An iterative method for shakedown analysis

Raaele Casciaro
*
, Giovanni Garcea
Dipartimento di Strutture, Universit aa della Calabria, 87030 Arcavacata di Rende (Cosenza), Italy
Received 11 March 2002; received in revised form 1 August 2002
Abstract
Shakedown analysis for elasticperfect plastic structures is discussed and a fast incremental-iterative solution
method is proposed, suitable for the FEM analyses of large structures.
The theoretical motivations of the proposed method are discussed in detail and an example of its implementation is
described with reference to plane frame analysis.
Some numerical results are presented showing the numerical performances of the method.
2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Plasticity; Shakedown analysis; Limit analysis; Nonlinear methods
1. Introduction
The elasticplastic analysis has assumed a great importance also in civil engineering due to the diusion
of the semi-probabilistic approach to limit states, such as that established in Eurocodes (the European
proposal codes), which allows the design of structures beyond the elastic limit.
When considering a single set of external loads, monotonically increasing with a load parameter, the
safety factor of an elasticplastic structure can be eectively evaluated by numerical implementations of the
classical theorems of limit analysis [913] or, even more eciently, by recovering the equilibrium path by
means of path-following algorithms [14,15], based on the Riks arc-length method [16] and well suited to be
implemented in general purpose FEM codes (see [18,19] for an overview of these topics). It is known,
however, that the collapse multiplier doesnt furnish a reliable safety index when the structure is subject to a
combination of loads that can vary, cyclically or in a generic way, inside a given loads domain. In this case,
in fact, other dierent failure modes are possible that also have to be prevented. A continuous increase in
plastic deformations, along successive plastically admissible load cycles, could lead to a loss of the structure
functionality (incremental collapse or ratchetting) or produce the collapse due to fatigue (alternating
plasticity). Then, a further requirement has to be met, that the rising amount of plastic deformations be
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
www.elsevier.com/locate/cma
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-984-494031; fax: +39-984-494045.
E-mail address: rcasciaro@labmec.unical.it (R. Casciaro).
0045-7825/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0045- 7825( 02) 00496- 6
conned only to an initial phase after which the structure behavior, for any combination of load contained
in the loads domain, is purely elastic. If this happens, we say that the structure shakes down to an elastic
state or, simply, shakedown occurs.
The denition of conditions that imply shakedown of elasticperfectly plastic structures has been
widely studied, at least from a theoretical point of view, and shakedown theorems [20,36] currently
represent one of most important achievements of the theory of plasticity [20]. Noticeable developments
have been made that extend and generalize the shakedown theory. In particular a deeper insight into the
extensions of the classical theory to material with hardening eects, nite displacements, thermal and
dynamics eects can be found in the papers by Ceradini [21,22], Capurso [12], Gokhfeld e Cherniavsky
[23], K oonig e Maier [2], Ponter [24], Stein et al. [25], Yan and Nguyen [26] and Polizzotto et al. [27,28].
The reader can refer to the book by K oonig [3] and to the reviews [16], for a general overview and
historical details.
The use of these theoretical results suers, still today, from the lack of ecient computational algo-
rithms able to calculate the shakedown safety factor, that is, the maximum load amplier that ensures
shakedown, for large life-scale structures modeled using standard nite element formulations. As under-
lined by Gro-Weege [31] and by Zhang [30] and Janas and et al. [29], the proposed solution methods
appear to be aimed more at academic purposes or to the analysis of specic problems than to be eectively
implemented in FEM codes suitable for general technical applications. In eect most of the proposed
numerical methods attempt to evaluate the shakedown multiplier directly from the shakedown theorems
(direct methods). In this way, shakedown analysis is formulated as a standard constrained optimization
problem to be solved by general methods of mathematical programming without exploiting the particular
features of the structural problem. That implies a low computational eciency in the overall solution
process and practically prevents shakedown analysis from being easily implemented in commercial nite
element codes.
More recently, an indirect approach has been proposed by Ponter et al. [24] that is based on the so-called
elastic compensation methods. The shakedown safety factor is evaluated through an iterative sequence of
pseudo-elastic solutions that produces a monotonically decreasing sequence of upper bounds that con-
verges to the exact solution (obviously except for the approximations due to the nite element discreti-
zation). The method appears to be more ecient than direct methods and more suitable to a nite element
implementation but it can still hardly be considered completely satisfactory from a computational point of
view when compared with standard limit analysis algorithms. In fact it is characterized by a relatively slow
convergence and requires a large number of complete elastic re-analyses (including the assemblage of the
pseudo-elastic stiness matrix and its Choleski decomposition).
A new method for the evaluation of the shakedown safety factor for elasticperfectly plastic structures
is presented in this paper. It is based on an iterative technique which has some analogies with the Riks
path-following algorithm, currently used in elasticplastic analysis to evaluate the equilibrium path of a
structure, and oers the same characteristics of robustness, eciency and computational requirements as
that method. The full theoretical and computational aspects of the proposed method are discussed in
detail, including the convergence proof of solution algorithms and numerical testings. The simple case of
plane frames has been used here for exemplifying the implementation details and the numerical perfor-
mances of the proposed method. Its extension to more complex structures can be considered quite
straightforward.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides an introductory summary of classical shake-
down theory; a reformulation of this theory, suitable for numerical analysis, is given in Section 3 and
some preliminary results are provided; the proposed iterative method is described in Section 4 and
its convergence properties are discussed; Sections 5 and 6 use the plane frame context to show an ex-
ample of the actual implementation of the method; further comments and conclusions are given in
Section 7.
5762 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
2. Shakedown theory
In order to render the paper as self-contained as possible, we recall in this section a brief overview of the
elasticplastic theory and of the shakedown problem. The reader can refer to the general presentation by
Koiter [20] or to the book by K oonig [3], for a more detailed discussion.
2.1. Basic rules of the elasticplastic theory
The basic rules of the classical elasticplastic theory for perfect-plastic materials can be summarized as
follows:
1. Stress and strain elds r[x[ R
d
and e[x[ R
d
, x B can be dened, d being the number of independent
components of both r and e (d = 6 in 3D Cauchy model), and B is the body domain. The dot-product
r
T
e is also dened for each x B and we have
Z
B
rr
T
_ ee dv = 0 (2:1)
for all self-equilibrated stress rr and kinematically compatible strain increment eld _ ee. Eq. (2.1) mutually
denes the subspaces S and K collecting all self-equilibrated stress elds and all kinematically com-
patible strain increments. We will generally omit, when referring to eld relationships, explicit citations
to \x B, which will be taken as implicit, for a lighter notation.
2. Stress r is constrained to belong to the admissible domain
E := r : f [r[ 60; (2:2)
where f [r[ is a convex yield function in R
d
, such that f [0[ < 0. Obviously, E will be closed and convex in
R
d
and its boundary oE is characterized by f [r[ = 0.
3. The total strain increment _ ee can be subdivided into the elastic part _ ee
e
and the plastic part _ ee
p
, and the two
strain components are additive:
_ ee = _ ee
e
_ ee
p
: (2:3)
4. The elastic component _ ee
e
is linearly linked to the stress through the elastic law:
_ rr = E_ ee
e
= E(_ ee _ ee
p
); (2:4)
where E is the elastic tensor, symmetric and positive denite.
5. The plastic component _ ee
p
can be dierent from zero only if the stress r belongs to oE and is dened by
the plastic ow rule:
_ ee
p
= _ llg[r[; _ llP0; _ ll
_
ff = 0; _ llf = 0; (2:5)
vector g being contained in the subdierential
1
of [r[ of the function f in r.
By these hypotheses, the following Druckers conditions holds:
r
y

T
_ ee
p
P0; \r E; (2:6)
1
We briey recall that the subdierential of a function f in a point r is the cone dened by the gradients of the function computed at
all points adjacent to r at innitesimal distance and in all directions. It coincides with the classical gradient in regular points. The
reader can refer to [34] for a general overview on convex analysis.
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5763
r
y
and _ ee
p
being related by the ow rule (2.5). Since r = 0 is internal to E, by denition, we also have
r
T
y
_ ee
p
> 0; \_ ee
p
,= 0: (2:7)
2.2. Basic assumptions of shakedown analysis
We assume that the external load p[t[ is expressed as a combination of basic loads p
i
, varying arbitrarily
with time t but, in any case, belonging to the admissible load domain
P := p[t[ :=
X
p
i=1
a
i
[t[p
i
: a
min
i
(
6a
i
[t[ 6a
max
i
; \t
)
; (2:8)
where the factors a
i
[t[ are contained in a polyhedron in R
p
[27,29]. Such an assumption conforms to the
external load description used in many civil engineering norm codes and derives from the fact that the real
loads evolution is often unknown while, in some statistical way, the excursion of the minimum and
maximum values for every basic load p
i
is known or, at least, we can get meaningful reference values for the
maximum or minimum of the load factors for a given life-time of the structure. Obviously P is closed and
convex, by denition.
If denoting with r
ei
the elastic solution due to the single basic load p
i
we can dene the domain S
e
of the
elastic stresses r
e
[t[ associated to p[t[ in the form
S
e
:= r
e
[t[ :=
X
p
i=1
a
i
[t[r
ei
: a
min
i
(
6a
i
[t[ 6a
max
i
; \t
)
: (2:9)
Set S
e
, represents the envelope of the elastic stresses, and collects the local values of the elastic stresses
produced, at dierent instants, by load paths p[t[ contained in P. Obviously S
e
is also closed and convex.
It is worth mentioning that time is assumed here as an evolution variable since we always consider
negligible the dynamic eects due to the external loads. However, our presentation can be easily generalized
to the presence of dynamic eects (see Ceradini [21,22] and [27,28]).
We can now state the following denition:
Denition 2.1 (Shakedown). We say that a structure shakes down to an elastic state or, simply, shakedown
occurs if, after an initial phase during which the occurrence and the accumulation of plastic strain incre-
ments are possible, the structural response, for every load path p[t[ P; tends to be purely elastic and is
characterized by a nite total plastic work. That is
Z

