Discussion of “Contact Unloading Behaviors of Elastic-Power-Law Strain Hardening Material Considering Indenter Elasticity Effect” (Chen, C., Wang, Q., Wang, H., Ding, H., Hu, W., Xie, W., Weng, P., Jiang, L., and Yin, X., 2022, ASME J. Tribol., 144(12), pSource: Journal of Tribology:;2022:;volume( 145 ):;issue: 003::page 35501-1Author:Green, Itzhak
DOI: 10.1115/1.4056192Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: The readers ought to be aware of some claims based on unfounded theories in the subject paper [1], which could possibly distort results and hinder future research and development. To start, Eq. (3) in the subject paper is stated to be taken from Ref. [70] (Johnson’s classical textbook). However, said Eq. (3) is imprecise because it uses a constant coefficient θy = 1.1, as claimed. That coefficient does not account for the variability in compressibility of the materials in contact, i.e., the Poisson’s ratios of the materials. The general range of Poisson’s ratios, ν, for crystalline and engineering materials is between -1 and 0.5. For example, ν = 0.2 for cast iron, ν = 0.18 for glass, or ν = 0.44 for gold. There are many materials and crystallines that have negative Poisson ratios (some are even time-dependent). Thus, limiting analyses and discussions to narrow subsets of Poisson ratios, say around 0.3, would likewise be narrow. That dependence upon Poisson’s ratio is addressed not only in Ref. [70], but also in other dated work, such as by the Chang et al. (CEB) model [2]. The CEB derivation, however, has other flaws—see discussions in Refs. [3] and [4].
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Green, Itzhak | |
date accessioned | 2023-08-16T18:03:41Z | |
date available | 2023-08-16T18:03:41Z | |
date copyright | 11/23/2022 12:00:00 AM | |
date issued | 2022 | |
identifier issn | 0742-4787 | |
identifier other | trib_145_3_035501.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4291328 | |
description abstract | The readers ought to be aware of some claims based on unfounded theories in the subject paper [1], which could possibly distort results and hinder future research and development. To start, Eq. (3) in the subject paper is stated to be taken from Ref. [70] (Johnson’s classical textbook). However, said Eq. (3) is imprecise because it uses a constant coefficient θy = 1.1, as claimed. That coefficient does not account for the variability in compressibility of the materials in contact, i.e., the Poisson’s ratios of the materials. The general range of Poisson’s ratios, ν, for crystalline and engineering materials is between -1 and 0.5. For example, ν = 0.2 for cast iron, ν = 0.18 for glass, or ν = 0.44 for gold. There are many materials and crystallines that have negative Poisson ratios (some are even time-dependent). Thus, limiting analyses and discussions to narrow subsets of Poisson ratios, say around 0.3, would likewise be narrow. That dependence upon Poisson’s ratio is addressed not only in Ref. [70], but also in other dated work, such as by the Chang et al. (CEB) model [2]. The CEB derivation, however, has other flaws—see discussions in Refs. [3] and [4]. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | Discussion of “Contact Unloading Behaviors of Elastic-Power-Law Strain Hardening Material Considering Indenter Elasticity Effect” (Chen, C., Wang, Q., Wang, H., Ding, H., Hu, W., Xie, W., Weng, P., Jiang, L., and Yin, X., 2022, ASME J. Tribol., 144(12), p | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 145 | |
journal issue | 3 | |
journal title | Journal of Tribology | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4056192 | |
journal fristpage | 35501-1 | |
journal lastpage | 35501-2 | |
page | 2 | |
tree | Journal of Tribology:;2022:;volume( 145 ):;issue: 003 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |