pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01156 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Rational Mechanics of Material Strength in Brittle Solids

Arash Yavari , Aditya Kumar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords material strengthbrittle solidsfinite elasticityspatial covariancestrength hypersurfacestress-strain pairanelastic solidscrack nucleation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Material strength in brittle solids must depend on both stress and its conjugate strain measure to satisfy spatial covariance.

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

The paper formulates material strength in finite elasticity by examining its geometric, constitutive, and symmetry foundations. It shows that spatial covariance under diffeomorphisms requires the strength function to depend on the pair of a stress measure and its work-conjugate strain measure. This dependence makes it possible to relate strength criteria expressed in different stress tensors consistently. Classical stress-only criteria emerge as special cases. The theory extends to anelastic and anisotropic solids and recovers standard results in the small-strain limit.

Core claim

Spatial covariance requires that material strength be governed by the pair consisting of a stress measure and its corresponding strain measure rather than stress alone. This ensures consistent relations between representations based on the first Piola-Kirchhoff, second Piola-Kirchhoff, and Cauchy stresses. The strength hypersurface is defined as a subset of the constitutively admissible stress manifold and forms a smooth compact hypersurface under standard regularity conditions. For isotropic solids the safe domain is star-shaped under proportional reduction, while residual stresses and eigenstrains modify the surface through the material metric in anelastic solids, and material symmetry is

What carries the argument

The strength function defined on the conjugate pair (stress, strain), which enforces spatial covariance and permits consistent transformation between different stress measures.

If this is right

  • Representations of strength based on different stress measures become consistently related once the conjugate strain is included.
  • Classical stress-based criteria are recovered when the strain dependence is specialized or dropped.
  • The safe domain for isotropic solids is star-shaped under the proportional-reduction hypothesis.
  • Residual stresses and eigenstrains shift the strength surface through the material metric in anelastic solids.
  • The formulation reduces exactly to classical stress-based criteria in the small-strain limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Strength measurements in large-deformation experiments would need to record both stress and strain states to test the predicted consistency across stress measures.
  • Crack-nucleation models at finite strains could incorporate the pair dependence to improve accuracy in regimes where classical criteria are applied.
  • The geometric link to the material metric opens a route to study how defects or residual strains alter strength without adding new constitutive parameters.
  • Rate-dependent or dynamic extensions might follow by enlarging the pair to include time derivatives while preserving covariance.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that strength must remain invariant under arbitrary spatial diffeomorphisms, which forces dependence on the stress-strain pair.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that a purely stress-based criterion predicts the same nucleation threshold in a finite-deformation setting both before and after a large spatial diffeomorphism without reference to strain would contradict the pair dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01156 by Aditya Kumar, Arash Yavari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of spatial and material covariance. The mappings ϕ and ϕ ′ describe the same physical deformation process, and are related by a material relabeling Ξ and a spatial reparametrization ξ. The blue configurations represent the undeformed, stress-free body, while the red configurations represent the same deformed, stressed body. Restricting to Ξ = idB gives spatial covariance, while restr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic illustration of the constitutively-admissible stress manifold A (bounded by the black ellipse) and the strength hypersurface S (red curve) in principal stress space. The strength hypersurface is a hypersurface of the constitutively-admissible stress manifold and separates safe and unsafe stress states. has full rank 3. Equivalently, the Jacobian matrix ï ∂σi ∂λj ò , (3.45) is invertible. This is … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Plot of various isotropic strength surfaces in principal stress space under plane stress conditions. (a) Mohr-Coulomb surface, (b) Hoek-Brown surface, (c) 3D Hoek-Brown or GZZ surface, and (d) Mogi-Coulomb surface. is homogeneous of degree one in the principal stresses, one has τoct(tσ1, tσ2, tσ3) = t τoct, while (tσ)max = t σmax and (tσ)min = t σmin. Therefore fMgC(tσ1, tσ2, tσ3) = t ï − β1 2 (σmax + σmin… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Material strength is a classical concept with renewed importance in fracture mechanics, particularly in crack nucleation in brittle solids. We formulate material strength in finite elasticity and examine its geometric, constitutive, and symmetry-theoretic foundations. Spatial covariance requires a strength function to depend on both stress and the corresponding strain measure, so that strength is governed by the pair (stress,strain), not stress alone, and only then can representations based on different stress measures be consistently related, with classical stress-based criteria recovered as a special case. We analyze covariance under spatial diffeomorphisms and relate formulations based on the first Piola--Kirchhoff, second Piola--Kirchhoff, and Cauchy stresses. For stress-based criteria, we define the strength hypersurface as a subset of the constitutively admissible stress manifold and study the associated safe domain. Under standard regularity assumptions and the requirement that sufficiently large stresses are inadmissible, the strength surface is a smooth compact hypersurface of this manifold. For isotropic solids, we show that the safe domain is star-shaped under a proportional-reduction hypothesis. We extend the formulation to anelastic brittle solids, showing that residual stresses and eigenstrains modify the strength surface through the material metric, and discuss anisotropic strength via material symmetry. Finally, in the small-strain limit, the theory reduces to classical stress-based criteria.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper formulates material strength in finite elasticity from spatial covariance under diffeomorphisms, arguing that strength functions must depend on the (stress, strain-measure) pair rather than stress alone to ensure consistent relations between representations using first Piola-Kirchhoff, second Piola-Kirchhoff, and Cauchy stresses; classical stress-based criteria emerge as special cases. It defines the strength hypersurface on the constitutively admissible stress manifold, proves that the safe domain is star-shaped for isotropic solids under a proportional-reduction hypothesis, extends the framework to anelastic solids where residual stresses and eigenstrains modify the surface via the material metric, treats anisotropic strength through material symmetry, and recovers the small-strain limit.

