MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366782340 · doi:10.1002/nag.3535

Analysis of dilatancy relation and shear‐band formation in granular materials based on Eshelby‐Mandel tensor

2023· article· en· W4366782340 on OpenAlexaff
Peijun Guo, Shunhua Zhou, Dieter Stolle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilatantShear bandCauchy stress tensorGranular materialMechanicsShear (geology)Classical mechanicsDissipative systemMaterials scienceDissipationPlasticityPhysicsComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The theory of configurational or material forces based on the Eshelby stress tensor (also called energy‐momentum tensor) has provided a general and efficient way to describe the motion of material defects and other inhomogeneities within the framework of continuum mechanics. In this paper, we explore how to use the configurational forces to describe the behavior of homogeneous granular materials by considering the material characteristics on both continuum and discrete particle levels. In particular, dissipative driving forces based on the Eshelby‐Mandel stress tensor are utilized as the driving force of the configuration variations in the form of shear‐induced volume change. The energy dissipation induced by the relative sliding at particle contacts is considered in the configurational forces. To characterize the dilation of a homogeneous granular material with uniform deformation, a virtual plane is introduced to facilitate the analysis and to derive the dilatancy formulation. With the consideration of the shear‐band geometry and the requirement of configurational force equilibrium across the boundary of a shear‐band, the condition for the onset of a shear band is derived. For granular specimens subjected to biaxial compression, the analyses recover the well‐known Rowe's dilatancy formulation and yield the shear‐band orientation identical to that obtained from the classical bifurcation analysis within the framework of elasto‐plasticity.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207