A review of nonlinear constitutive models for metals

Over the past two decades a number of thermomechanical constitutive theories have been proposed for viscoplastic metals. These models are in most cases similar in that they utilize a set of internal state variables which provide locally averaged representations of microphysical phenomena such as dislocation rearrangement and grain boundary sliding. The state of development of several of these models is now at the point where accurate theoretical solutions can be obtained for a wide variety of structural problems at elevated temperatures. The fundamentals of viscoplasticity are briefly reviewed and a general framework is outlined. Several of the more prominent models are reviewed, and predictions from models are compared to experimental results

Stock Conversions Under the Amended Regulations

The conversion regulations continue to contain various provisions designed to protect the converted association from a hostile takeover both during and after conversion. The entire conversion process is carefully regulated and monitored by the FSLIC to assure fairness and equitability and to avoid windfall profits by any group. There is, nonetheless, some controversy surrounding conversions, a discussion of which appears later in this article

Progressive failure methodologies for predicting residual strength and life of laminated composites

Two progressive failure methodologies currently under development by the Mechanics of Materials Branch at NASA Langley Research Center are discussed. The damage tolerance/fail safety methodology developed by O'Brien is an engineering approach to ensuring adequate durability and damage tolerance by treating only delamination onset and the subsequent delamination accumulation through the laminate thickness. The continuum damage model developed by Allen and Harris employs continuum damage laws to predict laminate strength and life. The philosophy, mechanics framework, and current implementation status of each methodology are presented

Letter from C[harles] E. Allen to John Muir, 1899 Oct 14.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF,CHARLES E.ALLEN,\u2799.BUSINESS MANAGER,WILLIAM S.KIES,\u2799.The Wisconsin Alumni MagazinePUBLICATION COMMITTEE.DAVID B. FRANKENBURGER,\u2769, Chairman.E. RAY STEVENS,\u2793,Treasurer.GEORGE RAYMER,\u2771.CHARLES R_ VAN HISE,\u2779.ERNEST N.WARNER,\u2789.PUBLISHED BY THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THEUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.Madison,Wis.,Oct.14,1899.Mr.John Muir,Martinez, Cal.Dear sir:We would like to publish in the Wisconsin Alumni Magazine a photograph of yourself accompanied by a short biographical sketch,and if you do not object will be very glad to have you send a photograph together with such facts as would be useful, or perhaps a reference to some magazine articles which wouild contain tham.The only article I have seen lately is one in \u27self Culture\u27 some time last spring.If there have been others later and you will kindly refer to them I will get the material from those.Hoping to hear from you soon,I amYours very truly,222 Charter St.C.[illegible

Self-Efficacy and its Relation to Sales Outcomes

This research evaluates the relationships existing between salesperson self-efficacy and that individual\u27s performance and customer-orientation. The study uses scales specifically designed to measure the salient variables and then statistically analyzes the degree to which these variables relate to desired sales outcomes

A-Hohfeld: A Language for Robust Structural Representation of Knowledge in the Legal Domain to Build Interpretation-Assistance Expert Systems

The A-Hohfeld language is presented as a set of definitions; it can be used to precisely express legal norms. The usefulness of the AHohfeld language is illustrated in articulating 2560 alternative structural interpretations of the four-sentence 1982 Library Regulations of Imperial College and constructing an interpretation-assistance legal expert system for these regulations by means of the general-purpose Interpretation-Assistance legal expert system builder called MINT. The logical basis for A-Hohfeld is included as an appendix

Controlling Inadvertent Ambiguity in the Logical Structure of Legal Drafting by means of the Prescribed Definitions of the A-Hohfeld Structural Language

Two principal sources of imprecision in legal drafting (vagueness and ambiguity) are identified and illustrated. Virtually all of the ambiguity imprecision encountered in legal discourse is ambiguity in the language used to express logical structure, and virtually all of· the imprecision resulting is inadvertent. On the other hand, the imprecision encountered in legal writing that results from vagueness is frequently, if not most often, included there deliberately; the drafter has considered it and decided that the vague language· best accomplishes the purpose at hand. This paper focuses on the use of some defined terminology for minimizing inadvertent ambiguity in the logical structure of legal discourse, where desired by the drafter. The current set of signaled structural definitions that are included in the A-Hohfeld language are first set forth and their use is illustrated in an extensive example from the treaty establishing the European Economic Community. The use of definitions· in legal writing is widespread, but addressed almost exclusively to controlling the vagueness of substantive legal terms; they are seldom used for structural purposes. Furthermore, their use in American legislative drafting is unsignaled. Here, attention is devoted to the relatively-neglected domain in legal discourse of imprecisely expressed logical structure, and the remedy offered, where desired by the drafter, is a set of signaled structural definitions for use in controlling such imprecision

One Use of Computerized Instructional Gaming in Legal Education: To Better Understand the Rich Logical Structure of Legal Rules and Improve Legal Writing

This article describes an innovation in legal education and speculates about its importance and effectiveness as an educational tool. The speculations about its potential use, however, are ones that each legal educator will be able to test individually to determine the effectiveness of this use of microcomputers to improve legal education. The computer software that permits the innovation to be used will be available to interested persons by the time that this article is published

Exploring Computer Aided Generation of Questions for Normalizing Legal Rules

The process of normalizing a legal rule requires a drafter to indicate where the intent is to be precise and where it is to be imprecise in expressing both the between-sentence and within-sentence logical structure of that rule. Three different versions of a legal rule are constructed in the process of normalizing it: (1) the logical structure of the present version, (2) the detailed marker version, and (3) the logical structure of the normalized version. In order to construct the third version the analyst must formulate and answer specific questions about the terms that are used to express the logical structure of the first version that relates the constituent sentences marked in the second version. Questions about the two types of logical structure may be of two different kinds: (1) direct questions about the interpretation of terms that express each type of structure, and (2) indirect questions by means of hypothetical situations that indicate how the terms that express structure are intended to be interpreted. Direct questions are generated from natural language terms that are used to express structure by a series of transformations that use progressively more detailed defined structural terms and that culminate in structure that is expressed entirely in the defined structural terms of the basic normalized form. Arrow diagrams accompany these direct questions to help teach normalization to those unfamiliar with it. Examples of such direct questions, as well as examples of indirect ones, are provided with respect to normalization of section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Indirect questions are generated about hypothetical situations that involve various appropriate combinations of conditions expressed in the rule that lead to the various mentioned results. This kind of question may be easier for an expert to respond to and thus be a better vehicle for eliciting the expertise of such a person. It is possible that some computer assistance can be provided in generating direct questions, but less likely for indirect questions. Furthermore the number of indirect questions generated my be unmanageably large and require too much human assistance to be practical. In this chapter the feasibility of such computer-aided question generation will be explored to determine to what extent it can facilitate the normalizing of legal rules