Advertisement

Multiscale Failure Modeling: From Atomic Bonds to Hyperelasticity with Softening

  • K. Y. Volokh
Conference paper
Part of the IUTAM Bookseries book series (IUTAMBOOK, volume 13)

Abstract

Separation of two particles is characterized by a magnitude of the bond energy that limits the accumulated energy of the particle interaction. In the case of a solid comprised of many particles there exist a magnitude of the average bond energy that limits the energy that can be accumulated in a small material volume. The average bond energy can be calculated if the statistical distribution of the bond density is known for a particular material. Alternatively, the average bond energy can be determined in macroscopic experiments if the energy limiter is introduced in a material constitutive model. Traditional continuum models of materials do not have energy limiters and, consequently, allow for the unlimited accumulation of the strain energy. The latter is unphysical, of course, because no material can sustain large enough strains without failure. The average bond energy limits the strain energy and controls material softening, which indicates failure. Thus, by limiting the strain energy we include a description of material failure in the constitutive model. Generally, elasticity including energy limiters can be called softening hyperelasticity because it can describe material failure via softening. We illustrate the capability of softening hyperelasticity in examples of brittle fracture and arterial failure.

First, we analyze the overall strength of arteries under the blood pressure. For this purpose we enhance various arterial models with the energy limiters. The models vary from the phenomenological Fung-type theory to the microstructural theories regarding the arterial wall as a bi-layer fiber-reinforced composite. Based on the simulation results we find, firstly, that residual stresses accumulated during artery growth can significantly delay the onset of arterial rupture like the pre-existing compression in the pre-stressed concrete delays the crack opening. Secondly, we find that the media layer is the main load-bearing layer of the artery. And, thirdly, we find that the strength of the collagen fibers dominates the media strength.

Second, we numerically simulate tension of a thin plate with a preexisting central crack within a softening hyperelasticity framework and we find that the critical load essentially depends on the crack sharpness: the sharper is the crack the lower is the critical load. The latter also means that the fracture toughness of brittle materials cannot be calibrated in experiments uniquely. Such a conclusion qualitatively corresponds to the results of the experimental tests on the calibration of the fracture toughness of ceramics, for example. The practical implication of our results is a recommendation to calibrate toughness in experiments where the size of the notch tip is comparable with a characteristic length of the material microstructure, e.g. grain size, atomic distance etc. In other words, toughness can be calibrated only under conditions where the hypothesis of continuum fails.

Keywords

Residual Stress Fracture Toughness Stress Intensity Factor Stress Intensity Factor Cohesive Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barenblatt, G.I., 1959. The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypotheses. Axially-symmetric cracks.J. Appl. Math. Mech. 23, 622–636.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belytschko, T., Moes, N., Usiu, S., and Parimi, C., 2001. Arbitrary discontinuities in finite elements. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng. 50, 993–1013.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camacho, G.T. and Ortiz, M., 1996. Computational modeling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int. J. Solids Struct. 33, 2899–2938.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chuong, C.J. and Fung, Y.C., 1983. Three-dimensional stress distribution in arteries. J. Bio-mech. Engng. 105, 268–274.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Borst, R., 2001. Some recent issues in computational failure mechanics. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng. 52, 63–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dugdale, D.S., 1960. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 8, 100–104.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emmerich, F.G., 2007. Tensile strength and fracture toughness of brittle materials. J. Appl. Phys. 102, 073504.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fung, Y.C., 1993. Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues, 2nd edn., Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fung, Y.C., Fronek, K., and Patitucci, P., 1979. Pseudoelasticity of arteries and the choice of its mathematical expression. Amer. J. Physiol. 237, H620–H631.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao, H. and Klein, P., 1998. Numerical simulation of crack growth in an isotropic solid with randomized internal cohesive bonds. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46, 187–218.zbMATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Griffith, A.A., 1921. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A221, 163–198.ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchinson, J.W., 2002. Life as a Mechanician: 1956—. Timoshenko Medal Acceptance Speech, http://imechanica.org/node/195.
  13. 13.
    Inglis, C.E., 1913. Stresses in a plate due to presence of cracks and sharp corners. Proc. Inst. Naval Architects 55, 219–241.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kachanov, L.M., 1958. Time of the rupture process under creep conditions. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie Teckhnicheskikh Nauk 8, 26–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kachanov, L.M., 1986. Introduction to Continuum Damage Mechanics, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein, P. and Gao, H., 1998. Crack nucleation and growth as strain localization in a virtualbond continuum. Engng. Fract. Mech. 61, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krajcinovic, D., 1996. Damage Mechanics, North Holland Series in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lemaitre, J. and Desmorat, R., 2005. Engineering Damage Mechanics: Ductile, Creep, fatigue and Brittle Failures, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Needleman, A., 1987. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J. Appl. Mech. 54, 525–531.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rabotnov, Y.N., 1963. On the equations of state for creep. In: Progress in Applied Mechanics (Prager Anniversary Volume), MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rice, J.R. and Wang, J.S., 1989. Embrittlement of interfaces by solute segregation. Mat. Sci. Engng. A 107, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skrzypek, J. and Ganczarski, A., 1999. Modeling of Material Damage and failure of Structures, Springer, Berlin.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tadmor, E.B., Ortiz, M., and Phillips, R., 1996. Quasicontinuum analysis of defects in solids. Phil. Mag. 73, 1529–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tvergaard, V. and Hutchinson, J.W., 1992. The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic-plastic solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 40, 1377–1397.zbMATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Volokh, K.Y., 2004. Nonlinear elasticity for modeling fracture of isotropic brittle solids. J. Appl. Mech. 71, 141–143.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Volokh, K.Y., 2007. Hyperelasticity with softening for modeling materials failure. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 55, 2237–2264.CrossRefADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Volokh, K.Y., 2008a. Fung's arterial model enhanced with a failure description. Mol. Cell. Biomech. 5, 207–216.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Volokh, K.Y., 2008b. Prediction of arterial failure based on a microstructural bi-layer fiber-matrix model with softening. J. Biomech. 41, 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Volokh, K.Y. and Trapper, P., 2008. Fracture toughness from the standpoint of softening hyperelasticity. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 56, 2459–2472.CrossRefADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weiner, J.H., 1983. Statistical Mechanics of Elasticity, Wiley, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu, X.P. and Needleman, A., 1994. Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 42, 1397–1434.zbMATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Y. Volokh
    • 1
  1. 1.Technion — Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations