ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluation of Residual Stress in Metal Surface-Strengthened Layers Based on Specimen Deformation After Stripping Partial Substrate.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present work aims to develop a deformation-based method for measuring the residual stress of the strengthened layer. The proposed method determines both the average residual stress in the strengthened layer and the layer's thickness from the change in surface curvature after partial substrate removal. In order to examine the feasibility of the proposed method, the residual stress in the surface-strengthened layers and the layers' thickness of 45 and 16Mn steel specimens subjected to shot-peening are measured using the proposed method and the widely recognized X-ray-electrochemical corrosion stripping method (X-/ECSM). The maximum differences in the residual stress and the thickness between the two methods for the two specimens are 19.7% and 17.6%, respectively. The results of two methods still show acceptable agreement, supporting the feasibility of the proposed method. The newly proposed method offers simpler specimen preparation, better machining accuracy control, and a more streamlined procedure compared to classical methods. However, it is inherently destructive, cannot determine residual stress distribution, and is unsuitable for specimens with complex geometries.
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.