Comparative assessment of Ti‐6Al‐4 V titanium alloy fatigue life improvement by vibratory peening, shot peening, and vibratory finishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of vibratory peening (VP), shot peening (SP), and SP followed by vibratory finishing (SPVF) on the surface and fatigue properties of Ti‐6Al‐4 V were compared to conventional low‐stress grinding (LSG). VP processing produced seven times smoother surface finish than SP and 66% deeper compressive residual stresses (CRS) but with 12% lower magnitudes. SPVF produced optimal surface properties with a perfectly flat surface and CRS‐like SP. All three mechanical surface treatments generated similar fatigue life improvements (108–122%) over LSG when the cyclic stress was below the yield stress. Above the yield stress, most of the CRS relaxed during the first cycle in VP specimens, resulting in up to 97% fatigue life improvement over LSG. The CRS relaxed more gradually in SP specimens leading to larger (up to 239%) fatigue life improvement. This shows the need to amplify CRS magnitudes produced in VP to maximize fatigue life improvement.
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".