MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504035485 · doi:10.4271/2005-01-0703

Finite Element Modeling of the Axial Crushing of AA6061 T4 and T6 and AA6063 T5 Structural Square Tubes with Circular Discontinuities

2005· article· en· W1504035485 on OpenAlexafffund
William Altenhof

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClassification of discontinuitiesFinite element methodSquare (algebra)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focused on the energy absorption capabilities of axially loaded structures fabricated from aluminum alloy extruded tubing with a square cross section. Quasi-static compressive testing was used to examine the effects of dual centrally-located circular hole discontinuities on the energy absorption characteristics of the extrusion test specimens. In addition to previously characterized progressive buckling and global bending modes, collapse modes involving cracking and splitting were observed in several experimental tests. For this reason, finite element models of each test specimen were developed using a material model incorporating damage mechanics. The suitability of using shell elements versus solid elements to model these relatively thick walled structures was investigated. A good correlation was observed between the results of the experimental quasi-static compressive tests and the results of the finite element simulations conducted using LS-DYNA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207