Next Article in Journal
Resistivity and Passivity Characterization of Ni-Base Glassy Alloys in NaOH Media
Next Article in Special Issue
An Incremental Physically-Based Model of P91 Steel Flow Behaviour for the Numerical Analysis of Hot-Working Processes
Previous Article in Journal
Simple Fabrication and Characterization of an Aluminum Nanoparticle Monolayer with Well-Defined Plasmonic Resonances in the Far Ultraviolet
Article

Quadratic Midpoint Integration Method for J2 Metal Plasticity

by and *
Department of Civil Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-Ro, Gwangju 61186, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2018, 8(1), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/met8010066
Received: 7 December 2017 / Revised: 11 January 2018 / Accepted: 16 January 2018 / Published: 18 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Constitutive Modelling for Metals)
The quadratic variants of the generalized midpoint rule and return map algorithm for the J2 von Mises metal plasticity model are examined for the accuracy of deviatoric stress integration of the constitutive equation. The accuracy of stress integration using a strain rate vector for arbitrary direction is presented in terms of an iso-error map for comparison with the exact solution. Accuracy and stability issues of the quadratic integration method are discussed using a two-dimensional metal panel problem with a single slit-like defect in the center. The scale factor and shape factor were introduced to a quadratic integration rule for assuming a returning directional tensor from a trial stress onto the final yield surface. Luckily enough, the perfectly plastic model is the only case where the analytical solution is possible. Thus, solution accuracies were compared with those of the exact solutions. Since the standard scale factor ranges from 0 to 1, which is similar to the linear α -method, the penalty scale factors that are greater than 1 were mainly explored to examine the solution accuracies and computational efficiency. A higher value of scale factor above five shows a better computational efficiency but a decreased solution accuracy, especially in the higher plastification zone. A well-balanced scale factor for both computational efficiency and solution accuracy was found to be between one and five. The trade-off scale factor was proposed to be five. The proper shape factor was also proposed to be {1,1,4}/6 among the different combinations of weight distribution over a time interval. This proposed scale factor and shape factor is also valid for relatively long time periods. View Full-Text
Keywords: J2 plasticity; generalized trapezoidal integration; quadratic α-method; return mapping algorithm J2 plasticity; generalized trapezoidal integration; quadratic α-method; return mapping algorithm
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Rhee, I.; Kim, W. Quadratic Midpoint Integration Method for J2 Metal Plasticity. Metals 2018, 8, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/met8010066

AMA Style

Rhee I, Kim W. Quadratic Midpoint Integration Method for J2 Metal Plasticity. Metals. 2018; 8(1):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/met8010066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rhee, Inkyu, and Woo Kim. 2018. "Quadratic Midpoint Integration Method for J2 Metal Plasticity" Metals 8, no. 1: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/met8010066

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop