Comparative study of small scale and ‘large scale’ resistance spot welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An incrementally coupled electrical–thermal–mechanical model is developed to simulate small scale resistance spot welding (SSRSW) using the finite element method. This numerical model is then employed to study the differences between SSRSW and ‘large scale’ resistance spot welding (LSRSW). The variations in contact area, current distribution, and temperature profile at the workpiece/workpiece interfaces are compared. The computation shows that the difference in electrode force could be the essential reason for other differences between SSRSW and LSRSW. Compared with LSRSW, a much lower electrode force (pressure) applied in SSRSW results in a relatively small contact area and hence a much higher current density, which in turn leads to a greater heating rate and higher temperature at the workpiece/workpiece interface. This small contact area also results in a relatively small nugget diameter in SSRSW, which is only about 30% of the electrode tip diameter. In contrast, the nugget diameter in LSRSW is comparable to the electrode tip diameter. The predicted nugget diameters in both SSRSW and LSRSW of mild steel sheets compare well with experimental results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".