Search

We study the crack-tip fields in a three-dimensional (3D) plate with a V-shaped crack employing Rajagopal's theory of elasticity with the strain-limiting effect. The classical linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) theory bears a well-documented inconsistency, i.e., for a static crack problem under the traction-free boundary condition, the LEFM theory predicts singular crack-tip strains. Such results are inconsistent with the constitutive relation derived using the assumption of uniform bound for the strain values. Instead, Rajagopal's recent theory of elasticity provides implicit constitutive relations between the linearized strain and Cauchy stress in which one can impose an a-priori upper bound for strains. We formulate the strain-limiting theory comprehensively in this article. The linearized strain is expressed as a nonlinear function of the Cauchy stress. The equation for the equilibrium of the linear momentum under a special type of nonlinear constitutive relation reduces to a second-order quasilinear elliptic boundary value problem (BVP). Using a Picard-type linearization and a continuous Galerkin-type finite element technique, we solve several BVPs with tensile and shear displacement loading. The numerical results for the strains, the stresses, the stress intensity factor (SIF), and strain energy density (SED) are obtained for different Poisson values, strain-limiting parametric values, and the V-shaped angles. The growth of the near-tip strains is far less than that of stresses, and the results for both the SIF and SED are also consistent with the results from LEFM. Our work demonstrates that the framework of Rajagopal's theory of elasticity can provide a basis for developing physically meaningful and mathematically well-posed BVPs to study evolution of cracks, damage, nucleation, or failure in elastic bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider three different compressible versions of the conventional incompressible neo-Hookean material model. The different versions are not new and have been used in various model studies. They each give neo-Hookean behavior in an appropriate incompressible limit. The three versions each show some basic differences with respect to each other as regards the qualitative nature of the approach to the neo-Hookean limit. The purpose of this study is to exhibit these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]