Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Quasistatic nonassociative plasticity at finite strains

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves existence of quasistatic measure-valued energetic solutions for finite-strain nonassociative plasticity, under gradient-plasticity and space-time mollification regularizations.

desk verdict First existence theorem for quasistatic nonassociative finite-strain plasticity; solid proof with one corner to tidy up in the lower energy bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14316 v2 pith:4DEXR7UA submitted 2024-11-21 math.AP

Ulisse Stefanelli , Andreas Vikelis This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 49J4549S0574C15
keywords finite-strainplasticitynonassociativequasistaticevolutionenergeticsolutionsmeasure-valuedgradientYoungmeasurestimediscretization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Nonassociative plasticity uses two different functions, the yield function and the plastic potential, to decide when plastic flow starts and in which direction it proceeds, and this mismatch makes the dissipation depend nonlinearly on the deformation state. Existence of quasistatic evolution has previously been proved only in the linearized small-strain setting, and this paper claims existence for the finite-strain, geometrically nonlinear model by introducing measure-valued energetic solutions. Specifically, with a polyconvex polynomial-growth elastic energy, a gradient term penalizing plastic-strain variations, and a causal space-time convolution of the deformation gradient inside the dissipation, there exists a solution (y, P, nu) satisfying the stability inequality and the energy balance for almost every time. The result extends existence theory for rate-independent plasticity from the associative to the genuinely nonassociative regime, at the price of measure-valued states and a nonlocal regularization of the flow rule.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the energetic formulation of rate-independent problems: incremental minimization of stored energy plus a dissipation distance D(K nabla y, P_{i-1}, P), where D is a Finsler metric on SL(3) built from the infinitesimal dissipation R, and K is the causal space-time convolution operator KF = kappa * (phi star F). The compactness that the nonassociative flow rule lacks for nabla y is supplied by K, which maps L^infinity(0,T; L^q) into L^infinity($\Omega$ x (0,T)) compactly and therefore lets the dissipation term pass to the limit in the stability inequality. Weak limits of the energy are handled by the generalized Young measure (nu_{x,t}, $\lambda$, nu^infinity_{x,t}) with a nonhomogeneous recession function for the three different growth exponents q_e, q_p, q_r, and time compactness of the discrete plastic trajectories comes from an extended Helly selection principle for time-dependent dissipation (Theorem A.1).

