Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Statistics of Residual Stress in Random Microstructures: Mean-Field Estimates and Full-Field Validations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-form mean-field formula gives the full statistical spread of residual stress in two-phase thermoelastic composites, and full-field finite-element comparisons support it.

desk verdict A real extension of the Bobeth-Diener/Kreher-Pompe route to thermoelastic second moments; Eq. (48) is plausible but leans on the author's prior ∂P/∂C result and needs quantitative FE validation. Worth refereeing, with revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00739 v1 pith:HV3ZL7ER submitted 2025-08-31 physics.comp-ph

Tarkes Dora Pallicity This is my paper
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords Thermo-elasticityMean-fieldhomogenizationFibrouscompositesStatisticsEshelby'ssolutionResidualstressSecondstatisticalmomentsHillpolarizationtensor
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 sets out to show that the full statistical spread of local residual stress in a two-phase composite can be computed in closed form from mean-field homogenization, without running expensive simulations. Its key result is an expression for the phase-wise second moment of stress—the tensor that carries the variance and covariance of the stress components—built from the effective compliance, effective thermal strain, and thermal energy of the composite. The formula is checked against full-field finite-element simulations of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer composites with unidirectional fibers and with spherical particles, both at 25% reinforcement. The comparisons show that sampling stress components as Gaussian from these moments reproduces the essential features of the exact distributions, even though the full-field distributions are non-Gaussian and the equivalent stress is Weibull-like. If the formula holds, residual-stress statistics for process-induced cooling become an instantaneous algebraic calculation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (48), a closed-form identity for the phase-wise second moment of stress in a linear thermoelastic two-phase composite. It is assembled from three mean-field derivatives—the derivative of the effective compliance with respect to each phase compliance, the derivative of the effective thermal strain, and the derivative of the thermal energy—plus cross terms that account for the interaction of the elastic and thermal subproblems. The nontrivial input is the eighth-order tensor ∂ℙπ/∂ℂπ, the derivative of Hill's polarization tensor with respect to the reference stiffness; for isotropic phases this is taken from the author's earlier work [1] rather than rederived here

What would settle it

Compute ∂ℙπ/∂ℂπ for an isotropic reference by finite-difference perturbation of ℂπ in Eq. (5), and compare with the analytical expression from [1] used in this paper; then for a two-phase thermoelastic composite compare the Eq. (48) covariance with the sample covariance of the full-field finite-element stress field. A discrepancy in either comparison would falsify the mean-field second-moment formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is Eq. (48): for a two-phase linear thermoelastic composite, the phase-wise second moment of stress is ⟨𝝈⊗𝝈⟩ᵧ = (1/cᵧ)[(∂𝕊̅/∂𝕊ᵧ)^ᵀ[𝜮⊗𝜮] + 2(𝜮∂𝑬ᵗ/∂𝕊ᵧ − ∂𝑊ᵗ/∂𝕊ᵧ)], where the three derivatives are taken with respect to the phase compliance and can be evaluated from mean-field quantities. The paper derives the elastic, thermal, and interaction contributions by varying the phase compliance while holding the effective compliance fixed, invoking the Hill–Mandel condition at each step. The only non-routine ingredient is the derivative of Hill's polarization tensor with respect to the reference stiffness, which is supplied analytically for isotropic phases

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytical derivative ∂ℙπ/∂ℂπ for isotropic phases, imported from earlier work, is correct and that choosing the matrix stiffness as the isotropic reference is adequate for the thermoelastic localization; if either gives way, Eq. (48) breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Residual-stress distributions in two-phase thermoelastic composites can be estimated from mean-field homogenization alone, without building or meshing microstructures.
  • The closed-form second moments give a direct input for statistical failure-initiation criteria that depend on stress invariants or extremes.
  • The method covers both spherical particulate and long-fiber unidirectional microstructures with isotropic phases, so it applies to common glass/polymer systems.
  • Because full-field equivalent stress is Weibull-like rather than Gaussian, the Gaussian sampling used here is an approximation; the paper claims it captures essential features but not tail exactness.
  • The same Hill–Mandel perturbation route extends to other linear field statistics, provided the required polarization-tensor derivatives can be computed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if Eq. (48) is correct, the same derivative machinery could be applied to anisotropic phases or non-ellipsoidal inclusions by numerical evaluation of Eq. (50); the paper leaves this cost-accuracy trade-off unquantified.
  • The observed Weibull-like tails suggest a testable refinement: feed the closed-form second moments into a Weibull or extreme-value sampling scheme and compare tail quantiles against the same full-field histograms, which the paper does not do.
  • The strongest single check would be to numerically differentiate ℙπ(ℂπ) and compare against the analytical [1] expression used here; a mismatch at that level would break Eq. (48) regardless of the finite-element comparisons.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops mean-field estimates of the phase-wise second moments of local stress in two-phase linear thermoelastic composites, with the goal of obtaining closed-form fluctuation statistics for residual stresses caused by differential thermal expansion. The central result is Eq. (48), which expresses <σ⊗σ>_γ in terms of derivatives of the effective compliance, the effective thermal strain, and the thermal energy, themselves built from derivatives of Hill's polarization tensor. The author derives these expressions via a variational energy-perturbation route following Bobeth–Diener and Kreher–Pompe, evaluates the required eighth-order tensor ∂P^π/∂C^π in integral form in Eq. (50) and cites his previous article [1] for the analytical isotropic solution. Gaussian sampling based on the computed first and second moments is then compared against full-field finite-element histograms for unidirectional fiber and particulate composites at 25% reinforcement volume fraction. The paper reports that full-field stress components are non-Gaussian and equivalent stress is Weibull-like, but argues that the Gaussian mean-field sampling captures the essential features.

Significance. If Eq. (48) is correct, this is a useful and computationally inexpensive route to local stress-fluctuation statistics in thermoelastic composites, with direct relevance to process-induced residual stress and failure-initiation modeling. The variational derivation is structurally plausible and follows a well-established route; the author is honest about the non-Gaussian nature of the full-field data and does not claim the Gaussian sampling reproduces the tails. The paper also benefits from the availability of the analytical solution for ∂P^π/∂C^π in prior work [1]. However, the central formula is not independently verifiable from the manuscript because the key eighth-order tensor is imported from [1], and the full-field validation is mostly qualitative, comparing Gaussian-sampled histograms rather than directly testing the predicted second-moment tensor. These issues limit the strength of the claims as currently presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (50)] The analytical evaluation of ∂P^π/∂C^π for the isotropic reference stiffness C^π = C_1 — the case used in all validations — is not given in this manuscript. Eq. (50) only states the integral form and then refers to the author's earlier article [1] for the closed-form result. This eighth-order tensor enters Eq. (19), and through Eqs. (16) and (18) it determines ∂S̄/∂S_γ, which is the key ingredient of the central formula Eq. (48). As written, the derivation of the main claim is therefore not self-contained and cannot be checked by the reader. Please include the analytical expression, or at least a detailed derivation/verification in an appendix, and state explicitly how it is used for the isotropic reference case.
  2. [Section 7, Figs. 3–6] The full-field validation is not quantitative enough to support the central claim. The paper compares histograms of Gaussian samples generated from the mean-field moments against full-field histograms, but it never directly compares the FE-computed phase-wise second-moment tensor <σ⊗σ>_γ with Eq. (48). Histogram shape agreement is a weak test of individual covariance components. In addition, the manuscript reports only that 20 fibers were used for the UD case and gives no information on the number of realizations, RVE size, mesh convergence, or sample counts for either microstructure class. Please add a direct componentwise comparison of the second moments (e.g., relative error in the covariance tensor or selected invariants), report the FE statistics and convergence details, and also compare the mean-field effective properties with the FE effective properties, since Eq. (48) is built fr
  3. [Section 5 and Section 7] The paper's own FE results show non-Gaussian stress components and Weibull-like equivalent stress, yet the conclusions state that Gaussian sampling 'captures the essential features.' This claim is supported only by visual inspection of the histograms. The central-limit-theorem justification in Section 5 is asserted for large RVEs, but for the finite RVEs and the high elastic contrast (21.5) used here, the convergence to Gaussianity is not established. Please define precisely which statistics are captured (mean, variance, low-order percentiles, etc.), quantify the deviation (e.g., via Kolmogorov–Smirnov or moment-based errors), and discuss the implications for using the Gaussian approximation in failure prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (52)] The tensor-variate Gaussian density is written with a determinant and inverse of the fourth-order variance tensor K. This is not standard notation; please define the density as a multivariate Gaussian after mapping the symmetric second-order tensors to Voigt vectors, and give the corresponding normalization.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The shape tensor Z and the square-root notation A = sqrt(Z) are introduced too briefly. Please define Z explicitly in index notation, explain the coordinate system used for the ellipsoid, and clarify the meaning of det(A) in the surface integral.
  3. [Section 4] There is a duplicated sentence: 'The fourth order symmetric tensor ℍ(ℂ^π,n) is expressed in terms of acoustic or Christoffel tensor K.' Please remove the repetition.
  4. [General] The text contains several typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'heterogenous' should be 'heterogeneous', 'vice-a-versa' should be 'vice versa', and some inline equations are garbled. A careful proofread is needed.
  5. [Section 6] No data availability statement or details about the in-house microstructure-generation and boundary-condition codes are provided. If possible, please state whether the FE models and sampling code are available, as this would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (48) follows from variational energy arguments; the cited ∂Pπ/∂Cπ is an independent prior derivation, and the FE data are used only for validation.

