Finite Element Analysis and Test of a Sharp Radius on the Shank of a Ring Locked Stud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an expansion on a prior paper in which the authors detailed an analytical approach to determining the effect of a sharp radius on the fatigue life of a ring locked stud. Fatigue testing of several studs has since been completed and the test results are compared with analytical predictions. Using the stresses determined by a validated finite element (FE) model, three methods of life calculation, stress life, strain life, and the theory of critical distances (TCD) point method, are evaluated in light of the test results. The stress life method is found to be inapplicable since there is no reliable Kf data for the high Kt levels in question. Strain life results are conservative relative to the test. The TCD may provide more accurate life results without the conservatism of strain life, but current test results do not support its use. The idea that small non-propagating cracks may exist at the sharp radius, below some threshold of alternating stress, is also discussed. In addition, the test program revealed that the installation depth of studs can potentially affect their fatigue strength.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".