t=0
Z
B
r[t[
T
_ ee
p
[t[ dv
& '
dt < ;
where r[t[ and e
p
[t[ are the stress and plastic strain produced during the loading process, a superposed dot
indicates time dierentiation and t = 0 refers to the initial virgin state (e
p
[0[ = 0):
An obvious corollary of this denition is that shakedown implies the existence of, at least, one time
independent stress eld rr S such that
f [r
e
[t[ rr[ 60; \r
e
[t[ S
e
; (2:10)
because, due to Eq. (2.7), we necessarily have lim
t
_ ee
p
[t[ = 0, \p[t[ P and then, due to the uniqueness
of the incremental elastic solution, lim
t
_ rr[t[ _ rr
e
[t[ = 0, that is, lim
t
r[t[ = r
e
[t[ rr, \r
e
[t[ S
e
.
Furthermore, r[t[ and r
e
[t[ being equilibrated by the same load p[t[, by denition, their dierence rr is self-
equilibrated.
5764 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
2.3. Shakedown theorems
Sucient and necessary conditions for shakedown are given in the classic BleichMelans static theorem
[35,36] and Koiters kinematic theorem [37]. For the readers convenience, we recall both theorems in some
detail here.
Theorem 2.1 (Static theorem of shakedown). Shakedown occurs if there exists a time-independent self-
equilibrated stress field rr such that
r
+
[t[ = r
e
[t[ rr; f [r
+
[ < 0; \r
e
[t[ S
e
: (2:11)
Proof. For all loading paths p[t[ P the evolution law for stress r[t[ and strain e[t[ acting in the structure
can be expressed as:
r[t[ = r
e
[t[ Dr[t[;
e[t[ = E
1
(r
e
[t[ Dr[t[) e
p
[t[:
&
Dr[t[ being a self-equilibrated stress eld and e
p
[t[ the plastic strain associated to r[t[. If the following
positive function is introduced
W[t[ :=
1
2
Z
B
(r r
+
)
T
E
1
(r r
+
) dv P0
by dierentiating with respect to t and denoting by _ ee
e
[t[ = E
1
_ rr
e
[t[ the strain associated to _ rr
e
[t[, we have
_
WW[t[ =
Z
B
(r r
+
)
T
E
1
( _ rr[t[ _ rr
e
) dv =
Z
B
(r r
+
)
T
(_ ee[t[ _ ee
e
[t[) dv
Z
B
(r r
+
)
T
_ ee
p
dv:
Obviously, both _ ee[t[ and _ ee
e
[t[ are kinematically compatible and r r
+
is self-equilibrated. So the rst in-
tegral in the right side of the equation is zero. Furthermore, r[t[ E being associated by the ow rule (2.5)
to _ ee
p
and r
+
being internal to E, we can apply inequality (2.6) in strict form. We obtain
_
WW[t[ =
Z
B
(r r
+
)
T
_ ee
p
dv < 0 if _ ee
p
,= 0:
So, function W[t[ is both lower bounded and monotonically decreasing during a plastic process. To avoid
contradiction, this implies that
lim
t
_
WW[t[ = 0 = lim
t
_ ee
p
= 0:
Furthermore, by assuming m > 0 small enough to satisfy
f [(1 m)r
+
[t[[ 60;
we have, because of Eq. (2.6),
(r[t[ (1 m)r
+
[t[)
T
_ ee
p
[t[ P0;
that is, integrating on B and remembering the denition of
_
WW[t[,
m
Z
B
r[t[
T
_ ee
p
dv 6(1 m)
Z
B
(r[t[ r
+
[t[)
T
_ ee
p
dv = (1 m)
_
WW[t[:
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5765
Then, integrating on the overall loading process, we obtain
Z

t=0
Z
B
r[t[
T
_ ee
p
[t[ dv
& '
dt 6
1 m
m
(W[0[ W[[) 6
1 m
2m
Z
B
rr
T
E
1
rrdv <
because of e
p
[0[ = 0, i.e. r[0[ = r
e
[0[, by denition and W[[ P0. So shakedown condition is satised.
Theorem 2.2 (Kinematical theorem of shakedown). The structure does not shakedown if there exists a
kinematical admissible strain field _ ee
p
=
P
k
_ ee
p
k
K such that
r
ek
S
e
:
Z
B
X
k
(r
ek
r
yk
)
T
_ ee
p
k
dv > 0; (2:12)
where _ ee
p
k
; k = 1; 2; . . . is a set of plastic strain increments and r
yk
are associated to _ ee
p
k
through the flow rule
(2.5).
Proof. We will prove the statement by absurd. By assuming that shakedown occurs, due to Eq. (2.10),
a self-equilibrated time-independent stress state rr will exist such that
f [r
e
rr[ 60; \r
e
S
e
:
From the Drucker condition (2.6) we obtain:
(r
yk
r
ek
rr)
T
_ ee
p
k
P0; \k and \r
ek
S
e
:
Then, by summing on k and integrating on the body volume B, we obtain:
Z
B
X
k
r
yk

r
ek

T
_ ee
p
k
dv
Z
B
rr_ ee
p
dv P0:
The last integral being zero because rr is self-equilibrated, the previous condition implies
Z
B
X
k
r
ek

r
yk

T
_ ee
p
k
dv 60; \r
ek
S
e
which is absurd by being in contradiction with the theorem requirements.
2.4. Shakedown safety factor
Structural safety with respect to shakedown can be evaluated by relating to the larger multiplier factor
that can be used for amplifying the load domain P or, equivalently, the stress domain S
e
allowing for the
structure shakedown.
We call shakedown safety factor (or shakedown multiplier) k
a
this value and can dene it more precisely,
by referring to the amplied elastic stresses kr
e
, as the sup of strictly safe

kk
s
multipliers that satises the
requirements of the static theorem. that is,
rr S : f [

kk
s
r
e
rr[ < 0; \r
e
S
e
: (2:13)
Equivalently, it can be dened as the inf of strictly unsafe multipliers

kk
u
that satises the requirements of the
kinematical theorem, that is
_ ee
p
:=
X
k
_ ee
p
k
K r
ek
S
e
:
Z
B
X
k
(

kk
u
r
ek
r
yk
)
T
_ ee
p
k
dv > 0; (2:14)
5766 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
r
yk
and _ ee
p
k
being associated through the ow rule (2.5). The two denitions actually coincide, that is,
k
a
:= sup

kk
s
= inf

kk
u
: (2:15)
This can be easily proved by assuming k
a
be characterized by the condition
k
a
: min
rr
max
r
e
;x
f [k
a
r
e
&
rr[
'
= 0; rr S; r
e
S
e
; x B:
Due to convexity of f [r[ and the assumption f [0[ < 0, we have
f [cr[ 6cf [r[ (1 c)f [0[ < 0 if 0 6c < 1; f [r[ 60
and then we obtain
min
rrS
f

kk
s
r
e
"

kk
s
k
a
rr
#
< 0; \r
e
S
e
if

kk
s
< k
a
:
Therefore,

kk
s
< k
a
is strictly safe according to denition (2.13). Conversely, due to Eq. (2.6), we have
min
rrS
max
r
e
S
e
(r
y
&
k
a
r
e
rr)
T
_ ee
p
'
P0; \_ ee
p
;
r
y
and _ ee
p
being associated by the ow rule (2.5) and the equal sign being attained for some r
+
yk
:= k
a
r
+
ek
rr
+
and _ ee
p+
k
, by denition. We can characterize this solution by the condition
min
_ ee
p
k
; rrS
Z
B
X
k
(r
yk
k
a
r
+
ek
rr)
T
_ ee
p
k
dv = 0;
summation being extended to all k. That implies
Z
B
d rr
T
X
k
_ ee
p+
k
dv = 0; \d rr S;
that is, because of Eq. (2.1),
P
k
_ ee
p+
k
K. Due to Eq. (2.7), we have furthermore
Z
B
X
k
k
a
r
+T
ek
_ ee
p+
k
dv =
Z
B
X
k
r
+T
yk
_ ee
p+
k
dv > 0
and consequently
Z
B
X
k
(

kk
u
r
+
ek
r
+
yk
)
T
_ ee
p+
k
dv > 0 if

kk
u
> k
a
:
Therefore

kk
u
> k
a
is strictly unsafe according to denition (2.14).
In the sequel it will be convenient to refer to the safe multipliers k
s
and unsafe multipliers k
u
dened
through Eqs. (2.13) and (2.14) by relaxing the < and > conditions into 6 and P ones. Obviously
we obtain
k
a
= max k
s
= min k
u
:
2.5. Some comments
It is worth noting that the static shakedown theorem is a generalization of the static limit analysis
theorem for a combination of independent external loads varying in an admissible domain P. In particular
the static limit analysis theorem is a special case of the static shakedown theorem for a single external load
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5767
(p = 1; 0 6a
1
6k). Analogously, the kinematical shakedown theorem is a generalization of the kinematical
theorem of the limit analysis and the latter can be considered its specialization for a single load. As in limit
analysis, a constant self-equilibrated prestress is without inuence on the shakedown multiplier.
Also note that static shakedown theorem assures the elastic multiplier
k
e
= max k : f [kr
e
[ 60; \r
e
S
e
to be smaller (or, at least not larger) than the shakedown multiplier k
a
. In fact, by adding to the elastic
stresses kr
e
[t[ a constant (zero) self-equilibrated stress, we are able to satisfy the theorem requirements.
Conversely, the shakedown kinematic theorem assures that, for each load combination p P, the collapse
multiplier
k
c
= min k :
Z
B
(r
y
kr
e
)
T
_ ee
p
dv = 0; \r
e
S
e
; \_ ee
p
K
is larger (or, at least, not smaller) than k
a
. The shakedowm multiplier is then bounded as follows:
k
e
6k
a
6k
c
:
We can mention that the previous statements provide rational motivations for the use of the elastic
multiplier in practical structural design. In fact in this way it is possible to surpass the shakedown analysis
while banally fullling its requirements. However, it has to be considered that an explicit shakedown
analysis is necessary when the design is based on nonlinear methods, procedures based on the evaluation of
the collapse multiplier being unsafe.
3. A shakedown formulation suited to FEM analysis
A reformulation of the shakedown problem, suitable for FEM implementation, is presented in this
section and some preliminary results are obtained that will be useful for discussing the convergence
properties of the proposed solution method.
3.1. Shakedown admissible domain
It is convenient to introduce the shakedown yield function dened as
f
s
[r; k[ := max
r
e
S
e
f [kr
e
r[ (3:1)
and the related shakedown admissible domain
E
s
[k[ := r : f
s
[r; k[ 60 (3:2)
that represents the set of all possible translations r of domain kS
e
within E (see Fig. 1). Obviously, due to
the assumption f [0[ < 0, E
s
[k[ is not void for suciently small positive values of k. Furthermore, since both
S and E are closed and convex, so E
s
[k[ it is. We also have:
E
s
[k
1
[ ,= O; E
s
[k
1
[ internal to E
s
[k
2
[ if k
2
< k
1
<

