## On the thermodynamics of pseudo-elastic material models to reproduce the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect

Christoph Naumann a, GLYPH&lt;3&gt; , J¨rn Ihlemann o a a Technische Universit¨ at Chemnitz, Reichenhainer Straße 70, 09126 Chemnitz

## Abstract

This work focuses on the thermodynamics of pseudo-elastic models which represent the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Two established models are analyzed theoretically, their thermomechanical properties are derived, and certain critical points are identified. These findings are used to deduce an alternative approach to deviate pseudo-elasticity. This is achieved by defining a suitable free energy which imposes conditions on the stress tensor and the dissipation using the C lausius -D uhem inequality. The concept of pseudo-elasticity is then generalized to extend arbitrary thermomechanical, even inelastic, material models to allow for softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. Under weak assumptions on the softening function the thermomechanical consistency is shown.

Keywords: Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect, softening, pseudo-elasticity, thermomechanical consistency

## 1. Introduction

The mechanical material behavior of filled rubber is strongly a GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ected by the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect (Mullins (1948)). Due to this e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect, the stress is significantly reduced depending on the maximum load which occurred in the previous history of the material. The micromechanical origin of the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect has been discussed extensively and yet there is no general agreement in the scientific community. Mullins himself introduced a hard and a soft rubber phase and attributed the softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect to the conversion of hard into soft rubber by prestraining. Bueche (1960) suggested that the debonding of chains from fillers leads to the softening of the material. The breakdown of filler clusters was proposed by Kl¨ uppel and Schramm (2000) as the reason for the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Marckmann et al. (2002) suggested that the breaking of crosslinks and weak bonds is responsible for the softening. The theory of Self-Organizing Linkage Patterns (SOLP) explains the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect as a result of a self-organization process based on the weak physical bonds (Besdo and Ihlemann (2003)). Recently it was demonstrated that this concept also provides explanations for other phenomena of rubber behavior (Wulf and Ihlemann (2011)). Various other concepts have been suggested, for instance slipping of chain molecules or molecule disentanglement. An extensive overview of physical explanations for the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect is given in Diani et al. (2009).

Especially in heterogeneously loaded components this e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect has to be considered, as di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent regions with varying sti GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness evolve. Due to this resulting inhomogeneous distribution of the material properties, the overall behavior of the component is a GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ected considerably. Therefore, the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect has to be taken into account to simulate the behavior of elastomeric components.

Several micromechanically motivated models have been developed. A model based on the decomposition of the rubber network into a purely elastic polymer part and a polymer-filler network which provides the softening (Govindjee and Simo (1991) and Govindjee and Simo (1992)) adopts the assumption of Bueche (1960). The idea of hard and soft rubber phases of Mullins (1948) was used as a basis for a model derived by Qi and Boyce (2004).

As the micromechanical origin of the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect is yet not completely understood, phenomenological models still

GLYPH&lt;3&gt; Corresponding author

Email addresses: christoph.naumann@mb.tu-chemnitz.de (Christoph Naumann), joern.ihlemann@mb.tu-chemnitz.de (J¨rn o Ihlemann)

enjoy a great popularity. Especially models based on continuum damage mechanics are widely used. There, a scalar damage variable is introduced which reduces a suitable basic hyperelastic stress (e.g. Miehe (1995); Chagnon et al. (2004)). The main advantage of these models is that the thermomechanical consistency can easily be achieved by defining an appropriate evolution law for the damage variable. Moreover, this approach can be used for extending existing even inelastic models to allow for the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect (cf. Simo (1987); Miehe and Keck (2000); Lion (1996)). However, the frequently used simple exponential evolution equations are often not capable of reproducing the complex softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects and more complicated evolution laws have to be defined (Kaliske et al. (2001)). This may lead to a large number of material parameters which complicates a reliable parameter identification significantly.

Another approach to represent softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects are the so-called pseudo-elastic models proposed by Ogden and Roxburgh (1999). These models are based on a hyperelastic description of the virgin material behavior. During unloading and successive reloading the material responds elastically but softer. This is achieved by scaling the basic hyperelastic stress with an appropriate softening function. The main advantage of this family of models is that it is relatively easy to find a suitable softening function as its shape can be directly derived from experimental data (cf. Kazakeviˇ ciuteMakovska (2007)). These pseudo-elastic models are widely used and enhanced due to their simplicity (Ogden (2001); El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002); Dorfmann and Ogden (2003, 2004); Guo and Sluys (2006); Pe˜a et al. (2009); Zhang un n et al. (2011)).

The aforementioned models represent only the isotropic M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. However, there is experimental evidence that this e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect induces anisotropy which cannot be reproduced by these models. However, to represent these anisotropic e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects a one-dimensional version for uniaxial tension and compression may be used within directional approaches. It has been shown that this is an e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective technique (e.g. G¨ oktepe and Miehe (2005); Itskov et al. (2010); Freund and Ihlemann (2010); Diercks and Lion (2013)).

The paper has the following structure: Section 2 deals with the introduction into the used notation and basics of continuum thermodynamics. In section 3 the basic equations of pseudo-elastic material models are briefly reviewed. Section 3.1 shows the approach used in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) which enables the deduction of pseudo-elastic material models by a special free energy function. There, critical points are reviewed. Another model based on the idea of pseudo-elasticity is introduced in El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002). un The assumptions made therein are revisited in section 3.2 and critical properties are identified. In section 3.3 an alternative approach is presented which enables a consistent deduction of pseudo-elastic models by introducing a suitable free energy. The insertion into the C lausius -D uhem inequality and application of standard arguments directly yields the stress tensor and the dissipation. Thermomechanical consistency is achieved under weak assumptions on the properties of the softening function. Basic properties of the resulting model are deduced and compared to the existing approaches described in the foregoing sections. In the last section, the concept of pseudo-elasticity is extended to allow for arbitrary, even inelastic, models as basic material models. It is shown that the thermomechanical consistency is assured under weak assumptions on the properties of the softening function.

