Mechanics of Cosserat media

An introduction

Samuel Forest1

Ecole des Mines de Paris / CNRSCentre des Materiaux / UMR 7633

BP 87, 91003 Evry, France

1 Introduction

The idea of a material body endowed with both translational and rotational degrees of freedomstems from the seminal work of the Cosserat brothers (Cosserat and Cosserat, 1909). A triad oforthonormal directors (d i)i=1,3 is associated to the microstructure of each material point. Thematerial transformation describes the displacement u of the material point and the rotation R∼with respect to the initial position X and orientations d i0:

u = x −X , d i = R∼ (X ).d i0 (1)

A Timoshenko beam (resp. Mindlin shell) is an example of one–dimensional (resp. two–dimensional) Cosserat continuum, for which the directors are attached to the beam cross–section.The theory presented in this course deals with the full 3D case for which the volume element ofmechanics actually has a finite extension and a microstructure. The intuitive view of the Cosseratvolume element is given in figure 1. In contrast to the classical infinitesimal volume element ofcontinuum mechanics which can be subjected only to volume and surface forces, there is “enoughroom” on each edge to apply a gradient of forces, i.e. a surface couple... The rigorous derivationof balance equations for such a continuum is given in section 2.

The Cosserat continuum belongs to the larger class of generalized continua which introduceintrinsic length scales into continuum mechanics via higher order gradients, additional degrees offreedom of fully non local constitutive equations (Eringen, 1999; Eringen, 2002; Forest, 2005).

σxx

σxy

σyy

σxx

σyx

L

= +

m

x

y

zx

m

mzy

zx

Figure 1: The material point of a Cosserat continuum

1Tel.: +33-1-60-76-30-51; Fax: +33-1-60-76-31-50, samuel.forest@ensmp.fr

1

2 The method of virtual power

The method of virtual power, based on d’Alembert’s principle of virtual work, provides a system-atic and straightforward way of deriving balance equations and boundary conditions in variousmechanical situations (Germain, 1973a; Germain, 1973b; Maugin, 1980). Forces and stresses arenot introduced directly but by the value of the virtual power they produce for a given class ofvirtual motions. If one extends the class of considered virtual motions, one refines the descriptionof forces and stresses.

2.1 The virtual motions of a Cosserat continuum

For a given current configuration Ω of a simply connected body, a virtual motion ϑ∗ is a vectorfield on Ω, called the field of virtual (generalized) velocities. Let V be the topological vector spaceof all virtual velocities. The set V is not empty since it always contains the subspace of rigid bodymotions. Indeed, virtual velocities like real velocities are defined with respect to a given frame orobserver. The velocity fields of the same virtual motion followed by two different observers differonly by a rigid body velocity field.

In a Cosserat medium, a material point can translate with the velocity u . On the other hand,a triad of rigid directors is assumed to be attached to each material point and can rotate with themicrorotation rate W∼

c represented by a skew–symmetric second rank tensor. An axial (pseudo-)

vector Φ is uniquely associated with the skew–symmetric second rank tensor W∼c by the relations

∀x , W∼c.x = Φ ∧ x = ε∼ : (Φ ⊗ x ) (2)

where ∧ and ε∼ respectively denote the vector product and the third rank Levi–Civita permutation

tensor. The following relations hold between a skew–symmetric tensor and its axial vector2:

Φ = −1

2ε∼ : W∼

c, W∼c = −ε

∼.Φ (3)

As a result, the set of virtual velocities of the Cosserat continuum is

V := u , Φ (4)

The field of virtual microrotation rate is generally not a compatible field, meaning that it isgenerally not the gradient of a micromotion field3. The actual and virtual microrotation rate fieldsΦ are assumed to be a priori independent of the velocity field u . In particular the microrotationis not bound to follow the material rotation rate associated with the rotation part of the velocitygradient. Such an internal constraint can be enforced but then the Cosserat theory degeneratesinto the so–called couple–stress theory or Koiter theory (Koiter, 1963; Fleck and Hutchinson,1997).

The (generalized) virtual velocities will be assumed to be at least continuous and piecewisedifferentiable fields on Ω. In fact, the virtual fields play the role of the test functions in distribu-tion theory (Schwartz, 1984). It would be therefore sufficient to consider virtual velocities that aredifferentiable at any order, with a compact support. However, we will not adopt the language ofdistributions in the following even though it would be the most appropriate one. Accordingly, the

2 The components of the skew–symmetric tensors and axial vectors can be sorted out in the following matrix form:

[W∼c] =

0 W c12 −W c

31

−W c12 0 W c

23

W c31 −W c

23 0

=

0 −Φ3 Φ2

Φ3 0 −Φ1

−Φ2 Φ1 0

3 It is known from classical continuum mechanics that a rotation field on a body Ω is compatible iff it is homogeneous

(Forest and Amestoy, 2004).

2

actual velocity and microrotation fields, i.e. the real motion of the body Ω under the consideredsystem of forces, are generally examples of virtual velocities but not always. Indeed, actual fieldsare only required to be differentiable almost everywhere. This allows for instance for the existenceof shock waves. Such discontinuities can be investigated using regular test functions. However, forthe sake of brevity, the jump conditions that can be derived for such an analysis are not reportedin the present analysis (cf. (Nowacki, 1986)).

Within the context of a first gradient theory, only the first gradient4 of the vector fields ofvirtual and actual velocity and microrotation is considered and put into the set

V∇ := ∇u , ∇Φ

The case of second gradient theory can be found in (Germain, 1973a; Forest et al., 2000b) andreferences quoted therein.

2.2 The principle of virtual power

The system of forces one wants to consider is defined by a linear continuous application

P : V −→ IR

ϑ∗ 7→ P(ϑ∗)

The real number P(ϑ∗) is the virtual power produced by the system of forces in the virtual motionϑ∗.

The principle of virtual power, or d’Alembert’s statement, stipulates that:The virtual power of the system of all forces acting on a body with respect to a Galilean frame,vanishes for any considered virtual motion.The statement holds also in the dynamical case provided that inertial forces are added to the setof forces.

The various forces acting on a mechanical system are usually classified into two classes: ex-ternal forces represent the dynamical effects on Ω due to the interaction with other systems thatshare no common part with Ω, the internal forces represent the mutual dynamical effects ofsubsystems of Ω. It is crucial to notice that the definition of the virtual power of internal forcesis subject to a limitation expressed as the following axiom. The axiom of virtual power ofinternal forces stipulates that5:The virtual power of internal forces acting on any subdomain D ⊂ Ω for a given virtual motion isinvariant with respect to any change of observer.The considered changes of observer are described by Euclidean transformations, i.e. any time–dependent homogeneous translations and rotations:

x ′ = Q∼

(t).x + b (t) (5)

where Q∼

is a proper orthogonal tensor, i.e. a rotation. In other words, the virtual power of internal

forces takes the same value whatever the frame of observation is. It is equivalent to the followingstatement:The power of internal forces vanishes for all rigid body motions.The reason is that the equation (5) formally can be associated with a rigid body motion.

4 In a Cartesian orthonormal coordinate system, the gradient of a vector field is the second rank tensor ∇u with thecomponents ui,j where the comma denotes partial derivation with respect to the spatial coordinate xj .

5 This axiom represents in fact no real restriction on the development of continuum theory. It is in fact concomitantof the chosen representation of forces. It is universally accepted in contrast to the principle of form invariance used inmaterial theory (see section 3). The reason is that violating the principle of Euclidean Frame Invariance probably amountsto questioning Newtonian equations of motions themselves...

3

The axiom of power of internal forces is the counterpart of the principle of Euclidean FrameIndifference or, simply, principle of objectivity (Liu, 2002; Bertram, 2005). External forcesare not subjected to a similar limitation: the power of inertial forces for instance are obviouslynot invariant with respect to changes of observer.

2.3 The virtual power of internal forces of the Cosserat continuum

The method of virtual power applied to a specific continuum theory always starts with the ex-pression of the virtual power of internal forces for three reasons. Firstly, the representation ofinternal forces in the fundamentally new concept brought by the continuum theory compared toexisting frameworks. Secondly, this expression is limited by the axiom of power of internal forcesintroduced in the previous section. Lastly, the analysis of the power of internal forces will dictatethe possible forms that the power of external forces can take.

The virtual power P(i) of internal forces is assumed to admit6 a power density p(i):

P(i)(ϑ∗ ∈ V) = −∫D

p(i)(ϑ∗) dv (6)

The power density p(i) is assumed to be a linear form on V and V∇. The principle of objectivityexcludes in fact the direct dependence of p(i) on u and limits its dependence on the rotation andmicrorotation rates:

p(i)(ϑ∗) = σ∼ : (∇u −W∼c) + m∼ : ∇Φ (7)

In this expression, σ∼ , m∼ , ∇u−W∼c and ∇Φ are objective quantities meaning that they transform

like objective tensors under change of observer (Liu, 2002). This ensures the invariance of p(i)

with respect to Euclidean transformations. The difference (∇u − W∼c) represent the relative

deformation rate with respect to a frame attached to the microstructure. The gradient ∇Φ isthe tensor of curvature rate. The dual quantities, defining the linear form of power of internalforces, are called the force stress tensor σ∼ and the couple stress tensor m∼ . They are generallynot symmetric.

The stress tensors are assumed to be (almost everywhere) continuously differentiable. Theapplication of the divergence theorem to the relation (6) and taking (7) into account, leads to thefollowing expression:

P(i)(ϑ∗) =

∫D

((σ∼ .∇).u + (m∼ .∇).Φ + σ∼ : W∼

c)

dv −∫

∂D(u .σ∼ + Φ .m∼ ).n da (8)

where ∂D is the boundary of the subdomain D. The field n denotes the unit normal vector atany point of the boundary of the domain D. The notations σ∼ .∇ stands for the divergence of theforce stress tensor7. This expression dictates the form of

2.4 The virtual power of external forces

It can be split into a virtual power density of volumic forces representing long range externalactions:

P(d)(ϑ∗) =

∫D(f .u + c .Φ ) dv (9)

6 It is assumed that the power density of internal forces is defined at every point x ∈ Ω independently of the subdomainD ⊂ Ω. This means that the considered internal forces are short range forces. Long range forces are bound to a non localtheory and are excluded from the Cosserat model. The Cosserat theory can be used to model size effects but it remains alocal theory in the sense of (Truesdell and Noll, 1965).

