On the numerical integration of three-invariant elastoplastic constitutive models

By Ronaldo I. Borja, K. Sama, P. Sanz. 2003

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Mechanics of Materials

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d42d1c9a6b18fd55a904910f2f61440e5dbe47a3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Biomedical Engineering

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Mechanics of Materials

Citations in the corpus

Return Mapping Algorithms and Stress Predictors for Failure Analysis in Geomechanics (2009, methodology): “…copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright used in geomechanics, a closed-form return formula in principal stress can be employed, as described by Borja et al. 2003 , Larsson and Runesson 1996 , and Clausen et al. 2006 . de Borst 1987 gave explicit return expressions using Koiter’s method…”
Geological and mathematical framework for failure modes in granular rock (2006, methodology): “The mathematical theory of plasticity assumes an additive decomposition of the total strain into elastic and plastic parts, and requires the specification of a yield surface defining the yield condition and a plastic potential function defining the direction of the plastic strain increment (Borja et”
Numerical integration of a class of 3d plastic-damage concrete models and condensation of 3d stress–strain relations for use in beam finite elements (2009, methodology): “[4].”
Computational modeling of deformation bands in granular media. II. Numerical simulations (2004, methodology): “The rotated axes r00 1, r00 2 and r00 3 were obtained by performing a sequence of rotations relative to the translated principal stress axes in accordance with the relationships described in Appendix A of [8] and shown once again in Fig.”
An interior‐point algorithm for elastoplasticity (2007, methodology): “Although the implicit methods were originally developed for metal plasticity, where they perform very well, procedures have also been derived for relatively complex soil, rock, concrete, and masonry models [3–12].”
Capturing strain localization in dense sands with random density (2006, methodology): “From these results in principal logarithmic stretches and utilizing the yield criterion, we formulate the residual vector [6, 15, 34],”
Return mapping for nonsmooth and multiscale elastoplasticity (2009, methodology): “Implicit return mappings rely heavily on Newton–Raphson schemes to iteratively arrive at a solution [12,28,29].”