Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Towards Precision in Bolted Joint Design: A Preliminary Machine Learning-Based Parameter Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A feed-forward neural network trained on 34 experimental runs predicts bolted-joint load capacity and friction coefficients to 95.24% accuracy.

desk verdict The 95.24% accuracy is not a predictive result: the output targets are derived from the input features, so the network is fitting known relations rather than learning joint behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08286 v1 pith:FZBMPPY4 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.LG cs.NE

Ines Boujnah , Nehal Afifi , Andreas Wettstein , Sven Matthiesen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.NE
keywords BoltedJointsData-DrivenDesignPredictiveModelingNeuralNetworkArtificialIntelligenceFeed-ForwardFrictionCoefficientLoadCapacity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that a small feed-forward neural network can serve as a fast, accurate substitute for slow analytical or finite-element work in bolted-joint design. Trained on 34 experimental records of M6 and M10 bolted joints, the network takes bolt size, strength grade, tightening torque, head torque, thread torque, and preload force as inputs and predicts remaining load capacity plus head and thread friction coefficients. The authors report 95.24% predictive accuracy, where a prediction counts as correct if it deviates by no more than 5% from the target; load capacity and thread friction reached 100% on the test split and head friction 85.71%. The result matters because, if it holds, routine friction and load-capacity checks could be done in seconds without advanced mechanical expertise. The authors themselves caution that the tiny dataset limits generalizability, framing the work as a preliminary demonstration.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is a fully connected feed-forward neural network with six input nodes (bolt size, strength grade, tightening torque, head torque, thread torque, preload force), two hidden layers, and three output nodes (load capacity, head friction coefficient, thread friction coefficient). Training uses stochastic gradient descent at learning rate 0.01 with Huber loss and batch size 4; activation and initialization vary across the four reported models, with the best model using sigmoid activation, Xavier initialization, normalization, 34 samples, and preload/load measured in kN/MN. The load-bearing preprocessing step is rescaling load capacity to MN so that output scales are comparable, which the discussion credits with reducing noise in the loss and stabilising training. Accuracy is scored as the fraction of test predictions within 5% of the target, yielding the headline 95.24% figure.

What would settle it

The decisive check is whether a much simpler model, such as linear regression on the same six inputs and the same 34 records, matches the 95% accuracy on the same holdout; if it does, the neural network offers no evidence of learning beyond the estimation formula used to create the targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a supervised feed-forward neural network with two hidden layers, trained on empirical tightening data, captures the nonlinear relationship between tightening variables and functional behaviour of bolted joints well enough to predict the remaining load capacity and the head and thread friction coefficients simultaneously to 95.24% accuracy. The decisive configuration detail is that rescaling load capacity to meganewtons, so that its numerical range matches the friction coefficients, was what stabilised training: with the raw newton scale the loss was dominated by load capacity. The network's accuracy is defined relative to a 5% tolerance band, and the test-set breakdown is 100% accuracy for load capacity and thread friction and 85.71% for head friction, with one head-friction point deviating. The paper presents this as evidence that data-driven prediction can complement or replace idealized analytical assumptions and computationally heavy numerical models for the tested configurations, while explicitly limiting the claim to this dataset and loading condition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the load capacity and friction coefficients used as training targets are independent, reliable values; if those targets are merely recomputed from the same torque and preload inputs by a known estimation rule, the reported 95.24% accuracy mostly reflects formula inversion rather than predictive skill for new joint designs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the tested M6 and M10 configurations, a trained network produces load capacity and both friction coefficients in about 90 seconds, making interactive design iteration feasible.
  • Under the paper's scoring rule, a prediction is correct only if it falls within 5% of the target; on the test split, load capacity and thread friction hit 100% and head friction 85.71%.
  • The rescaling of load capacity to MN was the preprocessing change that stabilised training, so similar unit alignment should be used when extending the method to outputs with mixed scales.
  • Expanding the dataset to more bolt sizes, strength grades, and load cases is the stated precondition for interpreting 95.24% as a general capability rather than a configuration-specific result.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test whether a simpler baseline, such as linear regression on the same six inputs, achieves comparable accuracy on the same holdout; because the targets were empirically estimated from the torque and preload time series, such a test would show whether the network is learning new physics or an estimation formula.
  • With 34 samples and a 20% holdout, the test set contains roughly seven points, so a single head-friction outlier is the difference between 100% and 85.71% on that output; resampling the train/test split would likely move the headline accuracy by several points.
  • A natural extension the authors do not run is pretraining the same architecture on synthetic data from the VDI 2230 calculation rules and fine-tuning on the experimental records; improved out-of-configuration accuracy would support hybrid modeling more strongly than the current experiment.
  • The usability claim that the model can be operated without mechanical expertise could be checked by an independent design study in which engineers unfamiliar with the test rig size bolts using the tool; accuracy alone does not establish usability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a feed-forward neural network that takes bolt size, strength grade, tightening torque, head torque, thread torque, and preload force as inputs and predicts three outputs: remaining load capacity and head and thread friction coefficients. The data consist of 34 samples from M6 and M10 8.8 bolted joints, split 80/20 into training and test sets. After experimenting with 136 models, the authors report that their best model (Model 4) reaches 95.24% test accuracy, defined as predictions within 5% of target values. The paper emphasizes the integration of empirical data with ML and acknowledges that the small dataset limits generalizability.

