Indentation into a plastic fluid layer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the indentation of a rigid object into a layer of a cohesive or non-cohesive plastic material. Existing approaches to this problem using slip-line theory assume that the penetration depth is relatively small, employing perturbation theory about a flat surface. Here, we use two alternative approaches to account for large penetration depths, and for the consequent spreading and uplift of the surrounding material. For a viscoplastic fluid, which reduces to an ideal plastic under the limit of vanishing viscosity, we adopt a viscoplastic version of lubrication theory. For a Mohr-Coulomb material, we adopt an extension of slip-line theory between two parallel plates to account for arbitrary indenter shapes. We compare the theoretical predictions of penetration and spreading with experiments in which a flat plate, circular cylinder or sphere are indented into layers of Carbopol or glass spheres with successively higher loads. We find reasonable agreement between theory and experiment, though with some discrepancies that are discussed. There is a clear layer-depth dependence of the indentation and uplift for the viscoplastic material. For a cylinder indented into a Mohr-Coulomb material, there is a much weaker dependence on layer depth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".