Numerical Modelling and Mechanical Characterization of Pure Aluminium 1050 Wire Drawing for Symmetric and Axisymmetric Plane Deformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This present paper focused on the numerical modelling and simulation of the influence of friction and drawing tension while validating it with experimental results for both symmetric and axisymmetric plane deformations in stranded and unstranded wire drawing of pure aluminium. It must be noted that several methods have been deployed in recent years such as empirical, numerical, mathematical, analytical, as well as experimental in analyzing and optimizing forces and stresses in wire drawing and there are no definite solutions yet in solving the numerical complexities involved as a result of enormous number of factors during the wire drawing operation. On this note, modelling and simulation with different cases had been established. In this study, 9.50 mm was drawn into different diameters having 4.4 mm as entry and 1.7 mm as exit with intermediate sizes. It was established in the study that half conical angle must be kept as moderate as possible, it must not be too high or too low. An increase in reduction ratio (deformation) leads to an increase in tensile strength and that the tensile strength of material during wire during increases with an increase in the frictional coefficient. The fractographical examination revealed that unstranded aluminium drawn wire is more ductile due to the presence of a large network of dimples which are bimodal and equiaxed dominated by a cup and cone structures and this can be attributed to the ductile failure mode. Whereas the stranded aluminium-drawn wire possessed low ductility as revealed in fractography due to the presence of “Rock Candy fracture”.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".