Significance. If the reported accuracy reflected true predictive skill on independently measured targets, the contribution would be a useful engineering convenience: a fast surrogate for derived bolted-joint parameters. The paper is transparent about its architecture, hyperparameters, training pseudocode, and limitations, which is commendable. However, the central claim is not supported by the evidence as presented: the target values are estimated from the same measured quantities that are used as input features, the test set is tiny and drawn from configurations represented in training, and hyperparameters were tuned against test accuracy. The paper therefore demonstrates curve fitting of a nearly deterministic transformation rather than predictive skill for unseen joint designs.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The output targets are not independent measurements. Section 3.1 states that 'From these values, the friction coefficients of the head and threads and the remaining load capacity were further empirically estimated,' where 'these values' are the measured preload force, tightening torque, head torque, and thread torque—exactly the quantities that, together with bolt size and strength grade, form the six input features listed in Sections 1.2 and 3.1. Under standard bolted-joint mechanics (Section 1.1), friction coefficients are derived from torque-preload ratios and geometry, and remaining load capacity is computed from the same measured preload and geometry. The mapping from inputs to targets is therefore nearly deterministic, and the network's high accuracy largely reflects reproducing the estimation equations. To support the 'predictive' claim, the authors should report the exact estimation formulas, quantify the uncertainty of the estimated targets, and validate against independent measurements (e.g., direct friction tests) or at least demonstrate that the outputs are not algebraic functions of the inputs.
  2. [Section 3.3] Hyperparameters were tuned using the test set, so the reported 95.24% accuracy is an in-sample selection result. Section 3.3 states that 'The evaluation and hyperparameter tuning process involved analyzing the accuracy and loss curves from training, as well as the error metrics and accuracy curves from testing, to assess the model's alignment with the data' and that 'Hyperparameters were iteratively adjusted until satisfactory accuracy was achieved.' This means the test set was not held out; it was used for model selection. The reported accuracy cannot be taken as an unbiased estimate of generalization. The authors should use nested cross-validation or an untouched test set for the final evaluation.
  3. [Section 4 / Table 3] The test set is far too small to support the central generalization claim. A 20% split of 34 samples yields roughly 7 test samples, all drawn from the same M6/M10 configurations and preload levels present in training. The overall 95.24% figure corresponds to 20 of 21 individual output values being within the 5% threshold, and the head friction coefficient accuracy is 85.71%, i.e., 6 of 7 values. No confidence intervals, per-output error bars, or per-configuration breakdowns are provided. This sample size cannot justify the assertion that the model 'effectively captures nonlinear relationships' across different bolt configurations. The authors should report per-output MAE/RMSE with bootstrap confidence intervals and explicitly separate interpolation from extrapolation performance.
  4. [Section 4] The accuracy metric is not sufficiently defined or justified. The authors state that 'Predictions were deemed accurate if they deviated by no more than 5% from the target values,' but it is not specified how the three outputs are aggregated—whether each output value is counted separately (which the 20/21 arithmetic implies) or whether each test sample must have all three outputs within tolerance. The 5% threshold is arbitrary, and a threshold-based accuracy on a single small test set is not a complete performance characterization. The authors should report continuous error metrics per output and include the uncertainty in the target values themselves.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The phrase 'rule-based formulations of bolt behavior like VDI VDI 2230' contains a duplicated 'VDI'; the reference should also be disambiguated (VDI 2230 Part 1, 2, or 3).
  2. [Abstract / Section 1] The claim that the model 'effectively captures nonlinear relationships' is not supported by any comparison to linear regression, an analytical baseline, or a physics-based formula; adding such a baseline would help calibrate what the neural network actually adds.
  3. [Section 3.1] No equations are given for the 'empirically estimated' friction coefficients and remaining load capacity; the authors should either provide the formulas or cite specific equations from Wettstein and Matthiesen (2020) and VDI 2230 so that the target construction is reproducible.
  4. [General] The manuscript does not state whether the code, data, or trained model weights are publicly available, which prevents an independent check of the reported 95.24% accuracy.
  5. [Figure 2 / Table 2] The architecture figure does not show activation functions, bias initialization, or scaling layers, and Table 2 does not specify how normalization parameters were applied to the output for Model 4; providing this information would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The reported 95.24% predictive accuracy is largely circular: the target friction coefficients and load capacity were themselves 'further empirically estimated' from the same torque and preload measurements that constitute the model's input features, so the network is learning to reproduce its own labels rather than predicting independently measured quantities.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Data Description and Feature Selection)]
    "the selected input parameters are bolt size, strength grade, preload force, tightening torque, head torque, and thread torque, while the output parameters are those influencing the functional behavior of the bolted joint, specifically load capacity and head and thread friction coefficients. ... From these values, the friction coefficients of the head and threads and the remaining load capacity were further empirically estimated."

