Material Systems - A Framework

f or the Description of Material Behavior

ALBRECHT BERTRAM
Communicated by D. OWEN
Cont e nt s
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2. Material Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3. The State Space of Material Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4. Material Isomorphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5. Material Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6. Inverse Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7. Uniform Structures on the State Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8. NOLL'S Material Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
9. Example: Rigid-Plastic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
1. I nt roduct i on
In the last few decades, renewed interest in the phenomenological description
of anelastic material behavior has resulted in the proposal of many different
constitutive theories, and two basic approaches to the formulation of such theo-
ries have emerged. The first requires that one introduce variables apart from the
configuration and stress in order to describe the state of a material element. These
additional variables are called "internal" or "hi dden" (state) variables. Their
values are determined by an "evolution function" which in most cases enters into
an ordinary differential equation. A shortcoming of this approach is that these
variables, unlike deformation and stress, do not have a physical meaning which
is the same for all materials. Given the results of experiments on a single material,
it may not be clear how to choose the internal variables, and it is not always
the case that a finite number of internal variables suffice to determine the state
of a material element. The second approach requires that one specify "consti-
tutive functionals" defined on "histories", i.e., functions depending upon all past
values of a deformation process, instead of the present deformation alone. Apart
from the fact that we will never have complete knowledge of the entire history
100 A. BERTRAM
of a material, t here is good reason to assert t hat this appr oach describes onl y a
rest ri ct ed class of materials ~, namely, t hose with fadi ng memor y; classical de-
scriptions of plastic materials are not in this class. ~
These t wo appr oaches t o the descri pt i on of anelastic behavi or were rel at ed
by NOEL in his "new t heor y of simple mat eri al s", publ i shed in 1972. This t heor y
represent s an i mpor t ant step t owards establishing a satisfactory general frame-
wor k f or t he descri pt i on of anelastic behavior. I have chosen NOEL'S t heor y as
a st art i ng poi nt f or the present one*, al t hough I have had t o ext end it in or der
t o include non-revert i bl e materials (such as agi ng ones) and non-mechani cal
behavi or (t hermodynami cs, electrodynamics), and t o describe non-classical
const rai nt s. In worki ng out the present t heory, I have at t empt ed t o begin with
empi ri cal ( "nat ur al ") not i ons, such as time, stress, ahd def or mat i on, and t o
avoi d concept s i nt r oduced as purel y mat hemat i cal formalisms.
As a result, this f r amewor k f or the descri pt i on of mat eri al behavi or is mor e
general and simpler t han NOEL'S and covers essentially all t he known theories
of mat eri al s such as "i nt er nal vari abl es" (see Section 3) as well as NOEL'S new
"si mpl e mat eri al s" (Section 8). Because NOEL' S ol d "si mpl e mat eri al s", i . e .
t he semi-elastic ones, are i ncl uded in his "new t heor y", t hey also have a definite
pl ace within t he present t heor y, and, hence, I can describe many well-known
classes of mat eri al s: elastic, visco-elastic, hypo-elastic, plastic, and agi ng materials
( e . g . concret e). By i dent i fyi ng variables in an appr opr i at e way, one can appl y
t he present concept s t o t hermo- and el ect rodynami c materials ~ ; even appl i cat i ons
out si de physics may be considered.
I n or der t o describe i nformal l y the concept of a "mat er i al syst em", I consi der
an ar bi t r ar y number of (homogeneous) samples of a mat eri al t o be studied and
i magi ne carryi ng out (configuration-) processes f or these samples, i . e . t raj ect ori es
in t he space of the i ndependent variables, or configurations. The set of all processes
t hat may be per f or med with a cert ai n material is called the class of processes of
t he mat eri al system. Each such process is assumed t o det ermi ne the values of
cert ai n dependent variables, or effects (stresses, energy-flux, electric-current, f or
example). The rel at i onshi p bet ween processes and effects is expressed by means
of a material function. A class of processes and a mat eri al funct i on defined on
it const i t ut e a material system. The bul k of this paper deals with t he pr obl em
of compar i ng and classifying material systems.
Mat eri al systems can be t r ansf or med i nt o new ones whose propert i es may be
distinct f r om t he original systems. The idea of t ransformi ng a mat eri al system
leads t o a deri ved concept of state. Fol l owi ng a suggestion of ONAT, we i nt r oduce
states as equivalence classes of processes, a pr ocedur e which stems f r om systems
t heory.
NOEL now calls them "semi-elastic".
~ However, OWEN has shown that many features of classical models for plastic
behavior arise naturally for materials with memory which possess an "elastic range".
Another framework for describing materials is that of COLEMAN & OWEN WhO
gave much emphasis to a general formulation of the laws of thermodynamics. This work
gave me much inspiration, although I have not yet worked out a thermodynamical
theory within the present context.
~'~ See BERTRAM (1) p. 146f.
Material Systems 101
The concept of mat er i al isomorphy, i nt r oduced in Sect i on 4, is a t ool f or com-
par i ng t wo mat er i al syst ems and f or deci di ng whet her or not t hey descri be t he
same mat er i al behavi or ; i f t hey do t hey bel ong t o the same material.
Al t hough f or mal l y qui t e similar, the concept of mat eri al symmet r y (Sect i on 5)
pl ays a di fferent rol e: i t classifies a mat er i al syst em accor di ng t o i nvar i ance
pr oper t i es under cert ai n s ymmet r y t r ansf or mat i ons. We obt ai n a nat ur al di st i nc-
t i on bet ween t wo classes of s ymmet r y t r ans f or mat i ons : one f or ms a semi - gr oup
under composi t i on; it cont ai ns t he ot her col l ect i on of t r ansf or mat i ons, which
f or ms a group.
These t wo concept s are due t o NOEL and have been r ef or mul at ed f or t he pre-
sent t heory. They t ur n out t o be si mpl er and mor e compr ehensi ve t han in NOEL'S
work.
The pr esent t heor y differs f r om ot hers in its t r eat ment of i nt ernal constraints,
i.e., rest ri ct i ons on t he class of processes (for exampl e, on t he admi ssi bl e con-
figurations). As a consequence, the effects cannot be consi dered as bei ng det er-
mi ned by t he process. The fol l owi ng di agr ams i l l ust rat e this possi bi l i t y; in t hem,
e is an appr opr i at e i ndependent var i abl e (a process par amet er ) and a a dependent
var i abl e (an effect par amet er ) . Fi gure 1 shows the behavi or of a mat er i al due t o
Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
a uni l at eral const rai nt . ~ Thi s coul d be an elastic mat eri al rei nforced by i next ensi bl e
fibres t hat have no stiffness under compr essi on, such as textile cords or t hi n
steel wires. Fi gure 2 represent s the charact eri st i c curve of an ideal di ode (e =
vol t age, a ---- current ). I t shows the s omewhat unpl easant pr oper t y of pr ecl udi ng
a gl obal f unct i onal dependance bot h of tr on e and of e on a. Fi gure 3 descri bes
a classical const r ai nt : one process par amet er is fixed, one effect pa r a me t e r is
undet er mi ned. An exampl e of this t ype of const r ai nt is i ncompressi bi l i t y: e is
a densi t y- par amet er , and a the pressure.
I n or der t o descri be const rai nt s of these t ypes, we use here mat er i al rel at i ons
i nst ead of funct i ons. Such a mat er i al rel at i on maps each process i nt o a set of
effects. The val ues of mat er i al funct i ons are assumed t o be non- empt y, cl osed
subsets of the space of the dependent vari abl es. Onl y i f all val ues of a mat er i al
f unct i on are singletons is t he mat er i al free of const rai nt s. Thi s appr oach has t wo
mai n advant ages. Fi r st of all, we can mai nt ai n the principle o f determinism in
a slightly modi fi ed versi on: The process det ermi nes t he set o f al l possi bl e effects.
~ " PRAGER and FICHERA have studied unilateral constraints.
102 A. BERTRAM
Secondl y, a s omewhat ar bi t r ar y di st i nct i on bet ween react i ons and const i t ut i ve
effects is avoi ded. Thi s saves us f r om havi ng t o ent er discussions on whet her or
not t he react i ons pr oduce ent r opy or e ne r gy)
The t hree exampl es above l ead t o the quest i on of whet her or not t here is a
canoni cal scheme f or i dent i fyi ng i ndependent and dependent variables. The char-
acteristic curve of Fi gure 1 can be descri bed as a funct i on e(a) but not as a funct i on
a(e). Fi gure 2 does not admi t t o a funct i onal r epr esent at i on of ei t her type. How-
ever, i f we empl oy set -val ued funct i ons, the t hree exampl es may be descri bed as
mat er i al funct i ons in bot h directions. I t is not al ways possi bl e to exchange t he
dependent and i ndependent vari abl es, and in Section 6 we will est abl i sh condi t i ons
necessary and sufficient for this pr oper t y of mat er i al systems. There we i nt roduce
a descri pt i on of mat eri al behavi or by const i t ut i ve rel at i ons which is equi val ent
t o t he one used in earlier sections of this paper.
The r eader who is onl y i nt erest ed in unconst r ai ned mat eri al s may omi t Sec-
t i on 6 and r egar d t he mat er i al funct i ons as bei ng single-valued f or the entire paper.
He who f avor s the classical di st i nct i on bet ween react i ons and const i t ut i ve effects
ma y r egar d the mat eri al funct i on as bei ng single-valued and as det ermi ni ng onl y
t he const i t ut i ve par t of t he effects (what ever this may be).
I n Sect i on 7 we ext end NOEL'S met hod of const ruct i ng " na t ur a l " uni f or m and
t opol ogi cal st ruct ures on the state space t o t he case of set -val ued funct i ons. These
st ruct ures are necessary in order t o define rel axat i on pr oper t i es of mat eri al sys-
t ems.
Thi s t heor y rests, as was ment i oned above, on NOEL'S new t heor y of si mpl e
mat eri al s. To illustrate this poi nt , we define in Section 8 a subclass of our mat eri al
syst ems which are essentially NOEL'S si mpl e mat eri al s.
Because NOEL and ot hers ~ ~ have discussed many exampl es of special mat eri al s,
I give here onl y one exampl e of a class of mat eri al s, namel y the rigid-plastic ones.
Al t hough quite wel l -known and r at her simple, these mat eri al s do not fit i nt o any
of t he usual t heoret i cal f r amewor ks. The reader who is i nt erest ed in mor e exampl es,
especially ones i nvol vi ng const rai nt s, is referred to my doct oral t hesi s. g~
2. Material Systems
Let J - be a fi ni t e-di mensi onal real l i near space and Y-* its dual. We call Y
the space of dependent variables and ~--* t he space of independent variables.
We will l at er make use of t he fact t hat these spaces are endowed wi t h a st andar d
t opol ogy and uni f or mi t y which renders addi t i on and scal ar mul t i pl i cat i on uni-
f or ml y cont i nuous operat i ons. I t is not post ul at ed t hat these spaces are endowed
wi t h an i nner pr oduct or a nor m.
In BERTRAM (2) I showed that properties of this kind are material properties and
do not obey a general principle. See GREEN, NAGHDI TRAPP, ANDREUSSI & PODIO
GUIDUGLI, GURTIN & PODIO GUIDUGLI, BERTRAM & HAUPT, ALTS.
g~ See DEE PIERO, SILHAVY & KRATOCHV[L.
~$$ BERTRAM (1).
Mat eri al Systems 103
Exampl es: I f we assume t hat t he body ~' is a differentiable mani fol d, we may consider
at each poi nt XE ~ t he t angent space ~J-x ~ and its dual space 3-*~' , called t he co-
t angent space; bot h spaces lack a canoni cal inner product . Fol l owi ng NOLLe, we define
an intrinsic confi gurat i on of XE ~' t o be a linear symmet ri c positive-definite mappi ng
G: J ' x ~ ~ 3"*~' . We denot e the set of all linear mappi ngs f r om J ' x ~ i nt o 3- *~'
by t he t ensor pr oduct J - * ~ | ~- *~. Accordi ng t o NOLL, t he stresses are described
by linear symmet ri c mappi ngs S: ~ r ~ ~ ~ x M, i.e. by elements of t he space
~- x ~' | J ' x ~, whi ch is defined anal ogousl y. Thus, in purely mechani cal theories, we
can make t he identifications 3-* _: ~ ' * ~ | g - * ~ and 3- = ~ x ~ | 3- x~.
This intrinsic description in mechani cal theories can be extended t o ot her physical
theories by maki ng t he following identifications:
(i) t he t emperat ure and t he internal energy are real number s;
(ii) t he t emperat ure gradient, the el ect romot i ve intensity, and t he magnet i c i nduct i on
are covectors, i.e. elements of ~ * ~ ;
(iii) t he electric current, the pol ari zat i on, t he magnetization, and t he energy flux are
t angent vectors, i.e. elements of J ' x M. Thus we can identify t he space of dependent
variables in cont i nuum physics by
3- ~ I ~ X J r x ~ X ~ x ~ X J - x ~ X 3 - x ~ X 3-x ~ | 3 " x ~ ,
and the space of all independent variables by
~r , --- a~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~-~.~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ | ~-~.~.
