, Numericul Methods ,for Nonlinear Problems, Vol. I , ed. C. Taylor et al., Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 26 1 290 ( 1980). [CS] Crisfield, M. A., Solution procedures for nonlinear structural problems, Recent Aduances in Nonlineur Comput~itionulMechanics., ed. E. Hinton et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 140 ( 1 982). [C9] Crisfield, M. A., Iterative Solution Procedures for Linear and Nonlinear Structural Analysis, TRRL Report LR900, Transport & Road Res. Lab., Crowthorne, Berks., UK ( 1979). [ClO] Crisfield, M. A., A faster modified Newton Raphson iteration, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 20, 267278 (1979). [Cl 11 Crisfield, M. A., A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that handles snapthrough, Computers & Structures, 13, 5562 (1981). [Cl21 Crisfield, M. A. & Wills, J., Solution strategies and softening materials, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 66, 267289 (1988). [C 131 Crisfield, M. A., Accelerating and damping the modified NewtonRaphson method, Computers & Struct., 18, 395407 (1984). [Cl41 Crisfield, M. A., Snapthrough and snapback response in concrete structures and the dangers of underintegration, lnt. J . Num. Engng., 22, 75 1767 )1986). [Cl 51 Crisfield, M. A., Overcoming limit points with material softening and strain localisation, Numericul Methods ,for Nonlineur Problems, Vol. 2, ed. C. Taylor et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 244277 ( 1984). [C 16) Crisfield, M. A., Variable Steplengths for Nonlinear Structural Analysis, Transport and Road Res. Lab. Report LR 1049, Crowthorne, Berks., England (1982). [Cl71 Crisfield, M. A., New solution procedures for linear and nonlinear finite element analysis, T h e Muthematics ?f Finite Elements and Applications V, ed. J. Whiteman, Academic Press, pp. 4981 (1985). [ClS] Crisfield, M. A. & Wills, J., Numerical analysis of a halfscale beam and slab bridge deck, Proc. 2nd Int. Cot$ on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures, ed. N. Bicanic, Pineridge, Swansea, Vol. 1, pp. 365378 (1990). [Cl91 Crisfield, M. A., An arclength method including line searches and accelertions, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engny., 19, 1269 1289 (1983). [C20] Crisfield, M. A., Largedeflection Elastoplastic Buckling Analysis of Plates Using Finite Element, Transport & Road Res. Lab. Report LR593, Crowthorne, Berks., England ( 1973). CC211 Crisfield, M. A., Theoretical and Experimental Behaviour of a Lightly Stiffened Boxgirder Diaphragm, Transport & Road Res. Lab. Report LR96 1, Crowthrone, Berks., England (1 980). [C22] Crisfield, M. A., Accelerated solution techniques and concrete cracking, Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. & Enyng., 33, 585607 ( 1 982). [Dl] Davidenko, D. F., O n a new method of numerical solution of nonlinear equations, Dokl. A c ~ d N u u ~ S S S R , 88, 601 602 (1953). . . [D2] Davidon, W. C., Variable Metric Method for Minimisation, Argonne Nat. Lab. Report ANL5990 (1 959). [D3] Davidon, W. C., Variance algorithms for minimisation, Computer J . , 10, 406410 (1 968). [D4] Day, A. S., Introduction to dynamic relaxation, The Engineer, 219, 218221 (1965).
~
REFERENCES
329
[D5] De Borst, R., Computation of postbifurcation and postfailure behaviour of strainsoftening solids, Computors & Structures, 25, 2 1 I 224( I 987). [D6] Decker, D. W. & Keller, H. B., Path following near bifurcation, Comm. Pure A p p l . Mech., 34, 149175 (1981). [D7] Den Heijer, C. & Rheinboldt, W. C., O n steplength algorithms for a class of continuation methods, S I A M J . Num. Analysis, 18, 925 948 (1981). [D8] Dennis, J . E. & More, J., QuasiNewton methods, motivation and theory, S I A M Rev., 19, 46 89 ( 1977). [E 13 Eriksson, E., Using eigenvector projections to improve convergence in nonlinear finite element equilibrium iterations, 24, 49751 2 (1987). [E21 Eriksson, A., O n linear constraints for NewtonRaphson corrections and critical point searches in structural f.e. problems, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 28, 1317, 1334 (1989). [E31 Eriksson, E., O n some pathrelated measures for nonlinear structural f.e. problems, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 26, I79 1  I803 ( 1 988). [Fl] Felippa, C. A., Solution of nonlinear static equations, Chapter prepared for NorthHolland Series o n Comp. Meth. in Mechanics, Vol. on Large deflection and stability of structures, ed. K.J. Bathe, Dept. of Mech. Engng., MIT (1986). [F2] Felippa, C . A., Dynamic relaxation and quasiNewton methods, 2nd Int. Car$ on Numerical Meth. j i r Nonlinear Problems, Barcelona ( 1984). [F3] Felippa, C. A., Procedures for computer analysis of large nonlinear structural systems, Proc. Int. Symp. On Large Engng. Systems, ed. A. Wexler, Pergamon Press, pp. 6090 ( 1977). [F4] Felippa, C. A., Dynamic relaxation under general incremental control, Innovative methods for Nonlinear Problems, ed. W. K. Liu et al., Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 103 134 ( 1984). [F5] Fink, J. P. & Rheinboldt, W. C., A geometric framework for the numerical study of singular points, S I A M J . Num. Anal., 24, 618633 (1987). [F6] Fletcher, R., A New approach to variable metric algorithms, Computer J., 13, 317 322 ( 1970). [F7] Fletcher, R. Practical methods of optimisation, 2nd edition, Wiley, (1987). [F8] Fletcher, R. & Reeves, C. M., Function minimisation by conjugate gradients, Comp. J., 6, 149 I 54 (1 964). [F9] Forde. B. W. R. & Sttemer, S. F., Improved arc length orthogonality methods for nonlinear finite element analysis, Computers & Structures, 27, 625630 ( 1 987). [FlO] Fox, L. & Stanton, E., Developments in structural analysis of direct energy minimisation, A I A A J . , 6, 10361042 (1968). [FI 11 Frankel, S. P., Convergence rates of iterative treatments for partial differential equations, Maths. Tables Aids Comput., 4, 65 75 (1950). [FI 21 Fried, I., Orthogonal trajectory accession to the nonlinear equilibrium curve, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng. 47, 283298 (1984). [F13] Frieze, P. A., Hobbs, R. E. & Dolwing, P. J., Application of dynamic relaxation to elastoplastic analysis of plates, Computers & Structures, 8, 301 310 (1978). [Gl] Georg, K., Numerical integration of Davidenko equation, Lecture Notes in Mathematics Nurnericul Solution of Nonlinear Equations, ed. H. B. Keller, pp. 129161 (1981). [GZ] Geradin, M., Idelsohn, S. & Hogge, M., Computational strategies for the solution of large nonlinear problems via quasiNewton methods, Compututionul Methods in Nonlinrar Structurul and Solid Mechanics., ed. A. K. Noor et al., Pergamon, pp. 7382 ( 1980). [G3] Gierlinski, J. T. & GravesSmith, T. R., A variable load iteration procedure for thinwalled structures, Computcm & Structures, 21, 1085 1094 (1985). [G4] Gill, P. E. & Murray, W., Safeguarded Steplength Algorithms for Optimisations Using Descent Methods, National Physical Laboratory Report NAL 37 ( 1 974). [G5] Gill, P. E. & Murray, W., QuasiNewton methods for unconstrained optimisation, J . Inst. Muth. A p p l . , 9, 9 1  108 ( I 972). [HI] Haftka. R . T., Mallet, R. H., Nachbar, W. Adaption of Koiter's method to finite element
330
( I98 1 ).
[H2] Haselgrove, C. B., The solution of nonlinear equations and of differential equations with twopoint boundary conditions, Computer J., 255259 ( 1 961). [H3] Hestenes, M. & Steifel, E., Method of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems, J . Res. Nut. Bur. Stand., 49, 409436 (1952). [H4] Hinton, E., AbdalRahman, H. H. & Zienkiewicz, 0.C., Computational Models for Reinforced Concrete Slab Systems, IABSE Colloq. on advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Final Report, IABSE, Delft, pp. 303314 (1981). [H5] Hughes, T. J. R., Levit, I. & Winget, J., An elementbyelement algorithm for problems of structural and solid mechanics, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 36, 241254 ( 1 983). [H6] Hughes, T. J. R., Ferencz, R. M. & Hallquist, J. O., Largescale vectorised implicit calculations in solid mechanics on a CRAYXM P/48 utilising EBE preconditioned conjugate gradients, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyng., 61, 215248 (1987). [ I l l Irons, B. & Elsawaf, A., The conjugateNewton algorithm for solving finite element equations, Proc. USGerman Symp. o n Formulations und Algorithms in Finite Element Analysis, ed. K. J . Bathe et U / . , MIT, 656672 (1977). [Jl] Jennings, A., Development of an ICCG algorithm for large sparse systems, Preconditioning Techniques in Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations, ed. D. J. Evans, Gordon & Breach, New York, pp. 426438 (1983). [J2] Jeusette, J.P., Laschet, G., & Idelsohn, S., An effective incremental iterative method for static nonlinear structural analysis, Comp. & Struct., 32, 125135 (1989). [K 11 Kearfott, R. B., A derivative free arc continuation method and a bifurcation technique, Numerical Solution qf Nonlineur Equations, ed. E. L. Allgower et al., SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 183 198 (1 98 1). [K2] Keller, H. B., Global homotopies and Newton methods, Recent Advances in Numerical Analysis, ed. C. de Boor G. H. Golub, Academic Press, New York, pp. 7394, (1978). [K3] Keller, H. B., Numerkal solution of bifurcation and nonlinear eigenvalue problems, Applications of Bifurcation Theory, ed. P. Rabinowitz, Academic Press, pp. 359384 ( 1977). [K4] Kershaw, E., The incomplete Cholesky conjugate gradient method for iterative solution of systems of linear equations, J . Comp. Phys., 26, 4365 (1978). [KS] Kondoh, K., & Atluri, S., Influence of local buckling on global instability: simplified, large deformation, postbuckling analyses of plane trusses, Computers & Structures, 21, 6 13627 ( 1985). [K6] Kouhia, R. & Mikkola, M., Tracing the equilibrium path beyond simple critical points, lnt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 28, 29232941 ( 1 989). [K7] Kroplin, B., Dinkler, D. & Hillmann, J., An energy perturbation applied to nonlinear structural analysis, Comp. Meth. A p p l . M w h . & Engng., 52, 885897 (1985). [K8] Kroplin, B. H., A viscous approach to post buckling analysis, Engng. Struct., 3, 187 189 ( I 98 1). [K9] Kroplin, B., Dinkler, D. & Hillman, J., Global constraints in nonlinear solution strategies, Finite Element Methods ,jhr Nonlineur Problems, ed. P. G. Bergan et id., Springer, Berlin (1986). [KlO] Kroplin, B. & Dinkler, D., Global constraints applied to static instability problems, Numericul Methods j h r Nonlinear problems, ed. C . Taylor et al., Vol. 3, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 41 60 (1986). [Ll] Lanczos, C, Applied Anulysis, Prentice Hall, New York (1956). [L2] Luenberger, D. G., Linear and nonlinear programming, 2nd edn, AddisonWesley, Reading, Mass. ( 1 984). [Ml] Matthies, H. & Strang, G., The solution of nonlinear finite element equations, lnt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 14, 16131626 (1979). [M2] Meek, J. L. & Loganthan, S., Large displacement analysis of spaceframe structures, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engny., 72, 5775 (1989). [M3] Meek, J. L. & Loganathan, S., Geometrically nonlinear behaviour of space frame structures, Computers & Structures, 31, 35 45 (1989).
REFERENCES
331
[M3] Melhem, R. G. & Rheinboldt, W. C., A comparison of methods for determining turning points of nonlinear equations, Computing, 29, 201 226 (1982). [M4] Meek, J. L. & Tan, H. S., Geometrically nonlinear analysis of space frames by an incremental iterative technique, Cornp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 47,261 282, ( 1 984). [MS] Moore, G. The numerical treatment of nontriavial bifurcation points, Num. Funct. Anal & Optimiz., 2(6), 441472 (1980). [Nl] Nazareth, L., A relationship between the BFGS and conjugate gradient algorithms and its implications and its implications for new algorithms, S I A M J . Nurn. Analysis, 16, 794800 ( 1979). [N2] Nocedal, J., Updating quasinewton matrices with limited storage, Math. Computation, 35, 773 782 (1980). 31 Noor, A. E. & Peters, J . M., Tracing postlimitpoint paths with reduced basis techniques, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Engng., 28, 2 17240 ( 1 98 1). 41 NourOmid, B., Parlett, B. N. & Taylor, R. L., A NewtonLanczos method for solution of nonlinear finite element equations, Computers & Structures, 16, 241 252 (1983). 5) NourOmid, B., A preconditioned conjugate gradient method for solution of finite element equations, Znnouatioe MethodsJor Nonlinear Problems, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 1740 ( 1984). [Ol] Otter, J. R. H. & Day, A. S., Tidal computations, 7 h e Engineer, 209, 177182 (1960). [Pl] Padovan, J. P. & Arechaga, T., Formal convergence characteristics of elliptically constrained incremental NewtonRaphson algorithms, Int. J . Engng. Sci., 20, 1077 1097 (1982). [P2] Papadrakakis, M., Accelerating vector iteration methods, J . Appl. Mech., ASME, 53, 29 1297 ( 1986). [P3] Papadrakakis, M. & Gantes, C. J., Preconditioned conjugate and secantNewton methods for nonlinear problems, Znt. J . Num. Mech. Engng., 28, 12991316 (1989). [P4] Papadrakakis, M., A truncated Newton Ixtczos method for overcoming limit and bifurcation points, Znt. J . Nurn. Meth. Engng., 29, 10651077 (1990). [PSI Papadrakakis, M. & Nomikos, N., Automatic nonlinear solution with arclength and Newton Lanczos methods, Engineering Comp., 7, 1 ( 1980). [P6] Park, K. C. & Rankin, C. C., A semiimplicit dynamic relaxation algorithm for static nonlinear structural analysis, Researth in Structural and Sold Mechanics 1982, NASA Conf. Pub. 2245 (1982). [P7] Park, K. C., A family of solution algorithms for nonlinear structural analysis based on the relaxation equations, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 18, 13371347 (1982). [PSI Parlett, B. N., A new look at the Lanczos algorithm for solving symmetric systems of linear equations, Linear Algebraic Applications, 29, 323346 ( 1980). [P9] Pica, A. & Hinton, E., The quasiNewton BFGS method in large deflection analysis of plates, Num. Meth. Nonlinear Problems, ed. C. Taylor et al., Vol. 1, Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 355366 (1980). [PlO] Polak, E. & Ribiere, Note sur la convergence de methodes de directions conjugees, Rev. Fr. Inform Rech. Oprr., 16R1, 3543 (1969). [ P l l ] Powell, G. & Simons, J., Improved iteration strategy for nonlinear structures, Int. J . Nurn. Meth. Engng., 17, 1455 1467 (1981). [R 13 Ramm, E., Strategies for tracing the nonlinear response near limitpoints, Nonlinear Finite element Analysis in structural Mechanics, ed. W. Wunderlich, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 6389 (1981). [R2] Ramm, E., The Riks/Wempner approachan extension of the displacement control method in nonlinear analysis, Nonlinear Computational Mechanics, ed. E. Hinton et al., Pineridge, Swansea, pp. 6386 (1982). [R3] Rheinboldt, W. C., Numerical analysis of parametrised nonlinear equations, Vol. 7, Wiley ( 1 986). [R4] Rheinboldt, W. C., Numerical continuation methods for finite element applications, Formiilations and Computational ulgorithms in Finite Element Analysis, ed. K.J. Bathe, MIT, pp. 600 631 (1977). [R5] Rheinboldt, W. C., Numerical methods for a class of finite dimensional bifurcation problems, S I A M J . Num. Anulysis, 15(1 ) I  1 1 (1978).
332
[R6] Rheinboldt, W. C., Numerical analysis of continuation methods for nonlinear structural problems, Computers and Structures, 13, 103 1 13 ( 1981 ). [R7] Rheinboldt, W. C . & Riks, E., A Survey Solution Techniques for Nonlinear Finite Element Equations, Nat. Aerospace Lab. Report NLR 82027U, (1982). Also State of the Art Surveys on Finite Element Techniques, ed. A. K. Noor et al., ASME, (1983). [R8] Riks, E., An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems, Int. J . Solids & S t r u m . 15, 529551 (1979). [R9] Riks, E., The application of Newtons method to the problem of elastic stability, J . A p p l . Mech., 39, 10606 (1972). [R 101 Riks, E., Bifurcation and Stability, a numerical approach, Znnouatiue methods for Nonlinear Problems, ed. W. K. Liu et U!., Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 313344 (1984). [R 1 13 Riks, E., Progress in collapse analysis, Collapse Analysis ofStructures, ASMEPressure Vessel and Piping CO$, A S M E P W  0 8 4 (San Antonio, Texas), ed. L. H. Sobel et al., New York ( 1 984). [R12] Riks, E., Some Computational Aspects of the Stability Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Nat. Aero Lab. Report NLR M P 82034 U, (1981) also Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. & Enyny., 47, 219259 (1984). [R13] Riks, E., A unified method for the computation of critical equilibrium states of nonlinear elastic systems, Acta Technica Scientiurum Hungaricae, 87, 121141 (1978). [R14] Riks, E. & Rankin, C. C., Bordered Equations in Continuation Methods: An Improved Solution Technique, Nat. Aero Lab. Report NLR M P 82057 U (1987). [Sl] Schmidt, W. F., Adaptive step size selection for use with the continuation method, Znt. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 12, 677694 (1978). [S2] Schweizerhof, K. & W riggers, P., Consistent linearization for path following methods in nonlinear f.e. analysis, Comp. Meth. A p p l . Mech. & Engng., 59, 261279 (1986). [S3] Shanno, D. F., Conjugate gradient methods with inexact searches, Math. 0. R., 13 (3), 244255 (1978). [S4] Shanno, D. F., Conditioning of quasiNewton methods for function minimisation, Math Computation, 24, 322334 (1 970). [SS] Simons, J. & Bergan, P. G., Hyperplane displacement control methods in nonlinear analysis, Innovative methods ,fi)r Nonlineur Problems, ed. W. K. Liu et al., Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 345364 ( 1984). [S6] Simo, J . C. Wriggers, P., Schweizerhof, K. H. & Taylor, R. L., Finite deformation postbuckling analysis involving ineasticity and contact constraints, Innovative Methods for Nonlineur Problems, ed. W. K. Liu et al., Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 365388 ( 1984). [S7] Stricklin, J. A., Haisler, W. E. & Von Riesemann, W. A., Evaluation of solution procedures for nonlinear structural analysis, A I A A J., 11, 292299 (1973). [SS] Stricklin, J. A. & Haisler, W. E. Formulation and solution procedures for nonlinear structural analysis, Computers und Structures, 7, 125 136 ( 1977). [Tl] Thompson, J. M. T. & Hunt, G. W., A general theory for elastic stability, Wiley, London ( 1 973). [T2] Thurston, G. A., Continuation of Newtons method through bifurcation points, J . Appl. Mech., 36, 425430 (1969). [T3] Thurston, G. A., Brogan, F. A. & Stehlin, P., Postbuckling Analysis Using a General Purpose Code, AIAA Paper 850719CP, presented at the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 26th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf., Orlando, Florida (1985). [T4] Thurston, G. A., Newtons method: a link between continuous and discrete solutions of nonlinear problems, Research in Nonlinear and Solid Mechanics, compiled by H. G. McComb et al., NASA, Washington (1980). [Ul] Ulrich, K., State of the Art in Numerical Methods for Continuation and Bifurcation Problems with Applications in Continuum Mechanics a Survey and Comparative Study, Report No. 03 1/88, Laboratorio, Nacional de Computacao Cientifica, Rio de Janerio, Brazil (1988). [Wl j Wagner, W. & Wriggers, P., A simple method for the calculation of postcritical branches, Engineering Computations, 5, 103 1 10 ( 1988).
REFERENCES
333
[W2] Waszczyszyn, Z., Numerical problems of nonlinear stability analysis of elastic structures, Computers and Structures, 17(1), 13 24 (1983). [W3] Watson, L. T., A n algorithm that is globally convergent with probability one for a class of nonlinear twopoint boundary value problems, S I A M J . Num. Anul., 16, 394401 ( 1 979). [W4] Watson, L. T. & Holzer, M., Quadratic convergence of Crisfield's method, 17, 6972
(1983). [WS] Wempner, G. A., Discrete approximations related to nonlinear theories of solids, Int. J . Solids & Structs., 7, 1581 1599 (197 1). [W6] Wolfe, M . A., N u m e r i d Methods,fi)r Unconstrained Optimisution an Introduction, Van Nostrand Reinhold, (1978). [W7] Wriggers, P., Wagner, W. & Miehe, C., A quadratically convergent procedure for the calculation of stability points in finite element analysis, Comp. Merh. A p p l . Mech. & Engng., 70, 329 347 (1988). [WS] Wriggers, P. & Simo, J . C., A general procedure for the direct computation of turning and bifurcation points, Int. J . Num. Meth. Engng., 30, 155 176 (1990). [W9] Wright, E. W. & Gaylord, E. H., Analysis of unbraced multistorey steel rigid frames, Proc. ASCE, J . Struct. Dici., 94, 11431 163 (1968).
Appendix
Lobatto rule for numerical integration
No. of
points
Position
Weighting
3 0
4
+I
0.333333 33 1.333333 33
0.166 666 67 0.833333 33
f0.447 21 3 60
 0.654 653 67
+1
f0.765 055 32
k 0.285231 52
7
1 + +_ 0.830223 90
f0.468 848 79 0
+_ 0.871 740 15
+I
k 0.591 700 18
& 0.209299 22
+1
& 0.899 757 9954 f0.677 186 2795 & 0.363 1 17 4638 0
335
No. of points
Position
Weighting
11
t 0.91 5339082 : 9
10
& 0.738 8651 773 0.477 9498 924 & 0.165 9577 278
0.022 2222 222 0.133 9908 305 0.224 4320 889 0.292 6836 042 0.327 7612 539
Subject index
Acceleration techniques, secantrelated 3 1014 Almansi strain 635,74, 120, 123, 130, 148,149 Arclength method 253, 26676 automatic switching to 288 cylindrical 2768 6 linearised 2745 spherical 2 7 3 4 , 2 8 5 Augmented stiffness matrix 273 Automatic increment cutting 288 Automatic increments 2868 Axial strain 2 17 Axial symmetry 1078, 181 Axisymmetric membrane 1424 BackwardEuler algorithm 174, 180 BackwardEuler procedure 167, 171, 177, 1956 BackwardEuler return 176, 181, 18991 Barspring problems 7, 17, 26 imperfect buckling with two variables 515 perfect buckling with two variables 501 single variable with no spring 4950 single variable with spring 489 Bar under uniaxial load 90 Bar under uniaxial tension or compression 625 B auschinger effect 1612 Beamtheory relationships 213 Beams, twodimensional formulations 20133 Bending stresses and strains 21314 Bifurcation problem 946, 31719 Boolean matrix 82 Bordered equations 2723 Brittle collapse 266 Buckling criterion 16 Cartesian coordinate system 78 Cartesian displacements 78 Cauchy stresses 1215, 132, 1468 Centroidal approach 2 Closest point algorithm 174 Combined incremental/iterative solution using full or modified NewtonRaphson iterations 101 3 computer program 458 flowchart 44 Complementarity condition 193 Computer program NONLTA 37,48,51 NONLTB 3 9 4 1 NONLTC 459,525 NONLTD 298303 updating 291307 see also Fortran subroutines Consistent tangent modular matrix 167, 17881 for plane stress 184 Consis tent tangents 1912 Constitutive laws 1323 Constrained MindlinReissner formulation 239 Continuation method 2 Continuum mechanics 10436 Convergence criteria 28990 Corotational element using Kirchhoff theory 21 119 using Timoshenko beam theory 21920 Corotational formulation 219 using engineeringstrain 7780 Corotational stresses and strains 1312 Current iterative direction 290 Current stiffness parameter 288 Cutouts 31112 Cylindrical arclength method 27686 Decomposition theorem 131 Degeneratecontinuum approach 235 Degeneratecontinuum element using total Lagrangian formulation 2437
336
INDEX
Deviatoric components 1089, 164, 17880 Deviatoric space 171 Deviatoric stresses 163 Discrete Kirchhoff formulation 239 Discrete Kirchhoff hypothesis 236 Displacement control 4 Displacement derivative matrix 116 Displacement derivative tensor 137 Drilling rotation 235 Eccentricity 2056,211 Eigenvalue problem 128 Elastic/perfectly plastic von Mises material under plane stress 1569 Elastic response 1489 Elastic stiffness matrix 2 Elastoplastic material 1446 Elastoplastic modular matrix 1569 Elastoplastic tangent stiffness matrix 152 Elastoplasticity 152 Engineeringstrain, corotational formulation using 7780 Equilibrium path 9 Euclidean norm 289 Eulerian strain 120 Eulerian triad 129 Evalues 74, 76, 205 Exact solutions 1618 Finite differences 152 Finite element computer program 2614 Finite element formulation 1379 Finite element method 152 Flow rule 193, 194 Fortran computer program 2356 Fortran subroutines 2636 ACCEL 31214 application of arclength constraint 27680 ARCL 27880 BCON 324 CROUT 345 ELEMENT 278,857 ELSTRUC 312 for general truss elements 85 for main structural iterative loop 2805 FORCE 301,8890 INPUT 2930, 878 INPUT2 2968 ITER 2805 LSLOOP 2924 N E X I N C 3057 QSOLV 27880 SCALUP 3035 SEARCH 25961
337
SOLVCR 356 to find new step length 25861 ForwardEuler integration 1858 Forw ardEuler predictor 28 6 ForwardEuler procedure 166, 167, 170, 175 ForwardEuler relationships 182 ForwardEuler tangential algorithm 174 Gauss point 166, 167,221,223, 224,256 Gaussian integration 206, 2101 1 General isoparametric element 2235 Generalised displacement control 27 16 Geometric matrix 4 Geometric nonlinearity 1 with one degree of freedom 21 3 with two variables 1319 Geometric stiffness matrix 2, 73,209, 21 6, 24 1 Green elastic materials 132 GreenLagrange strain tensor 116 Greens strain 59, 63, 70, 73, 75, 81, 11620, 130, 136, 138, 146, 149,201, 226 truss element based on 6575 virtual work expressions using 11819 Hardening concepts 15962 Hardening solution with one variable 934,3 161 7 with two variables 98100,3223 Hierarchical displacement functions 21 0 HuWashizu variational principle 207 Hyperelastic materials 132, 133 Hyperplane control method 276 Hypoelastic materials 133, 1446 Implicit formulation 1956 Inconsistent tangents 1912 Incremental formulation approximate 14950 involving updating after convergence 1478 Incremental/iterative control input 2946 IncrementaNterative solution using program NONLTC 49 using program NONLTC with displacement control 55 using program NONLTC with large increments 545 using program NONLTC with small increments 524 Incremental midpoint algorithm 85 Incremental procedures 2 Incremental solution 68 computer program 378
338
Incremental solution (cont.) flowchart 367 using program NONLTA 4 8 , 5 12 Incremental strains 1446, 1556 Inextensional bending 207 Ini ti a1 displacement 4 matrix 2 Initial local slopes 21 9 Initial slope matrix 4 Initial stress matrix 4, 13, 15, 16, 26, 73, 76, 153,209,219 Initial stress method 2, 1013 Internal force vector 6870, 2401 Intersection point 185 Isoparametric degeneratecontinuum approach 2259,234 Isotropic hardening 152 Isotropic strain hardening 15960 Isotropic work hardening 1601 Iterative correction procedure 153 Iterative displacement direction 256 Iterative solution 810 computer program 3941 flowchart 41 subroutine ITER 414 Iterative strains 154 Jacobian 137,234,272
INDEX
Linear convergence 13 Linear Euler strain increment 122 Linear stiffness matrix 16 Linear strain increment 83 Linear tangent stiffness matrix 73 Linearised arclength methods 2745 Loadcontrolled continuation method 27 1 Load/deflection curves 266 Load/deflection relationships 5, 17 Load/deflection response 269 Load increment factor 2867 Lobatto rule 206 for numerical integration 334 Local limit point 4 Local tangent stiffness matrix 78 Logstrain relationship 83 Marguerres equations 119 Material axes 128 Material nonlinearity 2056 Material triad 130 Mathematical programming and plasticity 1936 Maximum norm 289 Meannormal procedure 175 Membrane locking 207, 242 Membrane strains 235 Midpoint algorithms, generalised trapezoidal 1736 Midpoint geometric vector 83 Midpoint incremental strain updates 825 MindlinReissner analysis 236, 237, 239 Minimisation procedure 195 Mohrs circle 131 NAFEMS (National Agency of Finite Elements) 1, 90 Nansons formula 125 NewtonRaphson algorithm 154 NewtonRaphson method 1, 2, 813, 98, 148, 167, 178, 180, 183,252, 254, 255.2713,282 computer program 3941 flowchart 41 subroutine ITER 414 Nodal displacement 138 Nominal stress 123, 125 Nonassociative plasticity 1589 Nonlinear finite elements general introduction 1 history 12 Nonlinear materials 2056 Nonlinear shell analysis 234 Nonproportional loading 289 Numerical integration 2067 Lobatto rule for 334
K: (or KTl) method 12 Kinematic hardening 1612 Kirchhoff assumption 203 Kirchhoff bending theory 206 Kirchhoff element 21 1 Kirchhoff formulation 236 Kirchhoff hypothesis 208 Kirchhoff stress 123, 125 Kirchhoff theory, corotational element using 21119 KuhnTucker conditions 193, 195 Kvalue 288
Lagrangian formulation 735 Lagrangian function 193 Lagrangian multiplier 128, 193 Lagrangian triad 128, 130 Lame constants 10910 Largedeflection elastoplastic analysis 269 Layered approach 2 Limit point 2, 266, 269, 270, 274 with two variables 968, 31922 Limitpoint, smallstrain, with one variable 31416 Linesearch technique 2548 Linesearch tolerance 256 Linear Almansi strain increment 122
339
Operator splitting 171 Outofbalance forces 1012, 14, 18, 19, 26,44, 137, 148,2557,289 Pathmeasuring parameters 289 PiolaKirchhoff stresses 68,73, 11819, 1216, 131,143, 1467,228,238 Planar truss element 80 Plane strain 1078, 181 Plane stress 1078, 181 4 , 1 9 0  2 consistent tangent modular matrix for 184 Plastic strainrate multiplier 157, 158 P1astici ty 152200 algorithms 153 and mathematical programming 1936 numerical solution 152 Polardecomposition theorem 12630 Potential energy 19 see also Total potential energy PrandtlReuss flow rules 157 Predictor solution 2856 Predictors 1701 Principal strain 130 Principle of virtual work 68, 125, 214 Pythagoras theorem 3, 66,96 Quadratic convergence 9, 12 QuasiNewton formula 3 11 QuasiNewton methods 252,30710 Radialreturn algorithm 1778 Radialreturn method 164 Rate equations, integrating 16678 Reissners beam theory 2215 Restart facilities 2901 Rigidbody rotation 11315 Rods, twodimensional formulations 20133 Rotated engineering strain 589,756, 213 Rotated logstrain 5960, 767 formulation allowing for volume change 601 Rotating bar deep truss (large strains) 901 shallow truss (small strains) 913 Rotation variables 235 Scalar loading parameter 271 Scaling parameter 271 Secantrelated acceleration techniques 31014 Shallow arch equations 218, 219 Shallow arch formulation 2011 1 Shallow shells 2 3 6 4 3 formulation extensions 2423 Shallow truss element 2356 Shallow truss strain relationships 57 Shallow truss theory 23 Shallowness assumption 1 Shape functions 702,77, 137,204, 2068,21011,217,2235,234, 23940 Shear deformation 208 Shear factor 238 Shearlocking 21011 Shells 2345 1 degeneratecontinuum element using total Lagrangian formulation 2437 nonlinear analysis 2345 smooth and nonsmooth 235 see also Shallow shells Simpsons rule 2 Sixth degree of freedom 235 Smallstrain limitpoint example with one variable 31416 Snapbacks 26, 1001,266,270,3234 Snapthroughs 2,26,266,270 Space truss elements 802 Spherical arclength method 2734, 285 Stabilisation technique 234 Stiffness matrix 272 Strain. See Stress and strain; Stressstrain relationships S traindisplacement relationships 658, 23 67 Straindisplacement vector 68 Strain hardening 15960, 1601 Strain increment using updated coordinates 723 S traininducing ex tension 2 13 Stress and strain measures 57103.122, 1246 tensor and vector rotations 1056 Stress rates 166 Stress resultants 235 S tressstrain laws 1323 S tressstrain relationships 1071 0, 144, 238 Stress updating, incremental or iterative strain 1546 Stretching stresses and strains 213 Subincrements 1723, 1889 Tangent modular matrix 2, 153, 154, 166, 188 Tangent stiffness 11 Tangent stiffness matrix 4,6970, 73, 78, 13940, 148,205,209,211,212,216, 218,223,225,236,241,2467,253 Tangential incremental solution 10 Taylor expansion 254
340 Tensor notation 165 Threedimensional formulation 140 1 Throughthickness integration 234 Timeindependent el asto plasticity 152 Timoshenko beam formulation 208 Timoshenko beam theory, corotational element using 2 1920 Total Lagrangian continuum formulation 235 Total Lagrangian formulation 1 3 6 4 4 , 2259 implementation of 1446 Total potential energy 2534 Transformation matrix 78 Transformation procedures 78 Transformation to new set of axes 11013 True stress 1215, 1467 Truncated Taylor expansion 8, 26 Truncated Taylor series 14, 15, 168, 177, 178, 183,253 Truss elements based on Greens strain 6575 Fortran subroutines for 8590 Twodimensional formulation 137 Unit membrane stress field 16
INDEX
Updated coordinates 723 Updated Lagrangian formulation 1467 implementation of 1475 0 Variational inequality 194 Virtual local displacements 21415 Virtual work 18,21516,2401 expressions using Greens strain 11819 see also Principle of virtual work Viscoplasticity 152 Volumetric components 1089, 164, 17880 von K h i h equations 242 von K h A n straindisplacement relationships 11920 von Mises yield criterion 152, 160, 166, 177 threedimensional 1626, 175 von Mises yield function 156, 161, 168 Work hardening 1601 Yield cri tenon 193 Yield function 178, 193 Yield surface 16871, 174, 189, 193 Index compiled by Geoffrey C . Jones.
Author index
ABAQUS 154[A1], 178[A1] Ahmad, S., Irons, B .M. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. 234[Al] Allgower, E.L. 325[ A l l Allman, D.J. 235[A3], 242[A2], 255[A2], 326[A3], 326[A4] Almroth, B.O. 326[A5] Ang, A.H.S. & Lopez, L.A. 2[A1] Argyris, J. 235[A4j Argyris, J.H. 2[A2], 2[A3] Argyris, J.H., Balmer, H., Doltsinis, J. St., Dunne, P.C., Haase, M., Klieber, M., Malejannakis, G.A., Mlejenek, J.P., Muller, M. & Scharpf, D.W. 211[A1] Argyris, J.H., Vaz, L.E. & Willam, K. J. 154[A21 Armen, H. 152[A3] Armen, H., Pifko, A.B., Levine, H.S. & Isakson, G. 2(A41 Backlund, J. 234[B1] Bartholomew, P. 255[B 11 Bathe, K.J. 136[B2], 146[B2], 148[B2] Bathe, K.J. & Bolourchi, S . 201 [B I], 225[B1], 234[R2], 236[B2], 243(B2] Bathe, K.J. & Cimento, A.P. 310[B3] Bathe, K.J. & Dvorkin, E.N. 324[B2] Bathe, K.J., Ramm, E., & Wilson, E. 136[Bl] Batoz, J.L. & Dhatt, G. 273[B4], 275[B4] Belleni, P.X. & Chulya, A. 266[B5], 324[B5] Belytschko, T. 122[B1] Belytschko, T. & Glaum, L.W. 201[B3], 211[B3], 218[B3] Belytschko, T. & Hseih, B.J. 201[B2], 211[B2], 225[B2] Belytschko, T. & Hseih, J. 126[B2], 131[B2] Belytschko, T. & Lin, J.I. 234[B4] Belytschko, T., Lin, J. & Tsay, C.S. 2341B 61 Belytschko, T., Stolarski, H., Liu, W.K., Carpenter, N. & Ong, J.S.J. 234[B7] Belytschko, T. & Velebit, M. 2[B1] Belytschko, T., Wong, B.L. & Chiang, H.Y. 234[B3], 235[B3] Belytschko, T., Wong, B.L. & Stolarski, H. 234[B5] Bergan, P.G. 287[B6], 288[B6] Bergan, P.G. & Felippa, C.A. 235[B8] Bergan, P.G., Horrigmoe, G., Krakeland, B. & Soreide, T.H. 266[B8], 287[B8], 288 [B 81 Bergan, P.G. & Mollestad, E. 276[B10], 288[B 101 Bergan, P.G. & Soreide, T. 252[B7], 266[B7], 287[B7], 287[B9], 288[B7] Besseling, J.F. 162[B 11 Bicanic, N.P. 168[B2] Bisplinghoff, R.L., Mar, J.M. & Pian, T.H.H. 104[B3] Braudel, H.J., Abouaf, M. & Chenot, J.L. 154[B3], 167[B3], 178[B3] Brebbia, C. & Connor, J. 2[B2] Brink, K. & Kratzig, W.B. 201[B4] Brodlie, K.W., Gourlay, A.R. & Greenstadt, J. 307[B11], 308[B11], 309[B11] Broyden, C.G. 307[B12], 307[B13], 308[B 12],309[B 131 Buckley, A. & Lenir, A. 311[B15] Buckley, A.G. 308[B 141.3 11[B 141 Burgoynne, C. & Crisfield, M.A. 206[B5] Bushnell, D. 155[B4], 167[B4], 172[B4], 173[B41 Calladine, C.R. 234[C1] Carey, G.F. & BoNan, J. 253[C1], 3 14[c 1],325[C 13 Carnoy, E. 326[C2] Carpenter, N., Stolarski, H. & Belytschko, T. 234[ C2],235[C2], 236[ C2], 23 8[C2], 239[C2], 24O[C2], 242[C2], 244[C2], 247[C2]
341
342
INDEX
Duxbury, P.G., Crisfield, M.A. & Hunt, G.W. 26[D1] Dvorkin, E.N. & Bathe, K.J. 234[D1] Epstein, M. & Murray, D.W. 201[E1] Eriksson, A. 270[E2] Eriksson, E. 289[E3], 324[E1] Felippa, C.A. 253[F1], 274[F1], 274[F2], 324[Fl], 325[F2], 325[F4] Fink, J.P. & Rheinboldt, W.C. 270[F5] Fletcher, R. 193[F1], 252[F7], 254[F7], 255[F7], 256[F7], 274[F7], 307[F6], 307[F7], 308[F6], 308[F7] Fletcher, R. & Reeves, C.M. 325[F8] Forde, B.W.R. & Sttemer, S.F. 266[F9], 275[F9] Fox, L. & Stanton, E. 307[F10] Frankel, S.P. 325[F11] Frey, F. & Cescotto, S. 201[F1], 234[F1], 243 [F 11 Fried, I. 275[F12] Frieze, P.A., Hobbs, R.E. & Dolwing, P.J. 325 [F13] Gallagher, R.J., Gellatly, R.A., Padlog, J. & Mallet, R.H. 2[G2] Gallagher, R.J. & Padlog, J. 2[G1] Georg, K. 325[G1] Geradin, M., Idelsohn, S . & Hogge, M. 325[G1] Gerdeen, J.C., Simonen, F.A. & Hunter, D.T. 2 ~ 3 1 Gierlinski, J.T. & GravesSmith, T.R. 3 10[G2] Gill, P.E. & Murray, W. 254[G4], 25 6 [G4], 266 [G3], 274[G3], 276[G3], 307 [G4] Green, A.E. & Zerna, W. 104[G1] Gupta, A.K. & Ma, P.S. 207[G1] Haefner, L. & Willam, K.J. 201[H2] Haftka, R.T., Mallet, R.H. & Nachbar, W. 326[H1] Haisler, W.E., Stricklin, J.E. & Stebbins, F.J. 2[H1], 12[H1] Harris, H.G. & Pifko, A.B. 2[H2] Haselgrove, C.B. 266[H2], 275[H2] Hestenes, M. & Steifel, E. 325[H3] Hibbitt, H.D. 154[H1], 178[Hl], 193[H1], 194[H1] Hill, R. 152[H21, 160[H2], 161[H2], 162[H2], 193[H2] Hinton, E., AbdalRahman, H.H. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. 310[H4] Hinton, E. & Ezzat, M.H. 185[H4]
Cassel, A.C. 325[C3] Chen, W.F. 152[C2] Clarke, M.J. & Hancock, G.J. 324[C4] Clough, R.W. & Tocher, J.L. 234[C3], 236 [ C3] Cole, G. 219[C1] Cowper, G.R. 203[C2], 207[C2], 208[C2], i09[C2], 21O[C2],225 [C2] Crisfield, M.A. 34[C2], 154[C3], 154[C4], 155[C3], 171[C3], 178[C4], 201[C5], 207[C7], 211[C6], 211[C7], 213[C6], 214IC6],235 [C9], 235[C 12],236[C5], 236[C6], 236[C7], 236[C10], 236[C11], 239[C5], 239[C6], 24O[C5], 24O[C6], 242[C4], 242[C7], 242[C11], 252[C17], 252[ C201, 254[ C 16],256[C9], 256 [C 16],266[ C 111,266[C 141, 266[ C 19],269[C 111, 269[C20], 270[C14], 270[C15], 274[C11], 278[ C 161, 280[ C19], 286[C 111, 286[C15], 286[C22], 287[C11], 288[C11], 29O[C15], 31O[C7], 3 lO[C9], 3 1O[C101.3 1O[C131, 3 1O[C17], 3 11[C5], 3 11[C7], 311[C8], 311[C13], 312[C8], 324[8], 324[C11], 324[C 16],324[C 17],324[C 191, 325 [C5] Crisfield, M.A. & Cole, G . 201[C3], 21 1[C3] Crisfield, M.A., Duxbury, P.G. & Hunt, G.W. 26[C1] Crisfield, M.A. & Puthli, R.S. 201[C4], 207 [C4] Crisfield, M.A. & Wills, J. 236[C8], 238[C8], 242[C8], 269[C18], 270[ C 121, 278[ C6], 286[C 121, 288[C6], 289[C18], 29O[C6], 291[C6] Davidenko, D.F. 253[D1], 314[D1], 325[D1] Davidon, W.C. 307[D2], 307[D3], 309[D3] Dawe, D.J. 207[D1] Day, A.S. 325[D4] De Borst, R. 164[D1], 270[D5], 274[D5] Decker, D.W. & Keller, H.B. 326[D6] Den Heijer, C. & Rheinboldt, W.C. 286[D7], 287[D7] Dennis, J.E. & More, J. 252[D8], 287[D8], 307[D8], 308[D8] Desai, C.S. & Siriwardane, H.J. 132[D1], 133[D1], 152[D2] Dodds, R.H. 152[D3], 156[D3] Drucker, D .C . 15 2[ D4] Dupius, G.A., Hibbit, H.D., McNamara, S.F. & Marcal, P.V. 2[D1], 26[D1]
INDEX Hinton, E., Hellen, T.K. & Lyons, L.P.R. 185[H3] Hodge, P.G. 152[H5] Holand, I. & Moan, T. 2[H3] Honigmoe, G. & Bergan, P.G. 234[H1], 235[H1], 242[H1] Hsiao, K.M. & Hou, F.Y. 201[Hl], 211[H1] Huang, H.C. & Hinton, E. 234[H2] Huffington, N.G. 167[H6], 172[H6] Hughes, T.J.R. 234[H5] Hughes, T.J.R., Ferencz, R.M. & Hallquist, J.O. 325[ H6] Hughes, T.J.R. & Hinton, E. 235[H4] Hughes, T.J.R., Levit, I. & Winget, J. 325[H5] Hughes, T.J.R. & Liu, W.K. 234[H3] Hughes, T.J.R. & Pister, K.S. 153[H7] Hunter, S.C. 104[H1] Ilyushin, A.A. 152[11] Irons, B. & Elsawaf, A. 311[11] Irons, B.M. & Ahmad, S. 235[11] Jang, J. & Pinsky, P.M. 234[J1 J Jennings, A. 325[J1] Jetteur, P. 154[J1], 178[J1], 182[J1], 183[Jl], 184[J1JI 192[51], 2341531, 235 [J3], 242[ 531, 243[ 531 Jetteur, P. & Frey, F. 234[J2], 235[J2], 242[J2], 2431521 Jeusette, J.P., Laschet, G. & Idelsohn, S. 324[J2] Johnson, C. 193[J3] Johnson, W. & Mellor, P.B. 152[J2] Kapur, W.W. & Hartz, B.J. 2[K1] Karamanlidis, D., Honecker, A. & Knothe, K. 201[Kl] Kearfott, R.B. 266[K1], 326[Kl] Keller, H.B. 266[K2], 325[K3], 326[K3] Kershaw, E. 325[K4] Key, S.W., Stone, C.M. & Krieg, R.D. 155[K1] Kondoh, K. & Atluri, S. 286[K5] Kouhia, R. & Mikkola, M. 326[K6] Krieg, R.D. & Key, S.M. 167[K3], 171[K3], 177[K3] Krieg, R.D. & Krieg, D.B. 167[K2], 171[K2], 177[K2] Kroplin, B.H. 325[K8] Lanczos, K.C. 253[Ll], 325[L1] Little, G.H. 155[L1] Liu, W.K., Law, E.S., Lam, D. & Belytschko, T. 234[Ll], 235[Ll] Love, A.E.H. 104[L1] Luenberger, D.G. 193[L2], 194[L2], 252[L2]
343
Maeir, G. & Nappi, A. 154[M1], 193[M1] Mallet, R.H. & Marcal, P.V. 1[M1], 2[M1] Mallet, R.H. & Schmidt, L.A. 2[M2] Malvern, L.E. 104[M1], 105[M1], 124[M1] Marcal, P.V. 2[M3], 2[M5], 6[M6] Marcal, P.V. & King, I.P. 2[M4] Marcal, P.V. & Pilgrim, W.R.A. 2[M7] Marguerre, K. 119[M2] Marques, J.M.M.C. 153[M4], 154[M4], 155[M4], 167[M4], 172[M4], 173[M4] Martin, J.B. 152[M10], 154[M10], 160[M3], 193[ M 101 Martin, J.B. & Bird, W.W. 154[M2] Mase, G.E. 104[M3] Matthies, H. 154[M6], 160[M6] Matthies, H. & Strang, G. 308[Ml], 309[ M 1] Matthies, H.G. 193[M5], 194[M5], 195[M5] Mattiason, K. 211[M1] Mattiasson, K. 104[M4] Meek, J.L. & Loganthan, S . 286[M2], 286[M3] Meek, J.L. & Tan, H.S. 286[M4] Melhem, R.G. & Rheinboldt, W.C. 286[M3] Mendelson, A. 152[M7], 154[M7] Milford, R.V. & Schnobrich, W.C. 234[M2], 235[M2], 236[M2], 242[M2] Mitchell, G.P. & Owen, D.R.J. 154[M8], 171[M8] Moan, T. & Soreide, T. 201[M2], 207[M2] Moore, G . 270[M5], 326[M5] Morley, L.S.D. 234[M4], 242[M4], 242[M5] Mroz, 2. 162[M9] Munay, D.W. & Wilson, E.L. 2[M8], 2[M9], 2[M10] Nagtegal, J.C. 167[N1], 173[Nl] Nayak, G.C. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. 2[N1], 2"21 Nazareth, L. 308[N1], 311[N1] NematNasser, S . 152[N3] Nocedal, J. 308[ N2], 3 11[ N2] Noor, A.E. & Peters, J.M. 326[N3] NourOmid, B. 325 "51 NourOmid, B., Parlett, B.N. & Taylor, R.L. 325[ N4] NourOmid, B. & Rankin, C.C. 211[N1], 213[N1] Nygard, M.K. 235[N1], 242[N1] Nyssen, C. 156[N4], 167(N4], 172[N4], 173[N4]
344
INDEX
Runesson, K. & Samuelsson, A. 154[R3], 178[R3], 193[R3], 194[R3] Sabir, A.B. & Lock, A.C. 2[S1] Samuelsson, A. & Froier, M. 152[S1], 154[S1], 193[S1], 194[S1] Schmidt, F.K., Bognor, F.K. & Fox, R.L. 2[S21 Schmidt, W.F. 266[S1], 269[S1], 287[S1] Schreyer, H.L., Kulak, R.F. & Kramer, J.M. 167[S3], 172[S3], 173[S3], 177[S31 Schweizerhof, K. & Wriggers, P. 266[S2], 275[S2] Shanno, D.F. 266[S3], 274[S3], 308[S4], 31 1[S3] Sharifi, P. & Popov, E.P. 2[S3] Simo, J.C. 221[S1] Simo, J.C. & Fox, D.D. 235[S1] Simo, J.C., Fox, D.D. & Rafai, M.S. 235[S2], 235[S3] Simo, J.C. & Govindjee, S . 154[S7], 178[S7], 182[S7], 183[S7], 192[S7] Simo, J.C. & Hughes, T.J.R. 152[S5], 154[S5], 178[S5], 193[S5], 194[S5] Simo, J.C. & Taylor, R.L. 153[S6], 154[S6], 178[S4], 178[S6], 182[S6], 183[S6], 184[S6], 192[S6] Simo, J.C. & VuQuoc, L. 214[S2], 221[S2] Simo, J.C., Wriggers, P., Schweizerhof, K.H. & Taylor, R.L. 266[S6] Simons, J. & Bergan, P.G. 276[S5] Sloan, S.W. 167[S8], 172[S8] Spencer, A.J.M. 104[S1] Stander, N., Matzenmiller, A. & Ramm, E. 234[S4], 243[S4] Stanley, G.M. 234[S5], 235[S5] Stanley, G.M., Park, K.C. & Hughes, T.J.R. 234[S6], 235[S6] Stolarski, H. & Belytschko, T. 207[S3] Stolarski, H., Belytschko, T., Carpenter, N. & Kennedy, J.M. 234[S7], 243[S7] Strang, G., Matthies, H. & Temam, R. 154[S9], 193[S9] Stricklin, J.A., Haisler, W.E. & Von Riesemann, W.A. 2[S4], 252[S7] Surana, K.S. 201[S4], 225[S4], 234[S8], 236[S8], 243[S8] Tang, S.C., Yeung, K.S. & Chon, C.T. 211[T2] Taylor, R.L. & Simo, J.C. 235[T1] Terazawa, K., Ueda, Y. & Matsuishi, M. 2[T 11 Thompson, J.M.T. & Hunt, G.W. 326[T1] Thurston, G.A. 326[T2], 326[T4]
Oden, J.T. 2[01], 2[02], 12[02] Oran, C. 211[02], 212[02], 213[02] Oran, C. & Kassimali, A. 201[01], 211[01], 212[01], 213[01] Ortiz, M. & Popov, E.P. 167[02], 171[02], 173[02], 175[02] Ortiz, M. & Simo, J.C. 171[01] Otter, J.R.H. & Day, A.S. 325[01] Owen, D.R.J. & Hinton, E. 152[04], 167 [041, 170[04] Owen, D.R.J., Prakahs, A. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. 162[05] Padovan, J.P. & Arechaga, T. 274[P1] Papadrakakis, M. 325[P2], 325[P4] Papadrakakis, M. & Gantes, C.J. 325[P3] Papadrakakis, M. & Nomikos, N. 325[P5], 3 26 [ P5] Parisch, H. 234[P2], 235[P1] Park, K.C. 274[P7] Park, K.C. & Rankin, C.C. 325[P6] Parlett, B .N. 325 [PSI Pawsey, S.E. & Clough, R.W. 234[P3] Pecknold, D.A., Ghaboussi, J. & Healey, T.J. 90[ P 11 Pica, A. & Hinton, E. 31O[P9] Polak, E. & Ribiere, 325[P10] Pope, G.A. 2[P1] Popov, E.P., Khojasteh Baht, M. & Yaghmai, S. 2[P2] Powell, G . & Simons, J. 276[P11] Prager, W. 152[P1], 153[P1], 154[P1], 162[P2] Prathap, G . 201[P1] Providos, E. 235[P4], 242[P4] Ramm, E. 234[R1], 236[R1], 243[R1], 266[ R 1],266[R2], 274[R 1],274[R2], 287[R1], 287[R2] Ramm, E. & Matzenmiller, A. 178[R1], 184[Rl], 234[R2], 235[R2], 236[R2], 243 [R2] Rankin, C.C. & Brogan, F.A. 213[Rl] Reissner, E. 221 [R2] Rheinboldt, W.C. 252[R3], 252[R4], 252[R6], 266[R6], 274[R6] Rheinboldt, W.C. & Riks, E. 252[R7], 270[R7], 324[R7] Rice, J.R. & Tracey, D.M. 175[R2] R i b , E. 253[R8], 253[R9], 266[R8], 266[R9], 271[R8], 271[R9], 275[R8], 275[ R9], 275[R11], 286[R 131, 324[ R 11],324[R 121,326[R 101, 326[R11], 326[R12] Riks, E. & Rankin, C.C. 272[R14], 274[R 141
INDEX
Thurston, G.A., Brogan, EA. & Stehlin, P. 326[T3] Timoshenko, S. 208[T1] Timoshenko, S. & Goodier, J.N. 104[T1], 109[T 11 Timoshenko, S.P. & WoinowskyKrieger, S. 119[T2] Tracey, D.M. & Freese, C.E. 154[T1] Turner, M.J, Dill, E.H., Martin, H.C. & Melosh, J.R. 1[T2], 2[T2] Ulrich, K. 252[U1], 326[U1] Von Karman, T. 119[V1] Von Mises, R. 152[V1], 152[V2], 193[V1] Wagner, W. & Wriggers, P. 253[W1] Washizu, K. 207[W1] Waszczyszyn, 2. 152[W1], 171[W1], 324[W2] Watson, L.T. 27 1[W3] Watson, L.T. & Holzer, M. 275[W4] Wempner, G . 104[W1], 211[W2], 235[W1] Wempner, G.A. 253[W5], 266[W5], 271 [W5], 272[W5], 275[W51 Wen, R.K. & Rahimzadeh, J. 201[W3] Whange, B. 2[W 13
345
Wilkins, M.L. 167[W2], 177[W2] Willam, K.J. 152[W3] Wolfe, M.A. 252[W6], 254[W6], 307[W6] Wood, R. 104[W2] Wood, R.D. & Zienkiewicz, O.C. 201[W4], 225[ W4] Wriggers, P. & Gruttmann, F. 235[W2] Wriggers, P. & Simo, J.C. 326[W8] Wriggers, P., Wagner, W. & Miehe, C. 326[W7] Wright, E.W. & Gaylord, E.H. 266[W9] Yamada, Y., Yoshimura, N. & Sakurai, T. 2WI Young, E.C. 104[Y1], 105[Y1], 107[Y1] Ziegler, H. 153[Z1], 153[22], 154[21], 154[22], 160[21], 162[22], 167[22] Zienkiewicz, O.C. 2[22], 12[22], 136[21] Zienkiewicz, O.C. & Cormeau, I.C. 152[23] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Parekh, C.J. & King, I.P. 234[22], 235[22], 247[22] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L. & Too, J.M. 234[21], 235[21] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Valliapan, S. & King, I.P. 2[21], 13[21] Index compiled by Geoffrey C . Jones.
M. A. Crisfield
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK
Brisbane
Singapore
Toronto
Copyright )$'I 1997 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 IUD, England National 01234 779777 International (+44) 1243 779777 email (for orders and customer service enquiries); csbook(cc wiley.co.uk Visit our Home Page on http:/iwww.wiley,co.uk or ht tp: i, www .wiley.com All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London, UK WIP9HE. without the permission in writing of publisher. Reprinted with corrections December 1988, April 2000
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 101580012, USA VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Pappelallee 3. D69469 Weinheim, Germany Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, 33 Part Road, Milton, Queensland 4046, Australia John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W I L 1, Canada Loop John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop 0201, Jin Xing Distripark. Singapore 129809
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 471 95649 X Typeset in 10/12pt Times by Thomson Press (India) Ltd, New Delhi, India Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd. This book is printed on acidfree paper responsibly manufactured from sustainable forestation, for which at least two trees are planted for each one used for paper production.
Contents
Preface
10 More continuum mechanics
10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Relationshipsbetween some strain measures and the structures Large strains and the Jaumann rate Hyperelasticity The Truesdell rate Conjugate stress and strain measures with emphasis on isotropic conditions 10.6 Further work on conjugate stress and strain measures
10.6.1 10.6.2 10.6.3
xiii
10
13
14
15
15
16
17
17
17
18
Relationshipbetween i: and U Relationshipbetween the Bio! stress, B and the Kirchhoff stress, T Relationshipbetween U, the i s and the spin of the Lagrangian triad, W, 10.6.4 Relationshipbetween , the As and the spin, W , , 10.6.5 Relationshipbetween 6,the 2s and the spin, W 10.6.6 Relationshipbetween and E 10.6.6.1 Specific strain measures 10.6.7 Conjugate stress measures
10.7 Using log,V with isotropy 10.8 Other stress rates and objectivity 10.9 Special notation 10.10 References
19
20
22
24
components
11.1 Nonorthogonalcoordinates 11.2 Transforming the components of a vector (firstordertensor) to a new set of base vectors 11.3 Secondordertensors in nonorthogonalcoordinates 11.4 Transforming the components of a secondorder tensor to a new set of base vectors 11.5 The metric tensor 11.6 Work terms and the trace operation
26
26
28
30
30
31
32
vi
CONTENTS 11.7 Covariant components, natural coordinates and the Jacobian 11.8 Greens strain and the deformation gradient 11.8.1 Recoveringthe standard cartesian expressions 11.9 The second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and the variation of the Greens strain 11.10 Transforming the components of the constitutive tensor 11.11 A simple twodimensional example involving skew coordinates 11.12 Special notation 11.13 References 33
35
35
36
37
38
42
44
45
46
46
47
47
49
49
51
53
54
55
56
57
57
59
59
60
61
62
62
63
65
66
69
69
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
84
86
86
89
89
90
CONTENTS
13.10.2 Ogdens energy function 13.10.3 An example using Henckys model
vii
91
93
95
97
99
99
99
104
105
107
107
108
109
109
112
113
114
115
118
119
120
121
121
122
122
124
126
129
130
131
133
14.9 The DruckerPrager yield criterion 14.10 Using an eigenvector expansion for the stresses
14.10.1 An example involving planestress plasticity and the von Mises yield criterion
133
134
135
135
135
140
142
144
148
152
154
158
158
163
164
viii
15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8
CONTENTS Radial return with mixed linear hardening Radial return with nonlinear hardening A general backwardEuler return with mixed linear hardening A backwardEuler procedure for plane stress with mixed linear hardening A consistent tangent modular tensor following the radial return of Section 15.4 15.9 General form of the consistent tangent modular tensor 15.10 Overlay and other hardening models
15.10.1 Sophisticatedoverlay model 15.10.2 Relationshipwith conventional kinematic hardening 15.10.3 Other models
181 182
184 185
185 186
16 Large rotations
16.1 Nonvectoriallarge rotations 16.2 A rotation matrix for small (infinitesimal)rotations 16.3 A rotation matrix for large rotations (Rodrigues formula) 16.4 The exponential form for the rotation matrix 16.5 Alternative forms for the rotation matrix 16.6 Approximations for the rotation matrix 16.7 Compound rotations 16.8 Obtaining the pseudovector from the rotation matrix, R 16.9 Quaternions and Euler parameters 16.10 Obtaining the normalised quarternion from the rotation matrix 16.11 Additive and nonadditiverotation increments 16.12 The derivative of the rotation matrix 16.13 Rotating a triad so that one unit vector moves to a specified unit vector via the smallest rotation 16.14 Curvature
16.14.1 Expressionsfor curvature that directly use nodal triads 16.14.2 Curvature without nodal triads
108
188 188 191 194 194 195 195 197 198 199 200 202 202 204
204 207
21 1 212
213
213
216 218 22 1 223 223 225
226
227 227 228
CONTENTS
17.2.4 Virtual work and the internal force vector 17.2.5 The tangent stiffness matrix 17.2.6 An isoparametric formulation
ix
229 229 231
233
237 239
The tangent stiffness matrix An outline of the relationshipwith the formulation of Dvorkin et al. A simple model showing symmetry and nonsymmetry Using additive rotation components Considering symmetry at equilibriumfor the element of Section 17.2 Using additive (in the limit) rotation components with the element of Section 17.2
240
24 1 242 243 245
248
248 249 251
260
260 262 266 269 271 273 276 280 283 285
286
18.11 Incompatible modes, enhanced strains and substitute strains for continuum elements
8.1 1.1 18.11.2 18.11.3 18.11.4
287
287 29 1 293 295
18.12 Introducing extra internal variables into the corotational formulation 18.13 Introducing extra internal variables into the Eulerian formulation 18.14 Introducing large elastic strains into the corotationalformulation 18.15 A simple stability test and alternative enhanced F formulations 18.16 Special notation 18.17 References
308
308 309
CONTENTS 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 Using the F,F, approach to arrive at the conventional rate form Using the rate form with an explicit dynamic code Integrating the rate equations An F,F, update based on the intermediate configuration An F,F, update based on the final (current) configuration
19.7.1 19.8.1
19.8 The consistent tangent 19.9 Introducing large elastoplastic strains into the finite element formulation 19.10 A simple example 19.11 Special notation 19.12 References
326
327
20 Stability theory
20.1 Introduction 20.2 General theory without higherorderterms
20.2.1 20.2.2
338
338 338
343 343
344 346
346 347 347 347
Limit points Bifurcation points Symmetric bifurcations Asymmetric bifurcations Amplification of notation Truss element using Greens strain Truss elements using a rotated engineering strain Computationof the stability coefficients S,S,
349
349 350 351 352
352 353
354
355 359
360 36 1 36 1
Corrector based on a linearised arclength method Corrector using displacementcontrol at a specified variable Corrector using a cylindrical arclengthmethod
21.3 Branch switching using higherorder derivatives 21.4 General predictors using higherorder derivatives
21.4.1 21.4.2 21.4.3
36 1 362
363 363 364
21.5 Correctors using higherorder derivatives 21.6 Direct computation of the singular points 21.7 Linesearcheswith arclength and similar methods
21.7.1 21.7.2 21.7.3
Linesearcheswith the RiksMlempner arclength method Linesearcheswith the cylindrical arclength method Uphill or downhill?
21.8 Alternative arclength methods using relative variables 21.9 An alternative method for choosing the root for the cylindrical arclength method
373 374
CONTENTS 21.10 Statiddynamic solution procedures 21.11 Special notation (see also Section 20.6) 21.12 References
xi
376 378 379
22 Examples from an updated nonlinear finite element computer program using truss elements (written in conjunction with Dr Jun Shi)
22.1 A twobar truss with an asymmetric bifurcation
22.1.1 22.1.2 22.2.1 22.2.2 22.3.1 22.3.2 22.3.3 22.3.4 22.3.5 Bracketing Branch switching Bracketing Branch switching Bracketing Branch switching The higherorder predictor The higherordercorrectors Line searches
381
382
383 389
392
393 394
395
396 397 398 400 402
41 1
The contact patch test Introducing sticking friction in two dimensions Introducing Coulomb sliding friction in two dimensions Using Lagrangian multipliers instead of the penalty approach The augmented Lagrangian methods An augmented Lagrangiantechnique with Coulomb sliding friction
23.8.1
A symmetrisedversion
43 1
434
435
437
23.1 1 Coulomb sliding friction in three dimensions 23.12 A penalty/barrier method for contact 23.13 Amendments to the solution procedures 24.14 Special notation 23.15 References
24 Nonlinear dynamics
24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 Introduction Newmarks method The average acceleration method or trapezoidal rule The implicit solution procedure
447
447 447 448 448
xii
24.4.1 24.2.2 The predictorstep The corrector
CONTENTS
449
449
24.5 An explicit solution procedure 24.6 A staggered, central difference, explicit solution procedure 24.7 Stability 24.8 The HilberHughesTaylor s( method 24.9 More on the dynamic equilibrium equations 24.10 An energy conserving total Lagrangianformulation
24.10.1 The predictor step 24.10.2 The corrector
450
451
452
455
456
458
460
460
461
463
464
24.12 An alternative energyconservingprocedure for twodimensionalbeams 24.13 Automatic timestepping 24.14 Dynamic equilibrium with rotations 24.15 An explicit corotational procedure for beams 24.16 Updatingthe rotational velocities and accelerations 24.17 A simple implicit corotational procedure using rotations 24.18 An isoparametricformulation for threedimensionalbeams 24.19 An alternative implicit corotationalformulation 24.20 (Approximately)energyconservingcorotational procedures 24.21 Energyconservingisoparametricformulations 24.22 Special notation 24.23 References
466
468
470
473
474
476
477
479
480
483
485
486
Index
Preface
In the preface to Volume 1, I expressed my trepidation at starting to write a book on nonlinear finite elements and the associated mechanics. These doubts grew as I worked on Volume 2, which attempts to cover advanced topics. These topics include many areas which are still the subject of considerable controversy. None the less, I have finally completed this second volume, although in so doing, I have almost certainly made mistakes. In persevering, I have received much encouragement from a number of readers of Volume 1 who have urged me not to abandon the second volume and who have made me believe that there is some need for a book of this kind. As with the subjectmatter of the first book, there are many specialist texts which cover the background mechanics. My aim has not been to replace such books and, indeed, I have attempted to reference these books with a view to encouraging wider reading. Instead, my aim has been to emphasise the numerical implementation. As with the earlier volume, an engineering approach is adopted in contrast to a strict mathematical development. At theend of the Preface of Volume 1, I indicated the subjects that I intended to cover in this second volume. These topics have all been included, but so have a number of other topics that I did not originally envisage including. In particular Chapter 23 covers Contact and friction and Chapter 24 covers Nonlinear dynamics (both implicit and explicit). These important subjects are included because I have now conducted some research in these areas. This is true of most of the topics in the book. However, while I have often given the background to some of my own research, I have also attempted to cover important developments by others. Often, in so doing, I have reinterpreted these works in relation to my own viewpoint. Often, this will not coincide with that of the originator. The reader should, of course, read the originals as well! The previous paragraph gives the impression that the book is related to research. This is only partially true in that any book, attempting to cover advanced topics, must be concerned with the recent research in the field. However, in addition to these researchrelated topics, there are many other topics in which the ground work is fairly well established. In these areas, the book is closer to a traditional textbook. I referred earlier to my own research. Of course, I should have referred to the work of my research group. In particular, I must thank the following (in alphabetical order) for their important contributions: Mohammed Asghar, Michael Dracopoulos, Zhiliang Fan, Ugo Galvanetto, HansBernd Hellweg, Gordan Jelenic, Ahad Kolahi, Yaoming Mi, Gray Moita, Xiaohong Peng, Jun Shi and HaiGuang Zhong.
xiv
PREFACE
Indeed, I wrote Chapter 22 on Examplesfrom an updated nonlinear finite element computer program using truss elements in conjunction with Dr Shi. This chapter describes a finite element computer program that can be considered as the extension of the simple computer programs described in Volume 1. As with the latter programs, the new program is available via anonymous FTP (ftp:// ftp.cc.ic.ac.uk/pub/depts/aero1 nonlin2). The aim of the new program is purely didactic and it is intended to illustrate some of the pathfollowingand branchswitching techniques described in Chapter 21.
1 0
M o r e continuum mechanics
This chapter can be considered as an extension of Chapter 4 in Volume 1. As in the latter chapter, the aim is not to provide a fundamental text on continuum mechanics (for that the reader should consult the references quoted in the Introduction to Chapter 4 and the additional references [HI, M1, 01, TlT3]). Instead the aim is to pave the way for subsequent work on finite element analysis. For much of this work, Sections 10.110.5 will suffice. Section 10.6, which closely follows the work of Hill [HI] (see also Atluri [AI], Ogden [OI] and NematNasser [NI], gives a more detailed examination of a range of strees and strain measures. This section is not easy and could be skipped (along with Sections 10.710.8) at a first reading.
U = Q(N)Diag(A)Q(N)T= AjNlNT
V = Q(n)Diag(A)Q(n)T= AlnlnT
+ X?N?NT + A3N3N[:
(10.la) (10.lb)
+ AInlnF + X3n3nT
with Q(N) = 1 , N?, N3] and Q ( n ) = [nl,n2,n3]. In Section 4.2, we showed how the principal direction NI and nl could be found from an eigenvalue analysis of C = FTF or of b = FFT. It was assumed that the principal directions were distinct. If two of the principal stretches coincide (say XI and A?), the directions NI and N2 (or nl and n?) are not unique and can only be determined to within an arbitrary rotation about N3 (or n3). In the following, it will generally be assumed that the stretches and principal directions are distinct. Detail in relation to the case of coinciding stretches will be given in Section 13.8. In the meantime, we note that if all of the stretches coincide, in place of (10.1a) and
2
( 10.1b), we
have
U=Vxi,I
(1O.lc)
Following the forms of (10.la) and ( 10.1b), some general strain measures, E , may be expressed, in the Lagrangian frame, as
E
= Q(N)Diag(&)Q(N)T
(10.2a)
= Q(n)Diag(&)Q(n)
(10.2b)
can where the principal strains, E , (from Diag(&)) be related to the principal stretches E,,, (from Diag(E.)).For any one of the principal directions, we can write
c = .f(i)
(10.3)
in order to coincide with the usual engineering theory strains. stretches, it follows from (10.4a)that
I: = i for 1,
small
(10.4b)
3.
I:
A.
The strain measures may either be related to (10.2a) or to (10.2b). We will address this issue later, but will firstly consider some common strain measures in terms of (10.3). Biot strain (or corotated engineering strain):
c=
r.  1
 1)
(10.5)
( 10.6)
Green strain:
1:
=(. $;Z
Almansi strain:
(10.7)
Log strain:
t; = log,
(10.8)
These measures have already been introduced for truss elements in Chapter 3.
Combining the polar decomposition, F = RU (see (4.127))with (10.la) and noting that U is symmetric:
( 10.9)
Q(N)' iQ(N)Q(N)'
) Q ( N ) ' (10.10)
3
= +[C  I ) = +[U2  I)
1 N,N,'
i= 1
Equation (10.10) has been derived previously in Section 4.9 (see (4.15 3 ) ) . From the derivation of (10.10). we can identify the Green strain, E, as stemming from the combination of (10.6)and (10.2a). Using the polar decomposition, F = VR of (4.126) and the relationship in (10.I b) for V, the Almansi strain of (4.91)can, in a similar fashion be reexpressed as
 7
A(n)=+(I  F  T F p l ) = $ ( I V  T V  l ) = Q ( n ) D i a p (2 i ) Q ( n ) T E2
(10.11)
log,U
(10.12)
In contrast to the strain measures of (10.10) and (10.1I ) , the log strain can only be computed after a polar decomposition has obtained the principal directions, N , and principal stretches, i,. Alternatively (togive a diferent strain measure),using (10%) and (10.8).we can write
logJ = Q(n)Diag(log,G))Q(nIr
(10.13)
I t was shown in Section 4.9 that the Green strain of (10.10) is invariant to a rigid rotation while the Almansi strain of (10.11) is not. In a similar fashion, log,U is invariant to a rigid rotation while log,V is not. The Blot strain can be found by combining (10.5) and ( 10.2a) to give
E , = Q(N)Diag(i, l)Q(N)T U  I =
(10.14)
A comparison of (10.10)and (10.12)with (10.14)shows that, if the stretches E, are small, E 2 log,U 2 E,. Alternative strain measures can be derived. For example, (10.5)could be combined with (10.2b)and Hill [H 1J combines (10.7) with (10.2a)to produce an Almansi strain
*In this chapter and in Chapter 13, we will use C for the (right)Cauchq Green tensor (as i n (10.9)1and. ;is a consequence. will now use D (previously CJfor the constitutibe niatriv (or tensor).
(A(N))that differs from the more usual definition of (4.91) and (10.11) in that, in the former, one would have Q(N)srather than Q(n)s. The Almansi strain, A(N), the Green strain E of (10.1l), the Biot strain, E, of (10.14) and the log, U strain of (10.12) can be considered as belonging to a family of strain measures given by Hill [Hl J (see also [ A l , N1, Pl]) which all relate to (10.2a)and for which
E = +Iog,C
if m
=O
( 10.15b)
With m =  2. one obtains A(N), with 172 = 1, Eh in (10.14) and with nz = 2, the Green strain of (10.10). We have already considered the second Piola Kirchhoff stress which is work conjugate to the Green strain of (10.10).In Sections 1 . and 10.6, we will consider 05 stresses that are work conjugate to some of the other strain measures that have been discussed here.
= O,
+ D,:&
(10.16)
where subscript o means old and subscript n means new and D, is some tangential modular matrix (see the footnote to page 3 for an explanation of the change of notation for the constitutive tensor) which may allow for plasticity (Chapters 6, 14 and 15).The update in (10.16) would imply that, for a rigidbody motion for which 68 = 0, the stresses update via O, = 0,. However, we know (Figure 4.10), that the Cauchy stress components (related to a fixed unrotated coordinate system) d o change under a rigidbody rotation. Hence a more sensible updating scheme would directly incorporate the rotation of (4.63)so that
O, = Ro,RT
(10.17)
where the first term rotates the stresses (Section 4.3.2) and the second is caused by the material constitutive law. In this second term, we have introduced a small time change, Ar, and the strain rate, E (see also (4.108)).Under a rigidbody rotation, equation (10.17)
(with BE = i: = 0) would have resulted from a small displacement change, 6u, whereby
6x,
= RSx, = dx,
+ 6u = x, + v Ar
(10.18)
where the subscript n means new while the subscript o means old and v is the velocity. From ( 10.18), (10.19) Now (see also (4.93) for SE), we can write
=dE+6a
( 10.20)
or =~(4.109)=ilX
(7V
1 2v
z[ax
+
8VT
i,]
1 +
c:v 2[il
?vT
z,]
(10.21)
so that
=
6V
8X
+[L
( 10.22)
The matrices 652 and f2 in (10.21) and (10.22) are skewsymmetric (or antisymmetric) with zeros on the leading diagonal. Such matrices (say S) satisfy the relationship:
ST=
s
( 10.23)
At this stage it is worth emphasising some issues related to the adopted notation. Following the procedure introduced in Chapter 4, we are using & as the velocity strain tensor (or rate of deformation tensor) although i: is not the rate of a strain measure E. In a similar fashion, the spin h is not the rate of some tensor 52. We should also note that and reserve 52 for RRT some authors use W instead of the current h (Bathe [B I ] uses a) which will be introduced later (as W in (10.70)). In addition, Dienes [DI] refers to the current f2 as the vorticity and not as the spin. We require (10.17) to give the correct solution of Ra,RT (see Section 4.3.2) for a rigidbody motion in which i: = 0 and so, from (10.21) and (10.22). in these circutnstances:
( 10.24)
R
and, from (10.17):
Q =
= [I
+ Ar a]
( 10.25)
or
6, = Q,
( 10.26a)
(10.26b)
where
cidt
( 10.27)
ir = ha + ohT D1jC:j: ha + + =
(10.28a)
and irJ is the Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress. (It is also sometimes known as the corotational rate.) In (10.28a), the subscripts JC means Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress and they have been added because, as indicated earlier in Chapter 3, we should indicate the type of stress and strain (and now strain rate) measure when specifying a tangential relationship. If a tangential modular matrix is appropriate for one measure, it may need modifying or transforming if it is used with another measure. In relation to hyperelasticity, the issue of transforming constitutive tensors will be discussed further in Section 12.4 and in Chapter 13. I n two dimensions, (10.28a)can be rewritten, using vector notation for ci and I with a matrix for Dtj<, that so (10.28b) where (o is the spin given by
In both (10.28a)and (10.28b)we have related the Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress, cij, to , the strain rate, Iusing a rate type (or incremental) constitutive law (see Section 4.12 and Chapter 6) so that
bJ= D,,,(a, F):&
( 10.29)
In equation (10.29) the (a) following D l j C indicates that for an elastoplastic or hypoelastic stressstrain relationship, the tangential modular matrix may be a function of the current stresses, a.Also, the (F) term indicates that (for a hyperelastic material) D1jC may also be a function of the deformation gradient. For a hypoelastic relationship. we need to consider the issue of integrating the rate relationships in (10.28a).This will be discussed, in relation to elastoplasticity, in Section 19.5. The Jaumann rate, irJ of (10.28a), is one of a number of objective rates which correctly transforms as a result of a rotation, R (see Section 4.3.2) for which
dx= Rdx (10.30)
(10.31)
HYPERELASTICITY
In the case of the Jaumann rate, using (10,28a),we require (see Section 10.8):
&; = &  &a
+ a&
= R[& 
ba ahR T + J
( 10.33)
An alternative way of looking at the objectivity of &, is that, with no real straininduced stress change, is zero from (10.29) and from (10.28a):
&J
&=hah
and hence with i: = 0:
a =6 , ,
( 10.34)
+ At& = U, + At(&,
a) &
2 :
(I + Ata)a,(I + Ath)
Ra,R
(10.35)
as it should as a result of a rigid rotation. In the last step in (10.39, we have used ( 10.25). In some circumstances (see Section 12.4),it is useful to work with the Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress (t = det(F)asee (4.122))rather than the Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress. In these circumstances, in place of (10.28a), we have
t = t, + h + tdT D ~ , ~ : + h + thT z = E r
(10.36)
where D,jK is the tangential modular tensor appropriate to the Jaumann rate of Kirchoff stress and, generally, differs from the D,jC in (10.28a)(see Section 12.4).