    The output labels are not independent measurements: they are 'further empirically estimated' from the same measured preload force, tightening torque, head torque, and thread torque that are used as the network's input features. In bolted-joint mechanics, friction coefficients are algebraic functions of head torque, thread torque, preload, and geometry (bolt size), and the paper itself notes that head torque and thread torque are 'directly proportional to the friction coefficients'; remaining load capacity is likewise derived from the same preload/strength data. Consequently, a neural network trained on these inputs to output friction coefficients and load capacity is fitting a nearly deterministic input-to-label map.

full rationale

The central circular step is in the construction of the target variables. Section 3.1 states that the friction coefficients and remaining load capacity were 'further empirically estimated' from the measured time series of preload force, tightening torque, head torque, and thread torque, which are exactly the features fed into the network. Since the outputs are derived from the inputs, the high reported accuracy is not independent evidence of predictive skill. No separate measurements of friction coefficients or failure load are presented to break this loop. The paper's self-citations (Wettstein and Matthiesen 2020 for the data; Afifi et al. 2024 for motivation) are provenance and background, not load-bearing circular arguments, and there is no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation. The small test set and tuning-against-test concerns are correctness risks, but the definitional overlap between inputs and targets is the principal circularity, warranting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The modeling framework adds no new physics: it relies on standard bolted-joint estimation formulas (domain assumptions) and standard ML machinery. The key charge in the ledger is that the output targets are derived from the input features, so the free parameters (network weights) are fitting a near-deterministic mapping. The only hand-chosen free parameters affecting the headline claim are the 5% accuracy tolerance and the hyperparameters tuned on the test set.

free parameters (3)
  • 5% accuracy tolerance = 5%
    The reported 95.24% accuracy is defined as the fraction of test outputs within 5% of targets; this threshold is chosen by hand and directly sets the headline number.
  • Hyperparameters of Model 4 = SGD lr=0.01, batch=4, 4800 epochs, sigmoid, Xavier init, normalization, kN/MN units
    Selected by iterative tuning on the test set; the accuracy depends on these choices.
  • Number of training samples = 34 (Model 4); 28 (Models 1-3)
    The final accuracy is reported for 34 samples, with a 80/20 split giving 27 training and 7 test samples; the small test set makes the accuracy estimate fragile.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Friction coefficients and remaining load capacity are computed from the measured torque, preload, and geometry data via standard bolted-joint relations.
    Section 3.1 states the outputs were 'further empirically estimated' from the measured time series; the paper does not give these formulas, so the target values are not independently measured.
  • domain assumption The training data consists of a single strength grade (8.8) and two bolt sizes (M6, M10) with three preload levels.
    Section 3.1 lists 20 samples for M6 at 8 kN, 9 for M10 at 12.5 kN, and 5 for M10 at 25 kN; generalization beyond these configurations is assumed rather than tested.
  • domain assumption Torque-controlled tightening with axial tensile loading is the only operating condition considered.
    Section 1.2 restricts the study to torque-controlled tightening and tensile loading; other load cases are deferred to future work.
  • standard math The neural network training procedure (backpropagation, SGD, Huber loss) is a standard valid method for regression.
    The paper invokes standard ML background in Sections 2 and 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Precision in Bolted Joint Design: A Preliminary Machine Learning-Based Parameter Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZBMPPY4

@misc{pith2026241208286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Precision in Bolted Joint Design: A Preliminary Machine Learning-Based Parameter Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZBMPPY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08286}
}
read the original abstract

Bolted joints are critical in engineering for maintaining structural integrity and reliability. Accurate prediction of parameters influencing their function and behavior is essential for optimal performance. Traditional methods often fail to capture the non-linear behavior of bolted joints or require significant computational resources, limiting accuracy and efficiency. This study addresses these limitations by combining empirical data with a feed-forward neural network to predict load capacity and friction coefficients. Leveraging experimental data and systematic preprocessing, the model effectively captures nonlinear relationships, including rescaling output variables to address scale discrepancies, achieving 95.24% predictive accuracy. While limited dataset size and diversity restrict generalizability, the findings demonstrate the potential of neural networks as a reliable, efficient alternative for bolted joint design. Future work will focus on expanding datasets and exploring hybrid modeling techniques to enhance applicability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task Description 3.1. Data Description and Feature Selection To establish a rationale for the chosen data, it is essential to consider the factors influencing bolted joint performance. The friction at the bolt surface and the load distribution are influenced by the bolt size, with larger bolts promoting a more uniform load distribution and greater friction generation (VDI 2230, 2015). Additionally, the strength grad… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the Used Network Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of the Implemented Workflow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of Model 4: Training (a) Loss per Epoch (b) Accuracy per Epoch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the Model 4: Loss (a) MAE Loss (b) MSE Loss (c) RMSE Loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of Model 4: Test (a) Scatter of the Load Capacity (b) Scatter of the Head [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afifi, N., Kaiser, J.-P., Andreas, W., Gisela, L., and Matthiesen, S. (2024). Data-driven functional modeling of corroded bolted joints: A methodological framework for remanufacturing. In Proceedings of the ASME 2024 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2024) , Portland, Oregon

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Apicella, A., Donnarumma, F., Isgr \`o , F., and Prevete, R. (2021). A survey on modern trainable activation functions. Neural Networks , 138:14--32

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Atta, M., Abd-Elhady, A., Abu-Sinna, A., and Sallam, H. (2019). Prediction of failure stages for double lap joints using finite element analysis and artificial neural networks. Engineering Failure Analysis , 97:242--257

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bengio, Y., Goodfellow, I., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning , volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, MA, USA

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Bickford, J. (1995). An introduction to the design and behavior of bolted joint marcel dekker. New York , 894:41