7 In a Cartesian orthonormal coordinate system, σ∼.∇ denotes the vectors of components σij,j .

4

and a virtual power density of contact forces:

P(c)(ϑ∗) =

∫∂D

(t .u + M .Φ ) da (10)

These virtual powers are linear forms on the space V of the virtual motions and of their firstgradient V∇. In fact, the terms linear in ∇u and ∇Φ were not introduced in (9) and (10)because they have no counterparts in the power of internal forces (8), thus anticipating on theconsequences of the principle of virtual power. The traction vector t represents a surface densityof forces. The couple stress vector M represents a surface density of couples. A possible meaningfor this couple stress vector is given in figure 1.

The power of inertial forces is defined as the opposite of the derivative of the kinetic energy.It takes the form:

P(a)(ϑ∗) := −K = −∫D(ρa .u + ρIΓ .Φ ) dv (11)

The vector fields a and Γ denote the actual acceleration and microgyration fields, computed asthe time derivatives of the actual velocity and microrotation fields. The mass density field is calledρ. An isotropic microrotational inertia I is introduced. A more detailed derivation of Cosseratinertia terms can be found in (Germain, 1973b; Eringen, 1999).

2.5 Balance of momentum and balance of moment of momentum: field equations

According to the principle of virtual power, the total virtual power of all forces vanishes on anysubdomain D ⊂ Ω and any virtual motion ϑ∗ = (u , Φ ):

∀D ⊂ Ω,∀ϑ∗ ∈ V , P(i)(ϑ∗) + P(d)(ϑ∗) + P(c)(ϑ∗) + P(a)(ϑ∗) = 0 (12)

The substitution of (8), (9), (10) and (11) into (12) leads to the following variational equation:∫D

(σ∼ .∇ + f − ρa

).u dv +

∫D

(m∼ .∇ + c − ε∼ : σ∼ − ρIΓ

).Φ dv

−∫

∂D(σ∼ .n − t ) .u da−

∫∂D

(m∼ .n −M ) .Φ da = 0 (13)

First assume that the virtual fields u and Φ are chosen in such a way that they vanish outsidea compact subset interior to D. In the previous sum, only the volume integral remains. It mustbe zero for this large class of virtual motions. As a result, the integrand must vanish at any pointof the interior of D where it is continuous. In the process, the velocity and microrotation ratecan be varied independently. This leads therefore to two field equations known as the balance ofmomentum and balance of moment of momentum equations:

σ∼ .∇ + f = ρu , ∀x ∈Ω (14)

m∼ .∇− ε∼ : σ∼ + c = ρIΦ , ∀x ∈Ω (15)

where the expressions of acceleration and microgyration have been substituted for the actual fields.After taking the previous field equations into account, the equation (13) reduces to the surface

integral terms which must vanish for all virtual motions. Accordingly, the traction vector andcouple stress vectors are8 linear functions of the unit normal vector n :

t = σ∼ .n , M = m∼ .n , ∀x ∈ ∂D (16)

These relations hold in particular at the boundary ∂Ω of the considered body where t and Mmay be prescribed.

8 at least at points where the traction vector and the couple stress vector are continuous, which may not be the case atthe front of shock waves for instance.

5

2.6 Energy balance

According to the first principle of thermodynamics, the material time derivative of the totalenergy in a subdomain D ⊂ Ω is the sum of the power of external forces acting on it and of therate Q of heat supply into it. The total energy is the sum of the kinetic energy K and of internalenergy E having specific internal energy e, the energy principle can be written:

E + K = P(d) + P(c) + Q (17)

The principle of virtual power (12) applied to the real motion9 is nothing but the kinetic energytheorem:

K = P(i) + P(d) + P(c) (18)

By substitution into (17), one obtains another expression of the first principle:

E = −P(i) + Q (19)

The rate of heat supply is assumed to take the general form involving the rate of volumic heat rand the heat flux vector q :

Q =

∫D

r dv −∫

∂Dq .n da =

∫D(r −∇.q ) dv (20)

The heat flux vector is assumed to be objective. It results from that and from the axiom of virtualpower of internal forces, that the rate of internal energy is invariant with respect to Euclideantransformations.

The local form of the first principle is obtained by applying the global form (17) to anysubdomain V ⊂ Ω. It reads

ρε = σ∼ : (∇u −W∼c) + m∼ : ∇Φ + r −∇.q (21)

2.7 Strain measures and field equations in the context of small perturbations

In the context of small perturbations, strain measures are deduced from the relative deformationrate and curvature rate by time integration:

e∼ = ∇u + ε∼.Φ , κ∼ = ∇Φ (22)

These strain measures are called the relative deformation e∼ and the curvature tensor κ∼ . Thegradient operators can be applied with respect to the initial configuration. One can replace alsothe Eulerian nabla operator by the Lagrangian one in the field equations (14) and (15). Sincemicrorotations are small, the Cosserat rotation R∼ takes the simple form

R∼ = 1∼ − ε∼.Φ (23)

For a complete description of the strain measures at finite deformation, the reader is referred to(Kafadar and Eringen, 1971; Forest and Sievert, 2003).

3 Cosserat material theory

The 6 field equations (14) and (15) are not sufficient to determine a total of 24 unknown fields,namely the six translational and micrororational degrees of freedom and the 18 components of thestress tensors. It is the purpose of material theory to link stresses and deformations via constitutive

9in the absence of shock waves.

6

equations. The constitutive theory is restricted here to the context of small perturbations forthe sake of simplicity. Material non linearity is envisaged within the context of continuumthermodynamics with internal variables thus generalizing the concepts introduced for theclassical continuum in (Germain et al., 1983; Lemaitre and Chaboche, 1994; Besson et al., 2001).Non–linear evolution rules are usually proposed for the internal variables. Questions of existenceand uniqueness for such systems are tackled in (Alber, 1998).

