Problems associated with use of the logarithmic equivalent strain in high pressure torsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The logarithmic "equivalent" strain is frequently recommended for description of the experimental flow curves determined in high pressure torsion (HPT) tests. Some experimental results determined at -196 and 190 °C on a 2024 aluminum alloy are plotted using both the von Mises and logarithmic equivalent strains. Three types of problems associated with use of the latter are described. The first involves the lack of work conjugacy between the logarithmic and shear stress/shear strain curves, a topic that has been discussed earlier. The second concerns the problems associated with testing at constant logarithmic strain rate, a feature of particular importance when the material is rate sensitive. The third type of problem involves the "history dependence" of this measure in that the incremental logarithmic strain depends on whether the prior strain accumulated in the sample is known or not. This is a difficulty that does not affect use of the von Mises equivalent strain. For these reasons, it is concluded that the qualifier "equivalent" should not be used when the logarithmic strain is employed to describe HPT results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".