Finite strain theory explained

In continuum mechanics, the finite strain theory—also called large strain theory, or large deformation theory—deals with deformations in which strains and/or rotations are large enough to invalidate assumptions inherent in infinitesimal strain theory. In this case, the undeformed and deformed configurations of the continuum are significantly different, requiring a clear distinction between them. This is commonly the case with elastomers, plastically deforming materials and other fluids and biological soft tissue.

Deformation gradient tensor

The deformation gradient tensor

F( X,t) = F _{jK} e _{j} ⊗ I _{K} is related to both the reference and current configuration, as seen by the unit vectors e _{j} and I _{K} , therefore it is a two-point tensor.Two types of deformation gradient tensor may be defined.

Due to the assumption of continuity of

\chi( X,t) , F has the inverse H = F ^{-1} , where H is the spatial deformation gradient tensor. Then, by the implicit function theorem,^[1] the Jacobian determinant J( X,t) must be nonsingular, i.e. J( X,t) = \det F( X,t) ≠ 0

The material deformation gradient tensor

F( X,t) = F _{jK} e _{j ⊗ I} _{K} is a second-order tensor that represents the gradient of the mapping function or functional relation \chi( X,t) , which describes the motion of a continuum. The material deformation gradient tensor characterizes the local deformation at a material point with position vector X , i.e., deformation at neighbouring points, by transforming (linear transformation) a material line element emanating from that point from the reference configuration to the current or deformed configuration, assuming continuity in the mapping function \chi( X,t) , i.e. differentiable function of X and time t , which implies that cracks and voids do not open or close during the deformation. Thus we have,

Relative displacement vector

P with position vector X = X _{I} I _{I} in the undeformed configuration (Figure 2). After a displacement of the body, the new position of the particle indicated by p in the new configuration is given by the vector position x = x _{i} e _{i} . The coordinate systems for the undeformed and deformed configuration can be superimposed for convenience.

Consider now a material point

Q neighboring P , with position vector X + \Delta X = (X _{I+\Delta} X _{I)} I _{I} . In the deformed configuration this particle has a new position q given by the position vector x + \Delta x . Assuming that the line segments \Delta X and \Delta x joining the particles P and Q in both the undeformed and deformed configuration, respectively, to be very small, then we can express them as d X and d x . Thus from Figure 2 we have

where

du is the relative displacement vector, which represents the relative displacement of Q with respect to P in the deformed configuration.

Taylor approximation

For an infinitesimal element

d X , and assuming continuity on the displacement field, it is possible to use a Taylor series expansion around point P , neglecting higher-order terms, to approximate the components of the relative displacement vector for the neighboring particle Q asThus, the previous equation d x = d X + d u can be written as

Time-derivative of the deformation gradient

Calculations that involve the time-dependent deformation of a body often require a time derivative of the deformation gradient to be calculated. A geometrically consistent definition of such a derivative requires an excursion into differential geometry^[2] but we avoid those issues in this article.

The time derivative of

F is$$\backslash dot\; =\; \backslash frac\; =\; \backslash frac\; \backslash left[\backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash mathbf\{x\}(\backslash mathbf\{X\},\; t)\}\{\backslash partial\; \backslash mathbf\{X\}\}\backslash right]\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash frac\{\backslash partial\; \backslash mathbf\{x\}(\backslash mathbf\{X\},\; t)\}\{\backslash partial\; t\}\backslash right]\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{V\}(\backslash mathbf\{X\},\; t)\backslash right]$$where V is the (material) velocity. The derivative on the right hand side represents a material velocity gradient. It is common to convert that into a spatial gradient by applying the chain rule for derivatives, i.e.,$$\backslash dot\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{V\}(\backslash mathbf\{X\},\; t)\backslash right]\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{v\}(\backslash mathbf\{x\}(\backslash mathbf\{X\},\; t),t)\backslash right]\; =\; \backslash left.\backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{v\}(\backslash mathbf\{x\},t)\backslash right]\backslash right|\_\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash frac\; =\; \backslash boldsymbol\backslash cdot\backslash mathbf$$where \boldsymbol{l} = (\nabla _{x} v ) ^{T} is the spatial velocity gradient and where v ( x ,t) = V ( X ,t) is the spatial (Eulerian) velocity at x = x ( X , t) . If the spatial velocity gradient is constant in time, the above equation can be solved exactly to give$$\backslash mathbf\; =\; e^$$assuming F = 1 at t = 0 . There are several methods of computing the exponential above.

