Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMichele Brocca
dc.contributor.authorZdeněk P. Bažant
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-09T00:01:33Z
dc.date.available2017-05-09T00:01:33Z
dc.date.copyrightOctober, 2000
dc.date.issued2000
dc.identifier.issn0003-6900
dc.identifier.otherAMREAD-926177#265_1.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/123169
dc.description.abstractThe microplane model is a versatile constitutive model in which the stress-strain relations are defined in terms of vectors rather than tensors on planes of all possible orientations, called the microplanes, representative of the microstructure of the material. The microplane model with kinematic constraint has been successfully employed in the modeling of concrete, soils, ice, rocks, fiber composites and other quasibrittle materials. The microplane model provides a powerful and efficient numerical tool for the development and implementation of constitutive models for any kind of material. The paper presents a review of the background from which the microplane model stems, highlighting differences and similarities with other approaches. The basic structure of the microplane model is then presented, together with its extension to finite strain deformation. Three microplane models for metal plasticity are introduced and discussed. They are compared mutually and with the classical J2 -flow theory for incremental plasticity by means of two examples. The first is the material response to a nonproportional loading path given by uniaxial compression into the plastic region followed by shear (typical of buckling and bifurcation problems). This example is considered in order to show the capability of the microplane model to represent a vertex on the yield surface. The second example is the ‘tube-squash’ test of a highly ductile steel tube: a finite element computation is run using two microplane models and the J2 -flow theory. One of the microplane models appears to predict more accurately the final shape of the deformed tube, showing an improvement compared to the J2 -flow theory even when the material is not subjected to abrupt changes in the loading path direction. This review article includes 114 references.
dc.publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
dc.titleMicroplane Constitutive Model and Metal Plasticity
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume53
dc.journal.issue10
dc.journal.titleApplied Mechanics Reviews
dc.identifier.doi10.1115/1.3097329
dc.journal.fristpage265
dc.journal.lastpage281
dc.identifier.eissn0003-6900
dc.keywordsConstitutive equations
dc.keywordsMetals
dc.keywordsPlasticity
dc.keywordsFlow (Dynamics)
dc.keywordsDeformation
dc.keywordsComposite materials
dc.keywordsSteel
dc.keywordsConcretes
dc.keywordsFibers
dc.keywordsShear (Mechanics)
dc.keywordsTensors
dc.keywordsFinite element analysis
dc.keywordsIce
dc.keywordsModeling
dc.keywordsStress-strain relations
dc.keywordsBifurcation
dc.keywordsBuckling
dc.keywordsCompression
dc.keywordsComputation
dc.keywordsRocks
dc.keywordsShapes AND Soil
dc.treeApplied Mechanics Reviews:;2000:;volume( 053 ):;issue: 010
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record