MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411616778 · doi:10.1177/14644207251340061

A novel phenomenological material model and calibration for high temperature material behaviour of AA5083

2025· article· en· W4411616778 on OpenAlexafffund
Zackary Fuerth, D.E. Green, William Altenhof

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part L Journal of Materials Design and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPhenomenological modelMaterials scienceCalibrationComposite materialPhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the constant prioritization for vehicle lightweighting, high temperature forming processes are increasing in demand due to their capability to produce large and complex parts in a single forming operation. Superplastic forming is utilized to form such parts, but this process typically requires long forming times. To remedy this, an increasing number of processes are being developed which utilize a higher and more variable strain rate history during the forming process. As a result, there is a growing need to develop material models capable of simulating high-temperature forming processes characterized by variable strain rates and different deformation mechanisms acting at different strain rates. This study proposes the utilization of physical based modelling concepts to construct a simple, phenomenological model that is easy to use within industry. Consequently, tensile tests were conducted on aluminum alloy AA5083 at temperatures of 400°C, 450°C and 500°C, at strain rates ranging from 0.0005 s −1 to 0.15 s −1 . Additionally, an iterative model parameter calibration procedure is proposed, verified, and validated with LS-DYNA finite element simulations to achieve accurate predictions of material behaviour all the way up to the onset of localized necking. The generated material model(s) yielded validation metrics greater than 96% for the investigated data sets. The accuracy of the model was further assessed using tensile testing data with changing strain rates, yielding validation metrics on average greater than 90%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part L Journal of Materials Design and ApplicationsSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207