Material properties.
Abstract
Contemporary plasticity theories and their related material models for finite deformations are either based on additive decomposition of a strainrate tensor or on multiplicative decomposition of a deformation gradient tensor into an elastic part and a plastic part. From the standpoint of the nonlinear continuum mechanics, the former theories, which are used to model hypoelasticplastic materials, are rather incomplete theories, while the latter theories, which are used to model hyperelasticplastic materials, are not even continuumbased theories, while none of their related material models are thermodynamically consistent. Recently, a nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media was proposed, which allows for the development of objective and thermodynamically consistent material models. Therefore, the analysis results of the models are independent of the description and the particularities of their mathematical formulation. Here by the description we mean total or updated Lagrangian description and by the particularities of formulation, the ability to describe the model in various stress spaces using internal mechanical power conjugate stress measures and strain rates. In this chapter, an alternative framework for developing objective and thermodynamically consistent hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models is presented using the first nonlinear continuum theory of finite deformations of elastoplastic media.
Keywords
 nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media
 objective and thermodynamically consistent formulation
 J2 generalised plasticity with isotropic hardening
 hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models with internal damping
1. Introduction
There are two types of phenomenological flow plasticity theories and their related material models used at present to model plastic behaviour of deformable bodies within the framework of finitestrain elastoplasticity. The first type of theories are considered to be ad hoc extensions of smallstrain flow plasticity theories into the area of finite deformations to describe materials, in which small elastic deformations are accompanied by finite inelastic deformations during the deformation process. They are based on additive decomposition of a strainrate tensor into an elastic part and a plastic part to describe the plastic flow in the material. As an example of such material is ductile metal, which at present is modelled mainly by a kind of a hypoelasticplasticbased material model, whose constitutive equation does not have a form in terms of a finitestrain measure. Without a need for completeness, let us just mention a few comprehensive studies in technical literature, such as [1, 2, 3, 4], where detailed descriptions of the most frequently used contemporary hypoelasticplasticbased material models are presented.
The second type of flow plasticity theories, in which multiplicative decomposition of a deformation gradient tensor into an elastic part and a plastic part is used to describe the plastic flow in the material, is based on the theory of singlecrystal plasticity [5, 6, 7]. The theories and their related material models, which are now considered as ‘proper material models’ to model plastic behaviour of the deformable body, assume that the intermediate configuration of the body is stressfree [1] or at least locally unstressed [4]. As a result, there cannot exist a deformation or strain tensor field that meets the conditions of compatibility [4]. Therefore these theories treat the kinematics of motion differently between the initial and current or intermediate configurations of the body. This means that the motion, the displacement field and the deformation gradient, all of which have an exact physical meaning in continuum mechanics, are considered in accordance with the continuum theory between the initial and current configurations of the body, but not between the configurations where one is an intermediate configuration. Here the motion and the displacement fields are disregarded, and as a result, the deformation gradient loses its physical meaning. Moreover, it should also be noted that the assumption of an unstressed intermediate configuration is not compatible with the theory of nonlinear continuum mechanics, as it violates proper stress transformations, resulting from the invariance of the internal mechanical power, when switching from one stress space to the other in any configuration of the body. As a result, contemporary multiplicative plasticity theories and their related material models in realty are not continuumbased.
Hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models have been the subject of study over recent decades, and there are a few issues to be concerned about when the models are used in numerical analyses. These include energy accumulation and residual stresses along a closed elastic strain path in the case of hypoelasticplasticbased material models in which the Jaumann rate is used to calculate the Cauchy stress tensor [8], residual stress accumulation up to unacceptable values during multiple loading cycles along a closed elastic strain path using the Jaumann rate and a few other rates [9] or shear oscillation in finite shearing problems [10, 11]. The aforementioned problems however can be eliminated by replacing the Jaumann rate with the GreenNaghdi or Truesdell rate in the formulation of the models [4]. Simo and Pistner showed that employing a constant spatial elasticity tensor in objective stress integration is not compatible with elasticity and that such models in fact fail to define the elastic material [12]. Equivalent rate descriptions of hyperelasticbased models in terms of different strain measures have been thoroughly discussed by Perić, who also showed that the Jaumann rate and the GreenNaghdi ratebased models provide different levels of approximation to problems governed by the logarithmic strainbased Hencky hyperelastic law [4, 13]. We will show herein that all of the above problems actually resulted from the fact that the related material models use thermodynamically inconsistent formulation.
