Experimental Monitoring of Nonlinear Wave Interactions Under Uniaxial Load

Malcolm, Alison; Hayes, Lauren; Moravej, Kamal; Melnikov, Andrey; Poduska, Kristin M.; Butt, Stephen

doi:10.1002/essoar.10509364.1

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To demonstrate calculations of probe wave speed changes, we use an example configuration shown in figure 1 based on experimental work by [15], in which they applied a static load and a pump wave. Pump shear wave transducers (the source and the receiver) are attached to the X 2 X 3 plane.…”

Section: Calculations For An Example Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the pump-induced deformation fields used in dynamic acoustoelastic testing are typically smaller than static deformations induced by mechanical presses (for example), nonlinear wave effects in rocks can be observed at strains as low as 10 −8 , and thus dynamic acoustoelastic testing is feasible even with small strains [14]. Furthermore, this sort of testing can be performed in the presence of both a static deformation (due to an applied load) and a pump-induced dynamic deformation [15], as shown in figure 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of Landau–Lifshitz and neo-Hookean models for static and dynamic acoustoelastic testing

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of three different isotropic non-linear elastic models uncovers subtle but important differences in the acoustoelastic responses of a material slab that is subjected to dynamic deformations during a pump-probe experiment. The probe wave deformations are small and are superimposed on larger underlying deformations using three different models: Landau-Lifshitz (using its fourth-order extension), compressible neo-Hookean model (accounting for volumetric deformations), and an alternative neo-Hookean model (fully decoupled energies due to distortional isochoric and volumetric deformations). The analyses yield elasticity tensors and respective expressions for the propagation speeds of P-wave and S-wave probes for each model. Despite having many similarities, the different models give different predictions of which probe wave types will have speeds that are perturbed by different pump wave types. The analyses also show a conceptual inconsistency in the Landau-Lifshitz model, that a simple shear deformation induces a stress and a shear wave probe speed that depend on the second-order elastic constant λ, which controls resistance to volumetric changes and thus should not be present in the expressions for shear stress and shear wave probe speeds. Thus, even though the Landau-Lifshitz model is widely used, it may not always be the best option to model experimental data.

show abstract

Section: Calculations For An Example Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%