The Hencky equivalent strain and its inapplicability to the interpretation of torsion testing experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were carried out on a 0.06%C plain C steel to determine the shear stress–shear strain behaviour. The results obtained at 1200°C and a shear strain rate of 0.866 s−1 are described. The experimental data are converted into equivalent stress–equivalent strain form using the von Mises and Hencky formalisms. It is shown that when the equivalent stress is of interest, as in the calculation of rolling load, only the von Mises formulation can be used without the introduction of large errors. This is required so that the incremental work done/unit volume of material can remain constant in both the shear and equivalent uniaxial tension formulations. The problem with the Hencky formalism with regard to simple shear is that the orientations of the Hencky principal strains and principal strain increments do not coincide and also vary continuously. As a consequence, the absolute values of the strain increments cannot simply be summed and the description of the equivalent strain applicable to large strain torsion proposed by Onaka [Philos. Mag. Lett. 90 (2010) p.633] cannot be used to predict mechanical properties along other strain or loading paths. The problems associated with the definitions of the Hencky equivalent stress and Hencky work increment are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".