Skip to main content

A finite strain elastoplastic model based on Flory’s decomposition and 3D FEM applications

Abstract

The Flory’s decomposition is an important mathematical tool used to write hyperelastic constitutive models. As far as the author’s knowledge goes, it has not been used to write plastic flow directions in elastoplastic models and this study is an opportunity to introduce this simple strategy in so important subject. Adopting this decomposition it is possible to write an alternative total Lagrangian elastoplastic framework for finite strains with simple implementation and good response. Using Flory’s decomposition, strains are split into one volumetric and two isochoric parts. The volumetric part is considered elastic along all strain range and isochoric parts are treated as elastoplastic, i.e., the isochoric plastic flow direction is directly defined by the Flory’s decomposition. Assuming this plastic flow direction it is not necessary to employ the classical Kröner-Lee multiplicative decomposition to consider elastic and plastic parts of finite strains. The proposed model is implemented in a 3D geometrical nonlinear positional FEM code and results are compared with literature experimental and numerical data for validation purposes and applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32

References

  1. 1.

    Wallin M, Ristinmaa M, Ottosen NS (2003) Kinematic hardening in large strain plasticity. Europ J Mech A Solids 22:341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Zhang M, Montán FJ (2019) A simple formulation for large-strain cyclic hyperelasto-plasticity using elastic correctors. Theory and algorithmic implementation. Int J Plast 113:185–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brepols T, Vladimirov IN, Reese S (2014) Numerical comparison of isotropic hypo- and hyperelastic-based plasticity models with application to industrial forming processes. Int J Plast 63:18–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Coda HB, Sanches RAK, Paccola RR (2020) Alternative multiscale material and structures modeling by the finite-element method. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01148-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Abraham FF, Walkup R, Gao H, Duchaineau M, Diaz De La Rubia T, Seager M (2002) Simulating materials failure by using up to one billion atoms and the world’s fastest computer: brittle Fracture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:5777–6578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Buehler MJ, Hartmaier A, Gao H, Duchaineau M, Abraham FF (2004) Atomic plasticity: description and analysis of a one-billion atom simulation of ductile materials failure. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg 193:5257–5282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Argyris JH, Kleiber M (1977) Incremental formulation in nonlinear mechanics and large strain elasto-plasticity—natural approach. Part 1 Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 11(2):215–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Atluri SN (1984) On constitutive relations at finite strain: hypo-elasticity and elasto-plasticity with isotropic or kinematic hardening. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 43(2):137–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hughes TJR, Winget J (1980) Finite rotation effects in numerical integration of rate constitutive equations arising in large-deformation analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 15(12):1862–1867

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kojic M, Bathe KJ (1987) Studies of finite element procedures—stress solution of a closed elastic strain path with stretching and shearing using the updated Lagrangian Jaumann formulation. Comput Struct 26(1–2):175–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bruhns OT, Xiao H, Meyers A (1999) Self-consistent Eulerian rate type elasto-plasticity models based upon the logarithmic stress rate. Int J Plasticity 15(5):479–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kröner E (1960) Allgemeine kontinuumstheorie der versetzungen und eigenspannungen. Arch Ration Mech Anal 4:273–334

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lee EH (1969) Elastic–plastic deformations at finite strains. J Appl Mech (ASME) 36:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mandel J (1971) Plasticite classique et viscoplasticity. In: CISM Course 97, Springer-Verlag, Udine

  15. 15.

    Simo J, Ortiz M (1985) A unified approach to finite deformation elastoplastic analysis based on the use of hyperelastic constitutive equations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 49:221–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Weber G, Anand L (1990) Finite deformation constitutive equations and a time integration procedure for isotropic, hyperelastic-viscoplastic solids. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 79:173–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Eterovic AL, Bathe KJ (1990) A hyperelastic-based large strain elasto-plastic constitutive formulation with combined isotropic-kinematic hardening using the logarithmic stress and strain measures. Int J Numer Methods Eng 30:1099–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Simo JC (1992) Algorithms for static and dynamic multiplicative plasticity that preserve the classical return mapping schemes of the infinitesimal theory. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 99:61–112

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Weissman SL, Sackman JL (2011) Elastic–plastic multiplicative decomposition with a stressed intermediate configuration. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(13–16):1607–1618

