3.

Material theory

3.1 Elastic solid, isothermal processes

For the description of the behavior of elastic solids for arbitrary boundary
value problems with respect to isothermal processes (⇥ = const., ⇢r = 0,
q = o) the following equations (balance equations) are available:

– balace of mass : ⇢˙ + ⇢ div ẋ = 0 ,

– balance of momentum : div + ⇢(b ẍ ) = o ,

T
– balance of moment of momentum : = ,

– balance of energy : ⇢ ( ˙ + ⇥ ⌘˙ ) :D=0 .

(3.1)

The problem is described by [1 + 3 + (9 6) + 1 =] 8 field equations. The

number of the appearing field quantities is (3 + 9 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =) 19:

F ={ , , b, ⇢, , ⌘ , ⇥ } =) V 19 . (3.2)

The velocity ẋ and the acceleration ẍ of solid are represented by the func-
tion of motion = (x, t).

The known quantities in the system of field equations are the acceleration
of gravity and the temperature:

K = { b , ⇥ } =) V 4 ( = 3+1 ) . (3.3)

Thus, for solving the system of equations (19 8 4 =) 7 additional

relations in form of constitutive equations, evolution equations or addi-
tional field equations (see mixture theory) must be formulated. For the

57
description of elastic solids within the framework isothermal processes the
following quantities are defined as constitutive variables:

C={ = ( )T , } =) V 7 ( = 9 3+1 )
. (3.4)

Thus, the system of equations is closed, i.e. the number of field quantities
is equal to the sum of the numbers of field equations, known quantities and
constitutive relations (19 = 8 + 4 + 7).

Remark:
Usually, for non-polar solids the balance of moment of momentum is not
taken into consideration in the set of field equations. The symmetry of the
stress tensor is taken into account in the form of ) V 6 . Thus, the field
equations read:

– balace of mass : ⇢˙ + ⇢ div ẋ = 0 ,

– balance of momentum : div + ⇢(b ẍ ) = o ,

– balance of energy : ⇢ ( ˙ + ⇥ ⌘˙ ) :D=0 .

The number of field equations accounts for (1 + 3 + 1 =) 5. In these

equations (3 + 6 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 =) 16 field quantities are available.

F ={ , = ( )T , b , ⇢ , , ⌘ , ⇥ } =) V 16 .

The known, the constitutive and the unknown field quantities are listed in
K, C and U :

K = {b, ⇥} =) V 4 ( = 3+1 ) ,
C ={ = ( )T , } =) V 7 ( = 6+1 ) ,
U ={ , ⇢, ⌘} =) V 5 ( = 3+1+1 ) .

One sees, the number of equations is equal with the number of unknown
fields, i.e. the system of equations is closed.

58
3.1.1 Evaluation of the entropy inequality

For isothermal processes the set of process variables for the description of
elastic materials is defined as

P = {C} . (3.5)

For the here discussed problem the local statement of the entropy inequality
reads:

⇢ ˙+ :D 0. (3.6)

With

= (C) (3.7)

and

@ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ : Ċ = ⇢ : 2 Ė = 2 ⇢ : FT · D · F
@C @C @C
(3.8)
@
= 2⇢F · · FT : D
@C
the entropy inequality can be reformulated:

@
2⇢F · · FT : D + :D 0
@C

=)
n @ o
T (3.9)
D: 2⇢F · ·F 0.
@C

The evaluation of the entropy inequality (3.9) will be done in analogy with
Coleman & Noll [1963]. Following the argument of the aforementioned
authors, the inequality must be fulfilled for fixed values of the process
variable
59
 {C} ,

see (3.5), and for arbitrary values of the so-called free available quantity

1 T 1 1
{D = F · Ċ · F }.
2

Here, simply the occurring free available quantity in the entropy inequality
is listed. Generally, free available quantities are the rate of the process
variables in time and space.

The entropy inequality (3.9) is fulfilled if the expression connecting with

the free available quantity is equal to zero:

@
2⇢F · · FT = 0 . (3.10)
@C

From (3.10) the restriction

@
= 2⇢F · · FT (3.11)
@C

for the Cauchy stress tensor can be derived.

Considering the relation

1
= F · S · FT (3.12)
J

for the Cauchy stress tensor, the second Piola-Kichho↵ stress tensor can
be expressed as

1
S = JF · · FT 1

@
S = JF 1
· (2⇢F · · FT ) · F T 1
@C

60
 !

⇢0 @
S= 2⇢
⇢ @C

=)

@
S = 2 ⇢0 (3.13)
@C

or as

@ @E @ 1 @( C I ) @ 4
S = 2 ⇢0 : = 2 ⇢0 : = ⇢0 :I
@E @C @E 2 @C @E

=)

@
S = ⇢0 . (3.14)
@E

In the literature, the constitutive relation for the 2. Piola-Kirchho↵ stress

is often written as

@Wel @Wel
S=2 = , (3.15)
@C @E

where

Wel = ⇢0 (3.16)

is the so-called specific strain energy, see e.g. [11] or [12].

61
• Neo-Hooke Material

1
Wel ( IC , J ) = g ( J ) + µ ( IC 3)
2

with
p
g ( J ) = g ( det C ) = ↵1 ( J2 1) ↵2 ln J µ ln J , J = det C

and

↵ 1 > 0 , ↵2 > 0 ,

see Marsden & Hughes [1983]. Concerning the ansatz for g(J) it is
referred to Ciarlet [1988].

For

1 1
↵1 = , ↵2 = ,
4 2

compare [11], the 2. Piola-Kirchko↵ stress tensor reads

@Wel 1
S=2 = µ(I C 1
)+ ( J2 1)C 1
@C 2
1
= 2 µ KR + ( J2 1)C 1
2
The Cauchy stress tensor is given by

1 1 1
= F · S · FT = [ µ ( B I ) + ( J2 1 ) I ]
J J 2
1 1
= [2µK + ( J2 1 ) I ] .
J 2

• Neo-Hooke Material (Simo & Pister [1984]-[10])

1 1
Wel ( IC , J ) = ( log J )2 µ log J + µ ( IC 3) .
2 2
62
 =)

@Wel
S=2 = 2µ KR + ( log J ) C 1
.
@C

=)

1
= [ 2 µ K + ( log J ) I ] .
J

• St. Venant-Material

1
Wel = µ E : E + ( E : I )2
2
1 1
= µ(C : C 2C : I + 3) + (C : I 3 )2
4 8
=)

@Wel @Wel
S=2 = = 2µE + (E : I)I .
@C @E

63
3.2 Thermoelastic solid, non-isothermal processes

The field equations (balance equations) for the description of the behavior
of thermoelastic solids with respect to non-isothermal processes read:

– balance of mass : ⇢˙ + ⇢ div ẋ = 0 ,

T
– balance of momentum : div + ⇢(b ẍ ) = o , = ,
(3.17)
– balance of energy : ⇢( ˙ + ⇥
˙ ⌘ + ⇥ ⌘˙ )

:D ⇢ r + div q = 0 .

Thus, the problem is described by (1 + 3 + 1 =) 5 field equations. The

number of the appearing field quantities accounts for (3 + 6 + 3 + 1 + 1 +
1 + 1 + 1 + 3 =) 20:

F ={ , = ( )T , b , ⇢ , , ⌘ , ⇥ , r , q } =) V 20 . (3.18)

As already mentioned, velocity ẋ and acceleration ẍ of solid are represented

by the function of motion = (x, t).

The known, the constitutive and the unknown field quantities are listed in
K, C and U :

K = {b, r} =) V 4 ( = 3+1 ) ,
T
C ={ = , , ⌘ , q } =) V 11 ( = 6+1+1+3 ) , (3.19)
U ={ , ⇢, ⇥} =) V 5 ( = 3+1+1 ) .

Thus, the system of equation is closed, i.e. the number of equations is

equal with the number of unknown fields.

