A nice demonstration of toughening by introducing multiple secondary cracking of planes parallel with the primary crack is found in the paper:
The definition of the size of the Representative Volume Element (RVE) is extremely important for the mechanics and physics of heterogeneous materials since it should statistically represent the micro-structure of the material. In the present contribution, a methodology based on statistical analysis and numerical experiments is proposed to determine the size of the RVE for heterogeneous amorphous polymers subjected to finite deformations.
Advanced energy materials hold one of the keys to fundamental advances in the conversion, storage, and harvesting of energy for a broad range of consumer electronics, automotive, aerospace, and defense applications. The successful development and deployment of these materials relies critically on a fundamental understanding of strongly coupled multiphysics phenomena. Mechanics of energy materials has emerged as a rapidly growing area of research that has significant technological implications in improving the efficiency, reliability, and sustainability of energy infrastructure.
Please share this with any interested parties. Thank you - Rob Carpick
---
Hello,
I am trying to evaluate the behaviour of a 2D plain strain "cut and cover" tunnel section when I apply static loads (by the moment)
I am using XFEM method in order to evaluate the cracks through the reinforced concrete material. The model has been meshed by CPE4R elements (Quad)
I have modelled 2 types of steps: Geostatic in order to apply the initial stress state and Static, general for the rest of steps.
I am trying to solve the error below:
A xfem analysis with pore pressure degrees of freedom is not supported.
Hi Sirs,
As title, I wondering if the problem can be solved with only material residual stress but no other external load applied?
After several trials, Abaqus returns message
"MASS OR DIFFERENTIAL STIFFNESS MATRIX IS COMPLETELY NULL. THE EIGENPROBLEM CANNOT BE SOLVED. IN A *BUCKLE ANALYSIS THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE IS THAT A NONZERO LOADING PATTERN WAS NOT SPECIFIED VIA *BOUNDARY, *CLOAD, *DLOAD, ETC,. SEE Eigenvalue Buckling Prediction IN THE ABAQUS/STANDARD USERS MANUAL"
We have 1-2 PhD positions for modeling the fracture and failure in nuclear materials. The funding comes from a collaborative project involving five universities and one national lab.
The students will have opportunities to work with experimentalists and other computational experts at USU and from the national lab.
Requirements:
1. For applicants with no degree from a English-Speaking country:
TOEFL >= 79 or IELTS >= 6 (and a minimum score of 5 on each subscale)
2. GRE verbal and quantitative scores (no minimum requirement)
Hello All,
For the Cattaneo's hyperbolic heat equation with relaxation time,
usually a simple plane thermal wave Τ=T0 * exp[ ¡ (kx - ωt) ], with definition k is the (complex) wave number and ω is the the (real) frequency, is adopted to obtain the dispersion relations of the heat equation.
And consequently, the velocity is defined as: [ω / Re(k)].
My confusion is that is it necessary or obligatory to let k be complex and w be real?
If the answer is yes, then why?
If no, then it's possible to let both k and w are real?
Hello, I'm trying to program a quadrilateral classical Mindlin flat shell element (full integration for membrane, bending and selective reduced integration for transverse shear).
Now, the situation is:
for pure tension test, it works well (because only the membrane part works),
for pure bending test, it gives very bad result compared with S4R, and I find that's because the incremental rotations at each step are different.
