2020
DOI: 10.1115/1.4046297
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hydrodynamic Bulge Testing: Materials Characterization Without Measuring Deformation

Abstract: Characterizing the elastic properties of soft materials through bulge testing relies on accurate measurement of deformation, which is experimentally challenging. To avoid measuring deformation, we propose a hydrodynamic bulge test for characterizing the material properties of thick, pre-stressed elastic sheets via their fluid-structure interaction with a steady viscous fluid flow. Specifically, the hydrodynamic bulge test relies on a pressure drop measurement across a rectangular microchannel with a deformable… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
(136 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is also worth mentioning that if the top wall is thin with γ 1, the elasticity problem is usually taken to be a plane stress problem, and a 1D engineering model is usually available for the displacement out of plane (i.e., u y here), such as the Kirchhoff-Love (Love, 1888;Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959) and Reissner-Mindlin (Reissner, 1945;Mindlin, 1951) plate theories. However, this fact does not fundamentally contradict with our plane-strain reduction because the decoupling of the cross-sections remains true (Christov et al, 2018;Shidhore and Christov, 2018;Anand et al, 2020) due to the separation of scales, w . Moreover, the discussion above is only based on the balance of Cauchy stresses, and does not involve the boundary conditions either on the sides (i.e., at x = ±w/2) or at the upper surface of the wall (i.e., at ŷ = d or y = h 0 + d).…”
Section: Scaling and Identification Of The Dominant Effectsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…It is also worth mentioning that if the top wall is thin with γ 1, the elasticity problem is usually taken to be a plane stress problem, and a 1D engineering model is usually available for the displacement out of plane (i.e., u y here), such as the Kirchhoff-Love (Love, 1888;Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger, 1959) and Reissner-Mindlin (Reissner, 1945;Mindlin, 1951) plate theories. However, this fact does not fundamentally contradict with our plane-strain reduction because the decoupling of the cross-sections remains true (Christov et al, 2018;Shidhore and Christov, 2018;Anand et al, 2020) due to the separation of scales, w . Moreover, the discussion above is only based on the balance of Cauchy stresses, and does not involve the boundary conditions either on the sides (i.e., at x = ±w/2) or at the upper surface of the wall (i.e., at ŷ = d or y = h 0 + d).…”
Section: Scaling and Identification Of The Dominant Effectsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…Importantly, when (22) can be resolved for ∆p in terms of q, then it is generally expected that the resulting soft hydraulic resistance R h = R h (∆p). Deriving analytical expressions for R h (∆p), and obtaining a "generalized Ohm's law" for soft resistors, has been the goal of a number of recent studies [100,114,53,115,106,108,116].…”
Section: Flow Rate-pressure Gradient Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…are negligible, has been justified by perturbation methods [100,108,116,109,106] within the long and shallow conduit scaling that leads to the lubrication approximation. Thus, unlike rigid pipes (figure 4), calculating the hydraulic resistance of a soft conduit requires the solution of a non-trivial elasticity problem (figure 7), in addition to the flow problem.…”
Section: Deformation-pressure Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations