MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982697994 · doi:10.1115/msec2006-21027

Failure Prediction in Hydroforming of Pre-Bent HSLA Tube Using an Extended Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve

2006· article· en· W1982697994 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail Sorine, C. Hari Manoj Simha, Isadora van Riemsdijk, Michael J. Worswick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroformingNeckingTube (container)Structural engineeringBent molecular geometryFinite element methodMaterials scienceStress (linguistics)BendingLimit (mathematics)Composite materialEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the prediction of failure during the hydroforming of pre-bent HSLA350 tubes using the Extended Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve (XSFLC) [1]. The process of obtaining a strain-based forming limit curve (ε-FLC) for the tube and its application to the prediction of failure in tube hydroforming, utilizing the XSFLC, is presented in detail. The XSFLC was obtained from ε-FLC that was calibrated using the results of free expansion tube burst tests. Tube bending and hydroforming experiments were carried out and modeled using the dynamic explicit finite element code, LS-DYNA. An LS-DYNA user subroutine that utilizes the XSFLC to predict the onset of necking was used to model the tube material. The predicted failure location and pressure at the onset of necking were found to be in a good agreement with the experimental results.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207