Compatibility of Rupp’s Structural Stress Method for Fatigue Life Prediction of Self-Piercing Rivets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Self-Piercing Rivet (SPR) is an effective method for joining aluminum sheets and dissimilar materials. The durability assessment of SPR joints is essential for the optimum design of the automotive body-in-white structure. Fatigue analysis is required for any structural system subject to cyclic loading where durability assessment is required. While there is no established fatigue life prediction model for SPR joints, Rupp’s model is a well-established fatigue life prediction method intended for resistance spot welds. Rupp’s model has been the automotive industry’s choice for fatigue life estimation due to its computational efficiency and ability to capture various loading conditions. The purpose of this study is to investigate the compatibility of Rupp’s model with SPR joints. Load-control fatigue testing was conducted on cross-tension SPR joints of aluminum sheets (Al 6016) with dissimilar thicknesses and SPR joints of dissimilar materials (Al 6016 to DX54D steel). Fatigue tests were performed under normal tension, shear, and combined (multiaxial) load cases using a fixture that was developed in-house. Simple finite element (FE) models were generated for the various cross-tension specimens tested in this study, where the sheets and SPR joints were modeled using shell and beam elements, respectively. Components of force and bending moment at the SPR joint were extracted from the FE model. Structural stress values were calculated using Rupp’s equations and the existing set of coefficients that have been obtained for spot welds of aluminum sheets. A new set of coefficients for Rupp's model were extracted for the SPR joints through statistical analysis and the compatibility of Rupp’s model with SPR joints was discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".