Abstract
Consider a three-dimensional, homogeneous, compressible, hyperelastic body that occupies a cylindrical domain in its reference configuration. We identify a variety of hypotheses on the structure of the stored-energy function under which there exists an axisymmetric, homogeneous deformation that globally minimizes the energy. For certain classes of energy functions the uniqueness of this minimizer is also established. The primary boundary condition considered is the extension of the cylinder via the prescription of its deformed axial length, but the biaxial extension of the curved surface is also briefly considered. In particular, the results contained in this paper give conditions on the stored-energy function under which material instabilities, such as necking or the formation of shear bands, are not energy favorable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
If we denote the gradient of this homogeneous minimizer by \(\mathbf{F}_{0}\in\mathrm{M}_{+}^{3\times3}\), then it follows that the stored-energy function is quasiconvex at the boundary at (F 0,n), in the sense of Ball and Marsden [7], for any choice of unit vector n which is normal to some part of the lateral boundary ∂Ω×[0,L] of the cylinder \(\mathcal{C}\).
Hill also allows m i <1, but such values are not covered by our results. See, also, Storåkers [35].
Strict rank-one convexity is itself a consequence of the global strong ellipticity of the linearized equations, i.e., \(\mathbf{a}\otimes\mathbf{b}:\mathbb{C}(\mathbf {F})[\mathbf{a}\otimes\mathbf{b}]>0\) for every \(\mathbf{F}\in\mathrm{M}^{3\times3}_{+}\), \(\mathbf{a}\in \mathbb{R}^{3}\), and \(\mathbf{b}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\) with a≠0≠b. Here \(\mathbb{C}(\mathbf {F}):=\mathrm{d}^{2}W/\mathrm{d}\mathbf{F}^{2}\).
Φ(a,b,c)=Φ(b,a,c)=Φ(c,b,a) and hence Φ,1(a,b,c)=Φ,2(b,a,c)=Φ,3(c,b,a).
The flat surfaces of the cylinder, z=−L and z=L, are left free.
The existence of such a δ follows from the continuity of W together with the growth conditions (2.8). The uniqueness follows either from the strict rank-one convexity of W or, more simply, from the strict tension-extension inequality Φ,33>0.
References
Antman, S.S.: Ordinary differential equations of nonlinear elasticity. II. Existence and regularity theory for conservative boundary value problem. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 61, 353–393 (1976)
Baker, M., Ericksen, J.L.: Inequalities restricting the form of the stress-deformation relations for isotropic elastic solids and Reiner-Rivlin fluids. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 44, 33–35 (1954)
Ball, J.M.: Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 63, 337–403 (1977)
Ball, J.M.: Constitutive inequalities and existence theorems in nonlinear elastostatics. In: Knops, R.J. (ed.) Nonlinear Analysis and Mechanics: Heriot-Watt Symposium, vol. I, pp. 187–241. Pitman, London (1977)
Ball, J.M.: Discontinuous equilibrium solutions and cavitation in nonlinear elasticity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 306, 557–611 (1982)
Ball, J.M.: Differentiability properties of symmetric and isotropic functions. Duke Math. J. 51, 699–728 (1984)
Ball, J.M., Marsden, J.E.: Quasiconvexity at the boundary, positivity of the second variation and elastic stability. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 86, 251–277 (1984)
Ciarlet, P.G., Nečas, J.: Injectivity and self-contact in non-linear elasticity. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 97, 171–188 (1987)
Ciarlet, P.G.: Mathematical Elasticity, Vol. I. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)
Del Piero, G., Rizzoni, R.: Weak local minimizers in finite elasticity. J. Elast. 93, 203–244 (2008)
Evans, L.C.: Partial Differential Equations, 2nd edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2010)
Fosdick, R., Foti, P., Fraddosio, A., Piccioni, M.D.: A lower bound estimate of the critical load for compressible elastic solids. Contin. Mech. Thermodyn. 22, 77–97 (2010)
Friesecke, G., James, R.D., Müller, S.: A theorem on geometric rigidity and the derivation of nonlinear plate theory from three-dimensional elasticity. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 55, 1461–1506 (2002)
Green, A.E., Adkins, J.E.: Large Elastic Deformations, 2nd edn. Oxford Clarendon Press, Oxford (1970)
Gurtin, M.E.: An Introduction to Continuum Mechanics. Academic Press, New York (1981)
Gurtin, M.E., Fried, E., Anand, L.: The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Continua. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
Hill, R.: Aspects of invariance in solid mechanics. In: Yih, C.-S. (ed.) Advances in Applied Mechanics, vol. 18, pp. 1–75. Academic Press, New York (1978)
Hill, R., Hutchinson, J.W.: Bifurcation phenomena in the plane tension test. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 23, 239–264 (1975)
Horgan, C.O., Murphy, J.G.: Constitutive models for almost incompressible isotropic elastic rubber-like materials. J. Elast. 87, 133–146 (2007)
Iwaniec, T., Martin, G.: Geometric Function Theory and Non-linear Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)
Iwaniec, T., Onninen, J.: Hyperelastic deformations of smallest total energy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 194, 927–986 (2009)
Kaniel, S.: On the initial value problem for an incompressible fluid with nonlinear viscosity. J. Math. Mech. 19, 681–707 (1970)
Mizel, V.J.: On the ubiquity of fracture in nonlinear elasticity. J. Elast. 52, 257–266 (1998)
Müller, S., Tang, Q., Yan, B.S.: On a new class of elastic deformation not allowing for cavitation. Anal. Non Linéaire 11, 217–243 (1994)
Murphy, J.G.: Strain energy functions for a Poisson power law function in simple tension of compressible hyperelastic materials. J. Elast. 60, 151–168 (2000)
Ogden, R.W.: Non-Linear Elastic Deformations. Dover, Mineola (1984)
Reshetnyak, Y.G.: Liouville’s conformal mapping theorem under minimal regularity hypotheses. Sib. Math. J. 8, 631–634 (1967)
Šilhavý, M.: The Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Continuous Media. Springer, Berlin (1997)
Šilhavý, M.: Differentiability properties of isotropic functions. Duke Math. J. 104, 367–373 (2000)
Šilhavý, M.: Differentiability properties of rotationally invariant functions. J. Elast. 58, 225–232 (2000)
Sivaloganathan, J., Spector, S.J.: On the symmetry of energy-minimising deformations in nonlinear elasticity II: Compressible materials. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 196, 395–431 (2010)
Sivaloganathan, J., Spector, S.J.: On the global stability of two-dimensional, incompressible, elastic bars in uniaxial extension. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 466, 1167–1176 (2010)
Sivaloganathan, J., Spector, S.J.: On the stability of incompressible, elastic cylinders in uniaxial extension. J. Elast. 105, 313–330 (2011)
Spector, S.J.: On the absence of bifurcation for elastic bars in uniaxial tension. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 85, 171–199 (1984)
Storåkers, B.: On material representation and constitutive branching in finite compressible elasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 34, 125–145 (1986)
Šverák, V.: Regularity properties of deformations with finite energy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 100, 105–127 (1988)
Tang, Q.: Almost-everywhere injectivity in nonlinear elasticity. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 109A, 79–95 (1988)
Truesdell, C., Noll, W.: The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (1964)
Vogel, T.I.: Stability of a liquid drop trapped between two parallel planes. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 47, 516–525 (1987)
Wesołowski, Z.: Stability in some cases of tension in the light of the theory of finite strain. Arch. Mech. Stosow. 14, 875–900 (1962)
Wesołowski, Z.: The axially symmetric problem of stability loss of an elastic bar subject to tension. Arch. Mech. Stosow. 15, 383–394 (1963)
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the referees and R. Fosdick for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-1107899.
Appendices
Appendix A
We here gather a couple of the technical results used in this manuscript.
Proposition A.1
Fix \(N\in\mathbb{N}\). Let \({\varPsi}:(0,\infty)^{N+1}\to\mathbb{R}\) be (strictly) convex with
increasing for i=1,2,…,N. Suppose that v:(0,∞)→(0,∞)N with v i convex for i=1,2,…,N. Then
Proof
Let s,t∈(0,∞) and λ∈(0,1). Then the convexity of each component of v implies that
Next, (A.1) and the monotonicity of Ψ in its first N-arguments yields
Finally, the strict convexity of Ψ gives us
which together with (A.2) yields the strict convexity of ψ. □
Remark A.2
If N=1 and Ψ is independent of its second argument then Proposition A.1 reduces to the classical result that the composition of 2 convex functions is convex whenever the outer function is also increasing.
A proof of the following well-known result on convex functions can be found in, for example, [21, Lemma 2.1] or [31, Lemma A.1].
Lemma A.3
Let \(\vartheta:\mathbb{R}^{+}\to\mathbb{R}\) be (strictly) convex. Then
is (strictly) convex on \(\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\).
Appendix B: The Principal Stretches; Other Invariants
In this section we show that slight variants of our method will allow for a variety of constitutive relations that depend on the principal stretches. The key to these results is the following classical lemma, a proof of which can be found in the appendix of [33]. (See [22, p. 693] for a proof in the case ω(t)=t p.)
Lemma B.1
Let P∈M3×3 be symmetric and strictly positive definite with eigenvalues λ 1, λ 2, and λ 3. Suppose that \(\omega:(0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}\) is convex. Then
for any orthonormal basis {f 1,f 2,f 3} of \(\mathbb{R}^{3}\).
We also made use of a slight generalization of the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality. Again see, e.g., the appendix of [33] for a proof.
Lemma B.2
Let \(\omega:(0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}\) be monotone increasing and convex. Then, for every \(\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\) with a i >0, i=1,2,…,n,
Moreover, this inequality is strict if either ω is strictly monotone or strictly convex unless all of the a i are equal.
Let q≥1 and r≥1. Suppose that \(\phi,\psi:(0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}\) are monotone increasing with ψ convex and \(s\mapsto\phi(\sqrt{s^{q}})\) convex. In this section we will consider the energy functions
where α, β, and γ are the eigenvalues of \(\mathbf{U}=\sqrt{\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{F}}\) and \(\mathbf{F}\in\mathrm{M}^{3\times3}_{+}\).
The main result of this section is the following. The proof is contained in the subsections that follow.
Proposition B.3
Suppose that Λ is given by (B.1), (B.2), (B.3), or (B.4). Let λ>0, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\), and p∈[1,p max]. Define μ=μ(λ,p,u)>0 to be the unique positive real number that satisfies (3.2). Then
Moreover, if μ≤λ then
where \({\mathbf{u}_{\lambda}^{\mu}}\) is given by (3.1) with ν:=μ. If, in addition, ϕ is strictly increasing and p>1, then (B.6) will be a strict inequality unless u∈PS λ .
Remark B.4
-
1.
Since \(\omega(s):=\phi(\sqrt{s^{q}})\) in (B.1) is convex and increasing with q∈[1,2], so is ϕ(t)=ω(t 2/q) (see Remark A.2).
-
2.
For \(\phi\in C^{2}((0,\infty);\mathbb{R})\), the hypothesis \(s\mapsto\phi(\sqrt{s^{q}})\) is convex is equivalent to
$$t\phi''(t)\ge \biggl(1-\frac{q}{2} \biggr)\phi'(t)\quad \mbox{for all } t>0. $$ -
3.
Suppose that the energy is given by (B.1) with q>2. Then one can rewrite (B.1) as
$${\varLambda}(\mathbf{F})=\hat{\phi} \bigl(\alpha^2 \bigr) +\hat{ \phi} \bigl(\beta^2 \bigr) +\hat{\phi} \bigl(\gamma^2 \bigr), \qquad\hat{\phi}(t):=\phi \bigl(t^{q/2} \bigr), $$where \(\omega(s):=\hat{\phi}(s^{2/q})=\phi(s)\) is increasing and convex. Thus the restriction q≤2 is not essential.
-
4.
If r=1 the energy (B.3) is the same as the energy in Sect. 3.1.
-
5.
If r=1 the energy (B.4) can also be written:
$${\varLambda}(\mathbf{F})= \biggl[\frac{|\mathrm{adj}\,\mathbf{F}|^2}{\det \mathbf{F}} \biggr]^{q}. $$
In order to establish the existence of a homogeneous minimizer we will also need the following result.
Proposition B.5
Suppose that Λ is given by (B.1), (B.2), (B.3), or (B.4). Let p∈[1,p max]. Then \(\sigma(t):={\varLambda}(\sqrt[p]{t}\mathbf{I})\) is increasing and convex.
