Tresca降伏条件
Theory and Physics
Tresca Yield Condition
Professor, how is the Tresca yield condition different from von Mises?
The Tresca criterion states that yielding occurs when the maximum shear stress reaches a critical value:
It forms a regular hexagon in deviatoric stress space. It is inscribed within the von Mises circle.
Is Tresca more conservative than von Mises?
The Tresca yield surface lies inside the von Mises surface (inscribed hexagon). For the same stress state, Tresca predicts yielding first. Therefore, Tresca is more conservative (safer side). The maximum difference is 15%.
Use in FEM
The Tresca criterion involves complex numerical handling at the corners of the yield surface. In practice, von Mises is overwhelmingly more common. Design codes like ASME BPVC sometimes evaluate using Tresca stress (stress intensity = $\sigma_1 - \sigma_3$).
Summary
Historical Background of the Tresca Criterion
In 1864, Henri Tresca reported to the Paris Academy of Sciences, based on extrusion experiments with lead, iron, and copper, that yielding occurs when the maximum shear stress reaches a material-specific critical value. The criterion formula is (σ₁-σ₃)/2=k (k=τy), forming a hexagonal prism in principal stress space. Saint-Venant (1870) provided the mathematical formulation, laying the foundation for mechanical engineering design in the 19th century.
Physical Meaning of Each Term
- Inertia Term (Mass Term): $\rho \ddot{u}$, meaning "mass × acceleration". Have you ever experienced being thrown forward when slamming on the brakes? That "feeling of being carried away" is precisely the inertial force. Heavier objects are harder to set in motion and harder to stop once moving. Buildings shake during earthquakes because the ground moves suddenly while the building's mass "gets left behind". In static analysis, this term is set to zero, assuming "forces are applied slowly enough that acceleration is negligible". It cannot be omitted for impact loads or vibration problems.
- Stiffness Term (Elastic Restoring Force): $Ku$ or $\nabla \cdot \sigma$. When you pull a spring, you feel a "force trying to return it", right? That's Hooke's law $F=kx$, the essence of the stiffness term. Here's a question — an iron rod and a rubber band, which stretches more under the same force? Obviously the rubber. This "resistance to stretching" is the Young's modulus $E$, which determines stiffness. A common misconception: "high stiffness ≠ strong". Stiffness is "resistance to deformation", strength is "resistance to failure" — different concepts.
- External Force Term (Load Term): Body forces $f_b$ (gravity, etc.) and surface forces $f_s$ (pressure, contact forces, etc.). Think of it this way — the weight of a truck on a bridge is a "force acting on the entire volume" (body force), while the force of the tires pushing on the road is a "force acting only on the surface" (surface force). Wind pressure, water pressure, bolt tightening force... all are external forces. A common pitfall here: getting the load direction wrong. Intending "tension" but ending up with "compression" — sounds like a joke, but it actually happens when coordinate systems are rotated in 3D space.
- Damping Term: Rayleigh damping $C\dot{u} = (\alpha M + \beta K)\dot{u}$. Try plucking a guitar string. Does the sound continue forever? No, it gradually fades. That's because vibrational energy is converted to heat by air resistance and internal friction in the string. Car shock absorbers work on the same principle — intentionally absorbing vibrational energy for a smoother ride. What if damping were zero? Buildings would keep swaying forever after an earthquake. Since that doesn't happen in reality, setting appropriate damping is crucial.
Assumptions and Applicability Limits
- Continuum assumption: Treats material as a continuous medium, ignoring microscopic heterogeneity.
- Small deformation assumption (for linear analysis): Deformation is sufficiently small compared to initial dimensions, and the stress-strain relationship is linear.
- Isotropic material (unless otherwise specified): Material properties are independent of direction (anisotropic materials require separate tensor definitions).
- Quasi-static assumption (for static analysis): Ignores inertial and damping forces, considering only the balance between external and internal forces.
- Non-applicable cases: For large deformation/large rotation problems, geometric nonlinearity is required. For nonlinear material behavior like plasticity or creep, constitutive law extensions are needed.
Dimensional Analysis and Unit Systems
| Variable | SI Unit | Notes / Conversion Memo |
|---|---|---|
| Displacement $u$ | m (meter) | When inputting in mm, unify load and elastic modulus to MPa/N system. |
| Stress $\sigma$ | Pa (Pascal) = N/m² | MPa = 10⁶ Pa. Be careful of unit inconsistency when comparing with yield stress. |
| Strain $\varepsilon$ | Dimensionless (m/m) | Note the distinction between engineering strain and logarithmic strain (for large deformation). |
| Elastic Modulus $E$ | Pa | Steel: ~210 GPa, Aluminum: ~70 GPa. Note temperature dependence. |
| Density $\rho$ | kg/m³ | In mm system: tonne/mm³ (= 10⁻⁹ tonne/mm³ for steel). |
| Force $F$ | N (Newton) | Unify as N in mm system, N in m system. |
Numerical Methods and Implementation
Tresca in FEM
The Tresca criterion has complex Return Mapping at corners. Support in commercial solvers:
- Abaqus: No direct Tresca support (uses von Mises)
- Nastran: No direct Tresca support
- Ansys: von Mises or DP criterion
Is there no dedicated implementation for Tresca?
The difference between von Mises and Tresca is at most 15%. von Mises is sufficient for most problems. If Tresca is needed, implement via user subroutines (UMAT).
Summary
Corner Treatment of Hexagonal Yield Surface
The Tresca yield surface is a hexagonal prism with corners in principal stress space, meaning the normal vector is not uniquely defined when the stress state is near a corner. This is handled by applying Koiter's (1953) corner rule, combining the normals of two adjacent faces. In implementation, approximations like switching Tresca to Drucker-Prager near σ₁≈σ₂ are also used.
