Dissertation Holger Lang PDF

The difference of the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic
boundary value problem and

an approach to multiaxial stress-strain correction
Holger Lang
Elastic BVP solution

Elastoplastic BVP solution
Correction
Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Universitat Kaiserslautern

zur Verleihung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Doctor rerum naturalium, Dr. rer. nat.)
genehmigte Dissertation
Gutachter
Prof. Dr. Rene Pinnau (Technische Universitat Kaiserslautern)
Prof. Dr. Martin Brokate (Technische Universitat M
unchen)
Disputation
2. Oktober 2007
D 386
For my family
Contents
I
II
INTRODUCTION
THEORY
13
1 Stop and Play with respect to different scalar products

1.1 Definitions, Wellposedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Basic properties of stop and play . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Some generalised Lipschitz estimates . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Some transformation rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
15
15
19
20
26
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
30
30
31
31
32
34
36
39
43
48
50
correction model for linear kinematic hardening material

Global correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Localisation of correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Homotopy between both models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
53
60
63
4 Two generalisations
4.1 Generalisation for linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material . . . . .
4.2 Generalisation for the class of continuous functions with bounded variation .
71
71
82
5 The
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
85
85
92
93
97
2 The
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
difference of the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic

The elastic model, governing relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The elastoplastic model, governing relations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Common definitions for both models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 The spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 The operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.3 The elastic domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solution of elastic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solution of elastoplastic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Robustness of elastoplastic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Difference of both models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The difference of stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BVPs
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
pointwise correction model for linear kinematic hardening material

Transfer from the global to a pointwise correction model . . . . . . . . . . . .
A first estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A second estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A third estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
III
PRACTICE
6 The pointwise correction model for Jiang

6.1 The Jiang correction model . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Definition of function Jes . . . . .
6.1.2 Definition of functions Les and Kes
6.1.3 The parameters . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.4 Some further explanations . . . . .
6.2 The Jiang constitutive model . . . . . . .
6.2.1 The stress controlled Jiang model .
6.2.2 The strain controlled Jiang model
6.3 Some theoretical discussion . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 Some easy facts . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2 Flux computations . . . . . . . . .
6.3.3 A special case . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.4 Phases of relaxation . . . . . . . .
6.4 A modified correction model . . . . . . . .
99
material
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
101
102
104
107
107
109
111
111
113
115
116
122
129
131
131
7 Numerical implementation of the pointwise correction model

7.1 The basic algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 The outer loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.2 The inner loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.3 The constitutive model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Numerical tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 The butterfly test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 The unsmoothed noise test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 The modified correction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
137
138
138
141
142
144
145
149
150
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8 Comparison with elastoplastic BVP solutions and measurements

157
8.1 Parameter identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.2 Algorithmic differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
IV
APPENDIX
197
A Proof of Krej
cs theorem
B Miscellaneous
B.1 Two useful lemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.2 Remarks on linear operators and function spaces . . .
B.3 Remarks on the Doring-Vormwald constitutive model .
B.4 Open challenges and questions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C Notations
199
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
203
203
205
207
211
213
Part I
INTRODUCTION
introduction
3
Motivation
In order to give a reliable lifetime or damage prediction for an elastoplastic metallic body,
which is subjected to exterior loads, good knowledge of the local stresses and strains over
time is necessary. If measurements are not possible (experimentally or financially), numerical
analysis may be applied.
The usual process of finite element based fatigue analysis in practical engineering is depicted in
figure A. In any case, the starting point of a durability analysis is a finite element discretisation
of the body.
Finite Element Analysis
Difference? Estimates?
(this thesis)
?

Elastic BVP
(linear, quasistatic, superposition)
?
Tensorial elastic stresses and
strains e(x, t), e(x, t)
?q
Scalar elastic stresses and
strains e q (x, t), eq (x, t)
@
?
R
@
Elastoplastic BVP
(nonlinear, quasistatic, transient)
?
Multiaxial correction
(this thesis)
?
No/Uniaxial correction
(e. g. Neuber, ESED)
?
?
Tensorial stresses and strains
(x, t), (x, t) resp. (x, t), (x, t)
?
?q
Scalar stresses and strains
q (x, t), q (x, t) resp. q (x, t), q (x, t)
?
Uniaxial damage models, Hysteresis counting algorithms
?
Damage D(x)

hcf
lcf
Figure A. Possible ways in fatigue analysis. Here q denote some one-dimensional scalar equivalent magnitude, e. g. a signed norm or a projection of the tensorial quantity, the tildedenotes the correction of a (scalar
or tensorial) elastic quantity.
For low cycle fatigue analysis (lcf), the numerically expensive transient elastoplastic boundary value problem with an appropriate elastoplastic constitutive material law is solved in
order to receive the exact elastoplastic stresses (x, t) and strains (x, t). This is the right
hand branch of figure A.
In high cycle fatigue analysis (hcf), the linear elastic boundary value problem with Hookes
constitutive material law is solved to receive the elastic stresses e(x, t) and strains e(x, t).
Here the linear superposition principle is essential for the low computational costs. If the
locations, where the elastic stress crosses the yield stress of the material, are small in volume
introduction
and almost the whole body behaves elastic (the effect of elastic support), local corrections
may be applied,
after projection of the tensorial quantities e(x, t), e(x, t) to a scalar quantity e q (x, t),
e (x, t). Here clearly multiaxiality gets lost. For uniaxial corrections, Neuber s method,
q
cf. Neuber [90, 91], and the equivalent strain energy density (ESED) method, cf.
Glinka/Molski [45], are well established in the meantime. This corresponds to the
very left hand branch in figure A.
before projection on scalar quantities. Here multiaxial Neuber approaches, cf. Glinka
et al. [18, 83, 44, 104] and Chu [23], yield surface approaches, cf. Barkey et al. [3],
ttgen et al. [72, 73]
and pseudo parameter approaches have been suggested, cf. Ko
and Hertel [53]. This corresponds to the centred branch in figure A.
An example for hcf. In engineering durability, the exterior load functions are typically
sampled with a frequency of about 400 sec1 . Half an hour on a test track, i. e. 30 min
= 1800 sec, consequently yield 720 000 data points. So it is and will be in the next years
impossible to solve the full transient nonlinear problem in an acceptable computational time
with sufficiently fine discretisation of the body. Nowadays, practicians cannot help choosing
the leftmost branch in figure A.
At the end of the fatigue analysis, which is common for all branches, the accumulated damage
is computed, where it is widespread consensus to use the uniaxial Rainflow counting method,
see e. g. Dressler et al. [4, 15, 35, 36, 37], Seeger [26], Rychlik [101] or Hack [48].
Thereby, for the damage quantification, a lot of damage parameters have been developed.
They assign a certain amount of damage to a given closed hysteresis loop. Some of the most
established ones are those of Manson, Coffin and Morrow [84, 28, 87] or Smith, Watson and Topper [105]. These methods are usually available in commercial software tools for
fatigue analysis nowadays.
Independently of which special kind of elastoplastic constitutive material law we consider, the
elastoplastic BVP model (nonlinear, hysteresis operator with memory structure
between stress and strain , energy dissipation, damage accumulation, irreversible process!)
is much closer to nature than the
elastic BVP model (linear, one-to-one operator between stress e and strain e, no
energy dissipation, no damage, fully reversible process!).
However, for stresses, which are below the yield stress, they coincide. (Cf. lemmas 2.3.5 and
4.1.3 as well.)
Where can this thesis be situated?

We briefly summarise what is new in this thesis.
So far, no literature exists that is concerned with the question what the difference
between the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic boundary value problem is. No
introduction
difference estimates exist so far. We answer this question in chapters 2 and chapters 4
for linear kinematic and linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material. It turns out
that the difference of stresses, strains and displacements can be expressed as composition
of some linear operators and a play operator with respect to the exterior forces.
So far, no mathematical literature exists about those multiaxial correction schemes. We
give a first mathematical approach on this subject in chapters 3 and 5, where we try to
ttgen et al. [72, 73] and Hertel [53]
justify the multiaxial correction methods of Ko
in an analytical setting.
So far, computational results for the correction approaches [3, 18, 23, 44, 53, 72, 73,
83, 104] differ excessively from the numerical transient elastoplastic boundary value
problem solution. We suggest some improvements for the correction methods in [53, 72,
73] and apply large-scale parameter identification techniques, yielding in a significant
improvement of existing results. This is done in chapters 6, ..., 8 of this thesis.
Before starting, we have to give a more detailed exposition of the basic relations. An overview
about general notations is given in appendix C.
Mathematical setting
Let R3 be a bounded domain, representing the elastoplastic metallic body, that is
subjected to exterior loads. We assume, that its boundary is sufficiently smooth, e. g. of
class C 1 , and that it decomposes into = 0 1 , where 0 , 1 are relatively open
and disjoint, 0 1 = , satisfying Area(0 ) > 0.
each undergo a nonlinear multiaxial constitutive hysteretic material law of
The points x
the form
Z t

C ep (x, ), (x,
), v1 (x, ), . . . , vn (x, ) (x,
) d,
(1)
(x, t) = H[(x, )](t) =
0
where the elastoplastic tensors C ep R3333 depend on the whole history of the material
and its points, condensed in a set of internal state variables vi , representing the memory of
the material at each point x. Examples for H are the constitutive models of
Melan [86], Prager [95, 96], Ziegler [114], Besseling [5], Bower [7], Mroz [16, 88, 89,
13], Garud [43], Ohno-Wang [92, 93], Chu [22], Chaboche [12, 20, 21], ArmstrongFrederick [2], W. Jiang [68, 69], Y. Jiang-Sehitoglu [63, 64, 65, 66, 67], Tanaka
[106], Doring-Vormwald [33, 34, 54], and many more ...
We recommend Lemaitre/Chaboche [79] for an overview. For introductory literature we

recommend Hill [56], Kaliszky [70] or Lippmann [82]. In this thesis we are especially
concerned with the following constitutive material models,
(E)
Elastic material [24, 25, 38, 80],
(EPK)
Linear kinematic hardening material [9, 14, 86, 95, 96],
(EPKI)
Linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material [9, 14, 75, 76],
(EPJ)
Jiang material [63, 64, 65, 66, 67].
introduction
Model (EPK) is as well called the model of Melan [86] and Prager [95, 96]. The model
(EPJ) of Y. Jiang and H. Sehitoglu is quite successful in practice and widely accepted
in the engineering community. We briefly name it Jiangs model. It reproduces many transient multiaxial stress-strain phenomena like cyclic hardening/softening or ratchetting. An
overview of all represented material effects may be found in table (6.36).
Let exterior surface forces g : 1 [0, T ] R3 and exterior volume forces f : [0, T ] R3
be given. The nonlinear transient elastoplastic initial boundary value problem for
the elastoplastic displacement u : [0, T ] R3 ,
the elastoplastic strain : [0, T ] R33
s ,
the elastoplastic stress : [0, T ] R33
s
with hysteresis is given by

u + DIV (I + u) + f = 0

= 21 u + ut + uut
= H[]
with the boundary conditions

u = 0 on 0
(I + u)n = g on 1
and the initial conditions
u(, 0) = u0
u(,
0) = u 0
on
in .
in
(2)
(3)
(4)
Here always DIV = DIVx and = x with respect to the space variable. H is a hysteresis
operator of the form (1), describing the constitutive elastoplastic material behaviour.
The unique solvability of the full nonlinear problem (2), ..., (4) is very hard in general. We
restrict ourselves to the problem with some simplified assumptions: We assume geometric linearity and neglection of dynamic and viscous effects. Then (2), ..., (4) reduce to the quasistatic
nonlinear transient elastoplastic boundary value problem with linearised geometry
DIV + f = 0

in
(5)
= 21 u + ut
= H[]

and the initial condition
u = 0
n = g

on 0
on 1
u(, 0) = u0
on
in .
(6)
(7)
So far, the only elastoplastic material laws, for which system (5), ..., (7) is known to be uniquely
solvable, are the following.
introduction
Absence of any hardening, i. e. perfect plasticity, cf. Temam [107], not considered in
this work.
ger [47], Zeid Linear kinematic hardening (EPK), cf. Han/Reddy [49, 50], Gro
ler [113] and theorem 2.5.1. The governing relations in operator form are given by
(2.7), ..., (2.11) later.
Linear kinematic hardening plus isotropic hardening (EPKI), cf. Han/Reddy [49, 50]
and theorem 4.1.4. The governing relations in operator form are given by (4.1), ..., (4.6)
later.
Nevertheless, there exist algorithms in finite element codes for materials, for which the
uniquely solvability of (5), ..., (7) is not guaranteed so far.
For the same exterior forces g : 1 [0, T ] R3 and f : [0, T ] R3 , the linear
quasistatic elastic boundary value problem for
the elastic displacement eu : [0, T ] R3 ,
the elastic strain e : [0, T ] R33
s ,
the elastic stress e : [0, T ] R33
s
is given by
DIV e + f = 0

e = 1 eu + eut
2
e = C e

eu
en
= 0
= g
on 0
on 1
in
on ,
(8)
(9)
for each fixed t [0, T ] being a static problem. C(x) = (cijkl (x)) R3333 is Hookes
tensor of elasticity with generally x-dependent components
cijkl (x) = (x) ij kl + (x) (ik jl + il jk ),
where
(x) =
E(x)(x)

,
1 + (x) 1 2(x)
(x) =
E(x)
,
1 + (x)
(10)
(11)
cf. Reismann [98] or section 2.3.4 in Leipholz [80]. The parameters are
E(x), (x) : Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio at x,
(x), (x) : Lames constants at x,
(x) :
density at x.
Korns inequality
Z
kv(x) + v(x)t k2 dx 2 () kvk2W 1,2 ()
v W01,2 (, 0 , R3 )
(12)
is well known and the basic constituent of the proof of existence and uniqueness of weak
solutions of system (8), (9), see e. g. Duvaut/Lions [38], section III.3.3, or Ciarlet et al.
[25, 24] for the static case. For the quasistatic elastic case, which is usually not mentioned in
the mathematical literature, we refer to this thesis:
introduction
Quasistatic linear elastic boundary value problem (E), cf. theorem 2.4.1. The governing
equations in operator form are given by (2.5), (2.6) later.
For a proof of (12) we refer to Duvaut/Lions [38] or section 62.15 in Zeidler [113].
Some comments about the terminology. Whenever the adjective elastic occurs, we mean
the eu, e and e of the quasistatic elastic boundary value problem with linearised geometry.
Elastic always means linear elastic.
Whenever the adjective elastoplastic occurs, we mean the u, and of the quasistatic
elastoplastic boundary value problem with linearised geometry.
If the adjective true is applied, we mean experimental strain or stress measurements tr, tr.
(This will be only used in chapter 8, where measurements will be benchmark- tests.)
Due to the linearity, the quasistatic elasticity problem decouples into time t and space x. This
means: If the exterior forces f , g are given by a linear superposition of finitely many static
exterior forces, the so-called load cases
fi L2 (, R3 ),
i. e.
f (x, t) =
g(x, t) =
Xi
i
gi L2 (1 , R3 ),

(x, t) [0, T ]
Li (t) fi (x),

(x, t) 1 [0, T ]
Li (t) gi (x),
with arbitrary scalar load functions Li : [0, T ] R, and if

e
ui : R 3 ,
i : R33
s ,
(13)
i : R33
s
denote the solution triples of the static problem (8), (9), that are corresponding to the fi , gi ,
then the elastic quasistatic stress and strains tensor and displacement fields are given by
X
X
X
e
e
e
(x, t) =
Li (t) e i (x),
(x, t) =
Li (t) ei (x),
u(x, t) =
Li (t) eui (x) (14)
i
for (x, t) [0, T ]. This is easy to verify: Inserting (13), (14) into (8) and (9), using the
linearity and the fact that for each i, the triple e i , ei , eui is a solution of the corresponding
static problem for the exterior forces gi , fi , we arrive at
X
Li (t) DIV e i (x) + fi (x) 0
X

1X
in
Li (t) eui (x) + euti (x)
Li (t) ei (x)
2 Xi
Xi
Li (t)e i (x) C
Li (t) ei (x)
i
and
Li (t) eui (x) 0

X
Li (t)e i (x)n(x)
Li (t) gi (x)
i
on 0
on 1
on .
Here denotes equality of each summand. And it is this decoupling property, which makes
the elastic approach very cheap and attractive in engineering applications, compared to the
costs when solving the full transient problem with the exact nonlinear stress-strain relationship (1). In section 2.4, the quasistatic elastic problem is considered in purely space-time
decoupled form.
denote a fixed point.
We especially point out a special case. To this end, we let
introduction
we have e(t, ) and (t, ) in

The general case: For anywhere in the domain ,

R33
= A R33 : A = At R6 .
(15)
s
The special free boundary case: If is a point of the free boundary of , i. e.

1 \ 1,g , where
g=0
on 1 \ 1,g 1 ,
it follows if is smooth at with normal direction n from the boundary condition
= 0 resp. n = 0, that an appropriate orthonormal basis exists with one basis
vector collinear to n, such that e(t, ) and (t, ) are in

33
R33
: a13 = a23 = a33 = 0 R22
R3 .
(16)
sp = A = (aij ) Rs
s
en
The free boundary case is very important because of three reasons.
First, it is possible to obtain the stresses e and from its deviator in an easy fashion,
cf. remark 5.1.2.
Second, in most practical examples, the stress maxima are located on the boundary, cf.
Neuber [90] or Wheeler [109].
Third, in most practical examples, the points of highest accumulated damage, where
cracks emerge and begin to grow, turn out to lie at the boundary, cf. Lemaitre/Cha ring [34].
boche [79] or Do
But there should be paid attention, since a general maximum principle even just for the static
linear elastic boundary value problem does not exist, see Polya [94] or Langhaar/Stippes
[78] or section 4 in Wheeler [109]. (Note that the problem is elliptic, but not scalar.)
If lies in an area, where the true stress is high, e. g. in a notched region, plasticity comes
into play, so almost all practical experiences indicate this
the elastic stress e overestimates the elastoplastic stress (and the true stress tr).
the elastic strain e underestimates the elastoplastic strain (and the true strain tr).
Typically these regions are small, and the overall material behaviour is elastic. This is usually
called the effect of elastic support. The goal of the correction model, presented in this thesis,
is to rectify e(, t), e(, t) to
(, t), (, t), from now on referred to as the corrected stress
resp. strain, by an appropriate modification/extension of the constitutive elastoplasticity
model in order to get closer to the elastoplastic solution (, t), (, t). Eventually, this is the
point, on which hysteresis counting may be set up.
The organisation of this thesis

This work is divided into a theoretical part (chapters 1, ..., 5), in which the theory (representation formulas, estimates, ...) is developed for (EPK) and (EPKI) material, and a practical
part (chapters 6, ..., 8), where we expose the correction model for (EPJ) material.
10
introduction
The former part gives some new mathematical insights into the connection between the the
elastic and elastoplastic boundary value problems.
The latter part shall satisfy the everyday computing reader, who is confronted with engineering applications, and give impulses for further mathematical research. Here just small pieces
can be proven, but truly practical improvements are presented.
In more detail, this thesis is structured in the following way.
Chapter 1 resumes some standard Lipschitz estimates for the so-called stop and the play
operator, which are the basic tools for the description of elastoplastic constitutive material
behaviour. These estimates can be generalised in the sense that different input functions, different initial memories and different scalar products are admitted. They are the main devices
for the proof of the estimates of the next chapters.
Chapters 2, 3, 4 are the main body of this work. Mathematical analysis is done for the
elastic and elastoplastic boundary value problems. These chapters cover:
The differences e , e and euu of the solutions of the elastic (E) and elastoplastic
boundary value problems (EPK), (EPKI) can be written as a composition of some linear
operators and a play operator. Especially, the model solution differences may grow at
most linearly in the total variation of the applied exterior forces. See sections 2.7 and
4.1.
As a consequence, we prove that it is possible to get the elastic stress e out of the
elastoplastic stress , both for (EPK) and (EPKI) material, and vice versa.
We prove that it is possible to estimate the elastic stress e by a constant times the
elastoplastic stress , which is possible independently of the constitutive plastic material
law. This result may be considered as a kind of main lemma for hcf analysis, where
no correction is applied at all (in other words: if the correction is just the identity).
This is done in section 2.8.
We give new input and parameter robustness proofs for the elastoplastic boundary value
problems as an easy consequence of the generalised Lipschitz estimates for stop and play
of chapter 1. Both (EPK) and (EPKI) material is considered, cf. sections 2.6 and 4.1.
The wellposedness of the boundary value problems for (EPK) and (EPKI) material
is generalised for the function class W 1,q ([0, T ], ), for arbitrary 1 q , and
CBV ([0, T ], ), cf. section 2.5 and 4.2.
A global correction model for (EPK) material is introduced in chapter 3, for which error
estimates are given. Localisation under the assumption of the effect of elastic support
is done.
Chapter 5 transfers the correction idea to set up a pointwise correction model for (EPK)
material. Error estimates for the pointwise correction model are given. The analysis is performed here without the surrounding partial differential coupling.
introduction
11
In chapter 6, we transfer the pointwise correction model from chapter 5 to (EPJ) material.
We concentrate on Jiangs model, whose wellposedness is not yet established, because of the
following reasons.
For practical application purposes, it is indispensable to consider an elastoplastic material law, which contains enough complexity to reflect enough aspects of nonlinear,
transient multiaxial hysteretic material behaviour. From the engineers point of view,
there is too much mathematical/structural idealisation in the (EPK) and (EPKI) models. The (EPJ) model instead reproduces ratchetting, non-Masing behaviour, transient
cyclic hardening and softening, etc.
The (EPJ) model is formulated by differential equations. This is the most general kind of
formulation for constitutive elastoplastic material laws. Every constitutive elastoplastic
material law on page 5 can be written as such a system of (discontinuous) differential
equations, see Lemaitre/Chaboche [79].
We do not want to overkill the reader with full generality (1) and concentrate ourselves
on (EPJ) material. The translation to the other laws on page 5 is then straightforward.
We can prove a collection of lemmas for the (EPJ) model, which will hopefully give
rise to a final wellposedness proof, both for the stress-strain law in isolation and for
the associated boundary value problem. So far, no analytical literature exists that is
concerned with the (EPJ) model.
In chapter 7 we expose a fast numerical method to implement the pointwise correction model
of chapter 6, where we concentrate on (EPJ) material. The algorithm can straightforwardly
be transferred to all other constitutive laws, which are contained in the collection of page 5.
Our algorithm is very fast and designed for the case that the elastic stress tensor is piecewise
linear in time.
The results for the corrected stress can be significantly improved introducing Seegers relation as an additional constraint, cf. Hoffmann/Seeger [59, 60, 61]. A predictor-corrector
method for the compliance of such empirical relations is presented. The modified algorithm
is still very performant. As it yields very good approximations for all the three plane stress
tensor components, it can be used in connection with multiaxial Rainflow methods in high cycle fatigue analysis, especially with the so-called critical plane approach, see [48] for example.
This is a crucial improvement to the widespread uniaxial corrections like Neubers method or
the ESED method.
Chapter 8 gives numerical results both for (EPJ) and (EPK) material. A gradient based
least-squares algorithm for parameter identification is applied to the pointwise correction
model. The gradient evaluation with respect to the parameters, which is very large in scale
for (EPJ) material, is realised with the modern algorithmic/automatic forward differentiation
technique. It makes the parameter identification feasible for practice. The results of the
correction model agree very fine both with numerical stress-strain analyses (transient elastoplastic finite element method) and physical strain measurements.
With our correction model, we lie somewhere between lcf and hcf: It is fast enough for hcf,
cf. chapter 7 and remark 8.3.2, the estimates will assure a small error for lcf, if appropriate
elastic parameters have been determined, cf. theorem 3.1.3.
12
introduction
Part II
THEORY
13
Chapter 1
Stop and Play with respect to

different scalar products
Very important analytical tools for the description of rate-independent elastoplastic material
behaviour are the so-called stop and play operators. Here the works of Brokate/Krejc
[9], ..., [14], [75], ..., [77], Krasnoselskii/Pokrovskii [74] or Visintin [108] have been pathbreaking. We will need those operators in this whole part II, e. g. to express the difference of
the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic boundary value problems in chapters 2 and 4.
This first chapter has preparing character. In section 1.1, we give a definition of stop and
play that allows to take different scalar products into account. Krejcs theorem can be
straightforwardly adapted, see theorem 1.1.1 and appendix A for a detailed proof.
Section 1.3 gives some Lipschitz estimates for the differences of stop/play operators that
correspond to different scalar products. We need the latter in order to estimate the model
differences in chapters 2 and 4 and in order to give estimates for our correction model in
chapter 3. The main theorem of this chapter is theorem 1.3.1. Further in section 1.4, we
prove some useful transformation formula for stop and play.
The results of this chapter are formulated for both the AC = W 1,1 and the CBV class of
input/output functions.
1.1
Definitions, Wellposedness
For the scalar product h, i on a separable Hilbert space X, a convex and closed characteristic
C X such that 0 C, an initial memory s0 C and a symmetric, strongly positive operator
A L(X, X), there exists a unique decomposition of the unity
I = PC,A,h,i + SC,A,h,i
(1.1)
PC,A,h,i , SC,A,h,i : CBV ([0, T ], X) C CBV ([0, T ], X),

resp. PC,A,h,i , SC,A,h,i : W 1,q ([0, T ], X) C W 1,q ([0, T ], X),
(1.2)
into operators
named
play p(t) = PC,A,h,i (f, s0 )(t)
and
stop s(t) = SC,A,h,i(f, s0 )(t)

15
for t [0, T ],
16
the stop and the play operator w.r.t. different scalar products 1
whose outputs are defined by the uniquely determined solution of the (differential) evolution
variational inequality
Z T
A dp( ), (s )( ) 0
for all C([0, T ], C)
0
s(t) + p(t) = f (t)
e. in [0, T ] .
(1.3)
s(t)
C
e.
in
[0,
T
]
s(0) = s0
for CBV resp.

1
A p(t),
s(t)
s(t) + p(t)
s(t)
s(0)
0
f (t)
C
s0
for all C
a. e. in [0, T ]
e. in [0, T ]
.
e. in [0, T ]
(1.4)
for W 1,q . Here the integral in (1.3) is to be understood in the Riemann-Stieltjes sense with
Hilbert-space valued integrands. The spaces CBV and W 1,q are defined by

W 1,q ([0, T ], X) = f AC([0, T ], X) : f Lq ([0, T ], X) ,
(1 q )
CBV ([0, T ], X) = C([0, T ], X) BV ([0, T ], X),
[76]. The norms on CBV resp. W 1,q are given by

cf. section 9.2 in Krejc
kf kCBV = kf k + (f )
resp.
for f CBV ([0, T ], X)

1/q
for f W 1,q ([0, T ], X)
(1.5)
kf kW 1,, = kf (0)k + ess sup [0,T ] kf( )k
for f W 1, ([0, T ], X)
(1.6)
kf kW 1,q, = kf (0)k +
for 1 q < ,
for q = . Here
Z
kf( )kq d
kf k,t = max kf ( )k,

[0,t]
kf k = max kf ( )k
[0,T ]
is the maximum norm of f C([0, T ], X) and

(f ) =
sup
N
X
{0=0 <...<N =T } i=1
kf (i ) f (i1 )k =
T
0
kf( )kd
is the total variation of f CBV ([0, T ], X). In the latter, the left hand identity is the general
definition in CBV , the right hand equality holds on the subspace AC = W 1,1 . Note that the
inclusions
W 1,q ([0, T ], X) W 1,1 ([0, T ], X) = AC([0, T ], X) CBV ([0, T ], X) C([0, T ], X)
for 1 q hold.
Krejcs theorem 4.1 [76] can be easily adapted for scalar products, which are possibly different
than the original one. A detailed proof of the next theorem is given in appendix A.
1 the stop and the play operator w.r.t. different scalar products
17
1.1.1 Theorem (Stop and play operator, CBV and W 1,q ) Let (X, h, i) be a separable Hilbert space, C X convex and closed, containing the origin, and A L(X, X) symmetric
and strongly positive. Then the following assertions hold.
(a) For each f CBV ([0, T ], X), s0 C, there exist uniquely determined functions p and
s in CBV ([0, T ], X), such that (1.3) holds.
(b) For each f W 1,q ([0, T ], X), s0 C, there exist uniquely determined functions p and s
in W 1,q ([0, T ], X), such that (1.4) holds.
Here 1 q in (1.4) .
Proof: According to section B.2 in the appendix, h, iA = hA1 , i defines an equivalent
scalar product on X. Thus the topologies on X X , induced by k k and k kA , are equal.
Thus (X, k kA ) is as well separable, and C is as well closed with respect to k kA . Clearly,
the origin remains in C, and the convexity, which is a purely algebraic property, is as well not
affected.
[75] or theorem 4.1 in Krejc
[76] to (X, k kA ) to receive
Now apply theorem 3.1 in Krejc
(a). Apply proposition 3.9 in [75] or proposition 4.1 in [76] to (X, k kA ) to receive (b).
1.1.2 Remark. (a) In fact, (1.3) enjoys a higher generality than (1.4). Clearly, (1.4) implies (1.3)
[75].
because of lemma 1.25 in Krejc
(b) Note that the proof above does not need Int(C) 6= , cf. remark 1.2.1 as well. (For higher
regular sets C, even inputs of class C([0, T ], X) may be admitted, cf. section 4.2 in [76].)
(c) If 1 q < , stop and play are continuous w.r.t. the norm k kW 1,q, , cf. theorem 4.2 in
[76], and thus w.r.t. k kW 1,q due to lemma 1.1.3 below. For q = this is not true
Krejc
any more, see the counterexample in remark 4.3 in [76].

We introduce
q =
q/(q 1) if q > 1
,
1
if q = 1
thus
q
= q 1,
q
(1.7)
the (quasi) H
older conjugate for a given real number 1 q < .
1.1.3 Lemma. Let (X, h, i) be a separable Hilbert space. On the space W 1,q ([0, T ], X), the standard Sobolev norm
kf kW 1,q =
Z
kf ( )k d
1/q
Z
T
0
kf( )kq d
1/q
(1.8)
and the non-standard Sobolev norm (1.5) are equivalent for each 1 q < . Additionally,
we have
kf (t)k kf k kf kW 1,1,
for all t [0, T ].
(1.9)
Proof: (1) Norm k kW 1,q, is stronger than norm k kW 1,q . First the case q = 1. According
18
to the fundamental theorem, we have for all t [0, T ]

Z T
Z T
kfkdt
kf kdt +
=
kf kW 1,1
0
0

Z T
Z t
Z T

(F T )

kfkdt
f ( )d dt +
=
f (0) +
0
0
0

Z T
Z T
Z T
kfkdt
kf kd dt +
kf (0)k +
0
T kf (0)k + (T + 1)
(T + 1)kf kW 1,1, .
kfkdt
Now the case 1 < q < . Let q be defined by (1.7). Then with Holders inequality, there
follows
Z t
q Z t
q (HI)
Z t

q/q
( )kd
( )d

kf( )kq d
(1.10)
t
1
k
f
f

and
Z t
q
Z
(1.10)

f d dt

0
kfkq d
Z
q1
dt
Tq
=
q
kfkq d.
(1.11)
We estimate with Minkowskis inequality and the fundamental theorem

1/q
1/q Z T
Z T
q
q
kf (t)k dt
+
kf (t)k dt
=
kf kW 1,q
0
(F T )
Z
(M I)
(1.11)
Z

q 1/q Z T
1/q
Z t

q
f (0) +

kf k dt
+
f ( )d dt

0
0
q 1/q Z T
1/q
1/q Z T Z t

q
q

kfk dt
+
fd
+
kf (0)k dt

dt

Z
T
+
1
1/q
T 1/q kf (0)k +
const(T, q) kf kW 1,q, .
kf( )kq d
1/q
(2) Norm k kW 1,q is stronger than norm k kW 1,q, . Due to the continuous embedding (see
Evans [41], chapter 5.9, theorem 2, or Zeidler [110], proposition 23.23)
W 1,q ([0, T ], X) C([0, T ], X)
(for each 1 q )
such that
kf k const(T )kf kW 1,q ,
where the constant can be chosen in dependence only on T , we easily find the contrary
inequality
kf kW 1,q, (1 + T )const(T )kf kW 1,q .

(3) Additionally, let s argmax kf (t)k, t [0, T ] , then there follows

Z s
Z s

kf k = kf (s)k = f (0) +
f ( )d kf (0)k +
kf( )kd kf kW 1,1, .
0
An alternative proof can be given as follows. X is complete with respect to
19
k kW 1,q (see e. g. Han/Reddy [49], section 5.2.3, or [50], section 1.4),

[76], section 9.2).
k kW 1,q, (see Krejc
Now prove either (1) or (2) and apply the following lemma 1.1.4.
1.1.4 Lemma. Let X be a vector space with two norms k k1 and k k2 , such that (X, k k1 ) and
(X, k k2 ) are Banach spaces. Then k k1 ck k2 automatically implies k k2 Ck k1 .
Proof: See Heuser [55], exercise 39.6. Use the open mapping theorem.
1.2
Basic properties of stop and play
From the defining variational inequality (1.4), by constructing difference quotients and passing
[75], one sees that an A-orthogonal
to the limit to zero, cf. proof of theorem 3.9 in Krejc
decomposition of the input derivative

p(t),
s(t)
=0
a. e. in [0, T ],
A
holds, which in turn implies Pythagoras relation
2
2
kf(t)k2A = ks(t)k
A + kp(t)k
A
from which
kp(t)k
A kf (t)kA ,
a. e. in [0, T ],
ks(t)k
A kf (t)kA
a. e. in [0, T ].
(1.12)
[76], the following

Thus, we find from the fundamental theorem, see theorem 9.7 in Krejc
estimates
1/q
Z t
Z t
(HI)
(F T )
q
1/q
,
(1.13)
kf( )kA d ks(0)kA + t
kfkA d
ks(t)kA ks(0)kA +
0
(F T )
kp(t)kA kp(0)kA +
(HI)
kf( )kA d kp(0)kA + t1/q
Z
kfkqA d
1/q
(1.14)
everywhere in [0, T ], if f W 1,q ([0, T ], X). Here q is defined by (1.7). Further, we have for
two decompositions
pi = PA (fi , si,0 ),
si = SA (fi , si,0 ),
f i = pi + s i
1
and = 2 = 1 2 the standard Lipschitz estimates
for stop
ks(t)kA ks0 kA +
for play
kp(t)kA
(F T )
ks0 kA + kf (t)kA +
(i {1, 2})
kf( )kA d,
0Z
(1.15)
kf( )kA d
t
kf( )kA d
ks0 kA + kf (0)kA + 2
0

Z t
kf( )kA d ,
kp(0)kA + 2 kf (0)kA +
0
(1.16)
20
[9, 14]. Estimate

everywhere in the interval [0, T ]. For proof of (1.15), see Brokate/Krejc
(1.16) follows from (1.15) and (1.1). This implies the Lipschitz continuity of stop and play,
considered as operators

S, P : W 1,1 ([0, T ], X), k kW 1,1 or k kW 1,1, C([0, T ], X), k k
with respect to both norms. The constants w. r. t. k kW 1,q, are equal to 1 resp. 2. For the
ones w. r. t. k kW 1,q cf. the proof of the lemma 1.1.3.
1.2.1 Remark. (a) The proofs of the estimates (1.15) and (1.16) do not need the interior of C
being non-empty.
[14], propositions A.1 and A.3, can be
The assumption 0 Int(C) in Brokate/Krejc
[75], theorem 1.9, proposition 3.9 and remark
weakened to 0 C. For this, see Krejc
3.10.
With the aid of the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1, one can get rid of the factor 2 before
[75].
the integral in (3.24) of remark 3.10 in Krejc
(b) Note that the smallness result (1.13) for stop follows as well from the Lipschitz result
(1.15) for stop by taking f1 f , f2 0, s1 (0) = s(0), s2 (0) = 0 as inputs.
(c) The detailed proof of theorem 1.1.1 in appendix A for CBV functions shows the following
Sub-Pythagoras relation for the piecewise linear interpolants N s, N p, N f , which are
used therein in order to construct a solution, i. e.
(A.6)
kpn k2A + ksn k2A kfn k2A

for n = 1, . . . , N and N N. Hence
kpn kA kfn kA ,
ksn kA kfn kA .
Thus for the A-variations, i. e. the variations w. r. t. the norm k kA ,

A (N p) A (N f ) A (f ),
A (N s) A (N f ) A (f )
for each N N. Taking the lim inf N on both sides, with proposition V1.18 in Krejc
[75], we conclude
A (p) A (f ),
A (s) A (f ),
(1.17)
in generalisation of (1.12).
1.3
Some generalised Lipschitz estimates
We now generalise Brokates and Krejcs results, in the sense that we allow different input
functions f1 , f2 , different initial memories s0,1 , s0,2 and different scalar products hA1
1 , i,
1
hA2 , i, which are induced by different symmetric and strongly positive operators A1 , A2 .
It turns out, that the output of stop and play depends as well in a Lipschitz manner on these
scalar products. We first consider the class of W 1,1 = AC functions. The main tool of proof
is the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1.
21
1.3.1 Theorem (Stop operator, W 1,1 ) Let (X, h, i) be a separable Hilbert space, A1 , A2
L(X, X) symmetric and strongly positive, inducing equivalent scalar products

x, y A1 = A1
x, y A2 = A1
(1.18)
1 x, y ,
2 x, y
and equivalent norms
cA1 k k k kA1 CA1 k k,
cA2 k k k kA2 CA2 k k.
(1.19)
Let further a convex, closed subset C X, such that 0 C, and two inputs

f1 , f2 W 1,1 [0, T ], X ,
s0,1 , s0,2 C,
be given. For the outputs
p1 = PA1 (f1 , s0,1 ),
s1 = SA1 (f1 , s0,1 ),
p2 = PA2 (f2 , s0,2 ),
s2 = SA2 (f2 , s0,2 )
of stop and play, there holds

ks(t)k
ks(t)k
Here
Z t

CA1
1
1
kf ( )k + 2 kA p2 ( )k d,
cA1
cA1
0

Z t
CA2
CA2
1
1
ks0 k +
kf ( )k + 2 kA p1 ( )k d.
cA2
cA2
cA2
0
CA1
ks0 k +
cA1
1
= 2 = 1 2 ,
especially
Proof: By definition, we have for i {1, 2}

pi (t), si (t) A 0
pi (t) + si (t) = fi (t)
si (t) C
si (0) = si,0
(1.20)
(1.21)
1
A1 = A1
1 A2 .
for all C a. e. in [0, T ]

e. in [0, T ]
.
e. in [0, T ]
(1.22)
Letting s1 (t) and s2 (t) chiastically into the defining variational inequalities (1.22), we see
(
p 1 , s1 s2 0
p 1 , s1 s2 A1 = A1
1

,
p 2 , s2 s1 A2 = A1
0
2 p 2 , s2 s1
thus by addition
1
A1
1 p 1 A2 p 2 , s
0.
(1.23)
1
1
1
Adding a zero term 0 = A1
1 p 2 + A1 p 2 resp. 0 = A2 p 1 + A2 p 1 in the left side and
using the second relation in (1.22), we get after rearranging both
and

1d
1
ksk2A1 = A1
s A1
1 s,
1 f + A p 2 , s
2 dt

1d
1
ksk2A2 = A1
s A1
2 s,
2 f + A p 1 , s .
2 dt
(1.24)
(1.25)
22
Integrating (1.24), we arrive at

1
1
ks(t)k2A1 ks(0)k2A1
2
2
(F T )
(CS)
(1.19)
Z t
f, s
A1

+ A1 p 2 , s d
Z t

1
kf kA1 kskA1 + kA p 2 k ksk d

0

Z t
1
1
kA p2 k kskA1 d.
CA1 kfk +
cA1
0
So the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1 yields

ks(t)kA1 ks(0)kA1 +
Z t
0

1
1
kA p 2 k d.
CA1 kf k +
cA1
(1.26)
With (1.19) we arrive at

cA1 ks(t)k CA1 ks(0)k +
Z t
0

1
1
CA1 kf k +
kA p 2 k d,
cA1
which finally gives (1.20). The same procedure for p1 instead of p2 , h, iA2 instead of h, iA1 ,
h, iA1 instead of h, iA2 together with (1.25), (1.19) and (1.18) yields (1.21).

We directly have the following consequences.
1.3.2 Corollary (Special cases, W 1,1 ) Let the assumptions of theorem 1.3.1 hold. Then we have
especially the following estimates.
(a) Same inputs, different scalar products. If f1 = f2 , then there holds
s(t) = p(t)
(1.27)
and
kp(t)k = ks(t)k
1
CA1
ks0 k + 2
cA1
cA1
kp(t)k = ks(t)k
CA2
1
ks0 k + 2
cA2
cA2
Z
Z
t
0
t
0
kA1 p2 ( )kd,
(1.28)
kA1 p1 ( )kd.
(1.29)
(b) Same scalar products, different inputs. If A1 = A2 = A, which allows cA1 =

cA2 = cA , CA1 = CA2 = CA , then there holds

Z t
CA
ks(t)k
kf ( )kd .
(1.30)
ks0 k +
cA
0
(c) Original scalar product each, different inputs. If A1 = A2 = A = I, which allows
cA1 = cA2 = 1 = CA1 = CA2 , then
Z t
kf( )kd,
ks(t)k ks0 k +
0
which is identical to the standard estimate (1.15).
23
All estimates are valid everywhere in the interval [0, T ].

Proof: Clear.
1.3.3 Corollary (W.r.t input, W 1,1 ) Let the assumptions of theorem 1.3.1 hold. Then in any
case, we have the estimates

Z t
Z
CA2 kA1 k t
CA1
kf ( )kd +
ks0 k+
kf2 ( )kd, (1.31)
ks(t)k
cA1
c2A1 cA2
0
0

Z t
Z
CA1 kA1 k t
CA2
kf( )kd +
ks0 k+
kf1 ( )kd
(1.32)
ks(t)k
cA2
cA1 c2A2
0
0
with respect to the inputs everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
Proof: Just note
kA1 p 2 k
(1.19)
kA1 k kp2 k
1
cA2
(1.12)
kA1 k kp2 kA2
(1.19) C
A2
kA1 k kf2 kA2
kA1 k kf2 k
cA2
cA2
(and its counterpart) for the derivation of (1.31) and (1.32).
1.3.4 Corollary (Play operator, W 1,1 ) Let all assumptions of theorem 1.3.1 hold. Then we have
in any case

Z t
Z
CA2 kA1 k t
CA1
kfkd +
ks0 k +
kp(t)k kf (t)k +
kf2 kd, (1.33)
cA1
c2A1 cA2
0
0

Z
Z t
CA2
CA1 kA1 k t
kf1 kd (1.34)
kp(t)k kf (t)k +
kf kd +
ks0 k +
cA2
cA1 c2A2
0
0
everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
Proof: Note s(t) = f (t) p(t), implying

ks(t)k kp(t)k kf (t)k kp(t)k kf (t)k.
The rest follows from (1.31), (1.32).
[76], at the opening of section 4, which is given

We now strengthen the result (4.4) of Krejc
by the estimate

Z t
Z t
2
2
kp(t)k kp0 k + 2kf k,t
kp2 ( )k d .
(1.35)
kp 1 ( )k d +
0
1.3.5 Theorem (Play operator, W 1,1 ) Let the assumptions and notations of theorem 1.3.1 hold.
Then we have

Z t
2

CA
2
2
1
1
2
1
kp(t)k
(A p),
f A p2 , p d,
kp(0)k + 2
c2A1
cA1 0

Z t
2

CA
2
1
1
2
2
2
(A p),
f A p1 , p d.
kp(0)k + 2
kp(t)k
c2A2
cA2 0
24
Here especially
1
A1 = (A1 ) = A1
1 A2 ,
1
(A1 p)
= A1
1 p 1 A2 p 2 .
Proof: From (1.23), we find

1
A1 p1 A1
A1
2 p 2 , p
1 p 1 A2 p 2 , f ,
thus by adding appropriate zeros

1d
kpk2A1 = p,
p A1
2 dt

1d
kpk2A2 = p,
p A2
2 dt
Integration with (1.19) yields the assertion.

(A1 p),
f A1 p2 , p ,

(A1 p),
f A1 p1 , p .
(1.36)
(1.37)
1.3.6 Corollary (Special cases, W 1,1 ) Let all assumptions of theorem 1.3.5 hold. Then we have
especially the following estimates.
(a) Same inputs, different scalar products. If f1 = f2 , then there holds
ks(t)k = kp(t)k
1
CA1
kp(0)k + 2
cA1
cA1
ks(t)k = kp(t)k
1
CA2
kp(0)k + 2
cA2
cA2
kA1 p2 k d,
kA1 p1 k d,
which is in fact the same as (1.28), (1.29).

(b) Same scalar products, different inputs. If A1 = A2 = A, which allows cA1 =
cA2 = cA , CA1 = CA2 = CA , then there holds
2
kp(t)k
2
CA
2
kp(0)k2 + 2 kf k,t
2
cA
cA
kA1 p(
)k d.
(c) Original scalar product each, different inputs. If A1 = A2 = A = I, which allows

cA1 = cA2 = 1 = CA1 = CA2 , then
kp(t)k2 kp(0)k2 + 2kf k,t
t
0
kp(
)k d,
which strengthens (1.35).