64
3.2.1 Evaluation of the entropy inequality

For non-isothermal processes the set of process variables for the description
of thermo-elastic materials is defined as

P = { ⇥ , grad ⇥ , C } . (3.20)

With

= ( ⇥ , grad ⇥ , C ) (3.21)

and

@ ˙ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + ⇢ : Ċ
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @C

@ ˙ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + ⇢ : 2 Ė
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @C

@ ˙ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + 2 ⇢ : FT · D · F
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @C

=)

@ ˙ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + 2 ⇢ F · · FT : D , (3.22)
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @C

respectively the local statement of the entropy inequality

1
⇢( ˙ + ⌘⇥
˙ )+ :D q · grad ⇥ 0,
⇥

see (1.83), can be written as

65
 @ ˙ @ @ ˙
⇢ ⇥ ⇢ · (grad ⇥)· 2⇢F · · FT : D ⇢⌘⇥
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @C
1
+ :D q · grad ⇥ 0
⇥
=)
n @ o
˙
⇥ ⇢⌘ + ⇢
@⇥
n @ o
·
(grad ⇥) · ⇢
@ grad ⇥
n o (3.23)
@ T
+ D: 2⇢F · ·F
@C
1 n o
grad ⇥ · q 0.
⇥

Following the argumentation of Coleman & Noll [1963], the inequality

must be fulfilled for fixed values of the process variables

{ ⇥ , grad ⇥ , C }

and for arbitrary values of the so-called free available quantities

˙ , (grad ⇥)· , D = 1 FT
{⇥ 1
· Ċ · F 1
}.
2

The entropy inequality (3.23) is fulfilled if the expressions connecting with

the free available quantities are equal to zero:

@ @
⇢⌘ + ⇢ =0 , ⇢ =o ,
@⇥ @ grad ⇥
(3.24)
@
2⇢F · · FT = 0 .
@C
Furthermore, the evaluation of the entropy inequality yields the following
dissipation mechanism

66
 D 0 (3.25)

with

1
D= q · grad ⇥ . (3.26)
⇥

From (3.24)1 3 the restrictions

@
⌘ = , = (⇥, C) ,
@⇥
(3.27)
@
= 2⇢F · · FT ,
@C
for the specific entropy function, the free Helmholtz energy and the Cauchy
stress tensor are gained.

For the heat flux vector the ansatz

q= ↵ grad ⇥ (3.28)

is postulated. The insertion of (3.28) into the dissipation mechanism (3.25)

yields

1
D= ( ↵ grad ⇥ ) · grad ⇥ 0
⇥

=)

1
D= ↵ grad ⇥ · grad ⇥ 0. (3.29)
⇥

Bearing in mind that ⇥ is the absolute temperature, i.e. ⇥ 0, in consid-

eration of grad ⇥ · grad ⇥ 0 one obtains the restriction

↵ 0 (3.30)

with respect to the parameter ↵.

67
3.2.2 Reformulation of the constitutive relations

In some cases it may be helpful, to split the deformation into a volume-

phreserving and a spherical part. Using the multiplicative decomposition

C = J2/3 C̆ (3.31)

of the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor, see Flory [1961], into a

volume-preserving part J2/3 I and a spherical part C̆, where

2/3 2 2
det C̆ = det( J C) = J det C = J (det F)2 = J 2
J2 = 1 , (3.32)

the free Helmholtz energy function can be transferred into

( ⇥ , C ) =) ˘ ( ⇥ , J , C̆ ) . (3.33)

Considering

@J @(det C)1/2 @ det C

J= : C= : C
@C @ det C @C
1
= (det C) 1/2 (det C) CT 1
: C
2
1
= (det C)1/2 C 1 : C
2
=)
1 1
J= JC : C (3.34)
2
and

2/3 2 5/3 2/3

C̆ = ( J C) = J JC + J C
3
2 5/3 1 1 2/3
= J J(C : C)C + J C
3 2
1 2/3 1 2/3
= J (C : C)C + J C
3
1 2/3 1 2/3
= J (C ⌦ C ): C+J C
3
68
 =)

2/3
4 1 1
C̆ = J [I (C ⌦ C )] : C (3.35)
3

the variations of the free energies result in

@ @
(⇥, C) = ⇥+ : C (3.36)
@⇥ @C

and

˘ ˘ ˘
˘ ( ⇥ , J , C̆ ) = @ ⇥ + @ J + @ : C̆
@⇥ @J @ C̆
@˘ @˘1
= ⇥+ JC 1 : C
@⇥ @J 2
@˘ 4 1
+ : J 2/3 [ I (C ⌦ C 1)] : C
@ C̆ 3
@˘ 1 @˘
= ⇥+ J C 1: C
@⇥ 2 @J
˘ 1 @˘
2/3 @
+J [ ( : C)C 1] : C
@ C̆ 3 @ C̆
=)

