Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedures to build trust in nonlinear elastoplastic integration algorithm: solution and code verification

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last decades, with the development of a number of nonlinear elastic–plastic integration algorithms, the correctness or accuracy of the underlying solution becomes the main concern, in both academia and industry. Correctness or accuracy can be estimated (and improved) using verification. Verification is one of the main procedures to build trust in the numerical modeling of any phenomena. A full verification process comprises (a) solution verification (calculation verification) and (b) code verification. Presented in this paper are verification procedures for constitutive, elastic–plastic integration algorithms, as used in computational nonlinear solid mechanics. Both explicit and implicit integration algorithms for elastic–plastic constitutive equations are verified using existing and new developed verification technique. Verification techniques used include prescribed solution forcing and Richardson extrapolation. In addition, grid convergence index is applied to estimate the algorithmic uncertainty during the integration process. Verification of elastic–plastic integration algorithms is applied to a number of material models: from simple von Mises perfectly plastic to sophisticated hyperbolic Drucker–Prager with nonlinear Armstrong–Frederick rotational kinematic hardening. Besides, algorithmic uncertainty is estimated with both associative and non-associative material model. In addition, caveats and pitfalls to consider in the code/solution verification processes are deeply discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consistent with the Newton iterative algorithm on global, finite element level.

References

  1. Abbo A, Sloan S (1995) A smooth hyperbolic approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. Comput Struct 54 (3):427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(94)00339-5. ISSN 0045-7949

  2. Armstrong P, Frederick C (1996) A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect. Technical Report RD/B/N/ 731, C.E.G.B

  3. Asme VC (2009) Standard for verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babuška I, Oden JT (2004) Verification and validation in computational engineering and science: basic concepts. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193(36–38):4057–4066

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Baltov A, Sawczuk A (1965) A rule of anisotropic hardening. Acta Mech I(2):81–92

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen W (1994) Constitutive equations for engineering materials: plasticity and modeling, volume 2 of studies in applied mechanics 37B. Elsevier, ELSEVIER SCIENCE B.V., Amsterdam. In collaboration with W. O. McCarron, AMOCO Production Company, Tulsa, OK, USA and E, Yamaguchi, University of Tokyo, Japan

  7. Crisfield MA (1991) Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures volume 1: essentials. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Crisfield MA (1997) Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures volume 2: advanced topics. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dafalis YF, Herrmann LR (1982) Bounding surface formulation of soil plasticity. In: Pande GN, Zienkiewicz OC (eds) Soil mechanics—transient and cyclic loads. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dee DP (1991) Prescribed solution forcing method for model verification. In Hydraulic engineering, Proc. 1991 National Conf. of Hydr. Engrg. Citeseer, pp 734–739

  11. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl Math 10(2):157–165

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Grottke M, Trivedi KS (2007) Fighting bugs: remove, retry, replicate, and rejuvenate. Computer 40(2):107–109

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hatton L (1997) The T experiments: errors in scientific software. IEEE Comput Sci Eng 4(2):27–38

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hatton L, Roberts A (1994) How accurate is scientific software? IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(10):185–797

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ingraham D, Hixon R (2013) External verification analysis: a code-independent verification technique for unsteady PDE codes. J Comput Phys 243:46–57

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Jazequel J-M, Meyer B (1997) Design by contract: the lessons of ariane. Computer 30(1):129–130

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jeremić B (1994) Implicit integration rules in plasticity: theory and implementation. Master’s thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder

  18. Kamojjala K, Brannon R, Sadeghirad A, Guilkey J (2013) Verification tests in solid mechanics. Eng Comput 29(4):245–252

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karatekin O (1997) Numerical experiments on application of Richardson extrapolation with nonuniform grids. J Fluids Eng 119:584–590

    Google Scholar 

  20. Krieg RD, Krieg DB (1977) Accuracies of numerical solution methods for the elastic-perfectly plastic model. J Press Vessel Technol 99:510–515

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lax PD, Richtmyer RD (1956) Survey of the stability of linear finite difference equations. Commun Pure Appl Math 9(2):267–293

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Lubarda VA, Benson DJ (2002) On the numerical algorithm for isotropic-kinematic hardening with the Armstrong–Frederick evolution of the back stress. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(33):3583–3596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00296-7. ISSN 00457825

  23. Lubliner J (1990) Plasticity theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Manzari MT, Dafalias YF (1997) A critical state two-surface plasticity model for sands. Géotechnique 47(2):255–272

