Theory of Plasticity
Theory of Plasticity
– where dεe is the elastic part of the longitudinal strain increment dε. In view of the
relationship dεe =dσ/E =(T/E)dε, the contraction ratio becomes
Stress Strain Behavior
– where C is a constant stress, and n is a strain-hardening exponent usually lying between zero
and 0.5. The equation predicts a zero initial stress and an infinite initial slope, except for n=0
which represents a nonhardening rigid/plastic material. The higher the value of n, the more
pronounced is the strain-hardening characteristic of the material
– The simple power law (5) may be readily modified by including a constant term Y
representing the initial yield stress. The stress–strain equation then becomes
– where m and n are dimensionless constants. Although this formula represents the strict
rigid/plastic behavior of metals, it does not give a better fit for an actual stress– strain curve
over a wide range of strains. When n=1, the above equation represents a linear strain-
hardening, which is a reasonable approximation for heavily prestrained metals. A more
successful formula, due to Swift,‡ is the generalized power law
Stress Strain Behavior
– where σ0 is a nominal yield stress and α a dimensionless constant. The slope of the
stress–strain curve given by the above equation continuously decreases from the
value E at the origin. At the nominal yield point σ =σ0, the plastic strain is α times
the elastic strain, and the secant modulus is E/(1+α). The tangent modulus at any
point of the curve is given by
Stress Strain Behavior
– The second term on the right-hand side is equal to E/H in view of (1). The stress–
strain curve for a range of materials can be reasonably fitted by Equation (9) with
α=3/7. For a nonhardening material (m=∞), the equation degenerates into a pair
of straight lines meeting at the yield point σ =σ0.
– The material behavior can be simplified as
– While for an ideally plastic material a curve fitting can be of the form
Stress Strain Behavior
• Analysis of Stress
– Stress tensor When a body is subjected to a set of external
forces, internal forces are produced in different parts of the
body so that each element of the body is in a state of statical
equilibrium. Through any point O within the body, consider a
small surface element δS whose orientation is specified by
the unit vector l along the normal drawn on one side of the
element (Fig. 1.8a). The material on this side of δS may be
regarded as exerting a force δP across the surface element
upon the material on the other side. The limit of the ratio
δP/δS as δS tends to zero is the stress vector T at O
associated with the direction I. For given external loading,
the stress acting across any plane passing through a given
point O depends on the orientation of the plane. The
resolved component of the stress vector along the unit
normal l is called the direct or normal stress denoted by σ,
while the component tangential to the plane is known as the
shear stress denoted by τ.
Stress Strain Behavior
• Analysis of Stress
– The mean of the three normal stresses, equal
to (σx +σy +σz)/3, is known as the hydrostatic
stress denoted by σ0. A deviatoric or reduced
stress tensor sij is defined as that which is
obtained from σij by reducing the normal
stress components by σ0. This gives the
deviatoric stresses as
Stress Strain Behavior
• A geometrical representation
– Consider a system of three mutually
perpendicular axes with the principal
stresses taken as rectangular coordinates
(Fig. 2.1). The state of stress at any point in
a body may be represented by a vector†
emanating from the origin O. Imagine a line
OH equally inclined to the three axes, so
that its direction cosines are (1/ √3, 1/√3,
1/√3). The stress vector OQ, whose
components are (σ1, σ2, σ3), may be
resolved into a vector OG along OH and a
vector OP perpendicular to OH. The vector
OG is of magnitude √ 3σ0 and represents
the hydrostatic stress with components (σ0,
σ0, σ0). The vector OP represents the
deviatoric stress with components (s1, s2,
s3) and its magnitude is √2J2 by Eq. (28),
Chap. 1. For any given state of stress, the
deviatoric stress vector will lie in the plane
passing through O and perpendicular to OH.
This plane is known as the deviatoric plane
and its equation is σ1 +σ2 +σ3 =0 in the
principal stress space. Since a uniform
hydrostatic stress has no effect on yielding,
it follows that yielding can depend only on
the magnitude and direction of the
deviatoric stress vector OP.
Foundation and Physics of Plasticity
• Isotropic hardening
– We have seen that an element of material
yields when the magnitude of the deviatoric
stress vector is increased to a value such that
the stress point reaches the yield locus. Unless
the locus is a circle (as for the Mises criterion),
the magnitude of the stress vector causing
yielding depends on its final direction in the
deviatoric plane. If the material is
nonhardening, the plastic stress state can
change in such a way that the stress point
always lies on a constant yield locus. For a
strain hardening material, the size and shape of
the yield locus depend on the complete history
of plastic deformation since the previous
annealing. It is assumed that the material is
isotropic at the annealed state and that the
anisotropy and the Bauschinger effect
developed during the coldwork may be
neglected. The preceding discussion of the
yield criterion is then appropriate for any given
state of hardening of the material.