kk := supk : E
s
[k[ ,= O: (3:3)
Denition (3.2) implies the equivalence between the following statements
(kr
e
r) E == r E
s
[k[:
5768 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
Then, for k 6

kk and r
y
oE
s
[k[, one or more tension elds r
yk
= kr
ek
r
y
oE can be associated to r
y
,
as shown in Fig. 1. We have, from condition (2.6)
(r
y
r)
T
e
p
=
X
k
(r
yk
r
k
)
T
_ ee
p
k
P0; \r E
s
[k[; (3:4)
where r
k
:= kr
ek
r E, _ ee
p
k
are the plastic strains associated to r
yk
, and e
p
, dened by the combination
e
p
:=
X
k
_ ee
p
k
(3:5)
is a plastic strain increment we can associate to r
y
. Condition (3.4) implies the convexity of function f
s
[r; k[
and a normality rule between r
y
and e
p
:
e
p
= lg; g of
s
[r
y
; k[; l P0; lf
s
= l
_
ff
s
= 0: (3:6)
3.2. The shakedown problem
Using the previous denitions, we can derive a simple characterization for the shakedown safety factor.
We obtain, from static theorem and Eq. (3.1),
k
s
6k
a
if rr S : f
s
[ rr; k
s
[ 60 (3:7)
and, from kinematic theorem and the assumptions r
y
= r
yk
kr
ek
and e
p
=
P
k
_ ee
p
k
,
k
u
Pk
a
if e
p
K :
Z
B
r
T
y
e
p
dv 60; e
p
,= 0: (3:8)
Fig. 1. Elastic domains E and E
s
[k[.
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5769
We can now dene the shakedown problem:
Denition 3.1 (Shakedown problem). Determine the shakedown safety factor
k
a
:= max k
s
= min k
u
;
k
s
and k
u
being the safe and unsafe multipliers dened according to Eqs. (3.7) and (3.8).
3.3. Return mapping to the admissible domain
Starting from a given amplier k 6

kk and a stress r
+
, not necessarily contained in the admissible do-
main E
s
[k[, we can dene the following process, which we call return mapping to the admissible domain
(Fig. 2)
r = r
a
[r
+
; k[ := r
+
Ee
p
; r E
s
[k[ (3:9)
that allows us to determine an associated stress r, contained in E
s
[k[ and related to e
p
by the ow rule
condition (3.6) we can rewrite
e
p
= lg; g of
s
[r; k[; l :
=0; if f
s
[r
+
; k[ < 0;
P0; f
s
[r; k[ = 0; if f
s
[r
+
; k[ P0:
&
(3:10)
We know (see [18]) that the reduction scheme (3.9) and (3.10) corresponds to the so-called return mapping
by closest-point projection and can be conveniently obtained by minimizing the HaarKaarmaan function,
that is, by the condition:
/[r r
+
[ :=
1
2
(r r
+
)
T
E
1
(r r
+
) = min; \r E
s
[k[; (3:11)
which will prove to be better suited for the numerical implementation. Obviously, dened as the minimum
of a strictly convex function on a convex domain, r
a
is a single valued function of both e and k.
Fig. 2. Elastic domain E
s
[k[ for k
2
> k
1
.
5770 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
3.4. Basic properties of the return mapping scheme
In order to better understand the solution algorithm, that will be proposed in the next section, and prove
its convergence properties, it is convenient to state some basic characteristics of the return mapping scheme
(3.9) and (3.10).
Let k <

kk; r
0
be an initial state and let r
+
= r
0
Ee, we can express r as a function of e:
r = r
a
[e; k[ := r
a
[r
0
Ee; k[ = r
0
E(e e
p
): (3:12)
Noticeable properties of this function are given by the following lemmas:
Lemma 3.1. Function r
a
[e; k[ is directionally differentiable with respect to both e and k. Furthermore there
exists a convex potential function W[e; k[ such that
r
a
[e; k[ =
oW[e; k[
oe
so the tangent operator
E
t
[e; k[ :=
or
a
oe
=
o
2
W
oe
2
(3:13)
is self-adjoint: E
t
= E
T
t
.
Proof. This is a classical result in incremental plasticity (e.g. see [38,39]) and derives directly from the
denition of r
a
[e; k[ through HaarKaarmaan condition (3.11). It can be easily proven by considering that,
due to the assumption on f [r[ and denition (3.1), function f
s
[r; k[ is a bounded, single valued continuous
mapping R
d1
R, so it is directionally dierentiable. Therefore, for any path e t^ee; k t
^
kk, t P0, we
can dene the directional derivatives r
t
[e; k;
^
kk[ and E
t
[e; k; ^ee[ such that
dr = E
t
de r
t
dk:
The existence of the potential function W is assured if
I
C
r
a
[e; k[
T
de = 0
along any closed curves C in the e space. Letting de = E
1
dr
a
de
p
we can write
r
T
a
de = r
T
a
E
1
dr
a
r
T
a
de
p
= d
1
2
r
T
a
E
1
r
a

r
T
a
e
p

dr
T
a
e
p
that implies
I
C
r
T
a
de =
I
C
dr
T
a
e
p
:
Now, due to the ow rule (3.10), we have e
p
= 0 if r
a
is internal to E
s
[k[; we have dr
a
= 0 if r
a
corresponds
to a corner point of oE
s
[k[ and e
p
is internal to the cone of normals, and dr
T
a
e
p
= 0 in other cases. Therefore,
we obtain
H
c
dr
T
a
e
p
= 0, by proving the second part of the statement.
Lemma 3.2. Let k <

kk, r
0
be an initial stress and r
1
and r
2
be stresses obtained from the strain increments
e
1
and e
2
through return mapping (3.11):
r
1
= r
a
[e
1
; k[ = r
0
E(e
1
e
p
1
);
r
2
= r
a
[e
2
; k[ = r
0
E(e
2
e
p
2
);
&
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5771
where e
p
1
and e
p
2
are related to r
1
and r
2
through the flow rule (3.6). The following conditions hold:
0 6(r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
2
e
1
) 6(e
2
e
1
)
T
E(e
2
e
1
)
and the occurrence of (r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
2
e
1
) = 0 implies
r
1
= r
2
:
Proof. Drukers condition (2.6) provides
(r
2
r
1
)
T
e
p
2
P0; (r
1
r
2
)
T
e
p
1
P0;
then, by their combination, we obtain
(r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
p
2
e
p
1
) P0:
From Eq. (3.2) we also have
(r
2
r
1
) = E(e
2
e
1
) E(e
p
2
e
p
1
):
We nally obtain:
(r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
2
e
1
) = (e
2
e
1
)
T
E(e
2
e
1
) (e
p
2
e
p
1
)
T
E(e
p
2
e
p
1
) (r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
p
2
e
p
1
)
6(e
2
e
1
)
T
E(e
2
e
1
) (e
p
2
e
p
1
)
T
E(e
p
2
e
p
1
) 6(e
2
e
1
)
T
E(e
2
e
1
);
(r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
2
e
1
) = (r
2
r
1
)
T
E
1
(r
2
r
1
) (r
2
r
1
)
T
(e
p
2
e
p
1
) P(r
2
r
1
)
T
E
1
(r
2
r
1
)
that proves the lemma statement.
Lemma 3.3. Matrix E
t
[e; k; e[ satisfies the conditions
0 6e
T
E
t
e 6e
T
Ee; \e:
Proof. The proof derives directly from Lemma 3.2 by taking e := e
2
e
1
for e
2
e
1
.
Lemma 3.4. Let r
1
:= r
a
[e
1
; k
1
[ and r
2
:= r
a
[e
2
; k
2
[ we can write their difference in the form
r
2
r
1
= r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
2
[(k
2
k
1
) E
s
[k
2
; e
1
; e
2
[(e
2
e
1
):
Furthermore, we have
E
s
= E
T
s
; 0 6e
T
E
s
e 6e
T
Ee; \e
and
r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
2
[
T
e
p
< 0 if e
p
:=
e
p
11
if k
1
6k
2
e
p
12
if k
2
< k
1
& '
,= 0;
where e
p
11
and e
p
12
are the plastic strain associated to r
a
[e
1
; k
1
[ and r
a
[e
1
; k
2
[, respectively.
Proof. The rst part of the statement is obtained directly by dening E
s
and r
s
by the secant ratios
r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
2
[ :=
Z
1
0
or[e
1
; k[t[[
ok
dt =
Z
1
0
r
t
[e
1
; k[t[[ dt; k[t[ := tk
1
(1 t)k
2
;
E
s
[k
2
; e
1
; e
2
[ :=
Z
1
0
or[e[t[; k
2
[
oe
dt =
Z
1
0
E
t
[e[t[; k
2
[ dt; e[t[ := te
1
(1 t)e
2
:
5772 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
The second part of the lemma is simply obtained by observing that E
s
is obtained as an average, on the
segment t [0 1[, of matrix E
t
and recalling Lemmas 3.1 and 3.3. Finally, the third part is obtained by
observing that, due to Eqs. (2.6) and (3.3), we have
(r
a
[e
1
; k
1
[ r
a
[e
1
; k
2
[)
T
e
p
11
> 0 if k
1
< k
2
; e
p
11
,= 0;
(r
a
[e
1
; k
2
[ r
a
[e
1
; k
1
[)
T
e
p
12
> 0 if k
2
< k
1
; e
p
12
,= 0
and, for k
2
k
1
we obtain, by continuity,
r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
1
[e
p
11
< 0 if e
p
11
,= 0:
4. An iterative algorithm for shakedown analysis
A solution method, suitable to FEM analysis, is proposed in this section for the shakedown problem 3.1.
The method is based on an incremental-iterative process producing a sequence k
(k)
, k = 1; 2; . . . of multi-
pliers which, apart from the errors implied by the discretization, are safe according to Eq. (3.7) and con-
verge monotonously to the shakedown safety factor k
a
.
4.1. Finite element discretization
Assuming the structure has already been modeled by a standard FEM discretization, let u R
N
be the
vector collecting all free nodal displacements, u
0
its initial value and e[u[ := D(u u
0
) the (kinematically
compatible) local strains associated to the displacement increment u u
0
through compatibility matrix
D[x[. Assuming k 6

