On the validity of the flow rule postulate for geomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper is concerned with a fundamental assumption in the theory of plasticity: the direction of plastic strain increments is independent of the loading (stress) increment direction. This assumption, also known as plastic flow rule postulate, works quite well for metal‐like materials. However, geomaterials such as sand present deformational mechanisms that are distinctive from those of metals when they are loaded. As such, we hereby examine the validity of this postulate for granular media accounting for their discrete nature. This is accomplished by analysing the mechanical behaviour of a cubic assembly of polydispersed spherical articles using a particle flow code. An extension to Gudehus' response envelope to three‐dimensional conditions is used to study the incremental character and influence of loading direction on the behaviour of these materials. It is found that plastic flow in granular media is governed by both current state variables and incremental loading direction and magnitude, especially under non‐axisymmetric stress conditions. The flow rule postulate of plasticity remains valid only in axisymmetric and biaxial conditions. We also verified that the plastic response might be significantly influenced by the stress path (or history) taken prior to loading. These findings raise the question of whether or not classic elastoplastic models based on the above postulate will have serious shortcomings, especially in true‐triaxial conditions. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".