Comparison of isotropic elasto-plastic models for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\,F_{p}$

Patrizio Neff Thanks: Corresponding author: Patrizio Neff, Head of Lehrstuhl für Nichtlineare Analysis und Modellierung, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann Str. 9, 45127 Essen, Germany, email: patrizio.neff@uni-due.de and Ionel-Dumitrel Ghiba Thanks: Ionel-Dumitrel Ghiba, Lehrstuhl für Nichtlineare Analysis und Modellierung, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann Str. 9, 45127 Essen, Germany; Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, Department of Mathematics, Blvd. Carol I, no. 11, 700506 Iaşi, Romania; and Octav Mayer Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy, Iaşi Branch, 700505 Iaşi, email: dumitrel.ghiba@uni-due.de, dumitrel.ghiba@uaic.ro

Abstract

We discuss in detail existing isotropic elasto-plastic models based on 6-dimensional flow rules for the positive definite plastic metric tensor $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\,F_{p}$ and highlight their properties and interconnections. We show that seemingly different models are equivalent in the isotropic case.

Key words: multiplicative decomposition, elasto-plasticity, ellipticity domain, plastic metric, isotropic formulation, 6-dimensional flow rule, associated plasticity, subdifferential formulation, convex elastic domain, plastic spin, energetic formulation

Dedicated to Michael Ortiz on the occasion of his 60th birthday with great admiration

1 Introduction

Since the early days of the introduction of the multiplicative decomposition into computational elasto-plasticity, the need was felt to reduce the level of complexity and to discard the concept of a plastic rotation in the completely isotropic setting. This means to consider a flow rule not for the plastic distortion $F_{p}$ (9-dimensional) [30, 45, 11, 37, 6, 44, 35, 5], but to consider directly a flow rule for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}F_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ (6-dimensional) [39, 10, 40, 1, 46], which is then automatically invariant under left-multiplication of $F_{p}$ with a plastic rotation. The plastic distortion is in general incompatible $F_{p}\neq\nabla\psi_{p}$ , as is the plastic metric $C_{p}\neq\nabla\psi_{p}^{T}\nabla\psi_{p}$ . A formulation in the plastic metric $C_{p}$ is particular attractive because it circumvents problems associated with the intermediate configuration introduced by the multiplicative decomposition, which is trivially non-unique since

\displaystyle F=F_{e}\cdot F_{p}=F_{e}\cdot Q^{T}\cdot Q\cdot F^{p}=F_{e}^{*}\cdot F_{p}^{*},\quad Q\in{\rm SO}(3).

Several proposals with the aim of removing the non-uniqueness of the intermediate configuration have been given in the literature. Our comparative study is related to the following models: Simo’s model [42] (Reese and Wriggers [37], Miehe [21]); Miehe’s model [22]; Lion’s model [17] (Helm [12]), Dettmer-Reese [6]); Simo and Hughes’ model [43]; Helm’s model [12] (Vladimirov, Pietryga and Reese [46], Shutov and Kreißig [40], Reese and Christ [36], Brepols, Vladimirov and Reese [1], Shutov and Ihlemann [39]); Grandi and Stefanelli’s model [10] (Frigeri and Stefanelli [7]). All these models are given with respect to different configurations, either the reference configuration, the intermediate configuration or the current configuration. In order to be able to compare them, it is necessary to transform all to the same configuration for that purpose. In our case we choose the reference configuration. Moreover, any explicit dependence on $F_{p}$ instead of $C_{p}$ in the model formulation must be able to be subsumed into a dependence on $C_{p}$ alone in the isotropic case. A major body of our work consists in showing this for the models under consideration.

The paper is structured as follows. After a paragraph giving some definitions which generalize the concepts from small strain-additive plasticity to finite strain plasticity we established some auxiliary results. Then we discuss existing 6-dimensional flow rules from the literature. The main properties of the investigated isotropic plasticity models are summarized in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Finally, in the appendix, we obtain explicit formulas for some of the isotropic plasticity models.

1.1 Consistent isotropic finite plasticity model for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}$

In this paper, we use the standard Euclidean scalar product on $\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ given by $\langle{X},{Y}\rangle:=\textrm{tr}{(XY^{T})}$ , and thus the Frobenius tensor norm is $\|{X}\|^{2}=\langle{X},{X}\rangle$ . The identity tensor on $\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ will be denoted by ${\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}$ , so that $\textrm{tr}{(X)}=\langle{X},{{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}}\rangle$ . We let $\Sym(3)$ and $\rm PSym(3)$ denote the symmetric and positive definite symmetric tensors respectively. We adopt the usual abbreviations of Lie-group theory. Here and in the following the superscript ^T is used to denote transposition, ${\rm sym}\,X=\frac{1}{2}(X+X^{T})$ denotes the symmetric part of the matrix $X\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ , while $\dev_{3}X=X-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(X)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}$ represents the deviatoric (trace free) part of the matrix $X$ .

The classical concept of associated perfect plasticity is uniquely defined in the case of small strain-additive plasticity. In this case the total symmetric strain is decomposed additively into elastic and plastic parts $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{e}+\varepsilon_{p}$ and the rate-independent evolution law for the symmetric plastic strain $\varepsilon_{p}$ is given in subdifferential format

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\varepsilon_{p}]\in\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}{\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\Sigma_{\rm lin}),\qquad\textrm{tr}(\varepsilon_{p})=0,

where $\partial$ $\chi$ is the subdifferential of the indicator function $\chi$ of the convex elastic domain

\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}({\Sigma_{\rm lin}},\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})=\left\{{\Sigma_{\rm lin}}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\big|\,\ \|\dev_{3}{\Sigma_{\rm lin}}\|^{2}\leq\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}\right\}\subset{\rm Sym}(3)

and $\Sigma_{\rm lin}:=-D_{\varepsilon_{p}}[W_{\rm lin}(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_{p})]$ is the thermodynamic driving stress of the plastic process. Here, $\Sigma_{\rm lin}$ is clearly symmetric.

In such a way, the principle of maximum dissipation (equivalent to the convexity of the elastic domain and normality of the flow direction) is satisfied. The structure of associated flow rules in geometrically nonlinear theories is by far not as trivial as in the geometrically linear models. However, in this work we use:

Definition 1.1.

(geometrically nonlinear associated plastic flow) We call a plastic flow rule for some plastic variable $P$ (whether symmetric or not) associated, whenever the flow rule can be written as

\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P]\,P^{-1}\in\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}{\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\Sigma)\qquad\text{or}\qquad\sqrt{P}\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P^{-1}]\,\sqrt{P}\in f=\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}{\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\Sigma),

where $\Sigma$ is some symmetric or non-symmetric stress tensor. Here, $\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P^{-1}]\,P$ is the correct format for the time derivative (it will lead to an exponential update, see the implicit method based on the exponential mapping considered in [41]). Moreover, we require that $\chi$ is the indicator function of some convex domain in the $\Sigma$ -stress space.

After liniarization (small strain-additive approximation) this condition is equivalent to classical associated plasticity. Further, let us also remark that a metric is by definition symmetric and positive definite, i.e. $C_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ .

Definition 1.2.

(consistent isotropic finite plasticity model for plastic metric tensor $C_{p}$ ) We say that an associated plastic flow rule, in the sense of Definition 1.1, for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}$ is consistent, whenever:

i)

it is thermodynamically correct, i.e. the reduced dissipation inequality is satisfied;
ii)

plastic incompressibility: the constraint $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ for all $t\geq 0$ follows from the flow rule;
iii)

$\,C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ for all $t>0$ if $C_{p}(0)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ .

As we will see from the next Lemma 1.10, our requirement iii) follows if $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ for all $t\geq 0$ , $C_{p}(0)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ and if ii) is satisfied.

We finish our setup of preliminaries with the following definitions:

Definition 1.3.

(reduced dissipation inequality-thermodynamic consistency) For a given energy $W$ , we say that the reduced dissipation inequality along the plastic evolution is satisfied if and only if

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[W(F\,F_{p}^{-1}(t)]=\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}(t)]=\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\Psi(C,C_{p}(t)]\leq 0

for all constant in time $F$ (viz. $C=F^{T}F$ ), depending in which format the elastic energy is given.

Definition 1.4.

(Loss of ellipticity in the elastic domain) We say that the elasto-plastic formulation preserves ellipticity in the elastic domain whenever the purely elastic response in elastic unloading of the material remains rank-one convex for arbitrary large given plastic pre-distortion, see [31, 9].

1.2 Auxiliary results

We consider the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient [13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 34] and we define, accordingly, the elastic and plastic strain tensors

	$\displaystyle C_{e}$	$\displaystyle:=F_{e}^{T}F_{e}\in{\rm PSym}(3),\qquad B_{e}:=F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}\in{\rm PSym}(3),$
	$\displaystyle C_{p}$	$\displaystyle:=F_{p}^{T}F_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3).$

Let us also define the stress tensors

	$\displaystyle\Sigma:$	$\displaystyle=2\,C\,D_{C}[\widehat{W}(C)]=2\,D_{\log C}[\overline{W}(\log C)]=D_{\log U}[\check{W}(\log U)]$
		$\displaystyle=U\,D_{U}[W(U)]=F^{T}D_{F}[W(F)]\,,$
	$\displaystyle\tau:$	$\displaystyle=2\,D_{B}[\widehat{W}(B)]\,B=2\,D_{\log B}[\overline{W}(\log B)]=D_{\log V}[\check{W}(\log V)]$
		$\displaystyle=V\,D_{V}[W(V)]=2\,F\,D_{C}[\widehat{W}(C)]\,F^{T}.$

The tensor $\Sigma=C\cdot S_{2}(C)$ , where $S_{2}=2\,D_{C}[W(C)]$ is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor, is sometimes called the Mandel stress tensor and it holds $\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}=\dev_{3}\Sigma_{\rm E}$ , where $\Sigma_{\rm E}$ is the elastic Eshelby tensor

\Sigma_{\rm E}:=F_{e}^{T}D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})]-W(F_{e})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}=D_{\log C_{e}}[\overline{W}(\log C_{e})]-\overline{W}(\log C_{e})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},

driving the plastic evolution (see e.g. [29, 20, 4, 2, 3]), while $\tau$ is the Kirchhoff stress tensor and $\Sigma_{e}$ is defined in Remark 1.5.

Remark 1.5.

We also need to consider the following elasto-plastic stress tensors:

	$\displaystyle\Sigma_{e}:$	$\displaystyle=2\,C_{e}\,D_{C_{e}}[\widehat{W}({C_{e}})]=2\,D_{\log{C_{e}}}[\overline{W}(\log{C_{e}})]=D_{\log U_{e}}[\check{W}(\log U_{e})]$
		$\displaystyle=U_{e}\,D_{U_{e}}[W(U_{e})]=F_{e}^{T}D_{F_{e}}[W(F_{e})]\,,$
	$\displaystyle\tau_{e}:$	$\displaystyle=2\,D_{B_{e}}[\widehat{W}({B_{e}})]\,{B_{e}}=2\,D_{\log{B_{e}}}[\overline{W}(\log{B_{e}})]=D_{\log V_{e}}[\check{W}(\log V_{e})]$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle V_{e}\,D_{V_{e}}[W(V_{e})]=2\,{F_{e}}\,D_{C_{e}}[\widehat{W}({C_{e}})]\,{F_{e}}^{T}.$

The following relation holds true:

\displaystyle\Sigma=F^{T}\tau\,F^{-T},\qquad\Sigma_{e}=F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}.

(1.1)

Note that (1.1) is not at variance with symmetry of $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_{e}$ in case of isotropy.

Using the fact that for given $F_{e}\in{\rm GL}^{+}(3)$ it holds $\|F_{e}^{T}SF_{e}^{-T}\|^{2}\geq\frac{1}{2}\|S\|^{2}$ for all $S\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , the constant being independent of $F_{e}$ [30], we obtain the estimate

\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|=\|F_{e}^{T}(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})F_{e}^{-T}\|\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|,

which is valid for general anisotropic materials. Indeed, since

	$\displaystyle\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}=\dev_{3}(F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}F_{e}^{-T})$	$\displaystyle=F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}F_{e}^{-T}-\frac{1}{3}{\rm tr}(F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}F_{e}^{-T})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}$
		$\displaystyle=F_{e}^{T}(\tau_{e}-\frac{1}{3}{\rm tr}(\tau_{e}))\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})F_{e}^{-T},$

we have

\displaystyle\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}=F_{e}^{T}(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})F_{e}^{-T},\qquad\dev_{3}\tau_{e}=F_{e}^{-T}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})F_{e}^{T},\qquad{\rm tr}(\Sigma_{e})={\rm tr}(\tau_{e}).

However, $\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|\neq\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|$ for general anisotropic materials. Let us remark that for elastically isotropic materials we have from the representation formula for isotropic tensor functions

	$\displaystyle D_{C_{e}}[\widehat{W}({C_{e}})]$	$\displaystyle=\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$
	$\displaystyle\Sigma_{e}=2\,C_{e}\cdot D_{C_{e}}[\widehat{W}({C_{e}})]$	$\displaystyle=2\,C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2})\in{\rm Sym}(3),$		(1.2)

where

	$\displaystyle\alpha_{1}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{2}{I_{3}^{1/2}({C_{e}})}\left[I_{2}({C_{e}})\,\frac{\partial W}{\partial I_{2}({C_{e}})}+I_{3}({C_{e}})\frac{\partial W}{\partial I_{3}({C_{e}})}\right],\quad\alpha_{2}=\frac{2}{I_{3}^{1/2}({C_{e}})}\frac{\partial W}{\partial I_{1}({C_{e}})},$
	$\displaystyle\alpha_{3}$	$\displaystyle=-{2\,I_{3}^{1/2}({C_{e}})}\frac{\partial W}{\partial I_{2}({C_{e}})}$

are scalar functions of the invariants of $C_{e}$ , which are functions of $C\,C_{p}^{-1}$ , see Lemma 1.7. This leads us to

Lemma 1.6.

For the isotropic case $\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|=\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|$ .

Proof.

For the isotropic case we have $\tau_{e}\,B_{e}=B_{e}\,\tau_{e}$ , which implies

	$\displaystyle\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}$	$\displaystyle=\langle F_{e}^{T}\,(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})\,F_{e}^{-T},F_{e}^{T}\,(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})\,F_{e}^{-T}\rangle=\langle B_{e}\,(\dev_{3}\tau_{e}),(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})\,B_{e}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\\|^{2},$

and the proof is complete.∎

We also consider the following tensor

\displaystyle\widetilde{\Sigma}:=2\,C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]=2\,C\,D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3),

(1.3)

which is not symmetric, in general. For instance, for the simplest Neo-Hooke energy $W(F_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ we have $D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})={\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}$ and $\widetilde{\Sigma}=2\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ .

Lemma 1.7.

Any isotropic and objective free energy $W$ defined in terms of $F_{e}$ can be expressed as

\displaystyle W(F_{e})=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})=\widetilde{W}(F^{T}F(F_{p}^{T}F_{p})^{-1}).

(1.4)

Proof.

It is clear that any objective elastic energy $W(F_{e})$ which is isotropic w.r.t. $F_{e}$ , can be expressed in terms of the invariants of $C_{e}$ , i.e.

	$\displaystyle W(F_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\Psi(I_{1}(C_{e}),I_{2}(C_{e}),I_{3}(C_{e})),$
	$\displaystyle I_{1}(C_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\textrm{tr}(C_{e})=\textrm{tr}(B_{e}),\quad I_{2}(C_{e})=\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,C_{e})=\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,B_{e}),$
	$\displaystyle I_{3}(C_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\det C_{e}=\det B_{e}.$

Now every invariant can be rewritten as follows

$\displaystyle I_{1}(C_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\langle C_{e},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle F_{e}^{T}F_{e},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle F_{p}^{-T}F^{T}\,(F\,F_{p}^{-1}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle C,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle=\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$
	$\displaystyle=I_{1}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),$	(1.5)
$\displaystyle I_{2}(C_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\langle{\rm Cof}\,C_{e},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\det C_{e}\,\langle C_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\det(F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1})\,\langle[F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1}]^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\det C\det C_{p}^{-1}\,\langle C^{-T},F_{p}^{T}\,F_{p}\rangle=\det(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,\langle C^{-T}C_{p}^{T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))$
	$\displaystyle=I_{2}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),$
$\displaystyle I_{3}(C_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\det\,C_{e}=\det(F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1})=\det\,C\,\det\,C_{p}^{-1}=I_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}).$

Therefore, we obtain

	$\displaystyle W(F_{e})$	$\displaystyle=\Psi(I_{1}(C_{e}),I_{2}(C_{e}),I_{3}(C_{e}))$
		$\displaystyle=\Psi(I_{1}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),I_{2}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),I_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),$

and the proof is complete. ∎

Remark 1.8.

Since the principal invariants $I_{k},k=1,2,3$ are the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial and $I_{1}(C_{e})=I_{1}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ , $I_{2}(C_{e})=I_{2}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ , $I_{3}(C_{e})=I_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ , the eigenvalues of $C_{e}$ and $C\,C_{p}^{-1}$ coincide. Clearly, $C_{e}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ , however $C\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ in general, unless $C$ and $C_{p}^{-1}$ commute.

Lemma 1.9.

The introduced stress tensors $\Sigma_{e},\widetilde{\Sigma},\tau_{e}$ are related as follows

\displaystyle\Sigma_{e}=F_{p}^{-T}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,F_{p}^{T},\qquad\quad\widetilde{\Sigma}=F^{T}\tau_{e}\,F^{-T}.

Proof.

For arbitrary increment $H\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ , we compute

	$\displaystyle\langle D_{F}[W({F_{e}})],H\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\langle D_{F}[W(F\,F_{p}^{-1})],H\rangle=\langle D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})],H\,F_{p}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})]\,F_{p}^{-T},H\rangle.$

On the other hand, we deduce

	$\displaystyle\langle D_{F}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],H\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\langle D_{F}[\widetilde{W}(F^{T}F\,C_{p}^{-1})],H\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],F^{T}HC_{p}^{-1}+H^{T}F\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=2\,\langle F\,{\rm sym}[D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]C_{p}^{-1}],H\rangle,$

for all $H\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ . In view of Lemma 1.7 we have $W(F_{e})=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ . Therefore, we obtain

\displaystyle 2\,F\,{\rm sym}[D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]C_{p}^{-1}]=D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})]\,F_{p}^{-T},

and further

\displaystyle F_{e}^{T}D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})]\,F_{p}^{-T}

\displaystyle=2\,F_{e}^{T}F\,{\rm sym}[D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]C_{p}^{-1}]=2\,F_{p}^{-T}C\,{\rm sym}[D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]C_{p}^{-1}].

The above relation implies

\displaystyle\Sigma_{e}=F_{e}^{T}D_{F_{e}}[W({F_{e}})]

\displaystyle=2\,F_{p}^{-T}C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,F_{p}^{T}=\,F_{p}^{-T}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,F_{p}^{T}.

Therefore, using Remark 1.5 the proof is complete. ∎

Next, we introduce a helpful lemma.

Lemma 1.10.

If $t\mapsto C_{p}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ is continuous and satisfies:

\left.\begin{array}[]{rll}\det C_{p}(t)&=1\quad\text{ for all}\quad t>0,\\ C_{p}(0)&\in{\rm PSym}(3),\\ C_{p}(t)&\in{\rm Sym}(3)\quad\text{ for all}\quad t>0\end{array}\right\}\quad\Rightarrow\quad C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)\quad\text{ for all}\quad t>0.

Proof.

Using Cardano’s formula and due to the symmetry of $C_{p}$ , the continuity of the map $t\mapsto C_{p}(t)$ implies the continuity of mappings $t\mapsto\lambda_{i}(t)$ , $i=1,2,3$ , where $\lambda_{i}(t)\in\mathbb{R}$ are the eigenvalues of $C_{p}(t)$ . Since $\lambda_{i}(0)>0$ and $\lambda_{1}(t)\lambda_{2}(t)\lambda_{3}(t)=1$ for all $t>0$ , it follows that $\lambda_{i}(t)>0$ for all $t>0$ and the proof is complete. ∎

We can slightly weaken the assumption in the previous lemma: $\det C_{p}(t)>0$ for all $t>0$ is sufficient.

2 The Simo-Miehe 1992 spatial model

In the remainder of this paper we discuss different proposal from the literature for plasticity models in $C_{p}$ . Simo [42] (see also Reese and Wriggers [37] and Miehe [21, page 72, Prop. 5.25]) considered the spatial flow rule in the form

\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e})=\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\tau_{e}}\Phi(\tau_{e})\cdot B_{e},

(2.1)

where the Lie-derivative $\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e})$ is given by $\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e}):=F\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,F^{T}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , the tensor $\tau_{e}=2\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{B_{e}}W(B_{e})\cdot B_{e}$ is the symmetric Kirchhoff stress tensor, the yield function $\Phi(\tau_{e})=\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\sigma_{\textbf{y}}$ and the plastic multiplier $\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}$ satisfies the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT)-optimality constraints

\displaystyle\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\geq 0,\qquad\Phi(\tau_{e})\leq 0,\qquad\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\Phi(\tau_{e})=0.

(2.2)

The flow rule (2.1) is equivalent with

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-2\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F^{-1}[\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\tau_{e}}\Phi(\tau_{e})\cdot B_{e}]\,F^{-T}$
		$\displaystyle=-2\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F^{-1}\left[\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\\|}\cdot B_{e}\right]\,F^{-T},$		(2.3)

which, in view of the properties (2.2) of $\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}$ , can be written with a subdifferential

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\in-2\,F^{-1}\left[\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\tau_{e}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})\cdot B_{e}\right]\,F^{-T},

(2.4)

where $\chi$ is the indicator function of the elastic domain

\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\tau_{{}_{\rm e}},\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})=\left\{\tau_{e}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\big|\,\ \|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|^{2}\leq\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}\right\}=\{\tau_{e}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\,|\,\Phi(\tau_{e})\leq 0\}.

The subdifferential $\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})$ of the indicator function $\chi$ is the normal cone

\displaystyle\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}({\tau_{e}},\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2});\dev_{3}{\tau}_{e})=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}0,&{\tau}_{e}\in{\rm int}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}({\tau_{e}},\frac{2}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))\\ \{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|}\,|\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\},&{\tau}_{e}\not\in{\rm int}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}({\tau_{e}},\frac{2}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})).\end{array}\right.

We deduce (see the model Eq. (5.25) from [21]) an equivalent definition for $\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e})$ given by

\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e})=\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|}\cdot B_{e}.

Since $C_{p}=F^{T}\,B_{e}^{-1}\,F$ we have $\mathcal{L}_{v}(B_{e})=F\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,F^{T}=F\left(\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[F^{-1}B_{e}F^{-T}]\right)\,F^{T}.$ On the other hand, from (2) it follows that

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}$	$\displaystyle=-2\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F^{-1}\left[\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\\|}\cdot B_{e}\right]\,F^{-T}\,F^{T}\,B_{e}^{-1}\,F$
		$\displaystyle\in-2\,F^{-1}\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\tau_{e}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\tau_{e})\,F.$		(2.5)

Since

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\det{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]$	$\displaystyle=\langle{\rm Cof}\,{C}_{p}^{\,-1},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\rangle=\det{C}_{p}^{\,-1}\langle{C}_{p},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\det{C}_{P}^{\,-1}\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]{C}_{p}\rangle,$		(2.6)

from the flow rule (2) together with $\det C_{p}(0)=1$ and $\textrm{tr}(F^{-1}\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\,F)=0$ it follows at once that $\det C_{p}(t)=1\text{ for all }t\geq 0.$

The next step is to prove that the flow rule (2.1) implies $\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[W(F_{e})]\leq 0$ at fixed $F$ , i.e. the reduced dissipation inequality is satisfied. We compute for fixed in time $F$

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[W(FF^{-1}_{p})]$	$\displaystyle=\langle D_{F_{e}}W(F_{e}),F\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F^{-1}_{p}]\rangle=\langle D_{F_{e}}W(F_{e}),FF^{-1}_{p}F_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F^{-1}_{p}]\rangle$	(2.7)
	$\displaystyle=\langle F_{e}^{T}D_{F_{e}}W(F_{e}),F_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F^{-1}_{p}]\rangle=\langle\Sigma_{e},F_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F^{-1}_{p}]\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=-\langle\Sigma_{e},\underbrace{{\rm sym}(\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}]F_{p}^{-1})}_{D_{p}}\rangle,$

since $\Sigma_{e}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ . We also have

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]$	$\displaystyle=\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}^{T}F_{p}]=\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}^{T}]F_{p}+F_{p}^{T}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}]$
		$\displaystyle=F_{p}^{T}\left(F_{p}^{-T}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}^{T}]\right)F_{p}+F_{p}^{T}\left(\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}]F_{p}^{-1}\right)F_{p}=2\,F_{p}^{T}D_{p}F_{p},$

where $D_{p}:={\rm sym}\left(\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[F_{p}]F_{p}^{-1}\right).$ Hence, we easily deduce the representation $D_{p}=\frac{1}{2}\,F_{p}^{-T}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]F_{p}^{-1}.$ Therefore, with (2.7) we obtain

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[W(FF^{-1}_{p})]

\displaystyle=-\langle\Sigma_{e},\frac{1}{2}\,F_{p}^{-T}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]F_{p}^{-1}\rangle.

(2.8)

Moreover, since $\Sigma_{e}=F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}$ , we deduce

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[W(FF^{-1}_{p})]$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\langle F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T},\,F_{p}^{-T}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]F_{p}^{-1}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T},\,F_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]F_{p}^{T}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\,F_{p}^{T}\,F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}F_{p},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\,F^{T}\tau_{e}\,B_{e}^{-1}\,F,\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$	(2.9)
	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\tau_{e},F\,\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,F^{T}\,B_{e}^{-1}\rangle.$

The flow rule (2) implies

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[W(FF^{-1}_{p})]

\displaystyle=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\langle\tau_{e},\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|}\rangle=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|\leq 0.

(2.10)

In view of the definition of $\Sigma_{e}=F_{e}^{T}\,\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}$ we have $F^{-1}[\,{\tau_{e}}\,B_{e}]F^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}[{\Sigma_{e}}]F_{p}^{-T}$ . For the isotropic case it holds $\tau_{e}\,B_{e}=B_{e}\,\tau_{e}$ . Hence,

	$\displaystyle F^{-1}[{\tau_{e}}\,B_{e}]F^{-T}$	$\displaystyle=F^{-1}[\,B_{e}{\tau_{e}}]F^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}F_{e}^{-1}[\,F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}]F_{e}^{-T}F_{p}^{-T}$
		$\displaystyle=F_{p}^{-1}[\,F_{e}^{T}\tau_{e}F_{e}^{-T}]F_{p}^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}[\Sigma_{e}]F_{p}^{-T}.$

We also observe $F^{-1}[\,{\rm tr}({\tau_{e}})\,B_{e}]F^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}[{\rm tr}({\Sigma_{e}})]F_{p}^{-T}$ . Thus, we obtain

F^{-1}[{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}\,B_{e}]F^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}[{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}]F_{p}^{-T}.

Together with Remark 1.6 this implies that

\displaystyle F^{-1}\left[\frac{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|}\,B_{e}\right]F^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}\left[\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|}\right]F_{p}^{-T}.

(2.11)

Therefore, in the isotropic case, the flow rule (2.4) has a subdifferential structure:

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\in-2\,F_{p}^{-1}\,[\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\Sigma_{e}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})]\,F_{p}^{-T},

(2.12)

where $\chi$ is the indicator function of the elastic domain

\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\Sigma_{{}_{\rm e}},\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})=\left\{\Sigma_{e}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\big|\,\ \|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|^{2}\leq\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}\right\}.

In view of the above equivalent representations of the flow rule, we may summarize the properties of the Simo-Miehe 1992 model:

i)

from (2) it follows, in the isotropic case (in which $\tau_{e}$ and $B_{e}$ commute), that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ ;
ii)

plastic incompressibility: from (2) and (2) it follows that $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ , since the right hand side is trace-free;
iii)

for the isotropic case, the right hand-side of (2) is a function of $C_{p}^{-1}$ and $C$ alone, since $B_{e}=F\,C_{p}^{-1}\,F^{T}$ and $F^{-1}B_{e}F=F^{-1}F\,C_{p}^{-1}\,F^{T}F=C_{p}^{-1}\,C$ ;
iv)

from i) and ii) together and using Lemma 1.10 it follows that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ ;
v)

it is thermodynamically correct;
vi)

the right hand side in the representation (2) is not the subdifferential of the indicator function of some convex domain in some stress space. However, this model is an associated plasticity model in the isotropic case, see Proposition 4.3 and Proposition 7.1.

3 The Miehe 1995 referential model

Shutov [38] interpreted that Miehe in [22] considered the flow rule¹¹ 1 Miehe [22] only defines the elastic domain $\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}):=\left\{\widetilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}\,\Big|\,\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})\leq{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}\right\}$ in terms of $\tau_{e}$ , i.e. $\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\tau_{{}_{\rm e}},\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})=\left\{\tau\in{\rm Sym}(3)\big|\,\ \|\dev_{3}\tau\|^{2}\leq\frac{2}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}\right\}$ . He uses the same notation for the referential quantities. Therefore, we have two interpretations at hand $\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})=\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|-{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}=\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}-{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}$ . On the other hand, in the isotropic case, we have also $\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})=\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|-{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}.$

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}=-\displaystyle\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}D_{\widetilde{\Sigma}}\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma}),

(3.1)

where $\widetilde{\Sigma}=2\,C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$ and

\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})=\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}=\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}.

In this model, it is important tp note that it is not the Frobenius norm of $\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}$ which is used in the yield function $\Phi$ . Instead, in the denominator $\mathcal{F}:=\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}$ is considered, see Eq. (52) from [40]. Since $\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , it follows that $\mathcal{F}:=\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}\neq\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\|$ . Indeed, we have

	$\displaystyle\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}$	$\displaystyle=\\|\dev_{3}(\widetilde{\Sigma})\\|\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\langle\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma},(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{T}\rangle=\langle\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad\langle\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma},{\rm skew}(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})\rangle=0\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad\widetilde{\Sigma}\in{\rm Sym}(3).$

For the simplest Neo-Hooke elastic energy considered in Appendix A.2, $W(F_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C_{e})=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})=\frac{1}{2}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ , we have $\widetilde{\Sigma}=C\,C_{p}^{-1},$ which is not symmetric. Hence $\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}\neq\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\|$ . Let us again remark that $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is not necessarily symmetric for general $C_{p}$ . However, using Lemma 1.9, we deduce

	$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}$	$\displaystyle=F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\,C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\quad\Rightarrow\quad\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\cdot C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$		(3.2)
	$\displaystyle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}$	$\displaystyle=C_{p}^{-1}\,F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}=F_{p}^{-1}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\quad\Rightarrow\quad C_{p}^{-1}\,\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\in{\rm Sym}(3).$

In the following, we discuss first the sign of the quantity²² 2 If we are not looking for the sign of $\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})$ for all $\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ , then considering two particular values of $\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}$ , e.g. $\displaystyle\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}-\frac{1}{2}&1&2\\ -2&-\frac{1}{2}&3\\ -1&-3&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \end{array}\right)\qquad\text{and}\qquad\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}-\frac{1}{3}&0&0\\ 0&\frac{2}{3}&0\\ 0&0&-\frac{1}{3}\\ \end{array}\right),$ we obtain $\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]=-2$ and $\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]=\frac{2}{3}$ , respectively. Hence, $\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]$ is not positive for all $\widetilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ . $\mathcal{F}^{2}:={\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}$ . First, we deduce

$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]$	$\displaystyle=\langle(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle\widetilde{\Sigma}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})\,C_{p},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\cdot C_{p})^{T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$	(3.3)
	$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle.$

We further see that

$\displaystyle\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,$	$\displaystyle C_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p}\,U_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p},U_{p}^{-1}\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p},U_{p}^{-1}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(\widetilde{\Sigma})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$	(3.4)
	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p},U_{p}^{-1}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p},\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\rangle=\langle\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p}),\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\\|\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\\|^{2}\geq 0,$

where $U_{p}^{2}=C_{p}$ . Thus $\mathcal{F}^{2}$ is positive and $\mathcal{F}$ is well defined.

Since $\displaystyle D_{\widetilde{\Sigma}}\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{T}$ the flow rule (3.1) becomes

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}}\,(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{T}$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\qquad C_{p}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}}\,\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\,,$		(3.5)

Further, in view of (3.2), we obtain

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}}\,C_{p}^{-1}\,\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\qquad\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]=\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]}}(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})\,C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3).$		(3.6)

Using Lemma 1.10 we obtain that $C_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ .

We remark that the flow rule considered by Miehe [22] (in this interpretation) coincides with the flow rule (6.1) considered by Helm [12], see Proposition 6.1.

Remark 3.1.

Although the flow rule considered in this interpretation of the Miehe 1995 model [22] has a subdifferential structure, the yield-function $\Phi$ is not convex. Hence, the flow rule is not a convex flow rule. In order to see the non-convexity of $\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ we observe first by looking at sublevel-sets that

\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})=\sqrt{{\rm tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}-{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}\ \text{is convex}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{\Sigma})={\rm tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]\ \text{is convex}.

The second derivative for the simpler function $\widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ is

\displaystyle D^{2}_{\widetilde{\Sigma}}\widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{\Sigma}).(H,H)=\langle(\dev_{3}H)^{T},\dev_{3}H\rangle={\rm tr}[(\dev_{3}H)^{2}],\qquad\forall\ \,\widetilde{\Sigma},\,H\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}.

We know that ${\rm tr}[(\dev_{3}H)^{2}]$ is not positive for all $H\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ , since for the previous considered matrix $H$ , such that

\dev_{3}H=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}-\frac{1}{2}&1&2\\ -2&-\frac{1}{2}&3\\ -1&-3&-\frac{1}{2}\\ \end{array}\right),

we obtain ${\rm tr}[(\dev_{3}H)^{2}]=-2$ . Therefore $\widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ is not convex, and thus $\Phi(\widetilde{\Sigma})$ cannot be convex.

4 The Lion 1997 multiplicative elasto-plasticity formulation in terms of the plastic metric $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}F_{p}$

This derivation was given by Lion [17, Eq. (47.2)] in the general form (see also [12, Eq. (6.33)]) and by Dettmer-Reese [6] in the isotropic case. Following [6] we consider a perfect plasticity model for the plastic metric $C_{p}$ based on the flow rule

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\in-F_{p}^{-1}\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})\,F_{p}^{-T}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\qquad\text{for}\quad\Sigma_{e}\in{\rm Sym}(3).

(4.1)

Again, in this model it is not clear from the outset, that it is a formulation in $C_{p}$ alone. The goal of such a 6-dimensional formulation is to avoid any explicit computation of the plastic distortion $F_{p}$ . However, the right hand side of the above proposed flow rule is, in fact, a multivalued function in $C$ and $C_{p}^{-1}$ alone. Hence, we can express the flow rule (4.1) entirely in the form³³ 3 Note carefully, that $f(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ is not necessarily symmetric. Moreover $C_{p}^{-1}\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ in general.

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}\in f(C,C_{p}^{-1}).

(4.2)

In order to show this remarkable property (satisfied only for isotropic response), and to determine the explicit form of the function $f(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ , in view of (1.2) we remark that

	$\displaystyle F_{p}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}F_{p}^{-T}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}\left[F_{p}^{-1}\Sigma_{e}F_{p}^{-T}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})\,C_{p}^{-1}\right],$
	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})$	$\displaystyle=2\,\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}),$
	$\displaystyle\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}$	$\displaystyle=4\langle C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}),C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2})\rangle,$
	$\displaystyle\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|$	$\displaystyle=\sqrt{\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})]^{2}}.$

It is clear that $F_{p}^{-1}{\Sigma_{e}}F_{p}^{-T}=2\,F_{p}^{-1}\,C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2})\,F_{p}^{-T}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$ and

	$\displaystyle C_{e}$	$\displaystyle=F_{e}^{T}F_{e}=F_{p}^{-T}F^{T}F\,F_{p}^{-1}=F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1},$
	$\displaystyle\Sigma_{e}$	$\displaystyle=2\,F_{p}^{-T}(\alpha_{1}\,C+\alpha_{2}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C+\alpha_{3}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}C)\,F_{p}^{-1},$
	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})$	$\displaystyle=2\,\textrm{tr}(\alpha_{1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}+\alpha_{2}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}+\alpha_{3}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}),$
	$\displaystyle\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}$	$\displaystyle=4\langle C_{p}^{-1}\widehat{f},\widehat{f}C_{p}^{-1}\rangle.$

where

\displaystyle\widehat{f}:=\alpha_{1}\,C+\alpha_{2}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C+\alpha_{3}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}C.

Hence, we deduce

$\displaystyle F_{p}^{-1}{\Sigma_{e}}F_{p}^{-T}$	$\displaystyle=2\,C_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$	(4.3)
$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})$	$\displaystyle=2\,\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1}),\qquad\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}=4\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle,$
$\displaystyle\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|$	$\displaystyle=2\,\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}},$

where

\displaystyle\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}):=\alpha_{1}\,C+\alpha_{2}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,+\alpha_{3}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}C\in{\rm Sym}(3),

(4.4)

and $\alpha_{i}=\alpha_{i}(I_{1}(C_{e}),I_{2}(C_{e}),I_{3}(C_{e}))$ , according to (1.2). Therefore, the multivalued function $f(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ is given by

\displaystyle{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})

\displaystyle=\Bigg\{\frac{-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\dev_{3}(\,C_{p}^{-1}\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}))}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}}}\ \big|\ \lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\Bigg\}.

(4.5)

In Appendix A.1 we give the specific expression for the functions $f(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ and $\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ in case of the Neo-Hooke energy.

On the other hand, in view of equation (4.1) we also have

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]\,C_{p}^{-1}=-C_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\in C_{p}\,F_{p}^{-1}\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})\,F_{p}^{-T}=F_{p}^{T}\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})F_{p}^{-T}.

Hence, it follows that

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}]\in F_{p}^{T}\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})\,F_{p}^{-T}C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e})F_{p}\,\in\,{\rm Sym}(3),

(4.6)

which establishes symmetry of $C_{p}$ whenever $C_{p}(0)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ .

Another important question is whether the solution $C_{p}$ of the flow rule (4.1) is such that $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ , for all $t\geq 0$ . Let $C_{p}$ be the solution of the flow rule (4.1). Then, we have

	$\displaystyle C_{p}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,C_{p}\,F_{p}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}\,F_{p}^{-T}=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F_{p}^{T}F_{p}F_{p}^{-1}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}\,F_{p}^{-T}$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{2}\,\frac{\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|},$		(4.7)

which implies on the one hand

\langle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}],C_{p}\rangle=0.

On the other hand, the flow rule (4.1) together with $\det\,C_{p}(0)=1$ leads to $\det\,C_{p}(t)=1$ , for all $\,t\geq 0.$

Let us remark that, in view of (4.2) and (4.5) we have for the flow rule (4.1)

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]=\frac{-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}[\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}]]^{2}}}\,\,\underbrace{{\rm dev}_{3}[\underbrace{\,C_{p}^{-1}\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})}_{\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)}]\cdot\,C_{p}^{-1}}_{\in{\rm Sym}(3)},

which is in concordance with the requirement $C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , as can be seen from (4.6). Note that the above formula cannot be read as

\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\frac{{\rm dev}_{3}{\Sigma}}{\|{\rm dev}_{3}{\Sigma}\|}\cdot\,C_{p}^{-1},

for some $\displaystyle{\Sigma}$ , since

[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}\neq\|\dev_{3}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})\|^{2}.

To see this, assume to the contrary that equality holds. Then we deduce

	$\displaystyle[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}($	$\displaystyle C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}=\\|\dev_{3}(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})\\|^{2}$		(4.8)
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad\langle\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1},(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{T}\rangle=\pm\langle\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1},\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\rangle.$

Since $\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , we obtain

	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}[(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]$	$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\,(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\rangle.$		(4.9)

Using that $C_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ , we further deduce that

	$\displaystyle\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})U_{p}^{-1},U_{p}^{-1}\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})U_{p}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\\|U_{p}^{-1}\,\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})U_{p}^{-1}\\|^{2},$		(4.10)

where $U_{p}^{2}=C_{p}$ . Therefore, from (4.8) we deduce

	$\displaystyle\langle\widehat{f}($	$\displaystyle C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1},(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{T}\rangle=\langle\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1},\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$		(4.11)

which is not true, in general. However, it is an associated plasticity model in the sense of Definition 1.1, see Proposition 7.1. We also remark that

\displaystyle C_{p}\,\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]=\frac{-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,{\rm dev}_{3}[\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1}]}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}[\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})C_{p}^{-1}]]^{2}}}\,.

(4.12)

In conclusion, using Lemma 1.10, we have

Remark 4.1.

Any continuous solution $C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ of the flow rule (4.1) belongs in fact to ${\rm PSym}(3)$ .

As for the thermodynamical consistency, we remark that

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$	$\displaystyle=\langle D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],C\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\langle C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,C_{p},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},C_{p}\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$	(4.13)
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle=-\frac{1}{4}\,\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\\|}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle,$

which, using the formula $F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}=\widetilde{\Sigma}$ , leads to

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[$	$\displaystyle\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\langle\Sigma_{e},\Sigma_{e}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$	(4.14)
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}\leq 0.$

Note that this proof of thermodynamical consistency may be criticized because it involves the variable $F_{p}$ , which should not appear at all. However, we may also use (3) and (3) to obtain

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\,\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\\|}\,\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]$		(4.15)
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\,\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\\|}\,\\|\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\\|^{2}\leq 0,$		(4.16)

We may summarize the properties of the Lion 1997 model:

i)

from (4.1) it follows that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ ;
ii)

plastic incompressibility: from (4.1) together with $\det C_{p}(0)=1$ it follows that $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ ;
iii)

for the isotropic case, the right hand-side of (4.1) is a function of $C_{p}^{-1}$ and $C$ alone;
iii)

from i) and ii) together and using Lemma 1.10 it follows that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ ;
v)

it is thermodynamically correct;
vi)

it is an associated plasticity model in the sense of Definition 1.1, see Proposition 7.1.

Remark 4.2.

(Simo-Miehe 1992 model vs. Lion 1997 model) In the anisotropic case, the flow rule proposed by Simo and Miehe [42] (and later by Reese and Wriggers [37] and Miehe [21]) is not completely equivalent with the flow rule proposed by Lion (see also [6, 1]), since $\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\|\neq\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|$ does not hold true in general. However, the difference is nearly absorbed by the positive plastic multipliers. The models may differ due to different yield conditions, but the flow rules are similar, having the same performance with respect to the thermodynamic consistency. Both models are consistent according to our Definition 1.2, but we may not switch between them, since different elastic domains are considered, namely $\mathcal{E}_{{\Sigma}_{e}}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{{\tau}_{e}}$ , respectively. This is in fact the main difference between these two models. Having different elastic domains we have different boundary points, since a point of the boundary of $\mathcal{E}_{{\tau}_{e}}$ is not necessarily on the boundary of $\mathcal{E}_{{\tau}_{e}}$ . Hence, in these two flow rules we have a different behaviour corresponding to the indicator function of different domains. The material may reach the boundary of the elastic domain $\mathcal{E}_{{\tau}_{e}}$ , while it is strictly inside the elastic domain $\mathcal{E}_{{\Sigma}_{e}}$ , for the same local response.

However, we have the following result:

Proposition 4.3.

In the isotropic case the flow rule proposed by Simo and Miehe [42] is equivalent with the flow rule proposed by Lion [17].

Proof.

