MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183963131 · doi:10.1177/10567895211019065

A convex anisotropic damage model based on the compliance tensor

2021· article· en· W3183963131 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Görthofer, Matti Schneider, Andrew N. Hrymak, Thomas Böhlke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Damage Mechanics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAnisotropyDamage mechanicsTensor (intrinsic definition)Dissipative systemCauchy stress tensorOrthotropic materialMaterials scienceStructural engineeringApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsPhysicsGeometryEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work is devoted to anisotropic continuum-damage mechanics in the quasi-static, isothermal, small-strain setting. We propose a framework for anisotropic damage evolution based on the compliance tensor as primary damage variable, in the context of generalized standard models for dissipative solids. Based on the observation that the Hookean strain energy density of linear elasticity is jointly convex in the strain and the compliance tensor, we design thermodynamically consistent anisotropic damage models that satisfy Wulfinghoff’s damage-growth criterion and feature a convex free energy. The latter property permits obtaining mesh-independent results on component scale without the necessity of introducing gradients of the damage field. We introduce the concepts of stress-extraction tensors and damage-hardening functions, implicitly describing a rigorous damage-analogue of yield surfaces in elastoplasticity. These damage surfaces may be combined in a modular fashion and give rise to complex damage-degradation behavior. We discuss how to efficiently integrate Biot’s equation implicitly, and show how to design specific stress-extraction tensors and damage-hardening functions based on Puck’s anisotropic failure criteria. Last but not least we demonstrate the versatility of our proposed model and the efficiency of the integration procedure for a variety of examples of interest.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Damage MechanicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207