Here denotes t he Cart esi an product . (We can always replace given sets wi t h "l ar ger "
spaces in order t o obt ai n linear spaces and t he dual i t y between ~- and ~-*.)
A ( conf i gur at i on) pr oces s is a ma p p i n g o f a cl osed (t i me-) i nt er val i nt o t he
space o f i nde pe nde nt var i abl es.
Defi ni t i on. Let d be a non- ne ga t i ve numbe r . A process of duration d is a ma p p i n g
P : [0, d] - - > 3- *. The val ues o f P ar e cal l ed configurations.
Wh e n we deal wi t h mo r e t ha n one pr ocess, we use t he s ame subscr i pt f o r b o t h
a pr oces s a n d its dur a t i on. A pr oces s o f zer o d u r a t i o n is cal l ed a null process.
I f P1 a n d P2 ar e t wo pr ocesses, a n d t her e hol ds Pl ( d l ) = P2(0), we defi ne t he
composition o f P~ a nd P2 by
( Pl ( t ) , i f t --~ d l ,
P 2 o P I
[ P2( t - - d~), i f dl - < t : ~ (d~ -k d2).
Cl ear l y, c ompos i t i on is a n o n - c o mmu t a t i v e b u t associ at i ve o p e r a t i o n :
Pa ~ (P2 ~ P1) = (Pa ~ P2) ~ P~. I f P3 = P2 o P1, we cal l P1 a nd P2 segments o f
Pa, Pz a cont i nuat i on o f P~, a n d P~ a subpr ocess o f Pa.
Definition. A class of processes is a set ~ o f pr ocesses whi ch satisfies t he f ol l owi ng
f o u r c ondi t i ons :
(P1) ~ is n o t e mp t y ;
The intrinsic description is given in mor e detail in Section 9.
104 A. BERTRAM
(P2) all processes have the same initial value, i.e., P1, P2 C .~ ~ PI ( 0) : P2(0);
(P3) all subprocesses of processes of ~ are agai n in ~ ;
(P4) f or each process P~ E ~ t here exists a cont i nuat i on P2 of non- zer o dur at i on
such t hat P2 ~ P~ E ~' .
Examples for classes of processes are:
(i) t he set of all constant processes with a preassigned initial value and arbitrary dura-
tion;
(ii) the set of all processes with a preassigned initial value and arbitrary duration;
(iii) the set of all processes with a preassigned initial value and with durations smaller
than a given positive number;
(iv) the set of all r-times continuously differentiable processes with a preassigned initial
value.
We not e t hat each class of processes cont ai ns a uni que null process.
The l ast pri mi t i ve concept of this t heor y is t hat of a const i t ut i ve funct i on.
Definition. Let ,~ be the set of all non- empt y closed subsets of ~' , called the s e t
o f ef f ect s. A cons t i t ut i ve f unct i on F is a mappi ng F: # - + 6 ~. F( P) is called t he
ef f ect o f P.
As was expl ai ned in the I nt r oduct i on, f or unconst r ai ned systems, F is al ways
si ngl e-val ued, i.e. t he range of F is a subset of the set of singletons f or med f r om
el ement s of g- . For const r ai ned syst ems the values of F may have many el ement s.
Thi s concept saves us f r om maki ng ar bi t r ar y distinctions bet ween const i t ut i ve
effects and react i ons.
Definition. Let g - be a fi ni t e-di mensi onal real l i near space wi t h dual space J - *,
let ~ be a class of processes wi t h val ues in ~--*, and let F be a const i t ut i ve funct i on
defi ned on ~ wi t h val ues in 8, the set of all closed, non- empt y subsets of ~'-.
The triple MS : = ( J - , ~ , F) is called a mat e r i al s ys t em.
The rest of this paper is concerned with i nvest i gat i ng the pr oper t i es of mat eri al
systems.
3. The St a t e Spa c e o f Ma t e r i a l Sy s t e ms
Let X and Y be sets, let Xo be a subset of X, and let f be a funct i on f r om X
i nt o Y. We denot e the rest ri ct i on o f f t o Xo by f ] xo.
Tr a ns f o r ma t i o n The o r e m 3. 1. Le t MS = (~'-, ~ , F) be a mat eri al s ys t em and
P r be a process in ~ wi t h durat i on dr. Then we can t ransf orm MS into a new
mat er i al s ys t em MS ' in a nat ural way by set t i ng
MS ' : (3-, ~ ' , F' ) ,
~ ' : = ( P' ] P' is process such t hat P' o PTC ~},
F' ( P' ) : = F( p ' o Pr ) f or all P' C ~ ' .
Material Systems 105
It is easy to verify that, for all Pr in ~ MS ' really is a material system. It
is called the system MS t r ans f or me d by Pr. We introduce the t r ans f or mat i on
f unc t i on HMs, which maps the transformation process Pr E ~ into the system
transformed by Pr. Let J / be the range of HMs, i.e. the set of material systems
that can be obtained from MS in this way. Then HMs : ~ ~ d/ is surjective;
in general it fails to be injective. In order to remove this shortcoming, we introduce
the notion of state. This is done by defining an equivalence relation on the class
of processes.
De f i ni t i on. Let MS = ( ~, ~, F) be a material system and P1, P2 be in ~.
We call P1 equivalent to /' 2, and write P1 "~ P2, if MS transformed by P1
equals MS transformed by P2, i.e., P1 "~ P2 <::> HMs(PI) = HMs(P2). We call
the equivalence classes under --~ states; the collection of all states forms the s t a t e
s pac e .o~ e of MS. The processes that are equivalent to the (unique) null process
of ~ are called cyclic processes; their equivalence class is the initial state.
It is obvious that the relation ,.,o really is an equivalence relation. The physical
interpretation of this definition is the following: two states of a material system are
the same if and only if they cannot be distinguished by performing any process
whatsoever and comparing the effects. In order to illustrate this concept, we give
two examples.
Example 1. We define two processes PI and P2 to be similar if there exists a monotone
bijection c,: [0, dl] ~ [0, d2], such that P1 =/ ' 2 " c~. A material system is said to
be rate-independent if similar processes are equivalent. Roughly speaking, such systems
cannot distinguish between two processes that trace out a single trajectory of configura-
tions at different rates.
A subset of the class of rate-independent material systems is the class of el asti c
systems; for elastic systems, two processes are equivalent if they end at the same con-
figuration.
Example 2 (aging systems). Two types of aging occur for these material systems: kine-
matic aging and response aging. The first may be obtained by non-stationary constraints
(see BERTRAM ( 1 ) ) and is described by requiring that certain segments of processes can
be performed at one time but not at another. However, in the present theory response
aging is of more interest. Let ~ be a non-empty subset of the non-negative reals which is
bounded above by the supremum of the durations of all processes of the class of processes
(including oo). A material system is defined to be response aging at times in ~ if equiv-
alent processes Pi with at least one duration d iE ~ have the same duration. For re-
sponse aging systems with 0 E ~ there is obviously no cyclic process other than the
null process. An example of response aging is the hardening of concrete, caused by
time-dependent chemical reactions taking place in the material.
We define the effect at a state to be the effect of any transformation process
from the equivalence class of that state; that effect is equal to the effect of the null
process of the transformed material system. The assignment of effects to states is
formalized by means of an out put f unct i on f or t he ef f ect s of states E: ~e __> g.
The dot placed between the symbols for two mappings denotes composition.
106 A. BERTRAM
We defi ne t he conf i gur at i on o f a st at e t o be t he final val ue o f any t r a ns f or ma -
t i on pr ocess f r o m its equi val ence class. By anal ogy, we i nt r oduce t he out put
f unct i on f or t he conf i gur at i ons o f st at es G: ~ - + J ' * .
A quite similar appr oach is the method of preparation suggested by BRIDGMAN
and detailed by GILES, PERZYNA, and PERZYNA & KOSINSKI. Their basic idea can easily
be described in this context.
Let MS = (3-, ~, F) be a material system, Po a process and
~' (Po) : = ( PC ~' I Po o PE #},
i.e. t he set of all processes in ~' t hat can be cont i nued by Po. Of course, this set may be
empt y. I n general, i f PI and P2 are in ~(Po), we cannot expect t hat F(Po o P~) equal
F(Po o P2) unless P1 and P2 are equivalent, and hence represent the same state. I n this
case we may say t hat P1 and P2 correspond t o the same "met hod of preparat i on".
" Two states or met hods of preparat i on need not be distinguished i f t hey are equivalent
in respect of any prediction which might be made- - t hat is, if t hey correspond t o the
same assertion concerning t he result of any experiment which might be performed on
the syst em. " (GILES, p. 17.) This concept of state coincides essentially with mine here.
The f ol l owi ng t he or e m is a cons equence o f a wel l - known t he or e m on t he
" n a t u r a l f u n c t i o n " o f an equi val ence r el at i on, i.e., t he f unc t i on whi ch ma ps each
pr oces s i nt o its equi val ence class.
The o r e m 3. 2. Le t MS = (~-', ~ , F) be a mat eri al s ys t em wi t h t ransf ormat i on
f unct i on HMS, l et ~ l : = HMS( ~) , l et ~ be t he st at e space o f MS , and l et o~
be t he nat ural f unct i on o f ~ . Then t here exi st s a uni que bi j ect i on i such t hat i . ~o(P)
= HMs ( P) f o r al l P E ~ ; t he f ol l owi ng di agram is t hen commut at i ve:
HMs
Fig. 4
Ac c o r d i n g t o t hi s t he or e m it is equi val ent t o t al k ei t her a b o u t mat er i al s ys t ems
t r a ns f or me d by a cer t ai n pr oces s P r or a b o u t t he s ys t em bei ng i n t he st at e ~o(Pr).
The l at t er poi nt o f vi ew is of t en si mpl er, becaus e i n ma n y cases onl y a fi ni t e
n u mb e r o f pa r a me t e r s ( i nt er nal vari abl es) det er mi ne t he st at e compl et el y.
I f MS = (~--, ~ , F) is t r a ns f or me d by P r i nt o MS" = ( J- , ~ ' , F' ) , it is
obvi ous t ha t
~,/l : : HMS( ~) ~ al l ' : = HMS' ( ~' ) .
I t is qui t e r eas onabl e by means o f t he bi j ect i on i bet ween d / a n d 5( t o i dent i f y
t he st at es i n t he f ol l owi ng ma n n e r :
i~llS " HMS( P" ~ PT) ~ i ~ , " HMs' ( P' ) f or all P ' ff ~ ' .
F o r t he st at e spaces t her e f ol l ows ~ ) ~ ' .
Material Systems 107
Example. There are theories of granular media (dry sand, etc.) that permit only defor-
mations which evolve towards a critical density, i.e., only dilatative or compressive chang-
es can occur when the actual density is below or above the critical one, respectively.
This is a nonstationary unilateral constraint t hat makes the system age kinematicaUy.
The set of densities which are accessible via continuations of a process is a non-increasing
function of the number of continuations.
I t is i nt erest i ng t o ask under what condi t i ons ~e, is i dent i cal t o ~ . Thi s quest i on
leads t o t he fol l owi ng concept .
Definition. Let MS ---- (~--, ~ , F) be a mat er i al syst em and P E ~ . P is cal l ed
revertible i f t here is a cyclic process in ~ t hat cont ai ns P as a sub-process.
I n ot her words, one can compl et el y undo t he t r ans f or mat i on by a revert i bl e
process by means of anot her t r ans f or mat i on process whi ch ret urns t he syst em
t o its initial state. The fol l owi ng pr oposi t i ons are easy t o verify.
Proposition 3.3. Let .~e be the st at e space of a mat er i al system, and let . ~' be the
st at e space of MS ' = HMs(P) f or any P E :~. P is revert i bl e i f and onl y i f
Proposition 3. 4. Equi val ent processes are all revert i bl e or all non-revert i bl e.
Proposition 3. 5. A process P3 = P2 o p~ is revert i bl e wi t h respect t o a mat er i al
syst em MS i f and onl y i f P1 is revert i bl e wi t h respect t o MS and P2 is revert i bl e
wi t h respect t o HMs(P~).
Ever y class of processes cont ai ns at l east one revert i bl e process, t he nul l
process. Mor e general l y, every cyclic process is revert i bl e. I t may happen t hat
all processes in a cert ai n class of processes are revertible. We call such a mat er i al
syst em revert i bl e. I n light of Pr oposi t i on 3.5 we concl ude t hat revert i bl e syst ems
can onl y be t r ans f or med i nt o revert i bl e systems. However , t here are non- r ever t i bl e
syst ems whi ch can be t r ans f or med i nt o non- r ever t i bl e or i nt o revert i bl e systems.
The fol l owi ng pr oposi t i on clarifies the r el at i on bet ween revert i bi l i t y and agi ng
of mat er i al systems.
Proposition 3. 6. Response agi ng mat er i al syst ems are non-revert i bl e.
