Mech Time-Depend MaterDOI 10.1007/s11043-012-9176-y
Interconversion of linearly viscoelastic material functionsexpressed as Prony series: a closure
Jacques Luk-Cyr Β· Thibaut Crochon Β· Chun Li Β·Martin LΓ©vesque
Received: 3 December 2011 / Accepted: 14 June 2012Β© Springer Science+Business Media, B. V. 2012
Abstract Interconversion of viscoelastic material functions is a longstanding problem thathas received attention since the 1950s. There is currently no accepted methodology for in-terconverting viscoelastic material functions due to the lack of stability and accuracy of theexisting methods. This paper presents a new exact, analytical interconversion method forlinearly viscoelastic material functions expressed as Prony series. The new algorithm relieson the equations of the thermodynamics of irreversible processes used for defining linearlyviscoelastic constitutive theories. As a result, interconversion is made possible for unidimen-sional and tridimensional materials for arbitrary material symmetry. The algorithm has beentested over a broad range of cases and was found to deliver accurate interconversion in allcases. Based on its accuracy and stability, the authors believe that their algorithm providesa closure to the interconversion of linearly viscoelastic constitutive theories expressed withProny series.
Keywords Viscoelasticity Β· Interconversion Β· Creep Β· Relaxation
1 Introduction
Interconversion of linearly viscoelastic material properties consists of determining the creepcompliance S(t) from a given relaxation modulus C(t), or vice-versa. For practical rea-
J. Luk-Cyr Β· T. Crochon Β· M. LΓ©vesque (οΏ½)Laboratory for MultiScale Mechanics (LM2), CREPEC, DΓ©partement de GΓ©nie MΓ©canique,Γcole Polytechnique de MontrΓ©al, C.P. 6079, succ. Centre-ville H3C 3A7, Canadae-mail: [email protected]
J. Luk-Cyre-mail: [email protected]
T. Crochone-mail: [email protected]
C. LiNational Research Council, Aerospace, 1200 MontrΓ©al Road, Building M14, Ottawa K1A 0R6, Canadae-mail: [email protected]
Mech Time-Depend Mater
sons, tridimensional viscoelastic properties are often obtained from creep-recovery tests(LΓ©vesque et al. 2008). However, finite element packages usually require knowing C(t) fornumerical implementation (Crochon et al. 2010). An accurate and computationally efficientinterconversion method is therefore of practical importance. The topic has been examinedby many authors since the 1950s (Hopkins and Hamming 1957).
Most of the approaches found in the literature aim to determine either C(t) or S(t) froma given S(t) or C(t) through the following relationship:
β« t
0C(t β Ο) Β· S(Ο )dΟ = tI, (1)
where tI is the t -multiplied identity. Equation (1) is a Volterra equation of the first kind andis generally ill-posed. As a result, its numerical integration can be convergent, though notnecessarily towards the solution (Sorvari and Malinen 2006). A few methodologies havebeen proposed to circumvent this ill-posedness, and they can be grouped into two mainstrategies. The first (i) strategy involves the direct numerical integration of experimentaldata associated with either C(t) or S(t). This approach eludes assuming a mathematicalrepresentation for the viscoelastic functions. The ill-posedness of the problem is bypassed byusing regularization methods. The second (ii) strategy consists of assuming possible shapesfor C(t) and S(t) and compute their parameters so that Eq. (1) is verified.
In the sequel, the known function is referred to as source, while the unknown function(i.e. that for which the interconversion is sought) is referred to as target. The objective ofapproach (i) is to obtain a system of equations whose solution provides the expression ofthe target function so that Eq. (1) is met. Since the target function is unknown, one of thekey issues with that approach is to devise an efficient numerical integration scheme usingthe experimental data for Eq. (1). Hopkins and Hamming (1957) discretized Eq. (1) intosubintervals. In each subinterval, the target function was considered as constant. This led toa recursive relation from which they computed discrete values of the target function. Knoffand Hopkins (1972) subsequently improved this method by considering the source and targetfunctions as piecewise linear for each subinterval. Tschoegl (1989) developed an approach,similar to that of Hopkins and Hamming (1957), where the value of the target function wasevaluated at the midpoint of the time interval. Then, applying the trapezoidal rule to the con-volution integral, he obtained a similar recursive relation. These recursive relations can eachbe expressed as a simple system of linear algebraic equations. However, they are ill-posed,and small variations in the experimental data, such as noise or discrepancies between theapplied and assumed loading, can lead to significant errors in the numerical interconversion(Sorvari and Malinen 2006). To overcome this difficulty, the problem must be regularized.Examples of such regularizations can be found in Sorvari and Malinen (2006), who used anL-curve-based regularization method on the system of linear algebraic equations. Nikonovet al. (2005) proposed measuring neither C(t) nor S(t) but an intermediate response (e.g.force or deformation) from which they recovered both C(t) and S(t) through Volterraβs in-tegral equations of the second kind, which is a well-posed problem.1 More recently, Yaotinget al. (2011) transformed Volterraβs integral equation of the first kind to that of the secondkind and applied Tikhonovβs L-curve-based regularization for obtaining a well-posed systemof algebraic equations from which they deduced the target function.
1Volterraβs integral equation of the second kind can be obtained, for example, by differentiating Eq. (1) withrespect to t .
Mech Time-Depend Mater
This mathematics-based approach yields a set of numerical data for the target functionfrom a set of experimental data for the source function. Even though some authors con-sider this approach being the most fundamental since no assumptions are made on the formof the source and target functions (Sorvari and Malinen 2006), regularization involves fit-ting experimental data. This is an entirely mathematical approach and may yield a solutionthat is inconsistent with underlying physical principles. In addition, if stress calculation isthe final objective, some kind of model must be fitted for the target and source functions.These models will obviously introduce hypotheses and will fit the data with a certain degreeof accuracy. If a thermodynamically acceptable linearly viscoelastic model is unable to fitthe experimental data associated with the source function a priori, it is very likely that thesame problem will be met with the target function. The authors believe that under these cir-cumstances, more effort should be spent on a nonlinearly viscoelastic model that fits the dataadequately. Then, a numerical algorithm for predicting the target response, like the NewtonβRaphson method usually used when implementing Schaperyβs creep compliances in finiteelement packages (Crochon et al. 2010), could be used. Finally, this mathematical approachhas only been applied for the interconversion of unidimensional linearly viscoelastic prop-erties.
In approach (ii), C(t) and S(t) are given thermodynamically admissible shapes. WhenC(t) and S(t) are represented as Prony series, Eq. (1) becomes a well-posed problem and canbe solved for the unknown target function coefficients. Let C(t) be an uniaxial relaxationmodulus, and S(t) an uniaxial creep relaxation modulus. Baumgaertel and Winter (1989)developed exact analytical expressions relating C(t) and S(t) in the Laplace domain. LetN be the number of time constants in the Prony series used to define the source function.Their approach involves finding the N roots of a polynomial function that leads to the N
time constants of the target function. Let us define as intensities the terms multiplying theexponential functions in the Prony series. Baumgaertel and Winter (1989) derived analyti-cal expressions for the intensities. Similarly, Park and Schapery (1999) devised a series ofapproximate methods where the time constants are chosen a priori, e.g. evenly distributedon a logarithmic scale, and where the intensities are computed by solving a linear systemof equations. Let f β(p) be the LaplaceβCarson transform of f (t).2 Their linear systemof equations can be obtained by collocating Cβ(p) to (Sβ)β1(p) at carefully chosen dis-crete values of the LaplaceβCarson variable p. Alternatively, a least square criterion in theLaplace domain can also be used to define a different set of linear equations. Therefore,depending on the choices made for defining the system of equations, different solutions tothe same problem can be obtained. Finally, they also developed an approach where the timeconstants are computed from the roots of a polynomial similar to that of Baumgaertel andWinter (1989) and the intensities are computed by solving a linear system of equations. Inthat specific case, the solutions of Baumgaertel and Winter (1989) and Park and Schapery(1999) should be identical.
The principal drawback of the Baumgaertel and Winter (1989) and the Park and Schapery(1999) approaches is that numerical instabilities leading to inaccurate results can be encoun-tered when the source function has numerous time constants spread over many decades.For example, Fernandez et al. (2011) have tested the Park and Schapery (1999) algorithmfor the interconversion of unidimensional viscoelastic properties of polymethyl methacry-late (PMMA). They experimentally measured the uniaxial creep compliance and relaxationmoduli, which they both interconverted using the Park and Schapery (1999) algorithm. The
2The LaplaceβCarson transform of f (t) is defined as f β(p) = pβ«β
0 f (t) exp[βpt]dt .
Mech Time-Depend Mater
interconverted functions were compared with the experimental results, and they obtainedrelative errors of 8.5 % for the interconversion of creep to relaxation and 21 % for theinterconversion of relaxation to creep. In addition, these approaches do not impose any re-strictions on the intensities. As a result, negative terms can be obtained. This violates therestrictions imposed by thermodynamics (for example, when considering axial modulus)and prevents using the results in a finite element code. Finally, as experienced in this pa-per, numerical singularities (i.e. division by numerical zeros) can be encountered, and theapproach can fail to provide any results at all.
