Effect of Edge Finish on Fatigue Behavior of Thin Non-oriented Electrical Steel Sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strict environmental regulations are driving the automotive industry toward electric vehicles as they offer zero emissions. A key component in electric vehicles is the electric motor, where the stator and rotor are manufactured from stacks of thin electrical steel sheets. The electrical steel sheets can be cut in different ways, and the cutting methods may significantly affect the fatigue strength of the component. It is important to understand the effect of the cutting processes on the fatigue properties of electrical steel to ensure there is no premature failure of the electric motor resulting from an improper cutting process. This investigation compared the effect of three different edge preparation methods (stamping, CNC machining, and waterjet cutting) on the fatigue performance of 0.27mm thick electrical steel sheets. To investigate the effect of the edge finish on fatigue behavior, surface roughness was measured for these different samples. It was determined that the CNC machined samples had the lowest overall roughness over the cut edge, followed by the stamped samples, and the waterjet samples with the worst finish. The fatigue life followed a similar trend where CNC machined samples had the longest life, and the waterjet samples had the lowest life under the same stress amplitude. While the CNC samples had the greatest overall life, the stamped samples could withstand the largest alternating stress out of the three cutting processes because of the residual stresses induced by the stamping process. Additionally, the stamped samples had very close life to the CNC machines samples in the high cycle regime. An investigation was carried out to determine the relationship between surface roughness and residual stress to the fatigue life of the electrical steel.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".