Related quantities often used in continuum mechanics are the rate of deformation tensor and the spin tensor defined, respectively, as:$$\backslash boldsymbol\; =\; \backslash tfrac\; \backslash left(\backslash boldsymbol\; +\; \backslash boldsymbol^T\backslash right)\; \backslash ,,~~\; \backslash boldsymbol\; =\; \backslash tfrac\; \backslash left(\backslash boldsymbol\; -\; \backslash boldsymbol^T\backslash right)\; \backslash ,.$$The rate of deformation tensor gives the rate of stretching of line elements while the spin tensor indicates the rate of rotation or vorticity of the motion.

The material time derivative of the inverse of the deformation gradient (keeping the reference configuration fixed) is often required in analyses that involve finite strains. This derivative is$$\backslash frac\; \backslash left(\backslash mathbf^\backslash right)\; =\; -\; \backslash mathbf^\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash dot\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash mathbf^\; \backslash ,.$$The above relation can be verified by taking the material time derivative of

F ^{-1} ⋅ d x = d X and noting that • X = 0 .

Polar decomposition of the deformation gradient tensor

The deformation gradient

F , like any invertible second-order tensor, can be decomposed, using the polar decomposition theorem, into a product of two second-order tensors (Truesdell and Noll, 1965): an orthogonal tensor and a positive definite symmetric tensor, i.e., $$\backslash mathbf\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; \backslash mathbf\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; \backslash mathbf$$ where the tensor R is a proper orthogonal tensor, i.e., R ^{-1} = R ^{T} and \det R = +1 , representing a rotation; the tensor U is the right stretch tensor; and V the left stretch tensor. The terms right and left means that they are to the right and left of the rotation tensor R , respectively. U and V are both positive definite, i.e. x ⋅ U ⋅ x > 0 and x ⋅ V ⋅ x > 0 for all non-zero x \in \R ^{3} , and symmetric tensors, i.e. U = U ^{T} and V = V ^{T} , of second order.

This decomposition implies that the deformation of a line element

d X in the undeformed configuration onto d x in the deformed configuration, i.e., d x = F d X , may be obtained either by first stretching the element by U , i.e. d x' = U d X , followed by a rotation R , i.e., d x' = R d x ; or equivalently, by applying a rigid rotation R first, i.e., d x' = R d X , followed later by a stretching V , i.e., d x' = V d x (See Figure 3).

Due to the orthogonality of

R $$\backslash mathbf\; V\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; R\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash mathbf\; U\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash mathbf\; R^T$$so that U and V have the same eigenvalues or principal stretches, but different eigenvectors or principal directions N _{i} and n _{i} , respectively. The principal directions are related by$$\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; \backslash mathbf\_i.$$

This polar decomposition, which is unique as

F is invertible with a positive determinant, is a corollary of the singular-value decomposition.

Transformation of a surface and volume element

To transform quantities that are defined with respect to areas in a deformed configuration to those relative to areas in a reference configuration, and vice versa, we use Nanson's relation, expressed as $$da~\backslash mathbf\; =\; J~dA\; ~\backslash mathbf^\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash mathbf$$ where

da is an area of a region in the deformed configuration, dA is the same area in the reference configuration, and n is the outward normal to the area element in the current configuration while N is the outward normal in the reference configuration, F is the deformation gradient, and J = \det F .

The corresponding formula for the transformation of the volume element is $$dv\; =\; J~dV$$

Fundamental strain tensors

A strain tensor is defined by the IUPAC as:

"A symmetric tensor that results when a deformation gradient tensor is factorized into a rotation tensor followed or preceded by a symmetric tensor".

Since a pure rotation should not induce any strains in a deformable body, it is often convenient to use rotation-independent measures of deformation in continuum mechanics. As a rotation followed by its inverse rotation leads to no change (

R R ^{T=R} ^{TR=I} ) we can exclude the rotation by multiplying the deformation gradient tensor F by its transpose.

Several rotation-independent deformation gradient tensors (or "deformation tensors", for short) are used in mechanics. In solid mechanics, the most popular of these are the right and left Cauchy–Green deformation tensors.

Cauchy strain tensor (right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor)

In 1839, George Green introduced a deformation tensor known as the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor or Green's deformation tensor (the IUPAC recommends that this tensor be called the Cauchy strain tensor),^[3] defined as:

$$\backslash mathbf\; C=\backslash mathbf\; F^T\backslash mathbf\; F=\backslash mathbf\; U^2\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; C\_=F\_~F\_\; =\; \backslash frac\; \backslash frac\; .$$

Physically, the Cauchy–Green tensor gives us the square of local change in distances due to deformation, i.e.

d x ^{2=dX ⋅ C ⋅ dX}

Invariants of

C are often used in the expressions for strain energy density functions. The most commonly used invariants arewhere J: = \det F is the determinant of the deformation gradient F and λ _{i} are stretch ratios for the unit fibers that are initially oriented along the eigenvector directions of the right (reference) stretch tensor (these are not generally aligned with the three axis of the coordinate systems).

Finger strain tensor

The IUPAC recommends^[3] that the inverse of the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor (called the Cauchy strain tensor in that document), i. e.,

C ^{-1} , be called the Finger strain tensor. However, that nomenclature is not universally accepted in applied mechanics.

$$\backslash mathbf=\backslash mathbf\; C^=\backslash mathbf\; F^\backslash mathbf\; F^\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; f\_=\backslash frac\; \backslash frac$$

Green strain tensor (left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor)

Reversing the order of multiplication in the formula for the right Green–Cauchy deformation tensor leads to the left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor which is defined as:$$\backslash mathbf\; B\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; F\backslash mathbf\; F^T\; =\; \backslash mathbf\; V^2\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; B\_\; =\; \backslash frac\; \backslash frac$$

The left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor is often called the Finger deformation tensor, named after Josef Finger (1894).^[4]

The IUPAC recommends that this tensor be called the Green strain tensor.^[3]

Invariants of

B are also used in the expressions for strain energy density functions. The conventional invariants are defined aswhere J: = \det F is the determinant of the deformation gradient.

For compressible materials, a slightly different set of invariants is used:$$(\backslash bar\_1\; :=\; J^\; I\_1\; ~;~~\; \backslash bar\_2\; :=\; J^\; I\_2\; ~;~~\; J\backslash neq\; 1)\; ~.$$

Piola strain tensor (Cauchy deformation tensor)

Earlier in 1828,^[5] Augustin-Louis Cauchy introduced a deformation tensor defined as the inverse of the left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor,

B ^{-1} . This tensor has also been called the Piola strain tensor by the IUPAC and the Finger tensor^[6] in the rheology and fluid dynamics literature.

$$\backslash mathbf=\backslash mathbf\; B^=\backslash mathbf\; F^\backslash mathbf\; F^\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; c\_=\backslash frac\; \backslash frac$$

Spectral representation

If there are three distinct principal stretches

λ _{i} , the spectral decompositions of C and B is given by

$$\backslash mathbf\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i^2\; \backslash mathbf\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\_i\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; \backslash mathbf\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i^2\; \backslash mathbf\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\_i$$

Furthermore,

$$\backslash mathbf\; U\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i\; \backslash mathbf\; N\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\; N\_i\; ~;~~\; \backslash mathbf\; V\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i\; \backslash mathbf\; n\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\; n\_i$$$$\backslash mathbf\; R\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash mathbf\; n\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\; N\_i\; ~;~~\; \backslash mathbf\; F\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i\; \backslash mathbf\; n\_i\; \backslash otimes\; \backslash mathbf\; N\_i$$

Observe that$$\backslash mathbf\; =\; \backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf^T\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i~\backslash mathbf~(\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i)~\backslash mathbf^T\; =\; \backslash sum\_^3\; \backslash lambda\_i~(\backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf\_i)\backslash otimes(\backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf\_i)$$Therefore, the uniqueness of the spectral decomposition also implies that

n _{i} = R ~ N _{i} . The left stretch (V ) is also called the spatial stretch tensor while the right stretch (U ) is called the material stretch tensor.

The effect of

F acting on N _{i} is to stretch the vector by λ _{i} and to rotate it to the new orientation n _{i} , i.e.,$$\backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash lambda\_i~(\backslash mathbf~\backslash mathbf\_i)\; =\; \backslash lambda\_i~\backslash mathbf\_i$$In a similar vein,$$\backslash mathbf^~\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash cfrac~\backslash mathbf\_i\; ~;~~\; \backslash mathbf^T~\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash lambda\_i~\backslash mathbf\_i\; ~;~~\; \backslash mathbf^~\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash cfrac~\backslash mathbf\_i\; ~.$$

Examples

Uniaxial extension of an incompressible material

This is the case where a specimen is stretched in 1-direction with a stretch ratio of \alpha=\alpha _{1} . If the volume remains constant, the contraction in the other two directions is such that \alpha _{1} \alpha _{2} \alpha _{3} =1 or \alpha _{2=\alpha} ^{-0.5} ^{3=\alpha} . Then:

Simple shear

Rigid body rotation

Derivatives of stretch

Derivatives of the stretch with respect to the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor are used to derive the stress-strain relations of many solids, particularly hyperelastic materials. These derivatives are$$\backslash cfrac\; =\; \backslash cfrac~\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i\; =\; \backslash cfrac~\backslash mathbf^T~(\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i)~\backslash mathbf\; ~;~~\; i=1,2,3$$and follow from the observations that$$\backslash mathbf:(\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i)\; =\; \backslash lambda\_i^2\; ~;~~~~\backslash cfrac\; =\; \backslash mathsf^\; ~;~~~~\; \backslash mathsf^:(\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i)=\backslash mathbf\_i\backslash otimes\backslash mathbf\_i.$$

Physical interpretation of deformation tensors

Let

X = X ^{i~\boldsymbol{E}} _{i} be a Cartesian coordinate system defined on the undeformed body and let x = x ^{i~\boldsymbol{E}} _{i} be another system defined on the deformed body. Let a curve X (s) in the undeformed body be parametrized using s \in [ 0 , 1 ] . Its image in the deformed body is x ( X (s)) .

The undeformed length of the curve is given by$$l\_X=\; \backslash int\_0^1\; \backslash left|\; \backslash cfrac\; \backslash right|~ds=\; \backslash int\_0^1\; \backslash sqrt~ds=\; \backslash int\_0^1\; \backslash sqrt~ds$$After deformation, the length becomesNote that the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor is defined as$$\backslash boldsymbol\; :=\; \backslash boldsymbol^T\backslash cdot\backslash boldsymbol\; =\; \backslash left(\backslash cfrac\backslash right)^T\backslash cdot\; \backslash cfrac$$Hence,$$l\_x\; =\; \backslash int\_0^1\; \backslash sqrt~ds$$which indicates that changes in length are characterized by

\boldsymbol{C} .

Finite strain tensors

The concept of strain is used to evaluate how much a given displacement differs locally from a rigid body displacement.^{[1] [7] [8]} One of such strains for large deformations is the Lagrangian finite strain tensor, also called the Green-Lagrangian strain tensor or Green–St-Venant strain tensor, defined as

$$\backslash mathbf\; E=\backslash frac(\backslash mathbf\; C\; -\; \backslash mathbf\; I)\backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquad\; E\_=\backslash frac\backslash left(\backslash frac\backslash frac-\backslash delta\_\backslash right)$$

or as a function of the displacement gradient tensor$$\backslash mathbf\; E\; =\backslash frac\backslash left[(\backslash nabla\_\{\backslash mathbf\; X\}\backslash mathbf\; u)^T\; +\; \backslash nabla\_\{\backslash mathbf\; X\}\backslash mathbf\; u\; +\; (\backslash nabla\_\{\backslash mathbf\; X\}\backslash mathbf\; u)^T\; \backslash cdot\backslash nabla\_\{\backslash mathbf\; X\}\backslash mathbf\; u\backslash right]$$or$$E\_=\backslash frac\backslash left(\backslash frac+\backslash frac+\backslash frac\backslash frac\backslash right)$$

The Green-Lagrangian strain tensor is a measure of how much

C differs from I .

The Eulerian finite strain tensor, or Eulerian-Almansi finite strain tensor, referenced to the deformed configuration (i.e. Eulerian description) is defined as

$$\backslash mathbf\; e=\backslash frac(\backslash mathbf\; I\; -\; \backslash mathbf\; c)=\backslash frac(\backslash mathbf\; I\; -\; \backslash mathbf\; B\; ^)\backslash qquad\; \backslash text\; \backslash qquade\_\; =\; \backslash frac\; \backslash left(\backslash delta\_\; -\; \backslash frac\; \backslash frac\backslash right)$$

or as a function of the displacement gradients we have$$e\_\; =\; \backslash frac\; \backslash left(\backslash frac\; +\; \backslash frac\; -\; \backslash frac\; \backslash frac\backslash right)$$

Seth–Hill family of generalized strain tensors

B. R. Seth from the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur was the first to show that the Green and Almansi strain tensors are special cases of a more general strain measure. The idea was further expanded upon by Rodney Hill in 1968. The Seth–Hill family of strain measures (also called Doyle-Ericksen tensors)^[9] can be expressed as

$$\backslash mathbf\; E\_=\backslash frac(\backslash mathbf\; U^-\; \backslash mathbf\; I)\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{C\}^\{m\}\; -\; \backslash mathbf\{I\}\backslash right]$$

For different values of

m we have:

• Green-Lagrangian strain tensor $$\backslash mathbf\; E\_\; =\; \backslash frac\; (\backslash mathbf\; U^-\; \backslash mathbf\; I)\; =\; \backslash frac\; (\backslash mathbf-\backslash mathbf)$$
• Biot strain tensor $$\backslash mathbf\; E\_\; =\; (\backslash mathbf\; U\; -\; \backslash mathbf\; I)\; =\; \backslash mathbf^-\backslash mathbf$$
• Logarithmic strain, Natural strain, True strain, or Hencky strain $$\backslash mathbf\; E\_\; =\; \backslash ln\; \backslash mathbf\; U\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash ,\backslash ln\backslash mathbf$$
• Almansi strain $$\backslash mathbf\_\; =\; \backslash frac\backslash left[\backslash mathbf\{I\}-\backslash mathbf\{U\}^\{-2\}\backslash right]$$

The second-order approximation of these tensors is$$\backslash mathbf\_\; =\; \backslash boldsymbol\; +\; (\backslash nabla\backslash mathbf)^T\backslash cdot\backslash nabla\backslash mathbf\; -\; (1\; -\; m)\; \backslash boldsymbol^T\backslash cdot\backslash boldsymbol$$where

\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} is the infinitesimal strain tensor.

Many other different definitions of tensors

E are admissible, provided that they all satisfy the conditions that:^[10] E vanishes for all rigid-body motions

• the dependence of

E on the displacement gradient tensor \nabla u is continuous, continuously differentiable and monotonic

• it is also desired that

E reduces to the infinitesimal strain tensor \boldsymbol{\varepsilon} as the norm |\nabla u | \to 0

An example is the set of tensors$$\backslash mathbf^\; =\; \backslash left(^n\; -\; ^\backslash right)/2n$$which do not belong to the Seth–Hill class, but have the same 2nd-order approximation as the Seth–Hill measures at

m =0 for any value of n .^[11]

Physical interpretation of the finite strain tensor

The diagonal components

E _{KL} of the Lagrangian finite strain tensor are related to the normal strain, e.g.

$$E\_=e\_+\backslash frac\; e\_^2$$

where

e _{( I _{1)}} is the normal strain or engineering strain in the direction I _{1} .

The off-diagonal components

E _{KL} of the Lagrangian finite strain tensor are related to shear strain, e.g.

$$E\_=\backslash frac\backslash sqrt\backslash sqrt\backslash sin\backslash phi\_$$

where

\phi _{12} is the change in the angle between two line elements that were originally perpendicular with directions I _{1} and I _{2} , respectively.

Under certain circumstances, i.e. small displacements and small displacement rates, the components of the Lagrangian finite strain tensor may be approximated by the components of the infinitesimal strain tensor

Compatibility conditions

See main article: Compatibility (mechanics). The problem of compatibility in continuum mechanics involves the determination of allowable single-valued continuous fields on bodies. These allowable conditions leave the body without unphysical gaps or overlaps after a deformation. Most such conditions apply to simply-connected bodies. Additional conditions are required for the internal boundaries of multiply connected bodies.

Compatibility of the deformation gradient

The necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a compatible

\boldsymbol{F} field over a simply connected body are$$\backslash boldsymbol\backslash times\backslash boldsymbol\; =\; \backslash boldsymbol$$

Compatibility of the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor

The necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a compatible

\boldsymbol{C} field over a simply connected body are$$R^\backslash gamma\_\; :=\; \backslash frac[\backslash ,\_\{(X)\}\backslash Gamma^\backslash gamma\_\{\backslash alpha\backslash beta\}]\; -\; \backslash frac[\backslash ,\_\{(X)\}\backslash Gamma^\backslash gamma\_\{\backslash alpha\backslash rho\}]\; +\; \backslash ,\_\backslash Gamma^\backslash gamma\_\backslash ,\_\backslash Gamma^\backslash mu\_\; -\; \backslash ,\_\backslash Gamma^\backslash gamma\_\backslash ,\_\backslash Gamma^\backslash mu\_\; =\; 0$$We can show these are the mixed components of the Riemann–Christoffel curvature tensor. Therefore, the necessary conditions for \boldsymbol{C} -compatibility are that the Riemann–Christoffel curvature of the deformation is zero.

