A Linear Time-Variant Rheological Model for Frictional Aging, Stress Relaxation, and Creep

Vikash Pandey

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 72 references

A Linear Time-Variant Rheological Model for Frictional Aging, Stress Relaxation, and Creep

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A linear time-varying constitutive rule, jerk-elasticity, derives Guiu-Pratt logarithmic relaxation and Andrade power-law creep from a single time-dependent coefficient.

desk verdict A clean derivation of logarithmic relaxation and Andrade creep from a single time-varying ansatz, but the ansatz is a postulate, the advertised rate-and-state link is missing, and Eq. (19) has a dimensional error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06365 v3 pith:IJZWYHSL submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.soft

Vikash Pandey This is my paper

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords jerk-elasticitylineartime-variantrheologyGuiu-PrattlogarithmicrelaxationAndradepower-lawcreepfrictionalagingactivationvolumefractionalMaxwellmodelstages

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

Most aging materials relax under fixed strain along a logarithmic curve and creep under fixed stress along a power law, and these two universal behaviors are usually attributed to fractional derivatives or broad distributions of relaxation times. This paper argues that a single linear, time-varying constitutive rule can produce both: the stress rate obeys $\dot\sigma(t)=E\dot\varepsilon(t)-\varepsilon(t)/(\xi+\theta t)$, an elastic spring in parallel with a 'jerk' element whose coefficient grows linearly in time. Integrating this equation under a step in strain gives exactly the Guiu-Pratt logarithmic relaxation law, and integrating under a step in stress gives Andrade's power-law creep, with the same exponent $\alpha=1/(E\theta)$ and time constant $\tau=\xi/\theta$ in both. If correct, the model would tie frictional aging, relaxation, and creep to one parameter pair, give physical meaning to the activation volume, and recover viscous and fractional Maxwell behavior as limits without nonlinearity or fractional calculus.

What carries the argument

The central object is the jerk-elasticity element: a Hookean spring in parallel with a 'jerk' element that connects the stress rate $\dot\sigma$ to the current strain $\varepsilon$ through a time-dependent coefficient of jerkity, $1/\lambda(t)=\xi+\theta t$. The linear time dependence is the load-bearing mechanism: substituting $1/\lambda=\xi+\theta t$ into $\dot\sigma=E\dot\varepsilon-\lambda\varepsilon$ makes the relaxation integral produce $-\ln(1+t/\tau)$ and the creep integral produce $(1+t/\tau)^\alpha$. The same pair $(\xi,\theta)$ controls both exponent and time constant, and $\theta=\varepsilon_0 V^*/RT$ connects the rheological parameter to the activation volume.

What would settle it

Monitor stress relaxation in a single material from milliseconds to years; the model predicts that the relaxation modulus should approach a straight line when plotted against $\ln t$, with slope $-1/\theta$. A reproducible bend away from a straight line at long times, or a direct extraction of $1/\lambda(t)$ from the data that is not linear in $t$, would overturn the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a linear time-variant constitutive element, jerk-elasticity, whose law is $\dot{\sigma}_j(t)=E\dot{\varepsilon}(t)-\lambda(t)\varepsilon(t)$ with $1/\lambda(t)=\xi+\theta t$. In a relaxation test this integrates to the Guiu-Pratt law $\sigma(t)=\sigma_0[1-\alpha\ln(1+t/\tau_\sigma)]$, and in a creep test to Andrade's law $\varepsilon(t)=\varepsilon_0(1+t/\tau_\varepsilon)^\alpha$, where $\alpha=1/(E\theta)$, $\tau_\sigma=\tau_\varepsilon=\xi/\theta$, and $\theta=\varepsilon_0 V^*/RT$. The mechanism is motivated by stick-slip friction and the logarithmic growth of contact area, and the paper argues it unifies the three creep stages through the evolution of $\theta$, makes viscosity an emergent property of jerkity and elasticity, and recovers the fractional Maxwell model and Mittag-Leffler relaxation in a limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the exact linear-in-time form of the coefficient that couples stress rate to strain; if that coefficient is not a straight line in time, the model no longer yields logarithms and power laws.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same parameter pair $(\xi,\theta)$ reproduces the Guiu-Pratt and Andrade laws, so logarithmic relaxation and power-law creep are no longer separate phenomena requiring separate fit functions.
The activation volume $V^*$ is linked to the initial strain $\varepsilon_0$, making the Guiu-Pratt coefficient $\beta=\varepsilon_0/\theta$ dependent on the step amplitude in a way that matches experiment.
The three creep stages correspond to a single mechanism with $\theta$ evolving: large in primary creep, $\theta\to 1/E$ in secondary Maxwell-like creep, and $\theta\to 0$ in tertiary creep, ending in failure.
Viscous flow and the fractional Maxwell model appear as limiting cases of jerk-elasticity, giving a physical interpretation of the Mittag-Leffler relaxation and fractional order.
Both resulting material response functions are thermodynamically admissible: the relaxation modulus is completely monotonic and the creep compliance is a Bernstein function.

Reading between the lines

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

If $1/\lambda=\xi+\theta t$ is confirmed, the same two constants should reappear in independent relaxation and creep experiments on one material, so a combined fit provides a sharper test than fitting either law separately.
The interpretation of the fractional order as $\alpha=1/(E\theta)$ suggests that reported 'fractional' exponents in soft materials may be extractable from a single growing coefficient rather than from nonlocal memory, which could change how relaxation spectra are inverted.
Because the model predicts $\beta=\varepsilon_0/\theta$, measuring $\beta$ as a function of step strain at fixed temperature gives a direct check of whether $\theta$ stays constant or itself evolves with $\varepsilon_0$.
Oscillatory rheology will be hard to interpret for this LTV model, so the clearest discriminator against fractional Maxwell behavior may be a high-dynamic-range time-domain test rather than frequency sweeps.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading. The paper does one thing cleanly: with 1/λ(t)=ξ+θt, the constitutive equation (16) integrates in a few lines to Guiu–Pratt logarithmic relaxation and Andrade power-law creep, and the thermodynamic monotonicity checks are correct. The relaxation derivation is new relative to the author's 2023 PRE paper, and the parallel-spring arrangement with the creep-stage unification is a legitimate extension. Credit where it's due.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing input is the ansatz 1/λ=ξ+θt, and the physical motivation for it does not hold up. The text argues from contact-area aging: A∝ln t gives σ∝1/ln t (Eq. 14), but the model's own relaxation law is σ(t)=σ0[1−α ln(1+t/τ)], which decays linearly in ln t. These are different functional forms, so the contact-area story does not justify the ansatz. The abstract promises an asymptotic correspondence with rate-and-state friction, but I could not find that derivation anywhere in the full text; Dieterich's law is mentioned, not derived. And Eq. (19) has a dimensional inconsistency: β has stress units, ε0/θ is dimensionless (θ is dimensionless from Eq. 15), so β=ε0/θ cannot hold, and the activation-volume interpretation θ=ε0V*/RT is not right as written. That matters because the thermodynamic interpretation is a key selling point. Finally, the quantitative comparison to Lomnitz's law is a two-parameter curve fit; it shows consistency, not independent support.

The math from Eq. (15) onward is sound conditional on the postulate, and the paper is candid that the model is phenomenological. The flaws are in interpretation and motivation, not in the algebra. But because the ansatz is the whole game, the paper reads more like a proposal than an explanation. Still, the relaxation derivation is a real addition, and the dimensional error is fixable. I would send this to peer review with a referee who pushes hard for the promised rate-and-state derivation and a careful dimension check. If those land, the framework becomes a solid contribution. I'd bring it to a reading group; there's a useful discussion here about what counts as an explanation versus a curve fit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a linear time-variant (LTV) constitutive model called jerk-elasticity, in which the stress rate is governed by \dot{\sigma}(t) = E \dot{\varepsilon}(t) - \varepsilon(t)/(\xi + \theta t). Under a step strain, the model integrates to the Guiu–Pratt logarithmic relaxation law (Eq. 18) with exponent \alpha = 1/(E\theta) and time constant \tau = \xi/\theta; under a step stress, it integrates to Andrade's power-law creep (Eq. 25) with the same \alpha and \tau. The paper claims that this single LTV mechanism unifies logarithmic relaxation, power-law creep, and the three stages of creep without fractional derivatives or nonlinearity, and it provides thermodynamic interpretations of the parameters, including activation volume. It also discusses limits that recover Maxwell and fractional Maxwell responses and a connection to Mittag-Leffler relaxation and Lomnitz creep. The body of the paper is mostly a derivation of these response functions and a set of plausibility arguments; the mathematical steps from the ansatz to Eqs. (18) and (25) are correct, but the ansatz itself is presented as a postulate.

