Engineering Procedure for Calculation of Elastic Stress Concentration Factors of Bearing Pad Fretting Flaws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedures to evaluate volumetric bearing pad fretting flaws for crack initiation are in the Canadian Standard N285.8 for in-service evaluation of CANDU® pressure tubes. The crack initiation evaluation procedures use equations for calculating the elastic stress concentration factors. Newly developed engineering procedure for calculation of the elastic stress concentration factor for bearing pad fretting flaws is presented. The procedure is based on adapting a theoretical equation for the elastic stress concentration factor for an elliptical hole to the geometry of a bearing pad fretting flaw, and fitting the equation to the results from elastic finite element stress analyses. Non-dimensional flaw parameters a/w, a/c and a/ρ were used to characterize the elastic stress concentration factor, where w is wall thickness of a pressure tube, a is depth, c is half axial length, and ρ is root radius of the bearing pad fretting flaw. The engineering equations for 3-D round and flat bottom bearing pad fretting flaws were examined by calculation of the elastic stress concentration factor for each case in the matrix of source finite element cases. For the round bottom bearing pad fretting flaw, the fitted equation for the elastic stress concentration factor agrees with the finite element results within ±3.7% over the valid range of flaw geometries. For the flat bottom bearing pad fretting flaw, the fitted equation agrees with the finite element results within ±4.0% over the valid range of flaw geometries. The equations for the elastic stress concentration factor have been verified over the valid range of flaw geometries to ensure accurate results with no anomalous behavior. This included comparison against results from independent finite element calculations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".