Constitutive modeling refers to the development of equations describing the way that materials respond to various stimuli. In classical deformable body mechanics, a simple constitutive model might predict the stress required to induce a given strain; the canonical example is Hooke’s law of isotropic linear elasticity. More broadly, a constitutive model predicts increments in some macroscale state variables of interest (such as stress, entropy, polarization, etc.) that arise from changes in other macroscale state variables (strain, temperature, electric field, etc.).
Constitutive equations are ultimately implemented into a finite element code to close the set of equations required to solve problems of practical interest. This course describes a few common constitutive equations, explaining what features you would see in experimental data or structural behavior that would prompt you to select one constitutive model over another, how to use them in a code, how to test your understanding of the model, how to check if the code is applying the model as advertised in its user’s manual, and how to quantitatively assess the mathematical and physical believability of the solution.
Measure of anisotropy for Zircon, Quartz, Uranium, Titanium, Hornblende, and Copper.
T. Fuller and R.M. Brannon
In general, thermodynamic admissibility requires isotropic materials develop reversible deformation induced anisotropy (RDIA) in their elastic stiffnesses. Taking the elastic potential for an isotropic material to be a function of the strain invariants, isotropy of the elastic stiffness is possible under distortional loading if and only if the bulk modulus is independent of the strain deviator and the shear modulus is constant. Previous investigations of RDIA have been limited to applications in geomechanics where material non-linearityand large deformations are commonly observed. In the current paper, the degree of RDIA in other materials is investigated. It is found that the resultant anisotropy in materials whose strength does not vary appreciably with pressure, such as metals, is negligible, but in materials whose strength does vary with pressure, the degree of RDIA can be significant. Algorithms for incorporating RDIA in a classical elastic–plastic model are provided.
RHT Model: Contour plots of damage: side, front, and back view of the target (top to bottom).
Four conventional damage plasticity models for concrete, the Karagozian and Case model (K&C),the Riedel-Hiermaier-Thoma model (RHT), the Brannon-Fossum model (BF1), and the Continuous Surface Cap Model (CSCM) are compared. The K&C and RHT models have been used in commercial finite element programs many years, whereas the BF1 and CSCM models are relatively new. All four models are essentially isotropic plasticity models for which plasticity is regarded as any form of inelasticity. All of the models support nonlinear elasticity, but with different formulations.All four models employ three shear strength surfaces. The yield surface bounds an evolving set of elastically obtainable stress states. The limit surface bounds stress states that can be reached by any means (elastic or plastic). To model softening, it is recognized that some stress states might be reached once, but, because of irreversible damage, might not be achievable again. In other words, softening is the process of collapse of the limit surface, ultimately down to a final residual surface for fully failed material. The four models being compared differ in their softening evolution equations, as well as in their equations used to degrade the elastic stiffness. For all four models, the strength surfaces are cast in stress space. For all four models, it is recognized that scale effects are important for softening, but the models differ significantly in their approaches. The K&C documentation, for example, mentions that a particular material parameter affecting the damage evolution rate must be set by the user according to the mesh size to preserve energy to failure. Similarly, the BF1 model presumes that all material parameters are set to values appropriate to the scale of the element, and automated assignment of scale-appropriate values is available only through an enhanced implementation of BF1 (called BFS) that regards scale effects to be coupled to statistical variability of material properties. The RHT model appears to similarly support optional uncertainty and automated settings for scale-dependent material parameters. The K&C, RHT, and CSCM models support rate dependence by allowing the strength to be a function of strain rate, whereas the BF1 model uses Duvaut-Lion viscoplasticity theory to give a smoother prediction of transient effects. During softening, all four models require a certain amount of strain to develop before allowing significant damage accumulation. For the K&C, RHT, and CSCM models, the strain-to-failure is tied to fracture energy release, whereas a similar effect is achieved indirectly in the BF1 model by a time-based criterion that is tied to crack propagation speed.
The CSM group has independently confirmed a case study demonstrating the truth of a claim in the literature that any non-associative rate-independent model admits a non-physical dynamic achronistity instability. By stimulating a non-associative material in the “Sandler-Rubin wedge” (above yield but below the flow surface), plastic waves are generated that travel faster than elastic waves, thus introducing a negative net work in a closed strain cycle that essentially feeds energy into a propagating wave to produce unbounded increases in displacement with time.
Sandler-Rubin instability: an infinitesimal pulse grows as it propagates
A very kewl mnemonic device for recalling thermodynamic identities (the Gibbsian relations, the Maxwell relations, the contact or Legendre transformations, etc.) I am working on a new version of this document that will clarify why property definitions for solids do NOT, in general, reduce to those for fluids when the tensors are isotropic. Stay tuned…
Abstract: This report investigates the validity of several key assumptions in classical plasticity theory regarding material response to changes in the loading direction. Three metals, two rock types, and one ceramic were subjected to non-standard loading directions, and the resulting strain response increments were displayed in Gudehus diagrams to illustrate the approximation error of classical plasticity theories. A rigorous mathematical framework for fitting classical theories to the data, thus quantifying the error, is provided. Further data analysis techniques are presented that allow testing for the effect of changes in loading direction without having to use a new sample and for inferring the yield normal and flow directions without having to measure the yield surface. Though the data are inconclusive, there is indication that classical, incrementally linear, plasticity theory may be inadequate over a certain range of loading directions. This range of loading directions also coincides with loading directions that are known to produce a physically inadmissible instability for any nonassociative plasticity model.