Stress concentration tensors of inhomogeneities with

interface eects
q
H.L. Duan, J. Wang
*
, Z.P. Huang, Z.Y. Luo
State Key Laboratory for Turbulence and Complex Systems and Department of Mechanics and Engineering Science,
Peking University, Beijing, 100871, PR China
Received 1 July 2004
Abstract
The eects of the interface bonding conditions simulated by four interface models on the stress elds of spherical and
circular inhomogeneities in innite media are investigated for general loading conditions. The four interface models are
the free sliding model, linear spring model, dislocation-like model and interface stress model. Based upon the solutions
of the elastostatic problems, the local and average stress concentration tensors are derived for the inhomogeneities with
these interface eects. It is shown that when the linear spring interface model and the interface stress model are con-
sidered, the inhomogeneities exhibit a size eect. Moreover, unlike the case of a perfect bonding interface, a sort of
local anisotropy appears when the interface eects come into play, namely, the normal (shear) stresses in the inho-
mogeneities are coupled with the remote shear (normal) stresses. However, the coupling disappears in the average stress
concentration tensors.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stress concentration tensor; Inhomogeneity; Interface model; Interface stress
1. Introduction
Bonding condition at interfaces is one of the
important factors that control the local elastic
elds and the overall properties of composite
materials. Many models have been proposed to
simulate interface properties of these materials.
In many cases, the condition of perfect bonding
at the inhomogeneity/matrix interface is inade-
quate for the description of the physical nature
and mechanical behaviour of the interface region.
Inhomogeneities in high-strength steel, for in-
stance, are easily debonded by a fatigue load-
ing. Grain boundary sliding in polycrystal and
0167-6636/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2004.07.004
q
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under the Grant nos. 10032010, 10072002, and 10372004.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6275 7948; fax: +86 10
6275 1812.
E-mail address: jxwang@pku.edu.cn (J. Wang).
Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmat
granular media can be observed even at room tem-
perature (Mura and Furuhashi, 1984). Interface
failure is primarily responsible for the stiness
reduction of certain metal and polymer matrix
composites under static or cyclic loading (Gao,
1993). In the literature, two kinds of model are
often used to simulate the properties of interface re-
gions in composites. The rst kind of model can be
referred to as interface models in which displace-
ment and/or stress discontinuities are assumed to
exist at an interface; the second is the interphase
model which describes the interface region as a
layer between the inhomogeneity and matrix. This
layer, called an interphase, has a given thickness
and its elastic moduli are dierent from those of
the matrix and inhomogeneity. The interphase
may, sometimes, be viewed as a diusion zone, a
nucleation zone or a chemical reaction zone. The
elastic properties of the interphase can be assumed
to be uniform or variable. Perfect bonding is gener-
ally assumed at both the matrix/interphase and
interphase/inhomogeneity interfaces.
Among the interface models, free sliding model
and linear spring model have been extensively stud-
ied by researchers. Free sliding model allows free
tangential slip at an interface but prohibits relative
normal displacement. Physically, free sliding model
may represent grain boundary sliding in polycrys-
tal behaviour of precipitates at high temperature.
Free sliding model has been used to analyze the
local elastic elds and eective properties of com-
posites by Ghahremani (1980), Mura and Furuh-
ashi (1984), Wong and Barnett (1985), and Jasiuk
et al. (1987), among others. In the linear spring
model, the interface tractions are assumed to be
continuous, but the displacements can be discon-
tinuous across an interface, and the displacement
discontinuities are proportional to the interface
tractions. Linear spring model has been used to
study the stress elds in composites by many
researchers (e.g. Aboudi, 1987; Hashin, 1991; Qu,
1993; Gao, 1995; Lipton and Vernescu, 1996;
Zhong and Meguid, 1997; Shen et al., 2000, etc.).
Recently, Yu (1998) and Yu et al. (2002) proposed
a dislocation-like model to simulate the bonding
condition in composites based upon the argument
that interface defects such as dislocation, voids
and microcracks might occur during the specimen
preparation or by external loading during the life
of service. Since the defects are dicult to remove,
the initial defects may act as a weakness. The dis-
placement in a constituent phase in a multi-phase
material may not be fully transmitted to the adja-
cent phases because two neighbouring phases
may not be completely connected. This model as-
sumes that the displacement in a phase at one side
of an interface is proportional to the displacement
of the phase at the other side.
Compared with the above-mentioned three
interface models, the interface stress model is rela-
tively less studied in the mechanical analysis of
heterogeneous materials. However, for a ne-
scaled material with a large ratio of the interface
region to the bulk, interface contribution to the
property of the material becomes signicant.
Moreover, the interface energy and interface stress
may become important in composites which con-
tain micro-scale inhomogeneities, especially, in
nanocomposites. Therefore, study of the eect of
interface energy and interface stress has attracted
considerable attention of researchers in materials
science and mechanics from dierent aspects
(e.g., Cahn and Larche, 1982; Cammarata, 1997;
Suo, 1997; Freund, 1998; Nix and Gao, 1998;
Spaepen, 2000, etc.). Gurtin and Murdoch (1975)
developed a mathematical framework for studying
the mechanical behaviour of solids taking into
account surface stress within the formalism of
continuum mechanics. They also presented a line-
arized surface stress-strain constitutive relation.
Steigmann and Ogden (1999) generalized the Gur-
tinMurdoch theory (Gurtin and Murdoch, 1975)
to account for the eect of exural resistance of
elastic lms attached to the bounding surfaces of
solids. Recently, Sharma et al. (2003) analyzed
the elastic eld of a spherical inhomogeneity in
an innite medium under remote hydrostatic load-
ing and dilatational eigenstrain in the inhomo-
geneity by taking into account interface stress
eect. Huang and Wang (submitted for publica-
tion) gave a theoretical framework for solving
the elastostatic problems of hyperelastic bodies
that involve interface/surface eect at nite defor-
mation.
Some other interface models have also been
used to simulate interface damage in composites.
724 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
For example, Karihaloo and Viswanathan (1988a,
b) studied the problem of a partially debonded
ellipsoidal inclusion in an innite medium, and
Huang and Korobeinik (2001) studied a partially
debonded spherical inhomogeneity in an innite
medium. This kind of model can be regarded as
local damage interface model. Needleman
(1987), Wei and Hutchinson (1999), and Levy
(1996) have used a nonlinear cohesive zone model
to simulate the properties of interface regions in
heterogeneous materials. Huang et al. (1993) have
used a frictional sliding interface model to study
an inclusion problem.
The interphase model (three-phase model) with
two perfect bonding interfaces was rst proposed
by Walpole (1978). Later, many studies concerned
with interphases have been done in the area of the
damage analysis and prediction of eective moduli
of composite materials (e.g., Mikata and Taya,
1985; Qiu and Weng, 1991; Herve and Zaoui,
1993; Cherkaoui et al., 1995; Asp et al., 1996,
etc.). The conguration of the interphase model
is similar to that of the generalized self-consistent
model of Christensen and Lo (1979). It is recog-
nized that the replacement of an interphase by a
proper interface model is often convenient in ana-
lytical or numerical solutions of boundary-value
problems of composites (Rubin and Benveniste,
2004). The equivalence between the interphase
model and interface models have been studied by
Hashin (1991, 2002) and Rubin and Benveniste
(2004). Detailed discussion about the equivalence
between them can also be found in the papers of
Klarbring and Movchan (1998), Bigoni et al.
(1998), and Geymonat et al. (1999).
As is evidenced by the wide application of the
celebrated Eshelby solution, the stress (strain) in
an inhomogeneity embedded in an innite matrix
under remote loading is very important in micro-
mechanics. For example, prediction of the eective
moduli of a composite generally necessitates the
relation between the stress (strain) in an inhomo-
geneity in the composite and the imposed overall
stress (strain). It is needless to say that the knowl-
edge of the local stress eld in an inhomogeneity is
also essential for the damage analysis of a compos-
ite. Wu (1966) introduced a fourth-order tensor
that relates the stress eld in an ellipsoidal inho-
mogeneity in an innite matrix to the uniform re-
mote stress. Later, this tensor was referred to as
the concentration-factor tensor by Benveniste
(1987). In the paper of Hori and Nemat-Nasser
(1993), it was called the stress concentration ten-
sor. Here, we will use the terminology of Hori
and Nemat-Nasser (1993). The presence of imper-
fect bonding interfaces between the constituents of
a composite certainly aects its eective moduli.
Interface contributes to eective moduli in two
ways. First, the interface bonding condition aects
the average stress (strain) in each inhomogeneity,
and this eect can be taken into account by use
of the stress (strain) concentration tensor. Second,
the discontinuities in the displacement or traction
across the interfaces directly take part in the calcu-
lation of the volume average of the strain or stress.
It is noted that for inhomogeneities that are per-
fectly bonded to an innite matrix, that is, both
stresses and displacements are continuous across
the interface, many solutions have been presented
to relate the stress states in the inhomogeneities
to general remote stresses (e.g. Nemat-Nasser
and Hori, 1999). However, for the interfaces that
are simulated by the interface models mentioned
above, the stress states in spherical and circular
inhomogeneities in innite matrices have been
studied only for some particular loading cases.
For example, some results related to the linear
spring model can be found in the papers of Hashin
(1991) and Gao (1995). Zhong and Meguid (1997)
obtained the elastic eld of a spherical inhomoge-
neity with the linear spring interface conditions
in an innite matrix under general remote loading
by the Eshelby equivalent inclusion method and
the Somigliana dislocation model. However, the
expressions are very lengthy and complicated.
The objective of this paper is to give closed-form
general solutions of stresses in spherical and circu-
lar inhomogeneities with the interface conditions
depicted by the above-mentioned four interface
models in innite matrices under general remote
loading. Expressions of the stress concentration
tensors will be derived. It is shown that when the
linear spring interface model and the interface
stress model are used to simulate the interface
properties, the inhomogeneities will exhibit a size
eect.
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 725
2. Models and basic formulations
2.1. Discontinuity conditions of interface models
In this section, we will summarize the expres-
sions for the displacement/stress discontinuities
that describe various interface bonding conditions.
Free sliding model. The normal traction and dis-
placement are assumed to be continuous across an
interface, and the shear traction is assumed to be
zero, i.e.
n [r[ n = 0
[u[ n = 0
P r n = 0
_

