Accurate Evaluation of Bolt and Clamped Members Stiffnesses Of Bolted Joints
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The axial stiffnesses of the bolt and clamped members of bolted joints are of great importance when considering their integrity and capacity to withstand external loads and resist relaxation due to creep. There are many techniques to calculate the stiffnesses of the joint elements using finite element (FE) modeling, but most of them are based on the displacement of nodes that are selected arbitrarily; therefore, leading to inaccurate values of joint stiffness. This work suggests a new method to estimate the stiffnesses of the bolt and clamped members using FE analysis and compares the results with the FE methods developed earlier and also with the existing analytical models. A new methodology including an axisymmetric finite element model of the bolted joint is proposed in which the bolts of different sizes ranging from M6 to M36 are considered for the analysis to generalize the proposed approach. The equivalent bolt length that includes the contribution of the thickness of the bolt head and the bolt nominal diameter to the bolt stiffness is carefully investigated. An equivalent bolt length that accounts for the flexibility of the bolt head is proposed in the calculation of the bolt stiffness and a new technique to accurately determine the stiffness of clamped members are detailed.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it