All estimates are valid everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
Proof: (a) Going a step back to (1.36), we find after integration with f = 0 similarly as in
the proof of 1.3.1
1
kp(t)k2A1
2
(CS),(1.19)
1
1
kp(0)k2A1 +
2
cA1
kA1 p 2 k kpkA1 d.
25
Application of the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1 yields

kp(t)kA1
kp(0)kA1 +
1
cA1
kA1 p 2 k d
and, in view of (1.19), the assertion. (b), (c) Use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
The transfer of theorem 1.3.1 and corollary 1.3.3 for CBV functions is straightforward. But
lemma B.1.1 is not applicable. But we may argue in a different way. (Then we have to accept
a factor of two.)
1.3.7 Theorem (Stop operator,
CBV ) Let the assumptions of theorem 1.3.1 hold with inputs

f1 , f2 CBV [0, T ], X . Then there follows
ks(t)k
ks(t)k

CA1
ks0 k + 2(f ) +
cA1

CA2
ks0 k + 2(f ) +
cA2
c2A1
2
c2A2
(A1 p2 ),
(1.38)
(A1 p1 ).
(1.39)
Proof: Similar as in the proof of 1.3.1, we find, cf. (1.24) and remark 1.1.2,
Z
d(A1
1 s), s
d(A1
1 f ), s

d(A1 p2 ), s .
[75] and the fundamental estimate for RiemannThus with the aid of exercise 1.24 in Krejc
Stieltjes integrals
1
ks(t)k2A1
2
1
ks0 k2A1 + kskA1 , A1 (f ) + ksk (A1 p2 )
2

1
1
1
kskA1 ,
ks0 kA1 + CA1 (f ) +
(A p2 ) .
2
cA1
Here the maximum-norm is taken over the whole interval [0, T ]. Therefore, taking the maximum at the left hand side, we arrive at
1
1
1
ksk,A1 ks0 kA1 + CA1 (f ) +
(A1 p2 )
2
2
cA1
after cancelling. This yields (1.38) with the aid of (1.19).
1.3.8 Corollary (W.r.t input, CBV ) Let the assumptions of theorem 1.3.7 hold. Then in any
case, we have with respect to the inputs
2CA2 kA1 k
CA1
ks0 k + 2(f ) +
(f2 ),
cA1
c2A1 cA2
2CA1 kA1 k
CA2
(f1 )
ks0 k + 2(f ) +
ks(t)k
cA2
cA1 c2A2
ks(t)k
everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
(1.40)
(1.41)
26
Proof: Use the following rules for the total variation, cf. (1.19), namely
(A1 ) kA1 k (),
cAi () Ai () CAi (),
(i = 1, 2)
and estimate (1.17) for A1 and A2 .
Corollaries 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 can be adapted similarly.
1.4
Some transformation rules
In this section, we present just one lemma, which gives some transformation formula for stop
[76], section 2.3, for the
and play. Its part (b) is a generalisation of lemma 2.1 in Krejc
infinitely dimensional Hilbert space case. The proof is adapted straightforwardly.
1.4.1 Lemma (Transformation rules for stop and play) Let (X, h, i) be any real separable
Hilbert space, C X convex, closed, containing the origin. We identify X X. Then the
following transformation formula for stop and play hold.
(1) For each symmetric and strongly positive A L(X, X ), there holds
PA (p + s, s0 ) = AP(A1 p + s, s0 ),
SA (p + s, s0 ) = AS(A
SA (p + s, s0 ) =
S(A
(1.42)
p + s, s0 ) + (I A)s,
(1.43)
p + s, s0 )
(1.44)
for p, s W 1,1 ([0, T ], X) and s0 C, which are given by

p = PA (p + s, s0 ),
s = SA (p + s, s0 ).
(1.45)
(2) For each symmetric and strongly positive A1 , A2 L(X, X ), there holds
SA1 +A2 f + A2 A1
1 PA1 (f, s0 ), s0
PA1 +A2 f +
A2 A1
1 PA1 (f,
s0 ), s0
= SA1 (f, s0 ),
= (I
+ A2 A1
1 )PA1 (f,
(1.46)
s0 )
(1.47)
for f W 1,1 ([0, T ], X), s0 C and p, s given by

p = PA1 (f, s0 ),
s = SA1 (f, s0 ),
f = p + s.
Here P and S without subscript always denote the play and the stop operator w. r. t. the
original scalar product h, i (i. e. for A = I).
Proof: (1) We write (1.45) as

p(t),
s(t) A
p(t) + s(t)
s(t)
s(0)
0
p(t) + s(t)
C
s0

e. in [0, T ]
,
e. in [0, T ]
(1.48)
or equivalently by virtue of

1
A p(t),
s(t)
A1 p(t) + s(t)
s(t)
s(0)
27
(B.11) as
0
A1 p(t) + s(t)
C
s0

e. in [0, T ]
.
e. in [0, T ]
(1.49)
In (1.48) and (1.49) the second identity is trivial. Now (1.49) with (1.4) yields
A1 p = P(A1 p + s, s0 ),
s = S(A1 p + s, s0 ),
which gives (1.42) and (1.44). Rule (1.43) is an easy consequence of (1.44), or can alternatively be derived by (1.42) and (1.1).
(2) We set A1 + A2 is again symmetric and strongly positive
p+ = PA1 +A2 (f+ , s0 ),
s+ = SA1 +A2 (f+ , s0 ),
f+ = f + A2 A1 1 p
and compute
1
1
f+ = f + A2 A1
1 PA1 (f, s0 ) = (I + A2 A1 )f A2 A1 s
1
= (A1 + A2 )A1
1 f A2 A1 s.
The variational inequalities thus yield
1

p,
s A1
=
A1 p,
s 0 for all C,

p+ , s+ A1 +A2 = (A1 + A2 )1 p + , s+ 0 for all C.
Chiastically inserting s+ and s and addition yield

s+ s 0.
(A1 + A2 )1 p+ A1
1 p,
(1.50)
We compute
1
1
A1
= (A1 + A2 )1 (I + A2 A1 1 )
1 = (A1 + A2 ) (A1 + A2 )A1
= (A1 + A2 )1 + (A1 + A2 )1 A2 A1
1 ,
so that the left hand factor in (1.50) becomes

1
1
1
(A1 + A2 )1 p + A1
(A1 + A2 )A1
1 p = (A1 + A2 )
1 f A2 A1 s s + A1 f s
1
1
1
= [A1
1 (A1 + A2 ) A2 A1 ]s (A1 + A2 ) s +
= (A1 + A2 )1 (s s + ).
Hence (1.50) is equivalent to

1 d
ks s+ k2A1 +A2 = s s + , s s+ A1 +A2 = (A1 + A2 )1 (s s + ), s s+ 0.
2 dt
Integration with the initial value (s s+ )(0) = 0 yields s s+ everywhere in [0, T ], giving
(1.46). Rule (1.47) follows again easily with the aid of (1.1).
28
Chapter 2
The difference of the solutions of

the elastic and elastoplastic BVPs
This chapter is concerned with the central question on top in figure A. We prove that the
difference of the solutions (i. e. the stresses, strains and displacements) of the elastic BVP,
named (E), and the elastoplastic BVP for linear kinematic hardening material, named (EPK),
are compositions of some linear operators and play operators with respect to the exterior force,
which is common for both models. The main theorem in this chapter is theorem 2.7.1. As a
consequence, the standard Lipschitz estimates for play yield, that the norm of those differences
may increase at most linearly in the total variation of the exterior forces.
The wellposedness for model (EPK) is derived directly from theorem 1.1.1. The input and
parameter robustness of model (EPK) is a direct consequence of the generalised Lipschitz
estimates for stop and play of chapter 1.
Throughout this chapter, we let the assumptions on from the introduction hold. For the
boundary value problems (E) and (EPK) we admit
(1) homogeneous zero Dirichlet boundary conditions on 0 , i. e. zero displacement,
(2) (inhomogeneous) Neumann boundary conditions on 1 , i. e. boundary forces,
(3) (inhomogeneous) volume forces in .
The boundary value problems are considered in the quasistatic rate-independent form with
linearised geometry. By elastic we always mean linear elastic.
Under the latter assumptions irrespective of the special constitutive plasticity law it is
proven in section 2.8 that the L2 -norm of the elastic stress e can be estimated by a constant
times the L2 -norm of the elastoplastic stress .
All the governing relations (2.5), (2.6) for model (E) and (2.7), ..., (2.11) for model (EPK) are
assumed to hold over a time interval [0, T ], where T > 0 is a fixed real number.
But first some preliminaries. Using the well known orthogonal decomposition
R33
R33 = R33
h ,
d
29
R33
R33
h
d
(2.1)
30
the difference of models (e) and (epk) 2
into deviatoric and hydrostatic (i. e. spherical) subspaces

= A R33 : tr A = a11 + a22 + a 33 = 0
R8 ,
R33
d
= A R33 : A = I for a R
= RI R1 ,
R33
h
with the associated linear orthogonal projections
1
dev : R33 R33
d , A 7 A 3 tr(A)I, (deviatoric projection)
1
(hydrostatic projection)
hyd : R33 R33
h , A 7 3 tr(A)I,
we define the following deviatoric subspaces of R33
s ,

33
R33
= A R33
: a33 = a11 a22 R5 ,
s
sd = dev Rs

33
33
R33
: a13 = a23 = 0, a33 = a11 a22 R3 ,
spd = dev Rsp = A Rs
(2.2)
(2.3)
(2.4)
which are corresponding to (15) and (16).
2.1
The elastic model, governing relations
The Newtonian balance equations, the partial differential coupling in the domain , are written
in short-hand operator notation
e
(t) = D eu(t),
D e(t) = F (t)
e. in [0, T ].
(2.5)
The constitutive material law is linear Hookes law

e
(t) = C e(t)
e. in [0, T ].
(2.6)
For each fixed t [0, T ], equations (2.5) and (2.6) build up a (static) linear elliptic problem. It
is in fact a reformulation of (8) and (9). For detailed discussion of model (E), we recommend
Ciarlet, Lions and Duvaut [24, 25, 38].
2.2
The elastoplastic model, governing relations
We consider the simplified elastoplastic boundary value problem (5), ..., (7) instead of the full
general formulation (2), ..., (4). The reader may find many additional details in Zeidler [113],
section 66, or Han/Reddy [49, 50]. In the latter reference, our formulation corresponds to
the so-called dual variational problem. Here as well, the equivalence to the primal variational
problem is proven, cf. theorem 8.3 therein.
The weak Newtonian balance equations are again
(t) = Du(t),
D (t) = F (t)
e. in [0, T ].
(2.7)
Linear Hookes law and the linear kinematic hardening law

(t) = Cel (t),
(t) = Bpl (t)
e. in [0, T ],
(2.8)
2 the difference of models (e) and (epk)
31
together with the additive decomposition of strain and stress

(t) = el (t) + pl (t),
and the normality rule
(t) = (t) + (t)

pl (t) C (t)
e. in [0, T ]
(2.9)
a. e. in [0, T ]
(2.10)
build up the constitutive material law. We further need an initial memory/value at t = 0,

(0) = 0 C.
(2.11)
2.2.1 Remark. (a) We apply the same given exterior force F to both bodies. We compare the
difference of (EPK) and (E) solutions in section 2.7. The difference of (EPK) and a globally
corrected version of (E) is considered in chapter 3.
(b) Compared to the full problem (2), ..., (4), the simplifications mentioned are the following.
Quasi-staticity: No dynamic or viscous effects are considered. Our body has density = 0. The model is rate-independent, as a reparametrisation = (t) with a
monotonically increasing, absolutely continuous map : [0, T ] [0, T ] shows.
Linearised geometry: We neglect all nonlinear terms in the displacement gradients
u resp. eu. The spatial differential operator D (and consequently its adjoint D ) are
assumed to be linear.
(c) The normality rule (2.10) is equivalent to the maximum dissipation principle, see section
4.2 in Han/Reddy [49].
2.3
Common definitions for both models
In this section we specify the underlying operator/function spaces, the linear operators B, C,
D (and its adjoint D ), the convex set C (and its indicator function C) for the two boundary
value problems.
2.3.1
The spaces
We use the Sobolev and Lebesgue spaces

U = W01,2 , 0 , R3 = u W 1,2 (, R3 ) : u = 0 on 0 ,

= L2 , R33
= W 0,2 (, R33
s
s ).
With the scalar products/norms

Z

u(x) v(x) + u(x) : v(x) dV(x),
u, v U =
Z

(x) : (x) dV(x),
, =
kuk2U
kk2

u, u U ,

= , ,
=
(U, h, iU ) and (, h, i ) are separable Hilbert spaces, see Zeidler [113], section 55.3. Here
and : are the Euklidian/Frobenius scalar products from (C.1) and (C.2). We have
U
U
=
=
=
=
space
space
space
space
of
of
of
of
displacements:
exterior forces:
strains:
stresses:
u, v, eu, . . .
F
.
, , el , pl , e, eel , epl , . . .
, , , , e, e, e, . . .
(2.12)
32
By the Riesz-Frechet representation theorem, we identify

U U ,
in the usual sense, i. e.

F (u) = F, u ,

() = ,

for F U , u U, , .
For the exterior force F we take for example

Z
Z

f (t) v dV +
F (t), v =
g(t) v dA
vU
with given volume and boundary forces

f W 1,q [0, T ], L2 (, R3 ) ,
g W 1,q [0, T ], L2 (1 , R3 )
2.3.2
(1 q ).
(2.13)
(2.14)
The operators
The differential operators

D L( , U )
D L(U, ),
= adjoint of D
are defined by the equations

Du =

1
u + ut ,
2

D , v = , Dv =
: Dv dV
(2.15)
(for u, v U, ).
Korns inequality (12) now writes
kDvk D ()kvkU
v U
R33
with the positive constant D () > 0. If C 1 (,
s ), then
Z
Z

(IP )
n v dA
D , v = DIV v dV +
1
(2.16)
v U.
With the choice (2.13), (2.14), with the divergence theorem and with the aid of the calculus
rule
div(At v) = DIV A v + A : v,
for A C 1 (, Rnn ), v C 1 (, Rn )
relation (2.7) gives the strong form of the Newton balance equations

DIV (t) + f (t) = 0
in
.
(t)n = g(t) on 1
Explicitly written, relation D (t) = F (t) from (2.7) with F (t) as in (2.13) becomes
Z
Z

(t)n g(t) v dA
v U,
f (t) + DIV (t) v dV =
which is the principle of virtual displacements. The same, of course, holds analogously for
(2.5) and e of the elastic model (E).
33
2.3.1 Remark. (a) The homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition u = 0 on 0 is contained in

the definition of the space U of admissible displacements.
(b) Korns inequality (2.16) makes the energy scalar product h, iE = hD, Di equivalent to
h, iU on U . For the energy norm k k2E = h, iE , there holds k kE k kU k kE /D .
(c) The continuity of F (t) can be easily established with Holders inequality,
1/2
1/2 Z
1/2 Z
1/2 Z
2
2
2
|v| dA
|g(t)| dA
+
|v| dV
|f (t)| dV
1
1

kf (t)kL2 () + C()kg(t)kL2 (1 ) kvkW 1,2 () ,
(HI)
F (t), v
Z
where C() > 0 not depending on time t is the constant of the continuous trace-embedding,
cf. Evans [41], section 5.5, theorem 1,
W 1,2 () L2 (),
The same holds for

F (t), v
kvkL2 () C()kvkW 1,2 () .
kf(t)kL2 () + C()kg(t)k
L2 (1 ) kvkW 1,2 () ,
so that we have F (t) e. in [0, T ], F (t) U a. e. in [0, T ]. Both operator norms

kF (t)kU kf (t)kL2 () + C()kg(t)kL2 (1 ) ,
kF (t)kU kf(t)kL2 () + C()kg(t)k
L2 (1 )
are Lq -integrable due to the assumptions (2.14) on the functions f and g, so we have in fact
F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ).

The linear kinematic hardening operator and Hookes linear operator

B, C L ,
(2.17)
are assumed to be continuous, symmetric and strongly positive,

B = B,
kBk kBk kk ,
B, = , B ,
B, B kk2
(2.18)
and
C = C ,
kCk kCk kk ,

C, = , C ,

C, C kk2
(2.19)
for all , . Here B , C > 0 denote some positive coercivity constants.
2.3.2 Example. For B and C we may choose for example

Z
Z

B(x)(x) : (x) dV(x)
C(x)(x) : (x) dV(x),
B, =
C, =
for , , where all the pointwise operators
33
C(x), B(x) L R33
s , Rs
for a. e. x
for almost every x are symmetric and positively definite,

C(x) : C (x) kk2 ,
B(x) : B (x) kk2
(2.20)
34
for a. e. x and each R33

s , with coercivity constants uniformly bounded below in x
C (x) C > 0,
B (x) B > 0.
Then the strong positivity property in (2.18), (2.19) is globally satisfied. Hookes (pointwise)
operator C(x) is usually of the form (10). The (pointwise) linear kinematic hardening operator
B(x) is chosen in a similar fashion.
Looking forward, the right hand condition in (2.20) for B(x) will be exactly the pointwise
condition (5.1) later. Almost every point x satisfies the pointwise variational inequality
(5.4) with the scalar product induced by B(x).

For later use, we introduce the following linear, continuous operators.
(1) The solution operator for the elastic stress,
S = CD(D CD)1 L(U , ).
(2.21)
(2) Two linear projectors,

Q = SD L( , ),
P = I Q L( , ).
(2.22)
(3) A regularisation of the singular operator P C,

R = P C + B L(, ).
(2.23)
There holds P 2 = P , Q2 = Q, P Q = 0, QP = 0, P + Q = I, QCD = CD, P CD = 0,

D QC = D C, D P C = 0, D S = I, QS = S, P S = 0, and
ker Q = im P = ker D ,
im Q = ker P = im CD,
= ker D im CD,
(2.24)
ger [47] and chapter 8 in Heuser [55].

see Zeidler [113], Gro
2.3.3
The elastic domain
The elastic domain C is allowed to be any convex, k k -closed subset of , which contains
the origin.
R, x , that are convex, lower
2.3.3 Lemma. For any collection of functions x : R33
s
semicontinuous and satisfy x (0) = 0 for almost every x and a measurable radius
function : R s. t. (x) 0 a. e. in , we define

C = C, = : x ((x)) (x) for almost every x in .
Then C is closed, convex and contains the origin.
Proof: First, we have clearly 0 C, since x (0) = 0 (x) a. e. in . Second, we have

a. e. in
x 1 (x) + (1 )2 (x) x 1 (x) + (1 )x 2 (x) (x)
for each 1 , 2 C and [0, 1]. This implies the convexity of C. Third, we show the
k k -closedness. To this end, let
n
C n
in .
(2.25)
35
1
33
As is complete, . By Holder, = L2 (, R33
s )-convergence implies L (, Rs )convergence. Consequently, there exists a subsequence, denoted again by n , such that
n
n (x) (x)
Therefore,
in k kR33
s

(x) lim inf x n (x) x (x)
n
a. e. in .
a. e. in
due to (2.25) and the lower semicontinuity of almost every x . Thus C.
2.3.4 Lemma (Mises set) The Mises set, given by

C = : k dev (x)k (x) for almost every x in
(2.26)
for a fixed measurable radius function : R, that satisfies (x) 0 a. e. in , is convex,

closed with respect to the L2 -scalar product k k and contains the origin.
Proof: Let x = k k dev, independently of x, in lemma 2.3.3. Then x (0) = 0 e. in .

The convexity of each x is clear by the linearity of dev, the subadditivity and the positively
homogeneity of k k. Each x is clearly continuous.

Note that the Mises set C in (2.26) has empty interior w. r. t. k k and is unbounded w. r. t.
k k . Therefore, C does not satisfy any regularity properties in [75], ..., [77].
The subdifferential C : 2 (= power set of ) of the C-indicator function

0 if C
C() =
,
if
6 C
defined by

C() = : C() C() + , for all ,
(2.27)
see chapter 8 in Deimling [30], is equal to the normal cone at C in the point , cf. Brokate
[9], Han/Reddy [49, 50], Urruty [58] or Rockafellar [100]. We distinguish three cases:
(1) We have
C() = {0},
if lies in the interior of C (for which we have purely elastic behaviour, the plastic
strain does not change: pl = 0 according to (2.10)).
(2) We have

C() = : , 0 for all C ,
if is a boundary point of C (which gives all the directions normal to C).

(3) We have
C() = ,
if lies in the complement of C (which is consequently forbidden).
36
Note that for the Mises set (2.26), we have Int(C) = with respect to k k . Thus the
first case cannot occur. In fact, for this choice of C, every C is a boundary point, since
= Int(C) C. We cannot conclude () = {0} (and the body behaving globally
C=C
elastic) from Int(C), as the latter set is empty. But we have the following lemma for
global elastic behaviour.
2.3.5 Lemma (Mises set, elastic behaviour) Consider the Mises set (2.26), where we assume
L2 (, R). Let and L2 (, R) be given such that
k dev (x)k (x) < (x)
for a. e. x .
Then, there holds C() = {0}.

Proof: Let , and be as in the presumptions. Then clearly C. Let further ()
be arbitrary. Set = , then L2 (, R) and (x) > 0 a. e. in . We define the test
function by
(x) (x)
if (x) 6= 0
(x) +
for x .
(2.28)
(x) =
k dev k k (x)k
(x)
if (x) = 0
Note that in fact L2 (, R33

s ), as /k k is in L (, R). Then there holds C, since
k dev (x)k k dev (x)k +
(x) k dev (x)k

(x) + (x) = (x),
k dev k k (x)k
if (x) 6= 0, and k dev (x)k (x) < (x) otherwise. From the subdifferential definition
(2.27), where () = () = 0, we infer
(2.28)
0 , =
1
k dev k
Z
from which (x) = 0 a. e. in , thus = 0.
2.4
(x)k (x)k if (x) 6= 0

0
if (x) = 0
dV (x),
Solution of elastic model
We start with the much simpler model (E). In its quasistatic formulation, the problem has not
been considered so far, probably because it is trivial and has therefore not been of interest.
For each fixed t [0, T ] it is a static, elliptic problem without any hysteretic evolution over
time [0, T ]. As a consequence,
it is fully reversible, there is no energy dissipation, and consequently there is no damage
accumulation. (This is as well true for the non-linear elastic case, cf. Bonet/Wood
[6].)
it admits arbitrary input forces of class M AP ([0, T ], U ), yielding outputs of class
M AP ([0, T ], ).
37
We solve the problem in compact operator form. First, we premultiply (2.5) for fixed t [0, T ]
with Hookes operator C, yielding
e
(t)
(2.6)
C e(t)
(2.5)
CD eu(t),
and the differential adjoint D , yielding

F (t)
(2.5)
D e(t) = D C e(t) = D CD eu(t).
(2.29)
Now the operator D CD L(U, U ) is obviously symmetric, i. e. (D CD) = D CD, and by

virtue of Korns inequality strongly positive, i. e.
(2.16)

(2.19)
D CDv, v = CDv, Dv C kDvk2 C 2D kvk2U
v U,
(2.30)
thus invertible. So we can explicitly and uniquely solve (2.29) for eu. We obtain for each
t [0, T ]
(1) the elastic displacement
e
u(t) = (D CD)1 F (t),
(2.31)
(t) = D(D CD)1 F (t),
(2.32)
(t) = CD(D CD)1 F (t) = SF (t).
(2.33)
(2) the elastic strain

e
(3) the elastic stress

e
Have a look at the following diagram for an overview. Do not mistake the (linear) operators
S, P for the (nonlinear) operators stop S and play P.
-U
S
D CD
(D CD)1
?

C 1
C
- U
6
D
(2.34)
-
6
P, Q
The static solution operators for the linear elastic model are
(D CD)1 L(U , U ),
D(D CD)1 L(U , ),
S L(U , ).
(2.35)
We have the following wellposedness result for the quasistatic elastic model.
2.4.1 Theorem (Wellposedness model E in W 1,q ) For each given exterior force

(a) F M AP [0, T ], U ,
(b) F W 1,q [0, T ], U , 1 q ,
there exists a uniquely determined triple

eu M AP [0, T ], U ,
e M AP [0, T ], ,
(a)

eu W 1,q [0, T ], U ,
e W 1,q [0, T ], ,
(b)
(2.36)

M AP [0, T ], ,
e W 1,q [0, T ], ,
given by (2.31), ..., (2.33), satisfying the elastic relations (2.5), (2.6).
38
Proof: (a) In fact (2.31), ..., (2.33) hold for each given F : [0, T ] U , as for each fixed t
we have an elliptic, uniquely solvable, elastic problem. (There are no time derivatives in the
model relations.)

(b) If now, in addition, F W 1,q [0, T ], U , we identify the operators in (2.35) with their
hatted counterparts from section B.2, we have
keukW 1,q ([0,T ],U )
k(D CD)1 k kF kW 1,q ([0,T ],U ) < ,
kekW 1,q ([0,T ],) kD(D CD)1 k kF kW 1,q ([0,T ],U ) < ,
kekW 1,q ([0,T ], ) kCD(D CD)1 k kF kW 1,q ([0,T ],U ) < ,
each of the right hand sides being finite by assumption.
The basis for high-cycle fatigue analysis (with or without subsequent correction) is the following space-time-decoupling lemma. This corresponds to the part on top-left in figure A on
page 3.
2.4.2 Lemma (Space-time-decoupling) Assume, the exterior force F M AP ([0, T ], U ) is
given by a linear superposition of finitely many static load cases Fi U , i. e.
X
F (t) =
Li (t) Fi
e. in [0, T ]
(2.37)
i
with arbitrary scalar load functions Li M AP ([0, T ], R). Further for each i, let eui U ,
e
i , i denote the solution triple of the static, elastic problems, that is corresponding
to Fi . Then the quasistatic solution triple
M AP ([0, T ], ),
M AP ([0, T ], ),
corresponding to F is given by
X
e
(t) =
Li (t) e i ,
(t) =
everywhere in [0, T ].
u M AP ([0, T ], U )
Li (t) ei ,
Li (t) eui
(2.38)
i = CD(D CD)1 Fi
(2.39)
u(t) =
Proof: Clearly, as in the preliminaries,

e
ui = (D CD)1 Fi ,
i = D(D CD)1 Fi ,
for the ith static case. Therefore,

e
(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.33)
u(t)
(t)
(t)
X
Li (t)(D CD)1 Fi =
Li (t)eui ,
i
i
X
(2.37) X
D(D CD)1 F (t) =
Li (t)D(D CD)1 Fi =
Li (t)ei ,
i
i
X
(2.37) X
CD(D CD)1 F (t) =
Li (t)CD(D CD)1 Fi =
Li (t)e i ,
(2.37)
(D CD)1 F (t) =
due to the linearity of the operators in (2.35).
2.4.3 Corollary. If there is a 1 q , such that for each i the function Li from lemma 2.4.2 is
in W 1,q ([0, T ], R), then e W 1,q ([0, T ], ), e W 1,q ([0, T ], ) and eu W 1,q ([0, T ], U ).
Proof: Clear.
2.5
39
Solution of elastoplastic model
ger [47] and Zeidler [113], we transform problem (EPK) to

With the techniques from Gro
a single variational evolution inequality in subdifferential form, see (2.43), which turns out
to be equivalent to a variational evolution inequality, see (2.54). Thus, the wellposedness of
(EPK) is equivalent to the wellposedness of the latter, which is guaranteed by theorem 1.1.1,
the wellposedness theorem for stop and play.
Starting, we find that P C is non-negative and symmetric, cf. proof of theorem 66.A. in
Zeidler [113]. Thus R is strongly positive and symmetric such that

kRk kRk kk ,
R, = , R ,
R, R kk2 .
(2.40)
Consequently the inverse R1 exists and is strongly positive and symmetric. The same holds
for B, cf. (2.18), and its existing inverse B 1 . We define, cf. (B.11), equivalent scalar products
on by

, B = B 1 , ,
, R = R1 , .
(2.41)
We denote the norm equivalence constants by
cB k k k kB CB k k,
cR k k k kR CR k k.
We can transform the problem equivalently to the evolution inequality

(0) = 0 C,
(S F )(t)
R C (t) ,
(2.42)
(2.43)
where
R C() = RC()

= R : C() C() + , for all C

= : C() C() + , R for all C
is the subdifferential of C with respect to h, iR . This transformation is done as follows.

First, we have from (2.7), (2.8), (2.9),
D ( + Bpl ) = F,
+ (B + C)pl = CDu.
(2.44)
Second, left-multiplication with S (at the left hand identity) and P (at the right hand identity)
with (2.22), (2.21) yields
Q( + Bpl ) = SF,
P + P (B + C)pl = 0,
since ker P = im(CD), see (2.24). Third, addition gives with (2.23),
+ Rpl = + (P C + B)pl = (Q + P ) + (Q + P )Bpl + P Cpl = SF,
yielding
pl = R1 (SF ).
(2.45)
Fourth, left-multiplication of the right hand identity in (2.44) with D and (D CD)1 gives

u = (D CD)1 D + (B + C)pl .
(2.46)
40
Finally, (2.45) together with (2.10), (2.11) gives (2.43), as desired. Thus every solution of
(2.7) ..., (2.11) necessarily yields a solution of (2.43). And vice versa, each solution of (2.43)
allows the construction of pl resp. u via (2.45) resp. (2.46), from which it is then possible to
construct all the remaining unknowns in terms of

(t)
and
(t) = SF (t),
(2.47)
namely
(1) the plastic strain

pl (t) = R1 (t),
(2.48)
(t) = BR1 (t),
(2.49)
(t) = BR1 (t) + (t),
(2.50)
(2) the backstress

(3) the stress
(4) the elastic strain
(5) the strain
(6) the displacement

el (t) = C 1 BR1 (t) + (t) ,

(t) = C 1 B + I R1 (t) + C 1 (t),

u(t) = (D CD)1 D (B + C)R1 (t) + (t) .
(2.51)
(2.52)
(2.53)
The essential observation now is that we are able to express resp. as a play resp. a stop
with the input SF , which is nothing but the elastic stress e.
(R) W. r. t. the input e = SF and
(2.43) and (2.47) equivalently as

(t),
(t)
(t) + (t) =
(t)
(0) =
the scalar product h, iR from (2.41): Rewriting

0
SF (t)
C
0

e. in [0, T ]
,
e. in [0, T ]
(2.54)
theorem 1.1.1 with (2.33) gives us

= PR (SF, 0 ),
= SR (SF, 0 ).
(2.55)
Thus, we directly have the following wellposedness result.

2.5.1 Theorem (Wellposedness model EPK in W 1,q ) For each exterior force and initial memory

F W 1,q [0, T ], U , 1 q ,
and
0 C
there exists a uniquely determined octuple

u W 1,q [0, T ], U ,
, el , pl W 1,q [0, T ], ,

, , , W 1,q [0, T ], ,
given by (2.43), (2.48), ..., (2.53), satisfying the elastoplastic relations (2.7), ..., (2.11).
41
Proof: From the preliminaries, we have: System (2.7), ..., (2.11) is uniquely solvable, if and
only if (2.54) is uniquely solvable. By theorem 1.1.1, the solution (, ) of the latter exists and
is unique, given by (2.55), since SF = e W 1,q ([0, T ], ), according to theorem 2.4.1. The
remaining unknowns (exist) and are uniquely given by (2.47), (2.48), ..., (2.53). As according
to theorem 1.1.1, the operators P, S map W 1,q into W 1,q , we have and in W 1,q ([0, T ], ).
There holds
kpl kW 1,q ()
kkW 1,q ( )
kkW 1,q ( )
kel kW 1,q ()
kkW 1,q ()
kukW 1,q (U )
(2.48)
kBk kkW 1,q ( ) ,
kBR1 k kkW 1,q ( ) ,
kBR1 k kkW 1,q ( ) + kkW 1,q ( ) ,
(2.49)
(2.50)
(2.51)
(2.52)
(2.53)

kC 1 k kBR1 k kkW 1,q ( ) + kkW 1,q ( ) ,
k(C 1 B + I)R1 k kkW 1,q ( ) + kC 1 k k(t)kW 1,q ( ) ,

k(D CD)1 D k kB + C)R1 k kkW 1,q ( ) + kkW 1,q ( ) ,
according to section B.2 in the appendix, the right hand sides each being finite.
2.5.2 Remark. (a) In the literature, sometimes the terminology plastic stress for and elastic
stress for is used, e. g. [9, 14, 70, 75, 82].
(b) Note that B, C, D and R are purely spatial operators, and the transformation above is of
purely spatial kind.

In the same way as before, the pair resp. can be expressed as a play resp. a stop operator
with respect to the elastoplastic stress .
input and the scalar product h, iB from (2.41): Rewriting
equivalently as

(t),
(t) B 0
(t) + (t) = (t)
e. in [0, T ]
,
(t) C
e. in [0, T ]
(0) = 0
(B) W. r. t. the
(2.8), ..., (2.11)
theorem 1.1.1 gives us
= PB (, 0 ),
= SB (, 0 ).
(2.56)
This is the infinitely dimensional, globally acting counterpart of (5.5) later and the exposi [76], section 2.3. As a consequence, the construction of global stress-strain
tion in Krejc
operators, cf. theorem 2.5.6, is possible.
2.5.3 Remark (Virginity) We have from (2.48) the following equivalence
pl (0) = 0
(0) = e(0) = SF (0).
If one of these conditions is satisfied, we call the body/material virgin.
(2.57)
42
2.5.4 Remark (Monotonicity) Due to Rockafellars theorem, see Zeidler [112], theorem
47.F, Deimling [30], theorem 23.5, or Urruty [58], Rockafellar [100], R C is maximal
monotone. Monotonicity for such a multivalued map means

1 2 , 1 2 R 0
for all 1 R C(1 ), 2 R C(2 ).
(2.58)
Thus for given exterior forces F1 , F2 U , the corresponding solutions 1 , 2 the choice
1 = 1 = S F1 1 , 2 = 2 = S F 2 2 and = |12 , we conclude
thus

,
R
1
k(t)k2R
2

+ SF ,

,
,
=
S
F
R
R
R
(2.58)
(F T )(CS)
1
k(0)k2R +
2
kSF ( )kR k( )kR d.
Thus we may cancel by the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1,

Z t
kSF ( )kR d.
k(t)kR k(0)kR +
(2.59)
With the same trick one can prove the standard Lipschitz estimate (1.15) for S. In fact,
both derivations are equivalent, but formulated in different languages. And it is in fact this
observation of the author to make him reveal = PR (SF, 0 ) and = SR (SF, 0 ), cf. (2.55).
The Lipschitz result (1.15) is in fact nothing else but (2.59).

2.5.5 Corollary. For the elastoplastic stress , corresponding to a given F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and
0 C, there holds

(2.60)
SB+C + CB 1 PB (, 0 ), 0 = SB (, 0 ),

1
1
(2.61)
PB+C + CB PB (, 0 ), 0 = (I + CB )PB (, 0 ).
Proof: Apply lemma 1.4.1 (1.46), (1.47) with A1 = B, A2 = C, s0 = 0 and (2.56).
For 1 q , let us define the operators

F : W 1,q [0, T ], C W 1,q [0, T ], ,
(, 0 ) 7 C 1 + B 1 PB (, 0 )
and

G : W 1,q [0, T ], C W 1,q [0, T ], ,

(, 0 ) 7 C(B + C)1 B + SB+C (C, 0 ) .
We then have the following theorem, which is the infinitely dimensional global counterpart of
[76].
the stress/strain representation in section 2.3 in Krejc
2.5.6 Theorem (Stress-strain operators) Let F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ), 1 q , and 0 C be
given with the corresponding elastoplastic solutions
W 1,q ([0, T ], ),
W 1,q ([0, T ], ).
Then there holds

= G(, 0 ),
= F(, 0 ),
F(, 0 ) = G 1 (, 0 ),
i. e. F and G are turning stress into strain and vice versa. They are continuous for each
1 q < .
43
Proof: Clearly,
(2.9)
(2.8)
(2.56)
= el + pl = C 1 + B 1 = C 1 + B 1 PB (, 0 ) = F(, 0 ).
We have
+ CB 1 PB (, 0 )
(2.56),(2.8)
(2.8)
(2.9)
Cel + CB 1 = C(el + B 1 ) = C(el + pl ) = C.
From corollary 2.5.5 we have

(2.60)
(2.9)
SB+C (C, 0 ) = SB (, 0 ) = =
thus
(2.8),(2.9)
B( C 1 ) = (B + C)C 1 B,

= C(B + C)1 B + SB+C (C, 0 ) = G(, 0 ).
The continuity is clear by remark 1.1.2.
2.6
Robustness of elastoplastic model
We are now able to give a new proof of the stability results and error estimates of problem
(EPK) compared to the one in Han/Reddy [49], section 7.3. New is to be understood in the
following sense.
(1) We use the language of stops and plays, which is very convenient and concise. We
consider W 1,q for arbitrary 1 q , especially W 1,1 = AC.
(2) In contrast to Han/Reddy [49], we consider directly, what they call the dual problem
(in the context of convex analysis). This equivalent formulation (cf. Han/Reddy
[49], section 4.2) is by far the most widespread in both mathematical and engineering
literature.
(3) We have the case of mixed Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. In Han/Reddy [49] only homogeneous Dirichlet conditions u = 0 on whole are studied, and
there is no indication, how to handle the mixed problem, which is essential for practice.
The robustness of model (EPK) is a consequence of the generalised Lipschitz estimates of
chapter 1. In the same way, as well linear kinematic hardening plus isotropic hardening, cf.
section 4.1, and the spaces CBV , cf. section 4.2, can be treated.
For the proof of the following theorem, stating the input stability of model (EPK), we just
need the standard estimates (1.15) and (1.16). They will turn out to be special cases of
corollary 2.6.4. Nevertheless, we mention it separately.
(0)
(1)
2.6.1 Theorem (Robustness model EPK, I) There exist non-negative constants C , C ,

(2)
C , depending on B, C, D, D and R, such that for each pair of input forces Fi
W 1,q ([0, T ], U ), i {1, 2}, and initial memories 0,i C, i {1, 2} and their corresponding
el
solution octuples pl
i ,i , i , i , i , i , i , ui , i {1, 2}, of (EPK) we have
44
(1) for the strains

(0)
(1)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(2)
kpl (t)k Cpl k0 k + Cpl kSF (t)k + Cpl F (t),
kel (t)k Cel k0 k + Cel kSF (t)k + Cel F (t),
k(t)k C(0) k0 k + C(1) kSF (t)k + C(2) F (t).
(2) for the stresses

k(t)k
k(t)k
k(t)k
k(t)k
C(0) k0 k + C(1) kSF (t)k + C(2) F (t),

(0)
(2)
C k0 k
+ C F (t),
C(0) k0 k + C(1) kSF (t)k + C(2) F (t),
C(0) k0 k + C(1) kSF (t)k + C(2) F (t).
(3) for the displacement

ku(t)kU
Cu(0) k0 k + Cu(1) kSF (t)k + Cu(2) F (t).
Here
= |12 = 1 2 ,
F (t) =
t
0
kSF ( )k d.
All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ]. They all remain valid, if is omitted.
Proof: We use (2.47). The explicit formulas (2.48), ..., (2.53) and the norm equivalence (2.42)
give us with the definition of the linear operator norm
k(t)k
k(t)k
and
kpl (t)k
k(t)k
k(t)k
kel (t)k
k(t)k
ku(t)kU
()
()
c (R)k(t)kR ,
()
c (R)k(t)kR ,
(2.50)
(2.51)
(2.48)
cpl (R)k(t)kR ,
c()
(R, B)k(t)kR ,
(2.49)
c (R)k(t)kR ,
()
()
c()
(R, B, C)k(t)kR
(2.63)
()
c()
(R, B)k(t)kR +
cel (R, B, C)k(t)kR +
(2.53)
(2.62)
()
(2.52)
where c = 1/cR ,
where c()
= 1/cR ,
cel (R, C)k(t)kR ,
+
()
(2.64)
()
c (R, C)k(t)kR ,
c()
u (R, B, C, D, D )k(t)kR + cu (R, C, D, D )k(t)kR
for each t [0, T ]. Now apply estimate (1.15) for k(t)kR and (1.16) for k(t)kR , the triangle
inequality and the norm equivalence (2.42). The relations without are obtained by taking
F1 F , F2 0, 1 (0) = (0), 2 (0) = 0.

As a consequence of the Pythagoras relation (1.12) for the time derivatives of stop and play,
we have insight into the following fact.
45
2.6.2 Theorem (Robustness model EPK, II) There exist non-negative constants, named C ,
such that for each exterior force F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and its corresponding solution octuple
there holds
kpl k Cpl kS F k,
kel k Cel kS F k,
kk
C kS F k
(2.65)
(for the strains),

kk
C kS F k,
C kS F k,
kk
kk
C kS F k,
kk
C kS F k (2.66)
(for the stresses) ,

kuk
U Cu kS F k
(2.67)
(for the displacement). Here all the right hand side norms are k k = k k . All estimates
are valid a. e. in [0, T ].
Proof: We have
R kS F kR CR kS F k ,
kk
kk
R kS F kR CR kS F k
a. e. in [0, T ]
from (2.55), (2.33) and (1.12), where the constant CR is from (2.42). Now apply the explicit
expressions (2.48), ..., (2.53) and the triangle inequality in order to obtain dotted equivalents
of the relations (2.62), ..., (2.64).

It is now interesting to realise, that the generalised Lipschitz estimates of chapter 1 yield local
parameter stability for the model (EPK).
2.6.3 Theorem (Robustness model EPK, III) We consider two sets of symmetric and strongly positive data Bi , Ci , inducing four pairs of operators
(2.21)
Si = Ci D(D Ci D)1 ,
(2.22)
Qi = S i D ,
(2.22)
Pi = I Qi ,
(2.23)
Ri = Pi Ci + Bi , (2.68)
two inputs Fi W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and 0,i C. Always i {1, 2}. With the abbreviations

B = min B1 , B2 ,
and

b = max kB1 k, kB2 k ,

C = min C1 , C2 ,

c = max kC1 k, kC2 k ,

d = max kDk, kD k

k0 = (2 C )1 ,
D from (2.30),
r = b + c 1 + d2 ck0 ,

k3 = dck0 ,
k2 = d2 ck0 d2 ck0 + 2 + 1,
k1 = dk0 d2 ck0 + 1 ,
the following estimates in terms of the input disturbances kF k, k0 k and parameter

disturbances kBk, kCk hold, namely

Z t
r
kF kd
k0 k + k3
k(t)k
B
0
Z t
rk

r 3 k3
1
1 k + kF2 k d
kBk
+
k
kCk
+
+
k
F
kCk
2
2B
4B
0
(2.69)
46
and

k1
k(t)k k3 kF (t)k + kCk kF1 (t)k + kF2 (t)k
2 Z t

r
+
kF kd
k0 k + k3
B
0

Z t
rk

r 3 k3
1
kBk + k2 kCk +
kF1 k + kF2 k d
+
kCk
4
2B
B
0
(2.70)
Proof: Step I. We compute

1
1
1
R1 = R1
1 (R2 R1 )R2 = R1 R R2 ,
R = (P C) + B.
(2.71)
P = Q
(2.72)
Further
(P C) = C (QC),
Q = S D ,
and with appropriate symmetrisation,

= (1 + 2 )/2
(QC) = Q C1 + Q2 C = Q C2 + Q1 C = Q
C +
Q C,
(S F ) = S F1 + S2 F = S F2 + S1 F = S
F +
S F .
(2.73)
(2.74)
We decompose
S = C1 (C 1 S) + C C21 S2 = C2 (C 1 S) C C11 S1 .
From (2.68) we infer Ci1 Si = D(D Ci D)1 and Ci1 Qi = Ci1 Si D . Thus

(C 1 S) = D (D C1 D)1 (D C2 D)1
= D(D C1 D)1 D C2 D D C1 D (D C2 D)1
= D(D C1 D)1 D C D(D C2 D)1
(2.75)
(2.76)
and (C 1 Q) = (C 1 S)D . We have

(2.30)
(2.68)
k(D Ci D)1 k k0 ,
and
(2.19)
kCi1 k
1
,
C
kSi k dck0 = k3 ,
(2.18)
kBi1 k
1
,
B
(2.71)
kRi k r
(2.77)
(2.68)
kQi k d2 ck0 ,
(2.78)
where we have applied (B.13) for k(D Ci D)1 k, kCi1 k and kBi1 k. There holds by the submultiplicativity of the operator norm
kSk
kQk
k(QC)k
(2.75)
(2.72)
(2.73)
(2.76)

kCk k(C 1 S)k +

kC 1 Sk kCk k1 kCk,
kD k kSk dk1 kCk,

kCk kQk +
kQk kCk d2 ck0 d2 ck0 + 2 kCk,
with (2.71) and (2.72) giving
kR1 k

1
kBk
+
k
kCk
.
2
2B
(2.79)
47
Similarly with the aid of (2.74)

kF k kCk + k3 kF k,
k(S F )k
kF k kSk +
kSk kF k k1

kF k kCk + k3 kF k.
k(SF )k
kF k kSk +
kSk kF k k1
(2.80)
(2.81)
Step II. Application of the estimates (1.31), (1.32) with appropriate symmetrisation yields

Z t
1 CR1
CR2
k(t)k
k(S F )kd
+
k0 k +
2 cR1 cR2
0

Z t
(2.82)

CR1
1
CR2
1
kS1 F1 k + kS2 F2 k d.
+
+
kR k
2cR1 cR2 cR2
cR1
0
Note that from the non-negativity of Pi Ci , there follows

Ri , Pi Ci , + Bi , Bi kk2 ,
(2.83)
so that we may assume
Ri Bi
(2.84)
in (2.40). Having a look at section B.2 in the appendix, we see that the choices
CRi
(B.14)
1
Ri
(2.84)
1

,
Bi
(B.14)
cRi
kRi k
Ri
(2.84)
r
Bi
(2.85)
in (2.42) are possible. Thus for the prefactors

CR1
CR2
r
1
CR2
r3
1 CR1
+
,
+
2.
2 cR1
cR2
B
2cR1 cR2 cR2
cR1
B
(2.86)
Inserting this and (2.79), (2.80) into (2.82) finally gives the assertion (2.69) after rearranging.
Step III. The assertion for follows from (1.33), (1.34), giving

Z t
1 CR1
CR2
k(t)k k(SF )(t)k +

k(S F )kd
+
k0 k +
0
2 cR1 cR2
Z t

CR1
CR2
1
kS1 F 1 k + kS2 F2 k d,
+
kR1 k
+
2cR1 cR2 cR2
cR1
0
with the aid of (2.81) in the same way.
2.6.4 Corollary (Robustness model EPK, IV) For each pair of symmetric, strongly positive
(6)
(1)
data Bi , Ci , i {1, 2}, there exist non-negative constants C , ..., C , depending on the
norms kBi k, kCi k, the coercivity constants Bi , Ci , Korns constant D and kDk, kD k, such
that for each pair Fi and 0,i , i {1, 2}, the corresponding elastoplastic solution differences
k(t)k,
k(t)k,
k(t)k,
k(t)k,
kel (t)k,
can be written as sums of

(1)
C k0 k ,
and
(4)
C
Here =
|12

(2)
(3)
C kBk + C kCk
kF kU d,
= 1 2 as usual.
kpl (t)k,
k(t)k,
ku(t)k

kF1 kU + kF2 kU d

(6)
(5)
C kBk + C kCk kF1 (t)kU + kF2 (t)kU .
Proof: Theorem 2.6.3 and expressions (2.47), ..., (2.53).
48
2.7
Difference of both models
In this section, we compare the solutions of (E) to the solutions of (EPK). The next theorem
2.7.1 is the main theorem of this chapter, as it gives the structural result, that the difference
of both models are play operators.
But let us first introduce the linear operators
H,R =
P CR1 ,
1
H,R =
(C P C I)R1 ,
Hu,R = (D CD)1 D CR1 ,
H,B =
P CB 1 ,
1
H,B =
(C P C I)B 1 ,
Hu,B = (D CD)1 D CB 1 .
(2.87)
There holds
H, L( , ),
H, L( , ),
Hu, L( , U ).
We let further
kH,R k ,R = sup
6=0
kH,R ()k
,
kkR
kH,B k,B = sup

6=0
kH,R ()k
,
kkB
...
denote the linear operator norms w. r. t. the norms

k kR , k kB in the preimage space,
k k , k k , k kU in the image space.
A short computation unseals the following fact.

2.7.1 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPK, I) Let F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ), 1 q ,
and 0 C be given. Up to some linear operators, the differences of the solutions of model
(E), i. e. e, e and eu, which are corresponding to F , and model (EPK), i. e. , and u,
which are corresponding to F and 0 , are plays. Explicitly written, this means:
(a) The difference of stresses is
e
= H,R PR (SF, 0 ) = H,B PB (, 0 ).
(2.88)
(b) The difference of strains is

e
= H,R PR (SF, 0 ) = H,B PB (, 0 ).
(2.89)
(c) The difference of displacements is

e
u u = Hu,R PR (SF, 0 ) = Hu,B PB (, 0 ).
(2.90)
Proof: Note
(2.23)
(2.48)
(2.49)
pl = R1 = B 1 .
R B = P C,
(2.91)
Thus first,
e
(2.33)
(2.47)
(2.91)
(2.91)
= SF (BR1 + ) = (I BR1 ) = (R B)pl = P Cpl ,
49
second,
e
(2.6),(2.8),(2.9)
C 1e (C 1 + pl ) = C 1 P Cpl pl = (C 1 P C I)pl ,
third,
e
uu
(2.31),(2.53)
(2.8),(2.9)
(D CD)1 F (D CD)1 D (Bpl + + Cpl )

(2.7)
(D CD)1 F D ( + Cpl ) = (D CD)1 D Cpl .
From (2.55), (2.56) and (2.91), the assertion follows with definition (2.87).
2.7.2 Remark. (a) Theorem 2.7.1 states that it is possible to obtain the elastic stress e from the
elastoplastic one , and vice versa, i. e.
e
= e H,R PR (e, 0 ).
= H,B PB (, 0 ),
For the stresses, the situation is even better, cf. theorem 2.8.1 further below.
(b) For u and eu note that there holds
u = (D CD)1 D ( + Cpl ) = (D CD)1 D (Cel + Cpl ) = S ,
u = (D CD)1 F = (D CD)1 D e = (D CD)1 D C e = S e.
Cf. proof of theorem 2.7.1 and diagram (2.34). From this we have e el ker S .
We are now able to apply the estimates (1.14), which were resulting from Pythagoras relation
for the time derivatives of stop and play, in order to obtain estimates for the difference of the
model solutions. This is done in the next theorem.
2.7.3 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPK, II) Let the assumptions of theorem 2.7.1
hold. The following estimates hold everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
(R) In terms of SF = e and = SF , there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
for the strains:
k(e )(t)k
for the displacements: k(eu u)(t)kU
where
(t) = k(0)k +
CR kH,R k ,R (t),
CR kH,R k,R (t),
CR kHu,R kU,R (t),
kS F ( )k d.
(2.92)
Note that e = SF is up to a linear operator equal to the input, cf. (2.33), and that
estimates w. r. t. F are easily obtained.
(B) In terms of and = , there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
for the strains:
k(e )(t)k
where
(t) = k(0)k
CB kH,B k ,B (t),
CB kH,B k,B (t),
CB kHu,B kU,B (t),
k(
)k d.
(2.93)
50
The constants CR and CB are from (2.42).

