6.3 Bounding theorems in plasticity and their
applications
To set the background for plastic
limit analysis, it is helpful to review the behavior of an elastic-plastic
solid or structure subjected to mechanical loading. The solution to an internally-pressurized
elastic-perfectly plastic sphere given in Section 6.1 provides a representative
example. All elastic-perfectly plastic
structures will exhibit similar behavior.
In particular
· An
inelastic solid will reach yield at some critical value of applied load.
· If
the load exceeds yield, a plastic region starts to spread through the solid. As
an increasing area of the solid reaches yield, the displacements in the
structure progressively increase.
· At
a critical load, the plastic region becomes large enough to allow unconstrained
plastic flow in the solid. The load cannot be increased beyond this point. The
solid is said to collapse.
Strain hardening will influence the
results quantitatively, but if the solid has a limiting yield stress (a stress
beyond which it can never harden) its behavior will be qualitatively similar.
In a plasticity calculation, often
the two most interesting results are (a) the critical load where the solid
starts to yield; and (b) the critical load where it collapses. Of course, we don’t need to solve a
plasticity problem to find the yield point we only need the elastic fields. In many design problems this is all we need,
since plastic flow must be avoided more often than not. But there are situations where some
plasticity can be tolerated in a structure or component; and there are even
some situations where it’s desirable (e.g. in designing crumple zones in
cars). In this situation, we usually
would like to know the collapse load for the solid. It would be really nice to find some way to
get the collapse load without having to solve the full boundary value problem.
This is the motivation for plastic
limit analysis. The limit theorems of
plasticity provide a quick way to estimate collapse loads, without needing any
fancy calculations. In fact, collapse
loads are often much easier to find than the yield point!
In this section, we derive several useful theorems of plastic
limit analysis and illustrate their applications.
6.3.1 Definition of the plastic
dissipation
Consider a rigid perfectly plastic
solid, which has mass density , and a Von-Mises yield surface with
yield stress in uniaxial tension Y.
By definition, the elastic strains are zero in a rigid plastic material: the
figure shows the stress-strain curve. The solid is subjected to
tractions on the its boundary. The solid may also be subjected to a body
force b (per unit mass) acting on
the interior of the solid. Assume that
the loading is sufficient to cause the solid to collapse.
Velocity discontinuities: Note that the velocity and stress fields in a collapsing
rigid plastic solid need not necessarily be continuous. The solution often has shear discontinuities,
as illustrated below. In the picture, the top part of the solid slides relative
to the bottom part. We need a way to
describe this kind of deformation. To do
so,
1.
We assume that the velocity field at collapse may have a finite set of such
shear discontinuities, which occur over a collection of surfaces .
Let m be a unit vector
normal to the surface at some point , and let denote the limiting values of velocity and stress on the two sides of the surface.
2. To ensure that no holes open up in
the material, the velocity discontinuity must satisfy
3. The solids immediately adjacent to
the discontinuity exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore
4. We will use the symbol to denote the relative velocity of sliding
across the discontinuity, i.e.
5. The yield criterion and plastic flow
rule require that on any surfaces of velocity
discontinuity.
Kinematically admissible collapse mechanism: The kinematically admissible
collapse mechanism is analogous to the kinematically admissible displacement
field that was introduced to define the potential energy of an elastic
solid. By definition, a kinematically
admissible collapse mechanism is any velocity field v satisfying (i.e. v
is volume preserving)
Like u, the virtual velocity v
may have a finite set of discontinuities across surfaces with normal (these are not necessarily the discontinuity
surfaces for the actual collapse mechanism).
We use
to denote the magnitude of the velocity discontinuity. We
also define the virtual strain rate
(note that ) and the effective virtual plastic strain
rate
Plastic Dissipation: Finally, we define the plastic dissipation associated with the virtual
velocity field v as
The terms in this expression have the following physical
interpretation:
1. The first integral represents the
work dissipated in plastically straining the solid;
2. The second integral represents the
work dissipated by plastic shearing on the velocity discontinuities;
3. The third integral is the rate of
mechanical work done by body forces
4. The fourth integral is the rate of
mechanical work done by the prescribed surface tractions.