_
(1)
where [] = (out) (in) represents the discontinuity
of a quantity across the interface. P = I
(2)
n n,
I
(2)
is the second-order identity tensor in three-
dimensional space, and n is the unit normal vector
to the interface.
Linear spring model. The interface conditions
for the linear spring model can be written as
[r[ n = 0
P r n = aP [u[
n r n = b[u[ n
_

_
(2)
where a and b represent the interface elastic
parameters in the tangential and normal direc-
tions, respectively. It is seen that innite values
of these parameters imply vanishing interface dis-
placement jumps and therefore a perfect bonding
interface. At the other extreme, zero values imply
vanishing interface tractions and therefore de-
bonding of the adjoining media. Finite positive
values of the interface parameters dene an imper-
fect interface.
Dislocation-like model (Yu, 1998). This model is
similar to the linear spring model except that the
displacement at one side of an interface (phase 1)
is assumed to be proportional to the displacement
at the other side of the interface (phase 2), i.e.
[r[ n = 0
u
1
= c u
2
_
(3)
where c = g
T
P + g
N
nn, and g
T
and g
N
are two
non-dimensional parameters describing the bond-
ing conditions in the tangential and normal direc-
tions, respectively. c = I
(2)
represents the perfect
bonding interface; c = 0 represents a free surface.
Interface stress model. Consider a multi-phase
material which is neither subjected to any body
force nor to any external surface traction on its
boundary. We refer to this conguration as the
initial reference conguration, denoted by P
1
.
Because the constituent phases have dierent
internal structures (on the atomic-molecular level),
thus, like the case of creating a surface, the conglu-
tination process that bond the dierent phases to-
gether generates not only interface free energy, but
also an interface stress (e.g., cf. Cammarata and
Eby, 1991). We refer the interface stress in cong-
uration P
1
as the interface residual stress, denoted
by s
0
. The elastic eld which is induced by the
interface residual stress s
0
is referred to as the
residual eld. When the system is subjected to
external loading, it will undergo a deformation.
The current conguration so obtained will be de-
noted by P
2
. For an innitesimal deformation of
a linear elastic medium, the elastic eld in congu-
ration P
2
are equal to the sum of those due to the
residual stress and the external loading. The resid-
ual eld can be regarded as the intrinsic physical
properties of the multi-phase material (Huang
and Wang, submitted for publication). Detailed
descriptions about calculating the residual eld
can be found in the papers of Gurtin and Murdoch
(1975, 1978), and Huang and Wang (submitted for
publication). Here, we are only concerned with the
elastic eld due to the external loading within the
framework of linear elasticity.
For a coherent interface, Huang and Wang
(submitted for publication) considered the inter-
face stress eect in heterogeneous materials and
obtained the following interface conditions:
[u[ = 0
n [r[ n = s : j
P [r[ n = \
S
s
_

