Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Microscopic constitutive theory of stress overshoot, yielding, and strain hardening in amorphous materials

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the full stress–strain curve of an amorphous solid—linear loading, stress overshoot, yielding, flow, and strain hardening—follows from a single constitutive equation built on nonaffine elasticity and structural relaxa

desk verdict A readable, useful three-term constitutive law that tracks a lot of data, but its yield peak is essentially installed by an imported exponential coordination-decay ansatz, so the 'microscopic' story is not as supported as the fits suggest. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13734 v1 pith:47FUPT7Z submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

Ankit Singh , Valeriy V. Ginzburg , Alessio Zaccone This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords amorphoussolidsstressovershootyieldingstrainhardeningnonaffineelasticityconstitutivemodelmetallicglassespolymer
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 stress overshoot, yielding, and strain hardening in amorphous solids are not separate phenomena needing separate models: all follow from the competition between strain-driven loss of mechanical connectivity and viscous relaxation. The authors write the elastic stress as a function of a strain-dependent coordination number that decays exponentially with strain; this term alone creates an elastic instability whose peak marks yielding. A stretched-exponential viscous stress, with its exponent taken independently from relaxation measurements, supplies the dissipative plateau, and an inverse-Langevin term accounts for polymer strain hardening. The same three-term constitutive law is shown to reproduce experimental stress–strain curves for a metallic glass, polycarbonate, PMMA, and epoxy across strain rates spanning several decades. If correct, this unifies relaxation dynamics and mechanical yielding in amorphous materials.

What carries the argument

The central object is the strain-dependent coordination number nb(γ)=n0/2(1+e^{-Aγ}), imported from earlier work, which describes how mechanical connectivity is lost as strain grows. It enters the elastic free energy as Fel = (1/2)K[nb(γ)-n_c]γ², where n_c is the isostatic (marginal-stability) coordination, so the elastic stress acquires a maximum when connectivity loss outruns strain. A generalized Maxwell viscous stress with stretched-exponential relaxation, σ_visc=ηε̇(1-e^{-(ε/(ε̇τ_v))^β}), supplies the dissipative branch, and an inverse-Langevin chain-stretch term adds strain hardening. Together these three terms form the constitutive law whose yield strain is set by A=Tg/T+√3/(2(1+ν)ε̇τ

What would settle it

Measure the yield strain εy as a function of temperature and strain rate for one material over a wide range; if εy does not track 1/A = 1/(Tg/T + 1/(γ̇τc)) with a single τc, or if the shape of the overshoot deviates systematically from the predicted exponential form, the central mechanism is falsified. A cleaner check: at fixed strain rate, the theory predicts a specific shift of the overshoot with temperature; a dataset where yield strain decreases as temperature rises (as A decreases) would support it, while a non-monotonic dependence would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core, the paper claims that stress overshoot is not primarily a plastic or damage event but an elastic instability: as strain grows, the mean number of mechanically active neighbors per atom falls, the elastic modulus softens, and the stress–strain curve reaches a maximum at a yield strain of order 1/A, where A combines Tg/T with a strain-rate term 1/(γ̇τc). The same instability, opposed by a growing viscous stress, produces the overshoot-and-drop shape seen in experiments. For polymers, finite chain extensibility adds hardening at large strain. The authors show fits to data for metallic glass, PC, PMMA, and epoxy using mostly independently estimated parameters, with τc as the main ad

