A Constitutive Model Fitting Methodology for Ductile Metals Using Cold Upsetting Tests and Numeric Optimization Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work documents the development of a tool to perform automated parameter fitting of constitutive material models. Specific to this work is the fitting of a Swift hardening rule and isotropic linear plasticity model to aluminum 2024-T351, C36000 brass, and C10100 copper. Material characterization was conducted through the use of compressive, cold upsetting tests. A noncontact, optical displacement measurement system was applied to measure the axial and radial deformation of the test specimens. Nonlinear optimization techniques were then applied to tune a finite element model to match experimental results through the optimization of material model parameters as well as frictional coefficient. The result is a system, which can determine constitutive model parameters rapidly and without user interaction. While this tool provided material parameters for each material and model tested, the quality of the fit varied depending on how appropriate the constitutive model was to the material's actual plastic behavior. Aluminum's behavior proved to be an excellent match to the Swift hardening rule while the behavior of brass and copper was described better by the linear plasticity model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it