ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Cavitation Erosion Prevention Using Laser Shock Peening: Development of a Predictive Evaluation System.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Marine flow-passing components are susceptible to cavitation erosion (CE), and researchers have worked to find ways to reduce its effects. Laser Shock Peening (LSP), a material strengthening method, has been widely used in aerospace and other cutting-edge fields. In recent years, LSP has been used in cavitation resistance research. However, the current LSP research does not realize a comprehensive predictive assessment of the material's CE resistance. This paper uses m stresses to develop a comprehensive set of strengthening effect prediction models from LSP to CE using finite element analysis (FEA). Results show that the LSP-1 sample (4 mm spot, 10 J energy) introduced a compressive residual stress value of 37.4 MPa, better than that of 16.6 MPa with the LSP-2 sample (6 mm spot, 10 J energy), which is generally consistent with the experimental findings; the model predicts a 16.35% improvement in the resistance of LSP-1 sample to water jet damage, which is comparable to the experimental result of 14.02%; additionally, interactions between micro-jets do not predominate the cavitation erosion process and the final CE effect of the material is mainly due to the accumulation of jet-material interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.