Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Contour Method Data in a High Strength Aluminum Alloy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The contour method for residual stress measurement has seen significant development, but an experimental reproducibility study utilizing physical samples has not been published. Objective A double-blind reproducibly study is reported, having scope beginning with EDM cutting and ending with residual stress calculation. Methods A reinforced I-beam sample geometry is identified for its unique residual stress profile when extracted from residual stress bearing quenched aluminum bar (7050-T74). Contour measurements are prescribed on a midplane of symmetry with dimensions 24.0 mm by 50.0 mm. Fourteen identically prepared samples are fabricated from a single long bar with well characterized and uniform residual stress. Five samples throughout the bar are identified for planning measurements to validate sample uniformity and overall suitability of the residual stress field. The planning measurements employ a range of techniques: contour method, neutron diffraction, and hole-drilling. Eight samples are distributed to an international group of participants to execute their standard measurement practice. A double-blind process is followed to provide anonymity. Results Results are provided by eight participants: six being self-similar and two being quite different, the latter set aside as outliers. An average residual stress field is established from non-outlying results and the spatial distribution of reproducibility standard deviation is determined. The average stress field ranges from -60 to 70 MPa and the reproducibility standard deviation averages 8.1 MPa on the measurement plane. The average reproducibility standard deviation is about 3 × larger for points within 1.0 mm of plane boundaries (17.6 MPa) than for the remaining points (6.1 MPa). Conclusions Reproducibility standard deviation (among different labs) for contour method residual stress measurement is found to be very similar to repeatability standard deviation (in a single lab) reported in prior work. The reproducibility observed here, for the entire measurement process, is also similar to that found in a prior reproducibility study limited to contour method data analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".