Talk:Yield (engineering)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] Suggestion

Do you think it would be a good idea to insert a strain-stress graph? Fractografie 09:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! SietskeEN 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I have recently been working on an article about ultimate failure in materials. Because this is the end result of an overyielded material I was wondering what the best way to incorporate my site within this one was. I was thinking about adding a small section within this article, or just using a sentence or two to embed my site within this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engl315ISU (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest merging Elastic limit into this article

The two seem one and the same to me. If there's a good reason why that page shouldn't be merged with this, can someone please make the difference between them clear? 217.42.242.45 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not quite the same -- "elastic limit" has a more precise definition than "yield stress" does. However, you might merge and redirect both elastic limit and proportional limit here, as long as the differences are clearly specified. 75.46.140.40 02:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
To follow that up, here is an online source for the definitions. Any merge should probably include an expansion of the "definition" section of this (yield) article. 75.46.140.40 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest this doesn't happen as many people studying A level Physics use this page often when learning about Young's Modulus and the deformation of solids.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.35.83 (talk • contribs) 12:03, May 31, 2007

[edit] Merging 2 articles: Yield (engineering) and yield surface

I see this topic of Yield (engineering) being the main article, and yield surface being part of the yield criterion subsection, where the yield surface is presented for each of the different yield criteria (e.g. Tresca, Von Mises, Drucker, etc)

The development of each of this Yield Criteria can be its own article, or they can just be included within the Yield (engineering) article.

Comments?

Sanpaz 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I think the two articles above can be merged in too since they are just definitions—that will be easy so I'll go do that now. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a tiny wikipedia contributor, I've written that article only because I needed this information and I couldn't (to my surprise) find it in wikipedia. If you wanted my opinion, then unfortunately I have no opinion about this. The "see also" at the bottom was good for me. A separate article means shorter URL if someone wants just 'yield surface'. Will the search box work if someone typed "yield surface" in it? You can move it if you really want to. On the other hand - wouldn't this article "outgrow" the Yield (engineering) article? You know, yield surface is a big topic, and I've written only a tiny part about it. For example there are several other representations of each surface (the formulas, I mean), if someone really did the homework well, this article could get 3 times bigger. Janek Kozicki 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I find these two articles of sufficient length and depth that to not include both as they are is a disservice to wikipedia. If either article was not as indepth then the case should be made that one should be merged with the other. As it stands significant cuts would have to be made to each article in order for it to be conform to existing wikipedia standards if they were merged. Since neither article has had any talk on the subject of merging these two articles in the last three months I am going to take down the merge article tag and declare these two articles remain unmerged. Zippedpinhead (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The length of the article is not a reason for not merging. Merging has to do more with the fact that Yield surface is not a topic by itself. It forms part of the overall topic of Yield and Yield Criteria. I see the whole structure of various related articles as: Plasticity (physics) being the starting point. Yield (engineering) as a sub-article. In the later the topics of yield criterion, yield curve, yield surface, flow rule, associated and non-associated flow rule, etc, would be addressed. Then from this article links to other Yield Criteria articles (Von Mises, Tresca, Drucker-Prager, Mohr-Coulomb, etc) can be placed. In each of this articles I see the specific Yield surface, yield curve, etc, for each criteria, being addressed. I have not done this for lack of time, but if somebody is up to it, go ahead. Sanpaz (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As a large number of yield loci formulations exist, I think the modular structure proposed above would be well suited for future articles in that area. mastic 11:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutrux (talk • contribs)

[edit] Civil engineering ?

Yield surfaces are used in other areas of engineering as well, for example in sheet metal forming simulations. Wouldn't it make sense to put the articles in a broader category?

mastic 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutrux (talk • contribs)

Yes, if you are referring to the WikiProject, just ignore that as it does not represent the articles classification, just which organized groups are helping the article. Organized groups may not exist for other relevant fields. The article's actual categorization is seen on the bottom of the article where it is currently in materials science and solid mechanics. Civil engineering links into solid mechanics, but I don't know about other areas of engineering such as mechanical or industrial. I think they should link in if they don't. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)