## 2. Preliminaries

Throughout this article, underlined symbols denote tensors in R 3 whereby the number of lines determines the rank. In this work, I stands for the second-rank identity tensor. The deviatoric part of a tensor is defined as GLYPH&lt;16&gt; X GLYPH&lt;17&gt; 0 = X GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 3 GLYPH&lt;16&gt; X GLYPH&lt;1&gt;GLYPH&lt;1&gt; I GLYPH&lt;17&gt; I . The material time derivative is denoted by a superimposed triangle. The superimposed index G denotes the unimodular part of a second rank tensor, i.e. G X = det GLYPH&lt;16&gt; X GLYPH&lt;17&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 3 = X . The dyadic product is denoted by GLYPH&lt;14&gt; . One focus of this paper lies on the investigation of thermodynamic properties of material models. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics is needed:

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } _ { a } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdot \overset { \triangle } { = } \overset { \triangle } { \widetilde { \underline { C } } } - \widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } - \widetilde { \rho } s \dot { \theta } - \frac { 1 } { \theta } \overset { \| } { \underline { Q } } \cdot \widetilde { \underline { \nabla } } \theta \geq 0 \quad.$$

This inequality is also known as C lausius -D uhem inequality. In equation (1), D a denotes the overall dissipation, ˜ T the second P iola -K irchhoff stress tensor, glyph[triangle] C the material time derivative of the right C auchy -G reen tensor, e GLYPH&lt;26&gt; the density in the reference configuration, the free energy, s the entropy, GLYPH&lt;18&gt; the absolute temperature, and Q the P iola -K irchhoff heat flux vector. For an exhaustive overview on thermomechanics and a detailed derivation of the inequality (1) the

reader is referred to Haupt (1999).

Following Coleman and Noll (1963) one possibility to consider the second law of thermodynamics (1) is to formulate the material models a priori in such a way that no thermomechanical process exists which may violate the C lausius -D uhem inequality. Such material models are then called thermomechanically consistent.

If the F ourier model of heat conduction is used for the heat flux Q (with the heat conductivity GLYPH&lt;20&gt; ), the inequality (1) can be divided into two parts:

$$\underline { Q } = - \kappa \underline { \nabla } \theta, \quad \mathcal { D } _ { q } \coloneqq \hat { \frac { \tilde { \lambda } } { a } } \underline { \nabla } \theta \cdot \underline { \nabla } \theta \geq 0, \quad \Rightarrow \mathcal { D } _ { a } = \mathcal { D } + \mathcal { D } _ { q } \geq 0$$

GLYPH&lt;18&gt;

$$\text{for} \ \mathcal { D } \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdots \overset { \triangle } { = } - \widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } - \widetilde { \rho } s \dot { \theta } \geq 0 \ \.$$

Equation (3) defines the mechanical part of the C lausius -D uhem inequality and the (mechanical) dissipation D . It is assumed that for thermomechanically consistent material models the dissipation D has to take non-negative values which obviously leads to a non-negative overall dissipation.

When dealing with purely mechanical material models the isothermal approximation is often used. There, any change in temperature is neglected, i.e. : GLYPH&lt;18&gt; = 0. The inequality (3) can then be simplified to

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \underline { \widetilde { T } } \cdots \underline { \triangle } - \widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } \geq 0 \ \.$$

In the following section 3 this restriction is used as only isothermal processes are examined by Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002). The generalization to thermomechanical processes is described in section un 4.

## 3. Pseudo-elastic material models

The basis of pseudo-elastic material models is a hyperelastic basic stress ˜ T 0 , which is derived from a suitable free energy function 0 GLYPH&lt;16&gt; C GLYPH&lt;17&gt; :

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \coloneqq 2 \frac { \dot { \partial } \bar { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } \ \.$$

The key idea of pseudo-elastic material models is that the stress during the first loading process is equal to the basic stress ˜ T 0 . Upon unloading and reloading the basic stress is scaled by a positive softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; . The function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; thereby depends on a measure GLYPH&lt;24&gt; for the current load and its maximum GLYPH&lt;24&gt; max ( ) t = max f GLYPH&lt;24&gt; ( GLYPH&lt;28&gt; ) ; GLYPH&lt;28&gt; GLYPH&lt;20&gt; t g in the history of the material:

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } = \eta \left ( \xi, \xi _ { m a x } \right ) \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 }, \quad \text{where} \, \eta \begin{cases} = 1, & \xi = \xi _ { m a x }, \\ < 1, & \xi < \xi _ { m a x } \end{cases}.$$

Di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent models make use of di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent measures GLYPH&lt;24&gt; for the load in the material. In the following two sections, the model of Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) are investigated, which use the free energy of the un basic model and a norm of the right C auchy -G reen tensor to quantify the load intensity, respectively. The resulting thermodynamic properties are discussed.

## 3.1. The model of Ogden and Roxburgh

To derive pseudo-elastic models, Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) define the following free energy function:

$$\psi _ { O R } \left ( \underline { C }, \eta \right ) = \eta \psi _ { 0 } \left ( \underline { C } \right ) + \phi \left ( \eta \right ) \quad.$$

In equation (7) 0 denotes the free energy of the basic material model and GLYPH&lt;30&gt; is a function which only depends on the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; . By using equilibrium arguments, the authors demand that the partial derivative of the free energy with respect to the softening function vanishes:

$$\frac { \partial \psi _ { O R } } { \partial \eta } \stackrel {! } { = } 0 = \psi _ { 0 } + \frac { \partial \phi } { \partial \eta } \quad.$$

This implicitly defines the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; depending on 0 , i.e. the free energy of the basic material model is used as a measure for the current load in the material. Consequently, as GLYPH&lt;17&gt; = 1 for the maximum load, Ogden and Roxburgh use the maximum of the free energy of the basic material model as a measure for the maximum load in the history:

$$\eta = \eta ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { \max } ) \,, \quad \text{where} \quad \psi _ { \max } \coloneqq \max \left \{ \psi _ { 0 } \left ( \tau \right ), \tau \leq t \right \}$$

Moreover, equilibrium arguments define the second P iola -K irchhoff stress as the partial derivative of the free energy with respect to the right C auchy -G reen tensor:

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } = 2 \frac { \dot { \partial } \bar { \rho } \psi _ { O R } } { \partial \underline { C } } = 2 \eta \frac { \dot { \partial } \bar { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } = \eta \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \quad.$$

This is the desired formula for the pseudo-elastic material model. The relations (8) and (10) are su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient to show the thermodynamic properties of the model. Toward that end, the time derivative of the ansatz (7) is inserted into the C lausius -D uhem inequality (4):

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } _ { O R } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { O R } } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { O R } } { \partial \eta } \dot { \eta }$$

$$= \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \widetilde { \underline { T } } - \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } \right ) \cdot \stackrel { - } { \underline { \triangle } } - \widetilde { \rho } \left ( \psi _ { 0 } + \frac { \partial \phi } { \partial \eta } \right ) \dot { \eta }$$

Insertion of (8) and (10) directly leads to the dissipation D = 0 for this ansatz. Thus, the energy needed to cause the softening in the material is not dissipated and converted into heat but stored in the material. However, all micromechanical theories of the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect predict that it is at least partly dissipative. Thus, Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) define a 'dissipation rate' (which represents a physical quantity equal to the dissipation D ) as the rate of the 'residual energy' which accumulates in the material due to the softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. For the two softening functions used in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and Dorfmann and Ogden (2004) it can be shown that this dissipation is positive and the authors therefore conclude that the model is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. However, the positive dissipation does not follow from exploiting the C lausius -D uhem inequality (4). This drawback can be avoided by using the suitable free energy described in section 3.3.

To illustrate the behavior of the O gden -R oxburgh model, a simple shear test with increasing amplitude is performed. For a given orthonormal basis n ex ; ey ; ez o the following deformation gradient is defined:

$$\underline { F } \coloneqq \underline { I } + k \left ( t \right ) \underline { e } _ { x } \circ \underline { e } _ { y } \ \.$$

The temporal course of the shear deformation k ( ) has the following form (figure 1): t

$$k ( t ) \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \hat { k } \left [ 1 - \exp \left ( - \frac { t } { \tau } \right ) \right ] ( 1 - \cos ( \omega t ) ) \quad.$$

The basic material model is Neo-Hookean. Moreover, the softening function introduced in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) is used:

$$\widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } \coloneqq & C _ { 1 0 } \left ( \stackrel { G } { = } \cdot \stackrel { I } { = } - 3 \right ),$$

$$\widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } = & 2 C _ { 1 0 } \left ( \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \right ) ^ { \prime } \cdot \overset { \prime } { \underline { C } } ^ { - 1 },$$

$$\eta \coloneqq & 1 - \frac { 1 } { r } \, \text{erf} \left [ \frac { 1 } { m } \left ( \psi _ { \max } - \psi _ { 0 } \right ) \right ] \quad.$$

The material parameters are set to C 10 = 1MPa, r = 1, and m = 1MPa. In figure 2 the first P iola -K irchhoff stress Tyx is plotted against the shear strain k . The upper dotted curve describes the behavior of the Neo-Hookean basic material model. This stress is computed by the pseudo-elastic material model, if the current deformation is the maximum deformation in the history of the material. When the current deformation is below the maximum deformation the

Figure 1: Temporal course of the shear strain k ( ) which is used to test the approach of Ogden and Roxburgh (1999). t

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-594d1c39-1674-4d0b-b46d-3a83ca64b6e7.jpg)

stress is scaled by a positive value 0 GLYPH&lt;20&gt; GLYPH&lt;17&gt; &lt; 1. Thus, the pseudo-elastic model predicts a stress response on the lower solid curves for unloading and reloading up to the maximum deformation. The area between the virgin loading path (dotted) and the unloading path (solid) is the dissipated energy due to the softening. However, the special free energy proposed in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) predicts that this energy is not converted into heat but stored in the material which directly follows from equation (12). This fact is clarified in figure 2. There, the free energy OR is plotted against time. Obviously there is a non-zero value of the free energy OR when the material is fully unloaded, i.e.

Figure 2: Left: Plot of the pseudo-elastic first P iola -K irchhoff stress Tyx for a simple shear test with increasing amplitude ( k ( ) from equation t (14)); Right: Evolution of the free energy OR of the O gden -R oxburgh model (equation (7)) and the history function max ( ) t = max f 0 ( GLYPH&lt;28&gt; ) ; GLYPH&lt;28&gt; GLYPH&lt;20&gt; t g

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-963ef265-34a9-4995-ba0b-c873a6ae6d00.jpg)

k = 0. This residual value is the energy which was needed to cause the softening in the material.

## 3.2. The model of Elias-Zuniga and Beatty

El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) also define a pseudo-elastic model by equation (6). un In their work, a norm of the isochoric right C auchy -G reen tensor is used as a measure m for the deformation:

$$m = \left \| \stackrel { G } { = } \right \| = \sqrt { \stackrel { G } { = } \cdots \stackrel { G } { = } }, \ \ m _ { m a x } \left ( t \right ) = \max \left \{ m \left ( \tau \right ), \tau \leq t \right \} \ \.$$

In the model of El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) the pseudo-elastic stress is defined by an arbitrary hyperelastic basic un stress ˜ T 0 and a softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( m mmax ; ):

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } \coloneqq \eta ( m, m _ { m a x } ) \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \ \.$$

The softening function has again the properties GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( mmax ; mmax ) = 1 and 0 GLYPH&lt;20&gt; GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( m mmax ; ) GLYPH&lt;20&gt; 1. No thermodynamical considerations were made in El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002). un However, the authors state that 'The unloading and

reloading path is elastic so long as the magnitude of the strain does not exceed its greatest previous value'. This statement will be used to reveal an unfavorable property of this model. Once the maximum of the deformation is fixed, the material response is elastic in the sense that the stress only depends on the current deformation and no dissipation occurs. The behavior, however, is not hyperelastic, i.e. the saved energy in the material depends on the loading path. This leads to an unphysical material response which is shown in the following.

Consider a temporal course of the deformation C t ( ) ; t GLYPH&lt;21&gt; t 0 where m does not exceed a formerly achieved value mmax . Then the material behaves elastically, i.e. the dissipation D vanishes. Thus, the free energy can be directly determined by integrating the isothermal C lausius -D uhem inequality (4) over time:

$$m _ { m a x } = \text{const.} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = 0 = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { = } \widetilde { \underline { C } } - \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { E B } \quad \Rightarrow \quad \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { E B } ( \tau ) = \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { E B } ( t _ { 0 } ) + \int ^ { \tau } _ { \substack { 2 } \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { = } \widetilde { \underline { C } } d t } \quad. \quad ( 2 0 )$$

The integral which determines the free energy EB is only independent of the path of the deformation C t ( ), if the derivative of ˜ T with respect to the right C auchy -G reen tensor C is symmetric:

$$\psi _ { E B } ( \tau ) = \psi _ { E B } \left ( \underline { C } ( \tau ) \,, m _ { m a x } \right ) \quad \Leftrightarrow \underline { X } \cdots \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdots \underline { Y } = \underline { Y } \cdots \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdots \underline { X } \quad.$$

Here, X and Y denote arbitrary symmetric second rank tensors. For the model of El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) this un is only fulfilled for special cases, where the free energy of the basic model is only a function of m . But even with the Neo-Hookean model as a basic model the integrability condition (21) is violated. In an analytical manner this is shown in Appendix A. A numerical example is given in the following. The basic material model is Neo-Hookean (equation (15) and (16)) and the softening function proposed in El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) is applied: un

$$\eta ( m, m _ { \max } ) = \exp \left ( - b \sqrt { m _ { \max } - m } \right ) \ \.$$