The aim of this chapter is to present an alternative framework for developing objective and thermodynamically consistent hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models using the first nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media [14]. We will show that the strainrate tensor additive decompositionbased theories are in reality finitestrain theories, but they are constrained when the plastic flow in them is defined in terms of a Cauchy’s stress tensorbased yield surface in the current configuration of the body, while contemporary deformation gradient multiplicative splitbased theories are not even continuumbased theories. Moreover, none of their related material models is thermodynamically consistent. In addition to this, we will show that all flow plasticity theories are just variants of the nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media presented in this chapter, using the additive decomposition of a Lagrangian displacement field into an elastic part and a plastic part. Eventually, we will demonstrate the theory in numerical experiments using simple hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models with internal damping and then briefly discuss their analysis results.
2. Theory
The Lagrangian description is used to describe the kinematics of motion and constitutive and evolution equations of the material of a deformable body. Though a single form of the constitutive equation of a material is sufficient to describe the material, all forms of the constitutive equation of the material are needed in order to prove that its formulation is thermodynamically consistent.
2.1 A short overview of the nonlinear continuum mechanical theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media
The nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastic media has been developed in an elegant manner in the past decades [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The theory is particularly suitable for modelling elastic materials, whose constitutive equations are defined either in terms of a finitestrain tensor, as in the case of the StVenantKirchhoff material, or derived from an appropriate strain energy density function, as in the case of the hyperelastic materials [17, 18]. Developing material models for finitestrain elastoplasticity within the framework of thermodynamics with internal variables of state, however, requires a somewhat different approach [20]. The constitutive and evolution equations of these materials either exist in rate forms only, or contain rate equations, which at some point during the solution process have to be integrated. Moreover, in nonlinear continuum mechanics, no kinematics of motion can be described without the mathematical definitions of the motion, the Lagrangian and Eulerian displacement fields and the deformation gradient, respectively.
Starting with the definitions (see Figure 1), the motion
In Eq. (1)
The deformation gradient
When the motion is decomposed into several parts, so that the body moves from its initial configuration into its current configuration through several intermediate configurations, the above definitions apply between any two configurations of the body. Let us now consider a deformation process during which the body first undergoes plastic deformations and then elastic deformations at its each constituent. Then the Lagrangian plastic motion
In Eqs. (4) and (5)
Moreover, because the plastic motion exists, the vector fields have Lagrangian forms too. Then the Lagrangian elastic motion
Eqs. (1) and (8) then imply the following composite function for the overall motion:
Moreover, after adding Eqs. (5) and (9) up, the following formula for the overall Lagrangian displacement field can be arrived at
Eq. (11) states that the Lagrangian displacement field can additively be decomposed into a Lagrangian elastic part and a Lagrangian plastic part when the kinematics of motion is considered in accordance with the theory of nonlinear continuum mechanics. The deformation gradient then takes the form
It should be noted that Eq. (12) is the simplest form of the deformation gradient, irrespective of whether the additive decomposition of the displacement field in the above or the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient tensor is used as a starting point in its formulation. In the latter case the formulation would modify as follows:
where
and where considering that
Alternatively (see Eq. (10)), the deformation gradient can also be expressed as
It should be noted that by employing the same procedure (Eqs. (13)–(17)), identical formula (Eq. (12)) for the deformation gradient would be arrived at, if the order of elastic and plastic deformations was reversed, although in that case the definitions of the elastic motion
When the deformation gradient is in the form of Eq. (12), the material
where
In the above
A crucial role in the Lagrangian description plays the invariance of the internal mechanical power. It not only defines conjugate pairs of stress measures and strain or deformation rates, but, being the expression of the conservation of internal mechanical energy (first law of thermodynamics), it plays an inevitable role in making sure that the total Lagrangian description and the updated Lagrangian description are equivalent. As a result, appropriate transformations can be found between various stress measures and strain or deformation rates constituting conjugate pairs, when switching from one stress space in one configuration of the body to the other stress space in the same or any other configuration of the body [15, 16, 17, 18]. Unfortunately contemporary continuum theory does not cover materials whose constitutive and evolution equations are defined in rate forms. In order to extend the theory, so that it could cover the materials, Cauchy’s stress theorem [16] had to be generalised as follows:
for all
or
where
or
where
as the sufficient conditions of thermodynamic consistency, because they ensure that the two postulates above are met. It should also be noted that for
