MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210073313 · doi:10.4271/2005-01-0095

Crashworthiness of High and Low Pressure Hydroformed Straight Section Aluminum Tubes

2005· article· en· W2210073313 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce W. Williams, D. A. Oliveira, Michael J. Worswick, Robert Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashworthinessAluminiumSection (typography)HydroformingHigh pressureMaterials scienceStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringFinite element methodTube (container)MetallurgyComposite materialEngineering physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">There exists considerable motivation to reduce vehicle weight through the adoption of lightweight materials while maintaining energy absorption and component integrity under crash conditions. Finite element simulations were performed based on impact tests with straight sections of AlMg3.5Mn aluminum alloy tubes that were hydroformed using a high or low pressure operation. A tube formed with the low pressure operation will experience considerably less strain or work hardening and will retain greater residual ductility compared to a tube formed under high pressure, with a trade-off being that the tube will have a smaller cross-section. In the high pressure process, tubes will likely experience more work hardening in the corner-fill region. The energy-absorption behaviour during impact can be affected by the work hardening, residual stresses, thickness changes, and shape of the cross-section after the hydroforming operation. It was found that the energy absorption during impact decreased with decreasing corner-fill radius of the hydroformed tube.</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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207