A Course On Plasticity Theory David J Steigmann Full Chapter PDF

A Course on Plasticity Theory David J.
Steigmann
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-course-on-plasticity-theory-david-j-steigmann/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
IB Diploma Programme Course Preparation: Physics

(Oxford IB Course Preparation) David Homer
https://ebookmass.com/product/ib-diploma-programme-course-
preparation-physics-oxford-ib-course-preparation-david-homer/
Market Leader: Upper Intermediate Course 2nd Edition

David Cotton
https://ebookmass.com/product/market-leader-upper-intermediate-
course-2nd-edition-david-cotton/
King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David J.

Shepherd
https://ebookmass.com/product/king-david-innocent-blood-and-
bloodguilt-david-j-shepherd-2/
King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David J.

Shepherd
https://ebookmass.com/product/king-david-innocent-blood-and-
bloodguilt-david-j-shepherd/
Organization Theory and Design (MindTap Course List) –
Ebook PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/organization-theory-and-design-
mindtap-course-list-ebook-pdf-version/
Notes on ... Caring David Stanley
https://ebookmass.com/product/notes-on-caring-david-stanley/
The Big Picture: Gross Anatomy, Medical Course & Step 1

Review 2nd Edition Edition David A. Morton
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-big-picture-gross-anatomy-
medical-course-step-1-review-2nd-edition-edition-david-a-morton/
On Revolutions Colin J Beck
https://ebookmass.com/product/on-revolutions-colin-j-beck/
Plasticity of Metallic Materials 1st Edition Oana

Cazacu
https://ebookmass.com/product/plasticity-of-metallic-
materials-1st-edition-oana-cazacu/
OXFORD SERIES ON MATERIALS MODELLING
Series Editors
Adrian P. Sutton, FRS

Department of Physics, Imperial College London
Robert E. Rudd
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
OXFORD SERIES ON MATERIALS MODELLING
Materials modelling is one of the fastest growing areas in the science and engi-
neering of materials, both in academe and in industry. It is a very wide field
covering materials phenomena and processes that span ten orders of magni-
tude in length and more than twenty in time. A broad range of models and
computational techniques has been developed to model separately atomistic,
microstructural, and continuum processes. A new field of multiscale modeling
has also emerged in which two or more length scales are modeled sequentially
or concurrently. The aim of this series is to provide a pedagogical set of texts
spanning the atomistic and microstructural scales of materials modeling, written
by acknowledged experts. Each book will assume at most a rudimentary knowl-
edge of the field it covers and it will bring the reader to the frontiers of current
research. It is hoped that the series will be useful for teaching materials modeling
at the postgraduate level.
APS, London
RER, Livermore, California
1. M. W. Finnis: Interatomic Forces in Condensed Matter

2. K. Bhattacharya: Microstructure of Martensite—Why It Forms and How It Gives
Rise to the Shape-Memory Effects
3. V. V. Bulatov, W. Cai: Computer Simulations of Dislocations
4. A. S. Argon: Strengthening Mechanisms in Crystal Plasticity
5. L. P. Kubin: Dislocations, Mesoscale Simulations and Plastic Flow
6. A. P. Sutton: Physics of Elasticity and Crystal Defects
7. D. Steigmann: A Course on Plasticity Theory
Forthcoming:
D. N. Theodorou, V. Mavrantzas: Multiscale Modelling of Polymers
A Course on Plasticity Theory
David J. Steigmann
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© David J. Steigmann 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022942494
ISBN 978–0–19–288315–5
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883155.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To my family
Preface
The theory of plasticity has a long and interesting history dating back about two and a
half centuries. Activity in the field expanded rapidly over the course of the past century
in particular, giving rise to a rapid pace of advancement. During much of the latter phase
of its modern development, the field was beset by ambiguity and controversy concerning
some of its conceptual foundations. Unsurprisingly, this led to the emergence of differ-
ent, often incompatible, schools of thought on the subject. A comprehensive survey of
the state of plasticity theory during this period may be found in the review article by
Naghdi. Meanwhile, great strides were being made by applied mathematicians in lay-
ing the foundations of modern continuum mechanics. Their emphasis on permanence
and rigor meant that the unsettled subject of plasticity theory was largely avoided, how-
ever, with the result that this lacuna in the panoply of continuum theories began to be
filled quite recently, around the turn of the millennium, after the antagonism of the older
schools had begun to fade.
Practically everything known about plasticity through the middle of the past century
is documented in the superb treatises by Prager and Hodge, Nadai, Hill, and Kachanov,
which should be carefully read by any serious student of our subject. At around the same
time, new developments were taking place in the application of differential geometry to
the continuum theory of defects associated with plasticity. This has become a large and
active discipline in its own right, and a substantial part of this book is devoted to it.
The works of Bloom and Wang, and the volume edited by Kröner, are recommended to
those interested in learning about its foundations, while those by Clayton, Epstein and
El anowski, Epstein, and Steinmann cover many of the more recent developments. The
modern engineering theory, as distinct from the geometrical theory, is ably summarized
in the books by Lubliner, Besseling and van der Giessen, and Bigoni. The books by Han
and Reddy and by Gurtin et al. are recommended for mathematical developments and
some of the more recent thinking on the subject.
While writing this book I have been guided by the belief that one can always learn
something from any thoughtful person. Accordingly the contents reflect my understand-
ing of the work of researchers and scholars spanning a large and diverse range of views
on the subject of plasticity. In the course of surveying the modern literature, I have been
struck by the continuing isolation of the various schools from one another, with scant
evidence of cross-fertilization. Particularly glaring, from my perspective, is the lack of
acknowledgment of the efforts of Noll in laying the foundations of the modern theory.
This has been rectified to a great degree by Epstein and El anowski, and I follow their
lead in giving primacy to Noll’s perspective. In fairness, Noll is not an easy read, and
much study is needed to grasp the full import of his work.
Preface vii
The book is certainly not self-contained. Readers are presumed to have had prior
exposure to a good introductory course on basic continuum mechanics at the level of
the excellent books by Chadwick and Gurtin, for example. Aspects of this basic back-
ground are summarized as needed, but not developed in any detail. The emphasis here
is on conceptual issues concerning the foundations of plasticity theory that have proved
challenging, to me at least. These have led me to the view that the time has come to seek
a measure of consolidation and unification in the field. I do not ignore the classical the-
ory, but rather develop it from the perspective of the modern theory. For example, the
classical theory of perfectly plastic solids was presented historically in a way that led to
its natural interpretation, from the vantage point of modern continuum mechanics, as a
theory of non-Newtonian fluids rather than as a model of the behavior of certain solids.
The resolution of this dilemma is a prime example of the clarity that can be achieved
once a secure logical foundation for the general theory has been established.
Some explicit solutions to the equations of plasticity theory are covered in this book,
but not nearly to the extent found in the older books. The reason for this omission
is, firstly, that the small collection of explicit solutions that are known is ably covered
elsewhere, so that duplication is hardly justified, and secondly, that due to the advent
of modern computing, they are not nearly as relevant as they once were. I devote the
remainder of the book to the theoretical foundations of the subject, in accordance with
my own predilections, rather than to matters having to do with computation. The reason
for this emphasis is my belief that students are typically not as well versed in the concep-
tual foundations as they should be if they are to realize the full potential of computational
mechanics. A number of exercises of varying degrees of difficulty appear throughout.
These serve to reinforce understanding and to encourage the reader to fill in any gaps in
the development. Comprehensive solutions to selected exercises are included at the end
of the book.
Those who might have read my previous book, Finite Elasticity Theory, will find the
style and presentation of this one to be quite familiar. The present book is perhaps a bit
more demanding, however, insofar as various concepts from non-Euclidean differential
geometry are covered in detail. I gratefully acknowledge the small group of dedicated
graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, whose interest and persis-
tence provided the impetus for the development of a graduate course on which the book
is based. I am especially grateful to one of them, Milad Shirani, for his critical reading
of the manuscript and for preparing the figures.
David Steigmann
Berkeley, 2021
References
Besseling, J. F., and van der Giessen, E. (1994). Mathematical Modelling of Inelastic Deformation.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Bigoni, D. (2012). Nonlinear Solid Mechanics: Bifurcation Theory and Material Instability. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
viii Preface
Bloom, F. (1979). Modern Differential Geometric Techniques in the Theory of Continuous Distributions
of Dislocations. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 733. Springer, Berlin.
Chadwick, P. (1976). Continuum Mechanics: Concise Theory and Problems. Dover, New York.
Clayton, J. D. (2011). Nonlinear Mechanics of Crystals. Springer, Dordrecht.
Epstein, M. (2010). The Geometrical Language of Continuum Mechanics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Epstein, M., and Elżanowski, M. (2007). Material Inhomogeneities and Their Evolution. Springer,
Berlin.
Gurtin, M. E. (1981). An Introduction to Continuum Mechanics. Academic Press, Orlando.
Gurtin, M. E., Fried, E., and Anand, L. (2010). The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Continua.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Han,W., and Reddy, B. D. (2013). Plasticity: Mathematical Theory and Numerical Analysis.
Springer, N.Y.
Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Kachanov, L. M. (1974). Fundamentals of the Theory of Plasticity. MIR Publishers, Moscow.
Kröner, E. (Ed) (1968). Proc. IUTAM Symposium on Mechanics of Generalized Continua. Springer,
N.Y.
Lubliner, J. (2008). Plasticity Theory. Dover, N.Y.
Nadai, A. (1950). Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
Naghdi, P. M. (1990). A critical review of the state of finite plasticity. J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP)
41, 315–394.
Noll, W. (1967). Materially uniform simple bodies with inhomogeneities. Arch. Ration. Mech.
Anal. 27, 1–32.
Prager, W., and Hodge, P. G. (1951). Theory of Perfectly Plastic Solids. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
Steigmann, D. J. (2017). Finite Elasticity Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Steinmann, P. (2015). Geometrical Foundations of Continuum Mechanics: An Application to First
and Second-Order Elasticity and Elasto-Plasticity. Lecture Notes in Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics, Vol. 2. Springer, Berlin.
Wang, C. -C. (1979). Mathematical Principles of Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Part A: Analytical
and Continuum Mechanics. Plenum Press, N.Y.
Contents
1 Preliminaries 1
1.1 Phenomenology 1
1.2 Elements of continuum mechanics 4
2 Brief resumé of nonlinear elasticity theory 15

2.1 Stress and strain energy 15
2.2 Conservative problems and potential energy 21
2.3 The Legendre–Hadamard inequality 25
2.4 Material symmetry 29
3 A primer on tensor analysis in three-dimensional space 34

3.1 Coordinates, bases, vectors, and metrics 34
3.2 Second-order tensors 41
3.3 Derivatives and connections 44
3.4 The Levi-Civita connection 50
3.5 The curl, Stokes’ theorem, and curvature 54
3.6 Torsion and the Weitzenböck connection 59
4 Deformation and stress in convected coordinates 63

4.1 Deformation gradient and strain 63
4.2 Strain compatibility 66
4.3 Stress, equations of motion 71
5 Elastic and plastic deformations 74

5.1 Elastic–plastic deformation, dislocation density 74
5.2 Differential-geometric considerations 79
5.3 Incompatibility of the elastic strain 82
6 Energy, stress, dissipation, and plastic evolution 87

6.1 Materially uniform elastic bodies 87
6.2 Surface dislocations and stress relaxation 93
6.3 Dissipation due to plastic evolution 97
6.4 Superposed rigid-body motions 100
x Contents
6.5 Yielding and plastic flow 102

6.6 Crystallinity versus isotropy 109
6.7 Discontinuous fields 111
7 Isotropy 119
7.1 The flow rule 119
7.2 Von Mises’ yield function 121
7.3 The classical theory for isotropic rigid-plastic materials 123
7.4 Bingham’s model of viscoplasticity 126
7.4.1 Example: Steady channel flow 127
7.5 Plane strain of rigid-perfectly plastic materials: Slip-line theory 129
7.5.1 Stress, equilibrium 130
7.5.2 Velocity field 132
7.5.3 Cartesian form of the equations 133
7.5.4 Further theory for plane strain 136
7.5.5 Axisymmetric state exterior to a traction-free circular hole 139
7.6 Anti-plane shear 143
8 Small-deformation theory 147

8.1 The displacement field 147
8.2 Approximations for small displacement gradients 151
8.3 The frame-invariant Prandtl–Reuss theory 153
9 Strain hardening, rate sensitivity, and gradient plasticity 156

9.1 “Isotropic” hardening 156
9.2 Rate sensitivity: Viscoplasticity 159
9.3 Scale effects 160
9.3.1 Crystalline symmetry 162
9.3.2 Isotropy 163
9.4 Scale-dependent yielding 166
9.5 Gradient plasticity 168
9.5.1 Energetic response functions 169
9.5.2 Stress power, balance laws, and dissipation 170
9.5.3 Example 174
Solutions to selected problems 177