The objective rates, which meet the sufficient conditions of thermodynamic consistency defined by Eq. (29), are already known in nonlinear continuum mechanics as the n^{th} Lie derivative of the first PiolaKirchhoff stress tensor
It should also be noted here that Eq. (27) is the result of straightforward manipulation of the n^{th} time derivative of the internal mechanical power (see Eq. (28)), whose last terms formally define the formulas for evaluating the nth objective derivative of the power with respect to time in the first PiolaKirchhoff, Kirchhoff and Cauchy stress spaces. Then Eq. (27) defines not only conjugate pairs of stress measures and strain or deformations rates but also conjugate pairs of objective differentiation operators and derivatives. Moreover, we used intentionally the term ‘requirements of thermodynamic consistency’ for the transformations Eq. (29), because without the invariance of the internal mechanical power (first law of thermodynamics) and its higherorder time derivatives (Eq. (27) or (28)), no formulation is thermodynamically consistent, in spite of the fact that in thermodynamics the term is associated with the second law of thermodynamics to show that the constitutive equation of a material is compatible with the second law.
2.2 Modelling of the plastic flow in the material
In order to modify the nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media, it is assumed that the yield surface of the material has definitions
where it can be shown that the definitions of the yield surface are not independent of each other but are related, and the following formulas hold true:
As a result, one of the definitions of the yield surfaces has to be chosen as a reference to define the material model, and the rest of them can be calculated by solving the differential equations in Eq. (36). Moreover, when
where Eqs. (38) and (39) represent ‘normality rules’, which from the physical point of view are equivalent with the following equations:
where
2.3 The constitutive equations of the material
Proper formulation of a material model for finitestrain elastoplasticity allows for the definition of the model in all stress spaces in any configuration of the body. These, however, have to comply with the principles of material modelling, particularly to meet the requirements of material objectivity and be thermodynamically consistent in order that they would define the same material. Finitestrain computational plasticity distinguishes between two major types of material models known as hypoelasticplasticbased material models and hyperelasticplasticbased material models. Moreover, hypoelasticplasticbased material models exist in rate forms only, because the additive decomposition of the strainrate tensor Eqs. (20)–(23) and (36) exists either in rate forms only. In this research we have modified our former material model with internal damping, capable of imitating even ductiletobrittle failure mode transition at high strain rates, to model our hypoelasticplasticbased material [21]. The rate form of the constitutive equation of the material then can take any of the following forms:
where
In Eqs. (42)–(50) the symbols
It should be noted here that the above conditions resulted from the invariance of the internal mechanical power and its first time derivative (see Eq. (27)), which now also define conjugate pairs of differentiation operators and derivatives in all stress spaces, and that all yield surface is the expression of the conservation of internal plastic power, which will be shown later.
Hyperelasticplasticbased material models are essentially elastic material models. The starting point in their development is Eq. (19), wherein the constitutive equation of the material the elastic GreenLagrangian strain tensor and its time derivative are modified as follows:
In our research, the St. Venant hyperelastic material with internal damping was used, whose constitutive equation then takes any of the following forms:
In the above equations and also in (19), the incremental form of the material gradient of the plastic displacement field is determined as follows:
where the material gradient of the plastic velocity field
2.4 The reference definition of the yield surface
Objective and thermodynamically consistent formulation of the plastic flow allows for the development of consistent material models. As a result, the material model can by formulated in any stress space and in whatever configuration of the body, though we intentionally omitted to give an example of the constitutive equation of our hypoelasticplasticbased and hyperelasticplasticbased material models in the intermediate configuration of the body, as it is just a matter of proper stress transformation using the multiplicative split of the deformation. Moreover, one of the formulations of the yield surface has to be a reference, from which other definitions of the yield surface in the second PiolaKirchhoff, first PiolaKirchhoff, Kirchhoff and Cauchy stress spaces can be calculated by solving Eq. (36). The various definitions of the yields surface then have the properties Eqs. (37)–(39), from which the ‘normality rules’ (Eqs. (38) and (39)) (whose physical meaning is defined by Eqs. (40) and (41)) are used in the return mapping/rate form of the return mapping algorithms to calculate the plastic multiplier. In this study the reference yield surface was defined in the first PiolaKirchhoff stress space, because the corresponding plastic flow Eq. (23)_{1} is the only not constrained. Then the generalised J_{2} flow plasticity theory with isotropic hardening is defined by Eqs. (63)–(67). It should be noted that the
The actual yield stress
2.5 Calculation of the plastic multiplier
A thermodynamically consistent formulation of the plastic flow allows for the calculation of the plastic multiplier in whatever (second PiolaKirchhoff, first PiolaKirchhoff, Kirchhoff and Cauchy) stress spaces using the corresponding definition of the yield surface. There are altogether two types of return mapping procedures for plastic multiplier calculation, which result in a thermodynamically consistent material model.
The first type of return mapping procedure, which is best suited for hyperelasticplasticbased materials, is the ordinary return mapping procedure. Its thermodynamically consistent form in terms of the normality rules is defined by Eq. (38). Here the equation of the yield surface is solved directly for the plastic multiplier value, which in the case of our hyperelasticplastic material takes the form (see Eq. (63)_{1})
In order to show that the return mapping is thermodynamically consistent, the equivalent stress in the material model is manipulated as follows:
Then after multiplying Eq. (68) by the plastic multiplier
The second type of return mapping procedure, which is best suited for hypoelasticplasticbased materials, is the rate form of the return mapping procedure. Its thermodynamically consistent form in terms of the normality rules is defined by Eq. (39). Here the objective time derivative of the yield surface is used for the plastic multiplier calculation, which in the case of our hypoelasticplastic material model takes the form
where
Therefore, both return mapping algorithms in the above result in such a plastic multiplier calculation, during which the internal plastic power density of the models becomes the same as the internal plastic power density of the specimen, coming from the uniaxial tensile test of the material. It should also be noted that Eq. (70) is just the objective and thermodynamically consistent rate form of the Eq. (68) resulting from the invariance of the internal mechanical power and its first derivative Eq. (27), which now defines not only conjugate pairs of stress measures and strain or deformation rates but also conjugate differentiation operators and derivatives. Moreover, using Eqs. (20)–(23) and (40) and considering the fact that the physical meaning of Eqs. (68)–(71) is the conservation of plastic energy, the overall power at a material particle of the body
where
which also proves that the formulation of the material model is thermodynamically consistent.
2.6 The ratio of ductile and total damage increment
The idea of the ratio of ductile and total damage increment
where
Eqs. (75) and (76)
3. Numerical experiment
In our numerical experiment a cantilever, size 50 mm × 50 mm × 600 mm was studied applying dynamic pressure on 1/3 of its upper surface near the cantilever free end. The loading was defined as a product of a constant
Hypoelasticplastic material with damping  Hyperelasticplastic material with/without damping  

7.31 × 10^{10}  7.31 × 10^{10}  

7.31 × 10^{2}  7.31 × 10^{2}/0.0 

0.33  0.33 

220.0 × 10^{6}  220.0 × 10^{6} 

110.0 × 10^{6}  110.0 × 10^{6} 

10^{64}  10^{64} 

2770.0  2770.0 
In order to assess the value of the axial component of the deformation gradient coming from the tensile stress of the material
where
where
4. Numerical results
Figure 3 depicts a few selected analysis results. These are the first principal Cauchy stress and the accumulated plastic strain distributions over the body, which is similar in the case of both materials, the vertical displacement time history curves and the accumulated plastic strain time history curves for the used material at selected nodes (see Figure 2 for the location of the nodes).
It should be noted that in order to avoid problems with convergence with the used hypoelasticplastic material, the value of the
5. Conclusions
In this chapter an alternative framework for developing objective and thermodynamically consistent hypoelasticplastic and hyperelasticplasticbased material models was presented using the first nonlinear continuum theory for finite deformations of elastoplastic media. The related material models were demonstrated in numerical experiments. The most important implication of the presented theory is that the analysis results of the related models are no longer affected by the description and the particularities of the mathematical formulation. The nonlinear continuum theory was also briefly presented, while the thermodynamic consistency of the formulation was in detail discussed. Another important implication of the theory is that the dissipated plastic power density of the model can directly be related to the dissipated plastic power density of the specimen coming from the uniaxial tensile stress of the modelled material. Moreover, contemporary tensile testing for material parameter determination will also have to be extended by determination of the deformation gradient of the specimen of the modelled material, as it is an important entry for the presented material models.
