Comparison of Dislocation Density Tensor Fields Derived from Discrete Dislocation Dynamics and Crystal Plasticity Simulations of Torsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of accurate simulation of the plastic deformation of ductile metals to the design of structures and components is well-known. Many techniques exist that address the length scales relevant to deformation processes, including dislocation dynamics (DD), which models the interaction and evolution of discrete dislocation line segments, and crystal plasticity (CP), which incorporates the crystalline nature and restricted motion of dislocations into a higher scale continuous field framework. While these two methods are conceptually related, there have been only nominal efforts focused on the system-level material response that use DD-generated information to enhance the fidelity of plasticity models. To ascertain to what degree the predictions of CP are consistent with those of DD, we compare their global and microstructural response in a number of deformation modes. After using nominally homogeneous compression and shear deformation dislocation dynamics simulations to calibrate crystal plasticity flow rule parameters, we compare not only the system-level stress-strain response of prismatic wires in torsion but also the resulting geometrically necessary dislocation density tensor fields. To establish a connection between explicit description of dislocations and the continuum assumed with crystal plasticity simulations, we ascertain the minimum length-scale at which meaningful dislocation density fields appear. Our results show that, for the case of torsion, the two material models can produce comparable spatial dislocation density distributions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".