MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A numerical method to predict the rate-sensitive hardening behaviour of sheet materials using uniaxial and biaxial flow curves

2018· article· en· W2893472356 on OpenAlexafffund
Iman Sari Sarraf, Daniel E. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcelorMittal
KeywordsFormabilityStrain hardening exponentMaterials scienceHardening (computing)Strain rateFlow stressUniaxial tensionComposite materialMechanicsTension (geology)Structural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of advanced high strength steel (AHSS) is increasing in the automotive industry due to their remarkable strength-to-weight ratio and formability. In recent years, there has been a keen interest to employ high-energy rate forming processes such as electromagnetic and electrohydraulic forming because they can significantly improve the formability of these materials. However, simulating these forming processes requires reliable hardening functions that can accurately predict their flow behaviour in a wide range of strains and strain rates. One of the limitations of uniaxial tension tests is that the maximum uniform strain is not sufficient to calibrate a hardening function at high strain levels. In this work, a new numerical method is proposed to generate the extended flow curves of DP600 and TRIP780 from uniaxial tension data obtained at strain rates ranging from 0.001s−1 to 1000s−1 and from balanced biaxial tension data obtained under quasi-static conditions. Then, a 7-parameter strain-rate dependent Voce hardening function, which accounts for stage IV hardening, was fitted to the true stress-strain curves thus generated. Finally, statistical analysis was used to evaluate the goodness of the fit of predicted 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 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)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207