We compare the flow rules (2.12) and (4.1) and the proof is complete. ∎

5 The Simo and Hughes 1998 plasticity formulation in terms of a plastic metric

The book [43] has been edited years after the untimely death of J.C. Simo. In this book also a finite strain plasticity model is proposed. However, this model has a subtle fundamental deficiency which we aim to describe in the interest of the reader. The flow rule considered in [43, page 310] is

\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]=-\frac{2}{3}\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\textrm{tr}(B_{e})\,F^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F^{-T},\qquad\overline{C}_{p}=\frac{C_{p}}{\det C_{p}^{1/3}}\,,

(5.1)

where $B_{e}=F_{e}F_{e}^{T}$ , $\tau_{e}=2\,F_{e}\,D_{C_{e}}[W(C_{e})]\,F_{e}^{T}=2\,B_{e}\,D_{B_{e}}[W(B_{e})]$ is the elastic Kirchhoff stress tensor and $\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\geq 0$ is the consistency parameter. If the plastic flow is isochoric then $\det F_{p}=\det C_{p}=1$ . However, we must always have $\det\overline{C}_{p}=1=\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}$ by definition of $\overline{C}_{p}$ . Since $F_{e}=F\,F_{p}^{-1}$ , we have $\textrm{tr}(B_{e})=\langle F_{p}^{-T}F^{T}\,F\,F_{p}^{-1}\rangle=\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle=\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ . Moreover, note that for elastically isotropic materials it holds

	$\displaystyle D_{C_{e}}[W({C_{e}})]$	$\displaystyle=\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$
	$\displaystyle\tau_{e}$	$\displaystyle=2\,F_{e}\,[\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}]\,F_{e}^{T},$		(5.2)

where $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}$ are scalar functions of the invariants of $C_{e}$ which are functions of $C\,C_{p}^{-1}$ , see Lemma 1.7. Since $C_{e}=F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1}$ , we obtain

	$\displaystyle\tau_{e}$	$\displaystyle=2\,F\,F_{p}^{-1}\,[\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1}+\alpha_{3}\,F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1}F_{p}^{-T}C\,F_{p}^{-1}]F_{p}^{-T}\,F^{T}$
		$\displaystyle=2\,F\,f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,F^{T},$		(5.3)

with $f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1}):=\alpha_{1}\,C_{p}^{-1}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3).$ Thus, for elastically isotropic materials we deduce

$\displaystyle F^{-1}\,[{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}]\,F^{-T}=$	$\displaystyle 2\,f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})-\frac{2}{3}\textrm{tr}(F\,f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\,F^{T})\,C^{-1}$
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle 2\,f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})-\frac{2}{3}\langle f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),C\rangle\,C^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$	(5.4)
$\displaystyle\\|\dev_{3}\tau_{e}\\|=$	$\displaystyle\sqrt{\\|\tau_{e}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{9}[\textrm{tr}(\tau_{e})]^{2}}$
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle 2\sqrt{\langle f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\cdot C,C\cdot\,f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1})\rangle^{2}-\frac{1}{9}\langle f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),C\rangle^{2}}.$

Hence, $F^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F^{-T}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ is a function of $C,{C}_{p}^{\,-1}$ . Therefore the flow rule (5.1) can entirely be expressed in terms of $C$ and ${C}_{p}^{\,-1}$ alone.

Remark 5.1.

It is not true, in general, that the right hand side of the flow rule (5.1) is in concordance with $\det\overline{C}_{p}(t)=1$ , assuming that $\det\overline{C}_{p}(0)=1$ .

Proof.

From (5.1) we obtain by right multiplication with $\overline{C}_{p}$

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\,\overline{C}_{p}=-\frac{2}{3}\,(\det C_{p})^{-1/3}\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,F_{p}^{-1}F_{e}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F_{e}^{-T}F_{p}.

(5.5)

On the other hand, we have⁴⁴ 4 Let us remark that $\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]=\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\overline{C}_{p}\rangle$ shows that $\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}\!\!>0$ by direct integration of the ordinary differential equation.

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]=\langle{\rm Cof}\,\,\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\rangle=\det\overline{C}_{P}^{\,-1}\langle\overline{C}_{p},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\rangle=\det\overline{C}_{P}^{\,-1}\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]\overline{C}_{p}\rangle.

Hence, we deduce

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}]=-\frac{2}{3}\,(\det C_{p})^{-1/3}\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\langle\,F_{e}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle.

(5.6)

Since $F_{e}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F_{e}^{-T}$ is not necessarily a trace free matrix, we can not conclude that $\det\overline{C}_{p}^{\,-1}(t)=const\!.$ for all $t>0$ . For instance, for elastically isotropic materials (see (5)) we have

$\displaystyle{\dev_{3}\tau_{e}}=$	$\displaystyle 2\langle f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),C_{p}\rangle-\frac{2}{3}\langle f_{1}(C,C_{p}^{-1}),C\rangle\langle C^{-1},C_{p}\rangle$	(5.7)
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle 2\,\alpha_{1}\left[\langle C_{p}^{-1},C_{p}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\langle C_{p}^{-1},C\rangle\langle C^{-1},C_{p}\rangle\right]$
	$\displaystyle+2\,\alpha_{2}\left[\langle C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1},C_{p}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\langle C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1},C\rangle\langle C^{-1},C_{p}\rangle\right]$
	$\displaystyle+2\,\alpha_{3}\left[\langle C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1},C_{p}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\langle C_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1},C\rangle\langle C^{-1},C_{p}\rangle\right],$

which shows that $F_{e}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F_{e}^{-T}$ is not necessarily a trace free matrix, see Appendix A.4. ∎

Summarizing the properties of the flow rule (5.1) we have:

i)

it is thermodynamically correct;
ii)

the right hand side is a function of $C$ and $\overline{C}_{p}^{-1}$ only;
iii)

from this flow rule it follows $\overline{C}_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ and $\det\overline{C}_{p}(t)>0$ . Hence, it follows that $\overline{C}_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ ;
iv)

plastic incompressibility: however, it does not follow from the flow rule that $\boldsymbol{\det\overline{C}_{p}(t)=1}$ (which must hold by the very definition of $\overline{C}_{p}$ , since the right hand side is not trace-free, in general;
v)

it is not an associated plasticity model in the sense of Definition 1.1.

6 The Helm 2001 model

In this section we consider the model proposed by Helm [12], Vladimirov, Pietryga and Reese [46, Eq. 25] (see also [36] and [40, Eq. 55] and the model considered by Brepols, Vladimirov and Reese [1, page 16], Shutov and Ihlemann [39, Eq. 80]). We prove later that this model is similar to the model considered by Miehe [23] in 1995, provided certain interpretations are included. Vladimirov, Pietryga and Reese [46, Eq. 25] considered the following flow rule

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]=\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}}\cdot C_{p}\,,

(6.1)

where $\widetilde{\Sigma}=2\,C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$ is not necessarily symmetric for general $C_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ , while $(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})\cdot C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , see Section 3. Therefore, we have $\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]\in{\rm Sym}(3).$ The flow rule (6.1) implies

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$	$\displaystyle=\langle D[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],C\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\langle C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,C_{p},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},C_{p}\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$	(6.2)
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle.$

Thus, using (3) and (3) we deduce

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2})}}\,\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})^{2}]$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{2}\\|\dev_{3}(U_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,U_{p})\\|\leq 0,$		(6.3)

which shows thermodynamical consistency.

Summarizing, the Helm 2001 (Reese 2008 and Shutov-Ihlemann 2014) model has the following properties:

i)

from (6) it follows that it is thermodynamically correct;
ii)

plastic incompressibility: from (6.1) and (2) it follows that $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ ;
iii)

for the isotropic case, the right hand-side of the flow rule (6.1) is a function of $C_{p}^{-1}$ and $C$ alone;
iv)

from $\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]\in{\rm Sym}(3).$ it follows, in the isotropic case, that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ ;
v)

from ii) and iii) together and using Lemma 1.10 it follows that $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ ;
vi)

it has formally subdifferential structure, see Proposition 7.2. However, the elastic domain $\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2})$ is not convex w.r.t $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ , see Remark 3.1.

Moreover, we see that the following result holds:

Proposition 6.1.

The flow rule considered by Helm [12] coincides with the flow rule (6.1), i.e. with the interpretation of Miehe’s proposal [22] presented in Section 3.

Proof.

The proof follows from (6.1) and combined with (3). ∎

7 The Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 model

In this section we present a model based on one representation used by Grandi and Stefanelli [10] and previously used by Frigeri and Stefanelli [7, page 7]. We start by computing

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$	$\displaystyle=\langle D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),C\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle=\langle{\rm sym}[C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle\underbrace{\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,{\rm sym}[C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}}_{:=\frac{1}{2}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\in\,{\rm Sym}(3)},\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,\sqrt{C_{p}}\rangle.$		(7.1)

It is now easy to see that, if we choose

\displaystyle\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,\sqrt{C_{p}}\in-\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}),

(7.2)

where ${\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})$ is the indicator function of the convex elastic domain

\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},{\frac{1}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}):=\left\{\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\in{\rm Sym}(3)\,|\,\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\|^{2}\leq{\frac{1}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}\right\},

then $C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ and the reduced dissipation inequality $\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\leq 0$ is satisfied. Thus, the model is thermodynamically correct. We also remark that the flow rule (7.2) implies

\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,{C_{p}})=\langle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\sqrt{C_{p}},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\sqrt{C_{p}},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=0.

Hence, we obtain $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ and further $C_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ .

Using Lemma 1.9, we give next some new representations of the stress-tensor

\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}:=2\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,{\rm sym}[C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}=2\,{\rm sym}\left[\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,(C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\right]

in terms of the stress tensors $\Sigma_{e},\widetilde{\Sigma}$ and $\tau_{e}$ , respectively. From (1.3) we obtain $C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})=\frac{1}{2}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}$ . We also use $F_{p}=R_{p}\,U_{p}=R_{p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}$ and $F=F_{e}F_{p}$ . Hence, we deduce

	$\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}$	$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}),$
	$\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}$	$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,F_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}\,R_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,R_{p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{-1}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})$
		$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(R_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,R_{p}),$
	$\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}$	$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,F^{T}\,\tau_{e}\,F^{-T}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,F_{p}^{T}F_{e}^{T}\,\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}F_{p}^{-T}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})$
		$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(R_{p}^{T}F_{e}^{T}\,\tau_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}R_{p}).$

Note that $\Sigma_{e}$ is symmetric in case of elastic isotropy. Hence, for the isotropic case, we have

\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}

\displaystyle=R_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,R_{p},\qquad\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}=R_{p}^{T}\,F_{e}^{T}\,{\tau}_{e}\,F_{e}^{-T}\,R_{p}.

(7.3)

However, we have $\|\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\|^{2}=\|R_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,R_{p}\|^{2}=\|{\Sigma}_{e}\|^{2},\ \textrm{tr}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})=\textrm{tr}(R_{p}^{T}\,{\Sigma}_{e}\,R_{p})=\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e}).$ Together, we obtain that

\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\|=\|\dev_{3}{\Sigma}_{e}\|.

In conclusion, for isotropic elastic materials we have the equivalence of the elastic domains

\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})=\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\Sigma_{e},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}).

(7.4)

Therefore, the flow rule (7.2) proposed by Grandi and Stefanelli [10] has the following properties:

i)

it is thermodynamically correct;
ii)

from this flow rule it follows ${C}_{p}(t)\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ and $\det{C}_{p}(t)=1$ . Hence, it follows that ${C}_{p}(t)\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ ;
iii)

the elastic domain $\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}$ is convex w.r.t. $\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}$ ;
iv)

it is an associated plasticity model in the sense of Definition 1.1;
v)

it preserves ellipticity in elastic loading if the energy is elliptic throughout the domain $\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}$ which makes it useful in association with the exponentiated Hencky energy $W_{{}_{\rm eH}}$ [32, 33, 8, 30, 31, 28, 9].

We finish this section by comparing the Helm 2001 model and the Lion 1997 flow rule with the Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 model.

Proposition 7.1.

In the isotropic case, the Lion 1997 flow rule (i.e. the Dettmer-Reese 2004 model [6]) is equivalent with the Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 flow rule.

Proof.

We recall that the flow rule of the Lion 1997 model is

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F_{p}^{-1}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\|}\,F_{p}^{-T},\quad\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+},\

(7.5)

for ${\Sigma}_{e}\not\in{\rm int}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}({\Sigma_{e}},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))$ . Since $F_{p}=R_{p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}$ and in the isotropic case ${\Sigma}_{e}=R_{p}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,R_{p}^{T}$ , using (7.4) we rewrite the Lion’s flow rule in the form

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{-1}\,R_{p}^{T}\frac{\dev_{3}(R_{p}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,R_{p}^{T})}{\|\dev_{3}(R_{p}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,R_{p}^{T})\|}\,R_{p}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{-1},\qquad\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+},

\displaystyle\sqrt{C_{p}}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\sqrt{C_{p}}=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}}{\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\|},\qquad\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+},

(7.6)

for $R_{p}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,R_{p}^{T}\not\in{\rm int}(\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))$ . Moreover, $R_{p}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,R_{p}^{T}\in{\rm int}(\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))\ \Leftrightarrow\ \overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\in{\rm int}(\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{E}}_{e}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))$ . Therefore, the flow rule (7.6) becomes

\displaystyle\sqrt{C_{p}}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\sqrt{C_{p}}\in-\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}),

(7.7)

which coincides with the Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 flow rule (7.2). ∎

Figure 1: Idealized, isotropic perfect plasticity models involving a 6-dimensional flow rule for

C_{p}

w.r.t. the reference configuration are considered. By definition, the trajectory for the plastic metric

C_{p}(t)

should remain in

{\rm PSym}(3)

\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}

is the plastic multiplier. We have recast all flow rules in the format

\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P^{-1}]\,P\in-{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}

\sqrt{P}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P^{-1}]\,\sqrt{P}\in-{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}

Proposition 7.2.

In the isotropic case, the Helm 2001 flow rule is equivalent with the Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 flow rule, i.e. it is also equivalent with the Lion 1997 flow rule and the Dettmer-Reese 2004 model.

Proof.

We have

	$\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}$	$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}\,C_{p}^{-1}\,\sqrt{C_{p}})$
		$\displaystyle={\rm sym}(\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,(\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p})\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}),$

and we recall that for isotropic materials

\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\,C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)

holds. Hence, for isotropic materials

\displaystyle\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}

\displaystyle=\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,(\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p})\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}=\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}},\qquad\,\widetilde{\Sigma}=\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}\,.

Using the above identity, we may rewrite the Helm 2001-flow rule (6.1) in the form

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]=\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\frac{\dev_{3}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}))^{2})}}\cdot C_{p}\,.

(7.8)

We also have

	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})$	$\displaystyle=\textrm{tr}(\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}),$
	$\displaystyle\dev_{3}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})$	$\displaystyle=\sqrt{C_{p}}\,(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1},$
	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}([\dev_{3}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})]^{2})$	$\displaystyle=\textrm{tr}([\sqrt{C_{p}}\,(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1}]^{2})=\textrm{tr}(\sqrt{C_{p}}\,(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})^{2}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}^{\,-1})$
		$\displaystyle=\textrm{tr}((\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})^{2})=\langle(\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma})^{2},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma},\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\rangle=\\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\\|^{2}.$

Hence, Helm’s flow rule (6.1) is equivalent with

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]$	$\displaystyle=\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}}{\\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\\|}\,\sqrt{C_{p}}\,$
		$\displaystyle\qquad\Leftrightarrow\qquad\sqrt{C_{p}}\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,\sqrt{C_{p}}=-\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}}{\\|\dev_{3}\overset{\circ}{\Sigma}\\|}\,,$		(7.9)

and the proof is complete. ∎

Remark 7.3.

The equivalence is true for an isotropic formulation only. However, the Grandi-Stefanelli model will provide a consistent flow-rule for a plastic metric also in the anisotropic case.

An existence proof for the energetic formulation [7] of the model given by Grandi and Stefanelli [10] together with a full plastic strain regularization can be given along the lines of Mielke’s energetic approach [25, 26, 18, 27, 19].

8 Summary

Figure 2: An inconsistent model and a 9-dimensional flow rule for

F_{p}

. They are associative, since both flow rules are in the format

\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[P]\,P^{-1}\in-{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}

\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\varepsilon_{p}]\in{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}

In isotropic elasto-plasticity it is common knowledge that a reduction to a 6-dimensional flow rule for a plastic metric $C_{p}$ is in principle possible. We have discussed several existing different models. Not all of them are free of inconsistencies. This testifies to the fact that setting up a consistent 6-dimensional flow-rule is not entirely trivial.

One problem which often occurs, is that the flow rule for $C_{p}$ is written in terms of $F_{p}$ , which however should not appear at all. One finding of our investigation is that, nevertheless, in the isotropic case, all consistent flow rules can be expressed in $C_{p}$ alone and are equivalent. The Grandi-Stefanelli model [10] has the decisive advantage to be operable also in the anisotropic case. In Figure 1 and Figure 2 we summarize the investigated isotropic plasticity models and we indicate if the known conditions which make them consistent are satisfied.

9 Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Prof. Stefanie Reese (RWTH Aachen), Prof. Jörn Ihlemann (TU Chemnitz), Dr. Alexey Shutov (TU Chemnitz) and Prof. Alexander Mielke (WIAS-Berlin) for in-depth discussion of flow rules in $C_{p}$ . I.D. Ghiba acknowledges support from the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (CNCS-UEFISCDI), Project No. PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0521.

References

[1] T. Brepols, I. Vladimirov, and S. Reese. Numerical comparison of isotropic hypo-and hyperelastic-based plasticity models with application to industrial forming processes. Int. J. Plast., 63: 18–48, 2014.
[2] S. Cleja-Ţigoiu. Consequences of the dissipative restrictions in finite anisotropic elasto-plasticity. Int. J. Plast., 19(11):1917–1964, 2003.
[3] S. Cleja-Ţigoiu and L. Iancu. Orientational anisotropy and strength-differential effect in orthotropic elasto-plastic materials. Int. J. Plast., 47:80–110, 2013.
[4] S. Cleja-Ţigoiu and G.A. Maugin. Eshelby’s stress tensors in finite elastoplasticity. Acta Mech., 139(1-4):231–249, 2000.
[5] A. Cuitino and M. Ortiz. A material-independent method for extending stress update algorithms from small-strain plasticity to finite plasticity with multiplicative kinematics. Eng. Comp., 9(4):437–451, 1992.
[6] W. Dettmer and S. Reese. On the theoretical and numerical modelling of Armstrong-Frederick kinematic hardening in the finite strain regime. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 193(1):87–116, 2004.
[7] S. Frigeri and U. Stefanelli. Existence and time-discretization for the finite-strain Souza–Auricchio constitutive model for shape-memory alloys. Cont. Mech. Thermodyn., 24(1):63–77, 2012.
[8] I.D. Ghiba, P. Neff, M. Silhavy. The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Improvement of planar polyconvexity, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., 71: 48-51, 2015.
[9] I.D. Ghiba, P. Neff, R.J. Martin. An ellipticity domain for the distortional Hencky-logarithmic strain energy, Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A, accepted, 2015.
[10] D. Grandi and U. Stefanelli. Finite plasticity in $P^{T}P$ . Preprint arXiv:1509.08681, 2015
[11] A. Gupta, D.J. Steigmann, and J.S. Stölken. Aspects of the phenomenological theory of elastic-plastic deformation. J. Elast., 104(1-2):249–266, 2011.
[12] D. Helm. Formgedächtnislegierungen: experimentelle Untersuchung, phänomenologische Modellierung und numerische Simulation der thermomechanischen Materialeigenschaften. Ph.D-Thesis, Universität Kassel, 2001.
[13] E. Kröner. Der fundamentale Zusammenhang zwischen Versetzungsdichte und Spannungsfunktionen. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 142(4):463–475, 1955.
[14] E. Kröner. Kontinuumstheorie der Versetzungen und Eigenspannungen. Springer, Berlin, 1958.
[15] E. Kröner. Allgemeine Kontinuumstheorie der Versetzungen und Eigenspannungen. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 4(1):273–334, 1959.
[16] E.H. Lee. Elastic-plastic deformation at finite strains. J. Appl. Mech., 36(1):1–6, 1969.
[17] A. Lion. A physically based method to represent the thermo-mechanical behaviour of elastomers. Acta Mech., 123(1-4):1–25, 1997.
[18] A. Mainik and A. Mielke. Existence results for energetic models for rate-independent systems. Calc. Var. and Partial Differential Equations, 22(1):73–99, 2005.
[19] A. Mainik and A. Mielke. Global existence for rate-independent gradient plasticity at finite strain. J. Non. Sci., 19(3):221–248, 2009.
[20] G. Maugin. Eshelby stress in elastoplasticity and ductile fracture. Int. J. Plast., 10(4):393–408, 1994.
[21] C. Miehe. Kanonische Modelle multiplikativer Elasto-Plastizität. Thermodynamische Formulierung und numerische Implementation. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Hannover, Germany, 1992.
[22] C. Miehe. A theory of large-strain isotropic thermoplasticity based on metric transformation tensors. Arch. Appl. Mech., 66:45–64, 1995.
[23] C. Miehe. A theory of large-strain isotropic thermoplasticity based on metric transformation tensors. Arch. Appl. Mech., 66:45–64, 1995.
[24] C. Miehe. A constitutive frame of elastoplasticity at large strains based on the notion of a plastic metric. Int. J. Sol. Struct., 35(30):3859–3897, 1998.
[25] A. Mielke. Energetic formulation of multiplicative elasto-plasticity using dissipation distances. Cont. Mech. Thermodyn., 15(4):351–382, 2003.
[26] A. Mielke. Existence of minimizers in incremental elasto-plasticity with finite strains. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 36:384–404, 2004.
[27] A. Mielke and S. Müller. Lower semicontinuity and existence of minimizers in incremental finite-strain elastoplasticity. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 86:233–250, 2006.
[28] G. Montella, S. Govindjee, and P. Neff. The exponentiated Hencky strain energy in modelling tire derived material for moderately large deformations. Preprint arXiv:1509.06541, 2015.
[29] P. Neff, K. Chełmiński, and H.D. Alber. Notes on strain gradient plasticity: finite strain covariant modelling and global existence in the infinitesimal rate-independent case. Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci., 19:307–346, 2009.
[30] P. Neff and I.D. Ghiba. The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Part III: Coupling with idealized isotropic finite strain plasticity. to appear in Cont. Mech. Thermod., doi: 10.1007/s00161-015-0449-y, the special issue in honour of D.J. Steigmann, , 2015.
[31] P. Neff and I.D. Ghiba. Loss of ellipticity for non-coaxial plastic deformations in additive logarithmic finite strain plasticity. submitted to Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., Preprint arXiv:1410.2819, 2014.
[32] P. Neff, I.D. Ghiba, and J. Lankeit. The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Part I: Constitutive issues and rank–one convexity. Journal of Elasticity, 121:143–234, 2015.
[33] P. Neff, I.D. Ghiba, J. Lankeit, R. Martin, and D.J. Steigmann. The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Part II: Coercivity, planar polyconvexity and existence of minimizers. Z. Angew. Math. Phys., 66: 1671-1693, 2015.
[34] P. Neff and D. Knees. Regularity up to the boundary for nonlinear elliptic systems arising in time-incremental infinitesimal elasto-plasticity. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 40(1):21–43, 2008.
[35] M. Ortiz and J.C. Simo. An analysis of a new class of integration algorithms for elastoplastic constitutive relations. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 23(3):353–366, 1986.
[36] S. Reese and D. Christ. Finite deformation pseudo-elasticity of shape memory alloys–Constitutive modelling and finite element implementation. Int. J. Plast., 24(3):455–482, 2008.
[37] S. Reese and P. Wriggers. A material model for rubber-like polymers exhibiting plastic deformation: computational aspects and a comparison with experimental results. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg., 148:279–298, 1997.
[38] A.V. Shutov. Personal comunication. 8/2014.
[39] A.V. Shutov and J. Ihlemann. Analysis of some basic approaches to finite strain elasto-plasticity in view of reference change. Int. J. Plast, 63:183–197, 2014.
[40] A.V. Shutov and R. Kreißig. Finite strain viscoplasticity with nonlinear kinematic hardening: Phenomenological modeling and time integration. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 197(21):2015–2029, 2008.
[41] A.V. Shutov, R. Landgraf, and J. Ihlemann. An explicit solution for implicit time stepping in multiplicative finite strain viscoelasticity. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 265:213–225, 2013.
[42] J.C. Simo. Recent developments in the numerical analysis of plasticity. In E. Stein, editor, Progress in computational analysis of inelastic structures, pages 115–173. Springer, 1993.
[43] J.C. Simo and J.R. Hughes. Computational Inelasticity., volume 7 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[44] J.C. Simo and M. Ortiz. A unified approach to finite deformation elastoplastic analysis based on the use of hyperelastic constitutive equations. Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg., 49:221–245, 1985.
[45] D.J. Steigmann and A. Gupta. Mechanically equivalent elastic-plastic deformations and the problem of plastic spin. Theor. Appl. Mech., 38(4):397–417, 2011.
[46] I. Vladimirov, M. Pietryga, and S. Reese. On the modelling of non-linear kinematic hardening at finite strains with application to springback–comparison of time integration algorithms. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 75(1):1–28, 2008.

