Interrupted pulse electromagnetic expanding ring test for sheet metal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the development of an interrupted pulse electromagnetic (EM) expanding ring experiment to study the high rate properties of AA5182 aluminum commercial sheet alloys at strain rates in excess of 5,000 s−1. Experiments are performed to compare two commonly adopted methods of driving the expanding ring: EM expansion versus an exploding wire. After studying and testing both methods, it was determined that EM expansion had the greatest potential for being developed into a test that would result in free-flight of the samples. By interrupting the current pulse in the EM expanding ring test, the ring is allowed to achieve free-flight, thus eliminating the need to determine the induced EM forces and significantly reducing the uncertainty of the stress-strain behaviour determined from the test. Once the free-flight condition is established, the stress-strain behaviour of the material is determined from the free-flight deceleration of the sample, as calculated from the velocity measured using a Photon Doppler Velocimeter (PDV). Results are presented for AA5182 at strains rates between 1,000 to 5,500 s−1 and exhibit low strain rate sensitivity, are comparable to tensile split-Hopkinson bar results at strain rates of 1,000 s−1.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".