Significance. If the central covariance argument holds, the work supplies a parameter-free, geometrically consistent foundation for strength criteria in large-deformation brittle fracture, unifying stress measures and incorporating residual-stress and symmetry effects. The explicit reduction to classical criteria and the star-shaped-domain result under standard regularity assumptions are clear strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analysis of covariance under spatial diffeomorphisms (relating first Piola-Kirchhoff, second Piola-Kirchhoff, and Cauchy] The core claim that spatial covariance under diffeomorphisms forces explicit dependence on the (stress, strain) pair (rather than allowing consistent push-forward/pull-back transformations of an objective stress-only criterion) is load-bearing for the entire unification argument. The manuscript does not demonstrate why fixing the stress measure while varying the diffeomorphism is the only covariant possibility, nor does it compare the proposed pair-based formulation against the standard co-transformation rules already used in continuum mechanics for the Piola and Cauchy tensors.
  2. [Definition of the strength hypersurface as a subset of the constitutively admissible stress manifold] The statement that the strength hypersurface is a smooth compact hypersurface of the stress manifold under the assumption that sufficiently large stresses are inadmissible relies on regularity conditions that are not spelled out; it is unclear how these conditions interact with the explicit strain dependence introduced by the covariance requirement.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a single-sentence statement of the principal theorem concerning the necessity of the (stress, strain) pair.
  2. Notation for the three stress tensors and their transformation rules under the deformation gradient should be collected in one early subsection for reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. The observations on the covariance argument and the geometric properties of the strength hypersurface identify areas where additional clarification will strengthen the manuscript. We respond point by point below and will incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The core claim that spatial covariance under diffeomorphisms forces explicit dependence on the (stress, strain) pair (rather than allowing consistent push-forward/pull-back transformations of an objective stress-only criterion) is load-bearing for the entire unification argument. The manuscript does not demonstrate why fixing the stress measure while varying the diffeomorphism is the only covariant possibility, nor does it compare the proposed pair-based formulation against the standard co-transformation rules already used in continuum mechanics for the Piola and Cauchy tensors.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison to standard tensor transformations is warranted. The manuscript shows that a strength criterion formulated solely in terms of an objective stress tensor, when subjected to spatial diffeomorphisms, produces inconsistent safe domains when expressed in the first Piola-Kirchhoff, second Piola-Kirchhoff, or Cauchy representation unless the conjugate strain measure is retained. In the revised version we have inserted a new paragraph in Section 2.3 that directly contrasts the pair-based formulation with the usual push-forward/pull-back rules for objective tensors. This addition demonstrates that stress-only transformations preserve objectivity but do not guarantee invariance of the physical strength condition across stress measures; the strain dependence is required to enforce consistency under arbitrary diffeomorphisms while keeping the stress measure fixed in a given configuration. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The statement that the strength hypersurface is a smooth compact hypersurface of the stress manifold under the assumption that sufficiently large stresses are inadmissible relies on regularity conditions that are not spelled out; it is unclear how these conditions interact with the explicit strain dependence introduced by the covariance requirement.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the regularity assumptions were stated only implicitly. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit statement in Section 3 together with a short appendix: the constitutively admissible stress manifold is taken to be a smooth, finite-dimensional, complete Riemannian manifold whose metric is induced by the strain-energy function; the strength function is assumed continuous and coercive (norm of stress to infinity implies strength function to infinity). The explicit strain dependence enters through the material metric that defines the manifold itself; under these conditions the level set defining the hypersurface remains a smooth, compact submanifold regardless of the particular strain values, provided the proportional-reduction hypothesis is satisfied for the isotropic case. The added appendix contains the compactness argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation from spatial covariance is self-contained with no reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper's central claim follows directly from applying the principle of spatial covariance under diffeomorphisms to the definition of a strength function in finite elasticity. This leads to the requirement that strength depends on the (stress, strain) pair as a logical consequence of consistent transformation rules across stress measures (Piola-Kirchhoff and Cauchy), with classical criteria recovered as the special case where strain dependence is suppressed. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or prior ansatzes from the same authors; the safe domain and hypersurface properties are derived from regularity assumptions and the inadmissibility of large stresses. The formulation is independent of the present paper's data or choices and aligns with standard continuum mechanics benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on foundational assumptions from finite elasticity theory without introducing new fitted parameters or entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Spatial covariance under spatial diffeomorphisms
    Invoked to require dependence on both stress and strain measures.
  • domain assumption Standard regularity assumptions and sufficiently large stresses inadmissible
    Used to conclude the strength surface is a smooth compact hypersurface.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1169 out tokens · 45495 ms · 2026-05-09T18:24:07.406636+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 142 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ambrosi, M

