Static and Dynamic Denting of Paint Baked AA6111 Panels: Comparison of Finite Element Predictions and Experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">This work presents comparisons of finite element model predictions of static and dynamic denting with experimental results. Panels were stamped from 0.81, 0.93 and 1.00mm AA6111-T4 and then paint-baked to produce representative automotive outer body panels. Each type of panel was statically and dynamically dented at three locations using a 25.4mm steel ball. Static denting was accomplished with incremental loading of 22.24N loads up to a maximum of 244.48N. Dynamic denting was accomplished by dropping the steel ball from heights ranging from 200mm to 1200mm. Multi-stage finite element analysis was performed using LS-DYNA<span class="xref"><sup>1</sup></span> and ABAQUS<span class="xref"><sup>2</sup></span> to predict the entire process of forming, spring-back, denting and final spring-back of the dented panels. The predicted results show good correlation with the experiments, but also highlight the sensitivity of the predictions to formulation of the finite element problem. To this end it is particularly important to use the best available material data, accurate element formulations, prior work hardening effects and a sufficiently refined mesh if accurate results are to be obtained.</div>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it