Pr oof . As s ume t l l at a mat er i al syst em is r esponse agi ng at a t i me t ~ 0 a nd
revert i bl e. Then t here exists a process P1 wi t h dl = t, and t here is a cont i nuat i on
P2 of P1 such t hat P2 ~ P~ is a cyclic process. P2 ~ P~ can be cont i nued by P1,
and P~ o P2 o p1 is equi val ent t o P~. Because t he dur at i on of P1 o P2 ~ Pt is
gr eat er t han the dur at i on d~ of Pt , these processes cannot be equi val ent , and t he
pr opos i t i on is pr oved f or the case t =# 0.
The second possi bi l i t y is t hat MS ages at t = 0. Thi s means t hat t here is
no cyclic process ot her t han t he nul l process. Accordi ngl y, no process of non- zer o
dur at i on ma y be cont i nued t o a cyclic process. By Axi om P4 t here exists at l east
10 8 A. BERTRAM
one c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t he nul l pr oc e s s , a n d t hi s c o n t i n u a t i o n yi el ds a n o n - r e v e r t i b l e
pr oc e s s f or MS . The r e f or e , M S is n o n - r e v e r t i b l e ; q. e. d.
On t he o t h e r h a n d , one c a n c o n s t r u c t n o n - r e v e r t i b l e s ys t ems t h a t a r e n o t
a gi ng. Th u s t he a gi ng s ys t ems a r e a p r o p e r s ubs e t o f t he n o n - r e v e r t i b l e ones.
Th e f ol l owi ng de f i ni t i ons a r e mo t i v a t e d by NOLL' S t h e o r y a n d a r e o f i mp o r t a n c e
i n e s t a bl i s hi ng t he r e l a t i o n be t we e n t h a t t h e o r y a n d t he pr e s e nt one.
Def i ni t i on. Le t z C ~ be a s t at e o f a ma t e r i a l s ys t e m MS . We d e n o t e by ~ z
t he cl as s o f pr oc e s s e s o f t he s ys t em i(z), a n d def i ne
(:~, ~) := ((z, P) Iz ~ ~, P E ~z}.
We call the function 0: (~, ~) --+ =@edefined by ~(z, P) ---- ~oi(2)(P) the evolution
function for MS. Here, ~oi(z ) denotes the natural function of the material system
i(z) which maps each process in ~ into the corresponding state of the system
i(z).
Fo r a gi ven mat er i al syst em it is of t en desi r abl e t o fi nd a conveni ent r epr esent at i on
f or i t s st at es. I n general , t her e ar e many such r epr esent at i ons. I t may happen t hat t he
st at es can be r epr esent ed by a sequence of r eal number s, or even by a finite set of real s,
but o f cour se t hi s is not al ways assured. Let us now consi der mat er i al systems t hat have
t he f ol l owi ng pr oper t i es :
1) t he st at e space can be r epr esent ed by an open subset of a fi ni t e-di mensi onal l i near
space, and
2) t he evol ut i on funct i on can be f or mul at ed i ncrement i al l y, i.e. by a first or der differen-
t i al equat i on in t i me
= ~ ( z , d)
and, i f necessary, by a mechani sm t hat assures a uni que sol ut i on as an i nt egral al ong
a conf i gur at i on process st ar t i ng at a cert ai n i ni t i al state.
By choosi ng a basi s in t he st at e space, t he st at e can be r epr esent ed by a cert ai n
number of component s ( a l , ~2 . . . . ). I t is al ways possi bl e t o do t hi s i n a way t hat c~1
t o %, ar e t he component s of t he confi gurat i on. We cal l t he rest of t he st at e par amet er s
%,+1, ~ + 2 . -- internal or hidden variables.
Al t hough t he t wo assumpt i ons ar e r at her rest ri ct i ve, t her e ar e many appl i cat i ons
o f t hi s t heor y in t he l i t er at ur e on vi scoel ast i ci t y, hypoel ast i ci t y, pl ast i ci t y, and t her mo-
dynami cs. I n most cases t he space of t he i nt er nal var i abl es is real and fi ni t e-di mensi onal .
4. Mat e r i al I s omor phy
I n t hi s s e c t i on we s hal l i nve s t i ga t e i s o mo r p h i s ms be t we e n ma t e r i a l syst ems.
I n d o i n g so, we gi ve a pr e c i s e me a n i n g t o t he n o t i o n t h a t t wo s ys t ems e xhi bi t
t he s a me phys i c a l be ha vi or .
Le t MS , = (3--1, ~ , , F , ) a n d MS2 = ( 3- 2, ~ 2 , F2) be ma t e r i a l s ys t ems .
Fi r s t , J - 1 a n d ~'-2 a r e i s o mo r p h i c i f a n d onl y i f t he y ha ve t he s a me d i me n s i o n .
I s o mo r p h i s ms o f ve c t or s paces ar e, o f cour s e, l i ne a r bi j e c t i ons ; we s hal l d e n o t e t he
c o l l e c t i o n o f t hes e i s o mo r h i s ms by I s o ( ~' 1, 3- 2) . I f A E I s o (~J--1, ~--2), i t f ol l ows
Material Systems 109
t hat t he adj oi nt A*, t he inverse A -1, and the inverse of A*, A- *, satisfy t he rela-
t i ons
A* E Iso (~-*, ~- *) ,
A -~ E Iso (3-2, Y-O,
a - * c Iso (:*, :~).
Ther ef or e, we may t ake f or the i somorphi sms bet ween classes of processes t he
mappi ngs i nduced by elements A- * of Iso (~'-*, 3"*). The i somorphi sms of the
effects are t he elements A of Iso (5"1, ~d'-2).
I f we identify 3- as in Section 2, then A may physically be interpreted as being in-
duced by an identification of the tangent vectors in one tangent space to those in a
second tangent space.
The fol l owi ng results are i mmedi at e consequences of these definitions.
Proposition 4. 1. Let P be a process with values in ~-'~', and let A E Iso ( Y, , 3-2).
Then A-*(P) is a process wi t h values in ~--*. I f # , is a class of processes wi t h
values in ~--~', t hen A- * ( # I ) is a class of processes with values in #-~'. I f P 2 ~ PI
is a process wi t h values in ~Y-*, t hen
A- *( P2 o P~) = A- *( P2) o A-*(P, ).
Detinition. Two mat eri al systems MS, = (.Y-~, ~ , F1) and M S z = ( 9 " - 2 , " ~ 2 , 1;'2)
are called mat eri al l y isomorphie (relative t o A), i f there exists a mappi ng A such
t hat
(I1) A E Iso (3"~, : 2 ) ,
(I2) ~2 = A- * ( # , ) ,
03) F2" A-*(P) = A. F~(P) f or all P E # , .
I n or der t o show t hat this defi ni t i on is symmet ri c in the t wo mat eri al systems
we veri fy t hat MS2 and MS, are mat eri al l y i somor phi c (relative t o A -1) when-
ever t he condi t i ons of t he definition hold. Fi rst we have
(I1)' A- i E ISO (~-2, 6~1),
as al ready ment i oned. Appl yi ng A* f r om t he left t o equat i on (I2) yields
(I2)" #~ ---- A*( ~2) .
By subst i t ut i ng P = A*( P' ) in (I3) and by appl yi ng A -1 f r om the left we get
(I3)' F, 9 A*( P' ) = A -~ 9 F2(P' ) f or all P' E ~2-
The fol l owi ng t heor em shows t hat i somorphi sms really preserve t he detailed
st ruct ure of mat eri al systems.
1 10 A. BERTRAM
The o r e m 4.2. A material isomorphism maps
a) equivalent processes into equivalent ones,
b) cyclic processes into cyclic ones,
c) revertible processes into revertible ones,
d) non-revertible processes into non-revertible ones.
Pr o o f . a) Empl oyi ng t he definition of t r ansf or med systems and the i somor phy
condi t i ons I 1- I 3, one can easily verify t hat , f or each PE ~ , A is a mat eri al
i somor phi sm bet ween MS~ :-~ HMs~(P) and MS2 :---- HMs~(A-*(P)). Let P1, P2
in ~ be equi val ent f or MS~, so t hat HMsl(P~) equals HMsl(P2), and each of these
t r ansf or med systems is i somorphi c t o the systems Hus~(A-*(P~))and H~ts~(A-*(P2))
relative t o A. This can onl y be the case when these systems are equal, t oo. Hence
A-*(P~) and A-*(P2) are equivalent.
b) I f A is a mat eri al i somorphi sm bet ween MSI and MS2, t hen A- * maps t he
null process of ~1 i nt o the null process of ~2. Because a process is cyclic i f and
onl y i f it is equi val ent t o the null process, result (a) implies (b).
c) I f P~ is a revertible process of MSI, t hen t here is a cyclic process P o P~ in
~ . By b), A- *( P o P x ) = A - * ( / ~ ) o A-*(P~) is a cyclic process in ~2 which
cont ai ns A-*(PI) as a subprocess, and is t herefore revertible.
d) Assume t hat P is non-revert i bl e and A-*(P) is revertible. By the symmet r y
pr oper t y of the definition of mat eri al i somor phy ment i oned above, the inverse
mat eri al i somor phy maps the revertible process A-*(P) i nt o the non-revert i bl e
one P. Thi s cont radi ct s c), and hence A-*(P) must be non-revert i bl e; q. e. d.
We now make precise the st at ement t hat t wo mat eri al elements are composed
of t he same mat eri al :
Definition. Two mat eri al systems are called m-equivalent i f each system can be
t r ansf or med by a suitably chosen revertible process, so t hat the t wo resulting mat e-
rial systems are mat eri al l y i somorphi c. Each equivalence class under t he rel at i on
of m-equivalence is called a material.
Pr o po s i t i o n 4 . 3 . m-equivalence is an equivalence rel at i on on the set of all material
systems.
Pr o o f . a) The symmet r y of the rel at i on is obvious.
b) To veri fy reflexivity, one can t ake bot h revertible processes t o be t he null
process and the mat eri al i somorphi sm t o be the i dent i t y on J - .
c) In or der t o pr ove transitivity of m-equivalence, let MS1 and MS 2 be m-equiv-
alent. Ther e t hen exist revertible processes P1 E ~ 1 and P 2 E ~i~2 and an iso-
mor phi sm A E Iso (5"1, J ' 2) such t hat HMs~(P~) and HMs,(P2 ) are mat eri al l y iso-
mor phi c relative t o A. Similarly, let MS2 and MSa be m-equivalent, and choose
P2 E ~2 and Pa E ~a , bot h revertible, and A' E Iso (J-2, 3"a), such t hat H~4s~(P2)
and HMs3(P3) are mat eri al l y i somorphi c relative t o A' . Recall t hat P2 is revertible
i f and onl y i f P2 is a subprocess of a cyclic process Po ~ P2- This may be cont i nued
by any process in ~2, in part i cul ar, by P2. The process P~ o Po ~ P2 is also revertible
Material Systems 1 11
and equi val ent t o P2 rel at i ve t o MS 2. By Theor em 4.2, P2 ~ P0 is revert i bl e if,
and onl y i f A*(P2 ~ Po) ~ P1 is revert i bl e (for MS~). I f HMs~(P1) is mat er i al l y
i somor phi c to HMs2(P2) rel at i ve t o A, t hen HMsI(A*(P2 o Po) ~ P1) is mat er i al l y i so-
mor phi c t o HMs:(A-* 9 A*(P2 o Po) ~ P2) = HMs~(P2) rel at i ve t o A, because
P2 ~ Po ~ P2 cont ai ns P2. On t he ot her hand, HMs2(P2) is mat er i al l y i s omor phi c
t o H~s~(P3) rel at i ve t o A' . We can compos e t he t wo i somor phi sms t o obt ai n t he
i s omor phi s m A' . A bet ween HMs~(A*(P2 ~ Po) ~ P1) and HMs~(P3); q.e.d.
The fol l owi ng pr opos i t i on simplifies t he defi ni t i on of mat eri al .
Proposition 4. 4. Two mat er i al syst ems are m- equi val ent if, and onl y if, at l east
one of t he syst ems can be t r ans f or med by a revert i bl e process i nt o a syst em
mat er i al l y i s omor phi c t o t he ot her.
Proof. I f MS1 and MS2 are t wo mat er i al syst ems bel ongi ng t o t he same mat er i al ,
t hen t here exist t wo revert i bl e processes P1 and P2 such t hat HMs~(P~) and
HMs,(P2) are i somor phi c relative t o A. I f Po ~ P1 is a cyclic process f or MS1,
t hen it is easy t o veri fy t hat MS~ is m- equi val ent t o HMs2(A-*(Po) o P2) rel at i ve
t o A, and t hat A-*(Po) o P2 is revert i bl e f or MS2. Conversel y, choose the nul l
process Po as a revert i bl e process f or MSI . I f HMs~(Po) = MS t is mat er i al l y
i s omor phi c to HMs,(P2), t hen the t wo syst ems are also m- equi val ent ; q.e.d.
I n t he f or egoi ng p r o o f we have used t he fol l owi ng easily pr oven f act : I f MSI is
m- equi val ent t o MS2 rel at i ve t o A, t hen H~csl(P) is m- equi val ent t o H~s, ( A- *( P) )
f or every P E 5~1, and t he mat er i al i somor phi sms are the same.
