H-B

AcronymDefinition
H-BHexadecimal to Binary
References in periodicals archive ?
Through the comparison results in Table 3, we can find that the plastic zone radius and radial displacement calculated by 3D H-B failure criterion are smaller than those calculated by generalized H-B failure criterion.
With different softening parameters, the plastic zone radii calculated by 3D H-B failure criterion are smaller than those calculated by generalized H-B failure criterion.
As shown in Figures 4-7, [[sigma].sub.r], [[sigma].sub.[theta]], [[sigma].sub.z], and [u.sub.r] are calculation results based on 3D H-B failure criterion; [[sigma]'.sub.r], [[sigma]'.sub.[theta]], [[sigma]'.sub.z], and [u'.sub.r] are calculation results based on generalized H-B failure criterion.
When considering the influence of the intermediate principal stress on different failure criterion, the value of plastic radius calculated by the 3D H-B criterion is smaller than those calculated by the generalized H-B criterion.
Under the condition that the geotechnical parameters are the same, the influence of dilatation coefficient on generalized H-B failure criterion is larger than 3D H-B failure criterion.
I find H-B correct, Chambers incorrect, in the following (I give page and line number and disregard the italicization of letters to indicate the expansion of abbreviations): proffitt not profitt (106/15); if not yf (106/27); sufficientle not sufficientlie (106/29); & not and (107/27, 41; 108/11, 14); yssueinge not yssueing (107/32); issueinge not issueing (107/33); sated not said (107/39; 108/1); ffourth not fourth (107/40); such omitted by Chambers (108/2); issueinge not yssueing (108/3); household not householde (108/8); herevnto not hereunto (108/15).
Conversely, I find Chambers correct and H-B incorrect in the following: Willelmj not Willelmij (105/1); Welliam not William (or, if William, then in need of a note: 106/38); ffellowes not fellows (107/12); & omitted by H-B (108/2).
I prefer Chambers's "so" as an interpretation of cancelled letters to H-B's "fr" (107/33); the text seems to call for "so" or perhaps "for."
Most of the differences between H-B and Chambers are trivial.
H-B are overly eager to supply pointed brackets to incomplete characters, doing so even when enough of the original letter remains to make the reading unambiguous.