“…Here, following the latter approach, H has been calibrated such that cumulative plastic deformation predicted by the analysis for 5 and 25 GPa shocks is in relatively close agreement (within ≈20% error) with that predicted by SW and FD models, as is evident from Tables 6 and 7. Results for all end state variables and shock velocity are nearly equal for FD and (48) [18,19,[35][36][37][38][39] indicative of viscoplastic relaxation rates (e.g., strength, precursor decay, wave profiles in single crystals and polycrystals) in previous publications [6,10], these numerical results are deemed physically accurate. Results for volumetric compression ratio, adiabatic temperature rise, particle velocity, and shock velocity obtained from the analytical solution are also very close to corresponding numerical results, and effective plastic strain is reasonably close as noted already, although it is reiterated that the hardening parameter H entering the analytical method is obtained by fitting plastic deformation to the FD results.…”