What would settle it

Take the von Mises example of Section 3.4 with chosen kernels kappa and phi, solve the incremental scheme (6.3) numerically for a simple shear test, and check whether the computed plastic flow direction approaches the local normal cone of the plastic potential g as the kernel supports shrink; if the mollified solutions fail to converge to the local nonassociative flow rule, the regularization changes the original model. A purely analytic check is to verify the coercivity estimate of Lemma 6.1 for a frame-indifferent polyconvex elastic energy of the assumed polynomial growth, since the theorem collapses if the claimed bound fails for some admissible We.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.1: under the assumptions of Section 5.1, in particular a polyconvex polynomial-growth elastic energy with gradient plasticity (mu > 0, q_r > 3), the causal space-time mollification operator K acting on the deformation gradient inside the dissipation, and a stable initial state, there exists a measure-valued energetic solution (y, P, nu) with P(0) = P0 that satisfies the stability inequality (5.17) and the energy balance (5.18) for almost every time in (0, T). The deformation and plastic strain are obtained as limits of time-discrete incremental minimizers, and the weak limit of the triple (nabla y_n $P_n^{{-1}}$, P_n, nabla P_n) is encoded in a time-parametrized generalized Young measure (nu_{x,t}, $\lambda$, nu^infinity_{x,t}) whose concentration part absorbs the possible lack of strong compactness of the deformation gradient. The paper also establishes a function-valued counterpart (Proposition 5.1) in which stability and an upper energy estimate hold with two possibly distinct limiting deformations, the energy balance being recovered when the two coincide, and a correspondence result (Proposition 5.2) stating that the measure-valued and function-valued solution concepts are equivalent for limits of discrete solutions, with equal energies.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem only proves existence for the regularized model in which the plastic dissipation depends on the space-time averaged deformation gradient K nabla y rather than on the pointwise deformation gradient of the original flow rule, and the local nonassociative model is left open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonassociative finite-strain quasistatic evolution exists in the regularized setting, moving existence theory beyond the associative models and the linearized nonassociative results.
  • Solutions are measure-valued: the deformation gradient may develop oscillations or concentrations, and the energy balance must account for the concentration part of the Young measure.
  • The discrete incremental scheme of Section 6.2 produces stable approximations, and the extended Helly principle for time-dependent dissipations is a compactness tool available for other rate-independent problems.
  • When the energy is convex, which is compatible with small elastic strains, the function-valued solution satisfies the full energy balance, so the concentration part of the measure vanishes.
  • The formal linearization of Section 3.6 recovers the linearized nonassociative model, setting up a small-strain convergence result that is not yet proved rigorously.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because existence is proved only for the mollified system, the result may be read as evidence that genuine nonassociativity at finite strains intrinsically requires either a nonlocal regularization or measure-valued states, paralleling the linearized case where all known existence results use mollification.
  • The appearance of two distinct limiting deformations y and tilde y in Proposition 5.1 suggests possible non-uniqueness of the time-discrete limits and a lack of continuity of the solution map in the weak topology, although Proposition 5.2 fixes the energy value shared by both solution concepts.
  • A natural testable extension is to let the kernel widths of kappa and phi shrink to zero together with the time step in the discrete scheme and to prove an evolutionary convergence statement identifying an effective local model, building on the formal linearization of Section 3.6.
  • The paper's assumptions leave the choice of the smoothing kernels free, so the model contains an adjustable nonlocal length scale; quantifying how the plastic flow direction depends on this scale in the von Mises example would clarify whether the regularization changes the mechanical predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a variational existence theory for quasistatic nonassociative elastoplasticity at finite strains. The stored energy combines a polyconvex elastic energy W_e(∇y P^{-1}) with polynomial growth, a plastic energy W_p(P), and a gradient-plasticity term μ/qr |∇P|^{qr}; the dissipation is state-dependent and is regularized by replacing the pointwise deformation gradient in the flow rule with a causal space-time mollification K∇y. The main result, Theorem 5.1, asserts the existence of a measure-valued energetic solution (y,P,ν) satisfying a stability inequality and an energy balance. The proof follows the standard time-discretization template: incremental minimization, a priori estimates, an extended Helly selection principle, Young-measure compactness, and limit passages for stability, upper energy, and lower energy. A weaker function-valued existence statement is given in Proposition 5.1, and Proposition 5.2 relates the two solution concepts.