Appendix

A.1 The Lion 1997 model for the Neo-Hooke elastic energy

For a quick consistency check we exhibit the consistency of this model directly for a Neo-Hooke elastic energy and we give the concrete expression for the functions $f(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ and $\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ . To this end, we consider the energy

\displaystyle\widehat{W}_{{}_{\rm NH}}(C_{e})

\displaystyle=\mu\,\textrm{tr}\left(\frac{C_{e}}{\det C_{e}^{1/3}}\right)+h(\det C)\overset{\det C_{p}=1}{=}\mu\,\textrm{tr}\left(\frac{C_{e}}{\det C^{1/3}}\right)+h(\det C).

We deduce $\Sigma_{e}:=2\,C_{e}\,D_{C_{e}}[\widehat{W}({C_{e}})]=2\,C_{e}\,\mu\,\frac{1}{\det C^{1/3}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}=2\,\mu\,\frac{1}{\det C^{1/3}}\cdot C_{e}.$ Hence, the flow rule (4.1) can be written in the form

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F_{p}^{-1}\,\frac{\dev C_{e}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,F_{p}^{-T}$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,\left(F_{p}^{-1}C_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\cdot F_{p}^{-1}F_{p}^{-T}\right)$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,\left(C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)\cdot C_{p}^{-1}\right).$	(A.1)

We also deduce

	$\displaystyle\\|\dev C_{e}\\|^{2}$	$\displaystyle=\\|C_{e}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{3}\,[\textrm{tr}(C_{e})]^{2}=\\|F_{p}^{-T}\,C\,F_{p}^{-1}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{3}\,[\textrm{tr}(F_{p}^{-T}\,C\,F_{p}^{-1})]^{2}$
		$\displaystyle=\langle F_{p}^{-T}\,C\,F_{p}^{-1},F_{p}^{-T}\,C\,F_{p}^{-1}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\,\langle F_{p}^{-T}\,C\,F_{p}^{-1}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle^{2}$
		$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\,[\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)]^{2}=[\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}\,[\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)]^{2}.$

Therefore, we obtain

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}\,[\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)]^{2}}}\,\left(C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\right)\,C_{p}^{-1}$		(A.2)
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\sqrt{[\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}[(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)]^{2}}}\,\,C_{p}^{-1}\,\left(C\,C_{p}^{-1}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\right).$

Comparing (4.12), (A.2), (4.2) and (4.5), we deduce

	$\displaystyle\widehat{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})$	$\displaystyle=C,$
	$\displaystyle{f}(C,C_{p}^{-1})$	$\displaystyle=\left\{\frac{-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}}}\,\dev_{3}(\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C)\quad\big\|\quad\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\right\}.$

We clearly see that even for this simple energy, we have $\textrm{tr}[(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}\neq\|\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\|^{2}$ , since if we assume the contrary we deduce

	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}[(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]$	$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}=\\|C\,C_{p}^{-1}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\langle C\,C_{p}^{-1},(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{T}\rangle=\pm\langle C\,C_{p}^{-1},C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle.$		(A.3)

On the other hand, we deduce

	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}[(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]$	$\displaystyle=\langle(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C_{p}\,(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle.$		(A.4)

Since from Remark 4.1 it follows that $C_{p}\in{\rm PSym}(3)$ , we further deduce that

$\displaystyle\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C_{p},C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}U_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,U_{p}\,U_{p},C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\langle U_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,U_{p},U_{p}^{-1}C\,C_{p}^{-1}\,U_{p}\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=\\|U_{p}^{-1}\,C\,U_{p}^{-1}\\|^{2}\geq 0,$	(A.5)

where $U_{p}^{2}=C_{p}$ . Hence, $[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]\geq 0$ and from (A.1 The Lion 1997 model for the Neo-Hooke elastic energy) we deduce

	$\displaystyle\langle C\,C_{p}^{-1},(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{T}\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\langle C\,C_{p}^{-1},C\,C_{p}^{-1}\rangle\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad\langle C\,C_{p}^{-1},{\rm skew}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\rangle=0$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad{\rm skew}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})=0\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad C\,C_{p}^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3).$		(A.6)

In conclusion, $\textrm{tr}[(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{2}]-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]^{2}\neq\|\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\|^{2}$ and the flow-rule does not have a subdifferential structure of the form $C_{p}\,\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]\in-\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}(\dev\Sigma)$ .

A.2 The Helm 2001 model for the Neo-Hooke energy

For the simplest Neo-Hooke elastic energy $W(F_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C_{e})=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})=\frac{1}{2}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ , we have

\displaystyle D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]=\frac{1}{2}\,C_{p}^{-1}\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad\widetilde{\Sigma}=C\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3),

(A.7)

and the flow rule (6.1) implies

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]$	$\displaystyle=\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\frac{\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\cdot C_{p}$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,[\,C-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\cdot C_{p}]\in{\rm Sym}(3)\quad\Rightarrow\quad C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3),$

and also

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}]\,C_{p}^{-1}=\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}\,\frac{\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\det C_{p}=1.

(A.8)

The thermodynamical consistency may follow from (6). An alternative proof, directly for the Neo-Hooke case, results from (6) and (A.7), since we have at fixed in time $C$

		$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{4\,\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,C,\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\langle(C\,C_{p}^{-1})^{T},\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\rangle$		(A.9)
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\langle C^{-1/2}\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,C^{1/2}\,C^{-1/2}\,\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})C^{1/2},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\langle\dev_{3}(C^{1/2}\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C^{1/2})^{T}\,\dev_{3}(C^{1/2}\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C^{1/2}),{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\sqrt{\textrm{tr}[(\dev_{3}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}))^{2}]}}\,\\|\dev_{3}(C^{1/2}\,C_{p}^{-1}\,C^{1/2})\\|^{2},$

which is negative⁵⁵ 5 Surprisingly, this follows even if $C$ and $C_{p}^{-1}$ do not commute in general. If $C$ and $C_{p}$ commute, then $X=C\,C_{p}^{-1}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ and the quantity does have a sign, since then $\langle X^{T},\dev_{3}X\rangle=\|\dev_{3}X\|^{2}\geq 0.$ . Therefore, this model is thermodynamically correct as now shown also for the simple Neo-Hooke energy.

A.3 Another referential model

We recall that, in view of Lemma 1.7, any isotropic free energy $W$ defined in terms of $F_{e}$ can be expressed as $W(F_{e})=\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ . In order to assume that the reduced dissipation inequality is satisfied, we compute

	$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$	$\displaystyle=\langle D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1}),C\,\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\langle{C\,D\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\,C_{p}^{-1}},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}\rangle=\langle{\widetilde{\Sigma}},\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}\rangle.$

Here, $\widetilde{\Sigma}=2\,C\,D_{C}[\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})],$ as in the Reese 2008 and Shutov-Ihlemann 2014 model. It is tempting to assume the flow rule in the associated form (see e.g. the habilitation thesis of Miehe [21, page 73, Satz 5.32] or [24] and also [23, Table 1])

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}\in-\,\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\widetilde{\Sigma}}{\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}),

(A.10)

where ${\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})$ is the indicator function of the convex elastic domain

\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}):=\left\{\widetilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}\,|\,\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\|^{2}\leq{\frac{2}{3}}\,\sigma_{\textbf{y}}^{2}\right\}.

Note that this flow rule (A.10) is not the formulation which Miehe seemed to intend. We have discussed the correct interpretation in Subsection 3.

Regarding such a formulation we can summarize our observations:

i)

this flow rule is thermodynamically correct;
ii)

the right hand side is a function of $C$ and $C_{p}^{-1}$ only, i.e. $\widetilde{\Sigma}=\widetilde{\Sigma}(C,C_{p}^{-1})$ ;
iii)

plastic incompressibility: from this flow rule it follows that $\det C_{p}(t)=1$ , since the right hand side is trace-free;

iv)

however, the computed tensor $\boldsymbol{C_{p}(t)}$ will not be symmetric since $\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ in general. For instance, for the simplest Neo-Hooke energy $W(F_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C_{e})=\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})$ we have $\widetilde{\Sigma}=2\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , $\widetilde{\Sigma}\,C_{p}^{-1}=2\,C\,C_{p}^{-2}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , in general, and the flow rule becomes

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,=-2\,\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\|\dev(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\|}\,[C\,C_{p}^{-2}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})\cdot C_{p}^{-1}]\not\in{\rm Sym}(3);

(A.11)

v)

it is an associated plasticity model in the sense of Definition 1.1.

