MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307638867 · doi:10.1115/1.4056072

Determination of Optimal Shot Peen Forming Patterns Using the Theory of Non-Euclidean Plates

2022· article· en· W4307638867 on OpenAlexafffund
Vladislav Sushitskii, Wim M. van Rees, Martin Lévesque, Frédérick P. Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Surface Polishing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCurvatureShot (pellet)PeeningShot peeningBendingProcess (computing)Structural engineeringOperator (biology)Computer scienceAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsGeometryPhysicsOpticsMaterials scienceLaserResidual stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show how a theoretical framework developed for modeling nonuniform growth can model the shot peen forming process. Shot peen forming consists in bombarding a metal panel with multiple millimeter-sized shots that induce local bending of the panel. When applied to different areas of the panel, peen forming generates compound curvature profiles starting from a flat state. We present a theoretical approach and its practical realization for simulating peen forming numerically. To achieve this, we represent the panel undergoing peen forming as a bilayer plate, and we apply a geometry-based theory of non-Euclidean plates to describe its reconfiguration. Our programming code based on this approach solves two types of problems: it simulates the effect of a predefined treatment (the forward problem) and it finds the optimal treatment to achieve a predefined target shape (the inverse problem). Both problems admit using multiple peening regimes simultaneously. The algorithm was tested numerically on 200 randomly generated test cases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Surface Polishing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207