kk we can dene the internal force vector s[u; k[ R

N
expressing the structural response
consequent to the nodal displacements u:
s[u; k[ :=
Z
B
D
T
r[u; k[ dv; r[u; k[ := r
a
[r
0
Ee; k[ (4:1)
and the symmetric, positive denite elastic stiness matrix K
e
R
N
R
N
K
e
:=
Z
B
D
T
EDdv; K
e
= K
T
e
> 0 (4:2)
by the energy identities:
du
T
s[u; k[ =
Z
B
de
T
r[u; k[ dv; du
T
K
e
du =
Z
B
de
T
Ede dv; \du; de := Ddu; (4:3)
E being the elastic matrix, linking the strain vector e to the stress vector r and r
0
the initial stress state. Note
that r[u; k[ E
s
[k[, by denition. According with Eq. (2.1), self-equilibrated stresses are characterized, for
the discrete model, by the condition
s[u; k[ = 0: (4:4)
Using previous notations, the shakedown problem in Denition 3.1 can be rewritten in discrete
(approximate) form. We have to determine
k
a
:= max k : u : s[u; k[ = 0: (4:5)
So formulated, the shakedown problem looks very similar to the discrete formulation of the static theorem
of limit analysis, the only dierence being the role of the safety multiplier k which acts as an internal
parameter of function f
s
[r; k[ in spite of being an external load multiplier. However, this dierence can
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5773
hardly be considered meaningful. For instance, in the case of monotonous loading, we can write the limit
analysis problem exactly in the form (4.5) if using the safety factor as multiplier for the elastic stress so-
lution in place of a load multiplier.
The analogies between the two problems suggest that the methods available for solving limit analysis
problems can be directly extended to the solution of shakedown ones. The solution method proposed in this
paper actually follows this line. It can be considered a direct adaptation to shakedown of the so-called strain
driven algorithm for incremental elasticplastic analysis [39] and corresponds to a direct extension of the
arc-length path-following method described in [14].
Some comments are useful here, before entering into the details of the proposed method. First of all,
note that, constitutive laws being locally dened, the return mapping scheme
r := r
a
[r
0
Ee; k[; e := D(u u
0
) (4:6)
can apply separately for each element (or Gauss point, if the element is dened by numerical integration).
Therefore, the evaluation of the internal force vector s[u; k[ for given u and k through Eq. (4.1) is actually a
very simple and computationally fast process. Some caution however has to be used in order to reduce
discretization errors and avoid generating incoherencies. It is known in fact (see [7,8]) that strictly com-
patible formulations can produce discretization locking; equally, a careless use of collocation procedures
can lose energy conservation laws.
Acomplete discussion of this topic is not possible here. As a general rule, we can suggest that discrete stress
eld r be dened by extending HaarKaarmaan equation (3.11) to the whole element, that is by the condition
/
e
:=
1
2
Z
B
e
(r r
+
)
T
E
1
(r r
+
)dv = min; r[x[ E
s
[k[; \x x
1
; . . . ; x
n
; (4:7)
where B
e
is the element volume, r
+
:= r
0
Ee. x
i
; i = 1; . . . ; n is a discrete set of control points, such that to
discretize, at least approximately, admissibility condition r E
s
[k[, \x B
e
, and r is self-equilibrated within
the element or, at least, satises Eq. (2.1) in B
e
for any de := Ddu. The implementation of condition (4.7) is
quite easy. An example will be given in Section 5.3, with reference to the simple case of beam elements.
Note also that, as a consequence of Lemmas 3.1 and 3.4, two dierent states (u
1
; k
1
) and (u
2
; k
2
), satisfy
the equation
r[u
2
; k
2
[ r[u
1
; k
1
[ = E
s
[k
2
; e
1
; e
2
[(e
2
e
1
) r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
2
[(k
2
k
1
);
where e
1
= Du
1
, e
2
= Du
2
. Then, by integrating on the volume and introducing the secant operators
K
s
[k
2
; u
1
; u
2
[ :=
Z
B
D
T
E
s
[k
2
; e
1
; e
2
[Ddv; y
s
[u
1
; k
1
; k
2
[ :=
Z
B
D
T
r
s
[e
1
; k
1
; k
2
[ dv; (4:8)
we obtain
s[u
2
; k
2
[ s[u
1
; k
1
[ = K
s
[k
2
; u
1
; u
2
[(u
2
u
1
) (k
2
k
1
)y
s
[u
1
; k
1
; k
2
[: (4:9)
Due to Lemma 3.4, matrix K
s
is obviously symmetric by construction and satises the conditions
0 6du
T
K
s
du 6du
T
K
e
du; \du: (4:10)
Finally, it is worth mentioning that, the return mapping scheme (4.6) requires k
j
6

kk; \j. We can compute

kk very easily as the smallest k value that renders E

s
void for some x B, which is obtained by scanning all
control points, once for all, at the beginning of the analysis.
4.2. The proposed solution method
We determine the shakedown limit state, that is the limit shakedown multiplier k
a
, the related admissible
self-equilibrated stress eld r
a
and the corresponding induced displacement eld u
a
, though a sequence of
5774 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
admissible safe states x
(k)
:= k
(k)
; r
(k)
; u
(k)
, k = 1; 2; . . ., starting from the elastic limit state x
(0)
:=
k
e
; 0; 0, such that s
(k)
:= s[u
(k)
; k
(k)
[ = 0, \k and monotonous non decreasing in k
(k)
. The sequence is ar-
rested when the limit shakedown state x
a
is reached, which is obtained when k
(k1)
= k
(k)
.
In each step of the process, the new state x
(k)
is obtained from the previous one x
(k1)
using an iterative
scheme which, starting from x
0
:= x
(k1)
, produces a convergent sequence of values x
j
:= k
j
; r
j
; u
j
, j =
1; 2; . . . by recursively updating the displacement vector and the load multiplier:
u
j1
:= u
j
_ uu
j
;
k
j1
:= k
j

_
kk
j
;
&
(4:11)
corrections _ uu
j
and
_
kk
j
being dened in order to satisfy, at least approximately, the equilibrium condition
s[u
j1
; k
j1
[ = 0 required by Eq. (4.5), while r
j1
is dened by the return mapping (4.6).
We have already seen that obtaining r
j1
from k
j1
and u
j1
is quite straightforward, so we can con-
centrate on the updating of u
j
and k
j
, which is obtained by dening corrections _ uu
j
and
_
kk
j
as the solution of
the linear system
K
e
y
j
y
T
j
0
!
;
_ uu
j
_
kk
j
!
=
s
j
0
!
; s
j
:= s[u
j
; k
j
[; (4:12)
where K
e
is the elastic stiness matrix dened by Eq. (4.3) and vector y
j
is dened, according to Eq. (4.8), as
y
j
:=
Z
B
D
T
r
s
[e
j
; k
j
; k
j1
[ dv =
1
k
j1
k
j
(s[u
j
; k
j1
[ s[u
j
; k
j
[): (4:13)
Eq. (4.12) is conveniently solved by partitioning. In explicit form, we obtain:
_
kk
j
=
y
T
j
K
1
e
s
j
y
T
j
K
1
e
y
j
; _ uu
j
= K
1
e
s
j

_
kk
j
K
1
e
y
j
: (4:14)
Note that k
j1
= k
j

_
kk
j
is required in Eq. (4.13) for obtaining y
j
, so Eq. (4.13) couples with the rst of
(4.14). However, k
j1
can easily be obtained by iteration as the limit of the sequence
~
kk
i
:= k
j

~yy
T
i
K
1
e
s
j
~yy
T
i
K
1
e
~yy
i
; ~yy
i
:=
1
~
kk
i
k
j
(s[u
j
;
~
kk
i
[ s
j
) (4:15)
which is initialized by assuming the rst evaluation for y
j
be dened as the initial tangent
y
j
~ ~yy
1
:= y[u
j
; k
j
; k
j
[: (4:16)
The sequence implements the secant iteration, so it is always convergent. Actually it converges very fast
and, considering that its solution is used within an external iteration scheme, only one loop is usually
needed. For obvious reasons, it is also convenient to introduce the constraint k
j

