MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017852398 · doi:10.1155/2010/567390

An Improved Model for FE Modeling and Simulation of Closed Cell Al-Alloy Foams

2010· article· en· W2017852398 on OpenAlexafffund
Anwarul Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Materials Science and Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKongju National UniversityKorea Institute of Machinery and MaterialsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMaterials scienceAlloyCruciformDeformation (meteorology)Metal foamComposite materialFinite element methodPolyurethaneConstitutive equationStructural engineeringAluminium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell wall material properties of Al-alloy foams have been derived by a combination of nanoindentation experiment and numerical simulation. Using the derived material properties in FE (finite element) modeling of foams, the existing constitutive models of closed-cell Al-alloy foams have been evaluated against experimental results. An improved representative model has been proposed for FE analysis of closed-cell Al-alloy foams. The improved model consists of a combination of spherical and cruciform-shaped cells similar to those of Meguid et al.'s cruciform-hemisphere model (Finite Elem. Anal. Design: 2002, 38, 631). However, the spherical cells, which are smaller in size, are made of thicker cell walls in the new improved model compared to the cruciform-shaped cells, based on observation of the underlying Al-alloy foams. The compressive mechanical properties of Al-3wt.%Si-2wt.%Cu-2wt.%Mg alloy foams of relative density 12%–20% have been obtained by simulation using the improved representative model. While the traditional foam models overpredict the foam strength, the new weaker-cruciform-stronger-hemisphere model is found to predict the foam properties with much better accuracy. It is found that the proposed new model is capable of producing all three different types of deformation pattern of closed-cell metal foams, namely, uniform deformation, layerwise deformation, and the progressive deformation from the locations of lowest densities and highest impurities to those of higher densities and lower impurities.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207