Lecture 38
Lecture 38
Lecture 38
Maxwell Model
We can improve with new time derivatives or new strain measures.
W O
wW wt
K0 J
t t ) K ( t O 0 e J (t , t )dt 2 f O
W (t )
We can also change the basic equation: linear modifications non-linear modifications
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
W 21 O
wW 21 wt
K0J 21
W OW
K0J
retardation time
Simple Jeffreys Model, shear Upper-Convected Jeffreys Model, general (Oldroyd B Fluid)
W 21 O1
wW 21 wt
wJ K0 J 21 O2 21 wt
W O1W
K 0 J O 2 J
Unfortunately, this change only modifies G(t-t); the Jeffreys Model is a GLVE model Simple Jeffreys Model
(not frame-invariant)
W O1
wW wt
wJ K0 J O2 w t
W (t )
t c K0 O2 tO 2K 0 O2 1 c 1 e G ( t t ) J (t c) dt c O1 O1 O1 f
t
G (t t c)
Other linear modifications of the Maxwell model motivated by springs and dashpots in series and parallel modify G(t-t) but do not otherwise introduce new behavior.
W
K (J ) W G0
K (J )J
W O1W
1 O1 P1 J W W J 1 P 0 trW J 1 Q1 W : J I 2 2 2 1 K0 J O2 J O2 P 2 J : J Q 2 J : J I 2
The Oldroyd 8-constant contains many other constitutive equations as special cases.
UCM UCM
terms
UCJ
The Oldroyd 8-Constant model contains all terms linear in stress tensor and at most quadratic in rate-of-deformation tensor that are also consistent with frame invariance.
W O1W 1 O1 P1 J W W J 1 P 0 trW J 1 Q1 W : J I 2 2 2 1 K0 J O2 J O2 P 2 J : J Q 2 J : J I 2
Giesekus Model
W OW
DO W :W K0
quadratic in stress
K0 J
The only way to choose among these nonlinear models is to compare predictions.
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
We can also modify integral models to add non-linearity and thus produce new constitutive equations.
Factorized Rivlin-Sawyers Model
W (t )
M (t t c) ) 2 ( I1 , I 2 )C )1 ( I1 , I 2 )C
f
1
dtc
W (t )
I1, I2 are the invariants of the Finger or Cauchy strain tensors (these are related).
t wU wU 1 M (t t c) dt c 2 wI C 2 wI C 2 1 f
Again, the only way to choose among these nonlinear models is to compare predictions
(see R. G. Larson, Constitutive Equations for Polymer Melts). Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
How to proceed?
All along we have taken a continuum-mechanics approach. We have run that course all the way through. Now we must go back and seek some insight from molecular ideas of relaxation and polymer dynamics.
~ f
W dA n
stress tensor
Polymer Dynamics
end-to-end vector, R
end-to-end vector, R
When deformed, the chain tries to recover that most random configuration, giving rise to a spring-like restoring force.
Gaussian Springs
Equilibrium configuration distribution function - probability a walk has end-to-end distance R
E E 2 RcRc \ 0 ( R) e S
From an entropy calculation on a random walk we can calculate the force needed to deform a Gaussian spring If we can relate this force to the arbitrary force on a surface, we can connect these two
3kT R Na 2
~ f = dA n
stress tensor
~ f
Tension force on dA
dR1dR2 dR3
R Q 3 n
(see text)
dA Q
2 3
\ ( R )dR1dR2 dR3
3kT R Na 2
dA
a
1
n
c
Q1 3
intersection with dA
a
1
b
R n
n
d
1
13
Q1 3
R Q n Q 1
1 3
c
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
volume Q 1
~ f
3kTQ Na 2
1 3
RR
R R { R R \ ( R )dR1dR2 dR3
BUT, from before . . .
~ f
Comparing these two we conclude,
W dA n
W
2 3
3kTQ RR Na 2
(dA Q
3kTQ RR Na 2
which relates molecular ETE vector and stress, into a constitutive equation, which relates stress and deformation? We need a idea that connects ETE vector motion to macroscopic deformation of a polymer network or melt.
R2
Distribution of ETE vectors
R1
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
affine-motion assumption: the macroscopic dimension changes are proportional to the microscopic dimension changes after
before
1
For affine motion we can relate the components of the initial and final ETE vectors as, ETE after
O1
R1 R1c
O2
R2 c R2
O3
R3 c R3
ETE before
O1 R1c c R (t ) O2 R2 O Rc 3 3 123
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
3kTQ RR Na 2
R R { R R \ ( R )dR1dR2 dR3
O1 R1c c R (t ) O2 R2 O Rc 3 3 123
\ ( R )dR1dR2 dR3
E E 2 RcRc \ 0 ( R) e S
But, if the deformation is affine, then the number of ETE vectors between R and R+dR at time t is equal to the number of vectors with ETE between R and R+dR at t
E E 2 RcRc Conclusion: \ ( R ) \ 0 ( R ) e S c
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
10
3kTQ RR Na 2
Ric Ri Oi
O1 R1c c R (t ) O2 R2 O Rc 3 3 123
R R { R R \ ( R )dR1dR2 dR3
c
3
E E 2 RcRc \ ( R) \ 0 ( R ) e S
Final solution: W
i e i Q kTOi2 e
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
i e i Q kTOi2 e
Compare this solution with the Finger Strain Tensor for this flow. 2 O1 0 0 1 1 T 1 C (t c, t ) F F 0 0 O2 2 0 0 O2 3
123
Since the Finger tensor for any deformation may be written in diagonal form (symmetric tensor) our derivation is valid for all deformations.
Q kT C
1
Which is the same as the finite-strain Hookes law discussed earlier, with G=QkT.
Faith A. Morrison, Michigan Tech U.
11