Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

On the extension of the concept of rheological connections to a finite deformation framework using multiple natural configurations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Finite-strain series and parallel rheological connections reduce to a stress-power split rule.

desk verdict Genuinely new power-ratio idea for finite-strain rheology, but the Appendix A derivation is wrong and the central claim does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04396 v1 pith:UTAG67YY submitted 2025-02-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Tarun Singh , Sandipan Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 74A2074C20
keywords rheologyconstitutivebehaviorfinitestrainviscoelasticitymultiplenaturalconfigurationsrheologicalconnectionsstresspowerdrivingforce
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the familiar one-dimensional rules for rheological networks—equal stress in series, equal strain in parallel—are not the fundamental content of a rheological connection. The fundamental content, it argues, is how the stress power is shared between the elements. In finite deformation this sharing is captured by two postulates: a series connection splits power according to the ratio of the L2 norms of the rate-of-deformation tensors, and a parallel connection splits power according to the ratio of the L2 norms of the driving forces. Building on the multiple natural configurations framework and a maximum dissipation criterion, the authors derive evolution equations for inelastic deformation and demonstrate the scheme on standard linear solid, elastic-perfectly plastic, and strain-hardening elastoplastic models. If correct, the result gives a general recipe for converting any one-dimensional rheological network into a three-dimensional finite-strain constitutive model without introducing new configurations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the multiple natural configurations framework—multiplicative decomposition of the deformation gradient, the rate of deformation split, the Cauchy stress, and the stress power expressed as the contraction of stress with rate of deformation—together with the two new postulates that define connections. For a series connection, the stress power ratio equals the ratio of the L2 norms of the rate-of-deformation tensors; for a parallel connection, it equals the ratio of the L2 norms of the driving forces, where the driving force is the kinetic conjugate whose contraction with the inelastic rate of deformation gives the dissipation rate. Combining these power-split constraints with a maximum rate of dissipation principle yields the evolution equations: an implicit equation for the inelastic rate of deformation in series, and an explicit expression for it in terms of the driving force in parallel. The L2 norm is a stated modeling choice; the paper explicitly notes that other norm definitions would generate variants of the postulates.

What would settle it

Subject a material with a known rheological network, such as a standard linear solid, to a finite-strain loading path and measure at each instant the stress power going into each branch: for the series-connected spring and dashpot inside the Maxwell unit, compute the ratio of their stress powers and compare it with the ratio of the norms of their rate-of-deformation tensors; for the parallel-connected spring and Maxwell unit, compare the power ratio with the ratio of the norms of their driving forces. If the measured ratios deviate from the norm ratios as the deformation grows, the two postulates are falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the multiple natural configurations framework, the paper's central claim is that the distinction between series and parallel rheological connections is a restriction on the distribution of stress power, not on stresses or strains. Postulate 2 states that for two elements in series the stress power ratio equals the ratio of the L2 norms of their rate-of-deformation tensors; Postulate 3 states that for two elements in parallel the stress power ratio equals the ratio of the L2 norms of their driving forces. These postulates replace the usual equilibrium and compatibility bookkeeping, which the paper shows cannot be transferred to finite deformation: the standard parallel construction fails because two motions with the same right Cauchy-Green tensor can differ only by a rigid-body motion. With the postulates as constraints in a maximum rate of dissipation problem, the theory produces evolution equations for the inelastic rate of deformation in series and an explicit flow rule in driving-force space in parallel, recovering the equality of total and inelastic driving stresses in series as a consequence rather than an input.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the postulate that a rheological connection is defined by the ratio of stress powers, with series splitting as the ratio of L2 norms of deformation-rate tensors and parallel as the ratio of L2 norms of driving forces; the authors state the L2 norm is only one possible choice, so if the physical power split follows a different rule or a different norm, the derived evolution equations would not represent the intended connection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any one-dimensional rheological network can be transported to finite deformation by replacing stress and strain decomposition with the two power-split postulates, using the same natural configurations for every connection.
  • In a series connection, the relation between the total and inelastic driving stresses emerges from the power-split postulate together with dissipation maximization, so the earlier equal-stress result is recovered as a theorem rather than assumed.
  • Parallel connections become well-posed at finite strain, avoiding the rigid-body-motion ambiguity that arises when two deformation gradients are forced to share the same right Cauchy-Green tensor.
  • For a parallel spring and friction-block unit, the framework predicts that during yielding the plastic driving force and the plastic rate of deformation both stay constant, giving a finite-deformation yield condition analogous to the one-dimensional frictional element.
  • Models built this way lead to implicit evolution equations that require iterative numerical solution once the Helmholtz potential and dissipation function are specified.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same power-split logic could be applied to other conjugate stress and strain pairs, and to norms other than the L2 norm, yielding a family of finite-strain connection rules; the authors flag the L2 choice but do not explore alternatives.
  • If the postulates survive experimental testing, they supply a parameter-free structural rule for constructing finite-strain versions of multi-branch rheological networks without intermediate configurations, which would simplify constitutive modeling for polymers, gels, and soft tissues.
  • The parallel-connection flow rule is an explicit flow rule in driving-force space; connecting it to variational or generalized-standard-material formulations could give a broader principle, but the paper does not make that link.
  • A direct check of the postulates is possible in principle: for a known rheological network, resolve the stress power of each branch during a finite-strain test and compare the measured power ratio with the norm ratio; the postulates predict equality along arbitrary loading paths.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a finite-deformation extension of rheological spring/dashpot/frictional-block networks using the multiple natural configurations framework. The central claim is that both series and parallel connections can be represented without introducing new configurations, with the distinction encoded in power-split rules: for series, the stress-power ratio equals the ratio of the L2 norms of the rate-of-deformation tensors, and for parallel, it equals the ratio of the norms of the driving forces. These rules are formalized as Postulates 2 and 3, used to derive evolution equations, and then applied formally to standard linear solid, elastic-perfectly plastic, and strain-hardening elastoplastic examples. The paper also criticizes earlier configurational treatments of parallel connections, using Blume's compatibility theorem.

