Development and validation of an advanced material model for high-temperature blow forming of AA5083 parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High-temperature blow forming processes are increasingly used in industry due to their ability to produce near-net-shape, lightweight components in a single forming operation. To accurately identify the forming limits in high-temperature blow forming and two-stage forming processes, a new phenomenological material model is proposed to model the viscous, hardening and softening behaviour associated with creep deformation. The model is developed based on tensile tests conducted on AA5083 at 450°C across five strain rates ranging from 0.001 to 0.3 s‐1. The material constants for the model are selected and further calibrated through iterative finite element analysis. Validation of the model, implemented via an LS-DYNA user subroutine, achieved a validation metric greater than 96% in predicting the force/displacement tensile behaviour even up to localized necking. Furthermore, blow-forming trials of a benchmark part confirmed the model’s predictive accuracy for sheet thinning, with errors within 5%. This approach provides a reliable numerical framework for optimizing high-temperature forming processes and advancing lightweight manufacturing technologies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".