Micro and Macro Hardness Measurements, Correlations, and Contact Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief reviews of Brinell (Meyer) and Rockwell indenters and macrohardness tests, Berkovich, Knoop and Vickers indenters and microhardness tests, and nanoindentation tests using the Berkovich indenter are given. Vickers, Brinell and Rockwell C indentation results for Ni 200, SS 304, Zr-4, and Zr-Nb are reported and correlation equations for mi-cro and macrohardness versus penetration depth are given. Temperature effects on yield strength, Brinell and Vickers hardness are given and correlation equations are presented to account for elevated temperatures. Models are presented for calculation of the appro-priate value of contact microhardness which depends on apparent contact pressure and the effective surface roughness of the joint. Examples are given to illustrate the use of the correlation equations. Nomenclature A surface area of a single tube, m2 Aa, AcAV apparent area, contact area, m2 a contact radius, m B unloading curve correlation coefficient Cc dimensionless contact conductance, Cc = σhc/mks CT correlation coefficient, ◦C−1 ◦C degree Celsius cp, cv specific heats at constant pressure and volume, J/kgK c1 Vickers correlation coefficient, GPa c2 Vickers size index
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".