Significance. If the derivations were correct, the proposed framework would address a real gap in finite-deformation rheology: it avoids the incompatible-configuration issues of earlier parallel-connection models and offers a unified treatment of series and parallel networks through a single configurational structure. The paper is clearly written about its assumptions and contains a useful critique of Kießling et al.'s parallel-connection construction. However, the central derivation contains load-bearing mathematical errors in Appendix A that invalidate the evolution equation and the key relation J_i T_i = J T. Since that relation is the main quantitative outcome of the series-connection model, and since the parallel model inherits the same derivative mistake, the manuscript's central claim is not sustained as written. The paper also makes no numerical or experimental validation; the illustrations are formal and defer all solution procedures to future work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.2)] The derivative of ω_s with respect to D_i is incorrect. Since D_e = D − D_i, the numerator ||D_e|| also depends on D_i, but Eq. (A.2) differentiates only ||D_i|| and treats ||D_e|| as constant. The correct derivative is ∂ω_s/∂D_i = −D_e/(||D_e|| ||D_i||) − ||D_e|| D_i / ||D_i||³, not −ω_s D_i / ||D_i||². This error propagates into Eq. (A.4), the driving-force expression Eq. (31), and the contracted result leading to Eq. (A.8). Therefore the central evolution equation (28) and the relation J_i T_i = J T do not follow from the stated calculation.
  2. [Appendix A, after Eq. (A.7)] The inference from (J_i T_i − J T) : D_i = 0 to J_i T_i = J T is logically invalid. The maximization procedure determines a particular D_i, so D_i is not arbitrary; a vanishing scalar product for one specific tensor does not imply equality of the two tensors. Because Eq. (A.8) is the key result used to interpret the series connection, this breaks the main conclusion of Section 4.2.
  3. [Section 4.4, Eq. (38)] The parallel-connection derivation repeats the same derivative error: Eq. (38) computes ∂ω_p/∂T_i as if ||T_e|| were independent of T_i, yet T_e and T_i are coupled through the total stress power and the constraint (35). The paper even states that the only known relation between T and T_i is through the stress power, so treating T_e as fixed in Eq. (38) is not justified. Consequently Eq. (40), the central result of the parallel model, is not established.
  4. [Sections 3 and 4.2] Postulates 2 and 3 are introduced as new constitutive axioms, and Section 3 only shows that they reduce to the classical one-dimensional rules in the small-strain case. The finite-deformation form is therefore not derived from the small-strain theory; it is an additional modeling assumption, with the L2 norm chosen without independent physical justification (as the authors acknowledge). This does not by itself invalidate the proposal, but it means the paper should be read as proposing a new power-split rule rather than proving that series/parallel connections must take this form.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The definition of D_i is circular as written: it uses D_i on both sides of the equality. The second expression presumably should involve L_i (e.g., D_i = (1/2)(F_e L_i F_e^{-1} + F_e^{-T} L_i^T F_e^T)), and the current text should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.1] The notation T_e^2 and T_M^i appears in Eq. (41) and the surrounding text before these quantities are defined; please introduce the notation for the spring and Maxwell branch explicitly.
  3. [Throughout Section 5] The examples are presented as demonstrations of utility, but no material model is actually solved; the results are implicit equations whose solution is deferred to future work. The wording 'demonstrate the utility' in the abstract accordingly overstates what is shown.
  4. [Eq. (45)] The condition 'ξ = Di = 0' is ambiguous; it should be written as two separate statements, ξ = 0 and D_i = 0, since ξ is a scalar and D_i is a tensor.
  5. [General] There is a missing Table reference ('Table ??') in Section 5, and the manuscript contains several typographical errors (e.g., 'thrmodynamic' in Section 6, 'Hence' capitalized mid-sentence in Section 4.3) that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-strain postulates are explicit modeling assumptions, and the small-strain consistency checks do not masquerade as derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are built on Postulates 1, 2, and 3, which are openly introduced as assumptions rather than as results derived from first principles. Section 3 uses Postulate 1 to re-derive the familiar 1-D series/parallel stress and strain relations, but this is presented as a consistency check of the postulate, not as an independent proof of it; the algebra shows only that the power-split rule reproduces the standard equilibrium/compatibility conditions for the traditional elements. The finite-deformation postulates similarly state a chosen rule (ratio of L2 norms of rate-of-deformation tensors for series, ratio of norms of driving forces for parallel), and the paper explicitly notes that other norms 'are also possible,' confirming that this is a modeling choice rather than a hidden fitted parameter. The subsequent evolution equations are consequences of these postulates plus the Rajagopal–Srinivasa maximum-dissipation framework; they are not circular because the postulates are not claimed to follow from the results. There are no fitted inputs called predictions, no load-bearing self-citations (the only self-citation, Paul and Freed [29], concerns a peripheral GND characterization and is not used to justify the central construction), and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The skeptic's concern about Appendix A—that the derivative of ω_s with respect to D_i neglects the dependence of D_e on D_i, and that Eq. (A.8) does not follow from Eq. (A.7)—is a mathematical-error objection, not a circularity objection: a wrong derivative or an invalid universalization is not the same as a result being equivalent to its input by construction. Thus, under the stated circularity criteria, the paper is not circular, even though its derivations may be open to technical criticism.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on two new postulates (Postulates 2 and 3) that define rheological connections at finite strain via power ratios. These postulates are introduced ad hoc and are not derived from equilibrium or compatibility. The mathematical derivation of the evolution equations (Appendix A) contains an error: in equation (A.2), the derivative of omega_s with respect to D_i treats ||D_e|| as constant even though D_e = D - D_i. This invalidates equation (28) and the subsequent driving-force relation (equation A.8), which is also obtained by an invalid inference from a scalar product to a tensor equality.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Existence of a family of natural configurations with instantaneous elastic unloading from the current configuration.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 following Rajagopal and Srinivasa (1998, 2004); the entire multiple natural configurations framework rests on this.
  • domain assumption Maximum rate of dissipation criterion selects the inelastic evolution.
    Used in Section 4.1 and Appendix A to derive evolution equations; a standard postulate in the Rajagopal-Srinivasa formalism.
  • standard math Multiplicative decomposition F = F_e F_i and additive rate decomposition D = D_e + D_i.
    Standard kinematic assumption in finite inelasticity, used throughout; see equations (8) and (10).
  • ad hoc to paper Postulate 2: for a series connection, the stress power ratio equals the ratio of L2 norms of the rate of deformation tensors.
    Introduced in Section 4.2 as a new fundamental tenet; not derived from equilibrium or compatibility.
  • ad hoc to paper Postulate 3: for a parallel connection, the stress power ratio equals the ratio of L2 norms of the driving forces.
    Introduced in Section 4.4; likewise a new assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The L2 norm is the appropriate magnitude measure for second-order tensors in the power-split rules.
    Stated in Section 4.2: 'We use a simple L2 norm... other definitions... are also possible.' The choice is arbitrary and unvalidated.
  • ad hoc to paper For a frictional block, activation is governed by a threshold on the stress power (equation 45) rather than on a yield stress.
    In Sections 5.2 and 5.3, the yield condition of the one-dimensional model is replaced by a power threshold, a modeling choice specific to this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the extension of the concept of rheological connections to a finite deformation framework using multiple natural configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTAG67YY

@misc{pith2026250204396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the extension of the concept of rheological connections to a finite deformation framework using multiple natural configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTAG67YY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04396}
}
read the original abstract

The constitutive behaviors of materials are often modeled using a network of different rheological elements. These rheological models are mostly developed within a one-dimensional small strain framework. One of the key impediments of extending these models to a three-dimensional finite deformation setting is to determine how the different types of connections, i.e., a series and a parallel connection, are incorporated into the material models. The primary objective of this article is to develop an appropriate strategy to address this issue. We show that both the series and the parallel connection between two rheological elements can be modeled within a multiple natural configurations framework without changing or introducing new configurations. The difference in a series and a parallel connection is manifested in the ratio of the stress powers expended during the deformations of the associated rheological elements. Finite deformation version of some well-known rheological models have been used to demonstrate the utility of the proposed theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multiple natural configurations and the associated tangent maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different rheological elements, viz., a spring, a dashpot and a frictional block in a series and a parallel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Traditionally used analogous configurations and their associated tangent maps to a network of rheological [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The rheological network of: (a) standard linear solid model (b) Elastic-perfectly plastic materials and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A CHARYA , A., AND BASSANI , J. L. Lattice incompatibility and a gradient theory of crystal plasticity. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 48, 8 (2000), 1565–1595

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Rheological modeling—historical remarks and actual trends in solid mechanics

    A LTENBACH , H. Rheological modeling—historical remarks and actual trends in solid mechanics. In Advances in Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials. Springer, 2023, pp. 1–16

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    B INGHAM , E. C. Rheology. i. the nature of fluid flow. Journal of chemical education 6, 6 (1929), 1113

    work page 1929

  4. [4]

    B INGHAM , E. C. The new science of rheology. Review of Scientific Instruments 4, 9 (1933), 473–476

    work page 1933

  5. [5]

    B LUME , J. A. Compatibility conditions for a left cauchy-green strain field. Journal of elasticity 21, 3 (1989), 271–308

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    M., AND VRCELJ , Z

    B OURAS , Y., Z ORICA , D., A TANACKOVI ´C, T. M., AND VRCELJ , Z. A non-linear thermo-viscoelastic rhe- ological model based on fractional derivatives for high temperature creep in concrete. Applied Mathematical Modelling 55 (2018), 551–568

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Thermoviscoplasticity deduced from enhanced rheological models

    B R ¨OCKER , C., AND MATZENMILLER , A. Thermoviscoplasticity deduced from enhanced rheological models. PAMM 12, 1 (2012), 327–328

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Configurational stress, yield and flow in rate–independent plasticity

    C ERMELLI , P., F RIED , E., AND SELLERS , S. Configurational stress, yield and flow in rate–independent plasticity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 457, 2010 (2001), 1447–1467

    work page 2001

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    C ERMELLI , P., AND GURTIN , M. E. On the characterization of geometrically necessary dislocations in finite plasticity. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 49, 7 (2001), 1539–1568

    2001

  2. [10]

    Theory of viscoelasticity: an introduction

    C HRISTENSEN , R. Theory of viscoelasticity: an introduction. Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Eshelby’s stress tensors in finite elastoplasticity

    C LEJA -T IGOIU , S., AND MAUGIN , G. Eshelby’s stress tensors in finite elastoplasticity. Acta Mechanica 139, 1 (2000), 231–249

    2000

  4. [12]

    The energy-momentum tensor and material uniformity in finite elasticity

    E PSTEIN , M., AND MAUGIN , G. The energy-momentum tensor and material uniformity in finite elasticity. Acta Mechanica 83, 3-4 (1990), 127–133

    1990

  5. [13]

    E PSTEIN , M., AND MAUGIN , G. A. On the geometrical material structure of anelasticity. Acta Mechanica 115, 1-4 (1996), 119–131

    1996

  6. [14]

    The continuum theory of lattice defects

    E SHELBY , J. The continuum theory of lattice defects. Solid state physics 3 (1956), 79–144

    1956

  7. [15]

    The elastic energy-momentum tensor

    E SHELBY , J. The elastic energy-momentum tensor. Journal of elasticity 5, 3-4 (1975), 321–335

    1975

  8. [16]

    E SHELBY , J. D. The force on an elastic singularity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 244, 877 (1951), 87–112

    1951

  9. [17]

    Parameter identification and validation of shape-memory poly- mers within the framework of finite strain viscoelasticity

    G HOBADI , E., S HUTOV, A., AND STEEB , H. Parameter identification and validation of shape-memory poly- mers within the framework of finite strain viscoelasticity. Materials 14, 8 (2021), 2049

    2021

  10. [18]

    H., R OBERTS , C

    G LASS , D. H., R OBERTS , C. J., L ITSKY , A. S., AND WEBER , P. A. A viscoelastic biomechanical model of the cornea describing the effect of viscosity and elasticity on hysteresis. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 49, 9 (2008), 3919–3926

    2008

  11. [19]

    J., AND ST ¨OLKEN , J

    G UPTA, A., S TEIGMANN , D. J., AND ST ¨OLKEN , J. S. On the evolution of plasticity and incompatibility. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids 12, 6 (2007), 583–610

    2007

  12. [20]

    Nonlinear visco-poroelasticity of gels with different rheological parts

    H E, D., AND HU, Y. Nonlinear visco-poroelasticity of gels with different rheological parts. Journal of Applied Mechanics 87, 7 (2020), 071010

    2020

  13. [21]

    Finite deformation viscoelasticity laws

    H UBER , N., AND TSAKMAKIS , C. Finite deformation viscoelasticity laws. Mechanics of materials 32 , 1 (2000), 1–18. 23

    2000

  14. [22]

    H., G RYTTEN , F., B ENALLAL , A., AND HOPPERSTAD , O

    J OHNSEN , J., C LAUSEN , A. H., G RYTTEN , F., B ENALLAL , A., AND HOPPERSTAD , O. S. A thermo-elasto- viscoplastic constitutive model for polymers. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 124 (2019), 681–701

    2019

  15. [23]

    Direct connection of rheological elements at large strains: Application to multiplicative viscoplasticity

    K IESSLING , R., L ANDGRAF , R., AND IHLEMANN , J. Direct connection of rheological elements at large strains: Application to multiplicative viscoplasticity. PAMM 15, 1 (2015), 313–314

    2015

  16. [24]

    K IESSLING , R., L ANDGRAF , R., S CHERZER , R., AND IHLEMANN , J. Introducing the concept of directly connected rheological elements by reviewing rheological models at large strains.International Journal of Solids and Structures 97 (2016), 650–667

    2016

  17. [25]

    L AKES , R. S. Viscoelastic materials. Cambridge university press, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    A viscoelastic constitutive model for shape memory polymers based on multi- plicative decompositions of the deformation gradient

