text:
# Physical picture for fractures in stratified materials: viscoelastic effects in large cracks

## I Introduction

Strong structures created in nature through a long history of natural selection sometimes take advantage of composite structures such as laminar structures (tooth, timber etc.) where soft and hard layers are intertwined. Biomimetics aims at exploiting such ideas and some industrial materials (from blockboard to high-tech tires) have utilized the concept of stacking lamellae to enhance their toughness cmp1 ; cmp2 ; cmp3 ; cmp4 ; cmp5 . In a series of papers v1 ; v2 ; v3 , we have studied another example of such soft-hard laminar structure on nanoscales, nacre nacre1 ; nacre2 ; nacre3 ; nacre4 , to present physical pictures for this substance.

The structure and notations are illustrated in Fig. 1. A typical thickness $`d_s`$ of the soft layer made from a protein, conchiolin, is dozens of nanometer, which is much smaller than a micrometric thickness $`d_s`$ of the hard layer composed of aragonite. An elastic modulus $`E_s`$ of the soft layer is also much smaller than $`E_h`$ of the hard layer where the latter is roughly given by 50 GPa. We define two small quantities:

$`\epsilon _d`$ $`=d_s/d_h`$ (1)
$`\epsilon _0`$ $`=E_s/E_h`$ (2)
An important property of nacre is that $`\epsilon `$ defined by

$$\epsilon \epsilon _0/\epsilon _d$$
(3)
is very small. We will work in the limit of $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _d,\epsilon 1`$, and also in the continuum limit where relevant length scales are much larger than the layer spacing $`d`$:

$$d=d_s+d_h.$$
(4)
We emphasize here that under these conditions our theory is applicable to a general layered structure other than nacre. Physically, $`\epsilon _d`$ has to be small to make a relatively ridged material (as a whole), while $`\epsilon `$ (and thus $`\epsilon _0`$) has to be small to make the stress concentration around tip small to enhance the toughness; these conditions seem to have been indeed selected in nacre by nature.

We have been studied both perpendicular and parallel fractures (see Fig. 1) within the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM Anderson ) under the plain strain condition (the sample is thick in the $`z`$-direction) v1 ; v2 ; v3 . One of our aims here is to include a linear viscoelastic effect into this system.

## II Novel views on previous results

The proposed elastic energy per unit volume of the stratified system is given by v2

$$f=E_he_{xx}^2+E_0e_{yy}^2+E_0e_{xy}^2+E_0e_{xx}e_{yy}$$
(5)
where

$$E_0=\epsilon E_h,$$
(6)
We have introduced the strain field

$$e_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{u_i}{x_j}+\frac{u_j}{x_i}\right)$$
(7)
for the deformation field $`u_i`$ where $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(x,y,z)`$. This energy reflects, via $`\sigma _{ij}=f/e_{ij},`$ intuitively self-evident properties that (1) this system is hard for a tensile stress in the $`x`$-direction ($`\sigma _{xx}E_he_{xx}`$) due to hard layers, (2) it is soft for a tensile stress in the $`y`$-direction ($`\sigma _{yy}E_0e_{yy}`$) due to soft layers, and (3) it is soft for a shear stress ($`\sigma _{xy}E_0e_{xy}`$) again due to soft layers. Here, we notice that the effectiveness of soft layers is diminished ($`E_sE_0`$) by the thin thickness of the soft layers.

For parallel fractures, we have shown that a usually negligible bending term becomes important v3 , which shall be confirmed below from a different viewpoint. The bending term is given by

$$f_B=K_B\left(\frac{^2u_y}{x^2}\right)^2$$
(8)
where

$$K_B=E_hd^2E_0l^2.$$
(9)
Here we have introduced a length scale,

$$l=d/\sqrt{\epsilon },$$
(10)
which is much longer than the layer period $`d`$. This bending term becomes important also in certain liquid crystals lenticular ; LQ . However, there is a significant difference from the present situation; in liquid crystals $`l`$ is replaced by a much smaller length of the order of atomic scales, which results in a strain distribution quite different from nacre (see below).

### II.1 Scaling structure of elastic energy

An important difference from the conventional isotropic elastic theory is that, in an anisotropic system such as nacre, there exist two distinct length scales $`X`$ and $`Y`$ . On the contrary, in isotropic systems at equilibrium when the elastic body is deformed over a range of $`R`$ in the $`x`$-direction, the deformation relaxes out at the same distance $`R`$ also in the $`y`$-direction; this is because the deformation field of an isotropic system satisfies an elliptic differential equation with a unique length scale (under the plain strain condition). In other words, the deformation in nacre does not satisfy the Laplace equation. Note here that, in the context of a fracture problem, $`X`$ corresponds to a length of parallel fracture while $`Y`$ to that of perpendicular fracture (see Fig. 2 below).

Thus, a local energy (per unit volume) of nacre is dimensionally expressed as

$`f`$ $`E_h\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_x}{X}}\right)^2+E_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{Y}}\right)^2`$
$`+E_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_x}{Y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{X}}\right)^2+E_0{\displaystyle \frac{u_x}{X}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{Y}}+K_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_y}{X^2}}\right)^2`$ (11)
At equilibrium (statics), $`f`$ is locally minimized for both variables $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$; we have two equations for $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$, i.e. $`f/u_x=0`$ and $`f/u_y=0`$. Seeking the relevant solution by requiring $`(u_x,u_y)(0,0)`$, we have an equation for $`X`$ and $`Y`$. This equation has two solution specifying a relation between $`X`$ and $`Y`$; one corresponds to perpendicular fractures while the other to parallel fractures. We should note that here and hereafter a limitation of this type of dimensional expressions: relative signs (or phases of complex numbers) sometimes can not be specified.

#### II.1.1 Parallel fractures

The solution for parallel fractures announces a relation, $`X^2Y^2\left(1+l^2/X^2\right)`$, which implies two regimes for this problem: $`Xl`$ and $`Xl`$.

For large fractures ($`Xl`$), we have an isotropic relation,

$$XY.$$
(12)
On the other hand, with an aide of a relation $`f/u_x=0`$ together with Eq. (12), we obtain an anisotropic deformation field,

$$u_x\epsilon u_y;$$
(13)
we find $`u_xu_y`$, which is appropriate for parallel fractures. Using Eqs. (12) and (13), we can estimate magnitudes of each term in Eq. (11). Keeping terms only at the leading order in $`\epsilon `$, we arrive at

$$fE_0\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^2$$
(14)
where we denote scales of $`X\left(Y\right)`$ and $`u_y`$ as $`R`$ and $`u`$, respectively. This corresponds to a more precise form $`fE_0\left(\frac{u_y}{y}\right)^2+E_0\left(\frac{u_y}{x}\right)^2`$ shown in v2 .

For small fractures ($`Xl`$), we have instead

$$X^2Yl,$$
(15)
which implies $`XY`$. The deformation field satisfies

$$u_x\frac{l}{X}\epsilon u_y$$
(16)
Here, we note an important condition for a continuum theory: $`X,Y>d`$. This condition, together with Eq. (10), results in

$$\epsilon l^2/X^2,\epsilon l^2/Y^2<1$$
(17)
which implies $`\epsilon l/X,\epsilon l/Y<\sqrt{\epsilon }1`$ (note also that this does not necessarily imply $`l<X,Y`$; e.g. $`X\sqrt{\epsilon }l`$ satisfies both $`l>X`$ and $`\epsilon l/X<1`$). Thus, we again find $`u_xu_y`$. In this way, we arrive at

$$fE_0\left(\frac{u}{Y}\right)^2K_B\left(\frac{u}{X^2}\right)^2$$
(18)
which corresponds to $`fE_0\left(\frac{u_y}{y}\right)^2+K_B\left(\frac{^2u_y}{x^2}\right)^2`$ shown in v3 .

#### II.1.2 Perpendicular fractures

The solution for perpendicular fractures announces an anisotropic relations,

$`Y`$ $`\sqrt{\epsilon }X`$ (19)
$`u_y`$ $`\sqrt{\epsilon }u_x`$ (20)
for which $`u_xu_y`$. These relations lead to an energy,

$$fE_h\left(\frac{u}{X}\right)^2E_0\left(\frac{u}{Y}\right)^2.$$
(21)
Here, $`u`$ denotes not $`u_y`$ but $`u_x`$. This energy corresponds to $`fE_h\left(\frac{u_x}{x}\right)^2+E_0\left(\frac{u_x}{y}\right)^2`$ shown in v2 .

### II.2 Scaling views on fracture mechanics

We consider a fracture in nacre-type materials. Strain distribution for three types of fractures are schematically given in Fig. 2. We should note that these figures are at the scaling level and thus they are rather rough images; some examples of comparison with exact results are given in Appendix. We will develop below scaling arguments in order to reproduce our previous results but only dimensionally. Similar arguments in a different context was first presented in lenticular .

#### II.2.1 Parallel fractures

For large cracks ($`Xl`$), the strain distribution is isotropic (Fig. 2a) and, thus, the potential energy per unit crack-front length (in $`z`$-direction) is dimensionally given by

$$FE_0\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)^2R^2\sigma uR+2G_{}R$$
(22)
where the first two terms describes the elastic potential energy and the last term an energy loss due to a creation of new surfaces in this system: $`G_{}`$ is the fracture energy (energy required to create a unit area). We minimize this energy with respect to $`u`$ to find a Hooke’s law

$$\sigma E_0u/R$$
(23)
which leads to an optimized energy value,

$$F_m\sigma ^2R^2/E_0+2G_{}R,$$
(24)
which is quadratic in $`R`$; the maximum is given at $`R=R^{}`$:

$$\sigma \sqrt{G_{}E_0/R^{}}.$$
(25)
When $`R<R^{}`$, $`F_m`$ decreases with decrease in $`R`$; a fracture with the size smaller than $`R^{}`$ tends to close to lower the energy. On the contrary, when $`R>R^{}`$, $`F_m`$ decreases with increase in $`R`$; a fracture with the size larger than $`R^{}`$ tends to expand. Thus, Eq. (25) corresponds to a critical failure stress. From Eqs. (23) and (25), we have

$$u\sqrt{G_{}R^{}/E_0}$$
(26)
Eqs. (25) and (26) give scaling structures for the stress and deformation fields obtained more precisely in v2 : the stress scales as $`R^{1/2}`$ and the deformation is parabolic$`\left(\sqrt{R}\right)`$ as in the conventional LEFM. They also give a scaling relation

$$\sigma uG_{},$$
(27)
which announces that the product $`\sigma u`$ (at critical state, $`RR^{}`$) gives the fracture energy (see Discussion). The fracture energy $`G_{}`$ might be associated with the separation energy of the soft layer and we previously concluded that there was no significant enhancement in this mode. Due to the ensuing analysis we can afford a more precise understanding on this.

In conventional LEFM, the stress intensity factor $`K`$ scales as $`\sqrt{𝒢E_0}`$ in the present context where $`𝒢`$ is *the energy release rate* and its critical value is the fracture energy $`\left(G_{}\right)`$. Eq. (25) suggests that $`K`$ scales not as $`\sqrt{𝒢E_0}`$ but as its critical value$`\sqrt{G_{}E_0}`$; this is logical because in Eqs. (25)-(27) we are always at a critical of failure ($`RR^{}`$).

For small cracks ($`Xl`$), the strain distribution is anisotropic (Fig. 2b). We note here that this distribution is quite different from certain cases of liquid crystals lenticular ; there strain is distributed more widely in $`y`$-direction than in $`x`$-direction. The potential of our system is given by

$$FK_B\left(\frac{u}{X^2}\right)^2XY\sigma uX+2G_{}X.$$
(28)
We minimize this energy with respect to $`u`$ to find a Hooke’s law

$$\sigma E_0u/Y$$
(29)
which corresponds to $`\sigma _{yy}E_0u_y/y`$. Note here that the dominant component of stress field tensor is $`\sigma _{yy}`$ $`\left(\text{e.g. }\sigma _{xy}E_0u_y/xE_0(u/X)\sigma _{yy}\text{ due to Eq. (}\text{15}\text{)}\right)`$. The energy optimized for $`u`$ is here given by

$$F_m\sigma ^2X^3l/K_B+2G_{}X.$$
(30)
$`F_m`$ takes its maximum value at $`XX^{}\sqrt{Y^{}l}`$, where

$`\sigma `$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{K_BG_{}}{l}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_{}E_0}{Y^{}}}},`$ (31)
$`u`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{lG_{}}{K_B}}}X^{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_{}Y^{}}{E_0}}},`$ (32)
Eqs. (31) and (32) give scaling structures for the stress and deformation fields as well as a scaling relation $`\sigma uG_{}`$. We emphasize here that the stress thus obtained (which is proportional to strain) is indeed anisotropic; $`\sigma 1/X1/\sqrt{Yl}`$. The stress and deformation fields obtained in v3  are also consistent with these scaling structures; we can check that, dimensionally, $`\sigma (x,y)`$ and $`u(x,y)`$ derived in v3  indeed reduce to Eqs. (31) and (32) by setting $`x^2yl`$ (because we are always in the regime specified by Eq. (15) at the scaling level).

#### II.2.2 Perpendicular fractures

The strain distribution is anisotropic (Fig. 2c) and, thus, the potential is given by

$$FE_h\left(\frac{u}{X}\right)^2XY\sigma uY+2G_{}Y,$$
(33)
where $`G_{}`$ is the fracture energy. We minimize this energy with respect to $`u`$ to find a Hooke’s law

$$\sigma E_hu/X$$
(34)
which corresponds to $`\sigma _{xx}E_hu_x/x`$ (the dominant stress tensor component in this case is $`\sigma _{xx}`$). The energy optimized for $`u`$ is here given by

$$F_m\frac{\sigma ^2Y^2}{\sqrt{\epsilon }E_h}+2G_{}Y.$$
(35)
$`F_m`$ takes its maximum value at $`YY^{}\sqrt{\epsilon }X^{}`$, where

$`\sigma `$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_{}E_h}{Y^{}/\sqrt{\epsilon }}}},`$ (36)
$`u`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_{}}{E_h}}\left(Y^{}/\sqrt{\epsilon }\right)},`$ (37)
Scaling structures for the stress and deformation fields in Eqs. (36) and (37) are in accord with results in v2  (the stress or strain thus obtained is indeed anisotropic). In this case, we can estimate the fracture energy $`\sigma uG_{}`$ via the maximum stress for a continuum stress $`\left(\sigma _F\sqrt{\sqrt{\epsilon }G_{}E_h/d}\right)`$ balancing with the yield stress of the pure aragonite $`\left(\sigma _{YS}\sqrt{E_h\gamma _h/a_h}\right)`$: $`G_{}\lambda _{}\gamma _h`$ where $`\lambda _{}=d/\left(\sqrt{\epsilon }a_h\right)1`$; the fracture energy is enhanced from that of the pure aragonite $`\gamma _h`$ because $`a_h\left(d\right)`$ is a microscopic size of defects in a sample.

## III Inclusion of viscoelastic effect

From the above scaling arguments, we have seen that $`u_y`$ is a dominant component of the deformation field for parallel fractures while $`u_x`$ is important for perpendicular fractures. Since $`u_y`$ essentially corresponds to the deformation in soft layers while $`u_x`$ to that in hard layers, viscoelastic effects associated with extremely soft layers becomes important only for parallel fractures; we shall include these effects into our theory.

As a model for viscoelasticity, we employ the simplest model (also utilized in trumpet ):

$$\mu (\omega )=\mu _0+\left(\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0\right)\frac{i\omega \tau }{1+i\omega \tau }$$
(38)
This is the minimal model to include the following essential properties of weakly cross-linked network: (1) its slow motions are governed by a weak-modulus $`\mu _0`$ associated with weak cross-links, (2) its fast motions involve a strong-modulus $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ ($``$ $`\mu _0`$) originating from entanglements.

This model is a special case of the Zener model (see Fig. 3), Hui ; Oudet  for which stress $`\sigma `$ and strain $`e`$ satisfy the relation,

$$\sigma +\frac{\eta }{E_2}\dot{\sigma }=E_3e+\eta \frac{E_2+E_3}{E_2}\dot{e}$$
(39)
with identification, $`E_3=\mu _0`$, $`E_2=\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0,`$ and $`\tau =\eta /E_2`$.

The previous purely elastic treatment should correspond to the zero frequency limit or the static limit of a viscoelastic model. For parallel fractures, ($`y,y`$) component of stress ($`\sigma `$) is important, for which we write $`\sigma =\sigma _sE_se_s`$ where $`\sigma _s`$ and $`e_s`$ denote stress and strain of soft layers. Thus, it is natural to require that soft layers obey the trumpet relation $`\sigma _s+\tau \dot{\sigma }_s=\mu _0e_s+\mu _{\mathrm{}}\tau \dot{e}_s`$ with $`\mu _0=E_s`$, because then the static limit reduces to the desired form. Noting the relations between coarse-grained stress and strain of nacre ($`\sigma `$ and $`e`$) and more local stress and strain of soft layers ($`\sigma _s`$ and $`e_s`$), i.e. $`\sigma =\sigma _s`$ and $`e_sd_s=ed`$, we deduce a viscoelastic model for nacre:

$$\sigma +\tau \dot{\sigma }=E_0e+E_{\mathrm{}}\tau \dot{e}$$
(40)
where

$`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=\lambda E_0=\lambda E_s/\epsilon _d`$ (41)
$`\tau `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{\mu _{\mathrm{}}\mu _0}}`$ (42)
$`\lambda `$ $`=\mu _{\mathrm{}}/\mu _0`$ (43)
We note again that $`\mu _0=E_s`$ is associated with weak cross-links in soft layers, while $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ with entanglement in soft layers.

Putting $`\sigma =\sigma _me^{i\omega t}`$ and $`e=e_me^{i\omega t}`$, with the definition of the viscoelastic modulus, $`\sigma _m=\mu (\omega )e_m`$, we obtain Eq. (38) with $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mu _0`$ replaced by $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`E_0`$, respectively. This model can be divided into three regimes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{I. }\omega \tau 1/\lambda \text{:}\hfill & \mu (\omega )E_0\hfill & \text{(soft solid)}\hfill \\ \text{II. }1/\lambda \omega \tau 1\text{:}\hfill & \mu (\omega )i\omega \eta \hfill & \text{ (liquid)}\hfill \\ \text{III. }1\omega \tau \text{:}\hfill & \text{ }\mu (\omega )E_{\mathrm{}}\hfill & \text{(hard solid)}\hfill \end{array}\text{ }$$
(44)
## IV Crack shape and fracture energy

In the following we consider only large cracks: $`lX`$. The opposite limit is examined in a separate article. EPL  In the case of such large cracks, we are always in the isotropic regime where $`XY(R)`$ (see also Fig. 2a). We imagine a crack propagating at a constant speed $`V`$. For simplicity, we treat only certain large velocities: $`lV\tau `$; although it is very difficult to estimate $`\tau `$ for the protein, this corresponds to $`\tau 10^2`$ s for $`l100`$ $`\mu `$m and $`V1`$ cm/s.

An important observation here is the scaling identification of a distance $`r`$ from the tip and the frequency $`\omega `$ via a stationary crack-propagation speed $`V`$:

$$rV/\omega ;$$
(45)
small distances correspond to high frequencies while long distances to low frequencies — the farther away from the tip, the more time for relaxation. Corresponding to Eq. (44), the fracture is spatially divided into three regions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{I. }\lambda V\tau r\text{:}\hfill & \text{soft solid}\hfill \\ \text{II. }V\tau r\lambda V\tau \text{:}\hfill & \text{liquid}\hfill \\ \text{III. }drV\tau \text{:}\hfill & \text{hard solid}\hfill \end{array}\text{ }$$
(46)
Another important observation is that, in certain model of viscoelasticity, the scaling relation $`\sigma r^{1/2}`$ (where $`r`$ is a distance from the fracture tip) still holds as in a purely elastic model. This point shall be explained in next section.

First we consider a large crack size ($`L\lambda V\tau `$); then, all the three regions I-III are present. The soft-solid region I corresponds to low frequencies, and thus, to the static limit; in this region ($`r\lambda V\tau l`$), Eqs. (25)-(27) holds. In the liquid zone II, the stress field scales as $`\sigma \omega \eta e\eta Vu/r^2`$ and at the same time it should scale as $`\sigma r^{1/2}`$ from the above second observation. Thus, the strain should scale as $`ur^{3/2}`$ and the product as $`\sigma ur`$. The coefficients can be determined by matching at $`r\lambda V\tau `$, i.e. the boundary between I and II: for example, we have

$$\sigma uG_{}\frac{r}{\lambda V\tau }\text{ (liquid zone)}.$$
(47)
When we reach the hard solid region ($`rV\tau `$), we find

$$\sigma uG_{}/\lambda \text{ (hard-solid zone)}$$
(48)
When we are in the solid region, as in the same manner (due to the simplifying condition $`lV\tau `$) with the derivation of Eqs. (25)-(27), we can show

$`\sigma `$ $`\sqrt{G_0E_{\mathrm{}}/R^{}}`$ (49)
$`u`$ $`\sqrt{G_0R^{}/E_{\mathrm{}}}`$ (50)
$`\sigma u`$ $`G_0`$ (51)
Here, we emphasize that $`G_0`$ is associated with the hard solid appearing near the tip and is different from $`G_{}`$ (At the place very close to the tip ($`rl`$), Eqs. (49)-(51) are no longer valid and they merge to the lenticular expressions v3 ). From Eqs. (48) and (51), we find

$$G_{}\lambda G_0.$$
(52)
The overall separation energy $`G_{}`$ is enhanced from $`G_0`$ associated with the hard solid. The crack shape resulting from this analysis is just like a trumpet (see Fig. 4), as has been suggested by the name of the model. The similar form has been predicted trumpet  and observed Ondarcuhu  also in systems (weakly or non cross-linked polymers) rather different from the present anisotropic system.