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electron Mag 38(8):114–117

    Google Scholar 

  26. Muir Wood D (1990) Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-11360-1

  28. Oberkampf WL, DeLand SM, Rutherford BM, Diegert KV, Alvin KF (2002a) Error and uncertainty in modeling and simulation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75(3):333–357

    Google Scholar 

  29. Oberkampf WL, Trucano TG, Hirsch C (2004) Verification, validation and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics. In: Proceedings of the foundations for verification and validation on the 21st century workshop, Laurel, Maryland, 22–23 October 2002b. Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory, pp 1–74

  30. Oden JT, Babuška I, Nobile F, Feng Y, Tempone R (2005) Theory and methodology for estimation and control of errors due to modeling, approximation, and uncertainty. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194(2–5):195–204

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Oden T, Moser R, Ghattas O (2010) Computer predictions with quantified uncertainty, part I. SIAM News 43(9):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  32. Oden T, Moser R, Ghattas O (2010) Computer predictions with quantified uncertainty, part II. SIAM News 43(10):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ortiz M, Popov EP (1985) Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations. Int J Numer Methods Eng 21:1561–1576

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Richardson LF (1911) The approximate arithmetical solution by finite differences of physical problems involving differential equations, with an application to the stresses in a masonry dam. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A Contain Pap Math Phys Charact 210:307–357

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Roache PJ (1997) Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 29(1):123–160

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Roache PJ (1998a) Verification and validation in computational science and engineering. Hermosa Publishers, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  37. Roache PJ (1998) Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J 36(5):696–702

    Google Scholar 

  38. Roache PJ (2002) Code verification by the method of manufactured solutions. J Fluids Eng 124(1):4–10

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roache PJ, Knupp PM (1993) Completed Richardson extrapolation. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng 9(5):365–374

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Roy CJ, Oberkampf WL (2011) A comprehensive framework for verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification in scientific computing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(25–28):2131–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2011.03.016. ISSN 0045-7825

  41. Roy CJ, Raju A, Hopkins MM (2007) Estimation of discretization errors using the method of nearby problems. AIAA J 45(6):1232–1243

    Google Scholar 

  42. Runesson K, Samuelsson A (1985) Aspects on numerical techniques in small deformation plasticity. In: Middleton GNPJ (ed) NUMETA 85 numerical methods in engineering, theory and applications. A.A. Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 337–347

    Google Scholar 

  43. Saad Y (2003) Iterative methods for sparse linear systems, vol 82. SIAM, Philadelphia

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Selby R, Vecchio F, Collins M (1997) The failure of an offshore platform. Concrete Int 19(8):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sett K, Jeremić B, Kavvas ML (2011) Stochastic elastic–plastic finite elements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 200(9–12): 997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2010.11.021. ISSN 0045-7825

  46. Sheng D, Sloan SW, Yu HS (1999) Aspects of finite element implementation of critical state models. Researh report 176.02.1999, The University of Newcastle. ISBN 0 7259 1070 4

  47. Simo JC, Taylor RL (1985) Consistent tangent operators for rate-independent elastoplasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 48:101–118

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Sjögreen B, Petersson NA (2011) A fourth order accurate finite difference scheme for the elastic wave equation in second order formulation. J Sci Comput 52(1):17–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-011-9531-1. ISSN 0885-7474

  49. Tamagnini C, Viggiani G, Chambon R, Desrues J (2000) Evaluation of different strategies for the integration of hypoplastic constitutive equations: application to the cloe model. Mech Cohesive Frict Mater 5(4):263–289

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wirth N (1995) A plea for lean software. Computer 28(2):64–68. ISSN 0018-9162

  51. Wise JA, Hopkin VD, Stager P (2013) Verification and validation of complex systems: human factors issues, vol 110. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Xing T, Stern F (2010) Factors of safety for Richardson extrapolation. J Fluids Eng 132(6):061403

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zamani K, Bombardelli FA (2014) Analytical solutions of nonlinear and variable-parameter transport equations for verification of numerical solvers. Environ Fluid Mech 14(4):711–742

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding from the United States Department of Energy is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Yuan Feng, Han Yang, Hexiang Wang, Fangbo Wang & Boris Jeremić

  2. Wood Rodgers, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Kaveh Zamani

  3. Earth and Environmental Sciences Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Boris Jeremić

Authors
  1. Yuan Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaveh Zamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Han Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hexiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fangbo Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Boris Jeremić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boris Jeremić.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feng, Y., Zamani, K., Yang, H. et al. Procedures to build trust in nonlinear elastoplastic integration algorithm: solution and code verification. Engineering with Computers 36, 1643–1656 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00787-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00787-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation