Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Nikolas Apel
PSfrag replacements
F = ∇ϕ
X
x
B C, Gp g, cp
S
vorgelegt von
Nikolas Apel
aus Ulm
c Nikolas Apel
°
Institut für Mechanik (Bauwesen)
Lehrstuhl I
Universität Stuttgart
Pfaffenwaldring 7
70550 Stuttgart
Tel.: ++49–(0)711/685–6326
Fax : ++49–(0)711/685–6347
Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Übersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Ohne
Genehmigung des Autors ist es nicht gestattet, dieses Heft ganz oder teilweise auf fo-
tomechanischem Wege (Fotokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen.
Abstract
The present work deals with purely macroscopic descriptions of anisotropic material be-
haviour. Key aspects are new developments in the theory and numerics of anisotropic
plasticity. After a short discussion of the classification of solids by symmetry transfor-
mations a survey about representation theory of isotropic tensor functions and tensor
polynomials is given. Next alternative macroscopic approaches to finite plasticity are
discussed. When considering a multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient
into an elastic part and a plastic part, a nine dimensional flow rule is obtained that allows
the modeling of plastic rotation. An alternative approach bases on the introduction of a
metric-like internal variable, the so-called plastic metric, that accounts for the plastic de-
formation of the material. In this context, a new class of constitutive models is obtained
for the choice of logarithmic strains and an additive decomposition of the total strain
measure into elastic and plastic parts. The attractiveness of this class of models is due
to their modular structure as well as the affinity of the constitutive model and the algo-
rithms inside the logarithmic strain space to models from geometric linear theory. On the
numerical side, implicit and explicit integration algorithms and stress update algorithms
for anisotropic plasticity are developed. Their numerical efficiency crucially bases on their
careful construction. Special focus is put on algorithms that are suitable for variational
formulations. Due to their (incremental) potential property, the corresponding algorithms
can be formulated in terms of symmetric quantities. A reduced storage effort and less
required solver capacity are key advantages compared to their standard counterparts.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this thesis was carried out in the years between 1999 and 2003,
when I was a co-worker at the Institute of Applied Mechanics (Chair I) at the University
of Stuttgart.
At the end of this period I feel grateful to a lot of people who accompanied me in these
five years.
First of all, I want to thank my academic teacher Professor Christian Miehe for his
scientific support and for the fruitful discussions we had. Without his research in the field
of Applied Mechanics this thesis could not have achieved these results.
My special thanks also go to Professor Bob Svendsen for his interest in my research and
for acting as the external examiner of this thesis.
Next I want to thank my fellow workers at the institute, who were mainly responsible
for the friendly atmosphere within the institute. Especially, I would like to express my
gratitude to my room mate Matthias Lambrecht for the support he gave me and the
many discussions we had. Parts of this thesis are based on scientific results he was
mainly involved with. Furthermore, I would like to thank Andreas Koch for the good
collaboration and the many interesting discussions about a lot of mechanical topics.
I am also very grateful to Grieta Himpel for her incessant interest in mechanical and
computational problems throughout the years which is also true to Sonja Baumberger,
whom I supervised during her diploma thesis, too. Their interest on high-end topics of
theoretical and computational mechanics led to many interesting and helpful discussions
that helped me to see some things more clearly.
I want to thank my wife Heidi for giving me moral support in all these years. She kept
my options open from many everyday-life problems and thus had a great share in the
accomplishment of my research activities.
Last but not least I should like to thank my father Karlheinz for the great help he gave
me at the proof-reading stage as well as Dominik Zimmermann for his support regarding
organizational matters.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. Anisotropic Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.1. General Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.2. Model Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.2.1. Fiber-Reinforced Technical Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.3. Numerical Example: Tension Test of a Fiber-Reinforced Bar . . . . . . . . . . 77
Contents III
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
1. Introduction
The modeling of anisotropic material behaviour is an area of research of great importance
in material science. During the last years, the activity of research has been continuously
increasing and this trend still continues. In particular, this concerns the modeling of
anisotropic inelastic material response within the framework of elasto-plasticity which is
part of this thesis.
Symmetry theory provides a valuable set of concepts for the specification of structure, par-
ticularly important for crystalline materials but also useful for describing non-crystalline
materials. An important class of materials are crystalline solids. In the ideal state their
matter is arranged periodically in space and therefore the material properties depend on
the spatial orientation of the solid. Based on the symmetry of their atomic structure
they are divided into the 32 crystal classes. Ideal crystals possess 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 6-fold
rotational symmetries and the corresponding rotoinversions obtained by combining these
five rotations with a central inversion. But not all materials belong to these classes. In
the eighties quasi-crystals were discovered. Their arrangement of matter violates the ro-
tational symmetries for a periodic structure, 5- and 10-fold symmetry axes were observed.
A key characteristic of the above mentioned crystalline materials is that their inherent
symmetry can be described by discrete rotations and rotoinversions.
The structure of many non-crystalline materials can be characterized by continuous sym-
metry transformations. Typical examples are engineering materials like composites con-
sisting for example of fabrics embedded in a matrix material or bio-materials like soft-
tissues possessing a fibrous structure. Homogenized material behaviour and overall be-
haviour of materials are often invariant with respect to continuous symmetry transforma-
tions, too.
A comprehensive introduction to classical crystallography is the textbook by Voigt [142].
An illustrative introduction to symmetry transformations can be found in Kennon [60].
Recent publications are Whittaker [152] Borchardt-Ott [24], Kleber, Bautsch
& Bohm [61] or Allen & Thomas [1]. A comprehensive work is the “International
Tables for Crystallography” edited by Hahn [45]. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the
classification of solids based on their inherent symmetries.
Complex constitutive behaviour of materials is usually mathematically described by sca-
lar-valued and tensor-valued tensor functions. The principle of material frame invariance
and the principle of material symmetry restrict the form of the tensor functions. While
the first restriction must hold for all constitutive equations the second one depends on the
concrete material that is to be described and on the constitutive model that is used. In
this work we do not differentiate between material symmetries and physical symmetries,
cf. Zheng & Boehler [163]. The set of transformations that leave the constitutive
response unchanged is denoted as material symmetry group. It belongs to one of the 32
crystal classes, the infinitely many classes of non-crystallographic point groups, the five
cylindrical classes or the two spherical classes.
The theory of isotropic tensor functions of arbitrary sets of vectors and second-order ten-
sors is well-known. Representations for polynomials were derived by many authors, cf. for
example the review article by Rychlewski & Zhang [111]. A comprehensive discussion
of the theory is the contribution by Spencer [132]. Complete representations for tensor
2 Introduction
functions go back to the competitive articles by Wang [144, 145, 146, 147] and Smith
[129]. Later, the representations obtained by both authors with different approaches were
compared and unified by Boehler [20]. The papers of Lokhin & Sedov [67], Boehler
[21] and Liu [66] discuss, how the framework of isotropic tensor functions can be used to
describe anisotropic behaviour. Therefore so-called structural tensors that characterize
the material symmetry group are introduced as additional arguments into the constitutive
function. Unfortunately, only a few classes of symmetry groups can be characterized by
vectors or second-order tensors. Zheng [162] lists a single structural tensor of first-order
up to fourth-order for almost all of the classes above mentioned. Representations for
tensor functions of higher order argument tensors, however, are still topic of research and
available only in some particular cases, see for example Zheng & Betten [160] and
Betten & Helisch [14, 15]. Recently, Xiao [156, 157] extended the structural tensor
approach to obtain complete representations for all of the 32 crystal classes and all non-
crystal classes by introducing structural tensor functions as additional arguments instead
of constant structural tensors. Chapter 4 gives a survey of the theory of isotropic tensor
polynomials and isotropic tensor functions. The isotropic extension with structural func-
tions is discussed and applied to the important case of quadratic potential functions for all
classes of symmetry. Representations of the second derivatives are derived, which govern
the well-known coordinate representations that are usually obtained by direct application
of symmetry transformations onto the fourth-order second-derivative tensor. Before ap-
plying the theory of isotropic tensor functions to complex constitutive models for inelastic
materials, we shortly illustrate its application in chapter 5 for elasticity.
An important goal of this thesis is to pick up and discuss existing alternative approaches
to finite strain elasto-plasticity and to present further developments which are the result
of recent research. Essentially two different approaches exist as for the local constitutive
modeling of finite elasto-plastic material behaviour. They can be traced back to the
classical works of Green & Naghdi [43], Lee [65], Rice [107] and Mandel [71] and
are controversially discussed in literature, cf. the review article of Naghdi [95]. The key
ingredient of plastic-map plasticity is the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation
gradient into an elastic and plastic part F = F e F p . In recent years, the microstructure-
based theory for the description of finite elasto-plastic deformations in ideal single crystals,
often denoted as the continuum slip theory, has achieved a degree of common acceptance.
A common approach is the multiplicative composition of the plastic map and the total
deformation measure to the Hencky-type elastic strain variable
e
Ē := 1
2
[ln[F p−T CF p−1 ] − ln[1]] (1.1)
that enters a constitutive function for the energy storage of the material. The plastic map
F p ∈ GL(3)+ is considered to be an internal variable that may describe the flow of matter
through the crystal by multiple shearings on crystallographic slip planes. The reversible
distortion of the lattice including a rigid body rotation is described by the elastic map F e .
This is the classical approach to finite crystal plasticity proposed by Rice [107], Kröner
& Teodosiu [64] and Mandel [71]. Recent works on multiplicative finite plasticity are
Simó [122], Cuitiño & Ortiz [34], Anand & Kothari [2], Miehe [79, 80], Miehe,
Schröder & Schotte [93] and Ortiz & Stainier [98]. These formulations take
into account elastic and plastic anisotropies associated with certain characteristics of
the crystals. Svendsen [136] and Svendsen, Arndt, Klingbeil & Sievert [138]
Introduction 3
consider the incorporation of non-linear isotropic and kinematic hardening effects into
the constitutive equations. The modeling of anisotropic inelastic material behaviour by
phenomenological approaches using this multiplicative composition can be found e.g. in
Svendsen [137] and Menzel [75]. The plastic rotational part of F p is well defined in
crystal plasticity, cf. Boyce, Weber & Parks [25], but is often controversially discussed
whenever the multiplicative ansatz (1.1) is used in purely phenomenological theories of
finite plasticity, see for example Casey & Naghdi [30], Dafalias [36] and Naghdi [95].
Phenomenological assumptions for the plastic rotation often appear somewhat artificial,
for example by simply setting the plastic spin to zero as considered e.g. in Moran, Ortiz
& Shih [94], Miehe [78] and Simó [122].
It is convenient to formulate constitutive equations with respect to the reference con-
figuration for isotropic and anisotropic purely phenomenological models of anisotropic
plasticity with preferred structural directors deforming with the material. A framework
of plastic-metric plasticity can be motivated by the example of a transversal isotropic ma-
terial consisting of plastic fibers embedded into an elastic matrix material. Therefore it
can be shown that the plastic map enters the stored energy functions only through the so-
called plastic metric Gp := F pT F p . The dependence of the stored energy on C := F T F
and Gp can alternatively be derived by an invariance principle, cf. Casey & Naghdi
[30].
There is no need to introduce the multiplicative split of the deformation gradient to
motivate the framework of plastic-metric plasticity. In fact the existence of a plastic metric
that accounts for the plastic deformation of a material can be postulated a priori. This
circumvents the restrictions that are apparent in the plastic-map framework. Considering
the plastic metric to be an internal variable as is done in Miehe [82, 83] is consistent with
the classical approach to finite plasticity proposed by Green & Naghdi [43], see also
Casey & Naghdi [30] and Simó & Ortiz [126]. Reese & Svendsen [106] and Reese
[105] model the material behaviour of a fiber reinforced composite using the plastic metric
as an internal variable for the description of the inelastic deformation.
A specific framework denoted here as additive plasticity is provided by the additive
Hencky-type elastic strain measure
E e := 1
2
[ln[C] − ln[Gp ]] . (1.2)
Observe that (1.1) and (1.2) coincide for the special case of coaxial total and plastic defor-
mations where C and Gp commute and the plastic map can be identified as F p := Gp1/2 .
In this sense both formulations (1.1) and (1.2) are considered to be “close”. Formu-
lations and numerical implementations of additive finite plasticity consistent with (1.2)
have recently been outlined by Papadopoulos & Lu [99, 100] and Miehe, Apel &
Lambrecht [87].
The additive decomposition of the total strains into elastic and plastic parts is a typi-
cal feature of the geometrically linear theory of plasticity. Hence, ansatz (1.2) provides
a natural basis for a material-independent extension of constitutive structures from the
geometrically linear to the non-linear theory at finite strains. A similar method for the
extension of geometrically linear models to the finite strain range is considered in the in-
cremental algorithmic setting of multiplicative plasticity (1.1) by Cuitiño & Ortiz [35],
it is restricted, however, to certain isotropy properties. The convenience of logarithmic
4 Introduction
strains has also been exploited in many works on computational multiplicative plasticity
in the last decade. We refer to the treatments of isotropic finite plasticity by Eterovic
& Bathe [39], Perić, Owen & Honnor [102], Simó [121, 122] and Miehe [83].
Chapter 6 discusses constitutive approaches to anisotropic plasticity. The main part
deals with the plastic-map approach. A key point is the construction of one-step time in-
tegration algorithms for the evolution equations of the internal variables. New symmetric
implicit and explicit algorithms are presented and compared with unsymmetric standard
implicit and explicit return mapping schemes. Both above-mentioned symmetric for-
mulations are related to variational formulations of finite plasticity that were recently
developed by Miehe [85, 90] in the context of small strain elasto-plasticity and large
strain crystal plasticity, respectively. The behaviour of the algorithms is compared in
numerical examples.
The framework of additive plasticity is presented in chapter 7. Two different approaches
to the numerical treatment are presented, the classical general return scheme and a vari-
ational formulation derived in Miehe, Apel & Lambrecht [87].
On the side of computational analysis of shell-like structures we focus on a rotation-free
shell formulation in chapter 8. It is in line with recently developed brick-type mixed finite
element designs outlined in Miehe [84], Miehe & Schröder [92], Seifert [120] and
Klinkel, Gruttmann & Wagner [62]. For a comprehensive overview of different shell
element formulations and associated finite element technologies we refer to the textbook
by Belytschko, Liu & Moran [9].
The brick-type finite shell element parameterizes — as originally proposed by Schoop
[115, 116] — the deformation field in terms of displacements of material points at the
top and bottom surfaces of the shell identical to the eight-node brick element of three-
dimensional continuum analysis. It is well known that this element yields very poor
performance within the thin shell limit. This can be traced back to locking effects due
to parasitic transverse shear stresses, which appear as a result of the low-order interpo-
lation of the brick element, and the poor constant interpolation of the membrane strains
and in particular the thickness normal strain that contradicts plate-type bending modes.
These two locking effects can be circumvented by applying assumed strain and enhanced
strain modifications on the pure displacement approach on the basis of mixed variational
formulations. Both the enhanced as well as the assumed strain modifications are treated
here in unified matrix notations with respect to the parameter chart of the shell. The
enhanced strain formulation can be approached in a multiplicative and an additive for-
mat. The multiplicative approach defines the enhanced current metric with respect to
the parameter space of the shell by
˜ := j̃ T g j̃
C̄ with j̃ := j C + j E (1.3)
in terms of a modification j E of the compatible deformation gradient j C of the shell
continuum. This multiplicative enhancing is conceptually in line with works on continuum
elements by Simó & Armero [123] and Simó, Armero & Taylor [124] and has been
applied to brick-type finite shell element formulations by Miehe [84] and Miehe &
Schröder [92]. In this thesis we concentrate on an additive approach that defines the
enhanced current metric in the parameter space by
˜ = C̄
C̄ ˜ + C̄
˜ ˜ = j T gj
with C̄ (1.4)
C E C C
Introduction 5
in terms of a modification C̄˜ of the metric C̄ computed with the compatible deforma-
E C
tion gradient j C . This additive enhancing is analogous to works on continuum elements
by Simó & Rifai [127] and has been applied to brick-type finite shell element formula-
tions by Seifert [120] and Klinkel, Gruttmann & Wagner [62]. As done in Miehe
˜ in (1.4) is assumed to cover two types of enhanced strain
[84] for j E the modification C̄ E
modes. Firstly, we enhance the normal strain in the thickness direction in order to incor-
porate a linear dependence in terms of the curvilinear parameter in thickness direction
as conceptually suggested by Büchter & Ramm [28] and Büchter, Ramm & Roehl
[29]. Secondly, we enhance the membrane-bending response of the shell element in a man-
ner similar to formulations in plane problems outlined by Simó & Rifai [127] and Simó
& Armero [123].
In order to avoid the shear locking phenomenon we apply the classical assumed strain
interpolation of the transverse shear strains proposed by Dvorkin & Bathe [37]. A
locking effect due to the poor interpolation of the director field is avoided by the in-
troduction of the assumed strain interpolation of the thickness strains as proposed by
Betsch & Stein [11] and Bischoff & Ramm [18]. The development results in an
mixed eight-node brick-type shell element with an underlying trilinear displacement in-
terpolation, five internal degrees for enhanced strain interpolations of the thickness and
membrane strains, and eight collocation points for the assumed strain interpolation of
the thickness and transverse shear strains. An interface to deformation-gradient-driven
constitutive stress update algorithms of anisotropic finite plasticity is developed by us-
ing an assumption with respect to the enhanced assumed local rotation as suggested by
Dvorkin, Pantuso & Repetto [38]. The strain-like interface to the three-dimensional
constitutive box at a material point of the shell continuum is formulated in terms of curvi-
linear coordinate charts relative to a local parameter chart of the shell.
In chapter 9 representative numerical examples are discussed. The four proposed stress
algorithms for plastic-map plasticity are compared and evaluated for complex anisotropic
phenomenological constitutive models of elasto-plasticity. This is done by considering
driver tests as well as simulations of drawing processes. As already mentioned, the plastic
map and the plastic-metric approaches are subject of intensive research. One purpose of
this thesis is to compare and to evaluate both approaches. On the computational side this
is done by means of complex boundary value problems. The multiplicatively enhanced
shell element design published by Miehe [84] serves as a reference for the proposed
additively enhanced shell formulation. The results obtained with both approaches are
compared.
Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics 7
For an illustration of this setting see Figure 1. Q is a two-point tensor with the typical
E3 v, A
PSfrag replacements
P
QT
{ei } Q {ēi }
Figure 1: Two Cartesian bases are linked via an orthogonal transformation tensor, e i =
Qēi . Tensorial objects v and A at a point P of the Euclidean space E3 can be represented
in any frame, however their characteristic properties are frame independent.
where two identical indices imply the summation due to Einstein’s convention. In the
context of continuum mechanics, tensors describe geometrical objects which can be re-
presented in any coordinate system. The coordinates with respect to a certain frame
are obtained by a contraction of the tensor with the basis vectors of that frame. So the
coordinates of Q with respect to {ei } are
In literature one often finds transformations of basis vectors with rotation matrices. Such
a representation is obtained from (2.4) by multiplication with ēi
Inserting (2.5) into the definition (2.3) leads to the coordinate representation of Q in the
barred frame. The result is Q = Qji ēj ⊗ ēi , stating that the coordinates of Q are identical
in both frames {ei } and {ēi }.
For a given second-order tensor A, we have two one-point coordinate representations
when considering the above introduced frames {ei } and {ēi }, see also figure 1. They are
related, because the basis vectors of the frames are connected with the mapping (2.2) and
we get
A = Aij ei ⊗ ej = Qik Akl Qjl ēi ⊗ ēj
(2.6)
= Āij ēi ⊗ ēj = Qki Ākl Qlj ei ⊗ ej
A comparison of the representations in both frames yields the transformation laws for the
coordinates due to a change of basis, i.e.
Āij = Qik Akl Qjl and Aij = Qki Ākl Qlj . (2.7)
Remark 2.1: It is important to notice that the change of basis (2.7) is different from
the rotation of A,
The rotated tensor QAQT has the coordinate scheme of the barred setting in the basis
{ei }. In general, the coordinates Aij and Āij are different and then QAQT is a new
object. An exception is the rotation tensor itself, obviously it is QQQ T = Q.
Obviously we have gij 6= δij . The basis vectors are normalized and oriented with respect
to a dual contra-variant basis {g i }i=1,2,3 so that
For a visualization see figure 2. In analogy to the linear combinations (2.5) the co-variant
E3 v, A
PSfrag replacements
P
{g i } g −1 {g i }
basis vectors can be decomposed into the contra-variant system and vice versa which is
denoted as index lowering and raising,
In the context of dual bases the identity tensor has four different representations
g i ⊗ g i = gij g i ⊗ g j = g ij g i ⊗ g j = g i ⊗ g i . (2.12)
According to their mapping properties, they are formally distinguished with different
symbols and names. The mixed variant representations
are referred to as identity tensors. They map within the co-variant or contra-variant basis.
The mappings in between the dual frames are referred to as co-variant and contra-variant
metric tensors,
v, A
3
E
P
PSfrag replacements
{Gi } F −1 {g i }
F −T
{Gi } FT {g i }
Figure 3: Two arbitrary dual bases are linked via F ∈ GL(3)+ . Tensorial objects v and A
at a point P of the Euclidean space E3 can be represented in any frame, their characteristic
properties, however, are frame independent.
2.1.1.3. Arbitrary Dual Bases. Consider two arbitrary dual frames, denoted by {G i },
{Gi } and {g i }, {g i } respectively, for i = 1, 2, 3. Assume that the co-variant bases are
mapped onto each other with a map of the general linear group F ∈ GL(3)+ , i.e.
g i = F Gi , Gi = F −1 g i , g i = F −T Gi , Gi = F g i , (2.16)
see also figure 3. The transformation tensor F is a two-point tensor with the typical
structure consisting of the sum of dyadic products of corresponding basis vectors
F = g i ⊗ Gi , F −1 = Gi ⊗ g i , F −T = g i ⊗ Gi , F T = Gi ⊗ g i . (2.17)
The coordinates of F are obtained by contractions with the corresponding basis vectors,
e.g. F i j = (F Gj ) · Gi = Gi · g j . Insertion into (2.16) give the corresponding linear
combinations
g i = F a i Ga , Gi = F −1 a i g a , g i = F −1 i a Ga , Gi = F i a g a . (2.18)
For a given second-order tensor A we discuss the two co-variant one-point forms in place
of all possible representations, i.e.
When comparing the representations in both frames one obtains the transformation laws
for a change of basis, i.e.
Remark 2.2: Observe that the change of basis (2.20) differs from a generalized rotation
with F of the tensor A, which is a new object
Operations of this type are denoted as push-forward and pull-back operations. They yield
new tensors with identical coordinates but exchanged bases.
X x2
x1
B
St 2
St 1
χ0
{S} χt1
χt2
Figure 4: Reference configuration B and actual configurations St1 and St2 are images of a
continuous set S of material points in the Euclidean space E3 at fixed times t1 and t2 . The
motion of the body is described by the family of configurations parameterized in the time t.
where the points of B are defined by X := χ(S, t0 ). The map (2.23) is the basis for the
description of the motion of the body. In what follows, we consider two configurations.
The reference configuration B is denoted as Lagrangian or material configuration, the
12 Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics
The tangent vectors to these lines constitute a natural co-variant basis {G i } and {g i } for
the so-called tangent space TX B and Tx S, respectively. They are obtained by
PSfrag replacements
Gi := ∂α Θi = ∂θi X j E j , g i := ∂α θ i = ∇Θi ϕ ∂α Θi = ∇Θi ϕ Gi . (2.25)
The dual bases {Gi } and {g i } span the contra-variant co-tangent spaces, denoted by TX? B
and Tx? S, respectively. Tangent and co-tangent spaces are connected with the Lagrangian
and Eulerian metric tensors
= Gij Gi ⊗ Gj = gij g i ⊗ g j
¾ ¾
G g
and (2.26)
G−1 = Gij Gi ⊗ Gj g −1 = g ij g i ⊗ g j ,
2 Θ1 θ3
Θ
θ2
Θ3 X x
B S
{E i }
Figure 5: Reference and actual configuration B and S of the body under consideration.
The non-linear point-map ϕ maps material points X ∈ B to the current configuration x ∈ S.
Tangent vectors to material lines θ i form the co-variant convective basis and constitute the
metric tensors G−1 = Gij Gi ⊗ Gj and g −1 = g ij g i ⊗ g j .
To the opinion of the author the introduction of the natural convected basis is essential
for the geometric understanding of finite kinematics. In this context the deformation
gradient is defined in accordance with (2.25) by
F : TX B → Tx S , F = ∇X ϕ(X, t) . (2.27)
It connects the co-variant basis vectors of the Lagrangian and Eulerian configurations and
the results of section 2.1.1.3 can be applied to the context of finite kinematics.
Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics 13
The deformation gradient F maps tangent vectors to material lines in the Lagrangian
PSfrag replacements
configuration to tangent vectors to material lines in the Eulerian configuration. Due
to property (2.10)2 , vectors in the co-tangent space are denoted as normals. They are
mapped by F −T from the Lagrangian to the Eulerian configuration, see figure 6. On the
I i
F x
X
TX B Tx S
G g
X F −T x
TX? B Tx? S
−1 −1
I i
Figure 6: Mappings between the co-variant and contra-variant tangent spaces of a point
X and its Eulerian counterpart x = ϕ(X). I and I −1 are defined in analogy to (2.13).
basis of these pictures, three fundamental geometric mappings are of high relevance.
(i) Map of tangents. An infinitesimal line element of the tangent space dX ∈ T X B is
mapped with the deformation gradient from the Lagrangian to the Eulerian configuration,
F : TX B → Tx S , dx = F dX . (2.28)
(ii) Map of area elements. Two infinitesimal line elements dX and dX̄ span an area
element dA = dX × dX̄ which is in TX? B. Its Eulerian counterpart is obtained with the
co-factor cof[F ] := det[F ]F −T and known as Nanson’s formula
(iii) Map of volume elements. The volume of a parallelepiped spanned by dX, dX̄ and
¯ is given by the box product dV = [dX, dX̄, dX̄
dX̄ ¯ ]. A transformation with the Jacobi-
determinant J := det[F ] yields the Eulerian counterpart
So far we have dealt with the geometry of finite deformations in terms of convective
curvilinear coordinates. In this formulation, the actual dual bases {g i } and {g i } are the
images of their Lagrangian counterparts {Gi } and {Gi }. The coordinates of tensors do
not change while performing a push-forward or pull-back operation, see (2.21). This is a
consequence of the fact that the information about the deformation is exclusively stored
in the basis vectors.
14 Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics
In several cases kinematics is formulated with respect to a single global Cartesian frame
without introducing convected bases explicitly. In order to keep things clear, we distin-
guish between the tangent and co-tangent spaces of the material and actual configuration
by formally introducing four Cartesian frames instead of only one which are denoted by
{E A }, {E A } and {ea }, {ea }, respectively. Then the metric tensors take the forms
= δAB E A ⊗ E B = δab ea ⊗ eb
¾ ¾
G g
and (2.31)
G−1 = δ AB E A ⊗ E B g −1 = δ ab ea ⊗ eb
and they do no more contain any information about the actual deformation but only serve
as maps between tangent and co-tangent spaces. Mappings between the Lagrangian and
Eulerian configuration are performed on the basis of the deformation gradient. In analogy
to (2.17) one then has to consider the two basic deformation maps
F = F a A ea ⊗ E A , F −1 = F −1A a E A ⊗ ea . (2.32)
t
x x
q
n Sp
S h
Figure 7: Cut-off part Sp from the body S. The action of the part S\Sp is replaced by
surface tractions t on ∂Sp and a heat flux normal through the surface of Sp .
2.2.1. Stresses
The mechanical effects of the outer part S\Sp are replaced by surface tractions defined
as the limit value of a force ∆f acting on an area element ∆a at points x ∈ ∂Sp of the
surface, i.e.
∆f df
t(x, t) := lim = . (2.33)
∆a→0 ∆a da
According to Cauchy’s theorem, the traction vector in a point x ∈ ∂Sp is a linear function
of the normal n of the area element da in x
where σ denotes the Cauchy stress tensor. Within the context of finite deformations
σ relates the actual force to the actual deformed area element. Therefore the Cauchy
PSfrag replacements
Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics 15
F x
X
TX B Tx S
S P τ, σ
X F −T x
TX? B Tx? S
Figure 8: Definition of stress tensors. Cauchy stresses or true stresses σ, Kirchhoff stresses
τ = Jσ, first Piola stresses or nominal stresses P = τ F −T , second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses
S = F −1 τ F −T .
stresses are also denoted as true stresses. σ is a co-variant tensor mapping normals of the
co-tangent space Tx? into the tangent space Tx , see figure 8. The stress tensor τ = Jσ is
called weighted Cauchy or Kirchhoff stress tensor.
Relating the actual force to the undeformed area element dA yields the definition of the
nominal stress tensor which is also denoted as first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor P . From
(2.29) we get n = JF −T dA
da
N . Insertion into (2.34) gives the alternative Cauchy theorem
T = PN with P = τ F −T (2.35)
da
and T = dA t. Finally, the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S is used. It is the
Lagrangian counterpart of τ and is obtained by the pull-back operation
S := F −1 τ F −T . (2.36)
This tensor is a purely geometrical construct, with almost no physical interpretation but
is convenient for the formulation of constitutive equations.
Here q is the contra-variant Cauchy heat-flux vector. Its Lagrangian counterpart is ob-
tained from the demand
Z Z
q · n da = Q · N dA . (2.38)
∂Sp ∂Bp
With Nanson’s formula (2.29) the nominal heat flux vector is defined as Q := det[F ]F −1 q.
16 Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics
d
Z Z
f (x, t) dv = f˙ + f div ẋ dv . (2.40)
dt Sp Sp
Note that in the Eulerian setting differentiation and integration do not commute due to
the time dependence of the integral limits.
The first one follows directly from (2.40) when considering ṁ = 0. The second one is
obtained with the transformation (2.30) of the volume elements.
Any body remains in uniform motion as long as no resultant forces act on it. Otherwise
the temporal change of momentum equals the resulting volume and surface forces
Z Z Z Z
İ = ργ̄ dv + t̄ da = ρ0 γ̄ dV + T̄ dA (2.44)
Sp ∂Sp Bp ∂Bp
which are prescribed by an acceleration field γ̄(x, t) and the surface tractions t̄(x, t) and
T̄ (X, t) in the actual and reference setting, respectively. Using the Gauss theorem, the
surface integral can be recast into a volume integral and one obtains the local equilibrium
conditions related to the actual and reference unit-volume
)
div[σ] + ρ(γ̄ − ẍ) = 0 ∀x∈S
. (2.45)
Div[P ] + ρ0 (γ̄ − ẍ) = 0 ∀ X ∈ B
The temporal change of the angular momentum equals the sum of the applied moments
in consequence of body forces and surface tractions
Z Z Z Z
Ḋ o = x × ργ̄ dv + x × t̄ da = x × ρ0 γ̄ dV + x × T̄ dA . (2.47)
Sp ∂Spt Bp ∂Bpt
The corresponding local forms follow after a somewhat extensive derivation. They state
the symmetries of the stress tensors
σ = σT and S = S T . (2.48)
This essential property does not transmit to the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor.
where e denotes the specific energy density per unit mass. In the thermo-mechanical
context, a temporal change of E may be caused by the power of mechanical tractions and
body forces P and the thermal power Q, i.e.
Z Z Z Z
P := ẋ · t̄ da + ρẋ · γ̄ dv = ẋ · T̄ dA + ρ0 ẋ · γ̄ dV
Z∂Sp SpZ Z∂Bp BpZ
(2.50)
Q := −q · n da + ρr dv = −Q · N dA + ρ0 r dV
∂Sp Sp ∂Bp Bp
18 Fundamentals of Continuum Mechanics
respectively. r is the heat supply per unit mass and unit time. With these definitions, the
balance of total energy reads
Ė = P + Q . (2.51)
The corresponding local equations related to the unit-volume of the actual and reference
configuration run as follows
)
ρė = div[ẋ · σ − q] + ρẋ · γ̄ + ρr ∀x∈S
(2.52)
ρ0 ė = Div[ẋ · P − Q] + ρ0 x · γ̄ + ρ0 r ∀ X ∈ B .
The total energy can be additively split up into the kinetic energy and an internal energy,
which is discussed in the next two subsections.
2.3.4.1. Balance of Kinetic Energy. The kinetic energy of a part of the body is
defined by the integrals
Z Z
1 1
K := 2
ρẋ · ẋ dv = ρ ẋ · ẋ dV .
2 0
(2.53)
Sp Bp
K̇ = P − S . (2.54)
U̇ = Ė − K̇ = Q + S (2.57)
The second law of thermo-dynamics states that the production of entropy is always pos-
itive, i.e. γ ≥ 0. Solving the local forms corresponding to (2.60) for γ yields the local
forms of the so-called Clausius-Duhem inequality
r 1 1
ργ = ρη̇ − ρ + div[q] − 2 q · grad[θ] ≥0 ∀x ∈ S
θ θ θ (2.61)
r 1 1
ρ0 γ = ρ0 η̇ − ρ0 + div[Q] − 2 Q · Grad[θ] ≥ 0 ∀X ∈ B .
θ θ θ
Insertion of (2.58) and introducing the Helmholtz free energy per unit mass through a
Legendre transformation Ψ = u − θη yields the alternative forms
1
θργ = (gσ) : grad[ẋ] − ρΨ̇ − ρθ̇η − q · grad[θ] ≥ 0 ∀x ∈ S
θ (2.62)
1
θρ0 γ = (gP ) : Ḟ − ρ0 Ψ̇ − ρ0 θ̇η − Q · Grad[θ] ≥0 ∀X ∈ B .
θ
A purely mechanical theory is obtained assuming an isothermal process which is char-
acterized by constant temperature, i.e. θ = constant. In this case, the Clausius-Duhem
inequality reduces to
)
ρD = (gσ) : grad[ẋ] − ρΨ̇ ≥ 0 ∀x ∈ S
(2.63)
ρ0 D = (gP ) : Ḟ − ρ0 Ψ̇ ≥0 ∀X ∈ B
restricted by fundamental principles. For a detailed discussion see e.g. Truesdell &
Noll [140], Malvern [70] or Haupt [49]. The most important principle is that of frame
invariance or material objectivity which is discussed in the first subsection. The inherent
symmetries of a material poses restrictions on the constitutive functions. The material
symmetry group introduced in the second part of this section provides a basis for the
classification of materials and the construction of appropriate constitutive functions.
Thus the free energy function has to be invariant with respect to superimposed rigid body
motions. A common way to satisfy this restriction in a Lagrangian setting is to assume
a functional dependence on the right Cauchy-Green tensor C := F T gF . It is the pull-
back of the current metric and is objective because (QF )T g(QF ) = F T (QT gQ)F = C.
Functions satisfying the principle of material objectivity a priori are denoted as reduced
forms. They are often formulated in terms of a strain tensor of the Seth-Hill family
½ 1 m/2
(m) [C − G] for m 6= 0
E := m
1 (2.65)
2
ln[C] for m = 0
ψ ψ?
Figure 9: A fibrous material with orientations a and a? is subjected to the same global
deformation state. The corresponding stored energy are ψ and ψ ? .
material, a and a? and assume that these orientations are linked with an orthogonal
transformation, i.e. a? = QT a. In both cases the material is subjected to the same global
deformation state, see figure 9 for a visualization. The stored free energies are
In general, both function values will differ, ψ 6= ψ ? . The set of all transformations
Q ∈ O(3) yielding the same value for ψ and ψ ? is denoted as material symmetry group
of the tensor function ψ, i.e. {Q ∈ O(3) | ψ(F ) = ψ(F QT )}. For a priori objective
functions ψ = ψ(C) the material symmetry group is determined by
Section 3 reviews the symmetry groups for anisotropic solids in detail and section 4
discusses the construction of tensor functions for given material symmetry groups.
Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids 23
building a grid plane. The parallelogram spanned from a and b is called unit-mesh. The
knowledge of the shape and dimensions of the unit-mesh allow the construction of the
whole grid plane.
(iii) The space lattice is obtained by translating the grid plane in a direction outside the
plane, described by a grid vector c. So we have
Grids for the two and three dimensional case are depicted in figure 10. One obvious choice
PSfrag replacements c
Sfrag replacements
b
b
a a
Figure 10: Construction of a mathematical 2d and 3d grid. The grids are spanned by the
grid vectors a, b and c. For an existing grid the choice of the unit-cell is not unique. In the
2d grid several possible unit meshes are highlighted. Three primitive cells containing one
grid point and at the bottom right a centered cell containing two grid points. For the space
grid only one primitive unit-cell is signified.
for a unit-cell is the parallelepiped spanned by a, b and c. The whole grid is uniquely
determined by the unit-cell, which is described either by the grid vectors a, b and c or
the three grid constants a, b, c and their corresponding angles α = 6 (bc), β = 6 (ac) and
γ = 6 (ab). Angles and lengths of the unit-cell are the metric of the grid.
Attached to each grid point of a 3d lattice reside eight unit-cells. The unit-cell indicated in
figure 10 contains one (eight times an eighth) grid point and is therefore called primitive.
Non-primitive unit-cells are characterized by having more than one grid point inside. As
depicted in the 2d grid, an infinite number of primitive and non-primitive unit-cells can
be chosen, all defining the same grid.
Though it is always possible to describe a grid with primitive unit-cells, the symmetry
of some grids become clearer when one chooses non-primitive cells. All in all, there exist
only 14 different 3d space lattices. They are named after the physicist Bravais.
3.2.1. Rotations
A symmetry operation, consisting in a rotation around an axis with angle α = 2π/n, n ∈ N
is called a rotational symmetry and the corresponding n-fold rotation axis is denoted by
Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids 25
A(n) or simply n. Due to the postulated periodicity for the lattice, 5-fold and n-fold axis
with n ≥ 7 are not possible, see figure 11 for a 5-fold symmetry. In figure 12 the five
possible rotations are illustrated by stereographic projections.
a1
PSfrag replacements
a2
Figure 11: Parallel grid vectors have different lengths ka1 k 6= ka2 k which contradicts the
translation periodicity (3.3). Consequently 5-fold axes are not possible for a space lattice.
PSfrag replacements
Figure 12: Stereographic projections of points on a sphere visualizing 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and
6-fold symmetry. The outlined symbols at the centers denote the different rotation axis.
3.2.2. Rotation-Inversions
Let M ∈ A(n) denote a point which is left unchanged when applying a symmetry operation.
A rotation-inversion or rotoinversion is obtained by the composition of a rotation and a
central inversion on M . Corresponding to the five possible rotation axes there are five
rotation-inversion axes which are denoted by J (n) or n̄ for short. They are visualized in
figure 13. Observe that 2̄ is equivalent to a plane of mirror symmetry perpendicular to
the two-fold inversion axis J (2) and containing M . That plane is denoted by m .
PSfrag replacements
Figure 13: Stereographic projections of points on a sphere visualizing 1̄-, 2̄-, 3̄-, 4̄- and 6̄-
fold rotoinversions. The filled symbols at the centers denote the different inversion-rotation
axes. Points on the lower half of the sphere are marked by crosses and points on the upper
half of the sphere by shaded circles. The center of inversion M is located at the centers of
the spheres
The number of elements in G is termed order of the group. Thereupon one speaks of
a finite group, if its order is finite, otherwise of an infinite group. Both types play an
important role in continuum mechanics.
c
PSfrag replacements β α
a γ b
Figure 14: Primitive triclinic unit-cell. The grid metric is not restricted. Identity and
inversion are the only symmetry operations transforming the unit-cell onto itself.
inversion. The cell is spanned by the three grid vectors a, b and c, satisfying
α 6= γ 6= β and a 6= b 6= c . (3.6)
Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids 27
c PSfrag replacements
PSfrag replacements
c
β b PSfrag replacements c
b b0
a PSfrag
b replacements
a0 c
a b0
a
a0
a. b. c. d.
Figure 15: Bravais unit-cells for monoclinic symmetry. Main characteristic is inherent two-
fold axis, yielding two different primitive unit-cells (a) and (b). Instead of (b) the C-centered
cell (c) is used because of its standard monoclinic metric. I-centered cell (d) is alternative
to C-centered Bravais cell (c).
c c
PSfrag replacements PSfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
a
b b
b
γ
a a c
β γ
a. b. c.
for its shape. The cell thus obtained is also symmetric with respect to reflections on
the two diagonal planes containing the four-fold axis. Furthermore it has two diagonal
two-fold rotation axes as depicted in figure 17a. Converting the two-fold axis of an I-
a. b.
Figure 17: Bravais cells for tetragonal symmetry. In addition to the primitive unit-cell
(a) an I-centered Bravais cell (b) exists. The restrictions for the corresponding unit-cell not
shown here are given in table 1.
centered orthorhombic cell into a four-fold one, the tetragonal I-centered cell of figure 17b
is obtained. Doing the same thing with a C-centered orthorhombic cell, the resulting C-
centered lattice can be described by means of a smaller primitive cell of tetragonal shape
and therefore yields no new space lattice.
Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids 29
and the faces are squares. Accompanying, all two-fold axes of the orthorhombic system
convert to four-fold ones, we have six additional diagonal mirror planes and six two-
fold-diagonal-rotation axes in the system. The primitive unit-cell together with these
symmetries is shown in figure 18. In the same way, the I- and F-centered Bravais cells
PSfrag replacements
a
b
c
β
Figure 18: The unit-cell for cubic symmetry is obtained by introducing a threefold diagonal
axis to the primitive orthorhombic unit cell. In the same way the I- and F-centered Bravais
lattices are obtained by their orthotropic counterparts.
follow from their orthotropic counterparts by adding a threefold axis along the diagonal.
As all the faces have to be equal, a C-centered cell does not exist in cubic systems.
It is impossible to find unit-cells having higher symmetry than that of a cubic system.
for the primitive unit-cell as depicted in figure 19a. Automatically we obtain three two-
α
a α
α
PSfrag replacements a
PSfrag replacements
γ
a
a. b.
Figure 19: Unit-cells for trigonal (a) and hexagonal (b) symmetry. The trigonal symmetry
can be seen in the unit-cell itself where as the hexagonal symmetry can only be found in
stacks of unit-cells as depicted in (b).
fold axes and three mirror planes as indicated. The shape is denoted as rhombohedral.
30 Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids
Six-fold symmetry cannot be inserted into a parallelepiped, but the lattice itself can have
that symmetry. In figure 19b a unit-cell for hexagonal symmetry is visualized. The
unit-cell is obtained through figure 15b, setting α = β = 90◦ and γ = 120◦ .
3.3.7. Summary
The results obtained in this section are summarized in the tables 1 and 2. Lattices can
be distinguished due to their inherent symmetry properties. This yields 14 different grids
having 14 different primitive unit-cells. Conventionally, the lattices are represented by
the 14 Bravais cells. Seven of them are primitive, the remaining seven are larger parts
of the grid containing more than one grid point and are denoted as centered cells. Each
shape of these centered cells is identical to one of the seven primitive cells. So we can
describe all grids with seven crystallographic coordinate systems {a, b, c}, referred to as
crystal systems. In table 1 the metric of the 14 primitive unit-cells are listed together
with the crystal system and the Bravais cell to which they belong. Table 2 shows the 14
Bravais cells and their affiliation to the seven crystal systems. Besides the metrics of the
crystal systems are given.
triclinic:
PSfrag replacements
a
a, b, c arbitrary,
β α
α, β, γ arbitrary c γ
b
monoclinic: a a
a, b,PSfrag replacements
c arbitrary, PSfrag replacements
π
α = γ = 2 6= β c β c β
b b
orthorhombic: a a a a
a, b, c arbitrary,
π
α =PSfrag
β=γ= replacements
2
PSfrag
c replacements
PSfrag
c replacements
PSfrag
c replacementsc
b b b b
tetragonal: a a
a = b 6= c,
c
PSfrag replacementsc
π
α =PSfrag
β=γ= replacements
2
a a
trigonal: α
a
α
a = b = c, α
π a
α =PSfrag
β = γ 6=
replacements
2
hexagonal: γ
b 6= c, replacementsc
a =PSfrag
α = β = π2 , γ = 3π
2
a
a
cubic: a a a
a = b = c,
π
α=β=γ= 2
a a a
PSfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
PSfrag replacements
a a a
32 Material Symmetries — Classification of Solids
PSfrag replacements
a. b. c.
Figure 20: The symmetry of the motif located at the grid points may reduce the overall
symmetry. Two-dimensional quadratic unit-cell with (a) quadratic motif has 4 mirror planes
and one four-fold axis. (b) Rectangular motif reduces symmetries to two mirror planes and
one two-fold axis. (c) Triangle motif allows only one mirror symmetry operation.
of the so called inner symmetry of the motif with the symmetry of the 14 Bravais cells
leads to 32 possible combinations, referred to as crystal classes. They are summarized in
table 3. Introducing a motif is equivalent to a subdivision of the symmetry groups of the
crystal system into proper subgroups yielding the 32 crystal classes. The generators of
the symmetry groups of the crystal classes are given in table 3.
3.4.2.2. Schoenflies Symbols. Another notation for the crystals and quasi-crystal
classes goes back to Schoenflies. This notion is commonly used in chemistry. A summary
is given in table 6.
5-fold axis belong to the icosahedral classes with the Hermann-Mauguin symbols 235 and
m3̄5̄. The five-fold symmetry operation maps an icosahedron and a dodecahedron onto
itself.
The five cylindrical and two spherical symmetry groups are infinite point groups. They
are characterized by one or two rotation axes A(∞) with rotation angles α, β ∈ [0, 2π].
In the case of one rotation axis we speak of transversal isotropy. Combination with a
two-fold axis perpendicular to the infinite rotation axis and with the central inversion
yields the five cylindrical symmetry groups visualized in figures 21a-e. A material with
one family of aligned fibers is a typical example for this type of symmetry.
Two perpendicular infinite rotation axes constitute spherical symmetry. In combination
with the central inversion one distinguishes between hemitropic and isotropic symmetry.
The discussed symmetry groups are summarized in table 4.
A(∞)
A(∞) A(∞) A(∞) A(∞)
PSfrag replacements
a. b. c. d. e.
A(∞) J (∞)
A(∞) J (∞)
f. g.
Figure 21: Visualization of the infinite point-groups. Cyclic groups: (a) C∞ , (b) C∞h , (c)
D∞ , (d) C∞v , (e) D∞h . Spherical groups: (f) K and (g) Kh .
The domain D is assumed to consist of a set of vectors {v i }i=1...a and symmetric and
skew-symmetric second-order tensors {Ai }i=1...b , {W i }i=1...c
D := Va × Ab × Wc (4.2)
where V denotes the Euclidean vector space, A the symmetric tensor space and W the
skew-symmetric one. The range W of f can be either R, V, A or W. For the sake of
brevity, we denote an element of the domain D with
x := {v 1 , . . . , v a , A1 , . . . , Ab , W 1 , . . . , W c } ∈ D . (4.3)
In order to keep the notation short, we define the action of the orthogonal group O(3) on
the r-th order tensor space Tr by the Rayleigh products
(Q, c) 7→ Q ? c := c r=0
? : O(3) × Tr → Tr : (Q, v) 7→ Q ? v := vi Qei r = 1 (4.4)
(Q, T ) 7→ Q ? T := Ti1 ...ir Qei1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Qeir r > 1
where Q ∈ O(3). This notation can be extended to the set of tensors (4.3) by
Q ? x := {Q ? v 1 , . . . , Q ? v a , Q ? A1 , . . . , Q ? Ab , Q ? W 1 , . . . , Q ? W c } . (4.5)
The function f is classified according to its transformation properties under the action
of the orthogonal group O(3) or subgroups of the orthogonal group G ⊂ O(3). A scalar-
valued function f with the property
f (Q ? x) = Q ? f (x) ∀Q ∈ G (4.6)
be a set of n scalar-valued functions Ii=1...n that are all invariant with respect to a given
symmetry group G. The set I is denoted as functional basis if for any G-invariant function
α(x) there exists a mapping f : Rn → R so that
α(x) = f (I1 (x)), I2 (x), . . . , In (x)) ∀x ∈ D . (4.8)
For tensor-valued functions f , tensor functions G1 (x), G2 (x), . . . , Gm (x) form a generat-
ing set if for all f satisfying (4.6) there exist invariants α1...m such that
f (x) = α1 (x)G1 (x) + · · · + αm (x)Gm (x) . (4.9)
A functional basis or a generating set are termed complete representations. They are
called irreducible, if no proper subset is again a complete representation. It is important
to note that for a given function f the choice of a complete and irreducible basis is not
unique. Even the number of elements in two different complete and irreducible bases may
differ. This fact leads to the notion of a minimal integrity basis.
Using this isotropic extension method, the problem of finding representations for aniso-
tropic functions is shifted to the problem of finding representations for isotropic functions.
The latter is well known for functions of a set of first- and second-order tensors and dis-
cussed in section 4.3. Note that the type of anisotropy is solely determined by the material
symmetry group G of the structural functions (4.10).
Remark 4.1: In literature this extension method with constant structural tensors is
referred to as the isotropicization theorem. It can easily be extended to higher-order
structural tensors. Zheng [162] specifies a single structural tensor characterizing the
symmetry group G for each crystal class. But the essential drawback of constant structural
tensors is that only some symmetry groups, namely those of transverse isotropy, triclinic,
monoclinic and rhombic anisotropy can be characterized by sets of constant first- and
second-order structural tensors. For the remaining symmetry groups, the structural ten-
sors are of higher order than two. Unfortunately, representations of tensor functions with
higher-order tensor arguments are only known in some particular cases, see for example
Zheng & Betten [160] and Betten & Helisch [14, 15].
Two points x and y of the domain D are said to be equivalent, if they are related via
an orthogonal transformation y = Q ? x with Q ∈ O(3). The coset α associated with a
given point x consists of all the points conjugate to x, i.e.
α := {y ∈ D | y = Q ? x ∀Q ∈ O(3)} . (4.15)
An important fact is that the orbits of two points x1 and x2 either coincide or have no
points in common, see Wineman & Pipkin [154]. As a consequence, the symmetry
condition (4.14) for an arbitrary point x of coset α takes the form
and assume that they belong to the same coset. Then they are related by x = Q ? x̄ and
denoted as equivalent.
The problem of finding a set of invariants that characterize the orbit can be treated
geometrically. The characteristic space of a nonzero vector v is spanned by the unit-
vector v/kvk and is denoted as oriented line.
The characterization of a symmetric second-order tensor A depends on the number of
different eigen-values. For three different eigen-values, the eigen-directions are well defined
from the corresponding eigen-value-problem and each eigen-vector spans a characteristic
line. In the case of two equal eigen-values, two eigen-vectors lie in the plane perpendicular
to the third one but the orientation inside that plane is arbitrary. Here the orientation of
the unique eigen-vector and the plane are characterized by one line.
A skew-symmetric second-order tensor is characterized by its axial vector spanning its
characteristic line, the so-called axial line.
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 41
On the basis of these geometric definitions of oriented lines, lines and axial lines the
relative orientation between elements of the sets x or x̄ can be measured. Two sets x
and x̄ are equivalent, if and only if their sets of characteristic spaces are congruent and
the characteristic values of corresponding characteristic spaces are the same. Thereby the
characteristic values are determined by the fundamental invariants
vi · vi ; tr[Ai ] , tr[A2i ] , tr[A3i ] ; tr[W 2i ] (4.19)
of each of the elements of x or x̄, respectively. The relative orientation of the elements is
measured by relative or simultaneous invariants taking into account at least two different
elements.
An important result of Wang [146] is the Equivalence Theorem. It states that two lists
x and x̄ are equivalent if and only if all their corresponding subsets up to order four are
equivalent.
Construction of the Function. As already mentioned, isotropic tensor-valued func-
tions are restricted besides (4.16) also by (4.17). The admissible tensor space containing
the function values f satisfying (4.17) is spanned by a set of so-called tensor generators
{f i }i=1,...,g which are elements of V, A or W, depending on the range W. An isotro-
pic tensor-valued function then is a linear combination of these tensor generators with
coefficients fi which are scalar-valued isotropic tensor-functions, i.e.
g
X
f (x) = fi (x)f i (x) . (4.20)
i=1
Of course, the set of tensor generators depends on the set x of tensor arguments of the
function under consideration. For details on the derivation of the generating sets we refer
to Wang [147].
4.3.1.2. Example. We illustrate the characterization of cosets with invariants with an
example. Consider two equivalent sets, each consisting of a vector and a symmetric
second-order tensor, x = {v, A} and x̄ = Q ? x = {v̄, Ā}, respectively. Firstly, each set
is partially characterized by its fundamental invariants
v · v = v̄ · v̄ and {tr[A], tr[A2 ], tr[A3 ]} ≡ {tr[Ā], tr[Ā2 ], tr[Ā3 ]} . (4.21)
Furthermore, all possible relative orientations of v̄ and Ā that result from the given
set {v, A} by the transformation Q ∈ O(3) have to be characterized. Therefore it is
sufficient to consider only those transformations that leave A unchanged and investigate
the transformation of v.
Let λi denote the eigen-values, {ni }i=1,2,3 and {n̄i }i=1,2,3 denote the eigen-vectors of A and
Ā, respectively, and assume that they are connected by eight orthogonal transformations
ni = Qn̄i so that
n1 = ±n̄1 , n2 = ±n̄2 and n3 = ±n̄3 (4.22)
where Q ∈ O(3). The eight transformations defined in this way leave A invariant, i.e.
