On the re-evaluation of the clamped members stiffness 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
To address the structural integrity of bolted joints and verify their capacity to withstand external loads and relaxation resulting from thermal expansion difference and creep, proper evaluation of the axial stiffnesses of bolt and clamped members are of vital importance. A number of finite element (FE) based methods are available for the calculation of the stiffnesses of joint elements, most of which rely on the displacement of arbitrarily selected nodes that has led to the improper evaluation of joint stiffness values. In this paper, the stiffness of clamped members is evaluated by a simple FE methodology using a known bolt stiffness evaluated separately. Two load cases, one based on the application of external force (mechanical loading) and the other on temperature (thermal loading), are conducted using the FE method to validate the obtained results. The proposed methodology is also compared with other FE models and analytical methods obtained from the literature. The new technique is based on axisymmetric FE modeling and is applied to bolted joints with bolts ranging from M6 to M36 having various grip lengths. Finally, the stiffnesses of the bolt and clamped members can be determined accurately, and a general formula is proposed to evaluate the stiffness of clamped members.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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