Anton Ishmurzin, 6th of April, 2010
1
Derivative
@Jm ( )
@
Here I am going to describe the possible problem with the derivation of the aforementioned derivative
@Jm ()
@
in the paper by Masatsugu Yaguchi and Yukio Takahashi Ratchetting of viscoplastic
material with cyclic softening, part 2: application of constitutive models, International Journal of
Plasticity 21 (2005) 835-860, when taking into account the tensioncompression asymmetry. It is
also possible though that it is just my misunderstanding of the derivation. If it is the later, could
you please give some details on where a aw might be in my derivations?
The term that takes into account the tension=-compression asymmetry is
Jm ( ) = jtr jl sgn(tr );
where
and
l
(1)
are constants.
Then later in the paper its derivative with respect to
_in[m] = p_
So according to the paper
lJm ( )
jtr
I = p_
j
@Jm ( )
@
@Jm ( )
is taken:
= pl
_ jtr j
@
l
= l jtr j
1
l
1
sgn(tr )I:
(2)
sgn(tr )I:
(3)
When I tried to repeat the derivation, I came up with
@Jm ( )
@
=
@ @
jtr jl sgn(tr ) = @
@
jtr
@
(sgn(tr )) :
jl sgn(tr ) + jtr jl
@
(4)
Where
@
jtr
@
and
@
@
where
jl = ljtr jl
1
sgn(tr )I
(5)
(sgn(tr )) = 2 (tr ))I;
is the Dirac delta function. Alternatively, we can say that
all components equal to zero) everywhere where (tr
)
(6)
@
@ (sgn(tr ))
is 0 (tensor with
is non-zero.
Combining (4), (5) and (6) we get
@Jm ( )
@
= ljtr j
l
1
l
sgn(tr )I sgn(tr ) + jtr j 2 (tr ))I:
Taking into account the relationship (tr
x=
6
0
2
x) = 1
(for any
x=
6
0)
and the fact that
(7)
(x) = 0,
for
we can simplify (7) to
@Jm ( )
@
= ljtr j
l
1
I:
As you can see, the derivative (3) obtained in the paper dier from the derivative
here.
Is the derivation correct?
1
(8)
(8) obtained