_
kk
j
6

kk.
The proposed solution algorithm is described in pseudo-code form in Table 1. Note that the iterative
process (4.11) and (4.12), for the kth step, is initialized by assuming
k
1
:= k
(k1)
b
(k)
(k
(k1)
k
(k2)
);
u
1
:= u
(k1)
b
(k)
(u
(k1)
u
(k2)
);
(4:17)
b
(k)
being an appropriate scaling factor we can relate to iteration loops performed in the previous step
by taking
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5775
b
(k)
=
n
(k1)
nn
n
(k1)
nn
;
where n
(k1)
is the number of loops performed in the previous step and nn its assumed reference value
(typically nn ~ 4; . . . ; 8). The same formula is used in the rst step of the algorithm by making
u
(0)
= 0; r
(0)
= 0; k
(0)
= 0; u
(1)
= 0; r
(1)
= 0; k
(1)
= k
e

and assuming b
1
as a small fraction (b
1
~ 0:01).
The iteration process stops and the step is assumed to have been performed when
|s
j
| 6tol
1
; |s|
2
:= s
T
K
1
e
s: (4:18)
Finally, the algorithm is arrested when k
(k)
= k
(k1)
, within the assigned tolerance tol
2
. As we will see, that
implies the required shakedown solution has already been reached.
In the following subsections we will show the eectiveness of this strategy by proving that:
1. The sequence x
j
produced by the iterative scheme (4.11) and (4.12) converges to a new solution
x
(k)
:= k
(k)
; r
(k)
; u
(k)
, characterized by r
(k)
E
s
[k
(k)
[ and s[u
(k)
; k
(k)
[ = 0. Then, according to Eq. (4.5),
it provides a lower bound k
s
for the shakedown safety factor k
a
.
2. The succession of shakedown states x
(k)
satises the condition k
(k)
Pk
(k1)
. Furthermore, the occurrence
of k
(k)
= k
(k1)
implies k
(k)
= k
a
, so providing the shakedown solution.
Table 1
Pseudo-code for the proposed solution algorithm
1. Assemble and decompose matrix K
E
2. Compute the elastic solutions (u
e
i
; r
e
i
) for each basic load p
i
u
i
:= K
1
E
p
i
; r
i
:= EDu
i
:
3. Compute the elastic limit multiplier k
e
and initialize the solution process
u
(0)
:= 0; r
(0)
= 0; k
(0)
:= 0; u
(1)
:= 0; r
(1)
= 0; k
(1)
:= k
e
:
4. Repeat for k = 2; 3; . . .
(a) Evaluate, using Eq. (4.17):
k
1
:= k
(k1)
b(k
(k1)
k
(k2)
);
u
1
:= u
(k1)
b(u
(k1)
u
(k2)
):
(b) Repeat for j = 1; 2; . . .
v Compute r
j
through Eq. (4.6)
v Compute vectors s
j
and y
j
through Eqs. (4.12) and (4.16)
v Evaluate the new estimate x
j1
:
k
j1
= k
j

_
kk
j
u
j1
= u
j
K
1
E
(s
j

_
kk
j
y
j
)
(
;
_
kk
j
=
y
T
j
K
1
E
s
j
y
T
j
K
1
E
y
j
:
Until |s
j
| 6tol
1
(c) Update the solution
k
(k)
= k
j
; u
(k)
:= u
j
; r
(k)
:= r
j
:
Until k
(k)
k
(k1)
6tol
2
5. Obtain the solution of the shakedown problem
k
a
:= k
(k)
; u
a
:= u
(k)
; r
a
:= r
(k)
:
5776 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
4.3. Convergence of the iterative scheme (4.11) and (4.12)
In order to discuss the convergence of the iterative scheme, it is convenient to refer to the solution l
i
; z
i

of the eigenvalue problem

[lK
e
K
j
[z = 0:
Both matrices K
j
and K
e
being symmetric and the rst being positive dened, we know that l
i
and z
i
are
characterized by the conditions:
z
T
i
K
e
z
j
=
1 if i = 0;
0 if i ,= j;
&
z
T
i
K
j
z
j
=
l
i
if i = 0;
0 if i ,= j:
&
(4:19)
Obviously, due to Eq. (4.10) we also have
0 6l
i
61; \i: (4:20)
We are now ready to prove the following theorem:
Theorem 4.1 (convergence of the iterative scheme to a self-equilibrated solution). The sequence x
j
produced
by the iterative scheme (4.11) and (4.12) is convergent and its limit x
(k)
:= k
(k)
; r
(k)
; u
(k)
is characterized by
r
(k)
E
s
[k
(k)
[ and s[u
(k)
; k
(k)
[ = 0.
Proof. By denition (4.14) we have
s
j1
s
j
= K
j
_ uu
j

_
kk
j
y
j
;
_
kk
j
:=
y
T
j
K
1
e
s
j
y
T
j
K
1
e
y
j
; _ uu
j
:= K
1
e
(s
j

_
kk
j
y
j
)
that provides
s
j1
= s
j

_
kk
j
y
j
K
j
K
1
e
(s
j

_
kk
j
y
j
):
Then, expanding y
j
, s
j
and s
j1
in terms of z
i
y
j
= K
e
X
i
b
i
z
i
; s
j
= K
e
X
i
a
i
z
i
; s
j1
= K
e
X
i
~ aa
i
z
i
; (4:21)
we obtain, due to Eq. (4.19),
~ aa
i
= (1 l
i
)(a
i

_
kk
j
b
i
) (4:22)
and therefore
|s
j1
|
2
=
X
i
~ aa
2
i
=
X
i
(1 l
i
)
2
(a
2
i

_
kk
2
j
b
2
i
2
_
kk
j
a
i
b
i
): (4:23)
Due to Eq. (4.1), we have
y
T
j
_ uu
j
= y
T
j
K
1
e
(s
j

_
kky
j
) = 0 =
X
i
b
i
(a
i

_
kk
j
b
i
) = 0;
so we can simplify Eq. (4.23) into
|s
j1
|
2
=
X
i
(1 l
i
)
2
(a
2
i

_
kk
2
j
b
2
i
):
By comparison with
|s
j
|
2
=
X
i
a
2
i
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5777
and using Eq. (4.20), we obtain
|s
j1
| 6|s
j
|
while
|s
j1
|
|s
j
|
< 1 if i : l
i
a
i
,= 0 or
_
kk
j
,= 0:
We then stated that the sequence |s
j
| is monotonously non increasing. It is also bounded from below
(|s
j
| P0) so it is convergent, while not necessarily to the limit |s| = 0. We can prove, however, that the
occurrence lim
j
|s
j
| > 0 is impossible. In fact, assuming
lim
j
|s
j
| > 0;
this implies
lim
j
_
kk
j
= 0; lim
j
l
i
a
i
= 0; \i
and, because of Eqs. (4.21) and (4.22),
lim
j
(s
j1
s
j
) = 0:
The sequence s
j
is then convergent and, by assumption,
s
(k)
= lim
j
s
j
,= 0:
We obtain, because of Eqs. (4.14) and (4.11)
lim
j
(u
j1
u
j
) = uu := K
1
e
s
(k)
,= 0
while having
lim
j
Z
B
(r
j1
r
j
)
T
(e
j1
e
j
) dv = lim
j
(s
j1
s
j
)
T
(u
j1
u
j
) = 0:
Due to Lemma 3.2, the latter implies lim
j
(r
j1
r
j
) = 0, therefore
lim
j
(e
p
j1
e
p
j
) := lim
j
(e
j1
e
j
) =ee := Duu ,= 0:
As a consequence, we should have
lim
j
e
p
jk
= e
p
j
kee = lim
j;k
1
k
e
p
jk
=ee;
but this implies
lim
j;k
(u
jk1
u
jk
)
T
y
jk
= uu
T
y
jk
=
1
k
Z
B
e
p
jk
r
s
[e
jk
; k
jk
; k
jk
[ dv < 0
which is absurd being in contrast with the Eqs. (4.11) and (4.12) which give (u
jk1
u
jk
)
T
y
jk
= 0, \j; k.
Therefore, we necessarily have lim
j
|s
j
| = 0. This implies the convergence of s
j
to a null vector
s
(k)
:= lim
j
s
j
= 0
5778 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
and, as a consequence,
lim
j
(u
j1
u
j
) = lim
j
K
1
e
s
j
= 0; lim
j
(k
j1
k
j
) = lim
j
y
T
j
s
j
y
T
j
y
j
= 0:
Both sequences u
j
and k
j
are then also convergent and we can dene
u
(k)
= lim
j
u
j
; k
(k)
= lim
j
k
j
:
Furthermore, r
a
[u; k[ being continuous in both u and k, r
j
:= r
a
[u
j
; k
j
[ is also convergent. So, being r
j

E
s
[k
j
[, \j by denition, we have
r
(k)
= lim
j
r
j
E
s
[k
(k)
[
which completes the proof.
4.4. Convergence to the shakedown solution
The convergence of the sequence x
(k)
produced by the incremental process to the required shakedown
solution is stated by the following theorem:
Theorem 4.2 (convergence of the incremental process to the shakedown solution). The sequence k
(k)
is
characterized by
k
(k1)
6k
(k)
6k
a
:
Furthermore, the occurrence of k
(k)
= k
(k1)
and u
(k)
,= u
(k1)
implies the achievement of the shakedown
solution:
k
a
= k
(k)
:
Proof. We have, r
(k)
S (according to Eq. (4.4)) and r
(k)
E
s
for any k, by denition. So condition k
(k)
6k
a
comes directly from Eq. (3.7). We also obtain
Z
B
(r
(k)
r
(k1)
)
T
e
(k)
dv = (s
(k)
s
(k1)
)
T
(u
(k)
u
(k1)
) = 0:
Then, by letting
e
(k)
= e
(ke)
e
(kp)
and remembering Eq. (4.1), we have
Z
B
(r
(k)
r
(k1)
)
T
e
(kp)
dv =
Z
B
e
(ke)
T
Ee
(ke)
dv 60:
This implies that k
(k)
Pk
(k1)
. In fact, if assuming k
(k)
< k
(k1)
, r
(k1)
E
s
[k
(k1)
[ is internal to E
s
[k
(k)
[ be-
cause of Eq. (3.3), then we should have, due to Druckers inequality (3.4),
Z
B
(r
(k)
r
(k1)
)
T
e
(kp)
dv > 0
which is a contradiction.
The case k
(k)
= k
(k1)
is only possible if e
(ke)
= 0. This implies
e
(kp)
= e
(k)
= D(u
(k)
u
(k1)
)
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5779
that is, e
(kp)
K and e
(kp)
,= 0. Remembering that r
(k)
S, we have
Z
B
r
(k)
T
e
(kp)
dv = 0;
r
(k)
and e
(kp)
being associated by ow rule (3.10), by construction. The condition implies k
(k)
Pk
a
, because
of Eq. (3.8). Conversely, we have k
(k)
6k
a
, as shown before. Therefore, we obtain k
(k)
= k
a
, as stated by the
theorem.
It is worth mentioning that the step-length is naturally forced by the arc-length strategy (4.17), (4.11) and
(4.12), so the solution process does not need any special artice for avoiding a premature stop due to the
occurrence of u
(k)
= u
(k1)
.
4.5. A comment about computational updating of domain E
s
[k]
The shakedown admissible domain E
s
[k[ dened in Section 3.2 is a key ingredient of the proposed
method. It has to be updated according to k
j
at each iteration loop of the incremental process. The
computational eciency of its updating plays an important role in the analysis and specialized, fully op-
timized problem-dependent formulas should be used in general.
We discuss here the case when the yield conditions are piecewise linearized, that is, function f [r[ reduces
to a the m-faces polyhedron:
f [r[ := max
k
n
T
k
r