    D. Ambrosi, M. Ben Amar, C. J. Cyron, A. DeSimone, A. Goriely, J. D. Humphrey, and E. Kuhl. Growth and remodelling of living tissues: perspectives, challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16 0 (157): 0 20190233, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Amor, J.-J

    H. Amor, J.-J. Marigo, and C. Maurini. Regularized formulation of the variational brittle fracture with unilateral contact: Numerical experiments. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 57 0 (8): 0 1209--1229, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    T. L. Anderson. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. CRC press, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    E. K. Ashkenazi. Problems of the anisotropy of strength. Polymer Mechanics, 1 0 (2): 0 60--70, 1965

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    V. D. Azzi and S. W. Tsai. Anisotropic strength of composites: Investigation aimed at developing a theory applicable to laminated as well as unidirectional composites, employing simple material properties derived from unidirectional specimens alone. Experimental Mechanics, 5 0 (9): 0 283--288, 1965

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    Badel, V

    P. Badel, V. Godard, and J.-B. Leblond. Application of some anisotropic damage model to the prediction of the failure of some complex industrial concrete structure. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44 0 (18-19): 0 5848--5874, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    J. M. Ball. Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 63 0 (4): 0 337--403, 1976

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    J. M. Ball and R. D. James. Fine phase mixtures as minimizers of energy. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 100 0 (1): 0 13--52, 1987

    work page 1987

  9. [9]

    G. I. Barenblatt. The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. general ideas and hypotheses. axially-symmetric cracks. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 23 0 (3): 0 622--636, 1959

    work page 1959

  10. [10]

    Beltrami

    E. Beltrami. Sull' interpretazione meccanica delle formule di M axwell. Rendiconti del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, 18: 0 141--148, 1885

    work page

  11. [11]