Index 192
1
Preliminaries
We begin with a fairly descriptive discussion of the main observations about plastic
behavior and the basic mechanisms responsible for it. This is followed by a brief resumé
of the standard continuum theory that underpins our subsequent development of a
theoretical framework for the description of elastic-plastic response.
1.1 Phenomenology
Much of the basic phenomenology of plasticity can be understood in terms of a simple
tension-compression test on a uniform metallic bar. Suppose the bar has length l 0 in its
unloaded state, and let T = F/A be the uniaxial Cauchy stress in the direction of the bar
axis, where F is the axial force and A is the cross-sectional area of the deformed bar.
The stretch of the bar, presumed to be strained homogeneously, is λ = l/l0 , where l is
the bar’s length when deformed. If the stress is not too large, the response of the bar is
typically well described by the linear relation
T = E ln λ (1.1)
between the stress and the logarithmic strain ln λ, in which the proportionality constant
E is Young’s modulus—a property of the material of which the bar is made. This relation
presumes the state of the bar, as determined by the stretch and the Cauchy stress, to be
uniform. The bar is then in equilibrium insofar as the effects of body forces (e.g., the
weight of the bar) can be neglected.
The range of stresses for which this relation holds is limited. It fails when the stress
reaches certain limits, called the yield stresses in uniaxial tension or compression. Often
these limits coincide in magnitude, so that (1.1) is valid provided that
|T| < TY , (1.2)
where TY , another property of the material, is the initial yield stress, the qualifier reflect-
ing the fact that the yield stress usually evolves with the state of the material under
continued deformation, its current value typically exceeding the initial value. This phe-
nomenon, called strain hardening, is depicted schematically in Figure 1.1. If the bar is
A Course on Plasticity Theory. David J. Steigmann, Oxford University Press. © David J. Steigmann (2022).
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883155.003.0001
2 Preliminaries
F
F T=
A
F=0
F=0
Ty
E E E
l0 l li
ln λ
–Ty ln λP ln λ
Figure 1.1 Uniaxial stress–strain response of a bar.
unloaded to zero stress from a state in which the value of |ln λ| exceeds that associ-
ated with initial yield, then the bar does not return to its initial length l 0 , but rather
to an intermediate length li . We say, rather loosely, that the bar has been permanently
deformed. The plastic stretch associated with l i is λp = li /l0 . Further, the slope of the
unloading curve is approximately constant and equal to that of the loading curve,
namely E.
The stretch λ of the bar just prior to unloading is thus given by
λ = λe λp , (1.3)
where λe = l/li is the elastic stretch, so named because, according to the graph,
T = E(ln λ − ln λp ) = E ln λe . (1.4)
Thus, the elastic stretch bears the same relation to the stress as that associated with the
initial elastic response of the bar.
The phenomenology just described leads immediately to the important observation
that the elastic properties of the material, as reflected in the uniaxial case by Young’s
modulus, are roughly insensitive to plastic deformation. This observation carries over to
other elastic properties of crystalline materials, as documented in the extensive experi-
mental work of G. I. Taylor and associates and summarized in the introductory chapter
of Hill’s classic treatise. In particular, the basic lattice structure of a metallic crystal, the
seat of its elastic properties, remains largely undisturbed by the relative plastic slip of
Phenomenology 3
crystallographic planes. This observation will be incorporated as a cornerstone of the

theory to be developed.
Beyond this it is invariably true that TY /E ≪ 1 in metals, implying that |T| /E ≪ 1
and hence that |ln λe | ≪ 1. Accordingly, T ≃ Eεe , where εe = λe − 1; that is, the elastic
strain εe is invariably small in magnitude. A further observation about the uniaxial bar
test is that λp remains unchanged as long as |T| <TY , the current value of the yield stress
just prior to unloading. Indeed the primary purpose of plasticity theory is to describe
how λp , or, more accurately, its three-dimensional counterpart, evolves when the yield
limit is reached. In connection with this it is necessary to have an effective model of strain
hardening, this arguably constituting the main open problem of the phenomenological
theory. Indeed this aspect of the subject is a principal focus of much contemporary
research. Later in the book, we will endeavor to summarize some of the current thinking
in this area.
We have mentioned the role of slip along crystallographic planes as a basic mechanism
of plastic deformation, giving rise to an overall shear deformation on the macro-scale.
This is essentially a frictional process and thus entails the dissipation of energy. The
sliding does not take place all at once, but is instead the product of the progressive move-
ment of dislocations through the crystal lattice. Clear illustrations of this phenomenon
are given in Figure 102.2 in the book by Gurtin et al. and Chapter 1 of the book by
Kovács and Zsoldos. Roughly, the movement of a dislocation is initiated by the break-
ing of an atomic bond between two atoms occupying adjacent layers as they displace
relative to each other in response to an applied shear stress, say. A displaced atom then
forms a bond with its new nearest neighbor. This process continues in a sequential man-
ner until all the atoms in a given layer are displaced by one lattice spacing relative to
those occupying the adjacent layer. The reason why this process occurs via the pas-
sage of a dislocation rather than all at once is that the dislocation mechanism requires
substantially less effort. This can be readily understood in terms of the famous carpet
analogy: Thus, imagine being tasked with the job of displacing a carpet across a floor,
all the while maintaining a substantial amount of contact between the two. This is the
analog of the relative plastic slip of adjacent planes of the lattice. One can drag the car-
pet wholly, of course, but it is much easier to create a narrow wrinkle at one end and
simply push it across the remaining part of the carpet. The net effect of this proce-
dure is that the entire carpet has been displaced en masse once it has been traversed by
the wrinkle.
A dislocation engenders a local distortion of the lattice in the course of its movement
along a crystallographic plane. Recalling that the lattice is the seat of the elastic response
of the material, it follows that dislocations indirectly induce a local stress field in their
vicinity. Thus, to the extent that dislocations are present in an unloaded crystal, they
generate a field of residual stress in the material. This too is something that a good theory
should be able to predict.
Naturally dislocations in real crystals are, like atoms, discrete features, but, like atoms,
they are usually so densely distributed in a typical sample as to render meaningful their
description in terms of a continuous distribution. We then speak of a dislocation density in
much the same way as mass density is used to model densely distributed matter. In turn,
4 Preliminaries
the notion of a dislocation density has a fascinating connection with certain concepts in
non-Euclidean differential geometry, to be explored later.
Most metallic parts used in engineering applications are polycrystalline, consisting
of small grains of pure crystal within which the mechanism of dislocation motion is
operative. These grains join at grain boundaries, where their interactions contribute to
the overall plastic response of the aggregate. Often these grains are more or less ran-
domly oriented, so that at a mesoscopic scale the aggregate responds in the manner of
an isotropic continuum. For this reason the classical theory of plasticity is concerned
almost exclusively with the response of isotropic materials, whereas theories for crys-
talline materials are largely confined to the research literature. The volume edited by
Teodosiu and the books by Havner and Gurtin et al. are exceptions to this rule and con-
stitute essential reading in the field of crystal plasticity. This is not to say that the theory
for isotropic materials is passé. On the contrary, the difficulties encountered in recon-
ciling classical plasticity theory with modern continuum mechanics are readily resolved
in the framework of the modern theory. Accordingly we devote substantial space to the
isotropic theory in this book.
We confine attention to the purely mechanical theory because this is where the main
conceptual challenges lie. Treatments of the thermodynamical theory may be found in
the books by Epstein and El anowski and by Maugin.
1.2 Elements of continuum mechanics

For the most part, our development is based on the standard framework of continuum
mechanics as conceived by Cauchy. Thus, we do not take couple stresses or higher order
stresses into account. This is very much in accord with the vast majority of work in plas-
ticity theory. Much of the modern literature also seeks to describe length-scale effects
associated with plastic response. This is typically modeled by including gradients of plas-
tic deformation among the variables appearing in constitutive equations, while keeping
much of Cauchy’s framework intact. We will devote some effort later to a discussion of
these developments. For now, however, we shall be content with a brief survey of the
basic elements of continuum mechanics that are needed for our work. Detailed discus-
sions of everything said here may be found in the textbooks by Gurtin, Chadwick, and
Liu, for example.
Concerning notation, we adopt the standard symbols At , A−1 , A∗ , SymA, SkwA,
DevA, and JA . These are, respectively, the transpose, inverse, cofactor, symmetric part,
skew part, deviatoric part, and determinant of a second-order tensor A. If A is invertible,
then A∗ = JA A−t . We also use Sym to identify the linear space of symmetric tensors.
The tensor product of 3-vectors is indicated by interposing the symbol ⊗, i.e., a ⊗ b,
and is defined by (a ⊗ b)v = (b · v)a for any vector v. The Euclidean inner product
√ and defined by A · B = tr(AB ), where tr(·) is the trace; the
t
of tensors A,B is denoted
induced norm is |A| = A · A. For a fourth-order tensor A, the notation A[B] stands
for the second-order tensor resulting from the linear action of A on B. Its transpose
At is defined by B · At [A] = A · A[B], and A is said to possess major symmetry if
Elements of continuum mechanics 5
At = A. If A · A[B] = At · A[B] and A · A[B] = A · A[Bt ], then A is said to possess

minor symmetry. The notation (·)A , with a bold subscript, stands for the derivative of a
function with respect to tensor A.
Suppose a body B, consisting of a fixed set of material points, occupies a config-
uration κt at time t, a region in a three-dimensional Euclidean space. The restriction
to Euclidean space is not sufficiently general to accommodate all conditions. Rather,
it reflects a prejudice derived from our terrestrial, non-relativistic, experience, which is
nevertheless sufficient to cover most problems that arise at the level of our present tech-
nological development. Let y be the position in κt , relative to a specified origin, of a
material point p ∈ B. To convey the notion that this position is occupied by p, and only
by p, we conceive of an invertible map χ from B to κt such that
y = χ(p, t). (1.5)
Rather than deal with the ethereal body B directly, to facilitate analysis we pick some
fixed region of Euclidean space, labeled κ, that stands in one-to-one relation to it. We
call this a reference configuration. For example, it is usually convenient to choose a region
that could, in principle, be occupied by the body, even if it is never actually occupied in
the course of its motion. Quite often analysts choose κ = κt0 , the actual configuration at
time t0 , which of course automatically fulfills the occupiability condition. Whatever the
choice of the reference configuration, we stipulate that there exists a one-to-one map κ
from B to κ such that
x = κ(p), (1.6)
where x is the position of p in κ relative to some fixed origin. In this way we effectively
identify p with the position x that it occupies in our chosen κ. We then have a one-to-one
relation
y = χκ (x, t), (1.7)
called the deformation of p from κ to κt , where
χκ (x, t) = χ(κ−1 (x) , t), (1.8)
in which the subscript is intended to identify our choice of κ. At the risk of being
imprecise, we usually suppress it when there is no risk of confusion, and simply write
y = χ(x, t), (1.9)
with the caveat, of course, that this is not the same function as that appearing in (1.5).
We are typically interested in deformations that are continuous and differentiable,
meaning that for material points p1 and p2 occupying positions x1 = κ(p1 ) and x2 = κ(p2 ),
6 Preliminaries
respectively, that are near to each other in κ, there exists a tensor field F(x, t), called the
deformation gradient, such that
χ(x2 , t) − χ(x1 , t) = F(x1 , t)(x2 − x1 ) + r(x2 , x1 , t), (1.10)

where
|r(x2 ,x1 , t)| = o(|x2 − x1 |), (1.11)
in which the Landau symbol o(ϵ) identifies terms that are smaller than ε for small ϵ;
that is, o(ϵ)/ϵ → 0 as ϵ → 0. It then follows that p1 and p2 are near to each other
in κt as well. Equation (1.10) defines the deformation gradient and effectively fur-
nishes the definition of differentiability in this context. In deference to this we often
write
F = ∇χ, (1.12)
to denote the gradient of χ with respect to x. The invertibility of (1.9) implies that F is
an invertible tensor. This is a consequence of the Inverse Function Theorem. See the
book by Fleming.
Unfortunately, (1.10) does not afford a useful way to compute the deformation gra-
dient in terms of the function χ(x, t). To rectify this, suppose the points p1 and p2 are
connected by a smooth curve c ⊂ κ with arclength parametrization x(s), such that
x1 = x(s1 ) and x2 = x(s2 ). Assuming again that these points are near to each other,
we then have
x2 − x1 = x′ (s1 )(s2 − s1 ) + o(s2 − s1 ), (1.13)
where |o(s2 − s1 )| = o(s2 − s1 ). Combining this with (1.10) gives
s2 −s1 { χ(x(s2 ), t)
1
− χ(x(s1 ), t)} = F(x1 , t)x′ (s1 ) + 1
s2 −s1 o(s2 − s1 ), (1.14)
and passage to the limit s2 → s1 yields
χ ′ = Fx′ (1.15)
at x = x1 , where, with t fixed,
χ ′ (s) = d
ds χ(x(s), t). (1.16)
Of course this is just the chain rule. In view of (1.9) it is meaningful to write it in the
form
dy = Fdx. (1.17)
As we will see in Chapter 4, this formula affords a direct way to obtain expressions for
F when the positions y and x are specified in terms of coordinate systems. See the book
by Steigmann for some explicit examples.
From what has been said it should be evident that, at the material point p, dx(= x′ ds)
and dy(= y′ ds) are tangential to the curves c ⊂ κ and ct ⊂ κt , respectively, the latter
having the parametric representation y(s, t) = χ(x(s), t). We call c a material curve , to
convey the meaning that it is convected by the deformation to a curve ct consisting of
the same material points. Consider two material curves that intersect at x, with tangents
dx and du. These are transported to dy and dz, respectively, where dz = Fdu, with
F = F(x, t), as in (1.17). The local state of distortion of these material curves existing at
the material point p, occupying position x in κ, is characterized by
dy · dz = Fdx · Fdu = dx · Ft (Fdu) = dx · Cdu, (1.18)
where
C = Ft F (1.19)
is the right Cauchy–Green deformation tensor. Choosing the material curves to coincide,
i.e., du = dx, yields the squared stretch of a curve. Equation (1.18) then furnishes the
local angle made by the tangents to two material curves after deformation.
For our purposes it will prove convenient to work with the Lagrange strain
E = 12 (C − I), (1.20)
which is in one-to-one relation to the Cauchy–Green tensor, where I is the referential

unit tensor, defined by Iv = v for all vectors v belonging to the vector space T κ associated
with κ. The latter is often called the translation space of κ, to convey the notion that it
coincides with the set of all position differences that can be formed within it. Because
κ resides in Euclidean space by assumption, this translation space is identical to the
tangent space of the underlying (Euclidean) manifold. Similarly, we denote the translation
(tangent) space associated with κt by Tκt . Thus, Euclidean spaces are effectively flat
in the sense that they coincide with their tangent spaces. More will be said about this
in Chapter 3.
Having discussed the bare essentials of the kinematics of deformation, we move on to
the basic balance laws concerning mass and momentum.
Let ρ(y, t) be the (positive) mass density of the body in the configuration κt . The mass
of a subregion πt ⊂ κt is simply
Z Z
M(πt ) = ρdv = ρκ dV, (1.21)
πt π
8 Preliminaries
where π ⊂ κ is the image of πt under the inverse deformation, i.e., πt = χ(π, t), meaning
that the two regions are related by the deformation map and consist of the same set of
material points; and
ρκ = JF ρ, (1.22)
where JF = |det F| , is the referential mass density. This is simply the familiar change-of-
variable formula from calculus. In this book we assume κ is occupiable, so that det F > 0,
but this is by no means essential.
The principle of conservation of mass is the assertion that the mass of a fixed set
of material points remains invariant in time. Therefore, the time derivative of M(πt )
vanishes. Because the domain π is fixed for the material points that occupy πt , we can
pass the derivative through the right-most integral—assuming sufficient regularity of the
integrand—to obtain
Z
ρ̇κ dV = 0, (1.23)
π
where the superposed dot is the material derivative, the partial time derivative holding p,
and hence x, fixed. Because π is an arbitrary subvolume of κ, assuming the integrand to
be continuous we can invoke the localization theorem—basically the mean-value theorem
for integrals—to conclude that the integrand vanishes pointwise, i.e., that ρ̇κ = 0 at
every x ∈ κ. In other words, the function ρκ (x, t) = det F(x, t)ρ(χ(x, t), t), expressed as
a function of x and t, is independent of t and hence a fixed function of x. This result
does not apply in the presence of diffusion, however. In this case our reasoning must
be adjusted to account for the flux of mass through the boundary ∂πt . See the book by
Gurtin et al.
The balance of linear momentum is the assertion that the net force acting on the
material occupying πt is balanced by the rate of change of its momentum. Thus,
Z Z Z
d
tda + ρbdv = dt ρvdv, (1.24)
∂πt πt πt
where t, the traction, is the areal density of contact force, b is the body force per unit mass,
and v = ẏ = ∂ χ(x, t) is the material velocity. To reduce the right-hand side we proceed
∂t
as in the reduction of the mass conservation principle. Thus, invoking conservation of
mass in the form ρ̇κ = 0, we have
Z Z Z Z
d d d
dt ρvdv = dt ρJF vdV = dt ρκ vdV = ρκ v̇dV
πt π π π
Z Z
= ρJF v̇dV = ρv̇ dv, (1.25)
π πt
which reduces (1.24) to

Z Z
tda + ρ(b − v̇)dv = 0. (1.26)
∂πt πt
Assuming the integrands to be bounded in magnitude, this may be used to establish
that t is a function of the tangent plane to ∂πt at the point y ∈ ∂πt ; equivalently, a function
of the unit normal n to ∂πt at y. See the important paper by Noll. For definiteness we
take this to be the exterior unit normal. With this result in hand we may proceed via
Cauchy’s theorem to show that the dependence is linear, and hence that there exists a
tensor field T(y, t), the Cauchy stress, such that
t = Tn. (1.27)
Substituting into (1.26) and invoking the divergence theorem, we obtain

Z
[divT + ρ(b − v̇)]dv = 0, (1.28)
πt
where divA is the vector field defined by
c · divA = div(At c), (1.29)
for any tensor field A(y, t) and any fixed vector c. Here divw is the scalar field
defined by
divw = tr(gradw), (1.30)
where tr is the trace and gradw, the gradient of a vector field w(y, t) with respect to y, is
the tensor field defined, as in (1.17), by
dw = (gradw)dy. (1.31)
Assuming the integrand in (1.28) to be a continuous function of y, we can localize

and arrive at Cauchy’s equation of motion,
divT + ρb = ρv̇, (1.32)
holding at each y ∈ κt . Generalizations to discontinuous fields will be considered in

Chapter 6.
The balance of moment of momentum is the assertion that
Z Z Z
y × tda + y × ρbdv = dt
d
y × ρvdv, (1.33)
∂πt πt πt
where y is the position field relative to a fixed origin. Invoking conservation of mass, the
traction formula (1.27), the linear momentum balance (1.32), and localizing as before,
10 Preliminaries
we arrive ultimately at the local algebraic restriction
T = Tt , (1.34)
again at every y ∈ κt . Equations (1.32) and (1.34) are often referred to as the spatial
equations of motion.
Problem 1.1 Prove (1.34) by carrying out the steps indicated.
Equivalent referential forms of the equations, due essentially to Piola, may be derived
with the aid of the Piola–Nanson formula
nda = F∗ νdA, (1.35)
connecting the oriented area measure nda on ∂πt to its counterpart νdA on ∂π. Here
F∗ = JF F−t (1.36)
is the cofactor of F. Thus, from (1.22), (1.26), and (1.27),
Z Z Z Z
ρκ (v̇ − b)dV = ρ(v̇ − b)dv = Tnda = PνdA, (1.37)
π πt ∂πt ∂π
where
P = TF∗ (1.38)
is the Piola stress. Clearly, this provides a measure of force per unit reference area,
whereas the Cauchy stress furnishes a resolution of the same force per unit area of sur-
face after deformation. Applying the divergence theorem again, this time in the reference
configuration, we have
Z
[DivP + ρκ (b − v̇)]dV = 0, (1.39)
π
where Div, the divergence with respect to x, is defined, with obvious adjustments, in the
same way that div was defined. Localizing as usual, we find that (1.39) is equivalent to
DivP + ρκ b = ρκ v̇, (1.40)
holding at each x ∈ κ, this formulation having the convenient feature that the function
ρκ (x) is known a priori, whereas the symmetry condition (1.34) is equivalent to
PFt = FPt . (1.41)
To express the latter condition in a more convenient form we introduce the Piola–
Kirchhoff stress S, defined by
P = FS. (1.42)
Then PFt = FSFt and the invertibility of F implies that (1.41) is equivalent to the
symmetry
S = St . (1.43)
Before concluding these preliminaries we pause to state the mechanical energy

balance,
P(π, t) = S(π, t) + dt K(π, t),

d
(1.44)
where
Z
K(π, t) = 1
2 ρκ v · vdV (1.45)
π
is the kinetic energy of the material occupying π,

Z
S(π, t) = P · ḞdV (1.46)
π
is the stress power, in which A · B = tr(ABt ) is the inner product of tensors A and B, and
Z Z
P(π, t) = p · vdA + ρκ b · vdV (1.47)
∂π π
is the power of the forces acting on the material in π, in which
p = Pν (1.48)
12 Preliminaries
is the Piola traction, related to the Cauchy traction t by

Z Z
pdA = tda. (1.49)
∂π ∂πt
The mechanical energy balance will play a central role in our development.
Problem 1.2 Derive (1.44) from the momentum balance (1.40). Hint: Dot multiply
(1.40) by the material velocity v. Show that v · DivP = Div(Pt v) − P · ∇v, where ∇
is the gradient with respect to x, and that ∇v = Ḟ. Integrate over π ⊂ κ and invoke
the divergence theorem.
With reference to the problem, note that if we dot multiply (1.40) by an arbitrary
vector field u instead of the material velocity v, we arrive at the integral statement
Z Z Z
p · udA + ρκ (b − v̇) · udV = P · ∇udV (1.50)
∂π π π
in place of (1.44). It is usual, though no doubt unwise from the pedagogical point of view,
to call u a virtual velocity field, or worse, a virtual displacement, to emphasize the fact
that it has nothing whatever to do with the actual material velocity. This is the weak form
of the equation of motion, so named because it requires a weaker degree of regularity
than the local, or strong, form.
Although we have obtained it as a necessary condition for (1.40), it is also sufficient.
To see this we simply start with (1.50), write P · ∇u = Div(Pt u) − u · DivP, and apply
the divergence theorem, reaching
Z Z
(p − Pν) · udA + {DivP + ρκ (b − v̇)} · udV = 0. (1.51)
∂π π
As u is arbitrary, we choose
u = f(x)2 {DivP + ρκ (b − v̇)}, (1.52)
where f(x) is any function that vanishes on ∂π, thereby reducing (1.51) to
Z
2
f 2 |DivP + ρκ (b − v̇)| dV = 0, (1.53)
π
and hence requiring that (1.40) hold locally in π, leaving

Z
(p − Pν) · udA = 0 (1.54)
∂π
References 13
as the remaining content of (1.51). Choosing u = p − PN on ∂π then yields

Z
2
|p − Pν| dA = 0, (1.55)
∂π
which in turn requires that (1.48) hold locally, at each point of ∂π.
More often this procedure is invoked with π replaced by κ. In this case position
y = χ(x, t) is typically assigned as a fixed function ϕ(x), say, on a part ∂κy of the bound-
ary ∂κ , implying that the actual velocity v vanishes there. We then stipulate that u should
also vanish on ∂κy , as a condition of a so-called kinematically admissible virtual velocity
field. The argument leading to (1.53), with π replaced by κ, remains valid, but in place
of (1.54) we now have
Z
(p − Pν) · udA = 0, (1.56)
∂κp
where ∂κp = ∂κ \ ∂κy . Choosing
u = g(x)2 (p − Pν), (1.57)
where g(x) is any function that vanishes on the curve(s) ∂(∂κp ) = ∂(∂κy ) in accordance
with kinematic admissibility, we then have
Z
2
g2 |p − Pν| dA = 0, (1.58)
∂κp
which requires that (1.48) hold pointwise on ∂κp .
References
Batchelor, G. K. (Ed.) (1958). The Scientific Papers of Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, Vol. 1: Mechanics
of Solids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Epstein, M., and El anowski, M (2007). Material Inhomogeneities and Their Evolution. Springer,
Berlin.
Fleming, W. (1977). Functions of Several Variables. Springer, Berlin.
Gurtin, M. E., Fried, E., and Anand, L. (2010). The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Continua.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Havner, K. S. (1992). Finite Plastic Deformation of Crystalline Solids. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Liu, I-Shih. (2002). Continuum Mechanics. Springer, Berlin.
Kovács, I., and Zsoldos, L. (1973). Dislocations and Plastic Deformation. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
14 Preliminaries
Maugin, G. A. (1992). The Thermomechanics of Plasticity and Fracture. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.
Noll, W. (1974). The foundations of classical mechanics in the light of recent advances in
continuum mechanics. Reprinted in Truesdell, C. (Ed.), The Foundations of Mechanics and
Thermodynamics, pp. 32–47 Springer, Berlin.
Teodosiu, C. (Ed) (1997). Large Plastic Deformation of Crystalline Aggregates. CISM Courses and
Lectures, No. 376. Springer, Vienna.
2
Brief resumé of nonlinear elasticity
theory
Familiarity with the basic elements of nonlinear elasticity theory is essential to a proper
understanding of virtually the entire range of topics comprising solid mechanics in gen-
eral, and plasticity theory in particular. Accordingly we devote the present chapter to
a brief survey of those aspects of nonlinear elasticity that will prove central to our later
work.
2.1 Stress and strain energy

Following Noll’s landmark 1958 paper, we define elasticity to mean that the value of the
Cauchy stress T(p, t) existing at the material point p ∈ B at time t is determined by the
present value of the deformation function χ(x′ , t) for x′ ∈ Nκ (x), an arbitrary, and hence
arbitrarily small, neighborhood of the place x occupied by p in reference configuration
κ. Our assumption of differentiability of the deformation—see (1.10)—implies that the
deformations influencing this stress are approximated by
χ(x′ , t) = χ(x, t) + F(x, t)(x′ − x) + o(|x′ − x|), (2.1)
and are therefore determined, at linear-order accuracy, by χ(x, t) and F(x, t).
The requirement of frame invariance satisfied by all sensible constitutive functions
implies that the constitutive equation giving the stress is, among other things, transla-
tion invariant in the sense that it remains invariant under constant time translations and
perturbations of the position y currently occupied by a material point. It is therefore not
explicitly dependent on t or χ(x, t). Accordingly, at leading order the stress is determined
by F(x, t). Termination at this order leads to Noll’s simple material model of elasticity,
according to which
T(p, t) = Tκ (F(x, t); x) (2.2)
for some constitutive function Tκ , the subscript identifying the reference configuration
relative to which the deformation gradient is computed. It is best to make this explicit to
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883155.003.0002
16 Brief resumé of nonlinear elasticity theory
avoid confusion when choosing alternative reference configurations, as we shall do later.

Of course it is possible to keep further terms in the expansion (2.1) and to contemplate
their influence on constitutive equations for so-called materials of higher grade. While
these are important and useful, they are of limited relevance to the current state of the
art in plasticity theory. Given the constitutive function Tκ for the Cauchy stress, that for
the Piola stress, for example, relative to the same reference configuration, follows easily
from (1.38):
P(p, t) = Pκ (F(x, t); x) = Tκ (F(x, t); x)F∗ (x, t). (2.3)
Frame invariance imposes further restrictions on these constitutive functions, but to

save time we defer these and proceed instead to a further specialization of the purely
mechanical theory. This is the so-called work inequality, which posits that it is necessary
to perform non-negative work on a sample of material to cause it to undergo a hypothet-
ical cyclic process; that is, a process in which the deformation and velocity fields at the
start and end of a process, occurring in a time interval [t1 , t2 ], coincide at every material
point, i.e.,
χ(x, t1 ) = χ(x, t2 ) and χ̇(x, t1 ) = χ̇(x, t2 ). (2.4)
Taking gradients, these imply that
F(x, t1 ) = F(x, t2 ) and Ḟ(x, t1 ) = Ḟ(x, t2 ). (2.5)
This assumption is related to the hypothesis known more popularly as the non-
existence of perpetual motion machines. However, given that all material points of the
sample are involved, the creation of a cyclic process is no small feat from the experimen-
tal point of view. Moreover, while this assumption has a thermodynamical flavor, it is
not in fact a consequence of any principle of thermodynamics. It is nevertheless realistic,
and in accord with everyday experience.
Proceeding, we impose the work inequality on an arbitrary subvolume π ⊂ κ, invoke
(1.44), and, noting that the kinetic energies at the start and end of the cycle coincide,
conclude that
Z t2
S(π, t)dt ≥ 0, (2.6)
t1
where S is the stress power defined in (1.46). Assuming the integrand therein to be
continuous in [t1 , t2 ] × π, Fubini’s theorem (see Fleming’s book) ensures that we can
interchange the order of integration, and hence that
Z Z t2
P · Ḟdt ≥ 0 for all π ⊂ κ. (2.7)
π t1
Stress and strain energy 17
Localizing as usual, we have

Z t2
P · Ḟdt ≥ 0, at each x ∈ κ, (2.8)
t1
and hence, in the case of elasticity,

I
Pκ (F) · dF ≥ 0, (2.9)
in which the integral is taken round a smooth curve in F-space, in accordance with the
definition of a cyclic process, and the parametric dependence on x, having no bear-
ing on the discussion, has been suppressed. By considering the reversal of this cyclic
process—itself cyclic—it is possible to show—see the books by Gurtin and Steigmann,
for example—that this statement is satisfied as an equality for all smooth closed curves.
This, in turn, is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a strain-energy function
Ψ(F; x), say, such that
P = ΨF , (2.10)
the gradient of Ψ with respect to F. Given the function Ψ, this gradient is easily computed
via the chain rule by writing dΨ as a linear form in dF and reading off the coefficient
tensor, i.e.,
dΨ = ΨF · dF. (2.11)
We thus have
Pκ (F; x) = ΨF (F; x), (2.12)
and hence the rather remarkable conclusion that the stress is determined by a single
scalar-valued function. We then refer, somewhat dramatically, to a hyperelastic material.
The strain-energy function has as arguments variables defined on κ, which should there-
fore be appended as a subscript. In an effort to minimize clutter we normally refrain from
doing this when the context is clear.
On combining (2.2), (2.3), and (2.10), the symmetry condition (1.34) satisfied by
the Cauchy stress may be expressed in terms of the strain-energy function as
(ΨF )Ft = F(ΨF )t , (2.13)
which in turn is equivalent to the statement
(ΨF )Ft · Ω = 0 (2.14)
for arbitrary skew Ω; that is, for all Ω such that Ωt = −Ω. The identity
AB · D = A · DBt (2.15)
allows us to rewrite this as
ΨF · ΩF = 0. (2.16)
Our intention is to characterize all functions Ψ that satisfy this requirement. If we

succeed, then we can replace the symmetry of the Cauchy stress once and for all by the
general form of Ψ to be derived. Before undertaking this task, however, a brief digression
is in order.
Consider the initial-value problem
Q̇ = ΩQ; Q(0) = i, (2.17)
where Q(u) is a one-parameter family of tensors, the superposed dot stands for the
derivative with respect to u, Ω is a fixed, but arbitrary, skew tensor, and i is the spa-
tial identity tensor. We want to show that Q(u) is a rotation tensor for all values of the
parameter u.
To this end we define
Z(u) = Q(u)Q(u)t , (2.18)
and find, with (2.17), that this satisfies the initial-value problem
Ż = ΩZ − ZΩ; Z(0) = i. (2.19)
Clearly Z(u) = i is a solution, and the uniqueness theorem for solutions to ordinary
differential equations implies that there is no other. Thus, Q(u) is orthogonal and hence
invertible. To establish that it is a rotation, we need to show that its determinant equals
unity. This follows from the the fact that the cofactor of a tensor is the derivative of its
determinant, i.e.,
J̇Q = Q∗ · Q̇ = JQ Q−t · Q̇ = JQ tr(Q̇Q−1 ) = JQ trΩ, (2.20)
which vanishes because Ω is skew, implying that JQ(u) = JQ(0) = 1, as claimed.

Returning to the task at hand, consider the one-parameter family
F(u) = Q(u)F0 ; F0 = F(0), (2.21)
with Q(u) as in the foregoing. Because this pertains to a single (but arbitrary) material
point, the fact that F is the gradient of a deformation does not impose any restriction on
its values beyond JF0 > 0, assuming the reference configuration to be occupiable. We
then have
Ḟ = Q̇F0 = Q̇Qt F = ΩF. (2.22)

Stress and strain energy 19
Accordingly, for this choice (2.16) reduces to
0 = ΨF · Ḟ = Ψ̇, (2.23)
or simply that Ψ(F(u)) = Ψ(F0 ), where we have again suppressed the passive argument
x. Dropping the subscript and reinstating this argument, we conclude that the symmetry
of the Cauchy stress implies the invariance of the energy under superposed rotations,
i.e.,
Ψ(QF; x) = Ψ(F; x) (2.24)
for any rotation Q. For Q spatially uniform, this is precisely the condition of frame invari-
ance of the energy, which implies that it is insensitive to arbitrary rigid-body motions
χ(x, t) → Q(t)χ(x, t) + c(t) (2.25)
superposed on the deformation χ(x, t), where c is an arbitrary vector. See the treatment
of frame invariance in the important paper by Murdoch and its adaptation to elasticity
in the book by Steigmann.
We have shown that (2.24) is necessary for (1.34). It is also sufficient. To demonstrate
this, recall the definition (1.19) of the Cauchy–Green deformation tensor. Consider two
−1
deformation gradients F and F̃ and let Q̃ = F̃F . Let C and C̃ respectively be the
Cauchy–Green tensors formed from F and F̃.
t
Problem 2.1 If C̃ = C, show that Q̃ Q̃ = i, so that Q̃ is orthogonal. Conversely, show
that if Q̃ is orthogonal, then C̃ = C.
Suppose that Ψ(F̃; x) = Ψ(F; x) whenever F̃ = Q̃F, with Q̃ a rotation and hence
orthogonal. This is simply a restatement of (2.24). Then, from the problem, it follows
that Ψ(F̃; x) = Ψ(F; x) whenever C̃ = C. This means that Ψ depends on F through the
induced Cauchy–Green tensor, and hence that
Ψ(F; x) = Ψ̂(C; x) (2.26)
for some function Ψ̂. Equivalently,
Ψ(F; x) = U(E; x), (2.27)
where, from (1.20), U(E; x) = Ψ̂(2E + I; x).

Problem 2.2 We have shown that (2.24) implies (2.26). Show that (2.26) implies
(2.24), and hence that the two statements are equivalent.
Consider a one-parameter F(u) of deformation gradients. This induces a one-

parameter family of strains, given by
E(u) = 21 [F(u)t F(u) − I]. (2.28)
Substituting these into (2.27) and differentiating, we have
ΨF · Ḟ = UE · Ė, (2.29)
where UE is the gradient of the function U(·; x), and

t
Ė = 12 (Ḟ F + Ft Ḟ) = Sym(Ft Ḟ), (2.30)
in which Sym(·) is the symmetric part of its tensor argument. Because UE occurs in
an inner product with a symmetric tensor, and because the set of symmetric tensors
constitutes a linear space (i.e., a 6-dimensional vector space), we may assume, without
loss of generality, that UE is a symmetric tensor. For, the skew part, if non-zero, would
be annihilated by the inner product. We thus have
ΨF · Ḟ = UE · Sym(Ft Ḟ) = UE · Ft Ḟ = F(UE ) · Ḟ, (2.31)
after making use of the identity A · BD = Bt A · D.
Problem 2.3 Prove this identity and the identity (2.15).
We thus conclude that
ΨF = F(UE ). (2.32)
Because the left-hand side is just the Piola stress, and in view of the definition (1.42), it
follows that the Piola–Kirchhoff stress is given by
S = UE . (2.33)
This is automatically symmetric, of course, and (1.38) then implies that the Cauchy
stress is too. This concludes our proof that (2.24) is sufficient for the symmetry of the
Cauchy stress. With the previous proof of necessity, and the fact that (2.24) is necessary
and sufficient for (2.27), we conclude that (2.27) is equivalent to the symmetry of the
Cauchy stress for elastic materials that satisfy the work inequality.
Conservative problems and potential energy 21
Problem 2.4 Show that Pκ (QF; x) = QPκ (F; x) and Tκ (QF; x) = QTκ (F; x)Qt .
2.2 Conservative problems and potential energy

Hyperelasticity affords a rich framework for the analysis of motion, which will be familiar
to those versed in analytical dynamics. From (1.46) and (2.10), it yields the stress power
in π as a time derivative,
S(π, t) = dt U(π, t),

d
(2.34)
where
Z
U(π, t) = ΨdV (2.35)
π
is the total strain energy in π. We may write this alternatively as
Z
U= ψdv, (2.36)
πt
where ψ(F; x), given by
Ψ = JF ψ, (2.37)
is the strain energy per unit current volume.

If the forces acting on the material in κ are such that the power they generate is
derivable from a load potential L, i.e., if there exists L(κ, t) such that
P(κ, t) = dt L(κ, t),

d
(2.38)
then the mechanical energy balance (1.44), applied with π = κ, becomes

d
dt E(κ, t) = 0, (2.39)
where
E(κ, t) = K(κ, t) + E[χ], (2.40)
in which
E = U(κ, t) − L(κ, t) (2.41)
is the total mechanical energy. Here E is the total potential energy of the configuration
χ(κ, t), i.e., the energy of elasticity and the forces together. Thus, the total energy is
conserved, and such loads are said to be conservative. Of course elasticity theory, and
hyperelasticity in particular, is perfectly sensible for non-conservative loads too, but these
do not give rise to any conservation law of this kind. Nor, in fact, does the response of
any real material, even if the loading can be associated with a load potential. In reality,
(2.39) is replaced by the inequality
d
dt E(κ, t) ≤ 0, (2.42)
due to effects such as heat conduction, viscosity, friction, and indeed plasticity, as we
shall see later, that dissipate energy and which are not taken into account in pure elasticity
theory.
Nevertheless, the notion of energy is extremely useful if interpreted appropriately.
For example, consider a motion χ(x, t) and an instant t 0 such that
χ(x, t0 ) = χ0 (x) and χ̇(x, t)|t0 = 0. (2.43)
Suppose the motion to be such that
lim χ(x, t) = χ∞ (x) and lim χ̇(x, t) = 0. (2.44)

t→∞ t→∞
This limiting state, if it exists, is said to be asymptotically stable relative to the state existing
at time t0 . It then follows from (2.40) and (2.42) that asymptotically stable deformations
minimize the potential energy, i.e.,
E[χ∞ ] ≤ E[χ0 ]. (2.45)
Thus, the problem of finding stable deformations is reduced to the problem of minimiz-
ing the potential energy, presuming, of course, that such an energy exists, i.e., that the
material is hyperelastic and the loading is conservative.
Problem 2.5 (a) Consider the case of dead loading in which the Piola traction and body
force are assigned as fixed functions of x, independent of time, on ∂κp = ∂κ \ ∂κy
and in κ, respectively. Show that this loading is conservative, and that the potential
energy is
Z Z
E[χ] = (Ψ − ρκ b · χ)dV − p · χdA,
κ ∂κp
apart from a constant. The constant, which has not been made explicit, is
unimportant. Why is that?
(b) State conditions under which a pressure load t = −pn is conservative, where
t is the Cauchy traction, p is the pressure, and n is the exterior unit normal to the
boundary ∂κt . Obtain expressions for the associated load potentials.
Conservative problems and potential energy 23
Problem 2.6 Consider a viscoelastic material model in which the Piola stress is
given by
P = ΨF + μFĖ,
where μ is the viscosity of the material and Ė is the material derivative of the
Lagrange strain. This model is too simple to furnish a quantitative description of the
actual viscoelastic response of most materials but nevertheless exhibits the correct
qualitative behavior.
Define the dissipation D as the difference between the power of the applied loads
and the rate of change of the sum of the strain and kinetic energies, i.e.,
D = P− dtd (U + K).
Thus, from (1.44) and (2.34), D vanishes in the case of purely elastic response
(μ = 0).
(a) Show that D ≥ 0 if the viscosity is positive and that D then vanishes if and
only if Ė = 0 at all material points.
(b) In the case of conservative loading show that the total energy is dissipated,
i.e.,
d
dt E ≤ 0,
if the viscosity is positive.
Let χ(x; u) be a one-parameter family of deformations, and denote χ(x; 0) simply by

χ(x). We define kinematic admissibility of this family to mean that χ(x; u) is as smooth
as required by the analysis to follow and that it equals the fixed, u-independent function
ϕ(x), say, on ∂κy . We are interested in characterizing energy-minimizing deformations
χ(x) ; namely, those functions such that
E[χ(x)] ≤ E[χ(x; u)]. (2.46)
To this end we define
f(u) = E[χ(x; u)]. (2.47)
Then, for (2.46) it is necessary that
f˙ = 0 and f¨≥ 0, (2.48)
where
f˙= f ′ (u)|u=0 and f¨= f ′′ (u)|u=0 (2.49)
are the first and second variations of the potential energy, respectively.
In the case of dead loading, for example,

Z Z
f(u) = {Ψ(F(x; u); x) − ρκ b · χ(x; u)}dV − p · χ(x; u)dA, (2.50)
κ ∂κp
where F(x; u) = ∇χ(x; u), and the first and second variations are
Z Z
f˙= (P · ∇u − ρκ b · u)dV − p · udA (2.51)
κ ∂κp
and
Z
f¨ = M[∇u] · ∇udV
κ
Z Z
+ (P · ∇v − ρκ b · v)dV − p · vdA, (2.52)
κ ∂κp
respectively, where
2
u(x) = ∂ χ(x; u)|u = 0 and v(x) = ∂ 2 χ(x; u)|u = 0 (2.53)
∂u ∂u
are the virtual velocity and acceleration. These vanish identically on ∂κy . Further,
P = ΨF (∇χ(x); x) (2.54)
is the Piola stress associated with the minimizing deformation χ(x), and
M = ΨFF (∇χ(x); x) (2.55)
is the fourth-order tensor representing the second derivative of the strain-energy func-
tion, again evaluated at the minimizing deformation. This presumes, of course, that the
strain energy is twice differentiable with respect to the deformation gradient, this in turn
implying the major symmetry condition
M = Mt , (2.56)
where the transpose Mt is defined by
A · Mt [B] = B · M[A] (2.57)
for all second-order tensors A, B ; and, here and in (2.52), the square bracket notation
is used to denote the second-order tensor resulting from the linear action of a fourth-
order tensor on a second-order tensor. In terms of Cartesian components, for example,
(M[A])ij = Mijkl Akl , in which a double sum on k and l from one to three is implied.
The Legendre–Hadamard inequality 25
Recalling that u vanishes on ∂κp , we use the divergence theorem in (2.51) to reduce
(2.48)1 , with (2.51), to
Z Z
(Pν − p) · udA − (DivP + ρκ b) · udV = 0, (2.58)
∂κp κ
and proceed as in Chapter 1 to conclude that
DivP + ρκ b = 0 in κ, and p = Pν on ∂κp , (2.59)
and hence that energy minimizers are equilibrium deformations. Further, as u is an arbi-
trary vector field that vanishes on ∂κy , and as v is such a field, the second line in (2.52)
vanishes by (2.58), and (2.48)2 reduces to
Z
M(F(x); x)[∇u] · ∇udV ≥ 0, (2.60)
κ
for all such u.
2.3 The Legendre–Hadamard inequality

We proceed to show that the deformation χ(x), with gradient F(x) = ∇χ, must then be
such that the Legendre–Hadamard inequality
a ⊗ n · M(F; x)[a ⊗ n] ≥ 0 (2.61)
is satisfied at every point x ∈ κ and for all vectors a and n.
Proof. Consider
u(x) = ϵξ(w) with w = ϵ−1 (x − x0 ), (2.62)
where x0 is an interior point of κ, ϵ is a positive constant, and ξ is compactly sup-

ported in a region D, the image of a strictly interior neighborhood κ′ ⊂ κ of x0
under the map w(·). Accordingly, u vanishes on all of ∂κ, and on ∂κy in particular,
and is therefore admissible. For this choice (2.60) reduces, after dividing by ϵ3 and
passing to the limit ϵ → 0, to
Z
∇ξ · A[∇ξ]dV ≥ 0, (2.63)
D
where A = M|x0 = At . Here and henceforth ∇ is the gradient with respect to w.

We extend ξ to complex-valued vector fields as
ξ = ξ1 + iξ2 , (2.64)
where ξ1,2 (w) are real-valued, and use these to derive
∇ξ · A[∇ξ̄] = ∇ξ1 · A[∇ξ1 ] + ∇ξ2 · A[∇ξ2 ] + i(. . .), (2.65)
in which an overbar denotes complex conjugate.
Problem 2.7 Fill in the steps leading from (2.62) to (2.63). Show that the imaginary
part (. . .) in (2.65) vanishes.
Thus, if (2.63) holds for real-valued ξ, then

Z
∇ξ · A[∇ξ̄]dV ≥ 0 (2.66)
D
for complex-valued ξ.
Consider
ξ(w) = a exp(ikn · w)f(w), (2.67)
where a and n are real fixed vectors, k is a non-zero real number, and f is a real-
valued differentiable function compactly supported in D. This yields
∇ξ = exp(ikn · w)(ikfa ⊗ n + a ⊗ ∇f). (2.68)
Substitution into (2.66) and division by k2 results in

Z Z
0 ≤ a ⊗ n · A[a ⊗ n] f 2 dV + k−2 a ⊗ ∇f · A[a ⊗ ∇f]dV. (2.69)
D D
Finally, in the limit k → ∞ we obtain
a ⊗ n · A[a ⊗ n] ≥ 0, (2.70)
which is just (2.61) on account of the arbitrariness of x0 . We have thus shown that
(2.61) is necessary for (2.60). The converse is not true, however, except in special cir-
cumstances. Our proof of the Legendre–Hadamard inequality is patterned after that
found in the book by Giaquinta and Hildebrandt, which contains a wealth of valuable
information about the calculus of variations.
Thus, if χ(x) is an energy minimizer, then it necessarily satisfies (2.61), at every point
x ∈ κ. If there is any point where (2.61) is violated, for some a ⊗ n, then χ(x) is not an
energy minimizer and is therefore unstable. Accordingly, there is considerable interest
among elasticians in establishing conditions on the function Ψ which are such as to
ensure that (2.61) is satisfied. See the books by Antman, Ciarlet, and Steigmann for
discussions of those that have been proposed and studied. For our purposes, however,
simpler restrictions will prove to be more relevant.
The Legendre–Hadamard inequality 27
Consider the relation (1.42) between the Piola and Piola–Kirchhoff stresses. For
hyperelastic materials this is equivalent to (2.32). We evaluate this on the one-parameter
family χ(x; u) and differentiate, obtaining
ΨFF [Ḟ] = ḞS + FUEE [Ė], (2.71)
where Ė is given by (2.30). Here UEE is the fourth-order tensor representing the second
derivative of U with respect to the strain E. This possesses major symmetry, as in (2.56).
However, because E is symmetric, it also possesses the additional minor symmetries
A · UEE [B] = At · UEE [B] = A · UEE [Bt ]. (2.72)
Accordingly,
UEE [Ė] = UEE [Sym(Ft Ḟ)] = UEE [Ft Ḟ]; (2.73)
that is, the skew part of Ft Ḟ is annihilated when operated on by UEE . Because Ḟ is
arbitrary, we may then use (2.71), with (2.55), to conclude that
M[A] = AS + FUEE [Ft A], for all A. (2.74)
Then,
M[a ⊗ n] = a ⊗ Sn + FUEE [Ft a ⊗ n], (2.75)
and the Legendre–Hadamard inequality (2.61) reduces, with the aid of an identity
proved in Problem 2.3, to
2
|a| n · Sn + Ft a ⊗ n · UEE [Ft a ⊗ n] ≥ 0. (2.76)
Suppose the reference configuration itself to be both stable and stress free. We will
see later that plasticity generally precludes the latter possibility, but it is nevertheless a
basic premise of essentially all work on the subject of linear elasticity in which plasticity
plays no role. In this case the classical elastic modulus tensor,
C(x) = UEE|E=0 , (2.77)
is such that
b ⊗ n · C[b ⊗ n] ≥ 0, (2.78)
where a = 1b in which 1 is the so-called shifter. This is like the identity, but not quite.
Instead of mapping vectors in T κ or Tκt to themselves, it simply converts vectors in the
former into vectors in the latter. That is, it converts vectors belonging to T κ into vectors
belonging to Tκt , without otherwise altering them. Accordingly, F(x, t) = 1 when the
body is undeformed, i.e., when κt momentarily coincides with κ. Because C = I in this
case, it follows that 1t 1 = I, and hence that 1 is orthogonal. In fact, it is a rotation, since
it is a possible value of F; accordingly, it has a positive determinant, assuming, as we
do, that κ is occupiable. Moreover, because F is the gradient of a field defined over the
body, the rotation 1 is necessarily uniformly distributed and thus independent of x. See
the elegant proof given in Gurtin’s book.
The notion of shifter was once more widely embraced but has since fallen out of favor.
This has had the unfortunate and unintended consequence that fundamental deficiencies
have been mistakenly attributed to linear elasticity theory, most notably the allegation that
it fails to satisfy the requirement of frame invariance. This incorrect view can be traced
to a misinterpretation of the shifter as a conventional identity. One wonders how teachers
of the subject could sleep at night, with the unquestioned success of linear elasticity as a
predictive theory on the one hand, and its supposed failure to be frame invariant—and
thus wrong—on the other. Unfortunately, typical pedagogical practice is to sweep this
puzzle under the rug by simply omitting any mention of it.
We shall have occasion to make use of the shifter concept in due course. In the mean-
time, the interested reader may find excellent treatments of it in the article by Ericksen,
published as an appendix to the authoritative treatise by Truesdell and Toupin, and in
the book by Marsden and Hughes.
Returning to the matter at hand, it is conventional, and also realistic for essentially all
solids of interest, to ensure that (2.78) is satisfied by requiring C to be such that
A · C[A] > 0 for all non-zero symmetric A (2.79)
that map T κ to itself. This implies that A · C[A] ≥ 0 for all A, symmetric or not (why?),
and this in turn guarantees that (2.60) is satisfied when the body is undeformed, i.e.,
Z Z
∇u · M(1; x)[∇u]dV = 1t ∇u · C(x)[1t ∇u]dV ≥ 0. (2.80)
κ κ
If |E| is small, and if the stress vanishes when E vanishes, then the Piola–Kirchhoff
stress is given to leading order by the classical linear stress–strain relation
S = C[E]. (2.81)
Inequality (2.79) is the statement that C is positive definite, and hence invertible, on the
linear space of symmetric tensors. Then (2.81) is invertible, i.e.,
E = L[S], (2.82)
where L = C −1 , not to be confused with the load potential, is the fourth-order elastic
compliance tensor. This possesses major symmetry and the two minor symmetries and is
also positive definite on the space of symmetric tensors.
Problem 2.8 Prove these statements.

Material symmetry 29
2.4 Material symmetry

The concept of material symmetry plays a crucial role in elasticity theory and, as we
shall see later, in plasticity theory too. This has to do with the idea that there may be
certain non-trivial transformations of a neighborhood Nκ (p) of a material point p that
are undetectable by experiment. These are called material symmetry transformations.
They are of fundamental importance to an understanding of material response.
To set the stage for this discussion, consider a change of reference configuration.
Instead of using κ as reference, let us use the fixed configuration μ, say. As usual the
position of a material point p in κ is denoted by x; let u be its position in μ. We suppose,
as usual, that both configurations stand in one-to-one correspondence with the body B,
and hence that they are in such correspondence with each other as well. Thus, there
exists an invertible map λ, say, such that
u = λ(x), (2.83)
which, if smooth, has an invertible gradient
R = ∇λ. (2.84)
To avoid ambiguity we must reinstate subscripts on constitutive functions that involve

the deformation gradient, as these are computed on the basis of a specified reference
configuration. Thus, for example, the constitutive function giving the value of the strain
energy per unit volume of κt , based on κ as reference, is ψκ (Fκ ; x), while that giving
the same value, but based on μ, is ψμ (Fμ ; u). The actual configuration κt has not been
affected. Thus,
Fκ dx = dy = Fμ du = Fμ Rdx, (2.85)
and therefore
Fκ = Fμ R. (2.86)
The energy content has not been affected either. Accordingly,
ψκ (Fκ ; x) = ψμ (Fμ ; u), (2.87)
where
ψμ (Fμ ; u) = ψκ (Fμ R(λ−1 (u)); λ−1 (u)). (2.88)
This indicates how the constitutive function changes when we choose a different refer-
ence configuration. Note that the definition of a hyperelastic material, while involving
a reference configuration, is independent of the particular reference configuration
adopted.
Having deduced the formula for the change of constitutive function attending a
change of reference, consider next a local change of reference in which an open neigh-
borhood Nκ (p) is transformed into another open neighborhood Nμ (p) without affecting
the remainder of the body. We can think of surgically removing Nκ (p), transforming it
to Nμ (p), and reinserting it in the body. Taking these neighborhoods to be open means
we don’t need to worry about what happens at their boundaries in this thought experi-
ment, as there are none. Again let λ be the smooth invertible map from the former to the
latter; that is, the position u of a material point in Nμ (p) is given by (2.83), where x is
the position of the same point in Nκ (p). We arrange λ such that it preserves the location
of p, so that if x0 is the position of p in Nκ (p), then it is also its position in Nμ (p), i.e.,
x0 = λ(x0 ). Then (2.87), evaluated at p, yields
ψκ (Fκ ; x0 ) = ψμ (Fμ ; x0 ), where Fκ = Fμ R0 with R0 = ∇λ|x0 . (2.89)
We say that λ generates a symmetry transformation at the point p if it is such that

the mechanical responses of Nμ (p) and Nκ (p) to a given deformation coincide at p;
that is, if
ψκ (F; x0 ) = ψμ (F; x0 ) (2.90)
for any possible deformation gradient F. This means that if Nκ (p) is occupiable, and
hence if JF > 0, then we should arrange λ such that Nμ (p) is too; that is, such that
JR > 0. The italics are used here to emphasize the fact that this discussion pertains to a
single point p. Combining (2.89) and (2.90), we arrive at the restriction
ψκ (F; x) = ψκ (FR; x) (2.91)
on the single function ψκ , in which the subscript 0 has been dropped to emphasize the
fact that p, though fixed, is an arbitrary point of the body.
Let gκ(p) be the set of tensors such that (2.91) is satisfied:
gκ(p) = {R(x) | ψκ (F; x) = ψκ (FR(x); x)}. (2.92)
This set again pertains to the particular point p. Accordingly, the notion of material
symmetry is local in the sense that the set of R’s satisfying (2.91), for a given F, generally
varies from one material point to another. For this reason it is necessary to identify the
material point p to which this set pertains.
Before proceeding we address a subtle point that often leads to confusion. In (2.92)
R(x) need not be a gradient field; that is, it should not be interpreted as the gradient
of a single map defined over the entire body. This is because the map λ used in the
definition of material symmetry has been defined on a neighborhood of p. The maps
themselves may vary from one neighborhood to another and hence from one material
point to another. In this way we allow symmetry groups at different material points to
be unrelated, and thus accommodate non-uniform composites, for example, in which
Material symmetry 31
the materials constituting a body may have entirely different properties. As we shall see,
this issue has major consequences for plasticity theory in particular.
It is easy to show that the set defined by (2.92) is a group (see Steigmann, for example).
This means, among other things, that the product of two members of gκ(p) is also a
member. It then follows that Rn is a member for any positive integer n, i.e., ψκ (F; x) =
ψκ (FRn ; x). Noting that det(FRn ) = JF det(Rn ) = JF JnR , we conclude that the energy
remains unaffected by unbounded dilation (JR > 1 and n → ∞) or compaction (JR < 1
and n → ∞). This plainly nonsensical conclusion can only be avoided by imposing
JR = 1. We thus require that gκ(p) be contained in the unimodular group u, i.e.,
gκ(p) ⊂ u = {R | JR = 1}. (2.93)
Following Noll, we define our elastic material point p to be a solid point if there exists
a local configuration κ∗ (p) ; that is, a neighborhood of p, such that
gκ∗ (p) ⊂ Orth+ , (2.94)
the group of proper-orthogonal tensors, or rotations, defined by
Orth+ = {R ∈ u | Rt R = I}. (2.95)
Note that κ∗ (p) need have no relation to the reference configuration κ used for the pur-
poses of analysis. Rather, the definition is motivated by the fact that, in the case of
crystalline solids, for example, there exists an undistorted configuration of the crystal
which is such that a unit cell of the lattice is mapped to itself by certain rotations char-
acterizing its symmetry. In the general case the same definition may be motivated by
the observation that a change of shape, i.e., a strain induced by the map λ, is mechan-
ically detectable in solids, whereas symmetry transformations should be undetectable.
Accordingly, the Cauchy–Green deformation tensor induced by λ, namely Rt R, should
be fixed at the value I. Isotropic solids are those for which there exists κ∗ (p) such that
gκ∗ (p) = Orth+ , meaning that the constitutive function relative to κ∗ (p) is insensitive to
any rotation preceding the application of the deformation.
It stands to reason that the symmetry group relative to a distorted configuration does
not generally belong to Orth+ . A simple illustration is afforded by the unit cell of a cubic
crystal. The cell is in the shape of a cube when the lattice is undistorted, and is then
mapped to itself by certain discrete rotations that do not affect its mechanical response.
This is no longer the case if the lattice is first sheared, for example. Rather, the symmetry
group relative to the sheared configuration is given by Noll’s rule.
To derive this rule consider two references κ1 and κ2 , and let π be a smooth invertible
map, with gradient K, from the first to the second. We regard these references as local
neighborhoods of the material point p in two fixed global configurations. Let p have
position x1 in κ1 and x2 in κ2 , so that x2 = π(x1 ). Then from the change-of-reference
formula (2.87) we have ψκ2 (F; x2 ) = ψκ1 (FK(x1 ); x1 ); equivalently,
ψκ1 (F;π−1 (x2 )) = ψκ2 (FK−1 ; x2 ). (2.96)
Suppose that R ∈ gκ1 (p) , i.e.,
ψκ1 (F;π−1 (x2 )) = ψκ1 (FR;π−1 (x2 )), (2.97)
where, from (2.96), ψκ1 (FR;π−1 (x2 )) = ψκ2 (FRK−1 ; x2 ). Then (2.96) and (2.97)
combine to yield
ψκ2 (FRK−1 ; x2 ) = ψκ1 (F;π−1 (x2 )) = ψκ2 (FK−1 ; x2 ), (2.98)
which is the same as
ψκ2 (F̂; x2 ) = ψκ2 (F̂KRK−1 ; x2 ), where F̂ = FK−1 . (2.99)
We thus arrive at Noll’s rule:
gκ2 (p) = {KRK−1 | R ∈ gκ1 (p) }. (2.100)
Note once again that this discussion pertains to a single point p. This means that
K is not a gradient field, but is instead specific to p. Again this is because the map π
underpinning this discussion is defined on a neighborhood of p, and the maps themselves
may thus vary from one material point to another, each with its own neighborhood. In
other words, (2.100) is meaningful whether or not a single global map π exists for the
entire body such that K = ∇π|x1 . Note also that gκ2 (p) ⊂ u, but if gκ1 (p) is contained in
Orth+ then gκ2 (p) is not, unless K is suitably restricted.
Problem 2.9 Suppose an elastic material is isotropic, at a particular material point

p, relative to reference configuration κ1 . Thus, gκ1 (p) = Orth+ . Consider a map
from configuration κ1 to another configuration κ2 given by π(x) = λk(k · x) +
λ−1/2 [x − k(k · x)] for all x ∈ κ1 , where λ is a positive constant and k is a constant
unit vector.
(a) Consider a rotation R ∈ gκ1 (p) . What is the corresponding element of gκ2 (p) ? Is
the material isotropic relative to configuration κ2 ?
(b) Suppose the material is transversely isotropic relative to κ1 , i.e., gκ1 (p) = {R ∈
Orth+ and Re = e} for some unit vector e. The response of the material is then
insensitive to all rotations about the axis e. Show that the material is also trans-
versely isotropic relative to κ2 if e = k. (Hint: Use the Rodrigues representation
formula for rotations, discussed, for example, in the book by Chadwick.)
References 33
References
Antman, S. S. (2005). Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity. Springer, Berlin.
Ciarlet, P .G. (1988). Mathematical Elasticity, Vol 1: Three Dimensional Elasticity. North-Holland,
Amsterdam.
Ericksen, J. L. (1960). Tensor fields, appendix to: Truesdell, C., and Toupin, R. A., The classical
field theories, in Flügge, S. (Ed.), Handbuch der Physik, Vol. III/1, pp. 794–858. Springer,
Berlin.
Fleming, W. (1977). Functions of Several Variables. Springer, Berlin.
Giaquinta, M., and Hildebrandt, S. (2004). Calculus of Variations I. Springer, Berlin.
Marsden, J. E., and Hughes, T. J. R. (1994). Mathematical Foundations of Elasticity. Dover, New
York.
Murdoch. A. I. (2003). Objectivity in classical continuum physics: A rationale for discarding the
“principle of invariance under superposed rigid-body motions” in favor of purely objective
considerations. Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 15, 309–20.
Noll, W. (1958). A mathematical theory of the mechanical behavior of continuous media. Arch.
Ration. Mech. Anal. 2, 197–226.
3
A primer on tensor analysis in
three-dimensional space
Certain concepts that we will encounter in our study of the kinematics of elastic–plastic
deformation, such as the notion of a dislocation density, may be framed in terms of
differential geometry, a proper understanding of which requires a facility with tensor
analysis. The geometric interpretations we will encounter are profound and beautiful,
and promote an understanding of our subject from a perspective that unifies it with other
branches of the physical sciences. To prepare for this, we devote the present chapter to
a survey of tensor analysis and differential geometry in three-dimensional space. We
emphasize the Euclidean space of our common experience; on the one hand, to develop
intuition, and on the other, because this affords a relatively easy segue to concepts from
non-Euclidean geometry that are of immediate relevance to the phenomena with which
we are concerned.
Most of this chapter is normally part and parcel of the background acquired by the
beginning graduate student. Indeed the literature on this subject is vast, and shows no
sign of abating. Accordingly, we will be brief. Thorough discussions of any concept
encountered here that may be unfamiliar may be found in the excellent texts by Sokol-
nikoff, Lichnerowicz, Green and Zerna, Flügge, and Simmonds, among many others. A
lucid account of advanced topics pertaining to affine geometry, including those geome-
tries of relevance here, may be found in the books by Schouten, Lovelock and Rund,
and Szerkeres, the last of these coming from a more modern perspective.
3.1 Coordinates, bases, vectors, and metrics

As a practical matter, we may think of Euclidean 3-space as consisting of positions y,
say, measured from a specified origin, that locate the points of the space. Each point is
i
identified by a triplet {ξ }; i = 1, 2, 3. The elements of the triplet are the coordinates of
the point, and the position, varying as it does from one point to another, is accordingly
i
a function of the coordinates; we write y(ξ ), the intended meaning being that y is a
function of all three coordinates. We shall assume this position field to be as smooth as
required by the ensuing development.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192883155.003.0003
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Thicker than
water
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Thicker than water

a story of Hashknife Hartley
Author: W. C. Tuttle
Release date: December 28, 2023 [eBook #72528]

