Implementation of the Unified Strength Theory into FEM Codes

  • Mao-Hong Yu
  • Jian-Chun Li
Part of the Advanced Topics in Science and Technology in China book series (ATSTC)

Abstract

The yield criteria and various material models have been implemented into elasto-plastic programs and most current commercial FEM systems. In some systems, only the Huber-von Mises criterion, Drucker-Prager criterion and the Mohr-Coulomb criterion were implemented. Sometimes, the multi-parameters criteria for geomaterials and concrete structures are also used. The twin-shear strength theory has been implemented into special finite element programs since 1990 (Yu and Meng, 1990; Yu and Li, 1991; Yu, 1992; Yu et al., 1992). Only some single models, however, are used in several programs, and only one result can be obtained by using the single material model, which can be adopted only for one kind of material. Such models as the Tresca model can be used only for non-SD materials (those materials with the same strength both in tension and in compression), and the shear strength equals half of the tensile strength τy=0.5 σy The Huber-von Mises model can be used for non-SD materials with the shear strength τy=0.577 σy. The twin-shear yield criterion (Yu, 1961) or the maximum deviatoric stress criterion (Haythornthwaite, 1961), the shape distortion criterion (Schmidt-Ishilinsky, 1932–1940), or the matched circular criterion (Hill, 1950) can be used only for non-SD materials, and with the shear strength τy=0.667 σy. There is no relationship between these material models.

Keywords

Yield Criterion Yield Locus Strength Theory Twin Shear Unify Strength Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belytschko T, Liu WK and Moran B: (2000) Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures. John Wiley, Chichester: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Fan SC and Qiang HF (2001)Normal high-velocity impaction concrete slabs-a simulation using the meshless SPH procedures. In: Computational Mechanics-New Frontiers for New Millennium, Valliappan S. and Khalili N. eds. Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 1457–1462.Google Scholar
  3. Hinton E and Owen DRJ (1977) Finite Elements Programming. Academic Press: London.Google Scholar
  4. Lewis RW and Schrefler BA (1987) The Finite Element Method in the Deformation and Consolidation of Porous Media. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Fen TG and Du B (2010) Dynamic analysis of the 500 kV underground transformer substation for Shanghai World EXPO, to be published.Google Scholar
  6. Li J, Lu XY and Zhao XW (2008) Topology optimization based on bi-direction evolutionary structural of unified strength. Journal of Shandong Jianzhu University, 23(1): 65–69.Google Scholar
  7. Li K and Chen GR (2010) Finite element analysis of slope stability based on slip line field theory. Journarl of Hohai University (Natural Sciences), 38(2): 191–195.Google Scholar
  8. Li Y (2008) In-situ Stress Measurement and Stability Analysis Based on the Unified Strength Theory in Large Scale Underground Caverns Zone. Doctoral Dissertation, Beijing Scientific and Technical University.Google Scholar
  9. Li Y and Qiao L (2010) Stability Analysis of Underground Caverns based on the Unified Strength Theory, Chapter16 in this monograph.Google Scholar
  10. Li YM, Ishii K, Nakazato C and Shigeta T (1994) Prediction of safety rate and multi-slip direction of slip failure under complex stress state. Advances Eng. Plasticity and its Applications. Xu BY and Yang W eds. International Academic Publishers: Beijing, pp 349–354.Google Scholar
  11. Li YM and Ishii K (1998) The Evaluation of the Elasto-plastic Behavior of Composite Materials under Biaxial Stress with Homogenization Method, Proc. of the Conference on Computational Engineering and Science, 3: 1023–1026. JSCES.Google Scholar
  12. Li YM. and Ishii K (1998) The Evaluation of Strength for the Composite Materials. In: Strength Theory: Application, Development and Prospect for 21st Century, Yu MH and Fan SC eds. Science Press: New York and Beijing, pp 337–342.Google Scholar
  13. Liu F, Li LY and Mei ZX (1994) Elasto-visco-plastic finite element analysis of self-enhanced thick cylinder. Chinese J. Appl. Mechanics, 11(3): 133–137 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  14. Liu GH and Wang ZY (2004) Dynamic response and blast-resistance analysis of a tunnel subjected to blast loading. Journal of Zheiiang University (Engineering Science), 38(2):204–209 (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  15. Ma ZY and Liao HJ (2010) Unified strength theory and FLAC-3D. Chapter 18 in this monograph.Google Scholar
  16. Owen DRJ and Hinton E (1980) Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice. Pineridge Press: Swansea.Google Scholar
  17. Owen DRJ, Hinton E and Onate E (1989) Computational Plasticity: Models, Software and Applications. Pineridge Press Limited, pp 1460.Google Scholar
  18. Pan XM, Kong J, Yang Z and Liu C (2010) Secondary development and application of unified elastoplastic constitutive model to ABAQUS. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(4): 1092–1098.Google Scholar
  19. Quint Co. (1993a) COMPMAT-Analysis system for composite materials. FEM codes of Quint Corporation: Japan.Google Scholar
  20. Quint Co. (1993b) COMPMAT-Analysis system for composite materials. FEM codes of Quint Corporation, Japan.Google Scholar
  21. Quint Co. (1994a) PREMAT/POSTMAT-Pre and Post Processor for Composite Materials. FEM Codes of Quint Corporation, Japan.Google Scholar
  22. Quint Co. (1994b) STAMPS-Structural Analysis Program for Civil Engineering. FEM Codes of Quint Corporation, Japan.Google Scholar
  23. Shao CJ and Qian YJ (2007) Load bearing capability of concrete-filled steel tube component considering effect of intermediate principal stress. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics, 24(03): 396–399.Google Scholar
  24. Shao CJ, Wu YH and Qian YJ (2007) Plastic seismic damage of concrete structure based on five-parameter unified strength theory. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics, 24(1): 97–101.Google Scholar
  25. Shen ZJ (1993) Comparison of several yield criteria. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 14(1): 41–50 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  26. Smith IM and Griffiths DV (2004) Programming the Finite Element Method, 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Sun HY, Shang YQ, Zhang CS, Ying HP, Li SQ (2004) 3D numerical modeling of possible failure zone with underground excavation. Chinese Journal of rock mechanics and engineering, 23(13): 2192–2196.Google Scholar
  28. Sun HY, Shang YQ and Zhang CS (2004) Numerical modeling analysis for surrounding rockmass stability of large underground cavities. Journal of Zheiiang University (Engineering Science), 38(1): 70–74.Google Scholar
  29. Wang D, Chen JK, Wang QZ, Chen Y, Huang Y (2008) The new method of structural reliability analysis by Monte-Carlo stochastic finite element. Journal of Sichuan University (Engineering Science Edition), 40(3): 20–26.Google Scholar
  30. Wang D, Chen JK, Wang QZ, Li YL (2008) Structural Reliability Analysis by Monte-Carlo Based on Conditional Expectation Variance Reduction and Antithetic Variable Sampling. China Rural Water and Hydropower, (5):66–70.Google Scholar
  31. Wang F and Fan SC (1998) Limit pressures of thick-walled tubes using different yield criteria. Strength Theory: Applications, Developments and Prospects for the 21st Century. Yu MH and Fan SC eds. Science Press: New York, Beijing, pp 1047–1052.Google Scholar
