Application of Multiaxial Fatigue Analysis Methodologies for the Improvement of the Life Prediction of Landing Gear Fuse Pins
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
Fuse pins are used in landing gear designs to attach the landing gear to the airframe and are designed to allow for a controlled separation of the landing gear from the aircraft structure in the event of a crash. Traditional uniaxial fatigue analysis methods have been found to be insufficient for properly predicting the fatigue life of the fuse pins; often significantly over-predicting or under-predicting the fatigue life. To improve the life prediction of these pins, multiaxial fatigue analysis methods were selected and implemented into a custom fatigue analysis program. The analysis procedure includes the constitutive modeling of the elastic-plastic material, the notch correction methods, cycle counting method and the fatigue damage criteria. The results of predictions made using the multiaxial fatigue methods for three fuse pin designs were compared to data from fatigue tests of three different landing gear assemblies. It was found that the performance of the constitutive model used for predicting the elastic and plastic stresses and strains, and the choice of fatigue damage criterion had the most effect on the final predicted fatigue life.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it