    B. A. Bilby, L. R. T. Lardner, and A. N. Stroh. Continuous distributions of dislocations and the theory of plasticity. In Actes du IXe congr\`es international de m\'ecanique appliqu\'ee, (Bruxelles, 1956), volume 8, pages 35--44, 1957

    work page 1956

  12. [12]

    J.-P. Boehler. A simple derivation of representations for non-polynomial constitutive equations in some cases of anisotropy. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik , 59 0 (4): 0 157--167, 1979

    work page 1979

  13. [13]

    J.-P. Boehler. Applications of Tensor Functions in Solid Mechanics, volume 292. Springer, 1987

    work page 1987

  14. [14]

    Bonacci, J

    A. Bonacci, J. Dolbow, and J. Guilleminot. Stochastic modeling of anisotropic strength surfaces from atomistic simulations. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, page 105594, 2026

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Bourdin, G

    B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and J.-J. Marigo. Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 48 0 (4): 0 797--826, 2000

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    M. M. Carroll. Controllable states of stress for compressible elastic solids. Journal of Elasticity, 3: 0 57--61, 1973 a

    work page 1973

  17. [17]

    M. M. Carroll. Controllable states of stress for incompressible elastic solids . Journal of Elasticity, 3 0 (2): 0 147--153, 1973 b

    work page 1973

  18. [18]

    A.-L. Cauchy. Sur les \'e quations qui expriment les conditions d' \'e quilibre ou les lois du mouvement int \'e rieur d'un corps solide, \'e lastique ou non \'e lastique. Exercises de Math \'e matiques , 3: 0 160--187, 1828

    work page

  19. [19]

    C. Chen, Z. Wang, and Z. Suo. Flaw sensitivity of highly stretchable materials. Extreme Mechanics Letters, 10: 0 50--57, 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Chockalingam, A

    S. Chockalingam, A. B. Tepole, and A. Kumar. The phase-field model of fracture incorporating M ohr– C oulomb, M ogi– C oulomb, and H oek– B rown strength surfaces. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 340: 0 112108, 2026

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    P. G. Ciarlet. Mathematical Elasticity, Volume I: Three-Dimensional Elasticity. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988

    work page 1988

  22. [22]

    C. Comi. A non-local model with tension and compression damage mechanisms. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, 20 0 (1): 0 1--22, 2001

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    S. C. Cowin. Fabric dependence of an anisotropic strength criterion. Mechanics of Materials, 5 0 (3): 0 251--260, 1986

    work page 1986

  24. [24]

    T. C. Doyle and J. L. Ericksen. Nonlinear elasticity. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 4: 0 53--115, 1956

    work page 1956

  25. [25]

    D. S. Dugdale. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 8 0 (2): 0 100--104, 1960

    work page 1960

  26. [26]

    D. G. Ebin and J. Marsden. Groups of D iffeomorphisms and the motion of an incompressible fluid. Annals of Mathematics, 92 0 (1): 0 102--163, 1970

    work page 1970

  27. [27]

    C. Eckart. The thermodynamics of irreversible processes. IV . T he theory of elasticity and anelasticity. Physical Review, 73 0 (4): 0 373, 1948

    work page 1948

  28. [28]

    J. L. Ericksen. Deformations possible in every isotropic, incompressible, perfectly elastic body. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik , 5 0 (6): 0 466--489, 1954

    work page 1954

  29. [29]

    J. L. Ericksen. Deformations possible in every compressible, isotropic, perfectly elastic material. Journal of Mathematics and Physics, 34 0 (1-4): 0 126--128, 1955

    work page 1955

  30. [30]

    J. D. Eshelby. The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 241 0 (1226): 0 376--396, 1957

    work page 1957

  31. [31]

    W.-x. Fan. On phenomenological anisotropic failure criteria. Composites Science and Technology, 28: 0 269--278, 1987

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    G. A. Francfort and J.-J. Marigo. Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 46 0 (8): 0 1319--1342, 1998

    work page 1998

  33. [33]

    H. G. Franklin. Classic theories of failure of anisotropic materials. Fibre Science and Technology, 1 0 (2): 0 137--150, 1968

    work page 1968

  34. [34]

    D. Giulini. Some remarks on the notions of general covariance and background independence. Lecture Notes in Physics, 721: 0 105--120, 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    I. I. Gol'Denblat and V. A. Kopnov. Strength of glass-reinforced plastics in the complex stress state. Polymer Mechanics, 1 0 (2): 0 54--59, 1965

    work page 1965

  36. [36]

    A. E. Green and P. M. Naghdi. A general theory of an elastic-plastic continuum. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 18: 0 251--281, 1965

    work page 1965

  37. [37]

    A. E. Green and R. S. Rivlin. On C auchy's equations of motion. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik , 15 0 (3): 0 290--292, 1964

    work page 1964

  38. [38]

    G. Green. On the laws of the reflexion and refraction of light at the common surface of two non-crystallized media. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 7: 0 1, 1838

    work page

  39. [39]

    G. Green. On the propagation of light in crystallized media. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 7: 0 121, 1839

    work page

  40. [40]

    A. A. Griffith. VI . T he phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 221 0 (582-593): 0 163--198, 1921

    work page 1921

  41. [41]

    M. E. Gurtin and K. Spear. On the relationship between the logarithmic strain rate and the stretching tensor. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 19 0 (5): 0 437--444, 1983

    work page 1983

  42. [42]

    Hamdi, M

    A. Hamdi, M. N. Abdelaziz, N. A \" t Hocine, P. Heuillet, and N. Benseddiq. A fracture criterion of rubber-like materials under plane stress conditions. Polymer Testing, 25 0 (8): 0 994--1005, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    H. Hencky. Zur theorie plastischer deformationen und der hierdurch im material hervorgerufenen nachspannungen. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik , 4: 0 323--334, 1924

    work page 1924

  44. [44]

    D. Hilbert. U eber die theorie der algebraischen formen. Mathematische Annalen, 36: 0 473--534, 1890

    work page

  45. [45]

    R. Hill. A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 193 0 (1033): 0 281--297, 1948

    work page 1948

  46. [46]

    R. Hill. On constitutive inequalities for simple materials-- I . Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 16 0 (4): 0 229--242, 1968

    work page 1968

  47. [47]

    R. Hill. Constitutive inequalities for isotropic elastic solids under finite strain. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 314 0 (1519): 0 457--472, 1970

    work page 1970

  48. [48]

    R. Hill. Aspects of invariance in solid mechanics. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 18: 0 1--75, 1978

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    M. W. Hirsch. Differential Topology, volume 33 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976

    work page 1976

  50. [50]

    O. Hoffman. The brittle strength of orthotropic materials. Journal of Composite Materials, 1 0 (2): 0 200--206, 1967

    work page 1967

  51. [51]

    A. Hoger. On the residual stress possible in an elastic body with material symmetry. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 88 0 (3): 0 271--289, 1985

    work page 1985

  52. [52]

    A. Hoger. The material time derivative of logarithmic strain. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 22 0 (9): 0 1019--1032, 1986

    work page 1986

  53. [53]

    A. Hoger. The stress conjugate to logarithmic strain. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 23 0 (12): 0 1645--1656, 1987

    work page 1987

  54. [54]

    M. T. Huber. O podstawach wytrzyma o \'s ci materja \'o w. Czasopismo Techniczne, 1904

    work page 1904

  55. [55]

    M. T. Huber. Specific work of strain as a measure of material effort. Archives of Mechanics, 56 0 (3): 0 173--190, 2004. English translation of the 1904 Polish original

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    T. J. R. Hughes and J. E. Marsden. Some applications of geometry is continuum mechanics. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 12 0 (1): 0 35--44, 1977

    work page 1977

  57. [57]

    Jun and A

    T.-S. Jun and A. M. Korsunsky. Evaluation of residual stresses and strains using the eigenstrain reconstruction method. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 47 0 (13): 0 1678--1686, 2010

    work page 2010

  58. [58]

    Kamarei, E

    F. Kamarei, E. Breedlove, and O. Lopez-Pamies. N ucleation and propagation of fracture in viscoelastic elastomers: A complete phase-field theory. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 446: 0 118337, 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Kamarei, B