Proof
If Λ is given by (B.1), then σ(t):=3ϕ(t q/p), which is monotone increasing and convex since q≥p>0 and ϕ is increasing and convex (see Remark A.2). If Λ is given by (B.2), then σ(t):=3ψ(t q/p), which is increasing and convex since q≥p>0 and ψ is increasing and convex. If Λ is given by (B.3), then σ(t):=3q/(2r) t q/p, which is increasing and convex since q≥p>0. Finally, if Λ is given by (B.4), then σ(t):=3q/r t q/p, which is increasing and convex since q≥p>0. □
2.1 B.1 The Energy Λ(F)=ϕ(α q)+ϕ(β q)+ϕ(γ q) for q∈[1,2]
In this subsection we prove Proposition B.3 when Λ is given by (B.1).
Proof of Proposition B.3: Case 1
Let Λ be given by (B.1) with q∈[1,2], where \(\phi\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\mathbb{R})\) is increasing and \(s\mapsto\phi(\sqrt{s^{q}})\) is convex. Fix λ>0, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\), and p∈[1,q]. Let μ be given by (3.2). Define F=F(x,y,z):=∇u(x,y,z), J u :=det∇u(x,y,z), and \(\mathbf{U}:=\sqrt{\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{F}}\) with eigenvalues α, β, and γ. Then, since q≥p>0, Hölder’s inequality and (3.2) yield
Next, since ϕ is increasing and convex, Lemma B.2, Jensen’s inequality, (B.1), (B.7), and the identity J u =αβγ imply that
which establishes (B.5).
Now assume that μ≤λ. Define \(\omega:\mathbb{R}^{+}\to\mathbb{R}\) by \(\omega(s):=\phi (\sqrt{s^{q}})\) so that ω is convex. If we then apply Lemma B.1 with P=F T F (with eigenvalues α 2, β 2, and γ 2) we conclude that, for any \((x,y,z)\in\mathcal{C}\),
or, equivalently,
Next, (B.8) together with (3.6), Lemma B.2, and the monotonicity of ϕ yield
Define
Then, in view of (B.9),
Since ϕ is convex (see Remark B.4.1) and increasing it follows that \(H:\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\to \mathbb{R}\) is convex (see Lemma A.3 and Remark A.2). Moreover, since ϕ′ is positive and increasing, it follows that if t<s, then
thus, for any t>0, the mapping s↦H(s,t) is increasing on [t,∞). The remainder of the proof of (B.6), when μ≤λ, is then similar to the proof of (3.3) in Proposition 3.1. □
2.2 B.2 The Energy Λ(F)=ψ(α q β q/γ q)+ψ(β q γ q/α q)+ψ(γ q α q/β q) with q≥1
In this subsection we prove Proposition B.3 when Λ is given by (B.2).
Proof of Proposition B.3: Case 2
Let Λ be given by (B.2) with q≥1, where \(\psi\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\mathbb{R})\) is increasing and convex. Fix λ>0, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\), and p∈[1,q]. Let μ be given by (3.2). Define F=F(x,y,z):=∇u(x,y,z), J u :=det∇u(x,y,z), and \(\mathbf {U}:=\sqrt{\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{F}}\), with eigenvalues α, β, and γ.
We first note that, since ψ is increasing and convex, Lemma B.2, Jensen’s inequality, (B.7), and (B.2) imply that
which establishes (B.5).
Now suppose that μ≤λ. Note that \(\mathbf{P}:=(\operatorname {adj}\mathbf{F})(\operatorname {adj}\mathbf{F})^{\mathrm{T}}/(\det \mathbf{F})\) is symmetric and strictly positive definite with eigenvalues αβ/γ, βγ/α, and γα/β. Then, in view of (B.2), Lemma B.1 (with ω(t)=ψ(t q)) yields, for any \((x,y,z)\in\mathcal{C}\),
where J u :=det∇u=αβγ. As in the proof in Sect. B.1, Lemma B.2 now implies that
However,
and Fe z =u z .