full rationale

The central formula Eq. (48) is assembled from Eqs. (10), (15), (27), (42) and (43), each obtained by varying the effective energy under fixed traction or zero-traction boundary conditions and invoking the Hill–Mandel condition. The derivative terms ∂S̄/∂S_γ, ∂Eᵗ/∂S_γ and ∂Wᵗ/∂S_γ are then traced to ∂C̄/∂C_γ and ultimately to ∂P^π/∂C^π via Eqs. (16)–(19), (29) and (47). The one externally imported ingredient is the analytical evaluation of the eighth-order tensor ∂P^π/∂C^π, which Section 4 states is provided in the author's earlier work [1]. That prior result is a parameter-free derivation with stated assumptions (isotropic reference stiffness) and does not itself contain the thermoelastic second-moment target; it is therefore independent support rather than a self-citation chain that defines the target. The Gaussian sampling in Section 5 is explicitly introduced as an assumption based on the central limit theorem, and the paper concedes that full-field histograms are non-Gaussian and Weibull-like, so no fitted quantity is relabelled as a prediction. The finite-element validation uses independently tabulated phase properties and random microstructures without fitting any parameter to force agreement. The reliance on the unpublished-in-this-text closed form for ∂P^π/∂C^π creates a reproducibility and checkability gap, but under the stated circularity rules it does not constitute circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation chain is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one hand-chosen modeling parameter (the reference stiffness), one externally imported tensor (∂ℙπ/∂ℂπ from [1]), and the Gaussian sampling assumption that the paper's own validation partially contradicts. The count of load-bearing ingredients is modest for this type of mean-field mechanics paper, but the outsourced tensor and the unverified FE statistics are the fragile parts.

free parameters (1)
  • Reference stiffness ℂπ (chosen as matrix stiffness ℂ1) = ℂ1 of UPPH matrix (E=3.4 GPa, ν=0.385)
    Eq. (4) requires a choice of reference stiffness; the paper sets ℂπ=ℂ1 (Section 4). Different choices give different estimates and no sensitivity study is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hill-Mandel condition and Hill's lemma apply to the perturbed fields
    Used throughout Section 3 to zero out fluctuation products (e.g., Eqs. (12), (33)); requires ergodicity and homogeneous boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption RVE ergodicity and length-scale separation
    Section 2: the microstructure is sampled by an RVE under ergodicity and separation of scales.
  • ad hoc to paper Central limit theorem implies Gaussian distribution of local stress components
    Section 5: the Gaussian assumption is used to sample stresses; the paper's own FE results show non-Gaussian tails, so this is an approximation, not a proven consequence.
  • domain assumption Analytical ∂ℙπ/∂ℂπ from Ref. [1] is correct and applicable
    Section 4: the key eighth-order tensor is not derived in this paper; correctness is assumed from the author's prior publication.
  • domain assumption Ellipsoidal two-point spatial distribution identical to inclusion shape
    Section 4: the spatial arrangement of inhomogeneities is assumed to follow an ellipsoidal distribution characterized by the inclusion shape [11,24,25], which determines the effective stiffness in Eq. (4).
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new physical entities are postulated
    The paper introduces no new particles, forces, conserved quantities, or dimensions; it only chooses a reference stiffness and a distribution assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistics of Residual Stress in Random Microstructures: Mean-Field Estimates and Full-Field Validations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HV3ZL7ER

@misc{pith2026250900739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistics of Residual Stress in Random Microstructures: Mean-Field Estimates and Full-Field Validations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HV3ZL7ER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00739}
}
read the original abstract

Fluctuations of local fields are crucial for the prediction of failure in random composites across different scales as well as estimating the inelastic behaviour of it. This can be quantified statistically through second moments of the local fields, which can be quickly estimated using mean field homogenization (MFH). However, the exact fluctuation field can be estimated using full-field methods though it comes at the cost of intensive computational resources and limited scalability to complex microstructures. In this work, MFH is used to estimate the statistical variation of the field quantities and then cross-verified with full-field methods for a linear-thermoelastic homogenization problem. An analytical expression to calculate the second moments of the local fields for a linear thermo-elastic problem using MFH is obtained based on the Hill-Mandel condition. The expressions fundamentally rely on the solution of linear elastic problem which in turn depends on the derivatives of Hill's polarization tensor. Solution of this derivative term has been analytically and semianalytically derived in previous work [1]. The statistical distribution of residual stress tensor components and equivalent stress in particulate and unidirectional fibrous composites, arising purely due to differential thermal expansion, is computed and compared with full-field homogenization. Full-field simulations indicated a non-Gaussian distribution of stress components, whereas Weibull-like distributions for equivalent residual stress. Nevertheless, the assumed Gaussian distribution in mean-field estimates captures the essential features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of decomposition of the thermoelastic problem. The gradient of grey indicates stress fluctuation field induced due to mechanical load and stress-free strain loading. 3 Statistical Moments of the Local Fields 3.1 First Statistical Moments (Mean) Due to the uniqueness of the solution for linear elastic boundary value problems, a unique and exact fourth-order localization (or concentration) tensor 𝔸ᇁ (𝒙) and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Representative volume element, 𝜔 with random distribution of non￾overlapping ellipsoids and oriented along 𝒆ϯ -direction in a matrix. (b) Ellipsoid with major and minor diameter 𝑙 and 𝑑, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistical distribution of localized residual stress in the matrix domain of long fiber reinforced polymer composite (a) normal (22) component (b) shear (12) component of the stress tensor. Figure inset shows the exact distribution of localized stress in matrix as well as fiber domain. The fibers, with a volume fraction of 25%, are aligned along the e3 direction (out of paper plane) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical distribution of localized equivalent stress in the matrix domain of long fiber reinforced polymer composite with 25% volume fraction of fibers along e3 direction (out of the plane of paper). Results are compared from mean-field and full￾field (exact). Figur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistical distribution of localized residual stress in continuous long fiber reinforced polymer composite (a) normal (22) component (b) shear (12) component of the stress tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the equivalent stress computed from the sampled stress tensor. From the exact solution it can be observed that the components of stress can be approximated by Gaussian distribution from mean-field under stress-free strain cooling of particulate composite. However…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pallicity, T.D., Krause, M., Böhlke, T.: Local field statistics in linear elastic unidirectional fibrous composites. Int. J. Solids Struct. 315, 113343 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2025.113343

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Lahellec, N., Suquet, P.: Effective behavior of linear viscoelastic composites: A time-integration approach. Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 507–529 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.04.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.04.038 2007

  3. [3]

    Badulescu, C., Lahellec, N., Suquet, P.: Field statistics in linear viscoelastic composites and polycrystals. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids. 49, 329–344 (2015). 31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2014.07.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.euromechsol.2014.07.012 2015

  4. [4]

    Pallicity, T.D., Böhlke, T.: Effective viscoelastic behavior of polymer composites with regular periodic microstructures. Int. J. Solids Struct. 216, 167–181 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.01.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.01.016 2021

  5. [5]

    Kowalczyk-Gajewska, K., Berbenni, S., Mercier, S.: An additive Mori–Tanaka scheme for elastic–viscoplastic composites based on a modified tangent linearization. Mech. Mater. 200, 105191 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2024.105191

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bobeth, M., Diener, G.: Field fluctuations in multicomponent mixtures. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 34, 1–17 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(86)90002-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-5096(86)90002-5 1986

  7. [7]

    Bobeth, M., Diener, G.: Static elastic and thermoelastic field fluctuations in multiphase composites. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 35, 137–149 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(87)90033-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-5096(87)90033-0 1987

  8. [8]

    John Wiley & Sons Australia, Limited (1989)

    Kreher, Wolfgang; Pompe, W.: Internal stresses in heterogeneous solids. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Limited (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Source Proc

