Abstract
The strain-time profiles of the experiments described in Part 1 are compared with numerical solutions based on a rate-independent theory for an isotropic work-hardening, elastic-plastic material. As discussed in Part 1, complete agreement between theory and experiment is not possible because the constant state regions predicted by the theory are not observed. In addition, the calculations lead to a final state of shear strain that is considerably greater than the measured value. Also, the magnitude of the observed jump in strain rate at an unloading wave does not agree with the theoretical predictions. The absence of constant state regions and the discrepancy in the jump at unloading waves are shown to be explainable in terms of the inadequacy of the assumption of strain rate-independent material behavior.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