10.3 HYPERELASTICITY
Hyperelasticity will be considered in detail in Chapter 13. However, with a view to the following Section (10.4) on the Truesdell rate, we will here amplify the very basic introduction of Section 4.12. In the first instance, we will consider small strains which are linearly related to the displacements. Following on from the introduction of Section 4.12, the simplest strain energy function, 4, can be expressed as

4 = 4 ( ~ )2pi2 +  I ; = 2
where I , and
(10.37)
(10.38)
and
( 10.39)
and p and xare the Lame constants (see Section 4.2.3). In two dimensions (plane strain), equation (10.39)degenerates to
1  1 2 2  2Ell
+ 2c12c21 + 4
( 10.40)
or: (10.41b) These are the simple linear Hookean stressstrain relationships of (4.27) and (4.28) which can be rewritten (see (4.29)(4.3 1)) as
with
Dijkr
=/f(aikdj[
bilbjk)
JdijRkl;
D = 2pI4
;(I @ 1)
( 10.43)
where, in (10.44) I, is the fourthorder unit tensor and 1 the secondorder unit tensor. The relationships in (10.43) satisfy the symmetry conditions, Cijkl C j i k 1 = C i j k l . = From (10.41a), we also have
& = 2pi:
( 10.44)
In this case. the tangential tensor D, equals the secant tensor D in (10.42). When the strains are nonlinearly related to the displacements, we might adopt a strain measure such as the Green strain (E) so that, in place of (10.37), we would have
4 = +(E)
and in place of (10.41),
( 10.45)
( 10.46)
where the fourthorder constitutive tensor DtK2 (with K 2 for the second Piola Kirchhoff) is now generally not constant but depends on thecurrent strains. A detailed discussion on hyperelasticitly is given in Chapter 13.
or
sub
= Dit:dEcd
(10.48)
(where the movement from a subscript to a superscript is introduced purely according to space). From (10.47), the tangent tensor, DIK2 be written as can
( 10.49)
We now require the equivalent relationship between the Cauchy strees derivatives, 6, and the velocity strain tensor, i: (see (4.108)). However. it is more convenient to start with the Kirchhoff or nominal stress, r = Ja (with J = det(F)) which is related to the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses, S, via (4.122) which is reproduced here as
i = JG = F S F ~
(10.50)
(10.51)
(10.52)
From the nonvirtual form of the relationship in (4.1 12), (10.52) can be reexpressed as
i = F S F ~ LT
+T
L= ~
+, + L~ +
r ~ T
(10.53)
where L is the velocity gradient a v / a x and i~ the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff is stress. Like i ~ . i ~ is an objective stress rate (see also Section 10.8).+ In order to explore further the relationship between (10.48) and (10.53), it is necessary to adopt indicial notation coupled with the relationship (4.1 13) between A$and i whereby:
E =F~ZF;
i = ;r .
iced = F ~ ~ E ~ , F , ~
L = D ~ D K +. L T + T L ~ ~ ~
(10.54)
+ LT+ T
(10.55)
where
(10.56)
Equation (10.56) gives the relationship between the terms in the tangent tensor (D,TK) relating the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress, i~ the velocity strain tensor (2) with to the terms in the tangent tensor ( D t ~ 2 relating the rates of the second PiolaKirchhoff ) stress and Green strain (see (10.48)). By using the relationship L = i + fi (see (10.22)), we can easily transfer (10.55) into the form of (10.36) which involves the Jaumann rate. Hence, we can find a relationship between the constitutive tensor D,TK and D,JK. This issue will be discussed further in Section 12.4. In order to find equivalent relationships to (10.55) for the Cauchy stresses, it is necessary to differentiate r = Ja with J = det(F). This leads to
i = ~ i r Ja = ~ ( i r tr(i)n)
(10.57)
iTruesdell rate, f~ = FSFT can also be considered as the Lie derivative of the Kirchhoff strees [Ml]. With such a notation, the Kirchhoff strees, T would firstly be 'pulled back' from the 'spatial' to the and then differentiated (to obtain S) before being 'pushed 'material configuration' to give S = F  ' T F  ~ forward' to the real configuration.
10
so that
The last relationship in (10.60)follows directly from equation (10.109)which will be derived in Section 10.6.5. For the present. we may simply note that. in the principal directions, the stretches are (see 4.131) i = lnilo with 1, as the new length of an element and 1 , the original length of an element. Hence:
/ = ; : . In
I*
. . 1 i. t="='
I,
. ;
(10.61)
The relationship in (10.61)for the Eulerian strain rate corresponds with the relationship given in (3.14)for truss elements and discussed further in Sections 3.2.1 and 4.6. Substituting from (10.57) into (10.55)gives 6=+atr(i)=D,,,:i+ J J or: with
1. 1 ir,, = D t T C : E =  ~ r =  D c I K : i J J
( 10.64)
La+aL'atr(i)
( 10.62)
ir = b I + La + aLT  tr(i)o
( 10.63)
Again, it can be shown (see Section 10.8) that irT is objective in the sense of (10.30) (10.32).This applies even if the Truesdell rate in (10.64) is related to E via a tangent constitutive tensor, DtTC, does not follow that in (10.64)and(10.56);in other words, that if a hypoelastic relationship is adopted. However (assuming an elastic material), unless the constitutive tensor is derived from some hyperelastic relationship, stresses may be generated as a result of a closed strain cycle [Kl]. Also one may obtain bizarre oscillatory stresses when the strains are large (see Section 10.8). There are a range of objective stress rates other than the Jaumann and Truesdell rates. Two such alternatives will be discussed in Section 10.8.
10.5 CONJUGATE STRESS AND STRAIN MEASURES WITH EMPHASIS ON ISOTROPIC CONDITIONS
In Section 10.1, we introduced a number of strain measures. The current section will lead to the definition of the equivalent workconjugate stress measures. We will often simplify the analysis by considering isotropic conditions. The derivation of some of the
11
relationships can be found in Section 10.6 which is fairly complex and may be skipped at a first reading. From the work of Sections 4.6 and 4.7, the power per unit initial volume can be expressed as .  V=Ja:&=t:&=S:E=P:F=B:E,=O:(log,u)=s:A ( 10.65) where the last three sets of stress measures, B, 0 and S, have not yet been defined. However, their corresponding strains are the Biot strain of (10.14), the log strain of (10.12)and the Almansi strain defined by Hill [H 11and discussed at the end of Section 10.1 (where it was referred to as A(N)).T he latter is given by a combination of (10.2a) and (10.7) so that A=Q(N)Diag(,,)Q(N)'=$(IA2  1 F'FT) ( 10.66) (Note the more usual Almansi strain of (4.91) and (10.1l), has Q(n)'s instead of Q(N)'s. i.e. (10.11) is related to the Eulerian triad while (10.66) is related to the Lagrangian triadsee also Section 4.7). The fundamental measures can be considered as the Cauchy stress, 6. and the velocity strain tensor, &. However, because we are relating everything to the initial volume, we begin with the Kirchhoff stresses, t instead of the Cauchy stresses, a. As a startingpoint in the definition of a particular conjugatestress measure it is necessary to find the relationship between the equivalent strainrate terms in (10.65) and the velocity strain tensor, i.This procedure was adopted in Section 4.6 in order to obtain the relationship between the second PiolaKirchhoff stress, S and the Cauchy stress (see (4.105)). It will now be extended to the other strain measures in (10.65). We will start with the Biot stress which is work conjugate to the Biot strain measure which was introduced in Section 10.1 (see 10.14)as E,=UI Clearly, in conjunctions with (10.69, the Biot stress, B, is defined by
( 10.67)
I/=B:E,=B:U=t:&
( 10.68)
Hence we require a relationship between i: and U. From (4.108), i: is a function of L which in turn, from (4.109) is a function of F. Therefore, we start by differentiating the polar decomposition, F = RU (see 4.126) to give
F = R U + RU
Hence, from (4.109) and (10.22),
( 10.69)
where W = RRT is antisymmetric (see also Section 16.1 I (and particularly equation (16.81~)) Chapter 16 on large rotations). Substituting from (10.70) into (4.108) gives of (10.71)
12
(10.72)
B =RT~RU 
=R
T ~ F  ?= ~
~~p = R ~ F = us S
(10.73)
In general B, like P (see 4.1 19),is nonsymmetric. However, for isotropicconditions, the principal directions of stress ad strain coincide (see Section 5.4.2). As a consequence both E (see (lO.lO)), U (see (10.la))and S can be written in the form:
X = u,N,N:
+ a,N,NT + u3N3NJ
( 10.74)
with different values, in each case, for a1u3. Hence, in these circumstances, U and S are coaxial and from the last term in (10.73), B is symmetric. In relation to (10.74),the strains, E, Es, log,U and A in (10.65)can all be written in the form:
E = E N N:
( 10.75)
where(see Section 4.8) NIN3 are the eigenvectors of U, E1E3 are the principal strains the principal stretches. From (10.5) to (10.8), f ( j v ) in (10.75) are given by and i., i3
(i.l 1)/2 ( 1  p )/2 ' . f ( 4= (;L  1)
In order to derive appropriate conjugate stress measures to the strains in (10.75), we must find the relationship between a general strain rate k and 1. This task will be tackled in Section 10.6. However, for the remainder of this section, we will concentrate on isotropic conditions. In these circumstances, because the principal directions of stress and strain coincide, corresponding to the strains of (10.75)and (10.76), we can write a general stress as
K =K~N,N:
log, r"
Green strain (E); stress = S Almansi's strain (A); stress=S Blot strain (Eb);stress = B log strain ('log,U'); stress = 0
(a) (b)
(4
(d)
( 10.76)
+ K , N , N ~+ K ~ N , N Q(N)Diag(ki)Q(N)T =~
( 10.77)
To obtain the relationship between the particular stress measures corresponding to the strain measures of (10.76), we merely need to ensure that
?f( Ai) K , S E ,= K~ I = constant 6Ai
?Ai
( 10.78)
0 = Q(N)Dia&A)Q(N)T BU = Q(N)Diag(;J;)Q(N)' =
(10.80)
13
If we wish to find the Kirchhoff stress, which relates to the Eulerian triad, in terms of one of the stress measures of (10.77) relating to the Lagrangian triad, we can use t = FSFT. The latter must be combined with the polar decomposition F = RU (see (4.126)),R= Q(n)Q(N)T(see(4.147))and(10.77) withS's insteadofK'sand( l0.la)for U. This leads to
t = RUQ(N)Diag(Si)Q(N)TURT Q(n)Diag(i2Si)Q(n)r Q(n)Diag(r,)Q(n)T = =
(10.81 )
where ri are the principal Kirchhoff stresses. Combining (10.81) with (10.79). we can write
oi= zi = i.;si
( 10.82)
where it must be emphasised that Oi and Sirelate to Q(N)while ri relates to Q(n).Using R = Q(n)Q(N)T (4.147)),we can write (see
BU = RTtR
( 10.84)
It will be shown in Sections 10.7 and 10.8that, for isotropic conditions. we can add to the power expressions of (10.65), the relationships:
I/ = 2:(log,V)*
( 10.85a)
v=B:V=;(tv' + v  ~ T ) : V = R B R ~ : V
(10.85b)
where B is the Biot stress of (10.73) which is work conjugate to 0. For much of the future work in this book, the remaining sections of this chapter can be omitted, certainly at a first reading.
14
which, from (10.15)is equal to U  I so that Eh= U and we only need to find the relationship between i: and 0.This exercise has already been completed in (10.71)but we will now work in principal directions in order to obtain an alternative expression. As a startingpoint, we follow Hill [H 13 and introduce notations of the form:
( 10.87)
where T is any tensor and the subscript L relates to the Lagrangian (material) triad and the subscript E to the Eulerian triad (see Section 4.8).Hence, (T)Lis the tensor, T, with components related to the Lagrangian frame while, (T), is the same tensor related to the Eulerian frame (see Section 4.3.1and (4.35)and (4.36)). e will then apply (10.65)in the W form:
I/ = 7 E : i : E = KL:EL
( 10.88)
where b a r e the rates of the strains E of (10.75)and (10.76)and K are the corresponding stress measures. Only for isotropic materials can we assume that the latter take the form of ( 10.77).
U'
= Q(N)Diag
(I)
Q(N)T
(10.89)
( 10.71 ) can
with the aid of (10.86)and (10.87)and the relationship R = Q(n)Q(N)* (see (4.147)). be reexpressed as
J["" q12]

2 U21
U22
(10.91)
15
10.6.2 Relationship between the Biot stress, B and the Kirchhoff stress, T
For the Biot stress and strain, (10.88) becomes
V = tE:
= B :(Eb)L= BI:U, L
( 10.93)
This equation is equivalent to (10.73). For isotropic materials, (10.77) applies and we can write B = Q(N)Diag(B,)Q(N)'r so that, from (10.86), B12 Diag(Bi) = and hence with r # s, (BrJL= 0 and, from (10.94), we have
t E = Diag(RiBi)= Q(N)TBUQ(N)
I
'Lr(Brr)L
( r = s ) (a)
( 10.94)
(Brs)L
2isir
i r+ i,,
( r # s ) (b)
( 10.95)
( 10.96)
( 10.97)
where for the last relationship in (10.97) we have used ( 10.1a ) and (10.95).Using (10.87) for rE and the relationship R = Q(n)Q(N)'r(see (4.147)),it follows that
BU = RTtR
This relationship was previously established in (10.84).
( 10.98)
10.6.3 Relationship between U, the i ' s and the spin of the Lagrangian triad, W,
To establish the relationship between t and the other stress measures conjugate to the strain, E of (10.75) and (10.76), we require firstly the relationship between the strain rates, k and i. By studying (10.75),we can see that, as a first step, we will require the relationship between k and the principal stretch rates, j". We will find that we also involve the spin of the Lagrangian triad which we will write as W, (in contrast to W = RRT of (10.70) which defines the spin of the Eulerian triad relative to the Lagrangian triad). In the next section (Section 10.6.4), we will obtain the equivalent relationships for k and finally, in Section 10.6.5, we derive the relationships between E and i. As a startingpoint, equation (10.la) can be differentiated to give
( 10.99)
(10.100)
16
Now. just as the matrix W = RRT in (10.70)is antisymmetric, so is the matrix: WN= Q(N)Q(N)' (10.101) The latter is the spin of the Lagrangian triad and can itself be related to the Lagrangian triad to give
( WNh = Q'CQQ
')Q = QTQ
(10.102) (10.103)
+ (WN)l,Diag(i) Diag(R)(W,),, 
(10.104)
where kt?;: and wy: are components from (W&. Because the latter is antisymmetric. p.  w y ) . Equation (10.104)can be rewritten as 
(10.105)
_1
Expanding the previous expression to three dimensions and introducing a suffix notation: (10.106)
(10.107)
( r = s)
(10.108)
We can make (10.108)specific to the particular strain measures of (10.75)and ( 10.76)by adopting (10.76) for the specific f(n)'s. This exercise will be undertaken in Section 10.6.6.1.For the present, we note that with f ( A ) = i  1, and with U = k, we recover (10.106). I t remains to relate the A's and spin components, wzL to i.
17
r =s
(10.109)
which shows that the diagonal components of the velocity strain tensor, k, when related to the Eulerian triad are equal to the rates of the logarithms of the principal stretches. Provided 2, # A,, we can use (10.106) to obtain the components of the spin (WN)l* in terms of the stretches and components of U, while, from (10.92),we can further relate so the latter to the components of iE that
(10.110)
=s)
(10.11 1 )
(I
# 7)
(10.1 1 2 4
(10.1 1%)
(I=
s)
(a)
(10.11 2 4
(I
#s)
(b)
as well as
(10.112d)
Equation (10.112c) applies only if 2, # As. In conjuction with U = k(Biot). the last relationship coincides with (10.92).For the log strain, by using series expansions, it can be shown [H 1) that {I(;.) from (10.112c)can
18
As,
(irs(Iog))L 2 (t:r.q)E
(10.114)
(see Using R = Q(n)Q(N)T (4.147))in conjunction with (10.86)and (10.87), (10.1 14)can be reexpressed as &log) = (iog,u)* : R ~ & = R%R O ( E ~ ) 2 R (10.115) and hence (10.116) i: 1 R(log, U)'RT :
The conjugate stress measures can be obtained by applying (10.93) in conjunction with (10.112).Considering, first, the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and Green strains, from (10.93) and (10.112a),
(7r5)F
= AbriJsrs)ld
(10.1 17)
(10.118)
(10.119)
With the aid of the polar decomposition F = RU (see (4.126)), the relationship R = Q(n)Q(N)T (see (4.147)), and the relationship in (10.la) for the symmetric. U, ( 10.1 19) gives the standard relationship t = FSFT. Considering, now, the Almansi strain, A of (10.66) or (10.75) with (10.76b), from (10.93)and (10.112b), (10.120) where are components of the stress tensor, S, that is conjugate to the Almansi strain A. Equation ( 10.120)can be developed to give
t = F
s,,
'SF
(10.121)
The Biot stress, B, has already been considered in Section 10.6.2. Equations (10.93) and (10.112d)can be used to reestablish (10.94)with subsequent developments leading to (10.95)( 10.98). Considering the log strain of (10.12) or (10.75) with (10.76d), by combining (10.93 with (10.112c),the conjugate stress, 0,is found to be related to T by
[(or.$),
( r = s)
(a) (10.122
19
Equations ( 10.122), which were derived by Hill [H 13, apply only if none of the principal stretches coincide. A good approximation to (10.122) can be obtained by combining (10.93) with (10.115) to give
0 2 RTtR
(10.123)
v = t:(log,V)' = r : &
L = FFwhere W
= RR'
(10.124)
In (10.69), was differentiated F = R U to obtain the expression (10.71) for i; which involves U and U. Instead we now differentiate F = VR to obtain:
= [VR
+ VR]R'rV *
= VV 
+ VWV
(10.125)
L &=I
and hence:
+ L'
2
 2 [Vv1
+ v  ' V + vwv
v  'WV]
W 'rV) :2
(10.126)
t:& = t:i[VV
+ v  'V] + [ V t V 

(10.127)
If the material is isotropic V (see (10.1b)),V  and t (see (10.81 ) ) are coaxial and hence the second term in brackets in (10.127) vanishes and we are left with
t :E = z :
4[VV + v
1
V]
(10.128)
(10.129)
so that
V V  = Q(n)Diag ($)Q(n).
'
+ Q(n)Q(n)'
+ Q(n)Diag(E,)Q(n)TQ(n)@n)TQ(n)Diag
or
V V  ' = Q(n)Diag
(:)
(10.130)
20
is the antisymmetric spin of the Eulerian triad (see (10.101) for the spin of the Lagrangian triad). Substituting from (10.130)and a similar expression for V  ' V into (10.128)gives Q(n)T+ [V

W ITV  V t V  I]:> 2
( 10.132)
Once again, assuming isotropic conditions, the squarebracketed term vanishes and we are left with
r:i: = r:Q(n)Diag
(f)
Q(n)T
(10.133)
I/ = t:(log,
 log,VW,
(10.134)
so that
/;\
r:(log,V)'=r:Q(n)Diag
Q(n)T+ [zlog,V
 log,VzJ:W,
( 10.135)
which again, for isotropic conditions degenerates to (10.133) and the relationship is workconjugate to the strain measure log,V.
i = R O R+ W T + 2wT= z~~ ~
+ W T+ z w r
(10.136)
was where W = RRT. The use of tGN proposed by Dienes [Dl]. It is often called the GreenNagdhi [G 1J rate of Kirchhoff stress. For a hyperelastic material it stems from the relationship for 0. However, when used with a hypoelastic material it provides another objective stress rate and it was in this context that its use was advocated by Dienes [Dl]. He suggested its use in preference to the Jaumann rate because of the oscillatory stresses that resulted with the latter rate when analysing a body subject to shear (see Section 13.10.3).However, the oscillations were associated with large elastic strains, and for such large elastic strains it can be argued that one should use a hyperelastic constitutive relationship (Chapters 13 and 19). In order to compare the GreenNaghdi rate with the Jaumann rate, we need to establish a relationship between W = RRT and 6 = +( L  LT).To this end, from (10.70).
21
we can obtain:
( 10.137)
so that using (10.86)and (10.87)in conjunction with the relationship R = Q(n)Q(N)T we obtain:
[a  WIE= [ U u 
 U
'UIL
(10.138)
and following a similar procedure to that adopted in Section 10.6.1, we arrive at the relationship:
(10.140) Clearly, when the stretches are nearly of the same magnitude, (or, "c wr, and there will be very little difference between the GreenNaghdi rate and the Jaumann rate. These issued have been explored in more detail by Peric [Pl]. Among the Lagrangian strain measures discussed in Sections 10.1 and 10.5, was the Almansi strain, A (in the form used by Hill [H 11)as defined in (10.66).If we defined the stress tensor that is work conjugate to A as S where (see (10.121)), T = FTSF ', differentiation (following a very similar procedure to that adopted in Section 10.4 for the Truesdell rate) would lead to the relationship:
+ = F  T S F  ~t
~  ~ ~ t = + O  t ~  ~ ~ t
( 10.141)
where 2, is sometimes known [Pl] as the Oldroyd CO21 rate of Kirchhoff stress. It is also sometimes known as the CotterRivlin rate or as the 'convected rate'. The stress rate that we have called the Truesdell rate, Lubliner cL4.141 also calls the 'Oldroyd rate' although, in relation to the rate of Cauchy stress, with the Oldroyd rate, Lubliner would omit the tr(i) that is included in (10.62). We have derived all of the rates except the Jaumann rate by taking time derivatives of stresses that were defined in the Lagrangian frame. It was implied that these rates might then relate to a hyperlastic relationship. However, as pointed out in Section 10.4,even if these rates are used in conjunction with a hypoelastic relationship, they are still 'objective' (issues regarding the integration of the rates are discussed in Section 19.5). The issue of objectivity was discussed in Section 10.2 (see equations (10.30)( 10.33)), although the proof that the Jaumann rate was objective was not completed. We will complete it now. As in Section 10.2,we will consider a rigid body rotation superimposed on top of the current state so that (repeating (10.30)): dx' = Rdx (10.142)
where, in the above and for the rest of this chapter, R is a general rotation matrix and is not the rotation matrix associated with a polar decomposition. From (10.142), it
22
F = RF + RF
I t follows that
= RF
+ R R ~ R F R F + WRF =
(10.144)
L f = $F1  R F + W R F ) F  R T = R L R T + W (
and hence:
i: = ____ = R ( ~ > R T 2
(10.145)
L +
LIT
L + LT
W+ (7)W T
= RiRT
(10.146)
(which is not objective). We now differentiate t = RzR1 (where we are using the Kirchhoff stress although we could have used the Cauchy stress) to obtain
+= RtR
+ RtRT + RtRT = t f+ Wt + t f W T
(10.148)
We are now in a position to express the Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress (see ( 10.36))in the rotated configuration as
2.J  i iZt+ tSY = t + Wt + zW t;= R(t  h t

+ r h ) R T = Ri,RT
which demonstrates the objectivity of the Jaumann rate, 2,. Very similar procedures can be used to demonstrate the objectivity of the other stress rates that have been discussed.
SPECIAL NOTATION
23
i = stretch
3. = Lame constant
Vectors
E = Green strains n = unit principal vector in current (Eulerian or spatial) configuration N = unit principal vector in original (Lagrangian) configuration U = displacements v = velocities X = position vector in original configuration x = position vector in current configuration
Matrices or tensors
1 = secondorder unit tensor A = Almansi strain (related to Eulerian triad) A = alternative Almansi strain related to Lagrangian triad b = FFr= left Cauchy Green tensor B = Biot stresses (conjugate to Biot strains, Eb) B = RBR (see 10.85b) C = FTF= (right) Cauchy Green tensor D = constitutive (stressstrain moduli) matrices or tensors E = Green strains E = General strain measure related to Lagrangian triad E , = Biot strain (related to Lagrangian triad) F = deformation gradient I = identity matrix I, = fourth order unit tensor L = velocity gradient, av/dx 0 = stress conjugate to log,U P = first PiolaKirchhoff stress (or nominal stress) Q = orthogonal matrix containing principal directions (Ns or ns) Q(N) = contains the Lagrangian triad Q(n)= contains the Eulerian or spatial triad R = rotation matrix S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses S = stresses conjugate to A U = rightstretch V = leftstretch W = RRT (antisymmetric) = spin of the Eulerian triad relative to the Lagrangian trial W, = (antisymmetric) spin of the Eulerian triad = Q(n)Q(n)T W, = (antisymmetric) spin of the Lagrangian triad = Q(N)Q(N)T bij = Kronecker delta ( = 1, i = j ; = 0, i # j )
24
t? = velocity
CF
fi
= Cauchy stress K = General stress conjugate to general strain, t = Kirchhoff or nominal stress ( = Ja) = spin =  LT)(also, loosely, 6 0 ) (note
i(L
Subscripts
E = Eulerian, signifies a tensor rotated into the Eulerian triad (see (10.87)) G N = GreenNaghdi rate J = Jaumann rate L = Lagrangian, signifies a tensor rotated into the Lagrangian triad (see (10.86)) 0 = Oldroyd rate T = Truesdell rate
Superscripts
= time derivative
10.10 REFERENCES
[All Atluri, S. N., Alternate stress and conjugate strain measures and mixed variational formulations involving rigid rotations, for computational analysis of finitely deformed solids, with application to plates and shells   I , Theor)?, omputers and Structures, 18, ( 1 ), C 93  1 16 (1983). [B 11 Bathe, K.J., Finite Element Procedures, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ( 1996). [Dl] Dienes, J. K., On the analysis of rotation and stress rate in deforming bodies, Actu Mechunica, 32,217232 (1979). [Gl] Green. A. E. & Nagdhi, P. M., A general theory of elasticplastic continuum, Arch. Rut. Mech. Anal., 18,251281 (1965). [Hl] Hill, R., Aspects of invariance, Adoances in Applied Mechunics, Vol. 18, Academic Press, New York, pp. 175 (1978). [H2] Hoger, A., The stress conjugate to log strain, Znt. J . Solids & Struct 23, 16451656 (1987). [H3] Hoger, A., The material timederivativeof logarithmicstrain, Znt. J . Solids & Strirct. 22,(9), 10191032(1986). [K 13 Kojic, M. & Bathe, K.J., Studies of finite element procedures stress solution of a closed elastic strain path with stretching and shearing using the updated Lagrangian Jaumann formulation, Computers & Structs., 26, 175179 (1987). [M 13 Marsden, J. E. & Hughes, T. J. R., Mathematical Foitndutions ofElasticity, PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1983). [N 13 NematNasser, S., On finite deformation elastoplasticity, Znt. J . Solids & Sfrtrcts., 18. 857872 (1982). [ 0 1 ] Ogden, R. W., Nonlinear Elustic Deformations, Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1984). [O2] Oldroyd, J. G., On the formulation of rheological equations of state, Proc. Roq. Soc. London, A200, 523541 (1950).