We complete our arguments by considering smaller fractures. When $`(l<)V\tau <L<\lambda V\tau `$, only the hard-solid and liquid regions are present; the soft solid has yet to develop. In this situation, the fracture energy is given by Eq. (47) at $`r=L`$: $`G_{}(V)=G_0L/(V\tau )`$; the toughness decreases with velocity. When $`(l<)L<V\tau `$, only the hard-solid region is developed and the fracture energy is given by $`G_0`$. Thus, as a function of $`V`$, the fracture energy starts from a larger plateau value $`\lambda G_0`$, and then decreases to reach a smaller plateau value $`G_0`$:

$$G_{}(V)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda G_0\hfill & \text{ for }d/\tau <V<L/\left(\lambda \tau \right)\hfill \\ G_0L/(V\tau )\hfill & \text{ for }L/\left(\lambda \tau \right)<V<L/\tau \hfill \\ G_0\hfill & \text{ for }L/\tau <V\hfill \end{array}\text{ }$$
(53)
Note here that in a continuum theory we only consider the region $`V\tau >d`$. This behavior can be confirmed more precisely from a general formula trumpet :

$$\frac{G_{}(V)}{G_0}E_{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{1}{\mu (\omega )}\right]$$
(54)
which can be analytically calculated for the trumpet model (just as in the previously known isotropic case Florent ).

## V Discussion

In trumpet  the following observations are used: (A1) for a certain range of $`V`$, a (dimensional) dynamical equation $`\rho Dv/Dt=\sigma `$ for viscoelastic materials can be replaced by $`\sigma =0`$, (A2) accordingly, in certain model of viscoelasticity, the scaling relation $`\sigma r^{1/2}`$ still holds as in a purely elastic model, (A3) similar to the usual LEFM, we can expect a relation, $`𝒢K^2/E_{\mathrm{}}`$ for certain viscoelastic models (where $`K`$ and $`𝒢`$ the stress intensity factor and the energy release rate associated with the tip), and (A4) we can find scaling structure of fracture energy from the product $`\sigma u`$, calculated at a large $`r`$. (Our arguments are, however, slightly different from the original one in that we did not explicitly used (A3).) We present possible interpretations for these observations to complement the original arguments.

Before showing our interpretations, we assume that the rheological relation is linear in a sense that the stress and strain are governed by

$$\sigma (t)=𝑑t^{}E(tt^{})\dot{e}(t^{})$$
(55)
In terms of Fourier transform (in time), this reduces to a simple proportional relation:

$$\sigma _\omega =\mu (\omega )e_\omega $$
(56)
where $`\mu (\omega )=i\omega E_\omega `$; $`\mu (\omega )`$ has the dimension of a elastic modulus $`E(t)`$. Here, we have used the notation $`O_\omega =𝑑tO(t)e^{i\omega t}`$. We shall use the scaling identification Eq. (45) in the following arguments.

### V.1 Interpretation for $`\sigma =0`$

$`\rho Dv/Dt=\sigma `$ can be dimensionally reexpressed in terms of Fourier components (in space and time) of stress and deformation as $`\rho \omega ^2u_{k,\omega }k\sigma _{k,\omega }`$. This equation reduces to $`V^2u_{k,\omega }c^2u_{k,\omega }`$ for a linear rheology ($`\sigma _{k,\omega }Eku_{k,\omega }`$) and for a crack propagation speed $`V`$ ($`\omega Vk,`$ or Eq. (45)). Here, the sound velocity $`c`$ is defined as $`c=\sqrt{E/\rho }`$. Thus, if $`Vc`$, we can neglect $`\rho Dv/Dt`$ against $`\sigma `$. For $`E10^5`$ N/m<sup>2</sup> and $`\rho 10^3`$ kg/m<sup>3</sup>, $`c10`$ m/s, which is sometimes high compared with typical crack propagation speeds, say, of cm/s.

### V.2 Interpretation for $`\sigma r^{1/2}`$

In the plane strain condition, there are only three independent stress components: $`\sigma _{xx}`$, $`\sigma _{yy}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$. For $`Vc`$, we can start from $`\sigma =0`$, which gives only two independent equations: $`\frac{\sigma _{xx}}{x}+\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{y}=0`$ and $`\frac{\sigma _{yy}}{y}+\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{x}=0`$. The third equation is a compatibility equation, which directly follows from the definition (Eq. (7)): $`\frac{^2e_{xx}}{y^2}+\frac{^2e_{yy}}{x^2}=2\frac{^2e_{xy}}{xy}`$. Again, for a linear rheology, we have a simple proportional relation of the type $`\sigma _{ij}=E_{ijkl}e_{kl}`$ or $`e_{ij}=D_{ijkl}\sigma _{kl}`$ in Fourier space (in time only). Then, the three differential equations for Fourier component (in time) of $`\sigma _{ij}`$ with respect to variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ have the same spacial scaling structure as in a purely elastic model where $`\sigma (t)=E(t)e(t)`$. Thus, the scaling structure, $`\sigma r^{1/2}`$ should be unaltered even in a linear viscoelastic model.

### V.3 Interpretation for $`𝒢K^2/E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and scaling formula for fracture toughness $`G\sigma u`$

To establish $`𝒢K^2/E_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the viscoelastic model and to understand why it can not be replaced by $`𝒢K^2/E_0`$, we start from the text book derivation Anderson ; we imagine that a crack is closed to a smaller size from the tip by applying a necessary work, say from a initial size $`a+\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ to a reduced size $`a`$ (see Fig. 5).

The energy release rate $`𝒢`$ (per unit length of crack front) is defined by

$$𝒢=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }a0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}$$
(57)
where the work of crack closure (per unit crack-front length) can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{x=0}^{x=\mathrm{\Delta }a}2𝑑x𝑑y_e^0\left(\sigma \right)𝑑e$$
(58)
Here, the factor 2 counts both the upper and the lower sides of the crack.

This quantity depends on a history of closure process, for example, via Eq. (55). However, we will finally consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }a0`$ as in Eq. (57), while the relevant frequency is given by $`V/\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$): very high frequency is important. In such a case, the trumpet model behaves as a solid with a modulus $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\sigma E_{\mathrm{}}e`$). Namely,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U𝑑x𝑑y\sigma ^2/E_{\mathrm{}}\text{.}$$
(59)
As shown before, even in the trumpet model, we expect $`\sigma K/\sqrt{r}`$, if we denote the coefficient (the stress intensity factor) by $`K`$. Thus, Eq. (59) leads to $`\mathrm{\Delta }U\mathrm{\Delta }aK^2/E_{\mathrm{}}`$; we indeed recover $`𝒢K^2/E_{\mathrm{}}.`$ At the critical of failure, this corresponds to

$$G_0K^2/E_{\mathrm{}}$$
(60)
The critical value of the energy release rate, which is the conventional fracture energy, is associated here with the hard solid region near the tip.

We emphasize here that the overall fracture energy $`G_{}`$ should scale as $`lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }a\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }U}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}`$, which is different from the critical value of the energy release rate. Then, in contrast with the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }a0`$, very low frequency becomes important; we have to use $`\sigma E_0e`$ in this context to find

$$G_{}K^2/E_0.$$
(61)
The stress intensity factor $`K`$ in Eqs. (60) and (61) are actually different; these factors are an unknown coefficient for a known singularity ($`\sqrt{r}`$) in the above arguments. In fact, from Eqs. (25) and (49), they are respectively given by $`\sqrt{G_0E_{\mathrm{}}}`$ and $`\sqrt{G_{}E_0}`$. In other words, Eqs. (60) and (61) can be directly reproduced from Eqs. (25) and (49).

Noting $`\mathrm{\Delta }U𝑑x\sigma (x)u(x)`$ for linear models ($`\sigma e`$), we have an expression of the overall fracture energy $`G_{}`$ for a macroscopic $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$:

$$G_{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }a}_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }a}\sigma (x)u(x)𝑑x$$
(62)
If the product $`\sigma (x)u(x)`$ reaches a plateau value at a macroscopic distance $`x_0`$, we can expect a relation:

$$G_{}\sigma (x_0)u(x_0)$$
(63)
where the left-hand side is evaluated at a macroscopic distance $`x_0`$ from the tip. This explains why we can use this product to estimate the fracture toughness, as announced in Sec. II. B (see, for example, Eq. (27)).

## VI Conclusion

In this paper, we present physical pictures for fractures in nacre-type materials via scaling arguments, which is complementary to our previous more detailed analysis: strain distributions around a fracture are significantly different among (small and large) parallel and perpendicular fractures. From pictures thus obtained, we see that viscoelastic effects may play a role in parallel fractures and the effects are taken into account via the simplest model. We limit ourselves to the case of large cracks ($`Xl`$) where crack-propagation speeds are not too slow ($`lV\tau `$); beyond this limit, crack shape and behavior of $`G(V)`$ seems to be quite different, as discussed in a separate paper EPL . Within this limit, we found that the crack shape takes the trumpet form as in weakly (or non-) cross-linked polymers Ondarcuhu  although they are different in the region very close to the tip (this difference might be difficult to detect). The overall fracture energy $`G_{}`$ is found to be enhanced from separation energy $`G_0`$ associated with the hard solid region developed near the tip. It is emphasized that, here, the critical value of the energy release rate corresponds not to the overall fracture energy but a separation energy associated with the hard solid.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author (K.O.) is grateful to P.-G. de Gennes for useful discussions. K.O. also greatly appreciates Elie Raphaėl and Florent Saulnier for discussions and for making their recent manuscript Florent  available prior to submission. K.O. thanks members of group of P.G.G. at Collège de France, including David Quéré, for a warm hospitality during his third stay in Paris. This stay is financially supported by Collège de France.

*

## Appendix A Rough images at the scaling level and exact distributions

In order to clarify the meaning of physical pictures illustrated in Fig. 2, we give examples on comparison of such pictures with an exact solution available for perpendicular cracks (Figs. 6 and 7). We employ the following analytical expression v2 :

$$\sigma e\mathrm{Re}\left[\frac{e^{i\pi z/\left(2L\right)}}{\left(e^{i\pi z/L}1\right)^{1/2}}\right]$$
(64)
with $`z=x+iy/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ where $`\epsilon =1`$ and $`\epsilon =0.1`$ for Figs. 6 and 7, respectively ($`L=1`$). This expression have separate length scales for $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction: $`L`$ and $`L/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, respectively. Fig. 6 presents an example of the conventional isotropic sample ($`\epsilon =1`$) while Fig. 7 an example of a perpendicular crack in a nacre-type material ($`\epsilon =0.1`$).

In most experimental cases the crack size can be much smaller than the sample dimension. In such cases, detail analytical behaviors will change but physical pictures at the scaling level stays intact.


format: text

text:
# On a problem by Arens, Goldberg, and Luxemburg

## Abstract.

We construct a normed algebra $`𝒜`$ with norm $`N()`$ over the reals, which is quadrative in the sense that $`N(A^2)N(A)^2`$ for all $`A𝒜`$, but is not 3-bounded in the sense that $`N(A^3)N(A)^3`$. This answers a question of Arens, Goldberg, and Luxemburg.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a normed algebra over a field $`𝐅`$, either R or C. In  the norm $`N`$ of the algebra is called quadrative if

$$N(A^2)N(A)^2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}A𝒜,$$

$`k`$-bounded for a positive integer $`k`$ if $`N(A^k)N(A)^k`$ for all $`A𝒜`$, and strongly stable if it is $`k`$-bounded for all $`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. It was seen in  that boundedness for a particular $`k>2`$ does not ensure strong stability or even quadrativity. Let $`W=(\omega _{ij})`$ be a fixed $`2\times 2`$ matrix of positive entries. Then for the $`W`$-weighted sup norm on $`\text{C}^{2\times 2}`$, the algebra of $`n\times n`$ complex matrices,

$$A_{W,\mathrm{}}=\underset{i,j}{\mathrm{max}}\omega _{ij}|\alpha _{ij}|,A=(\alpha _{ij})\text{C}^{2\times 2},$$

Arens and Goldberg proved:

Theorem \[1, Theorem 2\]. If $`k3`$, then there exists a $`2\times 2`$ weight matrix $`W`$ for which $`||||_{W,\mathrm{}}`$ is $`k`$-bounded but not strongly stable, in fact not even quadrative on $`\text{C}^{2\times 2}`$.

Our main theorem gives a negative answer to the following question raised in : Does quadrativity imply strong stability?

###### Theorem 0.1.

There exists a commutative algebra $`𝒜`$ of $`2\times 2`$ matrices over R and a norm on $`𝒜`$ such that $`|A^2||A|^2`$ for all $`A𝒜`$ and $`|A^3|>|A|^3`$ for some $`A𝒜`$.

Proof. In Theorem 0.1 the elements of the algebra are real matrices of the form

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & b\hfill \\ 0\hfill & a\hfill \end{array}\right)=:[[a,b]]$$

where the symbol on the right is introduced to save space. We will use the identity

$$[[a,b]]^k=[[a^k,kba^{k1}]]$$

for any $`[[a,b]]`$ and any integer $`k1`$.

We observe that the algebra $`𝒜`$ contains a multiplicative semi-group

$$G:=\{\mathrm{exp}[[t,t]]:t0\}=\{[[e^t,te^t]]:t0\}$$

In particular, if $`A=[[e^t,te^t]]`$ is an element of $`G`$, then so is $`A^2=[[e^{2t},2te^{2t}]]`$ and $`A^3=[[e^{3t},3te^{3t}]]`$.

We can write $`G`$ as a graph of $`b`$ over $`a`$; indeed, setting $`a=e^t`$ we have

$$G:=\{[[a,b]]:0<a1,b=f(a)\}$$

where $`f(a)`$ is the function $`f(a):=a\mathrm{log}a`$ on the interval $`\{0<a1\}`$. We remark that on this interval the function $`f`$ is concave (since $`f^{\prime \prime }(a)=1/a`$), non-negative and attains its maximum at the point $`a=e^1`$, $`f(a)=e^1`$. We define the modified function $`g(a)`$ on $`\{0<a1\}`$ by setting $`g(a):=f(a)`$ when $`e^1a1`$ and $`g(a):=e^1`$ when $`0<ae^1`$; note that $`g`$ is still (weakly) concave.

Define a ball to be any non-empty bounded open convex subset of $`𝒜`$ which is symmetric around the origin. Then for every ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we can define a norm $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`𝒜`$ in the usual manner as

$$N_\mathrm{\Omega }(A):=inf\{t:t>0,At\mathrm{\Omega }\},$$

so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the unit ball of $`A`$. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball ensures that $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is indeed a norm.

Let $`k2`$ be an integer. We say that a norm $`N()`$ on $`𝒜`$ is $`k`$-bounded if one has $`N(A^k)N(A)^k`$ for all $`A𝒜`$. Also, we shall say that a ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`k`$-bounded if one has $`A^k\mathrm{\Omega }`$ whenever $`A\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is clear from homogeneity that $`N_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`k`$-bounded if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is $`k`$-bounded. We say that $`N`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is quadrative if it is $`2`$-bounded.

As an example, consider the set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0:=\{[[a,b]]:|a|<1;|b|<g(|a|)\}.$$

It is clear that this set is a ball. We now show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is $`k`$-bounded for every integer $`k2`$. Let $`[[a,b]]\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$; we have to show that $`[[a,b]]^k=[[a^k,kba^{k1}]]`$ is also in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

By reflection symmetry in the $`a`$ and $`b`$ axes, we may assume that we are in the first quadrant $`a,b0`$. There are two cases: $`e^1a<1`$ and $`0ae^1`$.

First suppose that $`e^1a<1`$. Then $`b<g(a)=a\mathrm{log}a`$. Thus

$$kba^{k1}<a^k\mathrm{log}a^k=f(a^k)g(a^k),$$

and so $`[[a^k,kba^{k1}]]\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as desired.

Now suppose that $`0ae^1`$. Then $`b<g(a)=e^1`$. Thus

$$kba^{k1}<ke^ke^1=g(a^k)$$

since the function $`te^t`$ attains its maximum at $`t=1`$, and since $`a^k`$ is clearly bounded by $`e^1`$. Thus $`[[a^k,kba^{k1}]]\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as desired.

We identify three interesting points on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$: $`P_1:=[[e^1,e^1]]`$, $`P_2:=[[e^{1/2},\frac{1}{2}e^{1/2}]]`$, and $`P_3:=[[e^{1/3},\frac{1}{3}e^{1/3}]]`$. Note that $`P_3^3=P_1`$ and $`P_2^2=P_1`$. Also, $`P_1`$ is the point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ where the two constraints $`|b|<f(|a|)`$ and $`|b|<e^1`$ intersect.

We now modify the ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ slightly, to prove

Proposition. There exists a ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is $`2`$-bounded but not $`3`$-bounded.

Proof. The idea is to chip a small amount away from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, enough to destroy the 3-boundedness but not enough to destroy the 2-boundedness.

We shall need three small numbers $`0<\epsilon _3\epsilon _2\epsilon _1<1`$ to be chosen later. We define $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be the set of matrices $`[[a,b]]`$ in which $`|a|<e^{1/3}`$ and $`b`$ satisfies all three of the inequalities

$$|b|<g(|a|),|b|<e^1\epsilon _3,|b|<e^{1/2}T_\sigma \frac{1}{2}|a|\epsilon _1.$$

Note that the line $`b=e^{1/2}\frac{1}{2}a`$ is the tangent line to the curve $`b=g(a)`$ at the point $`P_2`$. Thus the restriction $`|b|e^{1/2}\frac{1}{2}|a|\epsilon _1`$ cuts off a small sliver of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ near the point $`P_2`$ (and similarly for the other three quadrants, by reflection symmetry). The restriction $`|a|<e^{1/3}`$ cuts off everything in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to the right of $`P_3`$, while the restriction $`|b|<e^1\epsilon _3`$ cuts off a very thin horizontal sliver from the straight portion of the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, and in particular cuts off a small sliver near $`P_1`$.

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is still a bounded open non-empty convex symmetric set, i.e. a ball. Also, it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is no longer 3-bounded, because one can get arbitrarily close to $`P_3`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but one cannot get arbitrarily close to $`P_1=P_3^3`$.

It remains to show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is 2-bounded. To do this, we take any $`[[a,b]]\mathrm{\Omega }`$; our task is to show that $`[[a,b]]^2=[[a^2,2ab]]`$ is also in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By symmetry we may assume that we are in the first quadrant $`a,b0`$. Since $`a<e^{1/3}`$, we have $`a^2<e^{2/3}<e^{1/3}`$, so we only have to show the three inequalities

(1) $`2ab`$ $`<`$ $`g(a^2)`$
(2) $`2ab`$ $`<`$ $`e^1\epsilon _3`$
(3) $`2ab`$ $`<`$ $`e^{1/2}T_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^2\epsilon _1.`$
Recall that the line $`y=e^{1/2}\frac{1}{2}x\epsilon _1`$ was just a small perturbation of the tangent line $`y=e^{1/2}\frac{1}{2}x`$ of the curve $`y=g(x)`$ at the point $`x=e^{1/2},y=\frac{1}{2}e^{1/2}`$. In particular we see from the concavity of $`g`$ that, if $`\epsilon _1`$ is sufficiently small,

$$e^{1/2}T_\sigma \frac{1}{2}x\epsilon _1>g(x)$$

for all $`x<e^{2/3}<e^{1/2}`$. Since $`a^2<e^{2/3}`$, we thus see that the condition (3) is redundant, being implied automatically by (1).

It remains to prove (1) and (2). To do this we divide into three cases.

Case 1. $`e^{1/2}+\epsilon _2a<e^{1/3}`$. Then we have $`b<g(a)=f(a)=a\mathrm{log}a`$. Thus

$$2ab<a^2\mathrm{log}a^2=f(a^2)=g(a^2)$$

since

(4)
$$e^1+2\epsilon _2e^{1/2}+\epsilon _2^2a^2<e^{2/3}.$$

This gives (1). If $`\epsilon _2`$ is chosen sufficiently small compared to $`\epsilon _1`$, and $`\epsilon _3`$ is chosen sufficiently small compared to $`\epsilon _2`$, then we see from (4) (and the monotonicity of $`g(x)`$ for $`x>e^1`$) that

$$g(a^2)<g(e^1)\epsilon _3=e^1\epsilon _3.$$

This gives (2) as desired.

Case 2. $`e^{1/2}\epsilon _2<a<e^{1/2}+\epsilon _2`$. In this case we use the bound

$$b<e^{1/2}T_\sigma \frac{1}{2}a\epsilon _1,$$

and so

$$2ab<2e^{1/2}aa^22\epsilon _1a.$$

Since $`a=e^{1/2}+O(\epsilon _2)`$, we thus have

$$2ab<e^12\epsilon _1e^{1/2}+O(\epsilon _2).$$

On the other hand, since $`a^2=e^1+O(\epsilon _2)`$, we have

$$g(a^2)=g(e^1)+O(\epsilon _2)=e^1+O(\epsilon _2).$$

Thus if $`\epsilon _2`$ is sufficiently small compared to $`\epsilon _1`$, we obtain (1). Using the above estimate for $`2ab`$, we see that (2) follows from

$$e^12\epsilon _1e^{1/2}+O(\epsilon _2)<e^1\epsilon _3.$$

This holds if both $`\epsilon _2`$ and $`\epsilon _3`$ are sufficiently small compared to $`\epsilon _1`$.

Case 3. $`0<ae^{1/2}\epsilon _2`$. In this case we use the bound $`b<g(a)`$, so that $`2ab<2ag(a)`$. Since

(5)
$$a^2e^12\epsilon _2e^{1/2}+\epsilon _2^2$$

we have $`g(a^2)=e^1`$ where $`\epsilon _2`$ is small. Thus (1) follows from (2), and it suffices to show that

$$2ag(a)<e^1\epsilon _3.$$

First suppose that $`ae^1`$. Then $`2ag(a)2e^2`$, which is certainly acceptable if $`\epsilon _3`$ is small enough. Thus we may take $`a>e^1`$, in which case

$$2ag(a)=2af(a)=a^2\mathrm{log}a^2=f(a^2).$$

Since $`f`$ attains its maximum $`e^1`$ at $`e^1`$, we thus see from (5) that $`f(a^2)<e^1\epsilon _3`$, if $`\epsilon _3`$ is sufficiently small compared to $`\epsilon _2`$. This concludes the proof of the Proposition in all three cases. $`\mathrm{}`$

One may try to improve this counterexample by adding another natural condition to the norm $`N`$, namely that the identity $`[[1,0]]`$ have norm 1. This is equivalent to $`[[1,0]]`$ lying on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is true that the counterexample constructed above does not obey this condition, but this is easily rectified by replacing the ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ constructed above with the convex hull $`\mathrm{hull}(\mathrm{\Omega },[[1,0]],[[1,0]])`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the points $`[[\pm 1,0]]`$. We omit the computation which shows that this ball remains 2-bounded and not 3-bounded.

Acknowledgement. It is a a pleasure to express our appreciation to Professor Moshe Goldberg, who brought the problem to our attention and supplied the references.