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.
Sanders, A., I. Tibbitts, D. Kakarla, S. Siskey, J. Ochoa, K. Ong, and R. Brannon. (2011). “Contact mechanics of impacting slender rods: measurement and analysis.” Society for Experimental Mechanics Annual Meeting. Uncasville, CT, June 13-16.
Images of a typical contact patch
To validate models of contact mechanics in low speed structural impact, slender rods with curved tips were impacted in a drop tower, and measurements of the contact and vibration were compared to analytical and finite element (FE) models. The contact area was recorded using a thin-film transfer technique, and the contact duration was measured using electrical continuity. Strain gages recorded the vibratory strain in one rod, and a laser Doppler vibrometer measured velocity. The experiment was modeled analytically using a quasi-static Hertzian contact law and a system of delay differential equations. The FE model used axisymmetric elements, a penalty contact algorithm, and explicit time integration. A small submodel taken from the initial global model economically refined the analysis in the small contact region. Measured contact areas were within 6% of both models’ predictions, peak speeds within 2%, cyclic strains within 12 microstrain (RMS value), and contact durations within 2 µs. The accuracy of the predictions for this simple test, as well as the versatility of the diagnostic tools, validates the theoretical and computational models, corroborates instrument calibration, and establishes confidence thatthe same methods may be used in an experimental and computational study of the impact mechanics of artificial hip joint.
Global model results comparison with analytical and experimental results for speed at the midpoint of one of the rods
R. Brannon, J.A. Burghardt, D. Bronowski, and S. Bauer
Common isotropic yield surfaces. Von Mises and Drucker-Prager models are often used for metals. Gurson’s function, and others like it, are used for porous media. Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb models approximate the yield threshold for brittle media. Fossum’s model, and others like it, combine these features to model realistic geological media.
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.
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.
A. F. Fossum and R. M. Brannon
This paper summarizes the results of a theoretical and experimental program at Sandia National Laboratories aimed at identifying and modeling key physical features of rocks and rock-like materials at the laboratory scale over a broad range of strain rates. The mathematical development of a constitutive model is discussed and model predictions versus experimental data are given for a suite of laboratory tests. Concurrent pore collapse and cracking at the microscale are seen as competitive micromechanisms that give rise to the well-known macroscale phenomenon of a transition from volumetric compaction to dilatation under quasistatic triaxial compression. For high-rate loading, this competition between pore collapse and microcracking also seems to account for recently identiﬁed differences in strain-rate sensitivity between uniaxial-strain ‘‘plate slap’’ data compared to uniaxial-stress Kolsky bar data. A description is given of how this work supports ongoing efforts to develop a predictive capability in simulating deformation and failure of natural geological materials, including those that contain structural features such as joints and other spatial heterogeneities.
K. Kamojjala, R. M. Brannon (2011)
Snapshot of the deformation in time
The principle of material frame indifference require spatial stresses to rotate with the material, whereas reference stresses must be insensitive to rotation. Testing of a classical uniaxial strain problem with superimposed rotation reveals that a very common approach to strong incremental objectivity taken in finite element codes to satisfy frame indifference(namely working in an approximate un-rotated frame) fails this simplistic test. A more complicated verification example is constructed based on the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) which involves the same character of loading at all points, providing a means to test any nonlinear-elastic arbitrarily anisotropic constitutive model.
