A Counterpoint to Cermelli and Gurtin’s Criteria for Choosing the ‘Correct’ Geometric Dislocation Tensor in Finite Plasticity

  • Amit Acharya
Part of the IUTAM BookSeries book series (IUTAMBOOK, volume 11)

Abstract

The criteria in [4] (Cermelli and Gurtin, 2001, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 49, 1539–1568) for choosing a geometric dislocation tensor in finite plasticity are reconsidered. It is shown that physically reasonable alternate criteria could just as well be put forward to select other measures; overall, the emphasis should be on the connections between various physically meaningful measures as is customary in continuum mechanics and geometry, rather than on criteria to select one or another specific measure. A more important question is how the geometric dislocation tensor should enter a continuum theory and it is shown that the inclusion of the dislocation density tensor in the specific free energy function in addition to the elastic distortion tensor is not consistent with the free energy content of a body as predicated by classical dislocation theory. Even in the case when the specific free energy function is meant to represent some spatial average of the actual microscopic free energy content of the body, a dependence on the average dislocation density tensor cannot be adequate.

Key words

dislocations gradient plasticity finite deformation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acharya, A. (2001) A model of crystal plasticity based on the theory of continuously distributed dislocations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 49, 761–785.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acharya, A. (2004) Constitutive analysis of finite deformation field dislocation mechanics. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 52, 301–316.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Acharya, A. and Bassani, J.L. (2000) Lattice incompatibility and a gradient theory of crystal plasticity. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48, 1565–1595.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cermelli, P. and Gurtin, M.E. (2001) On the characterization of geometrically necessary dislocations in finite plasticity, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 49, 1539–1568.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fox, N. (1966) A continuum theory of dislocations for single crystals. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, 2, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gurtin, M.E. (2002) A gradient theory of single-crystal viscoplasticity that accounts for geometrically necessary dislocations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 50, 5–32.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kröner, E. (1981) Continuum theory of defects, in Physics of Defects, R. Balian et al. (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 217–315.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nabarro, F.R.N. (1987) Theory of Crystal Dislocations. Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willis, J.R. (1967) Second-order effects of dislocations in anisotropic crystals. International Journal of Engineering Science, 5, 171–190.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit Acharya
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations