Strain-Gradient Plasticity

← Back to Research


Motivation

Classical plasticity theory predicts that the yield stress and hardening response of a metal are independent of the specimen size. Experiments at the micron scale — micro-torsion tests on thin wires, micro-indentation, micro-bending — consistently show the opposite: smaller is stronger. This size effect cannot be captured by a local plastic flow rule because the flow rule involves no length scale. Strain-gradient plasticity (SGP) remedies this by incorporating the gradient of the plastic strain, or equivalently the geometrically necessary dislocation density, into the free energy and dissipation potential. The gradient introduces a material length scale $\ell$ that controls the size effect, and the central challenge becomes: how do the energetic and dissipative contributions of the gradient compete, and how are they reflected in macroscopic observables?

This research thread addressed two canonical SGP problems — torsion of a cylindrical bar and simple shear of a slab — in close collaboration with L. Giacomelli and M. Chiricotto (Roma La Sapienza).


Details

Mathematical formulation: a nonlocal degenerate parabolic system (2011)

Before studying specific boundary-value problems, the general mathematical structure of SGP was analyzed at the PDE level:

Energetic scale effects in torsion (2012)

The first benchmark is the torsion of a thin wire. Classical theory predicts a linear torque–twist relation for a given cross-section; experiments show that the slope increases as the wire radius decreases. This is the energetic size effect, attributable to the storage of gradient energy.

Dissipative scale effects in simple shear (2016)

The second benchmark is the shear of a slab constrained between two rigid plates. In this geometry the gradient effects are purely dissipative (arising from the dissipation potential, not the free energy), and their influence on the response is qualitatively different from the energetic case.


Summary and connections

The three papers form a coherent unit: the PDE analysis (2011) established well-posedness; the torsion paper (2012) characterized the energetic size effect; the simple-shear paper (2016) characterized the dissipative size effect. Together they demonstrate that the two mechanisms produce qualitatively different phenomenology — the energetic effect modifies the hardening slope continuously, while the dissipative effect produces a threshold transition between two distinct regimes.

The connection to the diffusion thread is not coincidental: both invoke nonlinear PDE analysis for problems with free boundaries and involve the same collaboration with L. Giacomelli. The mathematical techniques developed for SGP (monotone operator theory, Moreau–Yosida regularization) were later reused for the Cahn–Hilliard analysis described in that thread.