Abstract
Restrictions imposed on stress response functions by objectivity and material symmetry are usually obtained by appeal to both a reference configuration and a response function common to all observers. Here these restrictions are obtained by regarding the reference configuration to be observer-dependent in a natural manner, and without the need to assume the existence of a common response function. Remarks are made on the distinction which should be drawn between the notions of observer transformation and rigid deformation, the consequences of this distinction for the correct interpretation of ‘invariance under superposed rigid motions’, and on the domains of response functions.
References
C. Truesdell and W. Noll, The Non-linear Field Theories of Mechanics. Handbuch der Physik, Vol. III/3 (ed. S. Flügge). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1965.
M.E. Gurtin, An Introduction to Continuum Mechanics. Academic Press, New York, 1981.
R.L. Fosdick and J. Serrin, On the impossibility of linear Cauchy and Piola-Kirchhoff constitutive theories for stress in solids. J. Elasticity 9 (1979) 83–89.
M.E. Gurtin, The Linear Theory of Elasticity. Handbuch der Physik, Vol. VIa/2 (ed. C. Truesdell). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1972.
W. Noll, Lectures on the foundations of continuum mechanics and thermodynamics. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 52 (1973) 62–92.
A.I. Murdoch, On material frame-indifference, intrinsic spin, and certain constitutive relations motivated by the kinetic theory of gases. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 83 (1983) 185–194.
A.I. Murdoch, On material frame-indifference. Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 380 (1982) 417–426.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murdoch, A.I. On Objectivity and Material Symmetry for Simple Elastic Solids. Journal of Elasticity 60, 233–242 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011049615372
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011049615372