The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Part I: Constitutive issues and rank one convexity arxiv:submit/ [math.

Transcription

1 The exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain energy. Part I: Constitutive issues and rank one convexity arxiv:submit/06688 [math.ca] Jul 04 Patrizio Neff and Ionel-Dumitrel Ghiba and Johannes Lankeit 3 July, 04 In memory of Albert Tarantola ), lifelong advocate of logarithmic measures Abstract We investigate a family of isotropic volumetric-isochoric decoupled strain energies µ logu κ ek devn + e k[trlogu)] if det F > 0, F W eh F) := ŴeH U) := k k + if detf 0, based on the Hencky-logarithmic true, natural) strain tensor log U, where µ > 0 is the infinitesimal shear modulus, κ = µ+3λ 3 > 0 is the infinitesimal bulk modulus with λ the first Lamé constant, k, k are dimensionless parameters, F = ϕ is the gradient of deformation, U = F T F is the right stretch tensor and dev nlogu = logu n trlogu) is the deviatoric part of the strain tensor logu. For small elastic strains, W eh approximates the classical quadratic Hencky strain energy F W H F) := ŴH U) := µ devnlogu + κ [trlogu)], which is not everywhere rank-one convex. In plane elastostatics, i.e. n =, we prove the everywhere rankone convexity of the proposed family W eh, for k and k. Moreover, we show that the corresponding 4 8 Cauchy true)-stress-true-strain relation is invertible for n =,3 and we show the monotonicity of the Cauchy true) stress tensor as a function of the true strain tensor in a domain of bounded distortions. We also prove that the rank-one convexity of the energies belonging to the family W eh is not preserved in dimension n = 3 and that the energies F µ k ek logu, F µ k e k µµ dev n logu + κ [trlogu)] ), F GL + n), n N, n are not rank-one convex. Key words: idealized finite isotropic elasticity, Legendre-Hadamard ellipticity condition, hyperelasticity, constitutive inequalities, stability, Hencky strain, logarithmic strain, natural strain, true strain, Hencky energy, convexity, rank-one convexity, volumetric-isochoric split, plane elastostatics, monotonicity and invertibility of the constitutive law, homogeneous symmetric bifurcations, Baker-Ericksen inequality, bounded distortions, elastic domain, nonlinear Poisson s ratio. Corresponding author: Patrizio Neff, Head of Lehrstuhl für Nichtlineare Analysis und Modellierung, Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann Str. 9, 457 Essen, Germany, patrizio.neff@uni-due.de Ionel-Dumitrel Ghiba, Lehrstuhl für Nichtlineare Analysisund Modellierung, Fakultät fürmathematik, Universität Duisburg- Essen, Thea-Leymann Str. 9, 457 Essen, Germany; Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, Department of Mathematics, Blvd. Carol I, no., Iaşi, Romania; and Octav Mayer Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy, Iaşi Branch, Iaşi, dumitrel.ghiba@uni-due.de, dumitrel.ghiba@uaic.ro 3 Johannes Lankeit, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Paderborn, Warburger Str. 00, Paderborn, Germany, johannes.lankeit@math.uni-paderborn.de

2 Contents Introduction 3. Logarithmic strain and geodesically motivated invariants Scope of investigation Previous work in the spirit of our investigation Notation Constitutive requirements in idealized nonlinear elasticity 4. The Baker-Ericksen inequalities Relation of Baker-Ericksen inequalities to other constitutive requirements Baker-Ericksen inequalities and Schur convexity The invertible true-stress-true-strain relation 3. Pure Cauchy shear stress Uniaxial Cauchy tension On the nonlinear Poisson s ratio Cauchy stress in simple shear for W H and W eh Response of rubber under large pressure. Equation of state Monotonicity of the Cauchy stress tensor σ as a function of logb 3 4. TSTS-M + for the energy F µ k ek log V + λ e k[trlog V )] k 4. TSTS-M + for the family of energies W eh TSTS-M + for three-parameter energies W eh 4.4 TSTS-M + for the quadratic Hencky energy TSTS-M + for the energy F µe a dev3 log V +â trlogv)) Rank-one convexity 4 5. Criteria for rank-one convexity The LH-condition for incompressible media The quadratic Hencky energy W H is not rank-one convex Convexity of the volumetric response F e klogdetf) m Rank-one convexity of the isochoric exponentiated Hencky energy in plane elastostatics The main rank-one convexity statement Formulation of the dynamic problem in the planar case The non-deviatoric planar case: F e logu Outlook for three dimensions F e k dev3 logu is not rank-one convex The ideal nonlinear incompressible elasticity model Rank-one convexity domains for the energy F e k dev3 logu Summary and open problems 60 8 Acknowledgement 6 References 6 Appendix 7

3 Introduction. Logarithmic strain and geodesically motivated invariants We introduce a modification of the well-known isotropic quadratic Hencky strain energy W H F) = ŴHU) = µ dev n logu + κ [trlogu)], where µ > 0 is the infinitesimal shear distortional) modulus, κ = µ+3λ 3 > 0 is the bulk modulus with λ the first Lamé constant, F = ϕ is the deformation gradient, U = F T F is the right Biot stretch tensor, logu is the referential Lagrangian) logarithmic strain tensor,. is the Frobenius tensor norm, and dev n X = X n trx) is the deviatoric part of a second order tensor X R n n see Section for other notations). It was recently discovered [73, 7] see also [3, 33]) that the Hencky strain energy enjoys a surprising property, which singles it out among all other isotropic strain energy functions. Indeed, the Hencky energy measures the geodesic distance of the deformation gradient F GL + n) to the special orthogonal group SOn), i.e. dist geodf,son)) = µ dev n logu + κ [trlogu)] = W H F),.) dist geodf,son)) = 0 if and only if ϕx) = Qx+ b for some fixed Q SO3), b R 3, where the Lie-group GL + n) is viewed as a Riemannian manifold endowed with a certain left-invariant metric which is also right On)-invariant isotropic). The use of the quadratic Hencky strain energy in nonlinear elasticity theory can therefore be motivated by purely geometric reasoning. In contrast, for the case of the simple Euclidean distance on R n n we note that dist euclidf,son)) def) := inf F R = inf R T F = U,.) R SOn) R SOn) which yields the Biot-stretch measure U without any possibility of weighting the deviatoric and volumetric contributions independently [75]. On the other hand, the additive volumetric-isochoric split Ŵ H U) = µ dev n logu + κ U [trlogu)] = µ log + κ } detu {{ /n } [logdetu] }{{} Ŵ voldetu) H Ŵ iso H ) U det U /n.3) iso W depending only on U, i.e. on the isochoric part of U, and a volumetric H detu /n depending only on detu is characterized by means of the same geodesic distance as well: it can be of ŴH into an isochoric term W vol H term shown that [73, 7, 78] ) ) K := dist geod detf) /n,son) = dist geod,r + detf) /n, = trlogu) vol = W H ) ) K := dist F geod detf) /n,son) = dist F geod,sln) detf) /n,son) = dev n logu iso = W H U detu /n where dist geod,r and + dist geod,sln) are the canonical left invariant geodesic distances on the Lie-group SLn) and on the multiplicative group R +, respectively. This result strongly suggests that the two quantities K = dev n logu and K = [trlogu)] should be considered separately as fundamental measures of elastic deformations, which motivates a family of elastic energy functions stated in terms of these two quantities alone [5]. It is clear, however, that it is not the strain measure logu itself which has any importance in this regard, Although every such Riemannian metric is uniquely characterized by three coefficients, the geodesic distance to SOn) in fact depends on only two of them, corresponding to the two material parameters µ and κ. Truesdell writes [5]: It is important to realize that since each of the several material tensors [the strain tensors like U, U, logu, U U ] is an isotropic function of any one of the others, an exact description of strain in terms of any one is equivalent to a description in terms of any other; only when an approximation is to be made may the choice of a particular measure become important. ), 3

4 but the fundamentally motivated scalar geodesic invariants K, K. They restrict the form of the constitutive law. Moreover, in D, the purely isochoric term dist F geod, SL) ) penalyzes the departure from conformal detf / shape preserving) mappings, i.e. the absolute minimizer in dimension n = is a deformation φ with φ satisfying log φ T φ = αx,y), αx,y) R φ T φ = e αx,y), αx,y) R φ R + SO) }{{} the special conformal group CSO) φ : R R is holomorphic. Since K, K have this inherently fundamental differential geometric motivation, we propose to investigate a new constitutive framework for ideal isotropic elasticity. Then it is natural to consider the most primitive possible strain energy form satisfying: i) The elastic energy W can be written as a function of the geodesic invariants W = WK,K ), where K := dev n logu and K := [trlogu)] ; ii) The energy is strictly increasing as a function of K,K ; iii) The energy is strictly convex as a function of log U Hill s inequality); iv) Preferably, the energy should be a rank-one convex polyconvex, quasiconvex) function; v) The energy should satisfy a coercivity condition. We observe that iv) necessitates that W should grow at least exponentially see []).. Scope of investigation Many elastic materials show a completely different response regarding shape changing deformations and purely volumetric deformations. Therefore, in concordance with our just stated requirements, we investigate in this paper a family of isotropic exponentiated Hencky-logarithmic strain type energies in which both contributions coming from dilatations and distortions are a priori additively separated 3 [78] W eh F) := ŴeH U) := = µ κ k ekk + e kk k if det F > 0, + if detf 0, µ k ek devn U + κ e ktrlogu)) }{{ k } if det F > 0, volumetric-isochoric split + if detf 0, µ U = k ek log det U /n + κ e klogdetu) if det F > 0, k + if detf 0, where U = n i= λ in i N i, logu = n i= logλ in i N i ) = lim r 0 r Ur ), λ i and N i are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of U, respectively. The immediate importance of the family.4) of free-energy functions is seen by looking at small but not infinitesimally small) elastic strains. Then the exponentiated Hencky energy W eh ) reduces to first order to the quadratic Hencky energy based on the logarithmic strain tensor logu W H F) := U) := µ dev nlogu + κ µ ŴH [trlogu)] + k + κ ),.5) }{{ k } const. τ H := D logv W H V) = µ dev 3 logv +κtrlogv), τ H = detv σ H, 3 Such an assumption is especially suitable for only slightly compressible materials or under small elastic strains [98]..4) 4

5 where V = F F T is the left stretch tensor, W H V) = ŴH U), σ is the Cauchy stress tensor in the current H configuration and τ H is the Kirchhoff stress tensor. The Hencky energy W H has been introduced by Heinrich Hencky [43] starting from 98 [00, 0, 0, 03,, 56, 38, 4, 87] see [70] for a recent english translation of Hencky s German original papers) and has since then acquired a unique status in finite strain elastostatics [5, 6, ] and especially in finite strain elasto-plasticity 4. Hencky himself used this constitutive law to study finite elastic deformations of rubber in some simple cases [00, 0, 0, 03, 04]. The modern applications seem to begin with the study of finite elastic and elasto plastic bending of a long plate-strip plane strain) in the cases of incompressible and compressible deformations [60, 6, 36, 37, 38]. The formulation based on the Hencky strain energy provides the greatest possible extent of elastic determinacy [70, page 9]: the Kirchhoff-stress response does not depend on a specific reference state or previously applied coaxial deformations. A similar property was postulated for an idealized law of elasticity by Murnaghan [6, 63], who argued that the dependence of the stress response on a specific position of zero strain was tantamount to an action at a distance and should therefore be avoided. The first axiomatic study on the nonlinear stress-strain function involving a logarithmic strain tensor is, however, due to the famous geologist George Ferdinand Becker [46, 7] in 893. Using a principle of superposition for the principal forces in the reference configuration he concludes with a stress-strain law in the form T Biot U) = µ dev 3 logu +κtrlogu),.6) where T Biot U) = R T S F) = U S C) is the symmetric in case of isotropy) Biot-stress tensor, F = RU is the right polar decomposition, S is the symmetric second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor and C = F T F, see [77] for detailed explanations. Even earlier, in 880, Imbert [7] in his doctoral thesis considered the uniaxial tension ofvulcanized rubber bands and obtained as a best fit a constitutive law 5 [7, page 53], which in modern notations reads T Biot.e,e = E logu.e,e,.7) for recoverable fully elastic extensional) stretches λ [, e). Three years later, in 893, Hartig [95] see also [8]) used the same constitutive law for tension and compression data of rubber. In [65] Nadai introduced the name natural strain tensor for the logarithmic strain tensor log U and motivated application of this concept in metal forming processes 6 in metallurgy. The strain measure natural strain) then has been extensively used over the years to report experimental true-stress-true-strain data. More recently, in [98] a modified Hencky energy is proposed which is motivated by in depth molecular dynamics simulations for a metalic glass 7. Hill [08, 07] see also [53, 50, 5]) has discussed the advantage of the logarithmic strain measure 8 in setting up a class of constitutive inequalities, based on a family of measures of finite strain and their corresponding conjugate stresses, for both elastic and elasto-plastic solids. Hill showed 4 In Hencky s first paper [99], the constitutive law σ H = µ dev 3 logv + κtrlogv) is proposed, which is Cauchy-elastic, tensorially correct, but not hyperelastic. This has been corrected by Hencky in later papers. Incidentally, Becker s law.6) is also Cauchy-elastic, tensorially correct, but hyperelastic only for ν = 0 [46, 33] see also [65, 77]). 5 Note that.7) is the uniaxial specification of.6), and.6) is closely resembling.5). A small calculation [77] shows τ Becker = V τ H, where τ is the corresponding Kirchhoff stress τ = detf) σ = D logv WlogV) and V is the left stretch tensor. Moreover τ Becker τ H V τ H. Hence, for small elastic strains V, Becker s law coincides with Hencky s model to first order in the nonlinear strain measure V. 6 In the German metal forming literature the logarithmic strain is also called Umformgrad. In [39, page 7] Ludwik uses the effective specific elongation α = l dl l = ln l. It can be motivated by considering the summation over the infinitesimal 0 l l 0 increase in length as referred to the current length, i.e. ln l = lim N l N 0 i=0 l i+ l i l i [6, 94]. The scalar Hencky-type measure dev 3 logu is sometimes used as equivalent strain in order to represent the degree of plastic deformation [86, 85]. Its use for severe shearing has been questioned in [4]. In our opinion the problematic issue is not the logarithmic measure itself, but its degenerate sublinear) growth behaviour for large strains. The opposing views may be reconciled by using e dev 3 logu as exponentiated equivalent strain measure. 7 i.e. an amorphous metal which is very nearly isotropic with superior elastic deformability up to -% distortional strain, but which shows no ductility, in contrast to polycrystalline metals which typically show elastic strains up only to 0.-0.%. Recently, Murphy [64] see also [66]) has postulated a linear Cauchy stress-strain relation for some strain measure and gets as well W H as a preferred solution. His corresponding strain measure E is then E := detv logv, so that σ = µe + λtre), which is Hencky s relation in disguise. However, V EV) is not invertible, thus E does not really qualify as a strain measure. 8 Tarantola noted [45, page 5] that Cauchy originally defined the strain as E = C ), but many lines of thought suggest that this was just a guess, that, in reality is just the first order approximation to the more proper definition E = log C = C ) 4 C ) +..., i.e., in reality, E = logu = U ) U )

6 that only one member of this class admits incompressibility, namely that corresponding to logarithmic strain. The special Hill s-inequality which we will call KSTS-M + for reasons which become clear later) asserts in the hyperelastic case that the strain energy should be a convex function of logarithmic strain [80] and Hill argued that this inequality is the most suitable for compressible solids. Šilhavý [6] remarks that Hill s inequality is, up to date, not found to be in conflict with experimental facts. The Hencky strain tensor appears also in much more diverse fields, such as image registration [90, 89] and relativistic elastomechanics [7]. Extensions to the anisotropic hyperelastic response based on the Henckylogarithmic strain were investigated, e.g. in [66, 67, 90]. Let us now summarize some well-known unique features of the quadratic Hencky strain energy W H based exclusively on the natural strain tensor logu: The two isotropic Lamé constants µ,λ) µ,κ) or E,ν)), the shear modulus, the bulk modulus and the second Lamé constant, are determined in the infinitesimal strain regime, but the model based on the energy W H F) can well describe the nonlinear deformation response for moderate principal stretches λ i 0.7,.4) see [5, 6, 34]). Of course, for a particular material, one may always get agreement with a finite number of) experiments to any desired accuracy for another constitutive law with more adjustable parameters, e.g. Ogden s strain energy [83]. The Hencky model outperforms other well known nonlinear elasticity models with equally few constitutive parameters, like Neo-Hooke or Mooney-Rivlin type elastic materials [59, 83, 00, 48] in the abovementioned strain range. 3 The geometrically nonlinear Poynting effect a cylindrical bar of steel, copper, rubber or brass lengthens in torsion proportional to the square of the twist) is correctly described [6, 4, 63, 6, 8, 88, 3]. 4 W H has the correct behaviour for extreme strains in the sense that WF e ) as detf e 0 and, likewise, WF e ) as detf e. 5 The Hencky strain tensor logu puts extension and contraction on the same footing, its principal values vary from to, whereas those of C = F T F or B = FF T vary from 0 to and those of C vary from to. 6 The Hencky strain defines a strictly monotone primary matrix function [, 77, 79], i.e. even for non-coaxial arguments U,U. logu logu,u U > 0 U,U PSym3), U U,.8) 7 Tension and compression are treated equivalently: W H F) = W H F ), i.e. invariance w.r.t. the Lagrangian or Eulerian description. Both the incompressible and compressible versions of J -finite strain deformation theory [6] usually assume identical true-stress-true-strain relations in tension and compression. 8 The linear and second-order behaviour of W H is in agreement with Bell s experimental observations [8], i.e. in general, under small strain conditions the instantaneous elastic modulus E decreases for tension and increases in the case of compression c.f. Figure ). 9 True strain for equivalent amounts of deformation in tension and compression is equal except for the sign: logv = logv. 0 The Eulerian strain tensor logv and the Lagrangian strain tensor logu) is additive for coaxial stretches, i.e. logv V ) = logv +logv for V V = V V. This implies the superposition principle for the Kirchhoff stress τ H for coaxial strains [7, 77]. Forincompressibilitye.g. forrubber[04,5,4]), onlyoneparameter,thesheardistortional)modulus µ = E µµ+3λ) 3, suffices, where E = λ+µ is Young s modulus. 6

7 The Hencky strain tensor logu has the advantage that it additively separates dilatation from pure distortion [5, 98, 99, 96, 97]; there is an exact volumetric-isochoric decoupling by the properties of the logarithmic strain tensor: log U detu /n = log[u detu) /n ] = logu +log[detu) /n ] = logu n logdetu) = logu n trlogu) = dev n logu. Among all finite strain measures from the Seth-Hill family [3, 09], only the spherical and deviatoric parts of the Hencky strain quadratic energy can additively separate the volumetric and the isochoric deformation [09, 4, 7]. 3 The volumetric expression [trlogu)] = logdetu) has been motivated independently in [8, 44, 6] and found to be superior in describing the pressure-volume equation of state EOS) for geomaterials under extreme pressure see Section 3.5). 4 The incompressibility condition detf = is the simple statement trlogu) = 0. 5 For the Hencky energy W H, uniaxial tension leads to uniaxial lateral contractionand a planarpure Cauchy shear stress produces biaxial pure shear strain [56], similar as in linear elasticity see Figure and also Section 4), i.e. planar pure shear stress σ = σ σ 0 σ σ 0, trσ) = 0 corresponds to isochoric planar stretch V = V V 0 V V 0, det V =. For Poisson s number ν = / exact incompressibility follows 0 0 and for ν = 0 there is no lateral contraction in uniaxial tension, exactly as in linear elasticity [56]. 6 The Hencky energy W H has constant nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν = logv) logv) = ν as in linear elasticity and λ = λ ν in uniaxial extension [56]. 7 If ΨexpS)) := WS), then for isotropic response D S WS) = DΨexpS)) exps) see [56, 57, 3, 0]). Thus, S C) = D C ΨC) = D logc WlogC) C, while D C [logc].h = C H is not true in general. Therefore τ = D logv WlogV), σ = detv τ = detv D logv WlogV), see Appendix A.. Using this formula, the algorithmic tangent DF [WF)].H,H) for the isotropic Hencky energy in finite element simulations can be analyzed with knowledge of only the first Fréchet-derivative D C [logc].h see [0]). 8 The Kirchhoff stress τ is conjugate to the strain measure logv [, 3, 4, 5, 34, 79, 08, 57], where V = F F T is the left stretch tensor, i.e. τ, d dt logv = detv σ,d is equal to the power per unit volume element in the reference configuration. Here, D is the strain rate tensor D = syml = sym FF ). 9 Contrary to the arbitrary number of possible strain tensors in the Lagrangian setting, there is only one strain rate tensor D in the Eulerian setting. In the one dimensional case 9, the logarithmic strain tensor logv is equal to the integrated strain rate. More generally 0 d, dt [logvt)] = Dt) for any coaxial stretch family Vt). 0 The logarithmic strain possesses certain intrinsic, far-reaching properties that also suggest its favored position among all possible strain measures: the Eulerian logarithmic strain log V is the unique strain measure whose corotational rateassociated with the so-called logarithmic spin) is the strain rate tensor D. In other words, the strain rate tensor is the co-rotational rate of the Hencky strain tensor associated with the logarithmic spin tensor. Such a result has been introduced by Reinhardt and Dubey[95] as D-rate and by Xiao et al. [6, 65] as log-rate see also [80, 64, 6]). This is consistent with Truesdell s rate type 9 In the one dimensional case ϕx,t) = ϕ x,t),x,x 3 ) T F = ϕ = diagϕ,x,,) D = sym FF ) = ϕ,x ) diag,0,0 and t ϕ,x ds = log ϕ ϕ,x 0 ϕ,x +C,x = logu. 0 Computing the rates d logu is more complicated because, in addition to the principal strains being a function of time, the dt principal directions also change in time [, 93,, 69]. 7

8 concept of hypoelasticity based on a unique logarithmic strain rate [93, 48, 63]. We need to emphasize that, contrary to hyperelastic models, hypo-elastic models [47, 6] ignore the potential character of the energy. Otherwise they are simply the hyperelastic models rewritten in a suitable incremental form. In case of the logarithmic rate, the hypo-elastic model integrates exactly to the hyperelastic quadratic Hencky model. ThequadraticHenckyenergyW H satisfiesthe Baker-EricksenBE)inequalitieseverywhere,seeSubsection. later in this paper. The Cauchy stress σ = σlogv) induces an invertible true-stress-true-strain relation up to detf e [56, 57]. 3 The Kirchhoff stress τ = τlogv) is invertible. 4 The quadratichencky energyw H satisfieshill s inequality KSTS-M + ) everywhere, i.e. the corresponding Kirchhoffstress τ H = detf) σ = D logv W H logv) is a monotone function ofthe logarithmicstrain tensor logv and W H is a convex function of logv. 5 The Kirchhoff stress τ H has the symmetry property τ H V ) = τ H V). In fact, this relation is true whenever the energy satisfies the tension-compression symmetry. 6 Since logb = logv = logv, there is no need to compute the polar decomposition [0, 76] in order to evaluate logv. 7 There is a representation of dev 3 logv and [trlogv)] in terms of principal invariants of V available [77, 69]: logv = α 0 + α V + α V = β 0 + β V + β V, α h = α h i,i,i 3 ), β r = β r i,i,i 3 ), i h = i h V), h =,,3, r =,0,. Moreover, it is always possible to express the strain energy terms via its representation in principal stretches from which we may infer, via Cardano s formula, a representation in terms of the principal invariants of B, i.e. W H = W H i B),i B),i 3 B)) [6]. Otherwise, calculation of logv needs diagonalization and determination of the principal axes. Then logv = Q T logλ logλ logλ 3 Q for V = Q T λ λ λ 3 Q and Q SO3). 8 There are efficient methods for the explicit evaluation of the derivatives of the logarithm of an arbitrary tensor [, ]. 9 The use of the logarithmic strain tensor logu leads to simple additive structures in algorithmic computational elasto-plasticity theory [3, 35, 9, 59, 03, 0]. For these reasons the quadratic Hencky model is used in theoretical investigations and in physical applications [49, 8, 39, 40, 77, 9, 86, 88, 87, 83]. We observe also a renewed interest in this class of isotropic slightly compressible hyperelastic solids originally proposed by Hencky [00, 0, 0, 03, 98]. The strain energy W H is also often used in commercial FEM-codes. However, the quadratic Hencky energy has some serious shortcomings: Beyond detf e, the Hencky energy W H leads to no globally invertible Cauchy stress-logarithmic strain relation and the possibility for multiple symmetric homogeneous bifurcations may arise [, page 48], see also [5, page 85],[58]. The Cauchy stress tensor is degenerate in the sense that σ H + for V + and there are Cauchy stress distributions which cannot be reached by the constitutive law, i.e. V σv) is not surjective. 3 The energy W H does not satisfy the pressure-compression PC) inequality this is related to the nonconvexity of detf logdetf) for detf > e). 4 One may not guarantee real wave speeds over the entire deformation range [39, 6, 66]. Therefore, W H is not quasiconvex weakly lower semicontinuous) and not Legendre-Hadamard LH)-elliptic rank-one convex). 8

9 Figure : Nominal stress obtained from the exponentiated Hencky energy W eh and the classical Hencky energy W H for uniaxial deformation. Loss of monotonicity beyond e for W H. Figure : The generic infinitesimal strain nonlinearity and second-order behaviour in agreement with Bell s observation [8, 4]: decreasing elasticity modulus in tension, increasing modulus in compression. 5 The tension-extension TE) inequalities separate convexity) are not satisfied see Proposition 5.8). 6 The quadratic Hencky energy W H is not coercive, i.e. an estimate of the type is not possible, since W H growths only sublinearly. W H F) C F q C, q, C, C > 0 7 The true-stress-stretch invertibility TSS-I) does not hold true everywhere. These points being more or less well-known, it is clear that there cannot exist a general mathematical wellposedness result for the quadratic Hencky model W H. Of course, in the vicinity of the stress free reference configuration, an existence proof for small loads based on the implicit function theorem will always be possible [48]. All in all, however, the status of Hencky s quadratic energy, despite its many attractive features, is thus put into doubt. For sufficiently regular energies, Legendre-Hadamard ellipticity on GL + 3) LH-ellipticity, also known as rank-one-convexity ) [3, 30, 9, 33, 83, 68] is tantamount to D F S F).ξ η),ξ η = D F WF)ξ η,ξ η) > 0, ξ, η R3 \{0}, F GL + 3)..0) This condition stems from the study of wave propagation or hyperbolicity of the dynamic problem and it is just what is needed for a good existence and uniqueness theory for linear elastostatics and elastodynamics see [83, 79, 7, 37]). The failure of ellipticity [34, 45] may be related to the emergence of discontinuous deformation gradients [8, 7, 58]. Strict rank-one convexity in the solution of the boundary value problem is also necessary for the smoothness of weak solutions. While strong ellipticity apparently holds over wide ranges, including buckling, and is physically rather compelling, it is not necessarily universal [4, page 0] see also [5]). However, from a numerical point of view in finite element simulations, loss of ellipticity manifests itself by a pathological dependence of the computed results on the size and distortion of the finite elements and should therefore be avoided. Since GL + 3) is an open subset of R 3 3, in accordance with [5, page 35] we say that W is rank-one convex on GL + 3) if it is convex on all closed line segments in GL + 3) with end points differing by a matrix of rank one, i.e WF + θ)ξ η) θwf)+ θ)wf +ξ η),.9) for all F GL + 3), θ [0,], and for all ξ, η R 3, with F +tξ η GL + 3) for all t [0,]. In other words, the energy function W is rank-one convex on GL + 3) if and only if the function t WF +tξ η) is convex ξ, η R 3, on all closed line segments in the set {t : F +tξ η GL + 3)}. The condition D F WF)ξ ξ,ξ ξ) > 0 ξ R3 \ {0}, i.e. the convexity of t WF + tξ ξ) for all ξ R 3 with F + tξ ξ GL + 3) for all t [0,], is a necessary condition for the existence of at least one longitudinal acceleration wave [4, 70, 3]. 9

10 Concerningournewformulation,itisclearthat, uptomoderatestrains,forprincipalstretchesλ i 0.7,.4), our exponentiated Hencky formulation.4) is de facto as good as the quadratic Hencky model W H and in the large strain region it will improve several important features from a mathematical point of view 3. Having identified K = dev nlogu and K = [trlogu)] as the basic input variables for a nonlinear elasticity formulation, this investigation started by numerically checking the ellipticity conditions for e logu in the two-dimensional case 4. In one space dimension it is readily observed that t logt) is not convex, but t e logt) is convex see Figures 3 and 4). A similar effect appears for the Hencky energy.5): W H is not LH-elliptic [39, 3, 30] it is of the type given by Figure 3), but we show that our energy W eh U) is LH-elliptic in the two dimensional case it is of the type given by Figure 4). Figure 3: W H F) is not rank-one convex Figure 4: W eh F) is rank-one convex. In this paper, then, we prove that the functions W eh F) := µ k ek devn log U + κ k e ktrlogu)) from the family of energies defined in.4) have the following attractive properties beyond those of W H 5 : For nonlinear incompressible material like rubber) the new energy µ k ek dev3 logu has only two independent constants, which furthermore have a clear physical meaning, the infinitesimal shear modulus µ > 0 and the distortional strain-stiffening parameter k > 0 see Figure 5 and 6). For nonlinear slightly) compressible material, in addition, there is the infinitesimal bulk modulus κ > 0 and also the volumetric stiffening parameter k > 0. The Cauchy stress tensor satisfies σ eh + for V +. 3 We have: lim k, k 0 σ eh = σ H, lim k, k 0 τ eh = τ H. 4 At verylargestretch ratios the model exhibits the strain stiffening behaviour common to many elastomers. 5 They satisfy the BE-inequalities. 6 They satisfy the PC-inequalities. 7 They satisfy the TE-inequalities in the planar case if k 4. 8 They satisfy the TE-inequalities in the three dimensional case if k They are rank one convex LH-elliptic) in the planar case if k 4, in the entire deformation range. 0 The corresponding Kirchhoff stress τ eh has the property: τ eh V ) = τ eh V). 3 The domain where the Hencky energy W H is rank-one convex is included in the domain for which the eigenvalues λ,λ,λ 3 of U satisfy λ e λ λ 3, λ e λ 3 λ, λ 3 e λ λ see Corollary 5.9). Moreover, this domain is included in the domain defined by dev 3 logu 4. Numerical computations reveal that the exponentiated Hencky energy is rank-one convex in a 3 domain for which dev 3 logu a with a > 4 see Subsection 6.3). 4 3 In this paper we also show that for planar elastostatics F e logu is not rank-one convex, a surprising observation which is difficult to obtain, since ellipticity is lost for extremely large principal stretches only. 5 The idea of considering the exponential function in modelling of nonlinear elasticity is not entirely new. In fact WF) = µ [ k e ki 3) ], where I = trf F T ), is a Fung-type model which is often used in the biomechanics literature to describe µ [ the nonlinearly elastic response of biological tissues [85, 5]. In the limit lim k 0 k e ki 3) ] = µ I 3), we recover the Neo-Hookean energy for elastic incompressible materials. Another Fung-type energy [85, 5] is WF) = µ k [ ] e k C. 0

11 The true-stress-true-strain invertibility TSTS-I) holds true everywhere. The true-stress-stretch invertibility TSS-I) holds true everywhere. 3 The true-stress-true-strain monotonicity TSTS-M) is satisfied for bounded distortions. 4 Hill s inequality KSTS-M + ) is satisfied, in the entire deformation range and τ eh is invertible. 5 Planar pure Cauchy shear stress produces biaxial pure shear strain and ν = incompressibility. corresponds to exact 6 Forn = 3 amongthe family W eh there exists a special k = 3 k ) three parametersubset such that uniaxial tension leads to no lateral contraction if and only if the Poisson s ratio ν = 0, as in linear elasticity. 7 There is no number k > 0 such that W eh is rank one convex everywhere in the three dimensional case, but there is a built-in failure criterion active on extreme distortional strains: the energy seems to be rank-one convex in the cone-like elastic domain E + W iso eh,lh,u,7) = { U PSym3) dev3 logu 7 }. T Biot 5 k 4 k 3 k 3 4 k k 4 k 8 k λ Figure 5: Qualitative picture of nominal stress response of W eh for uniaxial elongation, for different values of k, typical S-shape entropic elasticity response. We remark that for k < [ 8 the function d µ λ] dλ k eklog is not everywhere monotone increasing. The value of k determines the shape of the strain-hardening and strain-softening response, with larger k implying strong strain-hardening. Specific values of k only change the response for large elastic strains log λ > 0.. Classical Hencky s response is retrieved for k 0. Invertibility of the Cauchy stress-stretch response needs k >. In the uniaxial case it is intuitively reasonable that there should be a 8 bijective constitutive relationship between stress and strain that defines the [ mechanical properties of an idealized elastic body. For large stretch values λ the function d µ λ] dλ k eklog is monotone increasing for all k > 0. The influence of k on the response is easily understood and we have negligible effect of k under pressure. These results completely settle the status of the quadratic Hencky energy as a useful approximation in plane elasto-statics and lead to new perspectives for the three-dimensional idealized isotropic setting. The contents of this paper in the order of their appearance are: i) a further short discussion of the existing literature; ii) notation; iii) introduction of general constitutive requirements in idealized nonlinear elasticity; iv) the invertible true-stress-true-strain relation; v) rank-one convexity in the two-dimensional case; vi) domains of rank-one convexity in the three-dimensional case; vii) summary; viii) extensive list of references; ix) appendix.

12 τ 4 τ eh τ H logλ 4 Figure 6: Uniaxial Kirchhoff stress tensor as a function of logarithmic strain for the classical Hencky model W H and our exponentiated family W eh..3 Previous work in the spirit of our investigation Rougée [07, pages 3, 30] see also [8, 06] and later extensions by Fiala [73, 74, 75, 76]) identifies Hencky s logarithmic strain measure logu = logc as having as its Frobenius tensor norm) the length of a geodesic joining two metric states: he endows the set of positive definite matrices PSym3) which is not a Lie-group w.r.t. matrix multiplication) with a Riemannian structure see also [3, 57, 56]). In this case, geodesics joining the identity with any metric tensor C = F T F are simply one-parameter groups t exptlogc). This interpretation is fundamentally different from ours given in [7, 7, 73] and hinted at in the introduction. Criscioneetal. [5]proposedanewinvariantbasisforthenaturalstrainlogU,whichleadstoarepresentation for the Cauchy stress σ as the sum of three response terms that are mutually orthogonalsee also [84]). In fact, Criscione et al. [5, 60] see also [65]) consider energies W Crisc K,K,K 3 ) based on the Hencky-logarithmic strain, where K,K,K 3 ) is a set of invariants for the isotropic case 6 : the amount-of-dilatation : K = trlogu) = logdetu = logdetv = logdetf, the magnitude-of-distortion : K = dev 3 logu = dev 3 logv, the mode-of-distortion : K 3 = 3 ).) dev3 logu 6 det. dev 3 logu As it turns out, any isotropic energy can also be represented as a function W Crisc = W Crisc K,K,K 3 ) of Criscione s invariants see [5, 5, ]). In this paper, we use exclusively K which we call accordingly the magnitude-of-dilatation ) and the magnitude-of-distortion K, but with our different geometric motivation. In [] some necessary conditions for the LH-ellipticity versus exponential-growth are discussed for energies depending on the Hencky strain logu. In fact, Sendova and Walton [] have considered the energy W to be a function of K = dev 3 logu and proved that W has to grow at least exponentially as a function of K. They note, however, that constructing conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for strong ellipticity to hold for all deformations still seem[s to be] a daunting task. In [09] Sansour has discussed the multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient into its volumetric and isochoric parts and its implications in the case of anisotropy. Sansour s statement for isotropy is already contained in the paper by Richter [96, page 09]. This decomposition problem was studied later in the papers [7, 4]. Gearing and Anand [89] see also [98, 68]) recently proposed an energy of the form 7 W Anand logu) = µlogdetu) dev 3 logu +hlogdetu),.) 6 Richter in 949 [97] already considers the following complete set of isotropic invariants: K = trlogu),k = trdev 3logU) ) and trdev 3 logu) 3 ), see also [40]. A similar list of invariants was used by Lurie [40, page 89]: K, K and K 3 = arcsink 3 ). 7 The energy.) does not satisfy the tension-compression symmetry.

13 where detu hlogdetu)) is highly non-convex. The energy W Anand logu) couples volumetric and distortional response and is based on molecular dynamics simulations. The molecular dynamics simulation 8 is not in contradiction with an increasing generalized shear modulus µ as detu 0, see [98, 97]. The Baker-EricksenBE) inequalities express the requirement that the greater principal Cauchy stress should occur in the direction of the greater principle stretch, while the tension-extension TE) inequalities demand that each principal stress is a strictly increasing function of the corresponding principal stretch. The BE-inequalities and TE-inequalities arise in connection with propagation of waves in principal direction of strain [53]. The strong ellipticity condition for hyperelastic materials [67] was studied in [8, 3, 0, 0, 58], but the complete study seems to be presented first in Ogden s Ph.D.-thesis [8]. For an incompressible hyperelastic material corresponding conditions were given in []. A family of universal solutions in plane elastostatics for the quadratic Hencky model is obtained in [9]. A stronger constitutive requirement than rank-one convexity is Ball s-polyconvexity condition[5, 4]. A free energyfunction WF) is called polyconvexif and only if it is expressible in the form WF) = PF,CofF,detF), P : R 9 R, where P,, ) is convex. Polyconvexity implies weak lower semicontinuity, quasiconvexity and rank-one convexity. Quasiconvexity of the energy function W at F means that WF + ϑ)dx WF)dx = WF) Ω, for every bounded open set Ω R 3.3) Ω Ω holds for all ϑ C0 Ω) such that detf + ϑ) > 0. It implies that the homogeneous solution ϕx) = F.x, x R 3 is always a global energy minimizer subject to its own Dirichlet boundary conditions. In fact, polyconvexity is the cornerstone notion for a proof of the existence of minimizers by the direct methods of the calculus of variations for energy functions satisfying no polynomial growth conditions. This is typically the case in nonlinear elasticity since one has the natural requirement WF) as detf 0. Polyconvexity is best understood for isotropic energy functions, but it is not restricted to isotropic response. It was a long standing open question how to extend the notion of polyconvexity in a meaningful way to anisotropic materials [7]. The answer has been provided in a series of papers [8, 67, 9, 0, 7, 6, 96, 9, 45, 8, 0, 70]. For isotropic strain energies, the polyconvexity condition in the case of space dimension was conclusively discussed by Rosakis [05] and Šilhavý [7], while the case of arbitrary space dimension was studied by Mielke [53], by Dacorogna and Marcellini [57], Dacorogna and Koshigoe [56] and Dacorogna and Marechal [58]..4 Notation For a,b R n we let a,b R n denote the scalar product on R n with associated vector norm a R n = a,a R n. We denote by R n n the set of real n n second order tensors, written with capital letters. The standard Euclidean scalar product on R n n is given by X,Y R n n = trxy T ), and thus the Frobenius tensor norm is X = X,X R n n. In the following we do not adopt any summation convention and we omit the subscript R n n in writing the Frobenius tensor norm. The identity tensor on R n n will be denoted by, so that trx) = X,. We let Symn) and PSymn) denote the symmetric and positive definite symmetric tensors respectively. We adopt the usual abbreviations of Lie-group theory, i.e. GLn) := {X R n n detx 0} denotes the general linear group, SLn) := {X GLn) detx = }, On) := {X GLn) X T X = }, SOn) := {X GLn,R) X T X =, detx = }, GL + n) := {X R n n detx > 0} is the group of invertible matrices with positive determinant, so3) := {X R 3 3 X T = X} is the Lie-algebra of skew symmetric tensors and sl3) := {X R 3 3 trx) = 0} is the Lie-algebra of traceless tensors. Here and in the following the superscript T is used to denote transposition, and CofA = deta)a T is the cofactor of A GLn). The set of positive real numbers is denoted by R + := 0, ), while R + : = R + { }. For all vectors ξ,η R 3 we have the dyadic) tensor product ξ η) ij = ξ i η j. Let us consider WF) to be the strain energy function of an elastic material in which F is the gradient of a deformation from a reference configuration to a configuration in the Euclidean 3-space; WF) is measured per unit volume of the reference configuration. The domain of W ) is GL + n). We denote by C = F T F the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor, by B = F F T the left Cauchy-Green or Finger) strain tensor, by U the right stretch tensor, i.e. the unique element of PSymn) for which U = C and by V the left stretch tensor, i.e. 8 The numerical results given by Hennan and Anand [98] correspond to the large volumetric strain range 0.75 detf logdetf 0.5) but small shear strain range dev 3 logv

14 the unique element of PSymn) for which V = B. Here, we are only concerned with rotationally symmetric functions objective and isotropic), i.e. WF) = WQ T F Q ) F = RU = VR GL + n), Q,Q,R SOn). We define J = detf and we denote by S = D F [WF)] the first Piola-Kirchhoffstress tensor, by S = F S = D C [WC)] the second Piola-Kirchhoffstress tensor, by σ = J S F T the Cauchy stress tensor, and by τ = J σ the Kirchhoff stress tensor. Constitutive requirements in idealized nonlinear elasticity. The Baker-Ericksen inequalities An ellipticity criterion much weaker than the LH-ellipticity criterion.0) are the so called Baker-Ericksen BE) inequalities. The Baker-Ericksen inequalities are arguably an absolutely necessary requirement for reasonable material behaviour. Baker and Ericksen [3] considered a unit cube of isotropic elastic material to undergo a pure homogeneous deformation with principal directions parallel to the edges of the cube. They showed that the BE-inequalities are necessary and sufficient for the greater principal Cauchy stress to occur in the direction of the greater principal stretch. For an isotropic material, Rivlin [0] supposed that the unit cube considered by Baker and Ericksen is further subjected to a superposed infinitesimal simple shear with direction of shear parallel to an edge of the deformed cube and plane parallel to one of its faces. Rivlin [0] proved that the BE-inequalities are necessary and sufficient conditions for the incremental shear modulus to be positive. The order relation for Cauchy stresses requested by the cube problem considered by Baker and Ericksen then follows. Let Ŵ : GL+ 3) R be a function that can be written as a function of the singular values of U via ŴU) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ). Then the BE-inequalities express the requirement that [4, 3, 60, 65, 80]: σ i σ j )λ i λ j ) 0,.) g where σ i = λ i = g, i j k i, are the principal Cauchy stresses. Usually, in the λ λ λ 3 λ i λ j λ k λ i literature, the BE-inequalities mean that the above inequalities are strict. In this paper, we prefer to denote these strict inequalities as BE + -inequalities. The BE-inequalities are equivalent see [4, page 7]) to λ i g λ i λ j g λ j λ i λ j 0, for all λ i,λ j R +, λ i λ j..) We may also view the BE-inequalities as Cauchy true-stress-order-condition TS-OC).. Relation of Baker-Ericksen inequalities to other constitutive requirements Marzano has shown [44] that the BE-inequalities are necessary and sufficient conditions for a simple extension a deformation in which two, but not three, principal stretches are equal) to correspond to simple tension. In [54] it was proved that for a homogeneous isotropic hyperelastic material subject to a pure Cauchy shear stress a state of pure shear: trσ) = 0 [79]) of the form σ = 0 s 0 s 0 0.3) the BE-inequalities are satisfied if and only if the corresponding left Cauchy-Green strain tensor B = F F T has the representation 9 B = B B 0 B B 0,.4) 0 0 B 33 9 Since trσ) = 0 one might rather expect the stronger statement B = B B 0 B B 0, i.e. B 33 =, as well as detb =. 0 0 However, this is not true in general for isotropic energies, e.g. it is not satisfied for Neo-Hooke or Mooney-Rivlin type materials. 4

15 where B +B > B 33 > B B > 0. In general, there are many different possible ways of expressing the physically plausible requirement the Drucker postulate) that stresses should increase with increasing stretch or strain 0 [50, 55]: TE-inequalities tension-extension-inequalities): each principal Cauchy stress is a strictly increasing function of the corresponding principal stretch, i.e. > 0, i =,,3. Since σ i = g σ i, i j k i, λ i λ j λ k λ i we obtain σ i = g λ i λ j λ k λ and the TE-inequalities are equivalent to the separate convexity SC) of the i function g, namely g > 0, i =,,3. λ i OF-inequalities ordered-force-inequalities [53]): the greater principal force T i = σ i λ j λ k = g λ i, i j k i, which is associated with the greater principal stretch is such that T i T j )λ i λ j ) 0..5) The physical meaning of the OF-inequalities is the following: if a block of isotropic material is supposed to be in equilibrium subject to pairs of equal and oppositely directed normal forces acting upon its faces, then the greater stretch will occur in the direction of the greater force. The OF-inequalities are therefore similar to the BE-inequalities, only that principal forces instead of principal stresses are concerned [53, page 58]. We observe that RT Biot U)R T = τv)v = J σv)v,.6) where F = RU = V R, F R T = V, V T = RF T = V. Hence, the Biot stress tensor T Biot is symmetric [53, page 44] and represents the principal forces acting in the reference system. Therefore, we may also denote the OF-inequalities as Biot stress-order-conditionbs-oc). Using nearly incompressible materials like rubber, Ball [4] has described a reasonable situation for which the BE-inequalities are valid, while the OF-condition is violated. This fact was previously proved by Sidoroff [5, page 380]. Convexity type conditions. The convexity of W as function of F means DF WF).H,H) > 0, for all H 0, and implies the monotonicity of the Piola-Kirchhoff stress S F +H) S H),H > 0, H 0..7) This condition yields unqualified uniqueness of boundary value problems, it excludes therefore buckling and is unphysical [07]. For diagonal deformation gradients, the above convexity condition implies the monotonicity of the Biot stress tensor as a function of stretch BSS-M + ). 0 In the literature, all these concepts are defined using strict inequalities for λ i λ j, i j. In this paper these common cases will be denoted by TE +, OF +, E + and PC +, respectively. These inequalities appear also, but not as strict inequalities, in the following theorem: Theorem.. [6, Theorem 6.5] Let W : GL + n) R be an objective-isotropic function of class C with the representation in terms of the singular values of U via WF) = ŴU) = gλ,λ,...,λ n). Let F GL + n) be given with the n-tuple of singular values λ,λ,...,λ n. Then D WF)[H,H] 0 for every H R n n if and only if the following conditions hold simultaneously: i) n i,j= g λ i λ j a i a j 0 for every a,a,...,a n) R n convexity of g); ii) for every i j, iii) g λ i g λ j λ i λ j 0 }{{} OF inequality g + g 0 for every i j. λ i λ j if λ i λ j, g λ i g λ i λ j 0 if λ i = λ j. Hence, if the function F WF) is convex in F GL + n), then the OF-inequalities hold true. However, the convexity of F WF) is physically not acceptable, since it precludes buckling. 5

16 GCN-inequality Generalized-Coleman-Noll-inequality) [4, page 8]: if Λ is a positive-definite symmetric matrix a pure stretch), then the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress S F) satisfies S ΛF) S F),ΛF F > 0..8) Forhomogeneousisotropichyperelasticmaterials,theGCN-inequalityimpliesstrictconvexityofgλ,λ,λ 3 ) in all variables, implying convexity in U [4, 4], which is known to be unreasonable[07, 08]. Moreover, the GCN-inequality implies the OF-condition which according to Sidoroff [5, page 380] is inadmissible for compressible materials. In order to circumvent the problems of the GCN-inequality, Sidoroff [5] proposed the condition WF) = ĝlogλ,logλ,logλ 3 ), where ĝ should be strictly convex..9) This is nothing else than Hill s condition, i.e. our KSTS-M +. E-TSS-inequalities empirical -inequalities): using the general form of the Cauchy stress tensor for isotropic materials σ = σb) = β 0 +β B +β B,.0) where β 0,β,β are functions depending on the principal invariants of B, I B) = trb), I B) = trcofb), I 3 B) = detb, the E-TSS-inequalities require while the strengthened E + -TSS-inequalities require E-TSS: β 0 0, β > 0, β 0,.) E + -TSS: β 0 0, β > 0, β < 0..) Some experimental data seem to support these inequalities in certain bounded deformation ranges. However, no theoretical motivation has been found for the empirical inequalities [6]. The connection of the E-TSS-inequalities with the Poynting effect is discussed in [55]. Batra [] see also []) proved that the E-TSS-inequalities are sufficient conditions for the simple extension to correspond to simple tension. Batra s result has been improved later by Marzano [44], who proved that the BE-inequalities are necessary and sufficient to have the equivalence between simple extension and simple tension. The BE-inequalities are weaker than the E-TSS-inequalities, because for β 0 0 the BE-inequalities imply [44] only that β > 0..3) Assuming that β < 0, Johnson and Hoger [3] have shown that one may uniquely write B = ψ 0 +ψ σ +ψ σ,.4) where ψ i = ψ i β 0 I B),I B),I 3 B)),β I B),I B),I 3 B)),β I B),I B),I 3 B)),i = 0,,. This means that E + -TSS implies invertibility of the Cauchy stress-stretch relation if β 0,β,β do not depend on B. Nothing can be said about the validity of the third inequality from.6), beyond their logical relation to the BE and OF inequalities, which may be abbreviated as follows [55]: E-TSS BE and OF. While the OF and BE inequalities are equivalent in the linearized theory, in general [55, 54] OF BE and BE OF. Hence, the empirical inequalities imply the OF-inequality. Since the OF-condition is not a valid assumption in general see above), the E-TSS-inequalities in general cannot be a valid assumption either. Rivlin [0] pointed out that the OF-conditions do not, in general, provide an appropriate restriction on the strain-energy function for an isotropic elastic material. Hence, OF is in general an independent statement and Rivlin [0] proved that it is unacceptable. 6

17 E-BSS-inequalities: in view of the general form of the Biot stress tensor for isotropic materials the E-BSS-inequalities require while the E + -BSS-inequalities require T Biot = β 0 +β U +β U,.5) β 0 0, β > 0, β 0,.6) β 0 0, β > 0, β < 0..7) IFS invertible-force-stretch relation): the invertibility of the map λ,λ,λ 3 ) T i λ,λ,λ 3 ), where T i are the principal forces [55, 54, 3]. We remark that if the GCN-inequality holds, then gλ,λ,λ ) is strictly convex and IFS follows. IFS expresses the invertibility of the Biot stress tensor T Biot U) [0], since, up to a superposed rotation, the Biot stress tensor defines the principal forces acting in the reference system [53, page 44] see also [54]), see.6). Rivlin contested this condition since for Neo-Hookean incompressible materials different λ,λ,λ 3 ) may correspond to the same T Biot stress tensor [0]. PC-inequalitypressure-compression-inequality): the condition that the volume of a compressible isotropic material should be decreased by uniform pressure but increased by uniform tension is expressed by requiring the hydrostatic tension σ = σ = σ = σ 3 to be a strictly increasing function of the stretch λ = λ = λ = λ 3, i.e. σ λ 0. TSTS-M + Jog and Patil s true-stress-true-strain monotonicity []): the monotonicity of the Cauchy stress tensor as a function of logb or logv see Remark 4.), i.e. σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb > 0, B,B PSym + 3), B B..8) TSTS-I true-stress-true-strain-invertibility): the map log B σlog B) is invertible see Sections 3 and 4). TSS-M + true-stress-stretch-monotonicity): the monotonicity of the Cauchy stress tensor as a function of B or logv, i.e. σb ) σb ),B B > 0, B,B PSym + 3), B B..9) We remark that subtracting the two stretch tensors B,B is in principle a problematic issue: B,B do not belong to a linear space. TSS-I true-stress-stretch-invertibility): the map B σb) is invertible [45]. Since log : PSymn) Symn) is invertible, TSTS-I and TSS-I are clearly equivalent. However, in order to be more precise we keep both definitions. Truesdell and Moon relate TSS-I with semi-invertibility [5]. There, they also implicitly show that the E-TSS-inequalities are not in general sufficient for TSS-I. Johnson and Hoger [3] have shown that E + -TSS-inequalities together with constant coefficients are sufficient for TSS-I see also [64]). Taking a compressible Neo-Hooke model in the form NHF) = µ B, +κhdetf),.0) detb/3 W iso which additively separates the isochoric and volumetric contributions it can be shown [9] that B σb) is invertible. Here h : R + R must be a strictly convex function satisfying lim h J) = and J 0 lim J h J) =. For instance, suitable convex functions are h : R + R, ht) = e log t and ht) = t logt. Therefore, TSS-I merits further investigation see the discussion of IFS). KSTS-M + Hill s Kirchhoff-stress-true-strain-monotonicity [07]): the monotonicity of the Kirchhoff stress tensor as a function of logv, i.e. τlogv ) τlogv ),logv logv > 0, V,V PSym + 3), V V..) In [80] Ogden has proved that the later called Odgen s energy does not satisfy the KSTS-M + inequality, but it may satisfy KSTS-M + under some restrictions on deformations confirmed by experiments. 7

18 KSTS-I Kirchhoff stress-true-strain-invertibility): the map log V τlog V) is invertible. KSS-M + Kirchhoff stress-stretch monotonicity): the monotonicity of the Kirchhoff stress tensor as a function of V, i.e. τv ) τv ),V V > 0, V,V PSym + 3), V V..) KSS-I Kirchhoff stress-stretch-invertibility): the map V τv) is invertible. BSTS-M + Biot stress-true strain monotonicity): the monotonicity of the Biot stress tensor T Biot U) = R T S F) as a function of logb, i.e. T Biot logu ) T Biot logu ),logu logu > 0, U,U PSym + 3), U U..3) BSTS-I Biot stress-true strain-invertibility): the map logu T Biot logu) is invertible. BSS-M + Biot stress-stretch-monotonicity): the monotonicity of the Biot stress tensor [3] T Biot U) = R T S U) as a function of U, i.e. T Biot U ) T Biot U ),U U > 0, U,U PSym + 3), U U..4) Krawietz [3] has shown that BSS-M + implies the generalized Colleman-Noll GCN) inequality. The GCN-inequality in turn is known to be not acceptable from physical grounds [5]. Therefore BSS-M + is not an admissible requirement in general. However, Ogden [83, page 36] remarks that there is a good physical reason for supposing that the inequality [.4)] holds for real elastic materials, at least for some bounded domain which encloses the stress free origin U =. BSS-I Biot stress-stretch-invertibility): the map U T Biot U) is invertible. In [8], Ogden suggested that T Biot should be invertible in the domain of elastic response. However, BSS-I is in fact equivalent to Truesdell s notion IFS and to BSTS-I. This seems to have been overlooked in the literature [83, 8, 0]. In a forthcoming paper we will show that BSS-I excludes bifurcations in Rivlin s cube problem which is not necessarily a problematic feature. In the following XSTS-M +, XSTS-I, XSS-M +, XSS-I, E-XSS, E + -XSS have the obvious meaning once the stress tensor X is defined. It is easy to see that BE and TE are necessary for rank-one convexity see Theorem 5.), i.e. LH-ellipticity BE and TE. Moreover, because the constitutive inequalities are indifferent to superposed rotations, we have BSTS-M + BSTS-I BSS-I IFS. In Figure 7, we give a diagram showing the relation between some of the introduced constitutive requirements. The KSTS-M + condition does not exclude loss of rank-one convexity consider e.g. the quadratic Hencky energy) but it is also in principle not in conflict with rank-one convexity. In order to prove this fact we consider a special Ciarlet-Geymonat energy linear Poisson s ratio ν = 0) WCG ν=0 F) = µ [ F logdetf) 3 ]..5) This uni-constant compressible Neo-Hooke energy was considered in [35] and it has been speculated that it has some advantageous properties. The energy WCG ν=0 is LH-elliptic it is even polyconvex). In the following we show that the energy WCG ν=0 satisfies the KSTS-M+ condition. First of all let us remark that WCG ν=0 F) = µ [ e logu trlogu) 3 ] = µ [ e S trs) 3 ], where S = logu Sym3), 8

19 Figure 7: Relations between some constitutive requirements in idealized isotropic compressible nonlinear elasticity. Whether TSTS-M + implies KSTS-M + is not clear. and further WCG ν=0 F) = g µ,µ,µ 3 ) = µ [ e µ +e µ +e µ3 µ +µ +µ 3 ) 3 ],.6) where µ,µ,µ 3 are the eigenvalues of S = logu. The function g being convex and nondecreasing in each variable µ i, using the Davis-Lewis theorem [59, 37, 38, 36, 35] we have that WCG ν=0 is convex in S = logu. Thus, the energy WCG ν=0 satisfies the KSTS-M+ condition everywhere. Moreover, the BSS-M + condition is also satisfied, since WCG ν=0 F) = µ [ U logdetu) 3 ].7) is convex in U [35]. On the other hand, the Mooney-Rivlin variant of the energy W ν=0 CG F), W CGMR F) = α F +α CofF logdetf)+e logdetf) 3α 3α.8) is not convex considered as a function of logu. We give the following conjecture: Conjecture.. The energy W eh does not satisfy the E + -TSS-inequalities. However, we will show in this paper that: Remark.3. The energy W eh satisfies the TSS-I condition see Section 3). Similarly, as shown in [35] the energy C µ [ 4 C logdetc) 3 ] is convex in C and indeed polyconvex. The convexity in C has been used by Fung [85] to invert the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S = D C [WC)]. 9

20 .3 Baker-Ericksen inequalities and Schur convexity The BE-inequalities related to the function g can be reformulated in terms of Schur-convexity. The connection between Schur-convexity and the Baker-Ericksen inequalities has been clearly pointed out by Šilhavý in [6, page 30] and in full explicitness in [3, pages 4,49]. For our purpose here and in order to see the relation between Schur-convexity and BE-inequalities it is sufficient to know the following characterizations of Schurconvex functions further information on Schur-convexity can be found in [4]): Proposition.4. [4, page 84] Let I be an open interval in R and let l : I n ) R be continuously differentiable. l Then l is Schur convex if and only if l is symmetric and x i x j ) x i l x j 0 for all i j. Proposition.5. [4, page 97] Let I be an open interval in R and let l : I n R. If the function l is symmetric and convex in each pair of arguments, the other arguments being fixed, then l is Schur-convex. This notion relates to the BE-inequalities as follows: Proposition.6. [4, Remark 5.] Schur-convexity of the function l : R 3 + R, lx,y,z) = ge x,e y,e z ).9) is equivalent to the fulfilment of the Baker-Ericksen inequalities in terms of the function g. This characterization makes the following theorem quickly conceivable. Theorem.7. Convex isotropic functions of log U always satisfy the BE-inequalities. Proof. Convex isotropic) functions of log U lead to gλ,λ,λ 3 ) = llogλ,logλ,logλ 3 ),.30) where l is a convex function. To see this, we apply Proposition.6: An energy function given by g satisfies BE if and only if the function l : R 3 + R, lx,y,z) = gex,e y,e z ) is Schur-convex, hence it is sufficient to show that l is convex and symmetric. Convexity follows from ge x,e y,e z ) = lloge x,loge y,loge z ) = lx,y,z) and convexity of l, while the symmetry is obtained from the isotropy of W. From the Schur-convexity of l it follows that the functions g satisfies the Baker-Ericksen-inequalities. Remark.8. Optimality of logarithmic strain and Baker-Ericksen inequalities) Theorem.7 shows that Schur-)convex dependence on the logarithmic strain tensor somehow is the ideal form for BE. Isotropic functions W of logu satisfy the BE-inequalities if and only if l from.9) is Schur-convex.) In the following remark we gather a few simple convexity properties, some of which can be derived with the results of this section: Remark.9. i) e devn logu, e logu, dev n logu, logu are all convex functions of logu, i.e. satisfy Hill s inequality KSTS-M). ii) e logu satisfies BE, because is convex and hence so is e. iii) e devn logu satisfies the Baker-Ericksen inequalities in any dimension because dev n is convex and t e t is monotone increasing and convex. iv) e devn logu, e logu are SC separately convex) in λ i,i =,,3 direct calculations) but not convex in λ,λ,λ 3 ). Therefore, e devn logu, e logu is not convex in U and the energy terms do not satisfy BSS-M +. 0

21 v) dev n logu, logu are not SC separately convex) [6] in λ i,i =,,3 they do not satisfy the TE-inequalities) and therefore are not rank-one convex [66, 39]. vi) WBecker ν=0 U) = µ U,logU the maximum entropy function) [77] does not satisfy the BE-inequalities but satisfies the TE-inequalities. The formulation of Becker [7] is hyperelastic for Poisson s ratio ν = 0 exclusively), which is the case for the modelling of cork. Moreover, since TBiot Becker U) = D U WBecker ν=0 U) = µ logu and since log is monotone, it follows TBiot Becker U ) TBiot Becker U ),U U > 0 which is BSS- M + for ν = 0. Hence, it is clear that IFS BSS-I) hold. Moreover, TBiot Becker satisfies BSS-I for arbitrary < ν. 3 The invertible true-stress-true-strain relation We consider the exponentiated Hencky energy W eh logv) := µ log k ek dev3 V + κ e ktrlogv )). 3.) k Here, we first show that the corresponding true-stress-true-strain relation σ eh : Sym3) Sym3), σ eh = σ eh logv) isinvertibleforthe exponentiated energyw eh. Then weprovethat apureplanarcauchyshearstressσ produces a biaxial shear strain for general Hencky type energies. The invertibility of the true-stress-true-strain relation, i.e. of the map logv σlogv), is denoted by TSTS-I as introduced previously. In the older literature, the requirement of an invertible stress-strain relation is tacitly assumed to always hold generally, even for nonlinear materials response [96]. The Kirchhoff stress tensor corresponding to 3.) is given [83] by D logv W eh logv) = τ eh = detf) σ eh = e logdetv σ eh = e trlogv ) σ eh, 3.) where σ eh is the Cauchy stress tensor. Hence, the Kirchhoff stress τ eh has the expression while the Cauchy stress tensor is τ eh = µe k dev3 log V dev 3 log V +κe k[trlogv )] trlogv), 3.3) σ eh = e trlogv) τ eh = µe k dev3 log V trlogv) dev 3 log V +κe k[trlogv)] trlogv) trlogv). 3.4) Moreover, by orthogonal projection onto the Lie-algebra sl3) and R, respectively, we find dev 3 σ eh = µe k dev3 log V trlogv) dev 3 log V, trσ eh ) = 3κe k[trlogv)] trlogv ) trlogv). 3.5) Let us use the notation x := trlogv). In this notation, from 3.5), we have trσ eh ) 3κ = e kx x x. 3.6) The function x e kx x x, x R, is strictly monotone if k > 8. Thus, in this case, equation 3.6) has a unique solution x = trlogv) as a function of trσ eh ). We substitute the solution x of equation 3.6) in equation 3.5), to obtain e x dev 3 σ eh µ = e k dev3 log V dev 3 log V, 3.7) and further k ex dev 3 σ eh µ = D dev3 logv e k dev3 log V. 3.8)

22 Using the substitution Y = dev 3 logv we have k ex dev 3 σ eh µ = D Y e k Y. 3.9) Because Y e k Y, Y Sym3) is uniformly convex with respect to Y, it follows that D Y ek Y H,H) > 0, for all Y Sym3), and for all H Sym3). Hence, the function Y D Y e Y is a strictly monotone tensor function. Therefore, equation 3.9) has a unique solution Y = dev 3 logv as a function of dev 3 σ eh and x = trlogv). Hence, given the Cauchy stress σ eh, we can always uniquely find trlogv) and dev 3 logv, i.e. logv, such that 3.4) is satisfied. Therefore TSTS-I is true in the three-dimensional case. simple changes of the computations show that TSTS-I is also true in the two-dimensional case. Whether well known elastic strain energies like compressible Neo-Hooke, Mooney-Rivlin or Ogden type energies [48] give rise to an overall invertible Cauchy-stress-stretch relation σ = σb) is not clear. This is connected to possible homogeneous bifurcations, e.g. in a hydrostatic loading problem [47, 6]. Let us consider, in the following, three particular cases for our energy W eh : pure Cauchy shear stress, uniaxial tension and simple shear. 3. Pure Cauchy shear stress In this subsection we consider the case of pure Cauchy shear stress, i.e. σ eh = 0 s 0 s 0 0, 0 = trσ eh ) = trτ eh ). 3.0) We aim to find the corresponding form of the stretch tensor V. From 3.3), by considering the trace on both sides, it follows that in the case of pure shear stress, we must have trlogv) = 0 detv =. We need to remark that the conclusion that pure Cauchy shear stresses lead to an incompressible response is not verified e.g. for Neo-Hooke, Mooney-Rivlin or Ogden-type materials. In our case, however, it remains to solve µe k dev3 logv dev 3 logv = 0 s 0 s 0 0 µe k logv logv = 0 s 0 s ) Inspired byvallée sresultin [56], a solutionofequation3.) can be found in the formofpure biaxialstretch 3 V = cosh γ sinh γ 0 sinh γ cosh γ ) Corresponding to this ansatz for V, we have log V = 0 γ 0 γ 0 0, det V =, 3.3) and equation 3.) becomes σ eh = 0 s 0 s 0 0 = µe k γ 0 γ 0 γ ) For all s R we always have a solution γ = γs) of the above equation, because γ e k γ γ is monotone increasing. Thus, we recover completely the classical statement that in linear elasticity, pure shear stresses 3 This is suggested by the formula presented in [9, page 736]: e α  = coshα sinhα sinhα coshα ) for  = 0 α α 0 ).

23 3.0) produces pure biaxial shear strains 3.8), i.e. σ = µε = µ 0 γ 0 γ 0 0 ε = }{{} pure infinitesimal shear stress 0 γ 0 γ 0 0 }{{} pure infinitesimal shear strain, trε) = 0, }{{} 3.5) linearized incompressibility where ε = sym u. For the finite strain case, this equivalence seems to be true only for Hencky type energies [56]. 3. Uniaxial Cauchy tension Next we consider the case of uniaxial tension σ eh = s ) From 3.4), by projection on the Lie-algebras sln) and R, we have µe k dev3 logv trlogv) dev 3 logv = dev 3 σ eh = )] 3κe k[trlogv trlogv) trlogv) = trσ eh ) = s. 3 s s s. 3.7) This means that a suitable ansatz for V is similar to that considered by Vallée [56] e a+ 3 x 0 0 e a 0 0 V = 0 e a+ 3 x 0 = e 3 x 0 e a e a+ 3 x 0 0 e a. 3.8) It is easy to compute that, corresponding to this ansatz for V, we have det V = e x, log V = a+ 3 x a+ 3 x 0, 3.9) 0 0 a+ 3 x a 0 0 trlog V) = x, dev 3 log V = 0 a 0, dev 3 logv = a a and equation 3.7) becomes 3µe k 3 a x a = s, 3κe kx x x = s. 3.0) In terms of Poisson s ratio ν, ) and Young s modulus E> 0, we have e k 3 a x 3 a = +ν E s, e kx x x = ν s. 3.) E For all s R we always have a solution x = xs) of the second equation and the function s xs) is monotone strictlyincreasingifκ > 0andsgn[xs)] = sgn[s]. Havingxs) from3.), wethenfindtheuniquesolutionas) of 3.). Moreover, for µ > 0 the function s as) is also monotone strictly increasing and sgn[as)] = sgn[s]. Therefore, the ansatz log V = a+ 3 x a+ 3 x a+ 3 x 3.) 3

24 corresponds to σ eh = s 0 0 = 3 ek 3 a x E a 0 0 +ν. 3.3) In the limit case ν = linear incompressibility), we observe that 3.) implies x = 0. Therefore log V = γ ν= γ 0, detv =, e k 3 γ γ = 0 0 γ ν= E s 3.4) }{{} and this corresponds to ν= σ eh = s 0 0 ν= : exact incompressibility = Ee k 3 γ γ 0 0 On the other hand, σ eh = 0 s = 0) is equivalent with logv = 0 x = 0,a = 0). In the case ν = 0, the nonlinear system 3.) becomes. 3.5) e k 3 a x 3 a = E s, e kx x x = s, 3.6) E which implies e k 3 a a = e kx 3 x. Using the substitution x = 3 y, we have ek 3 a a = e k 9 4 y y. We choose the entry parameters k, k such that 3 k = k and we further deduce that x = 3 a. Thus, with the substitution γ = 3 a, we deduce log V = γ 0 0, e k 3 γ γ γ = s, 3.7) ν=0 E which corresponds to σ eh ν=0 = s 0 0 = Ee k 3 γ γ γ ) Moreover, if there is no lateral contraction in uniaxial tension in the case ν = 0, then from 3.8) we deduce that we must have x = 3 a. On the other hand, for ν = 0, if x = 3 a, then using 3.6) we obtain that 3 k = k must hold necessarily. Thus, we have shown that uniaxial tension produces extension/contraction, as in linear elasticity, since for linear elasticity, using the inverted law ε = +ν E σ ν E trσ), we have σ = µε+λtrε) = E γ 0 0 }{{} uniaxial tension ε = γ νγ νγ }{{} extension/lateral contraction, 3.9) where ε = sym u. In the limit case ν =, we have trε) = 0, while for ν = 0 there is no lateral contraction in uniaxial tension as in 3.8). In linear elasticity, the Poisson s ratio is defined by ν = ε ε [93], where the transverse strain ε and the longitudinal strain ε are computed in uniaxial extension. Remark 3.. W eh with no lateral contraction for ν = 0) The above formula 3.8) is true if and only if the distortional stiffening parameter k and the volumetric strain stiffening parameter k are such that 3 k = k. In this case ν = 0 implies no lateral contraction for the exponentiated Hencky energy 3 parameter energy: ν, E, k) W eh logv) := µ k ek dev3 log V + 3κ 4k e 3 ktrlogv)) = k { E +ν ek dev3 log V + E ν) e 3 ktrlogv)) }. 4

25 3.3 On the nonlinear Poisson s ratio We define the nonlinear Poisson s ratio as negative ratio of the lateral contraction and axial extension measured in the logarithmic strain, i.e., according to 3.9) νs) = logv) logv) = a 3 x a+ 3 x. 3.30) The nonlinear Poisson s ratio [93] is a purely kinematical quantity which can be measured in the simple tension test. In [84, page 75] it is defined as νs) = λ λ. The linear) Poisson s ratio4 ν = ε ε [93] for many materials is positive and not strain sensitive until nonelastic effects intervene[39, 5]. In view of our definition, we have ) a ν = x + ν). 3.3) 3 Since sgn[as)] = sgn[s] = sgn[xs)] we deduce that ν,), which is in concordance with the definition from linear elasticity. From 3.3) we have a = + ν 3 ν x. Moreover, the system 3.) becomes This system is also equivalent to [ k 3 e k 3 + ν ν) x x x = ν + ν +ν E s, ) + ν ν k] x = log ν + ν e kx x x = ν s. 3.3) E ) +ν, e kx x x = ν s. 3.33) ν E In the following we consider the case of the three parameter energy W, i.e. the case k eh 3 = k. In this case we obtain the system ν ν) ν) x = ) ν k log +ν, e kx x x = ν s. 3.34) + ν ν E From the above equations we deduce that ν > 0 +ν ν > + ν ν ν > ν. Hence, ν > 0 implies ν > 0. On the other hand, if we assume that there is ν > 0 such that ν < 0, then we obtain +ν ν < + ν ν. 3.35) But ν > 0 implies +ν + ν ν >, while ν < 0 implies ν <. This is in clear contradiction with 3.35). Therefore ν > 0 ν > 0. If ν = 0, then from 3.34) it results that we have to have ν = 0 and x is determined only by e kx x x = s E see the discussion from Subsection 3. about the particular case ν = 0). If ν 0, then, since ν,), we deduce that ν is given as solution of the following equation if s > 0: k ν log + ν ) +ν ν + ν ν) k ν +ν log + ν ν) + ν ν) log e ν + ν +ν ν) k + ν ν) k = ν) s E, 3.36) 4 In terms of the Young s modulus and the shear modulus ν is given by ν = E, while in terms of the Young s modulus and µ the bulk modulus κ it is given by ν = E 6κ. 5

26 while for s < 0, ν is solution of the equation: ) ν +ν log + ν ν e + ν k ν) k ν log + ν + ν ν) +ν ν) + log ν + ν +ν ν) k + ν ν) k = ν) s E, 3.37) with x given by the independent equation e kx x x = ν) s E. In Figure 8 and 9 we give the representation s of the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν as function of E, corresponding to different values of the linear) Poisson s ratio. We also represent see Figure 0) the influence of the parameter k on the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν. We notice three particular cases. If ν =, then it follows from 3.) that a = 0 and further from 3.30) that ν =. If ν =, then 3.) leads to x = 0, while 3.30) implies ν =. Moreover, if ν = 0, then 3.) shows x = 3 a. Therefore, from 3.30) we obtain ν = ν Υ, Υ 0.4 Υ Υ Υ s E 0.0 Υ 0, Υ s E Figure 8: The nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν for k = and for the following values of the linear) Poisson s ratio: 6 ν = 0, ν = 3 and ν =. For ν = 0 and ν = the nonlinear Poisson s ratio is equal to the linear) Poisson s ratio, while for ν 0, ) the nonlinear Poisson ratio ν ) s logv) E = approximates the linear) Poisson s ratio only in a logv) s small neighborhood of E = 0. The graphic of the map s E ν s ) is tangent to the line ν0) = ν, decreases and it is E smaller than ν for non-infinitesimal values of the load parameter s. Moreover, the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν remains positive whenever ν = ν0) is positive and ν, ). 0.0 ν Υ Υ s E 0. Υ Υ,Υ s E Figure 9: The variation of the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν for k = and negative linear) Poisson ratio e.g. auxetic 6 materials). For ν = the nonlinear Poisson s ratio is equal to the linear) Poisson s ratio, while for ν,0) s the nonlinear Poisson s ratio approximates the linear) Poisson s ratio only in a small neighborhood of = 0. For E negative linear) Poisson s ratio the map s E ν s ) is tangent to the line ν0) = ν, increases and it is bigger than E ν for non-infinitesimal values of the load parameter s. Moreover, the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν remains negative whenever ν = ν0) is negative. 6

27 0.35 ν k 0 k 8 k 6 k 4 k 0.05 k s E Figure 0: Influence of the parameter k on the nonlinear Poisson s ratio ν. For k < 8 the map s E ν s ) is not E well-defined. For k 8 the map s E ν s ) is bijective. E 3.4 Cauchy stress in simple shear for W H and W eh Consider a simple glide deformation of the form F = γ ) with γ > 0. Then the polar decomposition of F = R U = V R into the right Biot stretch tensor U = F T F of the deformation and the orthogonal polar factor R is given by γ 0 γ 0 U = γ γ + 0 γ +4, R = γ γ +4 γ ) 0 0 γ +4 Further, U can be orthogonally diagonalized to 0 0 U = Q 0 γ +4+γ) 0 Q T = Q 0 0 γ +4 γ) where Q = 0 γ +4+γ γ +4 γ λ λ Q T, 3.40) 3.4) and λ = γ +4+γ) denotes the first eigenvalue of U. Hence, the principal logarithm of U is logu = Q logλ logλ Q T = γ +4 γ logλ logλ 0 logλ γ logλ 0, 3.4) 7

28 while the principal logarithm of V is given by R logv = R logu R = γ logλ logλ 0 logλ γ logλ 0 R 3.43) γ +4 γ 0 = γ +4) γ 0 γ +4 γ logλ logλ 0 γ 0 logλ γ logλ 0 γ γ γ +4 = γ +4 0 logλ 0 logλ 0 0 Cauchy stress in simple shear for W H γ 0 γ γ +4 = logλ γ +4 The Kirchhoff tensor τ H corresponding to the Hencky energy W H is given by Hence, in the case of simple shear, we have Moreover, since detf = and σ = detf σ H = µ logλ γ +4 γ 0 γ 0 τ H log V) = µ dev 3 log V +κtrlogv). 3.44) τ H = µ logλ γ +4 γ 0 γ 0 τ, we obtain log = µ γ 0 γ 0 [ ) ] γ +4+γ) γ +4 γ 0 γ ) In particular, the simple shear stress [σ H ] corresponding to the amount of shear is given by [ ] [ ] log γ +4+γ) E log γ +4+γ) [σ H ] = 4µ =. 3.47) γ +4 +ν γ +4 The quadratic Hencky energy looses ellipticity in simple shear, see Subsection 5.3. Cauchy stress in simple shear for W eh In view of 3.3), the Kirchhoff tensor τ eh is given by τ eh log V) = µe k dev3 log V dev 3 log V +κeˆk[trlogv)] trlogv). 3.48) Since for simple shear detf = and trlogv) = 0, we deduce σ eh log V) = µe k logλ log λ γ 0 γ 0 γ +4 = µe k log[ ] γ +4+γ) 3.49) [ ] log γ +4+γ) γ 0 γ ) γ +4 For the exponentiated energy W eh the simple shear stress σ eh corresponding to the amount of shear γ is given by [ ] E [ log [σ eh ] = ] log γ +4+γ) γ +4+γ) ek. 3.5) +ν γ +4 8