Proof: It is really straight forward with the aid of (1.14).
2.7.4 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPK, III) Let the premises of theorem 2.7.1
hold. The following estimates hold almost everywhere in the interval [0, T ].
(R) In terms of e = S F , there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
e
for the strains:
k( )(t)k
e
for the displacements: k( u u)(t)k
CR kH,R k ,R kS F (t)k ,
CR kH,R k,R kS F (t)k ,
CR kHu,R kU,R kS F (t)k .
(B) In terms of ,
there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
e
for the strains:
k( )(t)k
for the displacements: k(eu u)(t)k
CB kH,B k ,B k(t)k
,
CB kH,B k,B k(t)k
,
CB kHu,B kU,B k(t)k
The constants CR and CB are from (2.42).

Proof: The estimates for the time derivatives follow from (1.12) for q = 1 and the dotted
versions of relations (2.88), ..., (2.90).

2.7.5 Remark. With the aid of (1.14) and the estimates (R), difference estimates w. r. t. the
common input F can be derived, in terms of kF kW 1,q ([0,T ],U ) at the right hand side.

The results of this section can easily adapted for the linear kinematic hardening plus isotropic
hardening model (EPKI), cf. section 4.1, and for CBV -functions, cf. section 4.2.
2.8
The difference of stresses
In this section, we especially have a look at the stress difference. The following theorem is
very remarkable for practice, if no stress correction is applied. This corresponds to the very
left branch in figure A on page 3.
2.8.1 Theorem (Stress difference) Let 1 q . For e and from any elastoplastic model,
for which D = F with F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) holds, we have
e
= Q,
= Q,
e = P ,
e = P ,
(2.94)
and
ke(t)k CQ k(t)k ,
ke(t)k
CQ k(t)k
,
k( e)(t)k CP k(t)k
k( e)(t)k
CP k(t)k
e. in [0, T ],
a. e. in [0, T ].
The constants CQ , CP depend only on D, D and C, but not on the special plastic constitutive
operators.
51
Proof: There holds

e
(2.33)
(2.7)
(2.22)
= SF = SD = Q.
The rest follows from (2.21) and (2.22).
2.8.2 Remark (Importance) (a) In theorem 2.8.1, the special plastic constitutive relations do
not play any role. It holds for any elastoplastic constitutive model with linearised geometry
and quasi-staticity. Theorem 2.8.1 now gives the guarantee that e will not be too bad, which
is of importance in high cycle fatigue analysis.
(b) The statement of theorem 2.8.1 does not carry over for e and or eu and u. Instead, we
have just
e
e
= D(D CD)1 D ,
u = (D CD)1 D .
Especially for constitutive models (as Jiangs [64] or Chaboches [20, 21, 79]), which are
comprising the ratchetting effect, may become arbitrarily large, even if remains bounded,
[12].
see as well Brokate and Krejc
(c) As the operator Q is singular, it is impossible to solve (2.94) for . See (2.24) for the
kernel of Q.
52
Chapter 3
The correction model for linear

kinematic hardening material
In this chapter, we introduce the multiaxial correction model for linear kinematic hardening
material (EPK), cf. the centred branch in figure A. We want to justify the idea of Hertel
ttgen et al. [72, 73], which is based on an elastic (or pseudo) parameter
[53] and Ko
approach. This means that we are entering the constitutive elastoplastic material law
not with the elastoplastic stress and the elastoplastic parameters (this is operator B
for (EPK) material),
but with the elastic stress e and fictive elastic parameters (this will be operator eB for
(EPK) material).
In the case of (EPK) material the situation is the easiest possible, since there is only one
parameter in the plastic regime.
We first give a global version of the correction idea in section 3.1, later we consider a localisation in section 3.2 under the assumption of the effect of elastic support. In section 3.3 we
construct an explicit homotopy between the elastic and elastoplastic model solutions.
Throughout this chapter, we let the assumptions on from the introduction hold. We pick
up all notations of chapter 2.
3.1
Global correction
Apart from the linear kinematic hardening tensor B, which is the elastoplastic material parameter, and the elastoplastic initial memory 0 , let another symmetric, strongly positive
operator eB L(, ), which is the elastic parameter,
e

e
B = eB ,
keBk keBk kk ,
B, = , eB ,
B, eB kk2 ,
and an elastic initial memory e 0 C be given. For eB, we have the norm equivalence, cf.
section B.2,

ceB k k k keB CeB k k.

(3.1)
, eB = eB1 , ,
We now introduce the elastic decomposition, namely

53
54
the correction model for (epk) material 3
(eB) W.r.t. the input SF = e with the scalar product h, ieB :

e
e(t)
0
(t),
eB
e(t) + e(t) = SF (t)

e. in [0, T ]
,
e(t) C
e. in [0, T ]
e(0) = e
0
i. e. with theorem 1.1.1,
e
= PeB (SF, e 0 ),
= SeB (SF, e 0 ).
(3.2)
This is the infinitely dimensional global counterpart of the pointwise elastic decomposition
(5.3) later. The tilde denotes the corrected quantities, which are introduced in the sequel.
Based on decomposition (3.2), we define the corrected stresses by
= e,
= B eB 1e,
=
+ ,
(3.3)
the corrected strains by

pl = eB1e,
el = C 1
,
= el + pl
(3.4)
and the corrected displacements by

u
= (D CD)1 D C .
(3.5)
This is again the infinitely dimensional, globally acting counterpart of the pointwise correction model in chapter 5.
We now arrive at the following difference (or error) expressions compared to the elastoplastic
model,
=
= B eB1 PeB (SF, e 0 ) BR1 PR (SF, 0 ),
= =
SeB (SF, e 0 )
SR (SF, 0 ).
(3.6)
(3.7)
Further we arrive at
= + ,
u = (D CD)1 D C
(3.8)
and
pl = B 1 ,
el = C 1 ,
= el + pl .
(3.9)
Here = is the difference of the corrected elastic and the elastoplastic solution. Setting
= B, we find that
eB
=: e,
=: e,
= e,
pl =: epl ,
Setting eB = R, we find
= ,
= ,
el = e =: eel ,
= ,
= ,
pl = pl ,
= e + epl ,
u
= S . (3.10)
= ,
el = el ,
= ,
u
= u,
(3.11)
this means the exact elastoplastic solution is recovered. And it is clear that the best choice
for the elastic parameter will be eB = R.
3 the correction model for (epk) material
55
3.1.1 Remark. Alternative equivalent expressions for the differences (3.6) and (3.7) are
=
=
=
BP(eB1e + e, e 0 ) BP(R1 + , 0 ),
BS(eB1e + e, e 0 ) RS(R1 + , 0 ) + (I eB)e + (I R)
S(eB 1e + e, e 0 )
S(R1 + , 0 ),

where the transformation formula of lemma 1.4.1, which is especially valid for A B, R, eB ,
have been applied.

3.1.2 Example. For eB we may e. g. choose, cf. (2.20),
e

B, =
e

B(x)(x) : (x) dV(x)
(, )
with the assumptions on eB(x) that are analogous to example 2.3.2. Looking forward, almost
every point x will satisfy the pointwise variational inequality (5.5) with the scalar product
induced by eB(x), or equivalently the differential equations (5.18), (5.19).

We are now going to apply the generalised Lipschitz estimates of chapter 1, in order to receive
estimates for the errors . We may apply them this is the essential thing with the same
input, namely SF , cf. corollary 1.3.2. We set for abbreviation
F (t) =
t
0
kS F ( )k d.
(3.12)
3.1.3 Theorem (Error correction) For each exterior force F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and initial memories 0 , e 0 C we have the following estimates.
(1) Estimates for the stresses. For , there holds
e
k(t)k
k(t)k
r1b k(t)k + qeB hB F (t),

ebb1 k(t)k + qR hB F (t).
(3.13)
k(t)k
k(t)k
qR k0 k + qeB c2
R h F (t),
qeB k0 k + qR c2
eB h F (t).
(3.14)
For , there holds
For , there holds

k(t)k
k(t)k
For e , there holds

e
= e,

e
r1b + 1 k(t)k + qeB hB F (t),
ebb + 1 k(t)k + q h (t).
R B F
1
k(e )(t)k = k(t)k ,
so that we have the same estimates as in (3.14).
(3.15)
(3.16)
56
(2) Estimates for the strains. For el , there holds

e
kel (t)k c1 r1b + 1 k(t)k + c1 qeB hB F (t),
kel (t)k c1 ebb1 + 1 k(t)k + c1 qR hB F (t).
(3.17)
For pl , there holds
kpl (t)k r1 k(t)k + qeB h F (t),

kpl (t)k eb1 k(t)k + qR h F (t).
(3.18)
For , there holds

k(t)k
k(t)k
e

r1 + c1 (r1b + 1) k(t)k + qeB h + c1 hB F (t),
eb + c (ebb + 1) k(t)k + q
1
1
R h + c1 hB F (t).
1
(3) Estimates for the displacement. For u, there holds

e

ku(t)kU d r1 + c1 (r1b + 1) k(t)k + qeB d h + c1 hB F (t),
ku(t)kU d eb1 + c1 (ebb1 + 1) k(t)k + qR d h + c1 hB F (t).
(3.19)
(3.20)
Here = denotes the difference between the correction of (E) and the elastoplastic
solution (EPK). We have used the abbreviations
e
F (t) = k(0)k + F (t)
F (t) = ke(0)k + F (t),

with the constants

d = (D CD)1 D C U, ,

c1 = C 1 , ,

b1 = eB 1 , ,

r1 = R1 , , (3.21)

CR
CeB
e b
,
qeB =
,
r1b = BR1 , ,
b1 = B eB 1 ,
cR
ceB
and the small operator differences

h = eB1 R1 ,
hB = B(eB 1 R1 ) .
qR =
(3.22)
All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ].
Proof: Step I. For the estimates of , we just have to apply corollaries 1.3.2 (a) and 1.3.3
with
(1) the inputs
(2) the stops

f1 = f2 = SF = e ,
s1 = e,
s2 = ,
p1 = e,
p2 = ,
(3) the plays

(4) the initial memories
s0,1 = e 0 ,
s0,2 = 0 ,
(3.23)

(5) the scalar products

, A1 = , eB ,
57

, A2 = , R ,
and the estimates (3.1) and (2.42) for (1.19). We find with a combination of (1.28) and (1.31)
easily (3.14).
Step II. Assertion (3.16) follows directly from (1.27).
Step III. There holds

(3.24)
= Bpl = B eB1e R1 .
In view of (3.16), we receive

k(t)k
k(t)k
kBR1 (t)k + kB(eB1 R1 )e(t)k ,

e 1
kB B
e 1
(t)k + kB( B
)(t)k .
(3.25)
(3.26)
The second summand in (3.25) resp. (3.26) is estimated with (1.14) and (3.1) resp. (2.42) in
the usual way.
Step IV. For pl = eB 1e R1 , the proof is like for , but not that the operator B is
lacking, cf. (3.24).
Step V. Estimates for the remaining corrected quantities can straightforwardly by derived
via (3.8), (3.9) and the estimates for , and pl .

Alternatively from (3.24) we have

= B eB 1 (SF e) R1 (SF ) ,
from which by smuggling zeros we find
k(t)k kB(eB1 R1 )SF (t)k + kBR1 (t)k + kB(eB1 R1 )e(t)k,

k(t)k kB(eB1 R1 )SF (t)k + kB eB 1 (t)k + kB(eB1 R1 )(t)k.
The latter could serve as well as a basis for error estimates with the aid of (1.13).
3.1.4 Corollary. If the initial values are chosen in a consistent manner, i. e. 0 = e 0 , and the
material is virgin, cf. remark 2.5.3, there exist non-negative constants c dependencies in
brackets such that the following estimates hold.
(1) Estimates for the stresses. There holds
k(t)k
k(t)k
k(t)k
k(e )(t)k

c (eB, R, B)h + k (eB, R)hB F (t),
c (eB, R)h F (t),

c (eB, R, B)h + k (eB, R)hB F (t),
c (eB, R)h F (t).
(2) Estimates for the strains. There holds

kpl (t)k cpl (eB, R)h F (t),
kel (t)k
k(t)k

cel (eB, R, B, C)h + kel (eB, R, C)hB F (t),

c (eB, R, B, C)h + k (eB, R, C)hB F (t).
58
(3) Estimates for the displacement. There holds

ku(t)kU

cu (eB, R, B, C, D)h + ku (eB, R, C, D)hB F (t).
Here again = and F (t) from (3.12). All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ].
Proof: We have

= (0) = 0
0 = e 0
and
(2.57)

(3.16)
= (0) = e(0) = 0 .
pl (0) = 0
Therefore, F F F . From (3.14) we infer arithmetically averaging

e
k(t)k

1
2
h F (t) =: c (eB, R)h F (t).
qR c2
eB + qeB cR
2
Inserting this into the other error expressions of theorem 3.1.3, rearranging and taking the
average of each pair finally gives the desired results.

3.1.5 Remark. (a) Note that we have
e 1
R1 = eB 1 (I eBR1 ) = eB 1 (R eB)R1 ,
thus by the submultiplicativity of the operator norm

h = keB 1 R1 k keB 1 k kR1 k keB Rk
(3.27)
hB = kB(eB1 R1 )k kB eB1 k kR1 k keB Rk.
(3.28)
and
(b) Note, that have at the look at the proof of theorem 1.3.1 there hold the inequalities
or equivalently,

B 1 ,
0
e 1e

(eB 1 R1 )S F , .
B R1 ,
(c) In order to get better error estimates, one could consider ansatzes, which are decomposing
the correction error in the form
e
k correB,e 0 (e)k k correB,
e () correB,e 0 ( )k
e ()k + k correB,
0
(with possibly different eB and e0 ) in the hope that the first summand is very close to zero.
This approach seems not to be successful, since in the second summand we have to consider
the difference between
and
correB (e) = B eB 1 PeB (e, e 0 ) + SeB (e, e 0 )

1
corre ( ) = B eB Pe ( , e0 ) + Se ( , e0 ),
B
59
which inherits again the problems, which will occur in chapter 5. To illustrate this, we have
a look at the stop difference at the right hand side above. We have

Z t
Z t
CeB
CeB
e 1
ke kd
+
ke 0 k +
k
kd
k
B
k
kSeB (e, e 0 ) SeB(, e0 )k
ceB
ceBc2eB
0
0
according to (1.31). The choice eB = eB, e0 = e 0 makes the first and last summand vanish.
In contrast to chapter 5, we are now able to apply theorem 2.7.4, i. e. ke k
kS F k, but
this does not give any smallness indication at all.

We have a counterpart to theorems 2.6.2 and 2.7.4. In fact as the choice eB = R shows
it generalises theorem 2.7.4. The fact that SF = e is common input into (2.55), cf. (3.2), is
essential.
3.1.6 Theorem (Derivatives correction) There exist non-negative constants C and k , such
that for each exterior force F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) there holds
Ce kS F k
kek
(3.29)
kpl k kpl kS F k ,
kel k kel kS F k ,
kk

k kS F k
(3.30)
C kS F k ,
C kS F k ,
C kS F k ,
kk
k kS F k ,
k kS F k ,
kk
kk
k kS F k
(3.31)
Cu kS F k ,
kuk
ku kS F k
(3.32)
kek
Ce kS F k ,
(for the elastic quantities),
kdt pl k Cpl kS F k ,
kdt el k Cel kS F k ,
kdt k
C kS F k ,
(for the corrected strains),
kdt
k

kdt k
kdt
k
(for the corrected stresses),
kdt u
kU
(for the corrected displacement). Here = . All estimates are valid a. e. in [0, T ].
Proof: We have
eB kS F keB CeB kS F k ,
kek
kek
eB kS F keB CeB kS F k ,
a. e. in [0, T ]
from (3.2), (2.33) and (1.12), where CeB from (3.1) in order to receive (3.29). Now apply
relations (3.3), ..., (3.5) and the triangle inequality to obtain all the left hand side estimates
in (3.30), ..., (3.32).
The right hand side estimates follow from the left hand ones with (2.65), ..., (2.67) and the
abused triangle inequality k k k k + k k.

We now have a stability result for small disturbances of the elastic parameter, which is similar
to theorem 2.6.3.
60
3.1.7 Theorem (Robustness correction) Let two symmetric and strongly positive elastic data
eB L(, ), and two inputs F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and e
i
i
0,i C be given. Always i {1, 2}.
With the abbreviations
e
b = max{keB 1 k, keB 2 k},
eB = min{eB1 , eB2 },
d = kDk,
s=
dc
,
2D C
there hold in terms of the input disturbances kF k, ke 0 k and elastic parameter disturbances keBk
e3

Z t
Z t
eb

b s e
e
e
(3.33)
kF1 k + kF2 k d
kF kd + 4 k Bk
k 0 k + s
k (t)k
eB
eB
0
0
and
ke(t)k
skF (t)k +
eb
eB
k 0 k + s
kF kd
eb3 s
4eB
k Bk
t
0

kF1 k + kF2 k d
(3.34)
Proof: Use (1.31), ..., (1.34) and
e 1
e
e 2
e
keB1 k keB1
1 k k B 2 k k Bk b k Bk,
CeBi =
1
,
eBi
keB i k
ceBi =
.
eBi
The rest is similar to the proof of the cited theorem.
3.1.8 Corollary (Robustness correction II) For each given symmetric and strongly positive
(4)
(1)
pair eBi L(, ) there exist non-negative constants C , ..., C , depending on the norms
keB i k, the coercivity constants eBi , Korns constant D and d = max{kDk, kD k}, such that
for each pair Fi and e 0,i the difference k()(t)k can be written as sums of
(1)
C k0 k ,
and
(2)
t
0
kF kU d,
(3)
C keBk
t
0

(4)
C keBk kF1 (t)kU + kF2 (t)kU .

kF 1 kU + kF2 kU d

Here represents one quantity of the corrected elastic septuple, i. e. one of
, ,
, , el , pl
or u
.
Proof: Clear.
3.2
Localisation of correction
In this section, we inspect the widespread case, that the overall body behaviour is elastic,
whereas the plasticity regions, the active regions according to Han/Reddy [49, 50], are small
in volume. We cannot give any sufficient conditions for this behaviour, which is usually called
the effect of elastic support in engineering literature, see e. g. Glinka et al. [18, 44, 83, 104],
ttgen et al. [72, 73]. Thus we cannot help
Hertel [53], Hoffmann/Seeger [61] or Ko
assuming it, cf. (3.38) and (3.40).
61
Numerical examples and examples, where analytical solutions for e = SF are available (see
monograph Neuber [90]), suggest that such regions as in (3.37) exists. But a rigorous proof
of these facts is not known to the author.
f (x,6t)6
ep
Y
H
H
?
?
'$
0
?

u=0
corr
-

&
Y
H
H
1,g
1
g(x, t)

?
(3.35)
Having a closer look at the proof of theorem 1.3.1, we see that, if we apply it to the same
quantities as in the proof of theorem 3.1.3,
Z t
(1.26) Ce
1
B
k(t)k
k0 k + 2
k(, )k d
(3.36)
ceB
ceB 0
holds, with a function
W 1,q ([0, T ], ), [0, T ] t 7 (t, ) ,
which is given by
(2.48)
(t, x) = (eB 1 R1 )(t)(x)
= (eB1 R I)pl (t)(x)
for (t, x) [0, T ] .
We assume that there exist subregions

corr ep ,
(3.37)
cf. picture (3.35), that satisfy the following properties.

(1) In the domain e = \ ep , the elastoplastic solution behaves purely elastic, i. e. no
plastic deformation takes place,
pl (t)(x) = 0
a. e. in [0, T ] e .
(3.38)
The size of the remaining elastoplastic domain ep \ corr , i. e. where no correction is

applied, is sufficiently small, i. e.
Vol(ep \ corr ) 1.
(3.39)
The latter condition clearly holds, if already

Vol(ep ) 1.
(3.40)
(2) The operator eB is somehow sufficiently close to R locally in the correction domain
corr , i. e.
k=
sup
k(eB 1 R I)kL2 (corr ,R33
(3.41)
) 1.
s
kk 2 corr 33 =1
L (
,Rs
)
(This should be achieved by appropriate parameter identification technique for eB, see
chapter 8.)
62
Relations (3.38), (3.40) provide a definition for the effect of elastic support.
3.2.1 Remark (Pointwise correction model) The good thing is, that the numerical computations in chapters 7 and 8 show, that our correction model works as well in the degenerate
case, where we simply correct at one single isolated boundary point of , which means
Vol(corr ) = 0. A rigorous proof for the transfer to this (degenerate) pointwise case is missing so far.

We decompose the L2 -norm of the right hand error integrand in (3.36) into three parts,
k(t, )k =
Z
1/2
=:
k(t, x)k dV(x)
2
1/2
I02 (t) + I12 (t) + I22 (t)
.
Here we have
I0 (t) =
Z
1/2
(3.38)
= 0
k(t, x)k2 dV(x)
a. e. in [0, T ],
giving no contribution to the total error. The last error summand

I2 (t) =
Z
1/2
kkpl kL2 (corr ,R33
k(t, x)k dV(x)
)
s
2
corr
a. e. in [0, T ]
is small according to (3.41). The middle summand is

I1 (t) =
Z
e 1
ep \corr
k( B
1/2
R I) k dV(x)
pl 2
a. e. in [0, T ].
Due to (3.39) and the typical situation that pl is small in ep \ corr , this contribution to the
total error should be as well small, even if keB 1 B 1 k 1 and kB 1 R1 k 6 1. Thus,
under the assumptions of elastic support, the total error will be small.
3.2.2 Remark. Looking one section forward, where we construct a homotopy between models (E)
and (EPK), the choice
e
B = B + P C,
e
B, =

(B + P C) (x) : (x)dV(x)
similarly as in (3.43) with L (, [0, 1]), such that

1 (x) 1 a. e. in corr ,
(x) 1 a. e. in \ corr ,
is possible. The ideal choice

(x) = 1 a. e. in ep ,
makes the error in (3.36) even vanish.
0 (x) 1 arbitrary a. e. in e ,
3.3
63
Homotopy between both models
It is now a very interesting and very beautiful fact, that we may construct an explicit homotopy between the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic models in an easy fashion, namely
by a continuous connection of operator B to operator R, i. e. by a continuous connection of
the corresponding scalar products k kB and k kR .
We hope that in the future numerical homotopy (or continuation) methods, cf. Allgower/Georg [1], Deuflhard [31], will provide good preconditioners for transient nonlinear
elastoplastic finite element solvers. We construct the homotopy as follows.
Let the two initial memories
e
0 , 0 C
(3.42)
be given. 0 is the initial memory for the elastoplastic model, e 0 is somewhat arbitrary. For
a homotopy parameter [0, 1], let us take the choice
e
B = R + (1 )B = B + P C
(3.43)
with initial memory

e
0, = 0 + (1 )e 0
(3.44)
in (3.2). That is
= PeB (SF, e 0, ),
= SeB (SF, e 0, ),
+ e = SF.
(3.45)
We define the -stresses by

e
= B eB 1
,
= e ,
=
+ ,
(3.46)
the -strains by
e 1 e
pl
= B ,
pl
= el
+
1
,
el
=C
(3.47)
and the -displacements by

u
= (D CD)1 D C .
(3.48)
All these definitions are according to (3.3), ..., (3.5), expect the one for pl
, which additionally
has a prefactor . Then we receive
e
B B = P C,
R eB = (1 )P C,
R B = P C.
Further
for = 0, i. e. for eB 0 = B and e 0,0 = e 0 , the elastic solution
0 = e,
0 = e,
u
0 = eu
for = 1, i. e. for eB 1 = R and e 0,1 = 0 , the elastoplastic solution
1 = ,
1 = ,
1 = ,
1 = ,
pl
pl
1 = ,
el
el
1 = ,
u
1 = u
64
is recovered. The choice = 0 gives rise to define the other e -quantities, which are originally
not present in model (E), namely
:= 0 ,
:=
0 ,
e el
:= 0 = el
0,
:= pl
0 = 0,
e pl
so that the elastic solution is now as well a septuple. The essential fact is that we are able
to connect at least one of e, e, eu (namely e) with its elastoplastic counterpart (namely ).
Cf. diagram (3.49) as well.
BB1
= e
= e
6 = 0
B eB1

= e
(3.49)
e
= e
BR1
= e
? = 1
3.3.1 Remark. Due to the convexity of C it is assured that e 0, is in C again. eB is clearly linear,
continuous and symmetric, since the endpoints R and B are so. We estimate below,
(3.43)
(2.18),(2.40)
e
B , = R, + (1 ) B,
eB kk2 R,B kk2 ,
(3.50)
where B and R are the constants from (2.18),(2.40) and

R,B = min B , R .
eB = R + (1 )B R,B ,
This means that eB is in fact strongly positive, so that the inverse eB1
exists. We use the
results of section B.2, giving
(B.13)
keB1
k
R + (1 )B
We further have
k keB
where
CeB = p
(B.14)
1
min{B , R }1 .
CeB k k CRB k k,
1
,
R + (1 )B
CRB = p
1
.
min{R , B }
(3.51)
(3.52)
All rightmost estimates are independent of the parameter . Now the other way round. We
estimate above,
(3.43)

keB k kRk + (1 )kBk max kRk, kBk ,
thus
keB 1
k
1
kRk + (1 )kBk
max{kRk, kBk}1
65
and
(B.14)
cRB k k ceB k k
where
ceB
R + (1 )B
,
=
kRk + (1 )kBk
k keB ,
cRB =
(3.53)
min{R , B }
.
max{kRk, kBk}
Again, all the rightmost estimates are independent of .
3.3.2 Remark. We have for all [0, 1]

= ,
=
,
=
,
el
el
.
=
(3.54)
For = 1, we have all the tilded corrected quantities identical to the hatted corrected
quantities, cf. (3.11).

We now prove that our construction depends continuously on the homotopy parameter
and the exterior force F . The main ingredients of proof are again the generalised Lipschitz
estimates of chapter 1.
3.3.3 Theorem (Homotopy) (a) The map

H : [0, 1] W 1,q [0, T ], U C [0, T ], ( )3 3 U

(, F ) 7
, ,
, el , pl , , u
(F )
is a homotopy
from the elastic solution

to the elastoplastic solution
(b) For each [0, 1], the partial map

H(0, F ) = e, e, e, eel , epl , e, eu (F )

H(1, F ) = , , , el , pl , , u (F ).

H(, ) : W 1,q [0, T ], U W 1,q [0, T ], ( )3 3 U
is continuous for 1 q < .
Proof: First, some preliminaries.

(1) Because of (3.46), (3.47) and (3.48) and the definition of the product topology, it is
sufficient to prove the homotopy property for the maps
(, F ) 7
(F ),
(, F ) 7 (F ).
(2) From (3.52), (3.53) in remark 3.3.1, we have the following norm equivalence, which is
independent of , namely
cRB k k ceB k k k keB CeB k k CRB k k.
(3.55)
66
(3) Let a sequence (n ) [0, 1] be given such that n [0, 1]. Then there holds
trivially
n
keB n eB k = k(n R + (1 n )B) (R + (1 )B)k = |n | kR Bk 0,

i. e.

in L , .
B n eB
Also for the inverse operators, we have
e 1
e 1 e
e 1
e
keB 1
n B k = k B n ( B B n ) B k
(3.51)
e
e 1
e
keB1
n k k B k k B n B k
i. e.
e 1
Bn
Thus
e 1
Bn
and
eB 1
e 1
Bn
Clearly,
eB 1
keB n eB k n
0,
min2 {B , R }

in L , .
eB 1
(3.56)

in L W 1,q ([0, T ], ), W 1,q ([0, T ], )

in L C([0, T ], ), C([0, T ], ) .
n
0,n = n 0 + (1 n )e 0 0 + (1 )e 0 = e 0, .
(3.57)
(3.58)
(a) Let us put all the pieces together. Let sequences

n
n in [0, 1],
Fn F in W 1,q [0, T ], U
be given. According to (3.3) and (3.2), we have to show that
e
e
(F ) = B eB 1
n (Fn )
B eB1
PeB (SF, 0, ),
n PeBn (SFn , 0,n ) =
n
SeBn (SFn , e 0,,n ) = n (Fn ) (F ) = SeB (SF, e 0, )

in C [0, T ], . To this end we show amongst others
n
PeBn (SFn , e 0,n ) = en (Fn )
(F ) = PeB (SF, e 0, )
(3.59)
(3.60)
(3.61)
in C([0, T ], ). First, clearly due to the continuity of S note the identification in section
B.2 of the appendix ,
n
n = SFn SF = e
in W 1,q ([0, T ], ).
(3.62)
in C([0, T ], ).
(3.63)
Thus according to lemma 1.1.3 (1.9)

e
n = SFn SF = e
We apply the generalised stop estimate theorem 1.3.1 with (3.55) in (1.19) in order to receive

SeB (SFn , e 0, )(t) SeB (SF, e 0, )(t)
=
kn (Fn )(t) (F )(t)k
n
n

Z t
(1.20) C
RB
e
e
kS(Fn F )kd
k 0,n 0, k +
cRB
0
Z t
1 e 1 e 1
+ 2 k Bn B k
kdt PeB (SF, 0 )kd.
cRB
0
67
Thus, letting t = T , we have with a constant c, independent of n, because of (3.56), (3.62)

and (3.58),

Z T
n
e 1
0.
B
k
kS(Fn F )kd + keB 1
kn (Fn ) (F )k c ke 0,n e 0, k +
n
0
This gives (3.60). We next show (3.61) in the same way. Applying the generalised play
estimate from theorem 1.3.4, to obtain

PeB (SFn , e 0, )(t) PeB (SF, e 0, )(t)
=
ken (Fn )(t) e (F )(t)k
n
n
(1.33)
kS(F Fn )(t)k

Z t
CRB e
e
kS(Fn F )kd
k 0,n 0, k +
+
cRB
0
Z t
1
e 1
+ 2 keB 1
kdt PeB (SF, 0 )kd.
B
k
n
cRB
0
Thus, taking the supremum at the right hand side, letting t = T , with a constant c, independent of n, because of (3.56), (3.62), (3.63) and (3.58),

e
e
k n (Fn ) (F )k c ke 0,n e 0, k + kS(Fn F )k

Z T
n
e 1
e 1
kS(Fn F )kd + k Bn B k 0.
+
0
This gives (3.61). Finally clearly because of (3.61) and (3.57)

n
e 1 e
e
B eB1
n n (Fn ) B B (F )
in C([0, T ], ).
This is (3.59).
(b) This assertion is clear because of the continuity of the stop and play W 1,q ([0, T ], )C
W 1,q ([0, T ], ) for 1 q < , see remark 1.1.2.

3.3.4 Remark. (a) The assertion (b) of theorem 3.3.3 is not true any more for the case that q = ,
cf. remark 1.1.2.
(b) In the same way as in theorem 3.3.3, it can be seen that

H : [0, 1] W 1,q [0, T ], U C [0, T ], ( )3 3 U

(F )
(, F ) 7
, ,
, el , pl , , u
is a homotopy from the wrong endpoints

Again, the
(3.10) to the elastoplastic solution.

restricted map H(, ) : W 1,q [0, T ], U W 1,q [0, T ], ( )3 3 U is continuous for
1 q < .

With the aid of the Lipschitz estimates of chapter 1, it is possible to give estimates for the
distance of the -quantities from the elastoplastic solution.
3.3.5 Theorem (Error homotopy) Let = . For , , , el and e ,

there hold the same estimates (3.13), ..., (3.17) as in theorem 3.1.3.
68

For pl , there holds
e
k pl (t)k r1 k (t)k + qeB h() F (t),
k pl (t)k eb1 k (t)k + qR h() F (t).

For , there holds
k (t)k
k (t)k
For u, there holds
k u(t)kU
k u(t)kU
e

r1 + c1 (r1b + 1) k (t)k + qeB h() + c1 hB F (t),

eb1 + c1 (ebb1 + 1) k (t)k + qR h() + c1 hB F (t).

e
d r1 + c1 (r1b + 1) k (t)k + qeB d h() + c1 hB F (t),

d eb1 + c1 (ebb1 + 1) k (t)k + qR d h() + c1 hB F (t).
All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ]. All abbreviations are as in theorem 3.1.3 with
eB for eB. Further

1
h() = eB1
R
.
(3.64)
,
For = 1, all rightmost sides are vanishing.
Proof: It is similar to the proof of theorem 3.1.3. The estimates for , , and el
are completely unchanged because of (3.54). But in the present situation, we have
e
1
pl = eB1
R
(3.65)
instead of (3.24). In view of (3.16), we receive

k pl (t)k
pl
k (t)k
1 e
kR1 (t)k + k(eB 1
R ) (t)k ,
keB1
(t)k
k(eB 1
)(t)k .
(3.66)
(3.67)
The second summand in (3.66) resp. (3.67) is estimated with (1.14) and (3.1) with eB resp.
(2.42). The rest is again straightforward.

3.3.6 Corollary (Error homotopy II) Assume e 0 = 0 and pl (0) = 0. There exist nonnegative constants dependencies in brackets such that the following estimates hold.
(1) Estimates for the stresses. There holds
k (t)k
c (R, B)h F (t),
k (t)k
c (R, B)h F (t),
k (t)k
k(e )(t)k
c (R, B)h F (t),
c (R, B)h F (t).
(2) Estimates for the strains. There holds

k pl (t)k

cpl (R, B)h + kpl (R, B)h() F (t),
k el (t)k cel (R, B, C)h F (t),

k (t)k

c (R, B, C)h + k (R, B, C)h() F (t).
69
(3) Estimates for the displacement. There holds

k u(t)kU

cu (R, B, C, D)h + ku (R, B, C, D)h() F (t).
All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ]. Here = and F (t) from (3.12). The
function
kR1 k, kP Ck ,
[0, 1] 7 h = (1 )
min{B , R }
is strictly decreasing. The functions 7 h and 7 h() from (3.64) satisfy

h1 = h(1) = 0,
h0 =
kR1 k, kP Ck ,
,
min{B , R }
h(0) = kR1 k, .
(3.68)
Proof: Take note of estimates (3.51) and (3.55). Thus, by taking infimum and supremum,
eb1 eb1 ,
b1
1
,
min{R , B }
e b
b1
kBk ,
,
min{R , B }
qeB
CRB
cRB
in theorem 3.3.5 and (3.21), (3.22) is possible. (3.27) and (3.28) give h h and hB kBk h .
For h() such an estimate is not possible.

We now have an alternative proof of theorem 2.7.3 for the differences of models (E) and
(EPK) with the aid of our homotopy.
3.3.7 Corollary (Difference of models E and EPK, IV) Let the premises of theorem 2.7.1
hold. Assume e 0 = 0 and pl (0) = 0. There exist non-negative constants dependencies in
brackets such that
k(e )(t)k
e
C (R, B)F (t),
k( )(t)k C (R, B, C)F (t),
k(eu u)(t)kU
Cu (R, B, C, D)F (t).
Here again F (t) from (3.12). All estimates are valid everywhere in [0, T ].
Proof: Let = 0 in theorem 3.3.5 and corollary 3.3.6, giving h0 and h(0) as in (3.68).
3.3.8 Remark (Preconditioners) Our homotopy will hopefully give rise to the construction of
preconditioners for the elastoplastic boundary value problem. For details, the reader is referred to Allgower/Georg [1] or section 4.4.2 in Deuflhard [31].

The results of this section can be adapted for linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material (EPKI), cf. section 4.1, and for the class of CBV -functions, cf. section 4.2.
70
Chapter 4
Two generalisations
During the becoming of this thesis, some facts of the preceding chapters 2 and 3 turned out
to be straightforwardly generalisable.
(1) First, in an appropriate model formulation, linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening
material (EPKI) is considered in section 4.1. The main result is again, that the difference
of elastic and elastoplastic model solutions can be written up to some linear operators
as (a projection of) a play operator, cf. theorem 4.1.7. It makes another contribution to
the central question on top of figure A. In the same way as for (EPK) material, difference
estimates, robustness results and a homotopy are received for (EPKI) material .
(2) Second, as the spaces W 1,1 = AC and CBV = C BV do not differ too much, the
wellposedness and stability results can be adapted for the more general CBV class, cf.
theorems 4.2.4 and 4.2.3. The Sub-Pythagoras relation (1.17) for CBV simply takes
the place of the Pythagoras relation (1.12) for AC. This is done in section 4.2.
Throughout this chapter, we let again the assumptions on from part I hold. We pick up
all notations of chapter 2.
4.1
Generalisation for linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material
We now consider linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening material. We call it the (EPKI)
model. The governing relations are given by the Newtonian balance equations
(t) = Du(t),
D (t) = F (t)
e. in [0, T ],
(4.1)
the known linear relations

= Cel (t),
= Bpl (t),
e. in [0, T ]
(4.2)
and the additive decomposition of the total strain and total stress
(t) = el (t) + pl (t),
(t) = (t) + (t)

71
e. in [0, T ].
(4.3)
72
two generalisations 4
These are identical to (2.7), ..., (2.9), The difference is, that we replace (2.10) and (2.11) by
the extended normality rule

pl (t), e(t)
C (t), s(t)
a. e. in [0, T ]
(4.4)
and the extended initial memory
(, s)(0) = (0 , s0 ) C.
(4.5)
We further assume the linear relation

s(t) = Ke(t)
e. in [0, T ]
(4.6)
between the new introduced scalar strain e and scalar stress s. According to section 2.4 in
[76], combined linear kinematic and isotropic hardening is modelled.
Krejc

(
(
(
(((
(((((
(

(((
(
(
(
((((

Figure B. The uniaxial equivalent cases. Left hand side: Linear kinematic hardening (EPK). Right hand
side: Linear kinematic plus isotropic hardening (EPKI).
The spaces.
We set

= L2 , R33
L2 , R .
s
With the scalar product and norm

(1 , e1 ), (2 , e2 ) = 1 , 2 L2 (,R33 ) + e1 , e2 L2 (,R) ,

k k2 = , ,
, h, i ) becomes a separable Hilbert space. Compared to (2.12), we have now

the space (
= space of extended strains:
= space of extended stresses:
(, e), (pl , e), (el , 0), . . .

(, 0), (, s), (, s), . . . ,
which are appropriate spaces for the extended stress and strain. There clearly holds
k k k k ,
k kL2 (,R) k k .
By the Riesz-Frechet representation theorem, we identify in the usual sense

, s (, e) = (, s), (, e) = , L2 (,R33 ) + s, e L2 (,R) .

s
(4.8)
4 two generalisations
73
The operators. The operators B, C, R and D are the same as in (2.17), (2.23) and (2.15).
We assume that the new introduced operator

K L L2 (, R), L2 (, R) ,
defined by
Ke, f =
K(x)e(x)f (x)dV(x),

e, f L2 (, R) ,
K(x) K > 0,
(4.9)
is strongly positive, similarly as in example 2.3.2. Obviously the definition of K implies

symmetry K = K . Thus, there holds

kKekL2 (,R) kKk kekL2 (,R) ,
Ke, f = e, Kf ,
Ke, e K kek2L2 (,R)
for e, f L2 (, R). We define the extended operators
BK = (B, K),
CK = (C, K),
RK = (R, K),
(4.10)

. It is straightforward to see, that BK , CK and RK are symmetric
which are all in L ,
and strongly positive, i. e.

BK , BK k
k2 ,
CK , CK k
k2 ,
RK , RK k
k2 .
The choice
for .
BK min{B , K },
CK min{C , K },
RK min{R , K }
(4.11)
for the coercivity constants is possible. The inverse operators exist and are given by
1
= (B 1 , K1 ),
BK
1
= (C 1 , K1 ),
CK
1
1
R1
K = (R , K ),

,
. The equivalence constants are denoted by
lying in L
cBK k k k kBK CBK k k,
cRK k k k kRK CRK k k.
(4.12)
(4.13)
It is easy to see that

kBK k2 kBk2 + kKk2 ,
kCK k2 kCk2 + kKk2 ,
kRK k2 kRk2 + kKk2 .
(4.14)
is allowed to be any k k -closed, convex set,

The elastic domain. The elastic domain C
containing the origin. Examples are given in lemmas 4.1.1 or 4.1.2.

4.1.1 Lemma. Let a measurable radius function 0 : R s. t. 0 (x) 0 a. e. in and a
collection of functions
x : R33
R,
s
x : R R,
be given, such that for almost every x there holds

x is convex, lower semicontinuous, x (0) = 0,
(x )
74
x is concave, upper semicontinuous, 0 (x) x ().
Define

=C
, = (, s)
: x (x) x s(x) for almost every x in .
C
contains the origin, is k k -closed and convex.

Then C
since x (0) = 0 0 (x) x () a. e. in . Second, we

Proof: First, we have clearly 0 C,
have

x 1 (x) + (1 )2 (x) x 1 (x) + (1 )x 2 (x)

x s1 (x) + (1 )x s2 (x)

x s1 (x) + (1 )s2 (x)
a. e. in
and [0, 1]. This implies the convexity of C.

Third, we
for each pair (1 , s1 ), (2 , s2 ) C
prove the closedness. Let
n
(n , sn )
.
C
(, s)
in
(4.15)
is closed, (, s)
. There exists a subsequence, denoted again by (n , sn ), such that
As
n
,
n (x) (x) in k kR33
s
sn (x) s(x) in | |
a. e. in .
Therefore, s(x) 0 a. e. in and

x (x) lim inf x n (x) lim sup x sn (x) x s(x)
n
a. e. in .
due to (4.15) and the semicontinuity properties of almost every x , x . Therefore, finally
(, s) C.

4.1.2 Lemma (Expanding Mises set) The expanding Mises set, given by

= (, s)
: k dev (x)k (s(x)) for almost every x in
C
(4.16)
for a fixed concave function : R R s. t. () 0 > 0, is convex, closed with respect to

k k and contains the origin.
Proof: Let x = k k dev and x = , independently of x, in lemma 4.1.1.
Lemma 2.3.5 can be adapted straightforwardly for the expanding Mises set (4.16).
4.1.3 Lemma (Expanding Mises set, elastic behaviour) Consider the expanding Mises set
and L2 (, R) be given such that
(4.16). Let (, s)
0 < 0 (x),

k dev (x)k (x) < s(x)

Then we have C , s = {(0, 0)}.
for a. e. x .
75
Proof: As lemma 2.3.5.
As in chapter 2, we are able to transform the problem equivalently to

(S F )(t),
s(t)
RK C (t), s(t) ,
(, s)(0) = (0 , s0 ) C.
(4.17)
As for kinematic hardening, we are able to express (, s) = (SF, 0) (, s) as a play and

(, s) as a stop operator.
(RK ) W. r. t. the input (e, 0) = (SF, 0) and the scalar product h, iRK : Rewriting
(4.17) and (2.47) equivalently as

(,
s),
(, s) R
(, s) + (, s)
(, s)
(, s)(0)
0
(SF, 0)
a. e. in [0, T ]
for all C
e. in [0, T ]
,
e. in [0, T ]
(4.18)
(0 , s0 )

(, s) = PRK (SF, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,

(, s) = SRK (SF, 0), (0 , s0 ) .
(4.19)
We have the following wellposedness result, which is essentially based on theorem 1.1.1.
4.1.4 Theorem (Wellposedness model EPKI in W 1,q ) For each given exterior force and initial memory
F W 1,q [0, T ], U , 1 q ,
and
(0 , g0 ) C,
there exists a uniquely determined decuple

u W 1,q [0, T ], U ,

, el W 1,q [0, T ], ,

,
(pl , e) W 1,q [0, T ],

, , W 1,q [0, T ], ,

,
(, s) W 1,q [0, T ],
given by (2.43), (2.48), ..., (2.53), satisfying the elastoplastic relations (4.1), ..., (4.6).
Proof: Step I. The transformation of the (EPKI) model to (4.18) is done exactly in the same
way as in section 2.5. We have from (4.4)

= R1 (S F ),
K1 s = (pl , e)
C (, s),
R1
K (S F , s)
which is nothing else but (4.17). Summarizing:
(i) The validity of the elastoplastic relations (4.1), ..., (4.6) implies (4.17), yielding uniqueness.
(ii) The validity of (4.17) allows the construction of pl and u via (2.45) and (2.46), yielding
existence.
76
Therefore, each solution of (4.1), ..., (4.6) induces a solution of (4.17) and vice versa. The
validity of (2.48), ..., (2.53) is then verified straightforwardly.
), according to theorem 2.4.1.
Step II. The elastic stress (e, 0) = (SF, 0) is in W 1,q ([0, T ],
Now theorem 1.1.1, gives us the unique solvability of (4.17), the solution given by stop and
). The rest is analoplay in (4.19). Due to (1.2), we have (, s) and (, s) in W 1,q ([0, T ],
gous to the proof of 2.5.1.

As for linear kinematic hardening, (, s) = (, 0) (, s) resp. (, s) can be expressed as
a play resp. a stop operator.
(BK ) W. r. t. the input and the
(4.1), ..., (4.6) equivalently as

(
,
s),
(,
s)
BK
(, s) + (, s) =
(, s)
(, s)(0) =
scalar product h, iBK : Rewriting the relations

0
(, 0)
C
(0 , s0 )
a. e. in [0, T ]
for all C
e. in [0, T ]
,
e. in [0, T ]
(4.20)

(, s) = PBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,

(, s) = SBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) .
(4.21)
This is the infinitely dimensional, globally acting counterpart to the exposition in section 2.4
[76].
in Krejc
The scalar stress s resp. scalar strain e can be interpreted as scalar accumulated stress resp.
strain.
4.1.5 Lemma (Accumulation) If the functions x : R R in lemma 4.1.1 are non-decreasing
for a. e. x , then for the scalar stress s and strain e, corresponding to a given F
there holds
W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and initial memory (0 , s0 ) C,
e(x)
0 s(x)
for a. e. x .
(4.22)
then (, s) C
for each s L2 (, R) , which satisfies s s a. e. in .
Proof: If (, s) C,
Inserting (, s) into (4.18) or (4.20), we find
hK1 s,
s si 0
for each such s, especially for the choice s s + 1. Thus (4.22) holds due to (4.9) and (4.6).
As for linear kinematic hardening, it is possible to express all remaining unknowns in terms
of

(, s)(t)
and
(, s)(t) = (SF, 0) (, s) (t),
(4.23)
namely
(1) the extended plastic strain

(pl , e)(t) = R1
K (, s)(t),
(4.24)
77
(2) the extended backstress

(, s)(t) = BK R1
K (, s)(t),
(4.25)
(, 0)(t) = BK R1
K (, s)(t) + (, s)(t),
(4.26)
(3) the extended stress
(4) the extended elastic strain

1
(el , 0)(t) = CK
BK R1
K (, s)(t) + (, s)(t) ,
(4.27)
(5) the extended strain

1
1
BK + I R1
(, e)(t) = CK
K (, s)(t) + CK (, s)(t),
(4.28)
(6) the displacement

u(t) = (D CD)1 D (BK + CK )R1
K (, s)(t) + (, s)(t) .
(4.29)
Formulas (4.23), (4.24), ..., (4.29) are the counterparts of (2.47), (2.48), ..., (2.53). It is convenient to abbreviate the extended stresses and strains by
= (, 0),
= (, e),
= (, s),
pl = (pl , e),
= (, s),
el = (el , 0).
= (, s),
(4.30)
Especially, the initial memory is written in the form 0 = (0 , s0 ). There holds

W 1,q [0, T ],
,
.
, el , pl W 1,q [0, T ],
,
, ,
With the linear projection apply Riesz-Frechet identification
,
:
,
:
(, e) 7 ,
(, s) 7 ,
there holds
kk, 1,
k( , 0)k = k k = k k = k( , 0)k ,
k k , 1
(4.31)
and
= ,
= ,
= ,
= ,
= ,
el = el ,
pl = pl .
The following theorem is the counterpart of theorem 2.5.6.

be given with the corresponding
4.1.6 Theorem. Let F W 1,q ([0, T ], ), 1 q , and 0 C
elastoplastic solutions
W 1,q ([0, T ], ),
).
W 1,q ([0, T ],
Then there holds

, 0 ),
= G(
, 0 ),
= F(
F(, 0 ) = G 1 (, 0 ),
78
where the operators
which are defined by

W 1,q [0, T ],
C
,
F : W 1,q [0, T ],

W 1,q [0, T ],
C
,
G : W 1,q [0, T ],

1
1
PBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,
(, 0) + BK
F (, 0), (0 , s0 ) =
CK

G (, e), (0 , s0 ) = CK (BK + CK )1 BK (, e) + SBK +CK CK (, e), (0 , s0 ) ,
are turning stress into strain and vice versa. They are continuous for 1 q < .
Proof: Similarly as in corollary 2.5.5, there holds
1
PBK (
, 0 ),
+ CK B K
SBK +CK
, 0 ),
+ CK B 1 PB (
PB +C
K

, 0 ),
0 = SBK (

1
0 = (I + CK BK
)PBK (
, 0 ).
(4.32)
(4.33)
Namely, apply lemma 1.4.1 (1.46), (1.47) with A1 = BK , A2 = CK , s0 = 0 and (4.21). The
rest is done as in the proof of theorem 2.5.6 with (4.30).

Now, the next theorem is the main one of this section.
4.1.7 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPKI, I) Let F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ), 1 q ,
be given. Up to some linear operators, the difference of the solutions of
and (0 , s0 ) C
model (E), i. e. e, e and eu, which are corresponding to F , and model (EPKI), i. e. ,
and u, which are corresponding to F and (0 , s0 ), are projections of play operators. More
precisely, there holds

= H,R PRK (SF, 0), (0 , s0 ) = H,B PBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,

e
= H,R PRK (SF, 0), (0 , s0 ) = H,B PBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,

e
u u = Hu,R PRK (SF, 0), (0 , s0 ) = Hu,B PBK (, 0), (0 , s0 ) ,
where the linear operators H, are from (2.87).
Proof: We have RK BK = (P C, 0) and pl = RK = BK

. The proof is analogous to the
one of theorem 2.7.1.

4.1.8 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPKI, II) Let the premises of theorem 4.1.7
hold. For the difference of the solutions of models (E) and (EPKI), the following estimates
hold everywhere in [0, T ].
(RK ) In terms of e = SF and = SF , there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
for the strains:
k(e )(t)k
CRK kH,R k ,RK (t),

CRK kH,R k,RK (t),
CRK kHu,R kU,RK (t).
79
(BK ) In terms of and = , there holds

for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
for the strains:
k(e )(t)k
CBK kH,B k ,BK (t),

CBK kH,B k,BK (t),
CBK kHu,B kU,BK (t).
Here CRK , CBK are from (4.13), (t), (t) from (2.92), (2.93) and the linear operators H,
from (2.87).
Proof: Analogous to theorem 2.7.3. Use further (4.31).
4.1.9 Theorem (Difference of models E and EPKI, III) Let the premises of theorem 4.1.7
hold. For the difference of the solutions of models (E) and (EPKI), the following estimates
hold almost everywhere in [0, T ].
(RK ) In terms of e = S F , there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
e
for the strains:
k( )(t)k
e
for the displacements: k( u u)(t)k
CRK kH,R k ,RK kS F (t)k ,

CRK kH,R k,RK kS F (t)k ,
CRK kHu,R kU,RK kS F (t)k .
(BK ) In terms of ,
there holds
for the stresses:
k(e )(t)k
e
for the strains:
k( )(t)k
for the displacements: k(eu u)(t)k
CBK kH,B k ,BK k(t)k
,
CBK kH,B k,BK k(t)k
,
CBK kHu,B kU,BK k(t)k
where CRK , CBK from (4.13) and H, from (2.87).

Proof: Analogous to theorem 2.7.4. Use further (4.31).
4.1.10 Theorem (Robustness model EPKI) We consider two sets of data Bi , Ci , Ki (symmetric and strongly positive), inducing the operators in (2.68) and
BK,i = (Bi , Ki ),
CK,i = (Ci , Ki ),
RK,i = (Ri , Ki ),
(4.34)
Always i = 1, 2. With the abbreviaand two inputs Fi W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and (0,i , s0,i ) C.
tions as in theorem 2.6.3 and

K = min K1 , K2 ,
k = max kK1 k, kK2 k ,
the following estimates hold in terms of the input kF kU , k(0 , s0 )k and parameter
disturbances kBk, kCk, kKk, namely

Z t
k(, s)(t)k k4 k(0 , s0 )k + k3

kF kU d
0

kKk2 1/2
(kBk + k2 kCk)2
+
+ k6 kCk
+ k5
4B
4C
Z t
kF1 kU + kF2 kU d
0
80
and
k(, s)(t)k k3 kF (t)k +
Here
r2 + k2
,
k4 =
min{B , K }

k1
kCk kF1 (t)k + kF2 (t)k + k(, s)(t)k .
2
p
k3 (r 2 + k2 )3
k5 =
,
min2 {B , K }
k6 =
rk1
.
2B
Here kBk, kCk, kKk are w. r. t. their respective L2 -norms. All estimates are valid
Proof: Analogously to theorem 2.6.3 and corollary 2.6.4. Note, that for the norm equivalence
constants, we have
(B.14)
C(Ri ,Ki )
and
(B.14)
1
c(Ri ,Ki )
(4.11)
1
(Ri ,Ki )
(2.84)
1
min{R , K }
1
min{B , K }
(2.84)
r2 + k2
r2 + k2
k(Ri , Ki )k (4.14)
.
p
p
(Ri ,Ki )
min{B , K }
min{R , K }
Further, we have similar to (4.14),
(2.79)
k(R1 , K1 )k2 kR1 k2 + kK1 k2
1
1
(kBk + k2 kCk)2 + 4 kKk2
4
B
K
with the usual trick K1 = K11 K K21 . Note further estimate (4.31).
4.1.11 Corollary (Robustness model EPKI, II) For each pairs Bi , Ci , Ki , there exist non-ne(j)
gative constants c , depending on the norms kBi k, kCi k, kKi k, the coercivity constants Bi ,
Ci , Ki , and , d, such that for each pair Fi and (0,i , s0,i ) the difference k()(t)k can be
written as sums of
Z
t

(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
kF1 kU + kF2 kU d
c kBk + c kCk + c kKk
c k(0 , s0 )k ,
0
and
(5)
c
t
0
kF kU d,

(7)
(6)
c kBk + c kCk kF1 (t)kU + kF2 (t)kU .
Here represents one quantity of the elastoplastic solution decuple, i. e. , , , , s, , el ,

pl , e or u, and = 1 2 .
p
Proof: Theorem 4.1.10, expressions (4.23), ..., (4.29) and x2 + y 2 x + y for non-negative
real numbers x and y.

4.1.12 Theorem (Robustness model EPKI, III) There exist non-negative constants c , such
that for each exterior force F W 1,q ([0, T ], U ) and its corresponding solution decuple,
there holds
kpl k cpl kS F k,
kel k cel kS F k,
kk
c kS F k
(4.35)
81
(for the strains),

c kS F k,
kk
kk
c kS F k,
(for the stresses),
kk
c kS F k,
kk
c kS F k (4.36)
kuk
U cu kS F k
(4.37)
(for the displacement),

ksk
L2 (,R) cs kS F k,
kek
L2 (,R) ce kS F k
(4.38)
(for the scalar stress and strain). All the right hand side norms are kk = kk . All estimates
are valid a. e. in [0, T ].
Proof: Like the proof of theorem 2.6.2. Use (4.31) and (4.8).
As in section 3.3, we are able to connect the solution of the (EPKI) model continuously to
the solution of model (E). For [0, 1], we define the elastic parameter
e
B K, = (eB , K) = (R, K) + (1 )(B, K) = (B + P C, K).
we set
For a given elastic initial memory (e 0 , es0 ) C,
(e 0, , es0, ) = (0 , s0 ) + (1 )(e 0 , es0 ).
(4.39)
We introduce the elastic -decomposition

(e , es ) = SeBK , (SF, 0), (e 0, , es0, ) .

(e , es ) = PeBK , (SF, 0), (e 0, , es0, ) ,
We define the -stresses by
= e ,
= B eB 1
,
=
+ ,
s = es ,
(4.40)
e = K
s ,
(4.41)
the -strains by
e 1 e
pl
= B ,
pl
= el
+
,
,
el
=C
the -displacements by
u
= (D CD)1 D C .
(4.42)
We receive
for = 0, i. e. for eB K,0 = BK and (e 0,0 , es0,0 ) = (e 0 , es0 ), the elastic solution
0 = e,
0 = e,
u
0 = eu.
for = 1, i. e. for eB K,1 = RK and (e 0,1 , es0,1 ) = (0 , s0 ), the elastoplastic solution
1 = , 1 = ,
1 = ,
pl
el
s1 = s, 1 = , pl
el
1 = e,
1 = , e
1 = ,
u
1 = u.
The choice = 0 makes the elastic solution be as well a ninetuple, namely

e
:=
0 ,
:= 0 ,
e el
:= 0 = el
0,
:= pl
0 = 0,
e pl
s := s0 = 0,
e := e0 = 0.
82
4.1.13 Theorem (Homotopy, EPKI) (a) The map

H : [0, 1] W 1,q [0, T ], U C [0, T ], ( )3 L2 (, R) 3 L2 (, R) U

(F )
(, F ) 7
, ,
, s , el , pl , , e , u
is a homotopy
from the elastic solution

to the elastoplastic solution

H(0, F ) = e, e, e, es, eel , epl , e, ee, eu (F )

H(1, F ) = , , , s, el , pl , , e, u (F ).
(b) For each [0, 1], the partial map

H(, ) : W 1,q [0, T ], U W 1,q [0, T ], ( )3 L2 (, R) 3 L2 (, R) U
is continuous for 1 q < .
Proof: As theorem 3.3.3.
4.2
Generalisation for the class of continuous functions with

bounded variation
Both the (EPK) and (EPKI) problems may as well be posed and uniquely solved in the space
CBV = C BV , because of three reasons.
The main ingredient of proof for the wellposedness results, theorems 2.5.1 for (EPK)
resp. 4.1.4 for (EPKI), is the wellposedness theorem 1.1.1 for stop and play.
The transformation of the governing model relations (2.7), ..., (2.11) to (2.55) resp.
(4.1), ..., (4.6) to (4.19) is of purely spatial nature.
The Sub-Pythagoras relation (1.17) for the CBV class replaces Pythagoras relation
(1.12) for the W 1,q class.
So it is an interesting theoretical aspect to admit inputs of the larger class CBV , yielding
outputs of CBV .
But first, we concern ourselves with the elastic boundary value problem (E), which is trivial.
4.2.1 Theorem (Wellposedness model E in CBV ) For each given exterior force

F CBV [0, T ], U
there exists a uniquely determined triple

e
e
u CBV [0, T ], U ,
CBV [0, T ], ,
(4.43)

CBV [0, T ], ,
given by (2.31), ..., (2.33), satisfying the elastic relations (2.5), (2.6).
Proof: In the same way as the proof of theorem 2.5.1 for W 1,q .
83
4.2.2 Corollary. If in lemma 2.4.2, the scalar load functions Li are of class CBV ([0, T ], R) for
each i, then e CBV ([0, T ], ), e CBV ([0, T ], ) and eu CBV ([0, T ], U ).
Proof: Clear.
Now the elastoplastic boundary value problem. We replace the normality rules (2.10) resp.
[75].
(4.4) by the following weakened forms, cf. lemma 1.25 in Krejc
For linear kinematic hardening (EPK), the normality rule (2.10) is replaced by the
weakened normality rule
Z
(t) C,
T
0
for all t [0, T ] and C([0, T ], C).

( )( ), dpl ( ) 0
(4.44)
For linear kinematic hardening plus isotropic hardening (EPKI), the extended
normality rule (4.4) is replaced by the weakened extended normality rule
(t), s(t) C,
E

(, s) (, ) ( ), d(pl , e)( ) 0
(4.45)
for all t [0, T ] and (, ) C([0, T ], C).
The integral is the Riemann-Stieltjes integral for functions with values in a separable Hilbert
space. We easily arrive at the following results, where now part (a) of Krejcs theorem 1.1.1
for CBV functions yields wellposedness.
4.2.3 Theorem (Wellposedness model EPK in CBV ) For each given initial memory and exterior force

F CBV [0, T ], U
and
0 C,
there exists a uniquely determined octuple

u CBV [0, T ], U ,
, el , pl CBV [0, T ], ,

, , , CBV [0, T ], ,
satisfying the elastoplastic relations (2.7), ..., (2.9), (2.11) with the weakened form of the
normality rule (4.44).
Proof: In the same way as in the proof of theorem 2.5.1, rule (4.44) of the problem (EPK)
can be transformed to
Z T

(t) C,
( )( ), R1 d( ) 0
0
for all t [0, T ] and C([0, T ], C), which is the weakened form of (2.43). The rest is done
as in the cited proof.
4.2.4 Theorem (Wellposedness model EPKI in CBV ) For each given exterior force and initial memory
F CBV [0, T ], U ,
and
(0 , g0 ) C,
84
there exists a uniquely determined decuple

u CBV [0, T ], U ,
, el CBV [0, T ], ,
, , CBV [0, T ], ,

,
,
(pl , e) CBV [0, T ],
(, s) CBV [0, T ],
satisfying the elastoplastic relations (4.1), ..., (4.3), (4.5), ..., (4.6), with the weakened form of
the normality rule (4.45).
Proof: In the same way as in the proof of theorem 4.1.4, rule (4.45) of the (EPKI) problem
can be transformed to
Z TD
E
d(,
s)(
)
0
(, s) (, ) ( ), R1
(, s)(t) C,
K
0
which is the weakened form of (4.17). The rest is done as in the

for all (, ) C([0, T ], C),
cited proof.
Theorems 5.3.1, 5.4.1 for the isolated stress-strain laws and theorems/corollaries 2.5.6 (resp.
4.1.6), 2.6.3 (resp. 4.1.10), 2.6.4 (resp. 4.1.11), 2.7.1 (resp. 4.1.7), 2.7.3 (resp. 4.1.8), 3.1.3
and 3.1.7 for (EPK) (resp. (EPKI)) can be easily adapted for the CBV input and output
class.
Chapter 5
The pointwise correction model for

linear kinematic hardening material
As already mentioned in section 3.2, our correction method works in practice even in the
degenerated case, if we take just one single point into account, which means that
Vol(corr ) = 0. This is important, since the postprocessing correcting step in figure A should
be as fast as possible for hcf in practice.
In section 5.1 we transform the correction evolutions (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), which we assume to
hold pointwise, into (discontinuous) differential equation form. It is this formulation, which
can generally transferred to elastoplasticity constitutive models of higher complexity
(as Jiangs in chapter 6).
can be easily implemented (chapter 7) by the use of standard methods for ordinary
differential equations.
gives very fast and qualitatively good approximations to the numerical elastoplastic
boundary value problem solution (chapter 8).
The rest of this chapter, sections 5.2, ..., 5.4, gives some estimates for the pointwise correction
model, which do not take the surrounding partial differential coupling into account, in contrast
to the estimates in chapter 3. Therefore, it is quite natural, that the estimates of those
sections give no indication, why the correction model solution should be close (but it is!) to
the elastoplastic solution. (For the first reading, sections 5.2, ..., 5.4 can be skipped without
any harm.)
5.1
Transfer from the global to a pointwise correction model
Let the elastic stress tensor t 7 e(t) = e(, t) AC([0, T ], R33

s ) be given. As for the whole
exposition, we assume the point to be fixed, so we drop the . In applications, the point
may be a free boundary node of a finite element discretisation of for example. And e(, t)
may be the finite element best approximation at the analytical exact solution.
We set es(t) = dev e(t) for the deviatoric part of the elastic stress. Then es AC([0, T ], R33
sd ).
Let further symmetric, strongly positive (i. e. positively definite in finite dimensions) operators
85
86
the pointwise correction model for (epk) material 5

33 , such that
C, B and eB in L R33
s , Rs
C = C ,
B = B ,
B = eB ,
C : C kk2 ,
B : eB kk2 ,
(5.1)
be given. B represents the elastoplastic linear kinematic hardening parameter, eB a so-called
elastic linear kinematic hardening parameter and C is Hookes operator with components
given in (10). C , B , eB are positive coercivity constants. We assume that they leave the
deviatoric parts invariant, i. e.
dev(eB) = eB dev(),
B : B kk2 ,
dev(B) = B dev()
(5.2)
for each R33

s . The elastic decomposition (3.2) for the deviatoric part of the elastic stress
is now transferred pointwise, i. e.
e 1e
e (0)d a. e. in [0, T ]
B (t)
: (e d (t) ) 0
B
e(t) + e (t) = es(t)

e. in [0, T ]
d
.
(5.3)
e (t) B
e (0)d
e.
in [0, T ]
e (0) = e
d
0,d
Similarly, the elastoplastic decomposition (2.56) for s AC([0, T ], R33

sd ), where s(t) =
),
writes
dev (t), () = (, ) AC([0, T ], R33
s
1
(0)d a. e. in [0, T ]
B (t)
: (d (t) ) 0
B
(t) + d (t) = s(t)

e. in [0, T ]
.
(5.4)
(t)
B
(0)
e. in [0, T ]
d
d
d (0) = 0,d
Here
e
= PeB,e (es, e d,0 ),
d = SeB,e (es, e d,0 ),
= PB, (s, d,0 ),
d = SB, (s, d,0 )
are the play and stop operators due to the

strictly convex, closed and smooth characteristics
e (0)d = B
e (0) R33
B
sd
resp.
(0)d = B
(0) R33 ,
B
sd
e (0) resp. d,0 B

(0),
initial memories e d,0 B
the scalar products eB 1 : resp. B 1 : ,
due to theorem 1.1.1. Let us here first allow the radii e > 0 of the elastic yield surface and
> 0 of the elastoplastic yield surface to be different. For the first reading, the reader may
simply assume e = .
Above, we abbreviated = , e = e e and
d = dev(), e d = dev(e), s = dev(), es = dev(e) (the deviatoric components),
h = hyd(), e h = hyd(e), h = hyd(), e h = hyd(e) (the hydrostatic components),
5 the pointwise correction model for (epk) material
87
with the projections dev and hyd from (2.2).

[76],
5.1.1 Remark (Deviatoric and hydrostatic parts) According to definition 3.4 in Krejc
the sets
e (0)d RI
C=B
and
(0)d RI,
C=B
e (0)d , B
(0)d (RI)
B
are convex cylinders, and we have from remark 4.5 in [76] that the hydrostatic and the
deviatoric components decouple. This means
e
= PeC,eB (e, e 0 ),
= SeC,eB (e, e 0 ),
= PC,B (, 0 ),
= SC,B (, 0 ), (5.5)
imply e = e + e, = + ,
=
+ (in total), es = e + e d , s = + d , s =
+ d (for
e
e
the deviatoric component) and h = h , h = h ,

h = h (for the hydrostatic component).
The backstresses , e are deviatoric, thus due to assumption (5.2) the plastic strains pl
and pl .

Now the pointwise corrected quantities, which we denote again by the tilde , are defined
by
e
d = es e,
(5.6)
pl = eB 1e,
d = e e d ,
= B eB 1e,
cf. (3.3), (3.4). The pointwise elastoplastic quantities simply satisfy

= Bpl ,
d = s ,
(5.7)
cf. (2.8), (2.9). Now according to remark 4.4 in [76], an equivalent formulation via the
following differential equations (with discontinuous right hand side) is possible.
elastic stress space
e
n
6
76

e
d
e
s

3A
e

Ae

A

A

A

r

Se (e)
0
corrected stress space

Vd
e
6
n
:

s

6

r
X
d
XX
XXX
0
XXX
z
@
@
@
S (
)
(5.8)
Namely for the corrected quantity d ,

d = es es : en(e d ) en(e d ) ke d k e (1 ) es : en(e d ) ,
d = e e d ,
resp. for the elastoplastic quantity d ,

d = s s : en(d ) n(d ) kd k (1 ) s : n(d ) .
(5.9)
(5.10)
88
Here , 1 : R {0, 1} are the Heaviside switch functions

1 if x 0
0 if x 0
(x) =
,
(1 )(x) =
0 if x < 0
1 if x < 0
(x R),
and en = en(e d ) = (e d ), n = n(d ) = (d ) are the outward unit normals at the elastic
resp. elastoplastic yield surfaces, cf. (C.3). The situation is depicted in diagram (6.5), where
e
e
V = R33
s . Note that there holds n = (d ) = ( d ).
The closed-form differential equations (5.9), (5.10) are very cumbersome for use. Therefore,
we give an equivalent detailed presentation, which allows the transfer to Jiangs model (and
any other constitutive model of the collection on page 5) later in the practical part of this
thesis. This procedure is standard, cf. Lemaitre/Chaboche [79].
The corrected quantities. In the case of elastic behaviour es(t) Be (e), where the elastic
stress deviator is inside the interior of the elastic domain, we have
dt = 0,
dt pl = 0,
dt ei = 0,
dt
i = 0,
i. e. the whole movements stand still. If es(t) Se (e) = Be (e), we set

e
e
n = en(t, e) = es(t) e ,
s n = es(t)
: en.
(5.11)
(5.12)
In the case of neutral loading es n 0, where the elastic load is not directed into the outward
direction, (5.11) holds again. In the case of active plastic yielding, we have
d
= B en,
d e = eB en,
H = en : eB en
(5.13)
and after reparametrisation w.r.t time

dt =
es
n
,
eH
dt pl = dt en,
dt e = dt d e,
dt
= dt d
.
(5.14)
The corrected stress deviator now is

s =
+
s e) = B pl +

s eB pl ,
(5.15)
which we call the simultaneity relation, which will turn out to be one of the key features for
numerical implementation, cf. section 7.2. For illustration see (5.8) and figure C on page 102.
Note that, if e = , the simultaneity relation is just d = e d , in accordance to (3.3).
Now, in order to get the corrected stress
from its deviator s, we use a trick, which is possible,
if is a free boundary point, i. e. 1 \ 1,g , cf. the introduction. Then the elastic stress
e is plane, i. e.
e
e
AC([0, T ], R33
s AC([0, T ], R33
sp ),
spd ).
We call this situation the free boundary case. Clearly, is this case, as well the elastoplastic
stress is plane, i. e.
AC([0, T ], R33
sp ),
s AC([0, T ], R33
spd ).
89
The corrected stress

should be plane as well, i. e.
AC([0, T ], R33
sp ), Now, since, s
33
AC([0, T ], Rspd ), we simply may pull back via
= D 1 s.
(5.16)
where D from (5.20) is the restriction of the deviatoric projection, explained in remark 5.1.2.
Now finally,
el = C 1
,
= pl + el ,
(5.17)
in accordance to (3.4). Equations (5.11), ..., (5.17) now constitute the pointwise correction
model for linear kinematic hardening material.
Summarising, we have written the pointwise correction model, equations (5.11), ..., (5.17), as
some differential equations with discontinuous right hand side,

e,
e,
,
(5.18)
= Jes,e, t, ,
dt pl , ,
followed by some explicit algebraic equations,
(
, s, , el )(t) = Les,e, (t, pl , e,
).
(5.19)
We will do the same in chapter 6 for Jiangs model.

5.1.2 Remark (Dimensionality) Let two linear isomorphisms corresponding to (16) resp. (2.4)
be given by
t
3
R33
sp A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A = (a11 , a22 , a12 ) R
resp.
t
3
R33
spd A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A = (a11 , a22 , a12 ) R .
In the latter, we simply forget the component a33 = a11 a22 . Now notice that the
restriction
33
: R33
(5.20)
D = R33 | dev |R33
sp Rspd
sp
spd
is an isomorphism, which is itself isomorphic to

A R3
R3 A 7 D
with
2/3 1/3 0
= 1/3 2/3 0 ,
D
0
0
1
whereas the restriction

following diagram
| dev |R33
R33
s
sd
is obviously commutative.
1
D
2 1 0
= 1 2 0 ,
0 0 1
is surely not, since R33 R6 6 R5 R33

d . The
R33
sp
- R33
spd
?
- R3
?
R3
(5.21)
90
For the elastoplastic quantities, i. e. the elastoplastic BVP solution, there holds analogously in the case of elastic behaviour s(t) B ()
dt pl = 0,
If s(t) B (),
dt = 0,
n = n(t, ) = (s(t) ),
dt = 0.
(5.22)
s n = s(t)
: n.
(5.23)
In the case of neutral loading s n 0, (5.22) holds again, otherwise in the case of active plastic
loading s n > 0
d = B n,
H =n:Bn
(5.24)
and again after reparametrisation w. r. t. time
dt =
s : n
,
H
dt pl = dt n,
dt = dt d ,
(5.25)
System (5.22), ..., (5.25) can be seen as a subsystem of system (5.11), ..., (5.14) with e s and
s cancelled.
5.1.3 Remark. (a) Note that if we choose especially eB = B and = e, we receive s = es,
= e,
i. e. the pointwise correction model reduces to the identity in accordance to (3.10).
(b) In general, the normals en and n will not be equal. But all our numerical experiences in
practice show, that en and n are very close to each other.

5.1.4 Remark (Pointwise correction model for Jiang material) We take a short look forward. Compared to the pointwise correction model for (EPJ) material later in chapter 6, the
situation here is simpler.
The radii e resp. of the elastic resp. yield surfaces are constant.
The total backstresses e and
are in linear relation to the plastic strain pl . There is
no additive decompositions into partial backstresses.
There are no memory surfaces present.
In fact, the function Jes,e, does not depend on and Les,e, does not depend on e,
.
(a) Equations (5.11), ..., (5.17) correspond to (6.8), ..., (6.24), (6.29), (6.30), equations (5.18),
(5.19) correspond to (6.2), (6.6), diagram (5.8) corresponds to diagram (6.5).
(b) In contrast to Jiang material in chapter 6, where softening eH < 0 resp. H < 0 is possible,
due to the positively definiteness of eB resp. B, we have
(5.1)
H = en : eB en eB > 0,
(5.1)
H = en : B en B > 0,
and therefore the introduced internal scalar variables and are total corrected resp.
elastoplastic accumulated plastic strain, i. e.
= (0)
+
(t)
t
0
pl
kd ( )kd,
(t) = (0) +
kd pl ( )kd.
91
(c) If we already take a look forward to the flux computations for Jiangs model in section
6.3.2, the linear system of equations (6.90) is in the present context given by
and
e,
x = (t, y) = (t, pl , ,
),

I (x) = 1, 0, 0, 0, 0 ,
I + (x) = 1, , , d e,
e (x) = kes(t) ek e,
e (x) = (t , pl , , e , ) e = (es n , 0, 0, en, 0).

It has the unique solution ( , + ) = (0, 1) in [0, 1]2 during active plastic yielding with
es = es : en > 0, since then
n
dt en : d e =
es
en
: en e e e
n : B n = es : en.
: eB en
The linearisation of the pointwise correction model in the case of active yielding, cf. section
7.3, reads
s
pl e 1 e
e 1 e
e
e
e
=
B
B
= B n en.
n
n
+
I
n
,
e
es
es
(d) Clearly, the algorithms I, III and III of chapter 7 are applicable in the same way as they
will be for the correction model for Jiang material.

The estimates of the next three sections 5.2, ..., 5.4 were the first approaches for error estimates
for our correction model. They are of course true, but they do not at all explain, why the
output of the correction model k
s(t)s(t)k should be better than the elastic error kes(t)s(t)k.
Therefore, as they lead us to be a dead-end street, they might be skipped by the reader in
the first instance.
Just have a look at theorem 5.4.1 for example. The best choice in order to make the right
e
hand
R t e side in (5.41)
R t resp. (5.42) as small as possible is B = B. Then the bad integrals
resp. 0 kskdt
in both estimates vanish, yielding

0 k skdt

Z t
CB
e
k s skd
.
k(d d )(0)k +
k(d d )(t)k
cB
0
This is small, if and only if es is close to s.

Note that the choice eB = B yields s = es, cf.
remark 5.1.3.
It is clear and natural: We cannot expect good error estimates, if we do not take structural
relations between es and s (or e and ) into account, which are arising from the partial
differential coupling.
This has been done in chapter 3, where we considered the whole boundary value problems. It
turned out and that is the decisive difference! that the estimates of theorem 1.3.1 and the
subsequent corollaries were applicable
R t with respect to the same input, just compare (5.43)
to (3.23). This made the integral 0 kes skd
vanish, and we had small factors before the

Rt e
integrals 0 k skdt.
92
5.2
A first estimate
We consider in this section the pointwise correction model, where we assume the operators B
and eB to be just positive multiples of the identity operator, i. e.
B = b I,
B = eb I,
( eH = eb)
(5.26)
with scalars b, eb > 0. The deviatoric invariance (5.2) and the positive definiteness (5.1) are
then clearly valid. Systems (5.3) resp. (5.4) then simplify to
e
e (0)d a. e. in [0, T ]
(t)
: (e d (t) ) 0 for all B

(5.27)
...
resp.
(t)
: (d (t) ) 0
...
(0)d a. e. in [0, T ]
for all B
(5.28)
since we are able to cancel the positive scalars eb resp. b. We allow the yield radii e and to
be different. We introduce the abbreviations
d = e e d =: e d ,
b
eb
=: e
(= b pl )
for the ratios b/eb and /e. First, we decompose the correction model error into three parts
k(
s s)(t)k = k(
(t) + d (t)) ((t) + d (t))k
k es(t) s(t)k + k e(t) (t)k + k e(t) (t)k.
(5.29)
Let us assume
1
i. e.
b e eb
in the sequel. For a scalar 0 < 1, which is to be specified

later below and appropriate

e (0)d we first compute
(0)d , e C [0, T ], B
test functions C [0, T ], B
0
with
(5.27),(5.28)

d : d + 2
I1 (t) =
I2 (t) =
I3 (t) =

d e : e d = I1 (t) + I2 (t) + I3 (t)

d ( ) e d ( ) : (
) e(
) d,

e d ( ) ( ) : (
) d,

d ( ) e( ) : e(
) d.
This allows us to treat the second and the third summand in (5.29) similarly. The first
summand in (5.29) remains unchanged. We consider the second summand in (5.29). Let
= and set

d
e d
if ke d k
e
,
=
.
=
e
( d ) if ke d k >
93
Since
kd k and ke d k e
kek e and kk ,
we may use them as test functions into the variational inequalities (5.27) and (5.28). We have
I3 0 by construction of e, and
Z t
Z t
(s es) : ( e)
( e) : ( e)
I1 (t) =
d
d
0
0
Z t

1
e
( e)(t) 2 ( e)(0) 2 .
kd ( e)( )kd
k s sk,t
2
0
The integrand of I2 is zero, if ke d k / , otherwise the estimate

I2 (t) k d (t)k e
k(t)k
e ( ) k(t)k
k d (t)k
holds a. e. in [0, T ]. Putting the pieces together, we obtain

Z t
k( e )(t)k2 k( e )(0)k2 + 2 e( )
k(
)kd
0
Z t

e
+2 k s sk,t
k e ( )kd.
0
e(0)
If the initial values are chosen in a consistent manner, i. e.

= (0), there holds

Z t
Z t

e
e
e
e
2
k( )(t)k 2 ( ) + k s sk,t
k(
)kd +
k (
)kd .
0
(5.30)
The third summand in (5.29) is treated similarly. We set

e
d
,
= e d ,
thus kek e, kk . The same decomposition as above with = , I2 I3 0 yields

Z t
Z t
e
2
e
e
k( )(t)k 2k s sk,t
k (
)kd .
k(
)kd +
0
Putting those three estimates together, we have an upper bound for the total difference (5.29)
of the approximation above.
[75], proposition 3.5, is
5.2.1 Remark. For 1, which enforces 1, estimate in Krejc
revealed as a special case.
5.3
A second estimate
We consider the same situation as in section 5.2. Now we give an error estimate for the
pointwise correction model for the case that we have
= =
b
eb
and
= 1.
(5.31)
94
Thus the elastic and the corrected yield surface are assumed to have the same radii. We
introduce the following abbreviations
1/2
F(, e d , d )(t) = ke d (t) d (t)k2 + k(e d d )(t)k2
,
1/2
2
F (, ) = + 6 + 1
.
There holds
(CS)
F 2 (, e d , d )(t) (1 + )ke d k2 + (1 + )kd k2 + 4ke d k kd k F 2 (, )

everywhere in [0, T ], which is due to the fact, that the stops never leave their characteristic,
i. e. ke d k, kd k . For each fixed > 0, the function
F (, ) : [0, 1] R, 7 F (, ),
F (0, ) = ,
F (1, ) = 8
is concave and strictly increasing. We first distinguish two cases.
Case A. If at time t both stop operators d and e d are in touch with the yield surface, i. e.
ke d (t)k =
and
kd (t)k =
(5.32)
we have
dt
= (es : en)en =
(es : e d ) e
d,
2
dt = (s : n)n =
s : d
d .
2
Thus by smuggling a zero term

1

e
e
e
e
e
kdt (
)k =
+
(
s
(
s
)
(
s
s)

d d
d d
d
d
2

1
1
(es s)
: d d + 2 (es : e d )e d (es : d )d .
(5.33)
We find, computing straightforwardly,

0
(5.32)
2 (es : e d )ke d k2 + (es : d )kd k2 2(es : e d )(es : d )(e d : d )

2 2 (es : e d )2 + (es : d )2 2(es : e d )(es : d )

(es : e d )(es : d ) ke d k2 + kd k2 2(e d : d )
2
k(es : e d )e d (es : d )d k2 2 es : (e d d )
(es : e d )(es : d )ke d d k2 ,
thus for the square of the second summand in (5.33)

k(es : e d )e d (es : d )d k2
=
(CS)
2
2 es : (e d d ) + (es : e d )(es : d )ke d d k2
2 kesk
2 ke d d k2 + 2 kesk
2 ke d d k2
2 kesk
2 F 2 (e d , d , ),
=
thus we conclude
kdt (
)k
(CS),(5.33)
kes sk
+
1 e
k sk
F(e d , d , ).
95
Case B. In the case where at least one of the two stop operators d or e d is in the elastic
domain, i. e.
ke d k <
or
kd k < ,
(5.34)
we find in view of
kdt
k =

1
e
2
s : d dt k d k ,
2

1
1
2
kk
=
s : d dt kd k
the identity

1

1 d e 2
kdt
k kk
+
k d k kd k2 =
(es : e d ) (s : d ) .
2 dt
(5.35)
The obvious equivalences

kdt
k > 0 kd k =
give
Therefore, we find
and
kk
> 0 ke d k =

sign kdt
k kk
= sign ke d k2 kd k2 .
(5.36)
(5.37)
1

1 d e 2
e e

2
k
k
s
(
s
(5.38)
k
k
+
k d
(
kdt

d
d .
d
2 dt

On the set t : ke d (t)k = kd (t)k this is obvious from (5.35), as the second summand on
the left hand side in
equal to zero. Then there
even holds equality in (5.38).
On the complement t : ke d (t)k =
6 kd (t)k it follows from (5.35) by multiplication with
the sign in (5.37).
We have

kdt (
)k = kdt
k kk

at the left hand side of (5.38) by virtue of (5.34) and (5.36). Thus there holds, by smuggling
a zero,

1 d e 2

dt (
) +
k d k kd k2
2 dt
(5.38)

1 e e

s : d s : d
1

1 e

: d + es : (e d d )
( s s)
1
ke d d k
kes sk
+ kesk
1
F(, e d , d ).
kes sk
+ kesk
Both Cases. We can condense both cases by the inequality

1 e 2
1
dt (
) +
dt k d k kd k2 kes sk
F(, e d , d ),
+ kesk
2
(5.39)
96
which is valid a. e. in the interval [0, T ]. We note, that with the binomial identity there holds
e

k d (0)k2 kd (0)k2
(5.31)

ke d (0)k + kd (0)k ke d (0)k kd (0)k

( + 1) ke d (0)k kd (0)k

2 ke d (0)k kd (0)k.
(5.40)
Thus, we have proven the following theorem.
5.3.1 Theorem. For the pointwise correction model for linear kinematic hardening material, there
holds for each given es, s AC([0, T ], R33
sd )
Z

Z t
0
1 e 2
2
k d k kd k +
k(es s)(
)kd
2
0
t
Z
1 t e
e
+
k skF(,
d , d )d
0

1

e d (0) d (0) kd (t)k2 kd (t)k2
2
Z t
Z
F (, ) t e
e
k( s s)(
)kd +
k s(
)kd
+
0
0
kd (
)( )kd
(for the corrected backstress) and

Z
1
kd (
)( )kd =
b
pl
pl
kd (
)( )kd
(for the corrected plastic strain).

Proof: Integration of (5.39) over [0, t]. Use the fundamental theorem and (5.40).
Here again for consistent initial memories e d (0) = d (0), the first summand at the right hand
side vanishes.
[14], which is
5.3.2 Remark. If = 1, we rediscover theorem A.5 in Brokate/Krejc
Z
t
0
kd (
)( )kd

(e d d )(0) +
Here F takes on the form

F(1, e d , d ) =
k(es s)(
)kd
Z t
2
kes(
)k k(e d d )( )kd.
+
0
2 k d d k 8 = F (1, ).
[14], that this implies the Lipschitz continuity of

It is now easy to see, cf. Brokate/Krejc
the stop operator from B to AC, where B AC is a AC-bounded subset.
5.4
97
A third estimate
Now we pick up the general situation (5.3), (5.4) under the assumption = e. Considering
the simultaneity formula, we find a. e. in the interval [0, T ]
kdt (es s)(t)k
(5.15)
(5.14)
(5.14)
k(eB B)dt pl (t)k
k(eB B)en(t)k
dt (t)
(CS),(5.1) keB Bk
: es(t)
e
k
B
Bk
kes(t)k.
en(t) : eB en(t)
ceB
en(t)
Note here that dt 0 and that we have put en(t) = 0 in the elastic regime. By integration
over the interval [0, T ], we find with the triangle inequality
k(s s)(t)k k(s es)(t)k
k(s s)(t)k
k(s s)(0)k +
(F T )
kd (es s)(t)kd
0
Z
keB Bk t e
k s(
)kd
k(s s)(0)k +
ceB
0
as an upper bound of the correction model error.

5.4.1 Theorem. For the pointwise linear kinematic hardening correction model (5.3), (5.4), we
have for each s, es AC([0, T ], R33
sd ) the following estimates.
(a) For the corrected deviatoric stress, there holds
keB Bk
k(s s)(t)k k(s s)(0)k + k(s s)(t)k +
ceB
e
t
0
kes(
)kd.
(b) For the elastic deviatoric stop, there hold

Z t
CeB
e
e
e
k( d d )(0)k +
k s skd
k( d d )(t)k
ceB
0
Z
CB keB 1 B 1 k t
kskd
+
c2eB cB
0
(5.41)
and
k(e
d )(t)k

Z t
CB
e
e
k s skd
k( d d )(0)k +
cB
0
Z
CeB keB 1 B 1 k t e
+
k skd.
ceB c2B
0
(5.42)
(c) For the elastic backstress, there holds

k(e )(t)k k(es s)(t)k + k(e d d )(t)k.
Proof: (a) This follows from the preliminaries. (b) and (c) We apply theorem 1.3.1 and the
subsequent corollaries with
98
(1) the inputs

f1 = es,
f2 = s,
(5.43)
s1 = e d ,
s2 = d ,
(5.44)
p1 = e,
p2 = ,
(5.45)
s0,2 = d,0 ,
(5.46)
(2) the stops

(3) the plays
(4) the initial memories
s0,1 = e d,0 ,
(5) the scalar products
The rest is clear.

, A1 = eB 1 : ,

, A2 = B 1 : .
(5.47)
Part III
PRACTICE
99
Chapter 6
The pointwise correction model for

Jiang material
Part III of this thesis is exclusively concerned with practical aspects of the correcting postprocessing step in figure A, i. e. transfer to an elastoplasticity model of high complexity (chapter
6), fast implementation (chapter 7) and parameter identification to receive suitable numerical
results (chapter 8).
In section 6.1, we transfer the pointwise correction model for (EPK) material from chapter
5 to (EPJ) material. The model is based on the idea that each internal elastoplastic state
variable has an elastic counterpart in the elastic stress space and a corrected counterpart
ttgen et al. [72, 73] and Hertel
in the corrected stress space. Here we follow again Ko
[53]. In the same way, the pointwise correction model can be formulated for all constitutive
material laws on page 5.
The reader, who is not familiar the (EPJ) constitutive model, finds both its stress and strain
controlled version in section 6.2. In the original work, Jiangs constitutive model is formulated
as a system of differential algebraic equations, cf. Jiang/Sehitoglu [64]. But its differential
index during active plastic yielding turns out to be one, and we give a representation of its
underlying system of ordinary differential equations.
Its right hand side is not continuous. (So it is for all constitutive models on page 5.) Therefore, existence and uniqueness of solution of the isolated stress-strain law is by no means
guaranteed, not to mention the wellposedness of the corresponding boundary value problem.
But in section 6.3, we present at least some theoretical pieces for Jiangs constitutive (and its
corresponding correction) model.
Section 6.4 modifies the correction model by allowing the imposition of an additional constraint on the corrected strain components 11 and 22 , which are tangential to the free
boundary of . Seegers strain ratio relation is one example for such a constraint, cf. Hoffmann/Seeger [59, 60, 61].
Some remark about nomenclature. The reader, who is familiar with the (EPJ) model, should
101
102
the pointwise correction model for (epj) material 6
notice that in contrast to the original works Jiang/Sehitoglu [63], ..., [67] we use
, R, cR , a , b , , I
instead of
p, RM , cM , ak , bk , 0 , M,
(in this
order) and we substitute the Mises factor 2 into the yield surface radius, i. e.
= 2 k. Thus the overall notation becomes much more consistent. The same nomenclature
will be applied for the elastic e - and the corrected -quantities in the correction model.
The reader should pay careful attention: There exist two constitutive material laws in literature, their inventors named Jiang. We mean Y. Jiang [63], ..., [67], not W. Jiang [68, 69]!
6.1
The Jiang correction model
As in section 5.1 for (EPK) material, we assume now for (EPJ) material that symmetric elastic
(which corresponds to the general situation) or
stresses e AC([0, T ], V ), where V = R33
s
33
more specially V = Rsp (which corresponds to the free boundary case), are given. Their
deviatoric parts are denoted by

e
e
s(t) = dev e(t) ,
s(t)
= dt es(t) = dev e(t)
.
(6.1)
They are external input/force into the (EPJ) correction model, which can be written as a
system of first order discontinuous ordinary differential equations, namely

e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
= Jes t, ,
dt pl , ,
1 , . . . ,
I , R

(6.2)
.
1 , . . . ,
I , R
We obtain them by doubling the Jiang constitutive stress controlled equations. The unfamiliar
reader finds the latter again in section 6.2.1. That way, Jes will be explicitly time dependent,
the so-called elastic stress control. (As e(t) = C e(t), it can as well be considered elastic
strain controlled. Note, that, as dev is linear, dt and dev commute.)

