The linear elasticity tensor of incompressible materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a universally accepted abuse of terminology, materials having much larger stiffness for volumetric than for shear deformations are called incompressible. This work proposes two approaches for the evaluation of the correct form of the linear elasticity tensor of so-called incompressible materials, both stemming from non-linear theory. In the approach of strict incompressibility, one imposes the kinematical constraint of isochoric deformation. In the approach of quasi-incompressibility, which is often employed to enforce incompressibility in numerical applications such as the Finite Element Method, one instead assumes a decoupled form of the elastic potential (or strain energy), which is written as the sum of a function of the volumetric deformation only and a function of the distortional deformation only, and then imposes that the bulk modulus be much larger than all other moduli. The conditions which the elasticity tensor has to obey for both strict incompressibility and quasi-incompressibility have been derived, regardless of the material symmetry. The representation of the linear elasticity tensor for the quasi-incompressible case differs from that of the strictly incompressible case by one parameter, which can be conveniently chosen to be the bulk modulus. Some important symmetries have been studied in detail, showing that the linear elasticity tensors for the cases of isotropy, transverse isotropy and orthotropy are characterised by one, three and six independent parameters, respectively, for the case of strict incompressibility, and two, four and seven independent parameters, respectively, for the case of quasi-incompressibility, as opposed to the two, five and nine parameters, respectively, of the general compressible case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".