Compatibility of the left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor

General sufficiency conditions for the left Cauchy–Green deformation tensor in three-dimensions were derived by Amit Acharya.^[12] Compatibility conditions for two-dimensional

\boldsymbol{B} fields were found by Janet Blume.^[13]

See also

• Infinitesimal strain
• Compatibility (mechanics)
• Curvilinear coordinates
• Piola–Kirchhoff stress tensor, the stress tensor for finite deformations.
• Stress measures
• Strain partitioning

Further reading

• Book: Dill, Ellis Harold . Continuum Mechanics: Elasticity, Plasticity, Viscoelasticity. CRC Press. 2006. Germany. 0-8493-9779-0.
• Book: Dimitrienko, Yuriy . Nonlinear Continuum Mechanics and Large Inelastic Deformations. Springer. 2011. Germany. 978-94-007-0033-8.
• Book: Hutter, Kolumban . Klaus Jöhnk. Continuum Methods of Physical Modeling. Springer. 2004. Germany. 3-540-20619-1.
• Book: Lubarda , Vlado A. . Elastoplasticity Theory. CRC Press. 2001. 0-8493-1138-1 .
• Book: Macosko , C. W. . Rheology: principles, measurement and applications. VCH Publishers. 1994. 1-56081-579-5.
• Book: Mase , George E. . Continuum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill Professional. 1970. 0-07-040663-4 .
• Book: Mase , G. Thomas . George E. Mase. Continuum Mechanics for Engineers. CRC Press. 1999. Second. 0-8493-1855-6 .
• Book: Nemat-Nasser , Sia . Plasticity: A Treatise on Finite Deformation of Heterogeneous Inelastic Materials. Cambridge University Press. 2006. Cambridge. 0-521-83979-3.
• Book: Rees, David . Basic Engineering Plasticity – An Introduction with Engineering and Manufacturing Applications. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2006. 0-7506-8025-3.

External links

• Prof. Amit Acharya's notes on compatibility on iMechanica

Notes and References

1. Book: Lubliner , Jacob . Plasticity Theory . Dover Publications . 2008 . 978-0-486-46290-5 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20100331022415/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~coby/plas/pdf/book.pdf . 2010-03-31. Revised .
2. A. Yavari, J.E. Marsden, and M. Ortiz, On spatial and material covariant balance laws in elasticity, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 47, 2006, 042903; pp. 1–53.
3. A. Kaye, R. F. T. Stepto, W. J. Work, J. V. Aleman (Spain), A. Ya. Malkin. 1998. Definition of terms relating to the non-ultimate mechanical properties of polymers. Pure Appl. Chem.. 70. 3. 701–754. 10.1351/pac199870030701. free.
4. Eduardo N. Dvorkin, Marcela B. Goldschmit, 2006 Nonlinear Continua, p. 25, Springer .
5. Jirásek,Milan; Bažant, Z. P. (2002) Inelastic analysis of structures, Wiley, p. 463
6. J. N. Reddy, David K. Gartling (2000) The finite element method in heat transfer and fluid dynamics, p. 317, CRC Press .
7. Book: Belytschko. Ted. Liu. Wing Kam. Moran. Brian. Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and Structures. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.. 2000. reprint with corrections, 2006. 978-0-471-98773-4. 92–94.
8. Zeidi. Mahdi. Kim. Chun IL. 2018. Mechanics of an elastic solid reinforced with bidirectional fiber in finite plane elastostatics: complete analysis. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics. 30. 3. 573–592. 10.1007/s00161-018-0623-0. 2018CMT....30..573Z . 253674037 . 1432-0959.
9. T.C. Doyle and J.L. Eriksen (1956). "Non-linear elasticity." Advances in Applied Mechanics 4, 53–115.
10. Z.P. Bažant and L. Cedolin (1991). Stability of Structures. Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories. Oxford Univ. Press, New York (2nd ed. Dover Publ., New York 2003; 3rd ed., World Scientific 2010).
11. Z.P. Bažant (1998). "Easy-to-compute tensors with symmetric inverse approximating Hencky finite strain and its rate." Journal of Materials of Technology ASME, 120 (April), 131–136.
12. Acharya, A.. On Compatibility Conditions for the Left Cauchy–Green Deformation Field in Three Dimensions. 1999. Journal of Elasticity. 56 . 2 . 95–105. 10.1023/A:1007653400249. 116767781.
13. Blume, J. A.. 1989. Compatibility conditions for a left Cauchy–Green strain field. 10.1007/BF00045780. Journal of Elasticity. 21. 3. 271–308. 54889553.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Finite strain theory".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.