CRNOGORSKA AKADEMIJA NAUKA I UMJETNOSTI

GLASNIK ODJELJENJA PRIRODNIH NAUKA, 13, 1999.

QERNOGORSKAYA AKADEMIYA NAUK I ISSKUSTV
GLASNIK OTDELENIYA ESTESTVENNYH NAUK, 13, 1999.
THE MONTENEGRIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS
GLASNIK OF THE SECTION OF NATURAL SCIENCES, 13, 1999
UDK 539.319

Vlado A. Lubarda 
Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited

Abstract
Deformation theory of plasticity, originally introduced for innitesi-
mal strains, is extended to encompass the regime of nite deforma-
tions. The framework of nonlinear continuum mechanics with loga-
rithmic strain and its conjugate stress tensor is used to cast the formu-
lation. A connection between deformation and ow theory of metal
plasticity is discussed. Extension of theory to pressure-dependent
plasticity is constructed, with an application to geomechanics. Deriva-
tions based on strain and stress decompositions are both given. Dual-
ity in constitutive structures of rate-type deformation and ow theory
for ssured rocks is demonstrated.


Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California
at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0411, USA
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 2

OSVRT NA DEFORMACIONU TEORIJU PLASTIC NOSTI

Izvod
U radu je data formulacija deformacione teorije plasticnosti koja obuh-
vata oblast konacnih deformacija. Metodi nelinearne mehanika kon-
tinuuma, logaritamska mjera deformacije i njen konjugovani tenzor
napona su adekvatno upotrebljeni u formulaciji teorije. Veza izmedju
deformacione i inkrementalne teorije plasticnosti je diskutovana na
primjeru polikristalnih metala. Teorija je zatim prosirena na oblast
plasticnosti koja zavisi od pritiska, sa primjenom u geomehanici. For-
mulacije na bazi dekompozicija tenzora deformacije i napona su posebno
date. Dualnost konstitutivnih struktura deformacione i inkrementalne
teorije je demonstrirana na modelu stijenskih masa.

INTRODUCTION
Commonly accepted theory used in most analytical and computa-
tional studies of plastic deformation of metals and geomaterials is
the so-called ow theory of plasticity (e.g., Hill, 1950,1978; Lubliner,
1992; Havner, 1992). Plastic deformation is a history dependent phe-
nomenon, characterized by nonlinearity and irreversibility of under-
lining physical processes (Bell, 1968). Consequently, in ow theory of
plasticity the rate of strain is expressed in terms of the rate of stress
and the variables describing the current state of material. The over-
all response is determined incrementally by integrating the rate-type
constitutive and eld equations along given path of loading or defor-
mation (Lubarda and Lee, 1981; Lubarda and Shih, 1994; Lubarda
and Krajcinovic, 1995).
There has been an early theory of plasticity suggested by Hencky
(1924) and Ilyushin (1947,1963), known as deformation theory of plas-
ticity, in which total strain is given as a function of total stress. Such
constitutive structure, typical for nonlinear elastic deformation, is in
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 3

general inappropriate for plastic deformation, since strain there de-

pends on both stress and stress history, and is a functional rather
than a function of stress. However, deformation theory of plasticity
found its application in problems of proportional or simple loading,
in which all stress components increase proportionally, or nearly so,
without elastic unloading ever occurring (Budiansky, 1959; Kachanov,
1971). The theory was particularly successful in bifurcation studies
and determination of necking and buckling loads (Hutchinson, 1974).
Deformation theory of plasticity was originally proposed for non-
linear but innitesimally small plastic deformation. An extension to
nite strain range was discussed by Storen and Rice (1975). The
purpose of this paper is to provide a formulation of the rate-type
deformation theory for pressure-dependent and pressure-independent
plasticity at arbitrary strains. After needed kinematic and kinetic
background is introduced, the logarithmic strain and its conjugate
stress are conveniently utilized to cast the formulation. Relationship
between the rate-type deformation and ow theory of metal plasticity
is discussed. A pressure-dependent deformation theory of plasticity
is constructed and compared with a non-associative ow theory of
plasticity corresponding to the Drucker-Prager yield criterion. Devel-
opments based on strain and stress decompositions are both given.
Duality in the constitutive structures of deformation and ow theory
for ssured rocks is demonstrated.

1 KINEMATIC PRELIMINARIES
The locations of material points of a three-dimensional body in its
undeformed conguration are specied by vectors X. Their loca-
tions in deformed conguration at time t are specied by x, such
that x = x(X; t) is one-to-one deformation mapping, assumed twice
continuously dierentiable. The components of X and x are mate-
rial and spatial coordinates of the particle. An innitesimal material
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 4

element dX in the undeformed conguration becomes

x
dx = F
dX; F = @@X (1.1)
in the deformed conguration at time t. Physically possible deforma-
tion mappings have positive det F, hence F is an invertible tensor; dX
can be recovered from dx by inverse operation dX = F;1
dx.
By polar decomposition theorem, F is decomposed into the prod-
uct of a proper orthogonal tensor and a positive-denite symmetric
tensor, such that (Truesdell and Noll, 1965)
F = R
U = V
R: (1.2)
Here, U is the right stretch tensor, V is the left stretch tensor, and
R is the rotation tensor. Evidently, V = R
U
RT , so that U
and V share the same eigenvalues (principal stretches i ), while their
eigenvectors are related by ni = R
Ni . The right and left Cauchy-
Green deformation tensors are
C = FT
F = U ; B = F
FT = V :
2 2
(1.3)
If there are three distinct principal stretches, C and B have their
spectral representations (Marsden and Hughes, 1983)
X
3
X
3