I f a mat er i al syst em is revert i bl e, i.e. its process class cont ai ns onl y revert i bl e
processes, t hen by The or e m 4.2 c) we can easily see t hat every m- equi val ent mat e-
ri al syst em is agai n revert i bl e. We call a mat er i al revert i bl e, i f a r epr esent i ng mat e-
ri al syst em is revert i bl e ( and hence every one in t he same equi val ence class).
Two mat er i al syst ems whi ch are not m-equi val ent , mi ght still have t he pr oper t y
t hat one can be obt ai ned f r om t he ot her by a t r ans f or mat i on process. Thi s is a
general i zat i on of t he not i on of " t r a ns f or ma t i on" t o mat eri al s.
Definition. Let MS1 and MS 2 be mat er i al systems. We say t hat we can transform
the material of MSI i nt o t he mat er i al of MS2 i f t here is a process P E ~ such
t hat HMsl(P) is m- equi val ent t o MS2.
Of course, P does not have t o be revert i bl e. Ot herwi se this not i on woul d
coi nci de wi t h t hat of m-equi val ence. Next we show t hat the f or egoi ng definition
is i ndependent of the choi ce of the mat er i al syst ems r epr esent i ng t he t wo mat eri al s.
Proposition 4. 5. I f we can t r ans f or m t he mat er i al of a mat er i al syst em MS1 i nt o
the mat er i al of MS2, t hen t he same is t rue f or every ot her pai r of mat er i al syst ems
r epr esent i ng t he same mat eri al s.
Proof. Let MSi be f our mat er i al syst ems wi t h classes of processes #i . Let MS1
be m- equi val ent t o MS3; i.e. t here exists a revert i bl e process P1 in #~ such t hat
112 A. BERTRAM
HMsI(PO is i somor phi c t o MS3 relative t o A1, and P1 can be cont i nued by P,~
such t hat / ' 4 ~ P~ is cyclic f or MS t . Let MS2 be m-equi val ent to MS4, i.e. t here
exists a revert i bl e process P3 E ~ 4 such t hat MS2 is i somor phi c t o HMs,(Pa)
rel at i ve t o A a. As s ume t hat we can t r ans f or m the mat er i al of MS~ i nt o t he mat er i al
of MS2, i.e. t here exists a P2 E ~ such t hat HMsl(P2) is i somor phi c t o MSz
rel at i ve t o A2. I t is left t o the reader t o show t hat t he mat er i al syst em HMs3(AF*(P2
~ P4) is mat er i al l y i somor phi c t o H~ts,(Pa) relative t o -4 3 9 A 2 9 Al l ; q.e.d.
I n light of this pr oposi t i on, the fol l owi ng definition is meani ngful .
De f i ni t i on. We say t hat one mat e r i al c an be t rans f ormed i nt o anot her, i f this is
t he case wi t h respect t o at l east one pai r of mat er i al syst ems represent i ng the
mat er i al s (and, hence, f or all such pairs).
I t is easy t o show t hat one can t r ans f or m revert i bl e mat eri al s onl y i nt o re-
vert i bl e ones. But t he converse is not true, i.e. t r ans f or mat i on of non-revert i bl e
mat er i al s can l ead t o bot h revert i bl e and non-revert i bl e ones. I f t he t r ansf or mi ng
process is revert i bl e, t he t r ansf or med mat er i al surel y is non-revert i bl e.
Let us i nvest i gat e t he dependence of t he concept of st at e on the concept of
mat er i al i somor phi sm. Let MSi----(,~'i, ~i , Fi) be mat eri al syst ems wi t h st at e
spaces ~ei, let Pi be in ~i , and MS[ = (J-i, ~ , F;) : - - HMsi(Pi ). We recall
f r om The or e m 3.2 t he rel at i ons
zi : o~i(Pi) : i[-l(MS~)~ ~ i .
I f we now define a s e l e c t i on f unc t i on q~i : Y' i - + ~i of a mat eri al syst em MS i
as a mappi ng t hat maps a st at e i nt o an (arbi t rary) process out of its equi val ence
class, t hen r 9 ~0i is t he i dent i t y on .~';. Of course, a mat er i al syst em can have
ma ny sel ect i on funct i ons, but each one is a ri ght inverse of the nat ur al funct i on o~i
of t he system.
De f i ni t i on. Let MS1 be a mat er i al syst em i somor phi c t o MS2 relative t o A.
The bi j ect i on 7,4 ( of the st at e spaces) i nduced by t he mat eri al i s omor phi s m A is
t he f unct i on ~'a : , ~e __~ ~ 2 defined by
7 A ( Z ) : = 09 2 " A - * 9 9 9 1 ( 2 )
Thi s definition is meani ngf ul because A- * t r ansf or ms equi val ent processes in
~ i nt o equi val ent processes in ~2.
A-*
l
Fig. 5
Material Systems
Theorem 4.6. Th e e v ol ut i on f u n c t i o n s s a t i s f y
~ A ~ e l ( Z , P ) ~-- Q2 ( ~ a ( Z ) , A-*(P))
f o r al l ( z, P ) 6 ( ~f , ~ ) 1 .
Pr oof . The definitions of 7A and 91 yield t he rel at i ons:
7A " 9x(Z, P ) = o 2 " A - * 9 q:l " 9~( z, P )
= 0, 2. A- * . q~. o ~ , ( e o ~ 0 ~ ( z ) ) .
The fol l owi ng pai rs of processes are t hen equi val ent :
~ l " ~ol(P o ~01(z))~ p o q~l(z),
A- * . ~ . o~( e o ~( z ) ) ,.~ A- *( e ) o A - * ( ~ 0 , ( z ) ) ,
and it follows t hat
YA" ex(Z, P) = r o A- *" ~l (z)]
= o ~ 2 [ A - * ( P ) o ~ 2 " ~ A ( Z ) ]
= e2(TA(Z), A- *( P) ) ; q.e.d.
113
5. Material Symmetry
In cont i nuum physics i t is conveni ent t o classify mat eri al systems by means
of propert i es which are i nvar i ant under cert ai n t ransformat i ons, called symmet r y
t r ansf or mat i ons.
Definition. Let M S = (~J', ~, F) be a mat eri al system. A f unct i on A is called
a symmet ry t ransformat i on f or M S i f t here is a process PA C ~ such t hat , wi t h
M S a : = H Ms ( P A) =- (,~', ~aA, FA) ,
t he fol l owi ng condi t i ons hol d:
( Si )
(s2)
($3)
A E I so ( , J ) ,
~A = A- * ( ~ ) ,
A " F ( P ) ---- F A ( A - * ( P ) ) f or all PC ~ .
We say t hat M S is A-symmet ri c t o MS A .
The condi t i ons S1- $3 are equi val ent t o t he assert i on t hat M S and M S a are
mat eri al l y i somorphi c. However , we i nt ent i onal l y conceal ed this fact i n t he above
definition in or der t o keep distinct t wo concept s havi ng similar mat hemat i cal
descri pt i ons and yet qui t e different physical meanings. I n the last section we com-
par ed t wo different mat eri al systems by investigating whet her a mat eri al i somor -
phi sm exists or not . Her e we st udy a single mat eri al system by consi deri ng all t he
i somorphi sms t hat do exist in t he above sense.
114 A. BERTRAM
We denot e t he set of all symmet ry t ransformat i ons of a given mat eri al system
by WMs, called t he symmet ry semigroup of MS . This t ermi nol ogy is justified
in the fol l owi ng proposi t i on.
Pr o po s i t i o n 5.1. Z,vfMS f or ms a semi group (with unity) under composi t i on.
Pr oof . Let A1 and A 2 be in ~MS and let P1 and P2 be the t r ansf or mat i on processes
in t he st at ement t hat AI and A2 are symmet ry t ransformat i ons, respectively;
i . e. MS is At - symmet r i c t o HMs ( P1) = (~--, ~ ' , F ' ) and A2-symmetric t o
HMs ( P2) z ( J - , ~ " , F" ) . By $2 and t he definition of the class of processes of
t r ansf or med mat eri al systems we have the implications:
P2 ~ ~ ~ AI *( P2) ~ ~ ' ~ P3 : = AI *( P2) o Pl C ~ .
Let HMs ( Pa) = (~--, g~' ", F' " ) . The classes of processes are rel at ed by the follow-
i ng condi t i ons, which are equi val ent :
P E ~
<=~ A~-*(P) E ~ "
~ A i * ( P ) o P2 E
r A I * ( A z * ( P ) ~ P2) = A ~ * 9 A s ( p) o Ai - *( P2) 9 ~ '
~ AI * 9 A~* ( e) o A- * l ( e2) o el G
r A~- * 9 A 2 * ( P ) G ~ " ' .
By $3 and by t he definition of the constitutive funct i on of a t r ansf or med mat eri al
syst em we concl ude t hat
F ' " ( A ? * . A ~ * ( P ) )
= F ( A { * . A f * ( P ) o AI *( P2) o P, )
= F ( A{ * 9 A2 * ( P ) o A?*(e2))
= A1 9 F ( A 2 * ( P ) o P2)
= Aa " F " ( A 2 * ( P ) )
= A1 9 A2 9 F( P) f or all PE ~ .
Thus we have shown t hat A1 9 m2 is in Yt~MS. The associativity of t he composi t i on
results f r om t he same pr oper t y of the composi t i on of linear funct i ons and of t he
oper at or o on processes. The uni t y of 3r is t he i dent i t y of ~-" with cor r espondi ng
process equal t o t he null process; q.e.d.
Just as was the case f or mat eri al i somorphi sms, each symmet ry t r ansf or mat i on
yields an i nduced f unct i on on states.
Proposi t i on 5. 2. For every A E ~ MS t here is a uni que i nj ect i on
such t hat
~'A " C~ = tOA " A - * ( P )
7A: ~ ---> Kr
Material Systems 115
hol ds f or every PC- ~. In ot her words, the following di agram is commut a-
tive:
A-*
Fig. 6
The mappi ng 7 n is called t he injection induced by A and is given by t he f or mul a
7 A ( z ) = t O M s ( A - * " q~Ms ( z ) o t " 4 ) .
Pr oof . Let P be in ~1 and let z = t OMs ( P) . Accordi ng t o t he f or mul a for YA
in t he st at ement of t he proposi t i on, we have
7 4 " tOMs(P) = t OMs ( A - * " Cp,wS" t o Ms ( P ) ~ P 4 )
= t o M s ( A - * ( e ) o e ~ )
= t o Z a - * ( e ) ) .
The left-inverse of 74 is given by 7J-I = t o MS " A * 9 r defined on -~A :----
74( ~) . In fact, t he defining rel at i ons f or 74 and y ~ yield f or all z
7 4 ' " 7 A ( z ) = tOMS" A * " q~4 " [ , OMs ( A - * " ~ Ms ( Z ) o P A)]
= t OMS" A * 9 q~A " tOA " A - * 9 ~0Ms(Z)
~Z.
Ther ef or e 7 4 is injective. The uni queness of 74 follows f r om t he fact t hat WMs
and to4" A- * are well-defined funct i ons on 2 ; q. e. d.
We now consi der t he case where the t r ansf or mat i on process P.4 is revertible.
Definition. Let A be in t he symmet r y semi group JZ'Ms of a mat eri al system MS ,
such t hat MS is A-symmet ri c t o HMs ( P 4 ) and P4 is r e v e r t i b l e . We call the set
of all funct i ons A with this pr oper t y t he symmet ry group cg, s of MS .
The symmet r y gr oup is never empt y, because it always cont ai ns t he i dent i t y
on ~ relative t o the null process. The symmet r y gr oup is cont ai ned in t he symmet r y
semi group, and, f or revertible systems, bot h sets coincide. The fol l owi ng proposi -
t i on justifies the name " gr oup" .
Proposition 5.3. ~MS is a gr oup under composi t i on.
116 A. BERTRAM
Proof. We first consi der the assert i on t hat A1 9 A2 is in fgMS whenever t here
hol ds: A1, A 2 E ~MS. We have seen in Pr oposi t i on 5.1 t hat A1 9 A2 is in ~ffMS
whenever A~ and `42 bot h are in ~ M S , which is cert ai nl y t he case under the as-
sumpt i on f r om above. We still have t o verify t he st at ement t hat A[- *( PA2) ~ PA,
~ is revertible i f PA~ and PA~ are revertible. The process A; - *( PA: ) is revertible
accor di ng t o Theor em 4.2 c), and t he composi t i on of revertible processes is
revertible accordi ng t o Pr oposi t i on 3.5. The associativity results f r om the fact
t hat composi t i on is an associative operat i on, and it is obvi ous t hat the identity
on ~-- is in f~MS.
Thus, it remai ns onl y to show t hat the inverse A -~ of a symmet ry t ransfor-
mat i on A C fqMs again is in ~Ms- Let PA be revertible, and choose a cont i nuat i on
/~ such t hat /~ ~, PA is a cyclic process. Moreover, P is in ~ i f and onl y i f P o/ ; o PA
is in ~ , and this is equi val ent t o the assert i on t hat P o/3 is in ~ a and, hence,
t o t he condi t i on t hat A * ( P o f i ) is in ~. Now let MS a - ~ = ( ~- , ~ A - , , FA- O : =
HMs ( A * ( P ) ) . Accordi ng t o Theor em 4.2 c) A * ( P ) is revertible and a process P
is in ~ whenever A * ( P ) is in ~A-~, i. e. ~A- ~ = A * ( ~ ) . On the ot her hand, t he
definitions of FA and FA-~ yield
A . F A ~. A * ( P ) = A . F ( A * ( P ) o A*(/~))
= F A ( ` 4 - * " A * ( P ) o . 4 - * . . 4 * ( / ' ) ) = F A ( e o ~ )
~- F ( P o t ; o PA) ---- F ( P ) f or all P C ~ ,
and we concl ude t hat A - I is in fqMS; q.e.d.
Proposition 5.4. Let A be in ~ffMS and 7A : ~e _+ ~ be the injection i nduced by
A. 7A is bijective i f and onl y i f A is in the symmet r y gr oup ~#MS.
Proof. I f A is in fqMS we have
7 A( z ) = ~OMs(A-* " q~Ms(Z) ~ PA) f or all z C ~ .
Because PA is revertible, we can choose a c ont i nua t i on/ ' such t hat /3 o PA is
a cyclic process in ~. As shown in the pr oof of Proposi t i on 5.3 a process P is
in ~ i f and onl y i f A * ( P o f i ) is in ~. The surjectivity of tOMS and the rel at i on
60Ms(P ) = ~oa(P o P ) tell us t hat 7A is surjective and hence bijective. On the ot her
hand, let us assume t hat A is in Jg~MS and t hat 7A is bijective. By definition, tO~s
is surjective, so t hat 7A' O~MS = OJA" A - * is surjective as a funct i on f r om
i nt o ~e. This is t rue onl y if~oA is surjective. Accordi ng to Proposi t i on 3.3 ~en : =
tnA(~ ) equals ~ i f and onl y i f PA is revertible; q.e.d.
The next pr oposi t i on explains mor e precisely the rel at i on between ~ M S
and (#Ms.
Proposition 5. 5. The symmet ry gr oup f l us is the maxi mal gr oup in the symmet r y
semi group ~ M S , i . e. ~MS cont ai ns every ot her subgroup in ~ M S .
Material Systems 1 17
Pr oof . I f (~ Q o~Ms is a gr oup under composi t i on, t hen t here hol ds
A E ~ <=~A - I C fr ~ A- I ~ ~MS.
We show t hat f or each A in ~ t he cor r espondi ng process P4 is revertible. Thi s fact
rests on t he fol l owi ng rel at i ons:
P G3 ~
<=> A* (P) C ~A-~
<::> A*( P) o PA-, C
~ A- * ( A* ( e ) o e 4 1 ) = e o A- * ( e 4 , ) ~ # 4
<::>P ~ A- *( P4- , ) ~ P A ~
and f or every P E
F(P) = A . FA I(A*(P)) = A" F( A*( p) o P4-O
-~ A " A - 1" FA{A- *[A*( P) o P 4 - ~ ] )
= F[ e o A - * ( e 4 - , ) o e A .
T h e r e f o r e , w h e n e v e r A is in ~ , A - * ( P 4 - 1 ) o P A is a cyclic p r o c e s s . P 4 is rcvcrtiblc,
a n d A is i n ( g M S ; q.e.d.
If ~ V : M S itsclf is a g r o u p , t h c n ~ s = f g ~ s . T h i s o c c u r s , f o r c x a m p l c , if
t h e m a t e r i a l s y s t e m is rcvcrtiblc. B u t t h i s is n o t t h e o n l y c a s e ; o n c c a n a l s o c o n -
struct a m a t e r i a l s y s t e m f o r w h i c h : g ' M S - ~ ~ M S - - ~ ( I d : - } , a n d e v e r y p r o c e s s
e x c e p t t h e n u l l p r o c c s s is n o n - r e v e r t i b l e .
T h e f o l l o w i n g t h e o r e m s h o w s t h a t t h e i n j e c t i o n s i n d u c e d b y s y m m e t r y t r a n s -
f o r m a t i o n s t h c m s c l v c s f o r m a s c m i - g r o u p ( o r g r o u p ) u n d e r c o m p o s i t i o n .
Theorem 5. 6.
a) At , A 2 C "~PMS ~ )'(A~.4~) = ~'4L " 7A="
b) Aa, A2, A3 C aff MS ~ 7(At'A2) " 7A3 = 7At " ~2(A2"Aa)"
c ) 7 ' ~ a : - = I da.
d) A C ~MS ~ 74-, = (TA)-*.
Pr oof . a) Let i = I, 2 and Ai be in ~MS, and let Pi be processes such t hat MS
is Ai-symmetric t o H~s(Pi ). In t he pr oof of Pr oposi t i on 5.1 we have shown t hat
P(A~4~) = A~*( P2) ~ P~, and, accordi ng t o the const ruct i on of 74 in Pr opo-
sition 5.2, we have
7 4 i ( Z ) = r 9 ~ ) M S ( Z ) c: P i ) .
Toget her these rel at i ons yield
7( A~. A, ) ( Z) = COMs[A~-* " A~* 9 CPMs(Z ) o A~*( P2) o Px].
1 18 A. BERTRAM
On the ot her hand we have
~A, " ) ' A2( z ) : t OMs [ A 1 * " q;MS " O) Ms [ A2 - * " CflMs(Z) o P 2 ] ~ P I }
= OL~s{Ai*" A 2 * " 9Ms( Z) o A f - * ( P 2 ) ~ P , } ,
where we have selected the i dent i t y on ~ f or q~MS ~ tOMS.
b) Thi s resul t follows f r om a) and the associ at i vi t y of composi t i on of func-
tions.
c) For each st at e z
71dj - ( 2) = OJ Ms ( I d j - * " qgMs(Z) ~ PI d) "
Because PId may be chosen to be the null process, we concl ude t hat
71d~,-(z) = tOMs" q~Ms(Z) = I d. ~.
d) I t was shown in the pr oof of Proposi t i on 5.2 t hat
( ~, 4 ) - ' ( z ) - - ~oM S " A * 9 ~A ( z ) .
On the ot her hand
7A ,(Z) = OJms[A* " q;Ms(Z) c PA-~].
In pr ovi ng the existence of inverses in the symmet r y group, we have shown t hat
PA . . . . A*(/3), where /3 ~ PA is a cyclic process, i . e. ,
t OMs ( P ) = OJ Ms ( P ' ] ) ~ PA) = r 176 ? )
f or all P 6 ~. Accordi ngl y, i f we set z : t~L~s(P), t hen the above rel at i ons yield
V A - , ( 2 ) : a ) Ms [ A * " ~ M s ( Z ) '~ A * ( / ~
= tOMS" A * ( P ~ 1 ~)
= O~MS" A * 9 ~ A ( z )
= ( TA) t ( z) ; q.e.d.
Pr oposi t i ons 5.7 and 5.8 bel ow describe the i nvari ance of s ymmet r y gr oups and
s ymmet r y semi - gr oups under revertible t r ansf or mat i ons and the rel at i on between
t he gr oups of t wo mat eri al syst ems bel ongi ng to the same mat eri al . The pr oof s
are st r ai ght f or war d and are omi t t ed.
Proposi t i on 5.7. Let ,ftcMS be the s ymmet r y semi gr oup and ~MS the s ymmet r y
gr oup of a mat eri al syst em MS . For each revertible P in ~ , the mat eri al syst em
M S " : = HMs ( P) has the same symmet r y semi gr oup ~,MS and symmet r y gr oup
f qms as does M S .
Proposi t i on 5. 8. Let MS 1 and MS2 be mat eri al l y i somor phi c rel at i ve t o A with
s ymmet r y semi gr oups ,)ffMS,, ~ ' ms 2 and with symmet r y gr oups ~MS~ and .~.ws~,
respectively. Then
~MS2 : A 9 ~MS, " A- l ,
cBMS ~ = A 9 ~ MS t " A - t .
Material Systems 119
6. Inverse Systems
In or der to use a constitutive funct i on to describe material behavi or, one must
decide which variables are t o be "i ndependent " and which are to be " dependent " .
As we here consi der const i t ut i ve funct i ons which are set-valued, t here can be
numer ous possibilities f or this choice. In this section we i nt roduce a descri pt i on
of material systems which avoi ds the di st i nct i on between dependent and i ndepen-
dent variables, and we give condi t i ons under which the roles of dependent and
i ndependent variables can be reversed.
in this chapt er, ~-- will denot e a fixed vect or space and 9"* its dual space.
Fr om now on we call processes with values in 3- * configuration processes in
or der t o keep t hem distinct f r om what we shall call "effect processes".
Definition. A mappi ng /~: [0, d~] -~- ~-- with d~ ~ 0 is called an effect pro-
cess of dur at i on d~.
We will use the t erms "ef f ect nul l -process", "cont i nuat i on of an effect process",
and "effect subprocess" in a sense strictly anal ogous t o t hat of Section 2. We denot e
the set of all confi gurat i on processes by C and the set of all effect processes by E.
Definition. The rel at i on /~ ( C displayed below is called the constitutive
relation # of a material system M S ---- (~-, v~, F) :
/~ : = {(P, / ~)[ PE ,~, E-( E, d e = d ~ : , / ~ ( t ) E F ( P i t o . , l ) for all t in [0, dE.i}. (R1)
By condi t i on (P1) (see Section 2) ~' is never empt y. Moreover, F ( P ) is non-
empt y f or every P in # , and hence/~ is non-empt y. For an unconst rai ned material
system, all effects are singletons, and the constitutive rel at i on has t he pr oper t y
t hat , f or every P C ~, t here is exactly one effect pr ocess/ ~ such t hat P/z/~. Never-
theless, it is possible t hat t wo different confi gurat i on processes are related to the
same effect process.
By definition, the const i t ut i ve rel at i on of a material system is uni quel y deter-
mi ned by t hat mat eri al system. This leads to the quest i on: which rel at i ons on
are const i t ut i ve rel at i ons for some choi ce of material syst em?
Proposition 6. 1. A rel at i on u < C is a const i t ut i ve rel at i on of a material
system i f and onl y i f the following condi t i ons hol d:
(R2) The set ~' : = ( P E C] ' : I / ~E E with P/~/~} is a class of processes, i . e .
(P1)-(P4) hol d;
(R3) rel at ed processes have the same durat i on, i . e .
# This notion shall be kept distinct from the one suggested by PERZYNA 8r KO-
SII~SKI.
120 A. BERTRAM
(R4) if P#/ ~ and P#/~2, and /~3 E E with duration de is such t hat /~3(t)E
(/~(t)} W (/~2(t)} for all t C [0, de], then P#/~a ;
(R5) the sets (/~(d)[/~E E, P/~/~} are closed in 3- for every process P in (3.
Proof. In view of the definition of constitutive relation, we easily see that condi-
tions (R2)-(R5) are necessary. In order to show their sufficiency, we take a rela-
tion that obeys (R2)-(R5) and define ~ and F by
: = (P ~ C[ 3 E E E with P/z/?), (R6)
F(P) : = ( E ( d ) I / ~ E E and Ptt/~}. (R7)
Then (R2) assures that # really is a class of processes and that, for each P E ~,
there exists at least one effect process EE E such that Ptt/~. Thus, F is well
defined on 2~, its values are non-empty (by (R2) and (R3)) and closed in J" (by
(R5)). (R4) is a saturation condition on/ z to assure that # does not contain fewer
elements than it would have by (R1) if (R6) and (R7) hold; q.e.d.
Proposition 6. I tells us that the function (3J, ~, F) ~-> # (with # given by (R1))
maps the collection of material systems onto the collection of relations on C E
satisfying (R2)-(R5). We now show that this mapping establishes a one-to-one
correspondence between the two collections.
Proposition 6.2. The mapping ( J' , ~, F) ~ / t is injective.
Proof. Let ( ~, ~1, F~) and ( ~, ~2, F2) be material systems, and let/zx and/~2
be the corresponding constitutive relations. Suppose that/t~ equals/t2. For every
PC #~, there exists an /~ in E such that PtzIE; therefore, P#2E and PE #2.
Consequently, #1 Q ~2, and an analogous argument shows that ~2 Q #1.
As a consequence of the definition (R1) Fa(P) equals the set (/~(d) ] J~E E, P/a~J~),
as well as F2(P) = ( &d ) l S, em ). By f l l = f12 El ( P) and F2(P) coincide.
Thus ~ ----- #2 and F1 = F2, so that (~--, #~, F~) = (J-, ~2, F2); q.e.d.
Propositions 6.1 and 6.2 permit us to speak of a constitutive relation # and
its corresponding material system. The description of material behavior by material
systems or by constitutive relations is completely equivalent, and we could have
formulated the entire theory of material systems in terms of constitutive relations.
This fact is particularly useful in the discussion of inverse systems which follows.
lf/~ is a relation on C we denote its inverse by /~-1 C E i.e. PtzE <=~
E~-Ip.
If we interchange the roles of the independent and dependent variables, we can
introduce material systems of the form (9"-*, ~, F) instead of ( f . . . . ), such that
the configuration processes have values in ~-" (instead of J-*), and the effects
are subsets of ~--* (instead of ~) . The constitutive relations of such a system are
subsets of E (instead of C It may happen that a constitutive relation
/z for a system (3-, ~, F) is such t hat / z -1 is a constitutive relation for a material
system ( 5 " , # ' , F' ) (with interchanged variables).
Material Systems 121
De f i ni t i on. We call a constitutive rel at i on/ z i nvert i bl e i f #-1 also is a constitutive
relation. We call a material system MS invertible i f its constitutive relation is
invertible. We call t he material system corresponding t o #-1 the inverse system
of MS.
By Proposi t i on 6.2, the inverse system of an invertible system is well defined,
and the inverse of the inverse system is agai n the original one. Bot h systems
describe the same material behavi or in an obvious sense. For invertible systems
the division of the variables i nt o dependent and i ndependent ones is arbi t rary. This
fact is expressed best by describing the system by means of a constitutive relation.
Unfort unat el y, this is not always possible. The t heory of plasticity wi t hout strain
hardeni ng provides an example of a non-invertible system. As we shall see in
Section 9, the effect (stress) does not determine the configuration process (plastic
flow), not even up to an arbi t rary factor.
I f we want to know whether or not a given material system is invertible, we
const ruct its constitutive relation by (R1), invert it, and find out whether or not
the condi t i ons (R2)-(R5) are fulfilled. I f this is the case, the inverse system MS_ I
can be const ruct ed by (R6) and (R7). However, this procedure can be short ened
by means of the following theorem.
The o r e m 6.3. Let MS ---- (J-, ~, F) be a material system and # its constitutive
relation. They are invertible if and only if the following conditions hold:
(R8) the effect of the null process is single-valued;
(R9) i f Plt~E and P:tzE, and P3 C C with the same duration is such that P3(t)C
(PI(t)}W {Pz(t)} for all tE [0, d~], the,, P3C ~ and E(d)~ F(P3);
(R10) the sets {P(d) [ PE ~, PlzE) are closed for every EE E.
Proof. (R9) and (R10) for/ ~ are obviously equivalent to (R4) and (R5) for #-1,
respectively. I f (R3) holds for/~, it does for #-1. We still have to prove t hat the set
A : ---- ( E E E ] 3 P E C, P/~/~) is a class of processes with values in Y, i f and onl y
i f (R8) holds. ~ is not empty, and by (R1)/~ is not empty, and hence A is not empty.
All processes of A start with the same initial value i f and onl y i f (R8) holds. I f
PI~E, t hen by (R1)
P ]t0,tl # E ]t0,tl for every t G [0, de].
Thus A cont ai ns all subprocesses of its elements, as does ~, and for every /~E A
there is surely a cont i nuat i on, which also is the case for every P E ~ wi t h P/z/~.
Hence, A is a process class; q.e.d.
We not e t hat i f (R8), (R9), and (R10) hol d for a material system, a t ransformed
system does not inherit these properties aut omat i cal l y, especially not (R8). Thus
the propert y of invertibility is not preserved under t ransformat i ons. Conversely,
a non-invertible material system can be t ransformed into an invertible one, even
by a revertible t r ansf or mat i on process.
122 A. BERTRAM
I f a mat er i al syst em fails to obey onl y condi t i on (R8), t hen we can r emove t hi s
shor t comi ng by rest ri ct i ng the effect of t he null process to a singleton, by decl ara-
tion. The condi t i on (R9) is not so easily ci r cumvent ed; it is vi ol at ed in t he exampl e
of pl ast i ci t y wi t hout st rai n hardeni ng.
7. Uniform Structures on the State Space
Up t o now the st at e space has not been endowed wi t h a linear, metric, or t opo-
l ogi cal st ruct ure. Ther ef or e we are not yet abl e t o consi der convergence of se-
quences (nets, filters), or even Cauchy-sequences in ~ , or cont i nuous funct i ons
f r om ~e i nt o a t opol ogi cal space. I n order t o define r el axat i on pr oper t i es of mat er i al
syst ems, it is very hel pful t o use t opol ogi cal t ool s, and in this section we will i nt ro-
duce t opol ogi cal st ruct ures on the set of effects and on the st at e space.
Let us consi der a mat er i al syst em in such a st at e t hat we can per f or m a const ant
process (freeze) of ar bi t r ar y dur at i on. The accompanyi ng t raj ect ory in the state
space will cont ai n states t hat bel ong t o the same confi gurat i on but do not have
t o be all identical. The pri nci pal goal of this section is t o give a precise meani ng
t o the st at ement t hat this t r aj ect or y converges t o a "rel axed st at e". Ther ef or e we
have to make precise what it means for one st at e t o lie in a nei ghbor hood of an-
other. The fol l owi ng suggest i on seems t o be quite nat ur al : one state Zl is sai d t o
be nei ghbor i ng anot her state z2 i f t wo condi t i ons hol d:
(i) ~' =~ ---- N. , , i.e. we can per f or m t he same processes st art i ng f r om each state,
and
(ii) t he effects of any process in ~zi st art i ng f r om zl are nei ghbori ng t hose t hat
we obt ai n i f we st art f r om z2 wi t h t he same process.
But what does it mean f or effects t o be nei ghbor i ng one anot her ? For single-
val ued effects this is cl ear: we have a st andar d uni f or m st ruct ure on t he finite-
di mensi onal l i near space J - . We pr opose t o lift t he uni f or mi t y f r om f t o the set
g of all non- empt y cl osed subsets of 9_.
For the case in whi ch t he base space J - is endowed wi t h a met ri c d, HAUSDORFF
i nt r oduced the fol l owi ng met ri c on the set of all non- empt y, closed and bounded
subsets of J - :
D(X, Y) :-= max (sup i nf d(x, y), sup i nf d(x, y)).
xEX yEY yEY xEX
Thi s may be general i zed t o include unbounded sets i f we put D' : = D/ (I + D),
which is bounded above by 1 and equals 1 i f and onl y i f D t akes the val ue + co.
Thi s met ri c generat es a uni f or mi t y on ~.
Thi s pr ocedur e can be generalized t o base spaces t hat have a uni f or mi t y U,
but not a met ri c: I f Vi s in U, we define f or X~ d ~
V(X) : = (c E 9-" I 3 a ( X wi t h (a, c) ( I s ) C ~--.
Mat eri al Systems 123
Th e n t he f ol l owi ng sets f o r m a basi s f or a uni f or mi t y U o n 8 :
I7," : = {(X, Y) E g g I X ~ V(Y) a nd Y Q V(X)}
as V r uns over U. The p r o o f o f t hi s well k n o wn f act is s t r a i ght f or wa r d a n d is
gi ven i n BERTRAM (1) f or exampl e. Of cour se, U det er mi nes a t o p o l o g y on 6 ~,
and, as we have r est r i ct ed our cons i der at i ons t o cl osed subset s, o* is a Ha u s d o r f f
space whe n gi ven t hi s t opol ogy. Because J - is met r i sabl e a n d compl et e a c c or di ng
t o i t s s t a nda r d uni f or mi t y as a l i near space, 8 is al so compl et ef l
F r o m n o w o n we cons i der 8 t o be e ndowe d wi t h t he uni f or mi t y U and asso-
ci at ed t opol ogy, so t ha t 6 ~ is a compl et e u n i f o r m Ha u s d o r f f space. I f we r est r i ct
o u r at t ent i on t o si ngl e- el ement subset s o f ~d--, t hen t he uni f or mi t y U o n 3" a nd
t he a ppr opr i a t e r est r i ct i on o f U coi nci de: (a, b) E VE U ~=>((a}, (b})E I~ E (7.
As an example we consi der the t radi t i onal t reat ment of internal constraints by the
assumpt i on t hat t he effects are determined onl y t o within terms called "r eact i on effects"
(see TRUESDELL NOLL, Section 30). I n mechanics t he effects are described by symmet ri c
Cauchy stress tensors, whi ch f or m a six-dimensional vect or space with inner pr oduct
defined in terms of t he trace. I n this case, effects are sets of t he f or m T = { T e + 2 N l
)l E 1R), where onl y T e and t he di rect i on N of t he react i on stresses Tr = 2N are deter-
mi ned by the material. (It is cust omar y t o normal i ze t he extra stresses T e by empl oyi ng
t he condi t i on t r ( T e 9 N) = 0.)
Let us consider t wo stress sets T i --- { T e i + 2i N l 2i E R}, with i = 1, 2. We measure
t he distance between t he extra stresses by d( T, , , T e ) : = ~/tr (Te, - - T~,) 2 (see Fig. 7).
The Hausdor f f metric i nt roduced above measures the distance between 7"1 and 7"2
0 r ~ l
u
r ~ z
=9 ac~,rzl
Fig. 7
$ See MICHAEL.
1 2 4 A. BERTRAM
by
D(T1, T2) = max t sup inf d( t l , t2), sup inf d ( h , t2) I
[t~ET~ t2ET2 t2ET2 tlET1
J
= max~sup inf 1/tr [(T~ + 2 1 N) - - ( Te ~ - 22N)] 2 . . . . }
I).~E P~ 22E R
= sup inf ]/tr [Tel -- Te2 + (al -- 22) N] z
),~ER 22(R
= I/tr (Te, - - Te2) a ~-- d(Te~, Te ) .
I n this case the Hausdorff distance between the sets T1 and /'2 equals the standard
distance between the extra stresses. The same holds if n constraints, 1 ~ n =< 6, are
i mp o s e d a n d t h e s t r e s s e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y T = { T e 4- ~ 2 j N j I ~ j E R }.
j = !
We now i nt roduce uni formi t i es in t he st at e space of a given mat er i al syst em
M S by adapt i ng t o the present t heor y a pr ocedur e pr opos ed by NOLL Let ~
be an ar bi t r ar y class of processes, not necessarily the one f or t he syst em M S .
We call the set
t he ~ - s e c t i o n o f t he st at e space. Of course, t he confi gurat i ons of t wo st at es bel ong-
ing t o the same section are the same. Ever y st at e z E ~ is in exact l y one sect i on;
~therefore we have obt ai ned a par t i t i on of t he st at e space.
Let E be the out put funct i on of t he effect (as defined in Section 3), let ~ be
t he evol ut i on funct i on, and let ~ e be a non- empt y section of t he st at e space f or
M S . I n the f unct i on E . ~ 1~:r215 ~e~ 1 7 6 we can keep the second argu-
me nt fixed t o obt ai n f or each P E ~ the funct i on E . r P) I ~ : ~ e ~ ~.
Definition. We call the nat ural uni formi t y of ~ the coarsest uni f or mi t y t hat
r ender s t he funct i ons
E" ~o(', P) 1 ~ : ~ e _> #
uni f or ml y cont i nuous f or all P ~ ~. The i nduced t opol ogy is called t he natural
t opol ogy of , . ~.
The fol l owi ng pr oposi t i ons are si mi l ar t o results of NOLL (Proposi t i ons 11.2,
11. 4).
Pr opos i t i on 7.1. Let .~' ~ be a non- empt y section of the st at e space and let ~ be
t he evol ut i on f unct i on of a mat eri al system. I t fol l ows t hat f or every P in
~o(., P) I ~ : ~ - + ~r~,
is uni f or ml y cont i nuous. Her e ~ ' is the set of all cont i nuat i ons of P in ~ .
Pr o o f . Fi rst we mus t show t hat the above funct i on is well defined, i.e. t hat
o ( ~ , P) ( . ~e, f or all P in ~. By definition t he class of processes f or all states z
in . ~e is ~ , and t he subset ~ ' of all processes of ~ t hat cont ai n a given P C
as a subpr ocess depends onl y upon P and ~ . Ther ef or e ~(., P) I~r~ is a mappi ng of
t he uni f or m space ~ i nt o t he uni f or m space ~ , . Then ~ , has t he uni f or mi t y
i nduced by t he mappi ngs E . Q(., P) ' I ~ , , P' E # ' , and the mappi ng E . ~(., P) I~v~
Material Systems 125
is uni forml y cont i nuous for all P ~ ~' . We now appl y a t heorem of t opol ogy
(see BOUgBAKI, p. 190) : Let ~ be an index set, let P be in :~, and let ( Ae} be a fami l y
of uni f or m spaces. Let X and Y be uni form spaces, let f : X- + Y be a funct i on,
and for each P ~ , let g e : Y - + A e be a function. I f Yh a s the uni formi t y
i nduced by the functions ge, t h e n f i s uni forml y cont i nuous i f and onl y i f the func-
tions ge " f are uni forml y cont i nuous. I f we t ake for X, Y, and Ap the sets
~ , g ~, , and ~, respectively, and for f and ge the funct i ons 9(', P) I g ~ and
E . r P' ) la'~,, t hen ge " f = E . ~(., P' o P) Ig~, is uni forml y cont i nuous, and,
by the above t heorem, so is f ; q.e.d.