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Simo JC, Ju JW (1989) On continuum damage-elastoplasticity at finite strains. Comput Mech 5(5):375–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Driemeier L, Comi C, Proenca SPB (2005) On nonlocal regularization in one dimensional finite strain elasticity and plasticity. Comput Mech 36(1):34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Li Z, Bloomfield MO, Oberai AA (2018) Simulation of finite-strain inelastic phenomena governed by creep and plasticity. Comput Mech 62(3):323–345

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Schroder J, GruttmannLoblein F (2002) A simple orthotropic finite elasto-plasticity model based on generalized stress-strain measures. Comput Mech 30(1):48–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Areias PMA, Ritto-CorreaMartins MJAC (2010) Finite strain plasticity, the stress condition and a complete shell model. Comp Mech 45(2–3):189–209

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Flory PJ (1961) Thermodynamic relations for high elastic materials. Trans Faraday Soc 57:829–838

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ogden RW (1984) Nonlinear Elastic deformation. Ellis Horwood, England

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pascon JP, Coda HB (2015) Large deformation analysis of functionally graded elastoplastic materials via solid tetrahedral finite elements. Comput Struct 146:59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Carrazedo R, Paccola RR, Coda HB (2018) Active face prismatic positional finite element for linear and geometrically nonlinear analysis of honeycomb sandwich plates and shells. Compos Struct 200:849–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Coda HB, Paccola RR (2007) An alternative positional FEM formulation for geometrically non-linear analysis of shells: Curved triangular isoparametric elements. Comput Mech 40(1):185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rivlin R, Saunders D (1951) Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials VII. Experiments on the deformation of rubber. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 243:251–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Düster A, Hartmann S, Rank E (2003) p-FEM applied to finite isotropic hyperelastic bodies. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 192:5147–5166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Botta AS, Paccola RR, Venturini WS, Coda HB (2008) A discussion on volume change in the plastic phase. Commun Numer Methods Eng 24(11):1149–1162

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Jones RM (2009) Deformation theory of plasticity. books.google.com

  34. 34.

    Bridgman PW, Bell G (1949) The physics of high pressure. London

  35. 35.

    Norris DM, Moran B, Scudder JK, Quinones DF (1978) A computer simulation of the tension test. J Mech Phys Solids 26:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Merston TU, Boroen MP, Fox JH, Reardon LD (1975) Fracture Toughness of Ferritic Materials in Light Water Nuclear Reactor Vessels. Rep. no. EPRI 232–2. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA

  37. 37.

    Eidel B, Gruttmann F (2003) Elastoplastic orthotropy at finite strains: multiplicative formulation and numerical implementation. Comput Mater Sci 28:732–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Simo JC, Armero F (1992) Geometrically nonlinear enhanced strain mixed methods and the method of incompatible modes. Int J Numer Methods Eng 33:1413–1449

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Koissin V, Shipsha A, Rizov V (2004) The inelastic quasi-static response of sandwich structures to local loading. Compos Struct 64(2):129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Wang P, Chalal H, Abed-Meraim F (2017) Quadratic solid–shell elements for nonlinear structural analysis and sheet metal forming simulation. Comput Mech 59:161–186

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Betsch P, Stein E (1999) Numerical implementation of multiplicative elasto-plasticity into assumed strain elements with application to shells at large strains. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 179:215–245

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Fontes Valente RA, Alves de Sousa RJ, Natal Jorge RM (2004) An enhanced strain 3D element for large deformation elastoplastic thin-shell applications. Comput Mech 34:38–52

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wriggers P, Eberlein R, Reese S (1996) A comparison of threedimensional continuum and shell elements for finite plasticity. Int J Solids Struct 33:3309–3326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Eberlein R, Wriggers P (1999) Finite element concepts for finite elastoplastic strains and isotropic stress response in shells: theoretical and computational analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 171:243–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazil—Grant #2020/05393–4.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Humberto Breves Coda.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Second Piola–Kirchhoff stress components

In order to be complete, this appendix shows that the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress components \(\left( {{\varvec{S}}^{J} ,{\varvec{S}}^{1} ,{\varvec{S}}^{2} } \right)\) defined by Eq. (12) are related, respectively, to the hydrostatic and deviatoric Cauchy stress components \(\left( {{\varvec{\sigma}}_{{}}^{vol} ,{\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso1} ,{\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso2} } \right)\). This is done applying the well known relation among the second Piola-Kirchhof stress and the Cauchy stress, as follows:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}} = \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{S}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} = \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot \left( {{\varvec{S}}^{J} + {\varvec{S}}^{1} + {\varvec{S}}^{2} } \right) \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} = \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{S}}^{J} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} + \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{S}}^{1} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} + \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{S}}^{2} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} $$
(55)

