MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046576053 · doi:10.1243/0954405042418419

Three-dimensional elastoplastic finite element model for residual stresses in the shot peening process

2004· article· en· W2046576053 on OpenAlexaff
M.S. ElTobgy, Nalini Singhal, M.A. Elbestawi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Treatment and Residual Stress
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShot peeningResidual stressMaterials sciencePeeningFinite element methodShot (pellet)Structural engineeringWork hardeningMechanicsComposite materialMetallurgyEngineeringPhysicsMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fatigue life of mechanical components subjected to variable loading conditions is a crucial parameter in the design of automotive and aerospace mechanical components. The fatigue strength of the component can be improved by inducing compressive residual stress in the surface and subsurface layers by the shot peening process. This increases the failure strain magnitude for crack nucleation and propagation. Extensive experimental results have been published on the effect of shot peening process parameters on residual stress distributions and subsequently on fatigue performance. Numerical simulation of residual stres induced by the shot peening process is important for understanding and optimization of the process in terms of the residual stress profile and maximum shot coverage in the shortest time. In this paper, an elastoplastic finite element (FE) model will be presented to simulate the shot peening process in three-dimensional configuration. The FE model takes into account numerical and material damping, thermal elastic—plastic material behaviour, a rigid or deformable body for the shot and the effects of multiple shot impacts. The workpiece material modelled was AISI 4340 steel at HRC 52 ± 2. The effects of strain hardening, strain rate and temperature were considered in the non-linear material model. Results show that the predicted residual stress profile agreed well with that acquired from published experimental results provided the shot was modelled as a deformable body and material damping was considered.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering ManufactureSame topicSurface Treatment and Residual StressFrench-language works237,207