Proposition 7.2. Every section ~ with its nat ural t opol ogy is a Hausdor f f space.
Proof. Let z~ and z2 be t wo different states in ~ e ; t hen there is at least one
process P in ~ such t hat E . O(z~, P) ~ E. ~(z2, P). As 8 is a Hausdor f f space,
i t cont ai ns two disjoint open nei ghborhoods V,. of E . O(zi, P) , wi t h i----1, 2.
Thei r pre-images under E. ~(-, P) are open (because of continuity) and disjoint,
so t hat the pre-images are nei ghborhoods t hat seperate zl and z2; q.e.d.
We now show t hat the material i somorphi sms induce uni form isomorphisms
for the corresponding sections of the state space.
Proposition 7.3. Let MS I and MS 2 be materially isomorphic relative to A,
and let 7A be the induced bijection of the state spaces, 7A : ~ e _+ ~e2. The func-
t i on 7A I gl ~: 0~1~-+-~2n-.(~) is a uni form i somorphi sm for all sections
.~e1~ of the state space .~e 1.
Proof. Each A in Iso (3"~, 3r2) is a uni f or m i somorphi sm between the two (uni-
form) spaces 3"~ and 3-2. The same holds for A-* : 5 ~ -+ 3-~, and for the for-
ward image funct i on A : g l -+ 82. I f -~1~ is a section of the state space .~f~,
t hen we have 7A(~1~) ---- -~2A-*(~), for, i f two states z~ and z2 have the same
class of processes ~.~ = ~z~, t hen t hey have an identical image under A - * , and
vice versa. Every one of the following funct i ons is uni forml y cont i nuous for all
P in ~ : Et 9 ~1(', P) [ ~ , A, A -1, E 2 " e 2 ( ' , A - * ( P ) ) ]ya(~,~). As a composi t i on
of uni forml y cont i nuous funct i ons,
A" Et -Q~(' , P)]zv,# = E2" Q2(7A('), A-*(P)) I~r~
also is uni forml y cont i nuous. Next we appl y the same t heorem as in the pr oof of
Proposi t i on 7.1. Here, the ment i oned families of sets or funct i ons have but one
member each. Let us t ake for X, Y and A? the sets ~el~, .~eZA_,~) ----- 7a( . ~l ~ ),
and o~2, respectively, and f o r f a n d g ? the functions 7~ I~r~e and E2 9 e~(' , A - * ( P ) )
]~r,a_,(#). We conclude t hat 7a [ ~ is uni forml y cont i nuous, and, as the pr oof
is symmetric in the indices 1 and 2, the same holds for 751 = 7A-~; q.e.d.
We now have the tools to define relaxation properties of material systems.
Definition. Let z be a state in ~ from which we can perform const ant processes
Pa of arbi t rary durat i on d ~ 0. z is called a relaxable state i f {~(z, Pa) ] d > 0)
126 A. BERTRAM
is a Cauchy net. I f all states in ~e are relaxable, t hen t he system is called relaxable.
I f the limit
2(z) :---- lim ~(z, Pal)G
d-+e~
exists, it is called a rel axed state.
I n this definition we used:
1) t he uni f or m st ruct ure in or der t o define Cauchy nets,
2) t he t opol ogy in or der t o define the limit of a net,
3) t he Haus dor f f pr oper t y to obt ai n a uni que limit.
Because we do not assume the sections of the state space t o be compl et e, t he
existence of t he limit is not assured. We do not wish simply to post ul at e the com-
pleteness of t he sections, because it is quite difficult, i f not impossible, t o describe
in general t he physical consequences of t hat postulate. We prefer to i nt roduce the
compl et i on by the st andar d pr ocedur e of t opol ogy. In doi ng this, we make use
of t wo results f r om t opol ogy (see SCHUBERT, pp. 126, 124):
1) For every Haus dor f f space A t here is a uni que (up t o i somorphi sms) compl et e
Haus dor f f space A-, such t hat A is dense in A_
2) Let A be a uni f or m space, B a compl et e Hausdor f f space, and f : A- +/ ~
be a uni f or ml y cont i nuous funct i on. Then f has a uni que uni forml y cont i nuous
ext ensi on 97 on A.
By using these facts, we can compl et e each of the sections ~ e to ~ e . We t hen
define ~ : = ~J ~--~ and ext end E.~o(., P) t o E . ~(-, P) on ~(--. The out put
f unct i on G is const ant on each section ~ e and therefore, extends t o a funct i on
t7 on ~e--, which is const ant on every compl et ed section ~---,,j. The out put funct i on
of t he effects is ext ended by the f or mul a f t , (z) " = E . ~(z, P o ) , where Po is t he
null process in Nz. We enlarge in an anal ogous manner the class of all t ransformabl e
mat eri al systems ~ to a class of systems JC/ and ext end the associated bijection i
t o a uni f or m i somor phi sm i.
I t is not clear i f t he compl et i ons of the sections of state spaces have any phys-
ical meaning. Let us consi der a state z t hat is in ~e but not in ~e, i.e. this state is
not (exactly) accessible f r om the initial state by a process. By mat hemat i cal for-
malisms described above, we mi ght let the system st art in this state z and describe
the behavi or of the system theoretically, t hat is, we can describe which processes
may be per f or med and what t hei r effects are. However, this behavi or does not
have an exact count er par t in physical reality. Nevertheless, we consider this pr o-
cedure of compl et i on in or der t o st udy t he rel at i on of the present t heor y t o
NOLL'S new t heor y of simple materials.
Before we do this in t he next section, let us see how the concept of mat eri al
symmet r y may be ext ended t o the compl et ed spaces.
Definition. Let M S be a mat eri al system and J/~ = i-Ms(~-). Then o~Ms is t he
set of all mat eri al i somorphi sms between M S and a material system MS " =
iMs(Z' ) with z' E ~e. If, furt hermore, f or t he compl et ed state space Y" of MS "
t here hol ds ~ ' = ~ , t hen the i somor phi sm also is in ~Ms.
Material Systems 127
For t he case in whi ch t he sections of state space are themselves compl et e,
i.e. ~' = i f , t he set ~ Ms coincides wi t h t he symmet r y semi group and ~Ms
coincides wi t h t he symmet r y group. Thi s follows f r om the fact t hat ~ - - ~ is
uni f or ml y i somor phi c t o ~ ' , so t hat also ~e, = ~ , holds. This means t hat we
can reach every state f r om z' ; in part i cul ar, t he initial state can be reached and,
thus, t he t r ansf or mat i on process of z' is revertible. For ot her systems we onl y have
~MS ~ ~MS, and f g~ s ~ ~MS"
8. Noll's Material Elements
The ai m of this chapt er is t o i ndi cat e how NOLL'S new t heor y of simple ma-
terials is i ncl uded in t he present t heory. Thi s is not very difficult, as most of the
concept s here st em mor e or less f r om NOLL'S t heory.
This is not the appr opr i at e pl ace t o summari ze NOLL'S t heor y in detail. In-
stead, I will poi nt out t he mai n differences and t hen define a special class of ma-
terial systems within our t heor y t hat cor r espond t o NOLL'S simple materials.
NOEL'S t heor y describes onl y mechani cal mat eri al behavi or. Because his
t heor y is easy t o generalize t o i ncl ude ot her physical effects, this difference need
not be consi dered furt her. A mor e i mpor t ant difference lies in t he way i nt ernal
const rai nt s are t reat ed. NOLL prefers t he t radi t i onal way and distinguishes bet ween
react i ons and ext ra effects (by normal i zat i on), but he recognizes this pr ocedur e as
bei ng somewhat arbi t rary. We avoi d this di st i nct i on by i nt roduci ng at the out set
set-valued funct i ons.
The ot her i mpor t ant difference bet ween t he t wo theories concerns the pri mi t i ve
concept s. In t he pr esent t heory, a mat eri al system is compri sed of t he list of
variables, t he class of processes, and the mat eri al funct i on. The concept of st at e
is deduced by fact ori ng t he class of processes relative t o an equi val ence rel at i on.
Consequent l y, all of t he subsequent concept s like mat eri al i somor phy, symmet ry,
and invertibility coul d be t reat ed wi t hout this concept of state.
I n NOLL'S t heor y t he concept of state is primitive. Each of his systems is a
septuple with t he fol l owi ng entries: 1) t he space of the vari abl es; 2) the set of
possible confi gurat i ons; 3) t he class of processes; 4) the state space; 5) t he out put
f unct i on of t he confi gurat i on; 6) t he out put f unct i on of the effect; 7) t he evol ut i on
funct i on.
NOEL's class of processes cor r esponds t o t he set ~J ~z of all segments of pr o-
cesses in the present text. I t must obey f our condi t i ons t hat are st ronger t han
t hose i mposed on 9 ~. The out put funct i ons and the evol ut i on f unct i on of NOLL'S
mat eri al elements are requi red t o obey t hree axi oms t hat can be deduced f or the
cor r espondi ng funct i ons in our t heory. NOLL'S remai ni ng axi oms deal with t opo-
logical questions. I f we restrict our at t ent i on t o single-valued mat eri al funct i ons,
our t opol ogy and uni f or mi t y essentially coincide with NOLL'S. Hi s Axi om IV
requires t he state space sections t o be compl et e. This is also t he case in our t heor y,
when we make the compl et i ons and extensions descri bed in t he f or egoi ng section.
NOLL'S Axi om V states t hat every state is relaxable, which in t he present t heor y
128 A. BERTRAM
const i t ut es a restriction t o a special class of materials, namel y the relaxable ones.
NOEL'S Axi om VI is i mpor t ant f or underst andi ng f ur t her t he connect i on bet ween
the t wo theories. It states t hat t here is a rel axed state f r om which every ot her
state is appr oxi mat el y accessible. We can use such a state as our initial state.
However , in our t heor y this state does not have t o be relaxed, not even relaxable.
Thi s axi om excludes most types of aging materials where the starting state is
nei t her relaxed nor can be reached approxi mat el y f r om l at er states.
The simple materials in the sense of NOEL const i t ut e a subclass of our mat eri al
systems, and I refer t o t hem as systems " o f NOEL'S t ype":
Definition. A mat eri al system is of Nol l ' s type i f the following condi t i ons are
satisfied:
(N1) every process P C ~ may be cont i nued by a const ant process of ar bi t r ar y
dur at i on with the val ue P( d) ;
(N2) # is closed under cont i nuat i on, i.e. i f P~, P2 are in ~ and Pl ( t l ) : P 2 ( t 2 )
f or a t~ in [0, d~] and a t2 in [0, d2], t hen
t Px( t ) f or t ~ t t
P(t ) : = [P2(t2 - - t t + t ) f or tl < t ~ d2 - - t2 + t~
is in ~ ;
(N3) For each P~, P2 in # , P2 can be cont i nued by a process P3 such t hat Pa ~ P2
is in ~ , P3(d3) = P~(dl );
(N4) t he mat eri al funct i on F is single-valued f or all P in ~ ;
(N5) t he mat eri al system is relaxable;
(N6) t he initial state is relaxed.
(N1) as well as (N2) exclude most non-trivial classes of processes where all of
t he processes are once or even several times cont i nuousl y differentiable. Such
processes are i mpor t ant f or materials of t he differential type. Moreover, (N1)
excludes materials with finite life, (N3) restricts the vari et y of (non-classical)
const rai nt s t hat can be imposed, and (N6) excludes many aging materials.
9. Example: Rigid-Plastic Materials
NOEL viewed his new t heory of simple materials as being capable of describing
many types of mat eri al behavi or, including plastic behavior. Al t hough NOEL has
not publ i shed articles specifically directed t owar d theories of plasticity, ~ILHAVY
KRATOCHViL have studied plastic systems with viscoelastic range which are
qui t e general and fit i nt o t he present t heory. ~ However, t hei r t heor y does not
include a very simple f or m of plastic behavi or known as "ri gi d-pl ast i c" behavior.
These i mpor t ant and r at her simple materials are not included in any t heor y with
a single-valued stress response funct i on.
Each rigid-plastic mat eri al is specified by means of t hree relations: a yield
cri t eri on, a flow rule, and a st rai n-hardeni ng funct i on.
See also DEE PIERO.
Mat eri al Systems 129
I f s uch a mat er i al is gi ven i n a n i ni t i al st at e, no de f or ma t i on ( i . e . , yi el di ng)
will oc c ur as l ong as t he st resses ar e bel ow t he yi el d limit, gi ven by me a ns o f a
yi el d cri t eri on, r epr es ent ed by a r eal - val ued di fferent i abl e f unct i on, whi ch can b e
descr i bed i n t he i nt r i nsi c or i n t he r ef er ence descr i pt i on.
I n t hi s c ha pt e r I shal l use t he r ef er ence des cr i pt i on a n d t he i nt ri nsi c des cr i pt i on
suggest ed by NOLL s i mul t aneous l y. Al t h o u g h t he l at t er seems t o me mo r e a p p r o -
pr i at e and nat ur al , i t is yet n o t suffi ci ent l y we l l - known t o wa r r a nt omi t t i ng her e
t he mor e f ami l i ar r ef er ence descr i pt i on.