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhao, S., Zhou, S., and Chen, J. (2020). Research on the prediction method of ultimate bearing capacity of pbl based on iaga-bpnn algorithm. IEEE Access , 8:179141--179155

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Chiang, Y. J. and Chiang, A. L. (2023). Fundamentals of Design of Experiments for Automotive Engineering Volume I , volume 1. SAE International

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Machado, M

    Coelho, J. S., Machado, M. R., Dutkiewicz, M., and O. Teloli, R. (2024). Data-driven machine learning for pattern recognition and detection of loosening torque in bolted joints. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering , 46(2):75

    work page 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Fei, Y., Pengdong, G., and Yongquan, L. (2016). Bolt force prediction using simplified finite element model and back propagation neural networks. In 2016 IEEE Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference , pages 520--523. IEEE

    2016

  2. [10]

    Fern \'a ndez-Ceniceros, J., Sanz-Garc \' a, A., Anto \ n anzas-Torres, F., and Mart \' nez-de Pis \'o n-Ascacibar, F. J. (2012). Multilayer-perceptron network ensemble modeling with genetic algorithms for the capacity of bolted lap joint. In Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Syst...

    2012

  3. [11]

    and Takaki, T

    Fukuoka, T. and Takaki, T. (1998). Mechanical behaviors of bolted joint during tightening using torque control. JSME International Journal Series A Solid Mechanics and Material Engineering , 41(2):185--191

    1998

  4. [12]

    Holch, A., Glienke, R., D \"o rre, M., and Henkel, K. (2023). Evaluation of the load-bearing behaviour of bolts and lockbolt systems under combined tension and shear loading. In International Conference on Advanced Joining Processes , pages 3--13. Springer

    2023

  5. [13]

    and Santana, E

    Ketkar, N. and Santana, E. (2017). Deep learning with Python , volume 1. Springer

    2017

  6. [14]

    and Thomala, W

    Kloos, K. and Thomala, W. (2007). Schraubenverbindungen . Springer

    2007

  7. [15]

    Kuhn, M. (2013). Applied predictive modeling . Springer

    2013

  8. [16]

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. nature , 521(7553):436--444

    2015

  9. [17]

    Lee, J., Kim, D., and Seok, C.-S. (2022). Methodology for evaluating the tightening torque-clamping force relationship and friction coefficients in bolted joints. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology , 36(4)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Li, X., Liu, C., Xue, Y., Xue, S., Liao, S., and Zhou, Y. (2024). Predicting bearing capacity of angle steel bolted connections using machine learning based on experimental and numerical database. In Structures 67 . Elsevier

    2024

  11. [19]

    Liang, K., Wang, Z., Yin, Z., and Hao, P. (2024). Investigation on bearing capacity and fracture behaviour of the bolt in a flange connection considering multiple load cases. In Structures , volume 62, page 106252. Elsevier

    2024

  12. [20]

    J., Chinesta, F., G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R., and Kutz, J

    Mont \'a ns, F. J., Chinesta, F., G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R., and Kutz, J. N. (2019). Data-driven modeling and learning in science and engineering. Comptes Rendus M \'e canique , 347(11):845--855

    2019

  13. [21]

    A., Montesinos L \'o pez, A., and Crossa, J

    Montesinos L \'o pez, O. A., Montesinos L \'o pez, A., and Crossa, J. (2022). Fundamentals of artificial neural networks and deep learning. In Multivariate statistical machine learning methods for genomic prediction . Springer

    2022

  14. [22]

    M \"u ller, A. C. and Guido, S. (2016). Introduction to machine learning with Python: a guide for data scientists . O'Reilly Media, Inc

    2016

  15. [23]

    Nassar, S., El-Khiamy, H., Barber, G., Zou, Q., and Sun, T. (2005). An experimental study of bearing and thread friction in fasteners. J. Trib. , 127(2):263--272

    2005

  16. [24]

    A., Ganeshmurthy, S., Ranganathan, R

    Nassar, S. A., Ganeshmurthy, S., Ranganathan, R. M., and Barber, G. C. (2007). Effect of tightening speed on the torque-tension and wear pattern in bolted connections. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology , pages 426--440

    2007

  17. [25]

    Oberg, E. (2013). Machinery's Handbook . New York: Industrial Press Inc

    2013

  18. [26]

    and Ayankoso, S

    Olejnik, P. and Ayankoso, S. (2023). Friction modelling and the use of a physics-informed neural network for estimating frictional torque characteristics. Meccanica , 58(10):1885--1908

    2023

  19. [27]

    and Sun, X

    Ren, J. and Sun, X. (2023). Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of pile foundation based on two optimization algorithm models. Buildings , 13(5):1242

    2023

  20. [28]

    Roloff, H., Spura, C., Fleischer, B., Wittel, H., and Jannasch, D. (2023). Maschinenelemente: Normung, Berechnung, Gestaltung . Springer-Verlag

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ruder, S. (2016). An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sadouk, L., Gadi, T., and Essoufi, E. H. (2020). Robust loss function for deep learning regression with outliers. In Embedded Systems and Artificial Intelligence: Proceedings of ESAI 2019, Fez, Morocco , pages 359--368. Springer

    2020

  23. [31]

    Santry, D. J. (2024). Demystifying deep learning: An introduction to the mathematics of neural networks . Wiley

    2024

  24. [32]

    and Das, D

    Selvamuthu, D. and Das, D. (2024). Introduction to Probability, Statistical Methods, Design of Experiments and Statistical Quality Control . Springer

    2024

  25. [33]

    Steinhilper, W., Sauer, B., and Feldhusen, J. (2012). Konstruktionselemente des Maschinenbaus 1: Grundlagen der Berechnung und Gestaltung von Maschinenelementen . Springer-Verlag

    2012

  26. [34]

    Blatt 2 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    VDI 2230 (2014). Blatt 2 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    2014

  27. [35]

    Blatt 1 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    VDI 2230 (2015). Blatt 1 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    2015

  28. [36]

    Blatt 3 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    VDI 2230 (2024). Blatt 3 -- systematische berechnung hochbeanspruchter schraubenverbindungen - zylindrische einschraubenverbindungen

    2024

  29. [37]

    and Matthiesen, S

    Wettstein, A. and Matthiesen, S. (2020). Investigation of the thread coefficient of friction when impact tightening bolted joints. Forschung im Ingenieurwesen-Engineering Research , 84(1):55--63

    2020

  30. [38]

    Wythoff, B. J. (1993). Backpropagation neural networks: a tutorial. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems , 18(2):115--155

    1993

  31. [39]

    Yadav, N., Yadav, A., Kumar, M., Yadav, N., Yadav, A., and Kumar, M. (2015). Preliminaries of neural networks. An introduction to neural network methods for differential equations , pages 17--42

    2015

  32. [40]

    u la s k, H., C oker, D., G \

    Y ld r m, A., Akay, A. A., G \"u la s k, H., C oker, D., G \"u rses, E., and Kayran, A. (2019). Development of bolted flange design tool based on artificial neural network. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology , 141(5):051203

    2019

  33. [41]

    Yu, Q., Zhou, H., and Wang, L. (2015). Finite element analysis of relationship between tightening torque and initial load of bolted connections. Advances in Mechanical Engineering , 7(5):1687814015588477

    2015

  34. [42]

    Zeng, J., Lu, W., and Paavola, J. (2020). Analytical models for predicting the load-bearing strength of beam-to-column joints in a composite steel frame. Thin-Walled Structures , 157:107100

    2020

  35. [43]

    Zhong, C.-j., Feng, R.-q., and Zhang, Z.-j. (2021). Prediction of ultimate bearing capacity and structural optimization of aluminum alloy plate joints based on artificial neural network. International Journal of Steel Structures , 21(5):1759--1774

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhou, Z.-H. (2021). Machine learning . Springer nature

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.