Strain-Hardening Postulates
• Isotropic hardening
– A convenient mathematical formulation for strain-hardening is obtained by assuming further that the yield
surface uniformly expands without change in shape, as the state of stress changes along a certain path P0P
in the stress space (Fig. 2.8), the amount of hardening being given by the final plastic state. Since the yield
locus merely increases in size, any given state of hardening may be defined by the current yield stress in
uniaxial tension. It is, therefore, necessary to relate the current yield stress to the amount of plastic
deformation following a given initial state of yielding. To this end, we replace Y in the yield criterion by σ,
which is known as the equivalent stress, effective stress, or generalized stress. Referring to the von Mises
yield criterion, we write
Strain-Hardening Postulates
• Isotropic hardening
– A convenient mathematical formulation for
strain-hardening is obtained by assuming
further that the yield surface uniformly expands
without change in shape, as the state of stress
changes along a certain path P0P in the stress
space (Fig. 2.8), the amount of hardening being
given by the final plastic state. Since the yield
locus merely increases in size, any given state
of hardening may be defined by the current
yield stress in uniaxial tension. It is, therefore,
necessary to relate the current yield stress to
the amount of plastic deformation following a
given initial state of yielding. To this end, we
replace Y in the yield criterion by σ, which is
known as the equivalent stress, effective stress,
or generalized stress. Referring to the von
Mises yield criterion, we write
Strain-Hardening Postulates
• Isotropic hardening
– with the fact that no hardening is produced by purely elastic strains. If the plastic part of
the strain increment tensor is denoted by dεpij = ˙εpijdt, where ˙εij is the rate of
deformation and dt the time element, the increment of plastic work per unit volume is
– where δij is the Kronecker delta whose value is unity when i = j and zero when i ≠ j.
– where the last step follows from the condition dεpij = 0, implying that there is no plastic
volume change. Plastic incompressibility of metals is in close agreement with
experimental observations, and is also consistent with the fact that a uniform hydrostatic
stress produces no plastic strain. The work-hardening hypothesis may be stated
mathematically as
Strain-Hardening Postulates
• Isotropic hardening
– where the integral is taken over the actual strain path starting from some initial state. The
function can be determined from the true stress–strain curve in uniaxial tension or
compression. If the true stress σ is plotted against the plastic part of the strain, then Wp is
equal to the area under the curve up to the ordinate σ. Since σ =σ in this case, the area
directly gives the argument of
Strain-Hardening Postulates
• Isotropic hardening
– In an alternative hypothesis, more frequently in use, σ is regarded a function of a certain
measure of the total plastic strain. Considering the second invariant of the plastic strain
increment tensor, an equivalent (or generalized) plastic strain increment is defined as
– where only the positive root is implied. The numerical factor in the above expression is so
chosen that in uniaxial tension, dεp equals the longitudinal plastic strain increment. This
follows from the fact that the magnitude of the lateral compressive plastic strain in the
tensile test of an isotropic bar is half the longitudinal tensile plastic strain. The strain-
hardening hypothesis may now be expressed as
Flow Rules
– in the principal stress space, the factor 2G being introduced to obtain the dimension of
stress. Since
– in the principal stress space, the factor 2G being introduced to obtain the dimension of
stress. Since
– where dλ is a positive scalar that depends on the stress increment, and is generally a
function of the space variables as well as the time scale. Since g is independent of the
hydrostatic stress, the plastic incompressibility condition dεpii=0 is identically satisfied. If g
is assumed to be a homogeneous function of degree n, involving the stress components,
the increment of plastic work per unit volume may be written as
Flow Rules
– The stress–strain relation in this form was suggested independently by Lévy and von
Mises, who used the total strain increments instead of the plastic strain increments
Flow Rules
• the relationship between σ and εp being given by the uniaxial stress–plastic–strain curve.
Substituting from
• and using
• The Hencky equation is equivalent to the Prandtl-Reuss equation when the ratios of the
deviatoric stress components are held constant. This may be shown by writing sij =(σ/Y)s0ij,
where s0ij is the deviatoric stress at the initial yielding. Since dsij =(dσ/σ)sij
• the quantity dεp in this case being identical to dεp. When the stress–plastic–strain relationship
in uniaxial tension is represented by a power law, the Hencky equation is initially equivalent to
the Prandtl-Reuss equation.† Indeed, if σ varies as the nth power of εp, it is easily shown that
dσ/σ =n(dεp/εp), while εp/σ→0 as εp tends to zero. The complete equivalence of the two
equations is established by setting dεp = (1−n)dεp at the initial stage.
Flow Rules
• the z direction with the help of rigid dies. It is therefore a case of homogeneous compression
in which σy =0 throughout the deformation, and σz =νσx while the block is still elastic. If
Tresca’s yield criterion is adopted, yielding begins when σx =−Y in each element of the block.
The relevant stress–strain equations in the plastic range are
Applications of Plasticity Theory
• then gives
• At the initial yielding, σz=−νY and εx =−(1 − ν2)Y/E. Under these initial conditions, the above
equation integrates to
Applications of Plasticity Theory
• During the subsequent compression, the yield criterion can be identically satisfied by writing
the stresses in terms of a parameter θ (which is the deviatoric angle) as
• The condition σz =νσx at the initial yielding furnishes the initial value of θ as
Applications of Plasticity Theory
• gives
Applications of Plasticity Theory
• Using the initial condition ε =−(1 − ν2)σ0x/E when θ =θ0, the above equation is readily
integrated to obtain
• As the deformation continues, the first term on the right-hand side soon becomes negligible.
The angle θ rapidly approaches the limiting value zero, the corresponding values of σx and σz
being −2Y/√3 and −Y/√3 respectively. It is found that σz is within 1 percent of its limiting value
when εx is only four times that at the initial yielding, for ν=0.3. Owing to the rapid initial
change in stress, the elastic and plastic strain increments are comparable up to a total strain
which is three to four times that at the elastic limit. A graphical comparison of the solutions
based on the Tresca and Mises criteria is made in Fig
Applications of Plasticity Theory