    Brenner, R., Castelnau, O., Badea, L.: Mechanical Field Fluctuations in Polycrystals Estimated by Homogenization Techniques. Source Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 460, 3589–3612 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2004.1278

    2004

  2. [10]

    Willot, F., Brenner, R., Trumel, H.: Elastostatic field distributions in polycrystals and cracked media. Philos. Mag. 100, 661–687 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2019.1699669

    2020

  3. [11]

    Das, S., Ponte Castañeda, P.: Field statistics in linearized elastic and viscous composites and polycrystals. Int. J. Solids Struct. 224, 111030 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2021.03.017 32

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Wismans, M., van Breemen, L.C.A., Govaert, L.E., Engels, T.A.P.: The Effect of Thermal Residual Stress on the Stress State in a Short-Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 33, 4160–4169 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-09277-x

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Anvari, A.: Thermomechanical Fatigue of Unidirectional Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Composite in Space. J. Eng. 2020, 1–5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9702957

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Zheng, Q.-S., Spencer, A.J.M.: On the canonical representations for kronecker powers of orthogonal tensors with application to material symmetry problems. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 31, 617–635 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0020- 7225(93)90054-X

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    Springer New York, New York, NY (2002)

    Torquato, S.: Random Heterogeneous Materials. Springer New York, New York, NY (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Fokin, A.G.: Solution of statistical problems in elasticity theory in the singular approximation. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 13, 85–89 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00852360

    1974 doi

  9. [17]

    Jöchen, K.: Homogenization of the Linear and Non-linear Mechanical Behavior of Polycrystals, (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Lobos Fernández, M.: Homogenization and materials design of mechanical properties of textured materials based on zeroth-, first- and second-order bounds of linear behavior, https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000080683, (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Krause, M., Pallicity, T.D., Böhlke, T.: Exact second moments of strain for composites with isotropic phases. Eur. J. Mech. - A/Solids. 97, 104806 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2022.104806

    2023

  12. [20]

    Springer US, 33 Boston, MA (2007)

    Buryachenko, V.A.: Micromehcanics of Heterogenous Materials. Springer US, 33 Boston, MA (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Rosen, B.W., Hashin, Z.: Effective thermal expansion coefficients and specific heats of composite materials. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 8, 157–173 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7225(70)90066-2

    1970 doi

  14. [22]

    ZAMM - J

    Kreher, W.: Internal Stresses and Relations between Effective Thermoelastic Properties of Stochastic Solids – Some Exact Solutions. ZAMM - J. Appl. Math. Mech. / Zeitschrift für Angew. Math. und Mech. 68, 147–154 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19880680311

    1988 doi

  15. [23]

    Laws, N.: On the thermostatics of composite materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 21, 9–17 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(73)90027-6

    1973 doi

  16. [24]

    Hu, G.K., Weng, G.J.: Connections between the double-inclusion model and the Ponte Castaneda-Willis, Mori-Tanaka, and Kuster-Toksoz models. Mech. Mater. 32, 495–503 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6636(00)00015-6

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Castañeda, P.P., Willis, J.R.: The effect of spatial distribution on the effective behavior of composite materials and cracked media. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 43, 1919–1951 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(95)00058-Q

    1919 doi

  18. [26]

    Görthofer, J., Meyer, N., Pallicity, T.D., Schöttl, L., Trauth, A., Schemmann, M., Hohberg, M., Pinter, P., Elsner, P., Henning, F., Hrymak, A., Seelig, T., Weidenmann, K., Kärger, L., Böhlke, T.: Virtual process chain of sheet molding compound: Development, validation and per...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Schöberl, J.: NETGEN An advancing front 2D/3D-mesh generator based on abstract rules. Comput. Vis. Sci. 1, 41–52 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s007910050004

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    Albiez, J., Erdle, H., Weygand, D., Böhlke, T.: A gradient plasticity creep model 34 accounting for slip transfer/activation at interfaces evaluated for the intermetallic NiAl-9Mo. Int. J. Plast. 113, 291–311 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2018.10.006

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Trauth, A., Weidenmann, K.A.: Continuous-discontinuous sheet moulding compounds – Effect of hybridisation on mechanical material properties. Compos. Struct. 202, 1087–1098 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.048

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Kehrer, L.: Thermomechanical mean-field modeling and experimental characterization of long fiber-reinforced sheet molding compound composites, (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.