3
X 3
X
A= λi n i ⊗ n i = λi n̄i ⊗ n̄i = Ā . (4.23)
i=1 i=1
42 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
In contrast to the transformation of the second-order tensor, here, any of the eight trans-
formations (4.22) results in a different coordinate representation. As a measure of the
possible eight orientations between the tensors v and A, two additional relative invari-
ants are introduced
cos θi := m · ni i = 1, 2, 3 (4.26)
due to the linear dependence cos2 θ1 + cos2 θ2 + cos2 θ3 = 1. With these definitions at
hand, the invariants on the left hand side in (4.25) appear in the form
v · Av = v 2 (λ1 − λ3 ) cos2 θ1 + v 2 (λ2 − λ3 ) cos2 θ2
¾
. (4.27)
v · A2 v = v 2 (λ21 − λ23 ) cos2 θ1 + v 2 (λ22 − λ23 ) cos2 θ2
The representation for the corresponding invariants of x̄ is analogously. Insertion into
(4.25) yields the result
This determines the possible orientations of the tensor v. Summarizing, the set consisting
of six fundamental and relative invariants
constitutes a functional basis for scalar-valued isotropic functions of a single vector and
an symmetric second-order tensor, because these invariants characterize the coset of x =
{v, A}.
Remark 4.2: The assumption of the existence of three distinct eigen-values of A also
covers the cases of two and three equal eigen-values. In the first case, the characteristic
space of A is a single line. The orientation of v with respect to this line is then covered by
one angle which is represented by (4.25)1 . The second invariant (4.25)2 is superfluous. In
the second case, the relative orientation of v and A is unspecified. Both invariants (4.25)
can be dropped and the coset is completely described by the fundamental invariants only.
A function basis for isotropic invariants of the tensor arguments is a set of isotropic
invariants I := {I1 (x), I2 (x), . . . , In (x)} so that any scalar-valued function restricted by
(4.30) can be expressed as a scalar-valued function of the invariants I,
For a given coordinate representation of the argument tensors, the function basis deter-
mines the values of the invariants uniquely. Or the other way round, a set of invariants
governing the coordinates of the argument tensors uniquely in a given coordinate system
constitutes a function basis. The latter was done by Rivlin & Ericksen [108] for two
symmetric second-order tensors and extended by Smith [130] to sets of first-order and
symmetric as well as skew-symmetric second-order tensors. So the main task is to deter-
mine a set of isotropic invariants I := {I1 , I2 , . . . , In } so that the coordinates of the tensor
agencies are uniquely determined by the values of the invariants through the equations
[v s ]i = f (I1 , I2 , . . . , In ) s = 1, . . . a
[As ]ij = f (I1 , I2 , . . . , In ) s = 1, . . . b (4.32)
[W s ]ij = f (I1 , I2 , . . . , In ) s = 1, . . . c
within suitable coordinate systems. The choice of special coordinate systems means no
loss of generality because once the coordinates are known, they can be transformed into
any arbitrary coordinate system.
The choice of suitable coordinate systems depends on the structure of the set of argu-
ment tensors. According to Smith [130], the eight cases listed in table 7 have to be
distinguished. The invariants obtained from these eight cases are summarized in table 8.
4.3.2.2. Examples. We illustrate the afore discussed ideas by two short examples. Con-
sider case one, where there are three linear independent vectors a, b, c ∈ x among the
elements of x. Choose an orthonormal coordinate system so that these vectors have the
following representation
a = a 1 e1 , b = b 1 e1 + b 2 e2 , c = c 1 e 1 + c 2 e 2 + c 3 e3 (4.33)
where all coordinates are positive. In this coordinate system, the coordinates of a, b and
c can be obtained from the following set of invariants
a · a, a · b, a · c, b · b, b · c, c · c . (4.34)
Then the coordinates of any other vector v ∈ x can be obtained from the three invariants
a · v, b · v, c · v . (4.35)
a · W b, a · W c, b · W c . (4.37)
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 45
the representations
3
X
v = v i ni and A = λi n i ⊗ n i (4.38)
i=1
where we assume the order of the eigen-values so that λ1 > λ2 > λ3 and vi=1,2,3 ≥ 0. The
eigen-values follow from the characteristic equation
4.4.1. Definitions
In contrast to the framework of isotropic tensor functions, we here consider tensor poly-
nomials
p:D→R, x 7→ p(x) (4.41)
where x ∈ D with D := Va × Tb2 is a set of a first-order and b second-order tensors
x := {v 1 , . . . , v a , A1 , . . . Ab } . (4.42)
Here T2 denotes the space of second-order tensors. To determine the general structure of
p, consider a set on n scalar-valued polynomials Ii=1...n which are invariant with respect
to a given symmetry group G,
I := {I1 (x), I2 (x), . . . , In (x)} with Ii (Q ? x) = Ii (x) ∀Q ∈ G . (4.43)
The set I is denoted as integrity basis if any scalar-valued G-invariant tensor polynomial
α(x) can be expressed in the form
α(x) = p(I1 (x), I2 (x), . . . , In (x)) ∀x ∈ D . (4.44)
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 47
In the following, the forms of the polynomial invariants of I will be specified. This is
done in two steps, first for vectors only and then for first-order tensors and second-order
ones.
x = {v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v a } . (4.45)
Observe that the determinant is a hemitropic invariant due to its transformation property
det[Qv 1 , Qv 2 , Qv 3 ] = det[Q] det[v 1 , v 2 , v 3 ] and has not to be considered in the context
of isotropic polynomials.
Based on Peano’s Theorem, an integrity basis for scalar-valued functions can be con-
structed as follows. First note that polarization of the scalar-product of two vectors
yields no new invariants, i.e.
I( ¯ v̄¯ , 0, 0) = 0 .
¯ v̄¯ , 0, 0) = −I( (4.50)
1 1
Consequently the scalar product constitutes an integrity basis for isotropic functions of a
single vector argument.
48 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
Now extend the set x by a second vector w. The coordinate systems are chosen in such
a way that ē3 is collinear with v × w and the coordinate representations are given by
v = v̄1 ē1 + v̄2 ē2 and w = w̄1 ē1 + w̄2 ē2 . (4.52)
From a reflection operation on the plane spanned by ē1 and ē2 on can conclude that any
invariant of two vectors has to be isotropic. Any orthogonal transformation preserves the
area A of the parallelogram spanned by v and w, for which the relation
¯ ¯
2 2
¯ v̄12 + v̄22 v̄ 1 w̄ 1 + v̄ 2 w̄ 2
¯
A = (v̄1 w̄2 − v̄2 w̄1 ) = ¯¯ 2 2
¯ (4.53)
v̄1 w̄1 + v̄2 w̄2 w̄1 + w̄2 ¯
holds. From (4.53) we conclude that the invariant I is a polynomial in the scalar products
Application of Peano’s theorem to (4.54) simply reproduces the scalar products and there-
fore any invariant of a set of vectors is a polynomial in the elements of the integrity basis
I := {v i · v i , v i · v j } i, j ∈ [1, a] . (4.55)
where the basis vectors are related according to ei = Qēi with Q ∈ O(3). The tensor A
is assumed to be isotropic and the above mentioned properties are
Consider the following invariant of a set of an even number m of vectors and an isotropic
tensor A of order m
The basic idea in order to limit the number of relevant tensor products is to show that
concrete Π’s can be expressed in terms of traces of tensor products of lower order
tr[Π(x)] = tr[p(x)] with ord(Π) > ord(p) (4.66)
50 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
A3 − A2 tr[A] + 1
2
A(tr[A]2 − tr[A2 ]) − 1 det[A] = 0 . (4.70)
Multiplication of Rivlin’s identity with D ∈ x and applying the trace operator shows
that the first line in (4.69) can be expressed in terms of traces of tensor polynomials of
lower order than 4. This is indicated by
tr[A3 D] ≡ 0 (4.72)
which states that traces of tensor products where one factor has the exponent 3 can be
expressed with traces of tensor polynomials of lower degree. This result is conform to the
well-known fact that an isotropic scalar-valued function of a single argument tensor ψ(C)
can be expressed in terms of the three fundamental invariants tr[C], tr[C 2 ] and tr[C 3 ]
and no higher order terms have to be taken into account.
Setting A = B in (4.71) we get
which motivates the convention that tensor products with two identical factors are to be
expressed according to tr[ACAD] = tr[(A2 C +CA2 )D]+p(A, C, D), where p(A, C, D)
stands for the tensor polynomial obtained from (4.69) with ord(p) < 4.
Setting D = AE in (4.73) shows that the last term is reducible and it remains
with the consequence that only such factors have to be taken into account, where A
precedes A2 in any product with both A and A2 as factors.
To obtain a complete set of rules, traces of tensor products up to an order of 7 have to be
considered. We do not want to go through the whole theory but summarize the results
discussed in detail in Spencer [132] in table 11. Based on these rules, finite integrity
ψ(x) = p(tr[Πi ]) .
The tensor products Πi follow from the set of all possible tensor products of the
argument tensors A ∈ x by application of the following rules:
1. The factors are of no higher degree than 3.
2. If one factor is of degree 3, there are no other factors.
3. The first and the last factor are no powers of the same tensor.
4. No two factors are the same.
5. Ar precedes A2r in any product with both Ar and A2r as factors.
6. If A2r and A2s , r 6= s, are both factors, they are consecutive factors.
7. No product has a degree greater than six.
bases can be deduced. Irreducibility of the so obtained bases is not guaranteed and has
to be treated separately.
We do not list the integrity bases for different set of argument tensors here but refer e.g. to
Spencer [132].
that all invariants — except the one under consideration — take the same values, i.e.
k A1 A2
√ √ 0 1 0
1 diag[−1, −1, 2] diag[1, 1, − 3 2]
3
where Ā := 1 0 0 (4.77)
2 Ā 2Ā
0 0 0
3 diag[−1, −1, 2] diag[1, 1, −2]
specific orientation of the global coordinate system with respect to the principal axes of
anisotropy, cf. also Baumberger [8].
The structure of the subsequent derivations is as follows. In a first step the isotropic ex-
tension functions Ξ(C) given in Xiao [156] are specified for the symmetry group G under
consideration. For the extended set {C, Ξ(C)} of second-order valued tensor functions
a possible function basis for an isotropic scalar-valued function is obtained from table 8.
Depending on the structure of the extension functions the thus obtained basis may obtain
linearly dependent invariants which have to be dropped.
In a second step, the consideration is restricted to quadratic functions in C and their
second derivative ψ,CC . Because ψ(C, Ξ(C)) is invariant among the central inversion at
fixed structural functions Ξ(C), only the thirteen classes no. 2, 5, 8, 11, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27,
29, 32, 34 and 37 of the tables 3 and 4 have to be investigated that include this symmetry
transformation.
It is convenient and sufficient to consider quadratic polynomials. Therefore the invariants
are combined in all possible combinations that are quadratic in C. Together with the
linear invariants they constitute the complete set of monomials for a quadratic polynomial.
Dropping out the linear dependent elements which result from the combination of the
linear invariants, the final set I := {I1 . . . In } is obtained. It is irreducible with respect to
linear dependencies among the invariants. Thus the anisotropic G-invariant polynomial
is of the form
The set of monomials I may consist of many invariants. Nevertheless the constant second
derivative ψ,CC can be reduced to an expression in terms of four fourth-order tensor
functions that will be referred to as prototypes. Let F and G denote linear functions
in C, L a quadratic function in C and M and N constant tensors. The four types of
derivatives are defined by the functions
2
I1 := ∂CC tr[L, M ] = Lijabcd Mji
2
I2 := ∂CC tr[F , M ]2 = 2Fijab Mji Fklcd Mlk
2
(4.79)
I3 := ∂CC tr[F , G, M ] = Fijab Gjkcd Mki + Fijcd Gjkab Mki
2
I4 := ∂CC tr[F , M ] tr[G, N ] = Fijab Mji Gklcd Mkl + Fijcd Mji Gklab Mkl .
Thereby the fourth-order tensors denote the first and second derivatives of the arguments
and Isym
ijab =
1
2
(δia δjb + δib δja ) denotes the symmetric fourth-order identity tensor.
The orientation of the material is determined by two orthonormal vectors a and b. Any
Ci -invariant function can be represented in terms of the elements of a functional basis for
the symmetric second-order tensor C and the two skew-symmetric second-order tensors
N and V . Table 8 lists invariants that constitute such a functional basis. For the set of
argument tensors under consideration the basis consists of the fundamental invariants
A straightforward combination of the invariants in (4.82), (4.83) and (4.84) would yield
three additional terms to those given in (4.85). But these are linear functions of the other
invariants. Enumerating the invariants of the set I with I1 , . . . , I27 these dependencies
read
tr[C] tr[CN 2 ] = − 21 (I1 + I2 + I4 + I5 − I7 − I8 )
tr[C] tr[CV 2 ] = − 12 (I1 + I3 + I4 + I6 − I7 − I9 ) (4.86)
tr[CN 2 ] tr[CV 2 ] = 1
I + I4 − 32 I7 − I8 − I9 .
2 1
Note that these dependencies stated above permit several possibilities for the choice of
which invariants to drop. With this basis at hand, quadratic polynomials ψ(C) that are
invariant with respect to symmetry transformations of the group Ci can be formulated in
terms of the elements of the monomials in I
The second derivative with respect to C gives the constant fourth-order tensor
ψ,CC = 21
P
i=1 αi Ci where Ci := Ii,CC . (4.88)
In the context of constitutive modeling, the constant coefficients α1 , . . . , α27 are denoted as
material parameters. 21 of these 27 parameters are related to quadratic terms in C. The
second derivatives of the invariants in I can be expressed in terms of the four prototypes
(4.79). We get
A coordinate representation for the second derivative requires the specification of the
orientations of the anisotropy axes with respect to the global Cartesian frame. For the
choice a = e1 and b = e2 the form
c11 c12 c13 c14 c15 c16
c22 c23 c24 c25 c26
c33 c34 c35 c36
ψ,CC = for G = Ci (4.90)
c44 c45 c46
sym. c55 c56
c66
is obtained. The coordinates are functions of the material parameters α1 -α21 , i.e.
1
c11 = 2(α1 + α3 + α7 ) c13 = 2(α1 + α3 ) c26 = 2 (α14 − α11 )
1 1
c22 = 2(α1 + α2 + α7 − α8 ) c14 = 2 (α10 − α16 ) c34 = 2 (α10 − α13 − α16 )
1 1
c33 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 + α7 − α8 ) c15 = 2 (α18 − α12 ) c35 = 2 (α15 + α18 − α12 )
1 1 1 1
c44 = 2 α4 + α 7 − 2 α8 c16 = 2 (α17 − α11 ) c36 = 2 (α14 + α17 − α11 ) (4.91)
1 1
c55 = 2 α6 + α 7 − α 8 c23 = 2(α1 + α2 ) c45 = − 4 α20
1 1 1
c66 = 2 (α5 − α8 ) + α7 c24 = 2 (α10 − α13 ) c46 = − (α9 + α19 )
4
1 1
c12 = 2 α1 c25 = 2 (α15 − α12 ) c56 = 4 α21 .
The unit vector n is aligned to the two-fold axis, a and b is a pair of arbitrary orthonor-
mal vectors perpendicular to n. Any C2h -invariant scalar-valued tensor function can be
56 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
described in terms of the elements of the function basis for two symmetric second-order
tensors C and D and a skew-symmetric second-order tensor N . From table 8 the func-
tional basis consisting of the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], (4.93)
the relative invariants of each two arguments
tr[C 2 N 2 CN ], tr[CD], tr[C 2 D], tr[CD 2 ],
(4.94)
tr[C 2 D 2 ], tr[DN 2 ], tr[D 2 N 2 ], tr[D 2 N 2 DN ]
and the relative invariants of all three argument tensors
tr[CDN ], tr[C 2 DN ], tr[CN 2 DN ] (4.95)
is obtained. In the above given functional basis the following dependencies are already
taken into account
− tr[CD 2 ] = tr[CN 2 ], − tr[CDN ] = tr[CN 2 DN ],
(4.96)
− tr[C 2 D 2 ] = tr[C 2 N 2 ], tr[CD 2 N ] = 0 .
The choice which of the dependent invariants to eliminate is arbitrary.
4.6.2.2. Application to Quadratic Functions. In order to describe a quadratic func-
tion, the linear and quadratic invariants of the irreducible functional basis are taken into
account. The linear invariants are combined multiplicatively in all possible combinations
that are quadratic in C. Thus a quadratic polynomial function can be formulated with
the combined invariants of the set
In this set I we have dropped one linear dependent quadratic invariant. Labeling the
invariants of I with I1 - I17 , the relation
tr[C 2 D 2 ] = − 21 I1 + 1
4
I2 − 1
4
I3 + 1
4
I4 + I 6 + 1
2
I11 (4.98)
holds. This set serves as a basis for C2h -invariant tensor functions of the form
ψ = ψ(C, N , D) = ψ(I1 , ..., I17 ) = 17
P
i=1 αi Ii . (4.99)
The first 13 parameters enter the constant second derivative. It runs
ψ,CC = 13
P
i=1 αi Ci where Ci := Ii,CC . (4.100)
The second derivatives of the combined invariants are
C1 = I2 (C, 1) C5 = I4 (C, 1, C, D) C9 = I4 (C, D, C, DN )
2
C2 = I2 (C, D) C6 = I4 (C, 1, C, D ) C10 = I4 (C, D 2 , C, DN )
C3 = I2 (C, D 2 ) C7 = I4 (C, 1, C, DN ) C11 = I3 (C, C, 1) (4.101)
2
C4 = I2 (C, DN ) C8 = I4 (C, D, C, D ) C12 = I3 (C, C, D)
C13 = I3 (C, C, DN ) .
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 57
The coordinates cij are in a one-to-one relation with the 13 coefficients, i.e.
c11 = 2(α1 + α2 + α5 + α6 + α8 + α11 + α12 ) + α3 c12 = 2(α1 − α2 + α6 ) + α3
c22 = 2(α1 + α2 − α5 + α6 − α8 + α11 − α12 ) + α3 c13 = 2 α1 + α5 + α6
c33 = 2 α1 + 2 α11 c14 = α7 + α9 + α10 + α13
c44 = 2 α4 + α11 c23 = 2 α1 − α5 + α6 (4.103)
1
c55 = α11 − 2 α12 c24 = α7 − α9 + α10 + α13
1
c66 = α11 + 2 α12 c34 = α7
1
c56 = 2 α13 .
can be used as additional arguments besides C. The orthonormal vectors a and b are
aligned along two of the three two-fold axis that characterize D2h . Any isotropic function
with respect to transformation of all arguments can be expressed in terms of the invariants
obtained from table 8 for two symmetric second-order tensors C and D. Thus a functional
basis consists of the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], (4.105)
and the relative invariants of the two arguments
tr[CD], tr[C 2 D], tr[CD 2 ], tr[C 2 D 2 ] . (4.106)
This set serves as a basis for quadratic D2h -invariant polynomial functions. The twelve
invariants in I are linear independent. A scalar-valued polynomial can be expressed in
terms of these invariants, i.e.
ψ,CC = 9i=1 αi Ci
P
with Ci := Ii,CC . (4.109)
The second derivatives of the invariants are functions of the nine material parameters
Aligning the anisotropy axis with the global coordinate axes, a = e1 and b = e2 , the well
known coordinate representation for the second derivative is obtained
c11 c12 c13 0 0 0
c 22 c 23 0 0 0
c 33 0 0 0
ψ,CC := for G = D2h . (4.111)
c44 0 0
sym. c55 0
c66
The coordinates of the tensor are obtained from the material parameters, i.e.
1 1
c11 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 + α4 + α5 + α6 + α7 + α8 + α9 ) c66 = α7 + 2 α8 + 2 α9
c22 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 − α4 + α5 − α6 + α7 − α8 + α9 ) c12 = 2(α1 − α2 + α3 + α5 )
c33 = 2 α1 + 2 α7 c13 = 2 α1 + α4 + α5 (4.112)
c44 = α7 + α9 c23 = 2 α1 − α4 + α5 .
1 1
c55 = α7 − 2 α8 + 2 α9
The vector n is of unit length and coincides with the four-fold axis that is characteristic for
C4h symmetry. a and b are two orthonormal vectors perpendicular to n. The functional
basis has to be set up for three symmetric second-order tensors C, A, and B combined
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 59
with one skew-symmetric second-order tensor N . From table 8 we can read off the
elements of a function basis. It consists of the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], tr[A], tr[A2 ], tr[A3 ], tr[B], tr[B 2 ], tr[B 3 ] , (4.114)
Linearly dependencies among the invariants may occur as a consequence of the structure
of the extension functions. In particular the identities
among the linear and quadratic invariants have been taken into account.
4.6.4.2. Functional Basis for Quadratic Functions. The linear invariants can be
combined to quadratic terms which together with the a priori quadratic invariants enter
the irreducible set
The seven derivatives of the quadratic invariants in I can be expressed in terms of the
four prototypes (4.79). We get
In contrast to the up to now treated symmetries, the extension functions for the considered
tetragonal symmetry are no more constant but depend on C. Therefore the derivatives
of the arguments of the prototypes (4.80) do not vanish any more, i.e.
For the choice a = e1 , b = e2 and n = e3 of the anisotropy axes, the second derivative
can be given in the matrix form
c11 c12 c13 c14 0 0
c11 c13 −c14 0 0
c33 0 0 0
ψ,CC := for G = C4h . (4.123)
c 44 0 0
sym. c55 0
c55
Finally we specify the dependence of the matrix coordinates on the polynomial coefficients
c11 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 + α4 + α5 + α6 ) c44 = α4 + α6 c12 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 )
1
c33 = 2 α1 + 2 α4 c55 = α4 + 2 α6 c13 = 2 α1 + α3 (4.124)
1
c14 = 2 α7 .
Here n is aligned to the principal four-fold axis, a and b coincide with the two-fold
axes. All three vectors are of unit length. The functional basis has to be set up for four
symmetric second-order tensors C, A, B and M . Exploitation of table 8 gives a basis
consisting of the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], tr[A], tr[A2 ], tr[A3 ], tr[B], tr[B 2 ], tr[B 3 ], (4.126)
the relative invariants of each two tensors
tr[C 2 A], tr[CA2 ], tr[C 2 A2 ], tr[CB], tr[C 2 B], tr[CB 2 ],
(4.127)
tr[C 2 B 2 ], tr[AB], tr[A2 B], tr[AB 2 ], tr[A2 B 2 ], tr[B 2 M ],
and the invariants of each three of the tensors
tr[CAB], tr[CBM ], tr[ABM ] . (4.128)
In the above specified functional basis some linearly dependent invariants have been
dropped. Besides the identity M = M 2 the following relations between linear and
quadratic invariants have been used
tr[AM ] = tr[A2 M ] = tr[BM ] = tr[ACM ] = 0
(4.129)
tr[A ] = tr[CA], tr[CM ] = tr[C] − tr[A], tr[C 1 M ] = tr[C 2 ] − tr[B]
2
I := {tr[C]2 , tr[A]2 , tr[C] tr[A], tr[C 2 ], tr[A2 ], tr[B], tr[C], tr[A]} (4.130)
Here the second derivatives of the monomials are determined by the relations
The derivatives of the structural functions that enter the expressions (4.79) via (4.80) are
Aijab = Aij,Cab = D4h ijab ,
(4.134)
Bijabcd = Bij,Cab Ccd = 12 (D4h 4h 4h 4h
ijac δbd + Dijad δbc + Dijbc δad + Dijbd δac ) .
The classical matrix representation for the second derivative is obtained by setting the
anisotropy axes according to a = e1 , b = e2 and n = e3 , so that
c11 c12 c13 0 0 0
c11 c13 0 0 0
c 33 0 0 0
ψCC = for G = D4h . (4.135)
c44 0 0
sym. c55 0
c55
Here the relations tr[W N ] = tr[V N ] = 0 are already taken into consideration.
tr[C 2 N 2 ] = 1
2
(tr[C]2 + tr[C 2 ]) + 1
4
tr[CN 2 ]2 + tr[C] tr[CN 2 ] + 92 tr[W 2 ] .
Thus a functional basis for quadratic scalar-valued tensor functions consisting of six
quadratic and two linear invariants that are assembled in the set
Deriving this function two times with respect to C yields the constant fourth-order tensor
The derivatives of the invariants can be specified in terms of the prototypes (4.79), i.e.
Wijab = Wij,Cab = 1
2
D3d
ijab +
1
2
D3d
ijba . (4.144)
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 63
acts as a isotropic extension. It differs only in the constant structural tensor from the
extension (4.137). The unit vector n characterizes the direction of the principal axis
of D3h and the three vectors ai coincide with the three two-fold axes. With the above
specified extension, a functional basis for D3h -invariant scalar-valued functions consists
of the invariants of two symmetric tensors C and M as well as the two skew-symmetric
tensors W and V specified in (4.148). A possible functional basis is obtained with the
fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], tr[W 2 ], tr[V 2 ], (4.149)
the relative invariants of each two tensor arguments
tr[CM ], tr[C 2 M ], tr[CW 2 ], tr[C 2 W 2 ], tr[C 2 W 2 CW ],
tr[CV 2 ], tr[C 2 V 2 ], tr[C 2 V 2 CV ], tr[M W 2 ], tr[M 2 W 2 M W ], (4.150)
tr[M V 2 ], tr[M 2 V 2 M V ], tr[W V ]
and the relative invariants of each three tensors
tr[CM W ], tr[C 2 M W ], tr[CW 2 M W ], tr[CM V ],
tr[C 2 M V ], tr[CV 2 M V ], tr[CW V ], tr[CW 2 V ], (4.151)
tr[CW V 2 ], tr[M W V ], tr[M W 2 V ], tr[M W V 2 ] .
To obtain a small number of invariants, the functional dependencies
tr[M W 2 ] = 1
2
tr[CM ], and M = M 2
have already been taken into account.
64 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
tr[C 2 M ] = 1
4
(tr[CM ]2 − tr[C]2 ) + 1
2
(tr[C] tr[CM ] + tr[C 2 ]) + 92 tr[W 2 ] . (4.152)
Thus a quadratic D3d -invariant scalar-valued tensor function is obtained with the set
The second derivative of ψ with respect to C then gives a constant fourth-order tensor.
Its coordinate free representation reads
P6
ψ,CC = i=1 αi C i with Ci := ∂CC Ii (4.155)
C1 = I2 (C, 1) C3 = I4 (C, 1, C, M ) C5 = I3 (W , W , 1)
(4.156)
C2 = I2 (C, M ) C4 = I3 (C, C, 1) C6 = I3 (C, W , M ) .
Here n denotes a vector of unit length aligned with the principal six-fold direction of C 6h .
The three vectors ai all lie in one plane characterized by the normal n. They are inclined
at 120◦ . A functional basis for a C6h -invariant scalar-valued tensor function is obtained
from table 8 for the three symmetric tensors C, A, B and one skew-symmetric tensor N
defined above. The basis contains the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], tr[A], tr[A2 ], tr[A3 ], tr[B], tr[B 2 ], tr[B 3 ], (4.161)
This representation accounts for the dependence tr[A] = − tr[AN 2 ] among the quadratic
invariants. Possible linear dependencies of invariants of higher order in C have not been
checked.