T.J. Fuller, R.M. Brannon, O.E. Strack, J.E. Bishop
Displacement profile for Thermo-Kayenta at the end of the simulation. the red dots represent the experimental profiles
A persistent challenge in simulating damage of natural geological materials, as well as rock-like engineered materials, is the development of efficient and accurate constitutive models.The common feature for these brittle and quasi-brittle materials are the presence of flaws such as porosity and network of microcracks. The desired models need to be able to predict the material responses over a wide range of porosities and strain rate. Kayenta  (formerly called the Sandia GeoModel) is a unifi ed general-purpose constitutive model that strikes a balance between rst-principles micromechanics and phenomenological or semi-empirical modeling strategies. However, despite its sophistication and ability to reduce to several classical plasticity theories, Kayenta is incapable of modeling deformation of ductile materials in which deformation is dominated by dislocation generation and movement which can lead to signi cant heating. This stems from Kayenta’s roots as a geological model, where heating due to inelastic deformation is often neglected or presumed to be incorporated implicitly through the elastic moduli.The sophistication of Kayenta and its large set of extensive features, however, make Kayenta an attractive candidate model to which thermal eff ects can be added. This report outlines the initial work in doing just that, extending the capabilities of Kayenta to include deformation of ductile materials, for which thermal e ffects cannot be neglected. Thermal e ffects are included based on an assumption of adiabatic loading by computing the bulk and thermal responses of the material with the Kerley Mie-Gruneisen equation of state and adjusting the yield surface according to the updated thermal state. This new version of Kayenta, referred to as Thermo-Kayenta throughout this report, is capable of reducing to classical Johnson-Cook plasticity in special case single element simulations and has been used to obtain reasonable results in more complicated Taylor impact simulations in LS-Dyna. Despite these successes, however, Thermo-Kayenta requires additional re nement for it to be consistent in the thermodynamic sense and for it to be considered superior to other, more mature thermoplastic models. The initial thermal development, results, and required refinements are all detailed in the following report.
R.M. Brannon, A.F. Fossum, and O.E. Strack
Kayenta continuous yield surface. (a) three-dimensional view in principal stress space, (b) the meridional “side” view (thick line), and (c) the octahedral view
The physical foundations and domain of applicability of the Kayenta constitutive model are presented along with descriptions of the source code and user instructions. Kayenta, which is an outgrowth of the Sandia GeoModel, includes features and fitting functions appropriate to a broad class of materials including rocks, rock-like engineered materials (such as concretes and ceramics),and metals. Fundamentally, Kayenta is a computational framework for generalized plasticity models. As such, it includes a yield surface, but the term“yield” is generalized to include any form of inelastic material response including microcrack growth and pore collapse. Kayenta supports optional anisotropic elasticity associated with ubiquitous joint sets. Kayenta support optional deformation-induced anisotropy through kinematic hardening (inwhich the initially isotropic yield surface is permitted to translate in deviatoric stress space to model Bauschinger effects). The governing equations are otherwise isotropic. Because Kayenta is a unification and generalization of simple models, it can be run using as few as 2 parameters (for linear elasticity) to as many as 40 material and control parameters in the exceptionally rare case when all features are used. For high-strain-rate applications, Kayenta support rate dependence through an overstress model. Isotropic damage is model through loss of stiffness and strength.
R.M. Brannon and S. Leelavanichkul
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.
A.G. Neeman; R.M. Brannon; B. Jeremic; A. Van Gelderand; A. Pang
Top view (Z from above) of eigentensors for Drucker-Prager material, time step 124, colored by minimum stretch eigenvalue.
Visualization of fourth-order tensors from solid mechanics has not been explored in depth previously. Challenges include the large number of components (3x3x3x3 for 3D), loss of major symmetry and loss of positive definiteness(with possibly zero or negative eigenvalues). This paper presents a decomposition of fourth-order tensors that facilitates their visualization and understanding. Fourth-order tensors are used to represent a solid’s stiffness.The stiffness tensor represents the relationship between increments of stress and increments of strain. Visualizing stiffness is important to understand the changing state of solids during plastification and failure. In this work,we present a method to reduce the number of stiffness components to second-order 3×3 tensors for visualization.The reduction is based on polar decomposition, followed by eigen-decomposition on the polar “stretch”. If any resulting eigenvalue is significantly lower than the others, the material has softened in that eigen-direction. The associated second-order eigentensor represents the mode of stress (such as compression, tension, shear, or some combination of these) to which the material becomes vulnerable. Thus we can visualize the physical meaning of plastification with techniques for visualizing second-order symmetric tensors.