A Novel Shear Test Procedure for Determination of Constitutive Behavior of Automotive Aluminum Alloy Sheets2This licence is granted on the condition that clear attribution is given to the author(s) and Natural Resources Canada and, when feasible, that the Crown copyright is acknowledged as follows: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2014.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various shear tests have been proposed over decades leading to the publication of the ASTM Standard B831-93 [ASTM B831-93: Standard Test Method for Shear Testing of Thin Aluminum Alloy Products, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011] and its latest revision B831-11 for shear test of aluminum alloy thin sheet materials. However, this standard only measures the shear strength of aluminum sheets. A new shear specimen design has been developed by Kang et al. [Kang, J., Wilkinson, D. S., Wu, P. D., Bruhis, M., Jain, M., Embury, J. D., and Mishra, R., “Constitutive Behavior of AA5754 Sheet Materials at Large Strains,” J. Eng. Mater. Technol., Vol. 130, No. 3, 2008, p. 031004]. We propose using digital image correlation for shear strain measurements, which is impractical for conventional extensometry techniques. A new shear test method is then used to measure both the shear strength and shear stress–shear strain curves up to large strains. 3D finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out for both the standard and new shear specimen designs. The results show that simple shear state is reached within the shear zone. The results also reveal that the out-of-plane shear strain is significantly reduced to 5 % in new shear specimen design compared to that of over 12 % for the standard specimen design. The rotation of the end of the shear zone is, thus, prevented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".