Most recently updated: January 17, 2024
Language: English
Original publication: Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company,

1927
Credits: Roger Frank and Sue Clark
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THICKER

THAN WATER ***
THICKER THAN WATER
W. C. TUTTLE
THICKER THAN WATER
A Story of Hashknife Hartley
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

Boston and New York
COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY THE BUTTERICK PUBLISHING COMPANY
COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY WILBUR C. TUTTLE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The Riverside Press

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
CONTENTS
I. The Ace of Spades
II. The Eagle Saloon
III. Lila’s Departure
IV. Chuckwalla Makes a Mistake
V. Father and Son
VI. Lila
VII. Rance Wins Out
VIII. The Overland Makes an Unexpected Stop
IX. At the Circle Spade
X. Scotty Gets an Earful of Dirt
XI. A Horse Trade
XII. The Half-Box R
XIII. Two Suspects
XIV. Rance’s Confession
XV. Escape
XVI. Lost—a Hat
XVII. Kid Glover
XVIII. Hashknife at Work
XIX. Part of the Truth
XX. Fire
XXI. The Finish at the JML
XXII. The Trail Again
THICKER THAN WATER

CHAPTER I—THE ACE OF SPADES
The two men faced each other across the little table in the living-
room of the Circle Spade ranch-house, in the light of a single oil
lamp. The younger of the two men was Jack McCoy, known as
“Angel,” while the other was Rance McCoy, his father, and owner of
the Circle Spade ranch.
Angel McCoy was rather tall, well muscled, with features as clean-
cut as a cameo. His skin was almost as white as milk, his hair as
black as jet, and he wore it long in front of his ears—a swinging curl
of inky-black against his white cheek. His eyes were brown, shaded
by sharpcut brows. There was no denying the fact that he was
handsome.
Just now he wore a white silk shirt, with a red handkerchief
knotted around his throat, black trousers tucked into the tops of a
pair of fancy, high-heeled boots—and about him was an odor of
perfume.
Rance McCoy’s appearance had nothing in common with his
son’s. He was about fifty years of age, grizzled, hard-faced, with a
skin the color of jerked venison. His eyes were gray, and there were
scars on his face, which showed lighter than the rest of his skin;
scars of many battles. Rance McCoy had been a fighter in his time.
There were other scars, which did not show, where hot lead had
scored him time and again.
He was tough, was Rance McCoy; an old gunman, afraid of
nothing—not even of his handsome son.
“Well, all I can say is that you’ve got some damned queer ideas,”
said Angel slowly.
“Mebby I have,” said the old man.
“No maybe about it,” said Angel sneeringly. “Lila is of age and I’m
of age. If I want to marry her, it’s none of yore business.”
“You think not? Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I’ve told
yuh about me, Angel.”
“Yeah, and I don’t think much of yuh.”
Angel got to his feet and stood there, looking down at his father.
“I knew all along that Lila wasn’t my sister,” he said slowly.
The old man lifted a hand to fend the light from his eyes, as he
looked up at his son.
“Billy DuMond told yuh, Angel?”
“Ten years ago. He said you killed her father and then adopted
her.”
“That drunken thief!” muttered the old man.
“Who—Lila’s father?”
“No—Billy DuMond.”
“I don’t know anythin’ about that part of it,” said Angel. “He merely
told me that she wasn’t my sister. You don’t deny that, do yuh?”
“No, I don’t deny it.”
Angel slowly rolled a cigarette, watching the old man’s face.
“Maybe you think I’m not good enough for her, eh? Was that why
you were willin’ to give me my share of the cattle, and let me buy out
the Eagle? Wanted to get rid of me, eh?”
Angel laughed harshly and lighted his cigarette over the top of the
lamp-chimney.
“There wasn’t any question of gettin’ rid of yuh,” said Rance
McCoy slowly. “It was yore own proposition. You wanted to run a
saloon and be a gambler; so I gave yuh yore share of the cattle. I
sent Lila away to school. It cost me a lot of money to educate her,
Angel.”
“I don’t doubt that.”
Angel exhaled a cloud of smoke through his shapely nostrils.
“But as far as you marryin’ Lila—you’ll not,” declared Rance
McCoy flatly. “I raised the two of yuh together, and I know all about
both of yuh. I’ve heard that you’re a crooked dealer, Angel. Men
don’t hint things like that unless there’s some truth in it. Crooked at
cards, crooked at everythin’.”
Angel McCoy jerked forward, his dark eyes glittering in the yellow
light.
“Crooked, am I?” he laughed harshly. “No man dares say it to my
face. They come and whine to you, do they? And you believe things
like this of yore own son! That’s why you won’t let me marry Lila, eh?
All right; I’ll tell Lila that she ain’t yore daughter. I’ll tell her you killed
her father. I’ll tell——”
“If yuh do”—Rance McCoy’s old face twisted harshly and he
leaned forward, shoving his right shoulder against the table—“If yuh
do, Angel—I’ll kill yuh. A long time ago yuh ceased to be my son.
Oh, yuh’ll get an even break. I never killed any man without givin’
him an even break.”
“Even break!” exclaimed Angel. “What man ever had an even
break with you? I’ve seen yuh draw and shoot, old man.”
The old man laughed mirthlessly. Few men could draw and shoot
with Rance McCoy.
“Yuh always did lose yore nerve in a showdown,” he said.
“I never lost my nerve,” growled Angel. “But this ain’t a shootin’
proposition.”
The old man studied him for a space of several minutes.
“Angel,” he said slowly, “what does Lila know about this? She
wouldn’t marry her own brother. What have yuh told her?”
Angel smiled crookedly and rested his elbows on the table.
“Well, if you’ve got to know—she knows.”
“She knows?”
“I told her tonight.”
“Yuh told her tonight?”
“That you ain’t her father—yes. No, I never asked her to marry me
—not yet. But by God, I’m goin’ to ask her!”
The old man got slowly to his feet, disclosing the fact that he wore
a holstered gun. Angel also wore one, and the mother-of-pearl
handle flashed like an opal in the yellow light. With a twitch of his left
hand the old man jerked out a drawer from the table and produced
an old deck of playing-cards.
He dropped them on the table and looked sharply at Angel, who
was watching him curiously.
“Shuffle ’em,” ordered the old man.
“What’s the idea?”
“I’m givin’ yuh an even break, Angel. You’re a gambler, and I’m
givin’ yuh a gambler’s chance. Shuffle the cards and let me cut ’em.
You can do the dealin’. The one who gets the ace of spades—shoots
first.”
“You mean——” Angel hesitated.
“You know what I mean, yuh yaller pup.”
Angel flushed quickly and reached for the cards. His long fingers
riffled the cards with mechanical precision. Time after time he split
the deck, until it seemed as though he was trying to wear out the
cards. The old man’s keen eyes watched those hands, and there
was a half-smile on his lips.
“That’s enough,” he said drawlingly. “Let me cut.”
It seemed to Angel that the old man studied the deck rather
carefully before he made the cut.
“The one who gets the ace of spades shoots first, eh?” said Angel,
and it seemed as though his voice trembled.
The old man nodded.
“Go ahead and deal.”
Angel hesitated.
“This is foolishness, old man. If I shoot yuh, they’ll hang me for
murder. Lila’s upstairs.”
“She don’t know you’re here.”
“But the shot would wake her up.”
“How long do yuh think it’ll take yuh to get away? You talk as
though yuh already had the ace of spades. I’ll take my chances. Go
ahead and deal.”
Angel shuddered slightly. It was all so ridiculous, this idea of
dealing for the first shot. But the old man did not seem to mind.
There was not a tremor in the gnarled hand that rested on the old
table-top.
“Go ahead and deal, you coward,” he said coldly.
With a flick of his fingers the gambler threw the first two cards—
ace of hearts, six of clubs. There were fifty more cards in the deck.
King, jack. It was the king of spades.
“Hittin’ close,” said the old man.
Angel licked his lips and dealt the next two slowly—ten, deuce.
“How far for the first shot?” he asked hoarsely.
“Width of the room. Can’t miss. Deal.” Queen, deuce.
“Runnin’ small on yore side,” observed the old man.
Angel licked his lips again and his right hand trembled, as he dealt
himself a trey to Rance’s second king.
“Why don’tcha git it over with, Angel?” taunted the old man. “Losin’
yore nerve?”
But Angel did not reply. His eyes were staring at the cards as they
fell. The deck was getting thin now. Not over a dozen cards left. It
was difficult for him to swallow. The oil was low in the lamp, and it
had begun to smoke a little.
Six cards left. Ace of diamonds, seven of hearts. Only four left. His
hands felt heavy as lead. He wanted to say something, but his mouth
was too dry. With a super-effort he managed to deal the next two
cards—two deuces.
There were only two cards left in his hand; two old dog-eared
cards that held his fate. He stared down at them as though
fascinated. He looked across the table at the face of his father, who
was laughing at him. Slowly his right hand went to his lips—a hand
that trembled a tattoo against his mouth—and with a strangled word
he dropped the two cards on the floor, turned on his heel, and
stumbled to the door. He flung the door open, and a moment later
came the staccato drumming of his horse’s hoofs, as he rode swiftly
away from the ranch.
The old man still stood beside the table, a half-smile on his lips, as
he looked down at the cards. Then he stepped around the table and
picked up those last two cards—a six of hearts and the joker. Then
he swept up all the cards and opened the table drawer. Looking up
at him from the bottom of the drawer was the ace of spades. It had
been left there when the deck had been taken out.
“Busted his nerve,” whispered the old man. “Lucky thing that old
joker was bent enough to lift up the deck and give me a chance to
cut it on the bottom. Still, I didn’t think he had nerve enough to deal
fifty of ’em—I wouldn’t have had, that’s a cinch.”
CHAPTER II—THE EAGLE SALOON
Angel McCoy rode back to Red Arrow, his mind filled with mixed
emotions. Although it hurt him deeply, he was obliged to admit to
himself that his father had out-gamed him. He tried to explain to his
conscience that the whole thing had been a colossal piece of
melodrama, and that he feared to get the ace of spades. He was a
good shot. There was little doubt in his mind that his first shot would
settle the whole argument, and he would be branded as a murderer.
There had never been any love lost between himself and his
father. Their natures had always clashed. But Angel, even with his
cold-blooded nature, did not want to be branded a parricide. The
whole thing seemed so ridiculous now. Lila had been away to school
for five years, and had returned a beautiful young lady, fit to turn the
head of any man in the country. She was not his sister, and he could
conceive of no reason why he should not marry her—if she was
willing. She knew now that Rance McCoy was not her father, and,
being of age, could do as she pleased.
Angel rode up to his own stable, at the rear of the Eagle saloon
and gambling-house, put up his horse and entered the saloon by a
rear door. The Eagle was rather a large place for a Western town,
being an oblong room about sixty feet long by thirty feet wide. On the
right-hand side was a long bar, while part of the center, with all the
left-hand side, was taken up by tables and gambling paraphernalia.
At the rear of the saloon were two private rooms, one of which was
used as sleeping-quarters by Angel. During the week there was little
play at the Eagle, but on Saturday and Sunday, when the Red Arrow
cowboys came to town, there was plenty business.
The first man Angel McCoy met as he came into the place was
Billy DuMond, a man as old as Rance McCoy, slouchy, unshaven,
partly drunk. He was employed as a cowboy with the Half-Box R
outfit, owned by “Butch” Reimer. Angel had known DuMond for
years.
“Hyah, Angel,” greeted DuMond owlishly.
“Hello, Billy. I was kinda hopin’ I’d see yuh.”
Angel drew DuMond aside and lowered his voice.
“I just had a run-in with the old man, Billy. He knows you told me
about Lila; so yuh better steer clear of him.”
DuMond wiped his mouth with the back of his hand and swallowed
dryly.
“Lemme git yuh straight, Angel. Yuh told him I said it?”
“Yeah; that he killed Lila’s father and then adopted her. You told
me about it ten years ago, yuh remember.”
“Uh-huh. Well”—DuMond cuffed his shapeless hat over one ear
and stared at Angel—“Well, what did yuh drag me into it fer? I don’t
want no trouble.”
“A man don’t get into trouble by tellin’ the truth.”
“Th’ hell they don’t! I knowed a horse-thief that told the truth—and
they hung him. And you told old Rance McCoy that I said—I—Angel,
I’m shore sorry yuh told it.”
“You scared of him, Billy?”
“Well, by God!” snorted DuMond, cuffing his hat to the opposite
side of his head. “Any old time I git m’ spark of life blowed out, who’s
goin’ to light her ag’in? Don’t you re’lize that yore old man is
danger’s?, He’ll shoot.”
Angel laughed shortly.
“I reckon you’re right, Billy; I’m sorry.”
“Sorrow won’t help me none.”
“Did yuh know Lila’s father?”
“No! I don’t know nothin’! I don’t even ’member tellin’ yuh anythin’.
Ten years ago! Must ’a’ been drunk. Who’s this here Lila you’re
talkin’ about, Angel?”
“Oh, go to hell!” snorted Angel, and went on toward the bar, where
he met Butch Reimer and Dell Blackwell, one of Reimer’s cowboys.
Butch Reimer was of medium height, with wide shoulders and a face
that might well have belonged to a prize-fighter of the old bare-
knuckle school. Several years previous to this time Butch had been
kicked square in the face by a sharp-shod horse. There were no
plastic surgeons at that time, so Butch’s face had merely healed up,
leaving a crooked nose, twisted mouth, and a misplaced eyebrow,
not to mention numerous indentations never intended by Nature in
her most uncritical moods.
Dell Blackwell was a lithe, olive-complexioned, black-haired
cowboy; inveterate gambler, bronco rider, and reputed a bad man to
start trouble with.
“I just got nicked for a hundred in yore ecarte game,” growled
Butch. “Drew a four and a five; but the dealer turned a natural.”
“Butch had a system,” smiled Blackwell. “Always won his first bet,
yuh know; so he slapped down a hundred as a first bet. What’s new,
Angel?”
“Not a damned thing, Dell.”
“Have a drink,” growled Butch. “I hear Lila’s home.”
“Yeah,” said Angel shortly.
“Growed up much?”
“Sure.”
“You’re sure talkative. Where yuh been—out to see the old man?”
Angel nodded moodily.
“I thought so,” grinned Butch, as he filled his glass. He knew that
Angel and his father usually quarreled.
“What made yuh think that?” demanded Angel.
“Jist from yore actions. Oh, I don’t blame yuh. He jist the same as
told me to keep off his place last week. And I’m goin’ to stay off, too.
Ask Dell why.”
“Cinch,” laughed Dell. “I dropped in there a couple weeks ago and
found the old man practicin’. I tell yuh, he was shootin’ pepper cans
off the corral fence at sixty feet. Stuck up six in a row, about two feet
apart, and hit every danged one of ’em. You jist try hittin’ three-inch
squares every time at sixty feet with a forty-five.”
“I can jist hit my hat at that distance,” grinned Butch, “and I wear
the widest thing Stetson makes.”
“And you jist shoot good enough to win my money,” laughed
Blackwell.
“Somebody will kill him one of these days,” said Angel.
“Yeah—send him a bomb by express. Let’s have another.”
CHAPTER III—LILA’S DEPARTURE
Morning at the Circle Spade still found Rance McCoy humped in his
chair beside the table in the old living-room. The lamp had burned
dry long since, and the chimney was soot-streaked. “Chuckwalla Ike”
Hazen, the old cook, was in the kitchen, wrestling with the cooking
utensils. Chuckwalla Ike was as old as Rance McCoy, a weather-
beaten old desert cook, crooked in the legs from riding bad horses in
his youth, with his left elbow slightly out of line from stopping a bullet.
Chuckwalla wore a long, sad-looking mustache, and his head was
as bald as a baseball. His nose was generous, and one cheek was
habitually pouched from tobacco. He was clad in a sleeveless
undershirt, overalls, and moccasins, as he peered into the living-
room at Rance McCoy.
“Up kinda early ain’t yuh, Rance?” he drawled.
“I was—uh—I reckon I better put me on a shirt. Plumb forgot we’ve
got a lady among us. Say, whatsa matter with yuh? Look like hell this
mornin’.”
“I’m all right,” said Rance huskily.
“Which yuh ain’t a-tall. Yuh can’t fool Chuckwalla. What time does
the Queen of Sheber come among us f’r nourishment?”
“I dunno,” wearily.
“Well, I s’pose not.”
Chuckwalla scratched his shoulder against a corner of the
doorway.
“She shore growed up purty, didn’t she, Rance? Five year ago she
was a tow-headed kid with long legs and freckles, and she used to
yell at me, ‘Chuckwalla Ike, go set on a spike,’ and now she pokes
out her hand and says, ‘Mr. Hazen, how do yuh do.’ There’s only one
thing that improves with age, and that’s liquor.”
“They grow up,” said Rance slowly.
“Don’t they? Well, I s’pose I’d better scare up a flock of biscuits.
She allus liked ’em. Mebby I better put on a shirt. She might not like
a cook in dishabelle, as they say. And my lingeree is kinda mournful,
too. And yuh might tell Monty Adams and Steve Winchell to cut out
their profane greetin’s to me this mornin’. As far as the human voice
is concerned, this ranch-house leaks like a sieve.”
Rance McCoy turned his head and looked curiously at old
Chuckwalla.
“You heard what was said last night?”
“That don’t bother me,” said Chuckwalla quickly. “But I shore was
curious to know who got that black ace, and quit on the job.”
“I got it,” said Rance softly, glancing toward the stairs.
“Uh-huh.” Chuckwalla opened his mouth widely, blinked his eyes
and backed toward the stove, where he turned and began shaking
up the fire. Rance walked out to the front porch, and the old cook
looked after him, a quizzical expression in his eyes.
“Rance,” he said to himself, “you’re addin’ lies to the rest of yore
sins.”
Rance McCoy sat down on the steps of the old ranch-house which
had been his home for eighteen years. There were a few stunted
rosebushes in the yard. Near the corner of the house grew a gnarled
cottonwood tree. The barbed-wire fence sagged badly in spots, and
the weeds grew unmolested. To his left was the long, low stable, and
beyond it was the series of pole-corrals. On the hill beyond the
stable a bunch of cattle were stringing away from the ranch
waterhole in the willows. Several miles away to the south he could
see a streamer of black smoke from a train, heading toward Red
Arrow, northwest of the ranch.
The Circle Spade had never been a big cattle outfit. Only two
cowboys were employed by Rance McCoy. He had never been well
liked in the Red Arrow country. Gun-men are usually respected, but
rarely liked. They let old Rance alone when he came to town and got
drunk, which he did at rare intervals; but never blind drunk.
He could hear Monty Adams and Steve Winchell, the two
cowboys, noisily washing their faces at the old wash-bench near the
kitchen door, and joking with Chuckwalla Ike. Came a step on the
porch, and he turned to see Lila. She was a tall, slender girl, her
shapely head piled high with a wealth of golden-blonde hair, and
wearing a pale blue dress.
Her eyes were slightly red, as though she had been crying. She
leaned against the left side of the doorway and looked at the man
she had always believed to be her father.
“How didja sleep, Lila?” he asked.
She shook her head slowly.
“Not very well.”
“Uh-huh.”
His shoulders hunched beneath his coarse blue shirt, and he
turned his gaze away from her.
“Well, go ahead,” he said slowly. “No use sparrin’ around. Angel
told yuh a lot of things last night, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”
“Well, what do yuh think about it?”
“Oh, I don’t know what to think. He said you killed my father.”
Old Rance lifted his head and stared across the hills, his left hand
caressing his stubbled chin.
“Yeah, he told me the same thing, Lila.”
“I heard what was said.”
“Didja? What did yuh hear?”
“You—you forced him to deal those cards.”
Rance laughed harshly.
“Busted his nerve, didn’t I?”
“Did you? Do you suppose he would have shot you, if he had
drawn the card?”
“I hope so; I hate a quitter.”
“But you are his father!”
“It never meant much to Angel.”
“Would you have shot him?”
“If I had drawn that ace of spades—sure.”
She did not know that the ace of spades had been left in the
drawer.
“Where is my father buried?” asked Lila softly.
Rance McCoy shook his head.
“I can’t tell yuh, Lila.”
“Does Billy DuMond know?”
“He don’t know anythin’ about it, except what he heard.”
Chuckwalla Ike came to the doorway and called:
“You folks ready to eat?”
“Better go in and eat, Lila,” said Rance.
But Lila shook her head, and after a sharp glance at Rance
McCoy, Chuckwalla went back to the kitchen, complaining to himself.
“Where is my mother?” asked Lila.
“Yore mother?” Rance frowned heavily. “Oh, yeah—yore mother.
Well, I dunno, Lila.”
“Didn’t my father tell you?”
“No-o-o, he didn’t say.”
“But you killed him.”
Rance McCoy hunched his shoulders helplessly.
“Let’s me and you not talk about it, Lila. It’s all gone and forgotten
now. You’ve been my little girl ever since yuh wasn’t knee-high to a
nail; you’re still my little girl.”
The old man’s voice was not very steady and he did not look at
her.
“It’s not forgotten,” said Lila bitterly. “Why didn’t you tell me a long
time ago? I haven’t any right to—I’m not your daughter. You haven’t
any adoption papers, have you?”
Rance shook his head sadly.
“Wasn’t anything like that, Lila. I didn’t never want yuh to know. I
wish I’d killed Billy DuMond before he ever told Angel. The drunken
bum ain’t hardly fit to hang on the hot end of a bullet. Angel wants to
marry yuh, Lila. Mebby yuh heard him say it last night. But don’t do
it.”
“That has nothing to do with the case,” said Lila evenly. “You know
I can’t stay here any longer.”
Old Rance turned and looked keenly at her.
“Yuh—uh—yuh can’t stay here?” he faltered.
“Don’t you see how it is?” helplessly. “I don’t belong here. I—I’ll try
and pay you back for what I’ve cost you. I don’t know how it can be
done, but I’ll try. You’ve been good to me.”
Lila turned abruptly on her heel and went back into the house. The
old man sank a little lower on the step, when he heard her tell
Chuckwalla she did not want any breakfast. She was talking to the
two cowboys, but Rance could not hear what was said.

