Analysis of Failure in Dual Phase Steel Sheets Subject to Electrohydraulic Forming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous work, the formability of dual phase steel sheets formed under quasi-static and high strain rate conditions was investigated in macroscale (Golovashchenko et al., 2013, “Formability of Dual Phase Steels in Electrohydraulic Forming,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 213, pp. 1191–1212) and microscale (Samei et al., 2013, “Quantitative Microstructural Analysis of Formability Enhancement in Dual Phase Steels Subject to Electrohydraulic Forming,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 22(7), pp. 2080–2088). The Nakazima test and electrohydraulic forming (EHF) were used for quasi-static and high strain rate forming, respectively. It was shown that dual phase steel sheets exhibit hyperplastic behavior when subject to EHF into a conical die and the micromechanisms of formability improvement were discussed (Samei et al., 2014, “Metallurgical Investigations on Hyperplasticity in Dual Phase Steel Sheets,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. (in press)). In this paper, mechanisms of failure in dual phase steels formed under quasi-static and EHF conditions are discussed. For this purpose, the nucleation, growth, and volume fraction of voids were studied. Also, fractography was carried out to understand the different types of fractures in the three grades of dual phase steels. The main objective of this work was to determine how failure was suppressed in the EHF specimens formed in the conical die compared to the Nakazima specimens. The impact of the sheet against the die was found to be the major reason for the delay in failure in the EHF specimens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".