MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016408897 · doi:10.1115/1.4007724

Eulerian Framework for Inelasticity Based on the Jaumann Rate and a Hyperelastic Constitutive Relation—Part II: Finite Strain Elastoplasticity

2012· article· en· W2016408897 on OpenAlexafffund
Amin Eshraghi, Hamid Jahed, Katerina D. Papoulia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHyperelastic materialEulerian pathConstitutive equationFinite strain theoryPlasticityStress spaceMechanicsNonlinear systemHardening (computing)Shearing (physics)IsotropyKinematicsStrain rateMathematical analysisTorsion (gastropod)Cauchy stress tensorStrain hardening exponentClassical mechanicsMathematicsMaterials scienceFinite element methodPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Eulerian rate formulation of finite strain elastoplasticity is developed based on a fully integrable rate form of hyperelasticity proposed in Part I of this work. A flow rule is proposed in the Eulerian framework, based on the principle of maximum plastic dissipation in six-dimensional stress space for the case of J2 isotropic plasticity. The proposed flow rule bypasses the need for additional evolution laws and/or simplifying assumptions for the skew-symmetric part of the plastic velocity gradient, known as the material plastic spin. Kinematic hardening is modeled with an evolution equation for the backstress tensor considering Prager’s yielding-stationarity criterion. Nonlinear evolution equations for the backstress and flow stress are proposed for an extension of the model to mixed nonlinear hardening. Furthermore, exact deviatoric/volumetric decoupled forms for kinematic and kinetic variables are obtained. The proposed model is implemented with the Zaremba–Jaumann rate and is used to solve the problem of rectilinear shear for a perfectly plastic and for a linear kinematic hardening material. Neither solution produces oscillatory stress or backstress components. The model is then used to predict the nonlinear hardening behavior of SUS 304 stainless steel under fixed-end finite torsion. Results obtained are in good agreement with reported experimental data. The Swift effect under finite torsion is well predicted by the proposed model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MechanicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207