Computational & Technology Resources
an online resource for computational,
engineering & technology publications 

CivilComp Proceedings
ISSN 17593433 CCP: 83
PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY Edited by: B.H.V. Topping, G. Montero and R. Montenegro
Paper 68
Bipotential Versus Return Mapping Algorithms: Implementation of NonAssociated Flow Rules V. Magnier, E. Charkaluk, C. Bouby and G. de Saxcé
Laboratoire de Mécanique de Lille, CNRS UMR 8107, University of Lille, France V. Magnier, E. Charkaluk, C. Bouby, G. de Saxcé, "Bipotential Versus Return Mapping Algorithms: Implementation of NonAssociated Flow Rules", in B.H.V. Topping, G. Montero, R. Montenegro, (Editors), "Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Structures Technology", CivilComp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 68, 2006. doi:10.4203/ccp.83.68
Keywords: nonassociated, plasticity, numerical implementation, bipotential, return mapping, ABAQUS.
Summary
One the key features of the developments in nonlinear finite elements
relates to numerical implementation of constitutive laws and thus several theories were developed. The "return mapping" [4] and the "bipotential" [2] methods are one of those, associated respectively to two different classes of materials: the general standard materials (GSM) for the
return mapping and the implicit standard materials (ISM) for the bipotential.
The originality of this paper is the complete comparison of the numerical implementation of those both methods in the case of non associated flow rules in plasticity. The particular case of the ArmstrongFrederick's hardening law is considered [1]. In plasticity, the class of general standard material admits a normal dissipation law, associated to plastic potential F. In the framework of associated flow rules, the plastic potential F is known and is equal to the yield criteria f (von Mises,Tresca for example). However, within the framework of nonassociated flow rules, the plastic potential F is not equivalent to the yield criteria f, and a certain shape of the plastic potential is postulated. Thus, a new class of material was introduced by de Saxcé [3], the implicit standard materials, to distort the problem of the postulate in the case of nonassociated theories in the GSM. The aim of this approach is to connect by an implicit normality law the plastic strain rate and the stresses. On the one hand, this class corresponds to GSM in the associated flow rule case. On the other hand, in the nonassociated case, this class admits a bipotential b, based on a generalization of the Fenchel's inequality. It is a function depending on both stress and plastic strain rate. The unique knowledge of this function b allows simultaneously to define the yield locus and the flow rule although they are not associated. The first step concerns the determination of the plastic increment. This determination by the bipotential method implies to start from the incremental form of this one associated with a stationary condition. This method results in the same implicit equation as the one obtained with the radial return technique. The second step concerns the determination of the consistent tangent operator obtained by a simple derivation of the stress tensor increment in relation to the strain increment for the return mapping method. In the case of a bipotential, this results in an implicit function and to the use of the implicit function theorem. The shapes of these two consistent tangent operators are different with additionnal terms in the case of the bipotential method. The numerical implementation is realised in ABAQUS/Standard 6.5 by the means of a UMat subroutine. The practical simple tensioncompression case provides similar results in terms of axial stress versus axial strain for both methods, in accordance with the theory. Other loadings have now to be studied in order to improve both methods. References
purchase the fulltext of this paper (price £20)
go to the previous paper 