Correction
Figure C. It depicts the movement of the elastic e d /e (red) and the corrected d /
(orange) compared
to the elastoplastic d / (green) on the unit yield surface. The red and orange paths are identical due to
simultaneity relation (6.3). The example is taken out of section 8.3, named the butterfly path [d] therein.
6 the pointwise correction model for (epj) material
103
The movements of the elastic e -variables are thought in an elastic stress space, those of
the corrected -variables in a corrected stress space. The correction idea is based on a
simultaneity assumption. This means, the corrected stress deviator difference d = s
is defined
simultaneously (i. e. parallelly and rescaled)
to the elastic stress deviator difference e d = es e at the corresponding point in the corrected
stress space, cf. (6.3). The movements in the corrected stress space, in order to define s, follow
the movements in the elastic stress space, controlled by es. The rescaled difference tensors
es e
e
s
d
=
= e
= ed
(6.3)
are equal at each point in time. Through the rescaling by the ratio of the yield surfaces
radii e and , it is guaranteed that es(t) and s(t) get into contact/lose contact with their
respective yield surfaces at exactly the same point in time. As a consequence, the normals to
the corresponding yield surfaces
(6.3)
n
= (d ) = (e d ) = en
(6.4)
are always equal and active plastic yielding starts/stops at exactly the same time. For illustration see diagram (6.5) and figure C.
corrected stress space
e
SR
e
Vd
SR
n6

76

e 6
R

n
s
:

e e

6
s
d

e

R

r
X

d
X
0@ XXXX
3A

e
X
@
XX
z
A

R
@
@
6
- Ae
@
@
i@
R

A
e
H
R e
@

*
e H
A

S ()
i

r
j
H
e
Se ( )
0
(6.5)
Afterwards, the corrected stress

is gained from its deviator s by a simple pull back via
D from (5.20) in the free boundary case, cf. remark 5.1.2. In the general case we need in
addition some approximation
h for the hydrostatic component. We have
in the free boundary case
, s, , el , eel , epl , e, e d , e,
Les t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
=
,
, d , (t)
1 , . . . ,
I , R
(6.6)
in the general case
, s, , el , eel , epl , e, e d , e,
Kes t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,

=

1 , . . . ,
I , R,
h ,
, d , (t)
(6.7)
104
for each t [0, T ] being a system of simple explicit algebraic equations. The free boundary
case is the essential one for practice, since cracks usually emerge at the free boundary of the
body, see Lemaitre/Chaboche [79]. The general case is mentioned just for the sake of
completeness.
For the elastic and the corrected stress space, the stress-like internal Jiang state variables
are listed in the following table.
e
the elastic (partial) backstresses
the corrected (partial) backstresses
the elastic (total) backstress =

the elastic yield surface centre
the elastic yield surface radius
the elastic yield surface
the corrected (total) backstress =

the corrected yield surface centre
the corrected yield surface radius
the corrected yield surface
Se (e)
e
R
SeR
S()
R
SR
the elastic memory surface radius

the elastic memory surface
the corrected memory surface radius

the corrected memory surface
which are common for both stress spaces, each

Except for corrected plastic strain pl and ,
stress-like elastic variable has its corrected counterpart. For a better geometric understanding, see diagram (6.5).
We now start defining Jes . There are a lot of parameters appearing, which are all listed with
their respective value restrictions in section 6.1.3.
I N is a natural number and denotes the number of partial backstresses. K N0 denotes
another natural number.
6.1.1
Definition of function Jes
Function Jes defines the ordinary differential equation part of the correction model. Its domain
of definition is
D = [0, T ] R VdI [0, ) VdI [0, ),
where
Vd = dev V from (2.3), (2.4), i. e. V = R33
or V = R33
s
sp .
e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
D we set
For (t, ,
1 , . . . ,
I , R)
e
e(e
e
1 , . . . , I ) =
I
X
i ,
i=1
=
e
d
e
(
1 , . . . ,
I ) =
e
d (t,
e
1 , . . . , I )
ef (eR)
=
=
I
X
and
Se (e) = Be (e),
(6.8)
i,
i=1
es(t) e,
SeR = BeR (0),

e e
1 + ea e b R
SR = BR (0).
(6.9)
Now if es(t) Be (e) (no loading, i. e. elastic behaviour), we define for i = 1, . . . , I

dt pl = 0,
dt = 0,
dt ei = 0,
dt eR = 0,
dt
i = 0,
= 0,
dt R
(6.10)
105
i. e. there is zero movement. Otherwise we declare

n = en(t, e1 , . . . , eI ) = e d ,
s n = es n (t, e1 , . . . , eI ) = es(t)
: en.
(6.11)
If es n 0 (neutral loading), we let (6.10) hold again, else (active plastic loading) we set for
i = 1, . . . , I

e e
e
(6.12)
i = eQi 2 en : (ei ) 1 + ea e b R ,
K
X
(k)
e (k) ebi
1
+
if 0
ai e
e
e
k=1
(6.13)
ci = ci
K
X
(k)
e
ai
if < 0
1+
k=1
and
dei =
de =
e e
ci r i
I
X
kei k
er
i
ei +1
(ei ) ,
dej ,
(6.14)
(6.15)
j=1

e
e
e
cR 1 k k/ R
+
(e) : de
deR =
kdek
if eR > 0, e BeR (0)

if eR > 0, e BeR (0)c
if eR = 0
(6.16)
in the elastic stress space. And analogously with the same yield surface normal en according
to the simultaneity (6.4) we define

(6.17)
i ) 1 + a eb R ,
i = Qi 2 en : (
K
X
(k)
(k)
1+
ai ebi if 0
k=1
ci = c
(6.18)
i
K
(k)
1+
ai
if < 0
k=1
and
d
i = ci ri
d
=
I
X
k
i k
ri
i +1
(
i ) ,
d
j ,
(6.19)
(6.20)
j=1
k/R
cR 1 k
+
=
(
) : d
dR
kd
k
if
if
if
> 0,
R
BR (0)
> 0,
R
BR (0)c
=0
R
(6.21)
106
in the corrected stress space. Further, we declare

e
de = ef (eR) deR = e ea eb e b R deR,
H = en : de + de.
The values of the function Jes are now finally given by

es
n
dt pl = dt en,
dt eR = dt deR,
dt ei = dt dei
dt = e ,
H
and
= dt d R,
dt R
dt
i = dt d
i.
(6.22)
(6.23)
(6.24)
Putting all those pieces together, the dependence structure of the tensor and scalar valued
function
Jes = (Jpl , J, Jei , JeR , J i , JR )
is given by
dt pl
dt
dt ei
dt eR
= Jpl (t, e1 ,
=
J(t, e1 ,
= Jei (t, e1 ,
= JeR (t, e1 ,
and
dt i =
dt R =
...,
...,
...,
...,
e ,
I
e ,
I
e ,
I
e ,
I
),
),
eR, ),
eR, ),
eR,
eR,
(6.25)
J i (t, e1 , . . . , eI , eR, ,
1, . . . ,
I , R),

JR (t, e1 , . . . , eI , eR, ,
1, . . . ,
I , R).
(6.26)
Of course, we have dt ei , dt
i , dt pl in Vd , thus ei ,
i , pl remain in Vd due to lemma 6.3.6,
since Vd is a linear space. We remark that (6.25) for pl is just an integration, not a genuine
differential equation, since the right hand side does not depend on pl . Equations (6.14) and
(6.19) for the partial backstresses seem to be discontinuous, but in fact are not, as expansion
shows.
The initial values/conditions for Jes . We assume that the initial values pl (0), (0),
i (0), R(0) satisfy the conditions

I
I
X
X

e
e
e
e
k i (0)k < r i ,
k
i (0)k < ri ,
(6.27)
R(0),
(0)
(0)

R(0),

j
j

e (0), eR(0),
i
j=1
for i = 1, . . . , I and
pl (0) Vd ,
R,
(0)
j=1

I

X
e e

e
e
j (0) e 1 + ea e b R(0) .
s(0)

(6.28)
j=1
For virgin material we should additionally have

e
i (0) =
i (0) = i (0) for all i = 1, . . . , I,
R(0) = R(0)
= R(0),
where i (0), R(0) are the initial values for the transient elastoplastic boundary value problem
e(0) (e(0)).
(5), ..., (7) and kei (0)k 1, eR(0) 1 and es(0) B
6.1.1 Remark. en, eH, dt pl and are common for both stress spaces, and already uniquely defined
by the movements in the elastic stress space.
If we leave aside the corrected stress space, i. e. the additional equations (6.26), the elastic
stress space alone, i. e. system (6.25) with input e, epl , yields the corrected plastic strain pl
as output, according to the ideas of [72, 73, 53].
6.1.2
107
Definition of functions Les and Kes
The functions Les and Kes define the algebraic part of the correction model. The variables e,
e,
, , s,
, el , , e d , d , eel and epl depend explicitly on the independent variables pl ,
e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
,
1 , . . . ,
I , R.
Definition of function Les .
domain of definition is
This corresponds to the free boundary case V = R33

sp . The
[0, T ] Vd VdI [0, ) VdI [0, ).

For (t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR, 1 , . . . , I , R), we set
e
, e,
, e d = as in (6.8),
S(
) = B(
)
and
d = e e d ,

= 1 + a eb R ,
= f (R)
s =
+
Finally, the corrected stress and strains are
= D 1 s,
el = C 1
,
= el + pl .

s(t) e .
(6.29)
(6.30)
Additionally, the elastic elastic/plastic strains can be defined as

e el
= C 1e,
e pl
= eel .
(6.31)
ttgen et al. [72, 73].) The fact that D in (5.20) is an isomorphism,

(For the latter, cf. Ko
in order to have
(t) V = R33
sp again, is essential. That way, at the free boundary of we
get the stress from its deviator in an easy fashion.
If e and are not plane, our correction is in principal applicable too, but only if the
hydrostatic component h or an approximation
h of it is available from anywhere as
additional information.
Definition of function Kes . This corresponds to the general case, V = R33
s . On the set
[0, T ] Vd VdI [0, ) VdI [0, ) R,
the same equations hold as for Les , except that we replace the pull pack in (6.30) by
(t) =
s(t) +
h (t)I.
6.1.3
The parameters
Systems (6.2), (6.6) resp. (6.2), (6.7) depend on a lot of parameters. There are some elastic
parameters epl for the elastic stress space, and the elastoplastic parameters pl for the corrected
108
stress space, which are chosen equal to the ones for the transient elastoplastic boundary value
problem. For later use, we combine the parameters in two vectors
p = (p1 , . . . , pL )
= cR , , a , b , a , b , c
1 , . . . , cI , r1 , . . . , rI , Q1 , . . . , QI ,
(1)
(1)
(K)
(K) (1)
(K)
(1)
(K)
a1 , . . . , aI , . . . , a1 , . . . , aI , b1 , . . . , bI , . . . , b1 , . . . , bI ,
ep = (ep , . . . , ep )
1
L
e e
e
e
e
= ecR , e , ea , eb , ea , eb , ec
1 , . . . , cI , r 1 , . . . , r I , Q1 , . . . , QI ,

ea(1) , . . . , ea(1) , . . . , ea(K) , . . . , ea(K) , eb(1) , . . . , eb(1) , . . . , eb(K) , . . . , eb(K) .
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
(6.32)
Each elastic parameter has exactly one elastoplastic counterpart. They have to obey the
following restrictions
e (k) e
ai , a
b 0 eQi ;
R;
(k)
e
b < 0 < ebi , ecR , eri , ec
i ,
(6.33)
1 < ea < 0;
and
(k)
ai , a R;
(k)
(k)
b 0 Q i ;
(k)
(k)
The eai , ebi , ai , bi

e
I i := inf
1 < a < 0;
(k)
b < 0 < bi , cR , ri , c
i , .
(6.34)
have to be chosen in such a way that
K
X
k=1
(k)
e (k) ebi
ai e
> 1,
Ii := inf
K
X
(k)
(k)
ai ebi
k=1
> 1.
(6.35)
Here always i = 1, . . . , I, k = 1, . . . , K and l = 1, . . . , L, where L = (2K + 3)I + 6.

The pl are physical parameters (Jiang parameters), depend solely on the material, whereas
the epl are fictive and depend additionally on the considered point , in particular on the
geometry of the domain and the neighbourhood of . For each we need an appropriate
set of epl , which is of course the only drawback of our correction model. Identification of the
ep is done in chapter 8.
l
The pl resp. epl have the affects on the material/part properties that are listed in the following
table.
ec , er
hysteresis branches for 1
!
c
i
i
i , ri
(k)
(k)
(k) (k)
cyclic hardening/softening
! eai , ebi
ai , bi
(6.36)
yield stress, non-Masing behaviour ! e , ea , eb , a , b
ratchetting
! eQi , ea , eb Qi , a , b
ec
relaxation of memory surface
!
cR
R
In any case, we must have
e
Y = e (1 + ea ) = (1 + a ) = Y ,
(6.37)
= limeR0 ef (eR) must hold for virgin material until the first active plastic
as limR0
f (R)
yielding, see (6.67).

In (6.6), (6.7), we additionally have E > 0 and 0 < < 1/2, which are from Hookes tensor
(10), or equivalently Lames constants and , see (11). But note that they dont have any
affect on
.
6.1.4
109
Some further explanations
It makes sense, but is not necessary from the simultaneity idea, that in both stress spaces
the same constitutive model is used, here in our case Jiangs model with I backstresses. So,
each constitutive parameters pl , determining the movements in the corrected stress space, has
exactly one elastic counterpart epl in order to determine the movements in the elastic stress
space. Of course, the number I of backstresses has no influence on the whole simultaneity
idea as well.
But the movements of the ei and
i (and thus those of the total backstresses e and
) and
(and thus those of the yield surface
the development of the memory surface radii eR and R
radii e and due to lemma 6.3.1) differ in general, unless epl are pl equal. Note that, if all
ep = p , then
= e, i. e. the pointwise correction model is nothing but the identity. The
l
l
same we had for (EPK) material in chapters 3 and 5.1, see (3.10) and remark 5.1.3. For
illustration see (6.5), where I = 5 or (6.40).
ttgen,
Defining Jes , Les and Kes , we clearly pick up the pseudo stress approach from Ko
Barkey, Socie [72, 73] and Hertel [53]. The former developed this kind of scheme for the
z [88, 89], cf. as well Brokate, Dressler and Krejc
[16, 13]. In
constitutive model of Mro
contrast to [53, 72, 73], we prefer the terminology elastic instead of pseudo. But compared
to our formulation, there are some differences.
First, the integration of the differential equations for the corrected stress in the corrected
stress space, namely
H
= en : d
H
,
(6.38)
dt s = e dt es,
+ d
H
which was proposed in [72, 73], cannot be realised in a consistent manner with the fact that
Jiangs model comprises expansion/contraction of the yield surface. During integration of
(6.38), we have two yield surfaces, whose radii and e will differ in general. Thus we have
two yield conditions to be satisfied at the same time, which cannot be realized in a consistent
manner consistent with the simultaneity idea. This explains some numerical problems in [53].
stress
6

pl
e pl

strain

el
e el
(6.39)
In contrast to our case, a purely kinematic version of Mrozs model with identical yield radii
e =
is referred to in [72, 73]. Just compare our equivalent uniaxial case in (6.39) with the
corresponding in [72].
Second, an additional advantage of our formulation is that we get rid of the differential equation (6.38), so the number of equations to be integrated is reduced by three (free boundary
110
case) resp. five (general case).

The following input/output diagram is quite practical, as it gives an overview about influences
and dependencies in the correction model.
e
(t)
s(t)
pl
pl
Jes
Jes
Jes
h (t)
Jes
Kes /Les
Kes
Kes /Les
corrected stress space s(t)

Jes
pl
(6.40)
(t)
(t)
s
s
@
R
@
(t) = pl (t) + el (t)
Ke /Le
Kes /Les
D1
el (t) = C 1
(t)
Each path therein should be understood as has influence on. The next input/output-diagram
is commutative. Here a double arrow indicates the correction model and a single arrow
indicates the (stress/strain controlled) constitutive model.
e XXX
e
:
pl

ep

9
l

6 pl |pl
pl + e
XX
XX
z
z
X
= pl + el

X
y
:
X
yXX
pl

XX pl |epl ?

p

l
9
XX

The four paths therein should be read as follows.

The elastic stress e fed in as input into the correction model with the parameters epl on
the elastic side, pl on the corrected side, gives the output , decomposed into summands
pl on the elastic side, el on the corrected side.
fed in as input into the correction model with the parameters pl
e
on the elastic side, pl on the corrected side, gives the output pl + e, decomposed into
summands pl on the elastic side, e on the corrected side.
fed in as input into the stress controlled constitutive model with
the parameters pl gives the output = pl + el . The same vice versa for the strain
controlled constitutive model.
The elastic stress e fed in as input into the stress controlled constitutive model with the
parameters epl gives the output pl + eel . The same vice versa for the strain controlled
constitutive model.
Rate-independence. If we set = (t) with a C 1 -diffeomorphism : [0, T ] [0, T ], with
strictly positive derivative = dt , the chain rule implies
(6.23)
d eR = dt eR = dt deR = d deR
d eR = d deR
and vice versa. The same applies to all equations in (6.23), (6.24), and trivially to (6.10).
So the pointwise correction model is rate-independent as well as the constitutive model is.
Originally in Jiang/Sehitoglu [64], the equations for plastic loading are parametrised as an
system of differential algebraic equations over the variable , but if we have > 0, cf. lemma
6.3.4, our formulation as an system over the fictive time t is possible and independent up to
time scaling. It functions as well, if > 0 is not satisfied.
6.2
111
The Jiang constitutive model
The internal state variables in (1) for Jiangs constitutive model are given by pl , , 1 , ..., I
(and dependently = 1 + . . . + I ) and R (or equivalently = f (R) with a scalar function
f , which is one-to-one and onto, cf. lemma 6.3.1). This table gives an overview about the
internal stress-like state variables.
i
the elastoplastic (partial) backstresses
the elastoplastic (total) backstress =

the elastoplastic yield surface centre
S ()
R
SR
the elastoplastic yield surface radius

the elastoplastic yield surface
the elastoplastic memory surface radius
the elastoplastic memory surface
The strain-like ones are are the plastic strain pl and the accumulated plastic strain .
Thus the constitutive Jiang hysteresis operator in (1) may be written as
(x, t) =
t
0

C ep (x, ), (x,
), pl (x, ), (x, ), i (x, ), R(x, ) (x,
) d.
(6.41)
For an explicit representation and derivation of the local elastoplasticity tensor C ep we refer
to (6.62).
For the (EPJ) constitutive model, we consider the general (non-plane) space V = R33
s
and its deviatoric projection Vd = R33
sd . We formulate the models for given s = dev()
AC([0, T ], Vd ) (explicit stress controlled case) resp. AC([0, T ], V ) (explicit strain controlled case).
6.2.1
The stress controlled Jiang model
i,
Since the right hand side functions Jpl , J, Jei and JeR in (6.25) do not depend on
i, R
you rediscover the original stress controlled Jiang constitutive model as a subsystem of system
(6.2). Just drop the additional equations (6.26), which build up the corrected stress space,
and e and the at each variable and each parameter. Then we receive the stress controlled
model from Jiang/Sehitoglu [63], ..., [67] in the form

1 , . . . , I , R = Js t, , 1 , . . . , I , R
pl , ,
on
(6.42)
D = [0, T ] R VdI [0, ).

Here s = dev(), where AC([0, T ], V ), is the external input and = C 1 + pl . We give
the explicit exposition of the function Js . For (t, , 1 , . . . , I , R) D, we set
=
I
X
i=1
i ,
d = s(t) ,

= f (R) = 1 + a eb R
(6.43)
SR = BR (0).
(6.44)
and
S () = B (),
112
If s(t) B () (no loading, i. e. elastic behaviour), we define for i = 1, . . . , I

= 0,
pl = 0,
R = 0.
i = 0,
(6.45)
Otherwise we again first declare

n = d ,
s n = s(t)
: n.
(6.46)
If s n 0 (neutral loading), let (5.11) hold again, else (plastic loading) set for i = 1, . . . , I

i = Qi 2 n : (i ) 1 + a eb R ,
K
X
(k)
(k)
1+
ai ebi if 0
k=1
ci = c
i
K
X
(k)
1+
ai
if < 0
(6.47)
(6.48)
k=1
and
d i = ci ri n
I
X
d =
ki k
ri
i +1
(i ) ,
(6.49)
d j ,
(6.50)
j=1
Further
cR 1 kk/R
+
d R =
() : d
kd k
if R > 0, BR (0)
if R > 0, BR (0)c .
if R = 0
d = f (R) d R = a b eb R d R,
H = n : d + d .
(6.51)
(6.52)
The values of Js are given by

s n
= ,
H
pl = n,
R = d R,
i = d i .
(6.53)
Here there exists just one stress space, in particular SR in (6.9) does not exist at all. The
conditions for the initial values i (0), R(0), pl (0), (0) are
ki (0)k < ri ,
and

I

X

j (0) R(0),

j=1
pl (0) Vd ,

I

X

j (0) 1 + a eb R(0)
s(0)

j=1
for t = 0 and i = 1, . . . , I are completely analogous to (6.27), (6.28).
(0) R
(6.54)
(6.55)
6.2.2
113
The strain controlled Jiang model
The strain controlled counterpart of (6.42) is never outlined at all in the works Jiang/Sehitoglu [63], ..., [67]. It can be written in the form

1 , . . . , I , R = J t, , , 1 , . . . , I , R
,
,
on
(6.56)
D = [0, T ] V R VdI [0, ),

with the external input AC([0, T ], V ). It may be derived from the stress controlled model
by the introduction of the time derivative of the fictive trial stress
tr = C (t),
tr
s tr
n = s : n,
s tr = dev( tr ),
n = (s ),
s = dev(), (6.57)
cf. Simo [103], ch. 1, section 3. In the case of plastic loading, i. e. s S (), s tr
n > 0, the
inversion of the projection (6.53) and the additive decomposition of into el and pl can be
formulated as follows. We have

1
: n = : n,
I : n = 0,
(6.58)
s : n = tr()I
3
due to the orthogonality relation (2.1) and the fact that n is deviatoric. So after change to
matrix-vector notation
C 1 = pl
Consequently,
(6.53),(6.58)
: n
1 t
n=
n
n
.
H
H
(6.59)
1
1
1
=: C ep ,
n
C + n
H
(6.60)
where the identity

(ut v)w = (w u)v
(u, v, w RN )
has been used, see e. g. Bonet/Wood [6]. Here

: R33
R6 ,
s
: R33
R6 ,
s
A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A = (a11 , a22 , a33 , a12 , a23 , a13 )t ,

A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A = (a11 , a22 , a33 , 2a12 , 2a23 , 2a13 )t
and
C 1
1/E /E /E
0
0
0
0
0
0
/E 1/E /E
/E /E 1/E
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1 + )/E
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1 + )/E
0
0
0
(1 + )/E
0
0
0
(6.61)
In the case of elastic behaviour, i. e. s B () or s tr

= C (t)
and
n 0, there simply hold
(6.45).
114
6.2.1 Lemma. For each H 6= 2, where from (10), the inverse in (6.60) exists and is explicitly
given by

2
ep
n
n
.
(6.62)
C = C I
2 + H
In particular, since > 0, the inverse always exists, if H > 0.
Proof: To verify this, we need three facts.
= 2
(i) As n R33
n.
d , one can show C n
(ii) As n has unit length, we have (
nn
)2 = n
(
nt n
) n
t = n
knk2 n
t = n
n
t = n
n
.
(iii) C is in R66
s .
So

1
I + (
=
nn
) C C 1
H

1 (i)
(iii)
1
2
I+
=
n
Cn
C
= I+
n
n
C 1 ,
H
H
1
n
C 1 + n
H
thus

2
1
1
2
1
n
n
C C I
n
n
= I + 2
n
n
I+
H
2 + H
H
2 + H
(ii)
(2)2
(
nn
)2 = I,
H(2 + H)
which proves the assertion.
In general, C ep is non-symmetric. From el = C 1 ,

pl = el and = kpl k, equations
(6.60) and

2
| | = Euklidian norm in R6
(
nn
) (t)
=
2 + H
replace the first two equations in (6.53). The conditions for the initial values (0), i (0),
R(0), (0) are

I

X

(0) R,
(6.63)
j (0) R(0),
ki (0)k < ri ,

j=1
and

I

X

j (0) 1 + a eb R(0) .
s(0)

(6.64)
j=1
Of course, a sufficient condition for H > 2 such that the model makes sense, cf. lemma
6.2.1 is by virtue of the estimate (6.72) for H given by
a b cR 2.
(6.65)
But it is important to realise that the strain controlled model is defined as well for negative
H, i. e. where the uniaxial equivalent stress-strain curve has a critical point, see (6.66).
115
H H > 0

H=0
@
@

@

@
H 2 @@ H < 0
(6.66)
Note that, whereas in the (elastic) stress controlled cases (6.2) resp. (6.42) the equation for
pl is just an integration, the right hand side of (6.56) does depend on , as the yield condition
depends on dev(). For the explicit strain controlled Jiangs model, we find from (6.52) that
H = H(t, , 1 , . . . , I , R).
6.2.2 Remark. (a) Alternatively for the boundary value problem and corresponding finite element
computations, where not an explicit strain path t 7 (t) is given, the strain controlled model
(6.56) can be written

1 , . . . , I , R = J , ,
pl , ,
pl , , 1 , . . . , I , R
so that we have H and C ep as functions of , ,
pl , , 1 , . . . , I , R.

(k)
(b) Letting a = ai = 0, cR = 0, ci 1 ri , Qi for all i = 1, . . . , I, k = 1, . . . , K

P
such that b = Ij=1 rj c

j in Jiangs model, we find ci ci , , H b and d b n.
Thus, we may formally regard (EPK) material as (EPJ) material with certain transient,
non-proportional features switched off.
6.3
Some theoretical discussion
The explicit time-dependent (elastic) stress- resp. strain controlled functions Jes , Js , J in
(6.2), (6.42), (6.56) are discontinuous. So unfortunately, the standard theory of systems of
ordinary differential equations, where usually at least local partial Lipschitz continuity in the
space variable is required, does not apply.
For other elastoplastic constitutive laws e. g. the models of Melan and Prager [86, 95,
96] (linear kinematic hardening), Armstrong and Frederick [2] or Chaboche [20, 21]
(nonlinear kinematic hardening) results of wellposedness are already available. The reader
[9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17]. Mathematically, it is
is referred to the works of Brokate and Krejc
possible to transform those models to operator equations, containing the stop and the play
operator, cf. chapter 1. Such a transformation of Jiangs differential equations is not easily
possible. Jiangs model additionally comprises nonlinear isotropic hardening/softening. The
yield surface the convex set in Brokate and Krejcs theory may contract and expand,
depending of the position of the total backstress and the memory surface.
So in this section 6.3.2, we can just give some hints of local existence and uniqueness by
considering the fluxes if the solution reaches a surface of discontinuity, or an intersection of
several such surfaces.
Further in this section 6.3, we discuss some sub-parts of Jiangs model, which are helpful to
understand its nonlinear behaviour. We formulate the ideas for the Jiang correction model,
always having in mind that Jiangs constitutive model is a subsystem, cf. (6.23) and (6.24).
Some of these reflections can be carried over to the Doring model, cf. appendix B.3.
116
6.3.1
Some easy facts
This section gives quite a couple of lemmas that help to understand how Jiangs model and
the pointwise correction model behave. We hope that these insights will provide useful tools
for future research, especially for a final proof of the wellposedness of Jiangs constitutive
model both in isolation and in coupling with Newtons balance equations.

Figure D. Left hand side: The graphs of ef and f . Right hand side: The correction region {(eR, R)
e e
e
e
[0, ) [0, ) : = f (R) < f ( R) = }, i. e. the region, where d is smaller than d .
6.3.1 Lemma (Coupling of radii) The yield and memory surface radii are coupled in a one-toone manner. The mappings
ef
[0, ) eR 7 e [e Y , e ) in (6.8),
7 [Y , ) in (6.29),
[0, ) R
are strictly increasing. Further we have the limits

e
eR0
e Y := e (1 + ea ),
and
e
eR
e ,
R0
Y := (1 + a )
(6.67)
(6.68)
0 < Y < < .
(6.69)
Especially,
0 < e Y e < e < ,
The inverse mappings are given by
e e

e 1
/ 1
1
e f
,
7 e ln
ea
b
1
ln
7
b
f 1

/ 1
.
a
(6.70)
The same holds of course for = f (R) of the Jiang constitutive model without e s and s.
e and are the initial yield stresses for virgin material in both stress spaces.
Y
Y
117
Proof: Clear, since

df
(R) = a b eb R ,
dR
def e
e e
( R) = e ea eb e b R
deR
and a , b , ea , eb < 0 < , e from the restrictions (6.33), (6.34).
or to choose as the governing independent

So it doesnt matter which of eR or e resp. R
e
variable. We decided to take R.
The graphs of the coupling functions f and ef are depicted in figure D. The couplings eR e,
are illustrated in figure J on page 150 as well.
R
The next lemma states that for virgin material, under the assumptions of section 6.1.3, the
correction model output is equal to its input.
6.3.2 Lemma (First yielding) Let initial total backstresses e(0) = e1 (0) + . . . + eI (0) Vd ,
eR(0) be given such that
(0) =
1 (0) + . . . +
I (0) Vd and positive initial radii R(0),
e
(0) =
(0)
where

(0) = ef 1 eR(0) ,
Set
and
(0) = (0),
(0) = f 1 R(0)
f, ef from (6.70).

(0)
= B
e(0) e(0) = B
(0) .
B
If now for any [0, T ] there holds

then there follows

s[0, ] es[0, ] ,
s[0, ] B,
[0, ] e [0, ] ,
[0, ] e[0, ] e(0),

d [0, ] e d [0, ] ,

[0, ] e[0, ] e(0).
Thus on the interval [0, ], the correction model reduces to the identity.
Proof: Clear with simultaneity from (6.1), (6.10), (6.29) and (6.30).
The next lemma is concerned with the moving directions of the partial (and the total) backstresses.
6.3.3 Lemma (Backstress movements) For the pointwise correction model for Jiang material,
the following assertions hold in the elastic stress space.
(a) If kei k er i for any 1 i I, then dei : en 0.
(b) If kei k < er i for any 1 i I, then dei : en > 0.
(c) If kei k er i for all i = 1, . . . , I, then de : en 0.
118
(d) If kei k eri for all i = 1, . . . , I and at least one of the inequalities is strict, then
de : en > 0.
(e) If kei k = er i for any 1 i I, then dei : ei 0.
The analogous assertions hold for d
and en in the corrected stress space and for d and n
in the elastoplastic stress space, when considering the constitutive Jiang model.
Proof: We simply apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Due to (6.13), (6.33) and (6.35), there
holds ei , eci 0, er i > 0. We have
!
e ei +1
k
k
(6.14)
i
e
n : (ei ) ,
dei : en = eci er i 1
er
i
from which
e e
ci r i
kei k
er
i
e ei +1 !
ei +1 ! (CS)
(CS)
k i k
e
e
e e
d i : n ci r i 1 +
.
er
i
The left hand estimate especially yields (a) and (b). After summing up over i = 1, . . . , I, we
find
e ei +1 !
e ei +1 !
I
I
X
X
k i k
k
k
i
e e
e e
ci ri 1 +
de : en
,
ci r i 1
er
er
i
i
i=1
i=1
the left hand estimate giving (c) and (d). Similarly from
e
(6.14) e
dei
: i =
kei k
er
i
ei
e e
ri n
ci
: i
kei k
er
i
ei
k i k
there follows
eci kei k
ri +
kei k
(CS)
(CS)
dei : ei eci kei k
ri
kei k
er
i
ei
kei k ,
the right hand estimate being positive, if kei k < er i , and equal to zero, if kei k = er i . This
especially yields (e).

During elastic/neutral loading, dt = kdt pl k =
We now have a look at the internal variable .
0 according to (6.10). During plastic loading, we conclude from the last equation in (6.23)
the next lemma will give a sufficient condition for eH > eH min > 0 that 0 < dt = kdt pl k
(dt )max . Therefore altogether dt = kdt pl k 0 and
(0)
=
(t)
t
0
) d =
dt (
kdt pl ( )k d
R is
is the total (corrected) accumulated plastic strain. The function [0, T ] t 7 (t)
then constant during elastic/neutral loading and strictly increasing during plastic loading, in
0.
particular non-negative, if (0)
119
6.3.4 Lemma. Assume for the Jiang correction model, that the elastic stress deviator es is of class
1 . Then if
Cpw
kei k eri for i = 1, . . . , I
and
kek eR,
(6.71)
the following assertions hold for the movements in the elastic stress space.
(a) There holds
e
H e ea eb ecR .
(6.72)
max < , is
(b) A sufficient condition for 0 < eH min eH, or equivalently 0 < dt (dt )
given by
I

X
e
cj er j kei k e ea eb ecR +
(6.73)
j=1
with an appropriate small > 0.

Analogous assertions hold for the Jiang constitutive model without e s and s.
Proof: In both cases in (6.16), we have
deR ecR 1 kek/eR
Hence
e
(6.14),(6.15),(6.22)
I
X
e e
cj rj
j=1
(CS),(6.74)
I
X
j=1
e e
cj rj
kej k
er
j
kei k
1 e
ri
(6.71) e
cR .
ej +1
n : (ej )
(6.74)
+ e ea eb e b R deR
e ea eb ecR ,
from which (6.72) and (6.73) follow. Note here that ei 0 > ea , eb . As es is bounded over
any interval [tn1 , tn ], where es C 1 and es C 0 , it is in fact globally bounded on [0, T ], thus
max < .
dt (dt )

The norm kei k, in the worst case each, may asymptotically reach eri and the first summand
in (6.73) may become too small. This usually occurs, if the inputs es(t) are too large. Anyway
the model (6.2) is just able to get along with inputs that are small enough, cf. remark 6.3.10.
So far, we have not been able to prove a sufficient a-priori-estimate depending on the Sobolev did in [9, 12, 14] for other constitutive models
norm (1.5) of the input like Brokate/Krejc
of elastoplasticity.
A way to find a remedy in practice may be to use more backstresses. Unfortunately, a larger
I yields more differential equations and more parameters.
The next lemma proves that the ei resp.
i remain in their limiting radii er i resp. ri , as
already stated in Jiang/Sehitoglu [65] in the case of proportional monotonous loading.
But was not proven, least of all for general loading input.
120
6.3.5 Lemma (Limiting radii) Consider the differential equations (6.12), ..., (6.14) for the partial
backstresses, and let a function

e
1
n Cpw
[0 , T ], Vd B1 (0)
(0 0 < T < )
(6.75)
be given as driving input for them. Then here holds:

1 [ , ], V .
(a) Each ei is in Cpw
0 T
d
< eri in the whole

(b) If the initial value satisfies kei (0 )k < er i , then there holds kei ()k
interval [0 , T ].
(c) Necessarily for the total backstress, there holds in the whole interval [0 , T ]
I
e
X
e

()
ri .
(6.76)
i=1
Analogous assertions hold for

i in the corrected stress space, if we consider (6.17), ..., (6.19)
with driving input en, and for i in the elastoplastic stress space of the Jiang constitutive
model, where we consider (6.47), ..., (6.49) with driving input n.
(k)
> 0 for i = 1, . . . , I, k = 1, . . . , K and 0 0, we

!
K
X
(6.13)

ea(k) =: eC i ,
(6.77)
1+
0 < 1 + eI i < eci ec
i
i
Proof: (a), (b) Obviously, since ebi

have
k=1
where eI i denotes the infimum in (6.35). Let us first consider the interval [0 , 1 ], where en is
C 1 . Here we have the polar decomposition
e
i = kei k (ei ).
Differentiation with respect to yields

dkei k (ei ) + kei k d(ei ) =
Since 1 = k(ei )k2 , we have
0=
(6.14)
dei = eci eri
kei k
er
i
ei +1
(ei ) .
(6.78)
1 d
k(ei )k2 = (ei ) : d(ei ),
2 d
and therefore after scalar multiplication of (6.78) with (ei )

e ei +1 !
e ei +1 ! (CS),(6.77)
k i k
k i k
e e
e
e e
e
e
.
C i ri 1
dk i k = ci ri n : ( i )
er
er
i
i
As eb 0 according to (6.33), we have
1 ei + 1
(CS),(6.12)

1 + 3 eQi 1 + |ea | =: eKi .
With the substitution e i = kei k/er i , we obtain the scalar radial differential inequality

e
de i eC i 1 e iKi .
121
(i) In the case eKi > 1, i. e. eQi > 0, separating the variables leads us (geometric series
expansion, 0 e 0i < 1 according to our premise) to
e
e
e i
X
Ki +1 i

fi ()e 0 :=
eK + 1 0
i
e
i
=0
i
Z e i X
Z e i
Z

d
eK
e
i
=
d =
C i d ,
eK
i
e 0
e 0 1
0
i
i
=0
where the function fi : [0, 1) [0, ) at the left hand side is strictly increasing, thus
bijective, s. t. fi (0) = 0 and lim1 fi () = .
(ii) In the case eKi = 1, i. e. eQi = 0, the same technique leads us to the function
fi : [0, 1) [0, ), 7 ln(1 ),
which has the same properties.

In any case, as 1 , we find fi (e 1i ) fi1 fi (e 0i ) + eC i (1 0 ) [0, 1). The rest of (a)
and (b) is induction.
(c) Triangle inequality on (6.8). The rest: Discard all the s and e s, except for the one at
the normal en.

The following lemma comprises an interesting property of the correction model as a consequence of the simultaneity.
6.3.6 Lemma (Subspace lemma) Let V be any linear subspace of R33
s . For the Jiang correction
model, the following assertions hold.
(a) At any point t [0, T ] there holds
e
s, e1 , . . . , eI ,
1 , . . . ,
I V e 1 , . . . , e I , dt
1 , . . . , dt
I , dt pl V,
i. e. if the values at t are in V , the time derivatives at t are in V as well.

(b) If
e
then
1 (0), . . . , eI (0),
1 (0), . . . ,
I (0) V
and
e

s(t) : t [0, T ] V

e
i (t) : t [0, T ] ,
i (t) : t [0, t]
V
for i = 1, . . . , I,

s(t) : t [0, T ]
V,
pl

(t) : t [0, T ]
pl (0) + V.
Analogous assertions holds for the stress controlled constitutive Jiang model.
Proof: (a) We have directly by definition of Jes and Les
e
s, e1 , . . . , eI ,
1 , . . . ,
I V
(6.8)
(6.11),(6.29)
(6.14),(6.19)
de1 , . . . , deI , d
1 , . . . , d
I V
(6.23),(6.24)
,
, e d V
n, d , s V
e
=
1 , . . . , e I , dt
1 , . . . , dt
I , dt pl V.

(b) Clearly es(t) : t V implies es(t)
: t V , with (a) proving the proposition.
122
6.3.2
Flux computations
As already announced, we now start computing the fluxes at the discontinuity surfaces. It is
a pity, but the theory of Filippov [42] is not applicable, as the position of the discontinuities
depends on the actual solution. But the fluxes at the touching point make local wellposedness,
let us say, probable.
6.3.7 Remark (Embeddings) Let the dot denote the standard scalar product on the spaces R4
resp. R6 . The linear embedding

4
A 7 (a11 , a22 , a11 a22 , 2a12 )t
: R33
(6.79)
spd , : R , ,
is an isometry, since
= A B
A : B = At M B
where the matrix
for A, B R33
spd ,
2 1 0
M = 1 2 0
0 0 2
(6.80)
(6.81)
is symmetric and positively definite, its eigenvalues being equal to 1, 2 and 3. Similarly, the
map

6
(6.82)
A 7 (a11 , a22 , a11 a22 , 2a12 , 2a23 , 2a13 )t
: R33
sd , : R , ,
is a linear isometric embedding.
We consider first the correction model, knowing that the stress controlled Jiang model is just
a submodel.
For our theoretical purposes, we rewrite (6.2) equivalently in the redundant form

pl , ,
ec
c
c
y = Jes(t, y),
y = c
1 , . . . , ec
I , eR,
1, . . . ,
I , R
(6.83)
with the embedding from (6.79) in the free boundary case V = R33
sp resp. from (6.82) in
.
Now
(6.83)
is
equivalent
to
the general case V = R33
s

x = Ies(x) = 1, Jes(x) ,
x = (t, y).
(6.84)
Through the introduction of time t as an artificial space variable x0 , with x 0 = 1 and initial
condition x0 (0) = 0 thus x0 (t) = t, the system (6.84) is autonomous and the time discontinuity is pushed into space.
System (6.83) consists of
4 (2I + 1) + 3 equations, of which 3 (2I + 1) + 3 are independent (in the free boundary
case V = R33
sp ).
6 (2I + 1) + 3 equations, of which 5 (2I + 1) + 3 are independent (in the general case
V = R33
s ).
123
System (6.84) additionally includes the dummy equation for x0 = t. As the image of is a
linear subspace, it is clear that the solution will lie here, if the initial values do so, cf. lemma
6.3.6 as well. From now on, we will drop the hat for this section.
We consider the autonomous system (6.84) in the form of a differential inclusion
n
o
k
k
x Ies (x) = conv v : (xk )kN D s. t. xk x and Ies (xk ) v ,
(6.85)
where here in section 6.3.2
D = [0, T ] Rr R RrI [0, ) RrI [0, ) Rr(2I+1)+4

and
r = 4 in the free boundary case V = R33
sp ,
r = 6 in the general case V = R33
s .

Of course, if Ies is continuous in x, we have Ies (x) = Ies (x) . Se set of discontinuity points
D with the
of Ies has measure zero. More precisely speaking, it is given by SeD (e) SeDR SR
smooth submanifolds (cylinders)

D
SeD (e) = x : e (x) = 0 ,
SeDR = x : eR (x) = 0 ,
SR
= x : R (x) = 0 , (6.86)
where

I
I
I

X

X
X

e
e
e
e
e
e
(6.87)
j R.
e (x) = s(t)
j R, R (x) =
j f ( R), eR (x) =

j=1
j=1
That way, D is separated into the domains

De = x : e < 0 ,
DeR = x : eR < 0 ,

De+ = x : e > 0 ,
De+R = x : eR > 0 ,
j=1
= x : R < 0 ,
DR

+
= x : R > 0 ,
DR
(6.88)
(6.89)
where Ies is single-valued and Lipschitz and the solution x therefore will be smooth. All of
the domains (6.88) and (6.89) and all their mutual intersections
+
De+
eR = De DeR , . . . ,
+
+
De++
eRR = De DeR DR , . . .
are locally connected, as a consequence they satisfy the so-called -condition in [42], 6, which
means

(De ) t = const = (De t = const ) for almost all t, . . .
where the boundary at the right hand side is to be taken in the relative topology of the
hyperplane {t = const}.
For the computation of fluxes, we use the brackets h, i for the Euklidian scalar product on
Rr(2I+1)+4 and

= x = t , y = t , pl
I , R
1 , . . . ,
, , e1 , . . . , eI , eR ,
124
denotes an arbitrary scalar, an arbitrary element of Rr , 0 the zero in Rr . For any manifold
S and x S, Tx S denotes the tangential space of S at x. We let and | | denote the standard
Euklidian scalar product/norm on Rr .
In the sequel, we assume that es n = en es > 0, where the discontinuities at the surfaces
D occur. In the case es 0, due to (6.10), the whole movements, i. e. the
SeD (e), SeDR and SR
n
e1 , ..., eI , eR,
remain constant.
functions pl , ,
1 , ...,
I and R,
(i) Active loading of SeD (e). We consider the case, where the solution reaches a point x

S DeR , where S = SeD (e) = De = De+ . Here we have Ies = conv I , I + with functions
I (x) =
lim
De x x
Ies (x ) = (1, 0, 0, 0, . . . , 0, 0, 0, . . . , 0, 0)
and
I + (x) =
=
lim
De+ x x
Ies (x )
e
1, , , c1
e

|e1 | 1 e
...,
1 dt ,
r1 n e
r1
!
e eI

e|
|
|
|
I
e
e
, . . . , , ,
ecR 1
I dt ,
cI erI en e
dt ,
eR
rI
e and D
e+ respectively. To have a unique element I 0 = I +
which are smooth up to D
+
+
I Ies Tx S, it is necessary and sufficient that the system of linear equations

1
1

=
(6.90)
+
e , I
e , I
0
has one and only one solution in [0, 1]2 . Vector calculus leads us to

I

X

e
= es n (t, e1 , . . . , eI ),
j = en(t, e1 , . . . , eI ) es(t)
t e = t es(t)

j=1

I

X

e
(i = 1, . . . , I)
j = en(t, e1 , . . . , eI )
ei e = ei es(t)

j=1
and
pl e = 0,
e = 0,
eR e = e ea eb e b R ,
so that the surface normal is given by

e e
e = es n , 0, 0, en, . . . , en, e ea eb e b R , 0, . . . , 0, 0 .
The projections of the function value limits on the surface normal are

e , I = es n > 0
(6.91)
125
and
e , I +
ej

eb eR
|e|
e e
e
cR 1 e
j dt + a b e
dt
n cj rj n
=
s n
R
j=1
)
(
e ej

I
X
|
|
e
e
(6.16)
j
e
e
e
j + e ea eb e b R deR dt
=
s n en
cj erj en e
rj
j=1
n
o
(6.14),(6.15),(6.22) e
=
s n en d e + d e dt
(6.22),(6.15)
(6.23)
I
X
|ej |
er
j
s n eH dt
0.

Hence = 0, + = 1 and Ies (x) Tx S = I + (x) We see that the solution curves reach S
and a sliding motion occurs as long as es n > 0. The solution x cannot enter De+ . As I + and
S are smooth, x should be smooth during the sliding motion along surface S.
The case, where x additionally meets SeDR , is considered in (ii). The cases, where the solution
D D , cannot occur.
x meets a point on SeDR De or SR
e
(ii) Active loading of SeD (e) and SeDR . Here the surface of discontinuity is given by S =
SeD (e) SeDR , where the normals
e = same as in (6.91),
eR =

0, 0, 0, (e), . . . , (e), 1, 0, . . . , 0, 0
are linearly independent (obviously due to the separation into the elastic and corrected stress
space). So SeD (e) and SeDR locally divide D at x S into four quadrants, so we have four
limiting values of Ies
+
(x) =
I
i. e.
lim
x x
De+
eR
Ies (x ),
+
(x) =
I+
lim
De++
x x
eR
Ies (x ),
...
+ +
, I , I+ , I+
Ies = conv I
is a tetrahedron, where all the four functions
(x) = (1, 0, 0, 0, . . . , 0, 0, 0, . . . , 0, 0),

(x) = I
I
(x)
I+
1, , , c1
e

|e1 | 1 e
...,
1 dt ,
r1 n e
r1
!
e eI

|
|
I
e
e
0, , . . . , ,
I dt ,
cI er I en e
rI
126
and
+
(x)
I+
1, , , c1
e

|e1 | 1 e
...,
1 dt ,
r1 n e
r1
!
e eI

+
|
|
I
e
e
(e) d e dt ,
, . . . , ,
I dt ,
cI erI en e
rI
e
are Lipschitz in D
eR , etc. There exists one unique element
+ +

+ +
I 0 =
I + I + + I+ + + I+ Ies Tx S,
if and only if the system
1
1
1
1
1
+
e , I
e , I
e , I
e , I
=
0
+
+
0
eR , I
eR , I
eR , I+
eR , I+
+
+
(6.92)
has one unique solution in [0, 1]4 . Similarly as in (i), one shows
+
e , I+
= e , I+
= 0,
e , I
= e , I
= s n > 0.
Obviously
Straightforwardly, we calculate
eR , I+
I
X
j=1
(6.14),(6.15)
Further,
+
eR , I
= eR , I
= 0.
(e) ecj erj
|ej |
er
j
ej +1
(ej ) dt
dt (e) de.

+
+
eR , I+
= dt (e) de e/eR de
= 0,
since |e| = eR, (e) = e/eR on SeDR , if the loading is active. This yields the unique solution
e
e
e
e
e e e
+
+ = 1, = = + = 0 of (6.92), since dt = s n / H, s n > 0 and H = n : d +d > 0.
e
e
e
e
The latter because n : d > 0 according to lemma 6.3.5 and d , d R 0 according to
+
(x) . Here as well a sliding motion
lemma 6.3.1 and (6.16). Consequently Ies (x) Tx S = I+
+
is Lipschitz, x
occurs, the solution can neither enter De+ nor De+R . As S is smooth and I+
will be smooth during the sliding motion along S.
D . Here we have S = S D S D . Just erase appropriate e s in
(iii) Active loading of SeD and SR
e
R
paragraph (ii) above.
D . Just apply the same techniques as above to S =
(iv) Active loading of SeD , SeDR and SR
D
D
D
Se SeR SR . Now D is locally divided into octants, the solution x can neither enter De+
+
. No additional ideas/tricks are needed to verify this.
nor De+R nor DR
127
6.3.8 Remark. Note that the first equation in (6.90) and (6.92) reflects the fact that I 0 is a
convex combination, whereas the last (two) equation(s) in (6.90) resp. (6.92) express the
tangentiality to S.

The results for the original stress controlled constitutive Jiang model can be easily derived, as
it is a submodel. Drop each e andand the additional equations (6.26). So in (6.87) consider
D instead of S D (e) resp. S D , but there is no third
the discontinuity surfaces SD () resp. SR
e
eR
discontinuity surface.
For the strain controlled constitutive Jiang model (6.56) the computations are similarly. We
consider the differential inclusion y J(t, y), generalising
y = J(t, y),
y = (
, ,
1 , . . . ,
I , R)
with
D = Rr R RrI (0, ) Rr(I+1)+2 ,
r = 6.
We drop again the hat . The main difference compared to the (elastic) stress controlled
case lies in the fact, that all discontinuities are in the space variable y, not in time t. The
discontinuity surfaces are given by
where

SeD (e) = y D : (y) = 0 ,

D
SR
= y D : R (y) = 0 ,

I

X

j 1 + a eb R ,
(y) = dev()

j=1

I
X

j R.
R (y) =

j=1
With
= y = ( , , 1 , . . . , I , R )
the respective normals are
=
R =
Note here that

n, 0, n, . . . , n, a b eb R ,

0, 0, (), . . . , (), 1 .
= s .
So we get by construction of the strain controlled equations in a predominantly analogous

way the same values
J ,
= C (t)
: n = tr : n = ntr > 0,

+
J , = : n H = 0,
...
128
for the projections of the limiting values

J = conv J , J +
at S ()
+ +
resp.
J = conv J , J+ , J , J+
at S () SR

as before.
Thus in the same way, we find J Ty S () = J + and J Ty (S () SR ) =

J++ .
Nevertheless, we cannot help making the following reasonable assumptions concerning Jiangs
constitutive model, both in isolation and in coupling with the Newtonian balance equations.
6.3.9 Assumption (Jiangs model) For Jiangs model, we assume the following.
(a) Elastic stress controlled Jiang correction model. Let V = R33
or V = R33
s
sp .
e
pl
For a given set of parameters pl , pl , satisfying (6.33), ..., (6.35), and initial values (0),
(0), e1 (0), . . . , eI (0), eR(0),

1 (0), . . . ,
I (0), R(0),
satisfying (6.27), (6.28), there exists
e
an appropriate subset AC([0, T ], Vd ), depending on those parameters and initial values,
such that for all elastic stress deviator inputs

e
s e
AC([0, T ], Vd )
there exists one uniquely determined solution

e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
AC [0, T ], Vd R (V I [0, ))2 ,
(
pl , ,
1 , . . . ,
I , R)
d
of (6.2) under the initial values/conditions (6.27), (6.28). The cited conditions remain valid
for each t [0, T ].
(b) Stress controlled Jiang constitutive model. Let V = R33
s . For a given set of
parameters pl , satisfying (6.34), (6.35), and initial values pl (0), (0), 1 (0), . . . , I (0), R(0),
satisfying (6.54), (6.55), there exists an appropriate subset AC([0, T ], Vd ), depending on
those parameters and initial values, such that for all stress deviator inputs

s
AC([0, T ], Vd )

(pl , , 1 , . . . , I , R) AC [0, T ], Vd R VdI [0, )
for each t [0, T ].
(c) Strain controlled Jiang constitutive model. Let V = R33
s . For a given set of
pl
parameters pl , satisfying (6.34), (6.35), (6.65) and initial values (0), (0), 1 (0), . . . , I (0),
R(0), satisfying (6.63), (6.64), and all strain inputs
AC([0, T ], V )

(, , 1 , . . . , I , R) AC [0, T ], V R VdI [0, )
129
for each t [0, T ].
(d) Boundary value problem with Jiangs constitutive model. We assume that the
transient elastoplastic boundary value problem (5), ..., (7) with Jiangs constitutive operator
and given parameters pl , satisfying (6.34), (6.35), has got a unique solution, such that for a. e.
point x there holds (1), (6.62) where H from (6.52) and n from (6.46).
pl , e1 , ..., eI eR,
are of class AC, as well
6.3.10 Remark. (a) If the functions ,
1 , ...,
I and R
el
e
e
e
e
el
e
pl
the functions
, , , , d , ,
, d , , and will be. This is clear by the definition
of Les resp. Kes , if
h AC.
(b) If assumption 6.3.9 is satisfied, epl = pl for all l = 1, . . . , L and the initial values are
= eR, = e.
consistently chosen, then
= e,
i = ei , d = e d , R
(c) As the triangle inequality shows, there necessarily holds at any time, since we have es =
e + e ,
d
e

(t) e
The analogous estimates
(6.69)
e

(t) e(t)
I
(6.69),(6.76) X
e

e
s(t) e(t) + e(t)
r i + e
i=1
I

X

ri + ,
(t) s(t)
i=1
I

X
(t) s(t)
ri + ,
i=1
hold for the corrected stress and the elastoplastic stress deviator. From this, we see that we
must necessarily have at least

I
X
e
e
e
e
e
r i + in [0, T ]
s AC([0, T ], Vd ) : k s(t)k
i=1
resp.

I
X
ri + in [0, T ] ,
s AC([0, T ], Vd ) : ks(t)k
i=1
where e resp. are the sets from assumption 6.3.9.
6.3.3
A special case
If for any i {1, . . . , I} the ratchetting parameter eQi is equal to zero, i. e. the ratchetting
exponent e + 1 is constantly equal to one, the differential equation for the partial backstress
e simplifies to
i

(6.14)
(6.23)
e
i = eci eri en ei dt = eci eri dt pl dt ei ,
(6.93)
the right hand side being a generalisation of the backstress evolution equations of Arm [14], since
strong/Frederick [2] resp. Chaboche [20, 21], see as well Brokate/Krejc
ec = ec ()
is non-constant. If we replace
i
i
es e
,
dt pl = dt e
(6.94)
130
which holds both

in the case of active loading (sliding motion) at Se (e),
in the case of elastic behaviour, as both sides trivially are equal to zero,
equation (6.93) becomes
e

s(t) e(t) e
e
ri
dt (t)
i = eci (t)
i ,
e(t)
(6.95)
a system of ordinary differential equations of first order. If the functions e, es, e, are of
class AC and satisfy
e

s e e e. in [0, T ],
dt 0 a. e. in [0, T ],
(6.96)
we can solve (6.95) by the variation of constants method, yielding the explicit expression

Z te
1
s( ) e( ) e
e
e
e
i (t) = e
i (0) + ri
Wi ( ) d
(6.97)
e( )
Wi (t)
0
for the ith partial backstress. Here

Z
Z t

e
e
ci ( ) dt ( ) d = exp
Wi (t) = exp
0
and
exp
(6.13)
ec
i
ci (p) dp = e
QK
k=1
QK
k=1
ee
(k)
eb
0
i
ee
(t)
(0)
ci p dp
e (k) e (k)
ec
i ai / bi
(k) e e (k) e (k)

eb
c
i
i ai / bi
(6.98)
With the aid of (6.97), we are now able to give an alternative proof of lemma 6.3.5.
6.3.11 Lemma. There holds kei (t)k er i everywhere in the interval [0, T ], if the initial value ei (0)
satisfies kei (0)k er i .
Proof: eWi in (6.98) is obviously a nondecreasing function in t, satisfying eWi (0) = 1. Thus
we may estimate

e
e
Wi (t) ei (t)
Wi (t) ei (t) ei (0) + eri

e

Wi (t)ei (t) ei (0) + eri

Z t e
(6.97)
s e e
e

ri
e Wi ( ) d + 1
0

Z t
(6.96)
e
e
Wi ( ) d + 1
ri
=
which proves the assertion.
0
e e
r i Wi (t),
An analogous equation to (6.95) and solution formula (6.97) holds of course in the corrected
stress space. (6.94) may as well be written as
s
dt pl = dt
because of simultaneity (6.3), (6.5) and the fact that is common for both the elastic and
the corrected stress space.
6.3.4
131
Phases of relaxation
In this very short section, we have a closer look at the effect of relaxation of the memory
surface, i. e. where the input is such that 0 < emin kek < eR over a long -interval.
e
Separating the variables in the differential equation for R leads us to
Z
Z
Z
deR
deR
(6.16)
e
cR d =
e
e
kek/eR 1
min / R 1
This gives the supersolution
cR ( 0 ) emin log(eR emin ) eR,
yielding necessarily the asymptotic limit

e
min kek < eR emin
for .
This behaviour traps e between emin and eR with increasing plastic flow, as long no active
loading of the memory surface for kek = eR takes place. Just have a look at figure J on page
150, where relaxation of the memory surface is illustrated.
in the corrected stress space and , R, in the elastoThe same holds of course for
, R,
plastic stress space of the Jiang constitutive model.
6.4
A modified correction model
We consider here in section 6.4 the plane free boundary case V = R33
sp and 1 \ 1,g .
As explained in the introduction this case is the most relevant in practical fatigue analysis.
Direction 1 and 2 are assumed to be in T , i. e. tangential to the boundary, direction 3 in
(T ) , i. e. collinear with the outer normal at .
By considering circumferential sharply notched axles, Seeger et al. [59, 60, 61] found that
that the ratios e11 /e22 of the elastic tangential strains and 11 /22 of the elastoplastic tangential strains almost coincide, i. e.
e (t)
11 (t)
11
,
e
22 (t)
22 (t)
(6.99)
if straining disability is present. (Here the dependence on has been dropped again.) This is
a purely empirical result, but a very fruitful achievement of lifelong experience. So it suggests
itself to impose the constraint
e (t)
11 (t)
11
,
(6.100)
=e
22 (t)
22 (t)
on the corrected tangential strain components 11 and 22 in such a case. Here the right hand
side is known from the elastic boundary value problem.
In a more general setting we are motivated to modify the correction model by the introduction
of one of the following algebraic constraints (which may be of any empirical nature). Let us
assume that external scalar functions t 7 f1 (t), t 7 f2 (t) of class AC are given.
132
(S1) Either we impose

(1)
p 11 = f1 (t) 11 f2 (t) 22 = 0, (6.101)
Se22 ,e12 t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
1 , . . . ,
I , R,
where t 7 p 11 (t) is an additional unknown input function and

p 11
for i {1, 2}.
1, . . . ,
I , R,
ii = ii t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
(6.102)
(S2) Or we impose

(2)
p 22 = f1 (t) 11 f2 (t) 22 = 0, (6.103)
Se11 ,e12 t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
1 , . . . ,
I , R,
where t 7 p 22 (t) is an additional unknown input function and

p 22
for i {1, 2}.
1, . . . ,
I , R,
ii = ii t, pl , e1 , . . . , eI , eR,
(6.104)
In the case (S1) t 7 e 22 (t) and t 7 e 12 (t), in the case (S2) t 7 e 11 (t) and t 7 e 12 (t)
are the given elastic stress components of class AC. We will call the functions p 11 (which
replaces e 11 in the case (S1)) resp. p 22 (which replaces e 22 in the case (S2)) the pseudo
elastic stress 11- resp. 22-component. We dont know any physical meaning so far.
6.4.1 Remark (Seegers constraint) (a) Seegers empirical constraint (6.100) for the corrected
strains, i. e. 11 e22 = 22 e11 , is revealed by the choice
f1 (t) = e22 (t),
f2 (t) = e11 (t)
(6.105)
where
e
11 (t) =

1 e
11 (t) e 22 (t) ,
E
22 (t) =

1 e
22 (t) e 11 (t)
E
(6.106)
from Hookes law e(t) = C 1e(t) for plane stress. In section 8.3, we will see that the
introduction of Seegers constraint will lead to significant improvements of the correction
model results.
(b) In the case of a linear superposition of combined tension force and torsion moment, we
are able to lift the zeros of e22 , so that
k=
e (t)
11
e (t)
22
e 22 (t)
= const
e (t) e (t)
22
11
11 (t)
(6.107)
is in fact independent of t. This will be done in detail in section 8.3. Therefore the constant
choice
f1 (t) = 1,
f2 (t) = k,
(6.108)
is possible instead in (6.105), so that due to lemma 6.4.2 there are no troubles about nonuniqueness, if k 6= .

We formulate a modified system of equations, compared to section 6.1. In addition to the
ei , eR,
we are looking for the new unknown input function
preexisting unknowns pl , ,
i , R,
p
p
11 = f2 (t)
22 is satisfied.
11 resp. 22 , such that the constraint f1 (t)
133
(S1) We replace component e 11 by the unknown p 11 , i. e. we have

p
p
e
e (t) 0
11
12 (t) 0
11
12
e
e
= e 12 (t) e 22 (t) 0 .
= e 12 (t) e 22 (t) 0 ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
(6.109)
(S2) We replace component e 22 by the unknown p 22 , i. e. we have

e
e
11 (t) e 12 (t) 0
11 (t) e 12 (t) 0
e
e
0 ,
0 .
= e 12 (t) p 22
= e 12 (t) p 22
0
0
0
0
0
0
(6.110)
Then
e
s = D e,
s = D e
(6.111)
e
e(t, p
is again the (pseudo) elastic stress deviator. We now have the dependence =
11 ) in
e
e
p
e
e
the case (S1) and = (t, 22 ) in the case (S2), whereas = (t) in (6.2), (6.6) before.
(1)
Definition of function Se22 ,e12 .
The domain of definition is
[0, T ] Vd VdI [0, ) VdI [0, ) R,
V = R33
sp .
We set
e
, e,
, e d = as in (6.8),
d , , s = as in (6.29),
, el , = as in (6.30)
where e from (6.109) and (6.111). This defines (6.102) and finally (6.101).
(2)
Definition of function Se11 ,e12 . Completely symmetrically with e from (6.110) and
(6.111), defining (6.104) and (6.103).
All other variables are defined formally completely analogously as in Jes in (6.2) and in Les
in (6.6), cf. section 6.1. (We do not repeat all those definitions for the sake of brevity.) We
may now write everything together into a system of differential algebraic equations

ei , eR,
e e i , R,
= Je(1) e
p 11 , p 11
i , R
dt pl , ,
22 , 12 t, , i , R,

(1)
p 11
(6.112)
, , eel , epl , s, e, e d , e, ,
d , = Le22 ,e12 t, pl , ei , eR,
i , R,

(1)
pl
e
e
p
11
0 = Se22 ,e12 t, , i , R,
i , R,
in the case (S1), resp.

ei , eR,
e e i , R,
= Je(2) e
p 22 , p 22
i , R
dt pl , ,
11 , 12 t, , i , R,

(2)
p 22
, , eel , epl , s, e, e d , e, ,
d , = Le11 ,e12 t, pl , ei , eR,
i , R,

(2)
p 22
0 = Se11 ,e12 t, pl , ei , eR,
i , R,
(1)
(2)
(6.113)
in the case (S2). The functions Je22 ,e12 resp. Je11 ,e12 have the same discontinuities as
Jes , see section 6.3. It is not possible any more to write the differential equations in explicit
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
form like in (6.2). Je22 ,e12 plus Le22 ,e12 resp. Je11 ,e12 plus Le11 ,e12 contain exactly as
many equations as Jes plus Les do, but there is one additional unknown more, this lack is
compensated by the scalar algebraic constraint (6.101) resp. (6.103).
134
and pl , the
6.4.2 Lemma. For each admissible state of variables t, e1 , ..., eI ,
1 , ...,
I , eR, R
following assertions hold.
(S1) Constraint (6.101), (6.102) has got a unique solution for p 11 , if the prescribed functions
satisfy
f1 (t) 6= f2 (t).
(6.114)
(S2) Constraint (6.103), (6.104) has got a unique solution for p 22 , if the prescribed functions
satisfy
f2 (t) 6= f1 (t).
(6.115)
By admissible, we mean that conditions (6.27),(6.28) are satisfied at time t instead of time
zero.
Proof: Analogously to (6.106) from Hookes law, we have for the elastic part of the corrected
strain

(6.30) 1
(6.30) 1
el
(6.116)
11
22 ,
22
11 .
el
22 =
11 =
E
E
Equations (6.101), (6.103) are therefore equivalent to

pl
pl
0 = E f1 (t)
11 + f2 (t)
22 +
11 f1 (t) f2 (t) +
22 f2 (t) f1 (t) .
(6.117)
Pulling back the yield surface centres via
A = D 1
and
A = D 1e
(6.118)
see (5.20), simultaneity formula (6.29) becomes

11 = A11 + e p 11 eA11 ,

e
11 = A11 + e 11 eA11 ,
22 = A22 + e e 22 eA22
in case of (S1),
22 = A22 + e p 22 eA22
in case of (S2).
P
e = ef (eR), e = P ej ,
Inserting this into (6.117), bearing = f (R),
= j
j in mind,
j
shows p 11 resp. p 22 explicitly as function of the state variables.

It is not clear, which differential index, cf. Hairer/Wanner [52] section VI.5, systems
(6.112) resp. (6.113) have, as we do not know how to transform them into an underlying
ODE system. The time derivatives p 11 resp p 22 at the right hand side cause this trouble.
And it is not known to the author, if there already exist a definition of an index (differential,
perturbation, ...) for DAE systems with discontinuous right hand sides.
6.4.3 Remark (Multiaxial Neuber correction) We have applied the modification of this section 6.4 to the multiaxial Neuber approaches of Glinka et al. [18, 44, 83, 104] and Chu [23],
where the (due to tensor symmetries) six componentwise algebraic constraints
e
ij eij =
ij ij
i, j {1, 2, 3}
(6.119)
are imposed. Here as well, this leads to a significant improvement, qualitatively comparable
to the results in section 8.3, if we impose the Seeger constraint (6.100) instead of (6.119) for
135
(i, j) = (2, 2). By a dense output method, cf. Enright/Jackson [39, 40], in order to detect
the zeros of the strain ij and to define memories for turning point, we were able to develop
an algorithm for cyclic loading paths. But in any computed example, our approach yields
better results, especially they are much better for ratchetting, cf. paths [e] and [f] in section
8.3, where the multiaxial Neuber approach fails.
136
Chapter 7
Numerical implementation of the

pointwise correction model
This chapter is concerned with the numerical implementation of the pointwise correction
model for Jiang material (section 7.1) and its modification (section 7.3) of chapter 6. The
implementation is not difficult, since
standard algorithms with local error control for ordinary differential equations may be
used,
discontinuity detection is just necessary at the elastic yield surface.
It is faster than existing ones, cf. [53, 72, 73], since simultaneous integration in the elastic
and corrected stress space is performed. Numerical tests are presented in section 7.2. An
easy predictor-corrector algorithm is designed for the modified correction model, where Taylor extrapolation reduces the number of corrector steps for smooth loading paths.
For the numerical solution of the elastoplastic BVP, we have tested our variable step size
algorithm II of this chapter against existing well established Abaqus material subroutines
(for linear kinematic hardening, Jiang is of course non-standard). Our method turned out to
be more stable and to yield less convergence problems, when solving the full boundary value
problem.
Throughout this chapter, except for algorithm II, we are exclusively concerned with the
free boundary case, i. e. we consider the correction model for (EPJ) material given by the
differential equations (6.2) and algebraic equations (6.6). We write it in the non-redundant
form

y = Jebs (t, y)
,
(7.1)
z = Lebs (t, y)
where

pl , ,
ec
c
c
c
1 , . . . , ec
I , eR,
1 , . . . ,
I ,

b
d , e,
,
pl , eb, ec
el , ef
z =
, b
s, e
, f
el , ef
y =

R3(2I+1)+3 ,
R

c
d , R63+44+2 = R36 .
The wide tilde resp. the hat stand for the linear embedding
4
e: C 1 R33
sp R ,
e = (a11 , a22 , a33 , a12 )t

A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A
137
(7.2)
(7.3)
138
numerical implementation of the pointwise correction model 7
resp. the isometric isomorphism

3
b: R33
spd , : R , h, iM ,
b = (a11 , a22 , a12 )t .

A = (aij )i,j=1,2,3 7 A
33 , is
The scalar product h, iM on R3 R33
spd = Vd , which is considered as subspace of R
given by

x, y M = xt M y,
kxk2M = x, x M
(x, y R3 ).
The symmetric, positively definite matrix M is the same as in (6.81). From now on in this
chapter we let drop the b and e , as it is clear what is meant.
7.1
The basic algorithms
The usual case in application practice is that only sampled data or signals of the elastic
stress tensor are available. If the sample times tn are small enough, it is justified to
interpolate linearly. Therefore, we consider a discrete finite sequence of given
elastic stress tensors e 0 , . . . , e N
at times
t0 = 0 < . . . < tN = T, N N
(7.4)
and assume e to be in P W L([0, T ], R3 ), i. e.

e
(t) = e n1 +
t tn1 e
n,
tn
(t)
e n
tn
(7.5)
where
e n = e n e n1 ,
tn = tn tn1
(7.6)
for n = 1, . . . , N and t [tn1 , tn ]. Because of the correction models rate independence we

may w.l.o.g. assume
T = N,
tn = n
(n = 0, . . . , N )
to (7.5), (7.6) implies

Application of D

e
s(t) = esn + t (n 1) esn ,
tn = tn tn1 = 1
esn = esn esn1 ,
(n = 1, . . . , N ).
s(t)
= esn .
(7.7)
The basic algorithm I presented below consists of an outer and and inner loop. In the outer
loop, the discontinuity at the yield surface is detected, the inner loop consists of a standard
integration scheme for ordinary differential equations.
7.1.1
The outer loop
The idea is simply to detect the discontinuity at the elastic yield surface Se (e). To this end,
we reparametrise the time in the the form
t [n 1, n]
tn = t n + 1
tn [0, 1]
for n = 1, . . . , N and calculate the future intersection point esn of the straight arc

An = esn1 + tn esn : tn [0, ) ,
7 numerical implementation of the pointwise correction model
139
which is obtained by prolongation of esn , with the current elastic yield surface

e
e
Sen1
n1 n1 = Ben1 n1 ,
whose position remains constant on the interval [0, tn ]. With e d,n1 = esn1 en1 the
intersection point is given by
e
sn
e
= esn1 + tn esn An Sen1
( n1 ),
where
tn =
2

1/2
e d,n1 , esn M + e d,n1 , esn M kesn k2M ke d,n1 k2M e2n1

kesn k2M
(7.8)
e
if esn 6= 0. Then An Sen1
( n1 ) has exactly one element. There holds
otherwise. This means An

reflections in section 6.3 that
e
Sen1
( n1 )
tn =
is the empty set. If tn [0, 1), it follows from the
s(t) Se(t) (e(t))
otherwise
(7.9)
for t [tn , 1],
e(t) (e(t)) = B
e(0) (e(0))
s(t) B
for t [0, 1].
[tn , 1]
The integration over the interval

is done by a standard ODE method with variable step
size control, see section 7.1.2. Again, reparametrisation is applied in the form
tn [tn , 1]
n =
tn tn
1 tn
n [0, 1].
This front tracking method will lead to a significant reduction of steps that are rejected by
the solver, see chapter II.6 in Hairer et al. [51] and the numerical tests in section 7.2.
The discontinuities at SeR and SR are left to the local error control of the standard integrator. Using a constant step size would yield too large errors when crossing these discontinuities.
Algorithm I.
It turns the
e
Input
(the elastic stress time signal)

n
E, , epl , pl
(the parameters)
e i e
0 (the initial values)
pl
i0 , R
0 , 0 , 0 , R 0 ,
into the
Output
es ,
n
e ,
n
sn ,
n ,
eel ,
n
el
n,
epl ,
n
pl
n,
ei ,
n
in ,
n,
n,
eR
n,
n,
R
e ,
n
n ,
d,n ,
d,n , n .
Here
n = 0, . . . , N,
i = 1, . . . , I,
l = 1, . . . , L,
L = (2K + 3)I + 6.
(7.10)
Lower indices n are outer loop indices, whereas the upper indices i enumerate the backstresses. It reads as follows.
140
e i e
0 as in (6.27), (6.28).
A Initialisation e 0 , pl
i0 , R
0 , 0 , 0 , R0 ,
e 0 as in (7.7).
B Set es0 := D
C Set e0 , e d,0 , e0 ,
0 , d,0 , 0 , s0 as in (6.8), (6.29).
1 s0 , el := C 1
1 pl as in (5.21), (6.30).
D Set
0 := D
0 , 0 := el
0
0 +D
0
1e 0 , epl := 0 eel as in (6.31).
E Set eel
0
0 := C
0
F For n := 1, . . . , N
G
e n , esn := esn esn1 as in (7.7).

Set esn := D
Set tn as in (7.8), (7.9).
If 0 tn < 1
Set esn := esn1 + tn esn , esn := esn esn .
e i e
n :=
Set pl
in , R
n , n , n , Rn ,
Dormand/Prince-solution of y = Jes (, y)
over n [0, 1] at n = 1
e i
e
n1
in1 , R
with initial values pl
n1 , n1 , n1 , Rn1 ,
and external input es( ) = esn + esn , es(

) = esn .
L
Else
e i e
n := pl , n1 , ein1 , eRn1 ,
n1
Set pl
in , R
in1 , R
n , n , n , Rn ,
n1
acc. to (6.10).
N
Set en , e d,n , en ,
n , d,n , n , sn as in (6.8), (6.29).
1 pl
1 sn , el := C 1
n , n := el
Set
n := D
n as in (5.21), (6.30).
n +D
n
1e 0 , epl := 0 eel as in (6.31).

Set eel
0
0 := C
0
Here
C 1
0
1/E /E
/E
0
1/E
,
=
/E /E
0
0
0 (1 + )/E
That way, we push the trivial integration (6.10) into an
1
D
1
0 0
0
1 0
=
1 1 0 .
0
0 1
outer loop (lines F - P, step size tn = 1, rate-independence!).

For the
inner loop (contained in line K, variable step size nj , rate-independence!),
we have tested all methods with local step size/error control, which are contained in Shampine/Reichelt [102]. Among those, the embedded Runge-Kutta method of Dormand and
Prince (see RK4(5)7m in [32], DoPri5 in Hairer et al. [51], section II.5, or [102], section 5)
has turned out to be the fastest. This indicates that the whole system is at most moderately
stiff.
7.1.2
141
The inner loop
For the integration of the constitutive equations in the plastic regime, i. e. during active plastic
loading of the elastic yield surface in line K, we use the Dormand/Prince method with
variable step size control. It is an embedded Runge-Kutta scheme with Butcher coefficients,
which are given by
1
1
5
ai
3
10
4
5
8
bij
=
9
ej
1
5
3
40
44
45
19372
6561
9017
3168
35
384
71
57600
9
40
56
15
25360
2187
355
33
0
0
32
9
64448
6561
46732
5247
500
1113
71
16695
212
729
49
176
125
192
71
1920
5103
18656
2187
6784
17253
339200
11
84
22
525
1
40
Let > 0 denote a prescribed relative error tolerance for the integrator. Initially for :=
0 := 0, j := 1, we set
(

1 )
|y 0i |
1/5

:= min 1,
max
,
i=1,...,6I+6 max |y0i |, 106 /

J := y0 |0| . . . |0 R(6I+6)7 .
Cf. [102] or section II.4 in Hairer et al. [51]. If the -step

(i = 1, . . . , 6),
Ji+1 := Jes + ai , y + J (bi )t ,
y := y + J (b6 )t,
:= + a6
with the error estimate

:=
max
k=1,...,6I+6
)
P7

ke

J
i
i=1 i

max |y i |, |
y i |, 106 /
is successful, i. e. , we step once further, by setting

J1 := J7 ,
:= ,
y := y,
j := ,
j := ,
j := j + 1.
The step size control is performed in the following way. If the step with is successful, we
reset
n

o
{1 } [4/5, 5],
:= min 1 , min 4/5 (/)1/5 , 5
if there havent been any failures before, otherwise

:= min 1 , .
For a rejected step, i. e. > , we redefine

:= max 1/10, 4/5 (/)1/5 [1/10, 4/5)
after the first failure and
:= /2
142
after each following failure. That way, if does not shrink to zero, a partition of the unit
interval
0 = 0 < . . . < J = 1,
j = j j1
(j = 1, . . . , J),
(7.11)
is generated automatically, which is non equidistant in general.
7.1.1 Remark (Total amounts for algorithm I) Altogether we have for the Jiang correction
model in the free boundary case
total number of differential equations = 3(2I + 1) + 3 = 6I + 6
(7.12)
and
2L = number of parameters pl , epl
number of remaining parameters
number of variables , outer loop
number of variables , inner loop
total number of vars and params
=
=
=

2 (2K + 3)I + 6
2

2(26 + 3I) + 1 (N + 1) + 14N + 33 .
2(6I + 7) + 2(6I + 6) + 61
(67 + 6I)N + (4K + 36)I + 187
(7.13)
Here we
(1) do not forget intermediate help variables (like tn , ...) of the outer loop.
(2) do forget the intermediate variables of the inner loop. (Independent of n, we use them
only once.)
( They are E and .
7.1.3
Parameters
excluded.)
The constitutive model
Algorithm I is as well applicable to the stress controlled (6.42) and the strain controlled Jiang
constitutive model (6.56) with the isometric isomorphism
b = (a11 , a22 , a11 a22 , a12 , a13 , a23 )t
A 7 A
5
b: R33
sd R ,
for the deviatoric, but non-plane stress/plastic strain space. Here
and
x, y
= xt M y,

kxk2M = x, x M
2 1 0
M = 1 2 0 ,
0 0 2I
(x, y R5 )
1 0 0
I = 0 1 0 .
0 0 1
(7.14)
(7.15)
The stress controlled model. As it is a subsystem of the elastic stress controlled correction
model, not many further details have to be explained. We just drop the addition equations
(6.26), the e -s and -s.
The strain controlled model. It is necessary at integration points in finite element computations, cf. as well remark 8.3.3 further below. We modify algorithm I slightly according to
143
Simo [103] and section 6.2.2. The following algorithm II integrates along the linear strain
path
(t) = 0 + t,
t [0, 1],
(0) = 0 ,
(1) = 1 ,
= 1 0 ,
(t)
= ,
where we assume parametrisation (rate-independence!) over the unit interval [0, 1]. We as33
sume further that 0 , R33
s , or equivalently 0 , 1 Rs , are given.
Algorithm II.
It turns the
Input
0 ,
(the strain state and derivative)
E, , epl , pl
(the parameters)
i
0 , 0 , R0 , 0 (the actual state of internal variables)
into the
Output
pl
i
1 , s1 , 1 , el
1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , R1 , 1 , 1 , 1,d , 1 .
Here again, i and l may vary as in (7.10). Upper indices i enumerate the backstresses, whereas
indices 0 resp. 1 denotes the values at t = 0 resp. t = 1. It reads as follows.
A Set 0 , 0 , i0 , R0 as in (6.63), (6.64).
B Set 0 , 0 , as in (6.8), (6.29), (6.31), s0 := dev 0 , 0 := 0 0 , 0,d := dev 0 .
1 0 , pl := 0 el as in (5.21), (6.30), C 1 from (6.61).
C Set el
0
0 := C
0
D Set tr := C,
str := dev tr acc. to (6.57).
E Set t as in (7.16).
F If 0 t < 1
G
Set := 0 + t , := 0 + t tr , := (1 t ).
Set 1 , 1 , i1 , R1 :=
Dormand/Prince-solution of y = J (, y) at = 1
over [0, 1]
with initial values , 0 , i0 , R0

and external input ( ) = + , (
) = .
I Else
J
Set 1 , i1 , R1 := 0 , i0 , R0 acc. to (6.10), 1 := .
K Set 1 , 1 , as in (6.8), (6.29), (6.31), s1 := dev 1 , 1 := 1 1 , d,1 := dev 1 .

1 1 , pl := 1 el as in (5.21), (6.30).
L Set 1 := 0 + , el
1
1 := C
1
144
Therein C 1 from (6.61) and

t =

2
1/2
d,0 , str M + d,0 , str M kesn k2M kd,0 k2M e2n1
kstr k2M
(7.16)
if str 6= 0. Otherwise t = . The matrix M and the induced scalar product h, iM are
from (7.14) and (7.15).
7.2
Numerical tests
In these section we consider some numerical examples for our algorithm I. Appropriate identification of the parameters pl , epl is studied and presented in chapter 8 in comparison with
transient elastoplastic boundary value problem solutions and measurements.
In these tests, we consider the elastic stress given in the form of a linear superposition of two
load cases in the form
e
(t) = L11 (t)e 11 + L22 (t)e 22 + L12 (t)e 12 ,
in which
e
11 = (1, 0, 0)t ,
22 = (0, 1, 0)t ,
12 = (0, 0, 1)t
is the standard basis of R3 , which is isomorphic to the standard basis of R33

sp . All parameters
for the steel S460N and an appropriate notch of an axis are taken from Hertel [53] and
Hoffmeyer et al. [62]. Hookes (or equivalent Lames) parameters are
E = 2.085e5 ,
(11)
= 3.0e1
= 1.604e5 ,
= 1.203e5
The elastic and elastoplastic parameters epl and pl are given by

j
1
2
3
4
5
j
1
2
3
4
5
rj
9.500e1
7.000e1
1.000e2
1.700e2
8.050e2
rj
9.000e1
5.000e1
4.000e1
4.000e1
7.000e1
e
cj
3
1.099e
3.530e2
1.790e2
7.200e1
3.710e1
c
j
1.164e3
3.580e2
1.860e2
7.100e1
3.740e1
e (1)
aj
2
4.300e
6.800e2
7.100e2
8.000e2
7.000e2
a1j
2.360e1
4.000e1
2.000e1
3.000e1
2.500e1
e (1)
bj
1
7.740e
4.440e1
3.460e1
3.000e1
2.700e1
b1j
1.880e1
1.880e1
3.000e1
2.500e1
2.000e1
e (2)
aj
2
4.800e
1.090e1
9.400e2
1.320e1
7.600e2
a2j
2.950e1
3.860e1
3.000e1
3.500e1
6.000e1
e (2)
bj
3
7.000e
1.500e2
2.000e2
2.000e2
3.500e2
b2j
1.710e+0
2.990e+0
2.000e2
2.000e2
3.000e2
Qj
1.390e+0
1.390e+0
1.390e+0
1.390e+0
1.390e+0
Qj
1.000e2
1.000e2
1.000e2
1.000e2
1.000e2
e
a
e
b
e
a
e
b
e
cR
a
b
a
b
cR
(7.17)
2.015e+2
2.880e1
6.160e3
2.850e1
6.450e3
1.000e+2
2.107e+2
3.200e1
7.600e3
5.000e+4
2.600e2
1.000e+2
(All quantities of physical dimension stress are measured in MPa.) Here

I = 5,
K = 2,
L = 41.
(7.18)
So altogether, the number of differential equations is 36, the total number of parameters is
84. Condition (6.73) is never violated during the integration process. The critical value at
its right hand side is e ea eb ecR 35.75. For the strain controlled model (in finite element
computations), we find a b cR 51.25, cf. (6.65).
7.2.1
145
The butterfly test
A typical application field is the subjection of the body to cyclic loading. Therefore in this
first test, we consider the periodic analytical input
L11 (t) = 621.63 sin(2t),
L22 (t) = 0,
L12 (t) = 306.38 sin(t)
(7.19)
over the time interval [0, T ] with T = 80, = 2/8, these are 10 cycles. Note that (7.19)
is obtained from path [d] in section 8.3 by a rotation of the coordinate system. (So we have
here in fact just a 2D problem.) All other paths in the section mentioned have been checked
in the same way with similar results concerning accuracy and speed.
We compare the solution, obtained by the Dormand/Prince algorithm with smooth input and
variable step size control, with our algorithm I with sampled data
tn = 4k ,
N = 80 4k sample intervals,
k {0, . . . , 5}.
(7.20)
Of course, we falsify the loading path, the error in the input will be Taylor expansion of
order O(tn ). Figure E shows the results qualitatively.
Figure E. The results qualitatively. Left hand side: Plane stress phase plot. Right hand side: The stresses
e
and
over time.
Figure F shows three triples of computations. First, we check the pure Dormand/Prince
algorithm with smooth input (7.19), where no discontinuity detection at Se (e) is applied.
Second, the pure Dormand/Prince algorithm has to handle the same input piecewise linearly
interpolated according to (7.20). Third, the same sampled input is fed into algorithm I.
We point out the following observations.
The pure Dormand/Prince-method for both piecewise linear and smooth input struggles very hard to manage the discontinuity at Se (e). The rate of rejected -steps is
huge.
146

Even though the percentage of rejected -steps for piecewise linear input gets very
low for smaller , the computation times increase. Obviously the algorithm is forced to
choose extremely small here.
The increase in computation time for algorithm I for large N is due to the fact that
N 1, so the percentage of rejected -steps is almost zero, the outer step size tn
gets dominant. You have to find a good compromise: The optimum in speed/accuracy
lies somewhere between.
Further improvement may be achieved by the use of dense output methods in Enright et al.
[39, 40]. (The relative computation times of the piecewise linear computation for k {4, 5}
lie much beyond the scope of the depicted region.)
Figure F. Left hand side: Relative computation times. Right hand side: Percentage of rejected steps during
the inner loop in line K, algorithm I. plw means piecewise linear.
Figure G shows the accuracy of algorithm I (with sampled input data and low relative accuracy , fast!) compared to the pure Dormand/Prince integrator (with smooth input and high
relative accuracy , slow!). For the use of , see section 7.1.2. In the relative error, there are
some isolated peaks appearing at whose points, where
has a zero, cf. as well figure E. But
apart from these, the relative error is in the region of approximatively 104 .
Closing this section, we want to compare our method to the existing approaches in [53, 72, 73].
We are integrating the equations in elastic and corrected stress space simultaneously, with
only one Mises yield condition es Se (e), es n > 0, and not in series
e(t)
parameters epl
- pl (t)
stress controlled (6.42)
parameters pl
-
(t)
(7.21)
strain controlled (6.56)

iteratively
as it is done in [53, 72, 73]. As we dont have a stress controlled integration followed by a
completely separate (total) strain controlled integration, our procedure yields more accuracy
and speed. This has several reasons.
147
First, we have to handle the problems with discontinuities only once, as we have the guarantee
that plastic yielding starts/stops exactly at the same point in time.
Second, it is not clear how to interpolate the output pl of the stress controlled step in
(7.21) before feeding into the strain controlled constitutive model. In Hertel [53], linear
interpolation is assumed.
Figure G. Accuracy of exact solution with smooth input and = 109 compared with solution with sampled
input = 103 , N = 80 42 . Left hand side: Absolute error
ij , Right hand side: Relative error
ij /
ij .
Third, for the plastic strain controlled step in (7.21), a nonlinear system of equations of the
form
Jn (
pl
pl
pl
n ) =
(n = 1, . . . , N )
(7.22)
n =
n
n1
has to be solved in each substep, i. e. for each corrected plastic strain increment
pl
n . The
evaluation of Jn involves a strain controlled integration of the form (6.56) for the current
target
pl
n , i. e.
Z 1
Z 1
pl

dt
Jn (
dt (t) dt =
J (t,
, ,
1 , . . . ,
I , R)
n ) =
0
where
(t) = n + t
n ,
n = 0 +
n1
X
j .
j=0
A numerical solution of system (7.22) has been computed in Hertel [53] with the iterative
scheme
(
(0)
n = en ,
(i = 0)
(7.23)
(i)
(i1)
(i1)
pl
n =
n
Jn (
n )
n ,
(i = 1, 2, . . .)
and strain controlled forward integrations, cf. section 7.4.2.2, scheme (I), in Bronstein et
al. [19].
148
Now on figure H you see, which low convergence speed (7.23) exhibits in a practical example.
It is not clear whether a solution of (7.22) actually exists nor whether it is unique. However,
the numerical convergence of (7.23) indicates that it is stable.
The costs for a single function evaluation of Jes are just only double as much as the one of
J and that the average -step size during the increment es is just slightly smaller than
during the increments n .
In this example for algorithm (7.23), we have a ratio of about 21.62 = 250.1/11.57 in the
number of function evaluations and 21.58 = 18.13/0.84 in the number of -steps, averaged
(k)
over all outer increments tn . The criterion for iteration break is chosen as kJn (
n )
7
pl
n k 1.0e .
Figure H. Comparison of our algorithm I with algorithm (7.23), where N = 80 45 and = 103 . Left hand
side: Number of iterations. Right hand side: Total number of function evaluations.
Alternatively, the stress controlled iteration

(
(0)
sn = esn ,

(i)
(i1)
(i1)
sn =
sn
k Jsn (
sn )
pl
n ,
(i = 0)
(i = 1, 2, . . .)
(7.24)
may be applied. Here k > 0 is a preconditioning factor, chosen small enough to achieve
stability, and as large as possible to accelerate convergence. Experiments show that iteration
(7.24) needs much more steps, even if k is chosen largest possible.
pl /b
Note that Newtons method instead of (7.24) is not applicable, since the Jacobian c
s
is very close to be singular, because each pointwise Jacobian

dt c
pl
1
en
,
(7.25)
= e en
b
H
dt s
is dyadic and therefore singular. (Here we use the matrix-vector notation from section 6.2.2.)
The derivation of (7.25) is similar to the one in section 6.2.2, cf. (6.11), (6.23) and (6.59).
Note that the output of the stress controlled step (7.21) consists of pl and eel , whose sum is
in general not equal to after the first plastic yielding, cf. (6.39) and the remarks in section
ttgen et al. [72].
4 of Ko
7.2.2
149
The unsmoothed noise test
We now have a look at another numerical test, where we correct some unsmoothed white
noise. In engineering applications (measurements), such noise is sometimes unavoidable,
when a canonical smoothing without smearing out extrema is not clear. It is important to
verify that our algorithm is able to manage these difficulties.
Figure I. Left hand side: Relative computation times. Right hand side: Average number of -steps on the
interval [0, 1]. Both as functions of relative error tolerance .
For
T = N = 1000,
tn = n,
tn = 1
we construct three scalar random load signals

L11 (tn ) = A rnd11 (n),
L22 (tn ) = A rnd22 (n),
L12 (tn ) = A/ 2 rnd12 (n)
with appropriate initial

values L11 (0), L22 (0), L12 (0), consistent with (6.27), (6.28). Here
A 100, 150, . . . , 450 and the random numbers are uniformly distributed in the interval
[1, 1]. Of course, we use the same random signals while varying A. The total number of
Dormand/Prince calls in step H is increasing with A, i. e. increasing plastic flow.
A
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
number DoPri5 calls 13 223 489 680 784 842 882 906
Figure I gives some statistical information about the total relative computation times and the
amount of integration steps for different load levels A. Everything looks quite reasonable.
Figure J gives good illustration about
(the orange on both sides), e eR (the green on both
(i) the one-to-one coupling R
sides), cf. lemma 6.3.1.
(ii) the simultaneity of e d = es e and d = s
, cf. (6.3), (6.5) and the left hand side.
150
cf. section
(iii) phases of expansion and relaxation of the memory surface radii eR and R,
6.3.4 and the right hand side.
e (e), B
(), B
eR (0), B
R (0). None of
(iv) the forbidden domains outside the closed balls B
them is intruded.
Figure J. Distances and radii. Left hand side: Development of the yield surface radii e and . Right hand
side: Development of the memory surface radii eR and R.
It is again worth mentioning that discontinuity detection at the memory surfaces SeR and SR
is indeed possible, cf. [39, 40], but not really necessary here.
7.3
The modified correction model
The algorithm III of this section for the modified correction model is a predictor (P) - corrector
(C) method. For the sake of briefness, we present here the (S2) version of section 6.4, as we
need it later in chapter 8.
The task is to find the input function p 22 such that correction model outputs 11 , 22 satisfy
constraint (6.103) for given functions f1 , f2 . As before, we consider the piecewise linear
problem, i. e. we consider the elastic stress components e 11 , e 12 and the pseudo stress p 22
to be in P W L([0, T ], R). As usual, we let
e
ij,n = e ij (tn ),
ij,n = p ij (tn ),
ii,n = ii (tn ),
fi,n = fi (tn ),
...
We assume that f1 , f2 satisfy the assumption (6.115) of lemma 6.4.2.

Predictor (P).
provide.
We present here two choices for the initial guess, both are easily cheap to
The Elastic predictor. The choice, which one clearly first thinks of, is the elastic
predictor
p
22,n = e 22,n ,
(7.26)
since p 22,n should not be too far away from e 22,n .
151
As already pointed out in Han/Reddy [49] or Comi/Maier [29], the elastic predictor in
the context of finite element computations is not always the best choice. Our experiments
confirm this here as well, see figure L. Hence in the following, we give a heuristic alternative,
which will be quite successful.
The Taylor predictor. We guess a good initial value for the searched input p 22 ,
assuming that it is in some sense smooth enough. We are looking for a better
choice by considering the equidistant extrapolation problem, i. e. to extrapolate given
equidistant data points

p
p
22 t(K1)t , . . . , p 22 tt , p 22 t
22 t+t
in order to foreguess the solution at the next time step. By virtue of lemma B.1.2 we
set for the initial guess

K1
X
K
p
k
p
22,n =
(1)
22,nk1 for n K
(7.27)
k+1
k=0
where the K points

p
22,n1 , . . . , p 22,nK
have already been computed before. K N is a natural number, to be chosen adequately.

The Taylor predictor is inspired by the assumption that the searched component p 22 will be
not so far away from the smoothness of e 11 , e 22 or e 12 , even if we know that p 22 will not
be of class C K . We still have in mind that we may w.l.o.g. assume 0 < tn 1 because of
rate-independence, even though we have defined tn to be unity.
Figure K. Left hand side: Number of Newton corrections for each of the smooth paths of section 8.3 for
K {1, . . . , 4}. K = 1 corresponds to the elastic predictor. Right hand side: Constraint deficiency
Sn /k = 22,n 11,n /k for the choice (6.108) and 1/k {7, . . . , 5} as function of unknown p 22,n . The
orange plot corresponds to the example in section 8.3.
152
Corrector (C). We repeat correcting with Newtons method until the algebraic constraint
(6.103) is satisfied. At time tn , we have to solve the nonlinear equation
Sn (x) = f1,n 11,n (x) f2,n 22,n (x) = 0
(7.28)
for the unknown pseudo stress

x = p 22,n = p 22,n1 + p 22,n .
(7.29)
According to the proof of lemma 6.4.2, equation (7.28) can equivalently be expressed with
the aid of the internal state variables, namely

pl
pl
e (x) E f
(x)
+
f
(x)
+
11,n (x)(f1,n f2,n )
1,n
2,n
11,n
22,n
n
e
A22,n (x) ,
x A22,n (x) =
n (x)
f1,n f2,n
where
11,n (x) = A11,n (x) +
n (x) e
11,n
e (x)
n
Here, the previous states

e
n1 ( eAn1 ),
Rn1 ( en1 ),

eA11,n (x) ,
A, A as in (6.118).
n1 ( An1 ),
n1 ( n1 ),
R
pl
n1
and the actuals

f1,n ,
f2,n ,
11,n
are known, so that the actual states

e
n ( eAn ),
Rn ( en ),
n ( An ),
n ( n ),
R
pl
n
depend solely on x.
We denote
= e = e = e11 , p22 , e12
(7.30)
the Jacobian with respect to the modified plane elastic stress tensor, written as a row-vector,
cf. (6.110). The Jacobian matrix
is evaluated further below in the next paragraph.
Algorithm III.
It turns the
Input
(the time signals)

n , f1,n , f2,n
E, , epl , pl
(the parameters)
e i e
0 (the initial values)
pl
i0 , R
0 , 0 , 0 , R0 ,
into
Output
22,n ,
n ,
es ,
n
sn ,
e ,
n
n ,
eel ,
n
el
n,
epl ,
n
pl
n ,
ei ,
n
in ,
n,
n,
eR
n,
n,
R
e ,
n
n ,
d,n ,
d,n , n
Lower indices n are outer loop indices, whereas the upper indices i enumerate the backstresses. n, l and i vary again as in (7.10). For the sake of simplicity, we formulate it
assuming that the initial constraint for t = 0 is already satisfied for the elastic stress, i. e.
p
22,0 = e 22,0 .
It reads as follows.
(7.31)
153
A Initialisation as in algorithm I with (7.31).

B For n = 1, . . . , N
C
Define the predictor (P) by

p
22,n =
as in (7.26)
as in (7.27)
if n < K
,
if n K
p 22,n = p
22,n p 22,n1 .
Redefine e n as in (6.110) with p 22,n instead of e 22,n .
Set esn acc. to (6.111).
While true
e i e
n :=
Set pl
in , R
n , n , n , Rn ,
Solution of forward elastic stress controlled integration sweep as in
algorithm I, lines D - K, over [0, 1] at = 1
e i
e
n1
with initial states pl
in1 , R
n1 , n1 , n1 , Rn1 ,
and external input path es( ) = esn1 + esn , es(

) = esn
H
Compute Jacobian (
n ) as in the next paragraph simultaneously.
Set Sn := f1,n 11,n f2,n 22,n , Sn := f1,n

11,n f2,n
22,n .
2 + f2 )
If |Sn | < Tolerance(f1,n
2,n
K
L
Break While.
Else
Newton correction (C) p 22,n := p 22,n (p22 Sn )1 Sn .
Redefine e n as in (6.110) with p 22,n instead of e 22,n .
Set esn acc. to (6.111).
Set p 22,n := p 22,n1 + p 22,n acc. to (7.29).
Tests show that there seems to exist exactly one solution of (7.28) in each incremental outer
step, cf. figure K, that Newtons method converges for arbitrary real initial guess. It does
not matter which nonlinear equation solver is used (here: Newton) in order to find it.
We have tested algorithm III for the six cyclic, smooth input paths from section 8.3. Using
the elastic predictor (7.26), about four Newton iterations are needed for correction.
But the Taylor predictor (7.27) turns out to yield much better initial values. Here it is possible
to have just about two Newton corrections, depending of the choice of number of backward
points K, cf. as well figure K. The optimal choice of K depends on the degree of smoothness
of p 22 and is not known a priori. The numerical experiments here show what is the optimal
K. (But clearly, p 22 is not of class C K for any K.)
154
7.3.1 Remark (Total amounts for algorithm III) Compared to (7.12), we have altogether for
the free boundary case
total number of differential equations:
total number of algebraic equations:
3(2I + 1) + 2 = 6I + 5
1
with the same number of variables and parameters as in (7.13).
The evaluation of the Jacobian. It is realised as follows. We consider the forward

integration sweep (line K, algorithm I) with the affine linear input path
e
= e 0 + te,
e,
s=D
= e,
e,
s = D
(7.32)
from (5.21) and e, e as in (6.110), (6.111). Let as in

which the deviatoric projection D
(7.30), we use matrix-vector notation. Initially, we have from (7.32)
e = tI,
e = I,
es = tD,
es = D.
With the use of the standard calculus rules

x, y M = y t M x + xt M y,
kxkM =
xt M x
,
kxkM
(x) = x + x
for R3 -valued functions x and y and scalar valued functions , we arrive after some computation at

t
(6.11)
e
e 2
e
e
e
e
en = e
k
s
k
I
(
s
(
s
)M
D
M
k s ek3M
(for the corrected outward normal),
e e
(6.12)
ei = eQi 1 + ea e b R (ei )t M en
(6.13)
eci = 0,
(for the prefactors and exponents),

e

e
e

k i kM
k i kM i e
(6.14) e
e
e
e
e
d i
=
ci r i n ln
i i
er
er
i
i
(6.15)
de
I
X
j=1
dej
(for the backstresses),

deR
(6.16)
de
(6.22)
e e
0
e
t
( ) M de

if e BeR (0) or (e), de M < 0
otherwise
f ( R) deR
(for the radii) and

eH
dt
(6.22)
(6.23)
(de)t M en + ent M de + de

1 e t e t
e
e
n M D + s M n dt H
eH
155
(for tangent modulus and the accumulated strain). After reparametrisation from to t, we
receive
dt ei
(6.23)
dt dei + dei dt ,
dt eR
(6.23)
dt deR + deR dt .
Similar formulas hold of course again for the remaining quantities of the corrected stress
space. The simultaneity implies that the time derivative of the corrected stress is given by

1

e e
e
(6.29)(6.30)
1 e
1
1e .
D
(7.33)
dt
=
D dt
+ e D dt + e dt e dt
Pulling back the yield surfaces centres via (6.118), and denoting their radiis ratio by r = /e
we get

1
1 dt e,
1 dt
(7.34)
dt eA = D
dt A = D
,
r = e dt rdt e ,
the sensitivity of the corrected stress rate

dt
(7.33)(7.34)
dt A + (t r + r)I + (e eA) r rdt eA
and the sensitivity the corrected strains

(6.30)
dt el = C 1 dt
,
(6.23)
(6.30)
dt pl = dt en + en dt ,
dt = dt el + dt pl .
R1
Differentiation under the integral sign yields (
) = 0 dt ( ) d , which especially gives
us the desired partial derivatives 11 /p 22 and 22 /p 22 .
156
Chapter 8
Comparison with elastoplastic BVP

solutions and measurements
Here in chapter 8, we consider a typical engineering example for the application of our correction model. We demonstrate the large-scale parameter identification for the elastic (and the
elastoplastic) Jiang parameters by a well-established optimisation method, where we evaluate
the gradients with respect to the parameters by the algorithmic (or automatic) forward differentiation technique. We compare the correction model results both to transient elastoplastic
finite element computations and strain measurements.
To avoid misunderstandings, we point out that in this chapter 8, we take up the numerical
point of view. This means that we always mean the derivatives of the numerical code. (Note
that the correction models both for (EPK) and (EPJ) material depend just in a Lipschitz
manner on the parameters, cf. as well chapters 2 and 3.)
In our example, we have a geometry in form of an axle, which exhibits rotational symmetry
around the global 1 -direction i. e. in coordinate system S .
A specimen of this axle exists in reality, see Hertel [53]. It is made of the steel S460N, which
shows many nonlinear hysteresis phenomena, ratchetting amongst others. Therefore, in order
to target at measurements, the (EPJ) model is appropriate for this steel, whereas the (EPK)
model is inadequate.
-g(,
t)
-

e2 - e1
forces
f (, t)6= 0?
@
I
@
1 e1
e2
0
B
S
(encastre)
NB
e3
k
'
6
?S
e3
(k , t), (k , t)
(k , t), e(k , t)
tr
(k , t), tr(k , t)
moments
@
I
@
1,g (rigid)
(8.1)
@
I
@
1 \ 1,g
g(, t) =
Li (t)gi ()
Loads, here normal force and torsional moment of scalar magnitude Li (t), are applied at
the point , along the global 1 -direction. All stresses and strains at k , appearing in the
sequel, are measured in the local k -coordinate-system S, whose 3-direction is collinear with
157
158
comparison with elastoplastic bvp solutions and measurements 8
the outward normal of at k . Consequently, all stress tensors e(k , ),

(k , ), (k , ) are
33
plane at k , i. e. in Rsp , the special free boundary case from section 6.1.
Let us consider the following three ways to get the stresses and strains at the free boundary/notch k , namely
(a) Measurements. You get the true stresses tr(k , t) and strains tr(k , t) or at least some
components (normal or shear) of them. Internal state variables are not present or
measurable. We do not consider measurement errors.
(b) Nonlinear quasistatic elastoplastic finite element analysis with an appropriate constitutive model. We have the elastoplastic stresses and strains (k , t), (k , t) and all
internal state variables (k , t), R(k , t), (k , t) etc. at our disposal.
(c) Linear quasistatic elastic finite element analysis plus subsequent correction with the
same constitutive model. The elastic stresses e(k , t) and strains e(k , t) are fed into
our numerical correction to get better stresses and strains
(k , t), (k , t) and ap
proximations to the internal state variables (
k , t), R(k , t), (k , t) etc. In addition to
(k)
the pl , a set of elastic parameters epl for each k has to be determined.
We compare the third way (c) with both (a) and (b). The influence diagram illustrates these
three ways. We do not consider displacements.
(a)
(b)
(c)
forces f (, t), g(, t)
geometry
elements H
HH

j
?
?
?

elastoplastic BVP
E,
specimen
elastic
BVP
Y
H
H
B
B
plasticity
model, pl A B
?
?
?
B
A Be
e
tr( , t), tr( , t)
(k , t), (k , t)
k
k
A B (k , t), (k , t)
P
i
PP
A B
PP
AKA
PP
PP
ep(k)
A
PP
AA error
H
P
P
error
l
HHAU NB
PP
?
P
A
P
P
j
H
AU
P
q
P
multiaxial
(k , t), (k , t)
correction
physics
mathematics
Let us denote the values of the tensors at the time points 0 = t0 < . . . < tN = T of
consideration by (7.4) as in chapter 7, cf. algorithm I and III, and set
e (k)
(k)
(k)
= e 0 , . . . , e N ,
(k)
(k)
(k) = 0 , . . . , N ,
(k)
(k)
(k) =
0 , . . . ,
N ,
...
k = 1, . . . , K. Together with (6.32), the numerical correction function from algorithm I or

III can thus be written as

(k) , . . . .
e (k) , p, ep(k) =
(k) ,
(k) , (k) , (k) , el,(k) , pl,(k) , (k) , (k) , R
(8.2)
8 comparison with elastoplastic bvp solutions and measurements
159
additionally depends on Youngs modulus E and Poisson ratio , but they are considered
constant and remain unchanged. We present in this section two results (tg means target).
(a) We target at some notch strain measurements tg k (t) = tr(k , t),
Here we have just the 11- and 12-components at our disposal.
tg (t)
k
= tr(k , t).
(b) We target at the nonlinear finite element results with parameters pl , i. e. tg k (t) =
(k , t), tgk (t) = (k , t), which will be of course of the main interest from the mathematical point of view. We investigate both (EPJ) and (EPK) material.
(k)
For each k , k = 1, . . . , K a full set of elastic parameters epl

(a), we distinguish two possibilities.
(k)
(i) We vary the epl
has to be determined. In case
and keep the pl fixed.

(k)
(ii) We vary both the epl and the pl . A higher dimensional parameter space has better
chances to reflect reality (a). The additional costs for the gradient evaluation are low,
as we will see below in figure L on page 165.
We justify (ii) in connection with (a), since we know that Jiangs constitutive law for S460N
is hard to parametrise. As the elastoplastic BVP solution suggests, see page 173, the material
parameters p1 , . . . , pL are not very certain. We refer to the following former works.
The material. For a set of Jiang material parameters pl of S460N with I = 5 backstresses, we refer to Hoffmeyer et al. [62].
The axle. The geometry of the axle (8.1) is described in detail in Hertel [53], section
4.1, 4.2, so that we have been able to build up a finite element model of it. In addition,
notch strain measurements have been performed.
The total parameter identification procedure consists of two steps.
(k)
Determination of initial values for the parameters epl

4.4, by derivation from load-notch strain curves.
at k , see Hertel [53], section
Mathematical optimisation (fine tuning) of parameters, especially the doubtful ones,

in the least-squares sense.
In this chapter, we are solely concerned with the second step. Without good initial values
out of the first step, a mathematical minimisation method alone would find any local minimum, which is far too large compared to the global minimum. As we have a huge amount of
parameters, there will be very many local minima.
The advantage of our kind of correction approach compared to Glinka et al. [18, 44, 83, 104],
Chu [23] or Barkey [3] lies in the fact, that the latter do not comprise elastic parameters
ep(k) which may serve as additional tuning devices. We have tested our correction model
l
against the cited methods and received better results, especially for ratchetting, cf. as well
remark 6.4.3.
For the sake of notational simplicity we assume in the rest of the chapter, that we are applying
our method to one single point, i. e. K = 1 and = K .
160
8.1
Parameter identification
Let tg = (tg 0 , . . . , tg N ) and tg = (tg0 , . . . , tgN ) denote the targets, which we want to
approximate optimally. The actuals corresponding to the actual parameters set (p, ep) are
given by the evaluation of the correction model with the constant input e, which is not
depending on (p, ep),

ep), (p, ep), el (p, ep), pl (p, ep), . . . .
(p, ep),
(p, ep), (p,
(8.3)
e, p, ep =
For the objective function F , giving the error between actuals and targets, and which has to
be minimized, we choose the weighted least squares residue
X
X
F (p, ep) =
Fn(ij) (p, ep),
(8.4)
n=0,...,N i,j=1,2,3
where the summands are given by

(ij)
Fn (p, ep)
(ij)
2 w(ij)

w (ij) e
(ij) 2
tg (ij)
+
n (p, p) n
n(ij) (p, ep) tgn

=
2
2
(ij)

2 w(ij)
w (ij) e
(ij) 2
(ij)
n(ij) (p, ep) tgn

+
n (p, p) tg n
+
2
2
+ ...
(8.5)
(ij)
> 0 (i, j = 1, 2, 3) do not depend on (p, ep). We have the

and the positive weights w
freedom to choose the weights in (8.5) in order to switch on/off the components that are
needed. If both and have to be targeted at once, the wij have to be much larger than the
wij . To this end, we recommend wij E 2 wij . Note, that Youngs modulus E does belong
neither to the pl nor to the epl .
For the minimisation of F , we have used a standard iterative gradient based optimisation
method:
determination of initial (p, ep)
?
- computation of actual F ij (p, ep), F ij (p, ep)
n
n
(8.6)
update of (p, ep)

For the initial step in (13), we refer to Hertel [53], section 4.4. For the choice of the update
in (13), i. e. choice of descent direction and length, several methods are well-known and
established, amongst others
the Gauss-Newton method, cf. section 4.3 in Deuflhard [31],
the Levenberg-Marquardt method, cf. Levenberg [81], Marquardt [85],
a Coleman-Li trust-region method, cf. Coleman/Li [27].
We chose a Coleman-Li algorithm for the iteration step, since it supports the constraints
(6.33), (6.34) and is designed for large numbers of parameters. The gradients

= p,ep = p1 , . . . , pL , ep1 , . . . , epL
or
= ep = ep1 , . . . , epL
161
(ij)
with respect to the parameters epl (case (i)) resp. (pl , epl ) (case (ii)) of each summand Fn
in (8.4) is computed via
(ij)
Fn (p, ep)
(CR)

(ij)
(ij)
(ij)
n (p, ep)
n (p, ep) tg n

(ij)
(ij)
(ij)
(ij)
n (p, ep)
n (p, ep) tgn
+ w
(ij)
+ ... .
Then obviously
F =
n=0,...,N i,j=1,2,3
Fn(ij) .
For the evaluation of the gradients

... ,
=
,
, ,
,
el ,
pl , ,
, R,
each time, in (8.3) is evaluated, we have in principal three possibilities, which are more or
less elemental.
ED External Differentiation or finite differences, based on the definition of the partial
derivatives,
e
( , p, ep) =
pl
e
( , p, ep) =
epl

1 e
( , p + pl el , ep) (e, p, ep) + O p2l ,
pl

1 e
e
e
e
e
e 2
(
,
p,
p
+
p
e
)
(
,
p,
p)
+
O
p
.
l
l
l
epl
(8.7)
(8.8)
el is the lth unit vector of length L and |epl |, |pl | 1, l = 1, . . . , L. The drawbacks
of ED have been pointed out in Hairer et al. [51], section II.6, and prove true for our
application, see section 8.2.
ID Internal Differentiation. For numerical analysis of parameter sensitivities for differential equations, it is recommended in [51], section II.6, to integrate the linearised
differential equations for the parameter derivatives, i. e.
d y
dt pl
d y
dt epl
=
=
y

Jes
Jes
+
t, y(t), p, ep
t, y(t), p, ep ,
y
pl
pl

y
Jes
Jes
t, y(t), p, ep e + e t, y(t), p, ep ,
y
pl
pl
y
(0) = 0,
pl
y
(0) = 0,
epl
(l = 1, . . . , L). Here y from (7.1), (7.2) additionally depends on p and ep. This is as well
very expensive, since the total number of differential equations will be very large and
the evaluation of the Jacobians Jes /y, Jes /pl , Jes / epl not really cheaper.
AD Algorithmic Differentiation, or Automatic Differentiation, is based on the multidimensional chain rule.
We clearly prefer the AD method. This modern technique and the reasons for its usage are
explained in the next section 8.2.
162
8.2
Algorithmic differentiation
The correction model in (8.2) may be implemented by algorithm I or III in chapter 7.

Independently of which implementation we consider, its code internally will be looking like
xi
xi
xi
xi
out (0 , . . . , N )
out (0 , . . . , N )
:=
:=
:=
:=
:=
:=
e
i
ep
iN
(i = 0, . . . , N )
in
(i = N + 1, . . . , N + L)
in
piN L
(i = N + L + 1, . . . , N + 2L) in
,
(i = N + 2L + 1, . . . , M )
i (xj )ji
(xj0 , . . . , xjN ) (0 j0 , . . . , jN M )
(xi0 , . . . , xiN ) (0 i0 , . . . , iN M )
(8.9)
where all variables appearing in the code are numbered by x0 , . . . , xM , corresponding to

ascending occurrence, altogether M + 1 ones. They are allowed to be any single/double-array
of size ni,1 . . . ni,ri , that is
scalars: ri = 1, ni,1 = 1, e. g. the pl and epl ,
vectors: ri = 1, ni,1 2, e. g. the n , n , e n in vector-notation,

matrices: ri = 2, ni,1 , ni,2 1, e. g. the n , n , e n in matrix-notation,
tensors of any higher order.
The first three lines in (8.9) is just the initialisation of the input, the last two lines the selection
of the output. All the functions i in the fourth line are elemental operations, e. g.
+, , , /, inv, exp, ln, log, sin, cos, tan, abs, max, min, sinh, Artanh, . . . ,
whose derivatives are known. The symbol j i indicated all the variables xj , on which the
variable xi depends (and which have consequently appeared in the code already before). Of
course, this may include the variable xi itself (e. g. xi := xi + 1, or xi := 2xi ).
Automatic forward differentiation now embeds this code for (original code) into a code for
and (extended code). It additionally contains the lines for the derivatives according
to the chain rule,
epl xi
epl xi
epl xi
epl xi

epl 0 , . . . , epl N
epl 0 , . . . , epl N
:=
:=
:=
(CR)
:=
:=
:=
(each code line for l = 1, . . . , L) and

pl xi
pl xi
pl xi
pl xi

pl 0 , . . . , pl N
pl 0 , . . . , pl N
:=
:=
:=
(CR)
:=
:=
:=
epl e i = 0
epl epiN = l,(iN )
epl piN L = 0
X

xj i (xj )ji epl xj
ji

epl xj0 , . . . , epl xjN
epl xi0 , . . . , epl xiN
pl e i = 0
pl epiN = 0
pl piN L = l,(iN L)
X

xj i (xj )ji pl xj
ji

pl xj0 , . . . , pl xjN
pl xi0 , . . . , pl xiN
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(8.10)
(0 . . .)
(0 . . .)
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(i = . . .)
(0 . . .)
(0 . . .)
(8.11)
163
(each code line for l = 1, . . . , L). The original code lines remain without exception. The
symbol denotes Kroneckers delta
xy =
1 if x = y
0 if x 6= y
The first equations in (8.10) resp. (8.11) express the fact, that the input e is independent
of all pl resp. epl . The second and third equations in (8.10) and (8.11) express the fact, that
each parameter is independent of all others (surely, except for itself, where the derivative is
trivially equal to unity).
8.2.1 Remark (Choice of AD mode) The number of output variables 2N (usually several thousands) is much larger than the number of parameters 2L in case (i) resp. 2L in case (ii). Thats
why the AD forward mode is to be preferred to the backward mode for the sakes of speed
and memory. For details/theory and further explanation, the reader is referred to Griewank
[46], Rall [97] or Rich/Hill [99].

8.2.2 Examples. (a) Consider the general exponential function x3 = 3 (x1 , x2 ) = xx1 2 , where
x1 > 0, x2 R. Here we have
x1
x2
x3 (CR) x2 x1 x2 x2
=
+
= x2 xx1 2 1
+ ln(x1 ) xx1 2
x1
x1
pl
x1
pl
x2
pl
pl
pl
(8.12)
for l = 1, . . . , L. Analogously for the epl .

(b) Consider matrix multiplication x3 = 3 (x1 , x2 ) = x1 x2 , where x1 Rn1,1 n1,2 , x2
Rn2,1 n2,2 and n1,2 = n2,1 . Here
x1
x2
x2
x3 (CR) x1
=
=
x2 + x1
(x1 x2 ) +
(x1 x2 )
pl
pl x1
x2
pl
pl
pl
(8.13)
for l = 1, . . . , L. Analogously same for epl .

The variables x1 , x2 , x1 /pl , x2 /pl are known, as they have already been calculated in
the code before. Hence, x3 , x3 /pl are computable.

In modern object orientated languages like Matlab , every array xi of type single/double is
now overloaded by an object (xi .V, xi .D) consisting of
xi .V
array of size ni,1 . . . ni,ri , type single/double, exactly identical to the original
xi (V = Value),
xi .D
array of size ni,1 . . . ni,ri 2L, type single/double, containing the 2L partial
derivatives xi /pl , xi / epl (D = Derivative).
All elemental operations i are overloaded as in example 8.2.2 for this new kind of objects.
This way, the additional lines (8.10), (8.11) need not be really inserted between the original
code lines. (In fact, this legitimates the terminology automatic.)
164
8.2.3 Remark (AD in MATLAB) An AD tool called Admat, developed by Verma et al., for
the language Matlab is free available under
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/verma/AD
(8.14)
but still not free of bugs and sophisticated errors. At the moment, a new site is arising with
many links to AD tools for other languages
http://www.autodiff.org/
Performance of Matlab-code: If the number of parameters is very large, as in our case,
you should realise the code for the derivatives not with for-loops, as it is (easily) formulated
in (8.10), ..., (8.13), Griewank [46] and realised in the tool (8.14), but use the typically
Matlab-kind operations ., ./, repmat, vertcat, etc.
We give two examples. The lines (8.12) resp. (8.13) from the example 8.2.2 are implemented
much more effectively in the form

pl x3 = x2 x1(x2 1) . pl x1 .+ ln(x1 ) x1x2 . pl x2
resp.
Here

pl x3 = pl x1 . x2 .+ x1 . pl x2 .
xi = xi .V,
pl xi = (p1 xi , . . . , pL xi ) = xi .D(l, :),
with the pointwise addition and multiplication

v .+ w = (v1 + w1 , . . . , vL + wL ),
v . w = (v1 w1 , . . . , vL wL ).
Analogously for the elastic parameters epl . In our case, we have designed our own AD code
optimised especially for a large number of parameters, such that we have gained a speed factor
of about 80 compared to the tool (8.14).

Why should AD be preferred to ED or ID? As code includes the integration of
discontinuous, highly nonlinear differential equations, it is very complex. Simple computation
of the derivatives by hand or adjoining the differential equations is very elaborate and prone
to errors. Thats why we do not apply ID.
In the following, we discuss the three aspects of computational time, accuracy and memory
requirements, why we do not apply ED.
(1) Computational time. It is clear that the computation times for ED process almost linearly
in the total numbers of parameters: For the forward/backward differences (8.7), (8.8), you
need 2L evaluations of at the disturbed operating points (e, p+pl el , ep) resp. (e, p, ep+
epl el ) plus 1 evaluation of at the operating point (e, p, ep).
The averaged computation times for the six loading paths [a], ..., [f] in section 8.3 are depicted
in figure L on page 165, where our own designed AD tool, see remark 8.2.3, is compared to
ED.
Performing AD, we have gained a speed factor of more than 5.8 in the case (ii) of 2L = 82
parameters (pl , epl ) and a factor of more than 3.3 in the case (i) of L = 41 parameters epl ,
compared to ED.
165
Further, the additional costs for the derivatives with respect to the pl are less than 20%, and
not L/(L + 1) 98% as it is when applying ED.
(2) Accuracy. When applying AD, the only occurring errors are roundoff errors (due to the
limited relative machine accuracy 2.22e16 ), there are no truncation errors (due to the
neglecting of higher order terms in (8.7), (8.8)). And there is no dependence on the ambiguous
choice of the perturbations epl and pl .
Figure L. Left hand side: Averaged computation times vs. number of parameters. Right hand side: Maximum
memory requirements as function of I and N .
(3) Memory requirements. For each variable, that has been used in code for , you additionally
need 2L variables in the extended code for (f, f ). The original code has
V =
ri
M Y
X
ni,j
i=0 j=1
variables of type single/double, so the extended code has (2L + 1)V = (2L + 1)
ones. Here in our case for algorithm I we have
PM Qri
i=0
j=1 ni,j
(7.13)
(67 + 6I)N + (4K + 36)I + 187,
thus with L = L(I, K) = (2K + 3)I + 6 from (7.13) there holds

(2L + 1)V
(24K + 36)I + 268K + 480 I + 871 N

+ 8(K + 9)(2K + 3)I + 800K + 1590 I + 2431.
The right hand upper bound is for fixed K linearly increasing in the number of time
points N and quadratically increasing in the number of backstresses I. The special choice
I = 5, K = 2 in (7.18) gives
(2L + 1)V 8051N + 33781.
166
It follows, that for N = 10 000 at most 645Mbytes of memory are needed, where 1 variable
= 1 double = 8 Bytes. This is practicable with contemporary technique. We should mention
that the estimate above contains the sensitivities of the whole output time signals of the whole
Jiang output variables (which are of course not all needed). The memory requirements for
algorithm III are estimated similarly.
H
Y
H
@
I
@
Figure M. The two load cases in the 2D model: Tension force (above), Torsion moment (below). Colored is
the Mises stress. lies in the red high-stressed notch region, cf. (8.1).
8.3
Results
We consider the rotational symmetric axle as in the beginning of chapter 8 and subject it to
simultaneous tension and torsion. The elastic stress is given by linear superposition
e
(t) = e(, t) = L1 (t) e 1 () + L2 (t) e 2 ()
(8.15)
of the linear elastic load case results
2.375e0
0
0
linear elastic BVP solution to static unit
e
1
0
0
5.299e
1 () =
= tension force along the rotational axis
(positively directed, i. e. in 1 -direction)
0
0
0
and
0
1.559e0 0
linear elastic BVP solution to static unit
e
0
0 = torsional moment along the rotational axis
2 () = 1.559e0
(positively directed, i. e. in 1 -direction)
0
0
0
cf. lemma 2.4.2. The elastic strain ratio constant k in (6.107) for the Seeger modified correction model is
k
(6.107)
e
e
L1 (t)e 1,11 () L1 (t)e 1,22 ()
1,11 () 1,22 ()
=
e
e
L1 (t)e 1,22 () L1 (t)e 1,11 ()
1,22 () 1,11 ()
167
since
e
2,11 () = e 2,22 () = 0.
It depends just on the tension load case e 1 (), but neither on the torsion load case e 2 ()
nor the applied load functions t 7 Li (t). The zeros of function t 7 L1 (t) can be lifted. Here
k = 1.214e1 .
We consider the following six periodic loading paths below, numbered by [a], ..., [f]. Paths
of this kind are widespread in engineering in order to check out the material model properties,
ttgen et al. [72, 73], Glinka et al. [18, 83, 44, 104].
cf. Hertel [53], Ko
> 0 denotes a fixed time period, = 2/ the corresponding circular frequency. (Clearly,
because of rate-independence, has in fact the meaning of a fictive time period.)
[a] The proportional path (class C ),
L1 (t) = A1 sin(t),
L2 (t) = A2 sin(t).
[b] The out of phase box path (class C 1 for t ),
L1 (t)
=
A1
2t/
1
cos 2t
1
cos 2t
1
t /2
/2 t
t , 0 4t/
t , 1 4t/
t , 2 4t/
t , 3 4t/
1
,
2
3
4
Here t = t mod .
2t/
1
L2 (t)
1
=
cos 2t
A2
cos 2t
[c] The out of phase circular path (class C for t ),

L1 (t) = A1
t/
t
,
cos t t
L2 (t) = A2
...
...
...
.
...
...
...
0
t
.
sin t t
[d] The butterfly path (class C ),

L1 (t) = A1 sin(t),
L2 (t) = A2 sin(t/2).
[e] Periodic torsion with constant tension, non-zero elastic mean stress (class C for t ),
L1 (t) = A1
t/
1
t
,
t
L2 (t) = A2
0
t
.
sin t t
[f] Out of phase circular path with non-zero elastic mean stress (class C for t ),
L1 (t) = A1
0
t
,
1 cos t t
L2 (t) = A2
t/
t
.
1 + sin t t
168
Loads [e], [f] will produce the ratchetting effect when considering Jiang material, since
the elastic mean stress and thus the elastoplastic mean stress is not equal to zero. Paths
[a], ..., [d] have a zero elastic mean stress. Paths [b], ..., [f] are usually called non-proportional in the community of material scientists.
The targets and weights. Three identification examples are presented here, combining (a)
with cases (i), (ii) and (b) with case (i).
(a) Measurements have been carried out, cf. section 7 in Hertel [53], for the normal resp.
shear strain tr11 (, t) resp. tr12 (, t) at the notch root, but not for the stresses. Here
we set
w22 = w33 = w23 = w32 = w13 = w31 = 0

w11 = 1,
w12 = w21 = 1/ 2,
and all wij = wij = wij = . . . = 0.
(b) Transient elastoplastic finite element computations, both with the (EPJ) model and the
(EPK) model have been performed and are presented, yielding (, t), (, t) and all
remaining respective internal state variables. Here we set
w33 = w23 = w32 = w13 = w31 = 0

w11 = w22 = 1,
w12 = w21 = 1/ 2,
and all wij = wij = wij = . . . = 0.
As a consequence of the simultaneity in the correction model, we have insight in the the
following facts.
8.3.1 Remark (Illustration) It is now interesting to use the fact, that e(, t), (, t) and
(, t)
are plane, so that we have a three dimensional situation, that we are able to see, cf. figure
N on page 169. Correction means algorithm I, Correction means algorithm III. We have

e
dim V = 2,
(t) = L1 (t)e 1 + L2 (t)e 2 : t [0, T ] LH e 1 , e 2 = V,
i. e. e (red) completely contained a two dimensional linear subspace V of R33
sp , spanned by
e
e
the linear independent tensors 1 and 2 . Consequently, we find with lemma 6.3.6

(t) : t [0, T ] V,
i. e. the trace of
(blue) trapped exactly in the same V . It follows from lemma 6.3.2, that
from t = 0 until the first active yielding at

e( ) (0)
t = t = sup [0, T ] : dev es( ) B
we have e(t) = (t) =

(t), and e(t) = (t) on [0, t ], i. e. all paths are identical. The
elastoplastic boundary value problem solution (green) meanders somewhere around this
plane, which is obviously due to the deformation of the nodes/elements surrounding . Of
course, the correction model does not see any neighbourhood.
For this reason, there is no chance at all to fit all components of sufficiently exact. The 11and 12-components can be approximated satisfactory, but the 22-component can be improved
with the modified correction model, under Seegers strain ratio relation (6.100), imposed on
(orange).
It would be very interesting to have the measurements tr at additional disposal in order to
plot.
(front view)
(side view)
169
(top view)
Correction
Correction
Figure N. The plane stress tensors e(, t) (red), (, t) (green) and

(, t) (blue resp. orange), at the free
boundary point in a 3D view. Depicted are the results from the butterfly load [d].
In the proportional case path [a], where L2 (t) = L1 (t) with a constant > 0, we even have

e
dim V = 1,
(t) = (1 + c)L1 (t) 1 + 2 : t [0, T ] LH 1 + 2 = V,
and consequently
(t) : t [0, T ] V,
the trace of
constrained in the one-dimensional linear subspace V .
170
8.3.2 Remark (Feasibility) It is important to note, that our correction model makes high-cycle
fatigue analysis feasible. The rough computing times for (EPJ) material are
10 cycles high end finite element solver Abaqus, approximately 40 minutes.
10 cycles slow interpreter Matlab, approximately 5 seconds (algorithm I), 12 seconds
(algorithm III).
Hereby, the same step-size controlled integrator for the inner loop, see section 7.1.2, algorithms
I, II and III in chapter 7 and remark 8.3.3, was used. The mesh had 4877 nodes and 1586
elements.

8.3.3 Remark (Finite element computations) Both the solution of the elastic BVP (8), (9)
and of the elastoplastic BVP (5), ..., (7) have been performed with the finite element solver
Abaqus. In both cases, eight node, biquadratic, axial symmetric solid elements with reduced
integration have been chosen, cf. Kardestuncer [71], part 3, section 1.4a. The number of
degrees of freedom per node is three. They are the displacements in 1 and 3 direction and
the twist angle around the 1 direction.
Some remarks for the elastoplastic case. Jiangs model (EPJ) and the linear kinematic hardening model (EPK) have been implemented via the user subroutine interface Umat for user
defined constitutive material. The overall algorithm to iterate forces and displacements into
equilibrium is realised with Newton-Raphson algorithm (see Zienkiewicz/Taylor [115],
section 2.2.2), where Umat computes the stress increments at the elements integration
points from the strain increments = (u + ut )/2 through integration of the constitutive differential equations of (EPJ) or (EPK) by Dormand/Prince with discontinuity
detection. See algorithm II in section 7.1. This is an improvement of the subincrementation method of [115], section 3.4.1, as we have a variable step size controlling the local
time discretisation error. It leads to less convergence problems of the Newton-Raphson solver
compared to the use of the standard (EPK) implementation in Abaqus.
In order to assembly the total stiffness matrix, there is the necessity for computation of the
local stiffness matrix /. It is computed from

Z 1
Z 1
ep
ep
ep
C (t) dt ,
(8.16)
C (t)(t)
dt =
= C ,
=
0
under the assumption that (t)
= is constant over the interval [0, 1], t = 1, see [115],

section 3.4. From (8.16), we find
Z 1
C ep (t) d.
=
0
The integration of C ep can be realised parallelly during integration of Jiangs strain controlled
model, cf. algorithm II, via the simple quadrature scheme
Z 1
J
X
ep
j C ep ( j )
C (t) dt
t C + 1t
0
j=1
(6.62)

J
X
j I
t C + 1 t C
j=1
C I 2 1 t
J
X
j=1

2
j
j
n
(
)
(
)
2 + H( j )
!
j
n
( j ) n
( j )
2 + H( j )
171
(notation of section 6.2.2) and needs therefore only little additional cost compared to the
evaluation of /, via finite differences or algorithmic differentiation. Here the j ,
j = 0, . . . , J, are from the automatically generated partition (7.11) of [0, 1].

The following table gives an overview about the results, which are depicted on the following
pages 173-194. Correction means algorithm I, Correction means algorithm III.
(A)
(A)(i)
(A)(ii)
(B)(i)
(B)(i)
target
start of iteration
measurements (tr)
measurements (tr)
transient
elastoplastic BVP
solution ()
transient
elastoplastic BVP
solution ()
constitutive law
plotted
, e,
tr,
, e
tr,
, e
,
, e
(, ), (
,
), (e, e)
, , e
,
, e
(, ), (
,
), (e, e)
, , e
tr,
(EPJ)
(EPJ)
(EPK)
pages
173
174
175
176, ..., 178
179, ..., 181
182, ..., 184
185, ..., 187
188, ..., 190
191, ..., 193
For each computation, we consider virgin material, pl (0) = pl (0) = 0, i (0) =

i (0) =
e (0) = 0, i = 1, . . . , I, R(0) = R(0)
e
= R(0) = 0, (0) = (0) = 0 for Jiang, cf. section

i
6.1, and pl (0) = pl (0) = 0 for linear kinematic hardening. Note that for the exterior
forces g(0) = f (0) = 0 holds. Page 173 depicts the state-of-the-art, the starting point for
our identification. Page 194 additionally gives an example of a practical application (the
smoothed rough road) with linear kinematic hardening material and parameters identified
on paths [a], ..., [f]. A corresponding stress strain phase plot is given on the title page.
Some discussion of the results. In case (a), approach (ii) yields much better results than
approach (i). From a mathematical point of view this is too surprising, as we are minimizing
over a larger parameter domain. But the results are even much better than the elastoplastic
finite element results, which indicates that the material parameters pl in Hertel [53] and
Hoffmeyer et al. [62], for this steel are in fact not sufficiently exact identified.
Some remarks about figure O. For each of the computations, good results are already obtained
after about 15 steps or even earlier. This is quite satisfying, as it indicates that the Coleman-Li
algorithm is quite appropriate for our problem.
In (a) 8.2% (algorithm I) resp. 8.2% (algorithm III) of the initial error could be achieved.
The final least squares residues for both curves are almost identical. In both cases (i) and
(ii), the error curves only comprise the error in [e] and [f].
In (b) 34.5% (algorithm I) resp. 5.2% (algorithm III) of the initial error could be achieved.
(a)(i) It is seen that adjusting the elastic parameters epl alone unfortunately leads do a
deterioration of paths [a], ..., [d]. This is another hint at the insufficiency of the pl .
(a)(ii) we had cycles only from the paths [e] and [f] at our disposal. The good thing is,
that parameter identification just with paths [e] and [f] alone automatically improves the
remaining paths [a], ..., [d]. This really looks fine and indicates that the parameters found are
good and gives trust for more arbitrary loading. The results obtained for all paths are even
significantly better than the elastoplastic finite element results. This is obviously due to the
172
badly identified parameters, as already mentioned above. You can see, that the computed
strains are still slightly overestimating the measured strains, which may usually be desired, if
a subsequent fatigue analysis is performed.
(b) The error curves for the Seeger modified correction model (algorithm III) lie much below
the ones for the pure correction model (algorithm I), cf. remark 8.3.1. It is seen in the
plots, that the maxima/minima (the turning points) in the stress phase diagrams are hit
very exactly. The results for the corresponding strains are a little bit worse compared to the
stresses, but they are still and this is decisive for practice better than the elastic solution.
They lie somewhere between.
Figure O. Standardised least-squares residues (F (p() , ep() )/F (p(0) , ep(0) ))1/2 as functions of the iteration step
number are depicted in these graphs, both for Jiang material, (a) at left hand side, (b) at right hand side.
Why is path [c] in case (a) so bad? Due to Hertel [53], it is Jiangs model that exhibits bad
properties in out-of-phase loadings. The steel S460N shows out-of-phase hardening, i. e. the
measured strains in the cyclic stabilised regime are smaller than the computed ones. With
ring
improved constitutive models, you may get rid of this drawback, cf. Tanaka [106], Do
nlich [57].
[33, 34] and Herz [54]. For path [b], cf. as well the numerical results in Hu
8.3.4 Remark. Within the framework of this thesis, AD-sensitivity analysis of the whole left hand
high cycle chain on page 3 has been performed and is available from the author, starting
from the elastic BVP output until the damage. It includes
(1) Rainflow counting (uniaxial, multiaxial, critical plane approach), see [4, 35, 36, 37, 15,
26, 101].
(2) Uniaxial corrections (Neuber [90, 91], ESED [45]).
(3) Damage parameters: Manson, Coffin and Morrow [84, 28, 87], Smith, Watson and
Topper [105], Goodman, Bergmann, and many more.
Further, within the framework of a project with the technical university of Darmstadt, our
AD based parameter identification technique has successfully been tested for the DoringVormwald constitutive model [33, 34, 54], cf. section B.3 as well.

(a) Target: Strain measurements
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
173
Material: (EPJ)
Measurements
174
(a)(i) Target: Strain measurements
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Measurements

(a)(ii) Target: Strain measurements
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
175
Material: (EPJ)
Measurements
176
(b)(i) Target: Elastoplastic BVP stress
STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
177
Material: (EPJ)
Correction
178
STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
179
Material: (EPJ)
Correction
180
STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
181
Material: (EPJ)
Correction
182
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Correction

STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
183
Material: (EPJ)
Correction
184
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPJ)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
185
Material: (EPK)
Correction
186
STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
Material: (EPK)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRESS
Correction
187
Material: (EPK)
Correction
188
STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPK)
Correction

STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
189
Material: (EPK)
Correction
190
STRESS vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPK)
Correction

STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
191
Material: (EPK)
Correction
192
STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
Material: (EPK)
Correction

STRAIN vs. STRAIN
Correction
193
Material: (EPK)
Correction
194
Application example: Smoothed rough road
STRESS vs. TIME
Correction
Material: (EPK)
Correction
195
Lists of identified parameters. The constants E, (and , ) for all computations are
chosen as in (7.17).
(A) (ii) Target: Measurements (strain tr), Constitutive model: (EPJ)
i
1
2
3
4
5
i
1
2
3
4
5
ri
9.701e1
7.055e1
1.005e2
1.701e2
8.051e2
ri
8.991e1
5.263e1
5.091e1
3.830e1
6.890e1
e
ci
3
1.102e
3.509e2
1.828e2
7.211e1
3.717e1
c
i
1.153e3
3.601e2
1.884e2
7.065e1
3.665e1
e (1)
ai
1
2.205e
7.980e1
7.390e1
1.051e1
9.065e2
a1i
1
4.378e
4.524e1
1.365e1
5.880e1
3.137e1
e (1)
bi
1
7.171e
4.285e1
4.092e1
3.075e1
2.772e1
b1i
1.847e1
1.877e1
2.973e1
2.383e1
1.948e1
e (2)
ai
2
e (2)
bi
6
9.471e
3.640e1
7.357e1
4.166e2
6.392e3
a2i
1
1.299e
5.981e1
5.342e1
4.902e1
7.142e1
7.554e
2.808e1
7.008e2
2.567e1
2.262e1
b2i
+0
1.998e
2.717e+0
3.851e1
3.702e1
4.443e1
Qi
1.307e+0
1.567e+0
1.417e+0
1.036e+0
1.032e+0
Qi
2.487e2
3.699e2
7.742e3
4.143e3
7.428e3
e
a
e
b
e
a
e
b
e
cR
a
b
a
b
cR
2.037e+2
1.005e1
4.558e2
2.871e+1
2.584e3
9.583e+1
2.150e+2
1.122e1
2.737e2
4.999e+4
4.864e2
9.924e+1
(B) (ii) Target: Transient elastoplastic BVP solution (stress ), Constitutive model: (EPJ)
i
1
2
3
4
5
ri
8.389e1
6.987e1
1.065e2
1.719e2
8.135e2
e (1)
ai
2
e
ci
3
1.095e 2.766e
3.552e2 1.870e1
1.796e2
1.651e2
1
7.304e
1.304e1
1
3.771e 6.982e2
e (1)
bi
1
e (2)
ai
2
e (2)
bi
6
7.050e 6.909e
4.751e1
5.267e1
1
3.540e
1.925e1
1
2.526e
5.731e2
1
2.822e
1.148e1
1.581e
2.225e1
1.128e2
3.338e1
6.848e1
Qi
1.491e+0
7.068e+0
6.199e+1
1.360e+0
2.512e+0
1.952e+2
e
a 3.022e1
e
b 7.021e3
e
a
2.707e+1
e
b 1.195e+1
e
1.100e+2
cR
For the pl see page 144. The epl on the same page have been the initial parameters for each
identification procedure. We have I, K and L as in (7.18).
(B) (ii) Target: Transient elastoplastic BVP solution (stress ), Constitutive model: (EPK)
e
b11
1.191e5
b11
1.111e5
b22
1.183e4
b22
1.111e5
b33
0.000e0
b33
0.000e0
b12
1.297e5
b12
1.111e5
b13
0.000e0
b13
0.000e0
b23
0.000e0
b23
0.000e0
1.433e2
1.433e2
Here eB = (ebij )i,j=1,2,3 and B = (bij )i,j=1,2,3 . The initial parameters for the iteration have
been the material parameters itself. The identification could as well be done by hand here.
196
Part IV
APPENDIX
197
Appendix A
Proof of Krej
cs theorem
We give here the detailed proof of theorem 1.1.1 for the sake of completeness and because of
[75] for the proof of part (a) and proposition 4.1
its beauty. We adapt theorem 3.1 in Krejc
[76] for the proof of part (b) by the use of equivalence (B.12). The main ingredient
in Krejc
is the Hahn-Banach convex separation theorem.
(a) Proof for the class of CBV -functions. Step I. Let a function f CBV ([0, T ], X)
and a point s0 C be given. For N N, we introduce the equidistant partition
t0 = 0 < t1 = tN < t2 = 2tN < . . . < tN = N tN = T,
tN = T /N
of the interval [0, T ]. We define inductively

f0 = f (0),
fn = f (tn ),
p0 = f 0 s 0 ,
pn = f n s n ,
s0 = s0 ,
sn = A (fn pn1 ),
(n = 0)
(n = 1, . . . , N )
(A.1)
where the nonlinear projections

A : X C,
A : X X,
A +
A = id
are defined by
A (x) C,
k
A (x)kA = distA (x, C) = min kx ckA ,
cC
A (x) +
A (x) = x
(A.2)
for each x X, i. e. A (x) is the bestapproximation of x in C w. r. t. the norm k kA , cf.

proposition 21.1 in Heuser [55]. We set
fn = fn fn1 ,
sn = sn sn1 ,
pn = pn pn1
(n = 1, . . . , N ).
Let further N f , N p resp. N s P W L([0, T ], X) denote the piecewise linear interpolants

of the points f0 , . . . , fN , p0 , . . . , pN and s0 , . . . , sN . For t (n 1, n)tN therefore
N p)(t) =
(
pN
,
tN
N s)(t) =
(
sN
,
tN
We have for each x X the estimate
1

A
A (x), A (x) c 0
199
N f )(t) =
(
for all c C.
fN
.
tN
(A.3)
(A.4)
s theorem A
proof of krejc
200
(Hahn-Banach convex separation theorem, cf. lemma 2.2 (i) in [75].) There holds by construction
(A.2)
(A.1)
(A.1)
A (fn pn1 ) = fn pn1 A (fn pn1 ) = fn pn1 sn = pn pn1 ,

hence,
(A.4)
A1 (pn pn1 ), sn c = A1
A (fn pn1 ), A (fn pn1 ) c 0
(A.5)
for all n = 1, . . . , N and all c C. Especially for the choice c = sn1
Therefore,
(A.1)

0 A1 pn , sn A1 pn , fn .
kpn k2A
(A.6),(A.1)
and
A1 pn , fn
(B.12)
cA kpn k kpn kA
(A.6)
(CS)
kpn kA kfn kA
(B.12)
CA kfn k
for n = 1, . . . , N , where CA , cA are norm equivalence constants chosen as in (B.12). We

receive the N independent upper bound
(N p) =
N
X
n=1
N
CA
CA X
kfn k
(f ).
kpn k
cA
cA
(A.7)
n=1
For t (n 1, n)tN , where the functions N p, N s, N f are affine linear, we estimate

1

t
t
(A.3)
n1
1
N p)(t), (N s)(t) c
=
A pn , sn1 +
tN A (
sn c
tN

=
A pn , sn c A1 pn , sn

t tn1
1
+
A pn , sn
tN
(A.5),(A.6)

A pn , sn
(A.6)

A1 pn , fn
(CS),(B.12)
2
CA
kpn k f (tN )
for arbitrary c C, where

f (tN ) =
sup
|1 2 |tN
kf (1 ) f (2 )k.
Thus for arbitrary C([0, T ], C)
Z tD
E (A.7) C 3
N
A1 d(N p)( ), (N s )( ) A (f )f (tN ) 0.
cA
0
(A.8)
s theorem
A proof of krejc
201
Step II. Chiastically inserting (N s)(t), N N, resp. (M s)(t), M N, as test functions

into (A.8) and addition gives similar as in the proof of theorem 1.3.1
1
kN p(t) M p(t)k2A
2

Np
M p)( ), (N f M f )( ) d
A1 (
Z t
1

Np
M p)( ), (N s M s)( ) d
A (
(A.8)
2
CA
kN f M f k N p M p
3

CA
(f ) f (tN ) + f (tM )
cA

CA
2
f (tN ) + f (tM )
CA (f ) 2 kN f M f k +
cA
(A.7)
by the fundamental triangle estimate for Riemann-Stieltjes integrals, cf. section V.1 in
N
N
[75]. Since N f f in C([0, T ], X) and f (tN ) 0, the sequence N p is Cauchy in
N
C([0, T ], X) and we have N p p for some p in C([0, T ], X) because of completeness.

N
Step III. Therefore, N s s in C([0, T ], X) where s = f p, yielding the second condition

N
in (1.3). Further, N s s in C([0, T ], X). Together with (A.7), all presumptions of

theorem 1.26, chapter V, in [75] are satisfied, thus passing to the limit is possible and yields
N
the first condition in (1.3). There clearly holds N s(t) s(t) in X for each t [0, T ], giving
especially the fourth condition in (1.3). As C is closed, there holds s C([0, T ], C), the third
condition in (1.3).
Because of proposition 1.18, chapter V, in [75], we see that p is in CBV ([0, T ], X) again,
satisfying
(A.7)
(p) lim inf (N p)

N
CA
(f ) < .
cA
Finally, s CBV ([0, T ], X) such that

(s) (f ) + (p)
1+

CA
(f ) < .
cA
Altogether, the existence of a solution of (1.3) in the class of CBV functions is proven.
Step IV. The uniqueness follows in the same way as in the proof of the Lipschitz estimates
in theorem 1.3.7.
(b) Proof for the class of W 1,q -functions. Step I. Let f even satisfy f AC([0, T ], X).
It follows by lemma 4.1 in [76] that the integral condition in (1.3) implies
Z
t2
t1

A1 dp( ), (s )( ) 0
C([t1 , t2 ], C)
(A.9)
for any choice 0 t1 < t2 T . Therefore, as p and s are of class CBV according to (a), by
s theorem A
proof of krejc
202
taking the test function = s(t1 ), we find
1
kp(t2 ) p(t1 )k2A
2
(A.9)
(IP )
t1
t2
t1
t2
t2
p( ), f ( ) f (t1 )
t1
t2
t1
D
E
A1 dp( ), f ( ) f (t1 )
1

A p(t2 ), f( ) d
t2
t1
t2
t1

A1 p( ), f( ) d

A1 p( ), f( ) d

A1 p(t2 ) p( ) , f( ) d
max [t1 ,t2 ] kp(t2 ) p( )kA
t2
t1
kf( )kA d,
where integration by parts for Riemann-Stieltjes integrals has been applied, cf. section 9.3 in
[76]. Therefore,
(B.12)
cA
kp(t2 ) p(t1 )k
2
Z t2
1
kf( )kA d
kp(t2 ) p(t1 )kA
2
t1
Z
Z T
(B.12)
kf ( )kA d CA (t2 t1 )
(t2 t1 )
0
T
0
kf( )kd,
where 0 t1 < t2 T maybe arbitrarily chosen. Now let > 0. We set, where we may
w.l.o.g. assume f 6 const,
1
Z T
cA
.
(A.10)
kf ( )kd
=
3CA
0
We let further 0 a1 < b1P< . . . < aN < bN T be any partition of [0, T ] such that
P
N
N
n=1 (bn an ) < . Then
n=1 kp(bn ) p(an )k < by construction (A.10). This means
p AC([0, T ], X). Therefore, s = f p AC([0, T ], X) as well. Thus (A.9) implies
Z
t2
t1

A1 p(
), (s )( ) d 0
C([t1 , t2 ], C)
for any choice 0 t1 < t2 T . This is equivalent to the pointwise inequality hA1 p(t),
s(t)
ci 0 for all c C and a. e. t [0, T ] in (1.4).
Step II. Now, if we assume that f even satisfies f W 1,q ([0, T ], X) for any 1 q ,
relation (1.12) yields
kp(t)k
CA
kf (t)k,
cA
ks(t)k
CA
kf (t)k
cA
Therefore, s, p W 1,q ([0, T ], X). The proof is finished.
a. e. in [0, T ].
Appendix B
Miscellaneous
B.1
Two useful lemmas
The two lemmas presented here are of general nature and therefore extracted here into the
appendix. The following lemma is similar to a one in Br
ezis [8].
B.1.1 Lemma (Gronwall-kind estimate) Let two real valued-functions f L1 ([0, T ], R) and
g C([0, T ], R) be given, such that there holds
f (t) 0 for a. e. t [0, T ],
g(0) 0.
Then the inequality

Z
1 2
1
g (t) g2 (0) +
2
2
for all t [0, T ]
f ( )g( )d
0
(B.1)
implies the cancelled inequality

|g(t)| |g(0)| +
Proof: For 0, we define
Thus
f ( )d
2
1
h (t) := g(0) + +
2
1
1
h (t) g2 (0) + 2 +
2
2
Z
Z
for all t [0, T ].
(B.2)
for t [0, T ].
f ( )g( )d
0
(B.1)
(B.3)
f ( )g( )d
1 2
1
g (t) + 2
2
2
1 2
h (t)
2
e. in [0, T ].
(B.4)
a. e. in [0, T ].
(B.5)
for each > 0. From this, there follows

1 2
g (t) h (t)
2
Further
and
(B.4)
p
d
h (t) = f ( )g( ) f ( ) 2h ( )
dt
203
204
miscellaneous B
The function h is of class AC([0, T ], R) and

h (t) (B.5) 1
dp
h (t) = p
f (t)
dt
2
2 h (t)
Thus
and
(B.4)
|g(t)|
h (t)
2h (t)
(F T ) 1
h (0)
2
2h (0) +
a. e. in [0, T ].
f ( )d
(B.3)
f ( )d = |g(0)| + +
f ( )d,
0
which is valid for each > 0. Letting 0 gives the desired result (B.2).
The following lemma is standard, since it is a direct consequence of Taylors expansion theorem.
B.1.2 Lemma (Extrapolation lemma) Let the function x be of class C K (U, CN ) in an open
neighbourhood U R of the compact interval [t (K 1)t, t + t] for an appropriate
K N. Then the discrete differential operator with K backward steps of size t, defined by

K
X

K
k K
t+t x =
(1)
xt+(1k)t ,
(B.6)
k
k=0
satisfies

K t+t x = O tK
for t 0.
(B.7)
It is the only one of degree K with this property (B.7).
Proof: With the help of the well known identity

K1
X
K
k+
(1)
k
= 1,
for K 1, = 0, . . . , K 1
k+1
(B.8)
k=0
for the binomial coefficients, whose validity can be verified inductively, we straightforwardly
arrive at

K xt+t xt+t

K
X

(B.6)
k K
=
(1)
xt(k1)t
k
k=1
!

K1
K1
X
X x() |t

(T E)
K
k+1
K
(1)
=
(kt) + O t
k+1
!
=0
k=0

!
K1
K1
X x() |t
X

K
=
+ O tK
(t)
(1)k++1 k
k+1
!
=0
(B.8),(T E)
t+t
k=0
+ O tK
where we have used Taylor expansion theorem twice. This yields (B.7). Uniqueness follows
from the identity theorem for polynomials.
B miscellaneous
B.2
205
Remarks on linear operators and function spaces
In this section, we resume some basic facts and estimates for linear operators and function
spaces. Let 1 q and T > 0 be real numbers.
For two separable Hilbert spaces X, Y

and a linear, continuous operator A L X, Y , let its corresponding hatted operator A be
defined by
A : M AP ([0, T ], X) M AP ([0, T ], Y ),
(A)(t)
= A((t)).
Then clearly, A is linear. There holds
such that

A L (W 1,q ([0, T ], X), k kW 1,q ), (W 1,q ([0, T ], Y ), k kW 1,q )

d
(A)(t) = A (t)
dt
Further,
a. e. in [0, T ].

A L (C([0, T ], X), k k ), (C([0, T ], Y ), k k ) ,

A L (CBV ([0, T ], X), k kCBV ), (CBV ([0, T ], Y ), k kCBV ) .
These assertions are clear, because there holds

W 1,q ([0,T ],Y ) =
kAk
Z

kA( )k d
kAk
1/q
k( )k d
= kAk kkW 1,q ([0,T ],X)
Z
1/q
kA(
)k d

Z
+ kAkq
T
0
1/q
q
k(
)k d
1/q
for the standard Sobolev norm in the case 1 q < (for q = similarly), and (again
similarly)
W 1,q, kAk kkW 1,q, ,
kAk
kAk kk ,
kAk
CBV kAk kkCBV

kAk
for the other (semi-)norms. The operator A is continuous, its norm bounded by the original
operator norm
W 1,q kAk,
kAk
W 1,q, kAk,
kAk
kAk,
kAk
CBV kAk.
kAk
Similar inequalities hold, if A has a continuous inverse A1 L(Y, X), cf. theorem 10.5 in
Heuser [55] or theorem 26.A in Zeidler [111]. Then from
kAk A kk,
there follows
W 1,q A kkW 1,q ,
kAk
A kk ,
kAk
W 1,q, A kkW 1,q, ,

kAk
CBV A kkCBV ,
kAk
(B.9)
206
miscellaneous B
with at least the same coercivity constant A . The maps

: L(X, Y ) L C([0, T ], X), C([0, T ], Y ) ,
A 7 A,

: L(X, Y ) L W 1,q ([0, T ], X), W 1,q ([0, T ], Y ) , A 7 A

and : L(X, Y ) L CBV ([0, T ], X), CBV ([0, T ], Y ) , A 7 A
are all linear and continuous with norms kk, which is bounded above by unity. Operator
convergence
n
An A
in L(X, Y )
implies
n
An A
n
An A
n
An A

in L C([0, T ], X), C([0, T ], Y ) ,

in L W 1,q ([0, T ], X), W 1,q ([0, T ], Y ) ,

in L CBV ([0, T ], X), CBV ([0, T ], Y ) .
(b) We consider the special case that Y = X . If the operator A L(X, X ) is symmetric
and strongly positive, i. e.

A = A ,
A, A kk2 ,
(B.10)
definition

A1 , ,
kk2A =
(B.11)
yield a scalar product and a norm on X X . This new norm, induced by A, is equivalent
to the original one,
cA k k k kA CA k k.
(B.12)
It should be mentioned that the inverse operator A1 L(X , X) exists, because the estimate
A kk2
(B.10)
(CS)
A, kAk kk
implies estimate (B.9), which in turn yields the invertibility. As well, A1 is symmetric and
strongly positive. There holds
kA1 k = sup
6=0
1
kk (B.9)
kk
kA1 k
= sup
=
.
sup
kk
kAk
kk
A
6=0
6=0 A
(B.13)
With proposition 29.5 in Heuser [55], we estimate above

kk2A
1
= A
,
sup A1 , = kA1 k
2
kk
kk kk
k k=1
and below
kk2A
hA1 , i
h, Ai
A kk2
A
=
=
=
.
kk2
h, i
hA, Ai
kAk2 kk2
kAk2
By taking the infimum over all such CA resp. the supremum over all such cA in (B.12), one
sees that the choices
kAk
1
,
A
cA
CA kA1 k1/2
(B.13)
(B.14)
B miscellaneous
207
for the equivalence constants are possible. Similarly as above in part (a), we are able to
estimate
Z T
Z T

2
2
k(t)k
dt = A kk2W 1,2 ([0,T ],X)

k(t)k dt + A
A, W 1,2 ([0,T ],X) A
0
for the standard scalar product
and

A,
W 1,2 ([0,T ],X)

A(t), (t) dt +
T
0

A(t),
(t)
dt

1,2,
A kk2W 1,2, ([0,T ],X)
A,
W
([0,T ],X)
for the non-standard scalar product

A,
W 1,2, ([0,T ],X)

= A(0), (0) +
T
0

A(t),
(t)
dt.
as it is
Summarising, it is possible to identify operator A with its hatted counterpart A,
sometimes done in the theoretical part of this thesis.
B.3
Remarks on the D
oring-Vormwald constitutive model
ring,
In the meantime, an improved version of Jiangs model has been developed by Do
Vormwald et al. [33, 34] and Tanaka [106], which takes out-of-phase phenomena better
into account. We have a short look at it in this section, since some theoretical pieces of section
6.3.1 are still valid here.
We consider Dorings model in its simplified version without Tanaka tensor, cf. Tanaka
[106]. We discuss it in the form given in Herz [54]. For the sake of shortness we have just a
look at its explicit stress controlled version. The following differential equations

d = b T ,
(B.15)

i
d ri = b rT ri ,
(B.16)
!
i +1

i
ki k
(i ) +
d ri ,
(B.17)
d i = ci ri n
ri
ri
d =
I
X
d j
(B.18)
j=1
replace (6.47), ..., (6.50). Here again always, if not otherwise stated, i = 1, . . . , I. The socalled target functions T , rTi : [0, ) R are given by
!
!
I
I
i
X
X
aj
a
j
i
1+
,
rTi () = r
T () = 1 +
(1 + bj )2
(1 + bj )2
j=1
and the ratchetting exponent by

a
i
,
0 = Qi 1 +
(1 + b R)2
j=1

i = i0 + (i0 + 1)(ci 1) 1 |n : (i )| .
(B.19)
208
miscellaneous B
exactly in the
The reparametrisation w. r. t. time t is again done by multiplication with ,
same way as in (6.22) and (6.23). The essential differences compared to Jiangs model are
that
(1) the partial backstress limiting radii ri themselves satisfy differential equations, namely
and (B.16), and are not constant.
(2) the yield surface radius is not coupled to the memory surface radius R any more.
The governing equation (B.15) is the same as those for the ri . (The memory surface is
realised in the plastic strain space, which we do not consider here.)
(3) the ci are constant parameters and not functions of any more.
Compared to Jiangs model (6.42), the Jiang-like subsystem of Dorings model, which we
examine here, can be written as

1 , . . . , I , r1 , . . . , rI , ,
pl , ,
R = Js t, , 1 , . . . , I , r1 , . . . , rI , , R .
For the parameters, which are appearing in the model, we assume that they satisfy the
conditions
i
Qi , ci 0,
ci > 1,
a > 1,
b, bi , r
, > 0
(B.20)
and (B.21) for the aij and aj . The following lemma is the analogon to lemma 6.3.5.
B.3.1 Lemma (Limiting radii) Consider the differential equations (B.16), ..., (B.18) for the partial backstresses, and let a function

1
n Cpw
[0 , T ], Vd B1 (0) ,
(0 0 < T < )
be given as driving input for them. Then here holds:

1 [ , ], V .
(a) Each i is in Cpw
0 T
d
(b) If the initial value satisfies ki (0 )k < ri (0 ), then there holds ki ()k < ri () in the
whole interval [0 , T ].

P
(c) Necessarily, there holds () Ii=1 ri () in the whole interval [0 , T ].
Proof: Obviously,
d ki k = d i : (i ),
i : (i ) = ki k.
We have
d
ki k
ri
!

ki k i +1
1
ki k
(B.17)
d ri
.
=
d ki k
= ci n : (i )
ri
ri
ri
As obviously, since Qi 0 and ci 1,

1 i + 1
(B.19),(CS)
we arrive with the substitution

1 + (1 + a )Qi + 2(ci 1) (1 + a )Qi + 1 =: Ki ,
i () =
ki ()k
ri ()
B miscellaneous
209
at the scalar radial differential inequality

(CS)
d i ci 1 iKi .
And now the same technique as in the proof lemma 6.3.5 can be applied to construct a supersolution.

It is essential for the radii ri and to remain positive for all times. The parameter condition
ring et al. [33, 34, 54] is by far not sufficient.
for the aij resp. the aj , given in Do
B.3.2 Lemma. Sufficient conditions on the model parameters for the radii to remain positive, i. e.
i
ri rmin
> 0 resp. min > 0, are given by
I
X
aij >
j=1
1
1,
i
r
I
X
resp.
aj >
j=1
Proof: As aij 0 we have

Ji := inf
rTi ()
rTi (0)
i
r
1+
I
X
j=1
aij
1
1.
(B.21)
> 1.
(B.21)
(B.22)
i
i
Set rmin
= Ji 1. Then rmin
> 0 and we find
d ri
(B.16)
= b rTi () ri
Separation of the variables yields

Z
Z
dri
b d
Ji ri

(B.22)
b Ji ri .
i
ri Ji eb Ji 1 rmin
For the yield surface radius , the proof is completely the same.
In the next lemma, we prove that the terminology target radii for the functions T and rTi
is in fact justified.
B.3.3 Lemma (Target radii) For each i = 1, . . . , I, we have got the following asymptotic behaviour

i
i
ri () rTi ()
0,
rTi () r
,
r i () r
.
(B.23)
for the limiting radii. The same asymptotics

() T ()
0,
T () ,
()
(B.24)
hold for the yield surface radius.
Proof: We just prove (B.23). Asymptotics (B.24) are then proven in exactly the same way.
As trivially

MTi := sup rTi < ,
[0 ,)
210
miscellaneous B
we conclude for all 0

|ri ()| |ri (0 )|eb(0 ) + MTi 1 eb(0 ) |ri (0 )| + MTi =: M i < .
The variation of constants method for equation (B.16) yields the explicit solution
Z
b( )
eb(p) rTi (p) dp,
ri () = ri ( )e
+b
(B.25)
which holds for each , where 0 is fixed. Thus, we are able to give an upper
estimate of the error between the ith radius and its target radius function

Z

i
h

(B.25)(IP
)

ri () rTi ()
eb(p) dp rTi (p) dp
rTi ()
=
ri ( )eb( ) + rTi (p)eb(p)

Z

eb(p) dp rTi (p)dp,
ri ( ) rTi ( )eb( ) +
where integration by parts has been applied. Further

Z
Z X
I
i

aij
b(p)
i
dp

e
dp rT (p)dp r
(1 + bj p)2 dp
j=1
i
2r
I
X
j=1
|aij |bj
I
X
|aij |
dp
i
=
r
=: i ( ).
(1 + bj p)3
(1 + bj )2
j=1
Let > 0 be arbitrary. We now choose 0 large enough such that i ( ) < /2, and
set = ln /(2b(M i + MTi )). Thus we have |ri () rTi ()| < for all max{ , },
proving the first limit in (B.23). The second limit in (B.23) is trivial, from where the third
limit in (B.23) easily follows.

We would like to have an analogon to lemma 6.3.3, i. e. that the movement of i is directed
towards n. Unfortunately, this cannot be guaranteed in general. Multiplication of (B.17)
with n yields
!

i : n
ki k i +1
(i ) : n +
d ri
(B.26)
d i : n = ci ri 1
ri
ri
We discuss this, assuming that the parameters satisfy (B.21) and (B.20). As well, the premises
of lemma B.3.1 are assumed to hold.
First, if i : n 0, the first summand in (B.26) is non-negative due to the Cauchy-Schwarz
inequality, but can be arbitrarily close to zero, so that we have d i : n 0 only if d ri 0,
i. e. if ri rTi due to (B.16). Second, if i : n 0, we have d i : n 0, if
b
r i ri ,
b + ci T
(B.27)
as this implies
(CS)
0 d ri
i : n
1+
ri
(B.27)(B.16)
i : n
d ri d i : n
ci ri +
ri
in the case d ri 0. (In the opposite case the desired inequality holds trivially.) Due to
lemma B.3.3 there exists 0 such that (B.27) is satisfied for all . This implies the
intuitive movement.
B miscellaneous
B.4
211
Open challenges and questions
Of course, not all questions could be answered by this thesis. As usual, new questions like
the following arose.
Application of AD techniques for parameter identification for nonlinear elastoplastic
BVP computations.
Further reduction of rejected steps through detecting the discontinuities at SeR and
SR , cf. section 7.2, with dense output methods for Runge-Kutta algorithms from Enright/Jackson [39, 40].
The proof of assumption 6.3.9. Derivation of error estimates for correction model for
Jiang material.
Proper limit corr {}, cf. section 3.2. Improvement of local error estimates for the
correction model.
The dynamic, viscoelastic, viscoplastic, nonlinear elastic case. The boundary value
problem with nonlinear geometry.
We hope that these questions will provide new open mathematical challenges and tasks for
the future.
212
miscellaneous B
Appendix C
Notations
Notations I. Throughout the thesis, we make frequently use of the following practical shortcuts.
(CR)
(CS)
(FT)
(HI)
(MI)
(IP)
(TE)
Chain rule
Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
Fundamental theorem
Holders inequality
Minkowskis inequality
Integration by parts
Taylor expansion theorem
a. e.
e.
LH
n
almost everywhere
everywhere
linear hull
limit n
transpose
complement
orthogonal complement
Notations II. Let n N, 0 < T R, k N0 (= order of strong/weak differentiability),

1 q (= order of Lebesgue/Bochner integrability) and be a domain with the same
properties as in the introduction.
First, let for normed linear spaces X and Y
X
L(X, Y )
= L(X, R)
space of linear continuous functions X Y ,

space of linear continuous functions X R (= dual space).
=
=
Second, let
C k ([0, T ], )
C ([0, T ], )
k ([0, T ], )
Cpw
=
=
=
space of k-times continuously differentiable functions,

space of analytical functions,
space of piecewise C k functions,
where the respective image depends on the context. Third, let for a separable Hilbert space
X, the following notations hold for X-valued functions
M AP ([0, T ],
Lq ([0, T ],
BV ([0, T ],
CBV ([0, T ],
C([0, T ],
AC([0, T ],
W 1,q ([0, T ],
X)
X)
X)
X)
X)
X)
X)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
P W L([0, T ], X)
space of all functions,

space of q-Bochner-integrable functions,
space of functions of bounded variation,
space of continuous functions of bounded variation,
space of continuous functions,
space of absolutely continuous functions,
space of absolutely continuous functions with q-Bochner-integrable
derivative,
space of piecewise linear functions.
213
214
notations C
Note that AC = W 1,1 holds, i. e. its elements are differentiable a. e. with L1 -integrable weak
derivative, and for which the fundamental theorem holds. Fourth, let
C k (,
C k (,
q
L (,
Lq (1 ,
W k,q (,
k,q
W0 (, 0 ,
Rn )
Rn )
Rn )
Rn )
Rn )
Rn )
=
=
=
=
=
=
space
space
space
space
space
space
of
of
of
of
of
of
k-times continuously differentiable functions,

k-times uniformly continuously differentiable functions,
q-Lebesgue-integrable functions over ,
q-Lebesgue-integrable functions over 1 ,
Sobolev functions of order (k, q),
Sobolev functions of order (k, q), vanishing on 0 .
Notations III. (a) We let and | | denote the standard Euklidian scalar product/norm on
Rn , i. e.
n
n
X
X
2
a2i
(a, b Rn ).
(C.1)
ai bi ,
kak =
ab =
i=1
i=1
We let further denote the standard dyadic product on Rn , its elements considered as column
vectors, i. e.
a b = a bt ,
(a b)ij = ai bj
(a, b Rn ).
2
(b) We let : and k k denote the standard Frobenius scalar product/norm on Rnn Rn ,
i. e.
n
n
X
X
a2ij
(A, B Rnn ). (C.2)
aij bij = tr(At B) = tr(B t A),
kAk2 =
A:B=
i,j=1
i,j=1
(c) Hydrostatic is to be understood synonymically to spherical. Indices s, p, d, h shall always

mean
symmetric,
plane,
deviatoric,
hydrostatic.
(d) For a domain Rn and mappings
A C 1 (, Rmn ),
w C 1 (, Rn ),
v C 1 (, Rm ),
we define
div w C 0 (, R),
DIV A C 0 (, Rm ),
v C 0 (, Rmn )
by
div w(x) =
n
X
j=1
xj wj (x),
n
X

xj Aij (x),
DIV A(x) i =
j=1

v(x) ij = xj vi (x),
componentwisely for i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , n and x . The tensor divergence DIV is the

vector divergence div of each row Ai, of A.
(e) For any normed linear vector space (V, k k),

Br (v) = x V : kx vk < r
(v V, r > 0)
is the open ball with centre v and radius r and

: V (B1 (0), k k),
v 7
v/kvk
0
if v 6= 0
if v = 0
the radial projection onto the unit sphere.

(f) The symbol ()+ : R [0, ), x 7 max{0, x} denotes the usual ramp function.
(C.3)
Bibliography
[1] Allgower E. L., Georg K.: Introduction to numerical continuation methods. Classics in applied mathematics. SIAM Philadelphia, 2003.
[2] Armstrong P. J., Frederick C. O.: A mathematical representation of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect. CEGB, report RD/B/N 731, 1966.
[3] Barkey M. E., Socie D. F., Hsia K. J.: A yield surface approach to the estimation of
notch strains for proportional and nonproportional cyclic loading. Journal of engineering
materials and technology, Vol. 116, No. 2, pp. 173-180, 1994.
tzle H., Kru
ger W., Maier B., Petersen J.: Mul[4] Beste A., Dressler K., Ko
tiaxial Rainflow: A consequent continuation of professor Tatsuo Endos work. The Rainflow Method in Fatigue (ed. by Y. Murakami), Oxford, 1992.
[5] Besseling J. F.: A theory of elastic, plastic and creep deformations of an initially
material showing anisotropic strain hardening, creep recovery and secondary creep.
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of applied mechanics, Vol. 25, pp. 529-563, 1959.
[6] Bonet J., Wood R. D.: Nonlinear continuum mechanics for finite element analysis.
Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.
[7] Bower A. F.: Cyclic hardening properties of hard-drawn copper and rail steel. Journal
of the mechanics and physics of solids, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 455-470, 1989.
[8] Br
ezis H.: Operateurs maximaux et semi-groupes de contractions dans les espaces de
Hilbert. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, 1973.
[9] Brokate M.: Elastoplastic constitutive laws of nonlinear kinematic hardening type.
Pitman research notes in mathematics series, Vol. 377, pp. 238-272, 1998.
[10] Brokate M.: Hysteresis operators. Phase transitions and hysteresis. Lecture notes in
mathematics, Vol. 1584, Springer, Berlin, pp. 1-38, 1994.
P.: Maximum norm wellposedness of nonlinear kinematic hard[11] Brokate M., Krejc
ening models. Continuum mechanics and thermodynamics, Vol. 9, pp. 365-380, 1997.
P.: On the wellposedness of the Chaboche model. International
[12] Brokate M., Krejc
series of numerical mathematics, Vol. 126, pp. 67-79, 1998.
P., Rachinskii D.: Some analytical properties of the multidi[13] Brokate M., Krejc
mensional continuous Mroz model of plasticity. Control and cybernetics, Polish academy
of sciences, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 199-215, 1998.
215
216
references
P.: Wellposedness of kinematic hardening models in elasto[14] Brokate M., Krejc

plasticity. Mathematical modelling and numerical analysis, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 177-209,
1998.
P.: Rainflow counting and energy dissipation
[15] Brokate M., Dressler K., Krejc
for hysteresis models in elastoplasticity. European journal of mechanics A/Solids, Vol.
15, pp. 705 - 737, 1996.
P.: On the Mroz model. European journal of
[16] Brokate M., Dressler K., Krejc
applied mathematics, Vol. 7, pp. 473 - 497, 1996.
[17] Brokate M., Sprekels J.: Hysteresis and phase transitions. Springer, New York,
1996.
[18] Bucynski A., Glinka G.: An analysis of elasto-plastic strains and stresses in notched
bodies subjected to cyclic non-proportional loading paths. Biaxial/multiaxial fatigue
and fracture, pp. 265-283, 2000.
[19] Bronstein, I. N., Semendjajew, K A., Teubner-Taschenbuch der Mathematik. B.
G. Teubner Stuttgart, Leipzig, 1996.
[20] Chaboche J.-L.: Constitutive equations for cyclic plasticity and cyclic viscoplasticity.
International journal of plasticity, Vol. 5, pp. 247-302, 1989.
[21] Chaboche J.-L.: On some modifications of kinematic hardening to improve the description of ratchetting effects. International journal of plasticity, Vol. 7, pp. 661-678,
1991.
[22] Chu C. C.: A three-dimensional model of anisotropic hardening in metals and its
application to the analysis of sheet metal formability. Journal of the mechanics and
physics of solids, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 197-212, 1984.
[23] Chu C. C.: Incremental multiaxial Neuber correction for fatigue analysis. Society of
automotive engineers transactions, Vol. 104, No. 5, pp. 595-602, 1995.
[24] Ciarlet P.: Mathematical elasticity. Volume I: Three dimensional elasticity. Studies
in mathematics and its applications, Vol. 20, Elsevier Science B.V., North Holland,
1988.
[25] Ciarlet P., Lions J. L.: Basic error estimates for elliptic problems. Handbook of
numerical analysis, Vol. II, Finite element methods (pt. 1), Edited by Ciarlet and Lions,
Elsevier Science B.V., North Holland, 1991.
[26] Clormann U. H., Seeger T.: Rainflow-HCM: Ein Zahlverfahren f
ur Betriebsfestigkeitsnachweise auf werkstoffmechanischer Grundlage. Stahlbau, Vol. 3, pp. 65-71,
1986.
[27] Coleman T. F., Li Y.: An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization
subject to bounds. SIAM journal on optimization, Vol. 6, pp. 418-445, 1996.
[28] Coffin L.F.: A study of the effect of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 76, pp. 931-950, 1954.
references
217
[29] Comi C., Maier G.: On the convergence of a backward difference iterative procedure
in elastoplasticity with nonlinear kinematic and isotropic hardening. Computational
plasticity: Models, software and applications, Pineridge Press, Swansea, pp. 323-334,
1989.
[30] Deimling K.: Nonlinear functional analysis. Springer, Berlin, 1985.
[31] Deuflhard P., Hohmann A.: Numerische Mathematik. Eine algorithmisch orientierte Einf
uhrung. DeGruyter, Berlin, 1993.
[32] Dormand J. R., Prince P. J.: A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae. Journal
of computational and applied mathematics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 19-26, 1980.
ring R., Hoffmeyer J., Seeger T., Vormwald M.: A plasticity model for cal[33] Do
culating stress-strain sequences under multiaxial nonproportional cyclic loading. Computational materials science, Vol. 28, pp. 587-596, 2003.
ring R.: Zum Deformations- und Schadigungsverhalten metallischer Werkstoffe
[34] Do
unter mehrachsig nichtproportionalen zyklischen Beanspruchungen. Dissertation, TU
Darmstadt, 2006.
[35] Dressler K., Hack M.: Fatigue lifetime estimation based on rainflow counted data
using the local strain approach. European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, Vol. 15, No.
6, pp. 955-968, 1996.
ger W., Beste A.: Rainflow - das Werkzeug f
[36] Dressler K., Kru
ur den Lebensdauernachweis von Fahrzeugen, Bauteillebensdauer - Rechnung und Versuch. 19. Vortragsveranstaltung des DVM-Arbeitskreises Betriebsfestigkeit, M
unchen, 1993.
ger, W.: The multiaxial rainflow method. Low
[37] Dressler, K., Carmine, R., Kru
cycle fatigue and elasto-plastic behaviour of materials (ed. by K. T. Rie). Elsevier
Science Publishing, London, 1992.
[38] Duvaut G., Lions J. L.: Inequalities in mechanics and physics. Die Grundlehren der
mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 219, Springer, 1976.
[39] Enright W. H., Jackson K. R.: Interpolants for Runge-Kutta formulas. ACM transactions on mathematical software, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 193-218, 1986.
[40] Enright W. H., Jackson K. R.: Effective solution of discontinuous IVPs using a
Runge-Kutta formula pair with interpolants. Applied mathematics and computation,
Vol. 27, pp. 313-335, 1988.
[41] Evans L. C.: Partial differential equations. Graduate studies in mathematics, Vol. 19,
American mathematical society, 1998.
[42] Filippov A. F.: Differential equations with discontinuous righthand sides. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1988.
[43] Garud Y. S.: A new approach to the evaluation of fatigue under multiaxial loading.
Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 103, pp. 118-125, 1981.
218
references
[44] Glinka G., Bucynski A., Ruggeri A.: Elastic-plastic stress-strain analysis of
notches under non-proportional loading paths. Archives of mechanics, Vol. 52, No. 4-5,
pp. 589-607, 2000.
[45] Glinka G., Molski K.: A method of elastic-plastic stress and strain calculation at a
notch root. Materials science and engineering, Vol. 50, pp. 93-100, 1981.
[46] Griewank A.: Evaluating derivatives. Principles and techniques of automatic differentiation. Society for industrial and applied mathematics. Frontiers in applied mathematics, Vol. 19, 2000.
ger K.: Initial-value problems for elastoplastic and elasto-viscoplastic systems. In:
[47] Gro
Fucik S. and Kufner A. [Eds.], Nonlinear analysis. Function spaces and applications,
Teubner, Leipzig, pp. 95-127, 1979.
[48] Hack M.: Schadigungsbasierte Hysteresefilter. Dissertation, TU Kaiserslautern, D386,
Shaker Aachen, 1998.
[49] Han W., Reddy R.B.: Plasticity. Mathematical theory and numerical analysis. Interdisciplinary applied mathematics 9, Springer, New-York, 1999.
[50] Han W., Reddy R.B.: Computational plasticity: The variational basis and numerical
analysis. Computational mechanics advances, Vol. 2, pp. 283-400, 1995
[51] Hairer E., Noerset S.P., Wanner G.: Solving ordinary differential equations I:
nonstiff problems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993.
[52] Hairer E., Wanner G.: Solving ordinary differential equations II: stiff and
differential-algebraic problems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991.
[53] Hertel O.: Weiterentwicklung und Verifizierung eines Naherungsverfahrens zur
Berechnung von Kerbbeanspruchungen bei mehrachsiger nichtproportionaler Schwingbelastung. Masters thesis, Bauhaus-Universitat Weimar, 2003.
[54] Herz E., Thumser R., Bergmann J. W., Vormwald M.: Endurance limit of autofrettaged Diesel-engine injection tubes with defects. Engineering fracture mechanics,
Vol. 73, pp. 3-21, 2006.
[55] Heuser H.: Funktionalanalysis. Theorie und Anwendung. Teubner Stuttgart, 1992.
[56] Hill R.: The mathematical theory of plasticity. Oxford classical texts in physical
sciences. Claredon press, Oxford, 2004.
nlich R.: On simultaneous torsion and tension of a circular cylindrical bar consist[57] Hu
ing of an elastoplastic material with linear hardening. Journal of applied mathematics
and mechanics, Vol. 58, pp. 509-516, 1979.
[58] Hiriart-Urruty J. B., Lemar
echal C.: Fundamentals of convex analysis. Springer,
Berlin, 2004.
[59] Hoffmann M., Seeger T.: A generalized method for estimating multiaxial elasticplastic notch stresses and strains. Part 1: Theory. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 107,
pp. 250-254, 1985.
references
219
[60] Hoffmann M., Seeger T.: A generalized method for estimating multiaxial elasticplastic notch stresses and strains. Part 2: Application and general discussion. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 107, pp. 255-260, 1985.
[61] Hoffmann M., Seeger T.: Mehrachsige Kerbbeanspruchungen bei proportionaler
Belastung. Konstruktion, Vol. 38, H.2, pp. 63-70, 1986.
ring R., Schliebner R., Vormwald M., Seeger T.: Lebens[62] Hoffmeyer J., Do
dauervorhersage f
ur mehrachsig nichtproportional schwingbeanspruchte Werkstoffe mit
Hilfe des Kurzrissfortschrittkonzeptes. FD-2/2000, FG Werkstoffmechanik, TU Darmstadt, 2000.
[63] Jiang Y.: Cyclic plasticity with an emphasis on ratchetting. PhD thesis, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1993.
[64] Jiang Y., Sehitoglu H.: Modeling of cyclic ratchetting plasticity, part I: Development of constitutive relations. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 63, pp. 720-725, 1996.
[65] Jiang Y., Sehitoglu H.: Modeling of cyclic ratchetting plasticity, part II: Comparison of model simulations with experiments. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 63, pp.
726-733, 1996.
[66] Jiang Y., Sehitoglu H.: Cyclic ratchetting of 1070 steel under multiaxial stress
states. International journal of plasticity, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 579-608, 1994.
[67] Jiang Y., Sehitoglu H.: Multiaxial cyclic ratchetting under multiple step loading.
International journal of plasticity, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 849-870, 1994.
[68] Jiang W.: A new constitutive model in the theory of plasticity. Part I: Theory. Journal
of pressure vessel technology, Vol. 117, pp. 365-370, 1995.
[69] Jiang W.: A new constitutive model in the theory of plasticity. Part II: Examples.
Journal of pressure vessel technology, Vol. 117, pp. 371-377, 1995.
[70] Kaliszky S.: Plastizitatstheorie. VDI-Verlag, D
usseldorf, 1984.
[71] Kardestuncer H.: Finite element handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1987.
ttgen V. B., Barkey M. E., Socie D. F.: Pseudo stress and pseudo strain based
[72] Ko
approaches to multiaxial notch analysis. Fatigue and fracture of engineering materials
and structures, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 981-1006, 1995.
ttgen V. B., Barkey M. E., Socie D. F.: Structural stress-strain analysis for
[73] Ko
non-proportional loading suitable for FEM-postprocessing. International proceedings in
fatigue design, Helsinki, 1995.
[74] Krasnoselskii M. A., Pokrovskii A. V.: Systems with hysteresis. Nauka, Moscow,
1983.
P.: Hysteresis, convexity and dissipation in hyperbolic equations. Gakuto In[75] Krejc
ternational series, Mathematical sciences and applications, Vol. 8, Gakkotsho, Tokyo,
1996.
220
references
P.: Evolution variational inequalities and multidimensional hysteresis opera[76] Krejc

tors. in: Pavel, Dr
abek et al. Nonlinear differential equations, Chapman research notes
in mathematics, Vol. 404, pp. 47-101, 1999.
P.: Vector hysteresis models. European journal of applied mathematics, Vol.
[77] Krejc
2, No. 3, pp. 281-292, 1991.
[78] Langhaar H. L., Stippes M. C.: Location of extreme stresses. Journal of elasticity,
Vol. 6, pp. 83-87, 1976.
[79] Lemaitre J., Chaboche J.-L.: Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge university
press, 1998.
[80] Leipholz H.: Einf
uhrung in die Elastizitatstheorie. G. Braun, Karlsruhe, 1968.
[81] Levenberg K.: A method for the solution of certain problems in least squares. Quarterly of applied mathematics, Vol. 2, pp 164-168, 1944.
[82] Lippmann H.: Mechanik des plastischen Fliessens. Grundlagen und technische Anwendungen. Springer, Berlin, 1981.
[83] Moftakhar A., Bucynski A., Glinka G.: Calculation of elasto-plastic strains and
stresses in notches under multiaxial loading. International journal of fracture, Vol. 70,
pp. 357-373, 1995.
[84] Manson S.: Fatigue: A complex subject. Some simple approximations. Experimental
mechanics, Vol. 5, pp. 193-226, 1965.
[85] Marquardt D.: An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters.
SIAM journal on applied mathematics, Vol. 11, pp 431-441, 1963.
[86] Melan E.: Zur Plastizitat des raumlichen Kontinuums. Ingenieur Archiv, Vol. 9, pp.
116-125, 1938.
[87] Morrow J.: Cyclic plastic strain energy and fatigue of metals. In: Internal friction,
damping and cyclic plasticity. 67th meeting of American society for testing and materials, ASTM STP 378, pp. 45-87, 1964.
z Z.: An attempt to describe the behaviour of metals under cyclic loads using a
[88] Mro
more general workhardening model. Acta mechanica, Vol. 7, pp. 199-212, 1969.
z Z.: On the description of anisotropic workhardening. Journal of the mechanics
[89] Mro
and physics of solids, Vol. 15, pp. 163-175, 1967.
[90] Neuber H.: Kerbspannungslehre. Theorie der Spannungskonzentration, genaue
Berechnung der Festigkeit. Klassiker der Mechanik. Springer, Berlin, 2001.
[91] Neuber H.: Theory of stress concentration for shear strained prismatical bodies with
arbitrary nonlinear stress-strain law. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of applied
mechanics, Vol. 28, pp. 544-550, 1961.
[92] Ohno N., Wang J. D.: Kinematic hardening rules with critical state of dynamical
recovery. Part I. International journal of plasticity, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 375-390, 1993.
references
221
[93] Ohno N., Wang J. D.: Kinematic hardening rules with critical state of dynamical
recovery. Part II. International journal of plasticity, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 391-403, 1993.
lya G.: Liegt die Stelle der grossten Beanspruchung an der Oberflache? Journal of
[94] Po
applied mathematics and mechanics, Vol. 10, pp. 353-360, 1930.
[95] Prager W.: Recent developments in the mathematical theory of plasticity. Journal of
applied physics, Vol. 20, pp. 235-241, 1949.
[96] Prager W.: The theory of plasticity: A survey of recent achievements. James Clayton
lecture. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, Vol. 169, pp. 41-57, 1955.
[97] Rall L. B.: Automatic differentiation. Techniques and applications. Lecture notes in
computer sciences. Springer, Berlin, 1981.
[98] Reismann H., Pawlik P. S.: Elasticity. Theory and applications. Wiley, New York,
1980.
[99] Rich L. C., Hill D. R.: Automatic differentiation in Matlab. Applied numerical
mathematics, Vol. 9, pp. 33-43, 1992.
[100] Rockafellar R. T.: Convex analysis. Princeton university press, Princeton, New
Jersey, 1970.
[101] Rychlik I.: A new definition of the rainflow cycle counting method. International
journal of fatigue, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 119-121, 1987.
[102] Shampine L. F., Reichelt M. W.: The Matlab ODE suite. SIAM journal on scientific
computing, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1997.
[103] Simo J. C.: Topics on the numerical analysis and simulation of plasticity. Handbook
of numerical analysis, Vol. VI, Numerical methods for solids (pt. 3), Edited by Ciarlet
and Lions, Elsevier Science B.V., North Holland, pp. 183-499, 1998.
[104] Singh M. N. K., Glinka G., Dubey R. N.: Elastic plastic stress-strain calculation in
notched bodies subjected to non-proportional loading. International journal of fracture,
Vol. 76, pp. 39-60, 1996.
[105] Smith K.N., Watson P., Topper T.H.: A stress-strain function for the fatigue of
metals. Journal of materials, Vol. 5, No. 4, 767-778, 1970.
[106] Tanaka E.: A nonproportionality parameter and a cyclic viscoplastic constitutive
model taking into account amplitude dependencies and memory effects in isotropic
hardening. European journal of mechanics. A/Solids, Vol. 19, pp. 173-188, 1994.
[107] Temam R.: Mathematical problems in plasticity. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1985.
[108] Visintin A.: Differential models of hysteresis. Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol.
111, Spinger, Berlin, 1994.
[109] Wheeler L. T.: Maximum principles in classical elasticity. In: Mathematical problems
in elasticity (ed. by Russo R.), World scientific publishing, Singapore, pp. 157-185, 1996.
222
references
[110] Zeidler E.: Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications II/A. Linear monotone
operators. Springer, New York, 1990.
[111] Zeidler E.: Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications II/B. Nonlinear monotone operators. Springer, New York, 1990.
[112] Zeidler E.: Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications III. Variational methods
and optimization. Springer, New York, 1985.
[113] Zeidler E.: Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications IV. Applications to
mathematical physics. Spinger Verlag, New York, 1988.
[114] Ziegler H.: A modification of Pragers hardening rule. Quarterly of applied mathematics, Vol. 17, pp. 55-65, 1959.
[115] Zienkiewicz O. C., Taylor R. L.: The finite element method. Volume 2: Solid
mechanics. Butterworth-Heinemann, Fifth edition, Burlington, 2003.
Thank you!
Thanks to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Graduiertenkolleg Mathematik und Praxis, TU Kaiserslautern, for the financial support, the Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft for the technical and partial financial support, professors Rene Pinnau, TU Kaiserslautern, and Martin Brokate, TU M
unchen, for scientific support.
Thanks to Olaf Hertel and Michael Vormwald, TU Darmstadt, for their kind
provision of experimental data.
Thanks to our whole MDF group, in particular to Albert, Fredrik, Ilker, Sabrina,
Sascha, Thomas and Thorsten for many cigarette/coffee/curry-sausage breaks and
donerler/kebablar, especially to Anja for postprocessing orthographic correction
and exceedingly to Gerd, Joachim, Michael and Klaus for this interesting mathematical subject and many fruitful discussions.
Further thanks to Andre, Andrea, Baschdi, Bolipoto, kabhi Carsten, Charly,
Ernst, Heinz, the Horts, Hwajeong, J
urgen, Judith, J
udith, K
uwi, the Langs,
Marco, Martin, the Michaels (D., G. and R.), Moni, nige Lijun, nige Lily, Peter,
Ratna, Ruthard, kabhi Scholli, Torsten and Waltrout.
Curriculum Vitae
Me
Name
Holger Lang
Parents
Hildegard Lang, nee Petry, and Willibrord Lang
Birth
8th of September 1977 in Wadern, Saarland
Education
1983 - 1987
Primary school in Michelbach, Saarland
1987 - 1996
Grammar school at the Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium Lebach, Saarland
1996 - 1997
Studies in Mathematics at the distance university Hagen during civilian

service in Nunkirchen, Saarland
1997 - 2002
Studies in Mathematics and Physics at the Universitat des Saarlandes, UdS
2000 - 2002
Member of the Group for Differential Geometry and Topology at the UdS
2002 - 2004
Member of the Group for Didactics of Mathematics at the UdS
2002
Diploma in Mathematics with Prof. Dr. Michael Gr

uter at the UdS
2003
Intermediate Diploma in Physics at the UdS
2004 - now
PhD studies in Mathematics at the TU Kaiserslautern, Rheinland-Pfalz
2004 - now
Member of the Technomathematics Group at the TU Kaiserslautern
2004 - now
Member of the department Mathematical Methods in Dynamics and Durability at the Fraunhofer ITWM Kaiserslautern
Teaching
1999 - 2004
Courses in Mathematics for coming teachers, engineers and computer scientists at the UdS
2002 - 2003
Lectures in Mathematics for coming life scientists at the UdS
2003 - 2004
Teacher for Mathematics and Physics at the Stadtgartengymnasium Saarlouis, grammar school, Saarland
Publications Overview
Holger Lang
(A) Lang, H.: Die Flache von Costa, Hoffman und Meeks: Eine vollstandige, in den
R3 eingebettete Minimalflache von Geschlecht Eins, mit drei Enden und endlicher
Gaussscher Totalkr
ummung 12. Diploma thesis, Universitat des Saarlandes, 2002.
(B) Lang H., Dressler K., Pinnau R. : A multiaxial stress-strain correction scheme.
Report of the Technomathematics group, TU Kaiserslautern, No. 263, 2005.
(C) Lang H., Dressler K., Pinnau R.: Parameter optimization for a multiaxial stressstrain correction scheme. Report of the Technomathematics group, TU Kaiserslautern,
No. 264, 2005.
(D) Lang H.: Notes at the embeddedness of the minimal surface of Costa, Hoffman and
Meeks. Report on differential geometry and topology, TU Kaiserslautern/Universitat
des Saarlandes, 2005.
(E) Lang H., Dressler K., Pinnau R.: Lipschitz estimates for the stop and the play
operator. Report of the Technomathematics group, TU Kaiserslautern, No. 266, 2006.
(F) Lang H., Dressler K., Pinnau R., Speckert M.: Error estimates for quasistatic
global elastic correction and linear kinematic hardening material. Report of the Technomathematics group, TU Kaiserslautern, No. 267, 2006.
(G) Lang H., Dressler K., Pinnau R., Bitsch G.: A homotopy between the solutions
of the elastic and the elastoplastic boundary value problem. Report of the Technomathematics group, TU Kaiserslautern, No. 268, 2006.
(H) Lang H., Bitsch G., Dressler K., Speckert M.: Comparison of the solutions of
the elastic and elastoplastic boundary value problems. Report of the Fraunhofer ITWM,
No. 99, 2006.
Publications (B), (C), (E), (F), (G) and (H) are related to this work.
Sworn Declaration
Hereby, I declare on oath that
I produced this work on my own, only using the devices and the literature
that are cited.
neither this work nor a similar work has been submitted as an examination
thesis for any state or academic exam.
Michelbach, 3rd of May 2007
Holger Lang

Dissertation Holger Lang PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dissertation Holger Lang PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The difference of the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic

boundary value problem and

Elastic BVP solution

Vom Fachbereich Mathematik der Universitat Kaiserslautern

1 Stop and Play with respect to different scalar products

correction model for linear kinematic hardening material

difference of the solutions of the elastic and elastoplastic

pointwise correction model for linear kinematic hardening material

6 The pointwise correction model for Jiang

7 Numerical implementation of the pointwise correction model

8 Comparison with elastoplastic BVP solutions and measurements

(x, t), (x, t) resp. (x, t), (x, t)

Where can this thesis be situated?

We recommend Lemaitre/Chaboche [79] for an overview. For introductory literature we

Elastic material [24, 25, 38, 80],

Linear kinematic hardening material [9, 14, 86, 95, 96],

Jiang material [63, 64, 65, 66, 67].

and the initial conditions

with the boundary conditions

with the boundary conditions

with arbitrary scalar load functions Li : [0, T ] R, and if

Li (t) DIV e i (x) + fi (x) 0

Li (t) eui (x) 0

we have e(t, ) and (t, ) in

The special free boundary case: If is a point of the free boundary of , i. e.

The free boundary case is very important because of three reasons.

The organisation of this thesis

Stop and Play with respect to

PC,A,h,i , SC,A,h,i : CBV ([0, T ], X) C CBV ([0, T ], X),

stop s(t) = SC,A,h,i(f, s0 )(t)

[76]. The norms on CBV resp. W 1,q are given by

for f CBV ([0, T ], X)

for f W 1,q ([0, T ], X)

kf kW 1,, = kf (0)k + ess sup [0,T ] kf( )k

kf k,t = max kf ( )k,

is the maximum norm of f C([0, T ], X) and

{0=0 <...<N =T } i=1

for all t [0, T ].

to the fundamental theorem, we have for all t [0, T ]

We estimate with Minkowskis inequality and the fundamental theorem

An alternative proof can be given as follows. X is complete with respect to

k kW 1,q (see e. g. Han/Reddy [49], section 5.2.3, or [50], section 1.4),

Basic properties of stop and play

holds, which in turn implies Pythagoras relation

[76], the following

kf( )kA d kp(0)kA + t1/q

[9, 14]. Estimate

kpn k2A + ksn k2A kfn k2A

Thus for the A-variations, i. e. the variations w. r. t. the norm k kA ,

Some generalised Lipschitz estimates

cA1 k k k kA1 CA1 k k,

cA2 k k k kA2 CA2 k k.

s1 = SA1 (f1 , s0,1 ),

p2 = PA2 (f2 , s0,2 ),

s2 = SA2 (f2 , s0,2 )

of stop and play, there holds

Proof: By definition, we have for i {1, 2}

pi (t) + si (t) = fi (t)

for all C a. e. in [0, T ]

Integrating (1.24), we arrive at

kf kA1 kskA1 + kA p 2 k ksk d

So the Gronwall-kind lemma B.1.1 yields