  32. Wang F (1998) Nonlinear finite element analysis of RC plate and shell using the unified strength theory. PhD thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  33. Wang JQ and Lu F (2010) Unified strength theory constitutive model embedded software ABAQUS and its application in tunnel engineering. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute, 27(2): 68–74 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  34. Wang JQ and Lu F, (2010) Implementation of the Unified Strength Theory into ABAQUS and its Application for Tunnel Engineering. Chapter11 in this monograph.Google Scholar
  35. Yang LQ, Zhang SR (2008) Analysis of textural stress and rock failure of diversion tunnels. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 30(6): 813–817.Google Scholar
  36. Yang LQ, Li YQ and Chen ZP (2008) Sudden-crack Phenomenon and Simulation of Surrounding Rock-mass in Diversion Tunnel. China Rural Water and Hydropower, (5):53–56.Google Scholar
  37. Yang LQ, Zhang SR, Chen ZP. (2009) Adaptive arithmetic of arch dam cracking analysis. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 40(2): 214–219.Google Scholar
  38. Yu-MH, He LN, Song LY (1985) Twin shear strength theory with extension research, Sciences in China (Series.A), 28(11): 1113–1120 (English Edn); 28(12): 1174-1183(Chinese Edn).Google Scholar
  39. Yu MH and Meng XM (1990) Research in the protection and utilization of ancient city wall in Xi’an (in Chinese). Research Report of Xian Jiaotong University, pp 90–338, In: Fourth Symposium of Ancient Architecture and Gardens of China, Xi’an China.Google Scholar
  40. Yu MH and Li YM (1991) Twin shear constitutive theory and its computational implementation. In: Computational Mechanics, Ed. by Cheung YK Lee J,H,W. and Leung A.Y.T. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp 875–879.Google Scholar
  41. Yu MH (1992) New System of Strength Theory. Xian Jiaotong University Press: Xian, China (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  42. Yu MH, He LN and Zeng WB (1992) A new unified yield function: Its model, computational implementation and engineering application. Computational Methods in Engineering: Advances and Applications. Tay AAO and Lam KY eds. World Scientific: Singapore, pp 157–162.Google Scholar
  43. Yu MH, He LN, Liu CY (1992) Generalized twin shear yield criteria with extension research. Bulletin of Science, 37(2):182–186.Google Scholar
  44. Yu MH and Meng XM (1992) Twin shear elasto-plastic model and its application in geotechnical engineering. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng., 14(3): 71–75 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  45. Yu MH and Meng XM (1993) Researches on the stability of ancient city wall in Xi’an (in English). Research in the City Wall in Xi’an. Yu MH, Zhang XP and Fang TP eds. Xi’an Jiaotong University Press: Xi’an China, pp 168–174.Google Scholar
  46. Yu MH, Meng XM and Xie S (1993) Research on the protection and utilization of ancient city wall in Xi’an (in Chinese). Research on the City Wall in Xian. Yu MH, Zhang XP and Fang TP eds. Xian Jiaotong University Press: Xi’an, China, pp 94–126.Google Scholar
  47. Yu MH and Zeng WB (1993) Mesomechanical simulation of failure criterion for a composite material. Macro-Meso-micro Mechanical Properties of Materials. Tokuda M and Xu BY eds. Mie Academic Press: Mie, Japan, pp 571–576.Google Scholar
  48. Yu MH and Zeng WB (1994) New theory of engineering structural analysis and its application. J. Eng. Mech., 11(1): 9–20 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  49. Yu MH, Zeng WB, Ma GW, Yang SY, Wang F and Wang Y (1993) Unified Elasto-Plastic Program—UEPP. Xian Jiaotong University, English version.Google Scholar
  50. Yu MH, Zeng WB, Ma GW, Yang SY, Wang F and Wang Y (1993) Unified Elasto-Plastic Program—UEPP. Xian Jiaotong University, Chinese version.Google Scholar
  51. Yu MH (1994) Unified strength theory for geomaterials and its application. Chinese J. Geotech. Eng., 16(2): 1–9 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  52. Yu MH and Zeng WB (1994) New theory of engineering structural analysis and its application. J. Eng. Mech., 11(1): 9–20 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  53. Yu MH, Yang SY, Fan SC, et al. (1997) Twin shear unified elasto-plastic constitutive model and its applications. Chin. J. Geotech Eng., 21(6): 9–18 (in Chinese, English abstract).Google Scholar
  54. Yu MH (1998) Twin Shear Theory and its Applications. The Science Press: Beijing (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  55. Yu MH, Yang SY, Fan SC and Ma GW (1999) Unified elasto-plastic associated and non-associated constitutive model and its engineering applications. Int.Journal of Computers & Structures, 71: 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu MH (2004) Unified Strength Theory and its Applications. Springer: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yu MH, Ma GW et al. (2006) Generalized Plasticity. Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar
  58. Yu MH, Ma GW and Li JC (2009) Structural Plasticity: Limit, Shakedown and Dynamic Plastic Analyses of Structures. ZJU Press and Springer: Hangzhou and Berlin.Google Scholar
  59. Zhang CQ (2005) Study on method of safety evaluation for rock engineering based on failure approach index. Doctoral Dissertation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Rock & Soil Mechanics.Google Scholar
  60. Zhang CQ, Zhou H and Feng XT (2008) Numerical format of elastoplastic constitutive model based on the unified strength theory in FLAC∼(3D). Rock and Soil Mechanics, 29(3): 596–602 (in Chinese, English Abstract).Google Scholar
  61. Zhang XS, Guan H, Yew-Chaye Loo (2001) UST (Unified Strength Theory) failure criterion for punching shear analysis of reinforcement concrete slab-column connections. In: Computational Mechanics-New Frontiers for New Millennium, Valliappan S. and Khalili N. eds. Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 299–304.Google Scholar
  62. Zhou XQ (2002) Numerical Analysis of Reinforced Concrete using Multi-surface Strength Model. Doc. thesis of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mao-Hong Yu
    • 1
  • Jian-Chun Li
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologySwitzerland

Personalised recommendations