Study on the Mechanism of Nugget Growth Behavior in Three Sheets Stack Resistance Spot Welding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study focused on finding a mechanism to achieve good weldability in three sheets spot welding. Two combinations of three sheets (Al-HPF combinations with mild steel / HPF steel / DP steel stacking) and (TRIP combination with mild steel / TRIP780 steel / DP590 steel stacking) were used. Weld quality was evaluated by measuring the button diameter after peel test, and peak load measurement using a tensile shear test. A high speed camera and simulation (SORPAS) were used to investigate the nugget growth mechanism. The Al-HPF combinations showed higher nugget growth rate in the sheet thickness direction, however the TRIP combination showed higher nugget growth rate in the sheet rolling direction. Also, the TRIP combination produced a larger nugget diameter (or higher penetration) in the thin sheet of interface "A" than the Al-HPF combination. The main reason for the larger nugget diameter in the TRIP combination was the higher current density and wider current path resulting from the high indentation on interface "A". The selection of a middle sheet with optimum electro-mechanical properties for the three sheet stack can improve the weldability of three sheets spot welding for car body construction.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".