On some current procedures and difficulties in finite element analysis of elastic-plastic response

Bathe, Klaus‐Jürgen; Snyder, Mark D.; Cimento, Arthur P.; Rolph, W.Donald

doi:10.1016/0045-7949(80)90135-2

Cited by 32 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To overcome these deficiencies, Drucker, Gibson and Henkel (7) introduced a second yield function which hardens and, in the case of a soil, softens; this is the cap, so called because it closes the cone in the principal stress space. The shape of the cap in the principal stress space can be chosen in various ways; models developed by Sandler, et al (3,13,14,15) use an elliptically shaped cap, whereas Bathe, et al (1) allow only for a plane cap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in order to suppress an instability [in the sense that the stability postulate of Drucker (4,6) is not satisfied] that occurs in certain ranges of behavior. Sandler, et al (3,13,14,15) chose a limited form of coupling, whereas Bathe, et al (3,13,14,15) chose a limited form of coupling, whereas Bathe, et al (1) impose additional assumptions on the plastic strain rate vector. Lade (8,9) and Desai,et al (2), among others, make modifications of the same type.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Formulation of Drucker‐Prager Cap Model

Resende

Martin

1985

J. Eng. Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Drucker-Prager cap and similar models for the constitutive behavior of geotechnical materials are widely used in finite element stress analysis. They are multisurface plasticity models, used most frequently with an associated flow rule. The cap may harden or soften, and is coupled to the Drucker-Prager yield surface. As a result of this coupling, plastic deformation in pure shear is possible, after some plastic volume change, for any state of stress on the Drucker-Prager surface. This suggests that for full coupling the constitutive equations for the model can be found consistently; however, the model exhibits unstable behavior under certain conditions. To suppress this instability, some modification of the coupling must be made. Two examples of such modifications which appear in the literature are given; each leads to an inconsistent formulation. Numerical examples are used to illustrate differences and consequences arising from the different assumptions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulation of Drucker‐Prager Cap Model

Resende

Martin

1985

J. Eng. Mech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The engineers applying this methodology should have good knowledge of theoretical and practical aspects of the finite element method for linear and nonlinear structural applications (as outlined, e.g., by Crisfield et al 1997;Bathe and Cimento 1980;Bathe et al 1980;Bathe 1995;Belytschko et al 2000;Kojic and Bathe 2004). Emphasis here is placed on the application of such methods to determine structural collapse, thus strength.…”

Section: Overview Of Linearized Buckling and Nonlinear Numerical Algomentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis

Gantes¹

2014

Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to this, nonlinear constitutive behavior of the rock mass and potentially large strain deformations must also be considered. In such a situation, finite element analysis is found to be quite efficient in handling such complexities [3]. A critical review of the available literature, on stability analysis of underground openings, indicates that mostly analysis of the underground openings are based on the rock mass parameters which are generally assumed or are representative of the rock mass [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%