MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801710898 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2015-0047

OPTIMIZATION OF INFLUENTIAL PROCESS PARAMETERS ON THE DEEP DRAWING OF ALUMINIUM 6061 SHEET USING TAGUCHI AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

2015· article· en· W2801710898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Văn Quảng Nguyễn, Balamurugan Ramamurthy, Jau-Wen Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlankTaguchi methodsAluminiumDeep drawingRADIUSMaterials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionFinite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Die (integrated circuit)Composite materialMetallurgyStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The plastic deformation behavior of axis symmetric aluminium 6061 cups was determined by analyzing the four important deep drawing process parameters, namely blank temperature, die edge radius, blank holder force and friction coefficient. Taguchi techniques along with finite element method (FEM) were used to determine the importance of process parameters. The Taguchi method was used to analyze the influence of each process parameter. From the deformation result and analysis of variance (ANOVA), it was determined that the temperature of the blank has a major influence on the deformation characteristic of aluminium 6061 sheets followed by die edge radius, coefficient of friction, and blank holder force. The optimum levels of the four factors in determining the deformed cup heights are found to be blank temperature of 450°C, die edge radius of 14 mm, coefficient of friction of 0.60 and blank holder force of 9 KN.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207