29 The response of some rubbers is more or less) linear under simple shear loading conditions this is the raison d être of the Mooney-Rivlin model [59], where [σ MR ] = C +C )γ = E +ν) γ). Let us therefore compare Figure ) the simple shear stress σ corresponding to the amount of shear for the energies W eh,w H, for the Mooney-Rivlin energy and for Neo-Hooke energy. [σ] MN/m σ MR, σ NH, σ lin Figure : The shear stress σ corresponding to the amount of shear γ for the energies W eh,w H, the Neo-Hooke energy W NH, the Mooney-Rivlin energy W MR and the infinitesimal E case corresponding to rubber: µ = +ν) = 0.39MN/m according to Treloar s data [48]). For the exponentiated energy W eh we have chosen 3 < k = The squares 6 ) represent the experimental data for the simple shear deformation of vulcanized rubber, measured in 944 by L.R.G. Treloar [47] and in 975 by L.R.G. Treloar and D.F. Jones [4] see also [48, 49]) and provided by courtesy of R. Ogden, in the form of tab-separated ASCII-files see [46]). σ eh σ H γ Later in this paper we will implicitly show that W eh remains rank-one convex in simple shear. Rubber becomes harder to deform at large strains, probably because of limited chain extendability. Many rubber materials are normally subjected to fairly small deformation, rarely exceeding 5%, in tension/compression or 75% in simple shear. Cauchy stress in simple shear in the infinitesimal case It is well known that in the infinitesimal case the Cauchy stress tensor is given by σ lin = µ dev 3 ε+κtrε), 3.5) where ε = sym u is the linearized strain tensor of the deformation ϕx) = x + ux) with the displacement u : Ω R 3 R 3. In the infinitesimal case, simple shear corresponds to the pure shear strain ε = 0 γ 0 γ ) The Cauchy stress tensor in simple shear is given by σ lin = µ 0 γ 0 γ 0 0 [σ lin ] = µγ = 3.5 Response of rubber under large pressure. Equation of state. E γ. 3.54) +ν) Rubber, if considered as a linear, isotropic solid very nearly satisfies ν = 0.5 i.e. for small loads, rubber responds practically incompressible). However, rubber under large pressure allows for an appreciable volume change [8]. This can be seen by experimentally determined equations of states EOS), relating the mean stress 9

30 the pressure) 3trσ) to the relative volume change detf. For the exponentiated Hencky energy this relation is given by 3 trσ eh) = d [ ] κ e klogt) = κe klogdetf) logdetf ), 3.55) dt k t=det F detf while for the quadratic Hencky energy we have 3 trσ ) = d [ κ H dt logt)] = t=det F κ logdetf ). 3.56) detf We have found that the analytical expression of the pressure 3 trσ) is in concordance with the classical Bridgman s compression data for natural rubber as reported in [8, page 497, Fig. 4.47] with κ = Pa = GPa see Figures,3). Tabor [4] showed that the bulk modulus of rubber is of the order GPa and found the value of the bulk modulus κ to be about GPa. Recently, Zimmermann and Stommel [68] found determined experimentally that κ is of the order κ =.5 GPa, which can be found in the literature as well see e.g. [5]). 3 trσ) [Pa] σ eh σ H detf Figure: The pressure trσ) as function of detf: Bridgman s experimental data [8] in compression 3 ), analytical form corresponding to the exponentiated volumetric Hencky energy κ e klogdetf) with k k = continuous line) and the analytical form corresponding to the volumetric quadratic Hencky energy κ logdetf) dashed line). The dotted line represents the tangent to these curves. The value of the bulk modulus of rubber is chosen to be κ =.5GPa. We point out that in the experimental data reported in [8, page 487] the magnitude of the pressure kg trσ) is expressed in 3 cm see Figure 4.47 from [8, page 487]) which means in fact kg ms = Pa. From Figure 3, certain threshold values seem unreachable by compression, unless in infinite amount of energy is spent. However, this impression is misleading: stresses and energy remain finite for any stretch V PSym3). Therefore, in our model the assumption of limited chain extensibility is not needed. InFigure4werepresentthepressure 3 trσ) asfunction ofdetf inthe neighbourhoodoftheidentity F = and we compare the analytical results obtained for the exponentiated volumetric Hencky energy κ e klogdetf) k 30

31 3 trσ) [Pa] detf σ H σ eh Figure3: Thepressure trσ)as function ofdetf. Itseems thatthere isasingularityatdetf = 0.67, 3 meaning that this model would preclude compression beyond det F = However, the pressure does not have a singularity in 0, ). Moreover the mean stress the pressure) corresponding to W eh is invertible as function of the volume change. The considered values and the legend are the same as in Figure. 3 trσ) [Pa] detf Figure 4: The pressure trσ) as function of detf in the neighbourhood of identity F =. The 3 considered values and the legend are the same as in Figure. with k = with the analytical form corresponding to the volumetric quadratic Hencky energy κ logdetf), as well with Bell s experimental data [8]. In the neighbourhood of the identity F =, the quadratic Hencky energy gives also good results, while in large compression the values obtained using the quadratic Hencky energy 3

32 are not in agreement with the experimental data see Figures,3). Moreover, the EOS relation corresponding to the quadratic Hencky is not invertible for detf > e and it is not able to predict the response for 3 trσ) > e [56]. 4 Monotonicity of the Cauchy stress tensor σ as a function of logb Motivated by [] we consider a novel constitutive requirement for an isotropic material, namely that the Cauchy stress tensor σ should be a monotone tensor function of logb, B = V, i.e. TSTS M : σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb 0, B,B PSym + 3). 4.) We will refer to 4.) as true-stress-true-strain monotonicity TSTS-M), and to TSTS M + : σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb > 0, B,B PSym + 3), B B, 4.) as strict true-stress-true-strain monotonicity TSTS-M + ). In a forthcoming paper [43] see also [79]), it is shown that logb logb,b B > 0, B,B PSym + 3), B B. 4.3) Recall that Hill s monotonicity condition KSTS-M) is monotonicity of the Kirchhoff stress tensor in terms of the logarithmic strain tensor, i.e. KSTS M : τlogb ) τlogb ),logb logb 0, B,B PSym + 3), 4.4) where τ is the Kirchhoff stress. The strict Hill s monotonicity condition is denoted by KSTS-M +. Also, Hill has shown that convexity of the quadratic Hencky energy W H in terms of logb implies the BE-inequalities. In the linear theory of elasticity, σε) = µ dev 3 ε+κtrε), ε = sym u, and the TSTS-M + condition implies, after linearization, σε ) σε ),ε ε > 0 for all ε,ε Sym3), ε ε, and it is satisfied if and only if µ,κ > 0. Therefore, in the linear setting, TSTS-M + is stronger than rank-one convexity which only implies µ > 0,µ+λ > 0. The TSTS-M + condition caught our attention because of its possible relevance for the stability of nonlinear isotropic elastic bodies. Initially, its relation to loss of stability or loss of rank-one convexity was left unclear. Jog and Patil [] have given a family of energies, including Neo-Hooke and Mooney-Rivlin energies, which does not satisfy TSTS-M +. In this work we show for the first time) that there exist free energies namely W eh ) which do not satisfy TSTS-M + throughout but which are rank-one convex, while we also provide examples namely F µ k ek log V, k 3 8 ) which satisfy TSTS-M+ but which are not rank-one convex. In [, page 67] it is conjectured that the TSTS-M + condition is stronger than polyconvexity, which, however, is not true since TSTS-M + is not even stronger than rank-one convexity. The TSTS-M + condition implies that the Cauchy stress is an invertible function of the left stretch tensor TSS-I); a property which could become important in FEM-computations based on the least squares finite element method [43, 44, 40,, 4]. For isotropicmaterials, TSTS-M + and TSS-I) leads to a unique stress free reference natural) configuration, up to a rigid deformation, i.e. σ = 0 implies B = or, equivalently, logb = 0), since taking B = in 4.) we deduce at once We note the simple implications σlogb ),logb > 0, B PSym + 3), B σlogb ) ) { TSTS-M TSTS-M + TSTS-I TSS-I. The TSTS-M + and KSTS-M + condition are frame-indifferent in the following sense: superposing one time dependent rigid rotation field Qt) SO3), we have F F = Qt)F, F F = Qt)F, B = F F T B = Qt)B Q T t), B = F F T B = Qt)B Q T t), logb logb = Qt)logB )Q T t), logb logb = Qt)logB )Q T t), 4.6) 3

33 and the identity σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb = σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb, holds, due to the isotropy of the formulation. In Section 3 we have shown that τ = D logv WlogV) = detv) σ = e trlogv) σ, 4.7) where σ is the Cauchy stress and τ the Kirchhoff stress corresponding to the energy F WlogV). Remark 4.. Sufficient for TSTS-M + is Jog and Patil s [] constitutive requirement that is positive definite. Z := D logv σlogv) 4.8) Proof. Let usremarkthat forall B,B PSym + 3) and0 t, wehave logv = logb, logv = logb and tlogv logv )+logv Sym3), where V = B, V = B. Moreover, we have σlogb ) σlogb ),logb logb = σ logv ) σ logv ),logv logv [ ) ] d = tlogv 0 dt σ logv )+ logv dt,logv logv 4.9) [ ) ] = 4 D logv σ tlogv logv )+ logv.logv logv ),logv logv dt. 0 Using that the integrand is non-negative, due to the assumption that Z = D logv σlogv) is positive definite, the TSTS-M + condition follows. With the substitution X = logv, the monotonicity of σ as a function of X Sym3) means σx +H) σx),h 0 X,H Sym3), 4.0) and sufficient for monotonicity of σ is proof as in Remark 4.) D X σx).h,h 0 X,H Sym3). 4.) Remark 4.. Since e logu is uniformly convex in logu, KSTS-M + is satisfied everywhere. 4. TSTS-M + for the energy F µ k ek log V + λ k e k[trlog V)] Proposition 4.3. The Cauchy stress tensor σ corresponding to the energy F µ k ek log V satisfies TSTS-M for k 3 8 and TSTS-M+ for k > 3 8. Proof. In order to show this, let us remark that for the energy F µ k ek log V we have We compute τlog V) = µe k log V log V, σlog V) = µe k log V trlogv ) log V. 4.) D X σx).h,h =µe k X trx) [k X,H trh)] X,H +µe k X trx) H =µe k X trx) {k X,H trh) X,H + H }. 4.3) 33

34 If trh) X,H < 0, then obviously D X σx).h,h > 0. Otherwise, for k 3 8 it follows k D X σx).h,h µe k X trx) {k X,H 3 trh) X,H + H } 4.4) k k =µe k X trx) H 3 X,H,H 3 X,H =µe k X trx) k H 3 X,H 0. Moreover, for k > 3 8 we have D X σx).h,h > 0 and the proof is complete. Corollary 4.4. The Cauchy stress tensor corresponding to the energy F µ k ek log V + λ e k[trlog V)] k satisfies TSTS-M for k 3 8, k 8 and µ,λ > 0 and TSTS-M+ for k > 3 8, k 8 or k 3 8, k > 8 ) and µ,λ > 0. Proof. From direct calculations we have D X e ktrx)) trx) trx).h,h = e ktrx)) trx) { k[trx)] trx)+}[trh)]. 4.5) Thus, if k 8, then ) D X e ktrx)) trx) trx).h,h e ktrx)) trx) trx) [trh)] ) The above inequality is strict for k > 8. The rest of the proof follows from the previous theorem. Since, however, we prove in Subsection 5.8 that F e logv is not LH-elliptic, we note that in general TSTS-M + LH-ellipticity, answering a conjecture arising in []. It is also clear that LH-ellipticity TSTS-M or TSTS-I, as already implied by some examples from the development in []. As a preliminary conclusion on the status of the TSTS-M-condition we can note that TSTS-M is an additional plausible criterion, basically independent of other conditions. It is compatible, in principle, with rank-one convexity, but does not imply it. It can be speculated that TSTS-M + should hold for some domain of bounded distortions. The same remarks hold for the KSTS-M + condition, i.e. the notion is frame-indifferent and KSTS-M + KSS-I, KSTS-M + LH, LH KSTS-M TSTS-M + for the family of energies W eh Let us consider our exponentiated Hencky energy with volumetric-isochoric decoupled format W eh logv) := µ k ek dev3 log V + κ k e ktrlogv )). 4.7) Proposition 4.5. The TSTS-M + condition 4.) is not everywhere satisfied for the energy function W eh defined by 4.7) for n =,3. Proof. In Section 3 we have shown that τ eh log V) = µe k dev3 log V dev 3 log V +κe k[trlogv)] trlogv), σ eh log V) = µe k dev3 log V trlogv ) dev 3 log V +κe k[trlogv )] trlogv) trlogv). 4.8) 34

35 We compute D X σ eh X).H,H =µe k dev3 X trx) [k dev 3 X,H trh)] dev 3 X,H +µe k dev3 X trx) dev 3 H For k > 8, it is easy to see that +κe k[trx)] trx) [ ktrx)trh) trh)]trx)trh)+κe k[trx)] trx) [trh)]. =µe k dev3 X trx) {k dev 3 X,H trh) dev 3 X,H + dev 3 H } +κe k[trx)] trx) { k[trx)] trx)+} [trh)]. 4.9) On the other hand, the first summand in 4.9) { k[trx)] trx)+} > 0, for all X Sym3). 4.0) D X [e k dev3 X trx) dev 3 X].H,H = k dev 3 X,H trh) dev 3 X,H + dev 3 H 4.) is not positive for all H Sym3). For instance, we may choose and we obtain H 0 = dev 3 X +a, a R +, 4.) k dev 3 X,H 0 trh 0 ) dev 3 X,H 0 + dev 3 H 0 = k dev 3 X 4 3a dev 3 X + dev 3 X, 4.3) which is negative for large values of a in the two-dimensional case we may consider H 0 = dev X +a, a R + ). Hence, the TSTS-M condition is not satisfied for the energy F e k dev3 logv alone. The next question is if one may control the negative part in 4.) by adding the volumetric function F e ktrlogv). The answer is negative as we may see in the following. Let us consider the matrices X = 0 t 0 t 0 0 Sym3), H = where, for large values of t > 0, q is chosen such that q/3 0 q/ q/3 Sym3), 4.4) For the considered matrices, we deduce 8kt +4 t < q < µ κ ekt t. 4.5) dev 3 X = t, trx ) = 0, dev 3 H =, trh ) = q, dev 3 X,H = t, 4.6) and D X σ eh X ).H,H =µe kt {8kt qt+4}+κq { } =µe kt {8kt qt+4}+q µe kt +κq < ) In the two-dimensional case, as counter-example we may consider the matrices ) ) 0 t q/ X = Sym), H t 0 = Sym), 4.8) q/ where, for large values of t > 0, q satisfies 4.5). Therefore, the monotonicity condition is not satisfied and the proof is complete. 35

36 However, the energy W eh satisfies the TSTS-M + condition by restricting it to some elastic domain in stretch space a cone in PSym3)) of bounded distortions E + W eh,tsts-m +,V, { 3 σ y) := Y PSym3) dev3 logy } 3 σ y PSym3), 4.9) which is equivalent to restrict the energy W eh logv) = W eh V) to the elastic domain in strain space EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y {X ) := Sym3) dev 3 X } 3 σ y Sym3), 4.30) where σ y is a dimensionless quantity related to the so called yield stress σ y, whose dimension is [MPa], i.e. a critical value of shear stress, below which a plastic or viscoplastic material behaves like an elastic solid; above this value, a plastic material deforms and a viscoplastic material flows. This assumption is in complete concordance with the Huber-von-Mises-Hencky distortional strain energy hypothesis [05]. We also need to introduce the elastic domain in the Kirchhoff-stress space EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, { 3 σ y) := τ Sym3) dev3 τ } 3 σ y Sym3). 4.3) Proposition 4.6. TSTS-M + is satisfied for the energy function W eh for bounded distortions) If the material parameters µ,κ > 0, k > 8 and σ y R are such that holds true, then there exists k > 0 such that 0 < σ y 6 e κ 8 k µ 8 k, 4.3) X EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y), H Sym3) : D X σ eh X).H,H > ) i.e. the TSTS-M + inequality is satisfied in EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y) or equivalently, the TSTS-M + inequality is satisfied in E + W eh,tsts-m +,V, 3 σ y)). Proof. Let us rewrite equation 4.9) as D X σ eh X).H,H =e k dev3 X trx) { 4µk dev 3 X,H µtrh) dev 3 X,H 4.34) +κe k[trx)] k dev 3 X { k[trx)] trx)+}[trh)] } +µe k dev3 X trx) dev 3 H. If k > 8, then k[trx)] trx)+ > 0 for all X Sym3). Hence, for 4µk dev 3 X,H µtrh) dev 3 X,H +κe k[trx)] k dev 3 X { k[trx)] trx)+}[trh)] > 0 to hold for all X,H Sym3), it is sufficient to have 4µ 6µkκe k[trx)] k dev 3 X { k[trx)] trx)+} < 0 for all X Sym3). 4.35) Because µ,κ > 0, for matrices X Sym3) which belong to the elastic domain EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y) defined by 4.30) the above inequality is satisfied if µ 4κ < k e k[trx)] k 3 σ y { k[trx)] trx)+}. 4.36) On the other hand, for k > 8, we find inf { k[trx)] trx)+} = 8 k > ) X Sym3) 8 k 36

