22,769788 (1986)
SUMMARY
Numerical techniques applied to the consistent formulation of plasticity, which is based on convex analysis,
are investigated. For each time step the stress is found as the projection in complementary energy of the
elastic stress onto the set of plastically admissible stresses, while the velocity field is the extremal of a
nonquadratic functional. Explicit formulas for von Mises’ yield criterion with mixed hardening are
developed and the nonlinear equations arising from finite element discretization are solved, for comparison,
by a number of Newtontype iteration procedures with line search and arclength control. A few numerical
examples with proportional and nonproportional loading are analyzed.
INTRODUCTION
Finite element algorithms for the solution of problems in small deformation incremental plasticity
are commonly based on explicit integration (forward extrapolation) for advancing the solution
stepwise in time. Such methods always involve the use of the matrix of tangent stiffness (or
flexibility) moduli. Consequently, the stress increment will be tangential to the yield surface (for
perfect plasticity), and so the final stress may be plastically inadmissible. As there is no more
information inherent in the formulation, the yield condition may be satisfied in a somewhat
arbitrary fashion and, consequently, a number of procedures have been suggested in the
literature.’
Since the early developments by Yamada et at.’ and Zienkiewicz et an extensive amount
of work has been devoted to the development of displacement methods for associated and
nonassociated flow rules and for a variety of yield criteria.
Mixed methods (approximating the displacement and stress fields independently), which are
based on the matrix of tangent flexibility moduli, have also been d e ~ e l o p e d but ~ . ~ have not
enjoyed a great deal of success in practical use.
Although the explicit algorithms are based on the tangential behaviour there is, of course, no
need to use this matrix in the iteration to achieve equilibrium. Initial stress algorithms, which
use the elastic stiffness matrix, have been used extensively and are (still) efficient for special
problems like in layered media.697Some popularity has been gained by the fictitious viscoplasticity
approach (which is also of initial stress type) by which the iteration process is simulated by the
creeping of a (fictitious) viscoplastic material until steady state is achieved.8 However, the formal
use of Newtontype methods may be more generally efficient.’*’’
Because of the ambiguity in stress evaluation the methods above may be called ‘inconsistent’,
and no unique soIution can be expected for a certain load (time) increment. In fact, the choice
of iteration matrix may affect the result.
Recent developments involve the use of implicit schemes for time integration and are to a
great extent based on convex ana1ysis."l3 Provided an associated flow rule is used, the
displacement rate in each time step is defined as the extremal of a nonquadratic functional,
wbich is convex in the case of a nonsoftening material. The finite element algorithm for
von Mises' yield criterion with linear hardening deviced by Johnson14 was used by Samuelsson
and Froier,"" who adopted the elastic stiffness matrix for iteration without optimization in
the search direction. Runesson and Booker' investigated a few iteration methods including line
search for von Mises' and Tresca's yield criteria while perfect plasticity was assumed. While
'state' projection (in the generalized stress space including the hardening variable) was adopted
by J o h n ~ o n , thereby
'~ restricting the analysis to convex hardening, an algorithm for the unified
analysis of isotropic hardening and softening was developed by Runesson.18
Johnson and Scott" suggested the introduction of displacement discontinuity between
elements so that local plastic yielding can be accounted for (including the yield line theory as
the extreme case when no deformation at all occurs within the elements). The limit
analysis problem in perfect plasticity has been addressed by Casciaro and Cascini2' and
Aristodemo et al.,'l who used the elastic stiffness matrix for iteration but introduced an arclength
method to efficiently monitor the solution in the vicinity of the limit load.
Some aspects on the choice of time integration method and iteration procedure with respect
to hardening and softening behaviour are considered in this paper. In particular, the true and
modified Newton methods are compared with a class of modified BFGS methods with line
searches of various degree of elaboration. Advancement control is handled by an arclength
constraint including prescribed displacements. The constraint is satisfied iteratively in two
alternative ways.
INCREMENTAL PLASTICITY
Constitutive relations
Plastically admissible combinations of the stress a and the hardening variables K,, v = 1,2,. . .