REFERENCES
25
[Pl] Peric, D., On consistent stress rates in solid mechanics: Computational implications, l l l r . J.$M Num. Meth. in E,tgng., 33, 799817 (1992). [Tl] Truesdell, C., Rational Thermodjmrnics, SpringerVerlag, New York ( 1984). [IT21 Truesdell, C. & Toupin, R. A., The classical field theories. Harrdhttch der Phqsik. ed. S. Flugge, Vol. 11111, SpringerVerlag, Berlin (1960). [T3] Truesdell, C. & Noll, W., The nonlinear field theories, Handhuch drr Phjtsik, ed. S. Flugge, Vol. I11 3, SpringerVerlag, Berlin (1965).
11 Nonorthogonal
coordinates and coand contravariant tensor components
In all of the previous chapters we have, at the stress strain level, worked in rectangular orthogonal coordinates. I n Chapter 8, on shells, when we need to apply the plane stress hypothesis (Section 82.1). we set up a local (Gausspoint level) orthogonal system, before transforming the material properties to the global orthogonal system via (4.55). However, for most finite element work, the shape functions are written with respect to a set of nonorthogonal curvilinear coordinates and we use the inverse Jacobian, to transform differentials with respect to these coordinates to differentials with respect to the global cartesian system (see (5.7)or (5.8)). A n alternative is to work directly with stress and strain components related to the nonorthogonal curvilinear system which is used, in any case, for the shape functions. To d o this we can use CO and contravariant components of the stresses and strains which relate to the nonorthogonal curvilinear coordinates. With a view to such analyses, we will initially describe nonorthogonal coordinates and the transformations that use these coordinates and will introduce concepts such as the reciprocal basis and the metric. We will also develop expressions for the Green strain and second Piola Kirchhoff stresses in relation to such coordinates. For a more thorough grounding, the reader should refer to [Sl,Yl]. Before commencing, it should be emphasised that, while some of the later work in this book is based on the concepts developed in this chapter, this is not generally the case. Consequently, with a view to subsequent chapters, the present chapter can initially be skipped if the reader is not particularly interested in the topic.
NONORTHOGONALCOORDINATES
a3curve
27
curve
point P to the curvilinear coordinates, a. These could be the standard finite element natural coordinates so that
(The reason for the use of superscripts rather than subscripts will be explained later.)To obtain the base vectors, e,e,, we have
e. = :
Sr
?E
i = 1,3
( 1 1.2)
28
Given these (covariant or natural) base vectors (which may not be of unit length), it is useful to obtain the 'reciprocal basis' composed of a set of (contravariant)vectors ele3 (Figure 1 1.2). These vectors are such that e' is orthogonal to e2 and e,; e2 is orthogonal to e, and e,; e3 is orthogonal to e, and e2. In addition, we require that e'e3 forms a righthanded system (as does ele3) and that e:el = eTe2 = e:e3 = 1. Clearly, if the original system eie3 is orthonormal (orthogonal and with each vector of unit length), then the reciprocal basis e'e3 will coincide with the original basis. The previous conditions can be expressed as
eTej=e:eJ=6J= 1
(i = j ) = 0 (i # j )
( 1 1.3)
In equation ( I 1.3) we have introduced the notation that will be used throughout this chapter whereby a dot is used for the 'dot product' rather than using the transpose symbol, 'T'. (This procedure is used to avoid cluttering, as we are now adopting superscripts as well as subscripts.) Using the cyclic (1,2,3) system, we can, from the above, obtain the vectors, e' via (11.4) where is the volume of the parallelepiped with edges along the base vectors ei. This positive scalar (with a righthanded system) is given by
11
I  = e, .(e,
(1 1.5)
A n y vector, can now be expressed either in terms of the (global) orthonormal base vectors i ,  i 3 or the base vectors e , e3 or the reciprocal base vectors, e'e3. In particular, we can write
( 1 1.6a)
( 1 1.6b)
The components xi in ( 1 1.6a)are known as the contravariant components of x, while the components x i in (11.6b) are known as the covariant components of x. By multiplying (1 1.6a)by ei and using (1 1.3),we can obtain the contravariant components of x as
x' = xae'
(1 1.7a)
11.2 TRANSFORMING THE COMPONENTS OF A VECTOR (FIRSTORDER TENSOR) TO A NEW SET OF BASE VECTORS
In Section 4.3.1, we considered the issue of transforming both vectors and tensors to a new set of orthonormal axes. In the present section, we will consider the similar
29
transformation for the components of a firstorder tensor (or vector) using nonorthogonal bases. To this end, the vector x of (1 1.6a) and (1 1.6b) is reexpressed in relation to a new set of nonorthogonal basis vectors el  e 3 and e '  e 3 so that
(1 1.8a)
(1 1.8b)
(1 I .9a)
Zi=x*el
( I 1.9b)
( e / .e j ) x j = ( e / . e l ) x r +
(ei
 ez)x2 + ( e i
e3)x3
( 1 1.10a)
xi = ( e i . e j )  x j
with substitution from ( I 1.6a) into (1 1.9b) giving
( 1 1. 1Ob)
Xj = ( e i
X = (er i
ej)xj
(11.1Oc)
ej)xj
(11.10d)
In terms of the components, we can adopt a matrix notation so that, for example from (1 1. lOa), we have
[xi]= [ei e j ] [ x j ]
(1 1.1 1)
where the vector ( x i }is the vector containing the three contravariant components with respect to the barred base vectors, and the vector { x j } contains the three contravariant components with respect to the unbarred base vectors while the matrix [ e ' a e , ] contains, for example, the scalar 2'  e3 in the position (1, 3). If we consider orthonormal bases, there is no distinction between CO and contravariant components so that we can use subscripts throughout and (1 1.10a) would become (11.12) In Section 4.3.1, equation (4.41) transformed an 'old' vector, ro to a ' new' vector rn using (see (4.41)):
rn = Tro = TnT;fro
(11.13)
where, strictly, we were working with components so that, in relation to the new terminology: ro = {xi}; rn = (xi) (11.14) following for this switch of notation, (1 1.13)(or (4.41)) with (4.49) coincides with (1 I . 12).
30
( 1 1.15a)
( 1 1.15b)
(Note that A # [ A i j ] and that, in this chapter, we are changing our normal notation whereby the matrix abT or a @ b is the outer product of the vectors a and b so that, instead, the matrix is given by ab). Equation (1 1.15a)involves the nine contravariant components of A, namely A'Jwhile equation (1 1.15b) involves the nine covariant components, namely A i j . In order to obtain an expression for A,', we can multiply both sides of (1 1.15a)by ej and use (1 1.3) so that [A:&]
= A'Je,
( 1 1.16)
This operation is followed by the premultiplication of both sides of (1 1.16) by ei7'to obtain:
11.4 TRANSFORMING THE COMPONENTS OF A SECONDORDER TENSOR TO A NEW SET OF BASE VECTORS
For a different set of base vectors, e le3 and e' e3, (1 1.15a)and ( 1 1.15b)can be replaced with
while in place of (1 1.17a)and ( 1 l.l7b), we have xij= ei.(A:ej) and Aij = ei*(A:ej) Substituting from ( 1 1.15a)into (1 1.19a)gives
(11.19a) (11.19b)
31
or
Aij = (ei.eu)(eeb)A,, A
a
( 1 1.20c)
We could also substitute from (11.15a) into (11.19b) to get a similar relationship between a term Aij and the nine components A"' or from ( 1 1.15b) into (1 1.19a) to get a relationship between a term A" and the nine components A matrix expression that is equivalent to, say, ( 1 1.20~) easily be obtained as can
( 1 1.21)
where [A] is a 3 x 3 matrix containing the nine components Aij and [ A ] an equivalentmatrix containing the nine components A i j while the transformation matrix [ T ] contains the nine components of ei.eJ,i.e.
[A] = [Aij]; [ A ] = [ A ~ ~ ] ; [ T ]= [ei.ej]
( 1 1.22)
If we consider orthogonal axes so that subscripts can be used everywhere, equations (11.20a)and (1 1.20b)are equivalent to the transformations of (4.51) and (4.50)derivedin Section 4.3.1. In addition, the matrix form in (1 1.21) and ( 1 1.22) is equivalent to the combination of (4.42) with (4.49).
( 1 1.23a) (1 1.23b)
( 1 1.24a)
while if we set x
= e'
in (1 1.23b), we obtain
e' = (e'ej)e. eijej =
( 1 1.24b)
The nine scalar coefficients eij (often written with the letter g ) are known as the covariant components of the metric tensor while the nine scalar coefficients f?"' are known as the contravariant components of the metric tensor. The former are given by e IJ .= e:e J . 1 while the latter are given by
,ij
( 1 1.25a)
( 1 1.25b)
= et.e J
By taking the dot product of both sides of (1 1.24a) with ek and making use o (1 1.3),it can be shown that
e:ek = 6k = e ..&+ek= e ..eJk
1 1
( 1 1.26)
32
Consequently the matrix [e,,) containing the nine components eij is the inverse of the matrix, [Ie'J] containing the nine components of eiJ,i.e.:
[e'j]
= [ e ..)
(1 1.27)
Equations (1 1.24a)and (1 1.24b)allow the components of the metric tensor to be used to transform from the original basis, (e,e,) to the reciprocal basis, (e'e3). These components can also be used to transform between CO and contravariant components of a tensor (such as stress and strain). To this end, if we substitute from (1 1.24b) into ( 1 1.15b) and compare the result with (1 l.l5a), we obtain A'' = eikeJ1Akl ( 11.28a)
A similar manipulation can be used to obtain A i j = eikejlAk' (1 1.28b)
w = ad& = aij6Eij=
cT1
+ a,,6&,, +
. * 
(1 1.29)
where o are some stresses and BE the equivalent workconjugate strain changes. Equation (1 1.29)involves the tensors G and SE. We will now generalise the operation in relation to general tensors A and B which may be related to nonorthogonal bases. We then have )+' = A : B = B:A = AT:BT= A . .Bij AijBij= AijBij (1 1.30) Clearly, with a rectangular, cartesian system, using subscripts throughout, (1 1.30)will be consistent with (1 1.29). In order to demonstrate the validity of (11.30), it is useful to note that, while in cartesian coordinates, the identity matrix, I, can be written as I = eiei= elel + e,e,
with nonorthonormal bases, we have
+ e3e3
(1 1.31)
I = eiei= eiei
A ,,B~J= (ei e,) (e, eb)Aub(ei (ej.ed)Bcd ec)
*
(1 1.32)
To show that Ai,Bij = A'jB,,, we can use (11.3),(1 1.25),(11.28) and (11.32) so that
= (e,
 eieiec)eb. jeJed)AabBcd ( e
(1 1.33)
 ..
= (e;eC)(eb.ed)AabB,,AabB,b = A"B,, =
To show that any set of bases can be used and, for example, that AijB" = AijB", we can use (1 1.3),(1 1.20)and (11.32)so that:
A ,B'J = (ei. ') (e,*eb)Aab(ei ( S* e d ) B c d e ec)
= (ea e,e'e,)(eb. ,iiJed)AabBcd e = (e".e,)(ebed)AabBcd = AabBab AijBij= AijBi' =
 ..
(1 1.34)
33
The 'natural strains' can be considered as the covariant strain components, C,,, where . . E = EG'GJ= E ~ ~ G ~ G ~ + . . . I/ + ( I 1.36) With G' G3 as the contravariant base vectors (previously e1e3)while the covariant base vectors are (see (1 1.12))
G.
dX '  da'
( 1 1.37)
(Capital X is being used because this will relate to the initial configuration, while in the next section we will also consider the current configuration for which a small .x will be adopted). In a twodimensional setting, the conventional Jacobian matrix is
"I
( I 1.38)
where i" = i,y are the unit normal vectors defining the rectangular orthogonal base system. (Note: some authors define J as the transpose of the current J . ) Rather than starting with the strains, we will firstly consider the displacement derivatives (see (4.72)) and will write:
D,G'G" =
iris
( 1 1.39)
where Dr.7 are the covariant components and D,, are the conventional cartesian components. With the aid of (1 1.21) and ( I 1.22), it follows that
[Drs]
[Gr i"][Dr,y][Gr"IT i
*
( 1 1.40)
(11.41)
D =J D J ~
where D is the matrix containing the covariant components
6 and
D is the matrix
34
NONORTHOGONALTENSOR COMPONENTS
containing the cartesian components D. Using a vector notation, ( 1 1.41) can be reexpressed as
( 1 1.43)
( 1 1.46)
and if we define
D,t=
I [I
I[
3< 81 7 3%) all _=
3ddd 3 87) 5
3d dd da' 3 d
( 1 1.47)
a<37
then the conventional procedure for obtaining the cartesian derivatives would involve
D T = j1~;
( 1 1.48)
so that substitution into ( 1 I .41) gives the equivalent matrix ofcovariant components as
D =J D ~
Directly in terms of these components, ( I 1.49) can be written as
( 1 1.49)
( 1 1.50)
I t is worth noting that while the Jacobian matrix is given by ( 1 1.38), the inverse Jacobian can be written as
J I =
[GlG'] =
(11.51)
35
DEFORMATION GRADIENT
We will adopt convected curvilinear coordinates (Figure 1 1 . 1 ) so that the equivalent point in the original and final configurations is still referred to by the same convected coordinates, (1'. For an element in the initial configuration, we then obtain dX dX=Idar=G,dn/ da
( 1 1 S2a)
are where G I  G ~ the covariant (or natural) base vectors (in Sections 11.11 1.6, the latter were written as eIe3). In the current configuration:
( 1 1.52b)
The conventional relationship dx = FdX is recovered from ( 1 1.52a) and ( 1 1.52b) with F = g,G' = g;G' g,G' g,G3 ( 1 1.53)
Following the approach of Section 4.4 (but now in nonorthogonal coordinates), we can use (1 1.52) to write
i = 4 [g,,
G,,]da'da
( 1 1.56)
where Eij are the covariant components of the Green strain tensor, E. with respect to the basevectors G'  G'. In addition:
E = E,G'G
* *
5 [gl/
G,,]G'G
'
( 1 1 S7a)
which could be obtained more directly from (4.74) (1 1.24a), ( 1 1.32) and ( 1 1.36)so that
( 1 1.57b)
to this end, we use the cartesian base vector i1i' so that the initial vector to a point
36
P is
= X;i; = X2il
+ X2i2 + X3i3
(1 1.59)
Still using the cartesian base vectors, the position vector of the final point P, would be x = x;i; = xi il + . q i 2 + .x3 i 3 (1 1.61)
so that using (1 1.52b):
(1 1.62)
Hence, substituting from (1 1.63) and (1 1.64) into (1 1.56) gives as expression for E0 that coincides with the component form in (1 1.58). If, following the approach of Section 11.7, we use hats to represent the components with respect to the cartesian system and bars to represent the covariant components, we can use (1 1.21) and (1 1.22) (see also (1 1.43)) so that:
E =J E J ~
or, in component form (see ( 1 1.20~)):
(1 1.65)
(As in Sections 11.7 and 11.8, the hats are introduced for components related to the cartesian base vectors). It has already been shown in Section 1 1.8 that it is convenient to work with the covariant components of the Green strain. In these circumstances, from ( 1 1.30) we should adopt the contravariant components of the second PiolaKirchhoff
37
(1 1.68)
where the bars indicate covariant components for strains (or strain variations) and contravariant components for stresses. Consequently to complement the Green strain in the form of (11.38), we require to express the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses via:
s = PG,G, = PG,G, 2 +$ 1
~ , ~ ,
+ ...
(1 1.69)
To complete the work definition (see (11.68)), we require the variations of the Green strain, 6E. From (1 1.57), the variations of the covariant components are given by
SEij = ;sgij
Using (11.52b) for gi, we have:
= ;6(gi*gj) +(gi.6gj =
+ 6g,*gj)
(1 1.70)
( 1 1.71)
where 6d are the changes in displacements (with x = X (initial) + d).
(Similar developments can apply to the tangent form of (1 1.72)with &,b and 6ECd instead of E c d . ) The tensor, S can be expressed as
s = gijiijj ~ J G , G , =
E = E..i.i.= E , , G ~ G ~ I I I
while, for work conjugacy (i.e. with the work being expressed via (1 1.68)), the Green strain E should be expressed as
(1 1.74)
We now wish to modify t a b c d so as to relate Pj to Eij.TOthis end, we can use (1 1.20a)to provide:
. sLJ (Gi,) (G.i b ) g , b =
(1 1.75)
where we have used the fact that in relation to the base vectors, i1i3, there are no differences between CO and contravariant vectors or components so that subscripts leads to can always be used. Applying a similar process to (1 1.20~)
Ecd
( 1 1.76)
E =J
1EjT
(1 1.77)
30
Substitution from ( 1 1.66)into ( 1 1.69) is followed by the substitution of ( 1 1.76) into the result and gives:
( 1 1.78)
id)cabcd
( 1 1.79)
Suppose the system G,G, was, in fact orthonormal so that G, = G', then equation ( 1 1.79) represents the transformation of the components of a constitutive tensor from one orthonormal system to another. Such transformations were considered in Section 4.3.1, where the components of the transformation matrix were written in (4.50)as
(1 1.80) Tij= (e,;ej,) = (Gi*ij) where the first relationship uses the notation of Section 4.3.1and the last relationship uses the present notation. It follows that, in these circumstances, ( 1 1.57)coincides with (4.55). In the special case of a linear isotropic material, in relation to the system i , i3, we have (see (4.30))
hence, in relation to CO and contravariant components, we can, via (1 1.57), write:
= ~ ( G ~ . G J ) @ . G Jj )l ( ( ~ i . ~ k ) ( ~ j . + (IG )~ . G I ) ( G J . G ~ ) ) ~
or
= i(cij)(ckI) j
l ( ( ~ ~ ~ ) ( ~ j ' )
+ (ciI)(cjk))
,=(:)=xi,+
Yi,
(1 1.83)
Here X and Y can also be mapped using the standard isoparametric shape functions in terms of the nondimensional coordinates, and q which, in the present context, are special forms of 'convected curvilinear coordinates', xi (i = 1,2). Hence, from ( 1 1.52a) and Figure 11.3, the covariant base vectors C i be found as can
<
( 1 1.84a)
( 1 1.84b)
39
f
I I
V V )
17
=a2
Unit vectors
(If equations (1 1.84a) and (1 1.84b) cannot be accepted by inspection, one may simply obtain them by expressing the initial coordinates X and Y in terms of a, b and 0 using the usual bilinear isoparametric shape functions.) Hence. from (1 1.25) (but with G's instead of 4's):
G11
= G l *G l = u2,
G 2 , = G,. G, = b2,
G,,
= G , . G, = abcos0
(1 1.85)
so that the matrix containing the four covariant components of the metric tensor is
(1 1.86) and the determinant is det[Gij] = a2b2sin2 0 Hence, using (1 1.27) (again with G's instead of e's):
[Gij] = [Gij] ub COS
(1 1.87)
(11.88)
For the Green strains, we require the base vectors, gi, which are given by
( 1 1.90)
40
NONORTHOGONALTENSOR COMPONENTS
where d are the displacements with dT = (U,v)'. For the current example: (1 1.91a)
( 1 1.91b)
The covariant components of the Green strain, E,,, can be found using (1 1.56),(1 1.88) and ( 11.92).Also, from ( 11.64),( 11.65) and ( 11.91): &El = g*Sg, = (U + uc)6u<+ u ~ ~ u , (1 1.94a) (11.94b)
( 1 1.94c)
If we wish to relate the covariant strain components to a set of 'hatted' strains relating to a rectangular system, with base vectors, i , , i, (see Figure 11.3),we note that from the first relationship in (1 1.68):
E = E,,ili,
( 1 1.95)
(1 1.96)
(1 1.97)
1 a'
_ *
~ 1 .2 i 
 cot
e;
G2*il O =
(11.98)
U2
( 1 1.99a)
(1 1.99b)
41
(1 1.99c) We could obtain these relationships using the Jacobian matrix by noting (see also (1 1.77)) that (1 1.97) can be written as E = J'FJT where
(11.100)
6s abs bc
0
a
(1 1.101)
which could be obtained using the contravariant base vectors of (1 1.89) in conjunction with (11.51). The previous relationships (1 1.99) also apply to the 6Eu's so that, from (1 1.99) and (1 1.94):
61 =  ( ( a + U < ) S U ~+ V ~ S W ~ ) 21
SE22
=
1 a2
(11.102a)
1 ((b2c2q  abcu,)Su, + (b2c2vc  ab2sc  absv,)Sv< a2b2s2 + (abcue + a2u,)Su, + (a2bs  abcvt + a2v7,)Sv,)
~
(1 1.102b)
+ +
The latter strain variations can, of course, be obtained in a more conventional manner using (4.79) (2SE = FTSD + SDFT) in conjunction with terms such as
dSu 1
or using (1 1.48):
=Jl($);
= J'(
z:)
(11.103)
(11.104) In conjunction with F = I + D or with (1 1.53) whereby F = g,G' + g2G2.The reader can easily demonstrate that this route also leads to the strain variation terms in (11.102). The stresses can be expressed via:
( 1 1.105)
42
s = P G , G , + S 1 2 C , G ,+ S 2 1 G 2 c + S22G2G2 l
so that, from ( 1 1.20a)or the matrix equivalent:
( 1 1.106)
( 1 1.107)
( 1 1.108a) ( 1 1.108b)
( 1 1.108~)
( 1 1.109)
cJk
s,,)
SPECIAL NOTATION
ug = differential of u with respect to 2': = differential of c with respect to
43
(similar for u s )(Section 1 1.1 1 ) (similar for r V )(Section 11.1 1) r = volume of parallelepiped (Section 1 1.1) si = covariant components of x (also .fi's of X) .xi = contravariant components of x (also S"S of x) p = shear modulus x 'ax3= convected curvilinear coordinates (natural coordinates) <,q, i: = natural coordinates 3, = Lame constant 0 = angle (Figure 1 1.3)
Vectors
d = displacement vector e,e3 = covariant base vectors (also e,'s) ele3 = contravariant base vectors (also e"s) G ,  G , = covariant base vectors of initial configuration g,g, = covariant base vectors of final configuration ili3 = orthonormal base vectors r = position vector x = position vector (from Section 11.7 in final configuration) X = position vector in initial configuration
A = secondorder tensor (also A) C = fourthorder constitutive tensor D = displacement derivatives D = [fiij]rnatrix of displacement derivatives with respect to orthonormal cartesian base vectors D = [Dij]matrix of covariant components of the displacement derivatives. D; = matrix derivatives with respect to natural coordinates (see ( 1 1.47)) [eiJ = matrix of covariant components of metric tensor [e'j] = matrix of contravariant components of metric tensor E = Green strain F = deformation gradient [G,,] = matrix of covariant components of metric tensor in initial configuration [G'j] = matrix of contravariant components of metric tensor in initial configuration I = unit matrix (secondorder tensor) J = Jacobian matrix (see Section 11.7)
44
NONORTHOGONALTENSOR COMPONENTS
S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses T = transformation matrix S i = Kronector delta (see ( 1 1.3)) ct = general stress tensor ik = general strain variation tensor
11.13 REFERENCES
[Sl] Sokolnikov, I. S., Trrtsor AnccIjtsis, Wiley, New York, London, Sydney (1964). [Y 13 Young, E. C., C'ecfor l i d Trrrsor Anulj~sis. arcel Dekker. New York 1978). M
12
In this chapter, we will apply some of the theory of Chapters 10 and 11 to the finite element analysis of continua. The developments of Chapter 5 were all based on the Green strain and the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses. To this end, they used the total Lagrangian system in which the stress and strain measures are related to the initial configuration. An updated Lagrangian system was also discussed in which these measures were related to some (temporarily fixed) new updated initial configuration (Sections 5.3 and 5.4). An alternative that is often adopted in largestrain analysis is to relate all measures to the current configuration. A finite element formulation using this approach was initially given by McMeeking and Rice [M 13 and used the Jaumann rate introduced in Section 10.2. McMeeking and Rice called this approach Eulerian and used it for largestrain elastoplastic analysis. The details of the elastoplastic side of the analysis will be discussed in Chapter 19 (with the related topic of hyperelasticity being considered at an earlier stage in Chapter 13). For the present we will concentrate on the development of the finite element equationsin particular the internal force vector and the tangent stiffness matrix. We will follow McMeeking and Rice in calling this formulation Eulerian, but will include the parentheses because the terminology has a debatable origin. Indeed the method is not Eulerian in the sense that the latter is often used in relation to computational fluid dynamics in which the material moves through a mesh. In the current Eulerian procedure the progress of a specific material particle is traced and in that sense the method is Lagrangian. Indeed it could be termed as a form of updated Lagrangian technique whereby the referenceconfiguration is the current configuration. However, in this book we will continue to consider the updated Lagrangian technique as being a total Lagrangian technique in which the reference configuration is periodically updated but is held fixed while the equilibrium iterations are performed (Sections 5.3 and 5.4). In contrast in our Eulerian formulation, the reference configuration is continuously changing and we must account for this change. It will be shown in Chapter 13, that in conjunction with a hyperelastic material behaviour (Section 10.3 and Chapter 13), the Eulerian formulation can be exactly equivalent to one based on the Green strain and second PiolaKirchhoff stresses using the total Lagrangian approach. In describing the tangent stiffness matrix for the Eulerian formulation, we will use various rate forms (particularly the Truesdell rate
46
(Section 10.4)and Jaumann rate(Section 10.2).I t should again beemphasised that with a hyperelastic material it makes no difference which rate form is used. The total Lagrangian formulations of Chapter 5, were all based on a rectangular cartesian coordinate system. In Section 12.6, we will reformulate some of these developments using the convected coordinates and CO and contravariant base vectors discussed in Chapter 11. Because of the limited objectives within this chapter, there will be little discussion of other finite element work in the wide area of nonlinear analysis of continua. Instead, such discussion will be postponed to the later related Chapter 13 (on hyperelasticity), Chapter 18 (on continua and shell elements) and Chapter 19 (on largestrain elastoplastic analysis).
12.1 A SUMMARY OF THE KEY EQUATIONS FOR THE TOTAL LAGRANGIAN FORMULATION
Some of the equations for the Eulerian formulation take a very similar form to those derived in Chapter 5 for the total Lagrangian formulation. Consequently, we will start by summarising the latter. To save space, throughout this chapter, we will concentrate on the twodimensional formulation. As shown in Section 5.1.3, for the total Lagrangian formulation, the threedimensional procedure takes a very similar form.
G(X)"[H + A(B)]SdV,,
where S is the vector of second PiolaKirchhoff stresses while
(12.1)
1
H = E
8
]I
( 12.2)
J  l ( l . l ) h [ + Jl(1,2)h;
Or
O1'
e=
J  '(2,l)h:
+ J  *(2,2)hT
OT Or J'(2,1)hT
+ J'(2,2)hi
where h; and h, are derivatives of the shape functions with respect to the nondimensional coordinates while J is the 2 x 2 Jacobian matrix (see (5.6))which is here
47
a function of the initial coordinates, X. (With a different ordering for the nodal variables, the matrix G(X) would take a different from but the concepts would be the same.) In contrast to the work in Chapter 5, we will here keep rigorously to the convention whereby capital Xs and Ys relate to the initial coordinates while small ss and ys relate to the current coordinates. The matrix A(8)in (12.1) is given (see (5.10))by
;1
(7c
0 1
(1 2.4)
(7X
6E = [H
+ A(O)]Sp = B,,(p)Gp
( 12.5)
K, = K,
with:
+ K,, =
B;,C,,,B,,d V, + G(X)%G(X)d Vo
( 12.6)
s1 2 s2 2
I
s 2 2
( 12.7)
0 I O
s.ji
The threedimensional form of is given in (5.36). In (12.6),we have included the subscript tK2 on the tangential constitutive modular matrix to indicate that the latter relates to the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses. As originally indicated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, once large strains are introduced it is important to specify the types of stress and strain measure when considering the constitutive relationships.
48
with a as the Cauchy stresses and T as the Kirchhoff stresses (see 4.122) given by r = Ja = det(F)a.The final integral in (1 2.8) relates to the initial volume while the first integral relates to the current volume. In ( 1 2.8), 6, are the virtual strains following from the virtual velocities (or, effectivelysee Section 4.6virtual displacement changes). From (4.108)and (4.109)(see also (10.21)and (10.22)),we can write: ( 1 2.9)
where we have, rather loosely, mixed tensor and matrix and vector notation. The matrix H was defined in (12.2)while G(x)takes precisely the same form as G(X)in (12.3), although now the included terms from the Jacobian matrix J relate to J(x)rather than J(X). Using a pure matrix and vector notation, we can write:
&=
?U
"
0 1 1 0
(y = He = HG(x)p = B(x)p
(12.10)
where
OT OT
+
(12.1 1 )
= G(x)j,
and p contains the vector of nodal displacement changes (or velocities). (Note, the threedimensional ordering of e(x) follows the form given in (5.29).) Substitution from (12.9)into (12.8)gives:
r r
(12.12) Knowing the stresses a (or T), the internal force vector, qj is easily computed from ( 12.19)
aS
B(X)'GdV,
B(X)TTdVo G(X)IHTrdVo =
(12.13)
49
12.3 THE TANGENT STIFFNESS MATRIX IN RELATION TO THE TRUESDELL RATE OF KIRCHHOFF STRESS
We have chosen to start with the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress because this choice gives the simplest form of the tangent stiffness equations. We will start by writing down the solution (which is remarkably simple) and will later give the derivation (which is not so simple). In place of (12.6) for the total Lagrangian formulation, we obtain:
K, = K , ,
+ K,,
B(X)rc,TKB(X)d~o G(x)?G(x)d Vo +
(12.14)
in (12.7), i.e.
( 12.7)
o o i
1;
%=[
:::
713
12
13
22
7231
33
( 12.15b)
23
The subscript tTK on the tangential constitutive modular matrix in (12.14) indicates that the latter relates to the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress. The transformation between the coefficients of c , T 2 for use in (12.6) and the coefficients of CtTK use in for (12.14)has been given in (10.56). It is worth restressing that if such transformations are made and if a consistent hyperelastic formulation is used (more in the next chapter),the current Eulerian formulation should give identical results (including an identical tangent stiffness matrix) to the previous total Lagrangian formulation. Because of the relationship between B(x) and G(x) in (12.10), (12.14) can be expressed in the more efficiently programmable form:
K, = G(x)~[H~C,,,H+ ?]G(x)dVo
( 12.16)
8P=bqTpV=
t:6i,,dVo+ f : E , d K = I l + I ,
( 12.17)
50
In the previous equation and throughout this chapter we will loosely switch between CS'S and rates (.'s) as it appears convenient to do so. A stricter formulation would involve the introduction of certain 6t's see Section 4.6. From ( 12.20)we can write:
( 12.2 1 )
where the last relationship follows from the nonv rtual equivalent of 4. I 12).Substituting from ( 12.2 1 ) into ( 12.18) gives:

[L, L + L.~L;]
( 12.22)
Using (12.22) and the fact that z is symmetric, the I , term in (12.17) is found to be given by
( 12.23)
In order to compute the I , term from ( 1 2.17), we adopt the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress so that from (10.53):
i=i,+Lr+rLT=Ctrlc:i:+LrfrL'
Substituting from (12.9) and (12.24) into I ? from (12.17) leads to
I?
=
( 12.24)
+ L,'))dVc,
(12.25)
( 12.26)
I 2 = ( ( C t I K i ) : + L,'L:z i,
Substituting for I , from ( 12.23)and for I from ( 12.27) into ( 12.17)gives the expression
+ L,L:t)dV,
( 12.27)
hi.=
Substituting for i: a s B(x)p (see (12.9))and using a similar expression for the virtual
( ( C t r K i ) :+ LIL:t)dV,, &
( 12.28)
51
equivalent leads to the first term on the righthand side of (12.28) being expressed as [(c,,,:&):&,,dV,, = pTKl1p= p: [B(x)C,,,B(x)dV,,P
J
J
( 1 2.29)
which established the matrix K , , defined in (12.14). The second term in (12.28)can be expressed as
dV,,
(12.30)
where K,, is the geometricor initial stresscontribution to the tangent stiffness matrix. Using ( 12.11), equation (12.30) can be reexpressed as
I: :I ::
0 0 [o 01
[: :] [::: : I
(12.31) which establishes the initial stress matrix K,, defined in (12.14). ( A very similar derivation will lead to the threedimensional form o f t given in (12.15b)).
12.3.2 Discretised derivation of the tangent stiffness matrix
In the previous section, we derived the tangent stiffness equations by starting with the continuum expressions and only substituted in for the discretised (finite element) relationships at the final stage. In Section 5.1.2, it was shown that, for the total Lagrangian formulation, we could alternatively start with the discretised form for the internal force vector. We will now follow this route for the Eulerian formulation and will differentiate ( 12.13) so that 6qi = 6 G ( x )HTzd Vo + G(x )HT&d Vo = I , ~ ~
To obtain the integral I,, a relationship must first be found between &X) and 6(x)which is given by
?U
+ I,,
( 12.32)
e(x) =
52
from which, knowing that 6(X) = G(X)p and 6(x) = G(x)p, we can write:
( 12.34)
(12.35)
6G(x)1= 
=  G(x)"L
( 12.36)
J G(x)'Lr,d v~,
( 1 2.37)
,=
( 12.401
with ? from (12.15)and i from (12.38). Substitution from (12.1 1 ) into (12.41)leads to Ib2
=
G(x)Ti6(x)d + G(x)'?&x)d Vo Vo
( 12.4 1 1
G(x)'iG(x)dV,p
G(x)'?G(x)dV,p
( 12.42)
53
Substitution from (1 2.38),(12.40) and (12.42) into (1 2.32) leads to the tangential stiffness equations: ( 12.43) 6qi = Qi = KJp = KIP with K, from (12.14).
12.4 THE TANGENT STIFFNESS MATRIX USING THE JAUMANN RATE OF KIRCHHOFF STRESS
Following the work in Section 12.3, we will first write down the solution and then give the derivation which stems from the use of the Jaumann rate form (see 10.36):
t = tj +
( 12.44)
= Kll
+ Km2 +
K I O
= ~B(x)TC,,,B(x)dvo 
B(x)TiB(x)d + G(x)T?G(x)d Vo Vo
= / B ( x ) ~ ( C , , i)B(x)dVo ~
s
2
G(x)T?G(x)d I/,
( 12.45)
TI 1
+722
( 12.46)
T =
( 12.47)
where iij + ( 7 i i + T =
~ ~ )
(1 2.48)
For the same hyperelastic material, the tangent stiffness matrix in (12.45) should be identical to that given earlier for the Truesdell rate in (12.14) (or (12.16)).To show this relationship, we have to take account of the differences in the tangent C, tensors. In particular, comparing (12.24) with (12.44) leads to the relationship
t, + LT + T L = t, +& ~
+ zhT
(1 2.49)
54
t,
Using suffix notation, from (12.50), the two modular matrices are related by
c: i ;
7jldik
7,kbjl
Tjkbjl]
(12.5 1)
Hence, writing CrrK from (12.51) in terms of CtJK and substituting into (12.14) leads directly to (12.45)and indeed, .? from (12.48) and (12.49) is the matrix equivalent of the second fourthorder tensor term in (12.5 1).
s s
t:i:,d V , = ( (Ct,Ki:):i:,
+ (fir + rar)i:,)d Vo =
( (CljKi:):iV 2hrE,)d V ,
( 12.52)
In deriving the last term in (12.52),we have used the fact that a is skewsymmetric while and i:\ are symmetric. We can now use the relationship (see (10.22)),h + i: = L, t o obtain:
( 12.53)
and substituting from (12.18) for 1, in the second term on the righthandside of (12.54), we arrive at
12
Substitution for I , from (12.23)and I , from (12.55) into (12.17)leads to the relationship
( 12.55)
= p;
[K,
( 1 2.56)
with K,,, Klol and K,,, as given in (12.45) and, in particular with r r p;Kte2p =  2 ~:,E:z dVo =  i:;% dVo =  by'' B(x)T?B(x)dVoj,
( 12.57)
55
12.5 THE TANGENT STIFFNESS MATRIX USING THE JAUMANN RATE OF CAUCHY STRESS
In first deriving, the tangent stiffness equations for the 'Eulerian formulation', McMeeking and Rice [Ml] used the Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress. Following the work in the previous sections, we will first write down the solution and then give the derivation which stems from the use of the Jaumann rate form (see 10.36):
6 =bj
+ h + aiZT= c t j c : i +
Ktns
+ afiT
(1 2.58)
+ Kta2 + K t a l +
= /B(x)TC,JcB(x)dVn
G(x)T6G(x)d + B(x)T&B(x)d n Vn V
s s
B(x)T6B(x)dV,,
= jB(x)T(c[J, 6
+ 6)B(x)dVn+
with 6 taking precisely the same form as given previously in (12.15) for .Z (although of course now involving components of the Cauchy stress tensor) while, in a similar fashion, 6 is given by equations of the same form as (12.46) in two dimensions or (1 2.47) in three dimensions. In two dimensions, for plane strain, the nonsymmetric matrix 6 is given by
( 1 2.60)
012 012
G(x)T&G(x)dVn
(1 2.59)
6/
022
022
022
0 0 0
0 0 0 O O O
1I
'
(12.61)
The simplest way of deriving equation (12.59) is to initially find the relationship between CtJCand CtjK. To this end, we can substitute from (12.44) and (12.58) into (10.57)to obtain
( 12.62)
( 12.63)
Adopting suffix notation and moving the subscripts in (12.63) to superscripts (purely
56
Substitution from (12.64) into (12.45) along with the relationships z = Ja and d V , = J d Vo leads directly to (12.59)and indeed, 6 from (12.61) is the matrix equivalent of the second fourthorder tensor term in (12.64). In (12.59), we have labelled the term in K, associated with 6 as K,,, (with ns for nonsymmetric) leaving the implication that the other terms are symmetric. However, this does not necessarily follow. For example when using a hyperelastic formulation the natural startingpoint is the symmetric CtTK (more details in the next chapter). Using ( 12.51 ) this would, in turn, lead to a symmetric CIJKhile, from (12.64),we would obtain w a nonsymmetric CtJc.f, for some reason, one wished to use a formulation involving the I Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress, the resulting tangent stiffness matrix via (12.59)would be symmetric, and indeed it would be identical to that obtained more directly from ( 12.14)(or ( 12.16)).However, if one were to postulate a symmetric (possibly hypoelastic) C,,(., then from (12.59). the total tangent stiffness matrix would be nonsymmetric.
hi.=
The I , term in the above is identical to that previously derived in Section 12 3.1 (see (12.23)) while substitution from (12.58) into I ; in (12.65), followed by somc manipulation following the lines of that in Section 12.4.1, eventually leads to the rclationship
1 = ((ctJC:&):ivdV,, Lp.,:T ;
s. s s
+
a:i,6(dVn)= I ,
+I; +I ,
12.65)
+ L,L:z  28,E:t)dV0
( 12.66)
Following the work in Section 12.4.1, these three terms provide the tangent stiffness contributions K,,, Ktol and Kto2 of (12.59) so that we are left with I , in (12.65). To evaluate this term, we will use (10.88) whereby J = tr(8) so that: 6 ( d V , , ) = f i ( J d V o ) = ~ d V o = J t r ( i ) d l / ,t= r(i)dV, Substitution into I , from (12.65) gives:
( 12.68)
( (ctJC:&):ivd V,
( 12.67)
( 12.69)
CONVECTED COORDINATES
57
I,
or
[[%: ] [ 1
f1 E22
O1 012
'
O1 022
'1
(6
+ i 2 J d Vn
( 12.70)
A very similar development can be shown to lead to the equivalent threedimensiona form with 6 from (12.61).
( 1 2.72)
corresponding to the nondimensional coordinates { , q of Section 5.1. In place of (5.8) or (1 2.3),we now have
e=
(12.73)
where p contains the full vector of nodal displacements which relate to the usual fixed orthogonal coordinates. (In this section, the usual G matrix (as in (5.8))will be written as G to avoid confusion with the initial contravariant base vectors, Gi that will be defined shortly). A similar equation to (12.73)relates 68 (vector equivalent to 6D see
58
Chapter 5 ) to 6p so that:
68 = G 6 p From ( I 1.56),we can write the covariant components of the Green strain as
E i j = i(g'gi  GYGj)
(
( 12.74)
( 12.75)
where Gi and gi are the initial and final covariant base vectors. From ( 1 1.52a) and I I .52b), the latter are given by
( 12.76)
where the vector d contains the displacements (i.e. (d' = ( U , coordinates). Using ( I 2.76). ( 1 2.75) can be rewritten as
(12.77) which involves linear and nonlinear terms as in (5.10).Noting that, with x 1 = <.zZ = 11, the terms from Cd;?d are the components of the vector 8 in (12.73), using vector and matrix notation, we can now replace (5.1 1 ) and (5.12) by
F'ollowing a very similar procedure to that of (5.13)(5.16),the change in the covariant components of the Green strain can be expressed as OE = (B, + A(0)C)iip = B,,bp
=(H
+ A ( 8 ) ) G6p
( 12.80)
where all higherorder terms have been considered as negligible. Using virtual work (see ( 1 1.62)) with the contravariant components of the second Piola Kirchhoff stresses:
CSvi= 6pfq. = S"& I J.d Vo = 6pJ B:,(p)S d l/(, I
\
"
(12.81)
( 1 2.82)
CONVECTEDCOORDINATES
59
where S contains the contravariant components of the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses so that
(12.83)
( 12.84)
K,
K,,
+ K,,
However, the S matrix now involves the contravariant components of the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses so that (see (5.24)or (12.7)):
(Bi,(p)C,Bn,(p) GTsG)dVo +
4 
( 12.85)
( 12.86)
E2 2
1
1
E, =
2E23
2E13i
60
For a linear isotropic material, the tangent and secant modular tensors are the same and, from ( 1 1.82a),are given by: ( 12.89) CIJk' i,(G'* (Gk* ' )+ p( (G'* = G') G Gk)(G'*G') (G'.G')(G'+ G")) where to avoid clashes with the superscripts, we have temporarily reverted to the notation of Section 11 in using a dot to represent the inner product.
= shear
modulus
Vectors
d = displacements h:, h,, = vectors containing derivatives with respect to 5 and q of shapefunction vector, h. G, = covariant base vectors for initial configuration (Section 12.6) gi = covariant base vectors for final configuration (Section 12.6) p = nodal displacements (p = nodal velocities (or changes in dispalcementdp) ' U ( ordering for twodimensional elements, p' =, v') ordering for threedimensional elements pT =, v', w') ' U ( U = .udirection nodal displacements v = !*direction nodal displacements w = :direction nodal displacements x = current coordinates X = initial coordinates v = velocities i: = Eulerian strain rate (note i is not the rate of E) 8 = vector of displacement derivatives (see (12.73)) 8 = velocity derivatives in vector form (see (12.1 1))
A(8) = matrix containing displacement derivatives (see (12.78)) B(x) = in Section 12.2 12.3, matrix (function of current coordinates, x) connecting & to p C = constitutive tensor
REFERENCES
61
E = Green strain F = deformation gradient G = in Sections 12.212.3, matrix connecting 8 to p (see (12.1 1)) G = in Section 12.6, matrix connecting 8 to p or 68 ti 6p H = in Sections 12.212.3, Boolean matrix (see (12.10)) H = in Section 12.6, matrix involving components of G (see (12.79)) J = Jacobian matrix (with respect to current configuration) L = velocity gradient S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses S = matrix containing contravariant components of s o = Cauchy stresses 5 = matrix of Cauchy stresses (see (12.60) and (12.61)) i: = Eulerian strainrate (note i: is not the rate of E ) z = Kirchhoff stresses = matrix of Kirchhoff stresses (see (12.13)) fi = spin (note, fi is not the rate of a)
Subscripts
J = Jaumann t = tangent T = Truesdell tJC = tangent for Jaumann rate of Cauchy stress tTK = tangent for Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress tJK = tangent for Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress v = virtual
12.8 REFERENCES
[Ml] McMeeking, R. M. & Rice, J. R., Finiteelement formulations for problems of large elasticplastic deformation, Int. J . Solids & Structs., 601616 (1975).
13 Large strains,
hyperelasticity and
rubber
13.1 INTRODUCTION TO HYPERELASTICITY
The theoretical analysis of hyperelastic or rubberlike materials has been investigated by many authors since the first half of the century (see Treloar [Tl] and Mullins and Thomas [M3] for an overview of pioneering work in the field and [G2,F1] and for reviews). Important early work was due to Mooney [M2] and Rivlin [Rl]. Another important development was due to Valanis and Landel [Vl] who separated the strain energy function into a separable form relating to the principal directions. This approach led to the Ogden model [01.10,04, OS] which is much used today. Early finite element applications were due to Oden [ 0 2 , 0 3 ] who emphasised the difficulties associated with modelling incompressibility. Other work in this area was due to Malkus and Hughes [Ml] (see also Hughes [H3] and Zienkiewciz and Taylor [Zl]. Further work involving finite elements can be found in [Dl, D3, D4, G1, H1, 0 1 , P1, SlS6,Wl]. Hyperelasticity has already been briefly introduced in Section 4.12 and discussed in a little more detail in Section 10.3. In the present chapter, we will concentrate on materials for which the stresses are derivable from a scalar elastic potential. (There is a wider class of materials not necessarily restricted in this manner called Cauchy elastic materials [D2].) In Section 10.3,we introduced the simplest isotropic, linear, strainenergy function as (see (10.37))
~p = 2pi2
x +  1; 2
+ c 2 , + c~~
(13.1)
( 13.2a)
where I,
= tr(E)= cii = c1
( 1 3.2b)
For a more general approach, with a view to invariance, we first note that the principal values of strain, F ~ satisfy the eigenvalue relationship: ,
2
= cpz
( I 3.3)
63
where z are the directions of principal strain or eigenvectors of E . Nontrivial solutions to (13.3) only exist if det(z  cpI) = 0 The latter equation can be reexpressed as
E;
(1 3.4)
 Il&,2 12cp I , = 0
( 1 3.5)
I , = c1 1 ~ 2 + E 2 2 1 3 3 2
= '21 2 1  i2
+ c1
 c f 2  ,2, 52
= +(tr(c)2 tr(E2)) 
( 13.6a)
I,
= det(s)
(1 3.6b)
Using these invariants, it is possible to construct a range of higherorder material models [D2]. However, if we wish to consider materials for which the strains are large (i.e. rubber) we know, from the work of Chapter 2, that we must define the type of stress and strain measure that we are using. Indeed, this observation applies even if the rotations are large and the strains are small. We have shown at the end of the Section 4.4 that, if the standard linear, engineering strain measures are adopted, strains are produced as a result of a rigidbody rotation. In these circumstances, the strain invariants would also be nonzero and hence if the energy function, cp, was related to these invariants we would incorrectly accumulate strain energy as a result of a rigidbody rotation. For the remainder of this chapter, we will assume that we are working with an isotropic material. In these circumstances, from the work of Section 10.1,it is best to start with the principal stretch ratios.
%, R , = %1; = = ,
( 13.7)
However, from the discussions of Section 4.8, it is easier to compute the right CauchyGreen tensor C:
C = FTF
or the left CauchyGreen tensor, b:
(13.8)
b = FFT
(1 3.9)
which have eigenvalues of i;J.:, rather than the stretches U or V. Hence, work in hyperelasticity has often involved the principal invariants of C and b. (Note, that in this
64
chapter, having used C for the right CauchyGreen tensor, we will use D for the constitutive tensor.) Following a similar procedure to that in the previous section, we note that nontrivial solutions to (4.136)and (4.144) only exist if det[C  LiI] = det[b which can be reexpressed as

Ju3] =0
(13.10)
A;
I,
=
zlg+ /q2 I , = 0 
(13.11)
(13.12a)
+ 2233
+ 331
1  1221
 2332
 1331
(1 3.12b)
1 2 3
= 1
12233
+ 2c12c23c13
 112332
 221331
 331221
= J 2 = det(C) = +(tr(C3) I 
(13.12c)
( 1 3.12d)
The invariants used here and for the remainder of the chapter are given by (1 3.12) and differ from those used in the previous section. It can be seen from the final forms in (13.12)that Z 1  Z 3 can be computed without the direct computation of L i  j  3 . When the body is unloaded, A1A3 are each unity and hence the initial values of the invariants 1 1  1 3 are 3,3 and 1 respectively. Hence a strain energy function that satisfies (13.7) is
cp =
1
p.4.r = 0
with Coo, = 0
(13.13)
( 13.l k ) , I , =
For incompressible materials, J = det(F) = A 1 J , 2 i w 3 = 1 (see (10.59)) and hence, from 1. Consequently, (13.13) becomes
x.
q=
p.q = 0
with Coo= 0
(13.14)
Special truncated forms of(13.13),which are much used in the analysis of rubber are the MooneyRivlin function (valid for strains up to about 100%):
cp =
& 3) + CO,(I,

 3) = C1(Il
3) + C2(12 3)
(13.15)
and the simpler neoHookean function (valid for strains up to about 30%):
cp = ClO(I1 3) = C I ( I l 3) 
( I 3.16)
Unfortunately, pure incompressibility leads to severe numerical difficulties (except for conditions of plane stresssee Section 13.4.2).In any event, rubber is to some extent
65
compressible and it can be important to consider this compressibility. Hence, in the following, we will generally work with the compressible form and introduce a strain energy contribution involving the bulk modulus, K . The incompressible form can be recovered by letting K tend to infinity. The mean value theorem can be used to show [F2] that functions of the form: F(a, b,c) = a
+b +c 3 ( ~ b c ) ~
 3(1v1)v2).3)r
( 13.17)
are positive unless a = b = c. Hence with a = A:, b = 2;, etc., we can devise functions of the form:
b );
+ 1 + jv\ ;
(13.18)
= 2,
we obtain:
(P/c =
+ +
 3(/?1)2)*3)~ = 1 1
 31:
(13.19)
which is the compressible form of the neoHookean form of (1 3.16). By combining I = 2 with Y =  2, we can obtain:
= c l ( I 1 31i3)
+ c2(12 3Z5#<3)
( 13.20)
(1 3.15). Both ( I 3.19) and ( I 3.20) have the drawback of being zero at 2,
which can be considered as a compressible form of the MooneyRivlin relationship of = 2, = i 3To . overcome this difficulty, we may add a compressible term, (Pb, involving the bulk modulus, K (see Section 4.2.2) so that
qb= K[l0g,(R,/i~/i,)]~/2K[l0g,J]~/2 =
(13.21a)
or
(Pb = K(J 
1)2/2
( 1 3.21b)
which are each zero for the initial conditions when J = 1. In most of the following we will adopt (13.21b), but (13.2 1a) will sometimes be used instead.
2 =~  1 1 3 1
which are such that
( 13.22)
J = R1R2/i3 = I
  
( 13.23)
Hence these modified stretches are volume preserving. In Section 13.8 and 13.10, we will work directly with the stretches, while in the present section we will work with the
66
invariants. From the work of Sections 4.8 and 10.1, it follows that:
F=J 13F=lj1hF
C = F T F = J23C=131 3C
( I3.24a)
( 13.24b)
( 13.24c)
b=FFr=
while. from ( 13.12),
JZ3b=[;1
3b
( I 3.25a)
( 1 3.25b)
Hence, using these modified invariants, with (Pb from (13.21b) and adapting (deviatoric)from ( 13.20), the modified MooneyRivlin function might involve
(P =
(Pd
( 13.26)
For a pure uniform pressure(with i , = i,, = i3), each equal to 3 so that 1 , and 1, are
(, = Ob. I
In Sections 13.5 and 13.7, we will develop finite element formulations based on (13.26).The neoHookean law can be considered as a special case with C, = 0.
where
A,
=c,ii13
A , = C21j
( 13.28)
c?C
= I:SC = tr((iC)
(7 1 (51, =2 C = ( 1 1 1  C ) : 6 C :S
(7C
(51
= c : 6C = 13C : 6C = J2C : 6C )
(713 c i c
( 13.29)
67
S = K J ( J  1)C = K ( J  1);LI
Transforming to a Cauchy stress, via (4.121) (or (10.50)) gives:
o =  F(KJ(J 
(13.31)
dVdV0 d V*
I = pI
( 13.32)
 1)
( 13.33)
Substituting from ( 13.29) and (13.33) into (13.28) and (1 3.27) gives:
S = (B,I
where
=
d %
?E
437 + (?E
(13.34)
( 1 3.34a)
Given the strain energy function, cp (via the three material constants, C,, C2 and Kwhich would be obtained from experimental results), we can now, via (13.34), obtain the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses, S from the Green strains E = i ( C  I). For the neoHookean model, with C, = 0 and 2C, = p, (1 3.34a) becomes
S = p J  13[1  41 , C 
1  pJC
= p dev(C)C
 pJC
( 13.35)
with from (13.24b). If we were to work with a genuinely incompressible material (with J = I , = l), we could use the simpler energy function of ( 1 3.15) to obtain S = 2?q/C:Cand then add the pressure contribution  p C  (see (13.35)). The latter can only be obtained by considering the kinematics. In the following, it can be obtained by treating nodal ps as Lagrangian multipliers or, effectively, letting K tend to infinity in the following compressible formulation. In this approach, we will often keep the pressure as a separate variable and in Section 13.5, we will describe the resulting finite element procedure. However, in some circumstances (see Sections 18.12 and 18.13),it is possible to work directly with a pure displacementbased formulation. It is a simple matter to modify the following split equations to avoid the separate treatment of the pressure. In a conventional total Lagrangian finite element formulation, we could now obtain the internal force vector. However, to find the tangent stiffness matrix, we require the differentiation of (13.35) whereby, using (13.29), we obtain: bs=D,I+D,C+D,c + D , 6 C + D S ( C  1 ~ C C  T )  l2 c  1 6 p ~
( 13.36)
68
with
':6C)
3
 3'2'3
2'3(cl:gc)
D, =  $ , I ;
+ $c21;2"12(c ':6C)
 ; P I ; 2(c':6C) D, =  2 C 2 1 y 2 D5 2 3'1'3  1 / 3 1 ' + 4C2 1  2 / 3 1 2 3 3
(c':6C))
( 13.37)
+ pI;/2
SS = D , K 2 : 6 E + GtK,6p
( 13.38)
where DtK2 a fourthorder constitutive tensor and GtK2 a secondorder constitutive is is tensor. The subscript K2 shows that the tensors relate to the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses (and Green strains). To devise expressions for the constitutive tensor, it is best to apply suffix notation to (13.36)( 13.37) and obtain: 6Sij = DfjKk:dEkl G:Y26p +
( 13.39)
where the use of superscripts for the tK2 in (13.39) in place of the subscripts in ( 1 3.38)is purely for space considerations. The tensor components in (1 3.39) are given by
DijK;
= F1 C,
'C,
'
'C,;
F2(6i,C,
CiJ '6k1)
F3(CG
+ C,
'C,i ')
+ F46;jSkl + F~(Sik6jl
6;lSjk)
( 13.40)
where a term such as C,' is the 0th component of C  ' not l/Cij, but is written as C,; ' to save space. The coefficients in (13.40)are given by F , = + c l p l + y c 1 32 / 3 1 2  p l : / 2 , 2 F 2  4c 1 11138c1 32 / 3 1 1 9 3 3 2 F3 = f C l l ; 1 / 3 1 1 + s C 2 12'312+ p 1 : l 2 3 3 F4 = 4 c 2 1 , 2 J 3 F , =  2 c 2 1 32 1 3
F,
= !C2Iy2l3
(13.41)
Equation (13.39) has been aimed at a finite element formulation in which the displacements and pressure variables are separate. Without such a separation, we can modify (13.39) to directly relate SSijto 6Eij by first obtaining 6p from (13.33)as
6p =  K J C ( 1 3.43)
where use has been made of (13.29). Substitution of (13.43) into (13.38) and (13.42) shows that the tangent coefficients (Djjkl) of (13.40) would, in these circumstances be
69
KJ2C,j'C,
c,, =A3
so that:
= 1;
C13
= C 3 , = C23 = C32 = O
( 1 3.44a)
C=
and
( 1 3.44b)
I,
I while
+ A; +A; I , = n: + A; +
=1
3
22'2
=1
+ c,, + c,,
( 13.45)
1/12
=~
1 1 ~ 2 ,
( 1 3.46)
We can now use (1 3.47) to eliminate R , and directly use the deviatoric energy function, qd. owever, this is not obvious and so we will first keep all three stretches as well as the H , pressure term, p. Because of (13.47), F, = I , , 1 = I , and from (13.26), we can write the deviatoric MooneyRivlin function as
( 1 3.48)
From (13.47) and (13.34), ( 1 3.49) Working in the principal directions so that F = Diag(A), C = Diag(i2)and using the
70
relationship:
Ei =+(A?  1)
we can use ( I3.48)(13.50) to obtain:
( 1 3.50)
With a view to eliminating p via the plane stress hypothesis, we can use CJ = FSFr(with J = 1) to change (13.51) to give:
0. j , . 3 p = 4 ( 2 C 1 4 2C2i3) p =
'
'
%J
(7ii
( 1 3.52)
where, for the last relationship in (13.53), we have used the incompressibility condition of (13.47). We can now substitute from this last expression in (13.53) into (13.52) for i = 1,2 and can also use ( 13.47) to obtain:
( 13.544
( 13.54b)
If we directly incorporated the incompressibility condition of ( 13.47) into ( 13.48), we would obtain:
)
If we now use (13.50) and (13.55) to obtain:
we recover (1 3.54) without directly considering the pressure term. From (13.54), the tangential constitutive relationships can be obtained as
(13.55)
( 13.56)
( 1 3.57)
where
( 13.58)
with a similar relationship to D , for D,,. Equations (13.57) suffice if the principal directions d o not change. Such a situation occurs for an axisymmetric membrane for which a total Lagrangian finite element
71
formulation was discussed in Section 5.1.4. An instructive computer exercise involves modifying that formulation to allow for a MooneyRivlin material by incorporating (1 3.54) for the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and (1 3.57) and ( 13.58)for the tangential modular matrix. The procedure can also be easily extended [W 13 to account for the Ogden material model that will be discussed in Section 13.10.2. If the principal directions d o change (as with a general planestress membrane [G3]), one can adopt a method that will be discussed in Section 13.8. Alternatively, one could use (13.35)for S with p from (13.53) with the differential giving the tangential modular matrix. In this case. we also have:
while in (13.12):
I,
= A;
+ i + J.; ;
2R;2
= D ,1
+ D Z 2+ (Dl
q2)
( 13.60a)
72
where the second form (for 6 p and 6p) follows the first (total form) because the pressure shape functions, h,, are functions of the initial geometry. Using identical procedures to those of Chapter 5, the virtual Green strains can be expressed as SE, = BnI@)SPv (1 3.64) where we are now adopting vector and matrix notation (see Chapter 5) so that SEvis a vector and B,, is a matrix. Again using the procedures of Chapter 5, virtual work can be used to find the outofbalance force vector, g where
r
( 13.65)
with S as the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses, qi the internal forces and q, the external forces (In this chapter, these will be considered to be of a nonfollower type although for many hyperelastic problems we require follower forces. The latter are considered in Section 17.5 of Chapter 17.) Assuming exact equilibrium from a previous increment, g = 0 and differentiation of (13.65)leads to
Sq,
= Sqi =
B$ BTISSd Vo+ S : d Vo
(1 3.66)
To proceed further, we require the matrix and vector equivalent of( 13.38)which we can write as
( 13.67) 6 = D,K,SE t g[K,6p s is a s where DtK2 a matrix and grK2 (column)vector. Substitution from (13.67)for 6 into ( 13.66) (and the application of the techniques of Section 5.1.2 for the second term in ( 13.66)which gives the 'geometric' stiffness matrix, Kt,), then leads to
6q,
where
= Sp = K,Sp
dqi 8P
+a
( 13.68)
(1 3.69)
73
with (5.26) for Kto. The load/pressure variable coupling vector, a in (13.68) is given by
a = Bi,gtK26p v, = Pbp d
where the derivation of the matrix P will follow. Substituting from (13.63) for the pressure change 6 p in terms of its nodal variables, 6p, gives:
a = P6p = B~,gtK2h~dV06p
(13.70)
, 
(13.71)
from which: (13.72) We have yet to apply the pressuredisplacement relationship of (13.33). This can be achieved using a Galerkintype procedure to obtain a weak form [Zl] of (13.33) by multiplying it by 6 p (with the latter obtained from (13.63)) and integrating over the element; i.e. dVo=6pTf=0 (13.73)
This relationship should hold for any Sp so that with f representing the lack of pressure compatibility:
f=S (
h, ( J  l ) +  p
:)
dVo=O
(13.74)
Equations (13.65) and (13.74) represent the governing equations for the nodal displacement (p) and pressure ( p ) variables. For full incompressibility, the p / K term in (13.74) would vanish and this equation could be used to provide a weak form of the incompressibility constraint. Assuming continued satisfaction of (13.74) from an equilibrium state, (13.75) where (13.76) and P has already been given in (13.72).It is not obvious that i?f/dp in (1 3.75) is equal to PTwith P from (13.72). However, from (13.74) we have: (13.77) where we have used (13.64) and, with J = the relationship:
74
with ? I 3 , ?cfrom ( 1 3.29) and GlKZ from (13.42)(g,K2is simply the vector equivalen of
GtK2
)
With cif = 0, the combination of equations (13.68), (13.70) and ( 1 3.75) gives he tangential governing equations as
( 13.79)
which can be solved in a combined manner for 6p and 6p. Alternatively, the second set of equations can be solved first and then substituted into the first set to give:
6q,
= [K,  P H
P']6p
= K,dp
( 13.80)
where K, is the effective tangent stiffness matrix. For full incompressibility, the H matrices in (13.76) and (13.79) would be zero, and hence one could not apply the twostage solution implied in ( 13.80). Instead, one would have to solve ( 1 3.79) directly by using, say, Gaussian elimination, starting from the top (assuming K, was nonsingular). To form the basis of a NewtonRaphson iteration, we expand (13.65) and (13.74) using truncated Taylor series. Hence, with subscript n meaning 'new' and subscript o meaning 'old', we have, from ( 13.65):
g,
= 0 = go
(13.81)
c:f . fn = 0 = f" +  bp ?p
+?f 6p (7p
( 13.82)
(;) [
=
K, p PT H I
) ( ;
( 13.83)
Using a mixed formulation, equations (13.83) can be solved directly as part of a Newton Raphson loop. Alternatively, the second set of equations can be solved first and then substituted into the first set to give:
g
=  (g  P H 
' f ) = [K,
P H  'PT]6p= KT6p
( 13.84)
In a plane strain environment, an appropriate form of element [Zl] might involve nine nodes for the displacements and four for the pressure (see Figure 13.1).
75
(0)Displacement
node (A)
outofbalance force vector, g. We will refer to the resulting element as a hybrid elementalthough it is really a different form of mixed element. Figure 13.2, gives some possible configurations for the displacement and pressure variables appropriate to a hybrid formulation. In fact, the configurations in Figures 13.la, 13.2a and 13.2b do not pass the incompressible patch test or LBB (BabuskaBrezzi) condition [H3, S7, Zl,Z2] but, none the less, often give very reasonable results. More detail on this topic can be found in [H3], [S7] and [Zl]. Incompressibility is also an important issue for plasticity and, in relation to smallstrain elastoplasticity, for a planestrain environment, Zienkiewicz et al. [Z3]
76
have reported good results using the element configurations shown in Figures 13.lc, 13.2a and 13.2d. In contrast, when certain mesh orientations were adopted, completely unreliable results were obtained with the equivalent displacement models (without the pressure variables). In some circumstances, instead of using the formulation of( 13.79),(13.83)and (1 3.84), it is possible to introduce a modified B (here BnJmatrix which allows the final stiffness matrix to be formed more simply using the form of( 13.69)but with modified B's instead of B's. Details of this 'Bbar method' are given in [H3, Zl]. A nonlinear implementation has been described by Simo et crl. [SS].
With the aid of (10.50) or (4.122),this can be converted to a Kirchhoff stress so hat:
( 13.86)
where b = FF' (see (13.9)). By noting from ( 1 3.24~) b = 13 3b and, using ( I 3.12a) that for I , so that tr(b) = 1, ' 3 1 1 ,we can reexpress (13.86) as
t = 11 dev(b)  pJI = p dev(b)
+ K J ( J  1)1
( 13.87)
where we have used ( 13.33)for the pressure, p. For a genuinely incompressible material, we would obtain (13.86) with I , = 1. In order to differentiate ( 1 3.87), we require:
Sb = F6Fr + SFFT= FFTFT6FT bFF 'FFT= bL1 +
+ Lb
( 13.88)
L=6FF'=d~+bi2
Using the second relationship in ( 13.89),(1 3.88) can be reexpressed as
6b = b(6E
( 13.89)
+ 6Q)* + ( 6 + 6Q)b ~
=  SO).
( 13.90)
77
&E.
As well as needing 6b, to differentiate (13.87), we require 61, and 61 in terms of From (1 3.29) and (1 390),we have:
61,
(13.91)
where we have used the symmetries of BE and b and the antisymmetry of SR. (The last step in (1 3.91) can easily be confirmed using a simple twodimensional example). Also from (1 3.29), we can obtain 61, as
+ plj
I3P 3
 b6R
+ 6Rb)
 : p l y 'I3(b:6&)I 2 
f 3 ( I : 6 ~ ) 2 I b
:>
( 1 3.93a)
( 1 3.93b)
PI,
"2(1:B&)I I:'2BpI 
From which, with the aid of indicial notation, we can write: 6Tij = D:j,K,6&kl
' I 3 (  hik6Qkj
+ 6Qikhkj) + Gi*Ybp
where we have added superscripts 'tJK' for 'tangential Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress' (see Section 10.2 and equation (10.36))to the constitutive terms Dijkrand 'tK' for 'tangential Kirchhoff' to the Gi, terms. The reasoning behind the superscripts will be amplified later. The components of the constitutive tensors are given by
and
G:;
=  I:I2dij
( 13.95)
= D:::,K,6Ek,
( 1 3.96a)
( 1 3.96b)
Apart from the pressure term, equation (1 3.96b) is identical to (10.36) of Section 10.2, derived in relation to the 'Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress' hence, the sub or superscripts tJK in (1 3.89). From the work of Sections 10.4and 12.4, we would expect to be able to transform (1 3.96)to involve the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress (see ( 12.5 1)). Indeed by using (1 3.89) to write 6R as 6~  L, we can change (1 3.96) to give:
6t = D,,,:~E G,,6p +
+ Lt + 7LT
( 13.97)
78
From the work of Section 10.4, we would expect that the above relationship could be derived more simply by transforming it directly from the equivalent relationships inkoolving the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and Green strains or, in the present case, from (13.39) ( 1 3.41) with 2C1 = p and C? = 0. To this end, we can simply apply ( 10.56) or D :;y = Fl,l F,h Fk,.Fl,,D
:( ;,
( 13.99)
t o ( 13.40) and (13.41). With b = FFT and C = FTF. it is not difficult to show that this int,oliing changing ( 1 3.40) and (1 3.41) so that: C;'
6 * h, ,
( 1 3.100)
(Note that in ( 1 3.40)and ( I3.41), C;' is the 0th component of CI ). Application of this process to (13.40) and (13.41), can be shown (with 2Cl = p , C2 = 0) to lead directly to (13.98). (More details on the application of (13.99) are given in Section 13.8.3.) I t fo1lou.s that this same process could be very simply applied to (13.40) and (13.41) to obtain the C: terms for the MooneyRivlin energy function (with C? # 0). Using $ (12.51), we could (if wished) find the equivalent terms in relation to the Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress.
which leads to
q1= / B ( x ) ~ T ~ Y ,
( 1 3.102)
u.here B(x)is the linear straindisplacement matrix which is a function of the current coordinates, x, as detailed in Section 12.2. Following the approach of Section 13.5, from
79
f=
where h, contains the shape function for the pressure. To obtain the tangent stiffness relationships, from ( 1 3. lOl), we have:
r r
I(
:>
h, ( J  l ) +  p
dVo=O
(13.103)
(13.104) If we use (13.97) for 6 t and adopt the techniques of Section 12.3, we obtain:
q'dp, = (DITK:6& GI,6p):dq + LTL:r)d Vo +
which, apart form the pressure term +G,,6p, is identical to (12.28). Combining the techniques of Section 12.3 with those of Section 13.5, we can obtain the 'tangent stiffness' equation of (13.79), i.e. (13.106) with K, being given by (12.45) if the Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress is adopted or by (12.16) if the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress is used (as emphasised in Chapter 12, provided the appropriate tangent constitutive terms are adopted, both formulations lead to the same stiffness matrix). The pressure connection matrix P. is given by (13.107) while the H matrix in ( 1 3.106) is given by (1 3.76).The solution procedure would closely follow that outlined in Section 13.5 for the total Lagrangian formulation.
(13.105)
c'cp
2A 1
(13.108)
80
For isotropic conditions, the Kirchhoff (and hence Cauchy) stresses can then be obtained from the Biot stresses using (10.84) so that, with B and U coaxial:
C:C
(13.11 1 )
or tnore directly using the principal stretches, from (10.6), we have: (13.1 12) and hence with coaxiality of the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and the Green strains. from (10.75) and (10.77):
S=,
/.,
7 N,N:
?A,
(Tcp
(13.113)
Using a similar approach. the logstress, 0, which is conjugate to log,U (see (10.65) and ( 10.79))is given by
(13.1 14)
Equations ( 13.log), ( 13.113) and ( 13.1 14) are special cases of ( 10.77).
 3)
+ $ K ( J  I),
(13.115)
81
S = p J P 2 ,Q(N)Diag
or:
Q(N)T+ K J ( J
(1:)
with p from (1 3.33). Equation (13.1 17b)coincides with (1 3.35).Clearly, we could also use (13.116) with (13.110) to obtain an equivalent relationship for t which would correspond with (1 3.86). In the derivations leading to (13.117), it has been assumed that the stretches are we distinct. However, if two of the stretches coincide (say i,,and i 2 ) , can still write such an expression although the N , and N, are only defined to within an arbitrary rotation about N,. If all of the stretches coincide, equation (1 3.1 17b) degenerates to
s =  pi1 = K 4 A 3  1)
where the last expressions follow from (1 3.33). For a general energy function of the form cp = cp(iL,, 13),we can write: i2,
(13.118)
(13.1 19)
S = Q(N)Diag(S,)Q( )T N
( 13.120)
We will now consider the issue of obtaining the tangential relationships initially in relation to the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses and Green strains.
(13.122a)
(13.122b)
where E; are the principal Green strains. Relating the above to the Lagrangian frame (see also Sections 4.3,4.8 and 10.6), gives
02
where WN= Q(N)Q(NT while in relation to the Lagrangian triad (see also (10.102)).we have:
( W N ) l A= Q(NITW,Q(N) = Q(N)Q(N)
( 13.1244
( 13.124b)
Diag(S,)( WN)l
( 13.125a)
Diag(E,)(W,), (13.125b)
Following closely the developments of Section 10.6, we can, for the twodimensiona case, rewrite ( 13.125b) as:
where
=  \ty:.
I t follows that:
( 1 3.127)
from which (provided E , # E,): (13.128) and, in the general threedimensional case (provided E, # E,) (13.129) (The latter equations could be derived directly from ( 10.108).) Equation ( 13.127) was derived from ( 13.125b).An equivalent expression can be derived for SIs from ( 13.125a). Substituting into this expression from (13.128)for the spin component ~  7 gives: :
( 13.130)
Considering first the diagonal terms in the above and extending to the threedimensional case we can write:

?S1
2s,
?S1
  
Cs c:s, 71
?E,
CS1
1 ,
13.131 )
03
where the terms such as ?Sl/?El come from the differentiation of (13.119)in conjunction with the relationship Ei =:(E.;  1). An example with plane stress and the MooneyRivlin energy function has already been given in Section 13.4.2(see ( 1 3.54) and ( 1 3.56)). Extending (1 3.130) to the threedimensional case for the off diagonal shear components, we have:
The stiffness in ( 13.132) is caused by the change of direction of the principal axes. In the case that E , and E, coincide, (13.132) cannot be used but a limiting process results in terms such as ( 1 3.133) where the latter relates to the case E , = E , (or I,, = i2). Equation (13.133) can be derived by noting that with E , = E,, it follows that S , = S, and, to ensure isotropy:
( 1 3.134)
so that, in these circumstances, the application of Taylor series to S , . S,, E, and E, leads to:
and hence, as hl, I?, and h3 tend to zero, we obtain the limit in ( 1 3.133). Equations (1 3.13I)( 13.132) allow us to define the tangential constitutive matrix or tensor in the Lagrangian frame such that: We can then transform back to the 'base frame' using standard matrix transformations of (4.55)which here give:
( 13.137)
where the Q terms are components from Q(N). If all of the principal Green strains coincide, in place of (13.134)' we have:
?S,  FS,  ?S3 =A ? E , ?E, ;E3
(1 3.138a)
?E,
2E3
?E,
?E,
=B
( 13.138b)
84
I3.139b)
kvhere we have dropped the subscript L for 'Lagrangian' because the same tangential properties now apply with respect to any orthogonal set ofaxes. Equations( 13.139)can bc reexpressed as
s,, = B i k k A i+ ( A j
so that. allowing for the symmetry between
B)ilJ
( 13.140)
ilJ E J l : a nd
((Sikhjl bildjL) +
(13.141)
D;.Yk;= BbijbkI +
In this section, we have not yet considered keeping the pressure term as a separate bariable. If we wish to adopt such an approach, we could still apply the previous techniques to obtain the tensor Dtkzin 1 3.38) or ( 1 3.39)provided the terms C'S, ?EJ are ( computed (from say (13.1 17b))with p kept constant. The pressure connection matrix ( Gthl in ( 13.38))would follow. as before. from ( 13.42). Before moving on to consider, the equivalent relationships with respect to the Eulerian triad, we can summarise the previous relationships as follous. Provided all of the principal stretch ratios (or principal Green strains) are distinct, the only nonzcro components of DtK,,,are (from ( 13.131)and ( 13.132)):
( 13.142a)
If we adopt a 'Eulerian formulation' (Chapter 12 and Section 13.7). we can simply use transform the material constitutive tensor on the lefthand side of ( 13.137)so a s to involve the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress. However, following Chadwick and
85
Ogden [Cl, C21, it is simpler to work from the material tensor in the Lagrangian frame (as in (13.1 36))and initially obtain the equivalent spatial constitutive tensor in relation to the Eulerian frame. To this end, we can write: dx = Q(n)dXE; dX = Q(N)dX,> (13.143a)
so that dx can be expressed in terms of its components dx, with respect to the Eulerian frame while dX can be expressed in terms of its components with respect to the Lagrangian frame. Substitution from (13.143a) into the relationship dx = F d X then leads to
= F'dX,
( 1 3.144a)
F : . = j".(!j.. IJ 1J
1
(13.144b)
which gives the expected result that dsi, = Ridxi,.. In moving from the second to the third expressions in ( 1 3.144a), we have used the relationship (see (4.148)):
Q(n)TFQ( ) = Diag(2) N
( 13.144~)
With respect to the Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinate systems, ( 1 3.99) can now be directly applied using F' instead of F. This leads to the transformation:
Di;Zc = iiijikilD:k:'*
(13.145)
( 13.148b)
If all three principal stretch ratios coincide, we can directly compute DtK2 from the equivalent of (13.141) whereby:
(13.149)
86
13.150b)
In this section, we have not kept the pressure term separate. However, if we wish to apply such a technique, we can simply apply the previous procedures to obtain the tensor D, I in ( 13.97)provided the terms c'si '?jLj are computed with p kept constant. etc. The pressure connection matrix G , , would be given by ( 13.95).