If we now combine (B.10), (B.11), and (B.12) we find, with the aid of the monotonicity of ψ, that
Define
Then, in view of (B.13),
Since ψ is convex and increasing and q≥p>0, it follows that \(H:\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}\to\mathbb{R}\) is convex (see Lemma A.3 and Remark A.2). Moreover, since ψ′ is positive and increasing, it follows that if t<s, then
thus, for any t>0, the mapping s↦H(s,t) is increasing on [t,∞). The remainder of the proof of (B.6) is then similar to the proof of (3.3) in Proposition 3.1. □
2.3 B.3 The Energy Λ(F)=(α 2r+β 2r+γ 2r)q/(2r) with q≥1 and r≥1
In this subsection we prove Proposition B.3 when Λ is given by (B.3).
Let Λ be given by (B.3) with r≥1 and q≥1. Fix λ>0, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\), and p≥1 with p≤q and p≤3r. Let μ be given by (3.2). Define F=F(x,y,z):=∇u(x,y,z), J u :=det∇u(x,y,z), and \(\mathbf{U}:=\sqrt{\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{F}}\), with eigenvalues α, β, and γ. Then Lemma B.2, (B.7), and (B.3) yield
which establishes (B.5).
Now suppose that μ≤λ. If we then apply Lemma B.1 with ω(t)=t r and P=F T F (with eigenvalues α 2, β 2, and γ 2) we conclude that, for any \((x,y,z)\in\mathcal{C}\),
or, equivalently,
Next, (B.14) together with (3.6), the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality, and the monotonicity of t↦t r yield
and hence
Define
and note that (B.15) implies
Now
for s>0 and 3r≥p. Consequently, Lemma A.3 implies that G and hence H=G q/p is strictly convex. Moreover,
for τ:=t/s<1; thus for any t>0 the mappings s↦G(s,t) and s↦H(s,t) are strictly increasing on [t,∞). The remainder of the proof of (B.6) is then similar to the proof of (3.3) in Proposition 3.1. □
2.4 B.4 The Energy Λ(F)=[(αβ/γ)r+(βγ/α)r+(γα/β)r]q/r with q≥1 and r≥1
In this subsection we prove Proposition B.3 when Λ is given by (B.4).
Proof of Proposition B.3: Case 4
Let Λ be given by (B.4) with r≥1 and q≥1. Fix λ>0, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal {A}_{\lambda}}\), and p≥1 with p≤q and p≤3r. Let μ be given by (3.2). Define F=F(x,y,z):=∇u(x,y,z), J u :=det∇u(x,y,z), and \(\mathbf {U}:=\sqrt{\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{F}}\), with eigenvalues α, β, and γ. Then Lemma B.2, (B.7), and (B.4) yield
which establishes (B.5).
Now suppose that μ≤λ. Then, if we apply Lemma B.1 with ω(t)=t r and \(\mathbf{P}:=(\operatorname {adj}\mathbf{F})(\operatorname {adj}\mathbf{F})^{\mathrm{T}}/(\det \mathbf{F})\) (with eigenvalues αβ/γ, βγ/α, and γα/β) we conclude, with the aid of (B.4), that for any \((x,y,z)\in\mathcal{C}\)
where J u :=det∇u=αβγ. The arithmetic-geometric mean inequality now implies that
However,
and Fe z =u z .
If we now combine (B.16), (B.17), and (B.18) we find, with the aid of the monotonicity of t↦t r, that
Define
so that (B.19) implies
Then
for s>0 and 3r≥p and hence, in view of Lemma A.3, H is strictly convex. Moreover,
for τ:=t/s<1; thus for any t>0 the mappings s↦G(s,t) and hence s↦H(s,t) are strictly increasing on [t,∞). The remainder of the proof of (B.6) is then similar to the proof of (3.3) in Proposition 3.1. □
Appendix C: The Homogeneity of Energy-Minimizing Deformations II
Fix \(N\in\mathbb{N}\) and define \({\boldsymbol{\varLambda}}:\mathrm {M}^{3\times3}_{+}\to\mathbb{R}^{N}\) by
where each component \({\varLambda}_{i}:\mathrm{M}^{3\times3}_{+}\to \mathbb{R}\) is one of the functions, Λ(F), given in this section and \(p^{i}_{\mathrm{max}}\) is the corresponding maximum value of the parameter p.