Thereby one linear dependency was considered when setting up (4.164), i.e.
tr[C 2 N 2 ], = 1
2
tr[C]2 + 43 tr[CN 2 ]2 + tr[C] tr[CN 2 ] − 1
2
tr[C 2 ] − 2
3
tr[A] (4.165)
Deriving this function two times with respect to C the constant tensor
C11 = 2 α1 + 2 α2 − 2 α3 + 2 α4 + 49 α5 C12 = 2 α1 + 2 α2 − 2 α3 + 34 α5
C33 = 2 α1 + 2 α4 C13 = 2 α1 − α3 . (4.171)
C55 = α4
P3
D := i=1 ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai
6h
A := (D6h : C) : C
Ξ(C) : {A, B, M } with (4.172)
B := (D6h : C 2 ) : C 2
N := n ⊗ n .
Here n denotes a vector of unit length aligned with the principal six-fold direction of
D6h . The three vectors ai all lie in one plane characterized by the normal n. They are
inclined at 120◦ and coincide with the two-fold axes. A functional basis for a D6h -invariant
scalar-valued tensor function is obtained from table 9 for the four symmetric tensors C,
A, B and N that enter the function ψ as additional arguments defined above. The basis
contains the fundamental invariants
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ], tr[A], tr[A2 ], tr[A3 ], tr[B], tr[B 2 ], tr[B 3 ], (4.173)
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 67
Oh := 3i=1 ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai
½ P
Ξ(C) : {A, B} with (4.183)
A := Oh : C, B := Oh : C 2 .
The three unit vectors ai are orthogonal to each other. Each vector coincides with a four-
fold symmetry axis. For the extension functions (4.183) a functional basis is obtained from
table 8 for three symmetric second-order tensors. We get the fundamental invariants
tr[CAB] . (4.186)
When setting up this list, the following identities have been taken into account
is obtained. The four elements are linearly independent and constitute a functional basis
that allows the construction of a complete quadratic scalar-valued Oh -invariant tensor
polynomial. In order to derive a representation of the constant second derivative of the
function ψ we consider the polynomial
ψ,CC = 3i=1 αi Ci
P
with Ci := ∂CC Ii . (4.189)
The well known coordinate representation is obtained for specific orientations of the
anisotropy axes. Setting ai = ei one gets the well-known representation
c11 c12 c12 0 0 0
c 11 c 12 0 0 0
c11 0 0 0
ψ,CC := for G = Oh (4.192)
c44 0 0
sym. c44 0
c44
Th := Tah + Tsh
Ts := P
h (i,j)∈Q ai ⊗ ai ⊗ aj ⊗ aj
Ξ(C) = {Th : C} with (4.194)
− aj ⊗ aj ⊗ ai ⊗ ai
a P
Th := (i,j,k)∈P ²ai ⊗ (aj ⊗ ak + ak ⊗ aj )
constitutes extension functions for the considered symmetry class. The set P in the
definition of the tensor Tah consists of the even permutations, the indices of the set Q
appearing in the definition of Tsh take the values given below, i.e.
The three unit vectors ai are co-linear to the two-fold axes. A functional basis for a
Th -invariant scalar-valued tensor function is a linear combination of the functional basis
for a symmetric tensor C and a skew symmetric tensor W := Tah : C and the functional
basis for two symmetric tensors C and A := Tsh : C. Thus we obtain from table 8 the
fundamental invariants
Thereby the invariant tr[W 2 ] = 34 (tr[C]2 + tr[A2 ]) − 4 tr[C 2 ] was dropped out. The set
I permits the construction of an Th -invariant function of the form
ψ = ψ(C, A, W ) = ψ(I1 , ..., I4 ) = 4i=1 αi Ii .
P
(4.198)
From that polynomial form we obtain the second derivative
ψ,CC = 3i=1 αi Ci with Ci := ∂CC Ii
P
(4.199)
based on the second derivative of the invariants
C1 = I2 (C, 1) C2 = I3 (C, C, 1) C3 = I3 (A, A, 1) (4.200)
is obtained. The coordinates are given as functions of three material constants, i.e.
c11 = 2α1 + 2α2 + 4α3 c12 = 2 α1 − 2 α3 and c44 = α2 . (4.203)
Ξ : {N } with N := ²n (4.204)
can be used to construct a C∞h -invariant scalar-valued tensor function. The unit vector
n is aligned to the principal anisotropy axes. A complete functional basis consists of the
invariants of the symmetric second-order tensor C and the skew symmetric tensor N .
Thus from table 8 we get the fundamental invariants of C
tr[C], tr[C 2 ], tr[C 3 ] (4.205)
and the relative invariants
tr[CN 2 ], tr[C 2 N 2 ], tr[C 2 N 2 CN ] . (4.206)
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 71
ψ,CC = 5i=1 αi Ci
P
with Ci := ∂CC Ii (4.209)
Ξ : {M } with M := n ⊗ n (4.213)
is an isotropic extension. n is a unit vector that coincides with the principal direction
of D∞h . Once the isotropic extension functions are known, any transversely isotropic
scalar-valued tensor function with symmetry group D∞h can be represented in terms of
the elements of a functional basis for two symmetric second-order tensors C and M .
72 Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions
Taking into account the property M = M 2 of the structural tensor, a possible functional
basis consists of the fundamental invariants
4.6.13.2. Application to Quadratic Functions. The above given elements are com-
bined such that the order in C of the combined terms is at most two. The thus obtained
set of monomials reads
The basis I consists of seven invariants that may enter a transversely isotropic polynomial.
A typical form is
P7
ψ = ψ(C, M ) = ψ(I1 , ..., I7 ) = i=1 α i Ii . (4.217)
From that representation, the second derivative is obtained in terms of the first five
coefficients
P5
ψ,CC = i=1 αi C i with Ci := ∂CC Ii . (4.218)
c11 c12 c13 0 0 0
c11 c13 0 0 0
c33 0 0 0
ψ,CC := 1
for G = D∞h . (4.220)
2
(c 11 − c12 ) 0 0
sym. c55 0
c55
c11 = 2 α1 + 2 α4 c12 = 2 α1
c33 = 2(α1 + α2 + α3 + α4 + α5 ) c13 = 2 α1 + α3 . (4.221)
1
c55 = α4 + 2
α5
Representations of Anisotropic Tensor Functions 73
4.6.14. Conclusion
The investigations of the representations for quadratic functions were carried out for
thirteen of the fourteen mechanics symmetry groups. Comparing the structure of the
coordinate-forms of the second derivatives, those for C6h , D6h , C∞h and D∞h as well as
those for Th and Oh symmetry are identical. Consequently, the fourth-order tensors of
these groups obey the same symmetries, respectively. All in all only ten different types
appear. This is a consequence of the restriction to quadratic functions which results in the
loss of information. Zheng & Boehler [163] discuss this observation. They introduce
the notion of physical symmetry for the symmetries that are covered by certain classes of
constitutive functions.
Anisotropic Elasticity 75
5. Anisotropic Elasticity
In continuum mechanics isotropic tensor functions have a huge spectrum of applications.
A representative example is the description of the elastic material behaviour of crystals.
The elastic strains are typically small so that a quadratic potential function as discussed
in chapter 4.6 can be used to describe the stored free energy in a material point. In
this case the second derivatives are the elastic moduli. Clearly, the elastic anisotropies of
crystals comprise the 32 crystal classes. Measured material constants for some crystals
can be found in Sutcliffe [135]. Further examples are multi-field problems as for in-
stance thermo-elasticity or electro-elasticity. The symmetries belonging to the non-crystal
classes come typically up when considering quasi crystals and non-crystalline materials.
Engineering materials like composites or bio-materials like soft tissues which have a fi-
brous structure are typical representatives. Homogenized material behaviour or overall
behaviour observed on a macro-scale is also often characterized by the symmetries of the
non-crystal classes. A poly crystal for example is made up of grains of mono-crystals. For
randomly orientated grains the elastic overall behaviour is isotropic. Special distributions
of the orientations of the grains can result from forming processes and generally lead to
other symmetries of the elastic material response.
The well-known textbooks of Spencer [133] and Boehler [22] as well as the article of
Spencer [132] provide an introduction into the constitutive theory for anisotropic ma-
terials. Some articles with a strong focus on elasticity are listed below. The constitutive
description of fiber-reinforced composites in the small strain context for plane problems
is part of Zheng, Betten & Spencer [161] and Zheng & Betten [159]. Bischoff-
Beiermann & Bruhns [19] derive an alternative representation for transverse isotropy
at small strains. Thereby the introduced invariants are physically interpretable. Appli-
cations to elasticity and visco-elasticity at small and finite strains are given in Kaliske
[58] and Holzapfel & Gasser [52]. A micro-mechanically based approach to hyper-
elasticity is provided by Bischoff, Arruda & Grosh [17]. They derive constitutive
equations for polymers and polymer-like materials showing a macroscopic orthotropic
behaviour. A transversely isotropic model for biological soft tissues and its finite ele-
ment implementation is discussed by Weiss, Maker & Govindjee [150]. Menzel &
Steinmann [76] compare different approaches to the description of orthotropic elasticity
at finite strains. To guarantee the existence of minimizing solutions in the context of a
variational formulation of elasticity, the stress potential function must be quasiconvex.
The condition of quasiconvexity is rather hard to handle. Alternatively, the stronger con-
dition of polyconvexity can be used. This is done by Schröder & Neff [118]. They
derive polyconvex functions for transversal isotropic materials and propose an extension
to account for orthotropic symmetries. A slightly weaker restriction than quasiconvexity
is that of rank-1-convexity. Both restrictions are very close to each other and from the
viewpoint of engineering applications, the latter is considered to be sufficient. Bruhns,
Xiao and Meyers [27] investigate strain energy functions in terms of logarithmic strains
and derive ranges where the functions are infinitesimally rank-1-convex.
states are in a one-to-one relation to the strain states. Loading and unloading takes place
on the same path in the stress-strain space, hysteresis effects are not present, i.e. D = 0
in (2.63). In the ensuing parts of this chapter we concentrate on a Lagrangian description
of elasticity.
As discussed in section 2.4.1 functions formulated in terms of the right Cauchy-Green
tensor C := F T gF are a priori objective. Let G denote a given material symmetry group
representing the symmetries of the material under consideration. The set of G-invariant
second-order tensor functions that allows the modeling of the free energy function ψ as
an isotropic function is denoted by Ξ(C). Then a G-invariant function of C is obtained
from an isotropic function of C and Ξ(C) at fixed structural functions. Thus
ψ = ψ(C, Ξ(C)) = ψ(I1 , . . . , In ) (5.1)
where I1,...,n are the invariants of the set {C, Ξ(C)} that constitute a functional basis.
Within a Lagrangian framework, the second Piola-Kirchhoff stresses are obtained by the
derivative of the free energy function with respect to C. Application of the chain rule
yields the representation
Pn
S := 2∂C ψ = 2 i=1 ψ,Ii Ii,C . (5.2)
The numerical treatment within a computer code requires the second derivative of the
free energy function. Application of the chain rule gives
2
Pn n Pn o
C := 4∂CC ψ = 4 i=1 j=1 ψ,Ii Ij Ii,C ⊗ Ij,C + ψ,Ii Ii,CC . (5.3)
The split of the stresses and moduli in (5.2) and (5.3) into scalar derivatives with re-
spect to the invariants and the derivatives of the invariants with respect to C leads to
convenient implementations of constitutive models. It offers a high flexibility and allows
a fast implementation of different constitutive functions, as long as the basis of invari-
ants remains unchanged. This is because the derivatives Ii,C remain unchanged in such a
scenario.
The volumetric part is a scalar-valued scalar function and can therefore not serve to
describe anisotropic behaviour. The anisotropy is completely modeled by the isochoric
part. A function basis can be obtained from table 9. It consists of the five invariants
2 3 2
I := {tr[Ē], tr[Ē ], tr[Ē ], tr[Ē(ā ⊗ a)], tr[Ē (a ⊗ a)]} . (5.7)
We consider a model problem, where the isochoric part of the free energy function depends
on two invariants only, i.e.
The isotropic part is a Yeoh model. It is described by three material parameters c i . The
anisotropic part is associated with the stiffness of the fibers. For the volumetric part we
set ψvol = κ(J − ln[J] − 1). The stresses and moduli are obtained by differentiation with
respect to C̄. Based on the first and second-order derivatives with respect to Ē
T := ∂Ē ψ = ψP,I1 I1 , Ē +
Pψ,I4 I4 , Ē
2 (5.9)
E := ∂Ē Ē ψ = i=1,4 { j=1,4 ψ,Ii Ij Ii,Ē ⊗ Ij,Ē + ψ,Ii Ii,Ē Ē }
The mapping tensors P := 2Ē ,C̄ and L := 4Ē ,C̄ C̄ were introduced by Miehe & Lam-
brecht [88]. They specify efficient spectral-decomposition-based algorithms to perform
mappings of the type (5.10) for all strain tensors of the Seth-Hill family. The transposition
operator in (5.10) is associated with the first and last pair of indices.
u/2
au
PSfrag replacements
ϕu
al
ϕl
u/2
Figure 22: Tension test of a rectangular bar. The bar of dimensions 10 × 5 × 1mm is
deformation driven pulled up to a total elongation of u = 10mm. The bar consists of two
layers of fiber-reinforced rubber material whereby the orientations of the fibers differ.
78 Anisotropic Elasticity
Its dimensions are 10 × 5 × 1mm. The bar is stretched to its double size in a deformation
controlled process. The material is assumed to be quasi-incompressible. The isochoric
part of the free energy is assumed to be of the form (5.8). The three material parameters
ci describe the isotropic response. Kaliske [58] has identified the following values for a
filled rubber: c1 = 0.5894, c2 = −0.1203, c3 = 0.04484. Their units are N/mm2 . The
anisotropic part is determined by the constants α1 = 1.0N/mm2 and α2 = 0.2N/mm2 .
The bulk modulus is set to κ = 1000N/mm2 . The deformed shape of the bar strongly
depends on the orientation of the structural tensors. We investigate two settings. In the
first one the vectors are oriented at ϕl = +45◦ and ϕu = −45◦ . This leads to a torsion of
the bar. The rotation is such that the orientations of the fibers align with the loading axis
because the stiffness of the material rises to its highest value in direction of the fibers.
See figure 23a for the deformed shapes. The plot in figure 24a quantifies the rotation of
the cross section at the end of the bar. It shows the angle of rotations of the fictitious
straight edges through the corner nodes of the cross section. If we set ϕl = 90◦ and
0 140
1600 1600
−20 3200 120 3200
4800 4800
−40 6400 100 6400
load [N/mm2 ]
angle [◦ ]
−60 80
−80 60
−100 40
−120 20
Sfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
−140 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
a. displacement u [mm] b. displacement u [mm]
0 300
1600 1600
−0.1 3200 250 3200
4800 4800
deflection [mm]
6400 6400
load [N/mm2 ]
−0.2 200
−0.3 150
−0.4 100
−0.5 50
Sfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
−0.6 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
c. displacement u [mm] d. displacement u [mm]
Figure 24: Tension of a rectangular bar. Twisting bar: (a) Relative torsion of the fictitious
edges obtained by straight interpolation of the corner nodes of the cross-sections at the ends:
average rotations. The upper curves document the rotation of the long edges at the top and
bottom surface, the lower curves belong to the short edges on the left and right side. (b)
Load displacement curve. Bending bar: (c) Deflection of the mid-points of the cross-section.
(d) Load displacement figure.
ϕu = 0◦ the deformation mode is completely different. In the lower layer the contraction
is blocked by the stiff fibers. Consequently the bar deforms to a groove as shown in figure
23b. The deflection in the mid-point of the cross sections is plotted in figure 24c. Figures
24b,d show the load displacement figures for both settings. The numerical computations
were carried out with Q1P0 elements as described for example in Miehe [77]. The bar
was discretized with 1600, 3200, 4800 and 6400 elements. The results of all simulations
are close up to a total deformation of u ≈ 3.5mm. Then the deflections obtained with
the different discretizations diverge. Small deviations are also observed for the angle of
rotation of the bar. The load displacement figures are independent of the discretization.
PSfrag replacements p
Figure 25: Inflation of a fiber reinforced sheet. The circular sheet has a radius of 400mm.
Its thickness is 30mm. The parallel lines symbolize the fibers. The boundary of the top face
is completely fixed, the bottom face is loaded with a pressure p = 10N/mm 2 .
perform the simulation the material model has been implemented into the non-linear
finite element program Abaqus Standard via the “umat” user interface. The specimen
is discretized with 474 C3D8I eight-node continuum elements arranged in a single layer.
The element design bases on an extension of the incompatible mode method to the non-
linear regime as suggested by Simó & Armero [123]. The results of the simulation are
documented in figure 26. While for isotropic material behaviour the deformed shape is
a sphere, the fibers prevent the uniform extension of the specimen. As the anisotropic
terms of the free energy function can be associated with contributions coming from fibers
that are added to the isotropic matrix material, the extension along the fiber direction
is expected to be less than in other directions. This effect can clearly be observed in the
plots in figure 26.
a. b. c.
Figure 26: Inflation of a sheet. Different stages of inflation: (a) side view, (b) view from
below and (c) perspective view.
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 81
F e C, S ϕ g, τ
Fp
F = ∇ϕ
X x
C̄, S̄
B Fp Fe S
X
B̄
Figure 27: Kinematic setting for multiplicative plasticity. A point X of the Lagrangian
configuration B is mapped by the non-linear point map ϕ onto the point x of the Eulerian
configuration S. Motivated by crystal plasticity, the tangent map F = ∇ϕ is multiplicatively
decomposed into a plastic part F p and a part F e := F F p−1 accounting for the elastic
deformation and the rigid body rotation of the slip systems. This split introduces a local
incompatible intermediate configuration B̄ with convected metric C̄ and symmetric stresses
S̄, the counterparts of C, S and g, τ of the reference and current configurations.
kinematic ansatz. Therein F p describes the part of the deformation that results from
plastic flow on crystallographic planes whereas F e describes the reversible distortion of
the lattice plus the rigid body rotation of the lattice. The elastic map is defined by the
composition
F e := F F p−1 (6.1)
of the deformation gradient and the inverse plastic map. F p is considered as an internal
variable that develops according to a constitutive ansatz with initial condition F p (t =
t0 ) = 1. The plastic map defines locally a stress-free state associated with a plastic
intermediate configuration B̄, see figure 27 for an illustration. In this configuration the
current metric
C̄ := F eT gF e (6.2)
is a function solely of the elastic part of the deformation. Hence it is a suitable measure
for the stored free energy function. The symmetric stress tensor in the intermediate
configuration is defined as the pull-back of the Kirchhoff stress tensor, i.e.
S̄ := F e−1 τ F e−T . (6.3)
Alternatively the quantities in (6.2) and (6.3) are obtained by a push-forward of the
Lagrangian tensors C and S, respectively. By construction, the quantities C̄ and S̄ are
82 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
L̄ := F e−1 Ḟ e
½ e
e p
L̄ = L̄ + L̄ with (6.4)
L̄p := Ḟ p F p−1 .
These two parts represent the temporal change of the elastic and plastic maps separately
with respect to the intermediate configuration. A visualization of the introduced tensors
is given in figure 28.
X L̄
x F p Fe
TX B TX B̄ Tx S
P̄ p S̄ τ, σ
S
P P̄
F p−T F e−T
Figure 28: Multiplicative decomposition of the tangent map F into an elastic part F e and
a plastic part F p in plastic-map plasticity.
Here ψ = ρ0 Ψ is the locally stored energy per unit reference volume and q̄ a generalized
˙
vector of internal variables. The latter is governed by a constitutive assumption for q̄,
evolving from the initial condition q̄(X, t = t0 ) = 0. Any thermodynamically consis-
tent constitutive model has to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics. The temporal
evolution of the free energy is obtained straight forward with (6.1) as
From the dissipation inequality (2.63)2 one obtains the first Piola-Kirchhoff stresses by
standard argumentation
Furthermore the stress-like internal variables conjugate to the plastic deformation F p and
the internal variable vector q̄ are
The actual dissipated energy is then given in terms of the Mandel tensor Σ̄ by
p 1 α
˙ +
P(Σ̄, Q̄) := −(Σ̄ : L̄ + Q̄ · q̄) (f − cα )+2 → min. (6.13)
2η
With this approach stress states outside of the elastic domain are admissible but penalized.
The superscript “+” has the meaning (•)+ := 12 {|(•)|+(•)} and η is a material parameter.
The evolution equations resulting from (6.13) are identical to those from the Lagrangian
multiplier method but the plastic parameters λα are identified as
1
λα := (f α − cα )+ (6.14)
η
and replace the loading conditions. In this case the yield criteria are replaced by viscous
pseudo yield functions
The plastic flow rule (6.12)1 can be decomposed into a symmetric part and a skew-
symmetric part. Multiplication of the flow operator from the left side with the convected
metric gives a covariant tensor that can be decomposed according to
p p p
C̄ L̄ = D̄ + W̄ (6.16)
in terms of the definitions
p p p p
D̄ := sym[C̄ L̄ ] and W̄ := skew[C̄ L̄ ] . (6.17)
Making use of the definition of the Mandel tensor in (6.9), the derivative of the level-set
function appearing in the flow rule can be expressed as
−1 α
f,αΣ̄ = C̄ f,S̄ (6.18)
where S̄ := 2ψ,C̄ denotes the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor in the intermediate
configuration. Thus the symmetric part of the flow rule takes the form
p
D̄ = α λα f,αS̄
P
(6.19)
p
and the plastic spin vanishes, W̄ = 0.
where the internal variable vector is degenerated to a single scalar value, q̄ = {A}, the so-
called equivalent plastic strain. The macroscopic part ψ e accounts for the stored energy
resulting from macroscopic lattice deformations. The microscopic or internal part ψ i
describes contributions resulting from micro-stress fields as a consequence of dislocations
or point defects in the crystal lattice. The plastic stresses are
Σ̄ := 2C̄ψ,eC̄ i
and B := −ψ,A . (6.21)
These stresses are restricted to the elastic domain, which is defined by yield criterion
functions. Here we assume the decoupled form of the level-set functions
In the following we denote the gradients of the level-set functions as normals defined by
α
N̄ := f,eα
Σ̄ and N α := f,B
iα
. (6.23)
The evolutions of the plastic strains (6.12) then run
α
L̄p = α λα N̄ and Ȧ = α λα N α
P P
(6.24)
together with the corresponding loading conditions. It is observed in experiments that
the plastic deformation of metals is volume preserving. This property can be integrated
into the constitutive model by restricting the plastic map to the special linear group, i.e.
F p ∈ SL(3) ⇔ det[F p ] = +1 . (6.25)
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 85
Here D̄ is the rate of deformation tensor. The continuous tangent moduli C̄ep are then
defined by
in terms of the normal onto the α-th yield surface as defined in (6.23). Together with the
flow operator (6.24) the first equation in (6.26) then takes the form
˙ = 2D̄ − 2P λ P̄ α
C̄ (6.29)
α α
and with the elastic moduli C̄ = 2S̄ ,C̄ , equation (6.26)2 can be recast to
α α
£vp [S̄] = C̄ : D̄ − α λα [C̄ : P̄ + 2Q̄ ] .
P
(6.30)
The plastic multipliers λα are obtained from the consistency conditions, stating that in
the case of plastic loading where λα 6= 0 the stress state remains on the yield surface, i.e.
β
f˙α = 2f,eα α β
P P
C̄ : ( D̄ − β λ β P̄ ) − β λβ N KN = 0 . (6.31)
i
Herein the hardening module is abbreviated by K := ψ,AA . Inserting the identity
α α α
f,eα
C̄ = N̄ : Σ̄,C̄ = Q̄ +
1
2
P̄ : C̄ (6.32)
Finally, insertion of this equation into (6.30) allows the identification of the in general
unsymmetric continuous elastic-plastic tangent moduli as
α α β β
C̄ep := C̄ − −1
P P
α β [gαβ ] (C̄ : P̄ + 2Q̄ ) ⊗ (2Q̄ + P̄ : C̄) (6.35)
F + ∂I ψ(C, I) = 0 . (6.37)
A(I, F , γα ) = 0 . (6.38)
p := [I, F , γα ]T (6.39)
leads to the following compact format of the non-linear system of evolution equations
F + ∂I ψ(C, I)
r(C, p) := A(I, F , γα ) =0. (6.40)
α η
−f (F , I) + cα + ∆t γα
For strain-driven deformation processes in the above system the deformation gradient F
is fixed within the time step. The iterative solution based on a Newton scheme requires
the linearization Lin[r] = r + k · ∆p in terms of the matrix
ψ,II I 0
k := r ,p = A,I A,F A,γβ . (6.41)
α α η
−f,I −f,F ∆t δαβ
p ⇐ p − k−1 r (6.42)
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 87
until convergence is obtained in the sense that krk ≤ tol. Symmetry of the tangent matrix
k is obtained if the conditions
α α
A,I = I , A,γα = −f,F and f,I =0 (6.43)
are satisfied. In single surface plasticity this is for example the case for standard implicit
update algorithms of the form A := I − In − γ∂F f (F ) with level set functions which
depend on the internal force only.
Once the inelastic variables p := [I, F , γα ]T are determined by the above-outlined local
Newton iteration,the stresses are obtained by the constitutive expression
from the free energy function. The sensitivity of the stresses with respect to the total
deformation
∆S = Calgo : 1
2
∆C (6.45)
is governed by the fourth-order consistent tangent moduli tensor Calgo , which appears in
the form
Calgo = 4∂CC
2 2
ψ + 4∂Cp ψ · p,C . (6.46)
Here the sensitivity p,C of the inelastic variables with respect to the total deformation is
obtained implicitly from the condition (6.40) yielding r ,C + k · p,C = 0 and therefore
in terms of the tangent matrix k evaluated at the solution point p of the local iteration.
Insertion into (6.46) gives the representation
Calgo = 4∂CC
2 2
ψ − 4∂Cp ψ · k−1 · r ,C (6.48)
2
of the tangent moduli. Insertion of the explicit representations for ∂CC ψ and r ,C gives
the final form
−1
ψ,CI ψ,II I 0 ψ,IC
Calgo = 4ψ,CC − 4 0 · A,I A,F A,γβ · 0 (6.49)
α α η
0 f,I f,F δ
∆t αβ
0
of the tangent moduli, consisting of the elastic contribution and a softening term due to
the accumulation of inelastic deformation in the time interval under consideration. Note
that the tangent moduli are symmetric if the conditions (6.43) are satisfied. Observe
furthermore that Calgo can be represented in the form
As for fast numerical computations within finite element codes, the general structure
outlined here can be modified so that the numerical effort is reduced. The main drawback
of the above-outlined algorithm is that the iteration is performed directly with the plastic
internal variables. This leads to a high number of local iteration steps. Taking into
account the structure of concrete algorithms allows the iteration with elastic quantities,
which need less iteration steps to converge. This is done in the next sections.
F
X x
TX B F pn F e?