    L I, Y., H E, Y., AND LIU, Z. A viscoelastic constitutive model for shape memory polymers based on multi- plicative decompositions of the deformation gradient. International Journal of Plasticity 91 (2017), 300–317

    2017

  19. [27]

    A physically based method to represent the thermo-mechanical behaviour of elastomers

    L ION , A. A physically based method to represent the thermo-mechanical behaviour of elastomers. Acta Me- chanica 123, 1-4 (1997), 1–25

    1997

  20. [28]

    Constitutive modelling in finite thermoviscoplasticity: a physical approach based on nonlinear rheo- logical models

    L ION , A. Constitutive modelling in finite thermoviscoplasticity: a physical approach based on nonlinear rheo- logical models. International Journal of Plasticity 16, 5 (2000), 469–494

    2000

  21. [29]

    P AUL, S., AND FREED , A. D. Characterization of the geometrically necessary dislocations using a Gram– Schmidt factorization of the deformation gradient. Zeitschrift f ¨ur angewandte Mathematik und Physik 71 , 6 (2020), 196

    2020

  22. [30]

    A rheological model of nonlinear viscoplastic solids

    P ELEG , K. A rheological model of nonlinear viscoplastic solids. Journal of Rheology 27, 5 (1983), 411–431

    1983

  23. [31]

    Mechanics of the inelastic behavior of materials

    R AJAGOPAL , K., AND SRINIVASA , A. Mechanics of the inelastic behavior of materials. part ii: Inelastic response. International Journal of Plasticity 14, 10-11 (1998), 969–995

    1998

  24. [32]

    Mechanics of the inelastic behavior of materials—part 1, theoretical underpinnings

    R AJAGOPAL , K., AND SRINIVASA , A. Mechanics of the inelastic behavior of materials—part 1, theoretical underpinnings. International Journal of Plasticity 14, 10-11 (1998), 945–967

    1998

  25. [33]

    R., AND SRINIVASA , A

    R AJAGOPAL , K. R., AND SRINIVASA , A. R. On thermomechanical restrictions of continua. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 460 , 2042 (2004), 631–651

    2004

  26. [34]

    R., AND SRINIVASA , A

    R AJAGOPAL , K. R., AND SRINIVASA , A. R. On the role of the eshelby energy-momentum tensor in materials with multiple natural configurations. Mathematics and mechanics of solids 10, 1 (2005), 3–24

    2005

  27. [35]

    The general law of flow of matter

    R EINER , M. The general law of flow of matter. Journal of Rheology 1, 1 (1929), 11–20

    1929

  28. [36]

    G., F RANK , M., T HURNER , P

    R EISINGER , A. G., F RANK , M., T HURNER , P. J., AND PAHR , D. H. A two-layer elasto-visco-plastic rheolog- ical model for the material parameter identification of bone tissue. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobi- ology 19 (2020), 2149–2162

    2020

  29. [37]

    Finite strain viscoplasticity with nonlinear kinematic hardening: Phenomeno- logical modeling and time integration

    S HUTOV, A., AND KREISSIG , R. Finite strain viscoplasticity with nonlinear kinematic hardening: Phenomeno- logical modeling and time integration. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197 , 21-24 (2008), 2015–2029

    2008

  30. [38]

    V., LARICHKIN , A

    S HUTOV, A. V., LARICHKIN , A. Y., AND SHUTOV, V. A. Modelling of cyclic creep in the finite strain range us- ing a nested split of the deformation gradient.ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift f¨ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 97, 9 (2017), 1083–1099

    2017

  31. [39]

    C., AND HUGHES , T

    S IMO , J. C., AND HUGHES , T. J. Computational inelasticity, vol. 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    Modeling shape memory effect in uncrosslinked amorphous biodegradable polymer

    W ONG , Y.-S., S TACHURSKI , Z., AND VENKATRAMAN , S. Modeling shape memory effect in uncrosslinked amorphous biodegradable polymer. Polymer 52, 3 (2011), 874–880. A. Derivation of the evolution equation for a series connection of rheological elements in finite deformation In ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.