2016
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.117.138001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stress Singularities in Swelling Soft Solids

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
25
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The outer crust of a neutron star may actually contain ultradrip nuclei. For instance, the HFB-21 mass model predicts the presence of 124 Sr with S n = 0.83 MeV; the isotope at the neutron-drip line is 121 Sr with S n = −0.33 MeV [16].…”
Section: Nonaccreted Neutron Starsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The outer crust of a neutron star may actually contain ultradrip nuclei. For instance, the HFB-21 mass model predicts the presence of 124 Sr with S n = 0.83 MeV; the isotope at the neutron-drip line is 121 Sr with S n = −0.33 MeV [16].…”
Section: Nonaccreted Neutron Starsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Still, the accuracy of any given functional can be tested against experimental nuclear data, as well as results from microscopic calculations following different many-body approaches. The most accurate exist-ing functionals are able to fit essentially all measured nuclear masses and charge radii with a root-mean square deviation of about 0.5 − 0.6 MeV/c 2 and 0.03 fm respectively, while reproducing at the same time properties of homogeneous infinite nuclear matter (equation of state, pairing gaps, effective masses) obtained from ab initio calculations [81,124]. In the nuclear energy density functional theory, the ground-state energy is obtained by solving the self-consistent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) equations describing independent quasiparticles in an average field induced by the underlying particles (see, e.g.…”
Section: Nonaccreted Neutron Starsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current biomechanical predictive criteria for TBI are based on measurements of skull motion such as linear and rotational acceleration [1,2]. Although the relationship between skull motion and injury has been extensively tested [2][3][4][5][6][7], mechanisms relating the two have not been conclusively established [8], due to the complexity of the deformation of the brain [9][10][11] which behaves as a nonlinear viscoelastic medium. In situ measurements of the rapid transient motion of the whole brain during a traumatic event may establish a more accurate biomechanical description of injury.Shear vibration experiments on small brain samples have shown that the stress-strain relationship behaves nonlinearly for amplitudes as low as 1% [12,13], which is well below the strain threshold for injury [7,14,15].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, the precise criteria related to the optimal timing of treatment, the optimal location and size of the skull opening, and the long-term functional outcome remain unclear. From a mechanical perspective, a decompressive craniectomy is a compromise between maximizing the management of the intracranial pressure and minimizing the deformations induced by the bulging brain [17]. Recent studies have characterized bulge kinematics based on computerized tomography images before and after a decompressive craniectomy using non-linear image registration [19]; yet, little is know about the stress, stretch, and strain inside the brain.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%