Significance. If the central postulate were physically justified, the model would offer a strikingly simple linear mechanism for two ubiquitous empirical laws, with the notable strength that the derived relaxation modulus and creep compliance satisfy the required thermodynamic monotonicity conditions (complete monotonicity and Bernstein property). The paper also provides a concrete fit to Lomnitz creep in Fig. 3, which is a useful quantitative check. However, the physical motivation for the key assumption 1/\lambda(t) = \xi + \theta t is internally inconsistent, the rate-and-state friction correspondence announced in the abstract is absent from the body, and the parameter identification has unresolved dimensional ambiguities. As it stands, the contribution is a transparent but ad hoc curve-fitting scheme whose claimed physical basis is not yet established. The internal derivations are correct and the paper is clearly written in places, but the load-bearing postulate is not derived and the abstract overclaims what the text delivers.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eqs. (14) and (18)] The physical motivation for the linear form 1/\lambda(t) = \xi + \theta t is internally inconsistent. Equation (14) states that contact-area aging implies \sigma(t) \propto 1/\ln t, which is a slow algebraic decay, while the model's own relaxation law, Eq. (18), is \sigma(t) = \sigma_0[1 - \alpha \ln(1 + t/\tau_\sigma)], a logarithmic decay that eventually turns negative. The text refers to 'the logarithmic decrease of stress given by Eq. (14)', but Eq. (14) is not a logarithmic decrease. Because this argument is the only physical justification offered for the linear-in-time inverse jerkity, the inconsistency leaves the central postulate as an arbitrary, empirically ungrounded ansatz. The author should either correct the contact-area reasoning or explicitly frame the model as purely phenomenological from the outset.
[Abstract] The abstract asserts that 'an asymptotic correspondence is found between the jerk-elasticity model and the rate-and-state friction law', but the full text contains no derivation, statement, or even definition of the rate-and-state friction law. The only related mention is a passing reference to Dieterich's empirical frictional law in Section III, with no equations or analysis. This is a load-bearing claim in the abstract and must either be derived and discussed in the body or removed from the abstract.
[Section IV.A, Eq. (19)] The parameter identification \beta = \sigma_0 \alpha = \varepsilon_0/\theta is dimensionally ambiguous. The intermediate derivation of Eq. (18) writes \ln(\xi + \theta t) directly, which is only valid if \xi and \theta t are dimensionless, yet the constitutive relation in Eq. (16) and the relaxation rate \dot{\sigma} = -\varepsilon_0/(\xi+\theta t) imply that \lambda has units of Pa/s and therefore \xi+\theta t has units of s/Pa. The text should declare the dimensions of \xi and \theta (for example \theta in 1/Pa and \xi in s/Pa) or, better, recast the derivation in terms of the dimensionless ratio \xi/\theta = \tau_\sigma before taking logarithms. Without this, Eq. (19) and the activation-volume relation \theta = \varepsilon_0 V^*/(RT) remain ambiguous.
[Section IV.B, tertiary creep and unification] The claimed unification of the three creep stages is not supported by a derivation. The secondary stage is obtained by the limit E \to 1/\theta (so \alpha \to 1), but the tertiary stage is asserted by taking '\theta \to 0' and then invoking Euler's limit to obtain an exponential creep compliance. This is not a rigorous limiting procedure applied to Eq. (25); in fact, if \theta \to 0 then \alpha = 1/(E\theta) diverges, and no explicit evolution equation for \theta is given. Since the abstract promises a unified description of the three creep stages, the paper must either provide a precise asymptotic derivation or soften the claim to a heuristic discussion.

minor comments (4)

[Section II] The notation \tilde{G}(s) for Laplace transforms is nonstandard and can be confused with other uses of the tilde; an overbar or a different symbol would be clearer.
[Section IV.A] The statement that 'the decay-rate stays unaffected by the elasticity of the material' is true only for the logarithmic slope, not for the absolute stress rate; it would be helpful to qualify this as a slope on a logarithmic time axis.
[Section IV.A] The paper claims the jerk-elasticity model loses thermodynamic consistency if either the parallel spring or the linear 1/\lambda(t) is removed, but the proof only shows that the combined model is admissible; it does not establish necessity.
[General] There are several typographical issues, including 'Re laxation' in the running title and 'impulse reponse' in Section II, which should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Guiu-Pratt and Andrade laws are straightforward consequences of an openly stated LTV postulate, and the paper explicitly disclaims first-principles status.

