Comparison of Models for Finite Plasticity

Transcription

1 Comparison of Models for Finite Plasticity A numerical study Patrizio Neff and Christian Wieners California Institute of Technology (Universität Darmstadt) Universität Augsburg (Universität Heidelberg)

2 Motivation For a wide range of applications of elasto-plasticity theory to crystalline aggregates like metals it is known that the elastic region is very small implying that elastic strains remain small. A frame indifferent approximative model for this situation has been developed where the remaining nonlinearity (in case of small elastic strains) in the balance equation is shifted into an appended evolution equation. It has been shown that the new model in a viscous setting is locally well posed. Here, we compare numerically the behavior of the new model with other well known models of finite plasticity which are based on different elastic free energies. P. Neff and C. Wieners

3 Models

4 Small elastic strains We assume that the deformation tensor F has a multiplicative decomposition F F e F p ; we set P F 1 p and F e FP. We consider the polar decomposition of the elastic part F e polar F e U e with polar F e SO 3 and U e F T e F e For small elastic strains (i. e. F T e F e id is small), also F e polar F e is small, and F T e polar F e polar F e T Fe 2id 2 U e id is close to F T e F e id In the new model, polar F e is approximated by R SO 3 satisfying Ṙ! skew F e R T skew F e R T R Lemma. For R 0 SO 3 with R 0 polar F e 8, the evolution equation Ṙ skew F e R T R R 0 R 0 has a global solution R t in SO 3 satisfying lim t " R t polar F e.

5 Material models M1 The new model (with appended rotations R) M2 The exact polar model (using R polar F e ) M3 St. Venant Kirchhoff model M4 A Neo-Hooke model M5 A Hencky model with logarithmic strains (straight forward finite strain extension) (reference model) (fits to exponential increment) For comparison, we also consider a classical model with linearized plastic strain. M6 Perfect plasticity M7 Viscoplasticity (small strain limit) (measuring the viscous effect)

6 Internal variables, strain and energy internal variables Z strain C id 2E energy W M1 P R F T e R R T F e id µ E 2 # 2 trace E 2 new model M2 P F T e polar F e polar F e T F e id µ E 2 # 2 trace E 2 exact polar model M3 P Fe T F e µ E 2 # 2 trace E 2 St. Venant Kirchhoff M4 P Fe T µ F e 2 F e 2 # 2 det C 2µ # 2 logdet C Neo-Hooke M5 P F T Hencky e F e µ 4 dev lnc 2 $ 8 trace lnc 2 M6 % p F F T id 2% p µ E 2 # 2 trace E 2 Perfect plasticity M7 % p F F T id 2% p µ E 2 # 2 trace E 2 Viscoplasticity

7 Finite strain models For all models, we set S & D D F W F Z Fe T SP T dev sym & P 1 Ṗ ' D D D ' d (ˆ) r d For M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 we use ˆ) " d = In M1 and M7 this is relaxed to ˆ) r d = 1 * 0 d K 0 " d K 0 1 r 1 max 0 d K 0 r 1 r 1 "

8 Quasi-static models Let + R 3 be the reference domain, let, D (+ be the Dirichlet boundary part (with non-vanishing measure), let, N (+, D be the Neumann boundary part, let n be the outer normal on, N, and let 0 T be a time interval. The constitutive equations are complemented by divs f in 0 T + S n g on 0 T, N F id -u in 0 T + u d on 0 T, D for prescribed volume forces f, surface loads g, and Dirichlet boundary displacements d. Theorem (Neff). In the pure Dirichlet case, for smooth data and r 6, a time T 0 exists such that the new model M1 has a unique solution u P R C 0 T H R 3 C 1 0 T H SL 3 H SO 3

9 Variational problem The material is completely determined by the evolution of the internal variables Ż H F Z (depending on a history function H) and the stress response S S F Z The displacement u is determined by the boundary values u d on, D and + S id -u Z -vdx + f vdx, N g vds for all v with v 0 on, D.

