MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229579772 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2013-0023

AN ADAPTIVE-NETWORK-BASED FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING SPRINGBACK OF U-BENDING

2013· article· en· W4229579772 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bor‐Tsuen Lin, Kun-Min Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBendingAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemStructural engineeringRADIUSSheet metalBend radiusGaussianFuzzy logicEngineeringComputer scienceFuzzy control systemArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Springback will occur when the external force is removed after bending process in sheet metal forming. This paper proposed an adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model for prediction the springback angle of the SPCC material after U-bending. Three parameters were selected as the main factors of affecting the springback after bending, including the die clearance, the punch radius, and the die radius. The training data were obtained from results of U-bending experiment. The training data with four different membership functions – triangular, trapezoidal, bell, and Gaussian functions – were employed in the ANFIS to construct a predictive model for the springback of the U-bending. After the comparison of the predicted value with the checking data, the results show that the triangular membership function has the best accuracy, which make it the best function to predict the springback angle of sheet metals after U-bending.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207