A comparative study in descriptions of coupled kinematic hardening rules and ratcheting assessment over asymmetric stress cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study evaluates coupled kinematic hardening rules at which the calculation of plastic moduli is coupled with these models through the consistency condition of yield surfaces. The frameworks of the Ohno–Wang (O–W), McDowell, Jiang–Sehitoglu (J–S), Chen–Jiao–Kim (C–J–K) and Ahmadzadeh–Varvani (A–V) hardening rules and their incorporated dynamic recovery terms/coefficients were discussed for steel samples undergoing asymmetric stress cycles. Different hardening rules offered distinct procedures to determine terms/coefficients and to generalize hardening rule descriptions applicable for different materials and loading spectra. The progressive evolution of backstress over plastic deformation was attributed to the interaction of dislocations controlled by the dynamic recovery of the models. The predicted ratcheting curves through the C–J–K and A–V hardening rules closely agreed with ratcheting data of 1045 and 304 steel samples tested at different loading paths. The O–W, J–S and McDowell hardening rules showed some overprediction in ratcheting as compared with experimental data.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".