ScholarLens Back to search
1991•International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in GeomechanicsRequires access

Comment on the postulate of three plane strain mechanisms

Marte Gutierrez, Suzanne Lacasse

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Abstract This note discusses the inconsistencies that are inherent in the postulate of three plane strain mechanisms. It is shown that this postulate violates the principle of invariance and one obtains different results depending on the choice of the reference axes. If formulated in the principal stress space, this postulate requires that the principal stress and principal plastic strain increment directions be coaxial. Constitutive models based on this postulate cannot be used for general loading situations involving principal stress rotation where significant non‐coaxiality is obtained.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract This note discusses the inconsistencies that are inherent in the postulate of three plane strain mechanisms. It is shown that this postulate violates the principle of invariance and one obtains different results depending on the choice of the reference axes. If formulated in the principal stress space, this postulate requires that the principal stress and principal plastic strain increment directions be coaxial. Constitutive models based on this postulate cannot be used for general loading situations involving principal stress rotation where significant non‐coaxiality is obtained.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract This note discusses the inconsistencies that are inherent in the postulate of three plane strain mechanisms. It is shown that this postulate violates the principle of invariance and one obtains different results depending on the choice of the reference axes. If formulated in the principal stress space, this postulate requires that the principal stress and principal plastic strain increment directions be coaxial. Constitutive models based on this postulate cannot be used for general loading situations involving principal stress rotation where significant non‐coaxiality is obtained.

Key concepts: Principal stress, Principal (computer security), Plane stress, Stress space, Principal axis theorem, Rotation (mathematics), Plane (geometry), Stress (linguistics)

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comment on the postulate of three plane strain mechanisms — Research Paper | ScholarLens