In conclusion, this model is inconsistent with the requirement for a plastic metric, i.e. $C_{p}\in{\rm Psym}(3)$ . Moreover, if we are looking to the flow rule in the associated form considered in the habilitation thesis of Miehe [21, page 73, Satz 5.32] (see [24] and also [23, Table 1]), since the subdifferential $\raisebox{0.0pt}{\mbox{{\large$\partial$}}}_{\widetilde{\Sigma}}{\raisebox{2.15277pt}{\mbox{{\Large$\chi$}}}}(\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})$ of the indicator function $\chi$ is the normal cone

\displaystyle\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2});\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma})=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}0,&\widetilde{\Sigma}\in{\rm int}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2}))\\ \{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}}{\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\|}\,|\,\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\},&\widetilde{\Sigma}\not\in{\rm int}(\mathcal{E}_{\rm e}(\widetilde{\Sigma},\frac{1}{3}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\!\mathbf{y}}^{2})).\end{array}\right.

the flow rule can be written in the form

\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[C_{p}^{-1}]\,C_{p}=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,\frac{\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}}{\|\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\|}\,,

(A.12)

which is not equivalent with the flow rule (3) considered by Miehe in [22], since $\widetilde{\Sigma}\not\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ . Let us remark that we have the symmetries $\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\cdot C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , $C_{p}^{-1}\,\dev_{3}\widetilde{\Sigma}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ , but these do not assure that the flow rule (A.12) implies $C_{p}\in{\rm Sym}(3)$ .

A.4. The Simo-Hughes 1998-model for the Saint-Venant-Kirchhoff energy and for the Neo-Hooke energy

In order to see that the quantity $F_{e}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}}{\|\dev_{n}\tau_{e}\|}F_{e}^{-T}$ which appears in the Simo-Hughes flow rule is not necessarily a trace free matrix, we consider two energies: the isotropic elastic Saint-Venant-Kirchhoff energy and the energy considered by Simo and Hughes [43, page 307]. On the one hand, the well known isotropic elastic Saint-Venant-Kirchhoff energy is

\displaystyle W_{{}_{\rm SVK}}

\displaystyle=\frac{\mu}{4}\,\|C_{e}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\|^{2}+\frac{\lambda}{8}\,[\textrm{tr}(C_{e}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})]^{2}=\frac{\mu}{4}\,\|B_{e}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\|^{2}+\frac{\lambda}{8}\,[\textrm{tr}(B_{e}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})]^{2},

and the corresponding Kirchhoff stress tensor is given by

	$\displaystyle\tau_{e}^{\rm SVK}(U)$	$\displaystyle=D_{B_{e}}[W^{{\rm SVK}}(B_{e})]=\mu\,(F_{e}^{-T}\,C_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})+\frac{\lambda}{2}\textrm{tr}(C_{e}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})+\frac{\lambda}{2}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}.$

Hence, we deduce

	$\displaystyle F_{e}^{-1}\,[\dev_{n}\tau_{e}^{\rm SVK}]\,F_{e}^{-T}$	$\displaystyle=\mu\,F_{e}^{-1}\,{\dev_{n}[\,F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}]}\,F_{e}^{-T}=\mu\,F_{e}^{-1}\,[\,F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}]\,F_{e}^{-T}$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,[\ {\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T})\cdot F_{e}^{-1}\,F_{e}^{-T}]$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,[\ {\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T})\cdot F_{e}^{-1}\,F_{e}^{-T}],$

and further

	$\displaystyle\langle F_{e}^{-1}\,[\dev_{n}\tau_{e}^{\rm SVK}]\,F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$	$\displaystyle=\mu\,\langle\ {\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T})\cdot F_{e}^{-1}\,F_{e}^{-T}],{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\left[3-\,\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(F_{e}\,F_{e}^{T})\,\textrm{tr}(F_{e}^{-1}\,F_{e}^{-T})\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\left[3-\,\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\,\textrm{tr}(C_{e}^{-1})\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\left[3-\,\frac{1}{3\,\det C_{e}}\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\,\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,C_{e})\right].$

We remark that $\langle F_{e}^{-1}\,[\dev_{n}\tau_{e}^{\rm SVK}]\,F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=0$ if and only if $\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\,\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,C_{e})=9\,\det C_{e},$ which does not hold true in general. Since $C_{e}$ and ${\rm Cof}C_{e}$ are coaxial and symmetric, the problem can be reduced to the diagonal case, i.e. we may assume $C_{e}=\diag(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_{3})$ , $\lambda_{i}>0$ . Hence the condition $\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\,\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,C_{e})=9\,\det C_{e},$ becomes

	$\displaystyle 9\,\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}$	$\displaystyle=(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{3})(\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}+\lambda_{2}\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{3}\lambda_{2})$
		$\displaystyle\Leftrightarrow\quad 0=\lambda_{1}(\lambda_{2}-\lambda_{3})^{2}+\lambda_{2}(\lambda_{3}-\lambda_{1})^{2}+\lambda_{3}(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{3})^{2}$

which is satisfied if and only if $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=\lambda_{3}$ . Therefore, for the Saint-Venant-Kirchhoff energy, in this model, $\det\overline{C}_{p}=1$ is only true for the conformal mapping $F_{e}=\lambda\cdot{\rm SO}(3)\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\cdot{\rm SO}(3)$ .

On the other hand, the energy considered by Simo and Hughes [43, page 307] is

\displaystyle W_{\rm Simo}(B_{e})=\frac{\mu}{2}\langle\frac{B_{e}}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle+\frac{\kappa}{4}\left[(\det B_{e}-1)-\log(\det B_{e})\right],

for which the Kirchhoff stress tensor is given by

\displaystyle\tau_{e}^{{\rm Simo}}=\mu\dev_{3}\left(\frac{B_{e}}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\right)+\frac{\kappa}{2}\,\left(J_{e}-\frac{1}{J_{e}}\right)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}.

Hence, we deduce

	$\displaystyle\langle$	$\displaystyle F_{e}^{-1}\,[{\dev_{n}\tau_{e}^{{\rm Simo}}}]\,F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\,\langle F_{e}^{-1}[\dev_{3}{B_{e}}]\,F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\,\langle\dev_{3}{B_{e}},F_{e}^{-T}\,F_{e}^{-1}\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\,\langle\dev_{3}{B_{e}},B_{e}^{-1}\rangle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\left[\,\langle{B_{e}},B_{e}^{-1}\rangle-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}({B_{e}})\,\textrm{tr}(B_{e}^{-1})\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{1/3}}\left[3-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}({B_{e}})\,\textrm{tr}(B_{e}^{-1})\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\mu\,\frac{1}{\det B_{e}^{4/3}}\left[3\,\det B_{e}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}({B_{e}})\,\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,B_{e})\right].$

Therefore $\langle F_{e}^{-1}\,[\dev_{n}\tau_{e}^{{\rm Simo}}]\,F_{e}^{-T},{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle=0$ if and only if $9\,\det B_{e}=\textrm{tr}({B_{e}})\,\textrm{tr}({\rm Cof}\,B_{e})$ . Similar as above, it follows that this holds true if and only if $F_{e}=\lambda\cdot{\rm SO}(3)\in\mathbb{R}_{+}\cdot{\rm SO}(3)$ .

	$\displaystyle F_{p}^{-1}\frac{\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}F_{p}^{-T}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|}\left[F_{p}^{-1}\Sigma_{e}F_{p}^{-T}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})\,C_{p}^{-1}\right],$
	$\displaystyle\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})$	$\displaystyle=2\,\langle{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}},C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}),$
	$\displaystyle\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}$	$\displaystyle=4\langle C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2}),C_{e}\,(\alpha_{1}\,{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}+\alpha_{2}\,C_{e}+\alpha_{3}\,C_{e}^{2})\rangle,$
	$\displaystyle\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|$	$\displaystyle=\sqrt{\\|\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}-\frac{1}{3}[\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})]^{2}}.$

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{\rm dt}[$	$\displaystyle\widetilde{W}(C\,C_{p}^{-1})]=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\langle C_{p}^{-1}\,F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}\,C_{p},\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\rangle$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\langle\Sigma_{e},\Sigma_{e}-\frac{1}{3}\textrm{tr}(\Sigma_{e})\cdot{\boldsymbol{\mathbbm{1}}}\rangle$	(4.14)
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{\rm p}^{+}}{\\|\dev_{3}(F_{p}^{T}\Sigma_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T})\\|}\\|\dev_{3}\Sigma_{e}\\|^{2}\leq 0.$

$\displaystyle\frac{\rm d}{{\rm dt}}[C_{p}^{-1}]$	$\displaystyle=-\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}\,F_{p}^{-1}\,\frac{\dev C_{e}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,F_{p}^{-T}$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,\left(F_{p}^{-1}C_{e}\,F_{p}^{-T}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C_{e})\cdot F_{p}^{-1}F_{p}^{-T}\right)$
	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\lambda^{+}_{\rm p}}{\\|\dev C_{e}\\|}\,\left(C_{p}^{-1}\,C\,C_{p}^{-1}-\frac{1}{3}\,\textrm{tr}(C_{p}^{-1}\,C)\cdot C_{p}^{-1}\right).$	(A.1)

Comparison of isotropic elasto-plastic models for the plastic metric tensor Cp=FpT​FpC_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\,F_{p}

Abstract

1 Introduction

1.1 Consistent isotropic finite plasticity model for the plastic metric tensor CpC_{p}

Definition 1.1.

Definition 1.2.

Definition 1.3.

Definition 1.4.

1.2 Auxiliary results

Remark 1.5.

Lemma 1.6.

Proof.

Lemma 1.7.

Proof.

Remark 1.8.

Lemma 1.9.

Proof.

Lemma 1.10.

Proof.

2 The Simo-Miehe 1992 spatial model

3 The Miehe 1995 referential model

Remark 3.1.

4 The Lion 1997 multiplicative elasto-plasticity formulation in terms of the plastic metric Cp=FpT​FpC_{p}=F_{p}^{T}F_{p}

Remark 4.1.

Remark 4.2.

Proposition 4.3.

Proof.

5 The Simo and Hughes 1998 plasticity formulation in terms of a plastic metric

Remark 5.1.

Proof.

6 The Helm 2001 model

Proposition 6.1.

Proof.

7 The Grandi-Stefanelli 2015 model

Proposition 7.1.

Proof.

Proposition 7.2.

Proof.

Remark 7.3.

8 Summary

9 Acknowledgement

References

Appendix

A.1 The Lion 1997 model for the Neo-Hooke elastic energy

A.2 The Helm 2001 model for the Neo-Hooke energy

A.3 Another referential model

A.4. The Simo-Hughes 1998-model for the Saint-Venant-Kirchhoff energy and for the Neo-Hooke energy

Comparison of isotropic elasto-plastic models for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}\,F_{p}$

1.1 Consistent isotropic finite plasticity model for the plastic metric tensor $C_{p}$

4 The Lion 1997 multiplicative elasto-plasticity formulation in terms of the plastic metric $C_{p}=F_{p}^{T}F_{p}$