An elasto-viscoplastic self-consistent model for polycrystalline material with imperfect interface under coupled thermo-mechanical loads (Q2156252)

In Section 2.2, following \textit{M. Zecevic} et al. [``New self-consistent homogenization for thermo-elastic polycrystals with imperfect interfaces'', Mech. Mater. 155, Article ID 103651, 41 p. (2021; \url{doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2020.103651})] the authors deduce the formula of \textit{deviation of strain (rate) localization tensor}, (19), for elasto-viscoplastic models with a linearized relationship \( \dot{\sigma} (x) = \mathbf{L} (x) (\dot{\varepsilon}(x) - \dot{\varepsilon}^{af}(x) - \dot{\varepsilon}^{th}(x) - \dot{\varepsilon}^{s}(x)),\) where \(\dot{\varepsilon}^{af}\) represents the affine strain rate, \(\dot{\varepsilon}^{th}\) gives the thermal strain rate, while \(\dot{\varepsilon}^{s}\) is a strain rate which is associated with the displacement discontinuity, as an integral, on the infinite domain, in terms of the so-called regularized modified Green operator. Further, for an infinite homogeneous matrix containing an \textit{ellipsoidal inclusion}, \(v_{I},\) the rate of the total strain \(\dot{\varepsilon}\) is expressed as the integral on the volume of the inclusion, \(v_{I}.\) No information are given relative to which boundary value problems are associated with the appropriate Green operators. Taking the volume average of Formula (20), the so-called \textit{new strain (rate) localization} tensor concerning the inclusion, is given by Formulae (26)--(27). The meaning of the global tensor fields, i.e., the so-called Eshelby tensor, \(S,\) and \(\bar{\dot{\varepsilon}}^S,\) which enter the formulae (23) and (24), respectively, is missing. To extend the above solution for polycrystalline materials, firstly the behavior of polycrystalline materials is described within the small strain crystal plasticity framework. In a given slip system, $r$, the elastic stiffness tensor, \(\mathbf{C}^r,\) characterizes the elastic property, the thermal strain rate is proportional to the variation of the temperature, while the plastic shear rate, \(\dot{\gamma}^{\alpha (r)},\) is characterized in terms of Schmid stress, back-stress and the critical resolved shear, \(\dot{g}^{\alpha (r)}\) (both being scalar fields). The critical resolved shear depends on the accumulated plastic shear, \(\Gamma^r.\) Although the definition of \(\Gamma^r\) is not correct, its evolution equation for the critical resolved shear has a correct expression in terms of plastic shear rates \(\dot{\gamma}^{\beta (r)},\) using the influence matrix \(h^{\alpha \beta}.\) The linear interpolation method used in the paper (with the reference to a report by Huang, which cannot be found) is in fact a \textit{forward-gradient procedure} initialy formulated by \textit{D. Peirce} et al. [``Material rate dependence and localized deformation in crystalline solids'', Acta Metall. 31, No. 12, 1951--1976 (1983; \url{doi:10.1016/0001-6160(83)90014-7})] and successfully applied by \textit{C. Teodosiu} et al. [``Finite element simulation for large elastoplastic deformation'', in: Large plastic deformations. Boca Raton: CRC Press (1993)] in order to update the plastic slipping (shear) increment. In Section 3.1. Formula (45) together with (44) characterize the up-date of plastic shear and stress increments, respectively, and the algorithmic tangent operator \(L^{r}_{n+1}\) is computed by (47). In application to a specific alloy under the coupled thermo-mechanical loads, see Section 3.3., into obtain better prediction results, the authors take into account the temperature dependence of certain three parameters involved in the crystal- plasticity model. When we compare the new formula for the slipping rate increment, (57) and (45), the discrepancy is evident. At the same time the algorithmic tangent operator \(L^{r}_{n+1},\) given by (47), has to be replaced by \(L^{r}_{n+1}= \displaystyle{\frac{\partial \sigma_{n+1}^{(r)}}{\partial\varepsilon_{n+1}^{(r)}}},\) which is typically related to numerical solution for the incremental boundary value problem. In the extended Formulae (28), (29) for polycrystalline materials, the authors introduce the affine strain rate in a grain, which is related to the viscoplastic strain rate, via the formula (37), \(\dot{\varepsilon}^{af}(r)= \dot{\varepsilon}^{r} - \dot{\varepsilon}^{th(r)} - \mathbf{M}^{(r)}\mathbf{C}^{(r)} (\dot{\varepsilon}^{r} - \dot{\varepsilon}^{vp(r)} - \dot{\varepsilon}^{th(r)}).\) Herein the compliance fourth-order tensor \(\mathbf{M}^{(r)}\) is the inverse of the tangent operator, \(\mathbf{L}^{(r)},\) which is computed via the formula (47). Let us remark that if simply \(\mathbf{M}^{(r)}\) is the inverse of the stiffness tensor \(\mathbf{C}^{(r)},\) then \(\dot{\varepsilon}^{af(r)} \equiv \dot{\varepsilon}^{vp(r)}.\) Consequently the algorithmic formulae ought be significantly simplified. The authors do not give arguments to justify the necessity to introduce the affine strain rate, when the viscoplastic strain rate are introduced via the crystal-plasticity basis. Finally the linearized equations for the grain and overall material are formally rewritten in Formulae (32)--(36). In Formulae (32) and (34) appear undefined fields, H in Formula (31) is not dependent on grain, while in Formulae (34)--(36) appears \(H^{(r)}\) which is not defined. The fields \({b_{1}}^{(r)}\) depends on \(\dot{E}^{af},\) which is defined as an averaged field dependent on \( {b_{1}}^{(r)}.\) The simulation results of the developed model are presented in Section 3.3 only for one-dimensional cyclic loading.