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, this would be the first existence result for nonassociative finite-strain plasticity, a genuinely open gap between the linearized nonassociative theory and the associative finite-strain theory. The measure-valued solution concept and the explicit causal mollification are reasonable and clearly motivated, and the appendix contains a useful extension of the Helly selection principle to time-dependent dissipations. The paper is also honest about the scope: the local nonassociative model without the mollification is left open, and the convolution kernels are not mechanically derived. However, the main theorem's energy balance currently rests on an unjustified limit passage in Section 6.7, so the central claim is not established as written. The issue appears repairable, but it is load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.7, Eq. (6.38)] The limit passage that replaces the time-integrated pointwise energy of (y(hat t), P(hat t)) by the measure-valued energy <<ν_{s_j^m}, W>> is not justified. Stability (5.17) at s_{j-1}, tested against (y(hat t), P(hat t)), gives M_{s_{j-1}} ≤ E_point(hat t) + D, and the desired chain (6.38) requires the comparison E_point(hat t) ≤ M_{hat t}, at least after time averaging. The displayed convergence (6.26) is an averaged convergence for the discrete energies with n → ∞ and then ε → 0; it does not by itself imply that the pointwise energy of the weak limit is controlled by the slice measure ν_t, especially since y is only a weak-* limit and the map t ↦ ν_t is not shown to be continuous. Moreover, the proof integrates the pointwise energy ∫ W(∇y(hat t)P^{-1}(hat t), P(hat t), ∇P(hat t)) dx, but measurability and integrability of this function of hat t are not established under the stated regularity of (y,P). Consequently, the summation leading to (6.40)–(6.41) does not yield the lower energy estimate (6.36), and the energy balance (5.18) in Theorem 5.1 is not proved as written.
  2. [Section 6.1, Lemma 6.1] The coercivity estimate is imported from [43] without proof or a precise statement of the applicable result. This lemma is load-bearing: it is used to derive the growth control (6.1), the a priori estimate (6.13), and the existence of discrete minimizers in Lemma 6.2. Since [43] is concerned with damage models, it is not immediate that its proof transfers to the present energy with multiplicative decomposition ∇yP^{-1}, the plastic energy W_p, and the gradient term μ/qr |∇P|^{qr}. The authors should either provide a self-contained proof of the estimate or state exactly which theorem in [43] applies and indicate the needed adaptations.
  3. [Section 8, Proposition 5.2] The proof of equality (5.22) contains a related but less central gap: after testing stability (5.19) at fixed t with (y_n(hat t), P_n(hat t)), the printed inequality uses ⟨l(hat t), y_n(hat t)⟩, whereas (5.19) gives ⟨l(t), y_n(hat t)⟩. The difference vanishes in the subsequent limits, but this should be stated. More importantly, the limit passage from the integrated discrete energy to <<ν_t, W>> is the same type of averaged convergence already used in Section 6.5; it should be made explicit here as well, since Proposition 5.2 is stated as a correspondence result for possibly distinct y and tilde y.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5.10)] The triangle inequality is misprinted: the right-hand side reads D(F,P1,P2)+D(F,P1,P2), but it should be D(F,P1,P2)+D(F,P2,P3).
  2. [Eq. (6.26)] The integrand contains P_n^{-1}(t) in the first term, but the intended expression is P_n^{-1}(hat t); both arguments of the weak-limit quantity should be evaluated at hat t.
  3. [Section 6.5, Eq. (6.23)] The estimate for the residual term I_n(hat t) is correct, but the constant c is written without specifying that it depends on the uniform bound on y_n from (6.13); this is a minor clarity issue.
  4. [Section 3.6] The linearization computation is explicitly formal, and the paper notes that a rigorous convergence proof is missing; this is acceptable as motivation, but it should be flagged more prominently as formal rather than as a theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nonlocal regularization is an explicit modeling assumption, and self-citations support only independent background results.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, Theorem 5.1, asserts existence of measure-valued energetic solutions for a quasistatic nonassociative finite-strain plasticity model with a gradient-plasticity energy and with the dissipation depending on the causal space-time mollification K∇y. This is a genuine theorem about a model that is specified a priori; the convolution kernels κ and φ are not fitted to the conclusion, and the paper explicitly leaves open the local (unregularized) problem, acknowledging that 'we are unaware of existence results for nonassociative plasticity without mollifications, even in the linearised setting.' No parameter is calibrated to force the energy balance; the proof proceeds by time-discretization, a priori estimates, and passage to Young-measure limits, with all intermediate estimates derived from the stated assumptions (5.2)-(5.14). The citations to background results, including [4], [11], and [59], support standard tools (structural properties of Young measures, Riemann-sum approximation, discrete convolution error estimates) and do not presuppose Theorem 5.1. The one self-citation [59] (Stefanelli) concerns a well-posedness/discretization result for Volterra integrodifferential equations and is used for the convergence of Kτ to K; this is independent, machine-checkable or at least standard, and not load-bearing for the existence claim in a circular sense. The skeptical concern about Section 6.7 is a possible proof gap in the lower energy estimate (comparing pointwise and measure-valued energies without an explicit Jensen or recovery argument), but a gap is not circularity: even if the estimate (6.38) were unjustified, the derivation does not reduce by definition to its own inputs, nor does it rename a fitted quantity as a prediction. The worst that could be said is that the theorem may not be fully proved, which is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 1, reflecting at most the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard external results (Lemma 5.1, Lemma 6.1), a set of modeling assumptions (polyconvexity, gradient plasticity, Finsler dissipation bounds, stable initial data), and an arbitrary regularization K. No data-fitting parameters appear because the paper is a pure existence proof; the price is that the theorem covers the regularized model rather than the original local flow rule (4.5).

free parameters (4)
  • gradient-penalty coefficient mu
    Introduced in (1.1) and the energy W to provide compactness of P in W^{1,qr}; any positive value works and no material data fixes it.
  • gradient exponent qr = qr > 3
    Assumed greater than 3 so that W^{1,qr} embeds compactly into C(Omega), giving strong convergence of P_n. This is a modeling choice required by the proof.
  • growth exponents qe, qp, q = 1/qe + 1/qp <= 1/q < 1/3
    Growth and coercivity exponents for We, Wp, and the admissible deformation space; chosen to make energy sublevels weakly compact.
  • convolution kernels kappa, phi
    kappa in W^{1,1}(0,T) and phi in W^{1,infty}(R^3) define the causal space-time mollification K in (5.13). They are arbitrary smoothing parameters, not determined by mechanics, and the theorem and solution notion depend on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Elastic energy We is polyconvex and both We and Wp have continuous recession functions (5.4)-(5.5)
    Required for weak lower semicontinuity and coercivity of the energy. The assumption allows det Fe <= 0, which the authors acknowledge is restrictive from a mechanical viewpoint.
  • standard math Coercivity and weak compactness of energy sublevels (Lemma 6.1, from [43])
    Imported from Melching-Scala-Zeman and used in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 for a priori estimates. It is not proved in this paper.
  • standard math Structural Young-measure disintegration (Lemma 5.1, from [4,62])
    Cites the result for qe=qp=qr=2; the nonhomogeneous-exponent case is asserted by analogy rather than proved. It underpins the disintegration lambda = eta_t tensor dt used in the upper energy estimate.
  • domain assumption Stable initial state (5.14)
    The initial data must satisfy a stability inequality with respect to the dissipation. This is not automatic but is standard in energetic formulations.
  • domain assumption Finsler dissipation bounds and continuity (3.13), (3.15), (5.7)-(5.12)
    These inequalities define the class of dissipations covered by the theorem. They are verified for the von Mises example in Section 3.4 but are assumptions for the general statement.
  • domain assumption Variational reformulation of the nonassociative flow rule via Laborde's sets L(P,N) [38,39]
    Converts the complementarity conditions (3.3) into a subdifferential inclusion (3.5). Requires f and g to be convex in N, as assumed in Section 3.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Causal space-time convolution operator K with kernels kappa and phi
    purpose: Mollifies the deformation gradient in the dissipation function D(K grad y, ...), supplying strong convergence of F and enabling the existence proof.
    The nonlocal dependence of the yield and plastic potential functions on F is introduced purely for mathematical tractability. No experimental prediction is attached, although the supports can be taken arbitrarily small to approximate a local model. The paper itself notes that existence for the local model without mollification is open even in the linearized setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasistatic nonassociative plasticity at finite strains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DEXR7UA