To make operation simple one starts rewriting Eq. (11) in a general form:

$$ \psi^{J} = \psi^{J} (J),\psi_{{}}^{1} = \psi_{{}}^{1} (\overline{I}_{1} ),\psi_{{}}^{2} = \psi_{{}}^{2} (\overline{I}_{2} ) $$
(56)

So, for each component one writes:

  • Volumetric

The candidate to volumetric component of the second Piola Kirchhoff stress is written as:

$$ {\varvec{S}}_{{}}^{J} = \frac{{\partial \psi_{{}}^{J} }}{\partial J}\frac{\partial J}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = \alpha \,{\mathfrak{E}}^{J} $$
(57)

In which \(\alpha\) is a scalar and

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{J} = \frac{\partial J}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = J{\varvec{C}}^{ - 1} $$
(58)

Applying Eq. (55) over the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress of Eq. (57) results:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}}_{{}}^{vol} = \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{S}}_{{}}^{J} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} = \frac{1}{J}{\varvec{A}} \cdot \alpha \,J{\varvec{C}}^{ - 1} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} = \alpha \,{\varvec{I}} = \sigma^{hid} $$
(59)

which means that \({\mathfrak{E}}^{J}\) is the Lagrangian strain direction corresponding to the hydrostatic stress in the Cauchy space and that \({\varvec{A}}^{J}\) is hydrostatic in Lagrangian sense.

  • First isochoric

The candidate to first isochoric component of the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress is written as:

$$ {\varvec{S}}_{{}}^{1} = \frac{{\partial \psi_{{}}^{1} }}{{\partial \overline{I}_{1} }}\frac{{\partial \overline{I}_{1} }}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = \beta \,{\mathfrak{E}}^{1} $$
(60)

where \(\beta\) is a scalar and \(\mathfrak{E}^{1}\) is a symmetric tensor of the same order of the Green strain. It is not usual to see the following expressions, but it is well known and straightforward to show that:

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{1} = \frac{{\partial \overline{I}_{1} }}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = \frac{{\partial Trac\left( {\overline{{C}}} \right)}}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = \frac{{\partial \left( {J^{ - 2/3} Trac\left( {\varvec{C}} \right)} \right)}}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} $$
(61)

from which one finds:

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{1} = - \frac{2}{3}J^{ - 2/3} Tr({\varvec{C}}){\varvec{C}}^{ - 1} + 2J^{ - 2/3} {\varvec{I}} $$
(62)

Considering Eq. (62) and applying the transformation (55) over Eq. (60), results:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}}^{1} = \beta \left\{ {2J^{ - 5/3} \left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} - \frac{{tr\left( {{\varvec{A}}^{t} \cdot {\varvec{A}}} \right)}}{3}{\varvec{I}}} \right)} \right\} $$
(63)

And, as

$$ tr\left( {{\varvec{A}}^{t} \cdot {\varvec{A}}} \right) = {\varvec{A}}:{\varvec{A}}^{t} = {\varvec{A}}^{t} :{\varvec{A}} = tr({\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} ) $$
(64)

one achieves:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso1} = \beta \left\{ {2J^{ - 5/3} \left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} - \frac{{tr\left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} } \right)}}{3}{\varvec{I}}} \right)} \right\} = {\varvec{\sigma}}_{desv} $$
(65)

which means that \({\mathfrak{E}}^{1}\) is the first isochoric Lagrangian strain direction and \({\varvec{S}}^{1}\) is the first isochoric second Piola–Kirchhoff stress.

  • Second isochoric

The candidate to second isochoric component of the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress is written as:

$$ {\varvec{S}}^{2} = \frac{{\partial \psi^{2} }}{{\partial \overline{I}_{2} }}\frac{{\partial \overline{I}_{2} }}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = \gamma \,{\mathfrak{E}}^{2} $$
(66)

with \(\gamma\) and \({\mathfrak{E}}^{2}\) being respectively a scalar and a symmetric tensor of the same order as the Green–Lagrange strain tensor. It is interesting to write:

$$ \begin{aligned}\overline{I}_{2} &= J^{ - 4/3} I_{2} = J^{ - 4/3} \{ ( c_{11} c_{22} - c_{12} c_{21}) + ( c_{11} c_{33} - c_{13} c_{31} ) \\ &\quad + ( c_{22} c_{33} - c_{23} c_{32} )\}\end{aligned} $$
(67)

in which \(I_{2}\) is the second invariant of the Cauchy stretch. With some algebraic effort, over Eq. (68), results:

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{2} = \frac{{\partial \overline{I}_{2} }}{{\partial {\varvec{E}}}} = 2J^{ - 4/3} \left( { - \frac{2}{3}{\varvec{C}}^{ - 1} I_{2} + \left\{ {Tr({\varvec{C}}){\varvec{I}} - {\varvec{C}}^{t} } \right\}} \right) $$
(68)

Using Eq. (55) over Eq. (67) and considering Eq. (69), one writes:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso2} = \gamma \,2J^{ - 7/3} \left[ {\left( {tr({\varvec{C}})\left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} } \right) - \left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} } \right) \cdot \left( {{\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} } \right)} \right) - \left( {\frac{2}{3}I_{2} } \right){\varvec{I}}} \right] $$
(69)

Using equation (70) results:

$$ tr({\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} )tr({\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} ) - tr(({\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} ) \cdot ({\varvec{A}} \cdot {\varvec{A}}^{t} )) = 2I_{2} $$
(70)

From Eq. (71) one calculates \(Tr\left( {\sigma^{iso2} } \right)\) as

$$ Tr\left( {{\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso2} } \right) = 2\gamma J^{ - 7/3} \left( {2I_{2} - 2I_{2} } \right) = 0 $$
(71)

thus:

$$ {\varvec{\sigma}}^{iso2} = {\varvec{\sigma}}_{des} $$
(72)

meaning that \({\mathfrak{E}}^{2}\) is the second isochoric Lagrangian strain direction and \({\varvec{S}}^{2}\) is the second isochoric component of the second Piola–Kirchhoff stress.

Appendix B

Axial test and stress limits

In a simple axial test (following direction \(x_{1}\)) for a quasi isochoric material one writes:

$$ J = \lambda_{1} \lambda_{2} \lambda_{3} \cong 1 $$
(73)

In which \(\lambda_{i}\) are stretches in direction \(i\). Considering isotropy, for this test one writes \(\lambda_{2} = \lambda_{3} = \lambda\) and, from (73) one assumes:

$$ \lambda^{2} = \frac{1}{{\lambda_{1} }} $$
(74)

Making some algebraic simple steps one achieves from Eqs. (13) and (14):

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{1} = \frac{2}{3}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {2(1 - \lambda_{1}^{ - 3} )} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 - \lambda_{1}^{3} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 - \lambda_{1}^{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right] $$
(75)

and

$$ {\mathfrak{E}}^{2} = \frac{2}{{3\lambda_{1}^{{}} }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {2(1 - \lambda_{1}^{ - 3} )} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 - \lambda_{1}^{3} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 - \lambda_{1}^{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right] $$
(76)

Thus, using Eq. (12), the following particular relation is achieved for very small volume change in elastic situation and simple axial stretch:

$$ {\varvec{S}}^{1} = \lambda_{1} {\varvec{S}}^{2} $$
(77)

For metallic materials it is expected that the yielding starts in the interval \(0.001 < \lambda_{1} - 1 < 0.003\). From this reasoning it is fair to split the von-Mises criterion given by Eq. (18) into two expressions given in Eq. (19) with \(\overline{\tau }^{1} = \overline{\tau }^{2} = \overline{\tau }\). If finite elastic strain is present and \(G^{1}\) is different from \(G^{2}\), than \(\overline{\tau }_{i}\) can be calibrated accordingly.

Appendix C

In this appendix two tables referred to example 1 are presented in order to simplify graphical reproduction (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2 Cauchy and First Piola–Kirchhoff stresses for Fig. 5
Table 3 Cauchy and Piola–Kirchhoff stresses for Fig. 7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coda, H.B. A finite strain elastoplastic model based on Flory’s decomposition and 3D FEM applications. Comput Mech (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-021-02092-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Finite strain plasticity
  • Flory’s decomposition
  • Finite elements
  • Plastic flow