13.9 EXAMPLES
In this section, we will give some examples relating to specific hyperelastic models. The objective is to link earlier work in Sections 13.4 and 13.6with the work o f Section 13.8 intol\ring the principal stretches.
1)
( 13.153)
s = p[I
and from ( 13.110)and ( 13.153):
T
c '1
I]
( 13.154)
/i[b
(13.155)
with b = FF'. Following the approach of Section 13.4 (see ( 13.36)).differentiation of ( 13.154)gikses:
2pc 1Ec
(13.156)
( 1 3.157)
EXAMPLES
87
while using the approach of Section 13.6 (see (13.93b)),from (13.155)we obtain:
.t = pb = p ( b i
Lt i Z
(13.158)
t = p b = 2pi
+ 2LT + Lt
(13.160)
p(bikdjl
bildjk)
(13.161)
The latter could also be obtained from (1 3.159) via (1 2.5 1 ). We have not yet applied the procedure of 13.8.2to obtain the tangential constitutive relationships. To this end, we can differentiate (1 3.152) to obtain: (13.162) and with respect to the Lagrangian triad, nonzero constitutive terms are given by
1K2 Diiii L  A 4 "
(13.163)
which could also be obtained from ( 1 3.142a). For the shear terms, via (1 3.132) and ( 13.152),we have:
( 13.164)
Eji).
(13.165)
The latter could also be obtained directly from (1 3.142b). If 2,.and i j coincide, from (13.142~) differentiation of ( 13.152): and
( 13.166)
The latter can be transformed back from the Lagrangian triad using ( 1 3.137) (with the Q's as the components of Q(N))so that:
( 13.168)
aa
If we note that:
C  ' = Q(N)Diag(;v2)Q(N)T
or
(13.169a)
3.169b) we can see that (13.168) is equivalent to ( 13.157). If all the principal stretch ratios coincide (at say R), from ( 13.138a) and ( 13. 52): (13.170) while B = 0. Hence, from (13.141): (13.171) Again, with the stretch ratios coinciding:
( 13.172)
If we work with the Kirchhoff stress, z, then from ( 1 3.148a) and ( 1 3.153). we have:
If the stretch ratios A, and iJ coincide, via (13.148c), we obtain the same result. Combining ( 13.173) and (1 3.174) gives:
D:TGr'= ) i ( h i k h j [
dlldjk)
(13.175)
Strictly we should now transform back from the Eulerian triad using the equivalent of (13.137)(obtained via (4.55))with the Q's now relating to Q(n)'a with the 11'sdefining the Eulerian triad. However, because of the isotropy, this is not necessary and we can simply remove the superscript E in ( 13.175)so as to obtain ( 13.161).We will now labour the point by demonstrating this relationship. The transformations lead to
D; ::
QlaQJhQkcQ#:E:
= /1Q,,QJhQk'Qld(dcrrijhd
i d , d h
( 13.176)
( 13.177)
SO
that
= D::;'.
89
I..+=
(72'
!CZ3
2 3
1 K J ( 2 J  1)+2/iJ23>.fhij
( 13.179b)
where i n ( 1 3.179a) we have kept the pressure, p, constant while in ( 13.179b)we giire the equivalent combined relationship. Application of ( 13.148a) now leads to
( 13.180b)
where, again, we have kept p constant in the first relationship. From ( 13.178) and ( 13.148b), the 'shear terms' are given by
( 13.181a)
D!TK" iJ1J
31,  K J ( J
1)
(13.181b)
90
13.10.1 An energy function using the principal log strains (the Hencky model [H2])
Consider the potential function:
3
v, = p
i= 1
(log, &)
+ $( K  $11) (log, J)
( 1 3.182)
where again p is the shear modulus and K the bulk modulus. Differentiation of ( 13.182) leads to 13.183) Hence, from (1 3.1 lO), the principal Kirchhoff stresses are 13.184) where (13.185)
( 13.186a)
or
t = 2 p dev(log,V)  pJI
( 13.186b)
If (13.185) is assumed, (13.186b) can be reexpressed as t = C:log, V, where C is the standard linear constitutive tensor. From (13.186a), it is easy to show that when the principal stretches coincide, the coefficient of 11 vanishes so that we have complete separability. If we wish to work in the material frame from ( 1 3.1 14),we can write the stress that is conjugate to log,U as
0 = 211 dev(log,U)  p J I
(13.187)
Alternatively, we could use (13.1 13) to obtain the second PiolaKirchhoff stresses, S. The procedure of Section 13.8.2 could then be used to obtain the tangent constitutive tensor. Instead, we will now apply the technique of Section 13.8.3 to obtain the constitutive tensor in relation to the Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress. To this end. we require (see (13.148)):
( 13.188a)
(13.188b) where, following the approach of Section 13.8.5, we have kept the pressure term constant in the first equation.
91
D:CE =  $p  p J
D:;YE
= A / :
+ (211  2rj)djj
2~i)bij
( 13.I89a)
+ K + (2/1
( 1 3.189b)
where, again, we have kept p constant in the first relationship. the Provided, # Ibj, shear terms can be obtained directly from ( 1 3.148b). However, if Ai = i j , can use (1 3.148~) obtain: we to D\?K.E D'.TKE= D'TKE= D'.TKE= p = IJIJ IJJl JllJ 1JJ1
 T.
(13.190a)
It is instructive to apply (12.51) to these tangential moduli in order to relate them to the Jaumann rate rather than the Truesdell rate. In these circumstances, from ( 13.189b). we obtain:
tJKE Dijjj   $p + K 
+ 2phij
( 13.190b)
J11J
= D~J,KE
IJji
(13.190~) Substitution from (1 3.1 84) and (1 3.1 85) into the latter. leads to the relationship:
Using series expansions, we can obtain the approximation: (13.190e) Because (1 3.190b) and (13.190e)give an isotropic relationship, the transformation from the Eulerian triad is trivial (see Section 13.8.4)and we can combine these equations to obtain the linear isotropic relationship (see also (10.43)):
D$,
4 p(dikd,l
+ Sirsj,) ( K +
$/l)dl,hk,
( 1 3.190f)
It follows that provided the stretches are reasonably close to each other, instead of using Hencky's hyperelastic potential we could obtain effectively the same results using a hypoelastic formulation with a fixed linear elastic tangential modular tensor in conjunction with the Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress. (This is not to imply that the latter procedure is simpler.) Issues involving the integration of such a hypoelastic approach will be discussed in Chapter 19.
13.10.2 Ogden's energy function [01.14,04,05] This function has been found to be effective for very large strains. I t can be considered to follow from (13.18) and can be written as
( 13.191)
92
,u2 = 0.01;
22
( 13.192a) ( 13.192b)
z l = 1.3;
= 5.0;
=  2.0
Ifa twotermexpansion is applied with r l = 2 and ct2 =  2, (13.19l)coincide.s with the MooneyRivlin function. Typical values for 1.1, (previously ZC,) and p2 (previously  2C2)might be
p 1= 4.0 Nimm2; p2 =  0.07 Nlmm2
(13.193)
ppfy
(13.195)
If we wish to adopt a compressible form, we can apply the approach of Section 13.3and replace i ,with = J  3i. nd, in addition, introduce a term for the volumetric energy a (say ( 13.121a))so that we have:
zi
or
cp =
(%(J
p=l
3up 3)
'x,
+  (log,J)2 K 2
( 13.196b)
with
[iP
= A';''
+ i y + 2:
(13.197)
(13.199)
Knowing the principal stresses, z;, the stress tensor z can be simply obtained from (13.1 10). To obtain the constitutive tensor, from (13.148a), we require:
( 13.200a)
( 13.200b)
where we have kept the pressure, p , fixed in the former equation. Hence the terms
93
D ~ can be~obtained directly from (13.148a). Provided E., # L j , the terms D: (and ~ E :' ; equivalentssee (13.142b)) can be obtained directly from (13.148b) while if E,, = Ebj, from ( 13.148c),we obtain:
If N is set to 1 in the above, cc, is set to 2 and p p = p = 2C1, the previous equations coincide with those given in Section 13.8.5 for the 'neoHookean' model (apart from differences due to the use of different terms for qb).In particular, equation ( 1 3.200a) above coincides with (1 3.179a).
Ye;
tl=O
( 13.202)
X( U )
94
The eigenvalues of (13.205) give the squares of the principal stretches so that:
,
A,
e+v:e2+4* = 2
A2=
e+t//u2+4 2
( 13.206)
=
(Becauseof the planestrain condition, i., = 1). Using( 13.184) and noting that J p = 0. we obtain:
5 , = 2p log,A,;
1 and
T 2 = 2/L
log,A2 =
 2plog,i.,
( 13.207)
The second expression in ( 1 3.207) can be obtained by noting that iL, I . =; . We now require the principal directions of the Eulerian frame in order to transform the principal Kirchhoff stresses into the base system. To this end, if we define the displacement Y in Figure 13.3 as e = 2 tan /) we can redefine ( 13.206) with
( 13.209) ( 13.208)
where
s = sin 8;
c = cos [ j
(13.210)
2( I
+ s)
(1
+ s,c.)
(13.21 I )
R=[1,
:]
( I 3.21 3)
The normalised components of the Kirchhoff stress are plotted against e in Figure 13.4. Dienes CDl.10) considered this example and showed that one obtained oscillatory shear stresses when using a hypoelastic formulation with a fixed tangential modular matrix in conjunction with a Jaumann rate formulation, but no such oscillatory stresses
S PECIAL NOTATION
6.000
A
95
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.ooo
0.0 0.0
1.00
2.00
3.00 4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00 10.0
Displacement e
when applying a similar procedure using the GreenNagdhi rate (Section 10.8). Of course, no such oscillatory stresses are obtained with the current hyperelastic formulation.
B = FFT(volume preserving left CauchyGreen tensor) B, = matrix connecting ciE to 6p (Section 13.5.1) B(x) matrix connecting (TE to (Tp (Section 13.7) = B = Biot stress (Section 13.8) c,,c,= constants for MooneyRivlin strain energy function C = F1F (right CauchyGreen tensor) & FTF(volume preserving right CauchyGreen tensor) c.7= ijth component from C D = fourthorder constitutive tensor D,D,= scalarssee (1 3.37) E = Green strain f = nodal quantities representing lack of pressure compatibility (see ( 13.74)) F ,   F , = scalarssee (13.41) F = deformation gradient F = volume preserving deformation gradient (see (1 3.24a) G = secondorder pressure connection tensor g = vector form of G h = shape function coefficients (for displacements)
96
h = shape function vector (for displacements) h, = shape function coefficients (for pressure) h, = shape function vector (for pressure) H = pressure term in tangent stiffness matrixsee (13.79) 1,Z3 = in Section 13.1, invariants of E [ ,  I 3 = in other sections, invariants of C and b (see (13.12)) i2 modified invariant (see ( 13.3)) in Section 13.1 = 1,1, = second invariants (see ( 13.26))in Sections 13.3 13.10 I = identify matrix J = det( F) = 1: K = bulk modulus L = velocity gradient N N, = unit principal vectors in initial (Lagrangian) configuration n 1n3 = unit principal vectors in current (Eulerian or spatial) configuration 0 = stress conjugate to 'log,U' U = right stretch tensor p = nodal displacements; changes, 6p P = pressuredisplacement connectivity part of tangent stiffness matrix (see ( 13.72)) p = pressure (positive for compression) p = nodal pressure variables; changes, dp Q(N)= orthogonal matrix containing the Lagrangian triad of N's Q(n)= orthogonal matrix containing the Eulerian traid of n's R = rotation matrix S = second PiolaKirchhoff stresses W, = Section 13.8.2 spin of the Lagrangian triadsee (1 3.1244 z = eigenvectors of E (Section 13.1) E = smallstrain tensor (Section 13.1) i: = Eulerian strain rate (or b ~ ) cP = principal values of E (Section 13.1) cp = strain energy function; cp,distortional, cp,volumetric or 'bulk' h = spin (or b ~ ) z = Kirchhoff stresses i.  , = principal stretches i  n 3 = 'volume preserving' principal stretches (see (13.22)) 11 = shear modulus
. I ?
Subscripts or superscripts
L = (only in Section 13.8.2)implies a tensor related to the Lagrangian triad t = tangential v = virtual tJK = tangential for Jaumann rate of Kirchhoff stress tTK = tangential for Truesdell rate of Kirchhoff stress tK = tangential for Kirchhoff stress tK2 = tangential for second PiolaKirchhoff stress
REFERENCES
97
13.12 REFERENCES
[Cl] Chadwick, P. & Ogden, R. W., A theorem of tensor calculus and its application to isotropic elasticity, Archicefor Rationul Mechanics und Anuljtsis, 44, 54 68 ( 1971 I. [C2] Chadwick, P. & Ogden, R. W., On the definition of elastic moduli. Archire l i ~ Rrrtionrrl r Mechanics and Ancilj*sis,44, 4 153 (197 1). [Dl) De Borst, R., Van den Bogert, P. A. J. & Zeilmaker. J.. Modelling and analysis of rubberlike materials, Heron, 33(l), (1988). [D2) Desai, C. S. & Siriwardane, H. J., Constittitiiv Luws fiw Enyineeringj i2furcvitrl.~tith \ Emphasis on Geoloyicul Muterials, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs ( 1984). [D3] Dobrowlski, M. A., A mixed finite element method for approximating incompressible materials, S A I M J . Ntimer. Anal., 29(2), 365 389 (1992). [D4] Duffett, G. & Reddy, B. D., The analysis of incompressible hyperelastic bodies by the finite element method, Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. & Enqngj., 41( l), 105 120 ( 1983). [Fl] Freakley, P. K. & Payne, A. R., Theorjand Pructice ofEncgineering Rtthhrr, Applied Science Publishers, London (1978). [F2] Fried, I . & Johnson, A. R., A note on elastic energy density functions for largely deformed compressible rubber solids, Comp. Meth. iri A p p I . Mec.h. & Enggng., 69. 53 64 ( 1988). [Gl] Gadala, M. S., Alternative methods for the solution of hyperelastic problems with incompressibility, Coniptrters & S t r i ~ t t t r e s42 ( l ) , 1 10 (1992). , [G2] Gent. A. N., Rubber and rubber elasticity; a review. Joirrnul of Polj*rnerScicwce; P o l j m v Sjwiposiu, N o . 48, ed. A. S. Dunn, Interscience, pp I 17 ( 1974). [G3] Gruttman, F. & Taylor, R. L., Theory and finite element formulation of rubberlike 35, membrane shells using principal stretches, I n t . J . fiw N i i i n . Meth. in En~gng.. 1 1 1 1 1126 (1992). [H 13 Haggblad, B. & Sundberg, J. A., Large strain solutions of rubber components. Coritp. & Struct., 17 (66),835843 (1983). [H2] Hencky, H., The elastic behaviour of vulcanised rubber. J . of A p p l . Mech., 1. 45 53 ( 1933). [H3] Hughes, T. J. R., The Finite Element Method; Linear S t ~ t i untl D j m n t i c FinitcJ Elrntenr c Analjxis, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ( 1987). [M 13 Malkus, D. S. & Hughes, T. J. R., Mixed finite element methods reduced and selecti~~e integration techniques: a unification of concepts, Contp. Meth. in A p p l . Mech. & E n g i ~ g . . 15,6881 (1978). [M2] Mooney, M., A theory of large elastic deformations. J . of A p p l . .\fech.. 11, 582 592 ( 1940). [M3] Mullins, L. & Thomas, A. G., A theory of rubberlike elasticity, Thi~Chemi.\trj. trntl Phjqsics of Rirhherlike Sirhstcrnces, Chapter 7 ed. L. Bateman, Maclaren. London, 1963. [OI] Ochi, M., Nato, S. & Abe, T., Numerical analysis of deformation of rubber composite materials, J S M E I n t . Jorirnul, Series I , 35, 4 (1992). [02] Oden, J. T., Finite Elemunts 9fNonlineur Continira, McGrawHill, New York (1972). [03] Oden, J. T. & Kikuchi, N., Finite element methods for constrained problems in elasticity, Int. J . f o r Num. Meth. in Engng., 18, 701 725 (1982). [04] Ogden, R. W., Large deformation isotropic elastic on the correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike solids, Proc. Raj.. Soc. Lonrlort. A326. 565 584 ( 1972). [OS] Ogden, R. W., Elusric Dt$)rmation ofRi4hherlike Solids,Mechanics of Solids, the Rodne) Hill 60th Anniversary Volume, ed. H. G. Hopkins & M . J. Sewell. Pergamon. Oxford ( 1982).
~ 9 i t h
98
REFERENCES
[PI] Peeken, H., Dopper, R. & Orschall, B., A 3D rubber material model verified in a user supplied subroutine, Comp. & Strttct., 1/2, 18 1 189 ( 1987). [ R I ] Rivlin, R. S., Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials, IV, Further developments of the general theory, Phil. Truns. Roy. Soc., A241, 379 397 (1948). [Sl] Saleed, A. F.. Change, T. Y. P. & Arnol, S. M., On the development of explicit robust schemes for implementation of a class of hyperelastic models in largestrain analysis of rubber, I n t . J.for N u m . Meth. in Enyny., 33, 1237 1249 (1992). [SZ] Simo. J. C . & Taylor, R. L., Quasiincompressible elasticity in principal stretches; continuum basis and numerical algorithms, Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. & Engncj., 85, 273 310 (1991). [S3] Simo, J. C . & Ortiz, M., A unified approach to finite deformation elastoplastic analysis based on the use of hyperelastic constitutive equations, Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. & Engng., 49, 221 245 (1985). [S4] Simo, J. C. & Pister, K . S.,Remarks on rate constitutive equations for finite deformation problems: computational implications, Comp. Meth. in Appl. Mech. & Engny.. 46, 201 215 (1874). [SS] Simo, J. C., Taylor, R. L. & Pister, K. S., Variational and projection methods for the volume constraint in finite deformation elastoplasticity, Comp. Meth. in Appl. M e ~ h . & Enqmg., 51, 177 208 (1985). [S6] Sussman, T. & Bathe, K.J., A finite element formulation for nonlinear incompressible elastic and inelastic analysis, Computers & Strttcts., 26 (1/2), 357 409 (1987). [S7] Szabo, B. & Babuska, I.,finite Element A n d p i s , Wiley, 1991. [Tl] Treloar, L. R. G., The Physics ?/'Rubber EIusticitj: 3rd edn., Oxford Univ. Press, 1975. [V 1 Valanis, K. C . & Landel, R. F., The strain energy function of a hyperelastic material in 1 terms of the extension ratios, J . o Appl. Phys., 38,2997 3002 (1967). f [W I ] Wriggers, P. & Taylor, R. L., A fully nonlinear axisymmetrical membrane element for rubberlike materials, Emgng. Compututions, 7, 3033 10 (1990). [Zl] Zienkiewicz, 0. C. & Taylor, R. L., T h e Finire Element Method, 4th edn, Vol. I , Busic Formulation cind Lineur Problems, McGrawHill ( 1989). [Z2] Zienkiewicz, 0. C., Q u . S., Taylor, R. L. & Nakazawa, S., The patch test for mixed formulation, Int. J . /i)r Nwi. Merh. in Enyng., 23, 1873 1883 (1986). [Z3] Zienkiewciz, 0.C., Maosong Huang & M. Pastor, Localization problems in plasticity using finite element with adaptive remeshing, I n c . J . .for Nion. Merh. in Enyng., 19, 127 148 (1995).
~
14
14.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 6, we introduced plasticity and concentrated on the von Mises (52) yield criterion. Although many of the concepts and, indeed, the algorithms in that chapter are relevant to other criteria, no details were provided. The present chapter will consider a range of other yield criteria. Initially, we will concentrate on those criteria which involve a volumetric component and can be used for geomechanical materials. We will also introduce criteria which involve corners in the yield surface and will discuss some special algorithms required for their numerical treatment. Details are given for both the MohrCoulomb yield criterion and the Ilyushin yield criterion for shells, which works directly with the stress resultants. Later in the chapter, we will consider criteria than can be used for anisotropic plasticity. As a byproduct, methods will be introduced for the backwardEuler return that are computationally more efficient than some of the methods introduced in Chapter 6. Towards the end of the chapter, we will consider softening and fracturing materials, with emphasis on concrete. Some of the suggested procedures also fall into the plasticity category while others do not. Among the latter is damage mechanics which is briefly discussed in the final section of this chapter. A further chapter on plasticity is Chapter 16 which concentrates on various forms of hardening and also considers viscoplasticity. Both the current and the next chapter will follow Chapter 6 in concentrating on algorithmic aspects. References to more general reading were given in Chapter 6. More recent books covering plasticity are due to Lemaitre and Chaboche [L3], Lubliner [L4] and Simo and Hughes [ S S ] . Also, in relation to finite elements. the new editions of the books by Bathe rB1.4) and Zienkiewicz and Taylor [Zl] give chapters devoted to the topic and a report by Waszczyszyn [W 11 covers a range of issues. Both the current and the following chapters are limited to small strains. Large strains will be considered in Chapter 19.
100
,0 ,+ 0*+ o3= 0
7t
plane
(Figure 14.1).In order to make the magnitude of the yield surface crosssection change with volumetric or mean stress, we must make the yield criterion a function of the first invariant, I , = J , where I,
(14. I ) I ,, = (a,+ a2 + 0 3 ) = 3 0 , I 03) With f = f ( I l , J 2 ) , we can produce the DruckerPrager yield criterion [D6] (Figure 14.2) where
j'
= (DZ,
+ J y )  0,  0,
( 14.2)
DruckerPrager MohrCoulomb
03
101
Details will be given later, and an alternative form for the DruckerPrager criterion will be given in Section 14.9. A wellKnown alternative to the von Mises yield criterion is the Tresca yield criterion (Figure 14.1). In terms of principal stresses, this crterion is given by
.f = (a1 0 3 ) Go = 0
6 > 62 1
( 14.3a)
>6 3
(14.3b)
In order to express this yield criterion in terms of stress invariants, we can follow Nayak and Zienkiewicz [Nl] and Owen and Hinton CO21 and use the relationship: sin(8 + 2n/3)
( 14.4)
sin(0  2n/3) where J , was defined in (6.26)and the (Lode) angle 0 (see Figure 14.3)is related to the third deviatoric invariant: J 3 = det [s] where s are the deviatoric stresses (see Section 4.2.2 and (6.28))via:
 n/6 ,< 0 = i s i n  (  $ J , ) 4 n t 6 ( 14.6)
( 14.5)
:
e = 300
102
0
Figure 14.4
T on and
J , = sz(ss  J 2 )
(14.7)
In relation to Figure 14.3, if we impose the restriction of (14.3b) on the ordering of the principal stresses, we need only work in the sextent OAB. Using (14.4), the Tresca yield criterion of (14.3) can be re written as f'=2(J,)1 2 C O S ~  ( T ~ = ( T ,  U ~ ( 14.8) The MohrCoulomb yield criterion [M4, CI 51 is a generalisation of the cohesivefrictional relationship (Figure 14.4):
( 14.9a)
where (T, is the normal stress on the 'slipplane' at which the shear stress is z. The constant is the cohesion and cp is the angle of friction. Assuming cr1 > cr2 > cr3. (14.9a) generalises to
+(U,
+ o,)sin cp
 ccos
cp
(14.9b)
 (T,
( 14.9~)
(14.10) where 0 was defined in ( 14.6).The MohrCoulomb criterion is illustrated in principal stress space in Figure 14.2. The DruckerPrager criterion of (14.2) (see also Figures 14.2 and 14.3) can be considered as a smoothed approximation to the Mohr Coulomb relationship of ( 1 4 . 9 ~ ) Figure 14.5) and can be expressed via (14.2) which is reproduced here for (see convenience as
,#' = ( D I , + J ;
2,
 0,
(14.11 )
103
\ Hyperbolic a2> 0
tT
Parabolic a2= 0
Elliptic a2< 0 ,
where (14.12a) (14.12b) with the plus sign being adopted if the yield surface is made to coincide with the inner corners of the MohrCoulomb surface while the minus sign applies if the surface is fitted to the outer corners (as in Figures 14.2 and 14.3). Before moving on to the numerical implementation of the various yield criteria, we note that they can all be expressed in the form:
.f = O , ( l l , J 2 , 0 )  0" = 0
(14.13)
where the precise forms are given in Table 14.1. Before moving on to consider the previous yield criteria in detail, we will very briefly discuss some further yield criteria involving a pressure contribution. From Figure 14.2,
Von Mises
Tresca DruckerPrager MohrCoulomb
$J;"
2J:" cos 0 DI,
(51, sincp
104
it can be seen that the previous yield criteria are open at the compressive end. One way of closing the yield criterion is to apply a cap to the DruckerPrager model [R2]. An alternative is provided by the crushable foam model of Key [K2] (see also Duffet et al. [D7]). In describing this criterion, we will use the mean stress a, from (14.1) and 5 =J: The yield criterion is then given by
~f=22L1,+U1a,L12a~=0
(14.14)
If ( I , = u2 = 0 and 3a, = a we recover the von Mises yield criterion, while with u2 = 0, : , we obtain the modified von Mises yield criterion of Raghava et d . [RI]. In particular, we can then set:
=  o,aI/3;
U, =
 (a,
+ a,)
(14.15)
where (T, (a negative number) and (T, (a positive number) are the effective yield stresses in tension and compression respectively. If u2 # 0, we can obtain an elliptical (U* < 0),parabolic (a2= 0) or hyperbolic (u2> 0) shape (see Figure 14.5).The elliptical criterion takes the shape of the modified Cam clay model [R3]. A similar shape can be obtained by Tvergaards modification [Tl] of Gursons model [Gl] for porous materials which takes the form:
,f = T~  U,
+ U , cosh(a2am)
(14.16)
Here
U,
with c7J/c?nbeing defined throughout this chapter (as in Chapter6) as a column vector. In order to obtain this vector (a) via differentiation of (14.13), we require from ( 14.6):
( 14.18)
+ C2a, + C3a3
(14.19)
105
C l
0 0
c 2
c 3
COS 0 (1
1'2