c
k

60; k = 1; . . . ; m: (4:24)
A very simple and fast formula is obtained in this case. According to Eq. (3.1), we have
f
s
[r; k[ = max
k
n
T
k
r

c
k
b
k
[k[

; b
k
[k[ := max
r
e
S
e
n
T
k
r
e
:
The elastic stress envelope S
e
being dened by the polyhedron
S
e
:= r
e
[t[ :=
X
p
i=1
a
i
[t[r
ei
: a
min
i
(
6a
i
[t[ 6a
max
i
; \t
)
;
we have
b
k
[k[ = k
X
p
i=1
a
ki
; a
ki
:=
a
min
i
n
T
k
r
ei
if n
T
k
r
ei
< 0;
a
max
i
n
T
k
r
ei
if n
T
k
r
ei
P0;
(
so f
s
[r; k[ is simply obtained in the form
f
s
[r; k[ = max
k
n
T
k
r
n
c
k
k

bb
k
o
; (4:25)
where

bb
k
:=
P
p
i=1
a
ki
is computed, once and for all, at the beginning of the process.
4.6. Some further comments
The described solution process can be viewed as a step-by-step incremental process aiming at simulating
the case of a proportional increasing loading evolution such that, in each step k, the load recycles within all
possible values in k
(k)
P up to the achievement of elastic adaptation.
Within this interpretation, the proposed solution process corresponds to a standard path-following
incremental process. Iteration scheme (4.11) and (4.12) actually corresponds to an implementation of the
Riks arc-length scheme [16,17]. We know (e.g. see [40]) that this scheme can be written in the form
5780 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
e
KK ~yy
Du
T
M c
!
_ uu
j
_
kk
j
& '
=
s
j
0
& '
;
where matrix
e
KK and vector ~yy are approximations for the Hessian K
t
:= os=ou and y
t
:= os=ok, Du := u
j
u
0
and M and c express the metric used for measuring the distance in the u; k space:
|Du; Dk|
2
:=
Du
Dk
& '
T
M
c
!
Du
Dk
& '
:
So Eq. (4.12) corresponds to the following assumptions:
y
t
:= y
j
;
e
KK := K
e
; MDu := y
j
; c = 0:
Dierent, even better, choices are obviously possible and could be usefully investigated. Actually, the
convenience of our assumptions lies in the fact that, with the particular choice made, we can easily prove
the convergence of both the iteration scheme and the solution process. It is worth mentioning that a similar
assumption has been proposed in [14] for implementing a path-following solution process for limit analysis
problems.
It is also useful to note that, in addition to k
(k)
and r
(k)
, the proposed solution process also produces a
solution in terms of both displacements u
(k)
and total (cumulated) plastic strains
X
k
i=0
e
(ip)
:=
X
k
i=0
Du
(i)

E
1
r
(i)

:
Obviously, these quantities are strictly related to the loading evolution law which is actually simulated and
then only dene lower bounds. However they can provide useful information about the elastic adaptation
process and can be taken as reference values to be used, within a conventional safety criterion, for eval-
uating safety factors for displacement and plastic deformation limit states (the available upper bounds on
plastic strains [4244] appears to wide for being suitable for technical purposes). Relations with the Ponter
Martin extremal paths theory [41] could also be usefully investigated.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that shakedown analysis reduces to limit analysis when the load domain
simplies to a single point p. So the proposed solution process can be directly used in limit analysis
problems. Actually it can be viewed as a slight variation of a standard path-following process for pro-
portionally increasing loads.
Dierences are related to the use of the additional stress r E
s
[k[. Path-following processes aiming to
recover limit analysis usually refer to the total stress r E and use k directly as a load amplier (see [14,17]).
So equilibrium is expressed by the condition
r[u; k[ := s[u[ kp = 0;
s being the nodal response due to the plastically admissible stress eld r associated to u, expressed in our
notations by
r := r
a
[r
0
Ee; 0[:
As a consequence, the correction scheme (4.12) becomes (see [14])
K
e
p
p
T
0
!
_ uu
j
_
kk
j
!
=
r[u
j
; k
j
[
0
!
; (4:26)
where p = or=ok is used in place of y
j
. Obviously, for every kinematically compatible plastic strain eld
e
p
:= Du
p
, we have
Z
B
r
T
e
p
dv = p
T
u
p
> 0;
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5781
so this substitution also guarantees convergence for the same motivations as in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2. We
can expect quite similar behaviour and convergence properties for the two schemes, as conrmed by the
numerical tests shown in Section 6.4. Note however that scheme (4.12) requires the computation of vector
y
j
at each loop that is skipped by the standard scheme (4.26), so it is slightly more expensive. For this
reason it has to be considered as not particularly convenient for limit analysis problems, that is when we are
in the presence of a single loading case.
5. Shakedown analysis of plane frames
We now discuss some of the implementation details of the proposed solution method by referring to the
shakedown analysis of plane frames. This is a very simple but also technically meaningful application
context, so it is particularly suitable for exemplication purposes.
5.1. Finite element discretization
Let us consider a beam element and indicate with indices i and jths end-sections. Assuming a local
reference system x; y with the x axes coincident with the beam axis, the kinematics of the beam is de-
scribed by the motion of the normal sections in the x; y plane, that is, by its axial u[x[, transversal w[x[ and
rotational u[x[ components. Stresses are described by the strength elds N[x[, T[x[ and M[x[, which express
the axial and shear forces and the bending moment acting on beam sections, respectively. Obviously, a self-
equilibrated stress eld is expressed by
N[x[ = constant; M[x[ = linear; T[x[ = M
;x
= constant: (5:1)
It is convenient to refer to the so-called natural stresses:
m
a
:= N; m
s
:= M
i
M
j
; m
e
:= M
i
M
j
: (5:2)
We have:
N[x[ =
m
a

; T[x[ =
m
e

; M[x[ =
1
2
m
s
( m
e
(1 2n)); (5:3)
:= x
j
x
i
being the element length and n := (x x
i
)= a non-dimensional abscissa varying in [0 1[.
The element strain energy can be easily expressed as
U
b
:=

2
Z
1
0
N
2
EA

T
2
GA
+

M
2
EJ

dn; (5:4)
where A, A
+
and J are the area, the equivalent shear area and the inertia of the section, and E and G the
normal and transversal elastic moduli. We also have, from Clapeyrons theorem,
U
b
=
1
2
N(u
j

u
i
) T(w
j
w
i
) M
i
u
i
M
j
u
j

:
Therefore, by introducing the associated natural strains
/
a
:= (u
j
u
i
)=; /
s
:= (u
i
u
j
)=2; /
e
:= (u
i
u
j
)=2 (w
j
w
i
)=; (5:5)
we can write
U
b
=
1
2
m
a
m
s
m
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
T
/
a
/
s
/
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
: (5:6)
5782 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
By combining Eqs. (5.3), (5.4) and (5.6), we obtain
U
b
=
1
2
/
a
/
s
/
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
T
k
a

k
s

k
e
2
4
3
5
/
a
/
s
/
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
; (5:7)
where
k
a
= EA; k
s
=
4EJ

; k
e
=
12EJ
(1 b)
; b :=
12EJ
GA
+

2
:
By simple kinematical considerations we can relate the natural strains to the element displacement vector
(Fig. 3)
u
b
:= U
i
; W
i
; u
i
; U
j
; W
j
; u
j

T
(5:8)
collecting displacements and rotations in the end-sections of the beam, with reference to a global Cartesian
system X, Y . We obtain
/
a
/
s
/
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
:= A
b
u
b
; A
b
:=
c= s= 0 c= s= 0
0 0 1=2 0 0 1=2
s= c= 1=2 s= c= 1=2
2
4
3
5
s = sin a;
c = cos a;
(5:9)
a being the angle between the two reference systems. Therefore, by the denition
U
b
:=
1
2
u
T
b
K
b
u
b
= u
T
b
s
b
; (5:10)
the element elastic stiness matrix and the element internal forces vector can be expressed as:
K
b
:= A
T
b
k
a

k
s

k
e
2
4
3
5
A
b
; s
b
:= A
T
b
m
a
m
s
m
e
8
<
:
9
=
;
: (5:11)
The elastic stiness matrix K
e
and the internal force vector s for the overall frame are obtained by standard
assemblage of all beam element contributions:
K
e
:=
X
b
A(K
b
); s :=
X
b
A(s
b
):
Fig. 3. Kinematics parameters and natural modes.
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5783
5.2. Admissible domain
To simplify the analysis, we assume that the plastic admissibility condition for the beam element can be
expressed in terms of the bending moment M alone:
M

y
[x[ 6M[x[ 6M

y
[x[;
M

y
[x[ and M

y
[x[ being the negative and positive yield bending values. With these assumptions, the elastic
domain becomes the line segment
E[x[ := M[x[ : M

y
[x[
n
6M[x[ 6M

y
[x[
o
:
Denoting with M
e
i
[x[ the elastic solutions due to the basic external loads p
i
, the elastic stress domain is
dened by
S
e
[x[ := M
e
[x[ : M
e
[x[
(
=
X
p
i=1
a
i
M
e
i
[x[; a
min
i
6a
i
6a
max
i
)
:
Then, by taking
M