@misc{pith2026241114316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasistatic nonassociative plasticity at finite strains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DEXR7UA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14316}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate finite-strain elastoplastic evolution in the nonassociative setting. The constitutive material model is formulated in variational terms and coupled with the quasistatic equilibrium system. We introduce measure-valued energetic solutions and prove their existence via a time discretization approach. The existence theory hinges on a suitable regularization of the dissipation term via a space-time mollification. Eventually, we discuss the possibility of solving the problem in the setting of functions, instead of measures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Melching, R

    D. Melching, R. Scala, J. Zeman. Damage model for plastic mater ials at finite strains. ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 9 (2019), e201800032

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    J. J. Alibert, G. Bouchitt´ e. Non-uniform integrability and gener alized Young measures. J. Convex Anal. 4 (1997), no. 1, 129–147

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    Auricchio, A

    F. Auricchio, A. Mielke, U. Stefanelli. A rate-independent model f or the isothermal quasi-static evolution of shape-memory materials. Math. Models Meth. Appl. Sci. 18 (2008), 125–164

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Babadjian, G

    J.-F. Babadjian, G. A. Francfort, M. G. Mora. Quasi-static evo lution in nonassociative plasticity: the cap model. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 44 (2012), no. 1, 245-–292

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Brenier, C

    Y. Brenier, C. De Lellis, L. Sz´ ekelyhidi. Weak-strong uniquenessfor measure-valued solutions. Comm. Math. Phys. 305 (2011), 351–361

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    H. Brezis. Operateurs maximaux monotones et semi-groupes de contract ions dans les espaces de Hilbert. Elsevier, 1973

    work page 1973

  7. [6]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Garroni, A. Massaccesi. Modeling of dislocations and r elaxation of functionals on 1- currents with discrete multiplicity. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 54 (2015), 1847–1874

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Conti, A

    S. Conti, A. Garroni, M. Ortiz. The line-tension approximation as t he dilute limit of linear-elastic dislocations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 218 (2015), 699–755

    work page 2015

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Conti, F

    S. Conti, F. Theil. Single-slip elastoplastic microstructures. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 178 (2005), 125–148

    2005

  2. [9]

    Dal Maso, A

    G. Dal Maso, A. DeSimone, F. Solombrino. Quasistatic evolution fo r Cam-Clay plasticity: a weak formulation via viscoplastic regularization and time rescaling. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equa- tions, 40 (2011), 125–181

    2011

  3. [10]

    Dal Maso, A

    G. Dal Maso, A. DeSimone, F. Solombrino. Quasistatic evolution f or Cam-Clay plasticity: properties of the viscosity solutions. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 44 (2012), 495–541

    2012

  4. [11]

    Dal Maso, G

    G. Dal Maso, G. A. Francfort, R. Toader. Quasistatic crack g rowth in nonlinear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 176 (2005), no. 2, 165–225

    2005

  5. [12]

    Dal Maso, G

    G. Dal Maso, G. A. Francfort, R. Toader. Quasistatic crack g rowth in nonlinear elasticity. arXiv:0401196, 2004

    2004

  6. [13]

    Dal Maso, F

    G. Dal Maso, F. Solombrino. Quasistatic evolution for Cam-Clay p lasticity: the spatially homoge- neous case. Netw. Heterog. Media , 5 (2010), no. 1, 97–132

    2010

  7. [14]

    Davoli, G

    E. Davoli, G. A. Francfort. A critical revisiting of finite elasto-p lasticity. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 47 (2015), 526–565

    2015

  8. [15]

    Davoli, M

    E. Davoli, M. G. Mora. A quasistatic evolution model for perfect ly plastic plates derived by Γ- convergence. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 30 (2013), 615–660

    2013

  9. [16]

    O. W. Dillon, J. Kratochv ´ ıl. A strain gradient theory of plasticity . Int. J. Solid Struct. 6 (1970), 1513–1533

    1970

  10. [17]

    R. J. DiPerna, A. J. Majda. Oscillations and concentrations in we ak solutions of the incompressible fluid equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 108 (1987), no. 4, 667–689

    1987

  11. [18]

    N. A. Fleck, J. W. Hutchinson. Strain gradient plasticity. Adv. Appl. Mech. 33 (1997), 295–361

    1997

  12. [19]

    N. A. Fleck, J. W. Hutchinson. A reformulation of strain gradien t plasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids , 49 (2001), 2245–2271

    2001

  13. [20]

    Fonseca, S

    I. Fonseca, S. M¨ uller, P. Pedregal. Analysis of concentration and oscillation effects generated by gradients. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 29 (1998), no. 3, 736–756

    1998

  14. [21]

    G. A. Francfort, M. G. Mora. Quasistatic evolution in non-asso ciative plasticity revisited. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations , 57 (2018), no. 1, Paper No. 11, 22 pp

    2018

  15. [22]

    G. A. Francfort, U. Stefanelli. Quasi-static evolution for the A rmstrong-Frederick hardening- plasticity model. Appl. Math. Res. Express AMRX , 2 (2013), 297–344

    2013

  16. [23]

    Garroni, G

    A. Garroni, G. Leoni, M. Ponsiglione. Gradient theory for plastic ity via homogenization of discrete dislocations. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 12 (2010), 1231–1266

    2010

  17. [24]

    J. Ginster. Plasticity as the Γ-limit of a two-dimensional dislocatio n energy: the critical regime without the assumption of well-separateness. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 233 (2019), 1253–1288. NONASSOCIATIVE FINITE PLASTICITY 36

    2019

  18. [25]

    J. Ginster. Strain-gradient plasticity as the Γ-limit of a nonlinear dislocation energy with mixed growth. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 51 (2019), no. 4, 3424–3464

    2019

  19. [26]

    Grandi, U

    D. Grandi, U. Stefanelli. Finite plasticity in P ⊤P . Part I: constitutive model. Contin. Mech. Ther- modyn. 29 (2017), 97–116

    2017

  20. [27]

    Grandi, U

    D. Grandi, U. Stefanelli. Finite plasticity in P ⊤P . Part II: quasistatic evolution and linearization. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49 (2017), 1356–1384

    2017

  21. [28]

    Grandi, U

    D. Grandi, U. Stefanelli. Existence and linearization for the Souz a-Auricchio model at finite strains. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S , 10 (2017), 1257–1280

    2017

  22. [29]

    M. E. Gurtin. On the plasticity of single crystals: free energy, m icroforces, plastic-strain gradients. J. Mech. Phys. Solids , 48 (2000), 989–1036

    2000

  23. [30]

    M. E. Gurtin, L. Anand. A theory of strain-gradient plasticity f or isotropic, plastically irrotational materials. I. Small deformations. J. Mech. Phys. Solids , 53 (2005), 1624–1649

    2005

  24. [31]

    M. E. Gurtin, E. Fried, L. Anand. The mechanics and thermodynamics of continua . Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  25. [32]

    Hudson, F

    T. Hudson, F. Rindler. Elasto-plastic evolution of crystal mate rials driven by dislocation flow. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 32 (2022), 851–910

    2022

  26. [33]

    Kristensen, B

    J. Kristensen, B. Rait ¸˘ a. An introduction to generalized Youn g measures. Preprint Max-Planck- Institut f¨ ur Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften Leipzig, 45, (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Kristensen, F

    J. Kristensen, F. Rindler. Characterization of generalized gra dient Young measures generated by sequences in W 1,1 and BV . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 197 (2010), no. 2, 539–598

    2010

  28. [35]

    Kr¨ oner

    E. Kr¨ oner. Allgemeine Kontinuumstheorie der Versetzungen u nd Eigenspannungen. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 4 (1959), 273–334

    1959

  29. [36]

    Kruˇ z ´ ık, D

    M. Kruˇ z ´ ık, D. Melching, U. Stefanelli. Quasistatic evolution for dislocation-free finite plasticity. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 26 (2020), Paper No. 123, 23 pp

    2020

  30. [37]

    Kupferman

    R. Kupferman. C. Maor. The emergence of torsion in the contin uum limit of distributed edge- dislocations. J. Geom. Mech. 7 (2015), 361–387

    2015

  31. [38]

    P. Laborde. A nonmonotone differential inclusion. Nonlin. Anal. 11 (1986), 757–767

    1986

  32. [39]

    P. Laborde. Analysis of the strain-stress relation in plasticity w ith non-associative laws. Internat. J. Engrg. Sci. 25 (1987), 655–666

    1987

  33. [40]

    E. Lee. Elastic-plastic deformation at finite strains. J. Appl. Mech. 36 (1969), 1–6

    1969

  34. [41]

    Mainik, A

    A. Mainik, A. Mielke. Global existence for rate-independent gra dient plasticity at finite strain. J. Nonlinear Sci. 19 (2009), 221–248

    2009

  35. [42]

    J. Mandel. Plasticit´ e classique et viscoplasticit´ e. CISM courses and lectures, vol. 97, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972

    1972

  36. [44]

    A. Mielke. Finite elastoplasticity Lie groups and geodesics on SL(d). Geometry, mechanics, and dynamics, 61–90, Springer, New York, 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    A. Mielke. Energetic formulation of multiplicative elasto-plasticity using dissipation distances. Con- tin. Mech. Thermodyn. 15 (2003), 351–382

    2003

  38. [46]

    A. Mielke. Existence of minimizers in incremental elasto–plasticity with finite strains. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 36 (2004), 384–404

    2004

  39. [47]

    A. Mielke. Evolution in rate-independent systems. Evolutionary equations. Vol. II , 461–559, Handb. Differ. Equ., Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2005

    2005

  40. [48]

    M¨ uller

    A Mielke, S. M¨ uller. Lower semi-continuity and existence of minimiz ers in incremental finite-strain elastoplasticity. ZAMM Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 86 (2006), 233–250

    2006

  41. [49]

    Mielke, R

    A. Mielke, R. Rossi, G. Savar´ e. Global existence results for vis coplasticity at finite strain. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 227 (2018), no. 1, 423–475

    2018

  42. [50]

    Mielke, T

    A. Mielke, T. Roub ´ ıˇ cek.Rate-independent systems. Theory and application . Applied Mathematical Sciences, 193. Springer, New York, 2015. NONASSOCIATIVE FINITE PLASTICITY 37

    2015

  43. [51]

    Mielke, T

    A. Mielke, T. Roub ´ ıˇ cek. Rate-independent elastoplasticity at finite strains and its numerical approx- imation. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 26 (2016), 2203–2236

    2016

  44. [52]

    Mielke, U

    A. Mielke, U. Stefanelli. Linearized plasticity is the evolutionary Γ- limit of finite plasticity. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 15 (2013), no. 3, 923–948

    2013

  45. [53]

    M¨ uhlhaus, E

    H.-B. M¨ uhlhaus, E. Aifantis. A variational principle for gradient plasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 28 (1991), 845–857

    1991

  46. [54]

    M¨ uller, L

    S. M¨ uller, L. Scardia, C. I. Zeppieri. Geometric rigidity for incom patible fields, and an application to strain-gradient plasticity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 63 (2014), no. 5, 136–1396

    2014

  47. [55]

    W. Noll, B. D. Coleman. The thermodynamics of elastic materials wit h heat conduction and viscosity. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 13 (1963), 167–178

    1963

  48. [56]

    F. Rindler. Energetic solutions to rate-independent large-str ain elasto-plastic evolutions driven by discrete dislocation flow. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , to appear (2024). arXiv:2109.14416

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    R¨ oger, B

    M. R¨ oger, B. Schweizer. Strain gradient visco-plasticity with d islocation densities contributing to the energy. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 27 (2017), 2595–2629

    2017

  50. [58]

    Scardia, C

    L. Scardia, C. I. Zeppieri. Line-tension model for plasticity as t he Γ-limit of a nonlinear dislocation energy. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 44 (2012), no. 4, 2372–2400

    2012

  51. [59]

    Stefanelli

    U. Stefanelli. Well-posedness and time discretization of a nonlinea r Volterra integrodifferential equa- tion. J. Integral Equations Appl. 13 (2001), no. 3, 273–304

    2001

  52. [60]

    Stefanelli

    U. Stefanelli. Existence for dislocation-free finite plasticity. ESIAM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 25 (2019), Art. 21, 20 pp

    2019

  53. [61]

    Ulloa, R

    J. Ulloa, R. Alessi, J. Wambacq, G. Degrande, S. Francois. On th e variational modeling of non- associative plasticity. Int. J. Solids Struct. 217 (2021), 272–296

    2021

  54. [62]

    Wiedemann

    E. Wiedemann. Weak and measure-valued solutions of the incompressible Eu ler equations. PhD the- sis, Universit¨ ats-und Landesbibliothek Bonn, 2012. (Ulisse Stefanelli) University of Vienna, F aculty of Mathematics, Oskar-Morge nstern- Platz 1, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Univers...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.