Isotropic‐kinematic hardening framework to assess ratcheting response of steel samples undergoing asymmetric loading cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study intends to characterize ratcheting response of several steel alloys subject to asymmetric loading cycles through coupling the Ahmadzadeh‐Varvani kinematic hardening rule with isotropic hardening rules of Lee and Zavrel, Chaboche, and Kang. The Ahmadzadeh‐Varvani kinematic hardening rule was developed to address ratcheting progress over asymmetric stress cycles with relatively a simple framework and less number of coefficients. Inclusion of isotropic hardening rules to the framework improved ratcheting response of materials mainly over the first stage of ratcheting. Lee and Zavrel model (ISO‐I) developed an exponential function to account for accumulated plastic strain as yield surface is expanded over stage I and early stage II of ratcheting. Isotropic models by Chaboche (ISO‐II) and Kang (ISO‐III) encountered yield surface evolution in the framework by introducing an internal variable that takes into account the prior maximum plastic strain range. The choice of isotropic hardening model coupled to the kinematic hardening model is highly influenced by material softening/hardening response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".