MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043761616 · doi:10.4271/2012-01-2326

Characterization of Advanced High Strength Steel Sheets in View of the Numerical Prediction of Sidewall Curl

2013· article· en· W2043761616 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Aryanpour, Matthew Rodzik, Daniel J. Green, C.J. Van Tyne, Lee M. Rothleutner

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Materials scienceStructural engineeringHigh strength steelCurl (programming language)Finite element methodEngineeringForensic engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">In this study, a procedure for characterizing advanced high strength steel sheets is presented in view of determining the material parameters for constitutive models that can be used for accurate prediction of springback and sidewall curl.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The mechanical properties of DP980 and TRIP780 sheets were obtained experimentally, and their cyclic tension-compression behaviour was modeled with the Chaboche nonlinear kinematic hardening model and the Yoshida-Uemori two-surface plasticity model that are implemented in LS-DYNA. The unloading moduli were determined from monotonic tension tests at various prestrain levels. An inverse approach based on linear and quadratic response surfaces created by Sequential Strategy with Domain Reduction (SRSM) methodology using LS-OPT software was used and investigated to identify specific material parameters in each constitutive model.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">It was found that the quadratic meta-model with a quadratic approximation of history variables was able to accurately reproduce the cyclic stress-strain data when multiple tension-compression cycles are considered.</div></div>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207