Review and Assessment of Multiaxial Fatigue Limit Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparison of multiaxial fatigue limit models and their correlation to experimental data. This paper investigates equivalent stress, critical plane and invariant-based multiaxial fatigue models. Several methods are investigated and compared based on ability to predict multiaxial fatigue limits from data published in literature. The equivalent stress based model developed by Lee, Tjhung and Jordan (LTJ), provides very accurate predictions of the fatigue limit under multiaxial loading due to its ability to account for non-proportional loading. This accuracy comes from the model constant which is calculated based on multiaxial fatigue data. This is the only model investigated that requires multiaxial fatigue testing to generate the model parameters. All other models rely on uniaxial test results. Of the five stress-based critical plane approaches investigated, the model proposed by Susmel and Lazzarin shows the greatest correlation with the multiaxial fatigue limit data. Overall, the invariant-based prismatic hull method has the best agreement with the data found in literature. Additionally, a new critical plane model has been proposed. This new model provides predictions nearly identical to the prismatic hull method. However, the prismatic hull method has the advantage of being less computationally intense compared to critical plane methods.</div></div>
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".