˘ ˘ @˘
˘ ( ⇥ , J , C̆ ) = @ ⇥ + [ 1 J @ C 1
+J 2/3
@⇥ 2 @J @ C̆
(3.37)
1 2/3 @˘ 1
J ( : C)C ]: C .
3 @ C̆
The comparison of (3.36) and (3.37) yields

@ @˘
= ,
@⇥ @⇥
(3.38)
@ 1 @˘ 1 2/3 @˘ 1 2/3 @˘ 1
= J C +J J ( : C)C .
@C 2 @J @ C̆ 3 @ C̆

69
Thus, the following alternative representation form for the Cauchy stress
tensor is derived:

@
= 2⇢F · · FT
@C
1 @˘ 1 2/3 @˘ 1 2/3 @˘ 1
= 2⇢F · [ J C +J J ( : C)C ] · FT
2 @J @ C̆ 3 @ C̆
1 @˘ 1
= 2⇢[ J F·C · FT
2 @J
2/3 @˘1 2/3 @ ˘
+J F· J · FT( : C ) F · C 1 · FT ]
@ C̆ 3 @ C̆
1 @˘ @˘ 1 2/3 @ ˘
= 2⇢[ J I + J 2/3 F · · FT J ( : C)I]
2 @J @ C̆ 3 @ C̆
1 @˘ @˘ 1 2/3 @˘
= 2⇢[ J I + J 2/3 F · · FT J (F · · FT : I ) I ]
2 @J @ C̆ 3 @ C̆
1 @˘ @˘
= 2⇢[ J I + J 2/3 ( F · · FT ) D ]
2 @J @ C̆
=)

2/3 @˘ @˘
= 2⇢J (F · · FT ) D + ⇢ J I. (3.39)
@ C̆ @J

Using the representation forms

( ⇥ , C ) =) ˆ ( ⇥ , J , C ) (3.40)

and

( ⇥ , C ) =) ˜ ( ⇥ , ⇢ , C ) (3.41)

for the free Helmholtz energy function, one has to consider that J and C
as well as ⇢ and C are dependent variables:

J = (det C)1/2 , ⇢ = ⇢0 J 1
= ⇢0 (det C) 1/2
. (3.42)
70
Considering the variation of J, see (3.34), and of ⇢,

2 @J
2
⇢= ⇢0 J J= ⇢0 J : C
@C
1/2
2 @(det C) @ det C
= ⇢0 J : C
@ det C @C
1 @ det C
= ⇢0 J 2 (det C) 1/2 : C
2 @C
1
= ⇢0 J 2 (det C) 1/2 (det C) CT 1 : C
2
1
= ⇢0 J 2 (det C)1/2 C 1 : C
2
1 1
= ⇢0 J 2 J C 1 : C = ⇢0 J 1 C 1 : C
2 2
=)

1 1
⇢= ⇢C : C, (3.43)
2

the variations of ˆ and ˜ can expressed as

ˆ ˆ ˆ
ˆ(⇥, J, C) = @ ⇥ + @ J + @ : C
@⇥ @J @C
@ˆ @ˆ1 1 @ˆ (3.44)
= ⇥+ JC : C + : C
@⇥ @J 2 @C
@ˆ 1 @ˆ @ˆ
= ⇥+( J C 1+ ): C
@⇥ 2 @J @C
and

˜ ˜ ˜
˜(⇥, ⇢, C) = @ ⇥ + @ ⇢ + @ : C
@⇥ @⇢ @C
@˜ @˜1 @˜
= ⇥ ⇢C 1 : C + : C (3.45)
@⇥ @⇢ 2 @C
@˜ 1 @˜ @˜
= ⇥+( ⇢ C 1+ ): C .
@⇥ 2 @⇢ @C