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed exponential decay of mechanical coordination with strain, nb(γ)=n0/2(1+e^{-Aγ}); the yield-strain value εy≈1/A and the overshoot height follow directly from this functional form, which is imported from earlier work rather than derived from the relaxation dynamics in this paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If overshoot is an elastic instability from connectivity loss, the yield strain should scale as εy≈1/A across temperatures and strain rates; the fits provide a direct test of this prediction.
  • The same timescale τc and stretching exponent β extracted from linear relaxation measurements feed the nonlinear response without additional dynamical input.
  • Metallic glasses need only the elastic plus viscous terms, while hardening is a polymer-specific chain-extensibility effect.
  • The model predicts a viscosity that decreases as a power law with strain rate (shear thinning), with distinct exponents for metallic versus polymeric glasses.
  • Because the elastic term vanishes at large strain, the theory naturally recovers steady viscous flow in the large-strain limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would test the model on start-up shear of colloidal glasses, where strain rate and packing fraction are independently controllable, to see whether εy≈1/A holds without adjustable τc.
  • If the exponential connectivity-loss law is replaced by cooperative dynamics, such as shear-transformation-zone activation, the predicted overshoot position and height would change; comparing the two functional forms against low-temperature or high-rate data could discriminate between them.
  • The framework implies that apparent yield stress is not a material constant but a rate- and temperature-dependent outcome of the elastic-viscous competition, which could guide design of tougher amorphous polymers by tuning τc or the connectivity-decay rate.
  • The success of the model hinges on the borrowed exponential form of nb(γ); a first-principles derivation of that law from cage-breaking kinetics would be the natural next step.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a closed-form constitutive model for amorphous solids in which the total stress is a sum of a nonaffine elastic term, a stretched-exponential viscous term, and (for polymers) a Langevin-based strain-hardening term. The elastic term uses a strain-dependent coordination number nb(γ) that decays exponentially with strain, which produces a stress maximum interpreted as yielding/overshoot. The authors fit the model to experimental stress–strain curves for a metallic glass, polycarbonate, PMMA, and epoxy over a range of strain rates and report good agreement. The central claim is that stress overshoot originates from the competition between a nonaffine elastic instability, induced by strain-driven loss of mechanical connectivity, and viscous dissipation, and that a single microscopic framework captures elasticity, yielding, flow, and hardening.

Significance. If established, the framework would provide a rare unified, analytically tractable description of nonlinear deformation in amorphous solids, connecting relaxation dynamics to the entire stress–strain curve. The paper has clear strengths: explicit equations, recovery of expected limits (with the caveat noted below), a demonstrated independent extraction of β for the metallic glass, and comparisons against data for four material classes spanning many strain-rate decades. However, the central mechanistic conclusion is not yet independently supported: the overshoot is generated by an imported exponential coordination-decay law, and the validation relies on per-material, per-rate fitting parameters. The paper would be significant if the coordination-decay law were derived or directly verified, and if the independent-input claim for polymers were substantiated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (7) and text after Eq. (12)] Eq. (7) with β<1 produces a non-analytic viscous stress: for small ε, σvisc(ε) ≈ η εdot^{1−β} τv^{−β} ε^β. Since β<1, the tangent modulus dσvisc/dε diverges as ε→0. Therefore Eq. (10) does not reduce to linear elasticity as claimed; the total stress has a cusp at the origin. This affects the interpretation of the fitted E and the stated limiting behavior. Please repair the viscous term (e.g., regularize it) or explicitly justify that the fitting range avoids the singular regime and that the claim is only asymptotic for β=1.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (1), (11), (12)] The stress overshoot is produced by the assumed exponential coordination-decay law nb(γ)=n0/2[1+e^{−Aγ}], imported from Ref. [36]. This functional form is not derived from microscopic dynamics in the present paper, nor is nb(γ) measured or simulated. Because the yield strain is estimated as εy≈1/A and A contains the fitted structural relaxation time τc, the predicted overshoot position and height are largely controlled by this assumed form and by the fitted τc. A direct test of nb(γ) under strain, a microscopic derivation of this law, or a clear statement that the overshoot mechanism is an assumption rather than an established prediction is needed to support the central claim.
  3. [§3, Table 1 and Fig. 1] The abstract and §3 state that the stretched-exponential exponent β is obtained independently from relaxation measurements and provides the primary dynamical input. Fig. 1 documents this only for the metallic glass. For PC, PMMA, and epoxy, β=0.85 (and 0.80 for one PC rate) is used without showing corresponding relaxation data or citing independent measurements. Please provide the relaxation fits for the polymers or explicitly identify β as a fit parameter; otherwise the claim of independent dynamical input is overstated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (4)] The matrix for the strain tensor appears garbled: the entries read 'ε0 0; 0−νε0; 0 0−νε'. The intended structure (ε on the diagonal, with lateral contraction −νε) should be typeset clearly.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The absolute-value notation ε≡|ε|, σ≡|σ| is introduced after Eq. (5), but Eq. (6) and Eq. (12) use ε in exponential and prefactor without consistently indicating that these are magnitudes. Please make the convention explicit throughout.
  3. [§3, Fig. 1 and text] The text says β changes only slightly 'at and above the glass transition temperature.' Since Tg=625 K and the two temperatures are 643 K and 623 K, one measurement is above and one is below Tg. Please rephrase.
  4. [Table 1 caption] η is described both as a fitting parameter and as 'extracted from the linear viscous-flow region of the stress–strain curves.' Clarify whether η is fitted or directly read off the data, since the distinction affects the count of free parameters.
  5. [§2, Eq. (11)] The parameter A is introduced twice: first in the text as A=Δ/kBT+1/(γdot τc) and then in Eq. (11) in uniaxial form. It would help to define a single symbol and consistently state its relation to γdot versus εdot.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Yield overshoot position and height are controlled by an imported exponential coordination-decay law (Eq. 1) and by the per-curve fitted τc; εy≈1/A is therefore partly a fit, not an independent microscopic prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Eqs. (11)–(12); Section 3, Table 1]
    "To simplify the notation, we define the dimensionless parameter A= Tg/T + sqrt(3)/(2(1+ν) ε̇ τc) ... Equation (12) naturally predicts an elastic instability ... the characteristic yield strain is estimated from the condition ∂σel/∂ε=0, which gives, to leading order, εy ≃ 1/A. ... Table 1: Fitting parameters used to describe the stress-strain response ... τc provides the main adjustable timescale controlling the onset of the elastic instability."

    A contains τc, and τc is listed in Table 1 as a fitting parameter and described as 'the main adjustable timescale controlling the onset of the elastic instability.' Since εy≈1/A by construction, the overshoot position is set by the fitted τc together with the assumed exponential decay of nb(γ). The same curves are then presented as validation of the microscopic mechanism, so the 'prediction' of the overshoot reduces, at least in part, to the fitted input.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2, Eq. (1) and preceding paragraph]
    "The evolution of the coordination number can be described by a shear strain- and rate-dependent form using the relation for the strain-dependent mean number of mechanically-active bonds n_b derived in [36]: n_b(γ)=n0_b/2(1+e^{−Aγ}), where A=Δ/kBT+1/(γ̇τc) ... Substituting nb(γ) into the free energy of deformation F_el=1/2 K[n_b(γ)−n_c_b]γ^2 ... and differentiating with respect to shear strain γ yields a nonlinear stress-strain relation, σel(γ)= ... (1)."

    The central claim that overshoot arises from 'strain-driven loss of mechanical connectivity' is carried entirely by the assumed exponential decay of nb(γ), which is imported from Ref. [36] rather than derived or measured in this paper. Because the elastic stress in Eq. (1) has a maximum only through this exponential-decay factor multiplying γ, the mechanistic explanation is not independently established here; the load-bearing premise is a citation to prior work by the same group.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: it compares against external experimental data, obtains β for the metallic glass from independent relaxation measurements (Fig. 1), and combines several physically motivated contributions (nonaffine elasticity, viscous stretching-exponential relaxation, Langevin hardening). However, the key advertised prediction—the presence and position of the stress overshoot—is not independent. The overshoot is a mathematical consequence of the assumed exponential coordination-decay law nb(γ)=n0/2(1+e^{-Aγ}) imported from Ref. [36] (Zaccone, Schall, Terentjev, with a present author), and the yield strain is εy≈1/A with A containing the per-curve fitted τc. Thus the agreement in Figs. 2–5 demonstrates that the chosen functional form with an adjustable timescale can be matched to data, but it does not independently verify the microscopic connectivity-loss mechanism. This is partial circularity: the central prediction is partly built from its own fitted inputs and self-cited premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on several imported or assumed ingredients: an exponential coordination-decay law, a nonaffine free energy from prior papers, a stretched exponential viscous law, and a network hardening model. On top of these, seven parameters are fitted per curve or per material (E, η, τc, τv, β, ER, λm). The genuinely external anchor is the independently measured β for the metallic glass; for polymers even this anchor is replaced by a fixed 0.85.