One way to circumvent such difficulties would be to define the interconversion as a con-strained optimization problem. Consider for example the case where the interconversion isperformed in the LaplaceβCarson domain by virtue of the correspondence principle. Con-sider further the case where the source function is C(t) expressed as a Prony series and thatthe unknown target function is S(t), also expressed as a Prony series. Then, one optimizationproblem could be to determine the unknown set of parameters P , defining S(t), a solutionof the following problem:
minP
β« β
0
[(Cβ)β1
(p) β Sβ(p)]2
dp (2)
The optimization problem thus defined is in fact a least square minimization in the LaplaceβCarson domain. In a different context, Cost and Becker (1970) introduced such ideas forthe numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. The problem with such an approach is thatno restrictions are imposed on P . Let Q be the set of parameters defining S(t) that arealso thermodynamically admissible. LΓ©vesque (2004) and LΓ©vesque et al. (2007) proposedsolving the following problem in the case of homogenization problems
minQβP
β« β
0
[Sβ(p) β Sβ(p)
]2dp, (3)
where Sβ(p) is the function to be inverted and only known in the LaplaceβCarson domain.3
It should be noted that LΓ©vesque (2004) and LΓ©vesque et al. (2007) provided algorithms forboth unidimensional and tridimensional cases. By definition, the solution of such a problemwill always lead to thermodynamically admissible interconversions, and the problems as-sociated with the numerical singularities described above are avoided. It should be furthernoted that constrained optimization can also be used to obtain the set of parameters Q (orthose defining a relaxation modulus) from experimental data (see among others LΓ©vesque2004; LΓ©vesque et al. 2007; Knauss and Zhao 2007). Although these approaches elude theproblems associated with numerical instabilities and singularities, they inherit the difficultiesof optimization problems, like the possibility of reaching a local minimum. As a result, andespecially in the tridimensional case (LΓ©vesque et al. 2007), the accuracy of such methodscan be limited, and it is very unlikely that they will provide the exact inverse expression. Tothe knowledge of the authors, no authors formulated the specific problem of interconvertingviscoelastic properties as a constrained optimization problem.
Most of the interconversion algorithms found in the literature were developed for uni-dimensional creep or relaxation expressions. Such algorithms could be applied to each ofthe individual components of a creep compliance or relaxation modulus tensor, or alterna-tively, to their tensorial projections in the case of isotropy, cubic symmetry or transverse
3If expression (3) was used for the interconversion of viscoelastic properties, then Sβ(p) would be set to
(Cβ)β1(p).
Mech Time-Depend Mater
isotropy. Interconverting each of the individual components of the viscoelastic propertiesis very likely to lead to interconverted materials that do not meet the thermodynamics re-strictions. Except for LΓ©vesque et al. (2007) in the context of homogenization problems andto the knowledge of the authors, no authors ever studied the interconversion of viscoelasticproperties expressed as their tridimensional tensorial expression.
The purpose of this work is to develop and rigorously test a new algorithm that eludesany numerical instabilities and provides exact solutions for the interconversion of C(t) andS(t) when the linearly viscoelastic functions are expressed as Prony series. As was shownby many authors (Biot 1954; Bouleau 1992, 1999; LΓ©vesque et al. 2008), Prony series andtheir extension to spectra are thermodynamically justified and can converge to other ex-pressions such as power laws, power exponential, etc. In addition, Prony series can lead tocomputationally efficient finite element implementations (Crochon et al. 2010). In the con-text that linearly viscoelastic properties are to be used for computations, the authors believethat approach (ii), involving Prony series, shall cover all the applications in linear viscoelas-ticity. Furthermore, and more importantly, the algorithm is developed for fully anisotropicmaterials, rather than for unidimensional functions.
The paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 recalls background information upon whichthe new algorithm is based and also the algorithm of Park and Schapery (1999), used forcomparison purposes; Sect. 3 introduces the new interconversion method developed fromthe thermodynamics of irreversible processes. Section 4 gives theoretical examples of appli-cation of the proposed algorithm. Finally, Sect. 5 presents an error estimation of the inter-conversion algorithm.
In this paper, the summation of repeated indices is adopted, unless specified otherwise.Stresses or strains and stiffnesses are represented as vectors and matrices, according to themodified Voigt notation recalled in LΓ©vesque et al. (2008). A vector is denoted by a bold-faced lower case letter, (i.e. a and Ξ±), and a matrix is denoted by a boldfaced capital Romanletter (i.e. A). The simply contracted product is represented by βΒ·β (e.g. A Β·B = AijBjk = Cik ;A Β· b = Aijbj = ci ), and the dyadic product is represented by βββ (e.g. a β b = aibj = Cij ).
2 Background
2.1 Linearly viscoelastic constitutive theories through the thermodynamics of irreversibleprocesses
Biot (1954) has shown that the thermodynamics of irreversible processes can be used forobtaining the most general thermodynamically admissible mechanical responses of linearlyviscoelastic materials. Recently, LΓ©vesque et al. (2008), among others, have shown that aftersome manipulations and for applied strains, the thermodynamics of irreversible processesleads to the following set of equations:
Ο (t) = L(1) Β· Ξ΅(t) + L(2) Β· Ο(t) (4a)
B Β· Ο(t) + L(3) Β· Ο(t) + (L(2))T Β· Ξ΅(t) = 0 (4b)
where B, L(1), L(2) and L(3) are the so-called internal matrices, and f represents time dif-ferentiation of f . The L(i) are sub-matrices of the matrix
L =[
L(1) L(2)
(L(2))T L(3)
](5)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
that must be positive definite (denoted herein by L > 0) for thermodynamics reasons. Asa consequence, L(1) > 0 and L(3) > 0. Likewise, B must be positive semi-definite (denotedherein as B β₯ 0). Furthermore, matrices B, L(1) and L(3) are symmetric matrices by construc-tion (LΓ©vesque et al. 2008). Ο are called hidden variables and represent internal phenomena(e.g. polymer chain movement).
It should be noted that, L(1) is a 6 Γ 6 square matrix in the tridimensional case. Further-more, L(3) is an R Γ R square matrix where R is the number of hidden variables. Finally,L(2) is a 6 Γ R matrix.
Since B and L(3) are symmetric, L(3) > 0 and B β₯ 0, it is always possible to find a basiswhere both matrices are diagonal. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that Ο isalready expressed in this basis. Then, the set of R coupled equations (4b) becomes a set ofR uncoupled first-order differential equations that can easily be solved, leading to
Οr(t) = βL(2)ir
L(3)rr
β« t
0
(1 β exp
[βL(3)
rr
Brr
(t β Ο)
])dΞ΅i
dΟdΟ (no sum on r) (6)
where 1 β€ i β€ 6 and 1 β€ r β€ R in the tridimensional case. Combining Eqs. (4a), (4b) and(6) leads to
Οi(t) =(
L(1)ij β L
(2)ir L
(2)jr
L(3)rr
)Ξ΅j (t) + L
(2)ir L
(2)jr
L(3)rr
β« t
0exp
[βL(3)
rr
Brr
(t β Ο)
]dΞ΅j
dΟdΟ (7)
which can finally be reduced to the familiar expression:
Ο (t) = C(0) Β· Ξ΅(t) +β« t
0
Nβn=1
C(n) exp[βΟn(t β Ο)
] Β· dΞ΅
dΟdΟ
=β« t
0C(t β Ο) Β· dΞ΅
dΟdΟ (8)
where C(0) is the equilibrium relaxation tensor, C(n) are the transient relaxation tensors as-sociated with the so-called inverted relaxation times Οn, and C(t) is given by
C(t) = C(0) +Nβ
n=1
C(n) exp(βtΟn) (9)
By construction, C(0) > 0, C(n) > 0 and Οn > 0. It should be noted that Eq. (8) has beendeveloped for the most generalized tridimensional case and is not restricted to any degree ofmaterial symmetry.
The same development can be accomplished for applied stresses (Schapery 1969) andleads to
Ξ΅(t) = A(1) Β· Ο (t) β A(2) Β· ΞΎ(t) (10a)
B Β· ΞΎ(t) + A(3) Β· ΞΎ(t) + (A(2)
) T Β· Ο (t) = 0 (10b)
where ΞΎ are hidden variables, B, A(1), A(2) and A(3) are the new internal matrices of the ma-terial (LΓ©vesque et al. 2008). Matrices B, A(1) and A(3) are symmetric and A(1) > 0, A(3) > 0
Mech Time-Depend Mater
and B β₯ 0. After the same mathematical manipulations as for the relaxation behavior, thecreep behavior is expressed as
Ξ΅i(t) = A(1)ij Οj (t) + A
(2)ir A
(2)jr
A(3)rr
β« t
0
(1 β exp
[βA(3)
rr
Brr
(t β Ο)
])dΟj
dΟdΟ (11)
leading to the familiar expression
Ξ΅(t) = S(0) Β· Ο (t) +β« t
0
Mβm=1
S(m)(1 β exp
[βΞ»m(t β Ο)]) Β· dΟ
dΟdΟ
=β« t
0S(t β Ο) Β· dΟ
dΟdΟ (12)
where S(0) is the instantaneous creep compliance tensor, S(m) are the transient compliancetensors associated to the inverted retardation times Ξ»m, and S(t) is given by
S(t) = S(0) +Mβ
m=1
S(m)[1 β exp(βtΞ»m)
](13)
S(0) > 0, S(m) > 0 and Ξ»m > 0 by construction.When testing a material, it is more convenient to determine the relaxation tensors and
times (or compliance tensors and retardation times) than the internal matrices since theymeasure the effect of undetermined quantities on material behavior. Crochon et al. (2010)recently proposed an algorithm to compute a possible set of internal matrices B and L(i) (orA(i)) from C(t) (or S(t)). Using Laplace transforms of Eqs. (4a), (4b) and (8), the followingrelationships between the internal and relaxation matrices4 are obtained:
L(1) = C(0) +Nβ
n=1
C(n) (14a)
L(2) Β· (pB + L(3))β1 Β· (L(2)
) T =Nβ
n=1
Οn
p + Οn
C(n) (14b)
where p is the Laplace coordinate. Matrix L(1) can be directly evaluated from Eq. (14a).Equation (14b), on the contrary, is ill-defined, and an infinity of solutions exist. A possiblesolution consists of choosing B as the identity matrix and L(3) as the block diagonal matrix:5
L(3) =Nβ
n=1
[ΟnI] (15)
where each block [ΟnI] is a 6 Γ 6 diagonal matrix with Οn as the non-zero elements for thetridimensional case. L(2) can be written as a block matrix
L(2) = (T1| . . . |Tn| . . . |TN
)(16)
4A similar relationship between internal and creep matrices can be found in Crochon et al. (2010).5The direct sum (symbol β) of two matrices A and B is defined as A β B = [A 0
0 B
].
Mech Time-Depend Mater
and
Tn = CL(ΟnC(n)
)(17)
where CL computes the lower triangular matrix obtained from the Cholesky decompositionof ΟnC(n).
2.2 Park and Schapery (1999) interconversion method
For the unidimensional case, the relaxation modulus and the creep compliance can be ex-pressed similarly to Eqs. (9) and (13):
C(t) = C0 +Nβ
n=1
Cn exp(βt/Οn) (18a)
and
S(t) = S0 +Mβ
m=1
Sm
[1 β exp(βt/Οm)
](18b)
where C0, Cn, S0 and Sm are scalars, and Οn and Οm are the relaxation and retardation times,respectively. It is worth mentioning that for unidimensional cases, if C(t) has N distinctrelaxation times, S(t) will also have M = N retardation times such as (Tschoegl 1989)
Ο1 < Ο1 < Β· Β· Β· < Οn < Οn < Β· Β· Β· < ΟN < ΟN (19)
Considering the interconversion from C(t) to S(t), Park and Schapery (1999) have derivedfrom Eq. (1) a system of linear, algebraic equations of the form
GkmSm = bk (20)
where
Gkm =
β§βͺβ¨βͺβ©
C0(1 β eβ(tk/Οm)) +βN
n=1ΟnCn
ΟnβΟm(eβ(tk/Οn) β eβ(tk/Οm)) if Οn = Οm
orC0(1 β eβ(tk/Οm)) +βN
n=1tkCn
Οm(eβ(tk/Οn)) if Οn = Οm
(21a)
and
bk = 1 β(
C0 +Nβ
n=1
Cneβ(tk/Οn)
)/(C0 +
Nβn=1
Cn
)(21b)
where tk (k = 1, . . . ,M) denotes discrete times. Finally, S0 is computed using the followingrelationship:
S0 = 1
/(C0 +
Nβn=1
Cn
)(22)
In Eqs. (21a), (21b), C0, Cn and Οn are known, and Οm are calculated using the followingrelationship derived from the LaplaceβCarson transform of Eq. (1):
limpββ(1/Οm)
C0 +Nβ
n=1
pΟnCn
pΟn + 1= 0 (23)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Equation (23) is a nonlinear equation with M solutions and can be solved using a root-finding algorithm. In this paper, we have used the Golden Ratio Search method and a con-vergence criterion Ο , representing the length of the subinterval, as Ο β€ 10β8Οn.
The sampling points tk were set to tk = Οk , as suggested by Park and Schapery (1999).Different sets of tk will therefore lead to different sets of equations. As a result, the numericalsolution will be sensitive to their choice.
2.3 Tensor decomposition
Typical interconversion algorithms, such as that of Park and Schapery (1999), were de-veloped for unidimensional expressions. They can however be extended to tridimensionalexpressions with tensorial projections, when applicable.
Isotropic, cubic and transversely isotropic tensors can be expressed as per the followingdecompositions:
Wiso = Ξ±J + Ξ²K (24a)
Wcub = Ξ±J + Ξ²Ka + Ξ³ Kb (24b)
WisT = Ξ±EL + Ξ²JT + Ξ³ F + Ξ³ β²FT + Ξ΄KT + Ξ΄β²KL (24c)
where J, K, Ka , Kb , EL, JT , F, FT, KT and KL are defined in Appendix 7, and Wiso, Wcub
and WisT are isotropic, cubic and transversely isotropic tensors respectively.
2.4 Randomly generated anisotropic tensors
LΓ©vesque et al. (2007) proposed a method to generate fourth-order symmetric tensors withthe following decomposition:
Y = QT Β· U Β· Q (25)
where U is the diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of Y, and Q is an orthogonalmatrix containing the eigenvectors. In our specific case, Q is defined as
Q =15β
q=1
Q(ΞΈq) (26)
where each Q(ΞΈq) is a plane rotation. For example, the rotation in the 1β2 plane can be givenas
Q(ΞΈ1) =
ββββββββ
cos ΞΈ1 sin ΞΈ1 0 0 0 0β sin ΞΈ1 cos ΞΈ1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
ββββββββ
(27)
Randomly generating fourth-order symmetric positive semi-definite anisotropic tensors isachieved by generating the 15 angles (ΞΈq ) and the 6 positive eigenvalues (denoted Uii ) ran-domly, assembling the rotation matrices according to Eq. (26) and computing the tensorsusing Eq. (25).
Mech Time-Depend Mater
3 Analytical interconversion algorithm
Assuming that C(0), C(n) and Οn are known and S(0), S(m) and Ξ»m are sought, then L(i) andB can be computed using Eqs. (14a), (15) and (16). Recalling Eq. (4a), Ξ΅ can be expressedas
Ξ΅(t) = (L(1))β1 Β· [Ο β L(2) Β· Ο]
= A(1) Β· Ο β A(2) Β· Ο= A(1) Β· Ο β A(2) Β· ΞΎ (28)
where Ο has been replaced by ΞΎ since the internal variables are now expressed as functionsof Ο . Injecting Eq. (28) into Eq. (4b) leads to
0 = B Β· Ο + L(3) Β· Ο + (L(2)
) T Β· (L(1))β1 Β· [Ο β L(2) Β· Ο]
= B Β· Ο + [L(3) β (L(2)
) T Β· (L(1))β1 Β· L(2)
] Β· Ο + (L(2)
) T Β· (L(1))β1 Β· Ο
= B Β· Ο + A(3) Β· Ο + (A(2)
) T Β· Ο= B Β· ΞΎ + A(3) Β· ΞΎ + (
A(2)) T Β· Ο (29)
where the fact that L(1) is symmetric has been used.As in Sect. 2, ΞΎ(t) can be obtained from Eq. (29) and injected into Eq. (28) to obtain
Ξ΅(t). In this specific case, A(3) cannot be chosen to be arbitrarily diagonal since it is specif-ically expressed as a function of the L(i). Considering that L > 0, it can easily be shownthat A(3) > 0. It can therefore be diagonalized using a particular case of the Singular ValueDecomposition theorem:6
A(3) = P Β· D Β· PT (30)
where D contains the eigenvalues of A(3) along its diagonal, and P has the orthonormaleigenvectors along its columns (Trefethen and Bau 1997). Now, let ΞΎ = P Β· ΞΎ β and multiplyboth sides of Eq. (29) by PT. Then:
0 = PT Β· B Β· P Β· ΞΎ β + PT Β· A(3) Β· P Β· ΞΎ β + PT Β· (A(2))T Β· Ο
= B Β· ΞΎ β + A(3β) Β· ΞΎ β + (A(2β))T Β· Ο (31)
B remains the identity matrix, and A(3β) is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues ofA(3). Finally, Eq. (28) becomes
Ξ΅(t) = A(1) Β· Ο β A(2β) Β· ΞΎ β (32)
Equations (31) are similar to Eqs. (10a), (10b) and can be solved using the same approachin order to obtain expressions for S(0), S(m) and Ξ»m.
6If Ξ£ is a u Γ u matrix, then it can be written using a so-called singular value decomposition of the formΞ£ [uΓu] = Ξ [uΓu] Β· [uΓu] Β· ΞT[uΓu] where Ξ and Ξ have the orthonormal eigenvectors along their columns
so that Ξ T Β· Ξ = I and ΞT Β· Ξ = I and has entries only along its diagonal.
Mech Time-Depend Mater
S(0), S(m) and Ξ»m are now related to the initially known C(0), C(n) and Οn. It shouldbe noted that the procedure is independent of the degree of symmetry and is applicable tounidimensional, bidimensional and tridimensional cases alike. For the unidimensional case,Eqs. (14a), (15) and (16) become
L1 = C0 +Nβ
n=1
Cn (33a)
l(2) = [βΟ1C1,β
Ο2C2, . . . ,β
ΟNCN ] (33b)
L(3) =Nβ
n=1
[ΟnI] (33c)
where L1 is a scalar, and l(2) is a 1 Γ n vector. The internal matrices associated with S(t)
are computed as follows:
A1 = (L1)β1 (34a)
(a(2)) T = (
l(2)) T
(L1)β1 (34b)
A(3) = L(3) β (L1)β1(l(2) β l(2)
)(34c)
Furthermore, the same methodology can be applied for expressing the relaxation tensorsas functions of the creep compliance tensors. From the S(0), S(m) and Ξ»m, the results ofCrochon et al. (2010) deliver the A(i) matrices. Then, the L(i) matrices are expressed asfunctions of the A(i) matrices and the Ο solved by diagonalization. Algorithms 1 and 2 listthe different steps for the interconversion from C(t) to S(t) and from S(t) to C(t), whileAlgorithms 3 and 4 list the steps for the interconversion from C(t) to S(t) and from S(t) toC(t), respectively.
4 Examples of interconversion
This section provides complete theoretical examples of applications of Algorithms 1 and 3.Details are given to allow other researchers to validate their own implementations and toexemplify the procedures.
4.1 Unidimensional case
Assume a shear relaxation modulus ΞΌ(t) with two relaxation times expressed as
ΞΌ(t) = 10 + 3 exp (β2t) + 4 exp (βt/35) (35)
The first step is to compute the internal matrices according to Algorithm 1 (Lines 1β5),which leads to
L1 = 17; l(2) = [β6 2/β
35] ; L(3) =
[2 00 1/35
]; B =
[1 00 1
](36)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Algorithm 1 Interconversion from C(t) to S(t)
1: Compute the internal matrices associated with the relaxation modulus2: L1[1Γ1] = C0 +βN
n=1 Cn
3: l(2)
[1ΓN] = [ βΟ1C1
βΟ2C2 ...
βΟN CN ]
4: L(3)[NΓN] =
β‘β£
Ο1 Β· Β· Β· 0
......
...0 Β· Β· Β· ΟN
β€β¦
5: B[NΓN] is the identity matrix6: Compute the internal matrices associated with the creep compliance7: A1 = (L1)
β1
8: (a(2))T = (l(2))
T(L1)
β1
9: A(3) = L(3) β (L1)β1(l(2) β l(2))
10: Diagonalization11: Compute the eigenvectors P and eigenvalues D of A(3) with singular value decomposi-
tion12: A(3β) = PT Β· A(3) Β· P13: (a(2β))T = PT Β· (a(2))T
14: Obtain the S0, Sm and Ξ»m
15: S0 = A1
16: for m = 1 to M = N do17: Sm = (a(2β)
m )2/A(3β)mm (no sum on m)
18: Ξ»m = A(3β)mm /Bmm
19: end for
A preliminary set of internal matrices is computed (Lines 6β10):
A1 = 1/17; a(2) = [β6/17 2/(17β
35)] ; A(3) =
β‘β£ 28/17 β 2
17
β6
35
β 217
β6
35 13/595
β€β¦(37)
The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of A(3) are then computed (Lines 10β13):
Ξ»m = {0.0204,1.649}; P =[β0.02993 β0.9996
β0.9996 0.02993
](38)
Computation of the final set of internal matrices leads to
a(2β) = [β0.0242 β0.1434] ; A(3β) =
[0.0204 0
0 1.649
](39)
Finally, the shear compliance ΞΌβ1(t) is given by (Lines 14β19):
102ΞΌβ1(t) = 5.88 + 2.87(1 β exp[β0.0204t])+ 1.248
(1 β exp[β1.649t]) (40)
For verification purposes, ΞΌ(t) was also interconverted to ΞΌβ1(t) with the correspon-dence principle. Expressing Eq. (35) in the LaplaceβCarson domain leads to
ΞΌβ(p) = 10 + 3
p + 2+ 4
p + 1/35(41)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Algorithm 2 Interconversion from S(t) to C(t)
1: Compute the internal matrices associated with the creep compliance2: A1[1Γ1] = S0
3: a(2)
[1ΓM] = [ βΞ»1S1
βΞ»2S2 ...
βΞ»MSM ]
4: A(3)[MΓM] =
β‘β£
Ξ»1 Β· Β· Β· 0
......
...0 Β· Β· Β· Ξ»M
β€β¦
5: B[MΓM] is the identity matrix6: Compute the internal matrices associated with the relaxation modulus7: L1 = (A1)
β1
8: (l(2))T = (a(2))
T(A1)
β1
9: L(3) = A(3) + (A1)β1(a(2) β a(2))
10: Diagonalization11: Compute the eigenvectors P and eigenvalues D of L(3) with singular value decomposi-
tion12: L(3β) = PT Β· L(3) Β· P13: (l(2β))T = PT Β· (l(2))T
14: Obtain the C0, Cn and Οn
15: C0 = L1 ββN
n=1 Cn
16: for n = 1 to N = M do17: Cn = (l(2β)
n )2/L(3β)nn (no sum on n)
18: Οn = L(3β)nn /Bnn
19: end for
and
(ΞΌβ)β1
(p) = (35p + 1)(p + 2)
595p2 + 993p + 20= (35p + 1)(p + 2)
595(p + Ο1)(p + Ο2)(42)
where Ο1 = 0.0204 and Ο2 = 1.649 are the retardation times associated to the shear compli-ance ΞΌβ1(t). Then, decomposing Eq. (42) into partial fractions yields:
(ΞΌβ)β1
(p) = 35
595+ (1 β 35Ο1)(2 β Ο2)
595(Ο2 β Ο1)(p + Ο1)+ (1 β 35Ο2)(2 β Ο2)
595(Ο1 β Ο2)(p + Ο2)
= 5.88 Γ 10β2 + 2.87 Γ 10β2
(p + Ο1)+ 1.248 Γ 10β2
(p + Ο2)(43)
Finally, transforming back Eq. (43) to the time domain leads to the same expression of theshear compliance found in Eq. (40).
4.2 Isotropic, cubic symmetry and transverse isotropy
For materials having isotropic, cubic or transversely isotropic symmetries, the proposedmethod consists of first determining the parameters Ξ±(t), Ξ²(t), Ξ³ (t), Ξ³ β²(t), Ξ΄(t) and Ξ΄β²(t).Then, interconversion is performed with either Algorithm 1 or 2 on each of these unidi-mensional functions. Finally, the target material functions are computed with Eqs. (24a),(24b) and the interconverted functions. For these material symmetries, the tridimensionalinterconversion reduces to 2, 3 or 5 unidimensional interconversions.
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Algorithm 3 Interconversion from C(t) to S(t)
1: Compute the internal matrices associated with the relaxation modulus2: L(1)
[6Γ6] = C(0) +βN
n=1 C(n)
3: L(2)
[6Γ6N] = [ CL(Ο1C(1))| CL(Ο2C(2))| ...| CL(ΟN C(N)) ]
4: L(3)
[6NΓ6N] =β‘β£
[Ο1]6 Β· Β· Β· 0
......
...0 Β· Β· Β· [ΟN ]6
β€β¦
5: B[6NΓ6N] is the identity matrix6: Compute the internal matrices associated with the creep compliance7: A(1) = (L(1))
β1
8: (A(2))T = (L(2))
T Β· (L(1))β1
9: A(3) = L(3) β (L(2))T Β· (L(1))
β1 Β· L(2)
10: Diagonalization11: Compute the eigenvectors P and eigenvalues D of A(3) with singular value decomposi-
tion12: A(3β) = PT Β· A(3) Β· P13: (A(2β))T = PT Β· (A(2))T
14: Obtain the S(0), S(m) and Ξ»m
15: S(0) = A(1)
16: for m = 1 to M = 6N do
17: S(m)ij = A
(2β)im
A(2β)jm
A(3β)mm
(no sum on m)
18: Ξ»m = A(3β)mm
Bmm
19: end for
4.3 Anisotropic materials
Consider the following randomly generated anisotropic material:
C(0) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
136.8 1.546 0.996 1.209 0.408 0.0261.546 100.9 β3.455 β4.792 5.692 1.3670.996 β3.455 51.18 48.78 β20.04 β15.271.209 β4.792 48.78 75.10 β37.96 4.7520.408 5.692 β20.04 β37.96 235.3 12.080.026 1.367 β15.27 4.752 12.08 189.1
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (44a)
C(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
44.76 0.560 1.741 0.173 2.033 2.4670.560 116.9 β27.11 35.68 11.87 β10.811.741 β27.11 55.8 β3.398 5.29 β9.6810.173 35.68 β3.398 51.97 β30.22 18.292.033 11.87 5.285 β30.22 95.46 β50.672.467 β10.81 β9.681 18.29 β50.67 88.94
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (44b)
C(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
25.73 β12.29 β9.826 β6.928 β1.113 β2.627β12.29 119.2 β53.04 β57.93 β4.033 18.40β9.826 β53.04 147.4 β31.91 β56.97 β16.33β6.928 β57.93 β31.91 198.1 61.87 β32.13β1.113 β4.033 β56.97 61.87 155.0 23.37β2.627 18.40 β16.33 β32.13 23.37 97.59
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (44c)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Algorithm 4 Interconversion from S(t) to C(t)
1: Compute the internal matrices associated with the creep compliance2: A(1)
[6Γ6] = S(0)
3: A(2)
[6Γ6M] = [ CL(Ξ»1S(1))| CL(Ξ»2S(2))| ...| CL(Ξ»M S(M)) ]
4: A(3)
[6MΓ6M] =β‘β£
[Ξ»1]6 Β· Β· Β· 0
......
...0 Β· Β· Β· [Ξ»M ]6
β€β¦
5: B[6MΓ6M] is the identity matrix6: Compute the internal matrices associated with the relaxation modulus7: L(1) = (A(1))
β1
8: (L(2))T = (A(2))
T Β· (A(1))β1
9: L(3) = A(3) + (A(2))T Β· (A(1))
β1 Β· A(2)
10: Diagonalization11: Compute the eigenvectors P and eigenvalues D of L(3) with singular value decomposi-
tion12: L(3β) = PT Β· L(3) Β· P13: (L(2β))T = PT Β· (L(2))T
14: Obtain the C(0), C(n) and Οn
15: C(0) = L(1) ββN
n=1 C(n)
16: for n = 1 to N = 6M do
17: C(n)ij = L
(2β)in
L(2β)jn
L(3β)nn
(no sum on n)
18: Οn = L(3β)nn
Bnn
19: end for
with the inverted relaxation times
Οn = {14.514,368.88} (44d)
Following the methodology proposed in Algorithm 3 (Lines 1β5), the internal matrices arecomputed as
L(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
207.3 β10.18 β7.089 β5.545 1.328 β0.134β10.18 337.1 β83.61 β27.05 13.52 8.960β7.089 β83.61 254.4 13.46 β71.72 β41.28β5.545 β27.05 13.46 325.1 β6.298 β9.0861.328 13.52 β71.72 β6.298 485.8 β15.21
β0.134 8.960 β41.28 β9.086 β15.21 375.6
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (45a)
L(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β£
8.06 0 0 0 0 0 30.8 0 0 0 0 00.10 13.0 0 0 0 0 β14.7 64.6 0 0 0 00.31 β3.02 8.47 0 0 0 β11.7 β32.9 64.9 0 0 00.03 3.97 0.835 7.67 0 0 β8.29 β34.9 β37.3 68.0 0 00.36 1.31 1.36 β6.54 9.59 0 β1.33 β2.60 β33.9 13.4 66.1 00.44 β1.20 β2.10 4.31 β4.27 9.28 β3.14 9.78 β4.88 β15.4 13.9 55.0
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
(45b)
L(3) =[ [14.514]6
[368.88]6
](45c)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
The internal matrices A(i) are computed (Lines 6β9) as
A(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
484.235 20.320 20.406 9.190 1.311 2.20620.320 325.796 109.318 23.209 7.475 5.11520.406 109.318 456.465 β6.788 65.775 50.0699.190 23.209 β6.788 310.099 2.544 6.3081.311 7.475 65.775 2.544 215.867 15.8562.206 5.115 50.069 6.308 15.856 272.411
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4 (46a)
A(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β£
39.1 2.39 1.78 0.715 0.03 0.20 143 3.40 9.27 6.09 1.18 1.222.37 40.1 9.45 1.51 0.49 0.47 β56.7 166 59.6 16.0 5.66 2.823.65 0.43 38.5 β2.67 4.17 4.65 β65.4 β74.0 274 β3.52 50.5 27.60.87 15.5 1.92 23.9 β0.02 0.58 β25.7 β90.5 β121 210 2.57 3.481.18 1.74 8.20 β13.23 20.0 1.47 β12.0 β21.8 β32.2 28.3 145 8.741.61 β3.68 β1.23 11.2 β10.1 25.3 β15.3 10.9 11.5 β35.7 48.6 150
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦10β2
(46b)
A(3) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
11.3 β0.22 β0.29 β0.05 β0.04 β0.14 β11.1 β0.15 β1.56 β0.51 β1.01 β0.88β0.22 8.62 β0.26 β0.91 β0.32 0.34 6.41 β20 5.92 β11.4 β0.63 2.03β0.29 β0.26 11.1 0.44 β0.83 0.11 5.6 7.55 β21.5 β2.6 β5.26 0.67β0.05 β0.91 0.44 11.3 1.75 β1.04 1.85 5.06 6.71 β12.8 7.2 β6.17β0.04 β0.32 β0.83 1.75 12.2 0.94 0.5 2.55 3.58 β4.24 β11.8 5.58β0.14 0.34 0.11 β1.04 0.94 12.2 1.42 β1.01 β1.07 3.32 β4.51 β13.9β11.1 6.41 5.6 1.85 0.5 1.42 306 7.36 28 16.8 10.1 8.41β0.15 β20 7.55 5.06 2.55 β1.01 7.36 203 7.44 66.2 12.9 β5.98β1.56 5.92 β21.5 6.71 3.58 β1.07 28 7.44 135 88.6 19.7 β6.32β0.51 β11.4 β2.6 β12.8 β4.24 3.32 16.8 66.2 88.6 216 β13.7 19.6β1.01 β0.63 β5.26 7.2 β11.8 β4.51 10.1 12.9 19.7 β13.7 266 β26.8β0.88 2.03 0.67 β6.17 5.58 β13.9 8.41 β5.98 β6.32 19.7 β26.8 286
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
(46c)
The eigenvalues of A(3) as well as matrix P are computed in Matlab as per singular valuedecomposition algorithm (Lines 10β13) as
Ξ»m ={2.1494,7.3787,8.9574,10.815,10.919,12.282,
72.326,177.34,245.93,281.99,310.22,339.59} (47a)
P =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
β2.65 0.61 β2.58 β0.37 β0.20 0.35 β8.38 β95.8 26.1 6.13 1.59 2.57β1.65 0.24 6.56 β0.11 β8.73 β7.55 β2.15 7.62 23.8 24.8 68.6 β62.0β0.80 1.19 2.49 1.96 11.1 18.8 β5.10 β3.40 β34.2 48.8 50.2 58.2β0.71 β3.82 1.26 β1.14 2.50 β19.4 β2.99 β15.4 β62.2 49 β35.1 β42.70.11 3.47 0.56 2.47 1.37 β12.9 62.4 β20.8 β45.9 β48.4 31.4 β5.57
β0.29 β2.56 β0.83 5.23 β1.00 5.54 77 6.07 36.7 46 β21.1 6.6268.4 β16.4 67.2 19 10.1 5.05 β0.62 β3.71 1.26 β2.44 β2.79 β0.8631.1 β7.05 β43 β0.29 79.2 β26.7 β1.02 2.76 9.69 0.49 5.28 β3.1633.5 β7.62 β22.1 β0.22 β50 β71.1 β3.50 2.40 4.97 7.79 6.31 24.852.7 10 β53.3 7.50 β29.4 54.9 1.61 β3.07 β10.1 β0.53 β0.55 β14.76.95 β60.2 0.08 β78.2 β4.05 12.3 4.96 β1.16 β1.50 β1.83 2.32 β0.2519.4 76.5 15.2 β58.5 5.03 β6.41 2.86 0.36 2.25 4.22 β2.47 1.32
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β2
(47b)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
A(2β) and A(3β) are computed as
A(2β) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
104 β23.3 88.8 25.9 10.7 3.3 β4.3 β42.7 11.8 1.5 β0.4 0.3
41.6 β6.5 β128 β16.1 89.4 β82.1 β3.7 7.8 22.7 22.2 46.0 β12.3
30.7 β14.0 β65.9 β67.6 β198 β168 β1.2 1.6 β4.8 40.8 36.7 95.2
24.9 41.1 β61.7 7.1 β75.9 219 8.2 β14.3 β47.8 6.6 β9.8 β76.6
0.9 β70.6 β5.0 β117 β15.4 62.5 22.8 β6.8 β11.2 β15.8 16.1 β3.3
10.3 81.5 24.0 β130 17.5 β34.5 18.5 2.4 14.6 27.6 β16.2 8.8
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β2
(48a)
A(3β) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 72.3 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 12.3 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.9 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.8 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.96 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.38 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.15
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
(48b)
Finally, the compliance matrices S(0) and S(m) are given as follows:
S(0) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
484 20.3 20.4 9.1 1.31 2.220.3 325 109 23.2 7.4 5.120.4 109 456 β6.7 65.7 509.1 23.2 β6.7 310 2.5 6.81.3 7.4 65.7 2.5 215 15.82.2 5.1 50 6.3 15.8 272
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
S(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
321 128.0 94.3 76.6 2.75 31.8128 51.0 37.6 30.5 1.10 12.794.3 37.6 27.7 22.5 0.81 9.3376.6 30.5 22.5 18.3 0.66 7.582.75 1.10 0.81 0.66 0.02 0.2731.8 12.7 9.33 7.58 0.27 3.14
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β5;
S(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
1.75 0.49 1.05 β3.09 5.31 β6.130.49 0.14 0.29 β0.86 1.47 β1.701.05 0.29 0.63 β1.85 3.18 β3.67
β3.09 β0.86 β1.85 5.45 β9.36 10.85.31 1.47 3.18 β9.36 16.1 β18.6
β6.13 β1.70 β3.67 10.80 β18.6 21.4
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
Mech Time-Depend Mater
S(3) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
27.9 β40.5 β20.7 β19.4 β1.56 7.56β40.5 58.6 30.0 28.1 2.26 β11.0β20.7 30.0 15.4 14.4 1.16 β5.61β19.4 28.1 14.4 13.5 1.09 β5.25β1.56 2.26 1.16 1.09 0.09 β0.427.56 β11.0 β5.61 β5.25 β0.42 2.05
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
S(4) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
2.72 β1.70 β7.12 0.75 β12.4 β13.7β1.70 1.06 4.44 β0.47 7.73 8.57β7.12 4.44 18.6 β1.96 32.4 35.90.75 β0.47 β1.96 0.21 β3.42 β3.79
β12.4 7.73 32.4 β3.42 56.4 62.5β13.7 8.57 35.9 β3.79 62.5 69.3
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
S(5) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.64 5.37 β11.9 β4.56 β0.93 1.055.37 45.1 β99.9 β38.3 β7.77 8.81
β11.9 β99.9 221 84.8 17.2 β19.5β4.56 β38.3 84.8 32.5 6.60 β7.48β0.93 β7.77 17.2 6.60 1.34 β1.521.05 8.81 β19.5 β7.48 β1.52 1.72
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
S(6) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.15 β3.74 β7.68 9.99 2.85 β1.57β3.74 93.2 191 β249 β70.9 39.2β7.68 191 393 β512 β145.7 80.59.99 β249 β512 666 190 β1052.85 β70.9 β146 190 54.0 β29.8
β1.57 39.2 80.5 β105 β29.8 16.5
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
S(7) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
1.52 1.31 0.43 β2.87 β8.02 β6.521.31 1.13 0.37 β2.48 β6.93 β5.630.43 0.37 0.12 β0.80 β2.25 β1.83
β2.87 β2.48 β0.80 5.43 15.2 12.3β8.02 β6.93 β2.25 15.2 42.4 34.4β6.52 β5.63 β1.83 12.3 34.4 28.0
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
S(8) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
167 β30.3 β6.40 55.9 26.4 β9.19β30.3 5.50 1.16 β10.2 β4.79 1.67β6.40 1.16 0.25 β2.15 β1.01 0.3555.9 β10.2 β2.15 18.8 8.85 β3.0826.4 β4.79 β1.01 8.85 4.17 β1.45
β9.19 1.67 0.35 β3.08 β1.45 0.51
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
S(9) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
12.9 24.8 β5.26 β52.1 β12.2 16.024.8 47.7 β10.1 β100 β23.6 30.7
β5.26 β10.1 2.15 21.3 5.00 β6.52β52.1 β100 21.3 211 49.6 β64.6β12.2 β23.6 5.0 49.6 11.6 β15.216.0 30.7 β6.52 β64.6 β15.2 19.8
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
Mech Time-Depend Mater
S(10) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.26 3.79 6.97 1.12 β2.69 4.713.79 55.08 101 16.3 β39.1 68.46.97 101 186 29.9 β71.8 1261.12 16.3 29.9 4.82 β11.6 20.2
β2.69 β39.1 β71.8 β11.6 27.7 β48.54.71 68.4 126 20.2 β48.5 84.94
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
S(11) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.02 β2.46 β1.96 0.52 β0.86 0.87β2.46 287 229 β61.0 101 β101β1.96 229 182 β48.6 80.1 β80.70.52 β61.0 β48.6 13 β21.4 21.5
β0.86 101 80.1 β21.4 35.2 β35.50.87 β101 β80.7 21.5 β35.5 35.7
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
S(12) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.05 β1.97 15.2 β12.3 β0.52 1.41β1.97 70.4 β545 439 18.6 β50.515.2 β545 4219 β3395 β144 391
β12.3 439 β3395 2732 116 β314β0.52 18.6 β144 116 4.92 β13.31.41 β50.5 391 β314 β13.3 36.2
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
Note that the matricesβ elements have not been written with their full precision due to spacerestrictions and terms smaller than 10β13, in absolute value, were set to 0. A numericalexample for the interconversion from S(t) to C(t) is given in Appendix A.
Recall that for unidimensional cases, M = N . However, for generally anisotropic mate-rials, if C(t) has N distinct relaxation times, S(t) will have at most M = 6N distinct retar-dation times. The number of distinct retardation times will vary as a function of materialsymmetry.
5 Numerical case studies
5.1 Error definition
The right-hand side of Eq. (1), evaluated with the source and target functions, was used todefine a measure of the proposed algorithm accuracy. Injecting Eqs. (9) and (13) into Eq. (1)leads to
tI =β« t
0
(C(0) +
Nβn=1
C(n) exp[β(t β Ο)Οn
]) Β·(
S(0) +Mβ
m=1
S(m)(1 β exp[βΟΞ»m])
)dΟ (49)
Integrating Eq. (49) and differentiating with respect to t yields
I = C(0) Β· S(β) β C(0) Β·(
Mβm=1
S(m) exp[βtΞ»m])
+(
Nβn=1
C(n) exp[βtΟn])
Β· S(β)
+Nβ
n=1
Mβm=1
C(n) Β· S(m)
Οn β Ξ»m
[Ξ»m exp[βtΞ»m] β Οn exp[βtΟn]
](50)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Table 1 Parameters for theunidimensional relaxationmodulus
a b c
1 Οn [10β2,103] [10β2,105] [10β2,108]2 Cn [1,101.5] [1,102.5] [1,104]3 N 5 10 20
where S(β) =βM
m=0 S(m). Regrouping the exponential terms, Eq. (50) becomes
I = C(0) Β· S(β) +Mβ
m=1
[βC(0) Β· S(m) +
Nβn=1
C(n) Β· S(m)
Οn β Ξ»m
Ξ»m
]exp[βtΞ»m]
+Nβ
n=1
[C(n) Β· S(β) β
Mβm=1
C(n) Β· S(m)
Οn β Ξ»m
Οn
]exp(βtΟn)
= C(0) Β· S(β) +Mβ
m=1
X(m) exp[βtΞ»m] +Nβ
n=1
H(n) exp(βtΟn) (51)
It can readily be seen that X(m)ij = H
(n)ij
βΌ= 0 and that C(0)ik S
(β)kj β Iij
βΌ= 0. Therefore,
Ξ΅ = maxi,j
[log10
{β£β£C(0) Β· S(β) β Iβ£β£+
Mβm=1
β£β£X(m)β£β£+
Nβn=1
β£β£H(n)β£β£}]
(52)
bounds the maximum error, in line with Eq. (50), introduced by our interconversion algo-rithm.
5.2 Unidimensional case
Numerous interconversions of C(t) to S(t) were simulated using random values for theProny coefficients Cn and for the inverted relaxation time constants Οn. The Οn were gen-erated according to Οn = 10Ο , where Ο was a random number in the interval [β2, Ο ]. TheCn were generated according to Cn = 10Ξ½ , where Ξ½ was a random number in the interval[0, Ξ·]. Ο and Ξ½ were generated using the uniform distribution random number generatorof Matlab. Moreover, the number of inverted relaxation times N took three different val-ues. The parameters and their values are tabulated in Table 1. In the sequel, the variousparameter combinations are referred to as βTag x1-x2-x3β were x1, x2 and x3 are linked tothe columns of Table 1. For example, Tag a-b-c is for Οn β [10β2,103], Cn β [1,102.5] andN = 20.
Equation (52) has been evaluated for 106 randomly generated relaxation moduli accord-ing to the parameters of Table 1, for both our method and that of Park and Schapery (1999).Figure 1 shows histograms for Ξ΅ when Οn β [10β2,103], Cn β [1,101.5] and N = 5 (Tag aβaβa). Figure 1 also shows the 99th percentile of Ξ΅. The 99th percentile of Ξ΅, denoted hereinas Ξ΅99th, was considered as a relevant measure of our algorithm accuracy since it allows usto state that 99 % of the time, the accuracy of the algorithm is at least of 10Ξ΅99th
. The highestvalue of Ξ΅ could have also been used, but as it is the case for Monte Carlo simulations, it isdependent on the sample size. The 99th percentile was assumed as a more stable criterionfor evaluating the algorithm performance. When considering Ξ΅99th, it can be seen that the
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Fig. 1 Distribution of Ξ΅ for 106 interconversions from C(t) to S(t) for materials generated according to Tagaβaβa with our New Method and that of Park and Schapery (1999)
Table 2 Ξ΅99th computed frominterconversions from C(t) toS(t) using our New Method andthat of Park and Schapery (1999)
Tag New Schapery Tag New Schapery Tag New
a-a-a β12.6 β5.74 a-a-b β11.9 β2.76 a-a-c β11.5
b-a-a β11.5 β6.05 b-a-b β10.3 β3.87 b-a-c β9.80
c-a-a β9.59 β6.29 c-a-b β7.89 β4.84 c-a-c β7.09
a-b-a β12.5 β5.62 a-b-b β12.0 β2.76 a-b-c β11.6
b-b-a β11.4 β5.79 b-b-b β10.4 β3.87 b-b-c β9.79
c-b-a β9.59 β5.89 c-b-b β7.89 β4.81 c-b-c β7.09
a-c-a β11.7 β5.07 a-c-b β11.5 β2.81 a-c-c β11.2
b-c-a β11.3 β5.18 b-c-b β10.4 β3.89 b-c-c β9.89
c-c-a β9.49 β5.25 c-c-b β7.99 β4.66 c-c-c β7.29
new approach (for Tag a-a-a) is approximately 107 times more accurate than the method ofPark and Schapery (1999) and leads to Ξ΅ close to machine precision.
Table 2 lists the Ξ΅99th for all 27 combinations of {Οn,Cn,N} for both our method andthat of Park and Schapery (1999). It can be seen that, in the worst case, the new method isapproximately 103 times more accurate than that of Park and Schapery (1999) and that theworst value of Ξ΅99th is 10β7.09, which is quite accurate. It can also be seen that no resultsare given for the Park and Schapery (1999) method when N = 20. This comes from the factthat Eq. (20) can become ill-conditioned as N increases. No such problem was encounteredwith our new method, which demonstrates its stability.
The influence of each parameter on Ξ΅ was investigated through an analysis of variance.For each parameter value, the Ξ΅99th of Table 2 were grouped, and 95 % confidence inter-
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Fig. 2 Effect of the parameters on the mean value of Ξ΅99th for the interconversion from (a) C(t) to S(t) and(b) S(t) to C(t). The interval represents a 95 % confidence interval for the mean of Ξ΅99th
Table 3 Ξ΅99th computed frominterconversions from S(t) toC(t) using the New Method
Tag New Tag New Tag New
a-a-a β12.0 a-a-b β11.7 a-a-c β11.3
b-a-a β11.1 b-a-b β10.2 b-a-c β9.72
c-a-a β9.0 c-a-b β7.60 c-a-c β6.97
a-b-a β11.5 a-b-b β11.2 a-b-c β10.7
b-b-a β10.8 b-b-b β10.2 b-b-c β9.71
c-b-a β9.03 c-b-b β7.69 c-b-c β7.06
a-c-a β10.5 a-c-b β10.1 a-c-c β9.55
b-c-a β10.0 b-c-b β9.41 b-c-c β8.79
c-c-a β8.67 c-c-b β7.73 c-c-c β7.14
vals were calculated. For example, the first column of Table 2 lists the values of Ξ΅99th whenN = 5. From these 9 values, a 95 % confidence interval was calculated. Figure 2(a) illus-trates the confidence intervals and the mean for Ξ΅99th for each parameter value. It can beobserved that all the confidence intervals for the ranges of Cn and those of N overlap. Thealgorithm seems to be insensitive to these parameters. However, the range of Οn seems tohave a significant effect on Ξ΅99th. The algorithm seems therefore to be sensitive to this pa-rameter.
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Table 4 Parameters for theanisotropic relaxation modulus a b c
1 Οn [10β2,103] [10β2,105] [10β2,108]2 Uii [1,101.5] [1,102.5] [1,104]3 N 5 10 20
Table 5 Ξ΅99th computed frominterconversions from C(t) toS(t) using the New Method
Tag New Tag New Tag New
a-a-a β10.8 a-a-b β10.28 a-a-c β9.65
b-a-a β8.93 b-a-b β8.40 b-a-c β8.16
c-a-a β6.2 c-a-b β5.52 c-a-c β5.27
a-b-a β10.2 a-b-b β9.57 a-b-c β9.30
b-b-a β8.41 b-b-b β7.43 b-b-c β7.17
c-b-a β5.7 c-b-b β4.56 c-b-c β4.27
a-c-a β9.07 a-c-b β8.06 a-c-c β7.82
b-c-a β7.33 b-c-b β6.20 b-c-c β5.92
c-c-a β4.68 c-c-b β3.35 c-c-c β3.04
The same analysis has been performed for the interconversion from S(t) to C(t) and ledto similar results. Table 3 lists the distribution of Ξ΅99th, while Fig. 2(b) illustrates the con-fidence intervals and the mean for Ξ΅99th. Previous work such as Knoff and Hopkins (1972)and Anderssen et al. (2008) concluded that when no assumptions were made on the shape ofthe material functions, numerical interconversion from S(t) to C(t) was more problematicthan the interconversion from C(t) to S(t). However, our new method has proven to be asefficient for both cases.
5.3 Anisotropic case
Similar tests have been performed for the interconversion from C(t) to S(t) for anisotropicmaterials. The anisotropic tensors have been randomly generated according to Sect. 2.4. Theparameters were generated as in Sect. 5.2 and are given in Table 4. In addition, the ΞΈq wererandomly generated numbers within the interval [0,360]. The distribution of Ξ΅99th is given inTable 5. In the worst case, Ξ΅99th was β3.04 (Tag c-c-c). Recall that Tag c-c-c was for N = 20,which leads to potentially 120 different retardation times. The number of numerical opera-tions is much more important for the tridimensional case than for the unidimensional case,which could explain the relatively low accuracy. It also represents a theoretical worst casescenario: the authors are unaware of published tridimensional and anisotropic relaxationstiffnesses for 20 relaxation times spread over 10 decades. Tag b-b-b could be more repre-sentative of a potential practical relaxation stiffness. For this case, Ξ΅99th = 10β7.43, which isquite acceptable considering the complexity of the problem. Figure 3(a) shows the confi-dence intervals and the mean for Ξ΅99th for each parameter value. Still, the range of Οn seemsto be the parameter with the most significant effect on Ξ΅99th. The same analysis has been per-formed for the interconversion from S(t) to C(t) and led to similar conclusions (see Table 6and Fig. 3(b)).
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Table 6 Ξ΅99th computed frominterconversions from S(t) toC(t) using the New Method
Tag New Tag New Tag New
a-a-a β10.3 a-a-b β10.1 a-a-c β9.9
b-a-a β8.5 b-a-b β8.2 b-a-c β7.2
c-a-a β5.6 c-a-b β5.3 c-a-c β5.1
a-b-a β9.5 a-b-b β9.12 a-b-c β8.8
b-b-a β7.6 b-b-b β7.3 b-b-c β7.0
c-b-a β4.8 c-b-b β4.4 c-b-c β3.2
a-c-a β8.0 a-c-b β6.5 a-c-c β6.2
b-c-a β6.2 b-c-b β4.6 b-c-c β4.3
c-c-a β3.2 c-c-b β2.7 c-c-c β2.3
Fig. 3 Effect of the parameters on the mean value of Ξ΅99th for the anisotropic interconversion from (a) C(t)
to S(t) and (b) S(t) to C(t). The interval represents a 95 % confidence interval for the mean of Ξ΅99th
6 Discussion
This work showed that our new algorithm is more accurate and stable than that of Park andSchapery (1999), even though it should theoretically lead to the same, exact, results. Weprovide below some leads for explaining this result.
The main differences between the two algorithms reside in the kind of mathemati-cal/numerical problems they are built on. In the new algorithm, a potential source of inaccu-racies and instabilities is the computation of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for matrices
Mech Time-Depend Mater
A(3β) or L(3β). The problem of numerically computing eigenvalues and eigenvectors has re-ceived considerable attention over the years. Very accurate and stable algorithms have beendeveloped for their computation. The new algorithm proposed in this paper benefited fromthose progresses since it relies on the very efficient singular value decomposition algorithmimplemented in Matlab. The accuracy and stability of this kind of algorithms depend only onthe condition number of the matrix to decompose. This explains why the range of retardation(or relaxation) times seems to be the only parameter having an effect on the accuracy of thenew algorithm. Conversely, computation of the C(n) and S(m) relies only on matrix productsand sums. This eludes the problems of matrix inversion associated with other algorithms.
On the other hand, the algorithm of Park and Schapery (1999) presents more poten-tial sources of instabilities and inaccuracies. First, determination of the retardation timesfrom the relaxation times (or vice versa) requires computing the roots of the polynomialin Eq. (23), which can be a very daunting task (Park and Schapery 1999 even suggestedto arbitrarily set Οn = Οm instead of computing the roots). When considering more thanfour retardation times (or relaxation times), no closed-form solution to this problem exists,and an iterative algorithm must be used. Furthermore, this kind of problem can become ill-conditioned when roots are, either very close or well-separated. Also, in Park and Schapery(1999) algorithm, the linear equation system (20) needs to be solved. However, matrix G be-comes ill-conditioned when there are numerous retardation (or relaxation) times distributedover many decades. Similar round-off errors will also be encountered with the exact expres-sions of Baumgaertel and Winter (1989).
We emphasize that our new algorithm leads, by construction, to thermodynamically ac-ceptable solutions. This comes from the fact that, instead of interconverting directly C(n) intoS(m) (or vice-versa), the interconversion is performed on the internal matrices. Since L(3β)
and A(3β) are positive-definite matrices, their eigenvalues are positive and lead to positiveretardation and relaxation times as well as positive definite matrices C(n) or S(m). Such con-struction prevents any unacceptable temporal oscillations in the target function and hencepromotes the algorithmβs accuracy.
Finally, our new algorithm provides direct expressions for interconverting tensorial re-laxation modulus and creep compliances. The existing methods could potentially be tailoredfor tensorial expressions, though our preliminary attempts revealed that this task would beawkward and would most likely lead to thermodynamically inadmissible solutions.
7 Conclusion
The main contributions of this study are as follows:
1. A new exact analytical method for the interconversion of linearly viscoelastic materialfunctions has been proposed. This method is applicable for both unidimensional and tridi-mensional cases, and for any degree of material symmetry. Furthermore, the new methodleads to thermodynamically admissible interconversions. These are major improvementsover all the existing methods.
2. A rigorous procedure has been developed for evaluating the accuracy and stability of thenew algorithm. A broad range of artificial materials was tested. It was found that the newalgorithm delivers interconversions of high accuracy and is a few orders of magnitudemore accurate than that of Park and Schapery (1999). Finally, the algorithm is quitestable. All of the 126 million interconversions attempted were successfully completedusing Matlab 2011.
Mech Time-Depend Mater
Considering its stability and accuracy, the authors believe that their algorithm provides aclosure to the interconversion of linearly viscoelastic properties expressed as Prony series.Matlab implementations of the algorithms will be provided upon request.
Acknowledgements Fruitful correspondence with W.G. Knauss is gratefully acknowledged. Financial sup-port from Pratt and Whitney Canada, Rolls Royce Canada, Consortium for Research and Innovation inAerospace in QuΓ©bec and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (through Col-laborative Research and Development grants) is gratefully acknowledged. Some of the computations wereperformed on supercomputers financed by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and hosted by the FluidsDynamics Laboratory (LADYF) of Γcole Polytechnique de MontrΓ©al.
Appendix: Definition of the orthogonal projectors
A fourth-order isotropic tensor can be decomposed using the following orthogonal projec-tors:
J = 1
3Δ± β Δ± and K = I β J (53)
For cubic symmetry,
Z = e1 β e1 β e1 β e1 + e2 β e2 β e2 β e2 + e3 β e3 β e3 β e3 (54a)
Ka = Z β J and Kb = K β Ka = I β Z (54b)
When the axis of transverse isotropy is e3, a transversely isotropic tensor can be ex-pressed with the following matrices:
n = {0,0,1}; Δ±T = Δ± β n β n; EL = n β n β n β n; JT = 1
2Δ±T β Δ±T (55a)
IT =[
Δ±T 00 n β n
]; KE = 1
6(2n β n β Δ±T ) β (2n β n β Δ±T ) (55b)
KT = IT β JT ; KL = K β KT β KE; (55c)
F =β
2
2(Δ±T β n β n); FT =
β2
2(n β n β Δ±T ) (55d)
Appendix A: Interconversion from tensor S(t) to C(t)
Consider the following anisotropic material:
S(0) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
210.174 48.162 2.118 0.423 0.537 0.07148.162 195.498 7.986 1.111 1.036 β1.3792.118 7.986 18.481 β15.804 β6.611 17.3070.423 1.111 β15.804 228.036 β67.011 33.1050.537 1.036 β6.611 β67.011 177.019 35.8570.071 β1.379 17.307 33.105 35.857 147.184
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (56a)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
S(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
16.997 1.452 3.006 0.409 0.749 0.0591.452 102.517 β39.342 8.715 β22.003 28.4473.006 β39.342 32.762 β3.286 1.264 β14.7810.409 8.715 β3.286 95.569 β45.699 β36.6150.749 β22.003 1.264 β45.699 74.399 18.3210.059 28.447 β14.781 β36.615 18.321 87.530
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (56b)
with the inverted retardation time
Ξ»1 = {0.043145} (56c)
Following the methodology proposed in Algorithm 4, the internal matrices are
A(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
210.174 48.162 2.118 0.423 0.537 0.07148.162 195.498 7.986 1.111 1.036 β1.3792.118 7.986 18.481 β15.804 β6.611 17.3070.423 1.111 β15.804 228.036 β67.011 33.1050.537 1.036 β6.611 β67.011 177.019 35.8570.071 β1.379 17.307 33.105 35.857 147.184
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β1 (57a)
A(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
27.080 0 0 0 0 02.314 66.466 0 0 0 04.789 β25.705 27.016 0 0 00.651 5.634 β0.002 63.962 0 01.194 β14.325 β11.822 β29.577 44.596 00.094 18.463 β6.055 β26.326 4.588 51.815
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β2 (57b)
A(3) = [0.043145]
6(57c)
The L(i) are computed as
L(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
50.427 β12.399 β0.545 β0.109 β0.138 β0.018β12.399 55.768 β35.632 β5.235 β5.044 7.125β0.545 β35.632 822.119 108.166 101.444 β146.050β0.109 β5.235 108.166 67.686 37.199 β37.055β0.138 β5.044 101.444 37.199 82.587 β40.463β0.018 7.125 β146.050 β37.055 β40.463 103.375
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3
(58a)
L(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
13.340 β8.091 β0.130 β0.024 β0.062 β0.010β3.862 47.970 β9.461 β3.732 β1.923 3.69240.177 β270.411 218.953 77.631 38.539 β75.6765.880 β39.640 27.067 42.046 14.889 β19.2005.894 β46.634 20.092 10.019 34.974 β20.966
β7.462 65.072 β40.933 β38.948 β13.302 53.564
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3 (58b)
L(3) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
48.69 β14.78 10.61 3.98 2.29 β3.87β14.78 161.00 β71.4 β28.6 β17.81 33.7210.61 β71.48 102.40 22.15 7.08 β21.213.98 β28.69 22.15 77.33 2.68 β20.182.29 β17.81 7.08 2.68 58.13 β6.89
β3.87 33.72 β21.21 β20.18 β6.89 70.90
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3 (58c)
Mech Time-Depend Mater
The eigenvalues of L(3) as well as matrix P are computed in Matlab as per singular valuedecomposition as
Οn ={0.23444,0.07411,0.06072,
0.05156,0.05108,0.04655} (59a)
P =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
β10.22 4.97 β4.58 β8.63 9.99 β98.3676.40 β32.82 β20.60 5.20 51.17 β3.90
β51.19 12.07 β56.09 7.74 61.87 14.14β24.98 β79.08 β17.17 β50.98 β14.96 2.36β11.31 8.10 68.21 β45.70 54.79 7.9826.19 49.34 β38.23 β71.77 β15.08 6.31
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β2 (59b)
L(2β) and L(3β) are computed as
L(2β) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
β7.469 3.311 1.094 β1.535 β2.918 β12.83144.005 β12.461 β6.481 2.226 17.257 0.581
β366.357 21.573 β27.054 β3.450 22.011 2.123β61.959 β24.946 2.992 β14.932 1.810 0.558β58.467 2.589 28.218 β7.422 9.980 0.56796.696 29.479 β12.969 β11.651 β2.308 0.415
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3 (60a)
L(3β) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.2344 0 0 0 0 00 0.0741 0 0 0 00 0 0.0607 0 0 00 0 0 0.0516 0 00 0 0 0 0.0511 00 0 0 0 0 0.0466
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
(60b)
Finally, the relaxation matrices C(0) and C(n) are given as follows:
C(0) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
46.27 β9.11 β10.95 β1.21 β2.12 1.61β9.11 38.79 26.56 2.55 6.32 β6.17β10.95 26.56 221.48 18.14 17.07 β9.11β1.21 2.55 18.14 38.37 18.72 β4.23β2.12 6.32 17.07 18.72 51.78 β12.581.61 β6.17 β9.11 β4.23 β12.58 46.26
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3
C(1) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.2 β1.4 11.7 2.0 1.9 β3.1β1.4 8.3 β68.8 β11.6 β11.0 18.111.7 β68.8 572.5 96.8 91.4 β151.12.0 β11.6 96.8 16.4 15.5 β25.61.9 β11.0 91.4 15.5 14.6 β24.1
β3.1 18.1 β151.1 β25.6 β24.1 39.9
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β3;
C(2) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
1.5 β5.6 9.6 β11.1 1.2 13.2β5.6 21.0 β36.3 41.9 β4.4 β49.69.6 β36.3 62.8 β72.6 7.5 85.8
β11.1 41.9 β72.6 84.0 β8.7 β99.21.2 β4.4 7.5 β8.7 0.9 10.3
13.2 β49.6 85.8 β99.2 10.3 117.3
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
Mech Time-Depend Mater
C(3) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.2 β1.2 β4.9 0.5 5.1 β2.3β1.2 6.9 28.9 β3.2 β30.1 13.8β4.9 28.9 120.5 β13.3 β125.7 57.80.5 β3.2 β13.3 1.5 13.9 β6.45.1 β30.1 β125.7 13.9 131.1 β60.3
β2.3 13.8 57.8 β6.4 β60.3 27.7
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4;
C(4) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
0.46 β0.66 1.03 4.44 2.21 3.47β0.66 0.96 β1.49 β6.45 β3.20 β5.031.03 β1.49 2.31 9.99 4.97 7.804.44 β6.45 9.99 43.24 21.49 33.742.21 β3.20 4.97 21.49 10.68 16.773.47 β5.03 7.80 33.74 16.77 26.33
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
C(5) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
1.67 β9.86 β12.57 β1.03 β5.70 1.32β9.86 58.31 74.37 6.11 33.72 β7.80β12.57 74.37 94.86 7.80 43.01 β9.95β1.03 6.11 7.80 0.64 3.54 β0.82β5.70 33.72 43.01 3.54 19.50 β4.511.32 β7.80 β9.95 β0.82 β4.51 1.04
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β4
C(6) =
β‘β’β’β’β’β’β’β£
353.7 β16.0 β58.5 β15.4 β15.6 β11.4β16.0 0.73 2.65 0.70 0.71 0.52β58.5 2.65 9.69 2.55 2.58 1.89β15.4 0.70 2.55 0.67 0.68 0.50β15.6 0.71 2.58 0.68 0.69 0.51β11.4 0.52 1.89 0.50 0.51 0.37
β€β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β₯β¦
10β5
Note that the matricesβ elements have not been written with their full precision due to spacerestrictions and terms smaller than 10β13, in absolute value, were set to 0.
References
Anderssen, R.S., Davies, A.R., de Hoog, F.R.: On the Volterra integral equation relating creep and relaxation.Inverse Probl. 24(3), 035,009 (2008)
Baumgaertel, M., Winter, H.H.: Determination of discrete relaxation and retardation time spectra from dy-namic mechanical data. Rheol. Acta 28, 511β519 (1989)
Biot, M.A.: Theory of stress-strain relations in anisotropic viscoelasticity and relaxation phenomena. J. Appl.Phys. 25(11), 1385β1391 (1954)
Bouleau, N.: InterprΓ©tation probabiliste de la viscoΓ©lasticitΓ© linΓ©aire. Mech. Res. Commun. 19, 15β20 (1992)Bouleau, N.: Visco-elasticitΓ© et processus de LΓ©vy. Potential Anal. 11, 289β302 (1999)Cost, T.L., Becker, E.B.: A multidata method of approximate Laplace transform inversion. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 2, 207β219 (1970)Crochon, T., SchΓΆnherr, T., Li, C., LΓ©vesque, M.: On finite-element implementation strategies of Schapery-
type constitutive theories. Mech. Time-Depend. Mater. 14, 359β387 (2010)Fernandez, P., Rodriguez, D., Lamela, M.J., Fernandez-Canteli, A.: Study of the interconversion between
viscoelastic behavior functions of PMMA. Mech. Time-Depend. Mater. 15(2), 169β180 (2011)Hopkins, I.L., Hamming, R.W.: On creep and relaxation. J. Appl. Phys. 28(8), 906β909 (1957)Knauss, W.G., Zhao, J.: Improved relaxation time coverage in ramp-strain histories. Mech. Time-Depend.
Mater. 11(3β4), 199β216 (2007)Knoff, W.F., Hopkins, I.L.: An improved numerical interconversion for creep compliance and relaxation
modulus. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 16, 2963β2972 (1972)LΓ©vesque, M.: ModΓ©lisation du comportement mΓ©canique de matΓ©riaux composites viscoΓ©lastiques non
linΓ©aires par une approche dβhomogΓ©nΓ©isation. Ph.D. thesis, Γcole Nationale SupΓ©rieure dβArts etMΓ©tiers, Paris, in English (2004). Download at pastel.paristech.org/archive/00001237/
Mech Time-Depend Mater
LΓ©vesque, M., Derrien, K., Baptiste, D., Gilchrist, M.D., Bouleau, N.: Numerical inversion of the LaplaceβCarson transform applied to homogenization of randomly reinforced linear viscoelastic media. Comput.Mech. 40(4), 771β789 (2007)
LΓ©vesque, M., Derrien, K., Baptiste, D., Gilchrist, M.D.: On the development and parameter identification ofSchapery-type constitutive theories. Mech. Time-Depend. Mater. 12, 95β127 (2008)
Nikonov, A., Davies, A.R., Emri, I.: The determination of creep and relaxation functions from a single ex-periment. Rheol. Acta 49(6), 1193β1211 (2005)
Park, S.W., Schapery, R.A.: Methods of interconversion between linear viscoelastic material functions. PartI. A numerical method based on Prony series. Int. J. Solids Struct. 36, 1653β1675 (1999)
Schapery, R.A.: Further Development of a Thermodynamic Constitutive Theory: Stress Formulation. PurdueUniversity, School of Aeronautics (1969)
Sorvari, J., Malinen, M.: Numerical interconversion between linear viscoelastic material functions with reg-ularization. Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 1291β1303 (2006)
Trefethen, L.N., Bau, D.: Numerical Linear Algebra. SIAM, Philadelphia (1997)Tschoegl, N.W.: The Phenomenological Theory of Linear Viscoelastic Behavior. Springer, Berlin (1989)Yaoting, Z., Lu, S., Huilin, X.: L-curve based Tikhonovβs regularization method for determining relaxation
modulus from creep test. J. Appl. Mech. 78, 031002 (2011)