Tx S
Fp Fe
e−1
X
TX B̄
Figure 29: Mappings in the stress update algorithm in plastic-map plasticity.
active constraints at the end of the time step enter the equations in (6.52). The numbers
of the active flow systems are collocated in the active set
A := {α ∈ [1, m] | γα > 0} . (6.53)
A procedure for its determination is specified in box 1 that summarizes the algorithm.
For the subsequent developments, we postulate that A is known. The update (6.52)1 is
equivalent to
F e = F e? e with F e? := F F np−1 (6.54)
where F e? is the elastic trial value. For a geometrical interpretation of these mappings
see figure 29. On the basis of the following trial values
? ? ? ? ? ?
C̄ := F e?T F e? , S̄ := 2ψ,eC̄ (C̄ ) , Σ̄ := C̄ S̄ and B ? := −ψ,A
i
(An ) (6.55)
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 89
RA = −A + An + α∈A γα N α
P
η
Rf α = f eα (Σ̄) + f iα (B) − cα − ∆t γα
q
if kRC̄ k2 + kRB k2 + | α∈A Rf α |2 < tol goto 7
P
5. Compute increments
−1 −1
∆γα = β∈A [gαβ ]−1 (Rf β − Rf β ,C̄ : RC̄,
P
C̄
: RC̄ − Rf β ,A · RA,A · RA )
η
with gαβ = Rf α ,C̄ : R−1
C̄,C̄
−1
: RC̄,γβ + Rf α ,A · RA,A · RA,γβ + ∆t δαβ
one can decide whether or not plastic loading occurs. In order to solve the constrained
?
problem (6.52) in the non-trivial case of plastic loading, indicated by f α (Σ̄ , B ? ) − cα −
η
γ > 0 for at least one α, the following residuals are defined
∆t α
?
RC̄ := −C̄ + eT C̄ e
α
P
RA := −A + An + α γα N (6.56)
Rf α := f eα (Σ̄) + f iα (B)
which have to vanish in the solution point. This non-linear coupled system of equations
is solved iteratively by a Newton scheme. Therefore (6.56) is linearized with respect to
C̄, A and γα , i.e.
P
Lin RC̄ = RC̄ + RC̄,C̄ : ∆C̄ + α RC̄,γα ∆γα = 0
P
Lin RA = RA + RA,A ∆A + α RA,γα ∆γα = 0 (6.57)
Lin Rf α = Rf α + Rf α ,C̄ : ∆C̄ + Rf α ,A ∆A + Rf α ,γα ∆γα = 0 .
Solving (6.57)1,2 for the strain increments ∆C̄ and ∆A then allows the computation of
the algorithmic parameters from (6.57)3 . Resubstitution finally yields the updates for the
strain variables. The algorithm is summarized in box 1.
The above equations differ from the implicit ones in (6.52) only in the normals, here they
are evaluated at the beginning of the time step. As before, γα := λα (tn+1 − tn ) are the
incremental plastic parameters. The set A := {α ∈ [1, m] | γα > 0} determines the active
constraints at the end of the time step and is assumed to be known for the moment.
Based on the trial values
? ? ? ? ? ?
C̄ := F e?T F e? ; S̄ := 2ψ,eC̄ (C̄ ) ; Σ̄ := C̄ S̄ and B ? := −ψ,A
i
(An ) (6.59)
that are obtained with the definitions F e = F e? e and F e? := F F np−1 one can determine
the loading state of the material in the considered time step. In the following, plastic
η
loading indicated by f α − cα − ∆t γα > 0 for at least one α ∈ [1, m] is considered.
The only unknowns in (6.58) are the algorithmic parameters γα . They are determined by
η
the consistency conditions f α − cα − ∆t γα = 0 that have to hold for all α ∈ A at the end
of the time step. These equations are solved iteratively by a Newton scheme. Therefore
consider the linearization
η
f α − cα + f,eα iα
P P
C̄ : β∈A C̄ ,γ β
∆γ β + f ,B · B ,A · β∈A A,γβ ∆γβ − ∆γα = 0 . (6.60)
∆t
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 91
α
History data: internal variables In = {F pn , An } and normals {N̄ n , Nnα }
i
C̄ = 4ψ,eC̄ C̄ , K = ψ,AA
4. Check convergence
qP
α η 2
if α∈A (f − cα − ∆t γα ) ≤ tol goto 8
6. Compute increments
η
∆γα = β∈A [gαβ ]−1 (f eβ + f iβ − cβ −
P
∆t γβ )
α α β? η
with gαβ := (2Q̄ + P̄ : C̄) : P̄ + N α KN β + ∆t δαβ
α α
Introducing the symmetric tensors P̄ and Q̄ defined in (6.28) and using the relation
(6.32) gives the linear equation
α α η
f α − cα + 1
C̄ ,γβ − N α KN β −
P © ª
β∈A (2Q̄ + P̄ : C̄) : 2
δαβ ∆γβ = 0 . (6.61)
∆t
The sensitivities of the elastic right Cauchy-Green tensor with respect to the algorithmic
parameters follow directly from the definition (6.2). Introducing the algorithmic tensors
α?
N̄ := −e−1 e,γα (6.62)
then gives a representation for the algorithmic sensitivities of C̄ with respect to γα that
α
are analogous to the definitions (6.28) of the tensors P̄ in the continuous setting, i.e.
α? ? α?
P̄ := − 12 C̄ ,γα = − sym[eT C̄ e,γα ] = sym[C̄ N̄ ] . (6.63)
With these definitions at hand, the algorithmic parameters are obtained from (6.61) as
The quantities that are superscribed with a star denote the algorithmic counterparts of
the variables introduced in the continuous setting. The incremental plastic flow operator
denotes the increment of the plastic map with respect to the intermediate configuration.
p?
With (6.52) it is defined by L̄ := ∆F p F p−1 = ∆e−1 e = −e−1 ∆e. Making use of the
fact that e depends on C̄ via Σ̄ and directly on γα , we get
p? α?
L̄ = α∈A N̄ ∆γα + N̄? : ∆C̄
P
(6.68)
with the definition N̄? := −e−1 e,C̄ . Insertion into (6.67)2 and solving for ∆C̄ yields
? P α?
∆C̄ = 2B̄ : (D̄ − α∈A P̄ ∆γα ) (6.69)
where B̄−1 := I + 2 sym12 [C̄ N̄? ] and sym12 [·] means the symmetric part with respect to
the first two indices. The increments of the algorithmic plastic parameters are obtained
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 93
from the consistency conditions. In the case of plastic loading the stress state at the end
of the time step has to lie on the yield surface, i.e.
η
∆f α = f,eα : ∆C̄ + β∈A f,γiαβ ∆γβ = ∆t
P
C̄
∆γα ∀α ∈ A . (6.70)
and then in turn the incremental flow operator in (6.68) as a function of the algorithmic
?
rate of deformation tensor D̄ , i.e.
p? ? α? α
L̄ = L̄ : D̄ where L̄ := (N̄? : R̄ + α∈A N̄ ⊗ R̄ ) .
P
(6.74)
This expression leads, when inserted into (6.67), together with the constitutive equation
∆S̄ = C̄ : 12 ∆C̄ to the form
12
C̄algo := C̄ − C̄ : sym 12 [C̄ L̄] − 2 sym 12 [S̄ L̄ T ] . (6.75)
Making use of the structure of L in (6.74), the final form of the algorithmic moduli
α? α? α
C̄algo := C̄ − (C̄ : P̄ + 2Q̄) : R̄ −
P
α∈A (C̄ : P̄ + 2Q̄ ) ⊗ R̄ (6.76)
α
The normal N̄ to the yield surface is a function of the Mandel stress tensor Σ̄. Its
derivative with respect to C̄ is then given by the formulas
1 α α
Σ̄ij,C̄kl = δik S̄lj + 2
C̄ia C̄ajkl and N̄ij, C̄kl = N̄ij,Σ̄ab Σ̄ab,C̄kl . (6.80)
There are some papers treating the numerical computation of the exponential map of
an unsymmetric argument and its derivatives. Ortiz, Radovitzky & Repetto [97]
compare two different methods for the computation of the exponential map and its first
and second derivatives. One of them bases on a Taylor series expansion of the exponential
map, the other one on a spectral representation of the argument tensor. In Itskov [56]
analytical expressions for the exponential map and its first derivative are obtained by
means of the Dunford-Taylor integral.
Simplifications for Explicit Integration. In cases where the normals onto the yield
α α
surfaces are constant, i.e. N̄ ,C̄ = 0 and N,A = 0 for all α ∈ [1, m], the above derived
equations can be simplified. This is for example the case in Schmid-type crystal plasticity,
where the structural tensors are constant in the intermediate configuration and for the
explicit integration scheme proposed in section 6.3.3. Then we have N̄? = 0 and B̄ = I.
The moduli turn out to have a structure similar to the continuous setting, i.e.
α? α? β β
C̄algo := C̄ − −1
P P
α∈A β∈A [gαβ ] (C̄ : P̄ + 2Q̄ ) ⊗ (2Q̄ + P̄ : C̄) . (6.82)
Consider the yield surface of single slip crystal plasticity specified by a level-set function of
the type f e = |Σ̄ : s̄ ⊗ m̄| where s̄ is a unit vector characterizing the slip direction and m̄
?
is a unit vector associated with the normal of the slip plane. Then the identities P̄ = P̄
?
and Q̄ = Q̄ hold and the moduli turn out to be symmetric. This follows immediately
from a series expansion of the exponential map in (6.68). This completes the classical
algorithmic treatment of crystal plasticity.
often referred to as Biot’s equation of standard dissipative systems, cf. Biot [16] and
Nguyen [96]. The two constitutive equations (6.83) and (6.85) determine the stress
response of a normal-dissipative material in a deformation-driven process where C is
prescribed. To account for a non-smooth dissipation function, the derivatives appearing
in (6.85) are understood to be sub-differentials. Plasticity and dry friction are time-
independent and non-viscous irreversible processes governed by non-smooth dissipation
functions. These functions are positively homogeneous of degree one in the fluxes,
φ(²İ, I) = ²φ(İ, I) , (6.86)
have cone-like structures and are not differentiable at İ = 0 as visualized in figure 30. An
introduction to sub-differential calculus in the context of plasticity theory can be found
e.g. in Han & Reddy [48] or Maugin [73].
PSfrag replacements φ?
φ(İ, I)
İ F
İ ∈ ∂F φ?
F ∈ ∂İ φ(İ, I)
E
Figure 30: Dissipation function φ(İ, I) for rate-independent plasticity. The dual function
φ? (F , I) is the indicator function of the elastic domain E := ∂İ φ(0, I).
Based on the definition (6.84)2 of the internal forces F , one introduces a dual dissipation
function φ? depending on the forces F by the Legendre-Fenchel transformation
φ? (F , I) = sup{ F · İ − φ(İ, I) } , (6.87)
İ
96 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
which is convex and positively homogeneous of degree one in the internal forces. The
definitions (6.84)2 and (6.87) induce the two alternative representations
F ∈ ∂İ φ(İ, I) and İ ∈ ∂F φ? (F , I) (6.88)
of Biot’s equation (6.85)1 . The internal force defined in (6.88)1 is an element of the cone
E := ∂İ φ(0, I) := { F | F · İ ≤ φ(İ, I) ∀İ } (6.89)
that is identified with the elastic domain of (6.10). See figure 30 for an illustration. In
the case of plastic loading where İ 6= 0 the reduced dissipation inequality (6.84)1 takes
the form
ρ0 D = ∂İ φ(İ, I) · İ = φ(İ, I) ≥ 0 (6.90)
where the property (6.86) has been made use of, cf. appendix C. This inequality is
satisfied by the above-assumed properties of φ.
Clearly, this function W must cover characteristics of the storage function ψ and the
dissipation function φ introduced above. To this end, consider the variational problem
Z tn+1
W (C n+1 ) := inf [ ψ̇ + φ ] dt with I(tn ) = In . (6.92)
I∈Gp tn
The necessary condition for the minimum problem is that the variation with respect to
the internal variables of the term in brackets vanishes, i.e.
Z tn+1
[∂I ψ · δI]ttn+1
n
+ [ ∂İ φ · δ İ + ∂I φ · δI ] dt = 0 . (6.94)
tn
at the discrete right boundary of the interval [tn , tn+1 ]. The minimizing path of the internal
variables inside the interval is determined by the Euler equation
d
− (∂ φ) = 0 for t ∈ [tn , tn+1 ] . (6.97)
dt İ
In the limit tn+1 → tn , the form of the minimization path becomes irrelevant because
the time increment degenerates to a discrete time tn+1 . Equation (6.96) still holds in this
case and therefore it is shown that the variational formulation (6.92) represents a con-
sistent point-wise approximation of Biot’s normal-dissipative evolution equation (6.85).
Furthermore, taking the derivative of the incremental potential function with respect to
the strains C n+1 , we have
E := {F | f α (F , I) ≤ cα ; α = 1, . . . , m} , (6.99)
which is identical to (6.10). Here the functions f α are assumed to be (i) convex with
respect to the plastic forces, (ii) positively homogeneous of degree one with respect to F
and (iii) zero at the origin, f α (0, I) = 0. Application of the principle of maximum plastic
dissipation determines the evolution of the internal variables
Alternatively, problem (6.100) can be solved approximately with a penalty method. In-
troducing the inverse penalty parameter η, the approximative solution
X 1
φ(İ, I) = sup {F · İ − (f α (F , I) − cα )+2 } (6.105)
F ∈E α
2η
is obtained. Physically, the inverse penalty parameter can be interpreted as the viscosity
of the material. This approach regularizes the rate-independent ansatz (6.101). Equation
(6.105) may be interpreted as the Legendre-Fenchel transformation of the dual dissipation
function
P 1 α
φ? (F , I) = α 2η (f (F , I) − cα )+2 . (6.106)
The evolution equation for the internal variables follows from (6.88)2 in the same form as
in the rate-independent case that is given in (6.104) but with the parameters
1
λα := (f α − cα )+ (6.107)
η
that replace the loading conditions (6.102).
The evolution equation (6.104) can be viewed as a split of the evolution into normal
directions ∂F f α and the amounts λα of plastic flow. Evaluation of the dissipation (6.100)
at the solution point with the rate (6.104) and exploiting the homogeneity of the functions
f α gives the representation
φ(λ1 , . . . , λm ) = α λα f α ≥ 0
P
(6.108)
of the dissipation. Thus the image of the level-set function f α can be considered as the
force driving the amount of flow λα on the flow system α. From (6.102)3 we get f α = cα
in the case of rate-independent plastic loading and from (6.107) f α = ηλα + cα for rate-
dependent plastic loading. Both cases are covered by the scalar dissipation function of
the form
φ(λ1 , . . . , λm ) = α φα (λα ) with φα := λα cα + η2 λ2α
P
(6.109)
which is a function of the plastic multipliers only. The rate-independent case is obtained
for η = 0.
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 99
6.4.4.1. Integration of the Free Energy. A key kinematic quantity in the time-
discrete setting that allows the construction of a symmetric formulation is the relative
plastic deformation gradient defined by
p
f̄ := F p F np−1 . (6.110)
The current metric in the intermediate configuration is a function of the relative defor-
mation gradient
p−T ? p−1
C̄ := F eT gF e = F p−T CF p−1 = f̄ C̄ f̄ (6.111)
?
where C̄ := F e?T F e? is the trial metric in the increment evaluated with the elastic
trial deformation gradient F e? := F F np−1 . Thus in the time increment [tn , tn+1 ] the
relative deformation gradient replaces the internal variable F p and the free energy function
ψ(C̄, q̄) can alternatively be parameterized by the total deformation and the incremental
internal variables, i.e.
ψ = ψ(C, I ? ) (6.112)
p
where I ? := {f̄ , q̄} is the vector of algorithmic internal variables. The algorithmic plastic
forces dual to the algorithmic internal variables are given by the derivatives
A(I ? , F ? , γα ) = 0 (6.114)
p
Herein f̄ denotes the algorithmic relative deformation gradient defined in (6.110) and
σ̄ the associated work conjugate algorithmic stress tensor. The latter is related to the
Mandel stress tensor via
p p−T
σ̄ = −∂f̄ p ψ(C, f̄ ) = Σ̄f̄ (6.116)
and is part of the vector of the algorithmic plastic forces F ? := {σ̄, Q̄}. The dissipation
can be expressed by these algorithmic tensors as
φ = ρ0 D = F ? · İ ? , (6.117)
cf. (6.115). Approximating the incremental flux by İ ? ≈ [I ? − In? ]/∆t gives together with
the assumption that F ? is constant within the time interval the expression
Z tn+1
φ dt ≈ F ? : (I ? − In? ) . (6.118)
tn
E := {F ? |f α (F ? ) − cα ≤ 0 α = 1, . . . , m} . (6.119)
Obviously, the evaluation of the level-set functions with F ? and F will give different
results as can be seen from (6.116). The deviation depends on the size of the time step
but is proven to be negligible for typical time increments used in numerical simulations.
In the limit tn+1 → tn we get the identity of both stress tensors because f p → 1.
Applying the principle of maximum plastic dissipation to the incremental setting defines
the following Lagrange function
L(F ? , γα ) := −F ? : (I − In ) + α γα (f α (F ? ) − cα ) → stat.
P
(6.120)
which is nothing but the evolution equation for the internal variables. Furthermore the
loading conditions γα ≥ 0, f α − cα ≤ 0 and γα (f α − cα ) = 0 must hold at the solution
point.
W (C n+1 ) = inf
?
[W h (C n+1 , I ? )] (6.122)
I ∈Gp
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 101
W (C n+1 ) = inf
?
sup[W h (C n+1 , I ? ) − νγ] . (6.124)
I ∈Gp ν
Here we consider the plastic multiplier to be a function of the internal variable vector,
i.e. γ = γ(I ? ). The necessary conditions read
The sensitivity of the plastic multiplier with respect to the algorithmic internal variable
vector is obtained from the integration algorithm A = −I ? + In? + γf,F ? (F ? ) = 0 for the
internal variables when considering
where we have exploited the homogeneity properties of the level-set function discussed in
appendix C. Plastic loading with γ > 0 enforces ν = 0 because of (6.125)4 . Then (6.125)1
gives the negative yield condition −f + c = 0. Thus the discrete variational formulation
results in the same set of equation as the principle of maximum plastic dissipation.
p := [I ? , F ? , γα ]T (6.127)
F ? + ∂P e ?
I ? ψ (C, I )
r(C, p) := I ? − In? − α γα ∂F ? f α (F ? ) = 0 (6.128)
η
−f α (F ? ) + cα + ∆t γα
which has to vanish in a strain driven process where F and because of that also C are
prescribed. The solution is obtained by applying a Newton scheme. The variable vector
p is updated according to
p ⇐ p − k−1 r (6.129)
102 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
until convergence is reached, i.e. krk < tol. The iteration matrix k appears within the
linearization of (6.128) and has the structure
ψ,I ? I ? I 0
P α β
k := r ,p = − α γα f,F ?F ? −f,F ?
. (6.130)
η
sym. δ
∆t αβ
In contrast to the standard stress update algorithm outlined in section 6.3.1 this varia-
tional formulation is always symmetric.
The last part vanishes due to the necessary condition (6.130)1 so that the stresses are
determined by the constitutive equation
The sensitivity of the stresses with respect to the deformation is given by the second
derivative which turns out to have the form
The sensitivity of the variable vector with respect to the deformation is obtained from
the consistency condition dC r = ∂C r + ∂p r · p,C = 0. With the derivatives
2
∂Cp W h = [ψ,CI ? , 0, 0]T and ∂C r = [ψ,I ? C , 0, 0]T (6.134)
2 2 2
C = ∂CC ψ − ∂CI ? ψ · k̃ · ∂I ? C ψ (6.135)
where k̃ denotes the quadratic upper left sub-matrix of the inverse iteration matrix k −1
with dimension (len[I ? ] × len[I ? ]), compare (6.50) and (6.51).
For the integration we apply an algorithm based on an operator split. In a first step the
evolution equations are integrated by a backward Euler algorithm, i.e.
p P α ¾
f̄ − 1 − Pα∈A γα N̄ = 0
. (6.137)
A − An − α∈A γα N α = 0
p
The algorithmic variable vector p := [f̄ , A, σ̄, B, γα ]T is updated iteratively in terms of
the residual
p
σ̄ + ∂f̄ p ψ e (C̄, f̄ )
B +P ∂A ψ i (A)
p eα
r(C, p) :=
f̄ − 1 − Pα γα ∂σ̄ f (σ̄) =0
(6.138)
A − An − iα
α γα ∂B f (B)
η
−f eα (σ̄) − f iα (B) + cα + ∆t γα
If the local iteration has converged, the relative plastic deformation gradient has to be
corrected. This is because of the additive update that violates the incompressibility
constraint f p ∈ SL(3). We suggest a correction of the form
p p p
f̄ ⇐ det[f̄ ]−1/3 f̄ . (6.142)
104 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
A(γα ) = 0 . (6.143)
The internal variable vector is a function of the plastic parameters, I = I(γ α ). A well-
known representative is the forward Euler scheme I = In + α γα ∂Σ̄ f α (Fn , In ). For the
P
dissipation function one obtains with (6.108) the expression
Z tn+1
1 η 2
P P
α φα (λα ) dt = α cα γα + 2 ∆t γα . (6.144)
tn
W,γhα − να = 0 , να ≥ 0 , γα ≥ 0 , ν α γα = 0 . (6.148)
that determine the algorithmic parameters γα . In the case of plastic loading a non-empty
set of active constraints exists
A := {α | γα 6= 0} (6.150)
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 105
During the iteration the set of active constraints may change. We apply the update
procedure of the active set proposed by Miehe, Schotte & Lambrecht [90] in the
context of crystal plasticity.
The solution of the minimization problem and the integration of the internal variables is
coupled and has to be treated simultaneously. The minimization problem can be viewed
as an energetic counterpart of the consistency condition of the standard formulation. In
contrast to the standard formulation the update of the plastic increments in the varia-
tional framework is solely determined by this so-called energetic consistency condition.
The update of the internal variables in any iteration step is performed according to the
integration algorithm (6.143).
6.4.10. Stresses and Algorithmic Tangent Moduli (V2)
Once the constrained minimization problem (6.145) is solved, the stresses and elastic-
plastic moduli are obtained by function evaluation of the derivatives of the incremental
stress potential function W . According to (6.91), the derivative with respect to the strains
C n+1 yield the stresses S n+1 . Application of the chain rule gives the expression
dC W = ∂C W h + α∈A W,γhα γα,C .
P
(6.153)
In the solution point the last term drops out because (6.149)3 gives W,γhα = 0 for plastic
loading where γα > 0 and γα,C = 0 in the case of elastic behaviour, where γα = 0 =
constant. Thus the stresses are
The sensitivity of the stresses with respect to the strains is governed by the algorithmic
tangent moduli. Like the moduli in elasticity theory they are obtained by the second
derivative of the stress potential function in the solution point
Cep 2 h h
P
n+1 := 4dCC W (C n+1 ) = 4W,CC + 4 α∈A W,Cγα ⊗ γα,C . (6.155)
The sensitivity of the incremental plastic parameter with respect to the strains is obtained
by linearization of the necessary condition (6.149)3 with respect to the deformation. In-
serting the result
γα,C = − β∈A [W,γhα γβ ]−1 W,γhβ C
P
(6.156)
into (6.155) gives the algorithmic elastic-plastic moduli
Cep h h −1 h
⊗ W,γhβ C .
P P
n+1 = 4W,CC − 4 α∈A β∈A [W,γα γβ ] W,Cγα (6.157)
They consist of an elastic contribution and a softening part. The latter is a consequence of
a change in the internal variables of the material within the time step under consideration.
The algorithm is summarized in box 3.
106 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
4. Check convergence
qP
if ( α∈A W,γhα )2 ≤ tol goto 7
The integration of the internal variables is performed with the explicit scheme (6.58).
The solution of the minimization problem (6.145) with a Newton scheme bases on the
derivatives of the function W h with respect to the algorithmic parameters γα . The stresses
and moduli require the derivatives with respect to the total strains. So the following
expressions have to be specified
)
η
W,γhα = ψ,γα + cα + ∆t h
γα W,C = ψ,C̄ : C̄ ,C W,γhα C = ψ,γα C̄ : C̄ ,C
η
(6.159)
W,γhα γβ = ψ,γα γβ + ∆t δαβ h
WCC h
= C̄ ,C : ψ,C̄ C̄ : C̄ ,C W,Cγ α
= C̄ ,C : ψ,C̄γα
for the functions given in (6.158). The following compact expressions for the derivatives
of the free energy with respect to the elastic deformation measure C̄ are obtained
ψ,γα = 2ψ,C̄ : 12 C̄ ,γα + ψ,A A,γα
1 1 1
ψ,γα γβ = 2 C̄ ,γα : 4ψ,C̄ C̄ : 2 C̄ ,γβ + 2ψ,C̄ : 2 C̄ ,γα γβ + A,γα ψ,AA A,γβ
(6.160)
ψ,C̄γα = ψ,C̄ C̄ : C̄ ,γα + 2 sym[e−1 e,γα ψ,C̄ ]
ψ,γα C̄ = ψ,C̄γα .
Within the iterative solution procedure of the minimization problem the internal variables
are updated according to
?
C̄ ⇐ eT (γα )P
¾
C̄ e(γα )
(6.161)
A ⇐ A + α∈A A,γα ∆γα .
It remains to specify the derivatives appearing in (6.160). They are obtained in terms of
derivatives of the exponential map, i.e.
1 ?
= sym[eT C̄ e,γα ] = sym[C̄e−1 e,γα ]
¾
2
C̄ ,γα
1 ? ? (6.162)
2
C̄ ,γα γβ = sym[eT,γβ C̄ eγα ] + sym[eT C̄ e,γα γβ ] .
I := {tr[C̄], 1
2
(tr[C̄]2 − tr[C̄ 2 ]), det[C̄], tr[(Ō : C̄)2 ]} (6.164)
which is of course far from being complete. The first three invariants are the principal
invariants of the current metric in the intermediate configuration C̄ := F eT gF e , the
fourth invariant accounts for cubic symmetry. The fourth-order tensor Ō is defined in
terms of the three orthonormal anisotropy directions that characterize cubic symmetry,
O := 3i=1 ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai ⊗ ai .
P
(6.165)
For the considered model problem we assume the elastic constitutive function
−β/2
ψ = µ2 (I1 − 3) + βµ (I3 − 1) + 1
4
α(I4 − 2I1 + 3) + ψ i (A) (6.166)
where ψ i = 12 hA2 +(y∞ −y0 )(A+ ω1 exp[−ωA]) accounts for non-linear isotropic hardening.
The first two terms in the free energy function represent the isotropic part in form of
a compressible Neo-Hooke model, whereas the latter two parts model the anisotropic
response. The shear modulus is denoted by µ, the parameter β is related to the Poisson
ration according to
2ν
β= . (6.167)
1 − 2ν
α is a parameter for the cubic part. The plastic contribution is governed by the hardening
modulus h, the initial yield stress y0 and the saturation yield stress y∞ .
In metallic materials plastic deformation is associated with movements of dislocations in
so-called slip planes. The deformations take place when the Schmid-stress in a slip plane
reaches a critical value. The corresponding yield criterion functions read
α
φα = f eα (Σ̄, M̄ ) + f iα (B) − y0α ≤ 0 . (6.168)
α
The second-order tensors M̄ := s̄α ⊗ m̄α characterize the slip systems by two orthogonal
vectors. Here m̄α denotes the normal of the slip plane and s̄α specifies the direction in
which plastic flow takes place. Thus the following relations hold
α
f eα := |Σ̄ : M̄ | and f iα := B . (6.170)
parameterized with the scalar γ. The evolution of the slip systems’ orientations during
the deformation process is depicted in figure 31 by the two lines inside of the elements.
At the beginning of the deformation process both slip lines rotate rapidly clockwise. The
Figure 31: Rotation of the slip planes in a simple shear test. The lines indicate the slip
orientations. The sequence shows deformation states at γ = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0 and γ = 2.5.
rotation becomes slower as the orientation tends towards a preferred alignment, where one
of the slip systems is in line with the shearing direction. The rotation of the slip systems
is not proportional to the global deformation of the specimen. Some more insight to what
is going on during the deformation process is gained by the plot in figure 32. There the
angles of the rotations contained in the elastic and plastic maps obtained from a polar
decomposition are plotted. The sum of the rotation angles from the elastic and plastic
maps coincide very well with the overall rotation contained in F . At the beginning of
the process, the elastic rotation increases faster than the overall rotation and converges
towards a final value of −60◦ . The plastic rotation first compensates the fast elastic
rotation by turning to the opposite direction. When the latter slows down, the plastic
40
F
20 Fe
Fp
Fe + Fp
angle [◦ ]
−40
−60
−80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
shear parameter γ
Figure 32: Rotation of the slip planes in a simple shear test. The plot documents the
rotations contained in the maps F , F e and F p . The structural tensors map with the elastic
map and rotate counter clockwise up to an angle of −60◦ .
110 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
rotation more and more develops like the global rotation. For the application of a similar
double slip model to the simulation of the necking of a metallic strip we refer to Miehe [81]
for rate-independent crystal plasticity and to Steinmann & Stein [134] in the context of
rate-dependent response as well as preceding publications by other authors cited therein.
200
a2 200
PSfrag replacements
u a1 200
200
Figure 33: Drawing of a circular flange in plane strain. The inner boundary is pulled
towards the center up to a final deformation of u = 75mm. The crosses indicate the tangent
vectors of the slip planes aligned at 60◦ to each other. All length in mm.
towards the center until a final deformation of u = 75mm is reached. In the computation
increments of ∆u = 0.1mm are used. The slip systems are inclined at 60◦ to each other.
Their orientation is specified by the crosses in the figure. The elastic behaviour is described
by three elastic constants. For the purely isotropic parameters we set µ = 75000N/mm 2
and β = 0.8067. The cubic coupling parameter is set to α = −51500N/mm2 . This choice
reflects the elastic behaviour of copper. The non-linear plastic response is governed by
a hardening modulus of h = 100N/mm2 , an initial yield stress of y0 = 80N/mm2 and
the saturation stress of y∞ = 110N/mm2 . The saturation parameter is set to ω = 16,
the viscosity is η = 0.1Ns/mm2 . The specimen is discretized by 644 six-node triangular
elements. The computation is performed with the implicit algorithms U1 and V1. Figure
34 shows the results of the simulation. One clearly sees the softer behaviour along the
a. b. c.
Figure 34: Drawing of a circular flange in plane strain. Distribution of the equivalent plastic
strain for displacements of (a) 24mm, (b) 48mm and (c) 75mm of the inner boundary.
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 111
vertical axis a2 that has smaller angles with the slip systems than the horizontal axis
a1 . The distribution of the equivalent plastic strain obtained with both algorithms are
indistinguishable.
1 e e 1
ψ(C̄, A) = 2
kĒ kĒ + ψi (A) where Ē = 2
ln[C̄] (6.172)
where ψ i = 12 hA2 +(y∞ −y0 )(A+ ω1 exp[−ωA]) accounts for non-linear isotropic hardening.
e
√ e e
Here kĒ kĒ := Ē : Ē : Ē is the norm of the Hencky strain tensor with respect to
a constant fourth-order tensor Ē that characterizes the macroscopic elasticity moduli
associated with a fictitious lattice of the intermediate configuration. Due to the fact that
Ē can be derived from a potential function as discussed in section 4.6 and the symmetry
e
of Ē and the logarithmic stresses ψ,Ē e , the elasticity tensor has the major and minor
symmetries, i.e.
ĒĀB̄ C̄ D̄ = ĒC̄ D̄ĀB̄ = ĒB̄ ĀC̄ D̄ = ĒĀB̄ D̄C̄ . (6.173)
The scalar variable A accounts for energy storage due to micro-stress fields.
The unsymmetric tensor Σ̄ = C̄ S̄ is referred to as Mandel tensor, cf. (6.9)2 , and B is the
stress variable dual to A. The constant fourth-order tensors H̄α are assumed to possess
the major and minor symmetries, i.e.
H̄Ā
α
B̄ C̄ D̄
= H̄C̄
α
D̄ ĀB̄
= H̄B̄
α
ĀC̄ D̄
= H̄Ā
α
B̄ D̄ C̄
. (6.175)
In order to model incompressible plastic flow, the plasticity tensors are restricted to the
deviatoric subspace of the fourth-order tensors possessing major and minor symmetries
(6.175) by the constraints
H̄α : 1 = 0 . (6.176)
Then obviously H̄α = P : H̄α : P where P is the deviatoric projection tensor defined by
P := I − 13 1 ⊗ 1.
In the context of single surface plasticity, (6.174) with restrictions (6.176) leads to a
yield criterion which is similar to the widely-used Hill-criterion derived in the classical
textbook by Hill [50]. The construction of a coordinate-free deviatoric representation of
H̄ for some types of anisotropy is discussed in the next section.
112 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
with the definitions mij := 21 (ai ⊗aj +aj ⊗ai ). A coordinate form of this coordinate-free
representation has been proposed by Smith & Rivlin [131]. Having this basis at hand,
we define the fourth-order tensor as the second derivative of an isotropic function χ, i.e.
2
M := ∂ηη χ(I1 , . . . , I7 ) , (6.182)
where Ii=1...7 denote the elements of the function basis I3 . For a quadratic function of
the form
χ = 21 α1 I12 + 21 α2 I22 + 12 α3 I32
(6.183)
+ α 4 I1 I2 + α 5 I2 I3 + α 6 I1 I3 + α 7 I4 + α 8 I5 + α 9 I6
we obtain the constant fourth-order structural tensor
M = α 1 m1 ⊗ m 1 + α 2 m2 ⊗ m 2 + α 3 m3 ⊗ m 3
+ α4 Sym[m1 ⊗ m2 ] + α5 Sym[m2 ⊗ m3 ] + α6 Sym[m1 ⊗ m3 ] (6.184)
+ 2α7 m12 ⊗ m21 + 2α8 m23 ⊗ m32 + 2α9 m13 ⊗ m31 .
Here we use the abbreviation Sym[mi ⊗mj ] := 12 (mi ⊗mj +mj ⊗mi ). Clearly, the tensor
M has the major and minor symmetries. A comparable approach to the construction of
integrity bases and structural tensors functions for orthotropic anisotropy is outlined
in Boehler [21]. In a Cartesian coordinate system aligned to the axes of orthotropy
{ai }i=1,2,3 , the tensor appears in the simple coordinate representation
α1 α4 α6 0 0 0
α2 α5 0 0 0
α 3 0 0 0
M= 1
(6.185)
α
2 7
0 0
1
sym. α
2 8
0
1
α
2 9
in terms of nine material parameters. The deviatoric property (6.176) is satisfied for the
three dependencies
1 1 1
α4 = 2
(α3 − α1 − α2 ) ; α5 = 2
(α1 − α2 − α3 ) ; α6 = 2
(α2 − α1 − α3 ) (6.186)
α1 6= α2 = α3 , α4 = α6 6= α5 , α8 = α2 − α5 ) 6= α7 = α9 . (6.187)
(ii) Cubic symmetry has equal material response with respect to all three axes, i.e.
α1 = α 2 = α 3 , α4 = α5 = α6 , α7 = α8 = α9 . (6.188)
α1 = α 2 = α 3 = α 4 + α 7 , α4 = α5 = α6 , α7 = α8 = α9 . (6.189)
The elasticity tensor Ē in the free energy function is specified to anisotropic response
by setting Ē = M. The function is then described in terms of nine elastic constants
114 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
α1,...,9 . For isotropic elastic material behaviour, these are related to the well-known Lamé
constants λ and µ by α1,2,3 = λ + 2µ, α4,5,6 = λ and α7,8,9 = 2µ.
Setting H̄ = M specifies the plasticity tensor for the considered symmetries. Orthotropic
plastic yielding for incompressible plastic flow is governed by the six parameters α 1,2,3 and
α7,8,9 while α4,5,6 are determined by condition (6.186). These parameters are related to the
initial yield stresses yij with respect to the principal axes of orthotropy. For the simple
tension
p modes one obtains, by evaluating the level-set function (6.174) with threshold
c = 2/3y0 in box 4 line (4), the relations
respectively. The simple shear test is parameterized by the shear parameter γ. To obtain
the corresponding stresses a single pass through the return scheme is required. The simple
tension test is parameterized by the stretch λ along the e1 axis. The contraction f (λ) of
the material in the direction perpendicular to the stretch direction has to be determined
iteratively so that the stresses along e2 and e3 vanish. For that test, the return algorithm
is passed several times in a single time step.
The computations are carried out using a single surface Hill-type plasticity model as
discussed in section 6.6. The material parameters are κ = 164200N/mm2 and µ =
80190N/mm2 for isotropic elasticity. Two different symmetry properties of the level-
2
set function are investigated. The reference yield stress is set to y0 = 450N/mm √ . An
O(3)-invariant function is then completely determined, i.e. y11 = y0 and y12 = y0 / 3. For
Oh -invariant cubic symmetry we set y11 = y0 , y12 = 129.904N/mm2 . Thus the resistance
to shear stresses is weakened compared with the isotropic case. The principal axes of
anisotropy ai coincide with the global coordinate axes. All computations are carried out
for rate-independent ideal elasto-plasticity.
The load-displacement curves for the tests specified in (6.192) are plotted in figure 35.
The quality of the stress response depends on the size of the increments that is used to
reach the final shear deformation of γ = 4 and the final stretch of λ = 4. The size of the
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 115
200
stress τ11 [N/mm2 ] 200
480 40
tress τ12 [N/mm2 ] PSfrag replacements
stress τ11 [N/mm2 ]
20
shear parameter γ 460 stress τ11 [N/mm2 ]
0
stress τ12 [N/mm2 ]
angle [◦ ]
−20
angle [◦ ] 440
U1 1.E-02 −40
420 V1 1.E-02 stretch λ
−60
V1 1.E-01 F
V2 1.E-01 −80 Fe
400 V2 1.E-02 Fp
U2 1.E-02 −100 Fe + Fp
380 −120
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
e. f. shear parameter γ
stretch λ
Figure 35: Comparison of the stress update algorithms U1: standard implicit, U2: standard
explicit, V1: variational implicit and V2: variational explicit. Isotropic material response:
(a) simple shear test and (b) simple tension test. Cubic material response: (c) and (d)
simple shear test, (e) simple tension test and (f) angle of rotation from polar decomposition
of the deformation maps. The numbers denote the size of the time increment used. Note
the ranges of the τ11 -axes in (b) and (e)!
116 Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity
increments was increased as long as the results were reasonable and the thus obtained
curves are plotted in figure 35.
For the shear test with the isotropic material the results obtained and depicted in figure
35a can be summarized as follows. Deviations from the solutions obtained with the
algorithms U1, U2 and V2 that use the yield criterion function of the continuous setting
are observed for the algorithm V1. This is mainly because the latter uses algorithmic
stresses that enter the yield function. The increment of 1.E-01 is too large for V1, the
results obtained with 1.E-02 does not improve for smaller steps. Figure 35b shows the
tensile stresses for the tension test. The algorithms U1, U2 and V2 all tend to an identical
result while V1 shows slight deviations. Note the range of the stress axis!
Figures 35c-f document the results for cubic material behaviour. The cubic symmetry
is reflected in the periodical stress response. This is because of the linearly increasing
rotation of the flow system documented in figure 35f. Recall that the rigid body rotation
of the flow system is part of the elastic map F e . In figure 35c the implicit algorithms U1
and V1 are compared. For a step size of 1.E-02 both yield identical results. For small
steps, the explicit algorithms U2 and V2 give the same stress response. It is identical to
the one obtained with the implicit algorithm U1 but the step size is only a tenth of that for
the latter. If one increases the step size, the algorithms become unstable as documented
in figure 35d. Finally, figure 35e shows the results for the simple tension test. As for the
isotropic material, the stresses from algorithm V1 slightly deviate from the results of the
other algorithms, even when the step size is refined. Note again the range of the stress
axis.
Pvol := 13 1 ⊗ 1
½
sym
I = Pvol + Piso with (6.193)
Piso := Isym − Pvol .
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 117
For a cubic tensor, where the axes of anisotropy coincide with the global coordinate axes,
the decomposition reads
½ P3
sym Pcub1 = Ni ⊗ Ni
I = Pvol + Pcub1 + Pcub2 with Pi=2
6 (6.194)
Pcub2 = i=4 N i ⊗ N i
where N i are the eigen-tensors of the cubic tensor. For the first cubic projection tensor,
they are defined by
0 0 0 −2 0 0
1 1
N2 = 0 1 0 , N3 = 0 1 0 . (6.195)
2 6
0 0 −1 0 0 1
that are associated to shear deformations of a unit cube along the anisotropy axes. A
cubic Hill-type plasticity model with plastic incompressible flow is then defined by two
level-set functions in terms of the cubic projection tensors, i.e.
q q
1 2 2 2
f (Σ) := kΣkPcub1 + 3
B and f (Σ) := kΣkPcub2 + 3
B . (6.197)
ψ = ψ(C, F p ) . (6.198)
Superimposed rotations onto the intermediate configuration restrict the free energy to
The second-order tensor Gp is denoted as plastic metric because of its symmetry and
positive definiteness. In contrast to the unsymmetric plastic map F p ∈ SL(3) the plastic
metric Gp ∈ Sym+ (3) cannot describe rotations. Observe that the function ψ in (6.200)
solely depends on Lagrangian quantities. Within a plastic-metric framework the intro-
duction of an intermediate configuration is superfluous. The plastic metric describes the
plastic deformation of the material and is governed by a constitutive evolution law with
initial condition Gp (t = t0 ) = Gp0 .
In the subsequent development we consider additional Lagrangian internal variables that
are assembled in the generalized vector q. For the functional dependency
ψ = ψ(C, Gp , q) (6.201)
1
exploitation of the dissipation inequality ρ0 D = S : 2
Ċ − ψ̇ ≥ 0 motivates the following
definitions of stress variables
S := 2ψ,C , S p := −ψ,Gp and Q := −ψ,q . (6.202)
With these definitions, the reduced form of the dissipation inequality reads
ρ0 D = S p : Ġp + Q · q̇ ≥ 0 . (6.203)
Yield criteria formulated in the reference configuration restrict the stress according to
φα = f eα (S p ) + f iα (Q) − cα ≤ 0 . (6.207)
Approaches to Anisotropic Plasticity 119
Ṡ = Cep : 1
2
Ċ . (6.208)
The stress tensor is defined in (6.202)1 . Together with the decoupled ansatz of the free
energy function (6.206) and the evolution equation (6.205)1 its rate takes the form
eα
Ṡ = 2S ,C : 12 Ċ + α λα S ,Gp : f,S
P
p . (6.209)
The amounts λα of plastic flow are determined by the consistency conditions f˙α = 0 in
the case of plastic loading of the flow systems α. Thus we obtain
eβ p
λα = − β [gαβ ]−1 {f,S
P
p : S ,C : Ċ} (6.210)
eα p eβ iα iβ
with the matrix gαβ := f,S p : S p : f p + f,Q · Q,q · f
G ,S ,Q . Insertion into (6.209) then gives
by comparison with (6.208) the elasto-plastic tangent moduli
Cep := C + 4 −1
S pT eα eβ p
P P
α β [gαβ ] ,C : f,S p ⊗ f,S p : S ,C . (6.211)
Here we have exploited the interchangeability of the second derivatives S ,Gp = −2S pT
,C .
Gp = Gpn + P α∈A γα N α
P
q = q n + α∈A γα M α (6.212)
α α
γα ≥ 0 , f − cα ≤ 0 , γα (f − cα ) = 0 .
Here, N α := f,S
eα
p and N
α iα
:= f,Q . The set A contains the numbers of the flow systems that
are active. The constrained set of equations (6.212) is solved iteratively with a Newton
scheme. Therefore, the residuals
RG := −Gp + Gpn +P α∈A γα N α = 0
P
Rq := −q + q n + α∈A γα M α = 0 (6.213)
α
Rfα := f − cα = 0
are defined, which have to vanish in the solution point at the end of the time step. For
its determination see the exposition in section 6.3.1. The linearization at fixed C with
respect to the variables Gp , q and γα reads
Lin RG = RG − [I − N : S p,Gp ] : ∆Gp + α∈A ∆γα N α = 0
P
Here we have abbreviated the weighted sum over the second derivatives of the level-set
function with
eα iα
P P
N := α∈A γα f,S p p
S and M := α∈A γα f,QQ . (6.215)
To obtain a short and compact representation, the following definitions are introduced
Within the considered algorithm, the stresses are determined for prescribed deformations,
i.e. ∆C = 0. This system of linear equations in the increments is solved for the incre-
mental plastic multiplier. The result is
gαβ := N α : Ξ : N β + M α · Υ · M β . (6.218)
p
The iteration has terminated when kRG k2 + kRq k2 + α∈A (Rf α )2 < tol, where tol
P
denotes the machine-dependent numerical zero.
∆S = Calgo : 1
2
∆C . (6.220)
In contrast to the situation in the stress update algorithm, now the global deformation
prescribed by C is no more constant. In the solution point determined by the stress
update algorithm, the residuals in (6.213) are zero. Then from (6.212) the increments of
the internal variables
∆Gp = (S p,Gp )−1 : Ξ : ( α∈A N α ∆γα + N : S p,C ) : ∆C
P ¾
(6.221)
= (Q,q )−1 · Υ · α∈A M α ∆γα
P
∆q
are obtained. The linearization of an active consistency condition (6.212)3 in the solution
point reads
with the matrix gαβ as defined in (6.218). The linearization of the second Piola-Kirchhoff
stresses
∆S = C : 1
2
∆C + S Gp : ∆Gp (6.224)
Calgo := C − 4 S pT p
,C : (S ,Gp )
−1
: Ξ : N : S p,C
(6.225)
+ 4 α∈A β∈A S pT p −1
: Ξ : N α ⊗ (N β : Ξ : N + N β ) : S p,C .
P P
,C : (S ,Gp )
Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space 123
F = ∇ϕ
X x
B S
Figure 36: Kinematic setting for additive plasticity. A point X of the Lagrangian con-
figuration B is mapped by the non-linear point map ϕ onto the point x of the Eulerian
configuration S. The total deformation is measured by the convected metrics C and g in
the reference and current settings, respectively. The plastic deformation is governed by the
reference plastic metric Gp and its current counterpart cp .
Within a Lagrangian setting, the total deformation of a body B can be measured with
the a priori objective right Cauchy-Green-tensor
C := F T gF (7.1)
which represents the current metric g in the Lagrangian manifold. According to the works
of Coleman & Gurtin [32] and Lubliner [68], the history of the inelastic deformation
process can be described by internal variables. Following the works of Miehe [82, 83] the
plastic deformation is to be described in terms of a so-called plastic metric Gp ∈ Sym+ (3).
It is a co-variant second-order tensor which develops within the elastic-plastic deformation
process starting from the initial condition
Gp (t0 ) = G , (7.2)
where G is the Lagrangian metric tensor defined in (2.26) and t0 denotes the time at the
beginning of the deformation process which is assumed to be stress free.
E e = E e (C, Gp ) . (7.3)
124 Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space
In Miehe [82, 83] several possible definitions of the elastic strain variable are given. Here
we consider the elementary additive form
E e := E − E p (7.4)
E := 1
2
ln[C] and E p := 1
2
ln[Gp ] , (7.5)
respectively. A key property of the logarithmic tensor function in the context of metal
elasto-plasticity is the mapping of the large strain multiplicative plastic incompressibility
constraint onto an additive restriction. The structure of that additive restriction is the
same as the one in the small strain theory. Reformulation of (7.5)2 gives the plastic
Jacobian
p
J p := det[Gp ] = exp[tr[E p ]] (7.6)
that is a measure for the change of volume due to plastic deformation. The constraint
J p = 1 takes the additive form
tr[E p ] = 0 (7.7)
similar to the geometric linear theory. The one-to-one relation between G p in the Eu-
clidean space and E p in the logarithmic space suggests the usage of E p as internal vari-
able. Thus a constitutive model can be formulated exclusively in terms of quantities of
the logarithmic strain space.
ρ0 D := T : Ė − ψ̇(E, I) ≥ 0 . (7.9)
The constitutive model can be viewed as a “material box”. Its input is the logarithmic
strain tensor and a set of internal variables. The output is the current stress tensor T
dual to the logarithmic strain tensor and the associated elastic-plastic tangent moduli
Eep , i.e.
The elasto-plastic tangent moduli relate the rate of total logarithmic strains to the rate
of logarithmic stresses
Ṫ = Eep : Ė . (7.11)
The attractive feature of the constitutive model in the logarithmic space is that it can pre-
serve the structure of models of the geometrically linear theory. If so, also the structures
of the algorithms are identical to those of small strain theory.
7.1.1.3. Geometric Postprocessing from the Logarithmic Strain Space. Once
the stresses and moduli are obtained in the logarithmic space, they have to be mapped
to the Lagrangian stresses and moduli. This step is a purely geometric transformation
denoted as geometric postprocessing. The stresses and moduli are obtained by
where the transformation tensor P is defined in (7.8)2 and L := 2P,C = 4E ,CC is a sixth-
order geometric transformation tensor. The elasto-plastic moduli relate the Lagrangian
rate of strains to the stresses, i.e.
Ṡ = Cep : 1
2
Ċ . (7.13)
ψ = ψ(E e , q) . (7.14)
The logarithmic elastic strains are defined in (7.4) and (7.5). q denotes a set of inter-
nal variables accounting for hardening effects. To obtain a thermodynamically consis-
tent model, we insert (7.14) into the Clausius-Planck-inequality (7.9). According to the
standard argumentation of rational thermodynamics or Coleman’s method, the inequality
must hold for arbitrary processes. This motivates the definition of the stress-like variables
T := +∂E e ψ(E e , q)
The first equation is the constitutive equation for the stresses in the logarithmic strain
space. The remaining two define so-called thermodynamical forces, dual to the internal
variables. Observe that the additive combination of E and E p results in T p = T . The
forces and internal variables are combined in the sets F := {T , Q} and I := {E p , q},
respectively. With these definitions, the dissipation inequality (7.9) reduces to
ρ0 D := F · İ = T : Ė p + Q · q̇ ≥ 0 (7.16)
where Q · q̇ denotes the generalized scalar product of the dual quantities assembled in the
sets Q and q, respectively.
E := {(T , Q) | f α (T , Q) ≤ cα ; α = 1, . . . , m} (7.17)
f α = f α (T , Q) (7.18)
In general (7.19) is a non-linear coupled problem which cannot be solved directly. The
solution bases on the definition of the Lagrange function with λα ≥ 0
L(T , Q, λα ) := −T : Ė p − Q · q̇ + α λα (f α − cα ) → stat.
P
(7.20)
which converts the problem (7.19) into a saddle point problem. The solution is given by
∇L = 0 yielding the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker equations
∂T L = 0 = −Ė p + α∈A λα ∂T f α
P
α
P
∂Q L = 0 = −q̇ + α∈A λα ∂Q f . (7.21)
α
∂λ α L = 0 = f (T , Q) − cα
where in the last equation (7.21)3 only the active constraints appear. They are combined
in the active set defined by
A := {α | f α (T , Q) − cα = 0} . (7.22)
The internal variables are assumed to be zero at the beginning of the deformation process
ψ = ψ e (E e ) + ψ k (A) + ψ i (A)
ψe = 1
2
kE e k2E (7.24)
1
ψk = 2
kkAk2
1
ψi = 2
hA2 + (y∞ − y0 )(A + exp[−ωA]/ω)
f α = f eα (T + B) + f iα (B)
p (7.26)
eα
f = kT + BkHα , f iα = 2/3B
Geometric Preprocessor
E := 12 ln[F T gF ]
Constitutive Model
1. internal variables I := {E p , A, A}
2. free energy ψ = 21 ||E − E p kE + k2 ||A||2 + ψ i (A)
with ψ i = + h2 A2 + (y∞ − y0 )(A + ω1 exp[−ωA])
3. stresses T = E : (E − E p )
4. back stresses B = −kA
5. internal stress B = −hA
q
6. level set functions f α = ||T + B||Hα + 23 B
Ė p = α λα Hα : (T + B)/||T + B||Hα
P
7. flow rules
8. evolution Ȧ = Ė p
q P
9. evolution Ȧ = 23 α∈A λα
Geometric Postprocessor
C = T : P with P := 2∂C E
have to vanish for plastic loading, where λα 6= 0. With Ė e = Ė − Ė p and the evolution
of the plastic strains (7.28)1 , the elastic stress rate takes the form
X
Ṫ := E : Ė − E : λα ∂T f eα . (7.32)
α∈A
f˙α = ∂T f eα : E : Ė −
X
λβ gαβ = 0 (7.33)
β∈A
The plastic multipliers now can be obtained by solving (7.33) for λα , i.e.
X
λα = [gαβ ]−1 ∂T f eβ : E : Ė for α ∈ A . (7.35)
β∈A
Insertion into (7.32) provides the elasto-plastic tangent modulus for plastic loading
XX
Eep = E − [gαβ ]−1 E : ∂T f eα ⊗ ∂T f eβ : E . (7.36)
α∈A β∈A
with the incremental plastic parameters γα := λα ∆t on the flow-systems. Note that only
the active constraints enter (7.37). They are combined in a so-called active set
A := {α | f α − cα = 0} (7.38)
where f α := f α (T n+1 , B n+1 , An+1 ). In order to solve the problem (7.37) the first step is
to check, whether plastic loading occurs or not. Therefore trial states are defined which
are obtained by freezing the internal variables, i.e.
E e? := E − E pn , E p? = E pn T ? :=
∂E e ψ ?
A? := An B ? := −∂A ψ ? (7.39)
? ? ?
