MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404350719 · doi:10.1115/pvp2024-121324

Analytical Modeling of Autofrettaged Cylinders With Consideration to Bauschinger Effect and Reduced Elastic Modulus

2024· article· en· W4404350719 on OpenAlexaff
Abdel‐Hakim Bouzid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Failure Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBauschinger effectMaterials scienceModulusElastic modulusAutofrettageComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The accurate prediction of residual stresses in autofrettaged thick cylinders is an absolute precondition for a successful design that avoids failure and predicts the fatigue life of these plastically deformed structures. The strain hardening material models during initial plastic loading and stress reversals play a major role in evaluating the residual stresses. In addition, the consideration of Bauschinger effect and the reduced elastic modulus are key parameters in the accurate prediction of the stresses specifically near the cylinder bore. A new analytical model that considers the accurate material constitutive model defined by the material characterization conducted by Troiano and al. [1] is developed. The true strain-hardening material behavior during the initial pressure loading and subsequent stress reversals that includes Bauschinger effect and the material possible softening due to the reduced elastic modulus are taken into consideration by the developed model. The analysis is based on the Henckey deformation theory and uses the Von Mises yield criteria. The radial, hoop, longitudinal and equivalent stress results from the analytical model are compared to the ones obtained from the numerical Finite Element Method (FEM) used in conjunction with user-defined material models that includes gun material such as A723-1160, HY180 and PH 13-8Mo. The good agreement obtained shows the robustness of the developed model.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaterial Properties and Failure MechanismsFrench-language works237,207