arXiv:1303.1617v1 [cond-mat.soft] 7 Mar 2013
Proper formulation of viscous dissipation
for nonlinear waves in solids
Michel Destradea , Giuseppe Saccomandib , Maurizio Vianelloc
a
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Applied Mathematics,
National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland.
b
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale,
Università degli Studi di Perugia, 06125 Perugia, Italy.
c
Dipartimento di Matematica,
Politecnico di Milano,
Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, I-20133 Milano, Italy.
Abstract
In order to model nonlinear viscous dissipative motions in solids,
acoustical physicists usually add terms linear in Ė, the material time
derivative of the Lagrangian strain tensor E, to the elastic stress tensor σ derived from the expansion to the third- (sometimes fourth-)
order of the strain energy density E = E(tr E, tr E 2 , tr E 3 ). Here, it
is shown that this practice, which has been widely used in the past
three decades or so, is physically wrong for at least two reasons, and
that it should be corrected. One reason is that the elastic stress tensor
σ is not symmetric while Ė is symmetric, so that motions for which
σ + σ T 6= 0 will give rise to elastic stresses which have no viscous pendant. Another reason is that Ė is frame-invariant, while σ is not, so
that an observer transformation would alter the elastic part of the total
stress differently than it would alter the dissipative part, thereby violating the fundamental principle of material frame-indifference. These
problems can have serious consequences for nonlinear shear wave propagation in soft solids, as seen here with an example of a kink in almost
incompressible soft solids.
1
1
Introduction and main statement
Nonlinear elastic wave propagation is a subject of considerable interest for
many scientific and industrial applications such as geophysical exploration,
soft tissue acoustics, and the dynamics of rubbers, silicones, and gels. From
a theoretical point of view the mathematics and mechanics of nonlinear wave
phenomena is a classical yet still active subject of research where many outstanding problems are awaiting a definitive systematic treatment.
In Physical Acoustics, the expansion of the strain energy density E to
include nonlinear corrections is often attributed to Landau. Hence at the
“third-order” in the Lagrangian strain tensor E, we write
E = µI2 + 21 λI12 + 31 AI3 + BI1 I2 + 13 CI13 ,
(1)
where Ik = tr E k (k = 1, 2, 3) are the strain invariants, λ and µ are the
(second-order) Lamé coefficients, and A, B, C are the (third-order) Landau coefficients. From an historical point of view, it is interesting to note
that this notation by Landau seems to have appeared first in the Theory
of Elasticity (1986), co-written with Lifshitz, as an unnumbered equation
in an exercise[1]. In 1937, Landau[2] had already provided the third-order
expansion of E, that time denoting the third-order elastic constants by the
letters P ′ , Q′ , R′ . That same year, Murnaghan[3] also proposed a third-order
expansion using different strain invariants, which is still in use today (mostly
by geophysicists). However the paternity of the third-order expansion can be
traced further back in time, at least to a 1925 paper by Brillouin[4], who in
fact seems to have also been the first to use the letters A, B, C for third-order
elastic constants.
In any event, Landau and Lifshitz denote by xk the Lagrangian coordinate
components, by uk the mechanical displacement components, and they derive
the equations of motion in Cartesian coordinates as follows,
∂ 2 ui
∂σik
= ρ0 2 ,
∂xk
∂t
(2)
where ρ0 is the mass density in the undeformed configuration, and the stress
tensor is related to the strain through
σik =
∂E
.
∂ (∂ui /∂xk )
2
(3)
(It is easy to recognize that this is the “first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor”
of Classical Continuum Mechanics.) For the reader’s convenience, we recall
that the full Lagrangian strain tensor E has Cartesian components
1 ∂ui
∂uk ∂uj ∂uj
Eik =
,
(4)
+
+
2 ∂xk
∂xi
∂xi ∂xk
and can be rewritten as
Eik = 21 (Fji Fjk − δik ) .
(5)
Here, Fik are the Cartesian components of F , the deformation gradient,
defined as
∂yi
∂ui
Fik =
= δik +
,
(6)
∂xk
∂xk
where yi (xk ) are the space coordinates of the current position of material
point xk , for the deformation given by yi (xk ) = xi + ui (xk ).
In another part of their book (more precisely: at the end of §34 in Chapter
5) Landau and Lifchitz model viscous dissipation by adding to the elastic
stress tensor σ a “viscosity stress tensor” σ ′ , with Cartesian components
′
σik
= 2η(Ėik − 13 δik Ėll ) + ζ Ėll δik
= (ζ − 32 η) Ėll δik + 2η Ėik ,
(7)
where η > 0 and ζ > 0 are the shear and bulk viscosity coefficients, respectively, and the superposed dot denotes the time derivative. Note that it
is completely unambiguous from the context of this part of their book that
Landau and Lifshitz are speaking here of the infinitesimal theory of viscoelasticity, and that Ė in Eq. (7) is the time derivative of the infinitesimal
strain tensor (i.e. the linear part of Eq. (4)), see their unnumbered equation
between (34.2) and (34.3). It might seem at first glance that adding σ ′ to σ,
and taking the strain components to be those of the finite Lagrangian strain
(4) instead of the infinitesimal strain, would be a first, logical step towards
the inclusion of nonlinear dissipative effects. However there are at least two
problems with this seemingly anodyne approach.
One problem is that σ ′ is symmetric while σ is not. Then the resultant
total stress tensor σ +σ ′ has a visco-elastic symmetric part: (σ +σ T )/2+σ ′ ,
but a purely elastic anti-symmetric part: (σ−σ T )/2, where the superscript T
denotes the transpose. It is thus impossible to model antisymmetric viscous
stress effects in motions and boundary conditions with this formulation.
3
The other problem is that σ and σ ′ are made objective, or frameindifferent, in two different and irreconcilable ways. Indeed, it is well known
that there are transformation rules to follow in order to ensure that the directions associated with a tensor are unaltered by an observer transformation.
To summarize, two observers, one associated with a frame with position x
and time t and the other associated with a frame with position x∗ and time t∗
are said to be equivalent when they are connected by (see e.g. Chadwick[5]),
x∗ = c(t) + Q(t)x,
t∗ = t − a,
(8)
where Q is a proper orthogonal tensor, c is a vector, and a is a constant
scalar. The transformation rule for the elastic part of the stress tensor (3) is
that σ transforms into σ given by
σ = Qσ,
(9)
in order to ensure frame-indifference, whilst for the viscous part (7), it is
σ′ = σ′,
(10)
because E – and hence Ė – is observer-invariant (this is not so obvious
from Eq. (4), but becomes more so in view of Eq. (5), as shown in Ref. [5]).
Clearly, it is not possible for the composite stress tensor σ + σ ′ to comply
with both requirements simultaneously and appear the same to two equivalent observers. This state of affair violates the fundamental principle of
objectivity, a cornerstone of rational mechanics, e.g. see Gurtin[6].
Now, there are two ways to reconcile σ and σ ′ in order to construct a
stress tensor coherent with respect to symmetry and objectivity. One way
is to make σ behave like σ ′ , by replacing it with F −1 σ, the (symmetric)
second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor; the other way is to make σ ′ behave like
σ, by replacing it with σ̄ ′ = F σ ′ .
Evidently, both courses of action are eventually equivalent. In weakly
nonlinear elasticity theory, governing equations have been around for σ longer
than for σ ′ and we henceforth take advantage of these and concentrate on the
consequences of modifying σ ′ rather than σ. We thus propose the following
form for the viscous stress, σ̄ ′ = F σ ′ , with components
′
′
σ̄ik
= Fij σjk
= ζ − 23 η Fik Ėll + 2ηFij Ėjk
∂ui
∂ui
2
= ζ − 3 η δik +
Ėll + 2η δij +
Ėjk ,
∂xk
∂xj
4
(11)
and investigate the consequences of using σ̄ ′ instead of σ ′ in the equations
of motion.
In passing, it is interesting to show the form taken by the constitutive
equation for the Cauchy stress tensor τ̄ ′ , related to σ̄ ′ by
′
j τ̄ik′ = σ̄is
Fks ,
(12)
where j = det F . For this we recall that[5]
Ėik = Fli dlj Fjk ,
(13)
where dlj is the Cartesian component of d, the Eulerian stretching tensor,
1 ∂vl
∂vj
dlj =
.
(14)
+
2 ∂yj
∂yl
and that the (symmetric) left Cauchy-Green strain tensor b is defined as
bjl = Fji Fli ,
(15)
so that, in view of Eq. (13), the expression for Ėii can be written as
Ėii = Fli dlj Fji = bjl dlj = tr(bd).
(16)
Thus, Eq. (11) yields
′
σ̄ik
= ζ − 23 η Fik Ėll + 2ηFij Ėjk
= ζ − 32 η Fik bjl dlj + 2ηFij Flj dls Fsk
= ζ − 23 η Fik bjl dlj + 2ηbil dls Fsk .
(17)
From Eqs. (12), (13) and (16) we compute the viscous part τ̄ik′ of the Cauchy
stress as
′
′
j τ̄im
= σ̄ik
Fmk
= ζ − 32 η Fik Fmk blj djl + 2ηbil dls Fsk Fmk
(18)
= ζ − 23 η bim bil dls + 2ηbil dls bsm ,
or, in absolute notation,
j τ̄ ′ = ζ − 32 η b tr(bd) + 2ηbdb.
(19)
It is quite clear that this is a polynomial isotropic function of the two tensor
variables b and d, which can be shown to be a special case of the universal
representation for such functions (see, e.g., the classical treatise by Truesdell
and Noll [7, Sect. 13] and the paper by Rivlin[8]). It is reassuring to notice
that expression (19) for the viscous part of Cauchy stress τ̄ ′ falls perfectly
within the class of constitutive equations for finite viscoelasticity. This makes
much more plausible our proposal (11) for a modified version of Eq. (7).
5
2
Wave motion
When it comes to study wave propagation, attention is usually focused on
special motions, for which the general equations of motion simplify greatly.
One might then be led to believe that no relevant corrections should be made
on the governing equations as a consequence of the substitution of Eq. (7)
with the more appropriate version Eq. (11). In this section we show that
this is not the case, indeed, and that some relevant and quite complicated
changes should be made to the propagation equations, even for simple (bulk)
motions.
We discuss the propagation in a soft material of a transverse wave described by a displacement field ui (xk , t) of the form
u1 = u(z, t),
u2 = u3 = 0,
(20)
where z is the third Cartesian coordinate. This is the choice made by Zabolotskaya et al.[9], who added a viscous part in the form (7) to an elastic constitutive equation (see their Eq. 34).
Straightforward computations show that
1 0 uz
0 0 uz
1
E = 0 0 0 ,
F = 0 1 0 ,
(21)
2
2
0 0 1
uz 0 uz
(here, for compactness, we denote partial derivatives with subscripts, while
in other formulas we use the more explicit notation, so that a comparison
with some relevant references is made easier).
The time derivative of E and its trace are thus given by
0 0
uzt
1
0 ,
tr(Ė) = uz uzt ,
(22)
Ė = 0 0
2
uzt 0 2uz uzt
and, moreover,
1 0
1
0 1
F Ė =
2
0 0
uu
1 z zt
0
=
2
uzt
0 0
uzt
uz
0
0 0 0
uzt 0 2uz uzt
1
0 uzt + 2u2z uzt
0
0
0
2uz uzt
6
(23)
Now, since by Eq. (11)
σ̄ ′ = (ζ − 23 η) tr(Ė) F + 2ηF Ė,
(24)
we find that the Cartesian components of the viscous part σ̄ ′ of the PiolaKirchhoff stress tensor are given by
0
ηuzt + (ζ + 34 η)u2z uzt
(ζ + 31 η)uz uzt
.
0
(ζ − 32 η)uz uzt
0
(25)
4
ηuzt
0
(ζ + 3 η)uz uzt
In their Section III, Zabolotskaya et al.[9] investigate the propagation of
waves described by Eq. (20) in an almost incompressible soft material with
elastic strain energy
E = µI2 + 31 AI3 + DI22 ,
(26)
where µ, A, D are second-, third-, and fourth-order elastic constants, respectively. Terms of order higher than the third in the strain ∂u/∂z are then
neglected and the governing equations reduce to the single equation
3
∂ 2u
∂ ∂u
∂ 2u
,
(27)
ρ0 2 = µ 2 + γ
∂t
∂z
∂z ∂z
where ρ0 is the constant density and γ = µ + 21 A + D, see Ref. [9, Eq. 12].
′
Next, in Section V of Ref.[9], a viscous stress is added, in the form of σik
as defined here by Eq. (7), and an appropriate modification for the governing
equation (27) is deduced, which leads to the introduction of an additional
viscous term:
3
∂ 2u
∂ ∂u
∂ 3u
∂ 2u
ρ0 2 = µ 2 + γ
+η 2 .
(28)
∂t
∂z
∂z ∂z
∂z
∂t}
|
{z
|
{z
}
elastic
viscous
This equation can also be found in the Refs.[10, 11, 12], for instance. Our aim
here is to verify which modifications would be required for the wave equation
(27) if the added viscous Piola-Kirchhoff stress were defined by Eq. (11), as
we suggest, rather than by Eq. (7). In other words: what difference does it
′
make to the wave propagation equations to consider such a stress tensor σ̄ik
,
′
rather than σik ?
7
In order to answer this question we first compute the divergence of σ̄ ′ , as
"
2 #
3
2
∂
u
∂u
∂
u
∂
(Divσ̄ ′ )1 = η 2 + (ζ + 34 η)
,
∂z ∂t
∂z
∂z∂t
∂z
(29)
(Divσ̄ ′ )2 = 0,
∂ ∂u ∂ 2 u
(Divσ̄ ′ )3 = (ζ + 34 η)
.
∂z ∂z ∂z∂t
Here we remark that the first and last of these components lead to two
non-trivial equations of motion, in contrast to the situation encountered in
Ref. [9], where there was only one equation. The second equation here
may however be made to disappear if we were to consider soft solids to be
perfectly incompressible, and had thus to introduce an arbitrary Lagrange
multiplier (for instance, see Ref. [13] for a rational inclusion of perfect incompressibility in weakly nonlinear elasticity, and Ref. [14] for a derivation
of the equations of motion in compressible and incompressible materials and
the possible decoupling of longitudinal from transverse waves.)
Next, we readily derive the wave equation
"
3
2 #
2
∂ 2u
∂ ∂u
∂u
∂
u
∂ 3u
∂ 2u
∂
+ η 2 + (ζ + 34 η)
ρ0 2 = µ 2 + γ
.
∂t
∂z
∂z ∂z
∂z ∂t
∂z
∂z∂t
∂z
|
{z
} |
{z
}
elastic
viscous
(30)
The viscous part of this equation is remarkably more complex than the simpler term η∂ 3 u/∂z 2 ∂t shown in Eq. (28), which is Eq. (36) of Ref. [9]. Notice
that the last addendum in Eq. (30) is of third order in the strain ∂u/∂z,
exactly as the nonlinear elastic term ∂/∂z (∂u/∂z)3 . Thus, since Eq. (27)
was obtained in Ref.[9] by neglecting terms of order higher than three, it is
our opinion that, in principle, the additional viscous term in (30) should be
kept and considered for a coherent discussion of wave propagation. Dimensional analysis reveals that this term would be negligible if fifth-order elastic
constants were much larger than lower-order constants. Although this might
be the case for some solids, it can be shown by following the steps presented
in Ref.[13] and Ref. [18] that for almost incompressible solids, all elastic constants are of the same order as µ (see Ref.[19] for experimental evidence).
To illustrate the potential influence of the extra term in Eq.(30), we
focus on a staple of acoustic nonlinearity: the finite amplitude, traveling
8
kink solution. First we rewrite the equation of motion for the strain[15]:
w ≡ ∂u/∂z, as
∂2
∂ 2w
∂ 2w
∂2
∂ 3w
3
2 ∂w
4
ρ0 2 = µ 2 + γ 2 (w) + η 2 + ζ + 3 η
w
. (31)
∂t
∂z
∂z
∂z ∂t
∂z 2
∂t
Then we perform the following changes of variables and of function:
r
√
ρ0 µ
µ
γ
ξ=
z,
τ = t,
W =
w,
η
η
µ
(32)
to obtain
∂2
∂ 2W
∂2
∂ 3W
µ
∂ 2W
3
4
=
+
(W
)
+
ζ
+
+
η
3
∂τ 2
∂ξ 2
∂ξ 2
∂ξ 2 ∂τ
γ
∂ξ 2
W
2 ∂W
∂τ
Looking for a traveling wave solution in the form
√
W (ξ, τ ) = c2 − 1 ω(x),
where x = (c2 − 1)(τ − ξ/c),
.
(33)
(34)
and c > 1 is the arbitrary, non-dimensional speed, we find the following
equation for the amplitude ω,
′′
′′
where α ≡ (µ/γ) ζ + 34 η c2 − 1 . (35)
ω ′′ = ω 3 + ω ′′′ + α ω 2 ω ′ ,
It can be integrated twice for a finite kink with tails such that ω(−∞) = 0,
ω(∞) = 1, ω ′ (±∞) = ω ′′ (±∞) = 0, to give
(36)
ω 1 − ω 2 = (1 + α ω 2 )ω ′ .
Now the variables of this equation can be separated, and by centring the kink
so that ω(0) = 1/2, we obtain its inverse definition,
α+1
1 4
2
2
.
(37)
(1
−
ω
)
2ω 3
It is a simple matter to construct the ω − x curves and then to invert them
to generate the x − ω curves. Explicit inversions include
s
2
3 x
1
3
1+
ω(x) = √
,
e
(38)
− e−x ,
4
4
1 + 3e−2x
x = − ln
at α = 0, 1, respectively. At α = 0, there is no extra term in Eq.(30); as soon
as α 6= 0, the difference between the incorrect formulation and the proper
formulation of viscous effects is felt, as illustrated by Figure 1.
9
Figure 1: Finite amplitude travelling transverse strain kink in a viscous soft
solid. The equation of motion has been fully non-dimensionalized. The parameter α is a measure of the consequence of properly incorporating viscous
effects in the formulation of the equations of motion. At α = 0 (dotted
curve), the viscous formulation does not allow for the principle of objectivity to be respected. As α grows (here, α = 1, 2, 3 in turn), the wave front
displays a gentler slope and the wave is more attenuated.
3
Concluding remarks
Viscous stresses are often introduced in the formulation of nonlinear wave
motion problems in order to prevent the formation of shocks, because they
confer a parabolic character to the equations of motion for continua. However, as pointed out earlier by Antman [16], the choices made historically in
the literature for these stresses sometimes turn out to be physically unacceptable because their material responses are affected by rigid motions. Here
we showed that simply extending the linear Kelvin-Voigt model of differential visco-elasticity from linearized to finite elasticity is not a straightforward
process. In particular, one choice is to take the strain-rate effects to be described by the time-derivative of the full Lagrangian strain instead of the
infinitesimal strain. With that choice must come great care in formulating
a corresponding viscous stress which obeys the fundamental principle of objectivity in the same manner that the elastic stress does. We saw here that
this compatibility can be achieved by pre-multiplying the linear expansion
of the viscous stress in terms of u̇ by the deformation gradient F , which
complicates greatly the equations of motion, as illustrated in Section 2.
An alternative constitutive assumption for modeling viscous effects is to
take the Cauchy stress tensor to be linear in d, the Eulerian stretching tensor
defined in Eq. (14). That assumption is perfectly coherent with the fundamental principles of mechanics, including frame-invariance, and is aligned
10
with modeling of viscous effects in Fluid Mechanics and the emergence of
the Navier-Stokes equations. It has also been used to model nonlinear wave
propagation in solids[14, 15, 17]. It does not complicate the equations of
motion excessively.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (Italy) for
support through the PRIN 2009 Matematica e meccanica dei sistemi biologici
e dei tessuti molli for the second author and a short-term Visiting Professor
position for the first author. We thank the anonymous referees for their
constructive comments.
References
[1] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed. (Pergamon
Press, New York, 1986), p.107.
[2] L.D. Landau and G. Rumer, “Über Schallabsorption in festen Körpern
(On supersonic absorption in solid bodies),” Sov. Phys. B3, 18–27
(1937).
[3] F.D. Murnaghan, “Finite deformations of an elastic solid,” Am. J. Math.
59, 235–260 (1937).
[4] L. Brillouin, “Sur les tensions de radiation (On tensions of radiation),”
Ann. Phys. 4, 528-86 (1925).
[5] P. Chadwick, Continuum Mechanics pages 129-135 (Dover Publications,
New York, 1999).
[6] M.E. Gurtin, An Introduction to Continuum Mechanics pages 139-145
(Academic Press, New York, 1981).
[7] C. Truesdell and W. Noll, “The non-linear field theories of mechanics,”
In S. Flügge, editor, Handbuch der Physik, volume III/3, pages 1-591
(Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1965).
11
[8] R. S. Rivlin, “Further remarks on the stress-deformation relations for
isotropic materials,” J. Rational Mech. Anal. 4, 681-702 (1955).
[9] E. A. Zabolotskaya, M. F. Hamilton, Y.i A. Illinski, and G. D. Meegan,
“Modeling of nonlinear shear waves in soft solids,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
116, 2807-2813 (2004).
[10] M.S. Wochner, M.F. Hamilton, Y.A. Ilinskii, and E.A. Zabolotskaya,
“Cubic nonlinearity in shear wave beams with different polarizations,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 2488-2495 (2008).
[11] M. Rénier, J.-L. Gennisson, C. Barrière, D. Royer, and M. Fink,
“Fourth-order shear elastic constant assessment in quasi-incompressible
soft solids,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 101912 (2008).
[12] X. Jacob, S. Catheline, J.-L. Gennisson, C. Barrière, D. Royer, and M.
Fink, “Nonlinear shear wave interaction in soft solids,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 122, 1917-1926 (2007).
[13] M. Destrade and R.W. Ogden, “On the third- and fourth-order constants
of incompressible isotropic elasticity,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 33343343 (2010).
[14] M. Destrade and G. Saccomandi, “On finite amplitude elastic waves
propagating in compressible solids,” Phys. Rev. E 72 016620 (2005).
[15] M. Destrade and G. Saccomandi, “Solitary and compact-like shear waves
in the bulk of solids,” Phys. Rev. E. 73, 065604 (2006).
[16] S.S. Antman, “Physically unacceptable viscous stresses,” Zeits. Angew.
Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 49 980-988 (1998).
[17] M. Destrade, P. M. Jordan, and G. Saccomandi, “Compact travelling
waves in viscoelastic solids,” Europhys. Letters 87 48001 (2009).
[18] R. W. Ogden, “On isotropic tensors and elastic moduli,” Proc. Cambr.
Phil. Soc. 75, 427–436 (1974).
[19] S. Catheline, J.-L. Gennisson, M. Fink, “Measurement of elastic nonlinearity of soft solid with transient elastography,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
114, 3087–3091 (2003).
12