A Course On Plasticity Theory David J Steigmann Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Course On Plasticity Theory David J Steigmann Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Course On Plasticity Theory David J Steigmann Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Course on Plasticity Theory David J.

IB Diploma Programme Course Preparation: Physics

Market Leader: Upper Intermediate Course 2nd Edition

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David J.

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David J.

Notes on ... Caring David Stanley

The Big Picture: Gross Anatomy, Medical Course & Step 1

On Revolutions Colin J Beck

Plasticity of Metallic Materials 1st Edition Oana

Adrian P. Sutton, FRS

1. M. W. Finnis: Interatomic Forces in Condensed Matter

2 Brief resumé of nonlinear elasticity theory 15

3 A primer on tensor analysis in three-dimensional space 34

4 Deformation and stress in convected coordinates 63

5 Elastic and plastic deformations 74

6 Energy, stress, dissipation, and plastic evolution 87

6.5 Yielding and plastic flow 102

8 Small-deformation theory 147

9 Strain hardening, rate sensitivity, and gradient plasticity 156

Solutions to selected problems 177

|T| < TY , (1.2)

Figure 1.1 Uniaxial stress–strain response of a bar.

crystallographic planes. This observation will be incorporated as a cornerstone of the

1.2 Elements of continuum mechanics

At = A. If A · A[B] = At · A[B] and A · A[B] = A · A[Bt ], then A is said to possess

y = χ(p, t). (1.5)

y = χκ (x, t), (1.7)

called the deformation of p from κ to κt , where

χκ (x, t) = χ(κ−1 (x) , t), (1.8)

y = χ(x, t), (1.9)

χ(x2 , t) − χ(x1 , t) = F(x1 , t)(x2 − x1 ) + r(x2 , x1 , t), (1.10)

|r(x2 ,x1 , t)| = o(|x2 − x1 |), (1.11)

x2 − x1 = x′ (s1 )(s2 − s1 ) + o(s2 − s1 ), (1.13)

where |o(s2 − s1 )| = o(s2 − s1 ). Combining this with (1.10) gives

and passage to the limit s2 → s1 yields

at x = x1 , where, with t fixed,

dy · dz = Fdx · Fdu = dx · Ft (Fdu) = dx · Cdu, (1.18)

which is in one-to-one relation to the Cauchy–Green tensor, where I is the referential

which reduces (1.24) to

Substituting into (1.26) and invoking the divergence theorem, we obtain

c · divA = div(At c), (1.29)

divw = tr(gradw), (1.30)

Assuming the integrand in (1.28) to be a continuous function of y, we can localize

divT + ρb = ρv̇, (1.32)

holding at each y ∈ κt . Generalizations to discontinuous fields will be considered in

we arrive ultimately at the local algebraic restriction

Problem 1.1 Prove (1.34) by carrying out the steps indicated.

nda = F∗ νdA, (1.35)

is the cofactor of F. Thus, from (1.22), (1.26), and (1.27),

DivP + ρκ b = ρκ v̇, (1.40)

PFt = FPt . (1.41)

Before concluding these preliminaries we pause to state the mechanical energy

P(π, t) = S(π, t) + dt K(π, t),

is the kinetic energy of the material occupying π,

is the power of the forces acting on the material in π, in which

is the Piola traction, related to the Cauchy traction t by

u = f(x)2 {DivP + ρκ (b − v̇)}, (1.52)

and hence requiring that (1.40) hold locally in π, leaving