free parameters (7)
  • τc (structural relaxation time) = 3.3e-5 to 16.5 s (Table 1)
    Adjusted per material and strain rate; appears in A and sets the yield/overshoot position via εy≈1/A. Described as the main adjustable timescale.
  • τv (viscoelastic relaxation time) = 1.3e-5 to 136 s (Table 1)
    Fitted per curve; controls the saturation rate of the stretched-exponential viscous stress.
  • η (viscosity) = 2.2e4 to 1.5e11 Pa s (Table 1)
    'Extracted from the linear viscous-flow region' of the same stress-strain curve being predicted; varies with strain rate.
  • E (elastic modulus) = 0.64 to 1.67 GPa (MG: 8.1-12.5 GPa)
    Taken from the initial slope of each experimental curve; changes with strain rate (Table 1).
  • E_R (hardening modulus) = 1.3 to 3.9 MPa
    Fitted per material and strain rate; sets the slope of the strain-hardening branch in Eq. (8).
  • β (stretching exponent) = 0.76/0.75 for MG; 0.85 (0.80 for one PC rate) for polymers
    For MG it is fitted from stress-relaxation data (Fig. 1); for PC/PMMA/epoxy it is set to ~0.85 without a relaxation fit shown for those materials.
  • λm (finite extensibility limit) = 1.82
    Set to a single value for all polymers; not independently measured here, though it strongly controls the divergence of hardening stress.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Strain-dependent coordination nb(γ)=n0/2[1+e^{-Aγ}]
    Imported from Ref [36]; creates the elastic maximum that is identified with yielding.
  • domain assumption Nonaffine elastic free energy Fel = 1/2 K [nb - nc] γ^2 with K = 2/(5π)(κφ/R0)
    Basis of Eq. (1); relies on Refs [28,33,36], written by the senior author.
  • domain assumption Viscous stress follows stretched exponential σvisc = ε̇η[1-e^{-(ε/(ε̇τv))^β}]
    Assumed glassy relaxation form; β for polymers is chosen, not measured here.
  • domain assumption Strain hardening follows Arruda-Boyce inverse Langevin with λm=1.82
    Network model; note Ref [7] (Hoy & Robbins) is cited as questioning such network models.
  • domain assumption Stretched-exponential β measured near Tg transfers to compression at lower/higher rates and other materials
    Used for MG; for polymers no independent relaxation measurement is shown.
  • standard math Continuum mechanics identities γ=√(2e:e) and σvM=√3Gγ; for uniaxial compression γ=2(1+ν)/√3 ε
    Standard definitions of equivalent strain and von Mises stress.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic constitutive theory of stress overshoot, yielding, and strain hardening in amorphous materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47FUPT7Z

@misc{pith2026260713734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic constitutive theory of stress overshoot, yielding, and strain hardening in amorphous materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47FUPT7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13734}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a microscopic constitutive theory for the nonlinear deformation of metallic and polymer glasses based on nonaffine elasticity coupled to irreversible many-body relaxation. The theory predicts the full stress--strain response, from linear elasticity through stress overshoot and yielding to steady plastic flow. We show that stress overshoot originates from the competition between a nonaffine elastic instability induced by strain-driven loss of mechanical connectivity at the atomic/molecular level, and viscous dissipation associated with structural relaxation. For polymer glasses, finite chain extensibility naturally accounts for strain hardening at large deformation. The stretched-exponential relaxation exponent is obtained independently from stress or modulus relaxation measurements and provides the primary dynamical input to the theory. Using a small set of physically meaningful parameters, the model quantitatively reproduces experimental stress--strain curves for metallic glasses, polycarbonate, PMMA, and epoxy resins over a broad range of strain rates. These results establish a unified microscopic framework linking relaxation dynamics, yielding, plastic flow, and strain hardening in amorphous solids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the normalized stress as a function of time at two temperatures, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stress–strain curves of a metallic glass at two strain rates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stress-strain behavior of polycarbonate (PC) at temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stress-strain behavior of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) at temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stress-strain behavior of epoxy at temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Log–log plot of the viscosity, η (Pa s), obtained from the linear viscous-flow region of the stress–strain curves as a function of strain rate, ε˙ (s−1 ), for MG, PC, PMMA, and epoxy. Circles, squares, triangles, and diamonds represent the respective datasets. Linear t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Zaccone, P

    A. Zaccone, P. Schall, E. M. Terentjev, Microscopic origin of nonlinear nonaffine deformation in bulk metallic glasses, Phys. Rev. B 90 (2014) 140203(R).doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.90.140203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.140203 2014

  2. [1]

    J. D. Ferry, H. S. Myers, Viscoelastic properties of polymers, Journal of The Electrochemical Society 108 (7) (1961) 142C–143C

    1961

  3. [2]

    C. R. Siviour, J. L. Jordan, High strain rate mechanics of polymers: a review, Journal of Dynamic Behavior of Materials 2 (1) (2016) 15–32

    2016

  4. [3]