e
[x[ := min(M
e
[x[); M

e
[x[ := max(M
e
[x[); \M
e
[x[ S
e
; (5:12)
the admissible shakedown domain can be dened, according to Eq. (4.25), as
E
s
[k[ := M[x[ : M

y
[x[ kM

e
[x[ 6M[x[ 6M

y
[x[ kM

e
[x[; \M
e
[x[ S[x[: (5:13)
To implement condition M E
s
[k[ continuously in the entire interval x [0 [ can be numerically
cumbersome. We choose here to require condition (5.13) to be satised only in the two cross-sections i and
j, that is we assume the shakedown beam-element admissible domain E
sb
[k[ be expressed by the conditions
M

yi
kM

ei
6M
i
6M

yi
kM

ei
; M

yj
kM

ej
6M
j
6M

yj
kM

ej
; (5:14)
where due to Eq. (5.3),
M
i
= (m
s
m
e
)=2; M
j
= (m
s
m
e
)=2:
From Eq. (5.14) we can easily compute the largest admissible load amplier

kk. We obtain

kk = min
M

yk
M

yk
M

ek
M

ek
& '
; \k;
where k relates to the control end-sections of all beams of the frame.
It is worth remembering that Eq. (5.14) only represents a very simple, approximate, discrete implemen-
tation of condition (5.13), that however can be considered adequate for our purposes, the discretization error
being reduced by using suciently small elements. Other, even more convenient, choices are possible, for
instance that of using three discrete conditions, including the mid section. The convenience of the present
choice lies in a numerically straightforward implementation of the return mapping algorithm.
5.3. Return mapping for the beam element
Return mapping scheme (3.10) can be dened by expressing the HaarKaarmaan condition (3.11) for the
whole element, that is
U
b
:=
1
2
m
s
m
+
s
m
e
m
+
e
& '
T
1=k
s

1=k
e
!
m
s
m
+
s
m
e
m
+
e
& '
= min; m
s
; m
e
E
sb
[k[; (5:15)
5784 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
where
m
+
s
= m
s0
k
s
(/
sj
/
s0
); m
+
e
= m
e0
k
e
(/
ej
/
s0
)
is the elastic estimate corresponding to u
j
. By referring to the end-section moments M
i
, M
j
and M
+
i
, M
+
j
, we
obtain (Fig. 4):
U
b
=
k
e
k
s
k
s
k
e
M
i
M
+
i
M
j
M
+
j
& '
T
1 c
c 1
!
M
i
M
+
i
M
j
M
+
j
& '
; c =
k
e
k
s
k
e
k
s
: (5:16)
So, the solution of problem (5.14) and (5.15) can be geometrically dened as in (5.17). Excluding banal
cases, it is then characterized by
(M
+
i
M
i
) c(M
+
j
M
j
) = 0 if M
j
= M

yj
kM

ej
or M
j
= M

yj
kM

ej
;
(M
+
j
M
j
) c(M
+
i
M
i
) = 0 if M
i
= M

yi
kM

ei
or M
i
= M

yi
kM

ei
(
and can be simply obtained, as the reader could easily verify, by the following algorithmic sequence:
e
MM
i
:= maxM

yi
kM

ei
; minM
+
i
; M

yi
kM

ei
;
M
j
:= maxM

yj
kM

ej
; minM
+
i
c(M
+
j

e
MM
i
); M

yj
kM

ej
;
M
i
:= maxM

yi
kM

ei
; minM
+
i
c(M
+
j
M
j
); M

yi
kM

ei
:
(5:17)
Hence the solution in terms of natural stress is easily obtained:
m
s
:= M
i
M
j
; m
e
:= M
i
M
j
:
The process is synthesized in Table 2.
Fig. 4. HaarKaarmaan problem for the beam element.
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5785
6. Numerical results
Numerical results related to some simple test cases are presented in this section in order to show the
general behavior of the proposed solution method. All tests have been performed using an initial step-
length factor b
0
= 0:01 and a reference loop number nn = 6. A relative tolerance factor t
f
= 10
5
has been
used for stopping the iteration scheme (4.11) by the condition
|s
j
| 6t
f
k
e
p
X
p
i
([a
min
i
[ [a
max
i
[)|p
i
|:
The same value has been assumed for stopping the incremental process by the condition
k
(k)
k
(k1)
|u
(k)
u
(k1)
|
< t
f
k
(k)
|u
(k)
|
; |u| := u
T
Ku:
For all tests M

y
= M

y
= M
y
will be assumed.
6.1. A simple frame
The rst numerical test presented refers to the frame in Fig. 5, where all beams have the same section. To
simplify the comparison with the analytical solution the shear contribution to strain energy is neglected
(b = 0). The loads domain is dened as follows:
p[t[ := a
1
[t[P
1
a
2
[t[P
2
; 0 6a
1
61; 0 6a
2
62;
P
1
and P
2
being the horizontal and vertical forces. The elastic stresses envelope for the most meaningful
sections of the frames are reported in Table 3.
The frame is subdivided into four beam elements. The elastic multiplier is obtained as k
e
= 8M
y
=7 =
228:5729 by the max negative bending moment in node 4, while the analytical value of the shakedown
multiplier is:
k
a
=
4M
y

= 266:6667:
Table 2
Pseudo-code for the return mapping scheme
For each beam element:
1. Compute natural strains /
s
and /
e
due to u
j
through Eq. (5.5).
2. Compute the elastic prediction m
+
s
and m
+
e
m
+
s
= m
s0
k
s
(/
sj
/
s0
); m
+
e
= m
e0
k
e
(/
ej
/
s0
):
3. Perform the HaarKaarmaan sequence
e
MM
i
:= maxM

yi
kM

ei
; minM
+
i
; M

yi
kM

ei
;
M
j
:= maxM

yj
kM

ej
; minM
+
i
c(M
+
j

e
MM
i
); M

yj
kM

ej
;
M
i
:= maxM

yi
kM

ei
; minM
+
i
c(M
+
j
M
j
); M

yi
kM

ei
:
4. Finally compute
m
s
:= M
i
M
j
; m
e
:= M
i
M
j
:
5786 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
Fig. 5. Simple and four-oor frames.
Table 3
The M

and M

function in some sections of the simple frame

M

2
M

2
M

3
M

3
M

4
M

4
)1875.0 2500 0 3125.0 )4375.0 0
Fig. 6. Evolution of the analysis for the simple and four-oor frame.
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5787
The same values are obtained numerically. Fig. 6 reports the evolution of the shakedown multiplier versus
plastic rotation of node 4 and also shows the number of iterations performed in each step. From a com-
putational point of view the eort is, practically, the same as in elasticplastic analysis using the same path-
following formulation.
6.2. Four-oor frame
The second test-case refers to the simple four-oor frame under vertical and seismic forces shown in Fig.
5. The beam properties and the basic loads are also shown in the gure. The load domain is dened as
follows:
p[t[ =
X
3
i=1
a
i
[t[p
1
; 0:95 6a
1
[t[ 61:05; 0 6a
2
[t[ 61; 0:5 6a
3
[t[ 60:5:
One element is used to describe each column and two for each horizontal beam. The incremental process
stopped after 19 steps (252 total loops) by providing the evaluation k
a
= 2:57129 for the shakedown safety
factor (due to the presence of the distributed transversal load, this value, while accurate, is aected by some
discretization error).
6.3. Large dimension frames
The advantages of the present method, when compared with other proposals, are obviously more and
more evident as the number of elements increase. Table 5 reports some performance data referring to a
series of test-cases relative to regular frames with dierent numbers of oors (n
f
) and spans (n
s
). A constant
oor height h
f
= 300 and a constant span length l
s
= 400 is assumed for simplicity and 3 load conditions
are assumed: two distributed vertical loads p1 = 10 and p2 = 5 and a seismic action dened as transversal
oor forces linearly increasing by 500 from the ground to the top oor (see Fig. 7).
Beam properties are reported in Table 4 and the load domain is dened by
p[t[ =
X
3
i=1
a
i
[t[p
1
; 0:9 6a
1
[t[ 61:0; 0 6a
2
[t[ 61; 1:0 6a
3
[t[ 61:0:
Fig. 7. Large dimension frame: geometry and loads for a 3 4 frame.
5788 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5 which reports the total number of steps and loops, the
computational times required by the assemblage and decomposition of the stiness matrix and that re-
quired by the incremental process. Times are expressed in milliseconds of Pentium II-300 Pc.
Note that the total number of loops is approximately constant (it actually depends on the tolerance
assumed and, in some unpredictable manner, on the problem). So the time required by the incremental
process is directly related to the dimension of the problems and tends to increase more slowly than that
required by the decomposition of the elastic matrix. Computational times of 721 and 35 ms (Pentium II
300) have been required for the incremental process and the matrix decomposition in the 6 10 frame with
a ratio of about 20. However this can be considered a case of relatively small dimensions (117 D.O.F.) and
we can expect much smaller ratios for very large problems (thousands of D.O.F.) we can obtain by nite
element discretizations of two- and three-dimensional continua.
6.4. Limit analysis problems
In Table 6, the numerical performances of the proposed scheme (4.12) are compared with that of a
standard path-following scheme (4.26) for limit analysis problems. The analysis has been performed for the
same test cases discussed in the previous section but assuming a xed load combination dened by a
i
= 1:0, \i.
Note that the performances of the two schemes, in terms of both steps and number of loops, are almost
the same, as expected (the standard scheme, which does not require the computation of vector y
j
, is
however more convenient in this case).
7. Conclusions
A formulation of the shakedown problem, suitable for performing numerical analyses, has been
presented. An incremental-iterative solution method has been proposed which is able to provide the
Table 4
Beams mechanical properties for large frames
A J M
y
Vertical beams 1800 540,000 1,800,000
Horizontal beams 900 67,500 450,000
Table 5
Numerical performance of the proposed method for large frames
n
s
n
f
k
a
Steps Loops
3 4 2.013382 32 240
4 6 1.399336 36 179
5 9 0.753276 30 140
6 10 0.720903 32 154
Table 6
Comparison between schemes (4.26) and (4.12) in limit analysis of large frames
n
s
n
f
k
e
k
c
Scheme (4.26) Scheme (4.12)
Steps Loops Steps Loops
3 4 1.29336 2.46118 15 217 22 261
4 6 0.92763 1.86096 24 462 42 524
5 9 0.58349 1.20000 56 734 74 779
6 10 0.56268 1.15325 69 937 87 963
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5789
shakedown solution in a general FEM context. Its convergence features have been discussed and proved
and, as an example, its implementation has been detailed for the simple context of plane frames.
The proposed strategy appears to be more ecient than other numerical methods proposed in litera-
ture, especially for large dimension problems where the matrix operation prevail. In fact, it requires
essentially:
1. The assemblage and the triangular decomposition of the elastic stiness matrix K
e
once and for all. This
is a standard process, also needed for the elastic analysis, which requires about nm
2
=2 basic oating-
point operations, n being the dimension of the matrix and m its half-band size.
2. The elastic solution u
i
= K
1
e
p
i
for each of the basic loads p
i
. This is also a standard process and requires
about 2pnm oating-point operations, p being the number of basic loads.
3. A series of iteration loops, each performing an evaluation of s
j
= s[u
j
; k
j
[ and y
j
= y[u
j
; k
j
; k
j
[ for given u
j
and k
j
and the solutions _ uu = K
1
e
(s
j
(k
j1
k
j
)y
j
). This requires about 4nm oating-point operations
for each loop.
Denoting with p, s and l the number of basic loads, steps and average loops per single step, the entire
shakedown solution process then requires about
1
2
nm
2
(2p 4sl)nm
oating-point operations. We experienced s ~ 30 and l ~ 5 for our frame tests and can expect the same or
even smaller values in large nite element discretizations of bi-dimensional problems where the evolution of
the plastic process could be more regular. Therefore, when considering very large structures, that is for
large m, the computational burden of shakedown analysis should become comparable with that needed by a
simple elastic solution which will require nm
2
=2 2pnm operations.
In this way it is apparent that the proposed method is much more ecient than direct methods based on
standard optimization algorithms. It is also more ecient than iterative formulations based on the so-called
elastic compensation method of Ponter [32,33]. The latter in fact develops into a sequence of linear analyses
each of which requires a complete assemblage and decomposition of a pseudo-elastic matrix (so about
nm
2
=2 2nm for each step). Furthermore its convergence is relatively slow, so the number of successive
analyses can be large (several tens, according to [33]). The computational advantages are evident, partic-
ularly for large structures.
The proposed method has real minimal implementational dierences with respect to the standard path-
following algorithms currently used for evaluating the equilibrium path of an elasticplastic structure. This
fact should make it very easy to modify commercial codes aimed at the elasticplastic analysis into codes
able to perform shakedown analysis in technically relevant applications.
References
[1] G. Maier, Shakedown analysis, in: M.Z. Cohn, G. Maier (Eds.), Engineering Plasticity by Mathematical Programming, Pergamon
Press, 1979, pp. 107134 (Chapter 6).
[2] A. K oonig, G. Maier, Shakedown analysis of elastoplastic structures: a review of recent developments, Nucl. Engrg. Des. 66 (1981)
8195.
[3] A. K oonig, Shakedown of elasticplastic structures, Fundamental Studies in Engineering 7, Elsevier, 1987.
[4] G. Maier, J. Munro, Mathematical programming methods in engineering plastic analysis, Appl. Mech. Rev., ASME, invited
feature article 35 (12) (1982) 16311643.
[5] G. Maier, D. Lloyd-Smith, Mathematical programming applications to engineering plastic analysis: update to November 1985,
in: C.R. Steele, G.S. Springer (Eds.), Applied Mechanics Update 1986, ASME, New York, 1986, pp. 377383.
5790 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792
[6] G. Maier, V. Carvelli, G. Cocchetti, On direct methods for shakedown and limit analysis, Plenary Lecture, 4th Euromech Solid
Mechanics Conference, Metz, June 2000, Euro. J. Mech. A/Solids 19 (special issue) (2000) S79S100.
[7] L. Corradi, On compatible nite element models for elastic plastic analysis, Meccanica 13 (1978) 133150.
[8] L. Corradi, On stress computation in displacement nite element models, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 54 (1986) 325
339.
[9] G. Ceradini, C. Gavarini, Limit analysis and linear programming, Gionale del Genio Civile, Gen/Feb, 1965.
[10] L. Corradi, A. Zavelani, A linear programming approach to shakedown analysis of structures, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg.
3 (1974) 3753.
[11] G. Maier, A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplasticity, Meccanica 5 (1970) 5466.
[12] M. Capurso, A displacement bounding principle in shakedown of structures subjected to cyclic loads, Int. J. Solids Struct.
10 (1974) 7792.
[13] R. Casciaro, L. Cascini, A mixed formulation and mixed nite elements for limit analysis, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engrg. 18 (1982)
211243.
[14] R. Casciaro, M. Mancuso, Un approccio numerico al problema dellelastoplasticitaa incrementale, in: Omaggio a Giulio Ceradini,
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica, Univ. di Roma La Sapienza, 1988.
[15] R. Casciaro, L. Cascini, Limit analysis by incremental iterative procedure, in: Proceeding of the IUTAM Conference on
Defrmation and failure of Granualr Materials, Delft, 1982.
[16] E. Riks, An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems, Int. J. Solids Struct. 15 (1979) 529551.
[17] E. Riks, Buckling analysis of elastic structures: a computational approach, in: E. van der Giessen, T.Y Wu (Eds.), Advances in
Applied Mechanics, Academic Press, 1997.
[18] J.C. Simo, T.J.R. Hughes, Computational Inelasticity, in: Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, vol. 7, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[19] T. Belytschko, W.K.. Liu, B. Moran, Nonlinear nite elements for continua and structures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York,
2000.
[20] W.T. Koiter, General theorems for elasticplastic solids, in: I.N. Sneddon, R. Hill (Eds.), Progress in solids mechanics, North-
Holland, Amesterdam, 1960, pp. 165221.
[21] G. Ceradini, Sulladattamento dei corpi elasto plastici soggetti ad azioni dinamiche, Gionale del Genio Civile 106 (4/5) 239250.
[22] G. Ceradini, C. Gavarini, Applicazione della programmazione lineare in problemi di adattamento plastico dinamico, Giornale del
Genio Civile 106 (8) (1969) 239250.
[23] D.A. Gokhfeld, D.F. Cherniavsky, Limit Analysis of Structures at Thermal Cycling, Sijtho & Noordho, Alphen aan Der Rijn,
The Netherland, 1980.
[24] A.R.S. Ponter, Shakedown and ratcheting below the creep range, Report EUR 8702 EN, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels, 1983.
[25] E. Stein, G. Zhang, J.A. K oonig, Shakedown With Nonlinear Strain Hardening Including Structural Computation Using Finite
Element Methods, PWN-Polish Scientic, Warsaw and Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987.
[26] A.M. Yan, D.H. Nguyen, Kinematical shakedown analysis with temperature-dependent yield stress, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg.
50 (2001) 11451168.
[27] C. Polizzotto, G. Borino, S. Caddemi, P. Fuschi, Theorems of restricted dynamic shakedown, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 35 (9) (1993)
787801.
[28] G. Borino, C. Polizzotto, Dynamic shakedown of structures under repeated seismic loads, J. Engrg. Mech. (1995) 13061314.
[29] M. Janas, S. Pycko, J. Zwolinski, A minmax procedure for the shakedown analysis of skeletal structures, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 37 (6)
(1995) 629643.
[30] Yaung-GAo Zhang, An iteration algorithm for kinematic shakedown analysis, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 127 (1995)
217226.
[31] J. Gro-Wedge, On the numerical assessment of the safety factor of elasticplastic structures under variable loading, Int. J. Mech.
Sci. 39 (4) (1997) 417433.
[32] A.R.S. Ponter, K.F. Karter, Shakedown state simulation techniques based on linear elastic solutions, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Engrg. 140 (1997) 259279.
[33] A.R.S. Ponter, M. Engelhradt, Shakedown limits for a general yield condition: implementation and application for a von Mises
yield condition, Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 19 (2000) 423445.
[34] R.T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.
[35] H. Bleich, Ueber die Bemessung statisch umbestimmter Stanhltragwerke unter Ber uuchsichtigung des elastischplastischen
Verhaltendes Baustoes, Bauingenieur (1932).
[36] E. Melan, Zur Plastizitaat des ra uumlichen continuum, Ing. Arch. 9 (1938) 116126.
[37] W.T. Koiter, A new general theorem on shakedown of elasticplastic structures, Proc. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wet. B 59 (1956)
2434.
[38] M. Capurso, Variational theorems and related methods of solution for the rate problem in elastoplastic solids with singular yield
surface, J. Struct. Mech. 3 (1) (1974).
R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792 5791
[39] Simo, Kennedy, Govindjee, Non-smooth multisurface plasticity and viscoplasticity. Loading/Unloading conditions and numer-
ical algoritms, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg. 26 (1998) 21612185.
[40] G. Garcea, G.A. Truno, R. Casciaro, Mixed formulation and locking in path following nonlinear analysis, Comput. Meth. Appl.
Mech. Engrg. 165 (14) (1998) 247272.
[41] A.R.S. Ponter, G.B. Martin, Some extremal properties and energy theorems for inelastic materials and their relationship to the
deformation theory of plasticity, Int. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20 (5) (1972) 281300.
[42] G. Maier, Upper bounds on dynamic deformations of elastoplastic continua, Meccanica 9 (1974) 3042.
[43] M. Capurso, Some upper bound principles to plastic strain in dynamic shakedown of elastoplastic structures, J. Struct. Mech.
7 (1979) 120.
[44] M. Capurso, L. Corradi, G. Maier, Bounds on deections and displacements in shakedown theory, in: Mateeriaux et Structures
sous Chargment Cyclique, Ass. Amicale des Ingenieurs Ancient Eleeves de E.N.P.C., Paris, 1979, pp. 231244.
5792 R. Casciaro, G. Garcea / Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (2002) 57615792