A := An B := −∂A ψ
with ψ ? := ψ(E e? , A? , A? ). Insertion of these trial values into (7.37)4 gives the trial level-
set functions f α? := f α (T ? , B ? , B ? ) and plastic loading occurs if at least on one flow
system the loading conditions are not fulfilled, i.e.
In the case of plastic loading, the non-linear coupled system (7.37) has to be solved
iteratively with a general return algorithm for γα , E p , A and A.
Since the active set A at the end of the time step is not known from the beginning and may
change during the iterative solution procedure, an active set search strategy is required.
130 Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space
which have to vanish in the solution point. Within the time step the total logarithmic
strains E are constant so that the kinematic relation ∆E p = −∆E e holds. Furthermore,
the second derivatives of the free energy function are abbreviated by
The fourth-order tensor appearing in (7.42) is defined by A := E+K. The strain residuals
(7.42)1,2 can be solved for the strain increments. With the definitions
eα −1 iα −1
Ē := (A−1 + and Ē := (K−1 +
P P
α∈A ∂T T f ) α∈A ∂BB f ) (7.44)
Insertion into the linearized discrete consistency condition (7.42)3 gives the increments of
the plastic multipliers
X
∆γα = [gαβ ]−1 (f β − ∂T f eβ : A : Ē : RE − ∂B f iβ KĒRA ) (7.46)
β∈A
gαβ = ∂T f eα : Ē : ∂T f eβ + ∂B f iα : Ē : ∂B f iβ . (7.47)
Equations (7.45) determine the updates for the strain increments ∆E p = ∆A and ∆A.
If any of the γα ∈ A at the end of the iteration is negative, we have to update the active
set and restart the iteration. A summary of the algorithm is given in box 6.
Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space 131
RA = −A + An + α∈A γα , N α Rf α = f α ∀ α ∈ A
P
p
if kRE k2 + kRA k2 + |RA |2 + α∈A |Rf α |2 < tol → exit
P
Here we have abbreviated the sum of the active second derivatives of the level set func-
tions by N := α∈A γα ∂T T f eα . The increments of the plastic multipliers remain to be
P
determined. Therefore the incremental consistency conditions
∆f β = ∂T f eβ : E : ∆E − ∂T f eβ : A : ∆E p − ∂B f iβ K∆A = 0 (7.52)
have to be evaluated. Inserting the strain increments (7.51) gives
∆γα = { β∈A [gαβ ]−1 (∂T f eβ : (I − Ē : N) : E} : ∆E ,
P
(7.53)
in terms of the matrix gαβ defined in (7.47). Evaluating the strain increments (7.51) and
insertion into (7.50) then allows the identification of the algorithmic tangent moduli by
comparison with (7.49). Defining the fourth-order tensors
Ξ := E : A−1 : Ē = {(I − Ē : N) : E}T and B := (N−1 + A)−1 (7.54)
leads to the compact representation of the symmetric consistent algorithmic elastic-plastic
moduli
XX
Eep = E − E : B : E − [gαβ ]−1 (Ξ : ∂T f eα ⊗ ∂T f eβ : ΞT ) . (7.55)
α∈A β∈A
The transposition of the fourth-order tensors in (7.54) and (7.55) is associated with the
first and second pairs of indices, i.e. [(•)ijkl ]T = (•)klij .
T = ∂E ψ(E, I) (7.56)
and the reduced dissipation inequality ρ0 D = F · İ ≥ 0 with F := −∂I ψ(E, I), see
(7.15) and (7.16), respectively. The dissipation function φ is assumed to depend on the
flux İ of the internal variables only. It determines the evolution of I by Biot’s equation
The two constitutive equations (7.56) and (7.57) determine the stress response of a smooth
normal-dissipative material in a deformation-driven process where the strains E are pre-
scribed. Based on the definition of the internal forces F , one introduces a dual dissi-
pation function φ∗ depending on the forces F by the Legendre-Fenchel transformation
φ∗ (F ) = supİ { F · İ − φ(İ) }. This induces the two alternative representations
ρ0 D = φ(İ) ≥ 0 . (7.59)
Clearly, this function must cover characteristics of the storage function ψ and the dissi-
pation function φ introduced above. To this end, we consider the variational problem
Z tn+1
W (E n+1 ) = inf [ ψ̇ + φ ] dt with I(tn ) = In . (7.61)
I tn
increment under consideration. Starting with the given initial condition I(t n ) = In , the
minimum problem defines an optimal path of the internal variables I(t) for t ∈ [t n , tn+1 ]
including the right boundary value In+1 := I(tn+1 ).
The two equations (7.60) and (7.61) provide an approximative variational counterpart of
the continuous setting (7.56) and (7.57) of the constitutive equations in the discrete time
step [tn , tn+1 ] under consideration.
The proof that (7.61) represents a consistent point-wise approximation of Biot’s normal-
dissipative evolution equation (7.57) is analogous to the one given in section 6.4.2. Taking
the derivative of W with respect to E n+1 we get
where In+1 is given by (7.57). Comparison with (7.56) shows the consistency of the
potential equation (7.60) with the continuous setting.
φ(İ) = sup[ F · İ − α λα (f α (F ) − cα ) ] .
P
(7.63)
F
Here, the internal variables are viewed as functions of the algorithmic incremental param-
eters γα := λα ∆t that are elements of the cone K := {γP α |γα ≥ 0}, i.e. I = I(γα ). A
typical example is the backward Euler scheme I = In + α γα ∂F f α (F ).
In the logarithmic strain space the level set functions depend on the plastic force only in
contrast to the setting in multiplicative plasticity where the level set functions depend
p
on the Mandel stress tensor Σ̄ and therefore on the plastic force F = ḠP̄ and the dual
internal variable F p , see (6.8) and (6.9).
The integral of the dissipation function is discretized by a fully implicit integration scheme
Z tn+1
φ dt = ∆t φ(γα /∆t) . (7.66)
tn
Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space 135
E n+1 := 1
2 ln[F Tn+1 gF n+1 ]
for internal variables In+1 ∈ Rn at time tn+1 and compute stresses and moduli
2
T n+1 = ∂E W (E n+1 ) and En+1 = ∂EE W (E n+1 )
map stresses and moduli from the logarithmic strain space to the Lagrangian space
Insertion of the integration algorithm for the internal variables and (7.66) into (7.61)
defines the function
W,γhα − να = 0 , να ≥ 0 , γα ≥ 0 , ν α γα = 0 . (7.70)
136 Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space
During the iteration the set of active constraints may change. Here we apply the active
set search strategy suggested by Miehe, Schotte & Lambrecht [90].
The solution of the minimization problem and the integration of the internal variables are
coupled and have to be treated simultaneously. In any iteration step the update of the
internal variables is performed according to
P
In+1 ⇐ In+1 + α∈A In+1,γα ∆γα (7.74)
where the increments of the algorithmic multipliers are determined by (7.72).
7.4.5. Stresses and Moduli
Once the constrained minimization problem (7.68) is solved, the stresses and elastic-plastic
moduli are obtained by function evaluation of the derivatives of the incremental stress
potential function W . According to (7.60), the derivative with respect to the strains E n+1
yield the stresses T n+1 . Application of the chain rule gives the expression
h
+ α∈A W,γhα γα,E .
P
∂E W = W,E (7.75)
In the solution point the last term drops out due to (7.71)3 and so that the stresses are
h
T n+1 = W,E . (7.76)
The sensitivity of the stresses with respect to the strains is governed by the algorithmic
tangent moduli. Like the moduli in elasticity theory they are obtained by the second
derivative of the stress potential function in the solution point
Eep h h
P
n+1 := ∂EE W (E n+1 ) = W,EE + α∈A W,Eγα ⊗ γα,E . (7.77)
The sensitivity of the incremental plastic parameter with respect to the strains is obtained
by linearization of the necessary condition (7.71)3 . Inserting the result
X
γα,E = − [W,γhα γβ ]−1 W,γhβ E (7.78)
β
The softening part is a consequence of the change of the internal variables within the time
step. The algorithm is summarized in box 8.
Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space 137
4. Check convergence
qP
if ( α∈A W,γhα )2 ≤ tol goto 7
goto 2
endif
7. Check necessary condition for minimum
α? = argα=1...r [min{W,γhα ]
if Wγhα? ≤ 0 then
A ⇐ {A ∪ α? }
goto 2
endif
8. Set stresses
T n+1 = ∂E W h
138 Additive Plasticity in the Logarithmic Strain Space
The solution of the minimization problem (7.68) with a Newton scheme bases on the
derivatives of the function W h with respect to the algorithmic parameters γα . The stresses
and moduli require the derivatives with respect to the total strains. So the following
expressions have to be specified
)
W,γhα = ψ,γα + cα h
W,E = ψ,E W,γhα E = ψ,γα E
(7.81)
W,γhα γβ = ψ,γα γβ h
WEE = ψ,EE h
W,Eγ α
= ψ ,Eγ α
for the functions given in (7.80). This somewhat lengthy and tricky procedure is discussed
in detail in appendix B. Here we solely summarize the results. For the derivatives of the
free energy the following compact expressions are obtained
= −f α
ψ,γα
βe βi
αe αi
ψ,γα γβ = f,T : Ē : f,T + f,B · Ē · f,B
ψ,E = T (7.82)
ψ,EE = E − E : B : E
αi
ψ,Eγα = E : A−1 : Ē : f,B .
Within the iterative solution procedure of the minimization problem, the internal variables
are updated according to
{Gi } {g i }
F
X x
J j
S
B θ
X x
Figure 37: Geometry of a shell. Points X = X(θ i ) of the reference configuration B and
their Eulerian counterparts x = x(θ i , t) in the actual configuration are parameterized with
the coordinates θ i of the parameter space A of the shell. The associated linear tangent maps
are J := ∇θ X and j := ∇θ x. The deformation gradient is the composition F := jJ −1 .
J : Tθ A → TX B , J = ∇θ X . (8.1)
The dual tangent mapping that connects the co-tangent spaces is J −T : Tθ? A → TX? B. In
a similar manner the actual configuration S is parameterized. Points θ of the parameter
space are mapped onto points of the Eulerian configuration by x := x(θ, t). The tangent
map is defined by
j : Tθ A → TX S , j = ∇θ x (8.2)
140 Finite Shell Element Implementation
and the co-tangent map by j −T : Tθ? A → Tx? S. The covariant current metric g and the
reference metric G at θ ∈ A in the representations with respect to the parameter space
are denoted by
C̄ := j T gj and Ḡ := J T GJ . (8.3)
The local deformation of the shell-like continuum can be defined in terms of the above
introduced parameterizations of the Eulerian and Lagrangian configurations by
ϕ = x ◦ X −1 and F = jJ −1 . (8.4)
These compositions are depicted in figure 37. The local stress state in a shell-like contin-
uum is primarily a function of an objective strain tensor which constitutes a relationship
between the current and the reference metrics. With regard to the interpretation and
identification of the strain tensor it is convenient to consider the geometric setting rela-
tive to the parameter space. It is of special advantage when dealing with enhanced and
assumed strain modifications. A classical objective strain measure is the Green-Lagrange
tensor Ē at θ ∈ A defined by
1
Ē := 2
[C̄ − Ḡ] . (8.5)
Figure 38: Parameter space of the shell element. It has Cartesian structure Ae = Me × He
associated with the reference surface of the shell and the thickness direction. The four
assumed strain points for the thickness strain are marked with a square, the four assumed
strain points for the transverse shear strain interpolation are marked with black circles.
bottom and top surface of the shell-like continuum. Figure 38 shows the parameter space
Ae of a single eight-node brick-type shell element. Using the iso-parametric concept, the
interpolations of the geometry of the elements in the reference configuration and their
deformed actual counterparts are given by
8
X 8
X
I 1 2 3
x= N (θ , θ , θ )xI and X = N I (θ1 , θ2 , θ3 )X I . (8.6)
i=1 i=1
Finite Shell Element Implementation 141
The quantities xI and X I denote the discrete nodal coordinates at the bottom and top
surface. For the interpolation the standard trilinear shape functions
N I (θ1 , θ2 , θ3 ) = 1
8
(1 − θ1 θI1 )(1 − θ 2 θI2 )(1 − θ 3 θI3 ) (8.7)
are used. In contrast to standard continuum settings we here assume a particular ori-
entation of the brick by defining the parameter θ 3 to be associated with the thickness
direction of the shell. This motivates the decomposition of the element parameter space
Ae = Me × He into a reference surface Me ∈ R2 and the part He ∈ R associated with
the shell fiber, cf. figure 38. The parameterization of the deformation of the shell is then
simply provided by the standard nodal displacement vector of the brick element
xI = X I + d I (8.8)
for I = 1, . . . , 8. Based on the interpolations (8.6) the compatible Jacobians (8.1) and
(8.2) are obtained at any point of the element parameter space, i.e.
8
X 8
X
I
j= x I ⊗ ∇θ N and J = X I ⊗ ∇θ N I . (8.9)
i=1 i=1
This representation allows the computation of the compatible current and reference met-
rics according to (8.3)
The discrete forms of the first and second variations of the current metric tensor are
8
X 8 X
X 8
T
1
2
δ C̄ C = B IC δdI and ∆( 12 δ C̄ C ) = GIJ
CC (δdI ∆dJ ) (8.11)
i=1 I=1 J=1
in terms of the nodal B-matrices of dimension 6×3 and the nodal G-matrices of dimension
6 × 1 that are defined by
BCI (ij)a := 1
2
[N,iI jaj + jai N,jI ] and GIJ
CC (ij) :=
1
2
(NiI NjJ + NiJ NjI ) . (8.12)
ass 1 2
P4 1
(1 + θ1 θA
1
)(1 + θ 2 θA
2 A
C̄33 (θ , θ ) = )C̄33
ass 2
PA=1
6
4
1
C̄13 (θ ) = (1 + θ2 θA
2 A
)C̄13
A=5 2
8
ass 1 1
(1 + θ1 θA
1 A
P
C̄23 (θ ) = )C̄12
A=7 2
P4 1
(8.13)
ass 1 2
Ḡ33 (θ , θ ) = (1 + θ1 θA
1
)(1 + θ 2 θA
2
)ḠA
33
P6A=1 4
1
Ḡass (θ 2
) = (1 + θ2 θA
2
)ḠA
13 PA=5 2 13
8 1
Ḡass
23 (θ )
1
= (1 + θ1 θA
1
)ḠA
A=7 2 12
142 Finite Shell Element Implementation
based on the discrete values of the metrics at the collocation points for the assumed strains
that are enumerated in figure 38. In the parameter space Ae of the element the assumed
strain points 1, . . . , 4 of the Betsch-Stein approach are identical with the points in the
corners of the reference surface of the shell. They have the coordinates
The assumed strain points 5, . . . , 8 of the Dvorkin-Bathe approach are located at the
centers of the edges of the reference surface, i.e.
Note that the assumed strains (8.13) replace the associated values of the compatible
setting (8.10). This replacement procedure can be expressed by
C̄ ˜ = Ḡ + [Ḡass − Ḡ ]
˜ = C̄ + [C̄ ass − C̄ ] and Ḡ (8.14)
C C C C C C C C
˜ and Ḡ
where C̄ ˜ denote the modified metric tensors. The bracket terms in (8.14) are
C C
understood to be present only for the values associated with the transverse shear and the
thickness components as depicted in (8.13). These modifications have an effect on the B-
and G-matrices. The modified terms are
P4 1
BCI (33)a := 1 1 2 2 IA
A=1 4 (1 + θ θA )(1 + θ θA )BC (33)a
6 1
BCI (13)a := 2 2 IA
P
A=5 2 (1 + θ θA )BC (13)a (8.15)
I
P 8 1 1 1 IA
BC (23)a := A=7 2 (1 + θ θA )BC (23)a
for the B-matrix (8.12)1 . The the corresponding entries in the G-matrix (8.12)2 have to
be changed accordingly, i.e.
P4 1
ḠIJ 1 1 2 2 IJ A
CC 33 := PA=1 4 (1 + θ θA )(1 + θ θA )GCC 33
6 1
ḠIJ A 2 2 IJ
CC 13 := PA=5 4 (1 + θ θA )GCC 13 (8.16)
IJ A 8 1 1 1 IJ
ḠCC 23 := A=7 4 (1 + θ θA )GCC 23 .
˜˜ ˜ .
˜ + C̄
C̄ = C̄ C E (8.17)
˜˜ ˜
C̄ is the assumed enhanced current metric which consists of the compatible part C̄ C
˜
defined in (8.14) and the additional element-wise incompatible contribution C̄ E . The
latter is assumed to have the form
1 ˜ =B a,
C̄ (8.18)
2 E E
Finite Shell Element Implementation 143
where B E is a matrix of shape functions that governs the incompatible contributions and
a the vector of internal element degrees. In order to set up the matrix B E , we start with
the particular interpolation
θ 1 α1 θ 1 α4 + θ 2 α5
0
˜ ? = θ1 α + θ2 α
C̄ θ 2 α2 0 (8.19)
E 4 5
3
0 0 θ α3
a = [α1 α2 α3 α4 α5 ]T . (8.20)
These five internal element parameters α1,...,5 govern incompatible modes which enhance
membrane and thickness strains. The incompatible membrane shapes follow the classical
works of Taylor, Beresford & Wilson [139] and Simó & Rifai [127]. It was applied
to four-node shell elements by Betsch, Gruttmann & Stein [12]. The incompatible
thickness shape is adopted from Büchter & Ramm [28]. Observe that the shape C̄ ˜?
E
satisfies the condition
Z
˜ ? dV = 0 .
C̄ (8.21)
E
Ae
In order to satisfy the patch test, Simó & Rifai [127] suggested a transformation for
the ansatz (8.19) of the form C̃ E = (J0 /J)J −T ˜ ? −1
0 C̄ E J 0 from the parameter space A to
the Lagrangian manifold B, yielding the modification C̃ E of the current metric relative
to the Lagrangian configuration. Hereby J := det[J ] and the subscript “0” indicates
the evaluation at the center of the element, i.e. at θ = (0, 0, 0). In order to achieve the
identical result within a computation relative to the parameter space A, the above given
ansatz is pulled back. The result is the enhanced part of the metric in (8.17)
1 ˜ = 1 J0 T −T ˜ ? −1
2
C̄ E 2
(J J 0 )C̄ E (J 0 J ) =: B E a (8.22)
J
that defines the enhanced B-matrix B E , cf. (8.18).
with respect to the parameter space of the shell. The above functional depends on the
actual displacement u = x − X, the enhanced part of the current metric tensor C̄ ˜ and
E
the stresses S̄. The external loads are assumed to be dead loads. They are prescribed for
the body in the reference configuration, their contributions are
Z Z
Πext (u) = ρ0 γ̄ · u dV + T̄ · u dA . (8.24)
B ∂B
144 Finite Shell Element Implementation
Variation of (8.23) yields, after plugging in the discretization, the set of coupled weak
forms associated with the element domains in the parameter space
GeC := Ae 21 δ C̄ C : 2ψ,C̄ J dV − Geext = 0
R
e 1 ˜
R
GS := Ae δ S̄ : 2 C̄ E J dV = 0 (8.25)
˜ : (2ψ − S̄)J dV = 0
GeE := Ae 21 δ C̄
R
E ,C̄
equation to (8.25)2 demands that the enhanced part of the right Cauchy-Green-tensor
˜ = 0. Within a finite element approximation
vanishes in the continuous setting, i.e. 12 C̄ E
this requirement must be weakened, otherwise no improvement of the solution will be
obtained. In order to ensure correct convergence towards the exact solution, an element
formulation must pass the patch test. This restriction is a priori satisfied by the chosen
ansatz (8.19). It guarantees that the element-wise incompatible part of the enhanced
right Cauchy-Green tensor are L2 -orthogonal to at least constant stress fields. Based on
this fact, the three-field formulation reduces to the two-field formulation
)
GeC := Ae 21 δ C̄ C : 2ψ,C̄ J dV − Geext = 0
R
R 1 ˜ (8.26)
Ge :=
E Ae 2
δ C̄ : 2ψ J dV
E ,C̄ = 0.
Linearization and insertion of the finite element interpolations (8.11), (8.15), (8.16) and
(8.22) then gives the coupled element equations
GeC + ∆GeC = δdT {Rd + K dd ∆d + K da ∆a}
¾
(8.27)
GeE + ∆GeE = δaT {Ra + K ad ∆d + K aa ∆a}
in terms of the partial element residuals and element stiffness matrices
K dd = RAe (B TC CB C + GCC )J dV
R
T
R ¾
Rd = RAe B C S̄J dV
and K da = RAe B TC CB E J dV (8.28)
Ra = Ae B TE S̄J dV T
K aa = Ae B E CB E J dV
and K ad = K Tda . The numerical integration must be performed with at least nine Gauss
points to avoid under integration. We refer here to Simó, Armero & Taylor [124] as
well as the numerical examples in section 9.2 for details. In (8.28) we have introduced the
constitutive functions for the stresses and consistent tangent moduli
S̄ := 2ψ (C̄ + C̄ ˜ ) and C := 4ψ (C̄ + C̄ ˜ ) (8.29)
,C̄ C E ,C̄ C̄ C E
at time tn+1 computed in terms of the assumed enhanced metric (8.17). The parameters
a are defined on the element level. Their increments ∆a in (8.27) can be eliminated by
static condensation, i.e.
∆a = −K −1
aa (Ra + K ad ∆d) . (8.30)
The condensed element residual vector and element tangent matrix are
R := Rd − K da K −1
aa Ra and K := K dd − K da K −1
aa K ad . (8.31)
A typical global Newton iteration step consists of an assembling procedure of the con-
densed element residuals R and element tangents K to the global residual vector and
tangent matrix, the solution of the associated linear algebraic system and an update of
the incremental displacement. The increments for the parameters a on the element level
are obtained from (8.30).
Finite Shell Element Implementation 145
˜˜ 1/2
˜j̃ = j C̄ −1/2 C̄ ˜ = J Ḡ−1/2 Ḡ
˜ 1/2 .
C and J̃ C C (8.37)
˜ := ˜j̃ J̃
F̃ ˜ −1 . (8.38)
and
C̄ĀB̄ C̄ D̄ = CaBcD (˜j̃ −1 )Ā a (J̃ ˜ −1 )D̄ − S̄ B̄ D̄ C̄˜˜ ĀC̄ .
˜ −1 )B̄ (˜j̃ −1 )C̄ (J̃ (8.41)
B c D
Numerical Examples 147
9. Numerical Examples
9.1. Necking of an Isotropic Rod
In this first example we consider the classical necking problem of a rod for isotropic elastic-
plastic material response. It is a standard benchmark problem of finite plasticity and has
been analyzed by many authors, see for example Simó [121] and Papadopoulos & Lu
[99]. The aim of the investigation is to compare the results obtained with the different
stress update algorithms, U1: standard implicit, U2: standard explicit, V1: variational
implicit and V2: variational explicit. Furthermore the results obtained from the additive
logarithmic strain space formulation are compared to those from the multiplicative plastic-
map plasticity framework. The length of the rod in its reference configuration is l =
53.34mm, the radius r0 = 6.4135mm. Due to the apparent symmetry of the problem,
we discretize one eighth of the specimen by 120 Q1P0 elements as described in Simó,
Taylor & Pister [128] and Miehe [77]. Half of the elements are concentrated on a
length of 8.98mm in the middle of the rod close to the necked zone. The necking is
triggered by an imperfection of the rod in form of a continuous decrease of the radius in
the fine discretized region from r0 to r = 0.982r0 at the center cross section. We use the
multiplicative Hill-type constitutive model of section 6.6 and the additive Hill-type model
of section 7.2.3 with saturation-type non-linear isotropic hardening response. The set of
material parameters for rate-independent behaviour is summarized in table 12.
a. b. c.
0.00 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.48 0.56 0.65 0.73 0.81 0.89 0.97 1.05 1.13
Figure 39: Necking of an isotropic rod. Deformed specimen and distribution of equivalent
plastic strain: (a) Reference configuration, (b) intermediate state after onset of necking at
u = 8.4mm and (c) final state at u = 14mm.
80 4
V1 200
70 3.5 U1 200
U1 50
∆r [mm]
60 3
V1 50
F [kN]
40 2
30 V1 200 1.5
U1 200
20 U1 50 1
V1 50
10 0.5
V1 14
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
a. u [mm] b. u [mm]
80 4
U1 200
70 3.5 V1 200
U2 400
∆r [mm]
60 3
V2 200
F [kN]
40 2
30 U1 200 1.5
V1 200
20 U2 400 1
V2 200
10 0.5
V2 400
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
c. u [mm] d. u [mm]
80 4
50 2.5
40 2
30 1.5
replacements PSfrag replacements
20 plastic metric 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
e. u [mm] f. u [mm]
Figure 40: Necking of an isotropic rod. Comparison of the update algorithms. U1: stan-
dard implicit, U2: standard explicit, V1: variational implicit and V2: variational explicit.
(a) and (c) show the load displacement curves, (b) and (d) the radial contraction ∆r of
the mid cross section of the rod. The numbers of iteration steps used are specified in the
legends. Plots (e) and (f) compare the results from the plastic-map model (U1) with the
results of the plastic-metric model obtained in 200 steps.
Numerical Examples 149
the variational algorithm V1 coincide with those from U1 but differ in the post critical
regime for large steps. The variational algorithm allows larger load step increments than
the standard formulation.
The performance and robustness of the explicit algorithms U2 and V2 is not so good as
that of the implicit ones. The algorithms U2 and V2 require 400 steps. For larger step
sizes the computations either fail or the curves diverge and oscillate in the post critical
range as shown for V2 in the load-displacement figure 40c and plot 40c that documents
the contraction of the strip. The characteristics observed in the load-displacement curves
can also be found in the graphs 40b,d, where the contraction of the cross section in the
middle of the rod is plotted against the displacement.
Minor differences between the two frameworks of plasticity models – the plastic-map ap-
proach and the plastic-metric approach – become apparent in figure 40e. The simulations
were performed in 200 steps. The plastic-map model with the implicit standard inte-
gration algorithm U1 is identical to the formulation of multiplicative isotropic plasticity
outlined in Simó & Miehe [125], Simó [121] and Miehe [83]. The results are almost
identical except a minor deviation in the softening regime where the non-coaxiality of
the current and the plastic metric C and Gp seems to separate the results. In the same
range we also observe small differences in the radial contraction as depicted in figure 40f.
Nevertheless, in the considered case of isotropic finite plasticity, results of the proposed
formulation based on the additive kinematic ansatz (7.4) are surprisingly close to the
multiplicative kinematic ansatz (6.172).
u u
h = 13.545
PSfrag replacements
l = 17.78 t = 1.0
Figure 41: Necking of a Strip. Geometry and boundary conditions. All length in mm.
Due to symmetry, one fourth of the strip is discretized using 5 × 10 shell elements. The
specimen is stretched in 120 uniform steps up to a final edge displacement of u = 6mm.
We investigate five numerical integration schemes having 8, 9, 15, 27 and 64 Gauss points.
