Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyse the joint effect of reinforcement shape and packing on the effective behaviour of particulate composites. The proposed semi-analytical modelling method combines the Replacement Mori–Tanaka scheme, by means of which the concentration tensors for non-ellipsoidal inhomogeneities are found numerically, and the analytical morphologically representative pattern approach to account for particle packing. Five shapes of inhomogeneities are selected for the analysis: a sphere, a prolate ellipsoid, a sphere with cavities, an oblate spheroid with a cavity as well as an inhomogeneity created by three prolate spheroids crossing at right angles. Semi-analytical estimates are compared with the results of numerical simulations performed using the finite element method and with the outcomes of classical mean-field models based on the Eshelby solution, e.g. the Mori–Tanaka model or the self-consistent scheme.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability Statement
The authors can confirm that all relevant data are included in the article.
References
Olson G. Computational design of hierarchically structured materials. Science. 1997;277:1237–42. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5330.1237.
Matouš K, Geers MGD, Kouznetsova VG, Gillman A. A review of predictive nonlinear theories for multiscale modeling of heterogeneous materials. J Comput Phys. 2017;330:192–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.10.070.
Clyne TW, Hull D. An introduction to composite materials. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139050586.
Rajak DK, Pagar DD, Kumar R, Pruncu CI. Recent progress of reinforcement materials: a comprehensive overview of composite materials. J Mater Res Technol. 2019;8:6354–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.09.068.
Christensen RM. A critical evaluation for a class of micro-mechanics models. J Mech Phys Solids. 1990;38:379–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(90)90005-O.
Eshelby JD. The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proc R Soc A-Math Phy. 1957;241:376–96. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1957.0133.
Kanaun SK, Levin VM. Self-consistent methods for composites, vol 1: static problems. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. p. 172–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6664-1.
Castañeda PP, Willis JR. The effect of spatial distribution on the effective behavior of composite materials and cracked media. J Mech Phys Solids. 1995;43:1919–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(95)00058-Q.
Torquato S. Effective stiffness tensor of composite media: II. Applications to isotropic dispersions. J Mech Phys Solids. 1998;46:1411–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(97)00083-5.
Marcadon V, Herve E, Zaoui A. Micromechanical modeling of packing and size effects in particulate composites. Int J Solids Struct. 2007;44:8213–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.06.008.
Majewski M, Kursa M, Holobut P, Kowalczyk-Gajewska K. Micromechanical and numerical analysis of packing and size effects in elastic particulate composites. Compos B Eng. 2017;124:158–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.004.
Diani J, Gilormini P, Merckel Y, Vion-Loisel F. Micromechanical modeling of the linear viscoelasticity of carbon-black filled styrene butadiene rubbers: the role of the filler-rubber interphase. Mech Mater. 2013;59:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2012.12.007.
Majewski M, Holobut P, Kursa M, Kowalczyk-Gajewska K. Packing and size effects in elastic-plastic particulate composites: micromechanical modelling and numerical verification. Int J Eng Sci. 2020;151:103271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2020.103271.
Chaboche JL, Kanouté P, Roos A. On the capabilities of mean-field approaches for the description of plasticity in metal matrix composites. Int J Plast. 2005;21:1409–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2004.07.001.
Sevostianov I, Mogilevskaya SG, Kushch VI. Maxwell’s methodology of estimating effective properties: alive and well. Int J Eng Sci. 2019;140:35–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2019.05.001.
Kowalczyk-Gajewska K, Majewski M, Mercier S, Molinari A. Mean field interaction model accounting for the spatial distribution of inclusions in elasticviscoplastic composites. Int J Solids Struct. 2021;224:111040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.111040.
Segurado J, Llorca J. Computational micromechanics of composites: the effect of particle spatial distribution. Mech Mater. 2006;38:873–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2005.06.026.
Dastgerdi JN, Anbarlooie B, Miettinen A, Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Remes H. Effects of particle clustering on the plastic deformation and damage initiation of particulate reinforced composite utilizing X-ray CT data and finite element modeling. Compos B Eng. 2018;153:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.07.027.