full rationale

The derivation chain is transparent. Section III states "We postulate that all materials are characterised by a time-varying rheological property, jerkity" and gives Eq. (15), 1/λ(t)=ξ+θt, as the assumption. Section IV.A then inserts the relaxation test condition ε(t)=ε0 into Eq. (16) and integrates to obtain Eq. (18); Section IV.B inserts σ(t)=σ0 and integrates to obtain Eq. (25). These are mathematical consequences of the postulate, not circular reductions: the target laws are not used to define λ(t), and the same (ξ, θ, E) appears in both responses, so the relaxation-creep link is not a tautology. The paper nowhere claims that Eq. (15) is derived from the Guiu-Pratt law; instead it explicitly calls the model "inherently phenomenological" in the final paragraph and leaves the microstructural derivation of λ(t) to future work. The self-citations to Ref. [22] (introduction of jerkity and a side remark that removing either attribute destroys thermodynamic consistency) are ancillary; the integrations leading to the central results are self-contained in this paper, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in the circularity sense. The Lomnitz comparison in Section IV.B is an explicit curve-fit (α≈0.009, τε≈0.0006) and therefore is not a parameter-free prediction; the word "proves" overstates its force, but that is an overfitting or evidential concern, not circularity. The inconsistency between Eq. (14), σ∝1/ln t, and the model's logarithmic relaxation is a weakness in the physical motivation, not a circular step in the derivation. No specific equation reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction in the central derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model's predictive content rests entirely on the postulated linear form of 1/λ(t) and the spring-jerk parallel arrangement. The free parameters ξ, θ, E are material inputs, fitted in Fig. 3, and the activation-volume relations are algebraic identities rather than independent measurements. No new entities beyond the postulated jerkity and its composite element are introduced.

free parameters (3)

ξ = not directly reported; τε=ξ/θ≈0.0006 s in Fig. 3 fit
Offset time-scale in the inverse jerkity coefficient 1/λ = ξ+θt (Eq. 15); fitted via the retardation time constant.
θ = θ=1/(Eα); with E=1 and α≈0.009 in Fig. 3 fit, θ≈111
Slope of the linear time-dependence of inverse jerkity; controls both relaxation slope β=ε0/θ and creep exponent α=1/(Eθ).
E = set to 1 in Fig. 3 fit
Elastic modulus of the parallel spring; treated as a material input, fixed to unity for the comparison with Lomnitz's law.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The constitutive response is linear, so superposition holds (Eq. 16 is linear in stress and strain).
The entire LTV framework depends on linearity; the paper explicitly values this to preserve superposition.
ad hoc to paper 1/λ(t) = ξ+θt with ξ, θ constant (Eq. 15).
This specific linear-in-time dependence is the source of the logarithmic and power-law forms; it is postulated, not derived.
domain assumption Aging is universally driven by stick-slip friction at internal interfaces (Section III).
The physical interpretation that relaxation and creep arise from stick-slip-induced geometric aging is a postulate extended to all materials.
ad hoc to paper Initial conditions: step inputs load the spring instantaneously, σ(0)=Eε0 (Sections IV.A and IV.B).
The solution constants are fixed by assigning all initial stress to the elastic branch; alternative partitioning would change the derived laws.
standard math Standard results of fractional calculus and Mittag-Leffler asymptotics (Section IV.A).
Used only to argue that logarithmic relaxation is a limit of fractional Maxwell relaxation, not for the main derivation.

invented entities (2)

jerkity
purpose: A time-varying linear constitutive parameter relating stress rate to strain: 1/λ(t) = ξ+θt (Eq. 15).
It is a postulated material property; the advertised falsifiable predictions (e.g., β increasing with ε0) are not tested in this paper and the contact-area motivation is inconsistent with the resulting stress law.
jerk-elasticity element
purpose: Parallel combination of a Hookean spring and a jerk element (Eq. 16, Fig. 1).
New compound constitutive element introduced to reproduce logarithmic relaxation and power-law creep; no independent experimental handle is provided beyond curve-fitting to known laws.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Linear Time-Variant Rheological Model for Frictional Aging, Stress Relaxation, and Creep." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJZWYHSL

@misc{pith2026250606365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Linear Time-Variant Rheological Model for Frictional Aging, Stress Relaxation, and Creep},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJZWYHSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06365}
}

read the original abstract

Most materials undergo aging, leading to time-dependent evolution of their mechanical properties. This aging is reflected in their mechanical response to external strain and stress, which often exhibits logarithmic stress relaxation and power-law creep. Such responses are typically described using complex phenomenological models, including fractional viscoelastic formulations. While these approaches successfully reproduce experimental trends, they typically provide limited insight into the physical origin of aging and its connection to material parameters. We introduce jerk-elasticity, a linear time-variant rheological model in which the constitutive response incorporates the time evolution of stress-rate dynamics through time-dependent material parameters. The framework is motivated by the physics of interfacial stick-slip dynamics underlying frictional aging, together with thermodynamic considerations. An asymptotic correspondence is found between the jerk-elasticity model and the rate-and-state friction law, thereby linking rheological aging with interfacial frictional aging. The proposed model reproduces the Guiu-Pratt law of logarithmic stress relaxation and Andrade's power-law creep. It further provides a framework for interpreting different creep regimes through the evolution of material parameters, without invoking distributed relaxation spectra or nonlinear constitutive assumptions. The governing parameters admit interpretation in terms of thermodynamic quantities, including activation volume, whose evolution provides a physically interpretable measure of aging. In appropriate asymptotic limits, the model recovers behaviors analogous to classical viscous and fractional Maxwell models, while also approaching Mittag-Leffler-type relaxation and Lomnitz-type creep in a specific limit. Jerk-elasticity provides a LTV framework that links frictional aging to creep and relaxation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06365 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** At all times t ≥ 0, since Jj(t) ≥ 0, J˙ j(t) = α (1+t/τε) α−1 /(Eτε) ≥ 0, and J¨ j(t) = α (α −1) (1+t/τε) α−2 / [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) A schematic plot of the time-dependen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) An almost perfect match between the cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[1]

S. M. Fielding, P . Sollich, and M. E. Cates, J. Rheol. 44, 323 (2000)

work page 2000
[2]

Siebenbürger, M

M. Siebenbürger, M. Ballauff, and T. V oigtmann, Phys. Re v. Lett. 108, 255701 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

V archanis, G

S. V archanis, G. Makrigiorgos, P . Moschopoulos, Y . Dima kopoulos, and J. Tsamopoulos, J. Rheol. 63, 609 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Agarwal and Y

M. Agarwal and Y . M. Joshi, Physics of Fluids 31, 063107 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Poling-Skutvik, E

R. Poling-Skutvik, E. McEvoy, V . Shenoy, and C. O. Osuji, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 102601 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

J. Hem, C. Crauste-Thibierge, F. Clément, D. R. Long, and S. Ciliberto, Phys. Rev. E 103, L040502 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Mäkinen, J

T. Mäkinen, J. Weiss, D. Amitrano, and P . Roux, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 033602 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

Farain and D

K. Farain and D. Bonn, Nat. Commun. 14, 13606 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 72 references

[9]

Dullaert and J

K. Dullaert and J. Mewis, J. Rheol. 49, 1213 (2005)

2005
[10]

Liu and Y

C. Liu and Y . Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 215502 (2021)

2021
[11]

A. Amir, Y . Oreg, and Y . Imry, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. A. 109, 1850 (2012)

2012
[12]

Lahini, O

Y . Lahini, O. Gottesman, A. Amir, and S. M. Rubinstein, P hys. Rev. Lett. 118, 085501 (2017)

2017
[13]

Lee and R

S. Lee and R. L. Weaver, Phys. Rev. E 109, 065002 (2024)

2024
[14]

Dillavou and S

S. Dillavou and S. M. Rubinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 224101 (2018)

2018
[15]

S. Chen, C. P . Broedersz, T. Markovich, and F. C. MacKint osh, Phys. Rev. E 104, 034418 (2021)

2021
[16]

Barik and S

S. Barik and S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 258002 (2022)

2022
[17]

Mainardi, Fractional Calculus and Waves in Linear Viscoelasticity(Imperial College Press, London, 2010)

F. Mainardi, Fractional Calculus and Waves in Linear Viscoelasticity(Imperial College Press, London, 2010)

2010
[18]

Guiu and P

F. Guiu and P . L. Pratt, Phys. Status Solidi B 6, 111 (1964)

1964
[19]

B. A. H. Huisman and A. Fasolino, Phys. Rev. E 74, 026110 (2006)

2006
[20]