6.3.2. The Principle of Minimum
Plastic Dissipation
Let denote the actual velocity field that causes a
rigid plastic solid to collapse under a prescribed loading. Let v be
any kinematically admissible collapse mechanism. Let denote the plastic dissipation, as defined in
the preceding section. Then
1.
2.
Thus, is an absolute minimum for - in other words, the actual velocity field at
collapse minimizes .
Moreover, is zero for the actual collapse mechanism.
Derivation:
Begin by summarizing the equations governing the actual collapse solution. Let denote the actual velocity, strain rate and
stress in the solid at collapse. Let denote the deviatoric stress. The fields must
satisfy governing equations and boundary conditions
· Strain-displacement relation
· Stress equilibrium
· Plastic flow rule and yield
criterion
On velocity discontinuities, these
conditions require that
· Boundary conditions
We start by showing that .
1. By definition
2. Note that, using (i) the flow rule,
(ii) the condition that and (iii) the yield criterion
3. Note that from the symmetry of . Hence
4. Note that .
Substitute into the expression for , combine the two volume integrals
and recall (equilibrium) that to see that
5. Apply the divergence theorem to the
volume integral in this result. When
doing so, note that we must include contributions from the velocity
discontinuity across S as follows
6.
Finally, recall that on the boundary, and note that the outward
normals to the solids adjacent to S
are related to m by (see the figure). Thus
Since , we find that as required.
Next, we show that .
To this end,
1. Let be a kinematically admissible velocity field
as defined in the preceding section, with strain rate
2. Let be the stress necessary to drive the
kinematically admissible collapse mechanism, which must satisfy the plastic
flow rule and the yield criterion
3. Recall that the plastic strains and
stresses associated with the kinematically admissible field must satisfy the
Principle of Maximum Plastic Resistance (Section 3.7.10), which in the present
context implies that
To see this, note that is the stress required to cause the plastic
strain rate , while the actual stress state at
collapse must satisfy .
4. Note that .
Substituting into the principle of maximum plastic resistance and
integrating over the volume of the solid shows that
5. Next, note that
6. The equilibrium equation shows that .
Substituting this into the result of (5) and then substituting into the
result of (4) shows that
7. Apply the divergence theorem to the
second integral. When doing so, note that we must include contributions from
the velocity discontinuity across as follows
8. Recall that on the boundary, and note that the outward
normals to the solids adjacent to S
are related to m by .
Thus
9. Finally, note that on
since the shear stress acting on any
plane in the solid cannot exceed . Thus
proving that as required.
6.3.3 The Upper Bound Plastic
Collapse Theorem
Consider a rigid
plastic solid, subjected to some distribution of tractions and body forces as shown in the figure. We will attempt to
estimate the factor by which the loading can be increased before
the solid collapses ( is effectively the factor of safety). We suppose that the solid will collapse for
loading , .
To estimate , we guess
the mechanism of collapse. The collapse
mechanism will be an admissible velocity field, which may have a finite set of
discontinuities across surfaces with normal , as discussed in Section 6.2.1.
The principle of minimum plastic
dissipation then states that
for any collapse mechanism, with equality for the true
mechanism of collapse. Therefore
Expressed in words, this equation
states that we can obtain an upper bound to the collapse loads by postulating a
collapse mechanism, and computing the ratio of the plastic dissipation
associated with this mechanism to the work done by the applied loads.
So, we can choose any collapse
mechanism, and use it to estimate a safety factor. The actual safety factor is likely to be
lower than our estimate (it will be equal if we guessed right). This method is evidently inherently unsafe,
since it overestimates the safety factor but it is usually possible guess the collapse
mechanism quite accurately, and so with practice you can get excellent
estimates.
6.3.4 Examples of applications of the
upper bound theorem
Example 1: collapse load for a uniaxial bar. We will illustrate the bounding
theorems using a few examples. First, we
will compute bounds to the collapse load
for a uniaxial bar. Assume the bar has
unit out of plane thickness, for simplicity.
To get an upper bound, we guess a
collapse mechanism as shown below. The top and bottom half of the bar slide
past each other as rigid blocks, as shown, with a velocity discontinuity across
the line shown in red.

The upper bound theorem gives
In this problem the strain rate
vanishes, since we assume the two halves of the bar are rigid. The plastic dissipation is
The body force vanishes, and
where is the vertical component of the velocity of
the top block. Thus
The best upper bound occurs for , giving for the collapse load.
Example 2: Collapse load for a bar containing a hole. For a slightly more interesting
problem, consider the effect of inserting a hole with radius a in the
center of the column, as shown below. This time we apply a force to the
top of the column, rather than specify the traction distribution in
detail. We will accept any solution that
has traction acting on the top surface that is statically equivalent to the
applied force.

A possible collapse mechanism is shown above. The plastic dissipation is
The rate of work done by the applied loading
is
Our upper bound follows as
The best upper bound follows by
minimizing this result with respect to .
The minimizing angle and the corresponding upper bound to the collapse
load are plotted below. Of course, this is an upper bound. You should be able to find collapse
mechanisms that give lower collapse loads!

Example 3: Force required to indent a rigid platic
surface. For our next example, we attempt to find upper and lower bounds to the
force required to push a flat plane punch into a rigid plastic solid. This problem is interesting because an exact
solution exists, so we can assess the accuracy of the bounding calculations.

A possible collapse mechanism is
shown above. In each semicircular region we assume a constant circumferential
velocity .
To compute the plastic dissipation in one of the regions, adopt a
cylindrical-polar coordinate system with origin at the edge of the
contact. The strain distribution follows
as
Thus the plastic dissipation is
(note that there’s a velocity
discontinuity at r=a). The work done by applied loading is just giving the upper bound
The exact solution to this problem was given
in Section 6.2.1 as
The error is 17% - close enough for government
work.
Example
4: The figure below shows a
simple model of machining. The objective
is to determine the horizontal force P
acting on the tool (or workpiece) in terms of the depth of cut h, the tool rake angle and
the shear yield stress of the material

To perform the calculation, we adopt
a reference frame that moves with the tool.
Thus, the tool appears stationary, while the workpiece moves at speed to the right.
The collapse mechanism consists of shear across the red line shown in
the picture.
Elementary geometry gives the chip thickness d as
Mass conservation (material flowing into slip discontinuity =
material flowing out of slip discontinuity) gives the velocity of material in
the chip as
The velocity discontinuity across the shear band is
The plastic dissipation follows as
The upper bound theorem gives
To obtain the best estimate for P, we need to minimize the right hand side of this expression with
respect to .
This gives
The resulting upper bound to the
machining force is plotted below

6.3.5 The Lower Bound Plastic
Collapse Theorem
The lower bound theorem provides a safe estimate of the
collapse loads for a rigid plastic solid.
Consider a rigid
plastic solid, subjected to some distribution of tractions and body forces , as shown in the
figure. We will attempt to estimate the factor by which the loading can be increased before
the solid collapses ( is effectively the factor of safety). We suppose that the solid will collapse for
loading , .
To estimate , we guess
the distribution of stress in the solid at collapse.
We will denote the guess for the stress
distribution by . The stress distribution must
1. Satisfy the boundary conditions , where is a lower bound to
2. Satisfy the equations of equilibrium within the solid,
3. Must not violate the yield criterion
anywhere within the solid,
The lower bound theorem states that if any such stress distribution can be found, the solid will not
collapse, i.e. .
Derivation
1. Let denote the actual velocity field in the solid
at collapse. These must satisfy the
field equations and constitutive equations listed in Section 6.3.1.
