Material Model Selection for Crankshaft Deep Rolling Process Numerical Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Residual stress prediction arising from manufacturing processes provides paramount information for the fatigue performance assessment of components subjected to cyclic loading. The determination of the material model to be applied in the numerical model should be taken carefully. This study focuses on the estimation of residual stresses generated after deep rolling of cast iron crankshafts. The researched literature on the field employs the available commercial material codes without closer consideration on their reverse loading capacities. To mitigate this gap, a single element model was used to compare potential material models with tensile-compression experiments. The best fit model was then applied to a previously developed crankshaft deep rolling numerical model. In order to confront the simulation outcomes, residual stresses were measured in two directions on real crankshaft specimens that passed through the same modeled deep rolling process. Electrolytic polishing was used to etch the region of interest and enable in-depth residual stress analysis through X-ray diffraction method. The comparison revealed the model’s ability to follow the residual stress state tendency, predicting compressive stresses at the surface, a subsurface peak and eventual transition to the tractive state. Magnitude discrepancies were discussed and hypotheses related to the specimen preparation procedure were raised. Overall, the activities described in this study yielded in a model confidence increase, which further enables its usage into the crankshaft design stage.</div></div>
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".