Aliotta, V

L. Aliotta, V . Gigante, and A. Lazzeri, ACS Omega 7, 23662 (2022)

2022
[21]

D. R. Long, L. Conca, and P . Sotta, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 105601 (2018)

2018
[22]

Pandey, Phys

V . Pandey, Phys. Rev. E 107, L022602 (2023). 23

2023
[23]

E. N. D. C. Andrade, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 84, 1 (1910)

1910
[24]

Nechad, A

H. Nechad, A. Helmstetter, R. El Guerjouma, and D. Sorne tte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 045501 (2005)

2005
[25]

T. E. Kusuma, P . J. Scales, R. Buscall, D. R. Lester, and A . D. Stickland, J. Rheol. 65, 355 (2021)

2021
[26]

Lomnitz, J

C. Lomnitz, J. Geol. 64, 473 (1956)

1956
[27]

Pandey and S

V . Pandey and S. Holm, Phys. Rev. E 94, 032606 (2016)

2016
[28]

Mulla, F

Y . Mulla, F. C. MacKintosh, and G. H. Koenderink, Phys. R ev. Lett. 122, 218102 (2019)

2019
[29]

V . V . Ginzburg, O. V . Gendelman, and A. Zaccone, Macromolecules 57, 2520 (2024)

2024
[30]

Koivisto, J

J. Koivisto, J. Rosti, and M. J. Alava, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 145504 (2007)

2007
[31]

Aquino, M

G. Aquino, M. Bologna, P . Grigolini, and B. J. West, Phys . Rev. E 70, 036105 (2004)

2004
[32]

Pandey and S

V . Pandey and S. Holm, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140, 4225 (2016)

2016
[33]

Pandey, J

V . Pandey, J. Power Sources 532, 231309 (2022)

2022
[34]

Mäkinen, J

T. Mäkinen, J. Koivisto, L. Laurson, and M. J. Alava, Phy s. Rev. Mater. 4, 093606 (2020)

2020
[35]

Trachenko and A

K. Trachenko and A. Zaccone, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 33, 315101 (2021)

2021
[36]

Gamby and L

D. Gamby and L. Blugeon, Polym. Test. 7, 137 (1987)

1987
[37]

I. G. Main, Geophys. J. Int. 142, 151 (2000)

2000
[38]

Weiss and D

J. Weiss and D. Amitrano, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 033601 (2023)

2023
[39]

C. Lee, Q. Li, W. Kalb, X. Z. Liu, H. Berger, R. W. Carpick, and J. Hone, Science 328, 76 (2010)

2010
[40]

B. P . Lathi, Principles of Linear Systems and Signals (Oxford University Press, India, 2009)

2009
[41]

R. H. Pritchard and E. M. Terentjev, J. Rheol. 61, 187 (2017)

2017
[42]

R. G. Larson and Y . Wei, J. Rheol. 63, 477 (2019)

2019
[43]

Mohan, M

L. Mohan, M. Cloitre, and R. T. Bonnecaze, J. Rheol. 58, 1465 (2014)

2014
[44]

Dinkgreve, M

M. Dinkgreve, M. Fazilati, M. M. Denn, and D. Bonn, J. Rhe ol. 62, 773 (2018)

2018
[45]

Richard, M

D. Richard, M. Ozawa, S. Patinet, E. Stanifer, B. Shang, S. A. Ridout, B. Xu, G. Zhang, P . K. Morse, J.-L. Barrat, L. Berthier, M. L. Falk, P . Guan, A. J. Liu, K. Ma rtens, S. Sastry, D. V andembroucq, E. Lerner, and M. L. Manning, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 113609 (2020)

2020
[46]

Oelschlaeger, J

C. Oelschlaeger, J. Marten, F. Péridont, and N. Willenb acher, J. Rheol. 66, 749 (2022)

2022
[47]

Sudreau, M

I. Sudreau, M. Servel, E. Freyssingeas, F. Liénard, S. K arpati, S. Parola, X. Jaurand, P .-Y . Dugas, L. Matthews, T. Gibaud, T. Divoux, and S. Manneville, Phys. R ev. Mater. 7, 115603 (2023)

2023
[48]

R. L. Bagley and P . J. Torvik, J. Rheol. 30, 133 (1986)

1986
[49]

Galaz, D

B. Galaz, D. Espíndola, and F. Melo, Phys. Rev. E 98, 042907 (2018)

2018
[50]

B. A. Sun, Y . Y ang, W. H. Wang, and C. T. Liu, Sci. Rep. 6, 21388 (2016). 24

2016
[51]

J. Suhr, N. Koratkar, P . Keblinski, and P . Ajayan, Nat. Mater. 4, 134 (2005)

2005
[52]

L. Liu, F. Maresca, J. P . M. Hoefnagels, T. V ermeij, M. G. D. Geers, and V . G. Kouznetsova, Acta Mater. 205, 116533 (2021)

2021
[53]

Petrova, D

D. Petrova, D. K. Sharma, M. V acha, D. Bonn, A. M. Brouwer , and B. Weber, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12, 9890 (2020)

2020
[54]

J. H. Dieterich, Pure Appl. Geophys. 116, 790 (1978)

1978
[55]

Wu-Bavouzet, J

F. Wu-Bavouzet, J. Clain-Burckbuchler, A. Buguin, P .-G. de Gennes, and F. Brochard-Wyart, J. Adhes. 83, 761 (2007)

2007
[56]

Z. Li, L. Pastewka, and I. Szlufarska, Phys. Rev. E 98, 023001 (2018)

2018
[57]

K. Tian, N. N. Gosvami, D. L. Goldsby, Y . Liu, I. Szlufars ka, and R. W. Carpick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 076103 (2017)

2017
[58]

B. M. Carpenter, M. J. Ikari, and C. Marone, J. Geophys. R es. Solid Earth 121, 1183 (2016)

2016
[59]

Milkus and A

R. Milkus and A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. E 95, 023001 (2017)

2017
[60]

M. J. Buckingham, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 2796 (2000)

2000
[61]

Holm and M

S. Holm and M. B. Holm, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142, 1888 (2017)

2017
[62]

Capelas de Oliveira, F

E. Capelas de Oliveira, F. Mainardi, and J. V az, Eur. Phy s. J. Spec. Top. 193, 161 (2011)

2011
[63]

A. I. Osetskii, V . P . Soldatov, V . I. Startsev, and V . D. Natsik, Phys. Status Solidi A 22, 739 (1974)

1974
[64]

W. H. Wang, Prog. Mater. Sci. 57, 487 (2012)

2012
[65]

R. Mari, R. Seto, J. F. Morris, and M. M. Denn, J. Rheol. 58, 1693 (2014)

2014
[66]

R. I. Tanner, J. Rheol. 63, 705 (2019)

2019
[67]

Y .-F. Lee, Y . Luo, S. C. Brown, and N. J. Wagner, J. Rheol. 64, 267 (2020)

2020
[68]

Ramaswamy, I

M. Ramaswamy, I. Griniasty, D. B. Liarte, A. Shetty, E. K atifori, E. Del Gado, J. P . Sethna, B. Chakraborty, and I. Cohen, J. Rheol. 67, 1189 (2023)

2023
[69]

J. C. Maxwell, Theory of Heat (Spottiswoode and Co., 1871)
[70]

D. M. Hoyle and S. M. Fielding, J. Rheol. 60, 1347 (2016)

2016
[71]

L. L. Lavier, X. Tong, and J. Biemiller, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 126, e2020JB020325 (2021)

2021
[72]

Holm, Waves with power-law attenuation (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019)

S. Holm, Waves with power-law attenuation (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019). 25

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. M. Fielding, P . Sollich, and M. E. Cates, J. Rheol. 44, 323 (2000)

work page 2000

[2] [2]

Siebenbürger, M

M. Siebenbürger, M. Ballauff, and T. V oigtmann, Phys. Re v. Lett. 108, 255701 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

V archanis, G

S. V archanis, G. Makrigiorgos, P . Moschopoulos, Y . Dima kopoulos, and J. Tsamopoulos, J. Rheol. 63, 609 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Agarwal and Y

M. Agarwal and Y . M. Joshi, Physics of Fluids 31, 063107 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Poling-Skutvik, E

R. Poling-Skutvik, E. McEvoy, V . Shenoy, and C. O. Osuji, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 102601 (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [6]

J. Hem, C. Crauste-Thibierge, F. Clément, D. R. Long, and S. Ciliberto, Phys. Rev. E 103, L040502 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Mäkinen, J

T. Mäkinen, J. Weiss, D. Amitrano, and P . Roux, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 033602 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Farain and D

K. Farain and D. Bonn, Nat. Commun. 14, 13606 (2023)

work page 2023