    J. Choi, J. M. Kim, K. S. Cho, A solid-based approach for modeling sim- ple yield-stress fluids: Rheological transitions, overshoot and relaxation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03467 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  5. [4]

    R. W. Hertzberg, R. P. Vinci, J. L. Hertzberg, Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials, John Wiley & Sons, 2020

    2020

  6. [5]

    J. L. Jordan, J. R. Foley, C. R. Siviour, Mechanical properties of epon 826/dea epoxy, Mechanics of Time-Dependent Materials 12 (3) (2008) 249–272

    2008

  7. [6]

    L. L. Nelson, G. S. Grest, P. D. Olmsted, Shear banding in simulations of polymer melts, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03424 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  8. [7]

    R. S. Hoy, M. O. Robbins, Strain hardening in polymer glasses: limita- tions of network models, Physical review letters 99 (11) (2007) 117801

    2007

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    H.E.Meijer, L.E.Govaert, Multi-scaleanalysisofmechanicalproperties of amorphous polymer systems, Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 204 (2) (2003) 274–288. 21

    2003

  2. [9]

    J. Hem, C. Crauste-Thibierge, T. C. Merlette, F. Clément, D. R. Long, S. Ciliberto, Microscopic dynamics in the strain hardening regime of glassy polymers, Macromolecules 55 (20) (2022) 9168–9185

    2022

  3. [10]

    W. H. Wang, The elastic properties, elastic models and elastic perspec- tives of metallic glasses, Progress in Materials Science 57 (3) (2012) 487–656

    2012

  4. [11]

    M. L. Falk, J. S. Langer, Dynamics of viscoplastic deformation in amor- phous solids, Physical Review E 57 (6) (1998) 7192

    1998

  5. [12]

    R. S. Hoy, M. O. Robbins, Strain hardening of polymer glasses: En- tanglements, energetics, and plasticity, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 77 (3) (2008) 031801

    2008

  6. [13]

    H. E. Meijer, L. E. Govaert, Mechanical performance of polymer sys- tems: The relation between structure and properties, Progress in poly- mer science 30 (8-9) (2005) 915–938

    2005

  7. [14]

    Van Melick, L

    H. Van Melick, L. Govaert, H. Meijer, On the origin of strain hardening in glassy polymers, Polymer 44 (8) (2003) 2493–2502

    2003

  8. [15]

    R. N. Haward, The physics of glassy polymers, Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2012

    2012

  9. [16]

    J. Lu, G. Ravichandran, W. L. Johnson, Deformation behavior of the zr41. 2ti13. 8cu12. 5ni10be22. 5 bulk metallic glass over a wide range of strain-rates and temperatures, Acta materialia 51 (12) (2003) 3429– 3443. 22

    2003

  10. [17]

    Koumakis, M

    N. Koumakis, M. Laurati, S. U. Egelhaaf, J. F. Brady, G. Petekidis, Yielding of hard-sphere glasses during start-up shear, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 098303.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.098303

    2012 doi

  11. [18]

    Orowan, Zur Kristallplastizität

    E. Orowan, Zur Kristallplastizität. I: Tieftemperaturplastizität und Beckersche formel, Zeitschrift für Physik 89 (9) (1934) 605–613

    1934

  12. [19]

    Polanyi, Lattice distortion which originates plastic flow, Z

    M. Polanyi, Lattice distortion which originates plastic flow, Z. Phys 89 (9-10) (1934) 660–662

    1934

  13. [20]

    G. I. Taylor, The mechanism of plastic deformation of crystals. part i.—theoretical, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 145 (855) (1934) 362–387

    1934

  14. [21]

    Argon, H

    A. Argon, H. Kuo, Plastic flow in a disordered bubble raft (an analog of a metallic glass), Materials science and Engineering 39 (1) (1979) 101–109

    1979

  15. [22]

    M. L. Falk, J. S. Langer, Deformation and failure of amorphous, solidlike materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2 (1) (2011) 353–373

    2011

  16. [23]

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

    1957

  17. [24]

    Picard, A

    G. Picard, A. Ajdari, F. Lequeux, L. Bocquet, Elastic consequences of a single plastic event: A step towards the microscopic modeling of the flow of yield stress fluids, Eur. Phys. J. E 15 (2004) 371–381. 23

    2004

  18. [25]

    Nicolas, E

    A. Nicolas, E. E. Ferrero, K. Martens, J.-L. Barrat, Deformation and flow of amorphous solids: Insights from elastoplastic models, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 045006