10 Discretization

11 Incremental problem For a time series 0 t 0 t 1 t 2 t n T with time increments. n t n t n 1, the incremental problem is completely determined by a time discretization Z n H n. n F n Z n 1 of the evolution of the internal variables. This defines the incremental stress response S S F n H n. n F n Z n 1 The displacement u n is determined by the boundary values u n d t n on, D and + S id -u n H n. n id -u n Z n 1 -vdx + f vdx, N g vds for all v with v 0 on, D, depending on the history variables Z n 1.

12 Exponential update in finite plasticity The evolution problem in t t n 1 t n Ṗ t ' t P t D t D t with P t n 1 P n 1 D t dev sym P T t F T t S t P T t ' t (ˆ) r D t is discretized by the linear evolution equation Ṗ t ' n P t D n D n with P t n 1 P n 1 D n dev sym Pn T Fn T S n Pn T ' n (ˆ) r D n ; this gives (depending on ' n and D n ) P n P n 1 exp. n ' n D n D n Note that this procedure preserves the constraint det P n 1.

13 History increment for M2 For given F n and P n 1, compute D trial n D F n P n 1. We consider two cases: for D trial n K 0 we set P n H n F n P n 1 P n 1 ; for D trial n K 0 we compute P n ' n such that P n P n 1 exp. n ' n D F n P n D F n P n D F n P n K 0 0 with D F P dev P T F T polar FP µ P T F T polar FP polar FP T FP 2id # 2 trace PT F T polar FP polar FP T FP 2id

14 History increment for M1 For given F n and Z n 1 P n 1 R n 1, compute D trial n D F n P n 1 R n 1. For D trial n K 0 we compute P n R n ' n! n such that P n P n 1 exp. n ' n D F n P n R n D F n P n R n R n exp. n! n skew F n P n R T n R n 1 ' n 1 * D F n P n R n K 0 r! n 1 * 1 skew F np n R T n r 0 with D F P R dev id 1 2 PT F T R R T FP 2id µ P T F T R R T FP 2id # 2 trace PT F T R R T FP 2id

15 Finite element setting For finite elements V h with nodal points P h set V h d v v P d P P P h, D. For given material history Z n 1, find u n V h d n such that + S id -u n H n. n id -u n Z n 1 -vdx + f vdx, N g vds v V h 0 This is solved by a Newton method: for given u m n V h d n find w V h 0 such that + Cm n -w -vdx + f vdx, N g vds + S id -um n Z. n id -u m n Z n 1 -vdx for v V h 0 with the approximated consistent tangent operator C m n D F S D 2 F W C m n -w 1 / S id -um n /-w Z. n id -u m n /-w Z n 1 S id -u m n Z. n id -u m n Z n 1 / 0

16 Numerical Comparison

17 Torsion test p " M1 M t Evolution the equivalent plastic strain p t t 'ds for M1 and M4

18 Shear and compression test M2 M3 M4 M5 Distribution of the equivalent plastic strain for a deformation of 25% M6

19 Shear and compression test p t " + M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 p 0 02 " p 0 1 " p 0 3 " Results for the finite strain models M2, M3, M4, M5 (and for comparison perfect plasticity M6) for deformations of 2%, 10% and 30% (for M3 and for t 0 2 the numerical algorithm is converged only on coarser meshes). As a cross check for nonlinear elasticity, we present the stress invariants for a deformation of 0.1%; the stress response is purely elastic in this case (where F p 0). M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 & I x m & II x m & III x m

20 Shear and compression test & M2 M3 M4 M5 M t The evolution of the maximal stress & 2 max & I x m & II x m & III x m for the models M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6. Here, x m denotes the midpoint of +, and & I, & II, & III are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor & (resp. sym & for M2).

21 Shear and compression test - the effect of viscoplastic relaxation M6 M7 p " dev 0 " & I x m & II x m & III x m Results for the perfect plasticity model M6 and the viscoplastic regularization M7 for a deformation of 1% and 2%. M2 M1 p " dev & " & I x m & II x m & III x m Results for the model M2 and the viscoplastic regularization M1 (t 0 1 and 0 3).

22 Advanced application mesh with tetrahedra coarse mesh with 896 tetrahedra (NETGEN) P. Neff and C. Wieners

23 Advanced application Neo-Hooke material distribution of the equivalent plastic strain deformation after 250 time steps parallel computation with UG 128 processors on CLiC P. Neff and C. Wieners