MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034256339 · doi:10.1115/1.2400269

Prediction of Necking in Tubular Hydroforming Using an Extended Stress-Based Forming Limit Curve

2006· article· en· W2034256339 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Hari Manoj Simha, Javad Gholipour, Alexander Bardelcik, Michael J. Worswick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceGeneral Motors of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeckingHydroformingFinite element methodPlane stressMaterials scienceStress (linguistics)ComputationMechanicsStructural engineeringSheet metalLimit (mathematics)Forming limit diagramComposite materialTube (container)PhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an extended stress-based forming limit curve (XSFLC) that can be used to predict the onset of necking in sheet metal loaded under non-proportional load paths, as well as under three-dimensional stress states. The conventional strain-based ϵFLC is transformed into the stress-based FLC advanced by Stoughton (1999, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 42, pp. 1–27). This, in turn, is converted into the XSFLC, which is characterized by the two invariants, mean stress and equivalent stress. Assuming that the stress states at the onset of necking under plane stress loading are equivalent to those under three-dimensional loading, the XSFLC is used in conjunction with finite element computations to predict the onset of necking during tubular hydroforming. Hydroforming of straight and pre-bent tubes of EN-AW 5018 aluminum alloy and DP 600 steel are considered. Experiments carried out with these geometries and alloys are described and modeled using finite element computations. These computations, in conjunction with the XSFLC, allow quantitative predictions of necking pressures; and these predictions are found to agree to within 10% of the experimentally obtained necking pressures. The computations also provide a prediction of final failure location with remarkable accuracy. In some cases, the predictions using the XSFLC show some discrepancies when compared with the experimental results, and this paper addresses potential causes for these discrepancies. Potential improvements to the framework of the XSFLC are 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 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)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering Materials and TechnologySame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207