The subloading surface framework provides advantageous features that conventional plasticity models do not offer when it comes to modelling cyclic behaviour.
In this example, we demonstrate the performance and how to calibrate the Subloading1D model.
We consider a very basic, elastic-perfectly plastic response. We choose a moderate value 400MPa for initial yield stress.
The evolution rate u of yield ratio controls the curvature. A higher value u results in a faster approaching, making the response closer to conventional elastic-perfectly plastic. However, the conventional bi-linear response is not realistic, and the stiffness shows a discontinuity/jump at the yielding point.
The introduction of yield ratio z ensures a controllable smooth transition from the conventional 'elastic' region to the 'plastic' one.
On top of the initial yield stress, a saturation can be added. The response exponentially approaches the saturation stress, this can be accompanied with a linear hardening as well.
Here, we choose a linear hardening modulus 2000MPa, which is 0.1 of elastic modulus. However, this hardening modulus is measured with plastic strain, the total response would present a different slope. We further choose a saturation of 200MPa, so the total stress shall be 600MPa, in absence of linear hardening.
We shall see that misos controls saturation speed.
Similarly, kinematic hardening also saturated to ai. In additional to that, since it is defined that the saturation itself is not a constant, itself can be saturated again. We choose a ai=100MPa with potentially another 150MPa saturation, resulting in 500MPa to 650MPa in total, depending on the configuration.
The original subloading surface model shows excessive plastic strain accumulation under cyclic loading. The extended version addresses such an issue with the assist of the elastic core. It is controlled by $z_e$ and $c_e$, the former controls the size, while the latter controls the rate.
To illustrate, we choose a bilinear hardening model as the basis.