Acknowledgments
Funding from the VEGA 1/0740/16 grant, the KEGA 017STU4/2018 grant and the APVV150757 grant resources are greatly appreciated.
References
 1.
Simo JC, Hughes TJR. Computational Inelasticity. New York: Springer; 2000. 392 p. ISBN10: 0387975209  2.
NematNasser S. Plasticity: A Treatise on Finite Deformation of Heterogeneous Inelastic Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 760 p. ISBN10: 0521108063  3.
Belytschko T, Liu WK, Moran B. Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. 830 p. ISBN10: 1118632702  4.
De Souza Neto EA, Perić D, Owen DRJ. Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications. 1st ed. Singapore: Wiley; 2008. 814 p. ISBN10: 0470694521  5.
Asaro RJ. Micromechanics of crystals and polycrystals. In: Hutchinson JW, Wu TY, editors. Advances in Applied Mechanics. Vol. 23. New York: Academic Press; 1983. pp. 1115. ISBN10: 0120020238  6.
Peirce D, Asaro RJ, Needlemann A. An analysis of nonuniform and localized deformation in ductile single crystals. Acta Metallurgica. 1982; 30 :10871119. DOI: 10.1016/00016160(82)900050  7.
Peirce D. Shear band bifurcation in ductile single crystals. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 1983; 31 :133153. DOI: 10.1016/00225096(83)900479  8.
Kojić M, Bathe KJ. Studies of finite element procedures–Stress solution of a closed elastic strain paths with stretching and shearing using the updated Lagrangian Jaumann formulation. Computers and Structures. 1987; 28 (1/2):175179. DOI: 10.1016/00457949(87)90247–1  9.
Meyers A, Xiao H, Bruhns OT. Choice of objective rate in single parameter hypoelastic deformation cycles. Computers and Structures. 2006; 84 :11341140. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.01.012  10.
Lehmann T. Anisotrope plastishe Formänderungen. Romanian Journal of Technical Sciences. Series: Applied Mechanics. 1972; 17 :10771086. DOI: 10.1007/BF02096162  11.
Diens JK. On the analysis of rotation and stress rate in deforming bodies. Acta Mechanica. 1979; 32 :217232. DOI: 10.1007/BF01379008  12.
Simo JC, Pistner KS. Remark on the rate of constitutive equations for finite deformation problems: Computational implications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics. 1984; 46 :201215  13.
Perić D. On constitutive stress rates in solid mechanics: Computational implications. The International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 1992; 33 :799817. DOI: 10.1002/nme.1620330409  14.
Écsi L, Élesztős P. An alternative material model using a generalized J2 finitestrain flow plasticity theory with isotropic hardening. International Journal of Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 2018; 2 (23):351365. DOI: 10.2478/ijame20180019  15.
Gurtin ME. An Introduction to Continuum Mechanics. Orlando: Academic Press; 1981. p. 265. ISBN10: 9780123097507  16.
Holzapfel GA. Nonlinear Solid Mechanics. A Continuum Approach for Engineering. Chichester: Wiley; 2001. p. 455. ISBN10: 0471823198  17.
Bonet J, Wood RD. Nonlinear Continuum Mechanics for Finite Element Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 340. ISBN10: 0521838703  18.
Spencer AJM. Continuum Mechanics. 1st ed. New York: Longman; 2012. p. 208. ISBN10: 0486435946  19.
Borisenko AI, Tarapov IE. Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications. New York: Dover; 2012. p. 288. ISBN10: 0486638332  20.
Maugin GA. The saga of internal variables of state in continuum thermomechanics. Research Communications. 2015; 69 :7986. DOI: 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2015.06.009  21.
Écsi L, Élesztős P. Moving toward a more realistic material model of a ductile material with failure mode transition. Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik. 2012; 5 (43):379387. DOI: 10.1002/mawe.201200969