2. Let denote the guess for the stress field.
3. The Principle of
Maximum Plastic Resistance (see Section 3.7.10) shows that , since is at or below yield.
4. Integrating this
equation over the volume of the solid, and using the principle of virtual work on
the two terms shows that
This proves the theorem.
6.3.6 Examples of applications of the
lower bound plastic collapse theorem
Example 1: Collapse load for a plate containing a hole. A plate with width L contains a hole of radius a
at its center, as shown in the figure. The plate is subjected to a tensile
force P as shown (the traction
distribution is not specified in detail we will accept any solution that has
traction acting on the top surface that is statically equivalent to the applied
force).

For a statically admissible stress
distribution, we consider the stress field shown in Fig. 6.40, with , and all other stress components
zero.
The estimate for the applied load at
collapse follows as
Example 2: Rigid indenter in contact with a half-space. We consider a flat indenter with width a that is pushed into the surface of a half-space by a force P.
The stress state illustrated below will be used to obtain a lower bound
to the collapse load in the solid.

Note that
1. Regions C, E, F are stress free
2. The stress in regions A and D
consists of a state of uniaxial stress, with direction parallel to the
boundaries between AC (or AE) and CD (or DF) respectively. We will denote this stress by , where m is a unit vector parallel to the direction of the uniaxial
stress.
3. The stress state in the triangular
region B has principal directions of stress parallel to . We will write this stress state as
The stresses in each region must be
chosen to satisfy equilibrium, and to ensure that the stress is below yield
everywhere. The stress is constant in
each region, so equilibrium is satisfied locally. However, the stresses are discontinuous
across AC, AB, etc. To satisfy
equilibrium, equal and opposite tractions must act on the material surfaces
adjacent to the discontinuity, which requires, e.g. that , where n is a unit vector normal to the boundary between A and B as
indicated in Figure 6.41. We enforce
this condition as follows:
1. Note that
2. Equilibrium across the boundary
between A and B requires
3. We must now choose and to maximize the collapse load, while ensuring
that the stresses do not exceed yield in regions A or B. Clearly, this requires ; while must be chosen to ensure that .
This requires .
The largest value for maximizes the bound.
4. Finally, substituting for gives .
We see that the lower bound is .
6.3.7 The lower bound shakedown
theorem
In this and the next section we
derive two important theorems that can be used to estimate the maximum cyclic loads that can be imposed on a
component without exceeding yield. The
concept of shakedown in a solid
subjected to cyclic loads was introduced in Section 6.1.4, which discussed the
behavior of a spherical shell subjected to cyclic internal pressure. It was shown that, if the first cycle of
pressure exceeds yield, residual stresses are introduced into the shell, which
may prevent further plastic deformation under subsequent load cycles. This process is known as shakedown, and the maximum load for which it can occur is known as
the shakedown limit.
We proceed to derive a theorem that
can be used to obtain a safe estimate to the maximum cyclic load that can be
applied to a structure without inducing cyclic plastic deformation.
We consider an elastic-perfectly
plastic solid, sketched in the figure. The solid has Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio and has a Von-Mises yield surface with
uniaxial tensile yield stress Y, and
an associated flow law. Assume that
1. The displacement on part of the boundary of the solid
2. The remainder of the boundary is subjected to a prescribed cycle of traction
.
The history of traction is periodic, with a period T.
Define the following quantities:
1. Let denote the actual history of displacement,
strain and stress induced in the solid by the applied loading. The strain is partitioned into elastic and
plastic parts as
2. Let denote the history of displacement, strain and
stress induced by the prescribed traction in a perfectly elastic solid with identical geometry.
3. We introduce (time dependent) residual stress and residual
strain fields, which (by definition) satisfy
Note that, (i) because on , it follows that on ; and (ii) because it follows that
The lower bound shakedown theorem
can be stated as follows: The solid is guaranteed to shake down if any time independent residual stress
field can be found which satisfies:
· The equilibrium equation ;
· The boundary condition on ;
· When the residual stress is
combined with the elastic solution,
the combined stress does not exceed yield at any time during the cycle of load.
The theorem is valuable because
shakedown limits can be estimated using the elastic
solution, which is much easier to calculate than the elastic-plastic
solution.
Proof of the lower
bound theorem: The proof is one of the most devious in all
of solid mechanics.
1. Consider the strain energy associated
with the difference between the actual residual stress field , and the guess for the residual
stress field , which can be calculated as
where is the elastic compliance tensor. For later reference note that W has to be positive, because strain
energy density is always positive or zero.
2. The rate of change of W can be calculated as
(to see this, recall that )
3. Note that . Consequently, we see that
4. Using the principle of virtual work,
the second integral can be expressed as an integral over the boundary of the
solid
To see this, note that on , while on
5. The remaining integral in (3) can be
re-written as
6. Finally, recall that lies at or below yield, while is at yield and is the stress corresponding to
the plastic strain rate . The principle of maximum plastic resistance
therefore shows that . This inequality and can only be satisfied simultaneously if . We conclude that either the plastic strain
rate vanishes, or . In either case the solid must shake down to
an elastic state.
6.3.8 Examples of applications of the lower bound shakedown theorem
Example 1: A simple 3 bar problem. It is traditional to
illustrate the concept of shakedown using this problem. Consider a structure made of three parallel
elastic-plastic bars, with Young’s modulus E
and cross sectional are A, as
shown in the figure. The two bars
labeled 1 and 2 have yield stress Y;
the central bar (labeled 3) has yield stress 2Y. The structure is
subjected to a cyclic load with mean value and amplitude .
The elastic limit for the structure
is ; the collapse load is .
To obtain a lower bound to the
shakedown limit, we must
1. Calculate the elastic stresses in the
structure the axial stress in each bar is
2. Find a residual stress distribution in
the structure, which satisfies equilibrium and boundary conditions, and which
can be added to the elastic stresses to bring them below yield. A suitable residual stress distribution
consists of an axial stress in bars 1, 2 and 3. To prevent yield at the
maximum and minimum load in all three bars, we require
The first two equations
show that , irrespective of .
To avoid yield in all bars at the maximum load, we must choose , which gives . Similarly, to avoid yield in all
bars at the minimum load, we must choose , showing that .
The various regimes of behavior are
summarized in the figure below.

Example 2: Shakedown limit for a pressurized spherical shell.
We consider an elastic-perfectly plastic thick-walled shell, with inner
radius a and outer radius b.
The inner wall of the shell is subjected to a cyclic pressure, with
minimum value zero, and maximum value , as sketched in the figure
To estimate the shakedown limit we
must
1. Calculate the stresses induced by the
pressure in an elastic shell. The solution can be found in Section 6.1.4.
2. Find a self-equilibrating residual
stress field, which satisfies traction free boundary conditions on R=a, R=b,
and which can be added to the elastic stresses to prevent yield in the
sphere. The equilibrium equation for the
residual stress can be written
We can satisfy this
equation by choosing any suitable distribution for and calculating the corresponding .
For example, we can choose , which corresponds to .
To avoid yield at maximum load, we must ensure that , while to avoid yield at zero load, throughout the shell. The critically stressed material element
lies at R=a at both the maximum and
zero loads, which shows that
Clearly, the best choice
of is
The estimate for the shakedown limit
therefore follows as . This is equal to the exact solution derived
(with considerably more effort) in Section 6.1.4.
6.3.9 The Upper Bound Shakedown Theorem
In this section we derive a theorem
that can be used to obtain an over-estimate to the maximum cyclic load that can
be applied to a structure without inducing cyclic plastic deformation. Although the estimate is inherently unsafe,
the theorem is easier to use than the lower bound theorem.
