Modeling and optimization of a hot forming process for friction stir-welded tailored blanks with an industrially suitable number of test specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hot forming of friction-stir-welded tailored blanks (FSW-TWBs) in industrial ramp-up poses unique challenges: a high number of coupled joining and forming parameters, stochastic trial-and-error data, and strict requirements on crack prevention and dimensional tolerances. Unlike conventional studies that rely on designed experiments or focus on weld behavior in isolation, this work introduces a coupled process analysis (CPA)–based workflow that directly mines routinely collected ramp-up data to derive multivariate, predictive process models. We demonstrate its application to an automotive B-pillar TWB, building separate models for weld-seam crack probability and part geometry accuracy. Without a formal design of experiment, CPA automatically filters out irrelevant inputs, resolves multicollinearities, and provides robust cause–effect relationships. The resulting surrogate models support in-silico optimization, delivering crack-free components within tight forming tolerances and dramatically reducing additional experimental effort. The findings establish a practical route toward data-driven process control in early production phases and lay the groundwork for future integration of CPA models into closed-loop manufacturing systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".