3.1 Entropy principle

The specific internal energy ε, entropy η and Helmholtz free energy Ψ = ε− Tη are introduced asfunctions of state and internal variables. The global form of the second principle reads :

S ≥ Qs

where S is the global entropy of the system and Qs is the total flux of entropy.

S =

∫D

ρη dv, Qs = −∫

∂DJ η.n ds and J η =

q

T(24)

where J η is the entropy flux vector. No extra–entropy flux is assumed in the present theory, al-though this can be considered for internal variables influencing the heat conduction as in (Maugin,1990). The following local form of the entropy inequality is adopted:

ρη + J η.∇ ≥ 0 (25)

Combining (21) and (25) leads to the Clausius–Duhem inequality is obtained:

−ρ(Ψ + ηT ) + p(i) − 1

Tq .∇T ≥ 0 (26)

This inequality is used to derive the state laws and the remaining intrinsic dissipation D.

3.2 State laws

The strain measures are decomposed into elastic and plastic parts:

e∼ = e∼e + e∼

p, κ∼ = κ∼e + κ∼

p (27)

The free energy is a function of the elastic contributions and, possibly, of internal variables q.Taking the expression (7) of the work of internal forces, the Clausius–Duhem inequality (26)becomes:

(σ∼ − ρ∂Ψ

∂e∼e) : e∼

e + (m∼ − ρ∂Ψ

∂κ∼e) : κ∼

e− (η +∂Ψ

∂T)T + σ∼ : e∼

p + m∼ : κ∼p− ρ

∂Ψ

∂qq− 1

Tq .∇T ≥ 0 (28)

For any given values of e∼e, κ∼e, T, e∼

e, κ∼e, T, there is a thermodynamic process having these values

at point (x , t). Suitable external volume forces and couples or external heat supply may berequired for this to hold (Liu, 2002). In other words, for given e∼e, κ∼

e, T, the inequality (28)

must hold for arbitrary values of e∼e, κ∼

e and T , in which the inequality is linear (Coleman andNoll, 1963; Coleman and Gurtin, 1967). Consequently, their coefficients must vanish:

σ∼ = ρ∂Ψ

∂e∼e, m∼ = ρ

∂Ψ

∂κ∼e, η = −∂Ψ

∂T, R := −ρ

∂Ψ

∂q(29)

These relations are the state laws. The thermodynamic force associated with the internal variableq was called R.

7

3.3 Residual dissipation and dissipation potential

In the isothermal case, the residual dissipation after enforcing the previous state laws reduces tothe intrinsic dissipation:

D := σ∼ : e∼p + m∼ : κ∼

p + Rq (30)

An efficient way of ensuring the positivity of the dissipation for any thermodynamic processes isto assume the existence of a dissipation potential Ω(σ∼ , m∼ , R) which is a convex function of itsarguments:

e∼p =

∂Ω

∂σ∼κ∼

p =∂Ω

∂m∼q =

∂Ω

∂R(31)

These equations are the plastic flow rules and the evolution equation for the internal variable.Materials possessing such a potential are called standard generalized materials by (Halphenand Nguyen, 1975) who extended the pioneering work of J.J. Moreau to elastoviscoplasticity.

The Legendre–Fenchel transform of the convex potential Ω can be used to define the dualpotential Ω∗(e∼

p, κ∼p, q):

Ω∗(e∼p, κ∼

p, q) = supσ∼ ,m∼ ,R

(σ∼ : e∼p + m∼ : κ∼

p − Ω(σ∼ , m∼ , R)) (32)

This dual potential is such that

σ∼ =∂Ω?

∂e∼p m∼ =

∂Ω?

∂κ∼p R =

∂Ω?

∂q(33)

4 Examples

4.1 Single vs. multi–criterion Cosserat plasticity

Two main classes of potentials have been used in the past. In the first class, the potential is acoupled function of force and couple–stresses, whereas in the second class the potential is a sumof two independent functions of force stress and couple stress respectively :

Ωtot = Ω(σ∼ , R) + Ωc(m∼ , Rc) (34)

in the spirit of (Koiter, 1960) and (Mandel, 1965). Both situations can be illustrated for therate–independent material behaviour. The first class of models involves a single yield functionf(σ∼ , m∼ , R) and a single plastic multiplier p :

e∼p = p

∂f

∂σ∼, κ∼

p = p∂f

∂m∼, q = p

∂f

∂R(35)

The second class of models requires two yield functions f(σ∼ , R, Rc) and fc(m∼ , R, Rc) and twoplastic multipliers :

e∼p = p

∂f

∂σ∼, κ∼

p = κ∂fc

∂m∼, q = p

∂f

∂R, qc = κ

∂fc

∂Rc

(36)

In the latter case, coupling between deformation and curvature comes from the balance equationsand possibly coupled hardening laws. This type of coupling between several hardening variableshas been investigated within the framework of multi–mechanism based plasticity theory in (Cail-letaud and Sai, 1995) for the classical continuum. The treatment of the Cosserat continuum isvery similar.