Escoda J, Willot F, Jeulin D, Sanahuja J, Toulemonde C. Influence of the multiscale distribution of particles on elastic properties of concrete. Int J Eng Sci. 2016;98:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2015.07.010.
de Francqueville F, Gilormini P, Diani J, Vandenbroucke A. Comparison of the finite strain macroscopic behavior and local damage of a soft matrix highly reinforced by spherical or polyhedral particles. Eur J Mech A Solids. 2020;84:104070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2020.104070.
Liu LP. Solutions to the Eshelby conjectures. Proc R Soc A-Math Phys. 2008;464:573–94. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.0219.
Klusemann B, Böhm HJ, Svendsen B. Homogenization methods for multi-phase elastic composites with non-elliptical reinforcements: comparisons and benchmarks. Eur J Mech A Solids. 2012;34:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2011.12.002.
Zheng QS, Du DX. An explicit and universally applicable estimate for the effective properties of multiphase composites which accounts for inclusion distribution. J Mech Phys Solids. 2001;49:2765–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(01)00078-3.
Du DX, Zheng QS. A further exploration of the interaction direct derivative (IDD) estimate for the effective properties of multiphase composites taking into account inclusion distribution. Acta Mech. 2002;157:61–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01182155.
Nogales S, Böhm HJ. Modeling of the thermal conductivity and thermomechanical behavior of diamond reinforced composites. Int J Eng Sci. 2008;46:606–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2008.01.011.
Kachanov M, Tsukrov I, Shafiro B. Effective moduli of solids with cavities of various shapes. Appl Mech Rev. 1994;47:151–74. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3122810.
Segurado J, Llorca J. A numerical approximation to the elastic properties of sphere-reinforced composites. J Mech Phys Solids. 2002;50:2107–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(02)00021-2.
Hassani B, Hinton E. A review of homogenization and topology optimization I—homogenization theory for media with periodic structure. Comput Struct. 1998;69:707–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(98)00131-X.
Ranganathan SI, Ostoja-Starzewski M. Scaling function, anisotropy and the size of RVE in elastic random polycrystals. J Mech Phys Solids. 2008;56:2773–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2008.05.001.
Hashin Z. The elastic moduli of heterogeneous materials. J Appl Mech. 1962;29:143–50. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3636446.
Herve E, Zaoui A. n-Layered inclusion-based micromechanical modelling. Int J Eng Sci. 1993;31:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7225(93)90059-4.
Hori M, Nemat-Nasser S. Double-inclusion model and overall moduli of multi-phase composites. Mech Mater. 1993;14:189–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6636(93)90066-Z.
Suquet P. Effective properties of nonlinear composites. In: Suquet P, editor. Continuum micromechanics. Vienna: Springer; 1997. p. 197–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2662-2.
Mori T, Tanaka K. Average stress in matrix and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions. Acta Metall. 1973;21:571–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(73)90064-3.
Schöberl J. NETGEN—an advancing front 2D/3D-mesh generator based on abstract rules. Comput Vis Sci. 1997;1:41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007910050004.
Korelc J. Multi-language and multi-environment generation of nonlinear finite element codes. Eng Comput. 2002;18:312–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003660200028.
Markov A, Trofimov A, Sevostianov I. A unified methodology for calculation of compliance and stiffness contribution tensors of inhomogeneities of arbitrary 2D and 3D shapes embedded in isotropic matrix - open access software. J Mech Phys Solids. 2020;157:103390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2020.103390.
Kowalczyk-Gajewska K, Ostrowska-Maciejewska J. Review on spectral decomposition of Hooke’s tensor for all symmetry groups of linear elastic material. Eng Trans. 2009; 57:145–183. https://et.ippt.gov.pl/index.php/et/article/view/172.
Šmilauer V et al. Yade Documentation. 3rd ed. The Yade Project. Zenodo; 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5705394.
Mazzucco G, Pomaro B, Salomoni VA, Majorana CE. Numerical modelling of ellipsoidal inclusions. Constr Build Mater. 2018;167:317–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.160.
Kursa M, Kowalczyk-Gajewska K, Petryk H. Multi-objective optimization of thermo-mechanical properties of metal-ceramic composites. Compos B Eng. 2014;60:586–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.01.009.
Hill R. Continuum micro-mechanics of elastoplastic polycrystals. J Mech Phys Solids. 1965;13:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(65)90023-2.
Kowalczyk-Gajewska K, Maździarz M. Elastic properties of nanocrystalline materials of hexagonal symmetry: the core-shell model and atomistic estimates. Int J Eng Sci. 2020;157:103393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2020.103393.
Celentano DJ, Chaboche JL. Experimental and numerical characterization of damage evolution in steels. Int J Plast. 2007;23:1739–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2007.03.008.
Steinmann P. Formulation and computation of geometrically non-linear gradient damage. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 1999;46:757–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19991020)46:5757::AID-NME7313.0.CO;2-NN.
Rutecka A, Kursa M, Pietrzak K, Kowalczyk-Gajewska K, Makowska K, Wyszkowski M. Damage evolution in AA2124/SiC metal matrix composites under tension with consecutive unloadings. Arch Civ Mech. 2020;20:135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-020-00134-x.
Funding
The research was partially supported by the project No. 2017/25/N/ST8/01968 of the National Science Center (NCN), Poland. The work of the second author was supported by the National Science Centre (NCN) in Poland under Grant No. 2015/19/N/ST8/03924.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A: Stiffness tensor decompositions: transverse isotropy and cubic symmetry
In the paper, five different shapes are studied (see Fig. 3a–e). Let us assume that the spheroid is prolate (Fig. 3c) or oblate and drilled (Fig. 3e) in the \(\mathbf {m}_1\) direction. Then the stiffness tensor \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}^{dil }_{i }\) of a tiny spheroid embedded in a large cube (Fig. 4) and the effective stiffness tensor \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}_{NDil }\) in Eq. 14 exhibit transverse isotropy and can be written in the following form [43]:
The orthogonal projectors \(\mathbb {P}_K\) (\(K=1,2,3\)) define:
-
1D space of isochoric tension/compression along \(\mathbf {m}_1\)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbb {P}_{1}= \mathbf {d}\otimes \mathbf {d}\,,\quad \mathbf {d}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left( 3\mathbf {m}_1\otimes \mathbf {m}_1-\mathbf {I}\right) \,, \end{aligned}$$(A.2) -
2D space of in-plane shears
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbb {P}_{2}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_3+\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) \otimes \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_3+\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) + \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_2-\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_3\right) \otimes \left( \mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_3-\mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) \right] \,, \end{aligned}$$(A.3) -
2D space of out-of-plane shears where
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbb {P}_{3}= \frac{1}{2} \sum _{k=2,3} \left( \mathbf {m}_1\otimes \mathbf {m}_k+\mathbf {m}_k\otimes \mathbf {m}_1\right) \otimes \left( \mathbf {m}_1\otimes \mathbf {m}_k+\mathbf {m}_k\otimes \mathbf {m}_1\right) \,. \end{aligned}$$(A.4)
As it was mentioned, to calculate the five independent components: \(3\overline{K}\), \(2\overline{G}_1\), \(2 \overline{G}_{12}\), \(2 \overline{G}_2\), \(2 \overline{G}_3\), a set of four analyses with micro-periodic displacement boundary conditions (Eq. 16) were performed for a unit volume element. The four strain tensors \(\mathbf {E}^{(n)}\) (\(n=0,1,2,3\)) imposed in these analyses are given by Eq. (19).
The strains \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( n\right) }\) result in the overall stresses, calculated as the local stresses averaged over the RVE’s volume, \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{(n)}=1/V\int _V\varvec{\sigma }dV\), which allow one to derive each independent component of \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}^{Trans }\) according to the relations:
where \({\Sigma }^{\left( n\right) }_{i\,j}\) denotes the ij component of the averaged stress tensor \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{\left( n\right) }\) obtained as a material response to the strain \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( n\right) }\).
For the other shapes, i.e. the drilled sphere and crossed spheroids (Fig. 3c and d), the effective elastic stiffness tensor \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}^{Cub }\) of the unit cells is the anisotropic fourth-order tensor relevant for cubic symmetry with three Kelvin moduli \(3\overline{K}\), \(2\overline{G}_1\), and \(2\overline{G}_2\), namely [38]:
where
and \(\mathbf {m}_k\) are the main symmetry axes of the unit cell. The eigensubspaces corresponding to \(3\overline{K}\), \(2\overline{G}_1\), and \(2\overline{G}_2\) are one dimensional (the space of hydrostatic states), two dimensional, and three dimensional (two orthogonal subspaces of deviatoric states), respectively.
Only three FE analyses with strains \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 0\right) }\), \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 1\right) }\), and \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 2\right) }\) imposed by periodic boundary conditions (Eq. 19) are needed to derive each Kelvin modulus independently, according to the relations:
It can be seen that the above three strains \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 0\right) }\), \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 1\right) }\), and \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( 2\right) }\) belong to three distinct eigensubspaces of the tensor \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}^{Cub }\) and result in the overall stresses \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{\left( 0\right) }\), \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{\left( 1\right) }\), and \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{\left( 2\right) }\) of the same structure as strains. Finally, the response of a unit volume element reinforced with a single tiny spherical inhomogeneity (Fig. 4) is isotropic.
The situation changes in the case of unit cells with the FCC placement of inhomogeneities (Fig. 9), which for spherical inclusions are of cubic symmetry. If the composite is reinforced with prolate (Fig. 9c) or oblate (Fig. 9e) spheroids, the effective stiffness tensor \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}\) has tetragonal symmetry and can be written in the following form:
where \(3\overline{K}\), \(2\overline{G}_1\), \(2 \overline{G}_{12}\), \(2 \overline{G}_2\), \(2 \overline{G}_3\), \(2 \overline{G}_4\) are six independent components. Note that it is assumed that the main axis of a prolate or oblate spheroid, or a drilled sphere, is coaxial with the \(\mathbf {m}_1\) direction, which is at the same time coaxial with one of the unit cell’s edges \(\mathbf {m}_k\). Under such conditions, the projectors \(\mathbb {P}_K\) (K=1,3) for tetragonal symmetry are the same as for the transversal one. The projectors \(\hat{\mathbb {P}}_2\) and \(\hat{\mathbb {P}}_4\) sum up to \(\mathbb {P}_2\) for transverse isotropy. They define two 1D orthogonal subspaces of shearing in the 2–3 plane, namely:
-
pure shear along the \(\mathbf {m}_2\) and \(\mathbf {m}_3\) directions,
$$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb {P}}_{2}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_3+\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) \otimes \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_3+\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) \right] \,, \end{aligned}$$(A.10) -
pure shear along directions inclined by \(45^o\) with respect to the \(\mathbf {m}_2\) and \(\mathbf {m}_3\) directions,
$$\begin{aligned} \hat{\mathbb {P}}_{4}= \frac{1}{2} \left[ \left( \mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_2-\mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_3\right) \otimes \left( \mathbf {m}_3\otimes \mathbf {m}_3-\mathbf {m}_2\otimes \mathbf {m}_2\right) \right] \,. \end{aligned}$$(A.11)
To find the six independent components of \(\bar{\mathbb {L}}^{Tetra }\), the four analyses with the overall strains \(\mathbf {E}^{(n)}\) (n = 0, 1, 2, 3) given by Eqs. (19), performed in the case of the overall transverse isotropy, are completed with a fifth analysis with an imposed strain of the following representation in the basis \(\{\mathbf {m}_i\}\):
where d specifies the strain magnitude.
The imposed strains \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( n\right) }\) result in the overall stresses \(\mathbf {\Sigma }^{\left( n\right) }\), which allow one to derive each independent component of \(\overline{\mathbb {L}}^{Tetra }\) according to Eq. A.5 with the addition of \(\overline{G}_4\):
The effective stiffness of a composite with the FCC arrangement of inhomogeneities shown in Fig. 9a, b and d is of cubic symmetry as long as the main axes of ingomogeneities coincide with the axes of the unit cell.
Appendix B: The form of concentration tensors: transverse isotropy and cubic symmetry
The numerical strain concentration tensor \(\mathbb {A}_{i }^{NDil }\) of an inhomogeneity has the same symmetry group as the effective stiffness tensor of a large unit cell (Fig. 4) with a tiny inhomogeneity. Thus, for inhomogeneities having the shape of the prolate spheroid or drilled oblate spheroid (Fig. 3b and e) its symmetry group is that for transverse isotropy:
and for the other shapes: drilled sphere and crossed spheroids (Fig. 3c and d), it has cubic symmetry, viz.
where the projectors \(\mathbb {P}_K\) and the remaining tensorial quantities, e.g. \(\mathbb {K}\), are listed above; see Eqs. A.2, A.3, and A.7. Finally, if a particle is spherical then the numerical strain concentration tensor is isotropic.