C= i Ni
Ni ;
2
B= 2i ni
ni : (1.4)
i=1 i=1

2 STRAIN TENSORS
Various tensor measures of strain can be introduced. A fairly general
denition of material strain measures is (Hill, 1978)

E n = 21n ;U n ; I
= 21n ;i n ; 1
Ni

Ni;
X
3

( )
2 0 2
(2.1)
i =1

where 2n is a positive or negative integer, and i and Ni are the

principal values and directions of U. The unit tensor in the initial
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 5

conguration is I0 . For n = 1, Eq. (2.1) gives the Lagrangian or

Green strain E(1) = (U2 ; I0 )=2, for n = ;1 the Almansi strain
E(;1) = (I0 ; U;2)=2, and for n = 1=2 the Biot strain E(1=2) =
(U ; I0 ). The logarithmic or Hencky strain is
X
3

E = ln U =
(0) ln i Ni
Ni : (2.2)
i=1

A family of spatial strain measures, corresponding to material

strain measures of Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2), are

E n = 21n V n ; I = 21n i n ; 1 ni
ni;
;
X
3
;

( )
2 2
(2.3)
i =1

X
3

E = ln V =
(0) ln i ni
ni : (2.4)
i=1

The unit tensor in the deformed conguration is I, and ni are the
principal directions of V. For example, E (1) = (V2 ; I)=2, and E (;1) =
(I ; V;2 )=2, the latter being known as the Eulerian strain tensor.
Since U2n = RT
V2n
R, and ni = R
Ni , the material and
spatial strain measures are related by
E n = RT
E n
R; E = RT
E
R;
( ) ( ) (0) (0) (2.5)
i.e., the former are induced from the latter by the rotation R.
Consider a material line element dx in the deformed conguration
at time t. If the velocity eld is v = v(x; t), the velocities of the end
points of dx dier by
dv = L
dx; F_
F;1 : (2.6)
The tensor L is called the velocity gradient. Its symmetric and an-
tisymmetric parts are the rate of deformation tensor and the spin
tensor
D = 21 ;L + LT
; W = 21 ;L ; LT
: (2.7)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 6

3 CONJUGATE STRESS TENSORS

For any material strain E(n) of Eq. (2.1), its work conjugate stress
T(n) is dened such that the stress power per unit initial volume is
T(n) : E_ (n) =  : D; (3.1)
where  = (det F) is the Kirchho stress. The Cauchy stress is
denoted by . For n = 1, Eq. (3.1) gives
T = F;

F;T = U;
^
U; :
(1)
1 1
(3.2)1

The stress ^ = RT

R is induced from  by the rotation R. Similarly,

T ; = FT

F = U
^
U:
( 1) (3.3)
More involved is an expression for the stress conjugate to logarithmic
strain, although the approximation
 
T = ^ + O E n
^
(0)
2
( ) (3.4)
may be acceptable at moderate strains. If deformation is such that
principal directions of V and  are parallel, the matrices E(n) and T(n)
commute, and in that case T(0) = ^ exactly (Hill, 1978). If principal
directions of U remain xed during deformation,
E_ (0) = U_
U;1 = D^ ; T(0) = ^: (3.5)
The spatial strain tensors E (n) in general do not have their conju-
gate stress tensors T (n) such that T(n) : E_ (n) = T (n) : E_ (n) . However,
the spatial stress tensors conjugate to strain tensors E (n) can be in-
troduced by requiring that

T n : E_ n = T
( ) ( ) (n) : E (n) ; (3.6)
where objective, corotational rate of strain E (n) is dened by

E n = E_ n ; !
E n + E n
!; ! = R_
R; :
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1
(3.7)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 7


In view of the relationship E (n) = R
E_ (n)
RT , it follows that
T (n) = R
T(n)
RT : (3.8)
This is the conjugate stress to spatial strains E (n) in the sense of Eq.
(3.6).
Note that R

RT is not the work conjugate to any strain measure,
since the material stress tensor T(n) in Eq. (3.8) cannot be equal to
spatial stress tensor . Likewise, although ^ : D^ =  : D, the stress
tensor ^ = RT

R is not the work conjugate to any strain measure,
because D^ = RT
D
R is not the rate of any strain. Of course, 
itself is not the work conjugate to any strain, because D is not the
rate of any strain, either.

4 DEFORMATION THEORY OF PLASTIC-

ITY
Simple plasticity theory has been suggested for proportional loading
and small deformation by Hencky(1924) and Ilyushin (1947,1963).
A large deformation version of this theory is here presented. It is
convenient to cast the formulation by using the logarithmic strain
E(0) = ln U and its conjugate stress T(0) . Assume that the loading is
such that all stress components increase proportionally, i.e.
T(0) = c(t) T(0) ; (4.1)
where T(0) is the stress tensor at instant t , and c(t) is monotonically
increasing function of t, with c(t ) = 1. Evidently, principal directions
of T(0) in Eq. (4.1) remain xed during the deformation process.
Since stress proportionally increases, with no elastic unloading
taking place, it seems reasonable to assume that elastoplastic response
can be described macroscopically by the constitutive structure of non-
linear elasticity, in which total strain is a function of total stress. Thus,
decompose the total strain into its elastic and plastic parts,
E(0) = Ee(0) + Ep(0) ; (4.2)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 8

and assume that

E = @@T
e
(0)
(0)
; (4.3)
(0)

