Invariance Considerations in Large Strain Elasto-Plasticity

[+] Author and Article Information
P. A. Dashner

Department of Mechanical Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 91768

J. Appl. Mech 53(1), 55-60 (Mar 01, 1986) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3171738 History: Received November 28, 1983; Revised May 23, 1985; Online July 21, 2009


This paper addresses a number of issues in the ongoing debate over the relevance and/or appropriateness of the rotational invariance requirement which is generally associated with the intermediate unstressed configuration. In particular, it is argued that the principle of material frame invariance has been “misapplied” by the proponents of full rotational invariance. Insistence on a strictly “kinematic” interpretation of the deformation gradient (F = F e F p ) constituents F e and F p justifies elimination of the plastic rotational component R p (F p = R p U p ) based on the principle of determinism for stress — not invariance of frame. However, simple physical considerations, including a physical example involving a “structurally anisotropic” crystal, suggest that a more intricate definition of the gradient constituents is required in order to adequately account for microstructural characteristics. These considerations suggest alternative definitions for the gradient constituents F e and F p with associated constitutive invariance requirements.

Copyright © 1986 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.





Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In