Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36714841›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2022

Interfacial cavitation.

Thomas Henzel, Japinder Nijjer, S Chockalingam, Hares Wahdat, Alfred J Crosby, Jing Yan, Tal Cohen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas HenzelDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Japinder NijjerMolecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
S ChockalingamDepartment of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2173-4700
Hares WahdatPolymer Science and Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8805-1723
Alfred J CrosbyPolymer Science and Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8850-8869
Jing YanMolecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2773-0348
Tal CohenDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9449-5790

Funding

Tracking single-cell gene expression heterogeneity and its consequences in bacterial biofilmsDP2GM146253 · NIGMS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI YAN, JING · 2021 to 2024
$2.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM146253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cavitation has long been recognized as a crucial predictor, or precursor, to the ultimate failure of various materials, ranging from ductile metals to soft and biological materials. Traditionally, cavitation in solids is defined as an unstable expansion of a void or a defect within a material. The critical applied load needed to trigger this instability -- the critical pressure -- is a lengthscale independent material property and has been predicted by numerous theoretical studies for a breadth of constitutive models. While these studies usually assume that cavitation initiates from defects in the bulk of an otherwise homogeneous medium, an alternative and potentially more ubiquitous scenario can occur if the defects are found at interfaces between two distinct media within the body. Such interfaces are becoming increasingly common in modern materials with the use of multimaterial composites and layer-by-layer additive manufacturing methods. However, a criterion to determine the threshold for interfacial failure, in analogy to the bulk cavitation limit, has yet to be reported. In this work, we fill this gap. Our theoretical model captures a lengthscale independent limit for interfacial cavitation, and is shown to agree with our observations at two distinct lengthscales, via two different experimental systems. To further understand the competition between the two cavitation modes (bulk versus interface), we expand our investigation beyond the elastic response to understand the ensuing unstable propagation of delamination at the interface. A phase diagram summarizes these results, showing regimes in which interfacial failure becomes the dominant mechanism.

Identifiers

PMID36714841
PMCPMC9802248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.