71
Comparing (3.36) with (3.44) and (3.36) with (3.45), respectively one ob-
tains

@ @ˆ @ 1 @ˆ 1 @ˆ (3.46)
= , = J C +
@⇥ @⇥ @C 2 @J @C

and

@ @˜ @ 1 @˜ 1 @˜
= , = ⇢ C + , (3.47)
@⇥ @⇥ @C 2 @⇢ @C

respectively. Thus, the representation forms

@ 1 @ˆ @ˆ
= 2⇢F · · FT = 2 ⇢ F · [ J C 1+ ] · FT
@C 2 @J @C
1 @ˆ @ˆ
= 2⇢[ J 1
F·C ·F +F·T
· FT ) (3.48)
2 @J @C
@ˆ @ˆ
= ⇢J I + 2⇢F · · FT
@J @C
and

@ 1 @˜ @˜
= 2⇢F · · FT = 2 ⇢ F · [ ⇢ C + 1
] · FT
@C 2 @⇢ @C
1 @˜ 1 T @˜
= 2⇢[ ⇢ F·C ·F +F· · FT ) (3.49)
2 @⇢ @C
˜ @˜
2 @
= ⇢ I + 2⇢F · · FT
@⇢ @C

regarding the Cauchy stress tensor are gained.

72
3.2.3 Alternative approach regarding the evaluation of the entropy
inequality

For a thermoelastic solid the following set of process variables is chosen:

P = { ⇥ , grad ⇥ , ⇢ , C }

With

= ( ⇥ , grad ⇥ , ⇢ , C )

and

@ ˙ @ @ @
⇢ ˙ =⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + ⇢ ⇢˙ + ⇢ : Ċ
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @⇢ @C
@ ˙ @ @ @
=⇢ ⇥+⇢ · (grad ⇥)· + ⇢ ⇢˙ + 2 ⇢ F · · FT : D ,
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @⇢ @C

respectively, the entropy inequality reads

@ ˙ @ @ @
⇢ ⇥ ⇢ · (grad ⇥)· ⇢ ⇢˙ 2⇢F · · FT : D
@⇥ @ grad ⇥ @⇢ @C
˙ + 1
⇢⌘⇥ :D q · grad ⇥ 0
⇥
=)
n @ o
˙
⇥ ⇢⌘ + ⇢
@⇥
n @ o
·
(grad ⇥) · ⇢
@ grad ⇥
n @ o
⇢˙ ⇢
@⇢
n @ o
T
+D : 2⇢F · ·F
@C
1 n o
grad ⇥ · q 0.
⇥
73
The integral form of the local statement of the balance of mass shows, that
there exists an interrelation between ⇢ and C,
p ⇢0
J = det F = det C = ,
⇢
i.e. the process variables ⇢ and C are not independent. Thus, the free
available quantity ⇢˙ and Ċ and D, respectively are associated over the
balance of mass:

⇢˙ = ⇢ div ẋ = ⇢(L : I) = ⇢(D : I) .

The dependece of variables is eliminated by using the concept of Lagrange

multipliers, i.e. the corresponding relation will be multiplied with a La-
grange factor (scalar, vector, tensor) and the expression, which is equal to
zero, will be added to the entropy inequality. For the here discussed case,
only the dependence between ⇢˙ and D has an influence of the evaluation of
the inequality and not the relation between ⇢ and C. Thus, the expression

1 [ ⇢˙ + ⇢(D : I)] = 0

is added to the second law of thermodynamics and one obtains:

n @ o
˙
⇥ ⇢⌘ + ⇢
@⇥
n @ o
·
(grad ⇥) · ⇢
@ grad ⇥
n @ o
⇢˙ ⇢ 1
@⇢
n @ o
T
+D : 2⇢F · ·F +⇢ 1I
@C
1 n o
grad ⇥ · q 0.
⇥
The evaluation of this inequality yields the following constitutive restric-
tions:
@ @
⌘ = , = (⇥, ⇢, C) , 1 = ⇢ ,
@⇥ @⇢
@ @ @
= 2⇢F · · FT ⇢ 1 I = 2 ⇢ F · · FT (⇢)2 I.
@C @C @⇢
74
The relation for the Cauchy stress tensor is equivalent to equation (3.49).
One sees, that the evaluation of the entropy inequality yields an other and
contradictory result if the dependence of ⇢˙ and D is not considered.

Finally, the dissipation mechanism yields

q= ↵ grad ⇥ , ↵ 0.

75