MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development and validation of an advanced material model for high-temperature blow forming of AA5083 parts

2025· article· en· W4414331182 on OpenAlexaff
Zackary Fuerth, Mohammad Shirinzadeh Dastgiri, Leo Kiawi, William Altenhof, D.E. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodSheet metalForming processesUltimate tensile strengthHardening (computing)Benchmark (surveying)CreepModel validationSoftening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicMetal Forming Simulation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207