MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406560854 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.01.116

Fatigue life prediction of spot-welded joints using a novel indentation technique for precise elastoplastic characterization of weld zones

2025· article· en· W4406560854 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hossein Aliyari, Reza Miresmaeili, Mohammad Azadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMaterials scienceWeldingIndentationCharacterization (materials science)Composite materialSpot weldingMetallurgyStructural engineeringNanotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately predicting the fatigue behavior of spot welds remains challenging due to varying material properties across weld zones. This study investigates the fatigue behavior of spot welds in DC04 steel through experimental testing and finite element modeling (FEM). Four modeling approaches—Solid Element (SE), MPC Beam Element (MBE), Quad RBE3, and Triangular RBE3 Elements (T-RE)—were used to simulate the weld nugget, with material properties of the base metal (BM), heat-affected zone (HAZ), and fusion zone (FZ) characterized using a novel indentation method. Fatigue life predictions were conducted using multiaxial criteria, including Morrow, Brown-Miller-Morrow (BMM), and Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT). Microhardness and microstructural analyses identified a decarburized "pale halo line" at the FZ/HAZ interface, resulting in a notable reduction in hardness. Experimental fatigue tests validated the numerical models, with simulations using SE providing the most accurate predictions of fatigue life and fracture behavior. Among the fatigue criteria, BMM predictions were the most conservative, while Morrow and SWT showed closer agreement at higher stress levels. This research highlights the effectiveness of advanced modeling and material characterization techniques in improving the accuracy of fatigue life predictions for spot welds in the automotive industry.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207