In the following numerical test C 10 = 1MPa and b = 1 are used. To demonstrate the drawbacks of this approach, a combined shear-tension test is performed. For a given orthonormal basis n ex ; ey ; ez o the following incompressible deformation gradient F is defined:

$$\underline { F } = \lambda ( t ) \, e _ { x } \circ e _ { x } + \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { \lambda ( t ) } } \left ( e _ { y } \circ e _ { y } + e _ { z } \circ e _ { z } \right ) + k ( t ) \, e _ { x } \circ e _ { y } \ \.$$

The temporal course of the stretch GLYPH&lt;21&gt; and the shear k are defined as follows:

$$k \left ( t \right ) & = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \hat { k } \left ( \sin ( \omega t ) + 1 \right ), & & ( 2 4 )$$

$$\lambda ( t ) = 1 + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \hat { \varepsilon } ( 1 - \cos ( \omega t ) ) \quad.$$

In this work, ˆ k = 2 ; " ˆ = 1, and ! = 2 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; s GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 (cycle duration equals 1 second) are used. The history variable mmax is set to 7, a value which will not be attained by this deformation process. In diagram 3 the free energy EB from equation (20) is plotted against time. As EB is defined up to an additive constant, EB ( t = 0) = 0 is used. Obviously the energy stored in the material is reduced during every cycle. Thus, this material model predicts that it is possible to reduce the energy in the material boundlessly. In other words, the material provides an infinite supply of energy, which is not observed in real physical problems. Unquestionably, such kind of non-physical models should not be used.

## 3.3. Thermomechanical consistency of pseudo-elastic models

The aim of this article is to bypass the drawbacks of the approaches described in the previous sections. Thus, the first requirement is that the model behaves hyperelastically during unloading and reloading to rule out an unphysical behavior as described in section 3.2.

Figure 3: Evolution of the free energy EB of the model of El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) after prestretching for a combined shear-tension test un (equations (23)-(25)).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-fb117344-3c0e-4eeb-a0f3-d70a0509fb3f.jpg)

This can easily be achieved by following the approach of Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and using the free energy 0 of the virgin material model as a measure for the load intensity:

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } = \eta ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } ) \, 2 \frac { \partial \bar { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } }, \quad \text{where} \, \psi _ { m a x } ( t ) \coloneqq \max \left \{ \psi _ { 0 } ( \tau ) \,, \tau \leq t \right \} \quad.$$

This will automatically lead to hyperelastic behavior once the maximum load exceeded. To show this, it is su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient to examine the sti GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness-tensor for max = const.. The symmetry of this tensor is a su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient condition for the integrability of the free energy (cf. equation (21)). Di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiating (26) we have

$$\frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } = \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } + \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \circ \frac { \partial \eta } { \partial \underline { C } } = 2 \eta \frac { \partial ^ { 2 } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } ^ { 2 } } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \frac { \partial \eta } { \partial \psi _ { 0 } } \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \circ \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \quad.$$

This tensor obviously is symmetric and thus hyperelastic behavior is obtained during unloading and successive reloading.

The second goal is to derive the constitutive equations directly by evaluating the C lausius -D uhem inequality without using any assumptions deduced from equilibrium-thermodynamics (like equations (8) and (10)). As the free energy 0 GLYPH&lt;16&gt; C GLYPH&lt;17&gt; is defined up to an additive constant it is assumed that in the undeformed configuration 0 GLYPH&lt;16&gt; C = I GLYPH&lt;17&gt; = 0. The key idea is to define the following free energy for the pseudo-elastic material model:

$$\psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \coloneqq \bigotimes _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) d \xi \ \.$$

This definition directly leads to ( 0 = 0 ; max ) = 0, i.e. the free energy will be always zero when the material is in the undeformed configuration. Moreover, di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiation yields

$$\frac { \partial \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { 0 } } = \eta \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \ \.$$

Thus, the time derivative of can be obtained by using the chain-rule and equation (29):

$$\widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } = \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { 0 } } \dot { \psi } _ { 0 } + \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x }$$

$$= \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } \left ( \underline { C } \right ) } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdot \stackrel { \triangle } { = } + \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { \max } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \stackrel { \cdot } { \psi _ { \max } }$$

$$= \eta \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } + \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { \max } ) } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \psi _ { \max } \stackrel {. } {. }$$

Inserting (32) into the C lausius -D uhem inequality (4) we obtain

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \eta \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } \right ) \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } \geq 0 \ \.$$

This inequality is fulfilled for arbitrary glyph[triangle] C , if the following conditions hold:

$$\Phi _ { \Phi } \quad \underline { \tilde { T } } = \eta \underline { \tilde { T } } _ { 0 }$$

$$\frac { \partial \rho \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } \leq 0 \quad.$$

Condition (34) is the desired stress formula of pseudo-elastic models which is now directly derived from the C lausius -D uhem inequality by using standard arguments. If additionally the inequality (35) is satisfied, the dissipation is always positive and thermomechanical consistency is assured. In the following, we assume that GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( ; 0 max ) is continuous and continuously di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiable with respect to max . Then, integration and di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiation can be interchanged and the left hand side of inequality (35) can be written as:

$$\frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } = \frac { \partial } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \int \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \dot { \xi } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } = \int \frac { \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \xi } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } \quad.$$

Due to the definition of the history variable (equation (26)), : max is always non-negative. Thus, a su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient condition for thermomechanical consistency is

$$\frac { \partial \eta ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \leq 0 \ \.$$

This constraint can be easily interpreted: every softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( ; 0 max ) which is a monotonically decreasing function of max for every fixed 0 leads to a positive dissipation. Thus, every function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( ; 0 max ) which leads to further softening for larger deformations is admissible. For the softening functions proposed in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and Dorfmann and Ogden (2004) the appropriate free energy and dissipation are given in Appendix B. To compare the free energy OR of Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) from equation (7) and the new proposed from equation (28) a plot of these free energies for the shear test described in section 3.1 is depicted in figure 4. The basic material model is Neo-Hookean and the softening function from equation (8) is used. The same material parameters and shear deformation cycle as in section 3.1 are used. It can be clearly seen that the proposed free energy (28) always takes the value 0 if the material is in the undeformed configuration and no residual energy accumulates in the material. Moreover, the di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence between the free energies OR and is the dissipated energy R D d t which is predicted by the left-hand side of (35).

Remark 1 . As soon as the maximum load is reached, the behavior of the softening model is locally hyperelastic. Then, it may be desirable that the corresponding free energy is polyconvex to assure the existence of minimizers of the related variational principle (Ball (1976)). For a polyconvex free energy of the basic material model this property will be preserved by the softening model given that GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( ; 0 max ) GLYPH&lt;21&gt; 0 and @GLYPH&lt;17&gt; @ 0 GLYPH&lt;21&gt; 0. Then, it directly follows from the definition (28) of the free energy that ; ( 0 max ) is a monotonic and convex function of 0 for every fixed max . This directly yields the polyconvexity of the free energy (cf. Schr¨der and Ne o GLYPH&lt;11&gt; (2003)).