    2018

  19. [26]

    J. Dong, H. Peng, H. Wang, Y. Tong, Y. Wang, W. Dmowski, T. Egami, B. Sun, W. Wang, H. Bai, Non-affine atomic rearrangement of glasses through stress-induced structural anisotropy, Nature Physics 19 (12) (2023) 1896–1903

    2023

  20. [27]

    H. Wang, W. Dmowski, Y. Tong, Z. Wang, Y. Yokoyama, J. Ketkaew, J. Schroers, T. Egami, Nonaffine strains control ductility of metal- lic glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 155501.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.155501

    2022

  21. [28]

    Zaccone, E

    A. Zaccone, E. Scossa-Romano, Approximate analytical description of the nonaffine response of amorphous solids, Phys. Rev. B 83 (2011) 184205.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.83.184205

    2011 doi

  22. [29]

    Laurati, P

    M. Laurati, P. Maßhoff, K. J. Mutch, S. U. Egelhaaf, A. Zaccone, Long- lived neighbors determine the rheological response of glasses, Physical Review Letters 118 (1) (2017) 018002

    2017

  23. [30]

    Koumakis, M

    N. Koumakis, M. Laurati, S. Egelhaaf, J. Brady, G. Petekidis, Yield- ing of hard-sphere glasses during start-up shear, Physical review letters 108 (9) (2012) 098303

    2012

  24. [31]

    Koumakis, M

    N. Koumakis, M. Laurati, A. R. Jacob, K. J. Mutch, A. Abdellali, A. Schofield, S. U. Egelhaaf, J. F. Brady, G. Petekidis, Start-up shear of 24 concentrated colloidal hard spheres: Stresses, dynamics, and structure, Journal of Rheology 60 (4) (2016) 603–623

    2016

  25. [32]

    M. Born, K. Huang, Dynamical theory of crystal lattices, Oxford uni- versity press, 1996

    1996

  26. [33]

    Zaccone, E

    A. Zaccone, E. M. Terentjev, Disorder-assisted melting and the glass transition inamorphous solids, Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013)178002.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.178002

    2013 doi

  27. [34]

    Zaccone, Theory of Disordered Solids, Springer, Cham, 2023

    A. Zaccone, Theory of Disordered Solids, Springer, Cham, 2023

    2023

  28. [35]

    Hansen, I

    J.-P. Hansen, I. R. McDonald, D. Henderson, Theory of simple liquids (1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    E. M. Arruda, M. C. Boyce, Evolution of plastic anisotropy in amor- phous polymers during finite straining, International Journal of Plastic- ity 9 (6) (1993) 697–720

    1993

  30. [38]

    B. Cui, J. Yang, J. Qiao, M. Jiang, L. Dai, Y.-J. Wang, A. Zaccone, Atomic theory of viscoelastic response and memory effects in metallic glasses, Phys. Rev. B 96 (2017) 094203.doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.96. 094203

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Klages, G

    R. Klages, G. Radons, I. M. Sokolov, Anomalous transport, Wiley On- line Library, 2008. 25

    2008

  32. [40]

    M. Kroeger, Simple, admissible, and accurate approximants of the in- verse langevin and brillouin functions, relevant for strong polymer de- formations and flows, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 223 (2015) 77–87

    2015

  33. [41]

    Nichetti, A

    D. Nichetti, A. Zaccone, Microscopic nonaffine deformation theory of LAOS in polymers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.21021 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Anand, N

    L. Anand, N. Ames, On modeling the micro-indentation response of an amorphous polymer, International journal of plasticity 22 (6) (2006) 1123–1170

    2006

  35. [43]

    A. D. Mulliken, M. C. Boyce, Mechanics of the rate-dependent elastic– plastic deformation of glassy polymers from low to high strain rates, International journal of solids and structures 43 (5) (2006) 1331–1356

    2006

  36. [44]

    Peker, W

    A. Peker, W. L. Johnson, A highly processable metallic glass: Zr41. 2ti13. 8cu12. 5ni10. 0be22. 5, Applied Physics Letters 63 (17) (1993) 2342–2344

    1993

  37. [45]

    Jordan, J

    J. Jordan, J. Spowart, M. Kendall, B. Woodworth, C. Siviour, Mechan- ics of particulate composites with glassy polymer binders in compres- sion, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 372 (2015) (2014). 26

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.