MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090814675 · doi:10.1115/msec2014-4175

Fatigue Evaluation of 8630 Cast Steel Subjected to Post-Weld Heat Treatment and Stress Relieving

2014· article· en· W2090814675 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Ihab Ragai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsHitachi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFinite element methodWeldingStress (linguistics)Ultimate tensile strengthStructural engineeringGoodman relationMonotonic functionFatigue limitStress concentrationComposite materialFracture mechanicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of post weld heat treating and stress relieving on the fatigue strength of AISI 8630 cast steel, weld repaired with different filler materials, is the primary objective of the study. To determine the material properties, experiments included monotonic tensile tests, load-controlled fatigue tests as well as hardness tests. Moreover, specimens were micro-etched to examine the morphology of the fracture surface. The results of the fatigue tests are presented in the form of S-N charts. The test findings are then employed in a generalized numerical solution to predict the fatigue behavior of similar components. Finite element models are used to calculate stresses in tested samples, stress concentrations, and in fatigue life comparisons. Stress-life predictions were performed using the modified Goodman criterion to account for the mean stress effects caused by the stress ratio R = 0.1 loading. Predictions based off of finite element analysis and analytical solution for fatigue life provided reasonable estimates which are confirmed by the experimental results.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207