We consider an elastic-perfectly
plastic solid, sketched in the figure. The solid has Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio and has a Von-Mises yield surface with
uniaxial tensile yield stress Y, and
an associated flow law. Assume that
1. The displacement on part of the boundary of the solid
2. The remainder of the boundary is subjected to a prescribed cycle of traction
.
The history of traction is periodic, with a period T.
Define the following quantities:
1. Let denote the actual history of displacement,
strain and stress induced in the solid by the applied loading. The strain is partitioned into elastic and
plastic parts as
2. Let denote the history of displacement, strain and
stress induced by the prescribed traction in a perfectly elastic solid with identical geometry.
To apply the upper bound theorem, we
guess a mechanism of cyclic plasticity that might occur in the structure under
the applied loading. We denote the cycle
of strain by , and define the change in strain per
cycle as
To be a kinematically admissible cycle,
· must be compatible, i.e. for some a displacement field .
Note that only the change in
strain per cycle needs to be compatible, the plastic strain rate need not be compatible at every
instant during the cycle.
· The compatible displacement field must satisfy on .
The upper bound shakedown theorem can then be stated as
follows. If there exists any kinematically admissible cycle of
strain that satisfies
the solid will not shake down to an
elastic state.
Proof: The
upper bound theorem can be proved by contradiction.
1. Suppose that the solid does shake down. Then, from the lower bound shakedown theorem,
we know that there exists a time independent residual stress field , which satisfies equilibrium ; the
boundary conditions on , and is such that lies below yield throughout the cycle.
2. The principle of maximum plastic
resistance then shows that
.
3. Integrating this expression over the
volume of the solid, and the cycle of loading gives
4. Finally, reversing the order of
integration in the last integral and using the principle of virtual work, we
see that
To see this, note that on while on .
5. Substituting this result back into
(2) gives a contradiction, so proving the upper bound theorem.
6.3.10 Examples of applications of the upper bound shakedown theorem
Example 1: A simple 3 bar problem. We re-visit the
demonstration problem illustrated in Section 6.3.8. Consider a structure made of three parallel
elastic-plastic bars, with Young’s modulus E,
length L, and cross sectional are A,
as shown below. The two bars labeled 1
and 2 have yield stress Y; the
central bar (labeled 3) has yield stress 2Y. The structure is subjected to a cyclic load
with mean value and amplitude .

To obtain an upper bound to the
shakedown limit, we must devise a suitable mechanism of plastic flow in the
solid. We could consider three possible
mechanisms:
1. An increment of plastic strain in bars (1) and (2) at the instant of maximum
load, followed by in bars (1) and (2) at the instant of minimum
load. Since the strain at the end of the
cycle vanishes, it is automatically compatible.
2. An equal increment of plastic strain in all three bars at each instant of maximum
load
3. An equal increment of plastic strain at each instant of minimum load.
By finding the combination of loads for which
we obtain conditions where shakedown
is guaranteed not to occur. Note that
the elastic stresses in all three bars are equal, and are given by . Thus
1. For mechanism (1):
2. For mechanism (2):
3. For mechanism (3):
These agree with the lower bound calculated in Section 6.3.8,
and are therefore the exact solution.
Example 2: Shakedown limit for a pressurized spherical shell.
We consider an elastic-perfectly plastic thick-walled shell, with inner
radius a and outer radius b.
The inner wall of the shell is subjected to a cyclic pressure, with
minimum value zero, and maximum value , as sketched in the figure.
To estimate the shakedown limit we
must
1. Calculate the stresses induced by the
pressure in an elastic shell. The solution can be found in Section 4.1.4.
2. Postulate a mechanism of steady-state
plastic deformation in the shell. For
example, consider a mechanism consisting of a uniform plastic strain increment which occurs in a spherical shell with radius a very small thickness dt at the instant of maximum pressure,
followed by a strain at the instant of minimum load.
3. The upper bound theorem states that
shakedown will not occur if
Substituting the elastic stress field
and the strain rate shows that
This gives for the shakedown limit. Again, this agrees with the lower bound, and
is therefore the exact solution.