    F. Kamarei, B. Zeng, J. E. Dolbow, and O. Lopez-Pamies. Nine circles of elastic brittle fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 448: 0 118449, 2026

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    Kinoshita and T

    N. Kinoshita and T. Mura. Elastic fields of inclusions in anisotropic media. Physica Status Solidi (a), 5 0 (3): 0 759--768, 1971

    work page 1971

  61. [61]

    W. G. Knauss. A n upper bound of failure in viscoelastic materials subjected to multiaxial stress states. International Journal of Fracture, 3: 0 267--277, 1967

    work page 1967

  62. [62]

    K. Kondo. A proposal of a new theory concerning the yielding of materials based on R iemannian geometry. The Journal of the Japan Society of Aeronautical Engineering, 2 0 (8): 0 29--31, 1949

    work page 1949

  63. [63]

    Kr \"o ner

    E. Kr \"o ner. Allgemeine kontinuumstheorie der versetzungen und eigenspannungen. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 4 0 (1): 0 273--334, 1959

    work page 1959

  64. [64]

    Kumar and O

    A. Kumar and O. Lopez-Pamies. The phase-field approach to self-healable fracture of elastomers: A model accounting for fracture nucleation at large, with application to a class of conspicuous experiments. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 107: 0 102550, 2020

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    Kumar, G

    A. Kumar, G. A. Francfort, and O. Lopez-Pamies. Fracture and healing of elastomers: A phase-transition theory and numerical implementation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 112: 0 523--551, 2018

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and O. Lopez-Pamies. Revisiting nucleation in the phase-field approach to brittle fracture. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 142: 0 104027, 2020

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Kumar, Y

    A. Kumar, Y. Liu, J. E. Dolbow, and O. Lopez-Pamies. The strength of the brazilian fracture test. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 182: 0 105473, 2024

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Lam \'e and B

    G. Lam \'e and B. P. \'E . Clapeyron. Memoir on the internal equilibrium of homogeneous solid bodies. Verlag nicht hermittelbar, 1833

    work page

  69. [69]

    S. C. Lamont, N. Bouklas, and F. J. Vernerey. Cohesive instability in elastomers: I nsights from a crosslinked V an der W aals fluid model. International Journal of Fracture, 249 0 (1): 0 20, 2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Lee and D

    E. Lee and D. Liu. Finite-strain elastic-plastic theory with application to plane-wave analysis. Journal of Applied Physics, 38 0 (1): 0 19--27, 1967

    work page 1967

  71. [71]

    E. H. Lee. Elastic-plastic deformation at finite strains. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 36 0 (1): 0 1--6, 1969

    work page 1969

  72. [72]

    J. M. Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 2 edition, 2013

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    Li and L

    D. Li and L. N. Y. Wong. The brazilian disc test for rock mechanics applications: R eview and new insights. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46 0 (2): 0 269--287, 2013

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    I. Liu. On representations of anisotropic invariants. International Journal of Engineering Science, 20 0 (10): 0 1099--1109, 1982

    work page 1982

  75. [75]

    Lopez-Pamies and F

    O. Lopez-Pamies and F. Kamarei. When and where do large cracks grow? G riffith energy competition constrained by material strength. Extreme Mechanics Letters, 81: 0 102417, 2025

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Lopez-Pamies, J

    O. Lopez-Pamies, J. E. Dolbow, G. A. Francfort, and C. J. Larsen. Classical variational models cannot predict fracture nucleation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 433: 0 117520, 2025

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    J. Lu. A covariant constitutive theory for anisotropic hyperelastic solids with initial strains. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids, 17 0 (2): 0 104--119, 2012

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    Lu and P

    J. Lu and P. Papadopoulos. A covariant constitutive description of anisotropic non-linear elasticity. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Mathematik und Physik , 51 0 (2): 0 204--217, 2000

    work page 2000

  79. [79]

    A. K. Malmeister. Geometry of theories of strength. Polymer Mechanics, 2 0 (4): 0 324--331, 1966

    work page 1966

  80. [80]

    J. Marin. Theories of strength for combined stresses and nonisotropic materials. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 24 0 (4): 0 265--268, 1957

    work page 1957

Showing first 80 references.