Cutting Mechanics of Soft Compressible Solids: Force-radius scaling versus bulk modulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutting mechanics in soft solids present a complex mechanical challenge due to the intricate behavior of soft ductile materials as they undergo crack nucleation and propagation. Recent research has explored the relationship between the cutting force needed to continuously cut a soft material and the radius of the wire (blade). A typical simplifying assumption is that of material incompressibility, albeit no material in nature is really incompressible. In this study, we relax this assumption and examine how material (in)compressibility influences the correlation between cutting forces and material properties like toughness and modulus. The ratio μ/\k{appa}, where μ and \k{appa} are the shear and bulk moduli, indicates the material's degree of compressibility, where incompressible materials have μ/\k{appa}=0, and larger μ/\k{appa} provide higher volumetric compressibility. Following previous observations, we obtain two cutting regimes: (i) high toughness or small wire radius, and (ii) low toughness or large wire radius. Regime (i) is dominated by frictional dissipation, while regime (ii) is dominated by adhesive debonding and/or the wear resistance of the material. These regimes are controlled by the ratio between the wire radius and the elasto-cohesive length of the material: the critical crack opening displacement at fast fracture under uniaxial tension. In the large radius, regime (ii), our theoretical findings reveal that incompressible materials require larger forces. Notably, however, the elasto-cohesive length of the material, defining the transition wire radius between regimes (i) and (ii), is larger for compressible materials, which are therefore more likely to be cut in regime (i), and thus requiring larger cutting forces.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".