Inelastic constitutive properties and shear localization in Tennessee marble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The inelastic response of Tennessee marble is modelled by an elastic plastic constitutive relation that includes pressure dependence of yield, strain‐softening and inelastic volume strain (dilatancy). Data from 12 axisymmetric compression tests at confining pressures from 0 to 100 MPa are used to determine the dependence of the yield function and plastic potential, which are different, on the first and second stress invariants and the accumulated inelastic shear strain. Because the data requires that the strain at peak stress depends on the mean stress, the locus of peak stresses is neither a yield surface nor a failure envelope, as is often assumed. Based on the constitutive model and Rudnicki and Rice criterion, localization is not predicted to occur in axisymmetric compression although faulting is observed in the tests. The discrepancy is likely due to the overly stiff response of a smooth yield surface model to abrupt changes in the pattern of straining. The constitutive model determined from the axisymmetric compression data describes well the variation of the in‐plane stress observed in a plane strain experiment. The out‐of‐plane stress is not modelled well, apparently because the inelastic normal strain in this direction is overpredicted. In plane strain, localization is predicted to occur close to peak stress, in good agreement with the experiment. Observation of localization on the rising portion of the stress–strain curve in plane strain does not, however, indicate prepeak localization. Because of the rapid increase of mean stress in plane strain, the stress–strain curve can be rising while the shear stress versus shear strain curve at constant mean stress is falling (negative hardening modulus). Copyright © 2001 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".