The coordinates and weights for the 8-, 27- and 64-point integration formulas follow from
a one-dimensional scheme by tensor product operations, i.e.
In the shell surface, the 5-point quadrature formula consists of four points given by
q q
a = [− 35 , 35 ]T ; w = [ 59 , 95 ]T (9.5)
16
and one additional point at the center of the surface with weight w = 9
.
Figure 42 shows the final states of the simulations. With the 8-point integration the strip
deforms in the post critical regime completely differently from the ones with the 9-point
Numerical Examples 151
a. b.
c. d.
Figure 42: Necking of a strip. Deformed configurations with distribution of equivalent
plastic strain. (a) Additively enhanced and (b) multiplicatively enhanced element design
with 8-point quadrature. (c) and (d) show the corresponding results for 9-point integration.
9000 9000
8000 8 8000 8
9 9
7000 15 7000 15
27 27
6000 64 6000 64
Sfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
load [N]
load [N]
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a. displacement u [mm] b. displacement u [mm]
9000
5000
4000
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
c.
displacement u [mm]
Figure 43: Necking of a strip. Load-displacement curves for (a) multiplicatively enhanced
and (b) additively enhanced element design for 8-, 9-, 15-, 27- and 64-point quadrature
formulas. Plot (c) compares the curves for 9-point integration.
152 Numerical Examples
0 0
−1 8 −0.1 8
9 9
−2 15 −0.2 15
27 27
−3 64 −0.3 64
replacements PSfrag replacements
∆w [mm]
∆t [mm]
−4 −0.4
−5 −0.5
−6 −0.6
−7 −0.7
−8 −0.8
−9 −0.9
−10 −1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a. displacement u [mm] b. displacement u [mm]
0 0
−1 8 8
9 −0.2 9
−2 15 15
27 27
−3 64 −0.4 64
replacements PSfrag replacements
∆w [mm]
∆t [mm]
−4
−0.6
−5
−6 −0.8
−7
−1
−8
−9 −1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
c. displacement u [mm] d. displacement u [mm]
0 0
mul. enh. mul. enh.
−1 −0.1
add. enh. add. enh.
−2 −0.2
∆w [mm]
∆t [mm]
−3 −0.3
−4 −0.4
−6 −0.6
−7 −0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
e. displacement u [mm] f. displacement u [mm]
Figure 44: Necking of a strip. Change of width ∆w in the necking cross section and
change of thickness ∆t at the center of the strip for (a,b) multiplicatively enhanced and (c,d)
additively enhanced shell element design for integration schemes with 8-, 9-, 15-, 27- and
64-Gauss points. Plots (e) and (f) compare the curves for 9-point integration, respectively.
Numerical Examples 153
Q
a1
P
PSfrag replacements u a2
a3
10
a2
200 400 200
and boundary conditions are depicted in figure 45. The nodes at the inner side are drawn
in radial direction up to a total displacement of u = 75mm. In order to prevent buckling
of the blank, the lower layer is supported in vertical direction. The structure is discretized
using 10 × 40 brick-type shell elements with the nine-point quadrature. The process is
deformation-controlled by applying increments of ∆u = 0.1mm of radial displacement.
154 Numerical Examples
We assume isotropic elastic and cubic plastic response and investigate two different ap-
proaches to the modeling of the anisotropic yield criteria. On the one hand the anisotropic
plastic behaviour is governed by a single surface cubic Hill-type level set function in terms
of a constant fourth-order tensor H for plastic-metric plasticity and H̄ for plastic-map plas-
ticity. The restriction to cubic symmetry is obtained by the choice y11 = y22 = y33 and
y12 = y23 = y13 .
The orientations of the principal axes of anisotropy {ai }i=1,2,3 are specified in figure 45.
The ratio of normal stresses to shear yield stresses δ := y11 /y12 serves as a measure for the
deviation from the isotropic state. We investigate two sets of material parameters which
only differ in this ratio. For the boundary-value problems, considered here, these values
are δ = 3.4641 and δ = 0.86603. Throughout all simulations we assume isotropic linear
hardening using the material parameters listed in table 13.
On the other hand the anisotropic response is the result of a Kelvin-mode decomposition
of a cubic fourth-order tensor. The attractive feature of such a decomposition is that in
the case of cubic symmetry the eigen-tensors do only depend on the orientation of the
fourth-order tensor. For co-axial principal axes of anisotropy {ai } and global coordinate
axes {ei }, the eigen-tensors are specified in section 6.6.5.
a.
b.
Figure 46: Drawing of a flange. Deformed meshes and distributions of equivalent plastic
strain for u = 25mm, u = 50mm and u = 75mm. (a) Multiplicative plasticity using
algorithm U1 with maximal accumulated plastic strain Amax = 0.4435 and (b) additive
plasticity with Amax = 0.4465 for anisotropy ratio δ = 3.4641.
a.
b.
Figure 47: Drawing of a flange. Deformed meshes and distributions of equivalent plastic
strain for u = 25mm, u = 50mm and u = 75mm. (a) Multiplicative plasticity using
algorithm U1 with Amax = 0.9244 and (b) additive plasticity with Amax = 0.9478 for
anisotropy ratio δ = 0.86603.
156 Numerical Examples
60 PSfrag
multiplicative plasticity replacements 60 multiplicative plasticity
additive plasticity additive plasticity
50 50
nodal force [kN]
20 additive plasticity 20
Q P
10 multiplicative plasticity 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
a. u [mm] b. u [mm]
Figure 48: Drawing of a flange. Nodal forces at P and Q for multiplicative and additive
plasticity. Anisotropic response for (a) δ = 3.4641 and (b) δ = 0.86603.
in the positive quadrant. In this direction the material is softer and the nodal force at
Q is smaller than the one at P . For δ = 0.86603 the softer behavior is along the a1 and
a2 axes and the nodal force at P is smaller than the one at Q. Clearly, both curves are
identical in the isotropic case. Differences between the additive and the multiplicative
model are in correlation to the amount of plastic deformation of the material. The higher
the accumulated plastic strain, the stronger the deviation of the nodal forces of both
models. Nevertheless, the curves are close to each other.
60 60
U1 U1
V1 V1
50 U2 50 U2
nodal force [kN]
V2 V2
40 40
replacements PSfrag replacements
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
a. displacement u [mm] b. displacement u [mm]
Figure 49: Drawing of a flange. Nodal forces at P and Q for the proposed stress up-
date algorithms U1: standard implicit, U2: standard explicit, V1: variational implicit, V2:
variational explicit. Anisotropic response for (a) δ = 3.4641 and (b) δ = 0.86603.
Numerical Examples 157
Figure 50: Drawing of a flange. Deformed meshes with equivalent plastic strain obtained
with algorithm U1 and a Kelvin-mode decomposition of a cubic fourth-order tensor.
70
60
nodal force [kN]
50
40
30
PSfrag replacements 20
10 U1
V1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
displacement u [mm]
Figure 51: Drawing of a flange. Nodal forces at P and Q for the implicit stress update
algorithms U1 and V1. Plastic anisotropy is introduced into the constitutive model by a
Kelvin-mode decomposition of a cubic fourth-order tensor.
158 Numerical Examples
a.
b.
Figure 52: Drawing of a flange. Deformed meshes and distributions of equivalent plastic
strain for u = 25mm, u = 50mm and u = 75mm with the additive plasticity model. (a)
Multiplicatively enhanced element design with Amax = 0.4512 and (b) additively enhanced
element design with Amax = 0.4465 for anisotropy ratio δ = 3.4641.
a.
b.
Figure 53: Drawing of a flange. Deformed meshes and distributions of equivalent plastic
strain for u = 25mm, u = 50mm and u = 75mm with the additive plasticity model. (a)
Multiplicatively enhanced element design with Amax = 0.9976 and (b) additively enhanced
element design with Amax = 0.9478 for anisotropic response δ = 0.86603.
Numerical Examples 159
60 mul.-enh. 60 mul.-enh.
add.-enh. add.-enh.
50 50
nodal force [kN]
30 30
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
a. b.
displacement u [mm] displacement u [mm]
60 mul.-enh. 60 mul.-enh.
add.-enh. add.-enh.
50 50
nodal force [kN]
40 40
30 30
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
c. d.
displacement u [mm] displacement u [mm]
60 9 60 9
15 15
50 27 50 27
nodal force [kN]
64 64
40 40
20 20
add.-enh. add.-enh.
mul.-enh. 10 mul.-enh. 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
e. f.
displacement u [mm] displacement u [mm]
Figure 54: Drawing of a flange. Nodal forces at Q (upper curves) and P (lower curves)
for (a) 9-, (b) 15-, (c) 27- and (d) 64-point integration. Plot (e) shows the results for
multiplicatively enhanced and (f) for additively enhanced element design.
160 Numerical Examples
39.5
27.0
4.6
0.81
5.1
22.0
Figure 55: Earing in deep drawing. Geometry and boundary conditions. Lengths in mm.
fixed upon the die by a ring. This so-called blank-holder is not pressed against the blank,
but is fixed in a distance equal to the initial thickness of the sheet. When pushing down
the punch, the specimen is increasingly deformed until it finally drops out of the machine.
For the numerical simulation of this problem, both the material models and the shell
elements were implemented into the finite element program ABAQUS Standard. Three
different contact pairs occur between top and bottom of the blank and the machine tool,
which is modeled as a rigid surface. We assume very low friction with a coefficient of 1%.
At the final state of the process that prevents rigid body motion of the specimen, when it
is no longer fixed by the blank-holder. The discretization of the blank is done by taking
Numerical Examples 161
into account the symmetry conditions of the level set function, leading to sectors of 90 ◦
in case of orthotropic symmetry and 45◦ for cubic symmetry, see figure 56b,c. Table 14
lists the material parameters used in the calculations.
a1 a1
a. b. c.
Figure 56: Earing in deep drawing. (a) Experimental observation of earing in deep drawing
of a poly-crystalline sheet, taken from Wilson & Butler [153]. (b) and (c) show the
circular sheet. The symmetries of the level set functions are pictured by the curved lines.
For cubic symmetry (b) one eighth of the sheet, for orthotropic symmetry (c) one quarter
is discretized.
162 Numerical Examples
a. b.
Figure 57: Earing in deep drawing. Formation of four equal ears using the cubic level set
function. (a) Multiplicative plasticity using algorithm U1 with maximum equivalent plastic
strain Amax = 0.7670 and (b) additive plasticity with Amax = 0.7600.
1.80 additive
multiplicative
rel. height
1.60
replacements 1.40
1.20
1.00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
angle [◦ ]
Figure 58: Earing in deep drawing. Profiles from multiplicative plasticity with algorithm
U1 and additive plasticity. Cubic symmetry leads to four equal ears, the considered or-
thotropic symmetry yields two equal pairs of ears. The heights are given relative to the
reference height of href = 21mm as suggested by Tucker [141].
Numerical Examples 163
a. b.
Figure 59: Earing in deep drawing. Formation of two equal pairs of ears using the or-
thotropic level set function. (a) Multiplicative plasticity using algorithm U1 with maximum
equivalent plastic strain Amax = 0.8510 and (b) additive plasticity with Amax = 0.8430.
3500 3500
multiplicative multiplicative
3000 3000
additive additive
2500 2500
load [N]
load [N]
2000 2000
1500 1500
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
a. punch displacement [mm] b. punch displacement [mm]
Figure 60: Earing in deep drawing. Load deflection curves of the punch for (a) cubic and
(b) orthotropic plastic anisotropy. The results obtained with the multiplicative approach
with algorithm U1 and the additive plasticity formulation coincide.
164 Numerical Examples
curves of the punch forces are plotted in figure 60 for both sets of parameters. The curves
from the additive and multiplicative plasticity model are identical.
1.80 V1 U1
replacements V2 U1
rel. height
1.60
U2 1.40
1.20
1.00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
angle [◦ ]
Figure 61: Earing in deep drawing. Comparison of the profiles obtained with the different
stress update algorithms. Four equal ears are obtained with the cubic level set function.
The orthotropic level set functions brings about two equal pairs of ears.
3500 3500
3000 U1 3000 U1
U2 U2
V1 V1
2500 V2 2500 V2
load [N]
load [N]
2000 2000
replacements PSfrag replacements
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
a. punch displacement [mm] b. punch displacement [mm]
Figure 62: Earing in deep drawing. Load-displacement curves obtained with the four
proposed stress update algorithms for (a) cubic and (b) orthotropic plastic symmetry.
a. b.
Figure 63: Earing in deep drawing. Formation of four ears with a sheet with cubic level
set function using additive plasticity. (a) Multiplicatively enhanced element design with
Amax = 0.8480 and (b) additively enhanced element design with Amax = 0.7600.
3500
mul. enh.
3000 add. enh.
2500
orthotropic
cubic
load [N]
2000
PSfrag replacements
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
punch displacement [mm]
Figure 64: Earing in deep drawing. Load displacement curves of the punch obtained with
multiplicative plasticity with algorithm U1 and additive plasticity for cubic and orthotropic
symmetry of the level set function.
166 Numerical Examples
a. b.
Figure 65: Earing in deep drawing. Formation of four ears with a sheet with orthotropic
level set function using additive plasticity. (a) Multiplicatively enhanced element design
with maximal equivalent plastic strain Amax = 0.8540 and (b) additively enhanced element
design with Amax = 0.8430.
1.60
replacements 1.40
1.20
1.00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
angle [◦ ]
Figure 66: Earing in deep drawing. The cubic level set function yields four equal ears
whereas in the orthotropic case two equal pairs of ears develop. Results from multiplicatively
enhanced shell-element design fall in line with those from additively enhanced design.
Summary and Conclusion 167
examples. Driver shear tests of an isotropic and a cubic material with different load
increments are used to investigate the stress update algorithms for rate-independent plas-
ticity. As all integration algorithms are approximations, their accuracy increases with
decreasing load step size. Due to the algorithmic stresses that enter the yield criterion
function, deviations of the curves are observed for the implicit variational formulation
also for small time steps. The implicit formulations behave stable while the explicit ones
fail or start to oscillate if the load size step is too large. This phenomenon is not subject
of investigations in this thesis, here further research must be done.
An evaluation of the quality of the stress update algorithms can be obtained from numer-
ical simulations of boundary value problems. Within the simulation of the necking of an
isotropic rod the influence of the step size is investigated. For moderate load step sizes the
resulting load displacement curves and the radial contraction of the necking zone are in
good accordance. As in the driver test, oscillations are observed at comparable small load
step sizes for the explicit codes. In this isotropic test the implicit codes allow very large
steps, the variational formulation seems to be more robust than its standard counterpart.
The immense difference in the sensitivities of the algorithms with respect to the load step
size reduces when considering anisotropic material behaviour. One criterion that allows
an evaluation of the four stress update algorithms is the development of the equivalent
plastic strains. To this end we consider a simulation of a drawing process of a circular
flange using the newly developed additively enhanced shell element design. Furthermore
a comparison of nodal forces in the zones of maximum plastic flow is provided for cubic
single-surface and a Kelvin-mode decomposition multi-surface phenomenological model.
We do not document the influence of the load increment size explicitly, but the chosen
increment size is such that the simulations using the standard implicit update cannot
be carried out with larger constant increments. The obtained results are in very good
accordance.
The same quality of the results is observed in the simulation of the deep drawing of a
metallic sheet. Here we consider cubic and orthotropic plastic anisotropic response. The
update algorithms are compared by means of the global load displacement curves of the
punch and the profiles of the cups as well as the distributions of the equivalent plastic
strain. An evaluation of the update algorithms in the context of rate-dependent plasticity
remains open.
The simulation of the above-mentioned drawing processes has also been carried out with
the additive plasticity model. The deviations of the curves from those obtained with the
plastic map approach using the implicit standard stress update algorithm are very small.
Only in the simulation of the drawing process of the flange the nodal forces differ slightly
towards the end of the deformation process.
The performance of the proposed finite shell element design is documented in detail by
comparing the results with those obtained with the multiplicatively enhanced formula-
tion published by Miehe [84]. As a benchmark problem we consider the necking of an
isotropic rectangular strip. Here we compare the load displacement curves and the con-
traction of the necking cross section. The results obtained with both element designs are
close together, both elements show the same characteristics concerning the choice of the
quadrature rule for the numerical integration.
References 169
References
[1] Allen, S. M.; Thomas, E. L. [1999]: The structure of materials, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York
[2] Anand, L.; Kothari, M. [1996]: “A computational procedure for rate-
independent crystal plasticity”, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,
Vol. 44, 525–558
[3] Arramon, Y. P.; Mehrabadi, M. M.; Martin, D. W.; Cowin, S. C. [2000]:
“A multidimensional anisotropic strength criterion based on Kelvin modes”, Inter-
national Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 37, 2915–2935
[4] Başar, Y.; Weichert, D. [2000]: Nonlinear continuum mechanics of solids,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin
[5] Balasubramanian, S.; Anand, L. [1996]: “Single crystal and polycrystal elasto-
viscoplasticity: application to earing in cup drawing of f.c.c. materials”, Computa-
tional Mechanics, Vol. 17, 209–225
[6] Bao, G.; Smith, G. [1990]: “Syzygies, orbits, and constitutive equations”, in
J. Boehler (Editor), “Yielding, damage, and failure of anisotropic solids”, 147–154,
Mechanical Engineering Publications, London
[7] Bathe, K.-J.; Dvorkin, E. N. [1985]: “Short communication. A four-node plate
bending element based on Mindlin / Reissner plate theory and a mixed interpola-
tion”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 21, 367–383
[8] Baumberger, S. [2003]: Zur Konstruktion von Materialgleichungen mittels Ten-
sorfunktionen zweiter Stufe. Theorie mit Beispielen aus der Finiten Elastizität und
Plastizität, Institut für Mechanik im Bauwesen, Lehrstuhl I, Universität Stuttgart,
Diplomarbeit
[9] Belytschko, T.; Liu, W. K.; Moran, B. [2000]: Nonlinear finite elements for
continua and structures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
[10] Betsch, P. [1996]: Statische und dynamische Berechnungen von Schalen
endlicher Elastischer Deformationen mit gemischten finiten Elementen, Institut für
Baumechanik und Numerische Mechanik, Universität Hannover, Dissertation
[11] Betsch, P.; Stein, E. [1995]: “An assumed strain approach avoiding artificial
thickness straining for a nonlinear 4-node shell element”, Communications in Ap-
plied Numerical Methods, Vol. 11, 899–909
[12] Betsch, P.; Stein, E.; Gruttmann, F. [1996]: “A 4-node finite shell element for
the implementation of general hyperelastic 3d-elasticity at finite strains”, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 130, 57–79
[13] Betten, J. [1987]: Tensorrechnung für Ingenieure, Teubner-Verlag, Stuttgart
[14] Betten, J.; Helisch, W. [1992]: “Irreduzible Invarianten eines Tensors vierter
Stufe”, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol. 72, 45–57
[15] Betten, J.; Helisch, W. [1995]: “Simultaninvarianten bei Systemen zwei-
und vierstufiger Tensoren”, Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik,
Vol. 75, 753–759
[16] Biot, M. A. [1965]: Mechanics of incremental deformations, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York
[17] Bischoff, J.; Arruda, E.; Grosh, K. [2002]: “A microstructurally based or-
thotropic hyperelastic constitutive law”, Transaction of the ASME, Vol. 69, 570–579
[18] Bischoff, M.; Ramm, E. [1997]: “Shear deformable shell elements for large
170 References
[58] Kaliske, M. [2000]: “A formulation of elasticity and viscoelasticity for fibre rein-
forced material at small and finite strains”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, Vol. 185, 225–243
[59] Kelvin), W. T. L. [1856]: “Elements of a Mathematical Theory of Elasticity”,
Phil. Trans. R. Soc., Vol. 166, 481–498, art. XV
[60] Kennon, N. F. [1978]: Patterns in crystals, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
[61] Kleber, W.; Bautsch, H.-J.; Bohm, J. [1998]: Einführung in die Kristallogra-
phie, Verlag Technik, Berlin
[62] Klinkel, S.; Gruttmann, F.; Wagner, W. [1999]: “A continuum based
three-dimensional shell element for laminated structures”, Computers & Structures,
Vol. 71(1), 43–64
[63] Korsgaard, J. [1990]: “On the representation of two-dimensional isotropic func-
tions”, International Journal of Engineering Science, Vol. 28(7), 653–662
[64] Kröner, E.; Teodosiu, C. [1972]: “Lattice defect approach to plasticity and
viscoplasticity”, in A. Sawzuk (Editor), “Problems in plasticity”, Nordhoff Interna-
tional Publishing
[65] Lee, E. [1969]: “Elastic-plastic deformations at finite strains”, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 36, 1–6
[66] Liu, I. [1982]: “On representations of anisotropic invariants”, International Journal
of Engineering Science, Vol. 20(10), 1099–1109
[67] Lokhin, V. V.; Sedov, L. I. [1963]: “Nonlinear tensor functions of several tensor
arguments”, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 27(3), 393–417
[68] Lubliner, J. [1973]: “On the structure of the rate equations of materials with
internal variables”, Acta Mechanica, Vol. 17, 109–119
[69] Mahnken, R. [2002]: “Anisotropic creep modeling based on elastic projection
operators with applications to CMSX-4 superalloy”, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 191, 1611–1637
[70] Malvern, L. E. [1996]: Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium,
Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey
[71] Mandel, J. [1972]: Plasticité classique et viscoplasticité, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
[72] Marsden, J. E.; Hughes, T. J. R. [1983]: Mathematical foundation of elasticity,
Dover Publications, Inc., New-York
[73] Maugin, G. A. [1992]: The thermomechanics of plasticity and fracture, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
[74] Mehrabadi, M. M.; Cowin, S. C. [1990]: “Eigentensors of linear aniso-
tropic elastic materials”, Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics,
Vol. 43(1), 15–41
[75] Menzel, A. [2002]: Modelling and computation of geometrically nonlinear aniso-
tropic elasticity, Universität Kaiserslautern, Lehrstuhl für Technische Mechanik,
Dissertation
[76] Menzel, A.; Steinmann, P. [2001]: “On the comparison of two strategies to
formulate orthotropic hyperelasticity”, Journal of Elasticity, Vol. 62, 171–201
[77] Miehe, C. [1994]: “Aspects of the formulation and finite element implementation
of large strain isotropic elasticity”, International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 37, 1981–2004
[78] Miehe, C. [1994]: “On the representation of Prandtl-Reuss tensors within the
framework of multiplicative elasto-plasticity”, International Journal of Plasticity,
References 173
In order to distinguish between the tensor notation and the corresponding matrix storage
form, Latin indices belong to the tensor representation and take the values 1, 2, 3, while
Greek letters belong to their matrix representations and take the values from one to six.
The coordinates of fourth-order tensors are stored as a 6 × 6 matrix according to the
scheme
√ √ √
A1111 A1122 A1133 √ 2A 1112 √ 2A 1123 √ 2A 1113
A
2211 A2222 A2233 √ 2A 2212 √ 2A 2223 √2A2213
√A3311 A3322 A3333 2A3312 2A3323 2A3313
A = Aαβ = √ √ . (A.3)
√2A1211 √2A1222 √2A1233 2A1212 2A1223 2A1213
√2A2311 √2A2322 √2A2333 2A2312 2A2323 2A2313
2A1311 2A1322 2A1333 2A1312 2A1323 2A1313
The representations (A.2) and (A.3) date back to Kelvin [59] and can frequently be found
in literature. They have some nice properties. Due to the preservation of the Froebenius
norm of a second-order tensor
one also speaks of a norm equivalent notion. Moreover, a double contraction of two
tensors corresponds to a scalar-product of two vectors, a matrix-vector or matrix-matrix
composition in the six-dimensional space, i.e.
A : B = Aij Bij = A α Bα
A : A = Aijkl Akl = Aαβ Aβ (A.5)
A : B = Aijst Bstkl = Aασ Bσβ .
and has the corresponding matrix representation based on a standard matrix inversion
Aαδ A−1
δβ = Iαβ = δαβ . (A.7)
180 On Matrix Representations of Symmetric Tensors
m r
X (λi ) (λi )
Y A − λi Isym
Pi = Nk ⊗ Nk = , (A.14)
k=1 j=1
λi − λ j
j6=i
Incremental Variational Formulation — Derivatives 181
(λ )
i
where N k=1...m denote an arbitrary orthonormal basis spanning Pi . The second equation
in (A.14) allows the computation of the projection tensors, solely based on the knowledge
of the distinct eigen-values λi=1...r of the given tensor in a closed form.
The following identities are direct consequences of the assumed decoupled structure of
the level set functions in (B.1)
eα
f,T αe
= f,B , αe
f,T αe αe αe
T = f,BT = f,BT = f,BB and E p = A .
To get a compact notation we introduce the abbreviations
E := ψ,E e E e ; K := ψ,AA ; A := E + K and K := ψ,BB (B.4)
for the second derivatives. Furthermore the fourth-order tensors
Ē := [A−1 + α γα f,Tαe −1
; Ē := [K−1 + α γα f,BBαi −1
P P
T] ] (B.5)
and
γα ∂T T f αe )−1 + A]−1
P
B := [( α (B.6)
are defined.
The derivatives of the internal variables with respect to the algorithmic parameters and
the total strains are
E p,γα = f,T
αe αe p
P
−P α γααe f,T T : (ψE E + ψ,AA ) : E ,γα
e e
−1 αe
= [I + α γα f,T T : A] f,T (B.7)
αe
= A−1 : Ē : f,T
αi
P βi
A,γα = f,B − β∈A γβ f,BB · ψ,AA A,γα
βi αi
= [1 + β∈A γβ f,BB · ψ,AA ]−1 f,B (B.8)
P
−1 αi
= K Ē f,B
E p,E = αe αe p
P P
α γP
α f,T T : E − α γα fP,T T : A : E ,E
αe −1 αe
= (I + α γα f,T T : A) : α γα f,T T : E (B.9)
= B:E.
182 Positively Homogenous Functions of Degree One
− E p ),E
ψ,E = ψ,E e : (EP
αe
= T − T : α γα f,T T : (T + B),E (B.12)
= T
− E p ),E
ψ,EE = T ,E e : (E P
αe −1
= E − E : [( α γα f,T T) + A]−1 : E (B.13)
= E−E:B:E
p
ψ,Eγα = ψ,E e E e : (E
P− E )αe ,γα
αe
= −E : (I + α γα f,T T : A)−1 : f,T (B.14)
αe
= E : A−1 : Ē : f,T .
Here we have exploited the fact that the level set functions are homogeneous functions of
degree one, i.e.
αe
T : f,T = f αe αe
and T : f,T T = 0 . (B.15)
The first property directly follows from the definition of the Gateaux-derivative of f
d d
dA f : A = [f (A + ²A)]|²=0 = [(1 + ²)f (A)]|²=0 = f (A) . (C.3)
d² d²
The second property follows by deriving (C.3) with respect to A
d
0= [dA f : A − f (A)] = d2AA f : A + dA f − dA f = d2AA f : A . (C.4)
dA
Curriculum Vitae