37 Taking inf X Sym3) of the right hand side of 4.36), we obtain that if there exist k > 8 and k > 0 such that e k 3 σ y µ k 4κ 8 k < 4.38) 8 k holds, then the inequality 4.36) follows. The question is whether there are always numbers k > 0 satisfying the above inequality. We have inf k>0 { e k 3 σ y k } = inf k>0 { e k 3 σ y k 3 σ y } 3 σ y = inf r>0 { e r r } 3 σ y = 3 e σ y, lim e k 3 σ y k k =. 4.39) In view of 4.39) and using the continuity of the function t et 3 σ y t µ,κ > 0, k > 8 and σ y R are chosen such that then we may find a constant k > 0 which satisfies 3 e σ y µ 4κ = inf k>0 0 < 3 e σ y 4κ µ { e k 3 σ y k } 8 k ek 3 σ y k, we conclude: if the material parameters 8 k, 4.40) µ 4κ 8 k 8 k. 4.4) Using 4.37) we obtain that there is a constant k > 0 such that 4.38) is satisfied. Hence, there is a constant k > 0 such that 4.35) holds true, which in view of 4.34) implies 4.33) and the proof is complete. We remark that Proposition 4.6 is unspecific about the values for k > 0. Written in terms of Poisson s ratio 5 < ν, the extra constitutive assumption 4.3) becomes 0 < σ y 4 e +ν ν 8 k 8 k k 8 σ y e > ) Heinrich Hencky [99] offered a physical interpretation of the von Mises criterion suggesting that yielding begins when the elastic energy of distortion reaches a critical value [06] see also [8, 50, 49]). For this, the von Mises criterion is also known as the maximum distortional strain energy criterion. This stems from the relation between the second deviatoric stress invariant J and the elastic strain energy of distortion W D = J µ, with the elastic shear modulus µ = E +ν), Young s modulus E and Poisson s ratio ν. Inthefollowingweexpresstheconstitutiveassumption4.40)intermsoftheyieldstressσ y andthekirchhoff stress tensor τ eh. Proposition 4.7. W eh satisfies TSTS-M + for bounded distortions) There exist k > 8 for all σ y R for which and k > 0, such that 0 < σ y 3µκ e 8 k e k κ 8 k eµ k, 4.43) k holds true, the TSTS-M + inequality is satisfied for all V PSym3) for all logv Sym3)) for which τ eh logv) EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, 3 σ y). Proof. Let us remark that any X Sym3) for which τ eh X) lies in the set EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, 3 σ y) satisfies 5 We use that κ = µ+ν) 3 ν), ν = 3κ µ 3κ+µ). µe k dev3 X dev 3 X 3 σ y. 37

38 Hence, dev 3 X e k dev3 X σ y 3 µ. If the yield limit σ y is chosen such that 4.43) is satisfied, then there is σ y > 0 such that 0 < σ y µ σ y e k 3 σ y, and σ y 6κ 8 k eµ. Hence, 0 < σ y 8 k 3 µ 3 σ ye k 3 σ y, which implies dev 3 X e k dev3 X 3 σ ye k 3 σ y. In view of the monotonicity of t te kt, we deduce dev 3 X 3 σ y, 4.44) and X EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y). Since we have assumed that σ y and k > 8 satisfy 4.3), then Proposition 4.6 ensures the existence of k > 0 such that the TSTS-M + inequality is satisfied and the proof is complete. Remark 4.8. i) In terms of Young s modulus E and Poisson s ratio ν the condition imposed on the yield limit σ y by Proposition 4.7 is 0 < σ y e E +ν) ν) 8 k k e k 3e +ν 8 k ν k. 4.45) ii) In the incompressible limit κ, it follows that W eh satisfies TSTS-M + everywhere since then EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, 3 σ y ) = Sym3) and TSTS-M+ KSTS-M TSTS-M + for three-parameter energies W eh In this subsection we consider the set of energies of the family W eh for which k = 3 k. Proposition 4.9. The exponentiated 3-parameter energy W eh satisfies TSTS-M + for bounded distortions) Let σ y > 0 be such that σ y e 8 σ y + 6κ 3 µ holds true. Then there exists k > 6 such that for all σ y satisfying 0 < σ y µ σ y e k 3 σ y, the exponentiated 3-parameter energy W eh logv) := µ k ek dev3 log V + 3κ 4k e 3 ktrlogv)), 4.46) satisfies TSTS-M + for all V PSym3) for which τ eh logv) EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, 3 σ y ). Proof. Similar as in the proof of Proposition 4.7, we deduce that τ eh X) EW eh,tsts-m +,τ eh, 3 σ y ) implies σ dev 3 X e k dev3 X y 3µ. 4.47) On the other hand, in view of 4.34) 4.40), in order to have D X σ eh X).H,H > 0 for X Sym3) which belong also to the elastic domain EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y) defined by 4.30), we already know that it is sufficient to prove that there are k > 0 and k > 8 which satisfy 4.38), that is e k 3 σ y µ k 4κ 8 k <. 4.48) 8 k For the 3-parameter energy we have k = 3 k. Hence, in this case we have to prove that there is k > 3 6 such that Let us rewrite 4.49) in the form e k 3 σ y k µ 4κ 6k 3 6k. 4.49) e k 3 σ y 6k 3 κ 4µ e k 3 8) σ y k 3 8 ) σ y 4 σ y e κ 8 σ y 4µ. 4.50) 38

39 We have inf k> 3 6 { e k 3 8) σ y k 3 ) 8 σ y } = e, lim k e k 3 8) σ y k 3 8 ) σ y =. 4.5) In viewof 4.5) andusingthe continuityofthe function t e t ) σ 3 8 y µ,κ > 0 and σ y R are chosen such that t 3 8) σ y, we conclude: if the material parameters 0 < σ y e 8 σ y + 6κ µ, 4.5) then we may find a constant k > 3 6 which satisfies 4.49). If the yield limit σ y is chosen such that σ y 0 < 3µ 3 σ ye k 3 σ y, 4.53) then in view of the monotonicity t te kt, by 4.47) and 4.53) we have that dev 3 X 3 σ y, which means thatx EW eh,tsts-m +,logv, 3 σ y ). Since σ y satisfies4.5), itfollowsthatthereisk > 3 6 satisfying4.49). For the 3-parameter energy k = 3 k), in view of 4.34) 4.40), if 4.49) is satisfied, then it follows that the TSTS-M + inequality is satisfied and the proof is complete. Remark 4.0. i) In terms of Young s modulus and Poisson s ratio, the condition imposed on the yield limit σ y by Proposition 4.9 may be written in the form 0 < σ y E +ν σ ye k 3 σ y, where σ y e 8 σ y + 4+ν) ν. 4.54) ii) For illustrating purposes let us consider the case of ν = /3 and an extremely large domain of roughly 3 0% distortional strain, i.e. dev 3 logu 0.. To this specification corresponds σ y = 0., which is in concordance with the values considered for the yield stress σ y = 3 0.0e Moreover, the required inequality 4.50), parameter k belongs to the interval [0.9,99] [ 3 6,99] dev 3logU 0.), since e0.0 k 6k 3 +ν 6 ν) iii) We will encounter k > 3 6 also later on with regard to rank-one convexity conditions for W eh. 4.4 TSTS-M + for the quadratic Hencky energy For comparison, we also consider the quadratic Hencky energy is satisfied if the Ŵ H U) := µ dev n logu + κ [trlogu)]. 4.55) We recall that the corresponding Kirchhoff and the Cauchy stress tensors are given by The monotonicity inequality 4.) becomes τ H = D logv WH V) = µ dev 3 logv +κtrlogv), 4.56) σ H = [µ dev 3 logv +κtrlogv) ]e trlogv). D X σ H X).H,H = {µ dev 3 H +κ[trh)] µtrh) dev 3 X,dev 3 H κtrx)[trh)] }e trx) 0. In X = we have D X σ H ).H,H = [µ dev 3 H κ [trh)] ]e 3, 4.57) which is negative for all H such that dev 3 H < [trh)]. Jog and Patil [, page 676] have proved that the quadratic Hencky energy satisfies the TSTS-M + conditions only for those deformations for which detv < e. This bound coincides, incidentally, with the loss of ellipticity for W eh in a uniaxial setting. 39

40 4.5 TSTS-M + for the energy F µe a dev 3log V +â trlogv)) At the end of this subsection we consider the energy with the corresponding Kirchhoff and Cauchy stress, respectively WlogV) := µe a dev3 log V +â trlogv )) 4.58) τlog V) = µe a dev3 log V +â trlogv) {a dev 3 log V +âtrlogv) }, σlog V) = µe a dev3 log V +â trlogv) trlogv) {a dev 3 log V +âtrlogv) }, 4.59) and we try to determine a,â such that this energy satisfies the TSTS-M condition. The monotonicity inequality 4.) becomes D X σx).h,h =µe a dev3 X +â trx) trx) {[a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)] trh)[a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)]} +µe a dev3 X +â trx) trx) {a dev 3 H +â[trh)] }. =µe a dev3 X +â trx) trx) { [a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)] 4.60) trh)[a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)]+a dev 3 H +â[trh)] }. Using the inequality of means, xy < α x + α y, α > 0, we deduce [a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)] trh)[a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)]+â[trh)] 4.6) α ) [a dev 3 X,H +âtrx)trh)] + â ) [trh)] α > 0. α Hence, choosing the dimensionless parameters â, α > 0 such that we have 4 < â, < α <, 4.6) â D X σx).h,h 0 X,H Sym3). 4.63) Therefore, if â > 4, then the energy F log µea dev3 V +â trlogv ) satisfies the TSTS-M condition. For instance, if we choose â = κ µ, the condition â > 4 is equivalent to 4 < κ µ < 8+ν) 3 ν) 5 < ν. 4.64) 4 If we choose â = κ 4µ, the condition â > 4 is equivalent to6 µ < κ < +ν) 3 ν) 8 < ν <. 4.65) In conclusion, we observe that we do not need to consider a restricted domain for the energy 4.58) in order to enforce the TSTS-M + condition. 6 In [60] it is claimed that the classical elasticity formulation is applicable only for 5 < ν <. 40

41 5 Rank-one convexity 5. Criteria for rank-one convexity In this subsection we recall some criteria for rank-one-convexity that we will use throughout the rest of this paper. Knowles and Sternberg [9, 30] see also [,, 8]) have given the following result: Theorem 5.. Knowlesand Sternberg[6, page38]) Let W : GL + n) R be an objective-isotropic function of class C with the representation in terms of the singular values of U via WF) = ŴU) = gλ,λ,...,λ n ), where g C R n +,R). Let F GL + n) be given with an n-tuple of singular values λ,λ,...,λ n. If D WF)[a b,a b] 0 for every a,b R n i.e. F WF) is rank-one convex), the following conditions hold: i) g λ i 0 for every i =,,...,n, i.e. separate convexity SC) and the TE-inequalities hold; ii) for every i j, λ i g λ i λ j g λ j λ i λ j 0 }{{} BE-inequalities g g λ i λ + g + j λ i λ j if λ i λ j, and g λ i g λ i g λ j 0 if λ i λ j, λ i λ j g λ i λ j + g λ i λ i 0 if λ i = λ j, 5.) g g λ i λ g + j λ i λ j g λ i + g λ j 0. λ i +λ j If n =, then conditions i) and ii) are also sufficient. From the above theorem we can easily see that LH-ellipticity implies the BE-inequalities and TE-inequalities. Necessary and sufficient conditions for LH-ellipticity in the three-dimensional case are given in [36, 04] and more recently by Dacorogna [54], also for compressible materials. Theorem 5.. Dacorogna[54, page5]) Let W : GL + 3) R be an objective-isotropic function of class C with the representation in terms of the singular values of U via WF) = ŴU) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ), where g C R 3 +,R) and g is symmetric. Then F WF) is rank one convex if and only if the following four sets of conditions hold for every λ,λ,λ 3 R + i) g λ i 0 for every i =,,3, i.e. separate convexity SC) and the TE-inequalities hold; ii) for every i j, λ i g λ i λ j g λ j λ i λ j 0 }{{} m ε BE-inequalities if λ i λ j, and g λ +m ε g 3 3 λ +m ε 3 detm ε 0, g λ + g g λ i λ +m ε ij 0, and either j g g g λ λ λ 3 0 or 5.) where M ε = m ε ij ) is symmetric and m ε ij = for any choice of ε i {±}. g λ i ε i ε j g λ i λ j + if i = j or if i < j and λ i = λ j, g λ i ε iε j g λ j λ i ε iε jλ j if i < j and λ i λ j or ε i ε j, 5.3) The last one is taken from Buliga [4]: 4

42 Theorem 5.3. Buliga [4, page 538]) A twice continuously differentiable function W : GL + n) R that can be written as a function of the singular values of U via WF) = ŴU) = gλ,λ,...,λ n ) is rank-one-convex if and only if i) the function λ,λ,...,λ n ) ge λ,e λ,...,e λn ) is Schur-convex and ii) for all a = a,a,...,a n ) R n, λ,λ,...,λ n ) R n + H ij λ,λ,...,λ n )a i a j +G ij λ,λ,...,λ n ) a i a j 0, 5.4) where i,j G ij λ,λ,...,λ n ) = λ i g λ i λ,λ,...,λ n ) λ j g λ j λ,λ,...,λ n ) λ i λ j for i j, G ii λ,λ,...,λ n ) = 0, H ij λ,λ,...,λ n )) = H ij λ,λ,...,λ n )+D gλ,λ,...,λ n )) ij, 5.5) H ij λ,λ,...,λ n ) = λ j g λ i λ,λ,...,λ n ) λ i g λ j λ,λ,...,λ n ) λ i λ j for i j, H ii λ,λ,...,λ n ) = 0. Šilhavý [8] has previously given a similar result in terms of the copositivity of some matrices see also [54]). 5. The LH-condition for incompressible media In this subsection we consider the case of incompressible materials, i.e. we consider objective-isotropic energies W : SL3) R. The restrictions imposed by rank-one convexity are less strict in this case. The rank-one convexity for such a function W means that W still has to satisfy D WF)ξ η,ξ η) > 0, 5.6) similar to the LH-ellipticity condition), but now only for all vectors ξ,η 0 with the additional property that For F,H R 3 3 we have Thus, for F R 3 3 detf + ξ η) =. detf +H) = detf + CofF,H + F,CofH +deth. 5.7) detf +ξ η) = detf + CofF,ξ η + F,Cof[ξ η] +det[ξ η] }{{}}{{} =0 =0 = detf [+ F T,ξ η ] = detf [+trf ξ η)], 5.8) since rankξ η) =. Hence, it follows that ξ,η 0 have to satisfy detf trf ξ η) = detf F ξ,η = 0 F ξ,η = ) Necessary conditions for LH-ellipticity of incompressible, isotropic hyperelastic solids were obtained by Sawyers and Rivlin [3, ], while necessary and sufficient conditions were established by Zubov and Rudev [70, 69]. Theorem 5.4. Zubov s LH-ellipticity criterion for incompressible materials[70, page 437]) Let W : SL3) R be an objective-isotropic function of class C with the representation in terms of the singular values of U via WF) = ŴU) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ), where g C R 3 +,R) and g is symmetric. Then F WF) is rank one convex on SL3) if and only if the following nine inequalities hold for every λ,λ,λ 3 R + : 4

43 i) for every i j and for any arbitrary permutation i,j,k) of the numbers,,3 α k := λ i g λ i λ j g λ j λ i λ j > 0 }{{} BE-inequalities if λ i λ j ; 5.0) ii) δ k := β i λ i +β j λ j+γ k λ iλ j > 0, where i,j,k) is any arbitrary permutation of the numbers,,3, and β i := g λ, γ ± k = ± g + i λ i λ j g λ i g λ j λ i λ j ; 5.) iii) ǫ k + δ i δ j > 0, where ǫ k := β k λ k +γ + k λ iλ j +γ i λ kλ j +γ j λ kλ i and i,j,k) is any arbitrary permutation of the numbers,, The quadratic Hencky energy W H is not rank-one convex In this subsection we re-examine a counter-example first considered by Neff [66] in order to prove that the quadratic Hencky energy function W H defined by.5) is not rank-one convex even when restricted to SL3). A domain where W H is LH-elliptic has been given in [39] under some strong conditions upon the constitutive coefficients, i.e. µ,λ > 0. The first proof of the non-ellipticity of a related energy expression dev 3 logu N, 0 < N seems to be due to Hutchinson et al. [6]. Proposition 5.5. The function W : SL3) R, WF) = dev 3 logu is not LH-elliptic. Proof. The proof of this remark is adapted from [66]. We consider the function h : R R, ht) = W+tη ξ)). 5.) We choose the vectors η,ξ R 3 so that i.e. the family of simple shears) η = 0, ξ = 0, η ξ = ) 0 0 Hence and from det +tη ξ)) T +tη ξ)) = λ t 0 t +t λ λ t 0 t +t = λ)[λ λ+t )+], 5.4) the eigenvalues of the matrix +yη ξ)) T +yη ξ)) can be seen to be λ =, λ = +t +t ) 4+t, λ 3 = +t t ) 4+t. 5.5) The matrix U is positive definite and symmetric and therefore can be assumed diagonal, to obtain dev 3 logu = ) log λ +log λ +log λ ) 3 λ λ 3 λ 43

44 Figure 5: The graphical representation of h : R R, ht) = log λ t) = [log+t +t 4+t ) log]. An analogous expression for dev n logu can be given in any dimension n N, see Appendix A.. In terms of the eigenvalues, the function h is given by ht) = ) log λ +log λ +log λ ) 3 λ λ 3 λ Since λ λ λ 3 =, see 5.5), it follows 0 = logλ λ λ 3 ) = logλ +logλ 3, logλ = logλ 3. Thus, ht) = log λ = [log+t +t 4+t ) log]. This function is not convex in t, as can be easily deduced. Let us remark that SL3) and also +tη ξ)) SL3). Therefore, the function W is not rank-one convex in SL3). Hence, W is not elliptic in SL3). A direct consequence of the previous proposition is Remark 5.6. three-dimensional case) The function W : SL3) R, WF) = µ dev 3 logu + κ trlogu)), for any µ,κ > 0, is not LH-elliptic. Proof. The counterexample is the one as in the proof of the previous remark because corresponding to this counterexample we have κ trlogu)) = logλ λ λ 3 ) = log = 0. Remark 5.7. two-dimensional case) The function W : SL) R, WF) = µ dev logu + κ trlogu)), for any µ,κ > 0, is not LH-elliptic. Proof. The proof is similar to the proof in the 3D case. The vectors η,ξ R are now ) ) 0 η =, ξ =. 0 Proposition 5.8. The energy W : SL3) R, WF) = dev 3 logu satisfies the TE-inequalities SC) only for those U such that the eigenvalues µ,µ,µ 3 of dev 3 logu are smaller than 3. Proof. The corresponding function g : R 3 + R for the isotropic energy W : SL3) R, WF) = dev 3 logu is gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := [ ] log λ +log λ +log λ ) 3 λ λ 3 λ Hence, we have to check where the function g is separately convex. We deduce g λ = λ log λ +log λ ) 3 = 6 λ λ λ 3 3 logλ + 3 logλ + ) 3 logλ 3 g λ = λ log λ +log λ ) = 6 λ 3 λ λ 3 3 logλ + 3 logλ 3 + ) 3 logλ g λ = 3 λ log λ 3 +log λ ) = 6 3 λ λ 3 λ logλ logλ + ) 3 logλ. 5.9) 44

45 On the other hand, the eigenvalues µ,µ,µ 3 of dev 3 logu are and the proof is complete. µ = 3 logλ 3 logλ 3 logλ 3, µ = 3 logλ + 3 logλ 3 logλ 3, 5.0) µ 3 = 3 logλ 3 logλ + 3 logλ 3, We can obtain a similar condition in terms of the eigenvalues of U instead of those of dev 3 logu: Corollary 5.9. The energy W : SL3) R, WF) = dev 3 logu satisfies the TE-inequalities only for those U such that the eigenvalues λ,λ,λ 3 of U satisfy Proof. From 5.9) we find that gλ,λ,λ 3 ) = 3 if which are equivalent to the inequalities 5.). λ e λ λ 3, λ e λ 3 λ, λ 3 e λ λ. 5.) [ ] log λ λ +log λ λ 3 +log λ3 λ is separately convex if and only log λ λ λ 3 0, log λ λ λ 3 0, log λ 3 λ λ 0, 5.) 5.4 Convexity of the volumetric response F e klogdetf) m In the family of energies.4) which we consider, the volumetric response is modelled by a term of the form F e klogdetf) m. In deriving convexity conditions, we first examine the conditions under which the more general form detf hlogdetf) is convex in detf, which is clearly sufficient for LH-ellipticity details can be found in Appendix A.3, see also [55, page 3] and [35]). Hence, we ask for the second derivative of t hlogt) to be positive: d dt hlogt) = d dt [h logt) t ] = h logt) t h logt) ) t Obviously, this is the case if and only if h logt) h logt) for all t > 0 and hence, if and only if for all ξ R h ξ) h ξ). Thus, t hlogt) is convex if and only if h grows at least exponentially see also Appendix A.3). This result is in concordance with the necessary conditions derived in the paper of Sendova and Walton []. Fix m N. We want to find k such that hξ) = e kξ m matches this criterion, i.e. k m ξ m e kξ m + kmm )ξ m e kξ m kmξ m e kξ m, 5.4) which is equivalent to kmξ m ξ +m ) 0. We compute the minimum of this expression. To this aim we solve the equation km ξ m = 0 and we obtain ξ = k m m m. Therefore min { kmξ m ξ +m )} = km k m m m m m k m m m +m ) 5.5) ξ R = k m m m+ m m)+m ). This minimum is nonnegative if and only if k m m m+ m + 0. Thus k has to be chosen such that k m m+). In conclusion: Lemma 5.0. Let m N. Then the function t e klogt)) m is convex if and only if k m m+). 45

46 This implies our next result: Proposition 5.. The function detf e klogdetf) m, F GL + n) is convex in detf for k. More explicitly, for m = this means k m m+) 8, in case of m = 3 convexity holds for k 8.) In view of Proposition A. see also [55, page 3]), we have Corollary 5.. The function F e klogdetf) m, F GL + n) is rank-one convex in F for k. More explicitly, for m = this means k m m+) 8, in case of m = 3 rank-one convexity holds for k 8.) 5.5 Rank-one convexity of the isochoric exponentiated Hencky energy in plane elastostatics In this subsection we consider a variant of the exponentiated Hencky energy in plane strain, with isochoric part W iso F) = eh ek dev logu = e k log U det U /. 5.6) Let us first recall that for small strains the exponentiated Hencky energy turns into the well-known quadratic Hencky energy: µ W eh F) k + κ ) = µ k k ek devn logu + κ e k[trlogu)] µ }{{ k k + κ ) } k fully nonlinear elasticity = µ dev n logu + κ [logdetu)] + h.o.t. = W H F) +h.o.t. 5.7) }{{}}{{} quadratic Hencky energy materially linear, geometrically nonlinear elasticity = µ dev n sym u + κ [trsym u)] +h.o.t., }{{} linear elasticity where u : R n R n is the displacement and F = ϕ = + u is the gradient of the deformation ϕ : R n R n and h.o.t. denotes higher order terms of dev n logu and κ [logdetu)]. Remark 5.3. i) If F WF) is rank-one convex in GL + n) and if Z : R + R is a convex and monotone non-decreasing function, then the composition function F Z W)F) is also rank-one convex in GL + n). This follows from the fact that if t ht), t R, ht) = WF +tη ξ)) is convex, then t Zht)), t R, is also convex. ii) If F WF) is quasi-convex in GL + n) and if Z : R + R a convex and monotone non-decreasing function, then the function F Z W)F) is also quasi-convex in GL + n). To prove this fact, let us recall that quasiconvexity of the energy function W at F means that Ω ΩWF + ϑ)dx WF), holds, for every bounded open set Ω R n and for all ϑ) C0 Ω) such that detf + ϑ) > 0. Using the monotonicity of Z we deduce Z Ω Ω WF + ϑ)dx ZWF)). Hence, using the convexity and Jensen s inequality, we obtain Ω Ω Z WF + ϑ) ) dx ZWF)). iii) If F WF) is polyconvex in GL + 3) and if Z : R + R is a convex and monotone non-decreasing function, then the function F Z W)F) is also polyconvex in GL + 3). A free energy function WF) is called polyconvex if and only if it is expressible in the form WF) = PF,CofF,detF), P : R 9 R, where P,, ) is convex. If P is convex, then e P is also convex. In this case, we have ZWF)) = Z P)F,CofF,detF), which means that F Z W)F) is polyconvex in GL + 3). 46

47 An example of a convex and monotone non-decreasing function Z : R + R is the exponential function Zξ) = e ξ. We prove in this subsection that although F dev logu is not rank-one convex, the function F e k dev logu, k > 4 is indeed rank-one convex. Lemma 5.4. Let F GL + ) with singular values λ,λ. Then WF) = e k dev logu = e k log ) U det U / = gλ,λ ), where g : R + R, gλ,λ ) := e k log λ λ. 5.8) Proof. The matrix U is positive definite and symmetric and therefore can be assumed diagonal, and we obtain dev logu = logu logλ +logλ ) With this, the proof is complete. = logλ logλ ) 0 0 logλ logλ = [ logλ logλ ) ] = log λ ). 4 λ Inthis subsection weapplytheorem5.in orderto provethat the function F e k dev logu islh-elliptic. Thus, according to Lemma 5.4, we have to prove that the function g : R + R, gλ,λ ) := e k ) log λ λ satisfies all the necessary and sufficient conditions established by Knowles and Sternberg s Theorem 5.. The first condition from Theorem 5. requests separate convexity in each variable λ,λ. Lemma 5.5. The function g is separately convex in each variable λ,λ, i.e. if k 4. Proof. We need to compute g λ 0, g λ 0, if and only λ g klog λ = e k log λ λ, λ λ g λ = ke k log λ λ λ λ g klog λ = e k log λ λ λ ) klog λ λ log λ λ +,, 5.9) λ g λ = ke k log λ λ λ klog λ +log λ ) +. λ λ We introduce the function r : R R given by rt) = kt t +. It is clear that if k, then rt) = 4 kt t + t ) 0 for all t R. Moreover, if rt) 0 for all t R, then k 4 = max { t } t 0, ) t. Thus, rt) 0 for all t R if and only if k. In consequence, we deduce 4 )) g λ λ,λ ) = ke k log λ λ λ λ r log 0 if and only if k λ ) Analogously, we have g λ λ,λ ) 0 if and only if k 4. Lemma 5.6. The function g satisfies the BE-inequalities. Proof. For the function g defined by 5.8), the BE-inequalities become λ g λ λ g λ λ λ = klog λ λ e k log λ λ λ λ 0 if λ λ, 5.3) which is always true. Indeed, this fact also follows directly from Theorem.7 because g is convex as a function of logu see Remark.9). 47

48 Let us also compute k log λ λ g = ke λ λ λ λ ) klog λ ) λ The next set of inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion requires that the following quantities ) g λ g + g kλ +λ )e k log λ λ klog λ λ + = λ λ λ λ λ λ, 5.33) ) g λ g + g kλ +λ )e k log λ λ klog λ λ + = λ λ λ λ λ λ, are positive for λ = λ. This condition is always satisfied because λ, λ,k > 0. In order to show that the last two inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s Theorem 5. are satisfied, we compute g λ g λ + g + λ λ g g λ λ g + λ λ g λ g λ k log λ λ = ke gλ,λ ), λ λ, 5.34) λ λ λ λ g λ + g λ k log λ λ = ke ĝλ,λ ), λ +λ λ λ where the functions g : R + \{x,x);x R} R, ĝ : R + R are defined by gλ,λ ) = ĝλ,λ ) = klog λ λ klog λ λ ) ) + log λ klog λ + λ +λ ) λ λ λ λ ) log λ, 5.35) λ ) + ) log λ λ λ +klog λ λ + λ λ ) λ +λ ) log λ λ. Let us remark that the functions g and ĝ can be written in terms of functions of a single variable only, i.e. ) ) λ λ gλ,λ ) = r, ĝλ,λ ) = r, 5.36) where r : R + \{} R, r : R + R are defined by klog rt) = t+ ) log t klog t+)+ t+ logt, 5.37) t klog rt) = t+ ) log t+klog t+) t log t. t+ Hence, Knowles and Sternberg s criterion is completely satisfied if and only if rt) 0 for all t R + \{} and rt) 0 for all t R ) We have to show the following inequality, which is the same as 5.38) : klog t+ ) ) log t + klog t+ t+ logt ) t In order to transform it equivalently by squaring both sides, first we prove the following lemma: Lemma 5.7. The inequality is satisfied for all t R + \{} if and only if k 6. λ ) klog t+ t+ logt ) t 48

49 Proof. Let us consider the function s : R + \{} R by st) := 6 log t+ ) t+ t logt. For the function s we compute s t) = 3 +t) t ŝt), 5.4) where ŝ : R + R, ŝt) = 3 t )++4t+t )logt. On the other hand ŝ t) = 5t + t + t + ) logt + 4, ŝ t) = 4t t + logt 3, ŝ t) = t ) t 3 0 for all t R +, ŝ) = 0, ŝ ) = 0, ŝ ) = 0. Thus ŝ t) 0 if t and ŝ t) 0 if 0 <t, which implies further that ŝ is monotone decreasing on 0,) and monotone increasing on, ). We deduce ŝ t) ŝ ) = 0 for all 0 < t and ŝ t) ŝ ) = 0 for all t. Hence,ŝismonotoneincreasinginR +, i.e. ŝt) ŝ) = 0for all 0 < t < andŝt) ŝ) = 0for all t >. In view of 5.4), we have s t) 0 for all 0 < t < and s t) 0 for all t >. Because lim =, the t st) monotonicity of st) implies st) = 6 log t+ ) t+ t logt lim 0 st 0) =, for all t R + \{}. For k t 6, we have klog t+) t+ ) t logt 6 log t+ t+ logt, 5.4) t for all t R + \{}. On the other hand, if klog t+) t+ t logt for all t R + \{}, then k { 6 = sup t R + log + t+ )} t t logt, 5.43) since the function s : R + R, s t) = log t 6 t+ t logt + is monotone decreasing on 0,], monotone )} increasing on [, ), s ) = 0, and lim + t+ t logt = 6. Thus, the inequality 5.40) holds for all t R + \{} if and only if k 6, t R+ { log t Lemma 5.8. The inequality rt) 0 is satisfied for all t R + \{} if k 4. ) Proof. Let us first remark that, in view of Lemma 5.7, we obtain klog t+ t+ t logt+ 0 for all k 6. Hence, the inequality rt) 0 is equivalent to the inequality klog t+ ) ) log t+ klog t+ t+ logt+ 0, 5.44) t for t R + \{}, which can, by squaring and multiplication with t ), equivalently be written in the following form: kt )[ t+t+)logt]log t {[ t )+ t + ) logt ] logt+t ) } 5.45) + t ) klog t+ ) log t 0. Our next step is to prove that st) 0 if t < and st) 0 if t >, where s : R + R is defined by st) = t+t+)logt. This follows from s t) = t +logt, s t) = t t, s ) =, s) = 0. Moreover, if k 4, we deduce klog t+ ) ) ) log t 4 log t+ log t = 4 log t = 4 log t, 5.46) and, due to the nonnegativity of t )st), kt )[ t+t+)logt] log t {[ t )+ t + ) logt ] logt+t ) } 5.47) 4 t )[ t+t+)logt] log t {[ t )+ t + ) logt ] logt+t ) } = 4 { 8 t ) logt+ t ) log 3 t+ 5t +t 5) log t 4t ) }. 49

50 Hence, it is sufficient to prove that ) t ) 4 log t + { 8 t ) logt+ t ) log 3 t+ 5t +t 5) log t 4t ) } 5.48) 4 = t log 3 t 4log t+8logt 8t ) ) 0. 4 t+ Employing the substitution x = logt, we are going to show that s 0 x) = x 3 4x +8x 8 ex e x + = x3 4x +8x 8+ 6 e x + is negative for x < 0 and positive for x > 0. Firstly, we observe that s 0 0) = 0 and lim x s 0 x) =. We then compute s 0x) = s x) s x), where we denote s x) = 3x 4 3 ) + 8 3, s e x) = 6 x y e x +). Due to the fact that +y) 0,4] for y = e x > 0, s 0x) ) = 4 > 0 for x < 0, 3 so that clearly s 0 x) < 0 for x < 0. To deduce s 0 x) > 0 for x > 0, we will prove that all local minima of s 0 are located in, ) and that the value of s 0 is positive there. Because s x) = ex +e x ) 4e x +e x ) is 4 negative on,log 3+)) 0,) and hence s is concave and s convex on 0,), s and s can intersect in at most two points in 0,). Thanks to the fact that s 0) > s 0) and s ) < s ), there is only one x m 0,), where s x m ) = s x m ) and hence s 0x m ) = 0. In x m, s 0 attains a maximum s 0 is positive for smaller and negative for larger values of x), hence local minima of s must lie in, ). In any such place x 0, from s 6 0x 0 ) = 0 we know e x0 + = + ex0 3x e x0 0 8x 0 +8) and hence s 0 x 0 ) = x 3 0 4x 0 +8x 0 8++e x0 )3x 0 8x 0 +8) = x 0x 0 )+3e x0 x ) ) > 0, because x 0. In conclusion, s 0 is positive on all of 0, ), and negative in,0). Thus, the inequality 5.48) is satisfied. Therefore 5.44) is also satisfied and the proof is complete. Lemma 5.9. If k 4, then the inequality rt) 0 is satisfied for all t R +. Proof. It is easy to see that for all t R + \{} and if k 4, we have k log t+) t t+ log t 4 log t t log t+. t+ ) Let us remark that 4 ξ t t+ ξ + > 0 for all ξ R, since t t+ < 0 and 4 > 0. Hence, taking ξ = logt R, we have 4 log t t t+ log t+ > 0 for all t R +. Therefore, k rt) = log t+ ) log t+k log t+) t t+ log t > 0 for all t R +, which completes the proof. Collecting Lemmas 5.5, 5.8, 5.9 and Eq. 5.3), we can finally conclude: Proposition 5.0. If k 4, then the function F ek dev logu is rank-one convex in GL + ). 50

51 5.6 The main rank-one convexity statement In view of the results established in Subsection 5.5 and 5.4 we conclude that: Theorem 5.. planar rank-one convexity) The functions W eh : R n n R + from the family of exponentiated Hencky type energies W eh F) = W iso F )+W vol eh detf detf n eh ) = n µ logu ek devn + κ e k[logdetu)] if det F > 0, k k + if detf 0, are rank-one convex for the two-dimensional situation n =, µ > 0,κ > 0, k 4 and k ) Conjecture 5.. planar polyconvexity) The functions W eh : R n n R + from the family of exponentiated Hencky type energies defined by 5.49) are polyconvex 7 for the two-dimensional situation n =, µ > 0,κ > 0, k 4 and k 8. In plane elasto-statics, the rank-one convex energy W eh F) is applicable to the bending or shear of long strips and to all cases in which symmetry arguments can be applied to reduce the formulation to a planar deformation. 5.7 Formulation of the dynamic problem in the planar case For the convenience of the reader we state the complete dynamic setting. The dynamic problem in the planar case consists in finding the solution ϕ : Ω 0, ) R, Ω R of the equation of motion ϕ,tt = DivS ϕ) in Ω 0, ), 5.50) where the first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S = D F [WF)] corresponding to the energy W eh F) is given by the constitutive equation S = D F [WF)] = J σf T = τ F T [ ] = µe k dev log U dev log U +κe k[trlogu)] trlogu) F T in Ω [0, ), 5.5) with F = ϕ, U = F T F. The above equations are supplemented, in the case of the mixed problem, by the boundary conditions and the initial conditions ϕx,t) = ϕ i x,t) on Γ D [0, ), 5.5) S x,t).n = ŝ x,t) on Γ N [0, ), ϕx,0) = ϕ 0 x), ϕ,t x,0) = ψ 0 x) in Ω, 5.53) where Γ D,Γ N are subsets of the boundary Ω, so that Γ D Γ N = Ω, Γ D Γ N =, n is the unit outward normal to the boundary and ϕ i,ŝ,ϕ 0,ψ 0 are prescribed fields. 5.8 The non-deviatoric planar case: F e logu We consider the function W : GL + ) R, defined by WF) := ŴU) = e logu. We have e logu = gλ,λ ), 5.54) 7 We use the definition of polyconvexity given by Ball [5] see also [0, 6]). Polyconvexity implies LH-ellipticity and may lead to an existence theorem based on the direct methods of the calculus of variations, provided that proper growth conditions are satisfied [96, 8, 68, 69, 0]. 5

52 where λ,λ are the singular values of U and g : R + R is defined by gλ,λ ) = e log λ +log λ. 5.55) In order to check the rank-one convexity of the function F e logu, we will use Buliga s criterion given by Theorem 5.3. As we will need the derivatives of g, we compute: g = e log λ +log λ logλ, λ λ g λ = e log λ +log λ 4log λ λ + logλ λ g λ λ = e log λ +log λ 4logλ logλ λ λ, g λ = e log λ +log λ 4log λ λ + logλ λ g = e log λ +log λ logλ, λ λ For our function, the matrices Gλ,λ ) and Hλ,λ ) from Theorem 5.3 are then ) logλ Gλ,λ ) = e log λ +log λ 0 logλ λ λ, Hλ,λ ) = e log λ +log λ logλ logλ λ λ 0 = e log λ +log λ 0 λ log λ λ λ log λ λ λ λ λ log λ λ λ log λ λ λ λ 0 log λ logλ + λ logλ logλ λ λ + λ log λ λ λ log λ λ λ λ + ), ). logλ logλ λ λ + log λ logλ + λ logλ logλ λ λ logλ logλ λ λ log λ logλ + λ λ log λ λ λ log λ λ λ λ log λ logλ + λ ), 5.56) respectively. The first condition of Buliga s criterion is obviously satisfied because of the symmetry and convexity and hence Schur-convexity of the function l : R + R, lλ,λ ) := ge λ,e λ ) = e λ +λ see Theorem.5). Hence, the energy is rank-one-convex if and only if the following inequality holds true for all a,a R and for all λ,λ > 0: λ H λ,λ )a +H λ,λ )a a +H λ,λ )a +G λ,λ ) a a 0. Applied to our function and upon division by e log λ +log λ > 0) this corresponds to log ) λ logλ + log ) a λ logλ + + a 5.57) + λ logλ λ logλ logλ logλ λ + λ λ λ λ λ To see that this does not hold true, we set λ ) a a + logλ logλ λ λ a a 0, λ,λ > 0 a,a R. λ = e, λ = e, a = e 5, a = e. Upon these choices, the inequality turns into 0 + e 4 e e e 44 e 3 + e9 e 9 ) e 4 e e 37 + e 4 e e37 =7e 6 +e 88e 4 + 4e9 e 9 e 8 e e 8 e33 7e 6 +e 88e 4 +4e e 6 7e 6 +4e 5 +e 88e 4 = e 7e 4 +4e e ) < 75e, and it is obviously not satisfied. In view of Theorem 5.3, we conclude that F e logu is not rank-one convex in D. Of course, this shows that F e logu is also not rank-one convex in 3D. 5