I n the i n t r i n s i c d e s c r i p t i o n , a (continuous) body ~' is an n-dimensional differentiable
mani fol d with boundar y, and we can appl y t o it the concepts and results of t he differen-
tial geomet ry of manifolds. I n particular, we have at each poi nt XE g t he t angent
space 3-x:~ and t he cot angent space J- *~' , bot h n-dimensional vect or spaces ( wi t hout
canoni cal inner product ). A motion is a t i me-dependent i mbeddi ng k of t he body mani -
fol d i nt o a Eucl i dean space (with t ransl at i on space ~e'). The local gradient of k is a l i near
funct i on
K ( X , t ) = grad k ( X , t ) : ~ x ~ - + ~1/
called a (local) placement, and t he (local) configuration is defined by
G( X, t ) = K * . K ( X , t ) ,
a symmet ri c and positive-defmite linear mappi ng f r om J - x ~ t o 3- }: ~ which can serve t o
identify bot h spaces and induces t he following inner pr oduct :
u . v : = ( G( u ) , v ) , f or all u, v E 3 - x ~.
We denot e t he set of these mappi ngs by Sym+( 3- x&, 3"}:~), and t he linear symmet r i c
(indefinite) mappi ngs in t he ot her direction by Sym (J-.~..~, 3-x:~ ). The i n t r i n s i c s t r e s s
S is an element of this latter set, so t hat S and G are dual variables. We identify J" with
Sym (.~3-~:~, ~ ' x ~) and o~r* with Sym (J-x: ~, J * ~ ) .
I n order t o relate this description t o t he reference description, we choose an ar bi t r ar y
reference placement k o ( X ) with gradient K o ( X ) and define Go : = Kf f . K o as reference
configuration. Then t he classical d e f o r m a t i o n g r a d i e n t is F ( X o , t) : = grad ( k- k~- 1) (X0, t )
= - K " K~- I ( Xo, t ) . The intrinsic stresses are related t o the Cauchy stress tensor T b y
t he f or mul a
T = K . S . K * : ~F" -+ OV " ,
such t hat t he stress power per uni t vol ume is
1
t r ( T. D) ---- t r ( T. / v . F -1) = - ~- t r ( S" G)
the rat e of deformat i on t ensor D : = 1 ( F . F _ 1 9 F _ t . i~t)" Hence t he with Cauchy
1
stresses are always defined in connect i on with an embeddi ng in t he Eucl i dean space,
locally expressed by K. I n what follows we will indicate the intrinsic description by t he
suffix i and the reference description by r. (This shall not mean t hat t he variables i ndi cat ed
by r do always depend on t he reference placement. )
Le t t he yi el d cr i t er i on be gi ven by t he real f unc t i on
~ r ( T) = V' ,(S, a ) ;
t he poi nt s wher e t hese f unct i ons equal zer o f o r m t he yi el d sur f ace, and f or t h e
poi nt s i nsi de t hi s sur f ace t hese f unct i ons ar e negat i ve. A we l l - known e x a mp l e
1 3 0 A . BERTRAM
is the yon Mises yield cri t eri on, which is given by a funct i on of the stress devi at or
I
T ' : - - T - - - ~- ( t r T ) l d :
!
~, ( T) = ]/tr T '2 - - / ~ = ] / @ ( I 2 - 3 l i t ) - / s
1/ 2 2
k
- I / ~ - ( l ~ . c - 31I s . a) - -
[ . 3
= ~ r s ( s , G )
where the principal invariants of Ta nd o f S . G are identical. (They are denot ed by
Roma n numerals. )
I f har deni ng is included, the yield cri t eri on depends on a h a r d e n i n g p a r a m e t e r
c~ which may be real or t ensor-val ued and is a rat e-i ndependent funct i on of the pro-
cess:
e q ( P ) = ~ , ( F ( t ) ) .
The yield cri t eri on then becomes
7 ' ~ ( s , a , ~ , . ) - - ~ U r ( T , o , , ) .
In the example, /~ is no l onger a const ant , but a funct i on of the hardeni ng para-
met er a.
No def or mat i on can occur in a rigid-plastic material when T is inside the yield
surface. Def or mat i ons with T on the yield surface are called "yi el di ng" or "(plas-
tic) fl ow" and are specified by means of a flow rule. The term "pl ast i c pot ent i al "
describes a class of flow rules for which plastic flow occurs in the direction of
t he out war d nor mal of the yield surface. In connect i on with the yon Mises yield
cri t eri on we obt ai n t he Levy-yon Mises flow rule:
D - - 2 T ' , 2 > 0 .
The intrinsic f or m of this rule is
1
( ; = 2 , , ( ( G . S . G - - ~ - I s . a G ) .
I f we take the stresses as the dependent variables, we i nt erpret the flow rule
as being an (implicit) material funct i on
S,(G, G, a, ) or /~,(F, /~, ~r).
Bot h funct i ons are defined f or G -71- 0 and / ) 4: O, respectively; their values are
elements of the set of effects, i . e . closed sets of stresses. For the given exampl e
we have
- - - - ~ - I s . G G - ) = G - X . ( S . G - ~ } i f ) . > 0 ~ i ( G , d , oci ) = {S~ .y_ ~ 22 ( S 1 a
I t
and
Material Systems 131
Not e t hat onl y the deviatoric par t of the stress occurs; the pressure remains
arbi t rary. (This material is assumed to be incompressible.)
In general, we impose two condi t i ons on the flow rule:
t) the response is rate-independent,
S~(G, G, 0ct) = S~(G, 76, ~,) for all 7 > 0;
2) it is not possible t o leave the yield surface duri ng the flow, i . e .
v , , ( d , ( a , 6 , a , = ( o }
t hr oughout the domai n of the funct i on S~.
The second condi t i on enables us to eliminate the fact or 2 in the Levy-von
Mises flow rule, so t hat we obt ai n the formul as
S i ( G , G, oq) : [ S
and
^ G - 1 . G . G - 1
= - - p G - 1 + K
(tr (G - ~" G)2)89
f r ( F , F , = { 7 " =
I ( I ~. F - 1 F - t
with D : = -2- + ./~t).
- - p l d + / < ~ t r ~ p ~
- 1
We now come to the formal description of a rigid-plastic mat eri al syst em:
Let the class of processes ~ be the set of all cont i nuous and piecewise cont i nuousl y
differentiable processes with a preassigned initial value Go, with values in Sym +
( J ' x ~, 3- *~) , and with det (Go" P - ~ ( d ) ) = 1, let ~i be a hardeni ng funct i on
defined on ~, let ~ ( S , G, o~i) be a yield criterion defined on Sym (~d"*~, Yx ~ )
Sym + (3-x. ~ , ~- *~) oci(# ), and let Si be a flow rule defined on Sym + ( J ' x&,
J - ~ ) x S y m( ~ - - x ~ , ~ - - * ~ ) The material funct i on is given by
(S C Sym (~--*~, J ' x ~ ) [ ~J i ( S, P(d), oci(P)) ~ O) i f P'(d) = 0,
F ( P ) [ ~, ( P( d) , / ' ( d) , ~( P) ) i f P ( d ) ~;~ 0;
//'(d) denotes the left-derivative of P, /6(0) : : 0 for all P in ~.
This material is rat e-i ndependent and thus is not aging. A consequence of
this propert y is t hat the hardeni ng funct i on cannot change its values duri ng
const ant processes of arbi t rary durat i on. Because const ant processes are in
and their effects are also const ant , the mat eri al system is relaxable. I t is not
invertible, as the condi t i ons (RS) and (Rg) are violated. Al t hough we cannot
say anyt hi ng about revertibility in general, isotropic hardeni ng surely does not de-
fine a revertible system. We expect t hat deformat i ons for systems with ki nemat i c
hardeni ng can be reverted by means of reversals of deformat i ons.
In order to specify the state space we restrict ourselves t o the case where no
hardeni ng occurs (perfect plasticity). The state of such a system can be represented
132 A. BERTRAM
b y (i) t he c o n f i g u r a t i o n P(d), a n d (ii) t he di r e c t i on o f / ~ ( d ) or t he i n f o r ma t i o n
t h a t i t is zer o.
Th e s e c t i ons o f t he s t at e s pace a r e t hos e t h a t ha ve t he s a me c o n f i g u r a t i o n
P(d). We c a n n o t s peci f y t he n a t u r a l u n i f o r mi t y a n d t o p o l o g y o f t he s e c t i ons wi t h-
o u t mo r e i n f o r ma t i o n a b o u t ~g a n d Si, b u t we d o n o t e xpe c t t h e m t o be t r i vi al .
Acknowledgment. I woul d l i ke t o t hank RUDOLF TROSTEL, ARNOLD KRAWIETZ,
my t eachers, DAVID OWEN, and EKKEHARD TJADEN for t hei r hel pful suggest i ons and
encour agement .
1 0 . R e f e r e n c e s
ALTS: Ther modynami k el ast i scher K6r per mi t t her moki nemat i schen Zwangsbedi ngun-
gen - - fadenverst~irkte Mat er i al i en. Techni sche Uni versi t / i t Berlin. 1979.
ANDREUSSI & PODIO GUIDUGLI: Ther momechani cal const r ai nt s in si mpl e mat er i al s.
Bull. Acad. Pol on. Sci., S6r. sci. t echn. 21, 4. 1973.
BERTRAM (1): Mat er i el l e Syst eme mi t i nneren Zwangsbedi ngungen. Doct or al thesis.
Techni sche Uni versi t Rt Berlin. 1980.
BERTRAM (2): An i nt r oduct i on of i nt ernal const r ai nt s in a nat ur al way. Z AMM 60,
p. 100, 1980.
BERTRAM t~r HAUPT: A not e on Andr eus s i / Gui dugl i ' s t heor y of t her momechani cal
const r ai nt s in si mpl e mat er i al s. Bull. Acad. Pol on. Sci., S6r. Sci. techn. , 24, 1. 1976.
BOURBAKI: Topol ogi e g6n6rale. Chap. I I , 2. Pari s. 1965.
BRIDGMAN: The t her modynami cs of pl ast i c def or mat i on and general i zed ent r opy. Rev.
mod. phys. 22, 1. 1950.
COLEMAN & OWEN: A mat hemat i cal f oundat i on for t her modynami cs. Ar ch. Rat i onal
Mech. Anal . 54, 1. 1974.
FICHERA: Boundar y val ue pr obl ems of el ast i ci t y wi t h uni l at er al const rai nt s. Ha ndbuc h
der Physi k VI a/2. Ed. TRUESDELL. Berlin, Hei del ber g, New Yor k. 1972. p. 391.
GILES: Mat hemat i cal f oundat i ons of t her modynami cs. Oxford, London, New Yor k,
Pari s. 1964.
GREEN, NAGHDI & TRAPP: Ther modynami cs of a cont i nuum wi t h i nt ernal const r ai nt s.
I nt . J. Engng. Sci., 8. 1970. pp. 891-908.
GURTIN & PODIO GUIDUGEI: The t her modynami cs of const r ai ned mat er i al s. Ar ch.
Rat i onal Mech. Anal . 51, 3. 1973.
HAUSDORFF: Grundzi.ige der Mengenl ehre. New Yor k. 1949.
MICHAEL: Topol ogi es on spaces of subsets. Tr an. Am. Mat h. Soc. 71. 1951.
NOEL: A new mat hemat i cal t heor y of si mpl e mat er i al s. Ar ch. Rat i onal Mech. Anal . 48,
1. 1972.
ONAT i n I UT AM 1966. Symposi um. Ed. PARKUS & SEDOV. Wi en. 1968, p. 292-313.
ONAT in I UT AM 1968. Symposi um. Ed. BOLEY. Berlin, Hei del ber g, New Yor k. 1970.
p. 213-225.
OWEN: A mechani cal t heor y of mat er i al s wi t h el ast i c range. Ar ch. Rat i onal Mech.
Anal . 37, 2. 1970. p. 85.
PERZYNA & KOSiNSKI: A mat hemat i cal t heor y of mat eri al s. Bull. Acad. Pol on. Sci. ,
S6r. sci. t echn. 21, 12. 1973.
PERZYNA: A gr adi ent t heor y of r heol ogi cal mat er i al s wi t h i nt er nal st r uct ur al changes.
Ar ch. Mech. 23, 6. 1971. pp. 845-850.
DEE PIERO: On t he el ast i c-pl ast i c mat er i al el ement . Arch. Rat i onal Mech. Anal . 59, 2.
1975. p. 111.
Material Systems 133
PRAGER: On elastic, perfectly locking materials, in: Applied mechanics. Ed. G6RTLER.
Berlin. 1966.
SCHUBERT: Topologie. Stuttgart. 1964.
SILHAV~" & KRATOCHV~L: A theory of inelastic behavior of materials. Arch. Rational
Mech. Anal. 65, 2. 1977.
TRUESDELL & NOLL: The non-linear field theories of mechanics, kIandbuch der Physik.
III/3. Ed. FLOGGE. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 1965.
Technische Universit/it Berlin (West)
2. Institut ftir Mechanik
(Received February 11, 1982)