Linear Elements (1st Order Elements)
Linear interpolation between nodes. Low computational cost but low stress accuracy. Beware of shear locking (mitigated by reduced integration or B-bar method).
Quadratic Elements (with Mid-side Nodes)
Can represent curved deformation. Stress accuracy improves significantly, but degrees of freedom increase by about 2-3 times. Recommended when stress evaluation is critical.
Full Integration vs Reduced Integration
Full Integration: Risk of over-constraint (locking). Reduced Integration: Risk of hourglass modes (zero-energy modes). Choose appropriately.
Adaptive Mesh
Automatic refinement based on error indicators (e.g., ZZ estimator). Efficiently improves accuracy in stress concentration areas. Includes h-method (element subdivision) and p-method (order increase).
Newton-Raphson Method
Standard method for nonlinear analysis. Updates the tangent stiffness matrix each iteration. Provides quadratic convergence within the convergence radius, but computational cost is high.
Modified Newton-Raphson Method
Updates the tangent stiffness matrix using the initial value or every few iterations. Cost per iteration is low, but convergence is linear.
Convergence Criteria
Force residual norm: $||R|| / ||F_{ext}|| < \epsilon$ (typically $\epsilon = 10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$). Displacement increment norm: $||\Delta u|| / ||u|| < \epsilon$. Energy norm: $\Delta u \cdot R < \epsilon$
Load Increment Method
Applies the total load in small increments rather than all at once. The arc-length method (Riks method) can trace beyond limit points on the load-displacement curve.
Analogy: Direct Method vs Iterative Method
The direct method is like "solving simultaneous equations accurately with pen and paper" — reliable but takes too long for large-scale problems. The iterative method is like "repeatedly guessing to approach the correct answer" — starts with a rough answer but improves accuracy with each iteration. It's the same principle as looking up a word in a dictionary: opening to an estimated page and adjusting forward/backward (iterative) is more efficient than searching sequentially from the first page (direct).
Relationship Between Mesh Order and Accuracy
1st order elements are like "approximating a curve with a ruler" — represented by straight line segments, so accuracy is limited. 2nd order elements are like a "flexible curve" — can represent curved changes, dramatically improving accuracy even at the same mesh density. However, computational cost per element increases, so judge based on total cost-effectiveness.
Practical Guide
Tresca in Practice
ASME BPVC stress classification evaluates using Stress Intensity ($S_I = \sigma_1 - \sigma_3$). This corresponds to the Tresca criterion. Calculate with von Mises in FEM, and also output Stress Intensity in post-processing.
Practical Checklist
Adoption in Pressure Vessel Design Codes
The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Section VIII) uses the Tresca criterion as the basis for design, defining allowable stress as the lesser of 1/3 of tensile strength or 2/3 of yield strength. It has been continuously adopted since the first edition in 1914 and still functions as a standard for regulatory design of oil refinery plants and nuclear pressure vessels.
Analogy: Analysis Flow
The analysis flow is actually very similar to cooking. First, buy ingredients (prepare CAD model), do the prep work (mesh generation), apply heat (solver execution), and finally plate it (visualization in post-processing). Here's an important question — which step in cooking is most prone to failure? Actually, it's the "prep work". If mesh quality is poor, the results will be a mess no matter how good the solver is.
Common Pitfalls for Beginners
Are you checking mesh convergence? Do you think "the calculation ran = the result is correct"? This is actually the most common trap for CAE beginners. The solver will always return "some answer" for the given mesh. But if the mesh is too coarse, that answer can be far from reality. Verify that results stabilize across at least three mesh density levels — neglecting this leads to the dangerous assumption that "the computer gave the answer, so it must be correct".
Thinking About Boundary Conditions
Setting boundary conditions is like "writing the problem statement" for an exam. If the problem statement is wrong? No matter how accurately you calculate, the answer will be wrong. "Is this surface truly fully fixed?" "Is this load truly uniformly distributed?" — Correctly modeling real-world constraints is often the most critical step in the entire analysis.
Software Comparison
Tools
All solvers use von Mises as standard. Tresca stress (Stress Intensity) can be output in post-processing.
Origin of Tresca Yield Rule: 19th Century Metalworking Research
The Tresca yield rule is a maximum shear stress criterion derived by Henri Tresca in 1864 from lead extrusion experiments for the Paris Exposition. It is 7% more conservative than the Mises rule, so ASME Section VIII and EN 13445 (pressure vessel codes) require the safer Tresca rule. In Nastran, stress output options MISES/TRESCA can be switched for comparison, with documented cases where yield pressure for pipe elbow design was evaluated 11% lower.
The Three Most Important Questions for Selection
- "What are you solving?": Does the required physical model/element type for Tresca yield condition have support? For example, for fluids, presence of LES support; for structures, capability for contact/large deformation makes a difference.
- "Who will use it?": For beginner teams, tools with rich GUI are suitable; for experienced users, flexible script-driven tools are better. Similar to the difference between automatic transmission (GUI) and manual transmission (script) in cars.
- "How far will you expand?": Selection considering future analysis scale expansion (HPC support), expansion to other departments, and integration with other tools leads to long-term cost reduction.
Advanced Technology
Advanced
Yield Prediction Difference from von Mises
The Tresca criterion gives τy=σy/2 in pure shear, which is about 15.5% smaller than von Mises' τy=σy/√3. They coincide under equibiaxial tension (σ₁=σ₂). In pure shear tests, von Mises is often closer to experimental values, while Tresca gives conservative (safer side) predictions.
Troubleshooting
Troubles
Dealing with Convergence Issues at Corners
When solving the Tresca model with FEM, convergence can fail when principal stresses are nearly equal (Lode
Related Topics
なった
詳しく
報告