Strain Energy Density
Hyperelasticity
BME 615
University of Wisconsin
Review of salient information
Return to finite elasticity and recall:
Stretch
Finite stress
Finite strain
Note: to simplify models we assume
Incompressibility
Pseudoelastic behavior
Biaxial Stress and Strain
(Fung, p. 299, Humphrey & Delange p. 285)
Principal stretches in principal material directions (figure from Michael Sacks)
Recall from previous notes
Principal
stretches
(single
subscript)
L1
L10
L2
L20
Figure from Fung Biomechanics
Finite Strain
In Lagrangian (material) reference system, define Green (St. Venant) strain
2
2
L1 L10
1 2
E1
1 1
2
2
2 L10
L2 L220 1 2
E2
2 1
2
2 L220
In Eulerian (spatial) reference system, define Almansi (Hamel) strain
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
e1
2
L1 L10
2 L1
e2
L2 L220
2 L2
Conjugate Stresses
(for finite deformation analysis)
h and h0
thicknesses of deformed and original tissue
and 0
densities of the deformed and original tissue
(assumed equal if tissue is ~incompressible)
Cauchy stress (Eulerian reference system)
s 22
F22
L1 h
s11
F11
L2 h
True stress
Lagrangian stress (or 1st Piola Kirchhoff stress)
F
1
F
1
T22 22 0 s22
T11 11 0 s11
L20 h0 1
L10 h0 2
Unloaded shape
2nd Piola Kirchhoff stress (Lagrangian reference system)
1
1
S11 T11 0 2 s11
1
1
S22
1
1
T22 0 2 s22
2
2
Little
physical
meaning
Deformation gradient tensor F
x1
X 1
x2
F
X 1
x3
X 1
x1
X 2
x2
X 2
x3
X 2
x1
X 3
1 0
x2
0 2
X 3
0 0
x3
X 3
0
0
3
For principal stretches
For incompressibility,
det F 1 or 3 1/ 12
Right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
C FT F
Left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
(or Finger tensor)
B F FT
For a deformation state in which 1,2,3 are principal axes,
invariants of B and C are identical. They are:
I1 12 22 32
I 2 12 22 22 32 32 12
I 3 1222 32
Strain Energy Density (Hyperelasticity)
Strain energy per unit of initial (or undeformed)
volume W
Area between the stress strain curve and the strain
axis from energy conjugates,
Often formulated in Lagrangian coordinates.
(Note that Fung defines strain energy per unit mass
Wm so he must multiply by 0 to get strain energy per
unit volume.)
For a purely elastic material,
Can derive stresses from the stored elastic energy
Strain energy density is a scalar, so it is objective,
i.e. frame invariant, but its effect on stress can easily
be computed for any frame of reference.
Consider the case of a linearly elastic
material in 1-D with a modulus of E
xx E xx
The stored energy W is
1
1
W xx xx E xx2
2
2
dW
E xx xx
d xx
Alternatively, area between the stress
strain curve and the stress axis is the
complementary strain energy density W*
1
1 2
W xx xx
xx
2
2E
*
dW * 1
xx xx
d xx E
Expand to 3D, linearly elastic system
1
1
W ij ij Cijij ij2
2
2
i, j 1,2,3
where
Cijij is the stiffness coefficient in a 4th order constitutive tensor
ij
W
C ijij ij
ij
W *
ij
ij
If behavior is non-linear, we still take derivatives as above but that
will yield a more complicated set of terms for stress and strain
Strain energy of system must be
computed from energy conjugates
(or equivalent from other finite metrics)
Often formulated with Green-Lagrange strains Eij
and 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stresses Sij.
W
Sij
Eij
This approach uses a strain energy density function and its
use in mechanics is called hyperelasticity.
For many materials or tissues, linearly elastic models do not
accurately describe the observed behavior for large
deformations.
o Example: Rubber, whose stress-strain relationship can be
defined as non-linearly elastic, isotropic and generally
independent of strain rate.
o Hyperelasticity models stress-strain behavior such materials.
o Biolological tissues are also often modeled via hyperelasticity
assuming pseudoelastic behavior.
General Stress-Strain Relations for Hyperelasticity
Lagrangian Stress (1st Piola-Kirchhoff Stress)
is the strain energy density function,
W (F )
F
is the deformation gradient
is the 1st Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor
Then
W
F
or Tij
W
Fij
In terms of Green strain
W
TF
E
Compare to
W
or Tij Fik
Ekj
sum on k
In terms of the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
T 2F
W
C
or Tij 2 Fik
W
Ckj
sum on k
Sij
W
Eij
Cauchy Stress
Similarly, Cauchy stress is given by
1 W T
s
F ; J det F 0
J F
or sij
1 W
F
sumonk
J Fik jk
In terms of Green strain
1 W T
F
F
J E
or
sij
1
W
Fik
Fjl
J
Ekl
sum on k , l
In terms of the right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
2 W T
F
F
J C
or
sij
2
W
Fik
Fjl
J
Ckl
sum on k , l
Note: J is known as Jacobian determinant
Cauchy stress in terms of invariants - 1
Strain energy (a scalar) must be invariant to reference system.
Hence, it can be equivantly formulated from principal stretches or
from invariants of the deformation tensors.
For isotropic hyperelastic materials, Cauchy stress can be
expressed in terms of invariants of left or right Cauchy-Green
deformation tensor or principal stretches below.
I ,I ,I W I ,I ,J W
, ,
W(F) W
1 2 3
1 2
1
2
3
2
s
I3
Equivalent functions
but re-parameterized
W
W
W
I1
B B 2 I 3
1
1
2
2
3
2 1 W
W
W
W
1 W
W
I
B
2
I
1
B
B
1
2/3
1
2
4/3
J J I1
I 2
I1
I 2
J I 2
J
3
where
J det F
I1 J 2/3 I1
I1 12 22 32
I 2 J 4/3 I 2
I 2 12 22 22 32 3212
Cauchy stress in terms of invariants - 2
For isotropic hyperelastic materials, Cauchy stress can be
expressed in terms of invariants of left or right Cauchy-Green
deformation tensor or principal stretches.
1 W
2 W
3 W
s
n1 n1
n2 n2
n3 n3
123 1
123 2
123 3
where the diadic product or outer product above is defined as
u1
u v u2 v1 v2
u3
u1v1 u1v2
uv uv
v3
2 1
2 2
u3v1 u3v2
u1 v3
u2 v3
u3 v3
Outer product makes
vectors into a matrix
Thus,
1
1 0 0
0 0 0
n1 n1 0 1 0 0
0
0 0 0
Inner product makes
vectors into a scalar
etc.
Saint Venant-Kirchhoff Model
Simplest hyperelastic model is Saint Venant-Kirchhoff which is extension of
the Lame linearly elastic, isotropic model for large deformations.
S I tr E
2
where S is the 2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor
E is the Green-Lagrange strain tensor
I is the unit tensor
and are the Lame constants
Strain-energy density function for the St. Venant-Kirchhoff model is
W (E) tr E
2
tr E 2
Note: this is a scalar!
2nd Piola-Kirchhoff stress can be derived from the relation
Sij
W
Eij
Neo-Hookean Model
A neo-Hookean solid is isotropic and assumes that the extra stresses due to
deformation are proportional to the left Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
s pI GB
where
so that
is Cauchy stress tensor
I is unity tensor
B is Finger tensor
G is
s11 p G12
etc.
Note: p doesnt contribute
to SED in incompressible
p is pressure
materials but does to
the shear modulusstress
is deformation gradient
C is right Cauchy-Green deformation tensor
C FT F and B FFT
The strain energy for this model is:
1
W GI1 C1 ( I1 3)
2
where
I1 tr B 12 22 32
Note this is formulated so
derivatives of stretch give
T stress
This model has only one coefficient and is used for incompressible media
Mooney-Rivlin Model
A Mooney-Rivlin solid is a generalization of the neo-Hookean model,
where the strain energy W is a linear combination of two invariants of
the Finger tensor B
W C1 I1 3 C2 I 2 3
I1 and I 2 are 1st and 2nd invariants of the Finger tensor
I 1 12 22 32
I 2 12 22 22 32 32 12
1
1
1
32 12 22
I 3 12 22 32
C1 and C2 are constants that define the isotropic material.
Note above SED is
formulated such that:
W
1
T11 2C11 2C2 3
1
1
etc. (- pressure)
Mooney-Rivlin Model
W C1 I1 3 C2 I 2 3
Note:
Mooney-Rivilin equation is for 3D. Why? How would it change for 1D & 2D?
I 3 is associated with compressibility
I 3 1 for an incompressible medium
I 3 does not enter the equation unless tissue is assumed compressible
1
C1 G (where G is shear modulus)
2
If C2 0 , we obtain a neo-Hookean solid as a special case of Mooney-Rivlin
M-R is often formulated for Cauchy stress from Finger tensor
s pI 2C1B 2C2B 1
For example, for principal direction 1
1
s11 p 2C 2C2 2
1
2
1 1
Mooney-Rivlin Model
W C1 I1 3 C2 I 2 3
This model (in the above form) is incompressible.
It can be modified to admit compressibility if necessary.
This model and variations of it have been frequently used for
biological tissues.
For example, the ground substance in a ligament/tendon model by
Quapp and Weiss (1998) is modeled by these terms. Collagen
fibers were added by superposition of typical exponential
formulation in fiber direction.
The above model was proposed by Melvin Mooney and Ronald
Rivlin separately in 1952.
Mooney-Rivlin vs. Neo-Hookean Models
figure from work by M. Sacks.
Ogden Model
Developed by Ray Ogden in 1972
A more general formulation to fit more complex material/mechanical
behaviors.
It is an extension of the previous models and generally considers
materials that can be assumed to be isotropic, incompressible, and
strain-rate independent.
It can be expressed in terms of principal stretches as:
p p
W 1 , 2 , 3
1 2 p 3 p 3
p 1 p
N , p , p
are material constants
Since the material is assumed incompressible the above can be written as:
p p
W 1 , 2
1 2 p 1 p 2 p 3
p 1 p
N
Ogden Model
p p
W 1 , 2 , 3
1 2 p 3 p 3
p 1 p
N
When
N 3
the behavior of rubbers can be described accurately
N 1, 2
Ogden model reduces to a Neo-Hookean model
N 2, 1 2, 2 2 Ogden model reduces to a Mooney-Rivilin model
Using Ogden model, Cauchy stresses can be computed as:
W
sii p i
i
Fung Model (for large stretches)
Because mechanical behavior for biological tissues is highly nonlinear and anisotropic, Fung postulates a useful SED function
1
W c eQ 1
2
where for orthotropic tissues
Q c1 E112 c2 E222 c3 E332 2c4 E11 E22 2c5 E22 E33 2c6 E33 E11
c7 E122 E212 c8 E232 E322 c9 E132 E312
ci
are material constants that govern nonlinearity of the
tissue (larger is more nonlinear)
is a scaling constant (larger is stiffer)
Sij Eij
are Kirchhoff stresses and Green strains
Fung Model
1 Q
W c e 1
2
Q c1 E112 c2 E222 c3 E332 2c4 E11E22 2c5 E22 E33 2c6 E33 E11
c7 E122 E212 c8 E232 E322 c9 E132 E312
The relationships for stress and strain from SED still hold i.e.
W
S ij
Eij
W *
Eij
S ij
So, for Fungs strain energy function above
S11
W
ce Q c1 E11 c 4 E 22 c 6 E33
E11
S12
W
ceQ c7 E12
E12
Fung Model
Fung Model
(rabbit abdominal skin)
Handles highly non-linear and
anisotropic behaviors very well
(in pseudoelastic sense).
Complex requires many
constants to fit observed
behaviors.
Biaxial Stress and Strain
Figure from Michael Sacks
Structural models with SED
see Michael Sacks paper and formulation as an
example.
BVP example of SED
s
Reference configuration
and thickness H
pressurized configuration
and thickness h
s
Assume a section of a lung is approximately semi-hemispherical and
undergoes unrestricted inflation (like a balloon) under internal pressure.
Lung example of BVP with SED 1
Consider force equilibrium for the pressurized section of lung (under pressure p).
The force to the right is:
F r p
2
The force to the left is:
F 2 rhs
where s is the Cauchy stress
Note that right F
goes up by
square of radius
and left goes up
linearly
Equating these produces a relationship between pressure and membrane stress
r 2 p 2 rhs p
2h
s
r
Equation 1
Stretch ratios are equal in all directions and from expanded surface we obtain
Lung example of BVP with SED 2
Assume tissue incompressibility, hence the volume in the reference
configuration V is conserved in the inflated configuration v
v 4 R2 H / 2 V 4 r 2 h/ 2
R2 h
2
r
H
From the information given above use the Mooney-Rivlin model to
compute and plot both the Cauchy stress and inflation pressure
as a function of stretch. Assume plane stress; that is, membrane
stress through the thickness is small and assumed to be zero.
1
s s11 s22 ph 2C1 2C2 2
1
2
s33 ph 2C1 3 2C2 2
3
1
where 12 3 1 3 2
Equation 2
Equation 3
Lung example of BVP with SED 3
From equation 3, you can solve directly for hydrostatic pressure,
which in turn, can be used in equation 2 for Cauchy stress in the
lung tissue. Once you have an expression for stress, you can
solve equation 1 for pressure.
Alternatively, if you know geometry and pressure, you could solve
the inverse BVP to find material properties.
Expectations
after this section
Know infinitesimal and finite descriptors of
stress and strain
Know what hyperelastic (SED) functions are
and how to get stresses or strains from them
Know simple constitutive formulations for
hyperelastic media
St. Venant-Kirchhoff
Neo-Hookean
Mooney Rivlin
Ogden
Fung
