![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've started working on the merger in my sandbox. The link to edit the sandbox is at the top of my user page Xpanzion 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The cold work and work hardening definitely talk about exactly the same thing and are complementary. They should be merged under a single article title with redirects in place. I prefer to merge under the title of work hardening because that is the most common descriptive name that I am used to reading and hearing for this topic. The term cold worked is usually only used as an adjective describing a piece of metal, but when talking about why cold rolled metal is stronger than hot rolled, people usually shift to talking about "work hardening" as the general process.-- Yannick 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:strain hardening mentions an old plan to move cold work to strain hardening, but this was apparently never done. I never see or hear the term "strain hardening" except in material sciences textbooks.-- Yannick 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone might want to add information about work hardening and drilling. When drills fail to penetrate some steel alloys, the heat buildup can toughen the material and make it harder to drill even more.
I have considered to remove the redlinks without altering the content i will just remove the internal link format to make the page look a bit neat and informative. Any comments regarding this are welcome. Kalivd ( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Cold forming is just an application of cold working. This article already references to cold working. Why make people look in two locations for one concept? -- Wizard191 ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the lede here seems to be ripped from a third or fourth year chemistry book. Perhaps we would do better to simplify the terms in the lede, and then explain in more detail in the article itself. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In the "Quantification of work hardening" section, a formula for yield stress, T, is given, with a square-root dependency. Then right after the formula is introduced, it says, "The material exhibits high strength if there are either high levels of dislocations (greater than 10^14 per m^2) or no dislocations."
I believe it's the paragraph that's right and the formula is wrong, because it's incomplete. The formula needs boundary conditions, because clearly when the dislocation density is zero, the yield stress is very high (I presume because the atomic bonds are maximized in the crystal lattice), but the formula predicts a minimum for yield stress.
199.106.103.248 ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence suggests that material that is work hardened is strengthened. Uhhh, isn't the reverse true? For example, doesn't work-hardening of mild steel actually make it more brittle and somewhat weaker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.205.13 ( talk) 09:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not confident the section on dislocations needed to be saying explicitly that they don't exist. They exist as much as a wave on the ocean or a warm front in the atmosphere do. While you could reinterpret the situation into one where they are all simply variations in some larger medium/object, it seems a bit...obtuse. And they definitely aren't as simple as vacancies. Darryl from Mars ( talk) 06:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an obvious and easily understood way to illustrate strain hardening using a stress-strain curve. The diagram on p.9 of R. Hill's "The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity" does it perfectly, and it, or it's equivalent, should be integrated into this page: Hill's Diagram - Koenig ( talk) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As this relates to my PhD project, I've done some literature review on this. Reference [3] does NOT state that Indium doesn't work harden at room temperature - it only states that it doesn't work harden at cryogenic temperatures: "The indications are that the mechanism which causes work-hardening ceases to become operative at low temperature when moderate hydrostatic pressures are present." A different paper that I've found by R. Darveaux and I. Turlik ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=113309) demonstrates work hardening in indium at room temperature, and in the conclusion states: "It was apparent that both work hardening and recovery processes occur in indium at room temperature..." -- Highwind 888, the Fuko Master 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi
In 2009,
cold forming was merged into this article with no discussion. I am undoing the merge, as it is clearly not appropriate.
"Cold forming" is a set of processes, that are applied with the goal of producing certain metal objects. "Work hardening" is only a side effect of those processes; which may be desirable, or part of the goal, but is distinct from the process that causes it.
In the vast majority of cold forming applications, work hardening is inconsequential and ignored; in many other cases, it is a minor or major problem to be avoided, or undone by annealing.
There are many articles in Wikipedia that link or linked to "cold forming" or "cold working" assuming that it would be a description of the processes. Instead, since the merge readers have been redirected to a highly technical discussion of a possible side effect -- with a list of the processes, and their other consequences, buried at the end, almost as an afterthought. Undoing the merge fixes the old links and makes it possible for new material to link to the processes instead.
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk) 20:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is the figure in question. The description contains: "... The strain can be decomposed into a recoverable elastic strain (εe) and an inelastic strain (εp). ...". My understanding suggests that εe and εp should swap places in the figure. Is this correct? Shelthome ( talk) 08:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've started working on the merger in my sandbox. The link to edit the sandbox is at the top of my user page Xpanzion 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The cold work and work hardening definitely talk about exactly the same thing and are complementary. They should be merged under a single article title with redirects in place. I prefer to merge under the title of work hardening because that is the most common descriptive name that I am used to reading and hearing for this topic. The term cold worked is usually only used as an adjective describing a piece of metal, but when talking about why cold rolled metal is stronger than hot rolled, people usually shift to talking about "work hardening" as the general process.-- Yannick 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:strain hardening mentions an old plan to move cold work to strain hardening, but this was apparently never done. I never see or hear the term "strain hardening" except in material sciences textbooks.-- Yannick 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone might want to add information about work hardening and drilling. When drills fail to penetrate some steel alloys, the heat buildup can toughen the material and make it harder to drill even more.
I have considered to remove the redlinks without altering the content i will just remove the internal link format to make the page look a bit neat and informative. Any comments regarding this are welcome. Kalivd ( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Cold forming is just an application of cold working. This article already references to cold working. Why make people look in two locations for one concept? -- Wizard191 ( talk) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the lede here seems to be ripped from a third or fourth year chemistry book. Perhaps we would do better to simplify the terms in the lede, and then explain in more detail in the article itself. Throwaway85 ( talk) 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In the "Quantification of work hardening" section, a formula for yield stress, T, is given, with a square-root dependency. Then right after the formula is introduced, it says, "The material exhibits high strength if there are either high levels of dislocations (greater than 10^14 per m^2) or no dislocations."
I believe it's the paragraph that's right and the formula is wrong, because it's incomplete. The formula needs boundary conditions, because clearly when the dislocation density is zero, the yield stress is very high (I presume because the atomic bonds are maximized in the crystal lattice), but the formula predicts a minimum for yield stress.
199.106.103.248 ( talk) 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence suggests that material that is work hardened is strengthened. Uhhh, isn't the reverse true? For example, doesn't work-hardening of mild steel actually make it more brittle and somewhat weaker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.205.13 ( talk) 09:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not confident the section on dislocations needed to be saying explicitly that they don't exist. They exist as much as a wave on the ocean or a warm front in the atmosphere do. While you could reinterpret the situation into one where they are all simply variations in some larger medium/object, it seems a bit...obtuse. And they definitely aren't as simple as vacancies. Darryl from Mars ( talk) 06:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an obvious and easily understood way to illustrate strain hardening using a stress-strain curve. The diagram on p.9 of R. Hill's "The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity" does it perfectly, and it, or it's equivalent, should be integrated into this page: Hill's Diagram - Koenig ( talk) 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As this relates to my PhD project, I've done some literature review on this. Reference [3] does NOT state that Indium doesn't work harden at room temperature - it only states that it doesn't work harden at cryogenic temperatures: "The indications are that the mechanism which causes work-hardening ceases to become operative at low temperature when moderate hydrostatic pressures are present." A different paper that I've found by R. Darveaux and I. Turlik ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=113309) demonstrates work hardening in indium at room temperature, and in the conclusion states: "It was apparent that both work hardening and recovery processes occur in indium at room temperature..." -- Highwind 888, the Fuko Master 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi
In 2009,
cold forming was merged into this article with no discussion. I am undoing the merge, as it is clearly not appropriate.
"Cold forming" is a set of processes, that are applied with the goal of producing certain metal objects. "Work hardening" is only a side effect of those processes; which may be desirable, or part of the goal, but is distinct from the process that causes it.
In the vast majority of cold forming applications, work hardening is inconsequential and ignored; in many other cases, it is a minor or major problem to be avoided, or undone by annealing.
There are many articles in Wikipedia that link or linked to "cold forming" or "cold working" assuming that it would be a description of the processes. Instead, since the merge readers have been redirected to a highly technical discussion of a possible side effect -- with a list of the processes, and their other consequences, buried at the end, almost as an afterthought. Undoing the merge fixes the old links and makes it possible for new material to link to the processes instead.
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk) 20:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is the figure in question. The description contains: "... The strain can be decomposed into a recoverable elastic strain (εe) and an inelastic strain (εp). ...". My understanding suggests that εe and εp should swap places in the figure. Is this correct? Shelthome ( talk) 08:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)