Numerical Simulation of Ti/Al Bimetal Composite Fabricated by Explosive Welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a 2D numerical model that is more physically realistic was established to simulate the complete process of Ti/Al explosive welding. Basing on the ANSYS/AUTODYN software package, the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) were used for running this simulation. The numerical model can capture the typical physics in the explosive welding process, including the expansion of explosives, flyer plate bending, the impact of metal plates, jetting, and the wavy interface. The variable physical parameters during the explosive welding process were discussed. Most parts of the jet originated from the aluminum plate. According to the model, the jet velocity reached 7402 m/s. The pressure at the detonation point was too small to make the two plates to bond. The pressure could reach an order of magnitude of 107 kPa when the detonation energy tended to be stable and was far more than the yield strength of both materials, which resulted in an obvious narrow region of plastic strain emerging close to the collision zone. The signs of shear stresses between the two plates were the opposite. The interface morphology changed from straight to wave along the propagation of the detonation wave in the simulation, which was consistent with the 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".