Determination of Weld Nugget Size Using an Inverse Engineering Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today's light-weight vehicles, the strength of spot welds plays an important role in overall product integrity, reliability and customer satisfaction. Naturally, there is a need for a quick and reliable technique to inspect the quality of the welds. In the past, the primary quality control tests for detecting weld defects are the destructive chisel test and peel test [1]. The non-destructive evaluation (NDE) method currently used in industry is based on ultrasonic inspection [2, 3, 4]. The technique is not always successful in evaluating the nugget size, nor is it effective in detecting the so-called “cold” or “stick” welds. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a precise and reliable noncontact NDE method for spot welds. There have been numerous studies in predicting the weld nugget size by considering the spot-weld process [5, 6]. In a forward problem, we are provided with known material model, well-defined boundary conditions, and specific loading conditions - mechanical as well as thermal. For an ill-posed problem [7, 8], some of the known settings may be absent and a set of experimental data is made available for solving the problem. The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of an inverse problem technique to determining the weld nugget size using a finite element scheme incorporating experimental measurements on the surface of the weld coupons. In the technique, a mathematical model is formulated to solve the ill-posed inverse problem in which the solution sought is required to satisfy both the experimental measurement and the theoretical foundation of the problem. To demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the numerical scheme, several two-dimensional examples are presented. Sensitivity to the solution algorithm from the experimental data is also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".