@f(0)
E ='p
(0) (0)
@ T(0)
; (4.4)
where (0) is a complementary elastic strain energy per unit unde-
formed volume, a Legendre transform of elastic strain energy (0) ,
;
;

(0) T (0) = T(0) : E(0) ; (0) E (0) : (4.5)
;

Isotropic elastic behavior will be assumed, so that (0) = (0) T(0)
is an isotropic function of T(0) . For plastically
;
isotropic


materials, i.e.
isotropic hardening, a function f(0) = f(0) T(0) is also an isotropic
function of T(0) . The scalar '(0) is an appropriate scalar function to
be determined in accord with experimental data. Clearly, principal
directions of both elastic and plastic components of strain are parallel
to those of T(0) , as are the principal directions of total strain E(0) .
Consequently, E(0) and U have their principal directions xed during
the deformation process, the matrix U_ commutes with U, and by Eq.
(3.5)
E_ (0) = U_
U;1 ; T(0) = RT

R: (4.6)
The requirement for xed principal directions of U severely restricts
the class of admissible deformations, precluding, for example, the case
of simple shear. This is not surprising because the premise of defor-
mation theory { proportional stressing imposes at the outset strong
restrictions on the analysis.
Introducing the spatial strain
E = RT
E
R;
(0) (0) (4.7)
Eqs. (4.2)-(4.4) can be rewritten as
E = E +E ;
(0)
e
(0)
p
(0)
(4.8)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 9

E = @@  ;
e
(0)
(0)
(4.9)

E = ' @f@  :
p
(0) (0)
(0)
(4.10)
Although deformation theory of plasticity is total strain theory,
the rate quantities are now introduced for later comparison with the
ow theory of plasticity, and for application of the resulting rate-
type constitutive equations approximately beyond proportional load-
ing. This is also needed whenever the boundary value problem of
nite deformation is being solved in an incremental manner. Since
U_
U;1 is symmetric, we have
D = R
E_
RT ; W = R_
R; ;
(0)
1
(4.11)
and

T_ = RT

R; E = D:
(0) (0) (4.12)
By dierentiating (4.2)-(4.4), or by applying the Jaumann derivative
to (4.8)-(4.10), there follows
D=D +D ; e p
(4.13)

@ 2 (0)
D e
= M(0) :  ; M(0) = @ 
@  ; (4.14)

@f(0) @ 2 f(0) 
D = '_
p
(0)
@
+ '(0)
@
@
: : (4.15)
Assume quadratic representation of the complementary energy
 
1
(0) = M(0) :: (
); M(0) =
1 
2 2 I ; 2 + 3 I
I ; (4.16)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 10

where  and  are the Lame elastic constants. Furthermore, let the
function f(0) be dened by the second invariant of deviatoric part of
the Kirchho stress,
1
f(0) =  0 :  0 : (4.17)
2
Substituting the last two expressions in Eq. (4.15) gives
D = '_
p
(0)  0 + '(0)  0 : (4.18)
The deviatoric and spherical parts of the total rate of deformation
tensor are accordingly
 
0 0 1
D = '_ (0)  + 2 + '(0)  0; (4.19)

tr D = 31 tr  ; (4.20)
where  =  + (2=3) is the elastic bulk modulus.
Suppose that a nonlinear relationship  =  ( ) between the Kirch-
ho stress and the logarithmic strain is available from elastoplastic
pure shear test. Let the secant and tangent moduli be dened by

hs = ; ht = ;
d (4.21)
d
and let
 1=2  1=2
1
 =  : 0 0 1 0 0
= 2 T(0) : T(0) ; (4.22)
2
 1=2  1=2
= 2 E 0(0) : E 0(0) = 2 E0(0) : E0(0) : (4.23)
Since from Eqs. (4.9) and (4.10)
 
0 1
E (0) = 2 + '(0)  0; (4.24)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 11

substitution into Eq. (4.23) provides an expression for

1 1
'(0) =
2hs ; 2 : (4.25)
In order to derive an expression for the rate '_ (0) , dierentiate Eqs.
(4.22) and (4.23) to obtain
1
 _ =  0 :  ; _ = 2 E 0(0) : D: (4.26)
2
In view of Eqs. (4.21), (4.24) and (4.25), this gives
1  0 :  = 2h h E 0 : D0 = h  0 : D0 : (4.27)
2 s t (0) t

When Eq. (4.19) is incorporated into Eq. (4.27), the rate is found to
be
1 1 ; 1  0 :  :
 
'_ (0) = (4.28)
2 ht hs  0 :  0
Taking Eq. (4.28) into Eq. (4.19), the deviatoric part of the total rate
of deformation is
" #
( 0
 0 ) :  :
 
D0 = 1 2hs
h
 0 + s
ht
; 1 0 : 0
(4.29)

Eq. (4.29) can be inverted to give

   0 
D0 ; 1 ; hh ( 
0 : )0 : D :
0
 0 = 2hs t
(4.30)
s

During initial, purely elastic stages of deformation, ht = hs = . The

onset of plasticity, beyond which Eqs. (4.29) and (4.30) apply, occurs
when  , dened by the second invariant of the deviatoric stress in Eq.
(4.22), reaches the initial yield stress in shear. The resulting theory
is referred to as the J2 deformation theory of plasticity.
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 12

5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEFORMA-

TION AND FLOW THEORY OF PLAS-
TICITY
For proportional loading dened by Eq. (4.1) the stress rates are
T_ = c_ T ;  = c_ :
(0)
c (0)
c
(5.1)
Consequently, from Eq. (4.28) the plastic part of the rate of deforma-
tion tensor is
 
1 1 1 c_
'_ (0) =
2 ht ; hs c ; (5.2)
while from Eq. (4.29)
 
p 0 e0 1
D = D ; D = 2 h ;  cc_  0 :1 1 (5.3)
t

On the other hand, in the case of ow theory of plasticity,

E_ (0) = E_ e(0) + E_ p(0) ; (5.4)

E_ = M : T_
e
(0) (0) (0) ; E_ = _ T0
p
(0) 0 (0) : (5.5)
The yield surface is dened by
1 T0 : T0 ; k2 (#) = 0; # = Z t 2 E_ p : E_ p 1=2 dt; (5.6)
2 (0) (0) 0
(0) (0)

and the consistency condition gives (Lubarda, 1991,1994)

1
_ (0) = 2 p ( 0 :  ): (5.7)
4k ht
Here, hpt = dk=d# designates the plastic tangent modulus. Since
T(0) = RT

R and E_ (0) = RT
D
R, the plastic part of the rate
of deformation becomes
Dp = 4k12 hp ; 0
 0
: : (5.8)
t
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 13

In view of Eq. (5.1), this simplies to

D = _ 0 =
1 c_ 0 (5.9)
2hpt c  :
p
(0)

Constitutive structures (5.3) and (5.9) are in accord since

1 = 1 ; 1: (5.10)
hpt ht 
The last expression holds because in shear test k =  , # = p , and
1
p = ; e = ; ;
d p = d ; 1 : (5.11)
 d d 
Also note that by (4.25), (5.2) and (5.9) there is a connection
c_
_ ; '_ = ' : (5.12)
(0) (0) (0)
c
5.1 Application of Deformation Theory Beyond Pro-
portional Loading
If plastic secant and tangent moduli are used, related to secant and
tangent moduli with respect to total strain by
1 ; 1 = 1 ; 1 = 1; (5.13)
ht hpt hs hps 
the plastic part of the rate of deformation can be rewritten from Eq.
(4.29) as
 0
 0 ) : 
 
1  0 1 1 (
D = 2hp  + 2hp ; 2hp  0 :  0 :
p
(5.14)
s t s

Deformation theory agrees with ow theory of plasticity only under

proportional loading, since then specication of the nal state of stress
also species the stress history. For general (non-proportional) load-
ing, more accurate and physically appropriate is the ow theory of
plasticity, particularly with an accurate modeling of the yield surface
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 14

and hardening behavior. Budiansky (1959), however, indicated that

deformation theory can be successfully used for certain nearly pro-
portional loading paths, as well. The rate  0 in Eq. (5.14) does not
then have to be codirectional with  0 . The rst and third term (both
proportional to 1=2hps ) in Eq. (5.14) do not cancel each other in this
case (as they do for proportional loading) , and the plastic part of the
rate of deformation depends on both components of the stress rate
 0 , one in the direction of  0 and the other normal to it. In contrast,
according to ow theory with the von Mises smooth yield surface, the
component of the stress rate  0 normal to  0 does not aect the plastic
part of the rate of deformation. Physical theories of plasticity (e.g.,
Hill, 1967) indicate that yield surface of a polycrystalline aggregate
develops a vertex at its loading stress point, so that innitesimal in-
crements of stress in the direction normal to  0 indeed cause further
plastic ow. Since the structure of the deformation theory of plas-
ticity under proportional loading does not use a notion of the yield
surface, Eq. (5.14) can be adopted for an approximate description
of the response in the case when the yield surface develops a vertex.
When Eq. (5.14) is rewritten in the form
" #
1  0 (  0
 0 ) :  1 ( 0
 0 ) : 
D = 2hp  ;  0 :  0 + 2hp  0 :  0 ;
p
(5.15)
s t

the rst term on the right-hand side gives the response to component
of the stress increment normal to  0 . The associated plastic modulus
is hps . The plastic modulus associated with component of the stress
increment in the direction of  0 is hpt . Therefore, for continued plastic
ow with small deviations from proportional loading (so that all yield
segments which intersect at the vertex are active { fully active load-
ing), Eq. (5.15) can be used to approximately account for the eects
of the yield vertex. The idea was used by Rudnicki and Rice (1975)
in modeling inelastic behavior of ssured rocks, as will be discussed
in section 7.1. For the full range of directions of stress increment,
the relationship between the rates of stress and plastic deformation is
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 15

not expected to be necessarily linear, although it should be homoge-

neous in these rates in the absence of time-dependent (creep) eects.
A corner theory that predicts continuous variation of the stiness
and allows increasingly non-proportional increments of stress is for-
mulated by Chistoersen and Hutchinson (1979). When applied to
the analysis of necking in thin sheets under biaxial stretching, the
results were in better agreement with experimental observations than
those obtained from the theory with smooth yield characterization.
Similar conclusions were long known in the eld of elastoplastic buck-
ling. Deformation theory predicts the buckling loads better than the
ow theory with a smooth yield surface (Hutchinson, 1974).

6 PRESSURE-DEPENDENT DEFORMATION
THEORY OF PLASTICITY
To include pressure dependence and allow inelastic volume changes in
deformation theory of plasticity, assume that, in place of Eq. (4.4),
the plastic strain is related to stress by
"  1=2 #
E ='
p
(0) (0) T0(0) + 32  21 T0(0) : T0(0) I 0
; (6.1)

where  is a material parameter. It follows that the deviatoric and

spherical parts of the plastic rate of deformation tensor are
D 0 = '_
p
(0)  0 + '(0)  0 ; (6.2)
!
 0 : 
tr D = 2 J
p 1=2
2 '_ (0) + '(0)
2 J2 : (6.3)

The invariant J2 = (1=2)  0 :  0 is the second invariant of deviatoric

part of the Kirchho stress.
Suppose that a nonlinear relationship  =  ( p ) between the
Kirchho stress and the plastic part of the logarithmic strain is avail-
able from the elastoplastic shear test (needed data for brittle rocks is
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 16

commonly deduced from conned compression tests; Lubarda, Mas-

tilovic and Knap, 1996a). Let the plastic secant and tangent moduli
be dened by
 d
hps = p ; hpt = p ; (6.4)
d
and let in three-dimensional problems of overall compressive states of
stress
1
 = J21=2 +  tr ; (6.5)
3
 1=2
p = 2 E p(0) 0 : E p(0) 0 = 2 '(0) J21=2 : (6.6)
The friction-type coecient is denoted by . Note that from Eq.
(6.1), E p(0) = '(0)  0 . By using the rst of Eq. (6.4), therefore,
0

1 
'(0) = p 1=2 : (6.7)
2hs J2
In order to derive an expression for the rate '_ (0) , dierentiate Eqs.
(6.5) and (6.6) to obtain
1 1
_ = J2;1=2 ( 0 :  ) + tr  ; (6.8)
2 3
 
1
_ p = 2 '_ (0) J21=2 + '(0) J2;1=2 ( 0 :  ) : (6.9)
2
Combining this with the second of Eq. (6.4) gives
!
1 1 1   0 :  1 1 tr 
'_ (0) =
2 hpt ; hps J21=2 2 J2 + 2hpt 3  J21=2 : (6.10)
Substituting Eqs. (6.7) and (6.10) into Eqs. (6.2) and (6.3) yields
!
p0 1   0 1 1 1  (  0
 0 ) : 
D = 2hp 1=2  + 2 hp ; hp 1=2 2 J2
s J s J
(6.11)
t
2 2

1 1 tr 
 0
+ 2hp 3  1=2  ;
t J2
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 17
!
0 
tr D p
= hp  1: =2 + 13  tr  : (6.12)
t 2 J2
If  = 0, i.e.  = J21=2 , Eqs. (6.11) and (6.12) reduce to
"  p  0 #
1  h (
 0 ) : 
Dp 0 = 2hp  0 + hps ; 1 2 J2 ; (6.13)
s t

  0 : 
tr D p
= 2hp 1=2 : (6.14)
t J
2

6.1 Non-Coaxiality Factor

It is instructive to rewrite Eq. (6.11) in an alternative form as
! " #
1  0  0 :  1  1   (  0
 0 ) : 
Dp 0 = 2hp 1=2 + 3  tr  + 2hp 1=2  0 ; 2 J
t J2 2 J21=2
s J
2
2

(6.15)
The rst part of Dp 0 is coaxial with  0 . The second part is in the
direction of the component of the stress rate  0 that is normal to  0 .
There is no work done on this part of the plastic strain rate, i.e.
 
p0 1 0  2
 : D = p  :  +  J2 tr  : 1=2 
(6.16)
2ht 3
Observe in passing that from Eqs. (6.12) and (6.16),
tr Dp =   : D ;
p0
(6.17)
J21=2
which oers a simple physical interpretation of the parameter  .
The coecient
!
1  1
& = p 1=2 = p 1 +  1=2
1 tr 
(6.18)
2hs J2 2hs 3 J2
in Eq. (6.15) can be interpreted as the stress-dependent non-coaxiality
factor. Other denitions of this factor appeared in the literature, e.g.,
Nemat-Nasser (1983).
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 18

6.2 Inverse Constitutive Relations

The deviatoric and volumetric part of the total rate of deformation
are obtained by adding to (6.11) and (6.12) the elastic contributions,
! !
0 1 1   0 1 1 1  (  0
 0 ) : 
D = 2 + 2hp 1=2  + 2 hp ; hp 1=2 2 J2
s J t s J
2 2

+ 2h1 p 13  tr1=2  0 ;
t J2
(6.19)

  0 : 
 
1 1  
tr D = 3  + hp tr  + 2hp 1=2 : (6.20)
t t J2

The inverse relations are found to be

" #
 0 = 2 1 D0 ; a ( 0
 0 ) : D ; 1    0 tr D ;
b bc 2 J2 c 2 J21=2
(6.21)
"  #
1 + ht tr D ;   1:=D
0
tr  = 3
p

c
: (6.22)
J2 2
The introduced parameters are
 
hp    
a = 1 ; tp 1=2 1 +  p ; b = 1 + p 1=2 ; (6.23)
hs J2 ht hs J2
and
hpt 
c=1+ +  : (6.24)
 

7 Relationship to Pressure-Dependent Flow

Theory of Plasticity
For geomaterials like soils and rocks, plastic deformation has its ori-
gin in pressure dependent microscopic processes and the yield condi-
tion depends on the hydrostatic component of stress. Drucker and
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 19

Prager (1952) suggested that inelastic deformation commences when

the shear stress on octahedral planes overcomes cohesive and frictional
resistance to sliding. The resulting yield condition is
1
f = J21=2 +  I1 ; k = 0; (7.1)
3
with  as the coecient of internal friction, and k as the yield shear
strength. The rst invariant of the Kirchho stress is I1 = tr , and J2
is the second invariant of the deviatoric part of the Kirchho stress.
Constitutive equations in which plastic part of the rate of deforma-
tion is normal to locally smooth yield surface in stress space are re-
ferred to as associative ow rules. A sucient condition for this con-
stitutive structure is that material obeys the Ilyushin's work postu-
late (Ilyushin, 1961). However, pressure-dependent dilatant materials
with internal frictional eects are not well described by associative
ow rules. For example, they largely overestimate inelastic volume
changes in geomaterials, and in certain high-strength steels exhibiting
the strength-dierential eect (by which the yield strength is higher in
compression than in tension). For such materials, plastic part of the
rate of strain is taken to be normal to the plastic potential surface,
which is distinct from the yield surface. The resulting constitutive
structure is known as a non-associative ow rule. For geomaterials
whose yield is governed by the Drucker-Prager yield condition, the
plastic potential can be taken as
1
 = J21=2 +  I1 ; k = 0: (7.2)
3
The material parameter  is in general dierent from  in Eq. (7.1).
Thus,
 
p @ 1 ; 1=2 0 1
D = _ @  = _ 2 J2  + 3  I : (7.3)
The loading index _ is determined from the consistency condition.
Assuming known the relationship k = k(#) between the shear yield
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 20

stress and the generalized plastic shear strain

Z t
;
1=2
#= 2 Dp 0 : Dp 0 dt; (7.4)
0

the condition f_ = 0 gives

 
_ = p
1 1 ;1=2 0 1
J2  +  I :  : (7.5)
ht 2 3
The plastic tangent modulus is hpt = dk=d#. Substituting Eq. (7.5)
into Eq. (7.3) results in
   
Dp = h1p 21 J2;1=2  0 + 31  I
12 J2;1=2  0 + 13  I : : (7.6)
t

A physical interpretation of the parameter  is obtained by observing

from Eq. (7.3) that
2 Dp 0 : Dp 0 1=2 =  : D = ;_ tr Dp =  ;
;
p0
_ (7.7)
J21=2
i.e.,
=
tr Dp : (7.8)
(2 Dp 0 : Dp 0 )1=2
Thus,  is the ratio of the volumetric and shear part of the plastic
strain rate, which is often called the dilatancy factor (Rudnicki and
Rice, 1975). Representative values of the friction coecient and the
dilatancy factor for ssured rocks indicate that  = 0:3 ; ;1 and
 = 0:1 ; ;0:5 (Lubarda, Mastilovic and Knap, 1996b). Frictional
parameter and inelastic dilatancy of material actually change with
progression of inelastic deformation, but are here treated as constants.
For more elaborate analysis, which accounts for their variation, the
paper by Nemat-Nasser and Shokooh (1980) can be consulted.
The deviatoric and spherical parts of the total rate of deformation
are
0 !
 1  0  0 :  1 
D0 = 2 + 2hp 1=2 +  tr  ; (7.9)
t J2 2 J21=2 3
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 21
!
0 
tr D = 31 tr  + hp  1: =2 + 13  tr  : (7.10)
t 2 J2
These can be inverted to give the deviatoric and spherical parts of the
stress rate
" #
D0 ; 1c (
2 J ) : D ; 1c  2 1=2 tr D ;
0 0 0
 0 = 2 (7.11)
2 J2
"  #
1 + ht tr D ;   1:=D
0
tr  = 3
p

c
: (7.12)
J2 2
The parameter c is dened in Eq. (6.24). The last expression is
identical to (6.22), as expected since (6.20) and (7.10) are in concert.
If the friction coecient  is equal to zero, Eqs. (7.11) and (7.12)
reduce to
 
 0 = 2 D0 ; 1 ( 0
 0 ) : D ; (7.13)
1 + hpt = 2 J2
!
 0 : D
tr  = 3 tr D ; 1 + hpt = J21=2 : (7.14)

With vanishing dilatancy factor ( = 0), these coincide with the con-
stitutive equations of isotropic hardening pressure-independent metal
plasticity.

7.1 Relationship to Yield Vertex Model for Fissured

Rocks
In a brittle rock, modeled to contain a collection of randomly ori-
ented ssures, inelastic deformation results from frictional sliding on
the ssure surfaces. Individual yield surface may be associated with
each ssure, so that the macroscopic yield surface is the envelope of
individual yield surfaces for ssures of all orientations (Rudnicki and
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 22

Rice, 1975). Continued stressing in the same direction will cause con-
tinuing sliding on (already activated) favorably oriented ssures, and
will initiate sliding for a progressively greater number of orientations.
After certain amount of inelastic deformation, the macroscopic yield
envelope develops a vertex at the loading point. The stress incre-
ment normal to the original stress direction will initiate or continue
sliding of ssure surfaces for some ssure orientations. In isotropic
hardening idealization with smooth yield surface, however, a stress
increment tangential to the yield surface will cause only elastic de-
formation, overestimating the stiness of the response. In order to
take into account the eect of the yield vertex in an approximate way,
Rudnicki and Rice, (op. cit.) introduced a second plastic modulus hp ,
which governs the response to part of the stress increment directed
tangentially to what is taken to be the smooth yield surface through
the same stress point. Since no vertex formation is associated with
hydrostatic stress increments, tangential stress increments are taken
to be deviatoric, and thus
! !
p0 1  0  0 :  1  1  0  0 :  0
D = 2hp 1=2 + 3  tr  + 2hp  ; 2 J  :
t J
2
2 J 1=2
2
2

(7.15)
The dilation induced by the small tangential stress increment is as-
sumed to be negligible, i.e.,
!
  0 :  1 
tr D = hp
p
+  tr  : (7.16)
t 2 J21=2 3
Comparing Eq. (7.15) with (6.15) of the pressure-dependent deforma-
tion theory of plasticity, it is clear that the two constitutive structures
are equivalent, provided that identication is made
J21=2 1
hp = hps = 2& : (7.17)

This derivation reconciles the dierences left in the literature in a de-
bate between Rudnicki (1982) and Nemat-Nasser (1982). It should
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 23

also be noted that the constitutive structure in Eq. (7.15) is intended

to model the response at a yield surface vertex for small deviations
from proportional loading    0 . For increasingly non-proportional
stress increments, the relationship between the stress and plastic de-
formation rates is not expected to be necessarily linear.
The expressions for the rate of stress in terms of the rate of defor-
mation are obtained by inversion of the expressions based on (7.10)
and (7.15). The results are given by Eqs. (6.21) and (6.22), with the
parameters
hpt
a=1;
hp
;  h ; b = 1 + h ;
p p
(7.18)
and with c given by Eq. (6.24). In view of the connection (7.17), ex-
pressions in Eq. (7.18) are clearly in accord with (6.23). This demon-
strates a duality in the constitutive structures of deformation and ow
theory for the considered models of pressure-dependent plasticity.

8 DEFORMATION THEORY BASED ON STRESS

DECOMPOSITION
In the ow theory of plasticity the constitutive structure can be built
by either decomposing the rate of strain or the rate of stress into
elastic and plastic constituents (Hill, 1978; Lubarda, 1994,1999). It
is appealing to formulate the deformation theory of plasticity in a
similar manner. Thus, instead of decomposing the total strain, which
was done in section 4, decompose the stress tensor into its elastic and
plastic part,
T =T +T
(0)
e
(0)
p
(0)
; (8.1)
and assume that for isotropic pressure-independent plasticity
T = 2 E +  tr E I ;
e
(0) (0) (0)
0
(8.2)

T =;
p
(0) (0) E0
(0) ; (8.3)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 24

where (0) is an appropriate parameter. Note that Tp(0) is a deviatoric

tensor, so that deviatoric part of the total stress is
T0 = (2 ;
(0) (0) )E0 (0) : (8.4)
Since  e 0 = 2 D0 , from (8.4) by dierentiation,
 p = ; _ (0) E 0(0) ; (0) D0 : (8.5)
Suppose that a nonlinear relationship = (; p ) between the
logarithmic strain and plastic part of the conjugate stress is available
from elastoplastic pure shear test. Let the corresponding secant and
tangent compliances be dened by

gsp = ; p ; gtp = ; p ;
d (8.6)
 d
and let
 1=2  1=2
p 1
 = ; p : p = ; 12 Tp(0) : Tp(0) ; (8.7)
2
while is dened as in Eq. (4.23). It follows that
= 2; (0)
gsp
(8.8)
and
 0
_ (0) = 2 1p ; 1p E0 (0) : D0 :


gt gs E (0) : E (0)
(8.9)

Substituting Eq. (8.9) into Eq. (8.5), the plastic part of the Jaumann
rate of the Kirchho stress becomes
2   3
2 g
  E0
E0 : D
 p = ; p 4D0 +
p

gs
s

g
p ;1 (0)

E0 : E0
5:
(0)
(8.10)
t (0) (0)
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 25

By adding the elastic contribution, the deviatoric part of the Jaumann

rate of stress is
2   3
    E0
E0 : D
1
 0 = 2 4  ; p D0 ; p ; p
1 1 (0) (0)
5: (8.11)
gs gt gs E 0(0) : E 0(0)
This constitutive structure is in agreement with (4.30), because  =
 +  p , and
hs =  ;
1 ; h =; 1 : (8.12)
gp
s
t
gp t

It is also noted that the parameter (0) is related to parameter '(0)

of section 4 by
2 '(0) = 2 ;(0) : (8.13)
(0)

In the case of pressure-dependent plasticity, we can take the plastic

part of the stress to be related to strain according to
 1=2 
0 1 

0 0
T(0) = ; (0) E(0) + 3  2 E(0) : E(0) I0 ;
p
(8.14)
where   is a new material parameter. Furthermore, dene
 1=2 1
= 2 E0(0) : E0(0) + 3  tr E(0) ; (8.15)
 1=2
p 1
 0 = ; Tp(0) 0 : Tp(0) 0 ; (8.16)
2
and assume known the relationship = (; p 0 ). The friction-type
coecient is denoted by  . It is easily veried that (6.5) and (8.15)
cannot lead to equivalent constitutive descriptions, if  and  are
both required to be constant (although distinct) coecients. Having
this in mind, and with the plastic secant and tangent compliances
dened by
d
gsp = ; p 0 ; gtp = ; p 0 ; (8.17)
 d
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 26

it follows that
(0) = g2p 1=2 ; (8.18)
s 4j
2

and
!
2 E 0(0) : D
_ (0) = 2p ; 2p 1=2
gt gs 4j2 j2
+ g2p 13  tr1=D2 : (8.19)
t j2
The notation is used j2 = 2 E 0(0) : E 0(0) . Consequently,
!
2 E0 2 E 0(0) : D
 p 0 = ; p (0)

gt j21=2 1=2
+ 31  tr D
j2
2  
0
E0 : D3 (8.20)
2 E
; g2p 1=2 4D0 ; (0) j (0) 5:
s 4j 2
2

!
 2 E 0(0) : D
tr  p = ; 2 p
gt
+ 13  tr D : (8.21)
j21=2
These give rise to dual, but not equivalent constitutive structures to
those associated with Eqs. (6.12) and (6.15). Finally, it is noted that
p  2 E 0(0) :  p 0
tr  =  1=2
; (8.22)
j2
which parallels Eq. (6.17).

References
Bell, J. F., The physics of large deformation of crystalline solids,
Springer Tracts in Natural Philosophy, Vol. 14, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1968).
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 27

Budiansky, B., A reassessment of deformation theories of plasticity,

J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 26, pp. 259{264 (1959).
Christoersen, J. and Hutchinson, J. W., A class of phenomenological
corner theories of plasticity, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 27, pp.
465{487 (1979).
Drucker, D. C. and Prager, W., Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design, Q. Appl. Math., Vol. 10, pp. 157{165 (1952).
Hencky, H., Zur Theorie plastischer Deformationen und der hierdurch
im Material hervorgerufenen Nachspannungen, Z. Angew. Math.
Mech., Vol. 4, pp. 323{334 (1924).
Hill, R., The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University
Press, London (1950).
Hill, R., The essential structure of constitutive laws for metal compos-
ites and polycrystals, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 15, pp. 79{95
(1967).
Hill, R., Aspects of invariance in solid mechanics, Advances in Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 18, pp. 1{75 (1978).
Hutchinson, J. W., Plastic buckling, Advances in Applied Mechanics,
Vol. 14, pp. 67{144 (1974).
Ilyushin, A. A., Theory of plasticity at simple loading of the bodies
exhibiting plastic hardening, Prikl. Mat. Mekh., Vol. 11, 291
(1947).
Ilyushin, A. A., On the postulate of plasticity, Prikl. Math. Mekh.,
Vol. 25, pp. 503{507 (1961).
Ilyushin, A. A., Plasticity. Foundations of the General Mathematical
Theory, Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow (1963) (in Russian).
Kachanov, L. M., Foundations of Theory of Plasticity, North-Holland,
Amsterdam (1971).
Havner, K. S., Finite Plastic Deformation of Crystalline Solids, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge (1992).
Lubarda, V. A., Constitutive analysis of large elasto-plastic defor-
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 28

mation based on the multiplicative decomposition of deformation

gradient, Int. J. Solids Struct., Vol. 27, pp. 885{895 (1991).
Lubarda, V. A., Elastoplastic constitutive analysis with the yield sur-
face in strain space, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 42, pp. 931{952
(1994).
Lubarda, V. A., On the partition of rate of deformation in crystal
plasticity, Int. J. Plasticity, Vol. 15, pp. 721{736 (1999).
Lubarda, V.A. and Lee, E. H., A correct denition of elastic and
plastic deformation and its computational signicance, J. Appl.
Mech., Vol. 48, pp. 35{40 (1981).
Lubarda, V. A. and Krajcinovic, D., Some fundamental issues in rate
theory of damage-elastoplasticity, Int. J. Plasticity, Vol. 11, pp.
763{797 (1995).
Lubarda, V. A., Mastilovic, S. and Knap, J., Brittle-ductile transition
in porous rocks by cap model, ASCE J. Engr. Mech., Vol. 122,
pp. 633{642 (1996a).
Lubarda, V. A., Mastilovic, S. and Knap, J., Some comments on
plasticity postulates and non-associative ow rules, Int. J. Mech.
Sci., Vol. 38, pp. 247{258 (1996b).
Lubarda, V. A. and Shih, C. F., Plastic spin and related issues in
phenomenological plasticity, J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 61, pp. 524{
529 (1994).
Lubliner, J., Plasticity Theory, Macmillan Publishing Comp., New
York (1990).
Marsden, J. E. and Hughes, T. J. R., Mathematical Foundations of
Elasticity, Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, New Jersey (1983).
Nemat-Nasser, S., Reply to discussion of "On nite plastic ows of
compressible materials with internal friction", Int. J. Solids Struct.,
Vol. 18, pp. 361{366 (1982).
Nemat-Nasser, S., On nite plastic ow of crystalline solids and geo-
materials, J. Appl. Mech., Vol. 50, pp. 1114{1126 (1983).
 Deformation Theory of Plasticity Revisited 29

Nemat-Nasser, S. and Shokooh, A., On nite plastic ows of com-

pressible materials with internal friction, Int. J. Solids Struct.,
Vol. 16, pp. 495{514 (1980).
Rudnicki, J. W., Discussion of "On nite plastic ows of compressible
materials with internal friction", Int. J. Solids Struct., Vol. 18,
pp. 357{360 (1982).
Rudnicki, J. W. and Rice, J. R., Conditions for the localization of de-
formation in pressure-sensitive dilatant materials, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, Vol. 23, pp. 371{394 (1975).
Storen, S. and Rice, J. R., Localized necking in thin sheets, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, Vol. 23, pp. 421{441 (1975).
Truesdell, C. and Noll, W., The nonlinear eld theories of mechanics,
Handbuch der Physik, Band III/3, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1965).