MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766699669 · doi:10.1063/1.5008142

Calculation and validation of heat transfer coefficient for warm forming operations

2017· article· en· W2766699669 on OpenAlexafffund
Kaab Omer, C. Butcher, Michael J. Worswick

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsHonda Development and Manufacturing of America
KeywordsFinite element methodHeat transferBlankHeat transfer coefficientTransfer functionDie (integrated circuit)Automotive industryMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceForming processesComputer scienceMechanicsStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to reduce the weight of their products, the automotive industry is exploring various hot forming and warm forming technologies. One critical aspect in these technologies is understanding and quantifying the heat transfer between the blank and the tooling. The purpose of the current study is twofold. First, an experimental procedure to obtain the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) as a function of pressure for the purposes of a metal forming simulation is devised. The experimental approach was used in conjunction with finite element models to obtain HTC values as a function of die pressure. The materials that were characterized were AA5182-O and AA7075-T6. Both the heating operation and warm forming deep draw were modelled using the LS-DYNA commercial finite element code. Temperature-time measurements were obtained from both applications. The results of the finite element model showed that the experimentally derived HTC values were able to predict the temperature-time history to within a 2% of the measured response. It is intended that the HTC values presented herein can be used in warm forming models in order to accurately capture the heat transfer characteristics of the operation.

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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207