_
(4)
where j is the curvature tensor, s is the interface
stress tensor and $
S
s denotes the interface diver-
gence of a tensor eld s (Gurtin and Murdoch,
1975). The second equation in Eq. (4) gives the
interface condition in the normal direction. The
third equation in Eq. (4) signies that a non-uni-
726 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
form distribution of the interface stress will corre-
spond to a discontinuity of the volume shear stres-
ses in the abutting bulk materials. The last two
equations in Eq. (4) are the generalized Young
Laplace equations for solids (Huang and Wang,
submitted for publication). They are in line with
the equations of Gurtin and Murdoch (1975) for
a surface. Eq. (4) can also be obtained by the prin-
ciple of virtual work. The following interface con-
stitutive equation relating the interface (Cauchy)
stress to the interface strain is adopted in this
paper:
s = 2l
s
E k
s
(trE)1 (5)
where k
s
and l
s
are the interface moduli, and 1 is
the second-order unit tensor in two-dimensional
space. For a coherent interface, the interface strain
E is equal to the tangential strain in the abutting
bulk materials. Eq. (5) is the same as the constitu-
tive equation for surfaces in the paper of Gurtin
and Murdoch (1975). It has been previously used
by Sharma et al. (2003) to study interface stress
eect in heterogeneous materials.
2.2. Denition of stress concentration tensor
The stress concentration tensor relates the stress
in an inhomogeneity to the applied remote stress.
Thus, the local stress concentration tensor T(x)
and the average stress concentration tensor T(x)
for an inhomogeneity, denoted by X, are dened
by the relations
r
1
(x) = T(x) : r
0
r
r
(x); x X (6)
r
1
(x) = T(x) : r
0
r
r
(x); x X (7)
where x is the position vector. r
1
(x) is the stress
tensor in the inhomogeneity, r
0
is the remote uni-
form stress tensor, and r
r
(x) is the residual stress
tensor. The overbar represents the volume average
of the corresponding quantity.
3. Spherical inhomogeneity
In this section, we shall derive the stress concen-
tration tensor for a spherical inhomogeneity with
the interface conditions in Eq. (4) depicted by the
interface stress model. The stress concentration
tensors for other interface conditions given in
Eqs. (1)(3) can be obtained following the same
procedure. Thus the details for them will be omit-
ted, and we only give the results in Appendix A.
Consider a spherical inhomogeneity in an innite
matrix. The inhomogeneity and matrix will be de-
noted by 1 and 2, respectively, and the interface
between them is denoted by S
12
. The radius of
the inhomogeneity is denoted by R. The inhomo-
geneity and matrix are homogeneous, linearly elas-
tic and isotropic, and elastic moduli to be used are
the shear modulus l and Poisson ratio m. Assume
that the whole system is subjected to remote load-
ing r
0
. The solution of the elastostatic problem is
obtained by using the theory of three-dimensional
elasticity in a spherical coordinate system (r, h, u),
with the origin of the coordinate system coinciding
with the centre of the spherical inhomogeneity.
The remote displacement u
0
is expressed as
u
0
= e
0
x; [ x [ (8)
where e
0
(e
0
= D
2
: r
0
) is the remote strain tensor,
and D
2
is the compliance tensor of the matrix. It
is expedient to split the remote strain tensor into
the dilatational part e
0
m
I
(2)
and deviatoric part e
0
e
,
i.e.
e
0
= e
0
m
I
(2)
e
0
e
(9)
where e
0
m
= (tr e
0
)=3. Then Eq. (8) can be rewritten
as
u
0
= u
0
m
u
0
e
; [ x [ (10)
where
u
0
m
= e
0
m
I
(2)
x; u
0
e
= e
0
e
x (11)
Thus, the solution under remote loading r
0
is split
into the solutions under u
0
m
and u
0
e
, respectively. In
the following, the solution under u
0
m
will be called a
dilatational solution, and that under u
0
e
a devia-
toric solution.
First, we consider the remote loading with the
only non-zero stress component being r
0
33
. The
dilatational solution under r
0
33
is
u
k
r
= F
k
33
r
G
k
33
r
2
; u
k
h
= u
k
u
= 0
(k = 1; 2)
(12)
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 727
Here, and in the following, the superscript k = 1, 2
denotes the inhomogeneity and matrix, respec-
tively, and the subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer to the
x-, y- and z-axes of the Cartesian coordinate sys-
tem, respectively. F
k
33
and G
k
33
are constants to be
determined. The deviatoric solution under r
0
33
is
u
k
r
= U
k
r
P
2
(cos h); u
k
h
= U
k
h
dP
2
(cos h)
dh
u
k
u
= 0 (k = 1; 2)
(13)
where P
2
(cos h) is the Legendre polynomial of
order two, and U
k
r
(r) and U
k
h
(r) are unknown
functions of r. Substituting Eq. (13) into the equi-
librium equations in terms of the displacements, it
follows that
U
k
r
(r) = 12m
k
A
k
33
r
3
2B
k
33
r
2(5 4m
k
)C
k
33
r
2
3
D
k
33
r
4
_ _
(14)
U
k
h
(r) = (74m
k
)A
k
33
r
3
B
k
33
r
2(12m
k
)C
k
33
r
2

D
k
33
r
4
_ _
(15)
where A
k
33
, B
k
33
, C
k
33
and D
k
33
are constants to be
determined. Eqs. (12)(15) give the displacement
solutions under remote loading r
0
33
. Transforming
Eq. (13) for the deviatoric solution into the Carte-
sian coordinate system, it follows that
u
k
1
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
z
2
r
2
1
_ _
x
r
3U
k
h
xz
2
r
3
(16)
u
k
2
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
z
2
r
2
1
_ _
y
r
3U
k
h
yz
2
r
3
(17)
u
k
3
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
z
2
r
2
1
_ _
z
r
3U
k
h
1
z
2
r
2
_ _
z
r
(18)
The deviatoric solutions under r
0
11
and r
0
22
can be
obtained from Eqs. (16)(18) in terms of the sym-
metry of the inhomogeneity problem under consid-
eration. For r
0
11
, the displacement components are
u
k
1
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
x
2
r
2
1
_ _
x
r
3U
k
h
1
x
2
r
2
_ _
x
r
(19)
u
k
2
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
x
2
r
2
1
_ _
y
r
3U
k
h
yx
2
r
3
(20)
u
k
3
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
x
2
r
2
1
_ _
z
r
3U
k
h
zx
2
r
3
(21)
where U
k
r
and U
k
h
are obtained from Eqs. (14) and
(15) by replacing the subscript 33 with 11.
For r
0
22
, the displacement components are
u
k
1
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
y
2
r
2
1
_ _
x
r
3U
k
h
xy
2
r
3
(22)
u
k
2
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
y
2
r
2
1
_ _
y
r
3U
k
h
1
y
2
r
2
_ _
y
r
(23)
u
k
3
=
1
2
U
k
r
3
y
2
r
2
1
_ _
z
r
3U
k
h
zy
2
r
3
(24)
where U
k
r
and U
k
h
are obtained from Eqs. (14) and
(15) by replacing the subscript 33 with 22.
The dilatational solutions under r
0
11
and r
0
22
have
the same form as that under r
0
33
. They can be ob-
tained by replacing the subscript 33 in Eq. (12)
with 11 and 22, respectively. Thus, the solu-
tions under remote stresses r
0
11
, r
0
22
and r
0
33
have
been obtained. Now the solutions under remote
shear stresses r
0
12
, r
0
13
and r
0
23
will be sought. Note
that, under remote shear loading r
0
12
, the solution
for a homogeneous medium in the spherical co-
ordinate system is
u
r
= Hrsin
2
h sin 2u
u
h
=
1
2
Hr sin 2h sin 2u
u
u
= Hr sin h cos 2u
_

