MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893645936 · doi:10.1115/omae2018-77401

Simplified FEA Models in the Analysis of the Redistribution of Beneficial Compressive Stresses in Welds During Cyclic Loading

2018· article· en· W2893645936 on OpenAlexaff
B. L. Josefson, Jakob Alm, J. M. J. McDill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Effects on Materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingMaterials scienceResidual stressFinite element methodUltimate tensile strengthCompressive strengthStructural engineeringStress (linguistics)Joint (building)Composite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fatigue life of welded joints can be improved by modifying the weld toe geometry or by inducing beneficial compressive residual stresses in the weld. However, in the second case, the induced compressive residual stresses may relax when the welded joint is subjected to cyclic loading containing high tensile or compressive stress peaks. The stability of induced compressive stresses is investigated for a longitudinal gusset made of a S355 steel. Two methods are considered; either carrying out a high frequency mechanical impact (HFMI) treatment after welding or alternatively using low transformation temperature (LTT) electrodes during welding. The specimen is then subjected to a cyclic loading case with one cycle with a tensile peak (with magnitude reaching the local yield stress level) followed by cycles with constant amplitude. A sequential finite element analysis (FEA) is performed thereby preserving the history of the elasto-plastic behavior. Both the welding process and the HFMI treatment are simulated using simplified approaches, i.e., the welding process is simulated by applying a simplified thermal cycle while the HFMI treatment is simulated by a quasi-static contact analysis. It is shown that using the simplified approaches to modelling both the welding process and HFMI treatment gives results that correlate qualitatively well with the experimental and FEA data available in the literature. Thus, for comparison purposes, simplified models may be sufficient. Both the use of the HFMI treatment and LTT electrodes give approximately the same compressive stress at the weld toe but the extent of the compressive stress zone is deeper for HFMI case. During cyclic loading it is shown that the beneficial effect of both methods will be substantially reduced if the test specimen is subjected to unexpected peak loads. For the chosen load sequence, with the same maximum local stress at the weld toe, the differences in stress curves of the HFMI-treated specimen and that with LTT electrodes remain. While the LTT electrode gives the lowest (compressive) stress right at the well toe, it is shown that the overall effect of the HFMI treatment is more beneficial.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Effects on MaterialsFrench-language works237,207