(which are normally tensors of even rank) are defined by the set B
B = { (c,K Y ): F(a,K Y ) 6 o} (14
where F(a, K,) =0 is the state boundary surface. We may also define B*(K,)c B
B*(K,) = {a:F*(a)6 o} (1b)
F*(o) = F(C, KY)
where F*(a) = 0 defines the current convex yield surface. The initial yield surface is obtained
for K, = 0.
The constitutive equations in small deformation plasticity with an associated flow rule may
be written,"
where D is the tensor of elastic stiffness moduli, E(U) = (Vu + uV)/2 is the strain (operator), ip
is the rate of plastic strain, and rv are tensors accounting for the appropriate hardening law.
The presence of ISPI in (2c) accounts for the fact that evolution of hardening will only take
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE IN PLASTICITY 77 1
place in plastic loading accompanied by development of plastic strains. We may observe that
the stress rate 6 should, for small hardening, be replaced by an objective measure.23
Plasticity problem
Applying the generalized midpoint rule for time integration the solution at t,+ = t,, + Af may
be found as
1
c 1a
c n + 1 = 0"
a c(
u,+ = U, + Atv
where 0 < a < 1. The discrete values (0,K,,, v) satisfy the following relations
 v . O = f, f=f(t,+aAt)
(0  z).D'.(o  aE)< 0, V teB*
+
K, = K , , ~ aAtldP(r,, r, = r,,(tn CI At) +
in the region R under consideration together with boundary conditions on the displacement rate
and stresses. We have introduced the load f = f ( t , + a At), the (fictitious) elastic stress cE and the
strain rates d and dP defined by
cE= 0, + aAtD.d (54
(5b)
As D is always positive definite the inequality (4b) implies that (r is the projection of cE onto
B* in complementary elastic energy, i.e. IT is the solution of
min loE TI:, 1~1: =z.D'.t (6)
r€B*
Combining (2a) and (5) we may also obtain the plastic strain
E:+, =E:+AtdP (7)
where dP is given in (5b).
We may define the local Hessian tensor DH(&)
and the local tangent stiffness tensor D,
which means that D, represents the tendency in behaviour just when a new load increment is
applied. This is clearly what is traditionally considered as the tangent stiffness. While DH(&) can
be evaluated explicitly only in those cases when G(E) can be found explicitly, it is formally
possible to differentiate F(o, K,) = 0 as to find D, in the usual way for (assumed) plastic loading.
Characteristics
The projection (6a) can be found explicitly only for simple yield criteria and hardening rules.
The difference between the elastic and plastic solution cf  (r is, of course, in general not the
Euclidian normal to the current yield surface, Figure 1.
772 K. RUNESSON, A. SAMUELSSON AND L. BERNSPANG
elostic
DIastic
0.1 O<a<1
Regarding the choice of a,defining the time integration, one can foresee an oscillating behaviour
of IS,+ with respect to plastic admissibility when a < 1. Such behaviour is indicated in Figure 2,
where the projection is taken normal to the yield surface for simplicity. However, numerical
experiments have shown that the overall behaviour need not be strongly influenced (as is shown
in one numerical example below). As IS,+ is always ensured to be plastically admissible when
LY = 1, this choice seems appealing.
If one single projection is considered, one may also conclude that LY = 1 corresponds to the
most flexible behaviour. In fact, if a,Eint B* one may predict purely elastic response for a < rE,
where aE is small enough.24 As the stiffness is always overestimated when a ‘conforming’
(in sense of elasticity) finite element approximation is used, we have another reason for
choosing a = 1.
Partly plastic loading during a time step, i.e. the material goes from the elastic to the plastic
state, presents no extra difficulty. This contrasts to the inconsistent methods, for which various
procedures have been devised to deal with this situation.’ As far as the stress evaluation is
concerned, the presence of softening does not seem to present any difficulty either.
Furthermore, AG = IS^ +  G, is uniquely determined by A&= At&(v) even if the yield surface
is nonsmooth. It is well known that such uniqueness may not hold for rates, as for a surface
with corners the constitutive inequality (2b) admits ip= 6  D.E(I~) to vary within limits
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE I N PLASTICITY 773
determined by the corner angle. This ambiguity must be considered when using the conventional
(inconsistent) approach.
U
sd
= ~HL(ti)l?= cdy(ti)sd
bdl Isdl
Comparing with (2c) while letting ti1 = K, K, = a , we obtain (lOa, b) with the choice r l = c,
r2 = C2HL(K)Sd/lSdl.
From the (uniaxial) test we may obtain the plastic tangent moduli H' = doy/dti, where cy(ti)is
the current yield stress, and H:=da,/dti, where ay(ti)is the current translated origin of the
stressstrain curve defining the Bauschinger effect (see Figure 3). For fixed ti we have
d y = sy + c l y .
Isotropic hardening is clearly defined by ay=O, i.e. H h = O and thus a=O. Kinematic
hardening is defined by sy = constant, i.e. H a = H'.
When isotropic elasticity defined by the moduli G (or E ) and K is assumed, the complementary
elastic energy in general stress space is obtained as
(1 1)
w
Figure 3. Test curve displaying mixed hardening
774 K. RUNESSON, A. SAMUELSSON AND L. BERNSPANG
where SE = Is;l/c (see Figure 4). Combining (lOa, b) with (13a,b) we may now summarize:
CE (E)
(14a)
HSEs f j + s ~ , +
&a (P)
where q = c2E/2G.
VE
,a)= 0
Given aE we may thus solve for (a,IC, a ) if the onedimensional test functions sY(lc)and cty(.)
are known. Due to the implicit character of IC, the solution has in practice to be found iteratively
for a given aE.
The solution of the projection outlined above holds in general stress space and in plane strain.
It seems to be convenient to work in the complete stress space also in plane stress problems for
which the plane stress condition, say (T, = 0, has to be imposed explicitly, i.e. (6) is replaced by
where
B&(K,a)= {a:F*(a)<O,oz=O} (15b)
In practice the solution may be obtained using Lagrangian multipliers.
In order to use true Newton iteration in the finite element procedure, DH(&) must be explicitly
evaluated. After some tedious but straightforward algebra, where use is made of (14a, b, c), the
following expression for plastic loading in the general stress space is obtained:
1
D, =D  2G [(1  P)(I  $56) + (P  $,  r( 1  t,h,))aa (16)
4
where I is the identity tensor and where the further notations have been introduced:
$,(4= 1 (1VHSIE
V)H,/E’
H,= H  H,
enough to ensure computational efficiency. Especially in the vicinity of the failure load it is
difficult to select the time step properly without rigorously controlling the solution behaviour.
A simple ‘explicit’ technique may be deviced by extrapolating the behaviour at the previous
time stations. ‘Implicit’ schemes are normally based on the arclength method originally proposed
by R i k s Z 7 A linearized version of this method has been suggested by Rammz8 and was used
by Casciaro and Cascini” for consistently formulated plasticity (as in this paper); however
for the special case of perfect plasticity and proportional loading. An ‘indirect’ version (see
comment below) of the arclength method was proposed by C r i ~ f i e l d , ’ . ~adopting
~ the
conventional tangent stiffness formulation.
Given the nodal displacements u, at time t , updated values u , , at time t,+ = t , + A are
obtained (adopting matrix notation):
u,+~=u,+Au (17)
The time increment A and the (free) nodal velocities u are to be determined from a discretized
variational formulation
s(u, 4= f ( 4 (18)
where s is the internal nodal force vector
and f is the external nodal force vector corresponding to applied load at tn+ It is then assumed
(to simplify notation) that the backward Euler method (a = 1) is used for time integration. Clearly,
the time increment 1 cannot be determined from (18) without an extra constraint on the
loaddisplacement path.
In order to be able to represent the prescribed displacements by (17) one may introduce
the mean velocities 6, in the interval (tn,t , + A)
The strain rate d is obtained via the strain matrix B in the usual way
d(0, A) = BU+ Bp6,(A) (21)
Upon introducing the outofbalance forces g
Y(U, 2) = 4%4 f ( 4
and an extra scalar condition c(u, A) =0 representing the arclength constraint one may solve
u and ,
Ifrom
i4
g(u, = 0
c(u, A) = 0
(22)
Arclength constraint
The arclength constraint function c is chosen as follows:
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE IN PLASTICITY 777
where Au and Aup denote free and prescribed displacement increments in the time step and where
the load increment A f is scaled by a representative elasticity modulus E to have the constraint
operating in the displacement space. Prescribed displacements are emphasized to a desired degree
by the factor y ( 0 6 y d 1). It appears natural to include prescribed variables in the load control
criterion that the constraint makes sense when A f = 0 while Au,, # 0. Furthermore, the constants
bD and flL are associated with pure displacement control and pure load control respectively.
The arclength Ab may be given a priori by, say, prescribing the first time step.
A comment about terminology may be appropriate: Displacement control means that some
average value is assigned to the displacement increments (including those prescribed) while no
individual component can be prescribed a priori. Load (or time step) control on the other hand,
implies that the individual nodal values of prescribed displacements are determined a priori,
i.e. before the finite element equations have been solved.
Introducing the identity Au = Au and the scaling constraint p D + f i L = 1 into (23a) yields the
alternative expression (with p D = p).
Indirect approach
An indirect iteration procedure (indirect with respect to satisfying the arclength constraint)
to calculate (u, A) from (22) may be designed as the following of Newton type: Given the solution
(u, A)i in the (i  1):th iteration, find
where (d, k)i are solved (formally) from the augmented system
where
When the prescribed displacements are proportional it is possible to scale time (which is fictitious
in plasticity anyway) so that up = 6,.
In order to preserve the topology of the standard finite element equation system it is convenient
to condense (25) in order to use K as the iteration matrix:
di = d: + d;ki
i i 1
where d: and dy are solved from’ the two ‘ordinary’ sets of equations
K i  1 d: =  g i  1
Kildy=AilqTl
and where, for a general constraint c = 0,
Direct approach
In several papers29930 Crisfield advocates the use of the “indirect” approach, by which the
constraint c(u,A) = 0 is satisfied exactly in each iteration (motivating the name “direct” rather
than “indirect”). Using the conventional arclength constraint Crisfield arrives at a quadratic
equation in Ai, which can readily be solved for. However, the constraint which is appropriate
for our purpose would give rise to a more complicated equation.
A direct approach which deviates slightly in principle from the indirect one starts from the
equations (24a, b) and (25). However, whereas the first equation in (22) is retained, the second
(constraint) is omitted and an attempt is made to fulfil ci= 0 exactly in each iteration according
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE IN PLASTICITY 779
to the algorithm:
where d: and dy are still given by (30a, b). Upon inserting (34a, b, c) into (35) one obtains, formally,
c ( k i ,p i ) = 0 (36)
by which the acceleration factor pi is coupled to ki and, consequently, affects the search direction
d i via (34c). This coupling can be avoided by simply setting pi = 1 in (36). In fact, p = 1 is almost
optimal anyway when K is close to the Hessian. Independently of this simplification line search
may be included in (34a, b, c).
Consider the case pi = 1 in (34a, b), which introduced into (35) yield a quartic equation in k i .
This equation can, of course, easily be solved by iteration. However, further simplification can
be achieved upon replacing (35) by
C ( V i , l i ,) = 0
Line search
Any choice of K i  , may be supplemented with line search to optimize pi in order to get an
efficient algorithm. Crisfield’ has concluded that even ‘slack’ searches (like linear interpolation)
may be sufficient. To check this proposition for the present class of problem we may introduce
polynomial interpolation of arbitrary degree. Our aim is to find the root of I) = 0, where
$(Y) = Y(ui 1 + ydiITdi (39)
For a polynomial of degree n  1 we may consider the interval [0,1] and pick uniformly
distributed sample points yk from which a Lagrangian polynomial approximation may be
constructed as
The root dj of $ = 0 may easily be found by Newton iteration for any rz. In order to interpolate
accurately one should have $(0) > 0 and $(1) < 0.
780 K . RUNESSON, A. SAMUELSSON AND L. BERNSPANG
It may be noted that, unlike the conventional situation with load control, one can not be sure
that $(O) > 0, where $(O) = gT ,di, although K i _ ] is positive definite. This is due to the presence
of d; in (29).
The crudest method is linear interpolation
which requires only one extra evaluation of g. Even this may, however, involve substantial
computational effort. In particular the stress projection, which is performed in each iteration
point, may be costly due to the presence of twolevel iteration loops (in plane stress).
Itrrution mutrix
The choice of iteration matrix is clearly most important in order to achieve computational
efficiency. A simple method (ES) is obtained if the elastic stiffness matrix S is used throughout,
i.e. K = I S . However, the rate of convergence will be slow, especially close to the limit load.
When the true Hessian can be found (as for von Mises' yield criterion) a suitable modified
Newton method (MN) is obtained by occasional updating. The crudest M N algorithm is defined
by K = ASH(vn),where u, is the solution for the previous time step. It is natural to choose D,as
the starting vector for the current time step.
A method which relates to the tangent stiffness method is obtained if we choose K = A S T ,
where S , = S,(O). However, this method seems not to have any computational advantage over
the choice S,(v,) as both require one factoring per time step, the exception being when S , cannot
be found explicitly. A numerical evaluation of the above method for perfect plasticity is due to
Runesson and Booker.'7
QuasiNewton methods, especially the BFGS methods, have been advocated for plasticity
However, the true Newton method (N) was considered by Johnson3' to be
almost as efficient as BFGS and more reliable. In the example below we will use the notations
BFGS(E) and BFGS(H) for updates of the elastic stiffness and the Hessian matrix respectively.
In this paper we will compare N and BFGS with a class of modified BFGSmethods, the
simplest variant of which was originally suggested by C r i ~ f i e l d , ' , ~although
~ he advocates a
further simplified version, which we will term Crisfield's Secant Newton method (CSN). T o the
authors' knowledge neither of these methods seems to have been adopted for the consistent
formulation of plasticity outlined in this paper.
The mstep algorithm denoted MBFGSm is defined in the following way to find the search
direction di:
For i = 1:
4 = Bog,
B, =K; ' , K O is known
For i32:Let n = m i n ( i  1,m)
The vector w iis defined in the same way as for the ordinary BFGS methods.31 It may be shown
that BIT), satisfy the secant condition.
In practice we may proceed in the following steps:
1 bjl = A j  l b j , j = i , ..., i  n + 1
(bi =  Y i  1)
3 c . = AT
jlCj1, j =in+ 1, ..., i
(di= ci)
Clearly, as long as i < m + 1 the algorithm coincides with the ordinary BFGS algorithm and
= Bi 1.
The simplest algorithm MBFGS1 is defined as
dl =  Boy0
d.= @") r  1 g. 11, i22
~ p= ,A; ,B,&
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Preliminaries
Isoparametric eightnode elements were used. For simplicity the same integration rule ( 3 x 3
Gauss points) was adopted for the evaluation of the outofbalance forces and the iteration
matrix. Convergence in the Newtontype iteration procedure after N iterations is checked by
comparing the errors emaxand eeucwith the tolerance 6,, i.e.
H/E = 0 0 5 H I
68
tl
(a)
w /Is“
Ew/Bu,
16 32
Figure 6. Load vs. central settlement for stiff footing on cohesive subsoil
H S
53 X ~
58 170
The convergence properties for increasing number of time steps (increments of settlement) II
for isotropic hardening (case H) and isotropic softening (case S) are shown in Table I. The fact
that Hencky theory and flow theory seem to give close result is, however, problem dependent
and should be used with extreme care. The softening behaviour seems to be the more “difficult”
showing a slower rate of convergence than for hardening. The overall response represented by
NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE IN PLASTICITY 783
ES 14 18 16 24 18 190
BFGS(E) 10 11 8 11 11 84
MN 24 6 4 6 3 89
H MBFGS(H)1 13 6 4 5 3 54
MBFGS(H)2 13 6 4 5 3 54
BFGS(H) 11 6 4 5 3 52
N 4 3 3 3 3 44
ES 18 32 71 > 100 slow > 495
conv.
BFGS(E) 12 16 19 27 22 157
MN 38 14 17 no ~ ~
conv.
S MBFGS(H)1 17 10 9 no  
conv.
MBFGS(H)2 17 10 9 no ~ ~
conv.
BFGS(H) 14 9 9 46 9 150
N 5 4 4 6 4 57
W is also converging faster than the local response represented by the effective plastic strain ti
(in a Gauss point marked in Figure 5). Furthermore the response for CY = 0.5 seems to oscillate
with respect to the converged result for a = 1. Finally, it may be noted that a < 1 does not make
any sense for n = 1.
The necessary number of iterations to achieve convergence within each time step is shown in
Table I1 for the choice CY = 1, n = 5 and 6, = l o p 3while different iteration matrices were adopted.
Letting the CPUtime involved be a measure of the efficiency, we may conclude that N is slightly
better than BFGS(H) for hardening, at least for this simple problem of monotonic proportional
loading. However, for softening behaviour the true Newton method should be used as it seems
to be both economical and reliable. Surprisingly, the methods of modified Newton type (including
those with MBFGS updates) all failed to converge, while BFGS(E) appeared to be almost as
efficient as BFGS(H). That the optimal choice of iteration matrix is, in fact, highly problem
dependent is also shown in the example below.
Each method was combined with line search, which may be “slack”, i.e. linear interpolation
gives almost as good prediction as, say cubic interpolation.
I tc t"
T
340m
008 OOBrn
111
(0)
P(MN1

12
isotropic
 )c  kinematic
10 +
fashion (as to form a new K O )when the convergence rate becomes too slow. In Figure 8 is shown
the number of iterations ( N ) after which true Newton converged in the various time steps.
(b)
Figure 9. Elastoplastic subsoil (a) loaded by flexible strips according to two programs A and B (b)
Settlements w 1 and w 2 of the loads are calculated for two load programs (A and B) according
to three methods; direct and indirect arclength with pure displacement control (b = 1) and
constant time steps A t = 0.1.
The settlements versus time are displayed in Figure 10. The calculated time steps and number
of iterations for a selection of steps are given in Table 111. Both the indirect and the direct
method yield, of course, the same size of the time steps. The direct arclength method is more
effective than the indirect. However, the simple constant time step method seems in this case to
be the most effective.
786 K. RUNESSON, A. SAMUELSSON AND L. BERNSPANG
EW/I
Y
24 W,(A)
t Calculated value
Interpolated value
20
20
16
li
Figure 10. Settlement of load vs. time for loading programs A and B
Table 111. Time increment and required number of iterations ( N ) per increment
N N
1 0.100 2 2 2 0.100 2 2 2
3 0.100 1 1 1 0.100 1 1 1
4 0.098 4 7 4 0.098 4 7 4
5 0.062 9 11 4 0.062 9 11 4
6 0.057 18 29 4 0.052 16 21 4
7 0.152 8 12 3 0108 7 12 3
17 0.092 6 12 3 0.066 5 10 2
18 0.088 4 8 3 0.060 5 10 2
19 0.077 5 10 3 0.474 47 84 3
20 0.067 8 10 4 0.594 6 7 2
REFERENCES
I . D. R Owen and E. Hinton, Finire elements in Plasticity, McGrawHill, New York, 1980.
2. Y. Yamada, N. Yoshimura and T. Sakurai, ‘Plastic stressstrain matrix and its application for the solution ofelastic
plastic problems by finite element method’, Int. J . Mech. Sci, 10, 343354 (1968).
3. 0.C. Zienkiewicz, S. Valliappan and I. P. King, ‘Elastoplastic solutions ofengineering problems: “initial stress”, finite
element approach’, Int. i. numer. methods ena.. 1. 75100 (1969)
~I
4. R. H. Galjagher and A.X. Dhalla, ‘Direct flexibility finite element elastoplastic analysis’, First Smirt Conf: (Part 61,
Berlin. 1971.
5. J. Biicklund, ‘Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures’, Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Gothenburg
(1 973).
6. K. Runesson and J. R. Booker, ‘Efficient finite element analysis of 3Dconsolidation’, Fourth I n t . Conf: Num. Meth. in
Ceomrchanics, Edmonton, 1982, pp. 359364.
7. K. Runesson and J. R. Booker, ‘Finite element analysis of elasticplastic layered soil using Discrete Fourier Series
expansion’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 19, 473478 (1983).
8. 0. C. Zienkiewicz and I. C. Cormeau, ‘Viscoplasticity, plasticity, and creep in elastic solidsa unified numerical
solution approach’, Int. ,j. numer. methods eng., 8, 821845 (1974).
9. M. A. Crisfield, ‘Numerical analysis of structures’, in Developments in Thinwalled StructuresI (Rhodes, Walker, Eds.),
Applied Science, London, 1981, pp. 235284.
10. M. A. Crisfield, ‘Overcoming limit points with material softening and strain localization’, Proc. Second I n f . Conf. on
Num. Meth. f o r Nonlinear Problems, Barcelona, 1984, pp. 244276.