_
(25)
where H is the remote shear strain. Guided by the
solution for the homogeneous medium, a general
solution for the inhomogeneity problem is as-
sumed to be
u
k
r
= W
k
1
(r)sin
2
h sin 2u
u
k
h
= W
k
2
(r) sin 2h sin 2u
u
k
u
= W
k
3
(r) sin h cos 2u
(k = 1; 2)
_

_
(26)
where W
k
1
(r), W
k
2
(r) and W
k
3
(r) are unknown func-
tions of r to be solved from the equilibrium equa-
tions. Substituting Eq. (26) into the equilibrium
equations in terms of the displacements, it follows
that
728 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
W
k
1
(r) =
3
2
U
k
r
; W
k
2
(r) =
3
2
U
k
h
W
k
3
(r) = 3U
k
h
(27)
where U
k
r
and U
k
h
are obtained from Eqs. (14) and
(15) through replacing the subscript 33 with
12. Using the same procedure, we can get the
displacements under remote shear stress r
0
13
u
k
r
=
3
2
U
k
r
sin 2h cos u
u
k
h
= 3U
k
h
cos 2h cos u
u
k
u
= 3U
k
h
cos h sin u
(k = 1; 2)
_

_
(28)
and the displacements under remote shear stress
r
0
23
u
k
r
=
3
2
U
k
r
sin 2h sin u
u
k
h
= 3U
k
h
cos 2h sin u
u
k
u
= 3U
k
h
cos h cos u
(k = 1; 2)
_

_
(29)
where U
k
r
and U
k
h
in Eqs. (28) and (29) are
obtained from Eqs. (14) and (15) through replac-
ing the subscript 33 with 13 and 23, res-
pectively.
Now we have obtained the basic solutions for a
spherical inhomogeneity under six dierent remote
loadings. Using the relations between the displace-
ments and strains, and the Hookes law, the stress
elds can be obtained. In the following, we will
calculate the stress concentration tensor in the
spherical inhomogeneity with the interface condi-
tions at S
12
(r = R) given in Eq. (4). These condi-
tions can be rewritten as
u
1
r
= u
2
r
; u
1
h
= u
2
h
; u
1
u
= u
2
u
(30)
r
2
rr
r
1
rr
=
(s
hh
s
uu
)
R
(31)
r
1
rh
r
2
rh
=
1
R
os
hh
oh

1
Rsin h
os
hu
ou

(s
hh
s
uu
)
R
cot h
(32)
r
1
ru
r
2
ru
=
1
R
os
hu
oh

1
Rsin h
os
uu
ou

2s
hu
R
cot h
(33)
where the interface stress s
ab
(a, b = h, u) can be
obtained from Eq. (5), i.e.
s
ab
= 2l
s
E
ab
k
s
(tr E)d
ab
(34)
For the sake of elucidation, two non-dimensional
parameters j
r
s
= j
s
=(Rl
2
) and l
r
s
= l
s
=(Rl
2
) are
introduced, where j
s
= 2(l
s
+ k
s
). Using the basic
solutions given above, the remote conditions, the
interface conditions in Eqs. (30)(33) and the con-
dition to avoid singularity at r = 0, the unknown
constants F
k
ij
, G
k
ij
, A
k
ij
, B
k
ij
, C
k
ij
and D
k
ij
can be deter-
mined. For simplifying the expressions, dene
F
+
ij
; A
+
ij
and B
+
ij
such that
F
+
ij
r
0
ij
=
2(1 m
1
)
(1 2m
1
)
l
1
F
1
ij
; A
+
ij
r
0
ij
= R
2
l
1
A
1
ij
B
+
ij
r
0
ij
= l
1
B
1
ij
(35)
where the subscript ij = 11, 22, 33, 12, 13 and 23
denotes the loading cases when r
0
11
,= 0, r
0
22
,= 0,
r
0
33
,= 0, r
0
12
,= 0, r
0
13
,= 0 and r
0
23
,= 0, respectively.
Therefore, the repeated subscripts in Eq. (35) do
not represent summation. Note that the rst
expression in Eq. (35) is applicable to ij = 11, 22
and 33 only. It is found that the constants obey
the following relations:
F
+
11
= F
+
22
= F
+
33
= F (36)
A
+
11
= A
+
22
= A
+
33
= A
+
12
= A
+
23
= A
+
13
= A (37)
B
+
11
= B
+
22
= B
+
33
= B
+
12
= B
+
13
= B
+
23
= B (38)
For the present interface stress model, F, A and B
can be obtained as follows:
F =
C
1
(1 m
1
)(1 m
2
)
g
11
(39)
A =
5C
1
(1 m
2
)(j
r
s
2l
r
s
)
2g
12
(40)
B =
5C
1
g
13
(1 m
2
)
2g
12
(41)
where
g
11
= (1 m
2
)[C
1
(1 m
1
) (1 2m
1
)(2 j
r
s
)[
(42)
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 729
g
12
= 2C
2
1
(7 5m
1
)(4 5m
2
) 4(7 10m
1
)
7 5j
r
s
(11 4j
r
s
)l
r
s
m
2
[5 4j
r
s
(13 5j
r
s
)l
r
s
[ C
1
7[39 20j
r
s
16l
r
s
5m
2
(9 5j
r
s
4l
r
s
)[ m
1
[285 188j
r
s
16l
r
s
5m
2
(75 47j
r
s
4l
r
s
)[ (43)
g
13
= [C
1
(7 5m
1
) 8m
1
(5 3j
r
s
l
r
s
)
7(4 3j
r
s
2l
r
s
)[ (44)
and C
1
= l
1
/l
2
. From the above expressions, the
components T
ijkl
of the local stress concentration
tensor T dened in Eq. (6) and T
ijkl
of the average
stress concentration tensor T dened in Eq. (7) can
be calculated, and they are given in Appendix A. It
is found that the stress elds and stress concentra-
tion tensors with the interface stress eect depend
upon the size of the inhomogeneity through the
two non-dimensional parameters j
r
s
and l
r
s
. When
j
r
s
= l
r
s
= 0, constant A in Eq. (37) is equal to zero
and the results degenerate into the classical case
(without the interface stress eect).
The local and average stress concentration
tensors for other interface models, namely, free
sliding model, linear spring model and disloca-
tion-like model, have the same forms as those for
the interface stress model. The expressions in Eqs.
(36)(38) still hold for these models, but the values
of F, A and B are dierent for dierent interface
models. The expressions for F, A and B for the lin-
ear spring model and dislocation-like model are gi-
ven in Appendix A, and those for the free sliding
model can be obtained from the linear spring model
by setting K
r
and K
h
= 0, where K
r
and K
h
are
dened in Eq. (A.14) in Appendix A. Also, the
stress elds and stress concentration tensor for
the linear spring model depend upon the size of the
inhomogeneity through the two non-dimensional
parameters K
r
and K
h
. The linear spring model is
often used to simulate a thin compliant interphase,
that is, the interface parameters a and b can be
expressed as functions of interphase moduli and
interphase thickness (Hashin, 1991; Shen et al.,
2000). The interface moduli j
s
and l
s
in the inter-
face stress model are intrinsic physical properties
of the interface, and they can be obtained either
by experiments or by computation using atomistic
simulations (e.g. Miller and Shenoy, 2000).
The local stress concentration tensor for an
inhomogeneity with one of the interface eects is,
in general, not constant. It should also be men-
tioned that although the inhomogeneity is spheri-
cal, and both the inhomogeneity and matrix are
isotropic, a sort of local anisotropy is induced
by the interface eects. The normal stresses in
the inhomogeneity depend on the remote shear
stresses; the shear stresses depend upon the remote
normal stresses; and the shear stress in one direc-
tion depends upon the remote shear stress in an-
other direction. However, for a perfectly-bonded
inhomogeneity, the stresses in the inhomogeneity
are uniform, and the normal (shear) stresses in
the inhomogeneity are not coupled with the applied
remote shear (normal) stresses even for a general
ellipsoidal inhomogeneity (Eshelby, 1957). The
average stress concentration tensor exhibits the fea-
tures of that of the Eshelby solution, namely, the
coupling disappears. Under some special cases,
the stresses in the inhomogeneity with the interface
eects are uniform. The rst case is when e
0
e
= 0
and e
0
m
,= 0, i.e., the system is under a hydrostatic
deformation. The other cases are the following:
for the interface stress model, j
r
s
= 2l
r
s
; for the
linear spring model, K
r
= K
h
; and for the disloca-
tion-like model, g
N
= g
T
.
4. Circular inhomogeneity
Consider a circular inhomogeneity with the
interface stress eect in an innite matrix under
remote stresses r
0
11
; r
0
22
and r
0
12
. q
0
is the radius of
the inhomogeneity. The solutions are given in the
polar coordinate system (q, /). Under remote load-
ing r
0
11
,= 0 or r
0
22
,= 0, the Airy stress functions for
the inhomogeneity and matrix are as follows:
w
k
= 2l
k
[V
k
1
(q) V
k
2
(q) cos 2/[ (k = 1; 2) (45)
where
V
k
1
(q) = f
k
ij
q
2
g
k
ij
ln q
V
k
2
(q) = a
k
ij
q
4
b
k
ij
q
2
c
k
ij