For the set of micro-periodic displacement boundary conditions specified by the strains \(\mathbf {E}^{(n)}\) from Eq. (19), the components \(A^{Cub }\) and \(A^{Trans }\), established from Eq. (15), are:
where \(\langle \cdot \rangle\) is the volume averaging operation defined as \(1/V \int _V (\cdot )dV\), \(\varvec{\varepsilon }\) is the local strain tensor in the inhomogeneity domain, \(\langle \varvec{\varepsilon }\rangle ^{\left( n\right) }_{ij}\) is the component ij of the inhomogeneity’s average strain in response to the displacement BC given by \(\mathbf {E}^{\left( n\right) }\). The simplification \(A^{Trans }_{12}\approx A^{Trans }_{21}\) was assumed taking into account very small values of this component compared to the remaining ones (see Table 2).
Appendix C: The impact of inclusion shape on damage evolution
As it has been shown, the shape of inclusions may substantially influence the local strain and stress fields in the composite phases. These local fields have a prominent effect on the initiation of damage in the material [20]. Below, we analyze damage evolution in composites with the considered shapes of heterogeneities by means of numerical homogenization.
Material degradation is simulated by FEM using the concept of the damage parameter d and the framework of continuous damage mechanics [44]. Within the local constitutive model of the phases, the free energy density \(\Pi\) is postulated in the form
where \(\Pi _e\) is the elastic energy density specified as
The damage parameter d depends on the history parameter \(\omega\) which is related to the elastic energy density according to the exponential law [45]:
where \(d_{max }=0.8\) is taken as the maximum damage, \(H=0.1\) is the damage ductility, and \(\omega\) is equal to the maximum value of the elastic energy density \(\Pi _e\) achieved during the deformation process up to the considered time step.
Figure 16a presents the average value of the von Mises stress, calculated from the effective stress \(\bar{\sigma }\), versus the overall strain component \(\varepsilon _{23}\) of the MMC (Table 1) subjected to periodic boundary conditions (16) with \(\mathbf {E}=\mathbf {E}^{(2)}\). Similarly to [46], damage evolution is enabled only in the matrix phase. Figure 16b shows the average damage evolution \(d_{m }=1/V_{m } \int d \, d V_{m }\,\) in the matrix phase for five different inclusion shapes in the FCC spatial arrangement. The studied microstructures are presented in Fig. 9.
The results indicate that the shape of inhomogeneities plays a critical role in the non-linear response of the particulate composite. As can be seen in Fig. 16a, the difference in the overall von Mises stress between the crossed spheroids and the prolate spheroids is almost 500[MPa]. In all cases we observe first an increase in the stresses accompanied by a smooth reduction of stiffness. Next, some stabilization of the stress level is seen, so the strain increases under an approximately constant stress. Finally, the overall stresses start to increase again. The reason for this behaviour is the damage evolution law (Eq. C.1) and the assumption of the maximum damage \(d_{max }=0.8\) which is less than 1.0, so the elastic stiffness of the matrix never degrades to zero. When d reaches its maximum value \(d_{max }\), the locally damaged matrix becomes elastic but with a smaller stiffness: \((1-d_{max })\mathbb {L}_{m }\). The contour maps shown in Fig. 17 present the distribution of the damage parameter d at \(\overline{\varepsilon }_{23}=0.02\). Details of the distribution vary with the inclusion shape. In the MMC reinforced with prolate spheroids, wide and almost straight damage bands develop (see Fig. 17c), while for crossed spheroids damage bands are more curved (see Fig. 17d), and for drilled spheres damage develops in the matrix inside the inclusions (see Fig. 17b). In general, higher damage localization is observed in specimens with a smaller distance between the particles’ external surfaces and with more spherical shapes of inclusions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Majewski, M., Wichrowski, M., Hołobut, P. et al. Shape and packing effects in particulate composites: micromechanical modelling and numerical verification. Archiv.Civ.Mech.Eng 22, 86 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-022-00405-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43452-022-00405-9