The first trials for an extension of classical von Mises elastoplasticity to the Cosserat continuumare due to (Sawczuk, 1967), (Lippmann, 1969), (Besdo, 1974), (Muhlhaus and Vardoulakis, 1987)

8

and (Borst, 1991; Borst, 1993). They belong to the class of single criterion plasticity models. Thefollowing form of the extended von Mises criterion encompasses these previous models :

f(σ∼ , m∼ , R) = J2(σ∼ , m∼ ) − R(p) (37)

J2(σ∼ , m∼ ) =√

a1σ∼′ : σ∼

′ + a2σ∼′ : σ∼

′T + b1m∼ : m∼ + b2m∼ : m∼T (38)

where σ∼′ is the deviatoric part of σ∼ , ai, bi are material parameters. The flow rules and plastic

multiplier then read :

e∼p = p

a1 σ∼′ + a2 σ∼

′T

J2(σ∼ , m∼ ), κ∼

p = pb1 m∼ + b2 m∼

T

J2(σ∼ , m∼ )(39)

p =

√a1

a21 − a2

2

e∼p : e∼

p +a2

a22 − a2

1

e∼p : e∼

pT +b1

b21 − b2

2

κ∼p : κ∼

p +b2

b22 − b2

1

κ∼p : κ∼

pT (40)

The use of the consistency condition f = 0 under plastic loading yields the following expressionof the plastic multiplier :

p =N∼ : E∼∼

: e∼ + N∼ c: C∼∼

: κ∼

H + N∼ : E∼∼: N∼ + N∼ c

: C∼∼: N∼ c

(41)

This expression involves the normal tensors N∼ and N∼ cto the yield surface, the hardening modulus

H and the tensors of elastic moduli E∼∼and C∼∼

for linear elasticity (for a material admitting at least

point symmetry) :

N∼ =∂f

∂σ∼, N∼ c

=∂f

∂m∼, H =

∂R

∂p, E∼∼

=∂2Ψ

∂e∼e ∂e∼

e, C∼∼

=∂2Ψ

∂κ∼e ∂κ∼

e(42)

The condition of plastic loading for the material point is that the numerator of equation (41) ispositive, provided that the denominator remains positive, which still allows softening behaviours(H < 0).

This is however not the only possible extension of von Mises plasticity since a multi–criterionframework can also be adopted :

f(σ∼ , R) = J2(σ∼ ) − R(p, κ) fc(m∼ , Rc) = J2(m∼ ) − Rc(p, κ) (43)

J2(σ∼ ) =√

a1σ∼′ : σ∼

′ + a2σ∼′ : σ∼

′T , J2(m∼ ) =√

b1m∼ : m∼ + b2m∼ : m∼T (44)

There are then two distinct plastic multipliers

p =

√a1

a21 − a2

2

e∼p : e∼

p +a2

a22 − a2

1

e∼p : e∼

pT , κ =

√b1

b21 − b2

2

κ∼p : κ∼

p +b2

b22 − b2

1

κ∼p : κ∼

pT (45)

The exploitation of two consistency conditions f = 0 and fc = 0 under plastic loading leads to asystem of two equations for the unknowns p, κ :

(H + N∼ : E∼∼: N∼ )p + Hpc = N∼ : E∼∼

: e∼, Hpcp + (Hc + N∼ c: C∼∼

: N∼ c)κ = N∼ c

: C∼∼: κ∼ (46)

where a coupling hardening modulus appears : Hpc = ∂R/∂κ = ∂Rc/∂p. Whether both plasticmechanisms are active or not, is determined by the sign of the solutions (p, κ) of the previous

9

2

1

elastic

plastic

h α

Figure 2: Simple glide test for a Cosserat infinite layer : elastic and elastoplastic domains, boundaryconditions.

plastic

elastic

plastic

hM

x

x1

2

Figure 3: Simple bending test for a Cosserat material : elastic and elastoplastic domains, boundaryconditions.

system. If the determinant of the system vanishes, the value of the plastic multipliers can re-main indeterminate (Mandel, 1965). The choice of one viscoplastic potential for deformation orcurvature can be used as a regularization procedure to settle the indeterminacy :

p = −∂Ω

∂Ror κ = −∂Ωc

∂Rc

(47)

Such mixed plastic–viscoplastic potentials are already recommended in the classical case (Mandel,1971; Cailletaud and Sai, 1995).

An example of multi–mechanism elastoviscoplastic Cosserat material is the case of Cosseratcrystal plasticity described in (Forest et al., 1997; Forest et al., 2000a). Single and multi–criterionplasticity including generalized kinematic hardening variables can be found in (Forest, 1999).Non–associative flow rules are necessary in the case of geomaterials for which the yield functionappearing in equations (35) and (36) must be replaced by a different function of the same ar-guments. Some extensions of classical compressible plasticity models are reported in (Chambonet al., 2001).

10

4.2 Application to simple glide and bending

It is important to see the respective role of Cosserat characteristic lengths appearing in the elasticand plastic constitutive equations in some simple situations. The difference between the use ofsingle or multi–mechanism Cosserat elastoplasticity can also be shown. Analytical solutions foran isotropic elastic-ideally plastic Cosserat material involving one or two yield functions can beworked out in the case of the Cosserat glide and bending tests. The considered boundary valueproblems are depicted on figures 2 and 3 respectively. The detailed solutions are provided inappendices A and B. Two characteristic lengths can be defined :

le =

√β

µ, lp =

√a

b(48)

in the simple case a1 = a, a2 = 0, b1 = b, b2 = 0 (see also equation (A50) for the definition ofisotropic Cosserat elastic bending modulus β). In the glide and bend tests, the material can bedivided into elastic and plastic zones (figures 2 and 3). Characteristic length le explicitly appearsin the solution in the elastic zone, whereas the solution in the plastic zone is driven by length lp.Classical solutions are retrieved for vanishing le and lp.

The use of a single coupled yield criterion (38) leads to non–homogeneous distribution of forceand couple stress in the plastic zone for both glide and bending, as can be seen from figures 4 and5. In contrast, if no hardening is introduced, the use of two uncoupled criteria (44) gives rise toconstant values of the force and couple–stress components in the plastic zone of the bent beam.

11

!"#

$#

%#

#

!&#

#

' !&#

' #

' %#

Figure 4: Simple glide test for a single criterion von Mises elastoplastic Cosserat infinite layer : forcestress and couple stress profiles along a vertical line. A micro–rotation φ = 0.001 is prescribed at thetop h = 5lu. The material parameters are : E = 200000 MPa, ν = 0.3, µc=100000 MPa, β=76923MPa.l2u, R0=100MPa, a1 = 1.5, a2 = 0, b1 = 1.5l−2

u , b2 = 0. The micro–couple prescribed at the top isµ0

32 = 80MPa.lu. lu is a length unit.

12

(a)

! "

" !

(b)

!#"$

% %

& ' ( )* + , -

Figure 5: Simple bending test of an elastoplastic Cosserat material : influence of the characteristic lengthlp on the profiles of stress components σ11 and m31, obtained for a fully plastic beam. The parametersare the same as in figure 4 except that b = 15 when lc = 0.26lu. The beam thickness is h = 5lu.

13

Appendices

A Simple glide in Cosserat elastoplasticity

A two–dimensional layer of Cosserat material with infinite extension in direction 1 and height h isconsidered on figure 2. The unknowns of the problem are u = [u(x2), 0, 0]T and φ = [0, 0, φ(x2)]

T .Various types of boundary conditions are possible. For example, we consider :

u(0) = 0, φ(0) = 0, t = σ12e 1 = 0, m = m32 e 3 = m032e 3 (A49)

Note that the solution of this problem for the classical Cauchy continuum would be a vanishingu. The material exhibits an elastoplastic behaviour with a generalized von Mises yield function(38) or (44). Let us recall the elasticity relations in the isotropic case :

σ∼ = λ(trace e∼e)1∼ + 2µe∼

e + 2µce∼e, m∼ = α(trace κ∼

e)1∼ + 2βκ∼e + 2γκ∼

e (A50)

where λ, µ are the Lame constants and µc, α, β, γ are additional moduli. The brackets (resp. )denote the symmetric (resp. skew–symmetric) part of the tensor. One usually takes β = γ at least

in the two–dimensional case (Borst, 1991). An elastic Cosserat characteristic length le =√

β/µcan be defined. Under the prescribed boundary conditions, a plastic zone develops starting fromthe top.

Elastic zone, 0 ≤ x2 ≤ α

The evaluation of elasticity law and balance equations leads to the following equations :

σ12 = (µ + µc)u,2 + 2µcφ, σ21 = (µ− µc)u,2 − 2µcφ, m32 = 2βφ,2 (A51)

σ12,2 = 0, m32,2 + σ21 − σ12 = 0 (A52)

from which two differential equations are deduced :

φ,22 = ω2eφ, u,2 = − 2µc

µ + µc

φ, ωe =

√2µµc

β(µ + µc)(A53)

Taking the boundary conditions at the bottom into account, the solutions follow, including anintegration constant B to be determined :

φ(x2) = B sinh(ωex2), u(x) =2µcB

ωe(µ + µc)(1− cosh(ωex2)) (A54)

m32 = 2Bβωe cosh(ωex2), σ21 = − 4µµc

µ + µc

B sinh(ωex2) (A55)

Plastic zone, α ≤ x2 ≤ h

In the generalized von Mises criteria (38) or (44), the simplifying assumptiona1 = a, a2 = 0, b1 = b, b2 = 0 is adopted, together with a constant threshold R = R0. The yieldcriterion (38) requires :

aσ221 + bm2

32 = R20 (A56)

14

Combining this condition with balance equations (A52), the solution takes the following formincluding integration constants C and D :

m32 = C cos(ωpx2) + D sin(ωpx2), σ21 = ωp(C sin(ωpx2)−D cos(ωpx2)) (A57)

ωp =1

lp=

√b

a(A58)

where a charateristic length lp comes into play. The constants C and D are solutions of thefollowing system of equations :

C2 + D2 =R2

0

b, C cos(ωph) + D sin(ωph) = m0

32 (A59)

The continuity of surface couple vector and yield condition at x2 = α provides the system ofequations for the unknowns B and α :

2βωeB cosh(ωeα) = C cos(ωpα) + D sin(ωpα) (A60)

16a

(µµc

µ + µc

)2

B2 sinh2(ωeα) + 4bβ2ω2eB

2 cosh2(ωeα) = R20 (A61)

The numerical resolution of both systems of equations leads to a semi–analytical solution of thesimple glide test, that can be used as test for the implementation of Cosserat elastoplasticity in aFinite Element code. This has been checked for the simulation presented on figure 4.

In contrast, the use of two separate criteria (44) without hardening and assuming plastic loadingfor both deformation and curvature, leads to a plastic zone with no extension with constant forceand couple stress σ21 and m32 at the upper boundary.

B Simple bending in Cosserat elastoplasticity

Simple bending is a well–suited test to investigate the effect of curvature on the overall responseof the material. The bending of metal sheets has been studied experimentally in the elastic regime(Schivje, 1966) and in the plastic regime (Stolken and Evans, 1998) : size effect have been observedonly in the latter case. The solution of the simple bending problem is given here for the elasticand elastoplastic cases.

Elastic solution

The beam of thickness h and width W of figure 3 is considered for simple bending under planestress conditions and for an elastic isotropic Cosserat material. Two types of boundary conditionsare possible : imposed couple M on the beam, or rotation of left and right sides of the beam. Inthe latter case, on can prescribe a micro–rotation equal to the rotation of the section, but it doesnot matter in the sense of Saint–Venant. The solution takes the form :

u1 = Ax1x2, u2 = −A

2x2

1 +D

2(x2

2 − x23), u3 = Dx2x3 (B62)

φ1 = Dx3, φ2 = 0, φ3 = −Ax1 (B63)

in the coordinate frame defined in figure 3. Under these conditions the non–vanishing componentsof the deformation and curvature tensors are :

e11 = Ax2, e22 = e33 = Dx2 κ31 = −A, κ13 = D (B64)

15

which shows that the solution is in principle fully three–dimensional. The fact that the deformationtensor is found to be symmetric means that there is no relative rotation between material linesand the Cosserat directors. The plane stress condition implies that the constant A and D arerelated by D = −νA. The non–vanishing stress components are then :

σ11 = EAx2, m13 = −A(β(1 + ν)− γ(1− ν)) (B65)

m31 = −A(β(1 + ν) + γ(1− ν)) = −β?A (B66)

The couple stress component m13 is an out–of–plane component that should vanish under planecouple stress condition. This can be regarded as a reaction stress that will not be consideredhere in order to keep the simple form of the solution. Note also that it vanishes for the choiceγ = (1 + ν)/(1− ν). The resulting moment M with respect to axis 3 is computed as :

M =

∫(σ11x2 + m31)dx2dx3 = WA(

Eh3

12+ β?h) (B67)

which gives A for a given couple M . The additional resistance due to the Cosserat character ofthe material can be readily seen in the term β?. Formula (B67) reduces to the classical solutionwhen the Cosserat characteristic length goes to zero or when le is much smaller than h.

Plastic case

Some elements of the solution of the bending problem for Cosserat elastoplasticity with asingle coupled plastic potential (38) are provided here, that can be compared to finite elementsimulations. We still look for a solution of the form :

u1 = Ax1x2, φ3 = −Ax1

where A is the loading parameter. The non–vanishing stress components are σ11 et m31. Thecomponent m13 may exist but is not taken into account in the present two–dimensional solution.The yield condition reads :

2

3aσ2

11 + bm231 = R2

0 (B68)

As in the classical solution, a plastic zone starts from the top and the bottom up to x2 = ±α. Inthe plastic zone, the plastic deformation and curvature are deduced from the flow rules (39) :

ep11 = p

2

3

a

R0

σ11, ep22 = ep

33 = −p1

3

a

R0

σ11, κp31 = p

b

R0

m31 (B69)

Combining the elastic and plastic parts of deformation and curvature, we get :

e11 = Ax2 = ee11 + ep

11 = (1

E+

2

3

a

R0

p)σ11 (B70)

κ31 = −A = κe31 + κp

31 = (1

2β+

b

R0

p)m31 (B71)

(B72)

Eliminating p from (B70) using (B71), we get :

x2

σ11

+2

3

a

b

1

m31

=1

A(1

E− 1

3β

a

b) (B73)

This equation combined with (B68) leads to a system of two equations in σ11 and m31. It can beshown that σ11 then is a root of an algebraic equation of degree 3, the coefficients depending on

16

the material parameters and on x2. An simple solution can be given however if the right–handside of (B73) is neglected, which is possible for sufficiently large values of prescribed A and ofβb/a which is proportional to l2e/l

2p. In this case, we get, for a fully plastic beam (α = 0) :

m31 =R0lp√

a +3

2bx2

2

(B74)

and the profile of σ11 is deduced from the yield condition (B68). The role played by the plasticcharacteristic length lp defined by (A58) appears clearly. When lp tends toward zero, the classical

solution σ11 = ±R0

√3/2a is retrieved. This dependence on lp is illustrated in figure 5. The

approximate solution is found to be a good one when compared to a finite element simulation.In contrast, the use of two potentials f and fc according to equation (44) leads to a linear

profile of σ11 in the elastic zone and a constant value σ11 = ±R0/√

a in the plastic zone of the

beam. The component m31 remains constant in the beam with the value Rc0/√

b.

17

References

Alber, H.-D. (1998). Materials with memory, Initial–Boundary value problems for constitutiveequations with internal variables. Lecture Notes in Matrhematics, Vol. 1682, Springer.

Bertram, A. (2005). Elasticity and Plasticity of Large Deformations. Springer.

Besdo, D. (1974). Ein Beitrag zur nichtlinearen Theorie des Cosserat-Kontinuums. Acta Mechan-ica, 20:105–131.

Besson, J., Cailletaud, G., Chaboche, J.-L., and Forest, S. (2001). Mecanique non lineaire desmateriaux. 445 p., Hermes, France.

Borst, R. d. (1991). Simulation of strain localization: a reappraisal of the Cosserat continuum.Engng Computations, 8:317–332.

Borst, R. d. (1993). A generalization of J2-flow theory for polar continua. Computer Methods inApplied Mechanics and Engineering, 103:347–362.