11. G. Duvaut and S. L. Lions, Les Inequations en Mecanique et en Physique, Dunod, Paris, 1973.
788 K. RUNESSON, A. SAMUELSSON AND L. BERNSPANG
12. I . Ekeland and R. Temam, Conuex Analysis and Variational Problems, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1976.
13. C. Johnson, ‘Existence theorems for plasticity problems’, J . Math. Purrs A&., 55, 531544 (1976).
14. C. Johnson,‘A mixed finiteelement method for plasticity problems with hardening’, S I A M J. Numer. Anal., 14,575584
(1 977).
15. M. Froier and A. Samuelsqon, ‘Variational inequalities in plasticity, recent developments’ in Finite elements in
Nonlinear Mechanics,Vol. 1 (P. G. Bergan et al. Eds.), Tapir, Trondheim, 1978.
16. A. Samuelsson and M. Froier, ‘Finite elements in plasticitya variational inequality approach’, in M A F E L A P 111
(J. R. Whiteman, Ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1979, pp. 105115.
17. K . Runesson and J. R. Booker, ‘On mixed and displacement finite element methods in perfect elastoplasticity’, Proc.
Fourth Int. Conf. in Australia on Finite Element Methods, Melbourne, 1982, pp. 8589.
18. K. Runesson, ‘A consistent displacement method for elasticplastic cohesive soil with softening’, submitted to Int. J .
Computers Geotechnics (1985).
19. C. Johnson and R. Scott, ‘A finite element method for problems in perfect plasticity usingdiscontinuous trial functions’.
in Noniinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics (W. Wunderlich et al., Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1981.
20. R. Casciaro and L. Cascini, ‘Limit analysis by incrementaliterative procedure’, I U T A M Conf’. on Defimnation and
Failure of Granular Materials, Delft, 1982, pp. 523533.
21. M. Aristodemo, R. Casciaro and G. Vencia, ‘Analysis of twodimensional elastoplastic continua by highcontinuity
finite elements’, Proc. Second Int. Co& on Num Meth. for Nonlinear Problems, Barcelona, 1984, pp. 10351046.
22. J. Lublinear, ‘On the thermodynamic foundations of nonlinear solid mechanics’, Int. J. Nonl. Mech., 7,237254 (1972).
23. A. Samuelsson and M. Froier, ‘Numerical methods in elastoplasticitya comparative study’, in Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics (Wunderlich et al., Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1981.
24. K. Runesson, ‘On the computational efficiency at finite element analysis of perfect elastoplasticity’, Publ. 82:3, Dept. of
Struct. Mech., Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Gothenburg (1982).
25. W. Prager, ‘The theory of plasticity: a survey of recent achievements’, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 169, 4157 (1955).
26. K. Axelsson and A. Samuelsson, ‘Finite element analysis of elasticplastic materials displaying mixed hardening’, Int. j.
numer. methods eng., 14, 21 1226 (1979).
27. E. Riks, ‘A unified method for the computation of critical equilibrium states of nonlinear, elastic systems’, Acta Tech.
Acad. Scient. Hung., 87, 121141 (1978).
28. E. Ramm, ‘Strategies for tracing the nonlinear response near limit points, in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in
Structural Mechanics (W. Wunderlich et al., Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 1981.
29. M. A. Crisfield, ‘Solution procedures for nonlinear structural problems’, in Recent Aduances in Nonlinear
Computational Mechanics (Hinton et al., Eds.), Pineridge, Swansea, 1982.
30. M. A. Crisfield, ‘A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that handles “snapthrough”’, Comp. Struct., 13,5562
( 1980).
31. H. Mathies and G. Strang, ‘The solution of nonlinear finite element equations’, Int. j. numer. methods eng., 14, 1613
1626 (1979).
32. C. Johnson, ‘Error estimates for some finite element methods for a model problem in perfect plasticitv’, in Prohlemi
Mathematici nella Meccanica de i Continui, Trento, 1981.
33. M. A. Crisfield, ‘A faster modified NewtonRaphson iteration’, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 20, 267278 (1979).
34. L. Prandtl, ‘Ueber die Eindrungsfestigkeit (Harte) Plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Sneiden’, Z . Anqew.
Math. Mech., I, 1520 (1921).