Constitutive modelling of nonlinear isotropic elastic materials requires a general formulation of the strain–energy function in terms of invariants, or equivalently in terms of the principal stretches { λ 1 , λ 2 , λ 3 } . Yet, when choosing a particular form of a model, the representation in terms of either the principal invariants or stretches becomes important, since a judicious choice between one or the other can lead to a better encapsulation and interpretation of much of the behaviour of a given material. Here, we introduce a family of generalised isotropic invariants, including a member J α = λ 1 α + λ 2 α + λ 3 α , which collapses to the classical first and second invariant of incompressible elasticity when α is 2 or -2, respectively. Then, we consider incompressible materials for which the strain–energy can be approximated by a function W that solely depends on this invariant J α . A natural question is to find α that best captures the finite deformation of a given material. We first show that there exist pseudo-universal relationships that are independent of the choice of W , and which only depend on α . Then, on using these pseudo-universal relationships, we show that one can obtain the exponent α that best fits a given dataset before seeking a functional form for the strain–energy function W . This two-step process delivers the best model that is a function of a single invariant. We show, on using specific examples, that this procedure leads to an excellent and easy to use approximation of constitutive models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anssari-Benam et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: