structures

Alan Arnold Griffith

Everest of fracture surface [By Kaspar Kallip (CC BY-SA 4.0), via Wikimedia Commons]

Some of you maybe aware that I hold the AA Griffith Chair of Structural Materials and Mechanics at the University of Liverpool.  I feel that some comment on this blog about Griffith’s seminal work is long overdue and so I am correcting that this week.  I wrote this piece for a step in week 4 of a five-week MOOC on Understanding Super Structures which will start on May 22nd, 2017.

Alan Arnold Griffith was a pioneer in fracture mechanics who studied mechanical engineering at the University of Liverpool at the beginning of the last century.  He earned a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree and a PhD before moving to work for the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough in 1915.

He is famous for his study of failure in materials.  He observed that there were microscopic cracks or flaws in materials that concentrated the stress.  And he postulated that these cracks were the source of failure in a material.  He used strain energy concepts to analyse the circumstances in which a crack or flaw would propagate and cause failure of a component.  In order to break open a material, we need to separate adjacent atoms from one another, and break the bonds between them.  This requires a steady supply of energy to do the work required to separate one pair of atoms after another and break their bonds.  It’s a bit like unpicking a seam to let out your trousers when you’ve put on some weight.  You have to unpick each stitch and if you stop working the seam stays half undone.  In a material with a stress raiser or concentration, then the concentration is quite good at delivering stress and strain to the local area to separate atoms and break bonds.  This is fine when external work is being applied to the material so that there is a constant supply of new energy that can be used to break bonds.  But what about, if the supply of external energy dries up, then can the crack continue to grow?  Griffith concluded that in certain circumstances it could continue to grow.

He arrived at this conclusion by postulating that the energy required to propagate the crack was the work of fracture per unit length of crack, that’s the work needed to separate two atoms and break their bond.  Since atoms are usually distributed uniformly in a material, this energy requirement increases linearly with the length of the crack.  However, as the crack grows the material in its wake can no longer sustain any load because the free surface formed by the crack cannot react against a load to satisfy Newton’s Law.  The material in the wake of the crack relaxes, and gives up strain energy [see my post entitled ‘Slow down time to think (about strain energy)‘ on March 8th, 2017], which can be used to break more bonds at the crack tip.  Griffith postulated that the material in the wake of the crack tip would look like the wake from a ship, in other words it would be triangular, and so the strain energy released would proportional to area of the wake, which in turn would be related to the crack length squared.

So, for a short crack, the energy requirement to extend the crack exceeds the strain energy released in its wake and the crack will be stable and stationary; but there is a critical crack length, at which the energy release is greater than the energy requirements, and the crack will grow spontaneously and rapidly leading to very sudden failure.

While I have followed James Gordon’s lucid explanation of Griffith’s theory and used a two-dimensional approach, Griffith actually did it in three-dimensions, using some challenging mathematics, and arrived at an expression for the critical length of crack. However, the conclusion is the same, that the critical length is related to the ratio of the work required for new surfaces and the stored strain energy released as the crack advances.  Griffith demonstrated his theory for glass and then others quickly demonstrated that it could be applied to a range of materials.

For instance, rubber can absorb a lot of strain energy and has a low work of fracture, so the critical crack length for spontaneous failure is very low, which is why balloons go pop when you stick a pin in them.  Nowadays, tyre blowouts are relatively rare because the rubber in a tyre is reinforced with steel cords that increase the work required to create new surfaces – it’s harder to separate the rubber because it’s held together by the cords.

By the way, James Gordon’s explanation of Griffith’s theory of fracture, which I mentioned, can be found in his seminal book: ‘Structures, or Why Things Don’t Fall Down’ published by Penguin Books Ltd in 1978.  The original work was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society as ‘The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids’ by AA Griffith, February 26, 1920.

Attribute triplets

It’s curious how we latch on to three-word lists, or attribute triplets.  There’s the famous one attributed to Julius Caesar in a letter to the Roman Senate about one of his military victories: ‘Veni. Vidi. Vici.’ – I came. I saw. I conquered.  In my forthcoming MOOC on Understanding Super Structures, I cite the Roman architect and engineer, Vitruvius who recommended that structures should have ‘Firmatas. Utilitas. Venustas.’ – Durability. Utility. Beauty.   Perhaps these were the original soundbites.  In modern times, the concept has been taken down-market by realtors (estate agents) who talk about ‘Location. Location. Location.’  And, by my leadership coach at the Center for Creative Leadership, who told us that the three laws of leadership were ‘Communication. Communication. Communication.’  This seems to represent trading content for impact . So, I was surprised to see, on the frontpage of our weekend newspaper in large type, the following:  ‘Knowledge. Integrity. Discretion.’  I thought perhaps they were describing the attributes of a college tutor or a life mentor.  However, they were part of an advertisement for a realtor, who was claiming ‘to have unrivalled knowledge [and to] provide a trusted and personal service’.  Sounds like a college tutor again!  Maybe as college professors, we should promote ourselves as having ‘Knowledge. Skills. Understanding.’  Of course, we don’t offer these attributes to our students, only the opportunity to learn how to acquire them – a subtlety that’s missed by a substantial number of our students.

Instructive report and Brexit

Even though this blog is read in more than 100 countries, surely nobody can be unaware of the furore about Brexit – the UK Government’s plan to leave the European Union.  The European Commission has been funding my research for more than twenty years and I am a frequent visitor to their Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy.  During the last decade, I have led consortia of industry, national labs and universities that rejoice in names such as SPOTS, VANESSA and, most recently MOTIVATE.  These are acronyms based loosely on the title of the research project.  Currently, there is no sign that these pan-European research programmes will exclude scientists and engineers from the UK, but then the process of leaving the EU has not yet started, so who knows…

At the moment, I am working with a small UK company, Strain Solutions Ltd, on a EU project called INSTRUCTIVE.  I said these were loose acronyms and this one is very loose: Infrared STRUctural monitoring of Cracks using Thermoelastic analysis in production enVironmEnts.  We are working with Airbus in France, Germany, Spain and the UK to transition a technology from the laboratory to the industrial test environment.  Airbus conducts full-scale fatigue tests on airframe structures to ensure that they have the appropriate life-cycle performance and the INSTRUCTIVE project will deliver a new tool for monitoring the development of damage, in the form of cracks, during these tests.  The technology is thermoelastic stress analysis, which is well-established as a laboratory-based technique [1] for structural analysis [2], fracture mechanics [3] and damage mechanics [4], that I described in a post on November 18th, 2015 [see ‘Counting photons to measure stress’].  It’s exciting to be evolving it into an industrial technique but also to be looking at the potential to apply it using cheap infrared cameras instead of the current laboratory instruments that cost tens of thousands of any currency.  It’s a three-year project and we’ve just completed our first year so we should finish before any Brexit consequences!  Anyway, the image gives you a taster and I plan to share more results with you shortly…

BTW – You might get the impression from my recent posts that teaching MOOCs [see ‘Slowing down time to think [about strain energy]’ on March 8th, 2017] and leadership [see ‘Inspirational leadership’ on March 22nd, 2018] were foremost amongst my activities.  I only write about my research occasionally.  This would not be an accurate impression because the majority of my working life is spent supervising and writing about research.  Perhaps, it’s because I spend so much time writing about research in my ‘day job’ that last year I only blogged about it three times on: digital twins [see ‘Can you trust your digital twin?’ on November 23rd, 2016], model credibility [see ‘Credibility is in the Eye of the Beholder’ on April 20th, 2016] and model validation [see Models as fables on March 16th, 2016].  This list gives another false impression – that my research is focussed on digital modelling and simulation.  It is just the trendiest part of my research activity.  So, I thought that I should correct this imbalance with some INSTRUCTIVE posts.

References:

[1] Greene, R.J., Patterson, E.A., Rowlands, R.E., 2008, ‘Thermoelastic stress analysis’, in Handbook of Experimental Mechanics edited by W.N. Sharpe Jr., Springer, New York.

[2] Rowlands, R.E., Patterson, E.A., 2008, ‘Determining principal stresses thermoelastically’, J. Strain Analysis, 43(6):519-527.

[3] Diaz, F.A., Patterson, E.A., Yates, J.R., 2009, ‘Assessment of effective stress intensity factors using thermoelastic stress analysis’, J. Strain Analysis, 44 (7), 621-632.

[4] Fruehmann RK, Dulieu-Barton JM, Quinn S, Thermoelastic stress and damage analysis using transient loading, Experimental Mechanics, 50:1075-1086, 2010.

Slowing down time to think [about strain energy]

161-6167_imgLet me take you bungee jumping.  I should declare that I am not qualified to do so, unless you count an instructor’s certificate for rock-climbing and abseiling, obtained about forty years ago.  For our imaginary jump, pick a bridge with a good view and a big drop to the water below and I’ll meet you there with the ropes and safety gear.

It’s a clear early morning and the air is crisp and fresh – ideal for throwing yourself off a bridge attached to a rope.  The rope is the star of this event.  It’s brand new, which is reassuring, and arrived coiled over my shoulder.  A few days ago, I asked you how much you weigh – that’s your real weight fully clothed, at least I hope that’s the number you gave me otherwise my calculations will be wrong and you’ll get wet this morning!  I have calculated how much the rope will stretch when it arrests your free-fall from the bridge parapet; so, now I am measuring out enough rope to give you an exciting fall but to stop you short of the water.  I’m a professor of structural materials and mechanics so I feel confident of getting this bit right; but it’s a long time since I worked as an abseiling instructor so I suggest you check those knots and that harness that we’ve just tightened around you.

You’ve swung yourself over the parapet and you’re standing on the ledge that the civil engineers conveniently left for bridge jumpers.  The rope is loosely coiled ready with its end secured to a solid chunk of parapet.  As you alternate between soaking up the beautiful view and contemplating the chasm at your feet, you wonder why you agreed to come with me.  At this moment, you have a lot of potential energy due to your height above the sparkling water [potential energy is your mass multiplied by your height and gravitational acceleration], but no kinetic energy because you are standing motionless.  The rope is relaxed or undeformed and has zero strain energy.

Finally, you jump and time seems to stand still for you as the fall appears to be happening in slow motion.  The air begins to rush past your ears in a whoosh as you build up speed and gain kinetic energy [equal to one half your mass multiplied by your velocity squared].  The bridge disappeared quickly but the water below seems only to be approaching slowly as you lose height and potential energy.  In reality, your brain is playing tricks on you because you are being accelerated towards the water by gravity [at about 10 metres per second squared] but your total energy is constant [potential plus kinetic energy unchanged].  Suddenly, your speed becomes very apparent.  The water seems very close and you cry out in surprise.  But the rope is beginning to stretch converting your kinetic energy into strain energy stored by stretching its fibres [at a molecular level work is being done to move molecules apart and away from their equilibrium position].  Suddenly, you stop moving downwards and just before you hit the water surface, the rope hurls you upwards – your potential energy reached a minimum and you ran out of kinetic energy to give the rope; so now it’s giving you back that stored strain energy [and the molecules are relaxing to their equilibrium position].  You are gaining height and speed so both your kinetic and potential energy are rising with that squeal that just escaped from you.

Now, you’ve noticed that the rope has gone slack and you’re passing a loop of it as you continue upwards but more slowly.  The rope ran out of strain energy and you’re converting kinetic energy into potential energy.  Just as you work out that’s happening, you run out of kinetic energy and you start to free-fall again.

Time no longer appears to stationary and your brain is working more normally.  You begin to wonder how many times you’ll bounce [quite a lot because the energy losses due to frictional heating in the rope and drag on your body are relatively small] and why you didn’t ask me what happens at the end.  You probably didn’t ask because you were more worried about jumping and were confident that I knew what I was doing, which was foolish because, didn’t I tell you, I’ve never been bungee jumping and I have no idea how to get you back up onto the bridge.  How good were you at rope-climbing in the gym at school?

When eventually you stop oscillating, the rope will still be stretched due to the force on it generated by your weight.  However, we can show mathematically that the strain energy and deformation under this static load will be half the values experienced under the dynamic loading caused by your fall from the bridge parapet.  That means you’ll have a little less distance to climb to the parapet!

Today’s post is a preview for my new MOOC on ‘Understanding Super Structures’, which is scheduled to start on May 22nd, 2017.  This is the script for a step in week 2 of the five-week course, unless the director decides it’s too dangerous.  By the way, don’t try this home or on a bridge anywhere.

More violent storms

I made a mistake last week by initially publishing two posts.  My apologies for confusing you or tantalising you with the prospect of going bungee jumping and then postponing the trip.  We’ll go bungee jumping next week.  I postponed it because it’s a preview of the new MOOC on ‘Understanding Super Structures‘ that I am writing and there was a delay in publishing the registration page for the MOOC.

When I posted my comment about postponing the bungee jump due to rain, I didn’t realize that, the following day Liverpool would be battered by Storm Doris, with 90 miles per hour winds that closed the Port of Liverpool.  As I sat writing week 4 of the new MOOC, the wind was swirling around our house causing the windows to rattle; and, on the top storey of our narrow but tall house, you could feel the house moving in the gusts of wind.  Across the street, people visiting Liverpool Cathedral were hanging onto the railings as they made their way to the entrance, and the trees were being bent over to an angle that made you think there would be a loud cracking and splintering of wood at any moment.  Fortunately, the storm was short-lived in Liverpool and moved on to wreak havoc inland.  Bungee jumping would have been very hazardous!

The number of violent storms appears to be increasing and the graphic shows the number of storms in the Atlantic basin since 1850.  Although there is a lot of scatter in the data, there is a clear concentration in the last couple of decades of years with fifteen of more named storms, which suggests there has been more energy in the weather systems in recent years.  The primary source of this energy is the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere.  There is a good account of the development of storms cells in Manuel Delanda’s book ‘Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthetic Reason‘, see chapter 1 – The Storm in the Computer, which is available via Google Preview.

The increased frequency of high-energy storm systems is a very apparent manifestation of climate change that is having an impact on many people.  Yet, some governments refuse to even consider the possibility that our climate is changing and that they need to lead our society in discussing and planning strategies to mitigate the impacts.  It reminds me of the saying, attributed to Henri Poincare: ‘To doubt everything, or, to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.’