Lemma C.1
Let Λ be given by (C.1). Suppose that the stored energy \(W\in C^{1}( \mathrm{M}_{+}^{3\times3};[0,\infty))\) satisfies
where p∈[1,p max] with \(p_{\mathrm{max}}:=\min\{p^{i}_{\mathrm{max}}, 1\le i \le n \}\), \({\varPsi}: (0,\infty)^{N+1}\to\mathbb{R}\) is (strictly) convex, and Λ is given by (C.1). Then
Moreover, if in addition the reference configuration is stress free, then
Proof
To obtain convexity define
Then Proposition B.5 together with Proposition A.1 yield the (strict) convexity of ξ.
Next, if we take the derivative of ξ we find that
where S is the Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor (2.6). Thus, if the reference configuration is stress free, \(\dot{\xi}(1)=0\). The (strict) convexity of ξ then implies that ξ and hence the mapping λ↦W(λ I) is (strictly) increasing on [1,∞). □
3.1 C.1 Energy Reduction by Symmetrization
Theorem C.2
Assume that the reference configuration is stress free. Suppose that the stored energy \(W\in C^{1}( \mathrm{M}_{+}^{3\times3};[0,\infty))\) satisfies
where p∈[1,p max] with \(p_{\mathrm{max}}:=\min\{p^{1}_{\mathrm{max}},p^{2}_{\mathrm {max}},p^{3}_{\mathrm{max}},\ldots,p^{N}_{\mathrm{max}}\}\), Λ is given by (C.1), and \({\varPsi}:(0,\infty)^{N+1}\to\mathbb{R}\) is increasing in each of its first N-arguments and convex. Let λ≥1 and \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\). Define μ=μ(λ,p,u)>0 to be the unique positive real number that satisfies (3.2). Then
where \({\mathbf{u}_{\lambda}^{\nu}}\) is given by (3.1) with ν:=μ if μ≤λ and ν:=λ if μ≥λ. Moreover, if μ≤λ, p>1, and Ψ is strictly increasing in one of its first N-arguments, then (C.3) is a strict inequality unless u∈PS λ .
Proof
Fix λ≥1, \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\), and define μ by (3.2). If we now let F=∇u in (C.2), integrate over the cylinder \(\mathcal{C}\), and apply Jensen’s inequality to the convex function Ψ we conclude, with the aid of (3.2), that
Now suppose that μ≤λ. Then we can make use of Proposition B.3, the monotonicity of Ψ in each of its first N-arguments, (3.1), and (C.2), to get
which when combined with (C.4) yields the desired inequality, (C.3) with ν=μ. Moreover, if Ψ is strictly increasing in, say, its i-argument, then the inequality in (C.5) is a strict inequality unless
Proposition B.3 now yields u∈PS λ when p>1.
Finally, suppose that μ≥λ so that ν=λ. Then we can make use of Proposition B.3, the monotonicity of Ψ in each of its first N-arguments, (3.1), and (C.2), to obtain
and we have made use of (C.2). However, Lemma C.1 then implies that W(η I)≥W(λ I), which together with (C.4) and (C.6) yields the desired result, (C.3) with ν=λ. □
3.2 C.2 Existence of a Homogeneous Minimizer
Theorem C.3
Let W, Ψ, Λ, and p satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem C.2. Suppose, in addition, that
Then for each λ≥1 there exists a κ=κ(λ)>0 such that the deformation
is an absolute minimizer of the energy among deformations in \({\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\).
Proof
Fix λ≥1. Then (C.7) and Proposition 2.5 yield α>0 and β>0 such that
Now apply Theorem C.2 with u=u ∗, where
to get a κ:=ν>0 such that
where we have made use of (3.12) and (C.8).
We claim that the homogeneous deformation given by (C.8) with this value of κ is an absolute minimizer of E among deformations in \({\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\). To see this, let \(\mathbf{u}\in{\mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}\). Then, by Theorem C.2, there is ν>0 such that the homogeneous deformation \({\mathbf{u}_{\lambda}^{\nu}}\) given by (3.1) satisfies (see (3.12))
The desired minimality of \({\mathbf{u}_{\lambda}^{\kappa}}\) now follows from (C.10), (C.11), and (C.9) with s=t=ν. □
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sivaloganathan, J., Spector, S.J. On the Global Stability of Compressible Elastic Cylinders in Tension. J Elast 120, 161–195 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-014-9510-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-014-9510-5