Application of an Extended Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve to Predict Necking in Stretch Flange Forming
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
An extension of the stress-based forming limit curve (FLC) advanced by Stoughton (2000, “A General Forming Limit Criterion for Sheet Metal Forming,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 42, pp. 1–27) is presented in this work. With the as-received strain-based FLCs and stress-strain curves for 1.6-mm-thick AA5754 and 1-mm-thick AA5182 aluminum alloy, stress-based FLCs are obtained. These curves are then transformed into extended stress-based forming limit curves (XSFLCs), which consist of the invariants, effective stress, and mean stress. By way of application, stretch flange forming of these aluminum alloy sheets is considered. The AA5754 stretch flange displays a circumferential crack during failure, whereas the AA5182 stretch flange fails through a radial crack at the edge of the cutout. It is shown that the necking predictions obtained using the strain- and stress-based FLCs in conjunction with shell element computations are inconsistent when compared with the experimental results. By comparing the results of the shell element computations with those in which the mesh comprises eight-noded solid elements, it is demonstrated that the plane stress approximation is not valid. The XSFLC is then used with results from the solid-element computations to predict the punch depths at the onset of necking. Furthermore, it is shown that the predictions of failure location and failure mode obtained using the XSFLC are in accord with the differences observed between the two alloys/gauges.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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