Cailletaud, G. and Sai, K. (1995). Study of plastic/viscoplastic models with various inelasticmechanisms. Int. J. of Plasticity, 11(8):991–1005.

Chambon, R., Caillerie, D., and Matsuchima, T. (2001). Plastic continuum with microstructure,local second gradient theories for geomaterials. Int. J. Solids Structures, 38:8503–8527.

Coleman, B. and Gurtin, M. (1967). Thermodynamics with internal variables. J. Chem. Phys.,47:597–613.

Coleman, B. and Noll, W. (1963). The thermodynamics of elastic materials with heat conductionand viscosity. Arch. Rational Mech. and Anal., 13:167–178.

Cosserat, E. and Cosserat, F. (1909). Theorie des corps deformables. Hermann, Paris.

Eringen, A. (1999). Microcontinuum field theories. Springer, New York.

Eringen, A. (2002). Nonlocal continuum field theories. Springer, New York.

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

Forest, S. (1999). Aufbau und Identifikation von Stoffgleichungen fur hohere Kontinua mittelsHomogenisierungsmethoden. Technische Mechanik, Band 19, Heft 4:297–306.

Forest, S. (2005). Generalized continua. In Buschow, K., Cahn, R., Flemings, M., Ilschner, B.,Kramer, E., and Mahajan, S., editors, Encyclopedia of Materials : Science and Technologyupdates, pages 1–7. Elsevier, Oxford.

Forest, S. and Amestoy, M. (2004). Mecanique des milieux continus. Ecole des Mines de Paris,mms2.ensmp.fr.

Forest, S., Barbe, F., and Cailletaud, G. (2000a). Cosserat modelling of size effects in the me-chanical behaviour of polycrystals and multiphase materials. International Journal of Solidsand Structures, 37:7105–7126.

Forest, S., Cailletaud, G., and Sievert, R. (1997). A Cosserat theory for elastoviscoplastic singlecrystals at finite deformation. Archives of Mechanics, 49(4):705–736.

18

Forest, S., Cardona, J.-M., and Sievert, R. (2000b). Thermoelasticity of second-grade media. InMaugin, G., Drouot, R., and Sidoroff, F., editors, Continuum Thermomechanics, The Artand Science of Modelling Material Behaviour, Paul Germain’s Anniversary Volume, pages163–176. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Forest, S. and Sievert, R. (2003). Elastoviscoplastic constitutive frameworks for generalized con-tinua. Acta Mechanica, 160:71–111.

Forest, S., Sievert, R., and Aifantis, E. (2002). Strain gradient crystal plasticity : Thermome-chanical formulations and applications. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials,13:219–232.

Germain, P. (1973a). La methode des puissances virtuelles en mecanique des milieux continus,premiere partie : theorie du second gradient. J. de Mecanique, 12:235–274.

Germain, P. (1973b). The method of virtual power in continuum mechanics. part 2 : Microstruc-ture. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 25:556–575.

Germain, P., Nguyen, Q., and Suquet, P. (1983). Continuum thermodynamics. J. of AppliedMechanics, 50:1010–1020.

Halphen, B. and Nguyen, Q. (1975). Sur les materiaux standards generalises. Journal deMecanique, 14:39–63.

Kafadar, C. and Eringen, A. (1971). Micropolar media: I the classical theory. Int. J. Engng Sci.,9:271–305.

Koiter, W. (1960). General theorems for elastic–plastic solids, volume 6, pages 167–221. North–Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.

Koiter, W. (1963). Couple-stresses in the theory of elasticity. i and ii. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.,B67:17–44.

Lemaitre, J. and Chaboche, J.-L. (1994). Mechanics of Solid Materials. University Press, Cam-bridge, UK.

Lippmann, H. (1969). Eine Cosserat-Theorie des plastischen Fließens. Acta Mechanica, 8:255–284.

Liu, I.-S. (2002). Continuum mechanics. Springer.

Mandel, J. (1965). Une generalisation de la theorie de la plasticite de W.T. Koiter. Int. J. SolidsStructures, 1:273–295.

Mandel, J. (1971). Plasticite classique et viscoplasticite, volume 97 of CISM Courses and lectures.Springer Verlag.

Maugin, G. (1980). The method of virtual power in continuum mechanics : Application to coupledfields. Acta Mechanica, 35:1–70.

Maugin, G. (1990). Internal variables and dissipative structures. J. Non–Equilib. Thermodyn.,15:173–192.

Maugin, G. and Muschik, W. (1994). Thermodynamics with internal variables, Part I. generalconcepts. J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn., 19:217–249.

Muhlhaus, H. and Vardoulakis, I. (1987). The thickness of shear bands in granular materials.Geotechnique, 37:271–283.

19

Nowacki, W. (1986). Theory of asymmetric elasticity. Pergamon.

Sawczuk, A. (1967). On yielding of Cosserat continua. Archives of Mechanics, 19:3–19.

Schivje, J. (1966). A note on couple-stresses. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids,14:113–120.

Schwartz, L. (1984). Thorie des distributions, analyse fonctionnelle. Hermann, Paris.

Stolken, J. and Evans, E. (1998). A microbend test method for measuring the plasticity lengthscale. Acta mater., 46:5109–5115.

Truesdell, C. and Noll, W. (1965). The non-linear field theories of mechanics. Handbuch derPhysik, edited by S. Flugge, reedition Springer Verlag 1994.

20