53 Conjecture 5.3. It seems that the function F e logu α trlogu) is i) not separately convex which implies it is not rank-one convex) for α > ; ii) is not rank-one convex for α <. If this conjecture is true, then the function F e logu α trlogu) is rank-one convex in D if and only if α =, i.e. only for the function F e dev logu. Hence, the form of energies.4) may not just be an arbitrary choice, but additively splitting into isochoric and volumetric parts seems to be the only useful version of an additive split in plane elasto-statics. The reason to believe that Conjecture 5.3 is true consists in the fact that for λ = e n and λ = e n 3, the last inequality from Knowles and Sternberg s Theorem 5. seems to be satisfied in the limit n only if α =. 6 Outlook for three dimensions The 3D-case is, as usual, much more involved. In this section we show that a similar calculus as in D can be applied in principle. However, while we consider the obvious generalization of the D result, the answer is in general negative: the necessary conditions from Knowles and Sternberg s Theorem 5. or Dacorogna s Theorem 5. are not satisfied for the energy ŴU) = e k dev3 logu. 6.) This implies that this energy is not rank-one convex [94, 66]. We have already shown that F dev 3 logu is not rank-one convex even in the case of incompressible materials see Proposition 5.5 or [66], page 97). Lemma 6.. Let F GL + 3) with singular values λ,λ,λ 3. Then WF) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ), where g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 [ log λ λ +log λ λ 3 +log λ 3 λ ]. 6.) Proof. The proof follows from relation 5.6). This lemma remains true in all dimension n N, see Appendix A.. 6. F e k dev 3logU is not rank-one convex We begin our 3D investigation by proving that Lemma 6.. For all k > 0 the function is not rank-one convex. F e k dev3 logu, F GL + 3) 6.3) Proof. In the following we prove that two necessary conditions given by Knowles and Sternberg s criterion are not satisfied for the function g defined by 6.). Our goal is to prove that there does not exist a number k > 0 such that the inequalities g λ 0, g λ 0, g g λ λ g + λ λ are simultaneously satisfied. The inequalities 6.4) are equivalent to k 3 e k 3 ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 λ g λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0, k 3 e k 3 k 3 e k 3 ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 g λ + g λ λ +λ 0 6.4) ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 λ g λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0, λ λ g 3 λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0, 6.5) 53

54 where g λ,λ,λ 3 ) = k 3 log λ log λ ) 3 +log λ 3 λ λ log λ λ log λ λ 3 g λ,λ,λ 3 ) = k 3 g 3 λ,λ,λ 3 ) = k log λ 3 log λ +log λ 3 λ λ 3 λ + k [ log λ log λ 3 λ λ 3 λ log λ λ +, ) +log λ λ log λ λ 3 +, ) ) ) λ log λ λ log λ3 λ λ log λ λ 3 log λ λ ++ + λ +λ λ +λ ][ log λ ) +log λ λ log λ λ 3 + λ log λ 3 λ We compute that, for extremely large principal stretches λ,λ,λ ) = e,e 7,e ) and we remark that For k 3 > 6 ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ + g e,e 7,e ) = 56 k 3 7), g e,e 7,e ) = 6 k ), 6.6) 3 g 3 e,e 7,e ) = 8 k 3 + +e k 3 )56k 3 7), g e,e 7,e ) > 0 k 3 > 7 56 and g e,e 7,e ) > 0 k 3 > ) we have 5 +e 4 +8 k 3 > 0. Hence, g 3e,e 7,e ) 0 is equivalent to 46 k 3 )56 k 3 7) 5 +e 4 +8k 3 ) 0 64 e 4 5 ) +e 4) k 3 +e8 38e , which is not satisfied for k 3 > 3 6. Hence, for 0 < k 6 the function is not separately convex, while for k 3 > 6 one of the condition 6.4) 3 given by Knowles and Sternberg s criterion is also not satisfied. Thus, the proof is complete. However, the function g defined by 6.) satisfies the Baker-Ericksen BE) inequalities ]. λ i g λ i λ j g λ j λ i λ j = k 3 e k 3 log λ i λ +log λr j λ +log λ ) j log λi λ i λr j log λr λ i log λj λ r 6.8) λ i λ j = ke k 3 log λ i λ +log λr j λ +log λ ) j log λi λ i λr j > 0, λ i λ j for any permutation of i,j,r. Moreover, g λ i = k 3 e k 3 log λ i λ +log λr j λ +log λ ) j [ i λr λ k log λ r log λ ) ] i +log λ r log λ i ) i 3 λ i λ j λ i λ j k for any permutation of i,j,r and for all 3 6. Thus, g is separately convex for k 3 6. This is not in contradiction to the D result where k 4 was needed for separate convexity since the function g in D is not obtained by choosing λ 3 = in the 3D expression of the function g. It is easy to see that the condition g g λ 0, λ 0, g g λ λ +m ε 0 6.0) 54

55 from Dacorogna s criterion Theorem 5.) are also not simultaneously satisfied for the values considered in 6.6). Let us recall that for ε,ε {±} m ε = ε ε g λ λ + g g λ ε ε λ if λ λ or ε ε. 6.) λ ε ε λ We choose ε = and ε =. For these values, the inequalities 6.) become g λ 0, g λ 0, g g λ λ g + λ λ g λ + g λ 0. 6.) λ +λ We remark that the conditions6.0) are in fact equivalent to the inequalities6.4) from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion, and they cannot be simultaneously satisfied for the values defined in 6.6). Moreover, direct and similar calculations as above give: Remark 6.3. The function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 [ log λ λ +log λ λ 3 +log λ 3 λ ] + κ e klog λ λ λ 3) 6.3) does not satisfy the inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion because it does not even satisfy Zubov s criterion for incompressible elastic materials as we prove in the next subsection. While we have shown ellipticity of F e k dev logu, we cannot infer and it does not hold) that F e k dev3 logu, evaluated and restricted to plane strain deformation λ,λ,) is elliptic. Motivated by the preceding negative development, we were inclined to try other, similar Hencky type energies as candidates for an overall elliptic formulation. However: The function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 log λ λ +e k 3 log λ λ 3 +e k 3 log λ 3 λ doesnot satisfy the inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion. The function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := µ e k 3 log λ λ +e k 3 log λ λ 3 +e k 3 log λ 3 λ )+ κe klog λ λ λ 3) does not satisfy the inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion because it does not satisfy Zubov s criterion for incompressible elastic materials. ) The function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := µ e k log λ +e k log λ +e k log λ 3 + κe klog λ λ λ 3) does not satisfy the inequalities from Knowles and Sternberg s criterion. 6. The ideal nonlinear incompressible elasticity model Whereas e k dev3 logu is not rank-one convex on GL + 3), one might hope that perhaps its restriction to SL3) might be rank-one convex. In the following, for simplicity, we consider only the case k =. Thus, a first open problem is if the following energy W : GL + 3) R +, WF) = { e dev 3 logu if det F =, + if detf, 6.4) is rank-one convex. To this aim, we use Zubov s Theorem 5.4 to show that this energy is not even rank-oneconvex on SL3). According to 6.), we check the conditions of this theorem for the function defined by 6.). The answer is negative as can be seen by the counterexample λ = e 4, λ = e 4, λ 3 =, λ λ λ 3 =. 6.5) 55

56 For these values we will prove that the condition δ δ +ǫ 3 > 0, 6.6) from Zubov s Theorem 5.4 is not satisfied. Let us recall that β = g λ, β = g γ + 3 = g λ λ + λ, β 3 = g λ, γ = g + 3 λ λ 3 g λ + g λ 3, γ λ +λ = g + 3 λ λ 3 g λ g λ λ λ, δ = β λ +β 3 λ 3 +γ λ λ 3, δ = β 3 λ 3 +β λ +γ λ 3λ, ǫ 3 = β 3 λ 3 +γ+ 3 λ λ +γ λ 3λ +γ λ 3λ. In view of 6.), we have β i = g λ + g λ 3, λ +λ 3 3 e 3 log λ i λ +log λr j λ +log λ ) j [ i λr λ log λ r log λ ) ] i +log λ r log λ i +, 6.7) i 3 λ i λ j λ i λ j for any permutation of i,j,r. Moreover, we have γ = e 3 γ = e 3 γ + 3 = e 3 ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 [ log λ 3 9λ λ 3 λ +λ 3 ) λ +λ 3 )log λ +3λ 3 λ 3 ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 9λ λ 3 λ +λ 3 ) λ +λ 3 ) +log λ λ ) log λ λ +log λ 3 λ +log λ λ 3 9λ λ λ λ ) +3 λ log λ 3 +λ λ λ λ +λ 3 ) ) λ [ log λ 3 λ log λ λ 3 log λ 3 log λ log λ λ log λ λ 3 3λ λ 3 ) λ +λ 3 ) ) )+3λ 3 +3 λ [ log λ ) +log λ λ 3 λ λ λ ) log λ ) )+3λ λ λ 3 ) +3 λ log λ log λ λ log λ λ 3 log λ 3 +log λ λ λ 3 ) λ λ )log λ 3 λ +3λ λ 3 )+λ +λ 3 )], log λ )) 3 λ 3 λ )] )+λ +λ 3 ), ) ) +3λ +λ ) +λ λ )log λ λ ]. 6.8) By direct substitution we deduce β e 4,e 4,) = 7e4, β e 4,e 4,) = 0e40, β 3 e 4,e 4,) = 4e , γ e4,e 4,) = )e , γ e4,e 4,) = e8 3+e 4) 3+e e 4, γ 3 + ) e4,e 4,) = e e 8) 3 e 8, ) 4 δ e 4,e 4,) = 4e3 9+5e 4) ) +e 4, δ e 4,e 4,) = 4e3 9+5e 4 +e 4, ǫ 3 e 4,e 4,) = e3 3+8e 4 3e 8) e 8, and δ e 4,e 4,)δ e 4,e 4,)+ǫ 3 e 4,e 4,) = e3 7 6e 4 +e 8) e 8 < ) This means that the necessary and sufficient conditions from Zubov s Theorem 5.4 are not satisfied. Hence, we conclude Proposition 6.4. The function F e dev3 logu is not rank-one convex on SL3). 56

57 6.3 Rank-one convexity domains for the energy F e k dev 3logU The understanding of loss of ellipticity may become important for severe strains and stresses at crack tips. The analysis in this subsection is motivated by the results established by Bruhns et al. [39, 40] see also [8, 9] in order to compare the domains of ellipticity obtained in nonlinear elastostatics for a special material 8 ), in which it is proved that the quadratic Hencky strain energy function W H with non-negative Lamé constants, µ,λ > 0, fulfils the Legendre-Hadamard condition for all principal stretches with λ i [0.6..., 3 e] = [0.6..., ]. 6.0) The LH-ellipticity of the quadratic Hencky strain energy function W H for all principal stretches in this cube [0.6..., ] 3 implies see Remark 5.3) that the exponentiated energy e W H is also LH-elliptic for all principal stretches in this box and for non-negative Lamé constants µ,λ > 0. [ ] Let us first remark that the function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 log λ λ +log λ λ +log λ 3 3 λ corresponding to our energy F e k dev3 logu is invariant under scaling 9 : In fact, we have: gaλ,aλ,aλ 3 ) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ), for all a > 0. 6.) Remark 6.5. All functions F WF) = W dev 3 logu ) are invariant under the scaling: F af, a > 0. Let us consider the substitution λ, λ, λ 3 ) = aλ,aλ,aλ 3 ), for all a > 0. For the derivatives, we deduce g λ, λ, λ 3 ) = gλ,λ,λ 3 ), λ i a λ i g λ, λ, λ 3 ) = λ i λ j a gλ,λ,λ 3 ). 6.) λ i λ j Hence, for the function g corresponding to our energy F e k dev3 logu, the inequalities in Dacorogna s criterion are also invariant under scaling. More generally: Remark 6.6. i) Let F WF) = W dev 3 logu ) be a function on GL + 3). Then, the inequalities in Dacorogna s criterion in terms of the corresponding function g : R + R are invariant under scaling. ii) For all functions F WF) for instance for functions F WF) = W iso F detf /3 )) which are invariant under scaling, the inequalities in Dacorogna s criterion in terms of the corresponding function g : R + R are invariant under scaling. Therefore, if the function g does not satisfy the requested inequalities in Dacorogna s criterion in a point λ 0),λ0),λ0) 0) 0) 0) 3 ), then it also does not satisfy them in the point λ, λ, λ 3 ) = aλ0),aλ0),aλ0) 3 ) for arbitrary a > 0. In the following we will exploit this insight. dev3 logu In the previous subsections we have proved that there exist a point in which the function F e looses the LH-ellipticity, namely in for compressible materials and in λ 0) = e, λ 0) = e 7, λ 0) 3 = e 6.3) λ 0) = e 4, λ 0) = e 4, λ 0) 3 = 6.4) in the case of incompressible materials. In view of the scaling invariance discussed above, we have 8 For this special material the energy is elliptic for ρ < λ λ < ρ, ρ = 3 = This means e k dev 3 logau) = e k dev 3 logu for all a > 0. 57

58 [ ] Lemma 6.7. If the function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 log λ λ +log λ λ +log λ 3 3 λ is not elliptic in a point P 0) = λ 0),λ0),λ0) 3 ), then it is not elliptic in all points Pλ,λ,λ 3 ), λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0,0,0) belonging to the line OP 0), where O = 0,0,0). In other words, the ellipticity domain is invariant under scaling. More general: F Remark 6.8. Let F WF) be an invariant under scaling function for instance F WF) = W iso ) detf /3 or F WF) = W dev 3 logu )) defined on GL + 3). If the corresponding function g : R 3 + R is not elliptic in a point P 0) = λ 0),λ0),λ0) 3 ), then it is not elliptic in all points Pλ,λ,λ 3 ), λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0,0,0) belonging to the line OP 0), where O = 0,0,0). In other words, the ellipticity domain of a function invariant under scaling function will be invariant under scaling. Proposition 6.9. The energy F e dev3 logu, F GL + 3) cannot be LH-elliptic in any cube like domain 0,y) 0,y) 0,y), y > 0. Proof. If the point P 0) = λ 0),λ0),λ0) 3 ) given by 6.3) belongs to the domain 0,y) 0,y) 0,y) then we have nothing more to prove. If P 0) λ 0),λ0),λ0) 3 ) 0,y) 0,y) 0,y), then there is a point Pλ,λ,λ 3 ), λ,λ,λ 3 ) 0,0,0) belonging to the line OP and Pλ,λ,λ 3 ) 0,y) 0,y) 0,y) see Figure 6). For instance the point λ0) a, λ0) a, λ0) 3 a ), where a > max i=,,3 { λ ) i y }. In view of Lemma 6.7 the proof is complete. Proposition 6.0. The energy F e dev3 logu, F GL + 3) is not LH-elliptic in any cube like domain x, ) x, ) x, ), x > 0. { λ Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of the previous proposition, because for b < min 0) i i=,,3 x }, the point λ0) b, λ0) b, λ0) 3 b ) OP belongs also to the domain x, ) x, ) x, ) see Figure 7). We already can prove this more general result: Proposition 6.. Let F WF) be a function defined on GL + 3) which is invariant under scaling. If the corresponding function g : R 3 + R is not elliptic in a point P0) = λ 0),λ0),λ0) 3 ), then there are no cube-like domains 0,y) 3, y > 0, or x, ) 3, x > 0, on which g is elliptic. On the other hand, the energy F e k dev3 logu is invariant under inversion 30, i.e. ) e k dev3 logu = e k dev3 logu gλ,λ,λ 3 ) = g,,, for all λ,λ,λ 3 ) R 3 + λ λ. 6.5) However, Dacorogna s ellipticity criterion is not invariant under inversion. This is the reason why Proposition 6.0 does not follow directly from Proposition 6.9 using the invariance under inversion. Remark 6.. Looking back to the quadratic Hencky energy F W B F) := dev [ 3 logu considered by Bruhns et al. [6] 3 andto the corresponding function g B : R 3 + R, g λ B,λ,λ 3 ) := 3 log λ λ +log λ λ 3 +log λ3 λ ], we remark: g B is separately convex see Proposition 5.8 and Corollary 5.9) only for those U such that the eigenvalues µ,µ,µ 3 of dev 3 logu are smaller than 3, i.e, if and only if the eigenvalues λ,λ,λ 3 of U are such that g B always satisfies the BE-inequalities. λ 3 λ e λ λ 3, λ e λ 3 λ, λ 3 e λ λ. 6.6) 30 The invariance under inversion of an energy W is the tension-compression symmetry WF) = WF ). 3 Hutchinson and Neale [6] have considered the energy dev 3 logu N for 0 < N. 58

59 Figure 6: F e k dev 3 logu is not LH-elliptic in the domain 0,y) 0,y) 0,y), y > 0. Figure 7: F e k dev 3 logu is not LH-elliptic in the domain x, ) x, ) x, ), x > 0. Numerical computations give us reasons to believe that there exists a number a B > 0 such that F dev 3 logu is LH-elliptic in the domain invariant under scaling) ẼW B,LH,U, 4 { 3 ) := U PSym3) dev 3 logu < a B < 4 }. 3 The results already obtained in [39] cannot be used for the energy W B F) = dev 3 logu = logu 3 [trlogu)], because they are applicable only for energies W H F) = µ logu + λ [trlogu)] for which µ,λ 0. Remark 6.3. As expected, the above properties are improved by considering the exponentiated Hencky energy F WF) = e k dev3 logu. The corresponding function g : R 3 + R, gλ,λ,λ 3 ) := e k 3 is such that: g is separately convex everywhere if k > 3 6. g always satisfies the BE-inequalities. [ ] log λ λ +log λ λ +log λ 3 3 λ Numerical computations give us reasons to believe that there is a number a > 0, a > 4 3 > a B > 0, such that F e k dev3 logu is LH-elliptic in the domain dev 3 logu < a. The approximative value which we observed is a = 7, i.e. U EW eh,lh,u,7), where EW iso eh,lh,u,7) := {U PSym3) dev3 logu 7}. 6.7) Of course, EW iso,lh,u,7) contains a neighbourhood of. Rephrasing the remark of Ogden [83, page eh 409], the question whether a constitutive inequality [LH, TSS-I, TSTS-M, BSTS, BSS etc.] holds for all deformations of a compressible solid is open. The applicability of elastic theory outside [a bounded domain in stretch space] is itself questionable because, for example, there may exist yield surfaces beyond which permanent deformation occurs. Remark 6.4. The major open problems in this respect are: Do there exist numbers x,y > 0 such that the energy function F e dev3 logu is LH-elliptic in x,y) x,y) x,y) and x,y) x,y) x,y)? If true, then in view of Lemma 6.7 the function F e dev3 logu is LH-elliptic in the domain given by Figure 8. In the three-dimensional representation it is a cone with the angle in the origin. Is the function F e dev3 logu elliptic in a ball containing? If true, then in view of Lemma 6.7 the function F e dev3 logu is LH-elliptic in the domain given by Figure 9. In the two-dimensional representation this domain is a corner domain but in the three-dimensional representation it is the interior of an infinite cone not necessarily circular) with the angle in the origin. 59