MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Simple Shear Test Geometries for Constitutive Characterization using Virtual Experiments

2021· article· en· W3175989308 on OpenAlexaff
Advaith Narayanan, A. Abedini, A Weinschenk, Michael J. Worswick, C. Butcher

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceHardening (computing)Direct shear testIsotropyShear (geology)Finite element methodSimple shearStructural engineeringComposite materialConstitutive equationDigital image correlationUltimate tensile strengthPlane stressTensile testingMechanicsEngineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In-plane simple shear tests have become commonplace in the fracture characterization of automotive sheet metals but have received less attention for constitutive characterization. Unlike tensile tests, simple shear tests do not have any tensile instability and remain in a state of plane stress until fracture. From plastic work equivalence, an isotropic hardening model can be readily constructed from the tensile and shear test data without inverse finite-element analysis. The success of the methodology hinges upon the shear specimen geometry and how the local strains in the gage region are measured using digital image correlation (DIC). In this study, finite-element simulations of seven shear test geometries were evaluated for an isotropic material in a series of virtual experiments by varying the input hardening response. The data from the simulations was extracted from the surface as if DIC was employed and used to determine the hardening behavior in comparison with the exact solution. Shear geometries without a notch eccentricity in the gage region appear to be best suited for characterizing low hardening materials with an error of less than 1% in the stress response for an n-value of 0.02. Conversely, for higher hardening materials corresponding to an n-value of 0.20 or greater, the geometries with a notch eccentricity performed best.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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