Figure 4: Evolution of the free energy OR of the O gden -R oxburgh model (equation (7)), the history function max ( ) t = max f 0 ( GLYPH&lt;28&gt; ) ; GLYPH&lt;28&gt; GLYPH&lt;20&gt; t g , and the newly proposed free energy from (28) for a simple shear test. The di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence between the free energies OR and is the dissipated energy R D d . t

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-7d8045a9-1476-4627-afbd-27b652954bf8.jpg)

Remark 2 . The M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect may only be partly dissipative, i.e. a fraction of the energy needed to cause the softening is not dissipated but stored in the material 1 . This additional energy storage may also be considered within this approach. Indeed, the free energy can be decomposed in the following way:

$$\psi = \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \eta ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } ) \, \mathrm d \xi + \psi _ { s } \ \.$$

Here, the part s represents the energy which is stored in the material and not dissipated due to the softening. It can easily be seen that the model is thermomechanically consistent if the following evolution equation for s is defined:

$$\dot { \psi _ { s } } = - \gamma ( \psi _ { m a x } ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } d \xi \dot { \psi _ { m a x } }, \quad \text{where } 0 \leq \gamma \left ( \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \leq 1 \quad.$$

The material function GLYPH&lt;13&gt; may or not depend on max and has to take values between 0 and 1 to assure a positive dissipation. Noting that : max , 0 only for 0 = max , the evolution equation (39) can be rewritten as follows:

$$\dot { \psi _ { s } } = - \gamma ( \psi _ { m a x } ) \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { m a x } } \frac { \partial \eta ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } d \xi \dot { \psi _ { m a x } } \quad.$$

Hence, the evolution equation (40) can be integrated exactly:

$$\psi _ { s } \left ( \psi _ { m a x } \right ) = - \underset { 0 } { \overset { \psi _ { m a x } } { \int } } \gamma \left ( \zeta \right ) \underset { 0 } { \overset { \zeta } { \int } } \frac { \partial \eta \left ( \xi, \zeta \right ) } { \partial \zeta } d \xi \, d \zeta \ \.$$

If the value GLYPH&lt;13&gt; = 1 is used, the model of Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) is obtained; for GLYPH&lt;13&gt; = 0 the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect is fully dissipative.

1 The consideration of such stored energy component becomes important if the equation of heat conduction is derived directly from the energy balance (Shutov and Ihlemann (2011)).

## 4. Generalization for arbitrary basic material models

The idea of the pseudo-elastic material models can be generalized to allow for arbitrary thermomechanically consistent material models. Let n ; 0 ˜ T 0 ; s 0 ; D 0 o a material model, which satisfies the C lausius -D uhem inequality for arbitrary thermomechanical processes:

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } _ { 0 } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } \cdots \stackrel { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \widetilde { \rho } \left ( \dot { \psi } _ { 0 } + s _ { 0 } \dot { \theta } \right ) \geq 0 \quad.$$

No assumptions concerning the structure of the model have to be made, i.e. the material model may for example be defined by internal variables (see Coleman and Gurtin (1967)) or have a functional form (like defined in Coleman (1964)). Under this assumption, the softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect can be added in a thermomechanically consistent manner as follows:

Theorem 1. Let n ; 0 ˜ T 0 ; s 0 ; D 0 o a thermomechanically consistent material model, max ( ) t : = max f 0 ( GLYPH&lt;28&gt; ) ; GLYPH&lt;28&gt; GLYPH&lt;20&gt; t g , and GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( ; 0 max ) GLYPH&lt;21&gt; 0 a su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; ciently smooth softening function such that @GLYPH&lt;17&gt; @ max GLYPH&lt;20&gt; 0 . Then the following softening model is thermomechanically consistent:

$$\psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) & = \bigotimes _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \mathrm d \xi, & & ( 4 3 ) \\ & \simeq \bigotimes _ { 0 } ^ { \simeq } & & \dots$$

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } = \eta \underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 },$$

$$s & = \eta s _ { 0 },$$

$$\mathcal { D } = \eta \mathcal { D } _ { 0 } - \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \dot { \psi } _ { \max } \geq 0. \quad.$$

Proof. The time derivative of the free energy of the softening model is

$$\dot { \psi } = \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { 0 } } \dot { \psi _ { 0 } } + \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi _ { m a x } } = \eta \dot { \psi _ { 0 } } + \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \dot { \psi _ { m a x } } \quad.$$

Rearranging the definition (42) of the dissipation for the basic material model, we obtain the time derivative of the free energy 0 of the basic material model:

$$\widetilde { \rho } \dot { \psi } _ { 0 } = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \cdot \overset { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \widetilde { \rho } s _ { 0 } \dot { \theta } - \widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } _ { 0 } \ \.$$

Inserting (48) and (47) into the definition of the dissipation (cf. (3)) and rearranging terms yields

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } \widetilde { \underline { T } } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \eta \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \right ) \cdots \overset { \triangle } { \underline { C } } - \widetilde { \rho } ( s - \eta s _ { 0 } ) \dot { \theta }$$

$$+ \eta \widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } _ { 0 } - \widetilde { \rho } \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \psi _ { m a x } ^ { \cdot } \.$$

The first two terms on the right-hand side of (49) vanish due to (44) and (45). Thus, to prove thermomechanical consistency, the only requirement is that remaining expression in line (50) is non-negative. Due to the assumptions, the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; and the dissipation D 0 of the basic material model are always non-negative. Thus,

$$\mathcal { D } = \eta \mathcal { D } _ { 0 } - \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \psi _ { m a x } ^ { \cdot } \geq - \frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \psi _ { m a x } ^ { \cdot } \.$$

From the definition of max the time derivative of the history variable : max is always non-negative. Thus, it is su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient to show that the derivative of the free energy with respect to max is negative. As the softening function is su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; ciently

smooth, integration and di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiation can be interchanged. From the monotonicity requirement of the softening function and the monotonicity property of the integral it follows that

$$\frac { \partial \psi } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } = \frac { \partial } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \eta ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } ) d \xi = \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial \eta ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } d \xi \leq 0 \quad.$$

Thus, the overall softening model provides a non-negative dissipation and is therefore thermomechanically consistent.

## 4.1. Example: Thermohyperelasticity

Using Theorem 1, a thermohyperelastic material model may be used as a basic material model. Thermohyperelasticity is deduced from a suitable free energy function 0 GLYPH&lt;16&gt; C ; GLYPH&lt;18&gt; GLYPH&lt;17&gt; (cf. Haupt (1999)):

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } _ { 0 } = 2 \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } \left ( C, \theta \right ) } { \partial \underline { C } }, \ s _ { 0 } = - \frac { \partial \psi _ { 0 } \left ( C, \theta \right ) } { \partial \theta }, \ \mathcal { D } = 0 \ \.$$

Using the free energy (43), the thermomechanical generalization of the pseudo-elastic material models is as follows:

$$\underline { \widetilde { T } } = 2 \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } }, \ s = - \eta \frac { \partial \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \theta }, \ \mathcal { D } = \int _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } d \xi \dot { \psi _ { m a x } } \quad.$$

The first equation in (54) is the known stress formula of pseudo-elastic models. The second relation is the conditional equation for the entropy s , which has to be specified when thermomechanical processes are considered. The dissipation in the third equation is always non-negative under the given restrictions on the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; (see Theorem 1).

## 4.2. Example: Viscoelasticity

To show that even inelastic material models are admissible as a basic material model, the following (isothermal) viscoelastic model of a M axwell body is investigated:

$$\stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \sl } } } } } } } } } = G \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \triangle } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \sl } } } } } } } - \frac { 1 } { \tau _ { 0 } } \stackrel { \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \sl } } } } } } }, \quad \stackrel { \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \sl } } } } } } } } } ( t = 0 ) = \stackrel { 0 } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \stackrel { \sl } { \sl } } } } } } },$$

$$\widetilde { \rho } \psi _ { 0 } = \frac { 1 } { 4 G } \frac { \dagger } { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \cdots \frac { \dagger } { \underline { T } } _ { 0 }, \ \widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \frac { 1 } { 2 G \tau _ { 0 } } \frac { \dagger } { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \cdots \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \ \.$$

Here, the modulus G and the relaxation time GLYPH&lt;28&gt; 0 are material parameters. It can easily be seen that this model is thermomechanically consistent by inserting the time derivative of 0 and the evolution equation (55) into the C lausius -D uhem inequality (4). 2

The corresponding softening model is defined by equations (17), (43), (44), and (46):

$$\eta = 1 - \frac { 1 } { r } \, \text{erf} \left [ \frac { 1 } { m } \left ( \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } \right ) \right ],$$

$$\psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) = \bigotimes _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) \mathrm d \xi, \\ \sim \bigotimes _ { 0 } ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \sim \quad \dots$$

$$\underline { \tilde { T } } = \eta \underline { \tilde { T } } _ { 0 },$$

$$\widetilde { \rho } \mathcal { D } = \frac { \eta } { 2 G \tau _ { 0 } } \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } \cdot \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } - \int \frac { \psi _ { 0 } } { \partial \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } \partial \xi \psi _ { m a x } \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } \quad.$$

2 Using the terminology of Shutov and Ihlemann (2014), this model is not weakly invariant under the reference change.

To visualize the behavior of the resulting model, a two-sided shear test with increasing shear strain is performed. The corresponding deformation gradient is given by (13). The following temporal course of the shear k is used (see also figure 5):

$$k ( t ) = \hat { k } \left ( 1 - \exp \left [ - \frac { t } { \tau } \right ] \right ) \sin \left ( \omega t \right ) \ \.$$

The parameters ˆ k = 1, GLYPH&lt;28&gt; = 1s, and ! = 2 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; s GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 1 are used for the shear cycle. Moreover, the material parameters

Figure 5: Temporal course of the shear strain k ( ) which is used to test the behavior of the viscoelastic softening model. t

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-d371a59b-66ad-4667-aaa9-e1ea98dcaa81.jpg)

are set to G = 1MPa, GLYPH&lt;28&gt; 0 = 1s, r = 1, and m = 1MPa. The resulting behavior of the softening model is plotted in figure 6. There, the behavior of the basic material model (equations (55) and (56)) is compared to the softening

Figure 6: Plot of the first P iola -K irchhoff stress Tyx for a two-sided shear test with increasing amplitude ( k ( ) from equation (61)); Left: Stresst strain behavior of the viscoelastic basic material model; Right: Stress-strain curve of the corresponding softening model.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0671v1-figure-973d2578-9f80-47ca-bfa7-5bcb2974ccf4.jpg)

model (equations (57) - (60)). Obviously, the softening model is able to represent the softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect depending on the maximum load which occurred in the history of the material. For points where the former maximum stress (and thus the free energy) in the history of the material is exceeded the stress of the softening model is equal to the stress of the basic viscoelastic model. If the current stress is below the maximum stress in the history, the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; becomes active and a pronounced softening is observed.

## 5. Conclusion

In this paper, thermodynamical properties of pseudo-elastic models to represent the M ullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect are investigated. The analysis of two established models of pseudo-elasticity provides an insight into critical points of currently used approaches. To overcome these di GLYPH&lt;14&gt; culties, an alternative approach is proposed which enables the deviation of new pseudo-elastic models. Toward that end, a suitable free energy is specified, which yields conditional equations for the stress tensor and the dissipation after exploiting the C lausius -D uhem inequality. To bypass the limitation that only hyperelastic models are admissible as basic material models the concept of pseudo-elasticity is generalized. The proposed approach enables the extension of arbitrary thermomechanical, inelastic material models to allow for softening e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. Under natural assumptions on the softening function, the thermomechanical consistency is shown. Di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent examples demonstrate the applicability of this approach.

## Appendix A. Integrability

In the following appendix, the path dependence of the free energy EB from equation (20) is analyzed. A necessary condition that the integral in (20) is independent of the deformation path is that the derivative of the second P iola -K irchhoff stress tensor with respect to the right C auchy -G reen tensor is symmetric, i.e. for all symmetric tensors X and Y of second rank the relation

$$\underline { X } \cdots \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdots \underline { Y } = \underline { Y } \cdots \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } \cdots \underline { X }$$

is fulfilled. In case of the model of El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga and Beatty (2002) it can be shown that the sti un GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness is in general not symmetric, i.e. the free energy depends on the path of the deformation. In this section this is shown for the Neo-Hookean model as a basic material model. There, the basic second P iola -K irchhoff stress is given as

$$\widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } = 2 C _ { 1 0 } \left ( \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \right ) ^ { \prime } \cdot \overset { C ^ { \cdot 1 } } { \underline { C } } ^ { \cdot 1 } \ \.$$

Using the derivative of the norm m of the isochoric right C auchy -G reen tensor

$$\frac { \partial m } { \partial \underline { C } } = I _ { 3 } ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 3 } } m \left ( \underline { C } - \frac { m ^ { 2 } } { 3 } \underline { C } ^ { \cdot - 1 } \right )$$

and the chain rule yields the following sti GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness:

$$\frac { \partial \widetilde { T } } { \partial \underline { C } } = \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { T } _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } + \underline { T } _ { 0 } \circ \frac { \partial \eta } { \partial m } \frac { \partial m } { \partial \underline { C } } = \eta \frac { \partial \widetilde { \underline { T } } _ { 0 } } { \partial \underline { C } } + \frac { \partial \eta } { \partial m } \frac { 2 C _ { 1 0 } _ { 3 } - \frac { \dagger } { 3 } } \left ( \left ( \underline { C } \right ) \cdot \underline { C } ^ { \prime } \right ) \cdot \left ( \underline { C } ^ { \ G } - \frac { m ^ { 2 } } { 3 } \underline { C } ^ { \ G } \right ) \quad.$$

The first part of this sti GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness is obviously symmetric as ˜ T 0 is derived from the free energy function 0 . In contrast, the second part is unsymmetric. To show this it is su GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient to examine the important part M :

$$\underline { \equiv } \coloneqq \left ( \left ( \underline { \underline { G } } \right ) ^ { \prime } \cdot \underline { \underline { C } } ^ { \cdot 1 } \right ) \circ \left ( \underline { \underline { C } } - \frac { m ^ { 2 } } { 3 } \underline { \underline { C } } ^ { \cdot 1 } \right ) \ \.$$

For the two special tensors X = G C 1 and Y = I the relation (A.1) is violated. After some basic algebra it can be shown that

$$\alpha \coloneqq \stackrel { G } { \underline { C } ^ { - 1 } } \cdots \stackrel { M } { \equiv } \stackrel { I } { \underline { = } } \left [ I _ { 2 } - \frac { I _ { 1 } } { 3 } \left ( I _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - 2 I _ { 1 } \right ) \right ] \left [ I _ { 1 } - \frac { I _ { 2 } } { 3 } \left ( I _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - 2 I _ { 2 } \right ) \right ]$$

and

$$\beta = \underline { I } \cdots \underline { M } \cdots \underline { C } ^ { - 1 } = \left [ 3 - \frac { I _ { 1 } } { 3 } I _ { 2 } \right ] \left [ 3 - \frac { 1 } { 3 } \left ( I _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - 2 I _ { 2 } \right ) \left ( I _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } - 2 I _ { 1 } \right ) \right ] \ \.$$

In equations (A.6) and (A.7) the following abbreviations were used:

$$I _ { 1 } \coloneqq I _ { 1 } \left ( \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \right ) = \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \cdots I _ { 1 }, \ I _ { 2 } \coloneqq I _ { 2 } \left ( \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \right ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( I _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \cdots \overset { G } { \underline { C } } \right ) \ \.$$

If the sti GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ness tensor was symmetric then GLYPH&lt;11&gt; GLYPH&lt;0&gt; GLYPH&lt;12&gt; = 0. In contrast,

$$\alpha - \beta = \frac { 1 } { 3 } \left [ - 4 I _ { 1 } ^ { 3 } - 4 I _ { 2 } ^ { 3 } + I _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } I _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } + 1 8 I _ { 1 } I _ { 2 } - 2 7 \right ] \ \.$$

In general, this expression is not equal to zero.

## Appendix B. Free energies for proposed softening functions

In the following appendix it is shown that the softening functions proposed in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) and Dorfmann and Ogden (2004) lead to a thermomechanically consistent material model. For the softening function GLYPH&lt;17&gt; used in Ogden and Roxburgh (1999)

$$\eta = 1 - \frac { 1 } { r } \, \text{erf} \left ( \frac { \psi _ { \max } - \psi _ { 0 } } { m } \right )$$

the related free energy of the pseudo-elastic model can be computed by integration of GLYPH&lt;17&gt; (equation (28)):

$$\psi = & \frac { m } { \sqrt { \pi } r } \exp \left ( - \frac { \left [ \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } \right ] ^ { 2 } } { m ^ { 2 } } \right ) + \frac { \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } } { r } \, \text{erf} \left ( \frac { \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } } { m } \right ) + \psi _ { 0 }$$

$$- \, \frac { m } { \sqrt { \pi } r } \exp \left ( - \frac { \psi _ { m a x } ^ { 2 } } { m ^ { 2 } } \right ) - \frac { \psi _ { m a x } } { r } \, \text{erf} \left ( \frac { \psi _ { m a x } } { m } \right ) \ \.$$

By di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiation, the thermomechanical consistency can be shown:

$$\mathcal { D } = - \frac { \partial \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { \max } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \dot { \psi } _ { \max } = \frac { 1 } { r } \text{erf} \left ( \frac { \psi _ { \max } } { m } \right ) \dot { \psi } _ { \max } \geq 0 \quad \text{for} \, r > 0, m > 0 \ \.$$

This expression for D is equal to the quantity, Ogden and Roxburgh (1999) denote as 'dissipation rate'. The free energy related to the softening function

$$\eta = 1 - \frac { 1 } { r } \tanh \left ( \frac { \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } } { m } \right )$$

used in Dorfmann and Ogden (2004) can be given by

$$\psi = \frac { m } { r } \ln \left ( \cosh \left [ \frac { \psi _ { m a x } - \psi _ { 0 } } { m } \right ] \right ) + \psi _ { 0 } - \frac { m } { r } \ln \left ( \cosh \left [ \frac { \psi _ { m a x } } { m } \right ] \right ) \ \.$$

The thermomechanical consistency again follows from di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erentiation:

$$\mathcal { D } = - \frac { \partial \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { m a x } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { m a x } } \psi _ { m a x } = \frac { 1 } { r } \tanh \left ( \frac { \psi _ { m a x } } { m } \right ) \dot { \psi } _ { m a x } \geq 0 \quad \text{for $r>0,m>0$} \quad.$$

:

In the derivation of equations (B.4) and (B.7) it was used that max , 0 only when 0 = max . Hence,

$$D = - \frac { \partial \psi \left ( \psi _ { 0 }, \psi _ { \max } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \dot { \psi } _ { \max } = - \int _ { 0 } ^ { \dot { \sigma } _ { 0 } } \frac { \partial \eta \left ( \xi, \psi _ { \max } \right ) } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \dot { \psi } _ { \max } = - \int _ { 0 } ^ { \dot { \sigma } _ { \max } } \frac { \psi _ { \max } } { \partial \psi _ { \max } } \dot { \psi } _ { \max } \quad.$$

## References

Ball, J.M., 1976. Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 63, 337-403. Besdo, D., Ihlemann, J., 2003. Properties of rubberlike materials under large deformations explained by self-organizing linkage patterns. International Journal of Plasticity 19, 1001-1018.

- Bueche, F., 1960. Molecular basis for the mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 4, 107-114.
- Chagnon, G., Verron, E., Gornet, L., Marckmann, G., Charrier, P., 2004. On the relevance of Continuum Damage Mechanics as applied to the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect in elastomers. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 52, 1627-1650.
- Coleman, B., Gurtin, M., 1967. Thermodynamics with internal state variables. The Journal of Chemical Physics 47, 597.
- Coleman, B.D., 1964. Thermodynamics of materials with memory. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 17.
- Coleman, B.D., Noll, W., 1963. The thermodynamics of elastic materials with heat conduction and viscosity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis 13, 167-178.
- Diani, J., Fayolle, B., Gilormini, P., 2009. A review on the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. European Polymer Journal 45, 601-612.
- Diercks, N., Lion, A., 2013. Modelling deformation-induced anisotropy using 1D-laws for Mullins-E GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect, in: N. Gil-Negrete, A. (Ed.), Constitutive Models for Rubber VIII, CRC Press. pp. 419-424.
- Dorfmann, A., Ogden, R.W., 2003. A pseudo-elastic model for loading, partial unloading and reloading of particle-reinforced rubber. International Journal of Solids and Structures 40, 2699-2714.

Dorfmann, A., Ogden, R.W., 2004. A constitutive model for the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect with permanent set in particle-reinforced rubber. International Journal of Solids and Structures 41, 1855-1878.

- El´ ıas-Z´ ˜iga, A., Beatty, M.F., 2002. un A new phenomenological model for stress-softening in elastomers. Zeitschrift f¨r angewandte Mathematik u und Physik 53, 794-814.
- Freund, M., Ihlemann, J., 2010. Generalization of one-dimensional material models for the finite element method. ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 90, 399-417.
- G¨ oktepe, S., Miehe, C., 2005. A micro-macro approach to rubber-like materials. Part III: The micro-sphere model of anisotropic Mullins-type damage. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 53, 2259-2283.
- Govindjee, S., Simo, J.C., 1991. A micro-mechanically based continuum damage model for carbon black-filled rubbers incorporating Mullins' e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 39, 87-112.
- Govindjee, S., Simo, J.C., 1992. Transition from micro-mechanics to computationally e GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cient phenomenology: Carbon black filled rubbers incorporating mullins' e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 40, 213-233.
- Guo, Z., Sluys, L.J., 2006. Computational modelling of the stress-softening phenomenon of rubber-like materials under cyclic loading. European Journal of Mechanics - A Solids 25, 877-896. /
- Haupt, P., 1999. Continuum Mechanics and Theory of Materials. Springer.
- Itskov, M., Ehret, A.E., Kazakeviciute-Makovska, R., Weinhold, G., 2010. A thermodynamically consistent phenomenological model of the anisotropic Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. ZAMM- Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 90, 370-386.
- Kaliske, M., Nasdala, L., Rothert, H., 2001. On damage modelling for elastic and viscoelastic materials at large strain. Computers &amp; Structures 79, 2133-2141.

Kazakeviˇ ciute-Makovska, R., 2007. Experimentally determined properties of softening functions in pseudo-elastic models of the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. International Journal of Solids and Structures 44, 4145-4157.

Kl¨ uppel, M., Schramm, J., 2000. A generalized tube model of rubber elasticity and stress softening of filler reinforced elastomer systems. Macromolecular Theory and Simulations 9, 742-754.

Lion, A., 1996. A constitutive model for carbon black filled rubber: Experimental investigations and mathematical representation. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics 8, 153-169.

- Marckmann, G., Verron, E., Gornet, L., Chagnon, G., Charrier, P., Fort, P., 2002. A theory of network alteration for the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 50, 2011-2028.
- Miehe, C., 1995. Discontinuous and continuous damage evolution in Ogden-type large-strain elastic materials. European Journal of Mechanics A Solids 14, 697 - 720. /
- Superimposed finite elastic-viscoelastic-plastoelastic stress response with damage in filled rubbery polymers. Experi-
- Miehe, C., Keck, J., 2000. ments, modelling and algorithmic implementation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 323-365.

Mullins, L., 1948. E

GLYPH&lt;11&gt;

ect of Stretching on the Properties of Rubber. Rubber Chemistry and Technology 21, 281-300.

- Ogden, R., Roxburgh, D., 1999. A pseudo-elastic model for the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect in filled rubber. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 455, 2861-2877.
- Ogden, R.W., 2001. Stress softening and residual strain in the azimuthal shear of a pseudo-elastic circular cylindrical tube. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 36, 477-487.
- Pe˜ na, E., Pe˜a, J.A., Doblar´, M., 2009. n e On the Mullins e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect and hysteresis of fibered biological materials: A comparison between continuous and discontinuous damage models. International Journal of Solids and Structures 46, 1727-1735.
- Qi, H., Boyce, M., 2004. Constitutive model for stretch-induced softening of the stress-stretch behavior of elastomeric materials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 52, 2187-2205.
- Schr¨ oder, J., Ne GLYPH&lt;11&gt; , P., 2003. Invariant formulation of hyperelastic transverse isotropy based on polyconvex free energy functions. International Journal of Solids and Structures 40, 401-445.
- Shutov, A.V., Ihlemann, J., 2011. On the simulation of plastic forming under consideration of thermal e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. Materialwissenschaft und Werksto GLYPH&lt;11&gt; technik 42, 632-638.
- Shutov, A.V., Ihlemann, J., 2014. Analysis of some basic approaches to finite strain elasto-plasticity in view of reference change. International Journal of Plasticity .
- Simo, J.C., 1987. On a fully three-dimensional finite-strain viscoelastic damage model: Formulation and computational aspects. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 60, 153-173.

Wulf, H., Ihlemann, J., 2011. Simulation of self-organization processes in filled rubber considering thermal agitation. Constitutive Models for Rubber VII VII.

Zhang, X.F., Andrieux, F., Sun, D.Z., 2011. Pseudo-elastic description of polymeric foams at finite deformation with stress softening and residual strain e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. Materials &amp; Design 32, 877-884.
Christoph Naumann Jörn Ihlemann
On the thermodynamics of pseudo-elastic material models to reproduce the Mullins effect
This work focuses on the thermodynamics of pseudo-elastic models which
represent the Mullins effect. Two established models are analyzed
theoretically, their thermomechanical properties are derived, and certain
critical points are identified. These findings are used to deduce an
alternative approach to deviate pseudo-elasticity. This is achieved by defining
a suitable free energy which imposes conditions on the stress tensor and the
dissipation using the Clausius-Duhem inequality. The concept of
pseudo-elasticity is then generalized to extend arbitrary thermomechanical,
even inelastic, material models to allow for softening effects. Under weak
assumptions on the softening function the thermomechanical consistency is
shown.