A comparative study on the bendability of a dual phase steel: three-point bend versus V-die test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bendability of materials can be assessed using a range of standard tests, which are distinguished by their configuration, especially the presence or absence of a die and the span between the support rollers or die shoulders. However, the effects of the bending configuration on the strain distributions have not been systematically studied. Here, we report on a comparative study of bend tests performed on a dual phase steel using three-point bend and V-die test configurations via both experiments and finite element modelling. The strains at the outer surface of the samples were measured using the digital image correlation technique. It is shown that the deformation and fracture are remarkably different in the two testing setups. The three-point configuration results in higher strain levels due to its shorter span, and the drawing and coining stages in V-die bending cause a sharp increase in the tangential strain and effectively eliminate springback. Higher strains are observed for small punch radii, but the strain evolution slows for large punch radii due to the change in the bending configuration from three- to four-point bending as the material folds over the punch.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".