Fig. 2 Compressibility curves for various metal powders. Source: Ref 4 More

Fig. 3 Effect of residual carbon content on compressibility and green strength of water-atomized high-carbon iron. Pressed at 550 MPa (40 tsi) with 1% zinc stearate admixed. Symbols represent experimental data points. Source: Ref 4 More

Fig. 2.8 Influence of nickel content on compressibility of 316L stainless steel powder. (Martensite formation is a significant contributor to the loss of compressibility in samples containing 8% and less nickel.) Source: Ref 17 More

Fig. 2.10 Effect of chromium and nickel on compressibility of chrome-nickel steels. Source: Ref 19 . Reprinted with permission from MPIF, Metal Powder Industries Federation, Princeton, NJ More

Fig. 3.6 Correlation between compressibility and sintered transverse rupture strength of 316L powders of varying apparent densities. Source: Ref 34 More

Fig. 3.7 Effect of apparent density on green strength and compressibility of 316L stainless steel powders. Source: Ref 34 More

Figure 1.2 Mechanical deformations with which compressibility or bulk modulus is associated. More

Figure 1.15 Temperature variation of bulk modulus (reciprocal compressibility) for six metals. More

Fig. 4.13 Typical compressibility curves for beryllium as a function of temperature. Source: Killpatrick More

Fig. 3 Elastic stress distribution: pure compression. T, tension. C, compression. (a) No stress concentration. (b) Surface stress concentrations. (c) Transverse hole stress concentration More

Fig. 18.11 Effect of laminate orientation on residual compression strain after impact. Source: Ref 5 More

Fig. 19.6 Compression tests on repaired and unrepaired delaminated fastener holes More

Fig. 5.13 Effect of tensile strain on the compressive yield strength (Bauschinger effect) of solution-treated plus strained Ti-6Al-4V sheet and after subsequent aging More

Fig. 5.45 Compressed 2024-T351 data points with U 0 = 0.12 and β = 0.45, part 1 More

Fig. 5.46 Compressed 2024-T351 data points with U 0 = 0.12 and β = 0.45, part 2 More

Fig. 5.47 Compressed 2024-T351 data points with α = 1.0 and S max / S 0 = 0.23, part 1 More

Fig. 5.48 Compressed 2024-T351 data points with α = 1.0 and S max / S 0 = 0.23, part 2 More

Fig. 8.35 Comparison of residual compression strength after impact for AS4/PEEK (APC-2) versus AS6/2220-3 graphite/epoxy panels. Source: Ref 8.40 More

Fig. 8.36 Comparison of compression fatigue response of AS4/PEEK (APC-2) with AS6/2220-3 grahite/epoxy after low-velocity impact. Source: Ref 8.40 More

Fig. 8.37 Test data showing post-impact compression strength as a function of laminate stacking sequence. Source: Ref 8.43 More