d
k
ij
q
2
(46)
and a
k
ij
, b
k
ij
, c
k
ij
, d
k
ij
, f
k
ij
and g
k
ij
(k = 1, 2) are con-
stants that need to be determined, and the sub-
730 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
script ij = 11 and 22 denotes the loading cases
r
0
11
,= 0 and r
0
22
,= 0, respectively. g
1
ij
= c
1
ij
=
d
1
ij
= 0 in the inhomogeneity; a
2
ij
= 0 in the matrix;
and f
2
ij
and b
2
ij
are determined from the condition
at innity. Other constants are determined from
the interface conditions. Under remote loading
r
0
12
,= 0, the Airy stress functions for the inhomo-
geneity and matrix are
w
k
= 2l
k
V
k
2
(q) sin 2/ (k = 1; 2) (47)
where V
k
2
(q) is given in Eq. (46)
2
, with the sub-
script ij replaced by 12. The solutions in
Eqs. (45)(47) are applicable to both plane-stress
and plane-strain problems. In this paper we only
consider the plane-strain case.
For the interface stress model, the interface con-
ditions at the inhomogeneity/matrix interface
(q = q
0
) for the circular inhomogeneity in the polar
coordinate system obtained from Eq. (4) are
u
1
q
= u
2
q
; u
1
/
= u
2
/
(48)
r
2
qq
r
1
qq
=
s
//
q
0
; r
1
q/
r
2
q/
=
1
q
0
os
//
o/
(49)
where s
//
= (2l
s
+ k
s
)e
//
. As the three-dimen-
sional case, dene f
+
ij
; a
+
ij
and b
+
ij
such that
f
+
ij
r
0
ij
= l
1
f
1
ij
; a
+
ij
r
0
ij
= q
2
0
l
1
a
1
ij
b
+
ij
r
0
ij
= l
1
b
1
ij
(50)
where the subscript ij = 11,22 and 12 denotes the
loading cases when r
0
11
,= 0, r
0
22
,= 0 and r
0
12
,= 0,
respectively. Therefore, the repeated subscripts in
Eq. (50) do not represent summation. Note that
the rst expression in Eq. (50) is applicable to
ij = 11 and 22 only. Then the constants in the
inhomogeneity can be given by the following
relations:
f
+
11
= f
+
22
= f (51)
a
+
11
= a
+
22
= a
+
12
=2 = a (52)
b
+
11
= b
+
22
= b
+
12
=2 = b (53)
where f, a and b are
f =
C
1
(1 m
2
)
4C
1
(1 2m
1
)(4 v
r
s
)
(54)
a =
C
1
(1 m
2
)v
r
s
2K
1
(55)
b =
C
1
(1 m
2
)[2C
1
3(2 v
r
s
) m
1
(8 3v
r
s
)[
K
1
(56)
in which
K
1
= 4C
2
1
(3 4m
2
) (3 4m
1
)[4 (3 2m
2
)v
r
s
[
C
1
[5(8 3v
r
s
) 2m
1
(3 4m
2
)(8 3v
r
s
)
4m
2
(12 5v
r
s
)[ (57)
and v
r
s
= 2l
r
s
j
r
s
. Here, for the two-dimensional
case, l
r
s
= l
s
=(q
0
l
2
) and j
r
s
= j
s
=(q
0
l
2
). The local
and average stress concentration tensors expressed
in terms of the above constants are given in
Appendix B. The stress elds and stress concentra-
tion tensor depend on the size of the inhomogene-
ity through the two non-dimensional parameters
j
r
s
and l
r
s
. When v
r
s
= 0, the results degenerate into
the classical case (without the interface stress
eect).
Again, the local and average stress concentra-
tion tensors for other interface models, namely,
free sliding model, linear spring model and disloca-
tion-like model, have the same forms as those for
the interface stress model. Expressions for the con-
stants f, a and b for the linear spring model and
dislocation-like model are given in Appendix B,
and those for the free sliding model are obtained
from the linear spring model by setting k
q

and k
/
= 0, where k
q
and k
/
are dened in Eq.
(B.8) in Appendix B. Likewise, the stress elds
and stress concentration tensors for the linear
spring model depend upon the size of the inhomo-
geneity through the non-dimensional parameters
k
q
and k
/
.
As the three-dimensional case, the stresses in the
inhomogeneity with the interface eects are gener-
ally not uniform. The components T
1112
and T
2212
of the stress concentration tensor are non-zero,
indicating the dependence of the normal stresses
in the inhomogeneity on the remote shear stress.
But the average stress concentration tensors exhibit
the features of that for the perfect bonding inter-
face. Gao (1995) derived the local Eshelby tensor
in a circular inhomogeneity with the linear spring
interface condition. The local Eshelby tensor has
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 731
the same features as those of the local stress con-
centration tensor in the present paper. Under some
special cases, the stresses in the inhomogeneity with
the interface eects are uniform. The rst case is
when r
0
11
= r
0
22
and r
0
12
= 0, i.e., the system is under
hydrostatic deformation. The other cases are as
follows: for the interface stress model, j
r
s
= 2l
r
s
;
for the linear spring model, k
q
= k
/
; and for the
dislocation-like model, g
N
= g
T
.
5. Solution under eigenstrain
In the following, we briey describe the proce-
dure of obtaining the elastic elds in spherical
and circular inhomogeneities when they are given
uniform eigenstrains. When an inhomogeneity is
given a uniform eigenstrain, the total displacement
in the inhomogeneity can be expressed as
u
1
= u
1d
u
+
(58)
where u
1d
is the disturbance displacement, and u*
is the displacement due to the uniform eigenstrain
and can be expressed as
u
+
= e
+
x; x X (59)
The solution for the displacement u
1d
of a spheri-
cal inhomogeneity is obtained by letting B
2
ij
=
F
2
ij
= 0 in Eqs. (12), (14) and (15), and that for
the circular one by letting b
2
ij
= f
2
ij
= 0 in Eq.
(46). The corresponding stresses in the spherical
and circular inhomogeneities are related to the
strains obtained from u
1d
by Hookes law. Trans-
forming the equations (58) and (59) into spherical
or circular coordinate system, and using the inter-
face conditions and the condition to avoid singu-
larity at the origin, the elastic eld of the
spherical or circular inhomogeneity in an innite
matrix can be determined. The solutions under
the combination of a uniform eigenstrain in the
inhomogeneity and a remote loading can be ob-
tained by superposition.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Although the linear spring model has been
extensively used to model interface properties, in
practice, the normal displacement jump at the
interface cannot be negative for this would imply
penetration of the matrix into the inhomogene-
ity. From this point of view, the linear spring
model is unreasonable. The mathematical remedy
to this would be to impose zero normal displace-
ment jump when the interface normal traction is
compressive. This would complicate the prob-
lem enormously in the manner described previ-
ously by Achenbach and Zhu (1989). Another
method to prevent the interpenetration of two
contacting surfaces is to use an anti-interpene-
tration model based upon the work of Wang
and Karihaloo (1996). For instance, Zhang
(2002) analyzed the stress eld of a spherical
inhomogeneity in an innite matrix using this
model. On the other hand, the linear spring model
is often used to simulate a thin and compliant
interphase approximately. From this point of
view, the interphase/matrix interface can move in-
ward by a small distance equal to the interphase
thickness. With this interpretation, negative nor-
mal displacement jump becomes permissible in
a sense that it is equivalent to the thickness
reduction of the thin and compliant interphase
(Hashin, 1991). In sum, we draw the following
conclusions:
(1) Interface eects on the elastic elds and stress
concentration tensors in spherical and circular
inhomogeneities in three-dimensional and two-
dimensional regions are given under general
remote loading conditions. The eects of four
interface models, namely, free sliding model,
linear spring model, dislocation-like model
and interface stress model are studied. It is
shown that when the linear spring interface
conditions and the interface stress conditions
are taken into account, the inhomogeneities
exhibit a size eect.
(2) The stress concentration tensors are, in gen-
eral, not constant for an inhomogeneity with
the considered interface eects. Moreover, a
sort of local anisotropy appears when the
interface eects come into play, that is, the
normal (shear) stresses in the inhomogeneity
depend on the remote shear (normal) stresses,
and the shear stress in one direction depends
732 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
on the remote shear stress in another direction.
However, the coupling disappears for the aver-
age stress concentration tensors.
(3) The stress concentration tensors become
constant and at the same time the local
anisotropy disappears when the interface
parameters satisfy some conditions. The con-
ditions are: j
r
s
= 2l
r
s
for the interface stress
model; K
r
= K
h
and k
q
= k
/
for the linear
spring model; g
N
= g
T
for the dislocation-like
model.
Appendix A. Stress concentration tensors of a
spherical inhomogeneity
The major components of the local stress con-
centration tensor are
T
1111
=F 4B
6A
R
2
[7(y
2
z
2
) m
1
(2x
2
y
2
z
2
)[
(A:1)
T
1122
= F 2B
6A
R
2
[7y
2
m
1
(6y
2
x
2
5z
2
)[
(A:2)
T
1212
=3B
3A
R
2
[7(x
2
y
2
z
2
) 2m
1
(x
2
y
2
2z
2
)[
(A:3)
Some additional components can be obtained by
simultaneous permutation of the subscripts
(1, 2, 3) and coordinates (x, y, z); thus, T
2222
and T
3333
can be obtained from T
1111
, T
2211
,
T
1133
, T
2233
, T
3311
and T
3322
from T
1122
, and
T
1313
and T
2323
from T
1212
. Other components
are as follows:
T
1211
T
2311
T
1311
_

_
_

_
=
12m
1
A
R
2
xy
2yz
xz
_

_
_

_
T
1222
T
2322
T
1322
_

_
_

_
=
12m
1
A
R
2
xy
yz
2xz
_

_
_

_
(A:4)
T
1233
T
2333
T
1333
_

_
_

_
=
12m
1
A
R
2
2xy
yz
xz
_

_
_

_
T
1112
T
2212
T
3312
_

_
_

_
=
6A
R
2
xy
x
1
x
1
x
2
_

_
_

_
(A:5)
T
1123
T
2223
T
3323
_

_
_

_
=
6A
R
2
yz
x
2
x
1
x
1
_

_
_

_
T
1113
T
2213
T
3313
_

_
_

_
=
6A
R
2
xz
x
1
x
2
x
1
_

_
_

_
(A:6)
where x
1
= 7 + 5m
1
, x
2
= 7 + 11m
1
, and
T
2313
T
1213
T
1223
_

_
_

_
=
18m
1
A
R
2
xy
yz
zx
_

_
_

_
(A:7)
with T
1323
= T
2313
, T
1312
= T
1213
, T
2312
= T
1223
.
The average stress concentration tensor is
T = nE
1
fE
2
(A:8)
where
n = 3F ; f =
6
5
(21A 5B) (A:9)
E
1
=
1
3
I
(2)
I
(2)
E
2
=
1
3
I
(2)
I
(2)
I
(4s)
(A:10)
I
(4s)
is the fourth-order symmetric identity tensor
(Nemat-Nasser and Hori, 1999). The expressions
of the parameters F, A and B have been given in
Eqs. (39)(41) for the interface stress model. The
expressions of them for the other interface models
are given below.
(I) Constants F, A and B for the linear spring
model
F =
C
1
K
r
(1 m
1
)(1 m
2
)
g
21
(A:11)
A =
20C
2
1
(K
r
K
h
)(1 m
2
)
g
22
(A:12)
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 733
B =
5C
1
g
23
(1 m
2
)
2g
22
(A:13)
where the two non-dimensional parameters K
r
and
K
h
are dened as
K
r
=
bR
l
2
; K
h
=
aR
l
2
; (A:14)
and
g
21
= 4C
1
(1 m
1
) K
r
[2 4m
1
C
1
(1 m
1
)[(1 m
2
) (A:15)
g
22
= 4C
1
4C
1
(7 5m
1
)(7 5m
2
)
K
h
[2(7 m
1
)(7 5m
2
) C
1
(7 5m
1
)
(11 13m
2
)[ K
r
2C
1
[4(7 4m
1
)
(7 5m
1
) C
1
(7 5m
1
)(17 19m
2
)[
K
h
[28 40m
1
C
1
(7 5m
1
)[
[7 5m
2
2C
1
(4 5m
2
)[ (A:16)
g
23
= 24K
h
C
1
m
1
K
r
8C
1
(7 2m
1
)
K
h
[28 40m
1
C
1
(7 5m
1
)[ (A:17)
The results of the linear spring model degenerate
into those of the perfect bonding interface by let-
ting K
r
and K
h
.
(II) Constants F, A and B for the dislocation-
like model
F =
C
1
g
N
(1 m
1
)(1 m
2
)
g
31
(A:18)
A =
10C
1
(g
N
g
T
)(1 m
2
)
g
32
(A:19)
B =
5C
1
g
33
(1 m
2
)
2g
32
(A:20)
where
g
31
= [2 4m
1
g
N
C
1
(1 m
1
)[(1 m
2
) (A:21)
g
32
= g
N
C
1
[m
1
(107 145m
2
) 2g
T
C
1
(7 5m
1
)
(4 5m
2
) 7(17 19m
2
)[
22(7 10m
1
)(7 5m
2
) g
T
C
1
[77 91m
2
m
1
(89 115m
2
)[ (A:22)
g
33
= 24g
T
m
1
g
N
[28 16m
1
g
T
C
1
(7 5m
1
)[
(A:23)
The results of the dislocation-like model degener-
ate into those of the perfect bonding interface by
letting g
N
= g
T
= 1.
Appendix B. Stress concentration tensors of a
circular inhomogeneity
The non-zero components of the local stress
concentration tensor are
T
1111
= 4
6a
q
2
0
y
2
b f
_ _
T
2222
= 4
6a
q
2
0
x
2
b f
_ _ (B:1)
T
1122
= 4
6a
q
2
0
y
2
b f
_ _
T
2211
= 4
6a
q
2
0
x
2
b f
_ _ (B:2)
T
1212
= 4
3a
q
2
0
(x
2
y
2
) b
_ _
T
2212
= T
1112
=
24a
q
2
0
xy (B:3)
The non-zero components of the average stress
concentration tensor are
T
1111
= T
2222
= D 4f
T
1122
= T
2211
= D 4f ; T
1212
= D
(B:4)
where D = 2(3a + 2b). The expressions of the
parameters f, a and b have been given in Eqs.
(54)(56) for the interface stress model. The
expressions of them for the other interface models
are given below.
(I) Constants f, a and b for the linear spring
model
f =
C
1
k
q
(1 m
2
)
4[2C
1
k
q
(1 C
1
2m
1
)[
(B:5)
a =
C
2
1
(k
q
k
/
)(1 m
2
)
K
2
(B:6)
734 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736
b =
C
1
k
q
[6C
1
k
/
(3 C
1
4m
1
)[(1 m
2
)
2K
2
(B:7)
where the two non-dimensional parameters k
r
and
k
h
are dened as
k
q
=
bq
0
l
2
; k
/
=
aq
0
l
2
(B:8)
and
K
2
= k
q
k
/
(3 4m
1
) C
2
1
k
q
[k
/
(3 4m
2
)
2(5 6m
2
)[ 2[6 k
/
(5 6m
2
)[
2C
1
k
/
(3 2m
1
) k
q
[3 2m
1
k
/
(5 6m
2
6m
1
8m
1
m
2
)[ (B:9)
The results of the linear spring model degenerate
into those of perfect bonding interface by letting
k
q
and k
/
.
(II) Constants f,a and b for the dislocation-like
model
f =
C
1
g
N
(1 m
2
)
4(1 g
N
C
1
2m
1
)
(B:10)
a =
C
1
(g
N
g
T
)(1 m
2
)
2K
3
(B:11)
b =
C
1
[g
N
(3 g
T
C
1
) 2m
1
(g
N
g
T
)[(1 m
2
)
2K
3
(B:12)
where
K
3
=34m
1
C
1
(g
N
g
T
)[5m
1
(68m
2
) 6m
2
[
C
2
1
g
N
g
T
(34m
2
) (B:13)
The results of the dislocation-like model degener-
ate into those of perfect bonding interface by let-
ting g
N
= g
T
= 1.
References
Aboudi, J., 1987. Damage in composites modelling of imperfect
bonding. Compos. Sci. Tech. 28, 103128.
Achenbach, J.D., Zhu, H., 1989. Eect of interfacial zone on
mechanical behaviour and failure of ber-reinforced com-
posites. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 37, 381393.
Asp, L.E., Berglund, L.A., Talreja, R., 1996. Eects of ber and
interphase on matrix-initiated transverse failure in polymer
composites. Compos. Sci. Tech. 56, 657665.
Benveniste, Y., 1987. A new approach to the application of
Mori-Tanaka theory in composite materials. Mech. Mater.
6, 147157.
Bigoni, D., Serkov, S.K., Valentini, M., Movchan, A.B., 1998.
Asymptotic models of dilute composites with imperfectly
bonded inclusions. Int. J. Solids Struct. 35, 32393258.
Cahn, J.W., Larche, F., 1982. Surface stress and the chemical
equilibrium of small crystalII. Solid particles embedded in
a solid matrix. Acta Mater. 30, 5156.
Cammarata, R.C., 1997. Surface and interface stress eects on
interfacial and nanostructured materials. Mater. Sci. Eng. A
237, 180184.
Cammarata, R.C., Eby, R.K., 1991. Eects and measurement
of internal surface stresses in materials with ultrane
microstructures. J. Mater. Res. 6, 888890.
Cherkaoui, M., Sabar, H., Berveiller, M., 1995. Elastic
composites with coated reinforcements: a micromechanical
approach for nonhomothetic topology. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 33,
829843.
Christensen, R.M., Lo, K.H., 1979. Solutions for eective shear
properties in three phase sphere and cylinder models. J.
Mech. Phys. Solids 27, 315330.
Eshelby, J.D., 1957. The determination of the elastic eld of an
ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A 241, 376396.
Freund, L.B., 1998. A surface chemical potential for elastic
solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 46, 18351844.
Gao, Z., 1993. Center notched metal matrix composite with
interphase. Eng. Fract. Mech. 44, 663679.
Gao, Z., 1995. A circular inclusion with imperfect interface:
Eshelbys tensor and related problems. J. Appl. Mech. 62,
860866.
Geymonat, G., Krasucki, F., Lenci, S., 1999. Mathematical
analysis of a bonded joint with a soft thin adhesive. Math.
Mech. Solids 4, 201225.
Ghahremani, F., 1980. Eect of grain boundary sliding on an
elasticity of polycrystals. Int. J. Solids Struct. 16, 825845.
Gurtin, M.E., Murdoch, A.I., 1975. A continuum theory of
elastic material surfaces. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 57, 291
323.
Gurtin, M.E., Murdoch, A.I., 1978. Surface stress in solids. Int.
J. Solids Struct. 14, 431440.
Hashin, Z., 1991. The spherical inclusion with imperfect
interface. J. Appl. Mech. 58, 444449.
Hashin, Z., 2002. The interphase/imperfect interface in elasticity
with application to coated ber composites. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 50, 25092537.
Herve, E., Zaoui, A., 1993. N-layered inclusion-based micro-
mechanical modeling. Int J. Eng. Sci. 31, 110.
Hori, M., Nemat-Nasser, S., 1993. Double-inclusion model and
overall moduli of multi-phase composites. Mech. Mater. 14,
189206.
Huang, J.H., Furuhashi, R., Mura, T., 1993. Frictional sliding
inclusions. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 41, 247265.
Huang, N.C., Korobeinik, M.Y., 2001. Interfacial debonding of
a spherical inclusion embedded in an innite medium under
remote stress. Int. J. Fract. 107, 1130.
H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736 735
Huang, Z.P., Wang, J., submitted for publication. A note on
hyperelasticity with interface eect. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
Jasiuk, I., Tsuchida, E., Mura, T., 1987. The sliding inclusion
under shear. Int. J. Solids Struct. 23, 13731385.
Karihaloo, B.L., Viswanathan, K., 1988a. A partially debonded
ellipsoidal inclusion in an elastic medium. Part I: stress and
displacement elds. Mech. Mater. 7, 191197.
Karihaloo, B.L., Viswanathan, K., 1988b. A partially debonded
ellipsoidal inclusion in an elastic medium. Part II: stress
intensity factors and debond opening displacement. Mech.
Mater. 7, 199203.
Klarbring, A., Movchan, A.B., 1998. Asymptotic medelling of
adhesive joints. Mech. Mater. 28, 137145.
Levy, A.J., 1996. The eective dilatational response of ber-
reinforced composites with nonlinear interface. J. Appl.
Mech. 63, 357364.
Lipton, R., Vernescu, B., 1996. Composites with imperfect
interface. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 452, 329358.
Mikata, Y., Taya, M., 1985. Stress eld in and around a coated
short ber in an innite matrix subjected to uniaxial and
biaxial loadings. J. Appl. Mech. 52, 1924.
Miller, R.E., Shenoy, V.B., 2000. Size-dependent elastic prop-
erties of nanosized structural elements. Nanotechnology 11,
139147.
Mura, T., Furuhashi, R., 1984. The elastic inclusion with a
sliding interface. J. Appl. Mech. 51, 308310.
Needleman, A., 1987. A continuum model for void nucleation
by inclusion debonding. J. Appl. Mech. 54, 525531.
Nemat-Nasser, S., Hori, M., 1999. Micromechanics: Overall
Properties of Heterogeneous Elastic Solids, second ed.
North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Nix, W.D., Gao, H.J., 1998. An atomic interpretation of
interface stress. Scripta Mater. 39, 16531661.
Qiu, Y.P., Weng, G.J., 1991. Elastic moduli of thickly coated
particle and ber-reinforced composites. J. Appl. Mech. 58,
388398.
Qu, J., 1993. The eect of slightly weakened interfaces on the
overall elastic properties of composites. Mech. Mater. 14,
269281.
Rubin, M.B., Benveniste, Y., 2004. A Cosserat shell model for
interphases in elastic media. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 1023
1052.
Sharma, P., Ganti, S., Bhate, N., 2003. Eect of surfaces on the
size-dependent elastic state of nano-inhomogeneities. Appl.
Phys. Lett. 82, 535537.
Shen, H., Schiavone, P., Ru, C.Q., Mioduchowski, A., 2000.
Analysis of internal stress in an elliptic inclusion with
imperfect interface in plane elasticity. Math. Mech. Solids 5,
501521.
Spaepen, F., 2000. Interface and stresses in thin lms. Acta
Mater. 48, 3142.
Steigmann, D.J., Ogden, R.W., 1999. Elastic surfacesubstrate
interactions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 455, 437474.
Suo, Z., 1997. Motions of microscopic surfaces in materials.
Adv. Appl. Mech. 33, 193294.
Walpole, L.J., 1978. A coated inclusion in an elastic medium.
Math. Proc. Comb. Phil. Soc. 83, 495506.
Wang, J., Karihaloo, B.L., 1996. Optimum in situ strength
design of composite laminates. Part II: optimum design. J.
Compos. Mater. 30, 13381358.
Wei, Y., Hutchinson, J.W., 1999. Models of interface separa-
tion accompanied by plastic dissipation at multiple scales.
Int. J. Fract. 95, 117.
Wong, G.T., Barnett, D.M., 1985. A dislocation method for
solving 3-D crack and inclusion problems in linear elastic
solids. In: Bilby, B.A., Miller, K.J., Willis, J.R. (Eds.),
Fundamentals of Deformation and Fracture. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 417438.
Wu, T.T., 1966. The eect of inclusion shape on the elas-
tic moduli of a two-phase material. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2,
18.
Yu, H.Y., 1998. A new dislocation-like model for imperfect
interfaces and their eect on load transfer. Composites A
29, 10571062.
Yu, H.Y., Wei, Y.N., Chiang, F.P., 2002. Load transfer at
imperfect interfacesdislocation-like model. Int. J. Eng. Sci.
40, 16471662.
Zhang, Z., 2002. Stress analysis of particulate composites
with imperfect interface. MSc Dissertation, Peking
University.
Zhong, Z., Meguid, S.A., 1997. On the elastic eld of a
spherical inhomogeneity with an imperfectly bonded inter-
face. J. Elasticity 46, 91113.
736 H.L. Duan et al. / Mechanics of Materials 37 (2005) 723736